Lost Cause
It's a wrap!
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2001
- Posts
- 30,949
Why is President Bush's call for invasion different from President Clinton's? Do the "Bush Bashers" have a selective memory? The details are different for Haiti, but the criticism and intent appears to be the same. (Sameoshit, different year)
Sept 15, 1994
WASHINGTON -- Now the trumpet summons Americans to battle again. But it is an uncertain trumpet, used by an uncertain president for uncertain reasons.
President Clinton solemnly spoke to the nation last night not only to build support for an invasion of Haiti but also to reestablish his own credibility as he approaches the midpoint of his term. The speech came as his ambitious domestic agenda was stalled, with his effort to win a major overhaul of the nation's health-care system an apparent failure, and as his presidency, which had energetically sought to avoid international entanglements, once again was being tested by a Third World crisis.
Clinton's message to Lt. Gen. Raoul Cedras and the other military leaders of Haiti was clear: You will be gone by choice or by force, but you will be gone. So, too, was his message to Americans: Clinton sought to be presidential and to begin to rebuild his own support.
But last night's speech, with its horrifying catalog of atrocities and assassinations, captured the conundrum of the administration: a president so accustomed to consulting the polls found himself trying to assert leadership in the face of the polls. Every reliable public-opinion indicator shows Americans reluctant to use force in Haiti. An ABC News poll released this week found that three out of four Americans oppose an invasion.
So as Clinton attempted to rally a reluctant nation and to redeem what he called ''Haitian dreams of democracy,'' administration expectations were low. Officials here would be satisfied with the public's understanding and acquiescence if not support.
That the president was in the position of public-opinion supplicant -- ''We have tried everything,'' he said -- was much of his own doing.
Until last night, when the president spoke of ''the cause of freedom'' and the value of hemispheric stability, Clinton and other administration leaders hadn't made much of a case to explain American interests and intentions in Haiti. They still haven't combated perceptions, widely held in Washington if not in the country at large, that his commitment to Haiti is a political gesture to the Congressional Black Caucus, which has been resistant to his entreaties on budget and domestic issues. But now even the 38-member Black Caucus appears divided on an invasion.
Indeed, last night's speech and its appeal for ''preserving democracy in our own hemisphere'' was an effort to go above the heads of Congress, which is unlikely to support armed intervention in Haiti if the matter were to come to a vote. Congress authorized force in the Persian Gulf in January 1991 and in Somalia in December 1992, but President George Bush acted in Panama in December 1989 by notifying Congress but not seeking its approval. Clinton administration officials argue that the Haiti case is much more similar to Panama than to the Persian Gulf.
But now that the president has set the nation on this course, he must bring it to closure swiftly. The premium on swiftness comes from two sources: his repeated warnings have become a subject for music-hall comedians and late- night talk masters. And it is unlikely Americans, who know that the last time US troops were sent to Haiti they remained there 19 years, would tolerate lengthy involvement in a foreign conflict that they hardly understand and barely countenance.
In truth, the nation that Clinton addressed last night is deeply non- interventionist; he noted that ''so many Americans are reluctant to commit military resources and our personnel.'' But by emphasizing job creation and economic growth at home over international issues, the president has undermined his own flexibility in foreign affairs.
''The foreign-policy dilemma of the Clinton administration is that the American people are incredibly insular right now,'' said Geoffrey Garin, a Democratic pollster. ''They have a very narrow view of America's self- interest, and Haiti is not in it.''
The decision to send troops to the Caribbean won't necessarily win Clinton friends abroad. Indeed, the message to Latin America, where the principle of nonintervention is an act of diplomatic faith, is mixed.
The president's speech was delivered on the very day American troops pulled down the flag to slink out of Somalia, the last American invasion target. That east African nation remains a land of factions and famine, and the danger is that the same could be said about Haiti a year from now.

Sept 15, 1994
WASHINGTON -- Now the trumpet summons Americans to battle again. But it is an uncertain trumpet, used by an uncertain president for uncertain reasons.
President Clinton solemnly spoke to the nation last night not only to build support for an invasion of Haiti but also to reestablish his own credibility as he approaches the midpoint of his term. The speech came as his ambitious domestic agenda was stalled, with his effort to win a major overhaul of the nation's health-care system an apparent failure, and as his presidency, which had energetically sought to avoid international entanglements, once again was being tested by a Third World crisis.
Clinton's message to Lt. Gen. Raoul Cedras and the other military leaders of Haiti was clear: You will be gone by choice or by force, but you will be gone. So, too, was his message to Americans: Clinton sought to be presidential and to begin to rebuild his own support.
But last night's speech, with its horrifying catalog of atrocities and assassinations, captured the conundrum of the administration: a president so accustomed to consulting the polls found himself trying to assert leadership in the face of the polls. Every reliable public-opinion indicator shows Americans reluctant to use force in Haiti. An ABC News poll released this week found that three out of four Americans oppose an invasion.
So as Clinton attempted to rally a reluctant nation and to redeem what he called ''Haitian dreams of democracy,'' administration expectations were low. Officials here would be satisfied with the public's understanding and acquiescence if not support.
That the president was in the position of public-opinion supplicant -- ''We have tried everything,'' he said -- was much of his own doing.
Until last night, when the president spoke of ''the cause of freedom'' and the value of hemispheric stability, Clinton and other administration leaders hadn't made much of a case to explain American interests and intentions in Haiti. They still haven't combated perceptions, widely held in Washington if not in the country at large, that his commitment to Haiti is a political gesture to the Congressional Black Caucus, which has been resistant to his entreaties on budget and domestic issues. But now even the 38-member Black Caucus appears divided on an invasion.
Indeed, last night's speech and its appeal for ''preserving democracy in our own hemisphere'' was an effort to go above the heads of Congress, which is unlikely to support armed intervention in Haiti if the matter were to come to a vote. Congress authorized force in the Persian Gulf in January 1991 and in Somalia in December 1992, but President George Bush acted in Panama in December 1989 by notifying Congress but not seeking its approval. Clinton administration officials argue that the Haiti case is much more similar to Panama than to the Persian Gulf.
But now that the president has set the nation on this course, he must bring it to closure swiftly. The premium on swiftness comes from two sources: his repeated warnings have become a subject for music-hall comedians and late- night talk masters. And it is unlikely Americans, who know that the last time US troops were sent to Haiti they remained there 19 years, would tolerate lengthy involvement in a foreign conflict that they hardly understand and barely countenance.
In truth, the nation that Clinton addressed last night is deeply non- interventionist; he noted that ''so many Americans are reluctant to commit military resources and our personnel.'' But by emphasizing job creation and economic growth at home over international issues, the president has undermined his own flexibility in foreign affairs.
''The foreign-policy dilemma of the Clinton administration is that the American people are incredibly insular right now,'' said Geoffrey Garin, a Democratic pollster. ''They have a very narrow view of America's self- interest, and Haiti is not in it.''
The decision to send troops to the Caribbean won't necessarily win Clinton friends abroad. Indeed, the message to Latin America, where the principle of nonintervention is an act of diplomatic faith, is mixed.
The president's speech was delivered on the very day American troops pulled down the flag to slink out of Somalia, the last American invasion target. That east African nation remains a land of factions and famine, and the danger is that the same could be said about Haiti a year from now.
