You say tomato. Once in a while, even a newspaper as powerful as the Times has to bend to the yoke of reality. In the case of Haiti, for instance: things just don't seem willing quite as yet to follow the Administration-approved line that A1 has been peddling the last few days, about how we've saved Haiti by securing Jean-Bertrand Aristide's "resignation." Yesterday, Lydia Polgreen and Tim Weiner offered a vividly skeptical account of the entry of Haitian rebels (think of them as reanimated Tontons Macoutes) into Port-au-Prince ("Haitian Rebels Enter Capital; Aristide Bitter"—the headline's diagnosis of Aristide's emotional state is laughable, but has little to do with the story):
The rebels, followed by throngs of cheering supporters, ... occupied the former headquarters of the Haitian Army, vowing to revive the military, a force known for brutality. Several rebel leaders are former members of the Haitian Army and affiliated death squads.Today, Polgreen and Weiner are back with a piece ("Rebel Says He Is in Charge; Political Chaos Deepens") claiming that Haiti is slipping into anarchy and possible military rule:
The army overthrew Mr. Aristide in 1991 and ran a violent junta until 1994. United States armed forces reinstated the president, who then disbanded the Haitian military. ... Mr. Powell told CNN: "We have ways of talking to the various rebel leaders. And I am pleased that at least so far they said they are not interested in violence any more, and they want to put down their arms."
They did not put down their guns.
Two rebel leaders, Louis-Jodel Chamblain, a former death-squad member and convicted assassin, and Guy Philippe, a former police chief, did thank the United States for moving to secure Haiti after the fall of Mr. Aristide. ... These men, whom Mr. Powell characterized last week as "thugs," and a few hundred of their followers are for now the domestic face of national security in Haiti.
In the absence of any other authority, Haiti seemed to be falling into the clutches of a self-appointed armed junta. Although American officials denounced the armed rebels and said they should have no role in ruling Haiti, the Americans did not take steps to confront them.Polgreen and Weiner note the disappearance of the acting Haitian
Col. David H. Berger, the Marine Corps commander here, said his troops would not act as police officers. "I have no instructions to disarm the rebels," he said.
Contrast this honorable work with David E. Sanger and Christopher Marquis's lazy attempt at refuting the claim that Aristide was deposed by the U.S. at gunpoint ("State Dept. Denies Leader Was Forced Out of Office"). I'll spare you the details; enough to know that, based on extensive interviews with ... er ... the American ambassador and the depty chief of mission who "escorted" Aristide to the airport, we can be assured that nothing untoward happened. [Though on second thought I can't forbear quoting this touching moment of human contact in the chaos, in which Deputy Chief of Mission Luis Moreno offers his condolences to Aristide:
"I'm sorry this had to end his way," Mr. Moreno said.Pardon me while a brush away a tear ...]
The official described Mr. Aristide's reply as almost wistful: "That happens in life. That's the way it ends sometime."
What's interesting about this piece is something you can't see online. In my dead-tree edition of the paper, the article is accompanied by a pull quote—except that it's not a pull quote, because the text that's pulled doesn't occur in the piece. It looks for all the world like a sardonic aside about the Times' semi-official "hard shove" line, as if some lonely voice of dissent had briefly hijacked the page:
What Aristide calls a coup, the U.S. calls forceful persuasionSeems about right. You say tomato, I say coup d'état ...
posted by michael 9:55:20 AM
tell me about it []