From this morning’s Dem debate in New York [Reuters link]. Dem candidates John Edwards and John Kerry criticized President Bush in regards to Haiti:

The two top contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination — John Kerry and John Edwards — were quick to try to highlight Haiti as an issue ahead of November’s elections, alleging President Bush did too little too late to stabilize the impoverished nation.

Kerry said Bush had “empowered the insurgents” by failing to step in sooner and added, “I never would have allowed it to get out of control the way it did.”

Edwards suggested it fit a pattern of “do nothing, do nothing, and when it gets to crisis stage, then we act.”

Why the United States and not Haiti’s former colonial overlords in France? After all, the French cut and ran from Haiti 200-years-ago, leaving the mess that has existed ever since.

President Bush should have acted prior to Haiti becoming an actual emergency? That, m’friends, would be preemption. As recently as last Thursday, Kerry blasted the President’s “unilateral preemption.”

Where were Haiti’s WMD? Are they a threat an immediate threat to the mainland United States? Why don’t Kerry and Edwards want to try sanctions for a while then seek a National Security Council resolution?

The two situations are comparable, though what the Coalition stopped when it overthrew Saddam Hussein was far darker than what is happening in Haiti today.

When we go to Haiti, we’ll be acting to protect the Haitians from themselves. What will the world think of the candidates’ arrogance?

When this election is over, I hope the Senate leadership remembers everything said and done by candidate Kerry when he tries to become Senator Kerry again.