Yesterday in an interview with writer Christopher Hitchens, conservative pundit Hugh Hewitt argued that President Obama had “invaded Haiti” in the aftermath of last week’s earthquake, in a way that was less legal than what President Bush did in Iraq:
HH: We’ve invaded Haiti. We dropped troops on the presidential palace yesterday. The difference between Bush invading Iraq, and Obama invading Haiti, is that Bush had Congressional authorization. I’m glad that President Obama has done this, but don’t you find it odd that the left is all quiet as to this extraordinary exercise in presidential prerogative unguided by, unauthorized by simply unilateral on the part of the President?
CH: Yes, not seeking any international body, and as far as we know, though it’s very hard to be sure, no permission, not that I think their constitution would allow them permission, from a Haitian government, either.
HH: That’s right. I mean, we just took over.
Hewitt added that he thinks it’s “great” that the United States is in Haiti, but continued to argue that what Bush did in Iraq and Afghanistan was more “constitutional.” One of the few other public figures who have made Hewitt’s argument is Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who has said the United States is “occupying Haiti undercover.” U.S. forces, however, are providing security at the request of the Haitian government. (HT: Instaputz)
Mark Krikorian of the right-wing Center for Immigration Studies wrote on the Corner, “My guess is that Haiti’s so screwed up because it wasn’t colonized long enough.”