Jay Redding has an excellent post about John Kerry that analyizes John Kerry's foreign policy positions. Kerry's position on Haiti Redding points out is completely out of line with OAS and UN recommendations. Kerry would favor a unlateralist course of action that clearly would be disastrous. Why would Kerry favor such a hairbrained course of action? 3 words - Black Congressional Caucus. Removing a tyrant like Aristide was the right thing to do for Haiti.

Redding comes to this conclusion:

Kerry is a weak candidate on foreign affairs. His foreign policy is a simplistic negation of the Bush Administration's policy, his positions lack coherence, and he barely mentions the most important issue of this election. The fact that Kerry very rarely mentions foreign policy on the stump, except to use it as a hammer against Bush is equally telling. John Kerry may have been a war hero in Vietnam, but he is not Commander in Chief material, and a Kerry presidency would return the US to the rudderless foreign policy of the Clinton Administration - a foreign policy that directly lead to the deaths of thousands of Americans at the Khobar Towers, our embassies in Africa, the USS Cole, the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the fields of Shanksburg, Pennsylvania. It is a price that cannot be afforded, and Kerry is not the kind of President that this country can afford in a time of war against an insidious and ruthless enemy.

Update: NYT has an article about Senator Kerry attacking President Bush's actions. Kerry demonstrates his ability to contradict himself again: he is for unilateral action in Haiti but he is against it elsewhere when President Bush does it. Why? His unilateral action is different from President Bush's. Yes, indeedy.