WASHINGTON WATCH: CLINTON CAN'T SHAKE IMAE OF INEPTNESS

President Clinton is reportedly discouraged about how his Haitian policy is being reviewed."The president does not understand why so many newspapers are criticizing him," an unidentified White House official told National Public Radio. "He feels he deserves praise for avoiding a military invasion." Another official points to the bump in the president's popularity as the result of the agreement with Haitian General Raoul Cedras, suggesting that news columnists and editorial writers are out of touch.It is a curious argument for a president who authorized a military invasion of Haiti over the opposition of 70 percent of the American people -- only to be saved from actually carrying it through by a free-lancing Jimmy Carter.The White House is right on one thing, however. The criticism of Clinton's Haitian policy has been devastating. Except for a sprinkling of positive comments praising Clinton for sticking with his invasion threat if the military junta did not step down, most observers criticize the president for failing to make a clear decision: either to invade and clean out the thugs who have brutishly ruled the country for three years or to step away completely, recognizing that no vital interests of the United States are at stake in this troubled and violent part of the Caribbean. Almost all -- those who praise and those who criticize -- fault the president for creating his own problem in the first place. To give you a sense of the atmosphere in Washington, I have put together a brief tour of the commentary found in the capital's most widely read newspapers since American troops began landing in Haiti. I have tried to include both positive and negative reaction, although, admittedly, even the good stuff sounds bad for the president.

* * * * *From Charles Krauthammer in the Washington Post:In Somalia, our initial mission was narrowly defined and quite simple: Feed the hungry. The operation went wrong only many months later when we strayed into politics and assigned ourselves the task of nation-building.In Haiti our mission from the start of the occupation is politics. There is no need to feed the Haitians. They will be able to feed themselves once our starvation-inducing embargo is lifted. We are, instead, to "restore" democracy to a country that has never had it, build a civilian-controlled military where it has never existed and create a secure environment for the peaceful transition of power among murderous rivals.* * * * *From Jim Hoagland in the Washington Post:Bill Clinton's cliff-hanging escape from ordering American troops to shoot their way into Haiti confirms what Americans already knew: They elected as president a deal-maker, not a hero or a diplomat. With its dangling ends and shortcomings, the deal on Haiti was the least bad outcome available when the talking had to stop.The question that lingers is what the president learned in avoiding a trap he set for himself. He should not interpret this reprieve as a great triumph. He should see that he has dodged a bullet.* * * * *From E.J. Dionne in the Washington PostClinton might get some credit for standing firm on an invasion policy that was broadly unpopular -- this could be said to show the political guts so many of his opponents said he lacked. But as soon as the deal with the Haitian junta was announced, there was suspicion. ... Didn't this look like another Jimmy Carter-brokered wobble?* * * * *From Richard Cohen in the Washington PostThe president is not out of the woods yet. The Haiti deal remains to be defined... . If Clinton reverts to his old ways, if he continues to speak loudly but carries a Chamberlain umbrella, then Sunday's deal will be seen as an American defeat: At maximum power, with America about to swat a mini-nation with no army to speak of, Clinton blinked and allowed his foes to remain in power.* * * * *From The Washington Times:A last-minute spate of diplomacy managed to avoid a bloody showdown this time. ... Mr. Aristide may finally return as Haiti's president next month. But how he will be received is a concern. How long we will have to stay to protect him is an even greater concern. And what he will do while we are there is perhaps the greatest concern of all. This matter is hardly closed.* * * * *From Lawrence-Pezzullo, former Clinton special adviser on Haiti from March 1993 to April 1994, in the New York Times:Despite the 11th-hour success of the peace-making mission headed by Jimmy Carter, the arrival of thousands of United States troops in Haiti since Monday represents the bitter fruits of diplomatic blundering by the Clinton administration. Whether because of guilt, weakness or lack of rigor in carrying out its policies, the Administration has taken on the impossible burden of turning a country with no democratic traditions into a functioning democracy.* * * * *From Bob Herbert in the New York Times:In a betrayal of everything this country is supposed to stand for, the United States is openly forging an alliance with the fiendish, grotesquely-sadistic enemies of human rights in Haiti.There was great relief, understandably, when U.S. troops were able to move into Haiti without bloodshed. But the whole point of the landing supposedly was the restoration of democracy. The murderous elements in Haiti were to be brought to their knees.Instead, we are witnessing a bizarre joint operation, conducted amid declarations of mutual respect, between the U.S. military and the gruesome Haitian junta. American troops are standing by -- watching! -- as Haitian troops continue to beat and harass the followers of the deposed president, Jean-Betrand Aristide.* * * * *From A.M. Rosenthal in the New York Times:Mr. Clinton cannot afford again to achieve a victory the way he did this one -- through last minute intermediary, by trading off other goals and over the heavy opposition of the American people.How did Mr. Clinton reach the point where at the very brink of war he had to turn his future and Haiti's over to three men not only outside his Administration, but politically outside his control? If the mission had reached an agreement he could not accept, the country probably would have supported them, not him, a danger he knew when he sent them.* * * * *From the New York TimesThe White House should be celebrating its luck, not spinning the public about its diplomatic skills and the virtues of Presidential resolve. President Clinton had reduced himself to the most dismal of foreign policy options: attack or lose face. ...With U.S. troops and prestige now on the line and Haitian democracy at issue, Americans want this venture to go well. They will try to find reason to cheer Mr. Clinton. In return, they have every reason to insist that the President will ponder the difference between luck and wisdom.* * * * *President Clinton is right. No one is giving his Haitian policy any respect. But does it deserve it?

Jon K. Rust is a Washington-based writer for the Southeast Missourian.