if someone is assassinated under one's administration, one is not necessarily responsible for the assissanation.
if a critic were to assume that, then such a critic would be a superficial thinker.
a president is not the chief of police, nor is he a presiding judge.
if he were to interfere in judicial matters, then he would be an autocrat; would not you agree?
it is very sad to read the inherent inconsistency and self-contradicted in the accusations and criticisms of the traditional elements of the pseudo-political opposition.
the last elections had proven that the traditinal politicians in haiti had had no substancial public support, and as such do not constitute legitimate political parties.
in other words, it would negate the very essence of democratic ideals if the government were to negociate politically with parties such as "le grand front centre droit".
on what logical basis that a so-called"grand front centre droit" is to remain a legitimate party after it has failed to acquire an electoral percentage of 1%.
give me a break with big names that are contextually non-significant.
