Imagine if President George Bush, under cloak of providing 'humanitarian aid', sent some 20,000 military troops to Haiti in order to defend and maintain American dominance in that country - a country it has exploited for nearly a century. Imagine if these same American troops deliberately denied relief workers from entering the country because they came from Cuba and Venezuela. Imagine if these same American troops also closed the main Haitian airport for nearly three hours just so the Secretary of State could have a photo opportunity.
Yes, you can well imagine the howls of outrage on liberal blogs like The Standard and Tumeke.
But it's not George Bush who is making Haiti 'safe' for America, it's Barack Obama. This may go some way to explaining why a strange and eerie silence has fallen on these blogs on all things Haitian.
Tumeke's only real contribution has been to lampoon crazy old Pat Robertson's comments about Haiti while The Standard has ran an innocuous post about donating to the Haitian Appeal.
But there has been no analysis -let alone criticism - of the United States military intervention in the stricken Caribbean country.
Is it because they are reluctant to speak out against a American president who they have largely portrayed as the great liberal hope for the world?
Here's 'Edie' of the Labour Party talking about Obama on The Standard in January last year:
President Obama means you can feel slightly better in the knowledge that fewer children of the world are being maimed or killed. Yes, in charge of the world’s most powerful state, Obama means a more liberal and internationalist ideology will dominate international affairs. It means less war, fewer deaths, more humanitarianism, and more diplomacy.
Given Obama's performance in Afghanistan, and now Haiti, I wonder if 'Edie' is feeling a little foolish for engaging in such empty-headed adulation?
Is it a case that if 'Edie' and co can't find anything positive to say about Obama they will just say nothing? It seems to be that way when it comes to Haiti.