You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Caribbean-Latin America
White House backing of Zelaya starts to draw criticism
2009-07-01
The U.S. co-sponsored a successful U.N. resolution supporting Honduras's ousted leader Tuesday as Republicans began to speak out against the Obama administration's condemnation of the overthrow.
Really? But why would they do that, when the case is so clear?
Manuel Zelaya, who was arrested and forced into exile Sunday, addressed the U.N. General Assembly after the unanimous vote on the resolution sponsored in part by Bolivia, Mexico, Venezuela and the United States. "The resolution that the United Nations has just adopted unanimously ... expresses the indignation of the people of Honduras and the people worldwide," said Zelaya, who began his speech by thanking Venezuela and Ecuador.
Of course he did. They're birds of a feather ...
President Obama, meeting with Colombian President Alvaro Uribe on Monday, said the U.S. would "stand with democracy" in the face of the overthrow. "We believe that the coup was not legal and that President Zelaya remains the democratically elected president there," Obama said. "It would be a terrible precedent if we start moving backward into the era in which we are seeing military coups as a means of political transition rather than democratic elections."
Again, for the journalist who wrote this little piece: why are the Republicans objecting, and which Republicans: Congressional leadership or some sillies out on the fringe?
Posted by:Steve White

#11  Bottom line:

1) The removal of Zelaya was legitimate
2) The troops removing him should have worn white gloves
Posted by: European Conservative   2009-07-01 14:03  

#10  Here's an English translation of one of the relevant articles of the Honduran Constitution.


Article 239 — No citizen that has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President.

Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform, as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years.


This is certainly not something that would be compatible with the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution. However I believe it is a legitimate safeguard against a descent into dictatorship, especially in a political culture that has already made plenty of bad experiences with "Caudillos/Presidents for Life".

In any case if that provision of the Honduran Constitution is so offensive to the "international community", why has no one objected until now?

Given the nature of e.g. the Karzai regime (The penalty for leaving or criticizing Islam is death!), that is not only tolerated but actively supported by NATO this mobbing of Honduras simply disgusting.

If "Realism" dictates we support Karzai, it should logically dictate that we at least tolerate the Hondurans and respect their sovereignty.
Posted by: Omeagum Ulomosing9137   2009-07-01 13:37  

#9  "Is Obama in love with would-be dictators and socialists, or is he just that fucking stupid?"

Yes
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut   2009-07-01 13:19  

#8  What's really happening here, Oblahblahblah wants badly to set a precedent where the President (Doesn't matter where) "Can ignore both the constitution and the law with impunity".
Redneck Jim, you took the words right out of my mouth.
Posted by: WolfDog   2009-07-01 12:13  

#7  0Bama really, really likes the idea of trashing the constitution and ditching term limits.

All hail emperor 0bama!
Posted by: Parabellum   2009-07-01 10:53  

#6  Is Obama in love with would-be dictators and socialists, or is he just that fucking stupid?

Occam's Razor sez, "He's on the other side."
Posted by: ed   2009-07-01 08:01  

#5  That pick speaks volumes. If I were running the Republican elections I would pound home the theme: "Do we want to become Cuba or Venezuela?" or "When you find yourself aligned with Cuba it's time to change direction." Mr. Steele feel free to use these.
Posted by: Cyber Sarge   2009-07-01 04:48  

#4  New deployment area for US forces?
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2009-07-01 02:59  

#3  What's really happening here, Oblahblahblah wants badly to set a precedent where the President (Doesn't matter where) "Can ignore both the constitution and the law with impunity".

Posted by: Redneck Jim   2009-07-01 01:50  

#2  "Is Obama in love with would-be dictators and socialists, or is he just that fucking stupid?"

I'd say both. He's a non-practicing lawyer that likes the rule of man as opposed to the rule of law.
Posted by: Broadhead6   2009-07-01 00:12  

#1  The Hondurans followed their constitution and removed the former president for violating the constitution. The Honduran Congress voted for it, the Supreme Court ordered it, and the military carried it out as provided for in the Honduran constitution.

They did this because the Former president had violated the laws several times in attempting to change the constitution illegally, and in illegally firing a General after the Supreme court ordered that General reinstated. He fired the General because the General refused to carry out the illegal order the former president gave him to continue with an illegal plebiscite. He was replaced by a member of his own party, duly elected by the Congress in conformance with the Honduran Constitution, who plans to hold elections as scheduled this November.

OK Obama apologists, explain that one to me. Is Obama in love with would-be dictators and socialists, or is he just that fucking stupid?
Posted by: OldSpook   2009-07-01 00:09  

00:00