07/07/2009 (1:14 pm)
Adding to President Obama’s wrong-headed condemnation of Honduras’ appropriate moves to protect themselves against Marxist takeover, the office of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced that the Secretary plans to meet with the deposed ruler, Manuel Zelaya.
Zelaya was removed from office by a unanimous vote of the Honduran Congress after a recitation of various crimes he had committed against the constitution of that nation. He had attempted to extend his rule beyond the allowable single term by first demanding an immediate constitutional referendum (which, according to Honduras’ constitution, required approval by two successive sessions of the Congress,) and then by distributing ballots for the referendum after being ordered to desist by the nation’s Supreme Court. The nation’s military force executed a valid court order when they appeared at Zelaya’s house and ushered him out of the country.
Meeting with a high government official of the US is generally considered an endorsement of a foreign government. For Zelaya to meet with the Secretary of State constitutes a strong endorsement of his legitimacy by the US government.
Clinton’s endorsement follows a declaration last week from the Latin American Organization of American States (OAS) declaring Zelaya’s removal from office illegal, and ousting Honduras from the organization. Honduras responded by declaring that Zelaya could only return to office by invading the country.
Why is the Obama administration endorsing the actions of a man who attempted to subvert his own nation’s Constitution? Perhaps it has something to do with a long, private conversation that took place between President Obama and Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez. And perhaps this is what was meant when we discovered more than a year ago that the Obama campaign may have been cultivating contacts among South American Marxist organizations even then.
Has the US, under the leadership of Community Organizer Obama, joined the struggle for World Socialism?
10 Comments »
Comment by Horatius
Just saw that Costa Rica is offering to mediate the situation on the Hot Air website. I agree with the poster there though when he points out that he does not really see any sort of compromise that really makes any kind of sense.
The story also points out that this could be an attempt for the Obama Administration to walk back the tough talk on Honduras of the past week when they realized what the situation was.
If that is the case though, I think you may be wrong Phil, in your theory that Obama is a socialist mastermind. I think he is a socialist, but I think he is just an idiot. My first gut reaction when I heard about this story was that Obama was taking the opportunity to talk tough internationally after the beating he has gotten for his non-stance on Iran. Honduras has no real power to threaten nor anything you need, so there is no downside politically to taking a hard line with them.
It is like picking a fight with a little guy at a bar who just glanced at your girlfriend, while backing off from the 7′ tall built like a gorilla who is actually hitting on her.
Comment by darkhorse
Or maybe, just maybe Obama and Clinton are collecting data from all sides of this issue.
Words like “usually” are not too useful here. The Administration may have decided they’d rather have the crooked Marxist in power (and I’ll grant the possibility…but concluding as such seems horribly premature…
Comment by Horatius
If Obama was indeed waiting for all of the facts on Honduras, why come out so strongly (comparatively) in favor of the President so quickly?
-“We believe that the coup was not legal and that President Zelaya remains the president of Honduras, the democratically elected president there,” Obama told reporters after an Oval Office meeting with Colombian President Alvaro Uribe.- Snipped from Reuters from the 29th of June.
I agree that a measured, cautious response is sometimes called for, but that is not what Pres. Obama gave us in this particular case.
Comment by darkhorse
I’m not ruling out that Obama may support Zelaya because Zelaya is a leftist.
But the support for that given here so far is really thin. Put yourself in Obama’s shoes for that statement you quoted above…Six full months of foreign policy experience, and you are being briefed on a military coup of a legally elected government in the Western Hemisphere.
Under pressure to make an early public statement, my gut reaction would also to be to decry the coup. This does not make Obama an “idiot” – just inexperienced.
Can you think of another US President with limited foreign policy experience who spoke a little too soon in describing a foreign policy situation (Hint: think “Victory in Iraq”)?
Comment by Phil
Or maybe, just maybe Obama and Clinton are collecting data from all sides of this issue… premature…
No, accepting a state visit from a deposed ruler indicates support for that ruler’s claims. This is standard protocol, and not particularly arcane. And it took President Obama all of 8 hours to denounce the “coup” in Honduras — after taking nearly 8 days to decide whether he was supportive of the Iranian mullahs who denounced their election as a phony.
Jim, I know you like to (pretend to) give everybody the benefit of every possible doubt. I think you’re going way overboard this time.
Comment by Horatius
As I understand the term there is no way to describe this as a military coup. Again, as I understand it, the military arrested the president with the blessings and urgings of both the Legislature as well as their Supreme court (who I believe have the authority, under their constitution, to order the military to arrest someone.)
They (the military) did not then seize power. The interim president was installed by the legislature & Judiciary (NOT the military) and it was announced that he would have to stand for election, with a firm date provided.
Coup d’['e]tat (k??” d?-t?”) [F.] (Politics), a sudden, decisive exercise of power whereby the existing government is subverted without the consent of the people; an unexpected measure of state, more or less violent; a stroke of policy.
Now this was done with the blessings of elected officials on the side of the legislature as well as appointed officials in the courts (are their Judges appointed by the current administration or do they have to stand for election? I am guessing they are appointed but I do not know for sure.) This does not seem to be against the will of the people in this case. It is not a subversion of the Law of Honduras since most, if not all of these powers seem to be invested in the other two branches of government by their constitution.
Words should have meaning. Pres. Obama should not toss around terms like Coup willy-nilly.
I was perhaps a bit too quick to call him an idiot, as I even contradicted myself later in my own post. As I said above, it struck me at first blush as a way for Obama to be seen as being tough on the world stage after the mismanagement of the events in Iran. That may be silly, but not idiotic (although one wonders about the hamfisted nature of the statements and deeds of the administration.)
Now subsequently, statements made by the admin seem to lead more credence to Phil’s way of thinking, but at first blush this is what I got from his early statements.
Comment by Dale Jackson
What would be left of the Honduran government if they were forced to reinstate President Zelaya. Their constitution would be meaningless. From the moment he got back he would have close to dictatorial power. What I’m wondering is, could even the MSM bury the after effects of forcing this Marxist back onto the Honduras people. Marxist regimes have a very bloody history.
Comment by Nick
I with Horatius on this. I am very uncomfortable with the term coup in this situation. I think Obama knows darn well what it means and is using it on purpose to extract an emotional response from whomever will give him an ear.
How can there be a coup when by all appearances the laws have been followed and enforced, not subverted.
There are all kinds of conjecture floating around speculating about Obama seeing how far he can take this as kind a practice round for his own power-grab. I don’t nessicarily buy into it, but it certainly causes me pause to think about it.
Mostly, I just keep asking myself “What the eff is he thinking?!, What is going on in that melon of a head?”
Comment by darkhorse
“Jim, I know you like to (pretend to) give everybody the benefit of every possible doubt. I think you’re going way overboard this time.”
Likewise, you can stop pretending that there isn’t a huge length of space on the spectrum between my “I’ll grant you may be right, Phil” and giving Obama every benefit of doubt.
Simply because I’m unwilling to go right to “He’s a bloodthirsty Marxist”. Come on! It’s not “Phil’s way” or “wrong”!
Comment by Phil
Whatever, darkhorse. I believe I supplied enough supporting factoids to justify my conclusion. You raised the possibility of gathering facts, but you don’t grant state visits to gather facts, you send underlings, and Obama did not gather facts about this the way he did Iran, so I assess that that is not a plausible alternative.
Of course I think I’m right; would you read me if I posted things regularly that I think are wrong? Please feel free to disagree — but please be prepared to explain your reasons for disagreeing. I’ve supported my claims.