I regret having not blogged more extensively on the topic of Honduras, although I and some commenters have brought it up a few times. The long story short can be read in several places to which I’ve already linked (specifically, here and here), but in sum, the legal and democratic institutions of the tiny Central American country upheld the rule of law earlier this summer by ousting their president when he was in direct and incontrovertible violation of their constitution.
Then the Obama Administration and its State Department, naturally, ‘effed it up by supporting the ousted Zelaya and demanding his return to power without even the slightest hint of irony (having only a week or two earlier claimed the moral high ground for not “meddling” in Iran). Obama went so far as to even suspend military activities with Honduras and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton revoked visas for some Honduran officials.
What’s left to do? Why how about a complete termination of all non-emergency aid to the mouse that had the temerity to roar in order to keep its democracy?
Check out this nonsensical passage from the State Department’s statement:
Restoration of the terminated assistance will be predicated upon a return to democratic, constitutional governance in Honduras.
Huh? An exercise of “democratic, constitutional governance” is exactly what the Congress and Supreme Court of Honduras was doing, you morons! How about if Honduras has an election in November (You know, the one that’s scheduled for then, and has been all along…the one Zelaya was trying to hijack?) and we can all move on and wash our hands of all this. No need to do something stupid and amateurish that might diplomatically paint the US into a corner, right?
Oh, wait. From the same press release:
[November’s upcoming elections in Honduras] must be undertaken in a free, fair and transparent manner. It must also be free of taint and open to all Hondurans to exercise their democratic franchise. At this moment, we would not be able to support the outcome of the scheduled elections.
WTF? So the story goes that in order for Honduras to demonstrate to Hillary Clinton and that international wizard Barack Obama that they are committed to “democratic, constitutional governance”, Hondurans will have to restore a criminal to their presidency and allow him to run the nation’s upcoming presidential election.
Would be kinda nice if someone asked the Secretary what the hell she (and her boss) is thinking.
Or at least what are Bill’s thoughts?
-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from HQ)
Blaming State gives Obama a pass. This comes directly from Obama. It’s who he is. He supports Chavez, Castro, and their puppets. His goals are their goals. Socialist/communist revolution.
The State Department statement above describes, exactly, the problem the Obama administration has with Honduras: Constitutional Governance
I’m sure it’s just that he didn’t read the fine print of the order before he signed it.
When Medvedyev said after meeting Obama, “We have a new comrade”, he wasn’t kidding. America has managed to elect a crypto-Marxist president.
This all goes without saying. The liberals don’t give a sweet fuck about the US Constitution, why would they care about another country’s?
Where’s boob and the other bleeding gashes to defend this?
This has been the most egregious foreign policy failure of the Obama administration yet to date. We are clearly on the wrong side of this issue. Makes one stop to wonder what the President really thinks about our Constitution as he so brazenly stomps on another. This is obscene.
This has been the most egregious foreign policy mistake of this young Administration. To publicly defend a man who willfully usurps the will of the Honduran people and their Constitution in the name of democracy and constitutional governance is beyond the pale. To turn America’s collective back to a young and obviously motivated democratically elected representative government in favor of a political taker is obscene and should be described as such!
It is obvious Iran and North Korea have nothing to worry about. Paper Tiger comes to mind!!
The whole matter gives me pause. If the President is so eager to support a dictator (in spirit) as he does an end around the national constitution of Honduras what does that mean for our Constitution? What sort of end runs are taking place as we speak?
More than one, I am quite sure!
Hallelujah! It’s so great to read a blog and reader comments where people get it. From here in Honduras, it seems that the whole world is upside down.
Zelaya was an incompetent and corrupt president and is STILL planning to turn Honduras into another Venezuela. Despite the San Jose Accord, he has admitted in at least two recent interviews (one right after the meeting with Hillary!) that he plans to continue with the constitutional assembly. I wrote about it and have a video. It’s in Spanish of course, but I’ve translated parts of it. The man is trying to destroy this country and he is getting help from the whole world!
Zelaya and the lies that you don’t hear in English
Hallelujah! It’s so great to read a blog and reader comments where people get it. From here in Honduras, it seems that the whole world is upside down.
Zelaya was an incompetent and corrupt president and is STILL planning to turn Honduras into another Venezuela. Despite the State Dept. saying that he has agreed to the San Jose Accord, he has admitted in at least two recent interviews (one right after the meeting with Hillary!) that he plans to continue with the constitutional assembly. I wrote about it and have a video. It’s in Spanish of course, but I’ve translated parts of it. The man is trying to destroy this country and he is getting help from the whole world!
Zelaya and the lies that you don’t hear in English
Our prayers are with you La Gringa.
Since our president sure as hell isn’t.
Can I hear an Amen?
Once again – in the rightwing view of the world – a military coup = constitutional democracy.
There is NOTHING in the Honduran Constitution that allows the military to arrest and deport a president. There is NOTHING that allows either the SC or the military to summarily declare the office of the Presidency vacant.
If the President broke the law, there are Constiutional means, as we have here, to remove him from office – mechanisms that ensure some level of due process. None of these were followed.
This is not only the opinion of the State Dept, and the President, and/or Castro and Chavez, but the opinion of the conservative governments of Canada, Mexico, Columbia – in fact EVERY government in the hemisphere.
Tano,
Your argument falls apart before it ever starts! The oath of our elected office obliges elected officials to protect and defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I would suppose most oaths of office follow along similar lines. The Honduran Constitution allows for one 4 year term in office. No re-election, no do over.
President Zelaya owes it to the people of Honduras to step down amicably and allow the Constitution to govern not the blessed.
“The Honduran Constitution allows for one 4 year term in office. No re-election, no do over.”
I dont understand your point. Zelaya was not trying to run for a second term. He was trying to call a convention to amend the constitution.
“President Zelaya owes it to the people of Honduras to step down amicably..”
Its fine for you, or anyone, to have such an opinion. I might even agree. But by phrasing it that way, you seem to accept the rather obvious fact that the presidency is still his to step down from, and that his removal from the presidency is null and void, and his removal from the country a crime – far worse of a crime against the Constitution and the rule of law than anything he did.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204886304574311083177158174.html
Tano, I would refer you to the above link for a little refresher on recent history! It should help clear up some of little misconceptions you have.
“The constitution expressly states in Article 239 that any president who seeks to amend the constitution and extend his term is automatically disqualified and is no longer president. There is no express provision for an impeachment process in the Honduran constitution. But the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision affirmed that Mr. Zelaya was attempting to extend his term with his illegal referendum. Thus, at the time of his arrest he was no longer—as a matter of law, as far as the Supreme Court was concerned—president of Honduras.”
”I succeeded Mr. Zelaya under the Honduran constitution’s order of succession (our vice president had resigned before all of this began so that he could run for president). This is and has always been an entirely civilian government. The military was ordered by an entirely civilian Supreme Court to arrest Mr. Zelaya. His removal was ordered by an entirely civilian and elected Congress. To suggest that Mr. Zelaya was ousted by means of a military coup is demonstrably false.”
In the end it is a Honduran issue! Our President has been very heavy handed against a small democratically elected representative republic as they try to hold to the constitutional duties, while turning a blind eye Iranian mullahs as they slaughtered their own people. He has an interesting way of seeing things!
Tano’s shown he doesn’t understand the US constitution, why would we expect him to understand the Honduran one?
Tano:
While I do admire your moxy for attempting to piece together an explanation for the Administration’s bewildering policy toward Honduras (which is more than can be said for the Administration itself which still has not answered a question as to its reasoning), I hope for their sake that if the press ever does ask the Secretary of State or president about why on earth they see it the way they do that their explanation is based at least more in fact than yours.
Please follow the links I have posted about the actual events in Honduras this summer, regroup, and then attempt a cogent rebuttal.