I’m no fan of rogue Congressional delegations travelling abroad and undermining our foreign policy a la that dipshit from San Francisco going to Syria, or those useful idiots from Seattle, Michigan, and Napa bankrolled by Saddam Hussein himself. So I’m not jumping up and down celebrating Senator Jim DeMint’s victory over John Kerry’s failed attempt to scuttle his plans to take Congressmen Aaron Schock and Peter Roskam of Illinois and Doug Lamborn from the Greatest State on a “fact-finding” mission to the beleagured Central-American state.
Part of what keeps my feet on the ground here is DeMint’s style. The Twitter message he used to announce the trip read:
Leading delegation to Honduras tomorrow to support Nov 29 elections. Hondurans should be able to choose their own future.
(emphasis added)
As that cow over at State has said, the Honduran elections will not be recognized by America unless the interrim government gives up its Constitutional authority and puts back in place the criminal Zelaya who she’s so happy to sit down with and give succor to. So DeMint’s goal in his trip was pretty specifically contrary to the policy of the US government.
If his mission were indeed (as he said after Kerry gave it the kibosh) “fact-finding”, he’d have a better standing for support in his trip. As wrong-headed and perverse (not to mention continuously bizarre and vexing) as the Administration’s and State Department’s policy is toward Honduras, it is America’s policy, and undermining it while abroad can have unintended consequences and negative ramifications for the US. And believe me, Sen. DeMint, Obama and Clinton need no help effing up our foreign policy. They’ve pretty much proven their capbility on that front without any assitance.
Nevertheless, thanks to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, the delegation proceeded and met this weekend with members of the interim government there.
As tainted as the trip is, I do hope that something good can come out of it. Specifically, I hope that Senator DeMint was temperant in his discussions and didn’t lead the leaders of that country to any ill-founded conclusions. More so, I hope that the delegation actually learned some first-hand information to bring back to Clinton and Obama about the absolutely legal and constitutional ousting of Zelaya and installation of an interim government ahead of elections scheduled next month.
And ultimately, here’s hoping Obama and Clinton will shed their arrogance about the matter, admit they’ve been wrong all along, embrace the rule of law (for once), and support the people (and the Constitution!) of Honduras.
Watch this space to find out. I’ll post what I can find out as I have the time.
-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from HQ)
What the hell does that even mean, besides FREE TRIP ON THE TAX PAYER’S DIME! WOO-HOOO!!!
1. I dont really consider a “tweet” an official communication, so I will wait and see what they do on their trip.
2. Obama is not going to change his mind on Honduras. Obama and Chavez are kindred spirits, he SUPPORTS Zelaya seizing power.
3. I will have to give more thought as to whether Republicans should support egregious foreign policy overseas or not. Once again we are holding ourselves to rules to which Democrats do not hold themselves. I’m not sure that hobbling the good guys while the bad guys do whatever the hell they want is good for America, customary or not.
4. Aaron Schock baby! mmmmm
Strange, Nick, but I do not recall the Constitution stating that foreign policy is the exclusive province of the President any more than domestic policy is.
Why would Obama and Clinton embrace the rule of law and support the Honduran constitution when they don’t follow our own laws and support the US Constitution?
I can’t believe you did not use the words coup once in this post.
Instead you parse while conservatives give support to a brutal regime.
Yikes.
I understand you have a deep raging hatred of Obama, but how can that make you so blind that you now support a brutal military take over of a democratic country?
And AE –
The coup leaders are the ones mimicing Chavez.
Curfews, shutting down the media, military raids against opposition and arrests.
Why? Because Zelaya wanted to hold a vote.
Cow?
ah, it’s nice to see the folks who can’t read coming out to play.
Tano, our own government says the impeachment was valid and legal.
Though I’m sure you’re sure aware that Honduras is arresting prostesters instead of shooting them, like the President’s good buddy Chavez, or his negotiating parter, Imadinnerjacket.
And of course come monday Michelleti will allow the opposition media to resume. I know this is hard to understand for supporters of the fairness doctrine such as yourself.
but hey, maybe those Israeli agents are microwaving your brain too.
And ultimately, here’s hoping Obama and Clinton will shed their arrogance about the matter, admit they’ve been wrong all along, .
Please don’t hold your breath…..more likely they will be scrambling to find someone, anyone to throw under the bus….
gille, try decaf.
I didn’t use the word “coup” because IT WASN’T A COUP, no matter what Obama and Clinton say. A coup, by definition has two factors: 1) that it is violent, and 2) that it is done by a small group. (cf. here)
The completely legal and constitutional removal of a criminal (Zelaya) from his position, in accordance with his violation of the laws of Honduras is NOT a coup. I can’t make you believe plain facts, gillie, I can only present them. I am willing, of course, to be proven wrong if you (or anybody else) has actual facts that contradict these. But then, I’ve been waiting all summer for someone to present that.
Please, you’re embarrassing every other nut-job Leftist (if that’s possible) who shares the blind following of The One that you have so dedicated yourself to that you aren’t even aware of the world around you.
And please spare me the martyrdom of your Messiah. I don’t hate him, and I’ve given him credit where it’s been due. Is there anything He does that you don’t agree with? Or do you simply presume that because it’s Him doing it that it MUST be right?
Gillie, Gillie, Gillie,
I love your passion, but please educate yourself before going on a rant like this. Zelaya is the one who was trying to circumvent the constitution. He was removed by the military as the result of the Supreme Court decision that he was illegally trying to extend his term.
“ 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. “ WSJ.com July 27, 2009
Ah, I’m so torn on this. I completely disagree and am horrified with the Obama administration’s actions and statements regarding Honduras, but I didn’t support political types traveling to other countries for reasons that undermined the Bush administration’s decisions and I can’t support it now.
Here’s hoping that he is just going with the intention to gather information that might present a more convincing opposing viewpoint to the prez.
There are Lutherans in the Honduras.
OK, now that I’ve established a transition–I had a “Yep, I’m gay” moment at church today. I’ve been out to the people I interact with, but today, we had a discussion of the document on sexuality in which the ELCA welcomes gays. I spoke up at this meeting as to how much that document meant to me, a gay man. I talked about wanting to express my sexuality in a lifelong, monogamous, publicly accountable relationship and how important for me it is to be in a church that supports this. Actually, not everyone in our church is so happy with the ELCA right now, and I might be one of only a few gay voices. Still, it was a great feeling.
I’m sure the Man In The Sky will no longer want to punish me with boils and that He will reward me with cake the way He does for all good little boys and girls who obey Him. I think He’s smiling–don’t you? Isn’t that sunbeam really God’s smile?
Gee, I wish I were as highly evolved as Ricky Gervais, Bill Maher, Kathy Griffin, Paula Poundstone, David Cross, Seth McFarlane, etc. so I didn’t have to worry about The Man In The Sky. But I’m just not as clever as they are and I never will be. Boo-hoo. So I’ll just work on my silly, clumsy way of asking my pal Jesus what He wants me to do with my sexuality. And I’m glad a whole bunch of dumb Lutherans think that Jesus our buddy actually wants gays to have lifelong, monogamous, publicly accountable relationships.
I have to go talk to my invisible friend now. Back to the Honduras discussion (though it would be nice to have a thread sometime on the changes in the church which I suspect are more important to conservatives than liberals).
Interesting post, but you lost me when you called Zelaya the criminal, and dont mention Micheletti and followers in the slightest. This is also interesting, http://www.purpleunions.com/blog/2009/07/honduras-targets-glbt-activists-after.html ,anyway, on this blog, its nice to see J Edgar Hoover lives on
Dermot:
Perhaps you’re lost because you haven’t been paying attention.
Please read up on the situation (hint, Zelaya violated the Constitution and thereby forfeited his position as president) and come back to the conversation.
Your non-sequitur about “GLBT” “rights” is a distraction.
Actually, Dermot, let me take back part of that and ask what I posted on your link:
Pretty much everyone in Honduras supported removing him. Hell, even his OWN PARTY supported removing him from office. Only the Zelayaistas oppose it.
There, Gilltard, fixed it for you.
Article 239 of the Honduran Constitution reads:
The Honduran Supreme court followed the exact clear language of their constitution and ordered the military to remove the communist thug Zelaya from power.
The Honduran congress approved the action as well.
The ONLY one who has behaved unlawfully is your wannabe dictator, Zelaya and your Thug in Chief supports him.
I half expect Article 239 to include the words “And This Time, We REALLY Mean It!”
Foreign policy is not the exclusive province of the president, but negotiating and representing Americas official position to foreign entities is. What’s more, the Logan Act, the law since John Adams was president, makes it a felony for Americans unauthorized by the President to negotiate with foreign governments.
Fact finding missions or junkets are another matter and are perfectly within congress’ rights.
So it all depends on what they do and say and to whom. But still, look for liberals to be WAILING and gnashing their teeth about the Logan Act no matter what those Republicans do. In fact, I bet they are screaming about it already.
And I still maintain that Aaron Schock is a hottie.
Y’all know how a couple of week’s ago Zelaya was claiming that the Joos were poisoning him with secret Joo gas? It should come as no surprise then that one of Zelaya’s loudest supporters is a Jew-hating Holocaust denier who regrets that Hitler didn’t finish the job.
As always, a thought provoking post as to the goings on in Honduras. I appreciate the sentiment articulated by SentWest. There are some troubling aspects of a delegation traveling out of country in support of a policy opposed by the Executive branch. There are a few distinctions however, that I think are important. First, the animosity toward Bush foreign policy came after the Congress voted to grant the use of war to oust Saddam Hussein from power. It wasn’t until the war became politically unpopular that the voices of opposition arose to complain vocally. The situation in Honduras has not been debated in the Senate or Congress. There has been no resolution in support or opposition to the current policy. Thus far the policy has been purely a State Department and Executive branch decision. I am not sure that the two issues can be compared as equal. Apples and oranges, as they say….
Man
You folks are so predictable and just parrot what the the talking points tell you.
First –
No where in their constitution does it talk about curfews, media closures and the like
– interesting how you all ignore that…
Second no where does their constitution say that military/congress is the arbritator and enforcer of the constitutition.
Your zany right wing talking poitns have arleady been disproved.
I am suprised you have not got an updated version.
http://hondurascoup2009.blogspot.com/2009_06_01_archive.html
gillie:
Please refute the facts shown here.
Regards,
Nick
Oh, and gillie:
I will concede this point of yours: Yes, the facts and the Constitution (this time of Honduras) ARE my talking points. Do you bring anything to the table to refute them?
I know it must be challenging that the State Department and Administration are so reticent to discuss this matter that they haven’t fed you anything to use in an argument. You’re going to have to rely on your own ability to reason (as it may be).
Caution, though: You may (if you try really hard!) actually come to a conclusion of your own without Big Brother (and Sister in this case) holding your hand. And *DANGER!* that conclusion may just be that they’re *GASP* wrong this time.
Good luck with that. That uncomfortable feeling you’re experiencing is called growing pains. Enjoy 3 and a half more difficult years. You’ll not be alone.
SentWest at #11:
I see that my post at #3 was in vain. Alas!
What one thought of the undermining of Bush foreign policy decisions has nothing to do with the present situation. Every policy of any president should be viewed on its own merits. And the bad ones deserve to be undermined.
If you approve of the Obama administrations actions regarding Honduras, then by all means oppose any and all attempts to to counteract them. If you disapprove of the administration’s behavior, however, it is the utmost in foolishness to worry about how other politicians might undermine it.
Thank you, AE, for condescending to reply to my post. (Something Nick didn’t do.)
Uh, not really. Leaving this stuff to the president alone is just the habitual default.
Messrs. Demint, Schock, Roskam, and Lamborn should feel free to discuss their thoughts on the current situation with Honduran officials, including what they are prepared to do as members of Congress to oppose any actions taken by the Obama administration.
The Logan Act? An absurdly broad and vague act created to forbid activities like the perfectly successful mission of Dr. Logan to France? (I am not a fan of the Federalists, so it is unsurprising that I think very little of the Logan Act. )
To be blunt: Fuck the Logan Act.
So what? If the Republicans and conservatives are willing to shut up about the Logan Act they can freely ignore their opponents’ screams about it.
Ok, so we now know gillie will, when it suits him, take the ravings of someone on a blog over the findings of congress.
Me, I’m just happy Congress got it right.
Why do you hate free people, Gillie?
CLD,
While I disagree with congress-critters going to terror sponsoring nations (Syria, Iraq etc.) contra (pun intended) the US government’s status on that nation, I have to agree with you, they should be able.
So yes, frak the Logan act.
A vote directly forbidden by the Honduras constitution.
Neither does the US Constitution, but when faced with insurrection, Lincoln imposed all of the above.
Say ghillie, try this:
– Chairman Obama
Unless, apparently, when it comes to anti-Semite fascist buddies of his.
And then there’s this:
Revolutionary Anti-Semitism
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471504574451341698592458.html
So it seems to me, ghillie, that you support anti-Semitism and hate speech.