WTF is our leadership thinking WRT the situation in Honduras?

[Fastback]

OK, so Honduras, which up to the current President, has been one of our allies in CA, ousts its President because he's trying to pull a Chavez. The rest of the government there (including those in his own party) call bullschit on his move to change the constitution and instead of arreting him, exile him to Costa Rica. Fuggin Obama and Hillary say he should be reinstated?

 

WTF is wrong with this administration? Seriously. They are rank fuggin amateurs when it comes to foreign policy. This is truly disgusting.

 

This WSJ article sums it up pretty well.

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124623220955866301.html

 

BTW, I know quite a bit about this country. My wife is from there and my in-laws do quite a bit of missionary work there also.

 

One of you Obama apologists please try to explain to me what our foreign policy is these days. Do we no longer have any principles?

[IDBillzFan]

One of you Obama apologist please tey to explain to me what our foreign policy is these days.

You don't need an Obama apologist to explain what amounts to the Sally Fields Foreign Policy Program.

[VABills]

OK, so Honduras, which up to the current President, has been one of our allies in CA, ousts its President because he's trying to pull a Chavez. The rest of the government there (including those in his own party) call bullschit on his move to change the constitution and instead of arreting him, exile him to Costa Rica. Fuggin Obama and Hillary say he should be reinstated?

 

WTF is wrong with this administration? Seriously. They are rank fuggin amateurs when it comes to foreign policy. This is truly disgusting.

 

This WSJ article sums it up pretty well.

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124623220955866301.html

 

BTW, I know quite a bit about this country. My wife is from there and my in-laws do quite a bit of missionary work there also.

 

One of you Obama apologist please tey to explain to me what our foreign policy is these days. Do we no longer have any principles?

Apologize early and often. Reperations for the evil ways to come later. Tax the Americans for everything ever done in the world since 7000 BC, it's all our fault.

[AlaskaDarin_Has_AIDS]

OK, so Honduras, which up to the current President, has been one of our allies in CA, ousts its President because he's trying to pull a Chavez. The rest of the government there (including those in his own party) call bullschit on his move to change the constitution and instead of arreting him, exile him to Costa Rica. Fuggin Obama and Hillary say he should be reinstated?

 

WTF is wrong with this administration? Seriously. They are rank fuggin amateurs when it comes to foreign policy. This is truly disgusting.

 

This WSJ article sums it up pretty well.

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124623220955866301.html

 

BTW, I know quite a bit about this country. My wife is from there and my in-laws do quite a bit of missionary work there also.

 

One of you Obama apologists please try to explain to me what our foreign policy is these days. Do we no longer have any principles?

 

It's called Socialism 101- Learn it, Love it, Live it.

[Magox]

What am I missing here? Are we really backing Zelaya? I lived in S.A for many years, and I can tell you that Chavez has got his grubby little fingers in the politics of just about every latin american country, and the fact that we are apparently siding with Castro, Ortega and Chavez in any manner for me is bothersome.

 

This article does seem to lean to one side, I wonder if there is another version of the story.

[finknottle]

This article does seem to lean to one side, I wonder if there is another version of the story.

 

I got the same picture (albeit softened) in the Washington Post.

[Chump Change]

What am I missing here? Are we really backing Zelaya? I lived in S.A for many years, and I can tell you that Chavez has got his grubby little fingers in the politics of just about every latin american country, and the fact that we are apparently siding with Castro, Ortega and Chavez in any manner for me is bothersome.

 

This article does seem to lean to one side, I wonder if there is another version of the story.

 

Seriously, what else is missing? The President tries to use a method not authorized in their constitution to change the constitution where he can run again (along the line of what Chavez did). The legislature, supreme court and military (including many from his own party) said "You can't do this"; He tries to do it anyway and they remove him (peacefully) from office and install someone from his very party to serve out the remainder of the term until the next election. It's not like the military removed him and then the General stepped up. They did what they thought was best for their country.

 

Why the hell aren't we supporting this? Chavez is going to send his boys in there and start running things...then what? What drug is the State Dept on?

[DC Tom]

What am I missing here? Are we really backing Zelaya? I lived in S.A for many years, and I can tell you that Chavez has got his grubby little fingers in the politics of just about every latin american country, and the fact that we are apparently siding with Castro, Ortega and Chavez in any manner for me is bothersome.

 

This article does seem to lean to one side, I wonder if there is another version of the story.

 

My impression from the statements I'm hearing is that the administration is backing the principle of the rule of law, which a coup manifestly is not.

 

Which is not necesarily that bad a position to take. Kind of an odd one, though...

[Chump Change]

So what should the Honduran Gov't have done differently? Allowed an illegal referendum to proceed? If the President was offered a choice of being arrested or resign and be exiled, why wouldn't the US support what transpired there? We are basically handing this country to Chavez and his stooges (not that it's ours to give, but you know what I mean).

[DC Tom]

So what should the Honduran Gov't have done differently? Allowed an illegal referendum to proceed? If the President was offered a choice of being arrested or resign and be exiled, why wouldn't the US support what transpired there? We are basically handing this country to Chavez and his stooges (not that it's ours to give, but you know what I mean).

 

"We" are handing it over?

 

It's not our country, dumbass.

[Magox]

My impression from the statements I'm hearing is that the administration is backing the principle of the rule of law, which a coup manifestly is not.

 

Which is not necesarily that bad a position to take. Kind of an odd one, though...

That is pretty much what I gathered from our statements concerning Honduras, hopefully it was sort of a blanket statement, that we truly do not support.

[Chump Change]

"We" are handing it over?

 

It's not our country, dumbass.

 

What i meant was cede influence to Venezuela. I think you knew what I meant, but thanks for calling me a dumbass, sperm burper.

[Chef Jim]

My impression from the statements I'm hearing is that the administration is backing the principle of the rule of law, which a coup manifestly is not.

 

Which is not necesarily that bad a position to take. Kind of an odd one, though...

 

The fact that we feel we need to make a statement it all is what bothers me. I think a "we're reviewing the situation closely and we'll comment on it if we feel it is necessary" would have sufficed.

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

And what is it you want the US to do?

 

Invade every country that has a "questionable" change in government?

 

How about the "questionable" election in Iraq?

How about the "questionable" election in Russia?

How about the "questionable" election in N Korea?

 

How many more are there? Too many for us to stick our noses into.

[Fastback]

And what is it you want the US to do?

 

Invade every country that has a "questionable" change in government?

 

How about the "questionable" election in Iraq?

How about the "questionable" election in Russia?

How about the "questionable" election in N Korea?

 

How many more are there? Too many for us to stick our noses into.

 

If your response was to my original post, then please understand that first of all, I never said or implied that we should invade anyone. I just feel that the US should be more supportive of what transpired there. Essentially, the will of the people was accomplished. If reports are true, Zelaya didn't even have the backing of members of his own party for the referendum he was illegally pushing. They probably would've done better by just arresting him and charging him vice exiling him. But I understand Tom's point of the US supporting the rule of law. It just seems to me that this wasn't youyr typical military coup. Shoot, they replaced the guy they removed with someone from the same political party and they guy says he won't run for re-election this year.

 

It's a pretty interesting situation there. What would be a shame is if somehow Zelaya is restored to power and works a way to get the referendum through where he can stay in power beyond his current term limits.

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

If your response was to my original post, then please understand that first of all, I never said or implied that we should invade anyone. I just feel that the US should be more supportive of what transpired there. Essentially, the will of the people was accomplished. If reports are true, Zelaya didn't even have the backing of members of his own party for the referendum he was illegally pushing. They probably would've done better by just arresting him and charging him vice exiling him. But I understand Tom's point of the US supporting the rule of law. It just seems to me that this wasn't youyr typical military coup. Shoot, they replaced the guy they removed with someone from the same political party and they guy says he won't run for re-election this year.

 

It's a pretty interesting situation there. What would be a shame is if somehow Zelaya is restored to power and works a way to get the referendum through where he can stay in power beyond his current term limits.

 

We (the US) can flap our gums all day long in support or not.

 

Nothing should be done until you have those "IF's" validated.

 

What will or should be done? Some sort of sanctions. Which typically are very ineffective.

[DC Tom]

If your response was to my original post, then please understand that first of all, I never said or implied that we should invade anyone. I just feel that the US should be more supportive of what transpired there. Essentially, the will of the people was accomplished. If reports are true, Zelaya didn't even have the backing of members of his own party for the referendum he was illegally pushing. They probably would've done better by just arresting him and charging him vice exiling him. But I understand Tom's point of the US supporting the rule of law. It just seems to me that this wasn't youyr typical military coup. Shoot, they replaced the guy they removed with someone from the same political party and they guy says he won't run for re-election this year.

 

It's a pretty interesting situation there. What would be a shame is if somehow Zelaya is restored to power and works a way to get the referendum through where he can stay in power beyond his current term limits.

 

It is certainly a benign coup...but a coup is a coup. nonetheless.

 

I can understand any US administration not supporting it, simply on the premise that it is a coup and not a legitimate, legal government process. That this one doesn't support it is completely unsurprising, given its populist leanings (a coup is hardly an exercise of the "will of the people").

 

In fact, that's the only way I can reconcile the administration's statements against both the illegal (or "extra-legal") but benign coup in Honduras, and the perfectly legal but harsh election politics in Iran: "the will of the people" wasn't followed in either case.

[Fastback]

Here's some more from WSJ on the situation there. Can someone explain to me why we're looking the other way here? I don't buy the rule of law argument.

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124683595220397927.html

[Magox]

It looks as if that maybe it was a legal of Honduras to oust Zelaya. It never made sense to me that the Obama administration was backing Zelaya, considering he's a wacko in the line's of Chavez.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...id=aMKj7d_.9de0

[finknottle]

Suppose the president of the US wants a referendum on a third term and the Congress say's the proposed timing is illegal;

- the matter is escalated and Congress, the Supreme Court, the Electoral Tribunal, and the Commissionar for Human Rights all rule against him;

- the President proceeds to enact his plan, and the Supreme Court explicitely and unaminously rules his actions illegal and order the ballots confiscated;

- the President orders the army chief of staff to seize the ballots and administer the referendum themselves;

- the chief of staff declines on legal advice, he is fired the next day. The Supreme Court unanimously rules the firing illegal and orders him reinstated.

- the President issues an executive order instructing the ballots to be transfered and the referendum to be carried out by civil government employees.

- the Army acts on a warrent issued by the Supreme Court to arrest the President. Congress strips his authority and names the Speaker as President until the next elections.

 

Is this coup illegal?