He is, in fact, right on all counts. It is entirely possible that the military of Honduras did the wrong thing in putting Zelaya on a plane. The removal by force was not wrong – since it was ordered by the SC – but the exile likely was against a few rules.

As for “trial”, Zelaya is charged with several crimes for which he must stand trial and then be sentenced. The fact that a trial wasn’t required to remove him from office is not the issue. Other crimes were committed, and for those he needs to be tried.

Craig also seems to be giving Obama a fair amount of the benefit of the doubt, which while I don’t agree is warranted here, is not entirely without reason. The reasons for Obamas actions are not clear – though I have clearly spelled out my beliefs regarding them – and thus I can not fault his interpretation. I don’t agree with them, but they are not entirely without merit.

Stop slamming on Craig.

That is all.

One more thing – you write: Indeed, I never expected to prove that Honduran law had been broken

Of course you didn’t, because you set out to prove that Obama was correct in labeling Zelaya’s ouster ‘illegal’

This one has me stumped. How could I have expected to prove that Obama was correct in labeling Zelaya’s ouster ‘illegal’ without being able to prove that Honduran law had been broken by that ouster?

“It seems unlikely that if the president was, indeed, removed in full and perfect compliance with Honduran law and Constitution, that Obama would assert that the removal was illegal. I mean, I rarely defend Obama either in his words or his actions.”

Comment by Craig R. Harmon — 6/29/2009 @ 11:21 pm

Craig – It’s nice that you finally arrived at a place where most reasonable people were more that a week ago. Do you care to extend and revise the above remarks? Do you also care to comment on the Administration’s continued misguided support for Zelaya?

Comment by daleyrocks — 7/10/2009 @ 3:52 pm

Extend and revise? I’ll be brief. It seemed unlikely to me at the time. I was wrong. If all Obama meant to say was that the military acted contrary to Honduran law by forcing Zelaya out of the country, he failed to convey that. What he conveyed was that this was an unconstitutional, illegal military coup that had the support of anti-Zelaya members of the government that the man who replaced Zelaya in the office of president was an userper. Now I know why I rarely defend Obama. I’ll be even less likely to do so in the future.

As for Obama’s continued support of Zelaya, insisting that he be allowed to return to power, it seems likely that Obama wishes to get on the good side of those in that region who seem pretty uniform in their condemnation of Zelaya’s removal. Perhaps he is saying that this was not the Honduras that he thought he knew and is willing to toss it under the bus for the chance at making diplomatic relations better with a larger number of countries in the region. Perhaps he’s just, as most have said or implied, a lefty backing a fellow lefty to gain the good will of other lefty rulers. In either case, I think it’s a mistake.

Of course you didn’t, because you set out to prove that Obama was correct in labeling Zelaya’s ouster ‘illegal’, and you continue to attempt that futile effort.

You aren’t interested in Honduran law, you’re interested in rescuing the Obama administration from their own descent into support for authoritarian dictatorships.

You’re too late.

As I said, something changed with this Honduran situation, and this goes way beyond trolls. This was a major mis-step by Obama, as he broadcast his true intent. Obama supports power hungry and ruthless dictators, while failing to support democracy, and there’s simply no debate about it.

Obama’s actions tell the tale.

Will this finally teach you guys to stop feeding trolls ?

No. What you know from this frustratingly long exercise in word parsing is that Obama issued an official statement as President of The United States regarding the removal of Zelaya that was not only mistaken, but completely wrong in its description, assertion, and legal basis.

From the link:
U.S. President Barack Obama said on Monday the coup that ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya was illegal and would set a “terrible precedent” of transition by military force unless it was reversed.
“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.

Obama was not just “wrong on a number of points,” he was wrong on one very substantial point:
Zelaya was no longer President of Honduras when he was flown out of the country by the military.

Which means that the chief legal counsel for the Honduran military is talking about a non-event. It is a civil case that Zelaya (the civilian) possibly has against some officials who ordered him removed from the country, although he would most likely stand trial for treason if he returned to attempt that complaint. You are no more interested in a civilian filing a case against the Honduran military than you are in admitting your intent at commenting here.

Again, you are deliberately conflating two different events that are, essentially, unrelated.

The removal of Zelaya from power was completely legal and was in no way a coup. That is all anyone should be concerned with, as it has no relation to your attempts to claim that the military broke the law, committed a crime, by removing Zelaya from the country.

What is more telling is that Obama has not retracted what he has previously said, and the media is dancing past this story and trying to bury it as quickly as possible.

That’s because Obama fucked up badly here. He showed his true intent, just like your ‘overreach’.

Obama’s true intent is to support leftist dictators and take active positions against democracy. Anyone arguing differently should answer why the Obama administration hasn’t retracted their initial statements in light of the clarifications from the Honduran Supreme Court, Congress, and new President.

In other words, I have proven what I set out to prove.

That was an over-reach and there’s no mistaking. Indeed, I never expected to prove that Honduran law had been broken; merely that the forced exile seemed to be the best candidate, in my thinking, for any law having been broken. Rather than having proved what I set out to prove, I’ll fall back upon my comment 224, concluding with “That would seem to be conclusive.” That is, that the military overstepped both their instructions from the civilian government and broke the law of Honduras by forcing Zelaya into exile. The chief legal counsel for the Honduran military says as much.

Zelaya’s ouster was completely legal

I conceded as much in my comment 222.

which is not what Obama was saying.

Although I considered it possible that Obama was correct in all of his statements regarding the incidents in Honduras, I’m not now and have not for some time been even suggesting that Obama was correct in all that he said. In fact, I now think and have for some time thought that he was wrong on a number of points, including that Zelaya’s ouster was an illegal coup, that Zelaya was still the president of Honduras and that he should be returned to power. I long ago gave up the notion that Zelaya was still president of Honduras as being a position due to my ignorance of the facts. I have altered my position over time as the facts became clear to me. Indeed, my sole problem with this is what the chief legal counsel for the Honduran military military concedes.

But when you get approval from one source, a Pro-Castro publication with an “overly leftist bias” that has a tendency to get the Honduras story exactly backwards, you leap to the conclusion that your Cult Leader Obama was right all along, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

I never jumped to any such conclusion. I long ago wrote (comment 121):

No, that’s not quite what I am saying. I accept that Obama might be wrong (although I do not assume that he’s wrong, any more than I assume that the Honduran Supreme Court, the AG and military acted properly, either. After all, do you assume that our Supreme Court always acts properly? I hope not. I merely find it unlikely that Obama would declare Zabeyda’s removal to be illegal if he had no basis for his declaration. Therefore, I seek clarification. I am not of a mind to take Obama’s word for his position, but neither am I of a mind to take the Wall Street Journal’s word for its position. Thus, I am seeking clarification from those who might know more than I.

See also comment 123, 173, 216 and others. I’m accused of repeating myself but only because I’m repeatedly accused of things I’ve not done.

Given that Zelaya was a former high official that was acting illegally, he may not have even that complaint.

He may not. I don’t pretend to know the intricacies of Honduran law as well as the chief legal counsel for the Honduran military. What I know is that the chief legal counsel for the military has publicly stated that the military broke the law, committed a crime, to use his words, by removing Zelaya from the country as they did.