[Guest post by DRJ]
Breitbart reports international meddler Barack Obama today declared the ouster of Honduran President Manuel Zelaya as an illegal coup and says Zelaya remains the President of Honduras.
For those keeping score, it’s: Leftists/Dictatorships – 2, Democracy – 0.
— DRJ
Pronounced "Patter-EE-koh"
E-mail: Just use my moniker Patterico, followed by the @ symbol, followed by gmail.com
Disclaimer: Simpsons avatar may resemble a younger Patterico...
The statements made on this web site reflect the personal opinions of the author. They are not made in any official capacity, and do not represent the opinions of the author's employer.
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
| 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 |
| 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 |
| 29 | 30 | |||||
Powered by WordPress.
They are just landing, Patterico.
And the approach is pitch-perfect.
More seriously, it is nice to see by words, not by acts, what the President supports.
Jung put it best: you are what you do, not what you say you will do.
Eric Blair (0b61b2) — 6/29/2009 @ 1:19 pmSo, in Honduras, the military acting on orders from the country’s highest court, arrested a rogue president and allowed the next-in-command to take office. All this without riots or bloodshed in the streets. And Obama instantly denounces it.
But in Iran, there’s a fraudulent election and riots and bloodshed, and it took Obama 6 days to muster to courage to say anything about it.
Oh, yeah, Obama is pitch perfect.
Steverino (69d941) — 6/29/2009 @ 1:24 pmAnd what does Obama think about the coup that ousted Salvador Allende? Also illegal!
Official Internet Data Office (0a0e22) — 6/29/2009 @ 1:25 pmI think that sums it up, Steverino.
DRJ (cdbef5) — 6/29/2009 @ 1:26 pmGee, maybe his army can join up with the Venezuelan troops marching north through the jungles of Panama…
mojo (8096f2) — 6/29/2009 @ 1:26 pmWe really do have an idiot and fool in the White House.
Sickening.
Mark (411533) — 6/29/2009 @ 1:27 pmAnd what does Obama think about the coup that ousted King George III? Also illegal!
Official Internet Data Office (0a0e22) — 6/29/2009 @ 1:30 pmOh, not to worry. This kind of thing is catnip to the Obamapologists. Look for it here in the coming comments, I’m pretty sure. Sigh.
Eric Blair (0b61b2) — 6/29/2009 @ 1:31 pmYou guys are just trying to distract the President from ordering his ice cream.
nk (bef3ab) — 6/29/2009 @ 1:39 pmMaybe so, nk. It looks like he’s ordering a Rocky Road for the country
Steverino (69d941) — 6/29/2009 @ 1:41 pmSilence on the lefty blogs. This isn’t the Honduras I knew.
Mike K (2cf494) — 6/29/2009 @ 1:41 pmnk – You’re absolutely right. Where did Obama say that this is illegal? Was it at a Fatburger or a Ben & Jerry’s?
Apogee (e2dc9b) — 6/29/2009 @ 1:41 pmDamn Steverino – My hat’s off to you – much better.
Apogee (e2dc9b) — 6/29/2009 @ 1:43 pmWhat’s odd is that the Barack Obama says Zelaya remains the president even though Zelaya is demonstrably not the president. This is less than optimally reality-based thinking on the Barack Obama’s part I think but the part where the Barack Obama says that America stands on the side of democracy is just a trashy trashy lie. That’s not what Barack Obama’s America stands for at all.
happyfeet (71f55e) — 6/29/2009 @ 1:50 pmOn what basis is it “illegal”? Is there some law that trumps Honduran law?
Does this other body of laws that Obama is looking at allow Presidents of any country to hold illegal elections in defiance of their own country’s constitution?
Serious questions. I’m concerned that it might have looked like sarcasm.
jcurtis (14bf32) — 6/29/2009 @ 1:54 pmAfter our past “meddling” in Central and Latin America, this is an outrageous statement regarding a real democracy taking action against usurpers to it’s own constitution. What the hell is wrong with this guy?
Dmac (f7884d) — 6/29/2009 @ 1:55 pmHonduras says legal ouster not coup.
Obama says coup not legal ouster.
What would outside intervention be, then?
Kevin Murphy (805c5b) — 6/29/2009 @ 1:56 pmJcurtis–
“Why, man, he doth bestride the narrow world
Kevin Murphy (805c5b) — 6/29/2009 @ 1:57 pmLike a Colossus; and we petty men
Walk under his huge legs, and peep about
To find ourselves dishonourable graves.”
NPR, America’s state radio, is forthright in declaring its support for establishing a dirty socialist dictatorship in Honduras. Without a hint of irony.
happyfeet (71f55e) — 6/29/2009 @ 2:08 pmSo much for “not meddling”.
Techie (482700) — 6/29/2009 @ 2:09 pmOn what basis is it “illegal”? Is there some law that trumps Honduran law?
Only the Universal Leftist Law which states anything done in the name of supporting world socialism is hunky-dory, and anything opposing same is verboten. See entries under “Castro, Fidel” and “Aristide, Jean-Bertrand” for examples.
JVW (a8c610) — 6/29/2009 @ 2:24 pmI’ve never had confidence in Obama’s judgment and ideology, but his take on Honduras is outright ridiculous, even scary or digusting because it’s so amoral, if not outright immoral.
If someone had described the current scenario to me a few days ago (or certainly back in November 2008) — and I won’t even factor in the way that Obama has dealt with Iran right after its elections — a bit of suspicion would have crept into my mind that the forecaster was being too rightwing dogmatic, too anti-Obama, too skeptical. But now, as things are turning out, Obama is living up to the classic stereotype of a very, very, very leftwing politician.
Mark (411533) — 6/29/2009 @ 2:25 pmBarack Obama is openly advocating regime change in Honduras and he hasn’t distanced himself from Hugo Chavez’s threat to violently overthrow the government there. This is really embarrassing if you love America.
happyfeet (71f55e) — 6/29/2009 @ 2:27 pmMentioned on another blog:
When was the last time the US’s official position lined up with that of the Castros and Hugo Chavez?
Techie (482700) — 6/29/2009 @ 2:28 pmSo Obama is overruling Honduras’ highest court? I thought he was a law school professor, or something.
rochf (ae9c58) — 6/29/2009 @ 2:30 pmThis Barack Obama is gonna get a lot of people killed.
happyfeet (71f55e) — 6/29/2009 @ 2:32 pmBut he feels good about himself, happyfeet. That is the most important thing.
Eric Blair (0b61b2) — 6/29/2009 @ 2:34 pmI hear you, Mark (2:25 pm). Before the election my dad (who had read Obama’s books) said that he came off as an outright socialist. I chalked that up to heightened rhetoric in the midst of a polarizing campaign. The more I see from his governing style, however, the more I think that my old man may be right.
JVW (a8c610) — 6/29/2009 @ 2:38 pmHas he apologized to Castro yet?
Kevin Murphy (805c5b) — 6/29/2009 @ 2:39 pmWhat happens if Obama uses US troops in support of the socialists?
Kevin Murphy (805c5b) — 6/29/2009 @ 2:41 pmA coup? Are you serious?
If this were a real coup, the ex-president would well and truly be an “ex-president”. Like in that Monty Python skit about the “ex-Parrot”.
Dr. K (4a5aac) — 6/29/2009 @ 2:43 pmWhat happens if Obama uses US troops in support of the socialists?
Extreme dissatisfaction at all levels of the U.S. Military, from the privates to the generals.
“NO BLOOD FOR SOCIALISM”
Daryl Herbert (a32d30) — 6/29/2009 @ 2:54 pmObama has been perfectly consistent with this position.
He was apparently meeting with President Uribe of Colombia before making another statement on Honduras. I wonder if he told Uribe to shove his trade pact up his ass again the way the Democrats did last year.
daleyrocks (718861) — 6/29/2009 @ 3:16 pmFace it, to the one constitutional law is simply a distraction. Leave him alone eat his
DavidL (02e14f) — 6/29/2009 @ 3:22 pmwaffleice cream.The OAS Permanent Council adopted a resolution demanding Zelaya’s return but also reaffirmed their principle of noninterference. It does not list the vote on the site that I could see.
daleyrocks (718861) — 6/29/2009 @ 3:29 pmThe combination of Marxist solidarity and liberal impotence is amusing, but I would prefer it in somebody else’s country.
Glen Wishard (02562c) — 6/29/2009 @ 3:31 pm“…What the hell is wrong with this guy?”
Comment by Dmac — 6/29/2009 @ 1:55 pm
No blog has enough band-width to contain the list.
AD - RtR/OS! (766ec7) — 6/29/2009 @ 3:43 pmI guess we could short-hand it to:
What an ignorant a$$hole!
From the WSJ:
The struggle against chavismo has never been about left-right politics. It is about defending the independence of institutions that keep presidents from becoming dictators. This crisis clearly delineates the problem. In failing to come to the aid of checks and balances, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Insulza expose their true colors.
They forgot to include Obama.
Yes, true colors – socialists in favor of dictatorship.
Game over.
Apogee (e2dc9b) — 6/29/2009 @ 3:48 pmI just don’t get it. Maybe one of the Leftists can explain this to us.
JD (459763) — 6/29/2009 @ 3:49 pmIt was just earlier this month that the OAS homos voted declared it a nifty idea to let democratically elected child molester Raul Castro’s dirty socialist Cuba become a recognized member in good standing.
happyfeet (71f55e) — 6/29/2009 @ 4:01 pmIs this a little odd for an American president to side with two bit tinpot dictators?
Can Obama even pronounce the word freedom?
10ksnooker (365bd9) — 6/29/2009 @ 4:03 pmoh. voted shouldn’t be in there …
happyfeet (71f55e) — 6/29/2009 @ 4:03 pmUnbelievable…but his supporters are so into his celebrity they simply do not care about his policies.
Masterful.
Sorta evil.
Patricia (2183bb) — 6/29/2009 @ 4:05 pmI would like to respect my president but am, unfortunately, very unable to.
But hey, he’s brought cool to the White House.
Dana (8d88ef) — 6/29/2009 @ 4:09 pmFor those who have hailed Mr. Obama’s soft diplomacy as an effort to help the people of Iran, this statement on Honduras leaves egg all over their faces.
As a side note, Mr. Obama claimed that he didn’t get involved in Iran because of our long history of involvement with the country. Well, what about American involvement in South America? Didn’t he read Hugo’s book? It clearly lays out that the US and Europeans have been deeply involved it the exploitation of the continent.
bskb (0ded4f) — 6/29/2009 @ 4:11 pmC’mon folks. I would quote the New Democratic Mantra, but this is better:
A little Walt Whitman in the afternoon.
Eric Blair (0b61b2) — 6/29/2009 @ 4:15 pmOver at Huffpo they are all revved up on this thing. “Those are made in USA M-16’s pointed at people, the military flew him out of the country in a plane paid for with hundreds of millions of dollars of US aid etc.” Those little wienies are going to scream and shout, then hold their breath until their faces turn blue.
Mike Myers (674050) — 6/29/2009 @ 4:22 pmJD #38: it’s just a pitch perfect landing.
More seriously, I think the answer is simple. Many Republicans and Conservatives voted for McCain or GW Bush with reservations (kind of a “less bad” thing).
I don’t have numbers for this, but on campus, people here were delirious to vote for our current President. I felt like saying “Hey, he is a politician, remember?”
But there was the schoolgirl/schoolboy crush thing going on from the Left. “Tingle up my leg,” indeed.
Well, the truth is showing itself. And no one is ever happy to have their foolishness revealed, particularly to themselves.
Thus, everything that the President does must be pitch perfect…no matter how self contradictory and Chicago politically styled a given action.
No one likes to be wrong. Fewer people like to admit that they were starry eyed patsies.
However, I have seen a couple of Left-leaning posters here admit they were, in the parlance of The Who, “…fooled again.” Good for them.
I do think that the current resident of the White House still believes that everyone thinks he is hunky dory. The sooner he sees that he has to stick to his campaign promises, and not act like the Chicago pol he is, the better.
But it will be a steep, steep learning curve, I am guessing.
Eric Blair (0b61b2) — 6/29/2009 @ 4:22 pm“…a steep, steep learning curve…” which will cost a lot of people their lives –
AD - RtR/OS! (766ec7) — 6/29/2009 @ 4:30 pmand it will be people who don’t deserve it.
Sad and true, all at once, AD. But people voted for “hope and change.” They got a little bit of the latter, and I’m afraid to think about the former.
Eric Blair (0b61b2) — 6/29/2009 @ 4:32 pm
Kevin Murphy (805c5b) — 6/29/2009 @ 4:33 pmEightyninety seats.VDH asutely sums it up,
So why does President Obama so often get history wrong, so often call for utopian schemes he would hardly adopt for himself, and so often distort by misinformation and incomplete disclosure?
Partly the culprit is administrative inexperience, partly historical ignorance. But mostly the disconnect comes because Barack Obama believes he is a philosopher-king, whose exalted ends more than justify his mendacious means.
In other words, Obama is our first truly postmodern president. And the Guardians who form his elite circle — in the very manner that they once falsely accused neo-cons of doing — deliberately, but “nobly,” distort the truth on behalf of us all.
Dana (8d88ef) — 6/29/2009 @ 4:37 pm“Hope and Change” I guess means
AD - RtR/OS! (766ec7) — 6/29/2009 @ 4:50 pm“I’ll not be bothered – or inconvenienced – by your death in an often fruitless pursuit of Liberty,
which you probably don’t appreciate or value anyway.”
Washington Monthly has now weighed in on Honduras and is firmly on the side of the lefty would-be dictator.
Mike K (2cf494) — 6/29/2009 @ 4:51 pmO can say anything he wants to; he has exactly as much standing to make such pronouncements as any of us do: none.
htom (412a17) — 6/29/2009 @ 4:52 pmIf he thinks that it is illegal then we can be sure that he believes he himself can get away with something similar.
Haire Brain (310603) — 6/29/2009 @ 4:55 pmI guess the symbolism of being the “Leader of the Free World” has lost all of its’ meaning?
AD - RtR/OS! (766ec7) — 6/29/2009 @ 4:55 pmBut, that is explainable when the election elevates an ignorant street hustler to the Presidency.
“I just don’t get it. Maybe one of the Leftists can explain this to us.”
– JD
Glad you finally know/remember what it’s like to have a moron running your foreign policy, JD.
Leviticus (1f2312) — 6/29/2009 @ 5:14 pmI think this got eaten earlier, but here goes:
If this was a real coup, wouldn’t the ex-President be an ex-President in the same context of the ex-Parrot in the Monty Python skit?
Dr. K (4a5aac) — 6/29/2009 @ 5:22 pmIt always struck me as odd the outrage i read about with Chile and Argentina and Spain but nary a peep about China, Russia, Vietnam, Cambodia, Most of Africa.
So long as left outcomes are pursued the ends justify the means. Otherwise, Bush-itler and US Imperialism are the words of the day.
A week for Iran, hours for a legal removal of the POH. How sad.
HeavenSent (1e97ff) — 6/29/2009 @ 5:26 pmLeviticus,
You mean the moron who is democratizing the Mid-East?
Bush may not have been brilliant but he certainly had much smarter help and could articulate simple concepts.
Obambi can articulate anything without getting into the confused nuance most empty suits love to engage in.
Only moron I see right now are Obambi and his “Welcome Back Carter” revival.
If you can wow them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.
HeavenSent (1e97ff) — 6/29/2009 @ 5:30 pmMeanwhile, some people are confused:
Chavez accuses US of role in Honduras coup.
Now, I’m confused. Plus, aren’t we glad we restored all those valuable ties to Venezuela?
Techie (482700) — 6/29/2009 @ 5:32 pmComment by Leviticus — 6/29/2009 @ 5:14 pm
Yes, we remember James Earl Carter.
AD - RtR/OS! (766ec7) — 6/29/2009 @ 5:34 pmIf you are awaiting something akin to common sense from Chavez, you are dumber than Chavez looks.
Chavez is a thug who has accumulated power feeding Venezolanos bull shit … and since most Venezolanos are imbeciles.
Old Colombian joke which says “the good news about Colombian emigration to Venezuela is the Per Capita IQ increases for both Countries.”
HeavenSent (1e97ff) — 6/29/2009 @ 5:36 pmIt’s extra shameful to be an American these days. Unbelievable.
Vivian Louise (c0f830) — 6/29/2009 @ 5:39 pmBut, we elected the One Lightworker!
The JetSetters don’t have to claim to be Canadian when ordering Cafe Mochas in Bruge anymore!!
Techie (482700) — 6/29/2009 @ 5:41 pmBarry is a Constitutional Law Professor you know. Honduran that is.
HeavenSent (1e97ff) — 6/29/2009 @ 5:43 pmI think Chavez is playing President Obama like a fiddle.
“Who’s your daddy?”
Pons Asinorum (d1c25d) — 6/29/2009 @ 5:47 pmI think I’ll start calling him the Magical Manchurian instead of the Magical Mau Mau. Although Hillary is still my top choice for a Cold War Soviet plant. Maybe Empty Suit is the Chinese’s or, more likely, the oil cartels’.
nk (bef3ab) — 6/29/2009 @ 5:57 pmI have to ask …
Neo (46a1a2) — 6/29/2009 @ 6:01 pmWhen and where was the last “legal coup” ??
Leviticus – I am not sure I understand your comment. Was that a defense of Obama, or a slam at Bush?
JD (b64881) — 6/29/2009 @ 6:06 pm1924.
Hillary Rodham Obama (bef3ab) — 6/29/2009 @ 6:09 pmFor clarity:
I have to ask …
When and where was the last “legal coup” ??
Comment by Neo — 6/29/2009 @ 6:01 pm
1924.
Hillary Rodham Obama (bef3ab) — 6/29/2009 @ 6:12 pmLast week. They call it “cap and trade”, though.
Glen Wishard (02562c) — 6/29/2009 @ 6:21 pmClearly Obama could see himself in the same situation as Honduras’ now ex-president, Mel Zelaya.
Neo (46a1a2) — 6/29/2009 @ 6:28 pmI don’t see why the military couldn’t just have had the referendum, and then declared it improper and not allowed the guy to serve another term or run again. No reason for this action now.
imdw (c5488f) — 6/29/2009 @ 6:33 pmThe cluckings of conservatives who ran up trillions in debt on borrowed Yankee Doodle Dollars from “freedom” loving Communist Red China continues to amaze and amuse.
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 6/29/2009 @ 6:43 pmJD – It was first and foremost a slam at Bush; the implied indictment of Obama was just a bonus.
Leviticus (1f2312) — 6/29/2009 @ 7:02 pmInternational Man of Parody lines up with the socialist dictator wannabe. SHOCKA. Well played, Barcky. Pitch perfect.
JD (54baf8) — 6/29/2009 @ 7:03 pmGotcha, Leviticus. Unlike the others on your side of the aisle, I am actually interested in your thoughts.
JD (54baf8) — 6/29/2009 @ 7:07 pmLeave it to DCSCA to (a) deflect any failing of Obama, (b) bring up a complete non-sequitur, and (c) try to blame everything on conservatives.
Steverino (1b3695) — 6/29/2009 @ 7:17 pmRegarding the President:
“Hook me up with a new revolution. This one is a lie.”
Constitutions are relative — here and abroad.
Ag80 (3acbfd) — 6/29/2009 @ 7:23 pmDCSCA, the cluckings of Obama trolls who defend the doubling of the national debt in a matter of months does not amaze and is no longer amusing.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/29/2009 @ 7:26 pmI am not going to begin to point out the abject hypocrisy of an Obama acolyte whining about someone else spending too much. The irony is richer than a triple German chocolate cake with buttercream icing.
JD (54baf8) — 6/29/2009 @ 7:33 pmJD, there is a point where the overload is so much that irony passes into self-parody.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/29/2009 @ 7:38 pmI don’t see why the military couldn’t just have had the referendum, and then declared it improper and not allowed the guy to serve another term or run again.
According to the WSJ piece that Apogee linked to in comment 38 (3:48 pm) it is the Honduran military which manages the voting process. For them to allow the illegal referendum to proceed would have on at least some level legitimized it, so I think they were correct in stopping it dead in its tracks. When Zelaya (allegedly) had his thugs break in to a military installation to steal the ballots, they probably had no choice but to arrest him.
JVW (a8c610) — 6/29/2009 @ 8:14 pm“I don’t see why the military couldn’t just have had the referendum, and then declared it improper and not allowed the guy to serve another term or run again. No reason for this action now.”
Right. I agree by jingo, but it’s Honduras not the USA. They get to decide what to do based on their system.
SteveG (c99c5c) — 6/29/2009 @ 8:18 pmMy understanding is that at the point where Zelaya began to subvert the Constition of Honduras, he was committing an act of treason. The military in Honduras deals with treason… so they did.
That Zelaya had Hugo Chavez print the ballots itself is very revealing.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/29/2009 @ 8:20 pmTelling the truth about Zelaya is un-democratic
HeavenSent (1e97ff) — 6/29/2009 @ 8:24 pmThat Barcky is siding with a wannabe socialist dictator is revealing, SPQR.
JD (54baf8) — 6/29/2009 @ 8:27 pm#77: of course, President Obama will now not trade with the PRC, right? Riiiiggghhht.
Yeah, it was a threadjack, but a particularly clumsy one.
Obamapologies!
Eric Blair (acade1) — 6/29/2009 @ 8:35 pmI was reading the news and came across this:
“Chavez said on state television if his ambassador to Venezuela was killed, or if troops entered the Venezuelan Embassy, “that military junta would be entering a de facto state of war. We would have to act militarily … I have put the armed forces of Venezuela on alert.”Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa, part of a coalition of leftist governments headed by Chavez that includes Honduras, said he would support military action if Ecuador’s diplomats or those of its allies were threatened.”
Huh
Well then.
Iran. Hostages.
Embassy takeover.
I must have missed a chapter or two.
SteveG (c99c5c) — 6/29/2009 @ 9:15 pmNah, these thugs were embolden when they saw an American President too scared to make even a statement about Iran (11 days!). Kim Jong is doing the same thing.
Going to be a long, hot summer in the Mid East…and Latin America…and Southwest Asia…and East Africa…and West Africa…
Pons Asinorum (d1c25d) — 6/29/2009 @ 9:29 pmI declare OBAMA illegal
DaveinPhoenix (e4ec9d) — 6/29/2009 @ 9:36 pmIs there really a Honduran law that permits the Honduran Supreme Court to order the Honduran military to depose the Honduran president? Serious question. Obviously I don’t know Honduran law, hence the question, but I seriously doubt that this procedure was kosher according to either Honduran law or the Honduran Constitution — hence, if I’m correct, the ouster of the democratically elected president was illegal and, dispite Zaleya being in exile, he remains the democratically elected president of Honduras.
Craig R. Harmon (80c36c) — 6/29/2009 @ 9:53 pmharmon, the AG arrested the prez.
Juan (e8717d) — 6/29/2009 @ 9:54 pmObama embraced a fanatic like Jeremiah Wright for years — and I’ve mentioned that on more than a few occasions, but just as much out of snark than in connection to any tangible, specific aspect of the current US president — and so why should I have been surprised by Obama’s response towards Hondura’s currently most visible “disturbed (if not, in fact, ultra-extreme and touched in the head) man.”
Manuel Zelaya and Jeremiah Wright? They’re Obama’s kind of people. And what does that say about us, the American public, for having installed Obama into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue?
Mark (411533) — 6/29/2009 @ 10:00 pmSuppose that when Chief Justice Taney had ordered Merryman released and Lincoln refused the order, Taney had ordered Lincoln deposed by the military of the United States — and further suppose, contrary to historical fact, the military would have obeyed the Chief Justice’s order. Would this have been legal? Would that not have constituted an illegal coup? Would not Lincoln have remained the democratically elected President of the United States in spite of his ouster — de jure, of course, if not de facto?
Craig R. Harmon (80c36c) — 6/29/2009 @ 10:02 pmI don’t see why the military couldn’t just have had the referendum, and then declared it improper and not allowed the guy to serve another term or run again. No reason for this action now.
From the Honduran constitution
Article 239 — No citizen that has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President.
Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform, as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years.
I read that as stating that the mere act of suggesting the referendum strips the president of his position (and prevents him from seeking the presidency for 10 years which is moot since he’s already barred).
article 42 also strips citizenship from anyone who likewise tries to extend the presidency in any way.
Taltos (4dc0e8) — 6/29/2009 @ 10:05 pmOkay, I stand corrected. The Honduran AG arrested the president. Was this really the legal and constitutional procedure for deposing the President of the United States? Suppose that after ignoring ex parte Merryman, the US Attorney General had arrested Lincoln and exiled him. Would that have made it legal?
Craig R. Harmon (80c36c) — 6/29/2009 @ 10:05 pmCraig, we’re talking about basic human rights. This isn’t some game.
The former president of honduras wanted to rig their constitution. He wanted to have a phony vote. He was using the help of Hugo Chavez’s election stealing machine to do so, and was discovered. The courts followed the constitution to the letter in saying his actions were illegal, and the AG followed the law to the letter in saying ‘no one is above the rule of law and anyone participating in this phony election is a criminal’. He put his life and his family’s life in mortal danger by arresting the president.
Now, the military and the police are much more closely aligned in many nations, and enforcing laws like this often relies on them military outside the USA. That troops were used does not make this a coup, but it makes lying about justice much easier.
Obama has finally saw fit to meddle in another nation’s affairs, but this time he is trying to snuff out the rule of law in favor of a man who happens to be a leftist. This places many lives in danger, and if this former president of honduras is permitted to become dictator, the blood will be on Obama’s hands and on the hands of every single person who supports his actions in this matter.
I am so thoroughly disgusted.
I appreciate your honesty in admitting you didn’t understand the basics of what horrible actions Obama was willing to defend. Please go forward and learn about it. It’s particularly easy to do with many conservative blogs detailing the facts.
Juan (e8717d) — 6/29/2009 @ 10:11 pmDSCSA is just beyond reasoning with.
I predict Obama makes a complete 180 when it becomes clear what a disgrace his recent actions have been. He will, of course, say that ‘he has always been consistent, clearly’ while doing so. But the timing is just awful to be supporting election theft. Give him a few days.
Juan (e8717d) — 6/29/2009 @ 10:16 pmNot certain how the law reads in Honduras, but presumably the Honduran Supreme Court president does and he said “he [President Zelaya] will have to face penal consequences” if Zelaya disobeys the law.
The link has the full article and includes Zelaya’s firing of the Honduran equivalent of the Joint Chief of Staff.
Looks like a showdown occurred between the Honduran Supreme Court and Legislature against the President. Guess President Zelaya lost and the Honduran Constitution won.
Pons Asinorum (d1c25d) — 6/29/2009 @ 10:33 pmJuan – Please go forward and learn about it.
But the cult of freaks is not interested in learning.
They’re gobsmacked by Obama’s complete dismissal of the clearly stated rule of law in the Honduran Constitution. All to hold together what is arguably a coalition of leftist murderers who rule by coercion.
They’re quiet right now, Juan, because it’s so obviously disgusting – but I can guarantee you that the little shits are working on a story, and they’ll be back to try and spin damage control for our worthless bastard of a CIC.
There will be more trial balloons of bullshit, couched as attempts at ‘understanding’. But the stories and spin mean nothing.
A lot changed today. This is a far bigger event than the cap and trade, for today they were completely caught in the spotlight, and now everyone with any sense at all recognizes what inhuman monsters we’re dealing with.
Apogee (e2dc9b) — 6/29/2009 @ 10:49 pm…. and the Honduran Constitution won.
Can someone smarter than I explain this to the State Dept and POTUS please!
Should have been done in Venezuela back in 2000.
HeavenSent (1e97ff) — 6/29/2009 @ 10:51 pmVenezuela… if only that country has stayed on the side of sanity so much evil would have been prevented.
Almost everything wrong with that part of the world is guided by Chavez’s circle of monsters. Columbia, Cuba, Argentina, Honduras, not to mention Venezuela itself.
And we can thank Jimmy Carter for all the lives lost there, as we can with the Ayatollah and Mugabe. And Welcome Back, Carter!
Juan (e8717d) — 6/29/2009 @ 11:11 pmJuan – Don’t forget Bolivia.
daleyrocks (718861) — 6/29/2009 @ 11:12 pmAnd, after today, Argentina not as much.
Yes, Carter was a prick, but he’s no longer President.
Almost everything wrong with that part of the world is guided by Chavez’s circle of monsters. Columbia, Cuba, Argentina, Honduras, not to mention Venezuela itself.
Apogee (e2dc9b) — 6/29/2009 @ 11:15 pmAnd now the United States as well.
I notice in this article from the 25th, that the Supreme Court had urged the Honduran Congress to remove the president. Does anyone know if they actually moved to do so? If not, wouldn’t this have been the way to go?
Also, presumably the head of the joint chiefs of staff and the Attorney General, for that matter, (or whatever Honduras’s equivalents are), are under the authority of the Honduran president. The president removes the joint chief on one day and the Supreme Court orders him restored on the next? Separation of powers, anyone? I think that is the biggest question I have.
Also, from the Wall Street Journal article linked above, “[The Supreme Court” also said that when Mr. Zelaya realized that he was going to be prosecuted for his illegal behavior, he agreed to an offer to resign in exchange for safe passage out of the country. Mr. Zelaya denies it.” Now obviously presidents are free to resign their office when facing charges either from the legislative body of from some independent prosecutor — to whit: Nixon — and so if he DID resign, well, that’s the end of it but, unlike Nixon, who publicly acknowledge his resignation, Zaleya denies that he resigned.
I should say that I am in no way defending Zaleya’s actions which appear to be clearly unconstitutional and violate Honduran law. Perhaps I’m just making unwarranted comparisons to US law and Constitution. I’m troubled by this whole course of events. 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. I am no Obamabot nor a lefty; just troubled.
Craig R. Harmon (80c36c) — 6/29/2009 @ 11:21 pmIf you’ve been wondering who are these dirty socialist fascist wankers at the Inter-American Dialogue what NPR and the rest of Barack Obama’s propaganda team are increasingly eager to give airtime to for so they can hyperventilate at the indiginity of the comeuppance of Hugo’s catspaw, this is instructive. (Emeritus Member: Jimmy Carter, Atlanta, GA) … The Board of Directors is here …
My sense from reading their site is that their primary goal is to be highly dependable spokespeoples for Barack Obama. Also they want to tear down the border wall and embrace Cuba and aggressively assert that the U.S. role in Latin America is appropriately one of cooperation NOT leadership.
happyfeet (e8d590) — 6/29/2009 @ 11:29 pmoh. Also they are “nonpartisan.”
happyfeet (e8d590) — 6/29/2009 @ 11:30 pm109 Harmon
I notice in this article from the 25th, that the Supreme Court had urged the Honduran Congress to remove the president. Does anyone know if they actually moved to do so? If not, wouldn’t this have been the way to go?
Someone at Hot Air posted a link to Honduras Constitution which was this:
http://www.honduras.net/honduras_constitution.html
If anyone reads Spanish they might want to let us know what kind of impeachment process, if any, the Hondurans have.
jcurtis (14bf32) — 6/29/2009 @ 11:46 pmThe Journal article asserts that all was done according to the Constitution and the laws of Honduras. The article would have been more helpful had it quoted (in translation) the provision(s) of the Constitution and statutes regarding the removal of the President. As the article stands, it is mere assertion. It may or may not be factually true but assertion is not fact; it asserts, not proves.
It sounds like you are personally conversant with what Honduran law and the Honduran Constitution says regarding things like the removal of the president, the separation of powers, the Supreme Court’s power to reinstate executive officers fired by the chief executive officer, the independence of the Atorney General and so forth. I have found a copy of the current Honduran Constitution but my Spanish is poor so perhaps you would be kind enough to translate those passages for me along with the appropriate legal statutes, por favor. I am not gobsmacked by Obama; I merely seek to understand. In pursuit of this understanding, I am reading news articles and blogs but I am not necessarily persuaded by assertions of fact without accompanying evidence.
Craig R. Harmon (80c36c) — 6/29/2009 @ 11:53 pmJCurtis, 112, thank you. I found the Honduran Constitution independently but thanks for the link anyway. Unfortunately, my Spanish sucks and it’s a rather long document.
Craig R. Harmon (80c36c) — 6/30/2009 @ 12:02 amI am in no way defending Zaleya’s actions which appear to be clearly unconstitutional and violate Honduran law.
Yes you are.
His successor was appointed from the Honduran Congress, the very body you suggest (with absolutely nothing to back it up) should have removed him. His successor is from the same party as the exiled criminal ex-president. If the Congress of Honduras had no intention of removing him, then why approve his successor?
You write:
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.
and
I am no Obamabot nor a lefty; just troubled.
Wrong.
Using Obama’s position as a starting point, and then working backwards to piece together disparate bits of information to support that position is a logical fallacy known as Appeal to Consequences of a Belief. The consequences in question are the consequences that stem from the belief.
In short, the belief is that Obama must be right. To continue to believe that Obmam must be right you must ignore huge, glaring inconsistencies, such as the written Honduran Constitution, the resignation of many high ranking government officials in protest of Zaleya, the printing of the ballots in Venezuela, among other things.
Again, you write: I am not necessarily persuaded by assertions of fact without accompanying evidence.
You seem to accept Obama’s assertion of fact at face value.
That is exactly what Obamabots do.
Apogee (e2dc9b) — 6/30/2009 @ 12:04 amBarack Obama is serving Hugo Chavez very very well. Good dog. Nice dog.
happyfeet (e8d590) — 6/30/2009 @ 12:05 am#109 — Comment by Craig R. Harmon — 6/29/2009 @ 11:21 pm
The president removes the joint chief on one day and the Supreme Court orders him restored on the next? Separation of powers, anyone? I think that is the biggest question I have.
Well, look at it this way; it beats the old fashion coup-methodology of a bullet to the head, followed by the execution of “rebels”.
(A private flight to Costa Rica — it’s paradise down there. Shoot, I wish I could be so lucky.)
It may not be perfect, but it appears the Supreme Court, Congress and the AG were in large agreement. Not to mention several military officers who resigned. Nobody was killed.
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.
Not sure if Honduras has a full and perfect set of laws (and highly doubtful that President Obama would have detailed knowledge of them). The Honduras constitution is less than 50 years-old. Needs more curing time perhaps, but overall, looks like it is intact, if not perfect.
The order of succession has been obeyed and the new president pledges that he will serve out Zalaya’s original term, then hold free elections, as scheduled.
As for our President; if it smells leftist — he’s jumps in immediately, without looking. If it smacks of Freedom and Liberty, get back to him next week.
Like your question though, quite logical (I should have known you were not an Obamabot or lefty).
Pons Asinorum (d1c25d) — 6/30/2009 @ 12:12 amI notice this from article , section 20 of the Honduran Constitution:
As I read that, Congress is empowered to adjudge the administration of the Executive Office, among others. That doesn’t mean, I suppose, that the Supreme Court cannot order the military to act without the legislative body removing the President and it doesn’t mean that the Attorney General cannot arrest the president. It does raise the separation of powers question, though. Not that I’ve read the entire Constitution. I’m skimming my way through it to try to find the articles that discuss the removal of the president. I’m still working. If I am misreading the above, perhaps someone whose Spanish is better than mine (it would almost have to be) would clarify it.
Craig R. Harmon (80c36c) — 6/30/2009 @ 12:12 amCraig – I think I’m getting it now. What you’re looking for isn’t full and perfect compliance with Honduran law and Constitution, it’s evidence – any evidence – that could be used to argue that the compliance wasn’t perfect.
Yet, you have the simultaneous capability of overlooking various imperfections in the actions of Zaleya. Such as:
1) storming the military center to forcibly take the ballots against the ruling by the supreme court. Why do that when he could have gone to the friendly ‘congress’ to appeal the decision of the Supreme Court? But no, rather than appealing to ‘checks and balances’ as you would like, he organizes a mob to attack and forcibly remove ballots.
2) Running for another term. Hey, there’s one little one you sort of glossed over. It’s unarguably illegal for him to run again. If he’s so all fired up to improve the country, and the people want him so badly, why not effect change from outside the Presidency? Why does he have to change the law to keep himself in power?
Why not face the charges, rather than retreat to Costa Rica and then claim he never signed the document? Can’t organize a real coup if you’re forced to argue your point?
One other thing.
I’m not your bitch, so stop barking orders. You want a translation, find someone yourself. You don’t want the truth of this matter, you want a technicality, and it shows.
Apogee (e2dc9b) — 6/30/2009 @ 12:16 amNo I am not defending Zabeyda’s actions. I am questioning the actions by which Zabeyda was removed from office. Those two are in no way the same things.
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.
Craig R. Harmon (80c36c) — 6/30/2009 @ 12:21 amNo, not even remotely true. For example, in comment 109 I wrote:
Again, wondering about the legality of the way Zabeyda was removed is entirely separate from my conviction that Zabeyda’s actions were indefensibly wrong, illegal and unconstitutional…and I am convinced of that. However, Zabeyda’s indefensible actions does not warrant his removal by means that are less than legal.
Craig R. Harmon (80c36c) — 6/30/2009 @ 12:26 am#109 — Comment by Craig R. Harmon — 6/29/2009 @ 11:21 pm
The president removes the joint chief on one day and the Supreme Court orders him restored on the next? Separation of powers, anyone? I think that is the biggest question I have.
Well, look at it this way; it beats the old fashion coup-methodology of a bullet to the head, followed by the execution of “rebels”.
(A private flight to Costa Rica — it’s paradise down there. Shoot, I wish I could be so lucky.)
It may not be perfect, but it appears the Supreme Court, Congress and the AG were in large agreement. Not to mention several military officers who resigned. Nobody was killed.
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.
Not sure if Honduras has a full and perfect set of laws (and highly doubtful that President Obama would have detailed knowledge of them). The Honduras constitution is less than 50 years-old. Needs more curing time perhaps, but overall, looks like it is intact, if not perfect.
The order of succession has been obeyed and the new president pledges that he will serve out Zalaya’s original term, then hold free elections, as scheduled.
As for our President; if it smells leftist — he’s jumps in immediately, without looking. If it smacks of Freedom and Liberty, get back to him next week. He is meaningless when it comes to issues of principle or honest thought.
Pons Asinorum (d1c25d) — 6/30/2009 @ 12:34 amSheesh. Zaleya, not Zabeyda. It’s getting late. Anyway, some of my correspondents appear more intent upon twisting my comments than in actually answering my questions. Before retiring, let me simply state this:
Zaleya’s actions were wrong. It is clear that they were unconstitutional. I have no doubt at all that his actions were illegal, even not knowing what Honduran law is. No country whose laws were not directly dictated by a dictator would allow Zaleya’s actions. Zaleya should have been removed. I’m merely wondering about the legality of how he was removed. I stand accused of assuming that how he was removed was wrong. Not so. Those who accuse me of this stand hereby accused of assuming that how he was removed was in accordance with Honduran law and Constitution although no one here has demonstrated even a passing knowledge of Honduran law or Constitution. In other words, they are taking someone else’s word for it that Obama and Clinton are wrong without any corroborating evidence whatsoever, so far as I can ascertain.
With that, I’m going to bed.
Craig R. Harmon (80c36c) — 6/30/2009 @ 12:34 amAnd again, I am not taking Obama’s and Clinton’s word for it that Obama and Clinton are correct. I am seeking evidence that would either corroborate the correctness or incorrectness of their position.
Good night, all.
Craig R. Harmon (80c36c) — 6/30/2009 @ 12:38 amI merely find it unlikely that Obama would declare Zabeyda’s removal to be illegal if he had no basis for his declaration.
And if it ends up that our resident ‘Constitutionals Scholar’ CIC issued a completely baseless declaration? Any specifics from his Administration as to what, exactly a sovereign country should have done regarding the removal of a President conducting illegal affairs? I see no specifics. What, no Spanish speakers in the Administration? Or is ‘transparency’ no longer a buzzword?
It’s also quite galling given that the transition was effectively non-violent, unlike Iran, where the Idiot in Chief sat on his hands while people died and said nothing, afraid to ‘meddle’. Why didn’t Obama ask for clarity, as you seem to be asking? Instead, without citing specifics, Obama declared that Zabeyda was ‘still the President of Honduras’. What’s the rush with this particular situation? Is Chavez cracking the whip? How about asking some questions first?
Not when you have socialist themed scams to push. Questions are bad for con men. Take our recent ‘rush’ passing of the unread Cap and Trade. Hurry hurry. No time to read.
You write:
I am not defending Zabeyda’s actions.
You’re also not questioning them at all.
You must take Zabeyda’s actions into account if you are to question Zabeyda’s removal. They are interrelated, and ignoring his actions is excusing them.
You seem to completely dismiss the citations of the Honduran Constitution that are available regarding the absolute illegality of extending the Presidential term, while searching for some guidance as to how exactly he must be removed.
Was he breaking the law? Yes. Is his successor going to face elections? Yes.
Are you working hard to find a technicality? Yes.
Apogee (e2dc9b) — 6/30/2009 @ 12:50 amSheesh myself. I thought Zaleya was right, but copied it unthinkingly from above.
Propagation of error. Something to think about.
Apogee (e2dc9b) — 6/30/2009 @ 12:54 amOne other thing, you write:
However, Zabeyda’s indefensible actions does not warrant his removal by means that are less than legal.
So, even though his actions are ‘indefensible’ (and illegal), you feel the need to presume (without any specific proof) that his removal was by means that are less than legal?
Which brings up the next point – Are you arguing, as Obama is, that Zaleya should be reinstated as the President of Honduras, even though his actions are ‘indefensible’?
I find that idea most distasteful. His successor will face elections within the year – and cannot run again due to the existing law.
Obama’s and Clinton’s calls to reinstate Zaleya are patently aimed at pleasing Castro, Chavez and the rest of the dictators (both real and wannabee) in South America.
Apogee (e2dc9b) — 6/30/2009 @ 1:18 amThe problem with the
davod (bce08f) — 6/30/2009 @ 1:25 amOne’sMouth’s comments is Zalaya is appearing at the UN today. He has the backing of the USA. Will the US get the Security Council to sanction Honduras. Will this lead to Venezualan and Cuban peacekeepers in Honduras?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.
Craig, my sense of it is that Obama is not any more familiar with Honduran constitutional law than anyone else. He just sees a leftist leader with a large following (there were mass protests by his supporters after his ouster), who was removed by guys with uniforms and guns. It just too neatly fits the “lawless right-wing juntas” template with which leftists have always viewed Latin America.
Mars vs Hollywood (f062b9) — 6/30/2009 @ 2:24 amTesting. This is a test.
Dr. K (4a5aac) — 6/30/2009 @ 2:40 amCraig Harmon,
Zelaya removed the two highest Military Commanders for ignoring an ILLEGAL EO.
It was illegal b/c Congress had said so and the Supreme Court agreed. Zelaya then decided to use the Military to do as he wished.
The breach of Democratic protocol is Zelaya, not the military, courts or congress.
This response by Obama is a head scratcher at best.
HeavenSent (1e97ff) — 6/30/2009 @ 4:43 amFolks, apparently you do not recall the last time Senor Harmon visited. This is what he does. Alphie, but verbose. DSCSA without the mental problems. He grabs on to a tangential detail, and argues the holy hell out of it. Nothing you said was going to teach him.
JD (ca6b04) — 6/30/2009 @ 5:24 amIn terms that the left can understand, this would roughly be the equivalent of Barack Obama supporting Richard Nixon, if Nixon had decided to defy both Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court after being ordered to give up the Oval Office tapes during the Watergate scandal.
Of course, if you want to be really cynical, Obama and his crew might think Zelaya’s actions aren’t really such a bad idea, especially if Republicans were to regain one or both houses of Congress between 2010 and (hopefully not, but possibly) 2014.
John (692c5c) — 6/30/2009 @ 7:16 amI agree – Craig is doing the hallowed lefty trolling technique of “just asking questions,” which of course are all assumptive and in fact do begin with the premise that they’ve believed all along. No interest in actually “learning” anything – just more cloaking of their real intents and purposes, which is the disrupting of threads more to their own biased viewpoints.
Dmac (f7884d) — 6/30/2009 @ 7:28 amjump! says Hugo
how high? says Barack
it is very shameful what the Barack Obama is doing in our little country’s name
happyfeet (e8d590) — 6/30/2009 @ 7:36 am“Suppose that when Chief Justice Taney had ordered Merryman released and Lincoln refused the order, Taney had ordered Lincoln deposed by the military of the United States — and further suppose, contrary to historical fact, the military would have obeyed the Chief Justice’s order. Would this have been legal? Would that not have constituted an illegal coup? Would not Lincoln have remained the democratically elected President of the United States in spite of his ouster — de jure, of course, if not de facto?
What kind of rank jingoism is this?
SteveG (c99c5c) — 6/30/2009 @ 7:50 amWe are talking about Honduras, and this excerpt above is a nice walk down the memory lane of US history
That limpwristed World Bank fascist Robert Zoellick, who is punishing Honduras for standing up to Barack Obama mentor Hugo Chavez, is on leave from that nasty dirty socialist Inter-American Dialogue cabal.
happyfeet (71f55e) — 6/30/2009 @ 9:36 amIf this new government can last, then it is up to those of us who stand against leftist totalitarian dictators to do what we can to help it. Perhaps Hot Air or someone can compile a list of products made in Honduras that we can buy to show our support.
JVW (a8c610) — 6/30/2009 @ 10:14 amCoffee I know for sure. I would bet chocolate is too much to hope for.
happyfeet (71f55e) — 6/30/2009 @ 10:20 amMy understanding is the new government only has to make it for six months and then there will be new elections and if Hugo Chavez wants to run a different candidate at that time then nothing’s stopping him I don’t think.
happyfeet (71f55e) — 6/30/2009 @ 10:22 amChavez actually has another option. He can command President Obama to use his vast knowledge of Honduran law and try to reinstate Zelaya, or force Obama to do it the old-fashion way with covert ops — I mean this (overthrowing the Honduran Constitution) being a just cause and all.
(covert operation should be a piece of cake with all the missing billions from the “stimulus plan” floating around; heck, this could be good practice.)
Pons Asinorum (d1c25d) — 6/30/2009 @ 10:33 amCraig admits he is wrong about much and not sure about the rest.
He asks that we research the laws in Hondurus to prove something that seems pretty obvious. He says that Obama’s word on Honduran law is evidence, but can’t actually cite the law he’s talking about.
Craig, this isn’t funny. People will die over this before it’s over. The internet is actually a serious thing, despite the jokes about arguing over it. If you really wanted to ask questions about Honduras law, you wouldn’t come to a conservative blog to do so. You came here to attempt to cover up Obama’s monstrous statement.
I ask you: cite the law that was broken. Show me where Obama cites the law that was broken. As far as I can tell, the law is clear that this president is barred from public service for ten years. And Obama is supporting him against the law. This is an attempt to force socialism on horrified people who deserve better from the USA.
Juan (c7e552) — 6/30/2009 @ 11:31 amor force Obama to do it the old-fashion way with covert ops
Just one question for you, Pons – what covert ops? After Clinton neutered the CIA, we have almost nothing on the ground to deploy such an action. As we’ve seen with the Iranian crisis, our intelligence agencies are pathetic and gonad -less to affect any meaningful outcomes.
Dmac (f7884d) — 6/30/2009 @ 1:27 pm“… what covert ops…”
Well, he could always send Valerie!
AD - RtR/OS! (e2c6d2) — 6/30/2009 @ 2:07 pm…and Joe Blow, too.
Dmac (f7884d) — 6/30/2009 @ 3:32 pmComment by Dmac — 6/30/2009 @ 1:27 pm
Just one question for you, Pons – what covert ops?
ACORN, Missouri Truth Squads, new Black Panthers… never said they had to be pro-American, or even used for pro-American causes.
😉
Just kidding Dmac, your point is well made. I was just being facetious at 10:33 am and now.
Pons Asinorum (d1c25d) — 6/30/2009 @ 4:08 pmJoe and Valerie are dead to Obama. They supported Hillary.
daleyrocks (718861) — 6/30/2009 @ 4:30 pmPons assinorum,
Thank you for your civility, a commodity that seems to be in short supply around these parts. You wrote,
So you appear to be conceding that this was a coup — a newer, kinder and gentler methodology as coups go, upon which we can all agree — a bloodless coup but a coup nonetheless rather than a lawful succession of power. Is that what you are saying? I don’t want to misinterpret what you wrote so please correct me if I’m misinterpreting here. I also get the sense that you believe that what occurred here was, in all likelihood, the best that could be expected or hoped for under the circumstances. That may be true, I don’t know, but it does at least seem to concede Obama’s point: that it was not a legal succession of power.
Again, I am not arguing that Zaleya should not have been removed. Zaleya gave ample cause for removal. I’m not arguing that Zaleya ought to be restored to power until a more regular procedure for his removal be followed. All I’m saying is that this seems to me to have been a highly irregular sort of removal from office of a president who had been, so far as I know, elected by democratic elections for a term of office that had not yet expired by the terms of the Constitution. It is these irregularities that cause me to suspect that Zaleya’s removal from office was not strictly legal.
Have I proof? Of course not. Could his removal have been entirely according to procedures set out in the Constitution and statutes of Honduras? Sure, could be. It just seems fishy to me.
I’d like to address a point someone raised, namely the supposed unlikelihood that Obama would be any more familiar with the Constitution and laws governing removal of a president in Honduras than am I or than are any of the others commenting here. My response is that there are any number of ways that The President of the United States might familiarize himself with this information. Have we not consular diplomats from Honduras from whom Obama might inform himself of these facts? Have we not present and past consular diplomats from the US who are serving or have served in Honduras whose service in that country might have led them to a familiarity with Honduran laws and Constitution and whose thoughts on the matter would be available to the president on short notice? Are there not experts in Honduran Constitution and laws in Honduras or elsewhere that a president of the US might call upon for such information? Surely there are.
For these reasons, I think it quite likely that president Obama is more familiar with Honduran law and its Constitution on this matter than anyone here simply because he can gain access to such information much more easily than any blogger who is not, himself or herself, an expert in Honduran law. Heck. Few here have even shown an interest in the questions I raised, other than to ridicule them and me for asking them. Contrariwise, surely Obama, even if only in the interest of helping out a fellow lefty, would, I would think, be highly motivated to discover whether this were a legal or illegal succession.
No, I don’t know that Obama did any of that. His statement and Clintons’ may indeed be knee-jerk, uninformed propaganda in service of restoring a leftist president to power but that is hardly the only or, I think, a likely explanation for their statements.
Anyway, thanks again for giving thought to my queries and responding in such a measured, thoughtful manner. I appreciate it.
Craig R. Harmon (6c06d9) — 6/30/2009 @ 6:39 pmSorry, my bad. That should have been addressed to Pons Asinorum. Sorry for the misspelling.
Craig R. Harmon (6c06d9) — 6/30/2009 @ 6:58 pmHarmon,
Have you been able to uncover which law Honduras broke in removing Zelaya yet or are you still searching for that?
jcurtis (14bf32) — 6/30/2009 @ 7:53 pma bloodless coup but a coup nonetheless rather than a lawful succession of power.
Which was forced on the Congress of Honduras by the unlawful actions of the president who was trying to subvert the constitution. He had ballots for an illegal referendum printed in Venezuela. He appears to be an advocate, which you sound like a supporter of, the principle of “one man, one vote, one time.”
Obama must be proud of his stance alongside Chavez, Castro and Ortega.
Mike K (2cf494) — 6/30/2009 @ 7:58 pmObama must be proud of his stance alongside Chavez, Castro and Ortega.
…let’s not forget the UN, too.
Dana (8d88ef) — 6/30/2009 @ 8:08 pmCraig – Are you aware of what kind of protests the U.S. made about Zelaya’s proposed unconstitutional referendum before the events of this past weekend or would any such protests have been considered interference?
Does it send the appropriate signal for the U.S. to co-sponsor a U.N. resolution to restore this Chavez-backed thug to power in Honduras after examining the events which have occurred? What kind of solution does that provide other than appeasing the socialist thug bloc in South America as opposed to the more pro-America bloc? Is Obama just trying to please too many people at the same time? Al Jazeera ripped him today over his slow response to condemning the Mad Mullahs in Iran.
daleyrocks (718861) — 6/30/2009 @ 8:33 pmHarmon – So you appear to be conceding that this was a coup
It is you who appears to want to push this idea to protect Obama’s obscenities.
Few here have even shown an interest in the questions I raised, other than to ridicule them and me for asking them.
You don’t raise questions, you spew BS. “It seems fishy”, “I don’t know”, “Have I proof?”
Yours is the lowest kind of bullshit. The whispering campaign of assertions in support of Obama disguised as ‘thoughts’ and ‘feelings’ and ‘observations’ of things you can’t back up.
No one is arguing Zaleya’s actions were acceptable, yet his actions are what is known. You concentrate on ‘possibilities’ of what is not known, yet all your possibilities concern a very narrow description of possible illegal actions on the part of the Honduran Congress, Military and Supreme Court.
Why is the ‘possibility’ of an allegiance between Obama, Castro, Chavez and the other leftists not explored? Especially since these groups seem to be aligned together against Honduras at this point. You know just as little about that ‘possibility’, but choose not to bring it up. Is the ‘possibility’ of Obama wanting to actually supress democracy in Central America in order to strengthen leftist alliances outside of your ‘possibility’ list? Why no, ‘fishy’ feelings or ‘questions’ about Obama? ‘Fishy’ feelings would be in order, since Obama apparently gave no specifics regarding the ‘illegal’ actions of the rest of the Honduran Government. That’s a pretty good question.
Speaking of answering questions – here’s a few for you that I’ve already asked.
1) Since you use Argument from Authority in an attempt to legitimize Obama’s labeling of the Honduran situation ‘illegal’ (he knows more than we do), please explain why Obama didn’t mention any specifics regarding the removal (since you believe that he has access to this knowledge). The world knows that the assertion would have been strengthened by a specific reference to the ‘illegal’ actions, rather than call into question Obama’s allegiance to leftist dictatorships.
You have this exactly backwards. Rather than question why Obama wouldn’t give details to his ‘illegal’ assertion, you instead assume that his assertion was correct and question why Zaleya was removed, even though you fully accept that Zaleya’s actions were illegal and that he should be removed.
2) Since, unlike Iran, there was no bloodshed, why would Obama immediately jump to label this occurrence ‘illegal’? Why the rush? Can’t Obama let the Hondurans settle their own affairs without demanding the reinstatement of a peacefully removed President that acted contrary to the Honduran Constitution?
I look forward to your answers.
Apogee (e2dc9b) — 6/30/2009 @ 8:48 pmReally? Did you read my comment at 148 where I wrote:
Just how does that sound like I am a supporter of “one man, one vote, one time?”
No. I have, however, found evidence that the Honduran Congress did, in fact, carry out something like an impeachment, removing Zelaya and naming his temporary successor. This was really what I thought should have been done in my earlier comments. Given this, I have to say that it is now my opinion that Zelaya was properly removed as president of Honduras for more than ample cause.
Since I am not competent to comment on Honduran law and Constitution (as my Spanish sucks and I don’t have access to Honduran law beyond its Constitution), I’m fully satisfied that Zelaya was properly removed from office. I wasn’t aware that the Congress had acted. I stated long ago in the earlier comments that I thought he should have been removed by the Honduran Congress.
Craig R. Harmon (6c06d9) — 6/30/2009 @ 9:53 pm#148 — Comment by Craig R. Harmon — 6/30/2009 @ 6:39 pm
Again, I am not arguing that Zaleya should not have been removed. Zaleya gave ample cause for removal.
On that we agree.
As far as Honduras law is concerned — and we both concede not to be experts — the only law that was broken (as determined by the Honduras Supreme Court, which IS an expert of Honduras law) was by the former president, Zelaya.
On the rest, I speak only for myself.
Written words on paper, such as a constitution, are only important if they stand for the people, not on them. Not sure if the exact process was prescribed or followed, but it does not matter to men of conscience and honor, as there are codes of conduct far more important than written words.
I see things in context of good versus evil (just a simple guy).
Today the good guys won.
–
So you appear to be conceding that this was a coup — a newer, kinder and gentler methodology as coups go, upon which we can all agree — a bloodless coup but a coup nonetheless rather than a lawful succession of power. Is that what you are saying?
On the coup remark, I was trying (and failing) to be funny, not factual (funny is not my strong suit).
–
For these reasons, I think it quite likely that president Obama is more familiar with Honduran law and its Constitution on this matter than anyone here simply because he can gain access to such information much more easily than any blogger who is not, himself or herself, an expert in Honduran law.
As for how knowledgeable he is, we have only speculation (where are his transcripts from his law school — he might be a legal genius or dunce, the speculation could go either way). His knowledge of Honduran law is even more speculative — whereas the expert knowledge of Honduras law is factually in possession by the Honduras Supreme Court (zero speculation).
More importantly, President Obama either stands for the principles of Freedom and Liberty, or he does not. In Word and Deed, he has failed here and abroad — it is not in his heart.
–
His statement and Clintons’ may indeed be knee-jerk, uninformed propaganda in service of restoring a leftist president to power but that is hardly the only or, I think, a likely explanation for their statements.
I wish, I wish, I wish I could believe that, but in my humble opinion President Obama’s actions have completely eroded any trust in him (of course, I had almost zero trust in him during the election, but there was a tiny spark upon his election, that maybe I was wrong — that spark died within a hundred days).
–
Few here have even shown an interest in the questions I raised, other than to ridicule them and me for asking them.
Not fair, as only a handful of commenters are engaged at any one moment. Seems to me you have had a large percentage of responses (from when you first posted in this thread) and even had some research done on your behalf.
–
Thank you for your civility, a commodity that seems to be in short supply around these parts.
I saw no name-calling or insults, so happy to reciprocate. However, I am sort-of new here (started blogging during the election), and have come to trust the opinions of several regulars, especially JD and Apogee. They are among the two most civil, funny, and thought-provoking commenter’s here (of course, I would not want to be on their bad side, as they have very sharp wits).
Not sure what has transpired in the past, but you and I have a blank slate, so let’s proceed cautiously.
Who knows, we may all end up in a foxhole together, fighting a president who refuses to give-up power when his term ends. 😉 (yeah I know; funny is not my strong suit, but I keep trying)
Pons Asinorum (5919fb) — 6/30/2009 @ 9:58 pmIf Obama does manage to get his despot reinstalled, what does Obama propose be done about the Honduran Constitution? Will it mean that Zalaya can refuse to obey everything in the constitution or just article 239 which seems to state ( and I would have thought the Honduran Supreme Court would be the relevant arbiter on interpreting that )that even proposing changing the term limit for the executive gets you booted from office and unable to run again for ten years?
Even scarier would be if the UN declared the Honduran Constitution null and void or amended it to their liking. The obvious question would be — if they can do it to Honduras, why couldn’t they do it to the US Constitution? If Obama would endorse that UN decision, how could he object to a UN created amendment to the US Constitution?
jcurtis (14bf32) — 6/30/2009 @ 10:00 pmHey guys, I think it is spelled Zelaya.
Pons Asinorum (5919fb) — 6/30/2009 @ 10:01 pm#155 — Comment by Craig R. Harmon — 6/30/2009 @ 9:53 pm
I have, however, found evidence that the Honduran Congress did, in fact, carry out something like an impeachment, removing Zelaya and naming his temporary successor.
I think that happened after Zelaya’s ouster. To me, it’s not important, but thought you might be interested.
Pons Asinorum (5919fb) — 6/30/2009 @ 10:15 pmAnd now we have to wait and wait and wait while Hugo Chavez decides his next move. For Barack Obama it’s the waiting that’s the hardest part I think.
happyfeet (e8d590) — 6/30/2009 @ 10:15 pmThe Honduran Congress’ unanimous condemnation of dirty socialist Venezuelan catspaw muppets is very compelling even if it’s a tad retrospective I think.
happyfeet (e8d590) — 6/30/2009 @ 10:18 pmI think it quite likely that president Obama is more familiar with Honduran law and its Constitution on this matter than anyone here
I bet if all the layers of this controversy were removed, and a bright light focused on what makes Obama tick, you’d discover that giving him the benefit of the doubt regarding Honduras is analogous to claiming he remained a close, dear friend of Jeremiah Wright, and chose him to be a prominent advisor in his campaign right up until the bitter end, because he knew Wright’s thinking better than anyone else (ie, the reverend really wasn’t an an ultra-liberal flake), better than any of us outsiders.
Mark (411533) — 6/30/2009 @ 10:19 pmComment by happyfeet — 6/30/2009 @ 10:18 pm
You are killin’ me Happyfeet! LOL
Quit your day job. You have to consider a stand-up routine.
Pons Asinorum (5919fb) — 6/30/2009 @ 10:26 pm…a bright light focused on what makes Obama tick…
Great phrase, Mark. I had to read your comment a few times — really enjoyed it. Thanks
Pons Asinorum (5919fb) — 6/30/2009 @ 10:50 pm#157 — Comment by jcurtis — 6/30/2009 @ 10:00 pm
Then, Jay Curtis, I think the wheels will have come off.
Time for the ignorant masses to rise, join us? 😉
Pons Asinorum (5919fb) — 6/30/2009 @ 10:52 pm“I think it quite likely that president Obama is more familiar with Honduran law and its Constitution on this matter than anyone here”
A stunning statement. Why in the world would anyone believe this? Obama isn’t even up to speed on US law most of the time. When would the US President have any time to learn more about this stuff than you or me? He has less time, not more, and he’s shown a strong willingness to make up his own facts.
Obama didn’t cite any law or provide any rationale because he simply has none. But to his sycophants who place partisanship over basic human rights… those people who will soon have blood on their hands for supporting this… Obama is somehow an expert. On everything. Automatically. It’s positively North Korean.
Juan (113d54) — 6/30/2009 @ 10:53 pmJuan, to be fair, the full sentence was:
And that came after this paragraph:
See #148 — Comment by Craig R. Harmon — 6/30/2009 @ 6:39 pm
Pons Asinorum (5919fb) — 6/30/2009 @ 11:10 pmWell, in any case, I think it was Congresses place to actually remove Zelaya from office. They’ve done that now, even if that action was concluded after Zelaya was sent into exile. I’d have preferred that Zelaya’s exile would have occurred after Congress voted on his removal, just for form’s sake, but what was done was done. Anyway, I think I’ll quit on this topic. I’m satisfied with the result and with the exception of what I just noted, satisfied with the means.
I do think it would be helpful if Obama/Clinton would clarify their basis for calling the removal illegal. Heck, it’s entirely possible that they know more about Honduran law than I do (they would almost have to) and, if so, they should cite chapter and verse on the law(s) that was(/were) broken.
Craig R. Harmon (6c06d9) — 6/30/2009 @ 11:12 pmOh, well craig would have preferred tyants be deposed in some other way.
I would too, actually. Why tyrants are allowed to live and flee countries is completely beyond me.
Juan (113d54) — 6/30/2009 @ 11:15 pmPons, I found that highly amusing too. I guess it’s some kind of effort to make discussion as difficult as possible? At any rate, Dear Leader Obama is obviously no expert on the law of Honduras and hasn’t tried to be an expert on anything significant.
His own reasoning for his statements was not that the law said this or that, but that he didn’t want to appear to have facilitated the ouster himself. It was really that simple.
Juan (113d54) — 6/30/2009 @ 11:17 pmOkay, next crisis. My money is on North Korea. That funky little ship just changed course…
‘night
Pons Asinorum (5919fb) — 6/30/2009 @ 11:23 pmNo. Actually, I think he was properly deposed, namely, by the Honduran Congress. This was the manner I thought from the beginning that he should have been deposed. If the time-line was not to my complete liking, the way in which he was removed exactly matched my preference.
Craig R. Harmon (6c06d9) — 6/30/2009 @ 11:26 pmI did not assume that Obama’s assertion was correct. I wondered, due to my imperfect knowledge of all that was done in removing Zelaya from office and forcing him into exile, specifically, I was not aware of the Congress’s vote to remove Zelaya (the very think I thought should properly have been done), whether the removal might not have circumvented Honduran law and stated my reasons for my suspicions.
I did not question why Zelaya was removed. You are misstating my comments. I explained that, Zelaya having given ample cause for his removal from office did not, in and of itself, make the means used legal. The cause for removal and the means of removal I saw as separate issues. I still think they are.
Craig R. Harmon (6c06d9) — 6/30/2009 @ 11:42 pmOne has to suspect that, in the eyes of those such as Leviticus and Craig Harmon and President Obama, the Australian Governor-General’s proroguing of the Australian Parliament on November 11, 1975, is probably just another illegal right-wing coup … after all, just because it followed the Australian Constitution cannot mean that it was legal, now, can it ?
Alasdair (6b086e) — 7/1/2009 @ 12:12 amCraig Harmon – I was not aware of the Congress’s vote to remove Zelaya
I specifically raised this point to you at Comment by Apogee — 6/30/2009 @ 12:04 am. His successor was appointed by the Honduran Congress, something that would be impossible to do without first acknowledging and authorizing the removal of Zelaya.
We agree that he was properly deposed. Who doesn’t?
Oh, that’s right, Obama, who declared Zelaya’s removal not just ‘troubling’, but illegal.
Care to wonder why he made that assertion? How about why he made such a strong statement so quickly? And why he didn’t back it up?
Seems harder and harder today to get people to wonder about some pretty obvious questions. Questions that point to more problems.
The problem is not solved. The problem is not over.
Apogee (e2dc9b) — 7/1/2009 @ 12:17 amApogee 175,
Yes, you did. I fear that the implications of that point did not sink in at the time.
That’s hard to say, not being privy to the president’s motivations. The answer that seemed most likely to me was that he knew something about Honduran law, derived perhaps from a source such as I suggested above, that I did not which led him to believe that legal procedure had not been followed. I still think that possible. As I said, he has sources ready to hand from whom to obtain this information, sources to which I have no access. I’ve already said that I would like him to state specifically what law he thinks was not followed — although, if any, I suspect it might have to do with his being forced into exile before Congress had actually voted to remove him from office. Obviously, I don’t know if that’s the case but it seems a likely possibility.
I’ve stated that I am satisfied with the removal, now that I know that the Congress had voted to remove Zelaya but that doesn’t mean that I’m convinced that there were no legal irregularities. After all, the president of a country being rousted from bed and shuffled off to
BuffaloCosta Rica seems an unlikely legal procedure regardless of whether the Supreme Court authorized it. Remember, the Congress had not yet actually removed Zelaya at that point.Other possible reasons? This one:
There are reasonable explanations for declaring the thing illegal beyond simply standing firmly behind a leftist ruler.
Craig R. Harmon (6c06d9) — 7/1/2009 @ 1:39 amI think I favor Zelaya’s return to Honduras. It will allow him to be charged, face his accusers, defend himself against the charges, air issues of the legality and constitutionality of his forced exile without impeachment and trial and so forth. Usually, after all, the punishment for one’s illegal behavior follows legal proceedings, it does not precede them.
Craig R. Harmon (6c06d9) — 7/1/2009 @ 2:01 amRule of law in Honduras has been raised by several in this comment thread. My comment 177 would be what I consider to be full rule of law in Honduras.
Craig R. Harmon (6c06d9) — 7/1/2009 @ 2:03 amCraig, thanks for sharing your thoughts with us. All of them, apparently.
carlitos (84409d) — 7/1/2009 @ 4:33 amThe Barack Obama has already judged Honduras and found it insufficiently socialist to where when he sees his mentor Mr. Chavez he’s gonna be all damn that sucks about how our dirty socialist buddy in Honduras got his ass kicked I was totally against that you know. That’s bullshit is what it is Mr. Hugo. Ok so what do you want me to do to fick it?
Yes sir, Mr. Hugo.
happyfeet (e8d590) — 7/1/2009 @ 6:17 amMeanwhile, Obama is seeking to engage Brazil more deeply, reportedly floating the appointment of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, Brazil’s leftist president, as head of the World Bank. The move would break the tradition of nominating an American to the post and could bolster support for Washington-based multilateral institutions while blunting Chávez’s attempts to use oil proceeds to create his own rival institutions.
Yay! Yummy socialisms!! How many licks does it take, Baracky?
It’s super neat how putting a dirty Brazilian socialist in charge of the World Bank will stop Mr. Hugo from spending his filthy oil money to make more socialisms.
yes yes that’s very exciting but how does that work exactly?
Who cares!!!
Change!!
happyfeet (e8d590) — 7/1/2009 @ 6:25 amI think Barcky is an extra special expert on everything and our default position should not be calling Teh One and Craig Harmon dirty little socialists.
JD (e1e93d) — 7/1/2009 @ 7:28 amYou guys just don’t care about how hard it is to have fresh fruit on the table.
nk (218382) — 7/1/2009 @ 7:31 amCraig
The concept of presumption of innocence shows again that you are viewing this through a US lens.
SteveG (c99c5c) — 7/1/2009 @ 7:37 amTravel abroad somewhere and commit some sort of crime… you will be presumed guilty and dealt with accordingly. Your legal rights will vary from country to country and sometimes a magistrate will simply take the word of the police or other authorities and sentence you on the spot.
Wherever I have travvled in the world I have seen Americans (And Aussie and British) flabbergasted that they have no rights when arrested in the developing world. You have the right to go to jail. the rules can be bent with a large fine in lieu of jail time since it offers the municipal authorities to buld up their cash reserves.
#176 — Comment by Craig R. Harmon — 7/1/2009 @ 1:39 am
Craig, of particular interest was the passage that you cited:
This is most disturbing.
The President of the United States should not dance to the fiddle of a dictator. I mentioned it here, earlier in this thread.
He needed to stand for the Principles upon which we were founded; upon which we have struggled and sacrificed ever since; upon which the whole world depends and expects.
Between the President’s apologies made repeatedly on international soils, his lack of “deep concern” for Iran (even during the bloodshed of Iranian protesters — for 11 days!), and his “deep concern” for Zelaya’s presidency — and now his need to dance to Chavez’s fiddle; this man does not know what he is doing (or worse, he does).
President Obama was supposed to be an expert speaker. Wish he would put that talent to work for the our Country rather than for Chavez and Zelaya.
Pons Asinorum (5919fb) — 7/1/2009 @ 11:06 amSteve,
You are right but I have little choice since I don’t have access to the laws and Constitution of Honduras. What I am saying is what legal process ought to look like in a constitutional, democratic republic, not necessarily what it looks like in practice. This is what I mean. If Hondurans wish their government’s acts to gain legitimacy, then they need to be conducted publicly and deliberately. Publicly because exposing the process to the light of day allows all to see what is happening and make judgment for themselves about the process, whether it respects a defendant’s rights to face accusers, challenge the charges and evidence and testimony against him — that his rights are being protected. Deliberately so that the world sees that the government’s case is sound and legal. The Clinton impeachment took forever compared to this, which appears to have taken hours. The Clinton impeachment was painfully public compared to this, where some news sources from Honduras have been shut down and explanations are made after the fact.
I believe you when you describe the legal process in other lands. The only other country in which I’ve lived was Canada and I was never entangled with their legal system. My point is to describe what I think a country’s government must do if it wishes to be viewed as legitimate by the rest of the world. In my opinion, this wasn’t it. I approve of Zelaya’s removal and it does appear that the proper branch of government did vote to remove Zelaya (but only after his removal from the country) so I am satisfied but that doesn’t necessarily translate to the appearance of legitimacy in the eyes of the world. There has been little in the way of decent respect to the opinions of mankind in this.
In short, you are describing reality while I am now describing what a democratic republic ought to do — realism v. idealism. I’d like to speak more specifically with respect to the laws and Constitution of Honduras but the language barrier and the lack of access to said laws makes that difficult.
Craig R. Harmon (a2c13d) — 7/1/2009 @ 11:24 amPons – Teh One is deeply troubled. Didn’t you see him furrow his brow?! Leave him alone. He has some dirty little socialisms to attend to.
As always, more Pons, less mendoucheous twatwaffles.
JD (00531d) — 7/1/2009 @ 11:26 amPons Asinorum 185, I don’t necessarily disagree with what you say there. I was answering a specific question, namely possible reasons why Obama might have made the declarations he has made. I ran across that article in my researches and thought it was a possible reason. I wasn’t necessarily endorsing any of the reasons that I listed. I was merely trying to answer a question.
Craig R. Harmon (a2c13d) — 7/1/2009 @ 11:44 amJD 182, I’ve been called worse. I don’t accept the designation but I can’t stop you or anyone else from calling me whatever name you wish to call me. Free country and all.
Craig R. Harmon (a2c13d) — 7/1/2009 @ 11:46 amCraig, you’ve taken a very simple issue: a scumbag obviously breaking the law and scumbags defending him, and failed miserably to make it less simple.
The people who are irritated at you don’t mind the discussion of the situation, but do mind the BS socratic method.
For one, it’s just so unnovel for a leftist to ask BS questions making huge assumptions that are obviously false and then act like it was done innocently. Strange that these tactics always seem to defend some democrat. Why is that party so important to some people? Obama is clearly a monster for his treatment of Honduras. His condemnation of that country… for doing what it must to preserve democracy, exceeds his handling of Rwanda, Iran, North Korea, China, etc. Obama is a sick little monster, and there’s really nothing anyone can do to hide it.
Juan (81687c) — 7/1/2009 @ 11:58 amIt is the “opinion of mankind” that is truly important. Good Allah gives me the strength to not unload on that pablum.
JD (00531d) — 7/1/2009 @ 12:06 pmJD, that was an allusion to the Declaration of Independence. The decent respect for the opinion of mankind once seemed important to America, at least in it’s public documents. Call it pablum if you wish but dump it on Thomas Jefferson.
Craig R. Harmon (a2c13d) — 7/1/2009 @ 12:38 pmIf you were quoting the Founders you should use quoþation marks, Senor Harmon. As you did not, it is your pablum.
Juan – It is a socratic sophist.
JD (3f2bdf) — 7/1/2009 @ 12:52 pmJuan,
Sorry to be unnovel. I wasn’t aware that novelty was a requirement.
And I wasn’t engaging in the socratic method, at least not in the sense of the teaching method used by law professors to teach the law to fledgling law students — implying a power and knowledge imbalance and a one-way flow of knowledge from professor to student — so much as inquiring after the opinions of others — implying an imbalance of knowledge, namely I seek knowledge of what I don’t know, that is, you all know more about your opinions than I do but I seek a conversation of equals with a two way exchange of opinion.
I’m sorry that you don’t like the questions that I asked, think them irrelevant and failing to cast light on what you think most important. Again, I didn’t come here to teach you but to learn from you and to share my perspective on questions that I have and to try to explain why I think them important.
I ask questions in order to learn. But that is not the only way I learn. I have also done a fair amount of reading from news sources and from other blogs. If what interests me doesn’t match what interests you all, well, I don’t know what to do about that. I guess I could just go elsewhere but I don’t understand why people cannot just converse without pissing on those whose opinions differ from theirs.
My questions are not, after all, tangential to the topic of the post, which is that Obama called the ‘coup’ illegal. My questions probe precisely that issue. I don’t see why that should irritate. If someone doesn’t wish to discuss my questions, they can ignore my questions but there’s more than enough incivility on the net, why add to it? I’ve bent over backwards to respond civilly and respectfully even when my civility and respect has not been returned but I apologize for the irritation. I’m serious about that.
I’m not a troll in the sense that I am only trying to stir up controversy to deliberately confuse the issue. I am seriously seeking conversation and the opinions of others. And trolls do not change their opinions as I have done, at least in part.
I have found useful information here from some of you. I have found some responses to be thoughtful and I very much respect those commenters whether they agree with me or not. Again, I thank them. Others have twisted my comments. I have tried to respond to clarify my actual position.
Anyway, I am verbose. I know this but my verbosity is in the service of clarifying my position and explaining why I hold those opinions. If my comments are too long for some, don’t read them. Ignore them. I suppose if nobody ever responds to my comments, I will eventually go away never to return but as long as there are some who will take my questions at face value as vehicles for seeking an exchange of ideas and respond accordingly, I’ll continue to comment and inquire.
Craig R. Harmon (a2c13d) — 7/1/2009 @ 1:08 pmJD. I won’t quibble about the difference between an allusion and a quotation. It was still an allusion to Thomas Jefferson. It was still his idea. If you dump on it, you dump on him whether you acknowledge it or not. However, in the future, I shall try to remember that allusions may be too subtle and I will quote and give credit to the author whom I quote so there won’t be any question about whose ideas you are dumping on and calling pablum.
Craig R. Harmon (a2c13d) — 7/1/2009 @ 1:12 pmComment by Craig R. Harmon — 7/1/2009 @ 11:24 am
You must be viewing the events in Hondurus through Alice’s Looking-Glass, as what you describe as happening out-of-view are the actions of Zelaya, while the actions of the Supreme Court, the Military, and the Congress, have been on-display for everyone to see – though many are having a difficult time understanding what they see because of severe cognitive dissonance.
AD - RtR/OS! (5fd0fb) — 7/1/2009 @ 1:14 pmCraig, of course being original is a requirement of being interesting. Did you really read what I said? People don’t mind discussion… they just don’t like disingenuous jerks. If you were more original in your method of promoting chaviste murder and destruction, I am sure they would find you more entertaining.
Juan (81687c) — 7/1/2009 @ 1:21 pmMy father once told me to always err on the side of brevity.
Craig, this whole I am only asking the tough questions to gain knowledge might carry more weight if the tough questions raised served to illuminate rather than obfuscate. It might carry more weight if your questions did not all skew in only one direction, and distracts from the fact that our dirty little socialist President sided with a wannabe socialist dictator rather than with the law, or democracy, or freedom.
JD (3f2bdf) — 7/1/2009 @ 1:24 pmJD’s right of course, that Craig’s ridiculously long screeches are a big reason why he’s annoyed a few. That’s not a complaint on my part… it’s very easy to ignore long screeches.
Asking tough question only makes sense if they haven’t already been answered. It took mere seconds for me to see what happened in Honduras and know who the bad guy was. We all know who is trying to steal power and that Obama is supporting a monster. Even his defenders are aware of it. Even Zelaya is promising not to do what he was saying he had a right to do… there is no dispute that he broke the law in an egregious way even with him.
So asking the tough questions doesn’t make any sense. It’s like asking if Hamas is really guilty of terrorism, or if Bush planned 9/11, or if the Nazis really killed so many people. It’s the question of someone who wants very badly to make the truth less evident. Change a conviction to an allegation. Drip drip drip, and all of the sudden Obama’s just doing some vague complicated stuff that is necessarily murky. but in reality, Obama is a cold blooded killer for lending legitimacy to the boots stomping on faces all over the globe.
Juan (81687c) — 7/1/2009 @ 1:30 pmJD, that was an allusion to the Declaration of Independence. The decent respect for the opinion of mankind once seemed important to America, at least in it’s public documents. Call it pablum if you wish but dump it on Jefferson
After reading all of professor Harmon’s posts on the matter, this really sent me over the edge. Whenever a Leftist starts quoting a founding father you know that it’s nothing more than just another pompous, diarrhea – of – the – mouth blowhard. Congrats, you’re our Troll of the Month, Craig – wear that tinfoil hat with pride!
Dmac (f7884d) — 7/1/2009 @ 1:42 pmIf he can pull it from the cold dead hands of DuckCrap.
AD - RtR/OS! (5fd0fb) — 7/1/2009 @ 1:45 pmJefferson was the original War on Terror president, of course. A person who studied the Koran to understand the perverse nature of our nation’s permanent enemies.
But yes, he was in favor of free speech.
Is Craig claiming that people here are opposed to free speech? I thought we were just pointing out how stupid Craig’s questions and assumptions were.
I think it’s Craig who is trying to shut people up.
Juan (81687c) — 7/1/2009 @ 1:54 pmJD, my questions do serve to illuminate. They serve to illuminate issues or sides of issues that I would like to discuss. Again, I am not trying to teach you all anything or to join the chorus of amens so if my questions don’t shed light on what you find interesting or important, please feel free to ignore me or to respond in any manner you feel appropriate. Again, free country, free speech, free exchange of ideas is what America is about and what blogging is about.
I have not been one sided. I have agreed that Zelaya’s actions were unconstitutional and illegal. I have agreed that he should have been removed. I have even agreed that the proper governmental organ, Congress, acted to remove Zelaya. I have stated that I think he should return to the country to stand trial for his alleged crimes. How is any of this one sided?
Look, please, if you don’t agree with me, why can’t you just say that and state why. Why must I be subjected to such disdain for asking questions. You say that they are distractions. Fine, ignore them. Remain focused on what you think important. You say they skew in only one direction. That is because my focus is fairly narrow upon things that I think are being ignored.
I don’t dispute the facts to which you refer:
You call Obama a little socialist President. I agree. I tell that to my lefty friends all the time but they just call me a right-wing extremist out to slime Obama.
You say he sided with a wannabe socialist dictator. Looks like.
You say he did that rather than side with the law, democracy and freedom. I’m not so sure about that as I’ve explained my own doubts about the procedure followed. No I don’t know the law of Honduras so I can’t prove that the ouster broke any laws. On the other hand, you don’t know the law of Honduras, either, so you don’t know that it didn’t. You merely take the word of others, whether blogers or news sources in the form of straight news, editorials, op-eds etc. I’ve said that the proper chamber of government did the removing. If I think they could have been more open and deliberative about their process, if I think the Congress should have impeached the president and tried him before exiling him, that doesn’t change the fact that I agree that he should have been removed. It’s just quibbling about procedure. But procedure is important to legitimacy. Exile may be a perfectly lawful and constitutional punishment for a president that the democratically elected representatives of the people think have misgoverned and for a president whom a judge and or jury find to have transgressed the law of the land but exile before these procedures, indeed without even a show trial in abstentia and after the fact in criminal court? You don’t find that even the tiniest bit questionable? Okay. No. Obviously you don’t. Fine. I do.
And brevity invites misunderstanding. I am already having motives not my own thrust upon me by others and having my comments twisted. It seems that no amount of explanation can avoid misunderstanding. I mean, how brief should I be? I could just say, “I think Obama might be right in questioning the legality of the proceedings here.” But that would just mean endless explanations about where I think Obama might be right and why and where I think Obama is wrong and why. In the end, I think I wind up expending more words in correcting misunderstanding of my brief comment than by just explaining in my original comments.
Craig R. Harmon (a2c13d) — 7/1/2009 @ 2:08 pmJuan,
None of my questions had anything to do with whether Zelaya’s actions warranted removal, which I have more than once stated that I think they did.
Is that sufficiently brief?
Craig R. Harmon (a2c13d) — 7/1/2009 @ 2:14 pmGeez…talk about Passive/Agressive!
AD - RtR/OS! (5fd0fb) — 7/1/2009 @ 2:21 pmWhere have we seen that before?
Agreeing that what the wannabe dictator did was a crime and unconstitutional is the equivalent of agreeing that water is wet. I don’t really get the rest of you babble. You are applying our standards to Honduras. They have their own system. That they did things in a manner that does not please you is really not a concern of most people. That you want this to be some kind of illegal coup seems important to you, maybe it makes it easier for you to reconcile the idea that Teh One stood up immediately on the side of the dirty little socialist wannabe dictator. The idea of Teh One standing up against an illegal coup is more palatable for you. I get that.
Apogee – If you are still reading this, you nailed it on this one. Spot on.
JD (241e9b) — 7/1/2009 @ 2:33 pmCraig really likes imposing the US system on other countries. Did he support the Iraq war? Or is it just democrats and murderers he supports?
He cries ‘really?’ when someone suggests the obvious about him. Yes, Craig… really.
Juan (81687c) — 7/1/2009 @ 2:35 pmCraig, reread your posts. You think you’re cute, but you’re propping up monsters and are yourself a monster.
Juan (81687c) — 7/1/2009 @ 2:38 pmWhy must I be subjected to such disdain for asking questions.
I agree, certainly since your POV doesn’t appear to be contingent on whether the particular problem facing Honduras is being dealt with by a White House run by a liberal (or ultra-liberal) like Obama or Clinton — or certainly Jimmy Carter — or a conservative like Bush or Reagan.
However, if you’re one of those who tends to be squishy about the foreign-policy mindset of Obama in general, I’d have doubts about where you’re coming from overall.
Mark (411533) — 7/1/2009 @ 2:59 pmCraig – Could you please repeat yourself again? I have not read enough of your comments saying the same thing over and over again yet.
daleyrocks (718861) — 7/1/2009 @ 3:42 pmIf Craig is avoiding the issue of Zelaya’s removal being warranted, then what the heck is left of Craig’s incoherent comments? Can anyone decode them?
SPQR (72771e) — 7/1/2009 @ 3:47 pmI think Rev. Craig is writing drafts of an upcoming sermon or something.
daleyrocks (718861) — 7/1/2009 @ 3:54 pmWell, in any case, I think it was Congresses place to actually remove Zelaya from office. They’ve done that now, even if that action was concluded after Zelaya was sent into exile. I’d have preferred that Zelaya’s exile would have occurred after Congress voted on his removal, just for form’s sake, but what was done was done. Anyway, I think I’ll quit on this topic. I’m satisfied with the result and with the exception of what I just noted, satisfied with the means.
I do think it would be helpful if Obama/Clinton would clarify their basis for calling the removal illegal.
Then we are in agreement and nothing more needs to be said.
Mike K (2cf494) — 7/1/2009 @ 4:04 pmCheck-out these excerpts from the AP via Yahoo (here for the full article):
and
and
Chavez, Castro, and Obama. Have we really fallen so low and so fast?
If ever the US needed to show leadership, now is it. I admire the people of Honduras; its congress, Supreme Court, military officers, and the new President; their courage, love of Freedom, and desire for rule-of-Law. It looks like they are going to have to stand up to the entire world, on their own, for these Principles.
Our leadership is shameful.
Pons Asinorum (5919fb) — 7/1/2009 @ 4:57 pmPerhaps we can get the Honduran’s really pissed at us, and they’ll declare war.
AD - RtR/OS! (5fd0fb) — 7/1/2009 @ 5:07 pmA “Mouse That Roared” scenario would be neat!
Do you think they have a “Q-Bomb”?
JD 206,
Of course it is but my comment must be understood in the context of the comment to which it was a response. I stood accused of asking questions that were the equivalent of questioning “if Hamas is really guilty of terrorism, or if Bush planned 9/11, or if the Nazis really killed so many people.” In response, I replied that none of my questions were remotely like any of those things. Hamas really is guilty of terrorism; Bush did not plan 9/11; the Nazis really killed so many people; and Zelaya really is guilty of all the things you are saying about him. My response is rational in that context.
Since none of us knows the Honduran system of law, you all really like assuming that everything here was done according to the Honduran system of law, as if, unlike the American system, which you all would likely agree often acts contrary to the American system of law, including the Supreme Court, the removal of Zelaya was done according to the Honduran legal system because, well, because that’s the way they did it. That is essentially your argument. They did it that way, therefore that’s the way the Honduran law is set up. Perfectly circular reasoning.
I on the other hand, do not assume that it was not legal, as I’ve said before. I question whether it was and stated the reasons why I wonder so.
Why yes I did support the Iraq war. Thank you for asking. No, in fact I do not support Democrats, most of the time. In fact, I’ve never voted for a Democrat in any election ever. I did not vote for Obama. I do not support his economic policies. I am against the bail-outs of the banks and financial institutions and the auto industry. I see these as a means of increasing exponentially the power of the central government to the detriment of the economy and of free markets and, therefore, of liberty itself. I think of Obama as a socialist (in nothing but the worst sense of the term) who leans toward totalitarianism and who would like nothing better than to turn The United States of America into a nation fit to join the European Union, is likely to lead us into decades long stagflation and on and on.
In his foreign policy, there’s some good but also much bad. As for the good, he has continued to use a number of legal arguments from the George W. Bush era, for instance in arguing state secrets doctrine in refusing to release sensitive information as well as in saying that at least some of the detainees will be detained indefinitely without trial as well as in arguing that detainees in detainment camps in Iraq and Afghanistan have no recourse to the US courts to challenge their detention as well as launching attacks upon terrorist strongholds in Pakistan and elsewhere as well as going back on his campaign rhetoric about unilaterally overturning CAFTA. One might easily win an argument over whether he’s doing enough but he’s clearly doing somethings that are worthy of note.
On the bad side, I think he wants to and will apply the so-called global test, spoken of by John Kerry in one of the presidential debates. Ditching “terrorism” for “man-made disasters” is pure nonsense. Ditching references to a “war on terror” is likewise stupid. It’s like he thinks all we have to do is re-brand ourselves and change our sales pitch and all the world will love us again. Bah! Such crap! As I’ve said above, whereas Obama wants Zelaya to return in triumph back to presidential power, I want him to return to face trial.
Asking questions about the procedures followed here does not make me a leftist or a liberal. I am an avowed Hayekian economically, especially as he layed out his case against socialism in The Road to Surfdom and laid out his economic case in The Constitution of Liberty.
In short, I am not a leftist. I may well be somewhat to the left of some of you but that doesn’t mean I’m a leftist.
As for supporting murderers, bah! I support his returning to face trial for crimes committed against his people. Some support for murderers!
Craig R. Harmon (a2c13d) — 7/1/2009 @ 5:52 pmSPQR,
I am not avoiding the issue of Zelaya’s removal being warranted. I’ve said any number of times that it was warranted. Perhaps you could point out the incoherencies in my comments. The fact that you can’t “decode” my plain English doesn’t make my comments incoherent.
I’m not sure what to make of the fact that you think my plain English is some kind of code. It’s just plain English. It means what it says. No more and no less. You “decode” it just like you “decode” any other piece of writing in the English language.
Someone said I repeat myself. That’s because I keep getting accused of the same things. I figure if I repeat myself enough times in different ways, my accusers will catch on that they’ve got me wrong. Of course, it is always possible that they are just repeating charges that they know to be wrong but I’ll not ascribe such perfidy to them. I’ll just assume that if I say it enough times in enough ways, they’ll get it.
Craig R. Harmon (a2c13d) — 7/1/2009 @ 6:24 pmI’m not sure where I am supposed to be claiming that people here are opposed to free speech. It was certainly not my intention. And whom, exactly, am I trying to shut up? I’m asking for some civility but I’m not insisting upon it. I’ve envited someone to call me whatever names come to mind and to level ad hominem attacks at me till his heart’s content, pointing out that this is a free country and all. Nope. I’m a big fan of free speech. I’m also a big fan of civility and respecting others whose opinions differ from mine. It makes conversation much more enjoyable.
So by all means, everyone say whatever you want however you want to say it. Free country.
Damn! I’m repeating myself again.
Craig R. Harmon (a2c13d) — 7/1/2009 @ 6:34 pmGood.
Craig R. Harmon (a2c13d) — 7/1/2009 @ 6:38 pmNope. I’m out of the business.
Craig R. Harmon (a2c13d) — 7/1/2009 @ 6:39 pmMark my words….I truly believe that this is what Obama has hopes of doing here. Pres for life!!!!!! That is why he supports who and what he supports.
Frank (29f30c) — 7/7/2009 @ 5:39 pmWell, I believe the question of whether there was illegality in the removal of Zelaya from the country has been satisfactorily answered: Unqualifiedly yes, there was illegality.
On the other hand, I find that Article 238 of the Honduran Constitution provides that no one who has held executive power may become president or vice-president (i. e., they are restricted to one term in executive office per life-time) and that merely proposing a change to this constitutional provision cease immediately the performance of their office (which I take to mean that they remove themselves from office by taking this action) and they are barred from any public office for ten years.
Article 4 makes alternation of the President of the Republic obligatory (which I take to mean no consecutive terms by the same person) and breaking this obligation constitutes the crime of treason.
So I am satisfied by my own knowledge of and concede four things:
(1) Zelaya, by his actions, was attempting to set in motion a change in the Constitution that would have allowed him to stand for re-election;
(2) Zelaya thereby effectively removed himself from office and, therefore, the military’s actions do not constitute a military coup;
(3) Zelaya attempted treason by trying to change this provision of the Honduran Constitution and
(4) the Honduran military committed a crime by forcing Zelaya on a plane and out of the country. There is a public admission of this second. The legal procedure would have been to have arrested Zelaya that he might stand trial for his crimes, exactly as I have stated above. The military pleads justification.
Whether the military’s illegal actions were justified by the desire to prevent explosive violence between Zelaya supporters and the new government I will leave to whatever legal process is provided for in Honduran law.
Craig R. Harmon (b8bda3) — 7/10/2009 @ 12:34 pmWhere in your reading does it call for a trial, or is that simply your desire? Did not the military act on orders of the Legislature and their Supreme Court?
JD (5d42dc) — 7/10/2009 @ 12:56 pmJD,
the article I linked seems to imply as much. To wit:
And then, a bit further on:
That would seem to be conclusive.
Craig R. Harmon (b8bda3) — 7/10/2009 @ 1:02 pmAlso, from the same:
I mention this because exiling Zelaya does not seem to have been by order of the AG or, presumably, by the SC since, had it been by order of the Supreme Court, there would have been no need of an investigation into why the military forced Zelaya into exile rather than arresting him and taking him to stand trial.
Craig R. Harmon (b8bda3) — 7/10/2009 @ 1:06 pmYes, by removing a Hugo-style thug from the country where he would not be able to whip-up a mob (as Chavez did in Caracas), their “illegality” probably saved days of turmoil, and perhaps hundreds of lives.
AD - RtR/OS! (60efa6) — 7/10/2009 @ 1:07 pmSo, we know which you would prefer.
Despicable!
That is to say, according to this article, the military seems to be stating explicitly that they exceeded their orders.
Craig R. Harmon (b8bda3) — 7/10/2009 @ 1:08 pmWell, they will have to face the judgement of their superiors then, won’t they?
AD - RtR/OS! (60efa6) — 7/10/2009 @ 1:12 pmFortunately, for them and others, you aren’t one.
I stated above that I will leave the determination of the justification of the military’s actions to whatever legal process is provided for by Honduran law. If that process exonerates the military, as I fully expect it shall, I am satisfied. I am merely saying that what I have suggested all along is actually true: the Honduran law was not followed in forcing the exile of Zelaya. In other words, I have proven what I set out to prove.
Yes, I prefer that the law have been followed. Obviously, that does not mean that I prefer that there have been violence. It means no more than that I prefer that government agencies follow the law rather than taking it upon themselves to exceed their country’s laws.
Craig R. Harmon (b8bda3) — 7/10/2009 @ 1:16 pmYes, they will have to face judgment. Knowing what I know now about the Constitution of Honduras, were I in the position to stand in judgment over them, I would likely accept their plea of justification. Of course, were I in that position, I would know more than I do about the situation in the country throughout this all than I do, increasing the likelihood that I would accept their plea of justification.
Craig R. Harmon (b8bda3) — 7/10/2009 @ 1:20 pmDude, you need your own blog, and pronto.
carlitos (730478) — 7/10/2009 @ 1:57 pmJust as long as he never becomes Chief of Police, or a Judge, or hold any petty bureaucratic position of power.
AD - RtR/OS! (60efa6) — 7/10/2009 @ 2:04 pmCraig, you say: – I’m not a troll in the sense that I am only trying to stir up controversy to deliberately confuse the issue.
and
I ask questions in order to learn.
And finally you state:
In other words, I have proven what I set out to prove.
So all along, while you stated that you were ‘just asking questions in order to learn’, we find out that what you were really trying to do was find some way – any way – to justify Obama’s labeling of the removal of Zelaya ‘illegal’. This is what you ‘set out to prove’.
Which means you are a liar.
You are in fact an Obama supporter. You were attempting to do damage control.
And you failed.
You spend what seems like an eternity defending your scumbag socialist hero Obama by simultaneously claiming ignorance of the Honduran legal system and some sixth-sense ability to discern that a ‘crime’ had been committed.
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.
From the article:
Indeed, after reviewing the Constitution and consulting with the Supreme Court, the Congress and the electoral tribunal, respected Cardinal Oscar Andres Rodriguez Maradiaga recently stated that the only possible conclusion is that Zelaya had lawfully been ousted under Article 239 before he was arrested, and that democracy in Honduras continues fully to operate in accordance with law. All Honduran bishops joined Rodriguez in this pronouncement.
True, Zelaya should not have been arbitrarily exiled from his homeland. That, however, does not mean he must be reinstalled as president of Honduras. It merely makes him an indicted private citizen with a meritorious immigration beef against his country.
In other words, Zelaya’s ouster was completely legal – which is not what Obama was saying. Obama, the dictator-supporting scumbag was saying that Zelaya’s removal from office was ‘illegal’, which is something entirely different constitutionally from the removal of a private citizen from the country without due course of law. Given that Zelaya was a former high official that was acting illegally, he may not have even that complaint.
Yet, all you needed was some chance – any scrap of information – no matter how biased – to use to try and mask the disgusting pro-dictator positions of Obama.
Ah, Obama covered by the media. How novel.
Your verbosity has revealed your dishonesty.
Apogee (e2dc9b) — 7/10/2009 @ 2:52 pmThe only thing that you have ‘proven’ is that Obama is a socialist-dictator and a monster, and that he has useless drones like yourself to scurry around like cockroaches in an effort to distract from his inhuman and undemocratic policies.
Apogee,
Well done and thank you for wading through his nonsense in order to deconstruct that in such thorough fashion. I was too bored with him for it to be entertaining. Unfortunately, roaches always seem to come back.
Stashiu3 (3fc50f) — 7/10/2009 @ 3:02 pmStashiu3 – Thank you, but in comparison with the work you have done, this is just farting around at Patterico’s Roach Motel.
Apogee (e2dc9b) — 7/10/2009 @ 3:08 pm“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?
daleyrocks (718861) — 7/10/2009 @ 3:52 pmApogee – You called this one a long time ago. It was just a matter of time.
JD (e4e95a) — 7/10/2009 @ 4:26 pmThat 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.
I conceded as much in my comment 222.
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.
I never jumped to any such conclusion. I long ago wrote (comment 121):
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.
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.
Craig R. Harmon (b8bda3) — 7/10/2009 @ 6:19 pmCraig – 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.
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.
Apogee (e2dc9b) — 7/10/2009 @ 6:51 pmI 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.
Will this finally teach you guys to stop feeding trolls ?
Mike K (2cf494) — 7/10/2009 @ 6:56 pmMikeK – This one is simply attempting to legitimize the Obama administration’s support for murderous dictatorships, and he’s running out of room.
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.
Apogee (e2dc9b) — 7/10/2009 @ 7:13 pmOne 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’, 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.
Apogee (e2dc9b) — 7/10/2009 @ 7:24 pmExtend 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.
Craig R. Harmon (b8bda3) — 7/10/2009 @ 9:41 pmThis 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?
Craig R. Harmon (b8bda3) — 7/10/2009 @ 10:04 pmFor those of you who seem to think Craig is in the wrong somehow, allow me to add my $.02
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.
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 7/10/2009 @ 10:27 pmThanks, Scott!
Craig R. Harmon (06f7c0) — 7/12/2009 @ 2:03 pm[…] months, the Obama Administration claimed the Honduran government illegally removed President Manuel Zelaya and insisted he be reinstated. […]
Patterico's Pontifications » Honduras Election: Good News? (e4ab32) — 11/18/2009 @ 9:22 pm