Obama gets testy with his Lefty friends over Honduras
[Posted by Karl]
At the “Three Amigos” summit, Pres. Obama got a little snippy with Leftists for not doing more to help overthrown Honduran President Zelaya:
“The same critics who say that the United States has not intervened enough in Honduras are the same people who say that we’re always intervening and the Yankees need to get out of Latin America. You can’t have it both ways.”
Pres. Obama apparently had nothing to say about why his first impulse was to meddle on behalf of Zedaya, who tried to illegally amend the Honduran constitution and whose allies are thugs like Hugo Chavez, Daniel Ortega, and the Castro brothers. He is doing the right thing now, but it would be nice if Dr. Strangelove could learn to keep the arm down.
–Karl
Can’t everyone just recognize his brilliance ?!?!
I keep waiting for his thoughtful unitey foreign policy that makes everyone love us and do what we want.
JD (26478a) — 8/10/2009 @ 4:13 pmLoved the arm reference, Karl. Next up – Rahm as the George C. Scott nutbag General.
Dmac (e6d1c2) — 8/10/2009 @ 4:15 pmI thought it was in Iran where Obama wasn’t intervening and in Honduras where he was, both times to the benefit of thugs.
I don’t understand what Obama got for helping zelaya, but he may simply have needed to maintain some kind of position with Chavez. Things are so fragile for Columbia, and now Honduras.
Juan (bd4b30) — 8/10/2009 @ 4:16 pmIt’s purely an accident if this guy is ever right on anything. He has the most bizarro instincts any U.S. president could ever have, including Jimmah.
Peg C. (48175e) — 8/10/2009 @ 5:01 pmThe reason that the WON supports the big Z in his efforts to overturn the Honduran constitution is that he intends to do it to us.
TimothyJ (8fb937) — 8/10/2009 @ 5:06 pmThe laws of probability demand that he get one or two things right…
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 8/10/2009 @ 6:13 pmThe default position on foreign policy for the Obama administration is do little or nothing to change the policies in areas where Bush was active in the War of Terror — because any subsequent failures/attacks on the U.S. would be laid at the feet of the new administration. But in areas that aren’t considered critical to immediate U.S. domestic security interests, the inclination is to move to the left.
Which is why this pushback by Obama’s interesting. Either the White House and/or the State Department has figured out that putting Zelaya back into power only to see him then turn into Honduras’ Hugo Chavez is a long-term headache they don’t need, or they’ve decide with the administration using up all it’s energy on trying to prove its domestic programs like Obamacare, cap & trade and card check aren’t far left positions, they just don’t want to give conservatives more ammunition to show how liberal the administration is. Hopefully, the first option is true, because if it’s the second, you can expect to see Obama tack back to the left on Latin American issues once the current health care debate is decided.
John (d4490d) — 8/10/2009 @ 6:58 pmThe conflict in Georgia may flare up again. Care to guess whose side will Obama choose? My bet would be… a wrong side or, Russian side. This may be not just a shooting war but “all-in” war as well. This time Russians want to finish Georgia.
Kris (31c6cd) — 8/10/2009 @ 7:21 pmAlthough he’s flipflopping, shock, for ONCE I agree with him.
4inline (3aa2bb) — 8/10/2009 @ 7:28 pmTo be honest, I had zero sympathy for Georgia. They blatantly taunted Russia, and got spanked hard because of it.
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 8/10/2009 @ 7:32 pmThe Honduran people have spoken and thrown the bum out. Screw Obama and his lame foreign policy team.
Joe (00ad53) — 8/10/2009 @ 8:59 pmI don’t know that much about Georgian internal unity or their military capabilities, but given current oil prices, tying down any significant Russian forces there for any appreciable time would hurt Russia.
JorgXMcKie (4f655d) — 8/10/2009 @ 9:24 pmIf Putin expects a US-style quick military victory, he *might* get it. He might also get the ensuing ‘insurgency’ and he can scarcely afford it, although I would expect extreme Russian brutality unlike the US treatment of Iraq.
Afghanistan in the 70s and 80s exposed the hollowness of Soviet forces. A prolonged fight in Georgia might well do the same for Russian forces.
I’m guessing it would all depend on how serious the average “Georgian” is about resisting Russian imperialism.
Of course, Georgia is partially crippled by attempting to act like the old Soviets in its minority regions. Sigh. Some things don’t change much.
How can Obama be testy if he doesn’t have a pair of testes?
JavelinaBomb (2fdfe6) — 8/10/2009 @ 9:53 pmRalph Peters had a piece a year ago when the Russians first attacked Georgia. He said that, with a little help from us, Georgia could exact a heavy price from the Russians for an invasion. With Obama in the White House, we would never think of aiding the Georgians and I suspect they know that. I wonder what the long term effect will be.
Mike K (2cf494) — 8/10/2009 @ 10:10 pmOne thing to notice is the tone he used in that statement. If Bush had gone off on a sarcastic taunt like that, the global press and leftists would have eviscerated him–“Oh, look at the dumb, cowboy chimp talking down to our neighbors and making them hate the US!” Don’t expect the same treatment for the Wizard of Uhhs.
Just because Obama is the broken clock in making this statement doesn’t mean he didn’t act like an ass during the rest of the time this crisis was going on. He doesn’t deserve to be granted any slack at all in this case.
Another Chris (a3bb8f) — 8/10/2009 @ 10:25 pmSince Harper is of the right (certainly by Canadian standards), I’d guess his tone is more genuine and innately indignant than that of Obama’s.
The guy in the White House probably is more bothered by the hypocrisy not because it’s a perfect illustration of the Yankee-stop-meddling-in-our-affairs phoniness of the left in South America, but because it puts him in an awkward situation and makes his aura glow less beautifully.
Mark (411533) — 8/10/2009 @ 10:30 pmWhy now? Obama sat still for that shit sandwich Ortega fed him during his rant about America during the OAS meeting earlier this year. That Obama could blame on other people. Obama owns the Zelaya screw up, so it’s personal and we all know how thin skinned Obama is.
daleyrocks (718861) — 8/10/2009 @ 10:35 pmAnd the same people who probably agree with them are now dictating Obama’s foreign policy.
They want him to intervene on behalf of Zelaya yet get the US out of Central America.
They also want us out of the middle east yet are for intervening and defending Palestinians state rights.
They want to save North Korea, but not if anyone has to shoot anything.
These are the same folks who cried about Rwanda and Darfur while the US was trying to liberate Iraq.
And now they are running the government, and our foreign policy.
Gonna be a long 3 and 1/2 years I think. Let’s hope these lefties keep opening their mouths.
Tman (ea2948) — 8/10/2009 @ 10:38 pmUnlike Scott, i have great sympathy for Georgia.
They are just starting out as a democracy. Their neighbor is the former USSR, the most evil nation in world history, or at least in the top 3.
And not completely former.
Georgia was not perfect in the way they handled the problem, but they were not the aggressor. Whatever sin they committed they paid for 10000000X over, and they were the good guys in that conflict. Moral equivalence is an easy game to play. Russia would like us to buy their version of events… that Georgia provoked this insane overreaction.
It’s a shame Mccain is not president, if only because he understood the basics of the way the world works. Domestically, there’s no way in hell he’d have been given enough cover to go as far as Obama has, but in foreign policy, he would have plain been great.
Juan (bd4b30) — 8/10/2009 @ 11:06 pm#10
Saying that the Georgians taunted the Russians and got spanked for it sounds like what the Russians said after invading Finland and Poland in 1939.
I suppose we can expect Lavia and Estonia to get uppity with the Russians real soon and force the Russians to show them who’s boss.
Brillant, just brillant.
Thomas Jackson (8ffd46) — 8/10/2009 @ 11:07 pmThere’s a lot of uniformed opinion going around here.
Michelleti’s government has no support internationally. While I detest Zelaya, who I think is actually a bit crazy, what the military did over there is highly undemocratic.
Yes, Zelaya was going against the Supreme Court and his Congress, but he had backtracked a bit on his idea of a referendum … just calling it a survey (which was a trick).
Still, there is nothing in the Honduran consitution saying that the military had the right to take him out in the super early in the morning and send him to Costa Rica in pajamas.
Heck, the Congress laughably tried to say that he had resigned, they even read a fake letter from him. It was fake because it either was an outright forgery, or they made him sign it under the barrel of a gun.
So no, Obama has acted responsibly here. The Alba wing, and their most militan buffons (Chavez, Evo, Correa) are the idiots saying the US is behind this coup. But Obama has maneuvered correctly, not supporting the coup (and letting Costa Rica deal with mediation responsibly) while at the same time not going overboard. Because we could put more pressure, but why? It’s not in our interest. (we could impose more sanctions).
So there’s a delicate balance to keep here, and we’re pissing the right people (like Chavez), yet keeping Lula and the more sensible Latin American leaders on our side while making the rising extreme leftist axis more marginalized.
Augusto (a98ee2) — 8/10/2009 @ 11:18 pmYou’re exactly right…
Well, it is if you ignore the fact that Georgia all but dared Russia to react when Georgia invaded South Ossetia…
So no, I guess, it’s nothing at all like Russia invading Finland or Poland.
But hey, whatever.
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 8/10/2009 @ 11:28 pmNo, they shouldn’t have put him on a plane and flown him out of the country…
But there isn’t a single other thing the Military did that was “undemocratic” or “wrong”. They acted on orders from the SC, and Zelaya was replaced – as their Constitution demands, I remind you – by the next in line… Who happens to be a member of Zelaya’s political party.
Yeah, totally wrong of them.
Idiot.
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 8/10/2009 @ 11:31 pmIdiot? Nice to see you are so quick with the insults right away, at least I know who I’m dealing with.
Anyways, I can’t believe you can say this;
“No, they shouldn’t have put him on a plane and flown him out of the country…”
And then dismiss it this way;
“But there isn’t a single other thing the Military did that was “undemocratic” or “wrong”.”
That is the main thing, they had no legal reason or mechanism that justified what they did there, in addition (I’ll repeat it again) they provided a laughable excuse for his departure, a resignation letter that they don’t mention anymore.
I remember this clearly, I saw it live. Why do you think they fabricated this letter? Because the law was on their side?
Zelaya was going against the other branches of government, what they should have done is start a process similar to our impeachment process (which I’ve heard commentators say the Honduran Constitution might not really outline). That would have been 100x more legitimate than what they did, specially for this type of offense.
I like that you call me an idiot for that opinion, but nobody can say with a straight face that these guys acted Democratically or based on any type of law that any serious country would accept.
I would expect these types of shenanigans from Cuba, but not from supposedly Democratic countries.
So no, we can’t come out and say we are cool with this and that we support military backed coups in Latin America, now that would be idiotic. The posture Obama is taking is the right one (on that matter), and going overboad would hurt our interest in Latin America an our allies who are in trouble right now (like Colombia, just see what happened today).
But what do I know, I’m an idiot and I’m sure you follow Latin American news and events more than I do.
Augusto (a98ee2) — 8/10/2009 @ 11:59 pmWell, my comment is not coming up …
Augusto (a98ee2) — 8/11/2009 @ 12:02 am*shrugs*
Usually I at least attempt civility, but it’s late, I’m tired, and the term was accurate.
You want unfailing politeness? Talk to DRJ.
See, it’s stuff like this that causes me to call you stupid. Article 239 of the Honduran Constitution: “No citizen who 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.”
So even suggesting that the rule be changed automatically removes you from power. No trial, no impeachment, you simply cease to be able to weild power through your own actions. Then you either go away, or a warrant is issued by the Supreme Court. Oh, if only they had done that…
Wait a second. They did. Justice Rosalinda Cruz defended the warrant:
Damn. So much for that.
Oh, and I should point out that recently the results of the refferendum were found on some computers Zelaya’s (read: Chavez’s) people had to do that very thing… Sadly, the voting never took place, so it rather seems that the fix was already in.
There is no part of the Honduran government that DIDN’T support the removal of Zelaya. The only people who were sad to see him go were the peasant farmers he was buying off with food and money for their support.
So not only did the Constitution say he was done, the highest court in the land said he was done, in addition to the legislature, the board that oversees elections, and pretty much everyone else.
So yeah, you’re an idiot. What’s more, you are apparently trying to get dumber as the minutes tick on by.
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 8/11/2009 @ 12:16 amAugusto – we can’t come out and say we are cool with this and that we support military backed coups in Latin America
Which wouldn’t be the case for Honduras, because that wasn’t a ‘coup’. Zelaya wasn’t President of Honduras when he was flown out of the country. The Honduran government is rightly worried, as so far the leftist media has thrown out pro-Zelaya propaganda around the world, and phony strikes have been organized by leftist allied groups within Honduras as a ‘protest’ against Zelayas’ removal.
Obama’s knee jerk reaction was to support Zelaya, because contrary to what you’re asserting Augusto, Obama’s not in favor of democracy in Central and South America. He’s much friendlier with Chavez, who is the real illegitimate leader in the region. Yet no one is calling for the removal of Chavez, despite overwhelming evidence that Chavez runs Venezuela like a personal fiefdom.
The details of Zelaya’s lawful removal have been covered here time and again. When someone arrives ignorant of those facts and shows that ignorance by labeling the event as a ‘coup’, they rightfully deserve to be chided as an idiot.
Apogee (e2dc9b) — 8/11/2009 @ 12:33 amhehe
Even socialist Obama has had it with his lefty mates.
Mats (ef8db1) — 8/11/2009 @ 1:25 amSomehow or other, Augusto seems to think Honduras is governed by the American constitution, including ways of dealing with miscreants in high office.
Richard Aubrey (a9ba34) — 8/11/2009 @ 9:34 amJeez.
There’s a lot of uniformed opinion going around here.
And then we have this gem:
Yes, Zelaya was going against the Supreme Court and his Congress,
And yet we’re all wrong because we just don’t possess the “informed opinion” of our wise expert on Latin American affairs. Can you say “cognitive dissonance?” Sure, ah knew yew could.
Try reading a actual expert on Latin American affairs – her name is Mary Anastasia O’Grady, and she’s been covering the region for over 20 years at the WSJ. Surprisingly, she thinks your well – informed “opinions” are a crock:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124623220955866301.html
BTW, you were called an “idiot” because you came on here for the first time via sliming the readership here for being “uninformed,” then go on to prove your ignorance on the topic at large. So please spare us your weak moral umbrage at being responded to in like manner. Also – either link sources to back up your supposed “expertise” or don’t bother – bring your “A” game if you’re going to come on and make ridiculous assumptions.
Dmac (e6d1c2) — 8/11/2009 @ 10:03 amAugusto – La Gringa lives in Honduras, and follows news and developments in Latin America. She did so well before the removal of Zelaya. Check it out at La Gringa. She points out evidence that many people such as Augusto would like to avoid.
I see Obama backtracking as being very similar to the Gates-Crowley situation. Obama jumped to a conclusion, said something that was wrong, and is now trying to fix it. It is beer diplomacy – Latin America style.
Karateka (55e0ca) — 8/11/2009 @ 10:24 amAugusto claims that Honduras should have used a specific process to remove Zelaya … that he has no idea whether or not exists in the Honduran constitution.
That’s pretty hilarious.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/11/2009 @ 10:27 amAugusto was there. He saw it live! Therefore everything he says is true!
JD (1b1b1b) — 8/11/2009 @ 10:27 amScott at 22, sarcasm is not an argument.
When you say you have no sympathy for the murdered Georgians, you say they deserved exactly what they got… not that they were unintelligent in predicting the future.
At least, that’s how I interpret ‘I have zero sympathy for them’. Innocent people were killed by a monstrous Russia. Georgia is a freedom loving nation that is morally right to taunt their evil neighbor, even if it was foolish. Fools do not deserve murder.
but beyond that, your version of the facts is suspect. the georgians were responding to attacks from South Ossetia. They could sit there and do nothing, and accept tyrrany, or they could provoke the potential anger of the bear. It’s not a perfect calculus, but it’s disgusting to say the Georgians deserve zero sympathy. John Mccain got this one dead right.
Juan (bd4b30) — 8/11/2009 @ 12:02 pm“…Well, it is if you ignore the fact that Georgia all but dared Russia to react when Georgia invaded South Ossetia…”
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 8/10/2009 @ 11:28 pm
Except, South Ossetia ia historically part of Georgia, and since the breakup of the CCCP, has been. So, it is a bit difficult to invade your own territory. If anyone has invaded SO, it is the Russian Bear.
AD - RtR/OS! (44112e) — 8/11/2009 @ 3:07 pmBTW, the Fins kicked the Soviets’ arse in the Winter War of ’39!
And Kuwait was historically part of Iraq.
You saying we should have ignored Saddam back then?
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 8/11/2009 @ 3:20 pmComment by Augusto — 8/10/2009 @ 11:59 pm
Baghdad Bob is alive and well and working for Zelaya.
M. Scott Eiland (5ccff0) — 8/11/2009 @ 3:23 pmScott,
Did you see my comment? Just curious. No big deal if you are just opting not to answer back. I’ve noticed you take things personally, so maybe I’ve offended you. That wasn’t my intention.
You said you had zero sympathy for the Georgian people. I don’t think your argument has backed that up. Hell, i have sympathy for the Iraqis in the gulf war, after all. That was a very hard time for those people.
Juan (bd4b30) — 8/11/2009 @ 3:39 pmTyranny? The tyranny of South Ossetia?
Georgia poked Russia, and Russia poked back. I hardly find that entirely troubling. When your air force consists of some cargo-planes and a few helicopters, and your army has a couple of dozen tanks, you really should just not intentionally piss on the boots of one of the largest militaries in the world.
Georgia did what it did because they assumed they could get bailed out by NATO even though they weren’t members.
They were mistaken. I don’t hold pity for people who gamble and lose.
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 8/11/2009 @ 4:08 pmScott Jacobs apparently believed Finland and Poland invaded Russia in 1939.
Yeah we all know that Georgia invaded their own territory. They obviously thought they could crush the Russians.
Can you tell us another one? I like to laugh.
Thomas Jackson (8ffd46) — 8/11/2009 @ 4:57 pmPoor Scott I’d love to play poker with him. I wonder how well he plays when he thinks Kuwait is part of Iraq or that Russia owns everything it claims.
Watch him cheer on the Russian invasion of Alaska.
Truly sad.
I’m waiting for him to explain away the Russian invasion of Estonia, when that occurs.
Say Scott, did you used to work for Saddam?
[note: fished from spam filter]
Thomas Jackson (8ffd46) — 8/11/2009 @ 5:01 pmTyranny? The tyranny of South Ossetia?
The tyrrany coming from it. I doubt the people there were entirely, perhaps not even largely, supportive of what was emanating from their city into the rest of Georgia (the rest of, because South Ossetia was inside Georgia).
I’m talking about bullets. When a russian bullet kills your family, and your government goes to where that bullet comes from to stop it, and russian tanks run over your government and kills the rest of your family, I have great sympathy for you. Oh, and I call that tyranny and evil.
Juan (bd4b30) — 8/11/2009 @ 5:04 pmScott, you’re a very cold hearted person if you really mean what you say about ‘not supporting people who gamble and lose’.
Patterico gambles by being a DA in LA. Dunphy probably isn’t as well armed as the thugs he guards his city from. Lots of cops and DAs lose.
You are a Marine, I believe. A lot of my friends (I’m a dogface redleg) gambled and lost in Iraq. I’m sure you can say the same.
But more fundamentally, Georgian citizens who were killed by Russian thugs probably were just interested in their own personal lives. Many of them did not ask their government to stand between them and one of the most evil empires in the history of the world.
The idea that they are a democracy, and therefore can be killed in reprisal against what their government does, is an argument we’ve all heard before. On 9/11, of course. It’s just something I don’t think you actually have in your heart, Scott.
I know a lot of marines get very gung ho about life and death, and I admire that, but they don’t mean that in reference to the citizens who don’t even take up arms.
Juan (bd4b30) — 8/11/2009 @ 5:10 pmThey don’t gamble at all. Patterico likely doesn’t go to trial unless he is very well prepared, and Officer Dunphy not only keeps aware of what is going on around him, but also KNOW that backup is a call away.
Georgia poked the Bear hoping that NATO would come, but had no way of knowing either way.
The military doesn’t take a bunch of guy, point at an objective and say “Yeah, we probably can take it, but who knows? Ok guys, we’re heading that-a-way!”
Georgia gambled, pure and simple.
And yeah, I’m REALLY cold-hearted. This is an established fact.
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 8/11/2009 @ 5:17 pm“They don’t gamble at all. Patterico likely doesn’t go to trial unless he is very well prepared”
LOL. DAs in LA lose about half the trials that go to jury verdict, or at least did ten years ago. You can’t prepare enough to deal with an LA jury, my friend.
But I was referring to assassinations.
Juan (bd4b30) — 8/11/2009 @ 5:27 pmScott, I understand your point about Georgia taking a gamble in pushing against South Ossetia militia. However, I think you ignore the long history of Russian work in creating ethnic strife, fostering independance movements in its neighbors and end up putting an excessive amount of blame on Georgia.
In no way did Georgian pushing against South Ossetian militia justify the extensive invasion conducted by Russia – an invasion that Russia has still not fully pulled back from as it agreed to.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/11/2009 @ 7:16 pmThe USA took a gamble pushing back against the NVA. Captain (or LT?) Bonifas took a gamble cutting down a poplar tree.
etc etc.
It’s a gamble facing evil. Hell, sometimes it’s downright stupid. I consider myself a fan of Georgia for standing up for herself. If the entire world always did that, damn the world would be pretty sweet.
Juan (bd4b30) — 8/11/2009 @ 8:57 pmIs little, tiny, politically insginificant Honduras really worth all this attention? Yes, we should block Chavez when he tries to influence another country, but after that, let the Hondurans work this out. I mean, really, doe the US have to be involved in every political issue in the freakin’ world?
And there’s quite a difference between internal politics as in Honduras, and one country invading another, as Russia did with Georgia.
And yes, it was pretty stupid of the Georgians to taunt the Russians. What kind of response did they think were going to get – an invitation to tea?
JEA (53fe4f) — 8/12/2009 @ 6:55 amIs little, tiny, politically insginificant Honduras really worth all this attention?
Perhaps that question would have been better posed to The One, before He stepped on His crank by instinctively siding with the overreaching authoritarian, and thus by dint of His office granting the would-be despot a high profile and pretense of legitimacy he would not have otherwise enjoyed.
But, really, just by that sentence you can see it’s not even about “little, tiny, politically insignificant Honduras”, can’t you? It’s about how The One chooses to throw the weight of His office, and by extension this nation, around.
PCachu (e072b7) — 8/12/2009 @ 7:43 amShould we be surprised that OBAMA is using triangulation? After all Bill the master of triangulation is shaping policy as a incognito Sec. of State . Obama has bigger Socialist Agenda’s to enact here in the USA and must seem more like ” mainstream america”
ELMO Q (69ab1c) — 8/13/2009 @ 10:11 am