What should we make of Obama's foreign policy? He was set to 'restore' America's standing in the world but it sure seems to me the administration's foreign policy is about as clear as mud. Foot dragging on Iran's freedom movement, snubbing the French, irritating the UK by transferring Gitmo detainees to Bermuda, restoring ties to Venezuela and Syria, and now apparently mucking things up over Honduras.

Obama apparently "had worked for weeks (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124619401378065339.html) to try to avert any moves to overthrow President Zelaya," a crony of Hugo the Clown Chavez. The administration's response to the coup was "call on all parties in Honduras to respect the constitutional order and the rule of law."

The only problem is Zelaya was violating the constitution by holding a referendum by popular vote to allow him to serve another term. In response, the Honduran high court ordered the coup (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/centralamericaandthecaribbean/honduras/5677026/Honduras-supreme-court-ordered-army-coup.html).


"Today's events originate from a court order by a competent judge. The armed forces, in charge of supporting the constitution, acted to defend the state of law and have been forced to apply legal dispositions against those who have expressed themselves publicly and acted against the dispositions of the basic law."

Why then was Obama supporting the guy who was flouting their constitution as opposed to those upholding their constitution against this power grab?

The MSM is busy misrepresenting what happened in Honduras.

The guy was trying a Hugo Chavez-like putsch .Honduran Congress and SCOTUS both told him that he could not change the Constitution by the method he planned.
Venezuela was actually involved in printing the referendum ballots . When they were delivered he tried to force the military to distribute them . They refused .

He then had a mob ;his own personal ACORN ,attack the military HQ .They took the ballots and began to distribute them .Only after that did the military remove him from power with the blessing of their court . This is not a coup .If Nixon had been impeached and forceably removed from office it likewise would not have been a coup.

Evita spinning this as an coup against a "democratically elected President " ignores all the facts after the election. The guy is a Bolivarian and their MO is to get popular support ;win elections and force a change in the Constitution to give them dictatorial control over the country.What the Honduran military did was defend their democracy .

He then had a mob ;his own personal ACORN ,attack the military HQ ....

:p LMAO

http://www.dat-e-baseonline.com/front/a.asp?arg=8F7D995F927B7963616B7A80628B73798C6A7272 82817A

Hello:

Here's where you guys go wrong and get us into all sorts of trouble...

I know you don't like him, but a democratically elected leader isn't a dictator no matter how much you don't like his politics.

See, calling someone a dictator when he's NOT, COULD get us into stupid trouble... You really should remember the WMD stuff... This is REAL similar to that crap. Words actually DO matter, and you shouldn't be so sloppy with 'em.

excon

Hello:

Here's where you guys go wrong and get us into all sorts of trouble...

I know you don't like him, but a democratically elected leader isn't a dictator no matter how much you don't like his politics.

See, calling someone a dictator when he's NOT, COULD get us into stupid trouble... You really should remember the WMD stuff... This is REAL similar to that crap. Words actually DO matter, and you shouldn't be so sloppy with 'em.

No, he was a wannabe dictator, that's why he violated the law and led a mob to break into the military facility that had the unconstitutional ballots shipped to him by Hugo the Clown Chavez, steal them and distribute them. I haven't heard a word from the Obama administration about that, about how illegal his attempted power grab was, only that Honduras rightfully enforcing their constitution was "not legal." Yeah, words do matter and Obama can't seem to find the right words in any foreign policy matter.


That Mr. Zelaya acted as if he were above the law, there is no doubt. While Honduran law allows for a constitutional rewrite, the power to open that door does not lie with the president. A constituent assembly can only be called through a national referendum approved by its Congress.

But Mr. Zelaya declared the vote on his own and had Mr. Chávez ship him the necessary ballots from Venezuela. The Supreme Court ruled his referendum unconstitutional, and it instructed the military not to carry out the logistics of the vote as it normally would do.

The top military commander, Gen. Romeo Vásquez Velásquez, told the president that he would have to comply. Mr. Zelaya promptly fired him. The Supreme Court ordered him reinstated. Mr. Zelaya refused.

Calculating that some critical mass of Hondurans would take his side, the president decided he would run the referendum himself. So on Thursday he led a mob that broke into the military installation where the ballots from Venezuela were being stored and then had his supporters distribute them in defiance of the Supreme Court's order.

The attorney general had already made clear that the referendum was illegal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124623220955866301.html), and he further announced that he would prosecute anyone involved in carrying it out. Yesterday, Mr. Zelaya was arrested by the military and is now in exile in Costa Rica.

It remains to be seen what Mr. Zelaya's next move will be. It's not surprising that chavistas throughout the region are claiming that he was victim of a military coup. They want to hide the fact that the military was acting on a court order to defend the rule of law and the constitution, and that the Congress asserted itself for that purpose, too.

Mrs. Clinton has piled on as well. Yesterday she accused Honduras of violating "the precepts of the Interamerican Democratic Charter" and said it "should be condemned by all." Fidel Castro did just that. Mr. Chávez pledged to overthrow the new government.

Honduras is fighting back by strictly following the constitution. The Honduran Congress met in emergency session yesterday and designated its president as the interim executive as stipulated in Honduran law. It also said that presidential elections set for November will go forward. The Supreme Court later said that the military acted on its orders. It 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.

When the heck is Obama going to stand by those DEFENDING Honduran democracy instead of those attempting to overthrow it?

If he is trying to become a dictator he is a dictator . Your argument holds no water . His removal was completely lawful and Constitutional . Democracy is not only about elections . This one and done cr*p that the Bolivarians are pulling is NOT democracy.

His removal was completely lawful and Constitutional . Democracy is not only about elections . Hello again, tom:

I don't know. I've never read a Constitution where it says the military can take over if it doesn't like what's going on... Maybe you can refer me to one.

Pardon me. Democracy is not about elections?? Democracy IS about a military takeover!! Dude!!

So, if OUR military attempted a coup here because Obama is going "socialist" or "destroying the country", then that would be democracy in action?? Is this how the rightwing is twisting things these days??

You guys are even more bonkers than I thought.

excon

The military was responding to a lawful order by their Supreme Court . Dude ;take the same situation and replace the name Zelaya with Richard Nixon or President Bush .

Suppose they tried to unconstitutionally hold a referendum to change the Constitution to give them lifetime Presidency.
Suppose then when Congress and the Courts told him he couldn't that he tried to get the military to conduct the sham referendum.

What would've happened if let's say Nixon had refused to step down after Congress ordered him out if Watergate had played out to it's conclusion ? Would the forced removal be democracy in action or a coup ?

I cannot believe you think this attempted takeover of the country by Zelaya is "democracy" .

The military was responding to a lawful order by their Supreme Court .

Suppose they tried to unconstitutionally hold a referendum to change the Constitution to give them lifetime Presidency.

Suppose then when Congress and the Courts told him he couldn't that he tried to get the military to conduct the sham referendum.Hello again, tom:

Wow! Talk about an activist Supreme Court. So, if OURS did that, it wouldn't be activist, it would be democracy. That's pretty bonkers, dude!

He was elected. There ARE checks on his powers. I'll bet the military ISN'T one 'em. If they stayed OUT of it, it wouldn't matter what he asked them to do, he no POWER to make them do it. Plus, I'll bet they have impeachment in their Constitution, no?

Yup, you're still bonkers.

excon

The Supreme court ordered Ike to send troops to the South to force integration.

What would've happened if he refused ?

This isn't about our constitution.

This isn't about our constitution.Hello again, Steve:

What difference does it make? We either believe in the rule of law or we don't.

excon

By the way ;for the record... the military immediately turned over power back to civilian leadership... someone chosen by their Congress.


Edit

Would like to add more details . The Supreme Court ruled his referendum unconstitutional because by their constitution a constituent assembly (necessary for constitution amending ) can only be called through a national referendum approved by its Congress.
Before his removal the attorney general of Honduras had already made clear that the referendum was illegal, and announced that he would prosecute anyone involved in carrying it out. Zelaya was given the choice of being prosecuted or leaving the country .He opted for the later .


Also ,along with the supreme court order ; 124 of 128 deputies in the unicameral congress of Honduras approved the military removing him from office .In an emergency session they designated an interim executive as stipulated in Honduran law. It also said that presidential elections set for November will go forward.

Hello again, Steve:

What difference does it make? We either believe in the rule of law or we don't.

You're assuming along with Obama that what Honduras did was illegal, and also like him seem to be condoning Zelaya's obviously illegal actions. Which part of the Honduran rule of law do you support?

Time for an update. It was reported (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D99NM95O0&show_article=1) yesterday that the Obama administration revoked the visas of several Honduran officials, supposedly including that of the Supreme Court Justice that ordered the arrest of Zelaya. The administration is "stepping up pressure on coup-installed leaders who insist they can resist international demands to restore the ousted president. "

Reportedly, among those whose visas were revoked are Supreme Court Justice Tomas Arita and Congressional President Jose Alfredo Saavedro, and the administration is reviewing others.

I'm sure excon will find this a relief that Obama so regards a Democratically elected leader (who happens to be a criminal that wants to install himself as dictator for life), but I find it disturbing that Obama is playing the part of the puppet (http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/zelaya-asked-obama-to-revoke-honduran-visas-2009-07-29.html) for the wannabe dictator puppet master...


Manuel Zelaya, who was removed from office on June 28 and has now retreated to the mountains of Nicaragua to organize a "resistance," according to the Central American News Agency, reportedly sent a letter to Obama asking him to ramp up the pressure on the interim government and calling for the "revocation of visas" to those involved in his ouster, and the freezing of bank accounts.

The Zelaya letter reportedly names officials against whom the ousted president wanted action taken, including General Romeo Vasquez Velasquez, the head of the armed forces who was fired by Zelaya on June 25 for refusing to use the military to press forward with a referendum deemed illegal by the country's highest court.

So Zelaya sends Obama a letter wanting revenge and Obama complies. Isn't that nice? We do the bidding of the wannabe dictator, we won't work with the current Honduran government and we'll penalize their officials, all while we open talks with the terrorist Taliban (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/27/britain-us-talks-taliban-afghanistan) and coddle the Iranians.

YOu should be happy ex, the Obama administration is likely to label the Hondurans retaking of democracy a "military coup" which will require that we cut them off from millions in foreign aid (http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed1/idUSN27328207).


U.S. State Department staff have recommended that the ouster of Honduran President Manuel Zelaya be declared a "military coup," a U.S. official said on Thursday, a step that could cut off as much as $150 million in U.S. funding to the impoverished Central American nation.

The official, who spoke on condition he not be named, said State Department staff had made such a recommendation to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who has yet to make a decision on the matter although one was likely soon.

What an a$$. And speaking of that, Obama is snubbing yet another ally (http://www.pl-news.us/2009/08/us-snubs-poland-over-ww-ii-ceremony.html) in Poland.

YOu should be happy ex, the Obama administration is likely to label the Hondurans retaking of democracy a "military coup" Hello again, Steve:

Let me see. The democratically elected president is overthrown by the military, in a classic coup, yet you call it something else... It IS what it IS. You can't change the name of it just because you don't like it. I thought only liberals were PC like that.

excon

Ex, the way I read it is that he was thrown out by the Court. The military forces obeyed their orders as determined by the courts. Our armed forces do the same thing, like in Alabama several decades ago.

What happened in Honduras was the preservation of their democracyfrom an attempted dictatorial take over .The legislature and Supreme Court ,and the military acting on their behalf ,refused to let Zelaya use unconstitutional methods to take over the government .I don't give a damn that he was elected . What Zelaya attempted was not democracy .It was the move of a despot.

But it doesn't surprise me that the President would side with a Chavez wannabee .

Ex, the way I read it is that he was thrown out by the Court. The military forces obeyed their orders as determined by the courts. Our armed forces do the same thing, like in Alabama several decades ago.Hello Cat:

Our president is the Commander in Chief. The military does NOT take orders from the Courts. IF they did follow an order by the court to take control of the country and dump Obama in Canada, it would be a coup, and I don't care what you want to call it.

The Honduran military was not dispatched to maintain order as in Alabama. It was dispatched to take control of the country. That's a coup. I don't care WHAT you want to call it.

excon

Hello Cat:

Our president is the Commander in Chief. The military does NOT take orders from the Courts. IF they did follow an order by the court to take control of the country and dump Obama in Canada, it would be a coup, and I don't care what you wanna call it.

The Honduran military was not dispatched to maintain order as in Alabama. It was dispatched to take control of the country. That's a coup. I don't care WHAT you wanna call it.

excon

In our system, there are checks and balances. If the President oversteps his legal authority, it is the resposibility of the Judicial and the Legislative Branches of government to stop him.

If the President uses the military to get his way in violation of the law, the PRESIDENT is the one committing a military coup.

If the Judiciary and the Legislative Branches use the military to STOP the President from doing so, they are NOT committing a coup, they are obeyinbg the law.

If the government strips power from the President IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW, that would constitute a coup.

But that is not what happened here. The law was clear. Zelaya violated it, or tried to, and was stopped.

The only question is this: was Zelaya trying to take power in violation of the Constitution of Hunduras. The answer to that question is unequivocally YES. There is no other interpretation to what he was doing... trying to set up a popular coup, attempting to force an illegal election, and strongarming his way into power in violation of Constitutionally established term limits. He was attempting a coup, and he was stopped.

The government stopped him, and used the military to do it. Therefore the actions of the government were not a coup, they were enforcement of the law.

Elliot

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.


Looks like the Hondurans who wrote the Constitution were sensitive to the possibility of a tin pot dictator's attempt at the classic despotic 1 vote 1 time scenario .The problem of presidents who never leave power is all too common among undeveloped countries, so a very strict prohibition against multiple terms of office is prudent there and in my view gaining legitimacy here
.
Article 239 of the Honduran Constitution makes the actions of the court and legislature and the military constitutional .

In our system, there are checks and balances. If the President oversteps his legal authority, it is the resposibility of the Judicial and the Legislative Branches of government to stop him.

If the President uses the military to get his way in violation of the law, the PRESIDENT is the one committing a military coup.

If the Judiciary and the Legislative Branches use the military to STOP the President from doing so, they are NOT committing a coup, they are obeyinbg the law. Hello again, Elliot:

Let me be perfectly clear about this... There is NOTHING in our law that says anything remotely similar to the right wing claptrap your spewing... You have a fundamental misunderstanding of our laws, and how our country works. You haven't a clue. You can no longer be taken seriously.

excon

Hello Cat:

Our president is the Commander in Chief. The military does NOT take orders from the Courts. IF they did follow an order by the court to take control of the country and dump Obama in Canada, it would be a coup, and I don't care what you wanna call it.

The Honduran military was not dispatched to maintain order as in Alabama. It was dispatched to take control of the country. That's a coup. I don't care WHAT you wanna call it.

excon

I disagree. The Military was dispatched to arrest and deport a criminal politician, as determined by the courts. They then took steps to maintain order when the criminal's supporters started a riot in front of the Presidential palace.

Article 239 of the Honduran Constitution makes the actions of the court and legislature and the military constitutional .
I disagree. The Military was dispatched to arrest and deport a criminal politician, as determined by the courts. They then took steps to maintain order when the criminal's supporters started a riot in front of the Presidential palace.Hello guys:

I see where you say the president broke the law... I don't know whether he did or not. THAT is not the issue. What I want to see is the document that says the military works for the court.

I suggest that you cannot present such a document. Therefore, the military was acting on its OWN or on the behalf of the courts. Either way, it's a coup.

excon

Art. 313 of their consititution gives exclusive jurisdiction to the Supreme Court in matters relating to high public officials.

I'll pull up the exact text in a moment

I see where you say the president broke the law... I don't know whether he did or not. THAT is not the issue. What I want to see is the document that says the military works for the court.

That was established in my OP:


"Today's events originate from a court order by a competent judge. The armed forces, in charge of supporting the constitution, acted to defend the state of law and have been forced to apply legal dispositions against those who have expressed themselves publicly and acted against the dispositions of the basic law," the country's highest court said.

I guess you think their supreme court is lying or don't understand what "in charge of" and "forced to apply legal dispositions" means.

Hello guys:

I see where you say the president broke the law... I dunno whether he did or not. THAT is not the issue. What I want to see is the document that says the military works for the court.

I suggest that you cannot present such a document. Therefore, the military was acting on its OWN or on the behalf of the courts. Either way, it's a coup.

excon

Do you remember saying this when you entered the military?


I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

The oath is to DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION against all enemies, foreign and domestic, not to follow the President or the Court or the Legislature.

That means that the military works for the CONSTITUTION. If the President violates the Constitution, then the military works for whoever is PRESERVING the Constitution. That's the oath.

I am fairly sure that Honduras has a similar oath of office for their military. But I don't speak Spanish, so I can't find their military oath. I suspect that theirs is similar to ours.

In any case, there's your documentation that the military works for whomsoever is upholding the Constitution... in the case of Honduras, that was the Court and the Legislature, not Zelaya. The Court and the Legislature were within their rights to call for the military to back them up in upholding the Constitution.

But I'm quite sure that you're still not convinced.

Elliot

ARTICULO 313.- “Los Tribunales de Justicia requerirán el auxilio de la Fuerza Pública para el cumplimiento de sus resoluciones; si les fuera negado o no lo hubiere disponible, lo exigirán de los ciudadanos.
El que injustificadamente se negare a dar auxilio incurrirá en responsabilidad.”
(translated )
ARTICLE 313.- “The court require the aid of Public Force for the fulfillment of its resolutions; it aid is denied or is not available, they will demand it from the citizens. Anyone who unjustifiably denies such aid will incur in responsibility."

The military ( Public Force) of Honduras OBEYED an order dictated by the Judicial Branch; therefore, they did not coup. The court REQUIRES the aid of public force. In other words article 313 of the Honduran constitution empowers the supreme court to use the military to carry out its rulings.

That was established in my OP.. I guess you think their supreme court is lying or don't understand what "in charge of" and "forced to apply legal dispositions" means.Hello again, Steve:

I don't think it WAS established, Steve.

Oh, and I BELIEVE the supreme court when they say what they say. Maybe I don't understand what "in charge of" means. Do you? I'm sure they can issue the "legal dispositions" they do.

What I question is whether you can produce ANY verbiage saying the courts can ORDER the military to action. In THIS country, there can be a LOT of institutions who are "in charge" of lots of stuff - the CIA, the Pentagon, the Supreme Court, the JUSTICE DEPARTMENT among others.

NONE of them, contrary to what the Wolverine thinks - absolutely none of them, no matter how much POWER the term "in charge" connotes, can order the military to action. Our Constitution is clear. The President is the Commander in Chief.

excon

I think the ball is in your court, ex.

As in see tom's last post.

He did it, he cut off aid to Honduras and Zelaya is meeting with Hillary at the State Department.


The State Department announced this afternoon that it will terminate "a broad range of assistance" to Honduras in response to the June 28 coup.

The announcement comes on the day that ousted President Zelaya is at the State Department to meet with Hillary Clinton.

The statement below from spokesman Ian Kelly says the restoration of aid to Honduras will depend on Honduras returning to "democratic, constitutional governance."

The U.S. is pressing for "legitimate" elections to take place in November.

Full statement below:


The Department of State announces the termination of a broad range of assistance to the government of Honduras as a result of the coup d'etat that took place on June 28. The Secretary already had suspended assistance shortly after the coup.

The Secretary of State has made the decision, consistent with U.S. legislation, recognizing the need for strong measures in light of the continued resistance to the adoption of the San Jose Accord by the de facto regime and continuing failure to restore democratic, constitutional rule to Honduras.

The Department of State recognizes the complicated nature of the actions which led to June 28 coup d'etat in which Honduras' democratically elected leader,

President Zelaya, was removed from office. These events involve complex factual and legal questions and the participation of both the legislative and judicial branches of government as well as the military.

Restoration of the terminated assistance will be predicated upon a return to democratic, constitutional governance in Honduras.

The Department of State further announces that we have identified individual members and supporters of the de facto regime whose visas are in the process of being revoked.

A presidential election is currently scheduled for November. That election must be undertaken in a free, fair and transparent manner. It must also be free of taint and open to all Hondurans to exercise their democratic franchise. At this moment, we would not be able to support the outcome of the scheduled elections. A positive conclusion of the Arias process would provide a sound basis for legitimate elections to proceed. We strongly urge all parties to the San Jose talks to move expeditiously to agreement.

I guess the Obama administration hasn't read the Honduran constitution. No surprise, they don't read anything before foisting their will on others. Maybe Zelaya can hang around a while and we can have a nice little party for him, Qaddafi and the Mahdi Hatter.

Story here (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/09/03/2051461.aspx).

That means that the military works for the CONSTITUTION. If the President violates the Constitution, then the military works for whoever is PRESERVING the Constitution. That's the oath.

But I'm quite sure that you're still not convinced.Hello again, El:

Oh, you're right about that... I'm NOT convinced... That's cause I can READ!!

Let me get this straight. You think, that in times of strife OUR military is to refuse to take orders from the Commander in Chief, but instead, the generals are to DECIDE for themselves from whom to take orders?? They should look around for "whoever is PRESERVING the Constitution" and take orders from them?? OUR MILITARY decides who's orders they're going to follow?? Did I get it right??

You really believe that claptrap?? Nahhh. Even a right wing nut like you can't believe that pile of garbage. What planet do you ordinarily reside on??

excon

The military ( Public Force) of Honduras OBEYED an order dictated by the Judicial Branch; therefore, they did not coup. The court REQUIRES the aid of public force. In other words article 313 of the Honduran constitution empowers the supreme court to use the military to carry out its rulings.Hello again, tom:

Like the misreading of the "death panel" stuff, I refuse to believe that a Constitution written by adults would give the military the ability to decide who it took orders from.

I speak Spanish. They have a word for military. They COULD have used that word if they wanted to. They didn't. I don't know what a "public force" is, do you?

excon

I guess the Obama administration hasn't read the Honduran constitution


I refuse to believe that a Constitution written by adults would give the military the ability to decide who it took orders from.

And Excon is still framing his argument on his understanding of our system also.
Because if the President and Excon had read the Honduran Constitution he would see that Zelaya forfeited his right to rule under Article 239 , which bans presidents from holding office if they even propose to alter the constitutional term limits for presidents. And the Honduran military, which acted on orders of the Honduran supreme court, expressly had the right to remove the president for seeking to alter the constitutional term limit, under Article 272 of the Honduran Constitution.
In other words ; the Honduran constitution does not provide a civilian mechanism for removing a president from office after repeated violations of the law, such as impeachment in the U.S. Constitution. But it does provide provisions for the President's immediate removal for violating the constitution.
Honduran lawyer and former Minister of Culture Octavio Sanchez concurres with this opinion.
A 'coup' in Honduras? Nonsense. | csmonitor.com (http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0702/p09s03-coop.htm)

According to Article 239: "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 [emphasis added], 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."
Notice that the article speaks about intent and that it also says "immediately" – as in "instant," as in "no trial required," as in "no impeachment needed."
Continuismo – the tendency of heads of state to extend their rule indefinitely – has been the lifeblood of Latin America's authoritarian tradition. The Constitution's provision of instant sanction might sound draconian, but every Latin American democrat knows how much of a threat to our fragile democracies continuismo presents. In Latin America, chiefs of state have often been above the law. The instant sanction of the supreme law has successfully prevented the possibility of a new Honduran continuismo.

Hello again, tom:

Like the misreading of the "death panel" stuff, I refuse to believe that a Constitution written by adults would give the military the ability to decide who it took orders from.

I speak Spanish. They have a word for military. They COULD have used that word if they wanted to. They didn't. I dunno what a "public force" is, do you?

excon

You're reaching for straws, excon, and you know it. Tom gave you chapter and verse, and you can't deny what it says in the Honduran Constitution.

Actually you can. You do it all the time with the Health Care bills. But it doesn't make you right.

As for our Constitution, again, it says what it says. If the President violates the Constitution to take power that is not legally his, the military is REQUIRED to protect and defend the Constitution, not obey the President. And if Congress and SCOTUS are the ones following the Constitution, the military is required to follow the LEGAL CIVILIAN AUTHORITIES... not the illegal ones.

Elliot

I would assume "public force" would include all security forces such as military and police. It's not that hard to understand, ex.

and Excon is still framing his argument on his understanding of our system also.Hello again, tom:

At least I got you to admit that Elliot is a nut...

Look. I'm not a lawyer. I for sure, don't know Honduran law. It doesn't change my mind that you're able to find a right wing Honduran lawyer to say what the military wants him to say... We have lawyers like that here too, remember?

So, I really don't know what the LAW is, and neither do you. You have your INTERPRETATION, and Obama has his. Given your interpretation of the laws on torture, I don't trust your interpretations very much... In fact, I trust my SENSES, to the degree, that I'll repeat my earlier statement... I don't believe that ANY Constitution written by adults would give the military of ANY country the ability to decide who it took orders from.

Besides that, Obama IS a lawyer. HE says it was a coup. He was able to define torture, and you're not. That's good enough for me.

excon

Obama's a lawyer.. . you can look long and hard to find a case he was on or a legal opinion he authored . You can't even find anything he wrote while he was editor of the Harvard Law review. I don't trust lawyers who have such thin resumes. I certainly would not hire him to write my living will

I trust my SENSES...

The judges on the Honduran Supreme Court declared his actions illegal and unconstitutional... a conclusion shared by the Congress and the President's own political party, including his own attorney general.

At what time should the military act when a President is in the process of declaring himself dictator ? Does your senses say they should wait until AFTER he has completed the transition ? DUDE!!

Amazingly, I have to admit Ex is correct in one item. Zelaya was arrested that Sunday morning, and the Legislature did not formally remove him from office until Sunday afternoon, thereby making it a coup. If the arrest had occurred afterwards, it would not have been one, but that's an if.

At what time should the military act when a President is in the process of declaring himself dictator ? Does your senses say they should wait until AFTER he has completed the transition ? DUDE !!!!!!!Hello again, tom:

Maybe I don't understand... He WAS elected in the first place. All he did was SAY that he was going to run again...

Seems to me all they had to do is NOT elect him. Maybe they could have kept him off the ballots by NOT PRINTING HIS NAME. Maybe they could have kept him OFF television... I don't know. It seems they could have done a LOT of stuff short of a coup.

excon

Amazingly, I have to admit Ex is correct in one item. Zelaya was arrested that Sunday morning, and the Legislature did not formally remove him from office until Sunday afternoon, thereby making it a coup. If the arrest had occured afterwards, it would not have been one, but that's an if.

Now THAT is the first viable position that I have heard on this subject... it actually addresses the facts and the law, not opinions.

Excon, you could learn something from Cats...

Question: do we know when their Supreme Court ruled Zelaya's actions to have been illegal and unconstitutional? Because that may have been earlier in the day, which would mean that this wasn't a coup.

Elliot

Hello again, tom:

Maybe I don't understand... He WAS elected in the first place. All he did was SAY that he was going to run again...

First of all, he was term-limited out. Second, he began a movement to create an illegal vote that violated that term limit.


Seems to me all they had to do is NOT elect him. Maybe they could have kept him off the ballots by NOT PRINTING HIS NAME. Maybe they could have kept him OFF television... I don't know. It seems they could have done a LOT of stuff short of a coup.

Excon

He wasn't elligible to run in the first place. His name WASN'T on the ballot. He was starting a strong-arm movement to get himself onto the ballot anyway. THAT is a coup. That is, in fact, the classical definition of a coup.

His actions were illegal. The Supreme Court ruled his actions illegal, and he kept doing it anyway. He was then arrested. Congress ruled him to be in violation of the Constitution and ordered him to be removed from office by the military. Those actions were all in keeping with the Constitution of Honduras. They did NOT constitute a coup.

COULD they have done something else instead? Maybe. But the actions that they did take were NOT illegal and did not constitute a coup.

Elliot

He wasn't elligible to run in the first place. His name WASN'T on the ballot. He was starting a strong-arm movement to get himself onto the ballot anyway. THAT is a coup. That is, in fact, the classical definition of a coup.Hello again, El:

I don't know. I'm not convinced that simply using strong armed tactics to GET ON THE BALLOT, so the people can VOTE their mind in a FREE election, is a coup.

Nope. I'm not convinced at all. You're going to have to do better...

excon

Hello again, El:

I dunno. I'm not convinced that simply using strong armed tactics to GET ON BALLOT, so the people can VOTE their mind in a FREE election, is a coup.

Nope. I'm not convinced at all. You're gonna have to do better....

excon

I'm sorry... Using strong-arm tactics to violate the constitution of Honduras, which has term limits, doesn't constitute a violation of the law?

Ohh... I'm sorry.. I forget who I'm talking to. Mr. Criminal Rights himself. Of course you don't have a problem with people breaking the law, unless they're CONSERVATIVES.

Elliot

All that is besides the point . I again address the specifics of the clause in their 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.

The language is unambiguous .He violated the law by just proposing changing the law . I have already explained why that provision was put into the constitution. But I'll say it again.. It was put in to guard against the very thing he tried to do... make himself President for life.

I'm sorry... Using strong-arm tactics to violate the constitution of Honduras, which has term limits, doesn't constitute a violation of the law?Hello again, El:

I'm sure it WAS against the law. I'm also sure it WASN'T a coup.

I also understand, tom, that his INTENTION was to get himself elected for life, contrary to law. What I DON'T understand, is what his INTENTION has to do with a military coup. Especially when what he INTENDED had to be APPROVED of by the electorate.

ELECTIONS are a BIG distinction. I don't think you guys get it... When elections are held freely, as they are in Honduras, you've got to believe, that no matter what ruinous, and illegal machinations a deranged leader might INTEND, he WILL be thwarted by the electorate.

THAT is democracy at work - not sending in the troops.

excon

Sending in the troops worked well in Little Rock

In 10 years when he is eligible to run again (according to the law as written in 239 )the people will have their say.

Hello again, El:

I'm sure it WAS against the law. I'm also sure it WASN'T a coup.

I also understand, tom, that his INTENTION was to get himself elected for life, contrary to law. What I DON'T understand, is what his INTENTION has to do with a military coup. Especially when what he INTENDED had to be APPROVED of by the electorate.

ELECTIONS are a BIG distinction. I don't think you guys get it.... When elections are held freely, as they are in Honduras, you've got to believe, that no matter what ruinous, and illegal machinations a deranged leader might INTEND, he WILL be thwarted by the electorate.

THAT is democracy at work - not sending in the troops.

excon

What he SHOULD have done was lobby for a change to the Constitution. That is how law abiding citizens work within the law.

But he didn't do that. Instead he got himself a mob and tried to FORCE the government to accept an illegal election.

THAT is a coup, no matter how you slice it.

It wasn't about intent. It was about the illegal actions he actually took in an attempt to grab power that was not legally his.

Elliot

It wasn't about intent. It was about the illegal actions he actually took in an attempt to grab power that was not legally his.Hello again, El:

Let's be clear... He grabbed power to RUN FOR OFFICE - where the electorate could TURN HIM OUT if they chose to do so...

excon

Hello again,

Besides that, why couldn't he have hired a couple Justice Department lawyers to write a memo saying that he CAN run again? We know people who do that.

excon

Hello again, El:

Let's be clear... He grabbed power to RUN FOR OFFICE - where the electorate could TURN HIM OUT if they chose to do so....

excon

He grabbed power ILLEGALLY to run for an office for which he was not legally elligible. That's all that matters.

It would be like Bush deciding that he wants to run for a third term as President. It doesn't matter whether the PEOPLE want him to run or not. It doesn't matter whether he can win the election or not. It is illegal for him to run. And if he tries to do so by using strong-arm tactics, he has violated the law, violated the Constitution, and has attempted a coup. His removal, even by the military, is an act that presereves and protects the Constitution.

I see that you are no longer arguing that Zelaya had the legal right to do what he did. You agree that what he did was illegal. You even agree that it was a power grab.

So what is it you're arguing? That despite the fact that he broke the law, violated the Constitution, and was making an illegal power grab, he should have been allowed to run anyway?

On what legal basis? Where does it say that people who are not legally allowed to run for office should be permitted to do so anyway, as long as they have a mob at their backs?

There is no legal basis for your position.

You are just trying to be populist by saying that "the people should decide". But your populist argument doesn't trump the law. By your own admission, Zelaya violated the law in an illegal attempt to grab power. That's the only thing that matters.

Elliot

Hello again,

Besides that, why couldn't he have hired a couple Justice Department lawyers to write a memo saying that he CAN run again? We know people who do that.

excon

Yep... and we have a bunch of folks who are trying to prosecute them for it... or are you saying that they shouldn't be investigating and prosecuting them?

You paint yourself into corners too easily.

Zelaya COULD have tried that approach... but he didn't. Instead he went straight for the strong-arm tactics.

Coup.

Elliot

He grabbed power ILLEGALLY to run for an office for which he was not legally elligible. That's all that matters.Hello again, El:

Not at all.. What MATTERS is that the military conducted a COUP instead of just sending a couple cops to arrest him.

If they'd arrested him and thrown him in jail, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.

Amazing... You always forget the IMPORTANT parts of the discussions. That's OK. I'm here to fill in the gaps.

Excn

Hello again, El:

Not at all.. What MATTERS is that the military conducted a COUP instead of just sending a couple cops to arrest him.

And the legal difference is...

There is none.


If they'd arrested him and thrown him in jail, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.

They DID arrest him and throw him in jail. But it was military personnel that did it, not cops.

And again, the difference is...

There is none.


Amazing... You always forget the IMPORTANT parts of the discussions. That's OK. I'm here to fill in the gaps.

Excn

Still waiting for you to fill in a gap. Or FIND one, for that matter.

Do the facts matter (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204518504574423570828980800.html?m od=rss_opinion_main)? Fat chance. The administration is standing by its "coup" charge and 10 days ago, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton went so far as to sanction the country's independent judiciary. The U.S. won't say why, but its clear the court's sin is rejecting a U.S.-backed proposal to restore Mr. Zelaya to power.

The upshot is that the U.S. is trying to force Honduras to violate its own constitution and is also using its international political heft to try to interfere with the country's independent judiciary.

Hondurans are worried about what this pressure is doing to their country. Mr. Zelaya's violent supporters are emboldened by the U.S. position. They deface some homes and shops with graffiti and throw stones and home-made bombs into others, and whenever the police try to stop them, they howl about their "human rights."

But it may be that Americans should be even more concerned about the heavy-handedness, without legal justification, emanating from the executive branch in Washington. What does it say about Mr. Obama's respect for the separation of powers that he would instruct Mrs. Clinton to punish an independent court because it did not issue the ruling he wanted?

Since June 28, the U.S. has been pressuring Honduras to put Mr. Zelaya back in the presidency. But neither Mrs. Clinton's spurious "rule of law" claims or the tire iron handed her by Mr. Obama to use against this little country have been effective in convincing the Honduran judiciary that it ought to abandon its constitution.

It seems that Mrs. Clinton is peeved with the court because it ruled that restoring Mr. Zelaya to power under a proposal drafted by Costa Rican President Oscar Arias is unconstitutional. Thus, the State Department decided that in defense of the rule of law it would penalize the members of the Supreme Court for their interpretation of their constitution. Fourteen justices had their U.S. visas pulled.

Since the U.S. already had yanked the visa of the 15th member of the court, the one who signed the arrest warrant for Mr. Zelaya, this action completed Mrs. Clinton's assault on the independence of a foreign democracy's highest court. The lesson, presumably, is that judges in small foreign nations are required to accept America's interpretation of their own laws.

Let's see, how many times did we hear complaints of Bush imposing his will on other countries? I get it though, Obama is simply restoring America's standing in the world by imposing his will on a democratic ally enforcing its constitution.

Oh, one more thing you won't hear about in the obedient media on this story, in August the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (http://www.loc.gov/crsinfo/) found that, "The Supreme Court of Honduras has constitutional and statutory authority to hear cases against the President of the Republic and many other high officers of the State, to adjudicate and enforce judgments, and to request the assistance of the public forces to enforce its rulings."

I have not found a direct link to the CRS report written by CRS senior foreign law specialist Norma C. Gutierrez .

The Wall Street Journal also quotes her as writing in the report that :

"Available sources indicate that the judicial and legislative branches applied constitutional and statutory law in the case against President Zelaya in a manner that was judged by the Honduran authorities from both branches of the government to be in accordance with the Honduran legal system,"
Mary O'Grady: Hillary's Honduras Obsession - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204518504574423570828980800.html)

I've looked also, good luck finding anything on a government website, particularly from CRS (http://opencrs.com/faq/).

The sitting Honduran president, Roberto Micheletti, has spoken on this alleged military coup (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/21/AR2009092103111.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns) - like that ain't what happened.


My country is in an unusual position this week. Former president Manuel Zelaya has surreptitiously returned to Honduras, still claiming to be the country's legitimate leader, despite the fact that a constitutional succession took place on June 28. Amid all of the claims that are likely to be made in coming days, the former president will not mention that the people of Honduras have moved on since the events of that day or that our citizens are looking forward to free, fair and transparent elections on Nov. 29.

The international community has wrongfully condemned the events of June 28 and mistakenly labeled our country as undemocratic. I must respectfully disagree. As the true story slowly emerges, there is a growing sense that what happened in Honduras that day was not without merit. On June 28, the Honduran Supreme Court issued an arrest warrant for Zelaya for his blatant violations of our constitution, which marked the end of his presidency. To this day, an overwhelming majority of Hondurans support the actions that ensured the respect of the rule of law in our country.

Underlying all the rhetoric about a military overthrow are facts. Simply put, coups do not leave civilians in control over the armed forces, as is the case in Honduras today. Neither do they allow the independent functioning of democratic institutions -- the courts, the attorney general's office, the electoral tribunal. Nor do they maintain a respect for the separation of powers. In Honduras, the judicial, legislative and executive branches are all fully functioning and led by civilian authorities.

Coups do not allow freedom of assembly, either. They do not guarantee freedom of the press, much less a respect for human rights. In Honduras, these freedoms remain intact and vibrant. And on Nov. 29 our country plans to hold the ultimate civic exercise of any democracy: a free and open presidential election.

Although much of the international community disagrees with our past actions, we can all agree on the necessity of ensuring Honduras's full commitment to the electoral process. Our citizens believe that the upcoming presidential election is the best way to guarantee peace and democracy. While the election will take place in little more than 60 days, the electoral process has been underway for some time. The election is being convened by an autonomous body, the Supreme Electoral Tribunal, whose magistrates were selected by Congress in early 2009 and ratified by then-President Zelaya. The autonomous body began the electoral process with presidential primary elections -- which were supervised by the Organization of American States -- in 2008 also during Zelaya's tenure. The upcoming election will include Honduras's first independent presidential candidate -- a rarity in all of Latin America.

The winner of the November election will take office as president of Honduras in January 2010. At that moment my transitional administration will cease, and the newly sworn-in president will hold all the authority vested to him by our country's constitution.

Our whole country -- whether members of political parties, youths, students or members of civil society, government, parental organizations or private businesses -- is committed to guaranteeing transparent elections. Voter turnout will be a constitutional expression of self-determination and a demonstration of national sovereignty. The Supreme Electoral Tribunal has invited independent observers from around the globe to observe our voting process. Our country is open to the world. All organizations -- churches, universities, think tanks, nongovernmental organizations -- that wish to witness firsthand this great exercise of self-determination and democracy are welcome.

We are, of course, disappointed with the position of the United States and the European Union, both longtime friends. We look forward to continuing dialogue with the United States, the European Union and the rest of the international community to prove our commitment to democracy and the Honduran people's love of freedom. Coercive action directed at our nation will only harm less fortunate Hondurans, whose hospitals, schools, roads and other institutions rely greatly on our friends' generous assistance, for which all of our citizens are immensely grateful.

I have said from the moment I was sworn in as president of Honduras that I do not intend to remain in office one second more than what our constitution mandates. On Jan. 27 I will hand over leadership responsibilities to the ninth president of our 27-year-old democracy. Such actions are in keeping with the desire of the majority of our people: the strengthening of our democracy.

The sitting Honduran president, Roberto Micheletti has spoken on this alleged military coup - like that ain't what happened.Hello again, Steve:

You expected him to say, what?? But, you politically correct righty's can't change a coup into a Constitutional succession. Try as you might, you just can't do it.

Boy, you and the LIBS in Berkeley have a LOT in common.. Politically correct speech - Hmph...

excon

Ex, you must have drank the koolaid.

The Congressional Research Service (CRS ) examining the evidence and based on their reading of Honduran Constitution and law has concluded that "Available sources indicate that the judicial and legislative branches applied constitutional and statutory law in the case against President Zelaya in a manner that was judged by the Honduran authorities from both branches of the government to be in accordance with the Honduran legal system"...
"The Supreme Court of Honduras has constitutional and statutory authority to hear cases against the President of the Republic and many other high officers of the State, to adjudicate and enforce judgments, and to request the assistance of the public forces to enforce its rulings." The report was written by CRS senior foreign law specialist Norma C. Gutierrez.

But I have already provided the provisions from their constitution verbadum .This is just additional confirmation from an organization the Congress empowers to make these evaluations for them .

New development is that Zelaya has been smuggled back into the country . He is in the Brazilian Embassy.Honduran soldiers have surrounded the embassy. Meanwhile Brazil has called for an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council over Hondurans and of course the prick Hugo Chavez is flapping his gums in NY .demanding Zeyla's reinstatement . It appears his return to Honduras was coordinated to make as big an impact on the UN meetings this week.

The UN is of course compliant in the charade inviting the ousted would be dictator Zeyla to speak for the nation instead of it's legitimate President . This is a move consistent with that group of thugs ,dictators ,and generally jack booted leaders of the worlds less than free states that call themselves the General Assembly.

Obama revoked the visa of Honduran president Roberto Micheletti, preventing his entry into the United States. This is a move he did not make to any other world leader no matter how brutal they are.

I would say my respect for our President cannot get any lower. But tomorrow's another day

More typical Obama foreign policy, while he has no problem rushing to the aide of a wannabe dictator, he has no time for the British PM.



Barack Obama's churlishness is unforgivable (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/davidhughes/100011208/barack-obamas-churlishness-is-unforgivable/)

By David Hughes Last updated: September 24th, 2009

The juxtaposition on our front page this morning is striking. We carry a photograph of Acting Sgt Michael Lockett - who was killed in Helmand on Monday - receiving the Military Cross from the Queen in June, 2008. He was the 217th British soldier to die in the Afghan conflict. Alongside the picture, we read that the Prime Minister was forced to dash through the kitchens of the UN in New York to secure a few minutes “face time” with President Obama after five requests for a sit-down meeting were rejected by the White House.

What are we to make of this? This country has proved, through the bravery of men like Acting Sgt Lockett, America’s staunchest ally in Afghanistan. In return, the American President treats the British Prime Minister with casual contempt. The President’s graceless behaviour is unforgivable. As most members of the Cabinet would confirm, it’s not a barrel of laughs having to sit down for a chat with Gordon Brown. But that’s not the point. Mr Obama owes this country a great deal for its unflinching commitment to the American-led war in Afghanistan but seems incapable of acknowledging the fact. You might have thought that after the shambles of Mr Brown’s first visit to the Obama White House - when there was no joint press conference and the President’s “gift” to the Prime Minister was a boxed DVD set - lessons would have been learned. Apparently not. Admittedly, part of the problem was Downing Street’s over-anxiety to secure a face-to-face meeting for domestic political purposes but the White House should still have been more obliging. Mr Obama’s churlishness is fresh evidence that the US/UK special relationship is a one-way street.

Got any reset buttons left?

And here I thought that Obama's goal was to restore the respect of other countries for the USA and the Office of the President.

I guess that his METHOD for doing that is to snub your allies and grovel to your enemies.

To insult democratic leaders and embrace dictators and tyrants.

To give power to despots who flout the laws of their own countries, but throw legitimate democratic political movements that are looking for honest representative government under the bus.

To disarm his country and his allies unilaterally while kowtowing to the demands of enemies who invade other countries at whim.

I guess he thinks that insults and undermining his allies are the way to build respectful relationships...

And some people thought that Bush was an insult to the Office of POTUS. He never turned his back on an ally in favor of an enemy.

Disgusting.

And some people thought that Bush was an insult to the Office of POTUS. He never turned his back on an ally in favor of an enemy.

Disgusting.

Brent Bozell made an interesting observation this morning...


Here's something interesting that we found. Kudos to my colleague Dan Gainor who found this one. Here is the ultimate difference between Barack Obama and Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan never used the first person singular, he always talked about the first person plural. We, we, we, we. Barack Obama, how many times in 41 major speeches do you think he has used the word "I" or "me."

DOOCY: Forty-one?

BOZELL: One thousand one hundred ninety-eight times.

Obama is all about Obama.

This is just too funny (http://www.miamiherald.com/news/5min/story/1248828.html)...


It's been 89 days since Manuel Zelaya was booted from power. He's sleeping on chairs, and he claims his throat is sore from toxic gases and "Israeli mercenaries'' are torturing him with high-frequency radiation.

"We are being threatened with death,'' he said in an interview with The Miami Herald, adding that mercenaries were likely to storm the embassy where he has been holed up since Monday and assassinate him.

OK, now how long before Obama throws Zelaya under the bus? After all, what would an association with a loony conspiracy theorist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Jones) do to his image? Or will we just have a new look for the State Department?

http://riverdaughter.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/hillary_tinfoil_hat1.jpg

Steve,

Adding to your citation from Bozell, I heard an interesting statistic the other day. I can neither confirm nor deny the statistic. I am just repeating it.

During his entire 8 years in office, Bush had 14 sit-down interviews with people from the media.

Bill Clinton, who everyone knows was something of a media hog, only had 6 sit-down interviews while he was in office.

To date, with only 9 months in office, Obama has had 66 sit-down interviews with the media.

So far.

Yeah... Obama is all about Obama.

Elliot

Update : The Congressional Research Service (pdf) report can be found at this site...

World 4 Honduras: Honduras: Constitutional Law Issues (http://www.world4honduras.com/2009/09/honduras-constitutional-law-issues.html)

Hello again, tom:

From the report:
-------------------

V. Was the removal of Honduran President Zelaya legal, in accordance with Honduran constitutional and statutory law?

Available sources indicate that the judicial and legislative branches applied constitutional and statutory law in the case against President Zelaya in a manner that was judged by the Honduran authorities from both branches of the government to be in accordance with the Honduran legal system.

However, removal of President Zelaya from the country by the military is in direct violation of the Article 102 of the Constitution, and apparently this action is currently under investigation by the Honduran authorities.
-------------------------------------

Hence - coup de tat.

excon

However, removal of President Zelaya from the country by the military is in direct violation of the Article 102 of the Constitution, and apparently this action is currently under investigation by the Honduran authorities.
-------------------------------------

Hence - coup de tat.

excon

Yep, and the Honduras has acknowledged that the military overstepped when they removed him from the country. However, his removal from office was constitutional and the constitution and the separation of powers remains intact as does the planned, Democratic election. Hence, no coup d'etat.

But I'm still wondering when Obama throws Zelaya under the bus - or when he starts wearing a tinfoil hat of his own.

Ex what is being investigated is if the expatriation of Zelaya was constitutional... not his removal from office.

Ex what is being investigated is if the expatriation of Zelaya was constitutional ...not his removal from office.Hello Steve

So you say.

excon

Hello Steve

So you say.

excon

I know you're getting us confused again, but that's the facts. It IS true.

Didn't I read somewhere about Zelaya claiming that Israeli (go figure) mercenaries are trying to poison him with gas and are attempting to kill him?

Yep... I think it's tinfoil hat time again...

http://t3flange.com/tinfoil-hat.jpg

Elliot

I know you're getting us confused again, but that's the facts. It IS true.Hello again, Steve:

Yeah, when I'm going hot and heavy against the THREE of you, I get a name wrong or two... But, my left jab rarely misses.

excon

Didn't I read somewhere about Zelaya claiming that Israeli (go figure) mercenaries are trying to poison him with gas and are attempting to kill him?


Yeah, I bet you did (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/obamas-foreign-policy-370182-7.html#post1996614).

Yeah, I bet you did (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/obamas-foreign-policy-370182-7.html#post1996614).

Oopppssss!

Well, then, I guess I DID read it.

Thanks Steve.

Elliot

Oopppssss!

Well, then, I guess I DID read it.

Thanks Steve.

Elliot

No prob, I'm just glad someone finally noticed this little gem of a story.

Looks like the move to throw Zelaya under the bus (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090928/ts_nm/us_honduras_usa) has begun. Told you Obama couldn't be associated with a wacko that thinks he's being poisoned by Jews or something like that.


The United States blasted ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya for his "irresponsible and foolish" return from exile before a settlement was reached in the Central American country's political crisis.

At an emergency meeting of the Organization of American States to discuss the Honduran face-off, Lewis Anselem, the U.S. ambassador to the OAS, also criticized Honduras' de facto government for its "deplorable" action in barring entry of an OAS mission and declaring a state of siege on Sunday.

Anselem also criticized Zelaya for fueling violence by slipping back into Honduras last week and holing up in the Brazilian Embassy, from where he has called on his supporters to take to the streets.

"The return of Zelaya absent an agreement is irresponsible and foolish ... He should cease and desist from making wild allegations and from acting as though he were starring in an old movie," Anselm said.

"Thump... squish..."

The sound that bodies make when Obama throws them under the bus.

Elliot