So let me get this straight.

Obama doesn't want to meddle in the internal politics of Iran. He doesn't want to support the duly elected President of that country and the pro-democracy activists because he doesn't want to give the impression of interfering in their internal politics.

At the same time, he has no problem with supporting a dictator in Honduras who made an illegal grab for power against the laws of his country and the determination of that country's Supreme Court, and who was evicted from power peacefully by that country's military. Administration of that country's government is in the hands of the duly elected government, not the military, and despite the attempted power grab, the transfer of power was accomplished relatively peacefully. But Obama supports the power grabbing dictator and is calling the peaceful transfer of power a "military coup", despite the fact that the military has handed power over to the elected civilian government. In fact, the government has sworn in President Micheletti to temporarily run things until the constitutional mess can be straightened out, who is a member of the same party a the prior President Zelaya, so it certainly isn't a power coup.

At the same time, Obama has no problem dictating internal policy to Israel, demanding land concessions for peace, demanding military pullouts that are against the security interests of Israel, demanding changes in Israeli policy, demanding the dismantling of cities of tens of thousands of Israelis. All of this despite the fact that Israel has an existential threat from its neighbors in Jordan, the West Bank and Gaza, has been under constant mortar and missile attack from Gaza for two years, and despite the fact that every prior attempt by Israel to make concessions for peace have failed miserably.

So what exactly is Obama's policy? Is it a policy of not meddling? If so, how do you explain his policies toward Israel and Honduras? How do you explain that Obama's policies seem to lack consistency.

Mark Levin said, and I am beginning to agree, that Obama's foreign policy is very simple and very consistent. Obama supports dictatorial regimes.

If Levin is right, then what seem to be contradictions are not contradictory at all. Obama supports Honduras' Zelaya because he attempted a dictatorial-style takeover modeled after the way Chavez took over Venezuela, and his comments about Zelaya being the rightful ruler of Honduras supports Zelaya. Obama supports the dictatorial regimes of Hamas and Hizbolah over the democratic regime of Israel, and so he is pressuring Israel to weaken itself so that Hamas and Hizbolah are strengthened. And Obama supports Ahmadinejad, and his silence on the issues in Iran aids Ahmadinejad's bid to retain power.

If looked at from this point of view, Obama's policies make perfect sense and are completely consistent.

So... we have two choices. Either Obama is poorly prepared and incapable of handling foreign affairs, which is resulting in inconsistent positions that make no sense. Or else Obama is a Machiavellian schemer who supports dictators. I'm not sure which it is, but I have my suspicions.

Either way, it ain't good for us and it ain't good for the rest of the world.

Elliot

To show just how far we've fallen in such a short time; 2002 President Bush came out in support of a counter-revolution "coup" against Chavez that Chavez barely survived. Even as it was apparent that Chavez would survive President Bush continued to speak out in favor of liberty .

In stark contrast ,President Obama refuses to support popular liberation and has so far consistently shown his policy is accomodationist and appeasment to tyranny. One has to wonder if he is taking note how easy it appears to be to become fearless leader for life. I am certain that there will be a repeal of the 22nd amendment movement as soon as a potential second term begins.

Elliot, the Israelis intercepted a boat carrying that fruitcake Cynthia McKinney, here's what she said:


"President Obama just told Israel to let in humanitarian and reconstruction supplies (http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/06/30/israel.gaza.mckinney/index.html?eref=ib_topstories), and that's exactly what we tried to do. We're asking the international community to demand our release so we can resume our journey," McKinney said, according to the group.

Nah, we don't meddle, except when we do.

Elliot, the Israelis intercepted a boat carrying that fruitcake Cynthia McKinney, here's what she said:



Nah, we don't meddle, except when we do.

McKinney, from what I can tell, is NOT working for Obama on this. There are plenty of reasons to dislike Obama's stance vis-à-vis Israel and foreign policy in general. But let's not blame him for the illegal actions of others. Yes, Obama said to deliver aid to Gaza, but he did not authorize (to my best knowledge) a private boat to run a military blockade and try to deliver any aid supplies via non-approved means. This is all McKinney and her crew, not Obama.

Let us render unto Obama what is Obama's, and not what others are responsible for.

Elliot

So let me get this straight.

Obama doesn't want to meddle in the internal politics of Iran. He doesn't want to support the duly elected President of that country and the pro-democracy activists because he doesn't want to give the impression of interfering in their internal politics.

At the same time, he has no problem with supporting a dictator in Honduras who made an illegal grab for power against the laws of his country and the determination of that country's Supreme CourtHello El:

I guess you didn't notice, but the "dictator" you're talking about WAS the duly elected president of that country... So, I guess being duly elected, as you put it, isn't the criteria at all, is it? Noooo. It's whether you LIKE him or not... Pretty typical of the right wing...

That's as straight as you're going to get it... Sorry, but the truth hurts.

excon

Let us render unto Obama what is Obama's, and not what others are responsible for.

I couldn't agree more, but you missed the point which was highlighted as the link, "President Obama just told Israel to let in humanitarian and reconstruction supplies." He did call for that along with an international and PA "monitoring regime" to oversee the aid delivery. McKinney was just the stooge whining that they were only seeing to it that Israel did what Obama told them to do.

Hello again wingnuts:

Let's cut to the chase. Would you, or would you not support a military coup against Obama? IF you do, would you call it Constitutional and democratic?

excon

Hello El:

I guess you didn't notice, but the "dictator" you're talking about WAS the duly elected president of that country... So, I guess being duly elected, as you put it, isn't the criteria at all, is it? Noooo. It's whether you LIKE him or not.... Pretty typical of the right wing.....

That's as straight as you're gonna get it.... Sorry, but the truth hurts.

excon

He wasn't duly elected for a life term. He was trying to force a change in the Constitution that would create him as "President For Life". He wa making a power grab. That was the point of his illegal "referendum". He was NOT eligible to run for an additional term. He did so anyway, in violation of the law, and tried to use that illegal referendum to give him the excuse to do so... exactly as Chaves did in Venezuela. He was NOT duly elected because he had no legal right to run for office, and the Supreme Court of his country said so. FURTHERMORE, allegations have already come out about him FORCING people to vote for him on threat of violence against them and their families. He was duly elected the same way that Ahmadinejad was duly elected... only Zalaya didn't have the support of the religious leaders of Honduras.

So... are you arguing that we should ignore the Supreme Court of Honduras when they point out a CLEAR violation of the law and act to uphold their Constitution as is their responsibility?

Perhaps we should also ignore the US Supreme Court when their decisions become inconvenient for our political positions.

Elliot

Hello again wingnuts:

Let's cut to the chase. Would you, or would you not support a military coup against Obama? IF you do, would you call it Constitutional and democratic?

excon

No, I would not support a military coup against Obama... not at this point anyway. He hasn't done anything illegal yet.

However, if he does end up violating civil rights, ignores the Constitution, violates rulings of the SCOTUS, takes on powers that are not legally his, and tries to change term limits and term lengths so as to stay in power longer than is legally permitted, then yes, I would support such a coup. (Assuming, of course, that the coup's goal was restoration of the Constitution.)

Which is exactly what happened in Honduras.

Elliot

He wasn't duly elected for a life term. He was trying to force a change in the Constitution that would create him as "President For Life". More disinformation:
snopes.com: Bill to Repeal the 22nd Amendment (http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/termlimits.asp)

Jose Serrano has been introducing this each year since 1997... so the premise that he's doing this for Obama falls flat.

He wasn't duly elected for a life term. He was trying to force a change in the Constitution that would create him as "President For Life".Hello again, El:

I don't know. Didn't Bloomberg "try" to change the law so he could run again?? Why didn't the NY National Guard take over?

Look, it's clear that you don't like his politics. It's even more clear that you support a right wing MILITARY COUP if the civilian politics gets messy.

Plus, I think, by justifying the military coup down there, you're laying the foundation for support of a military coup HERE.

excon

More disinformation:
snopes.com: Bill to Repeal the 22nd Amendment (http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/termlimits.asp)

Jose Serrano has been introducing this each year since 1997...so the premise that he's doing this for Obama falls flat.

Um, I believe he was referring to the Honduran president.

Um, I believe he was referring to the Honduran president.LOL! I think you may be right!

Ex, it wasn't a "military coup." The military arrested him at the court's order and with full support of the congress as I've already pointed out (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/obamas-foreign-policy-370182.html#post1829668).


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.

Hello again, El:

I don't know. Didn't Bloomberg "try" to change the law so he could run again?? Why didn't the NY National Guard take over?

Yes he did. And I was against it. Still am. That's why I'm not voting for him in the next election, despite the fact that I think he did a good job as mayor.

As for why the NG didn't take over, Bloomberg's actions went through a legal system, was approved by the government and were determined by the COURTS to be completely legal. They were contrary to what the people voted for, but they were within the bounds of the law. Zelaya violated the law, and his actions were NOT legal. It was a power grab, pure and simple, and he used the tactics of a dictator to do it.


Look, it's clear that you don't like his politics. It's even more clear that you support a right wing MILITARY COUP if the civilian politics gets messy.

Nope. Only if leadership is taken in an illegal manner and civil rights are violated. Which was clearly the case in Honduras.


Plus, I think, by justifying the military coup down there, you're laying the foundation for support of a military coup HERE.

Excon

And I think that by ignoring the Supreme Court of Honduras, Obama is laying the groundwork for ignoring the Supreme Court of the USA when it suits him. It would follow his Alinskyite playbook to the letter to lay the groundwork for ignoring the rule of law.

And if that is the case, if Obama is planning a power grab and a move toward violation of civil rights and Constitutional law, then yes I would support such a military coup here.

The question is why you wouldn't. Aren't you the big defender of the Constitution, even at the cost of American lives? Or is that only for the Constitutional Rights of Criminals and Terrorists. Regular civilians can just become slaves to a tyrannical government for all you care. They don't deserve your defense.

Elliot

Hello again, Steve:

So, it wasn't a military coup, and the Supreme Court wasn't being "activist"...

Dude! What flavor you drinking today?

excon

More disinformation:
snopes.com: Bill to Repeal the 22nd Amendment (http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/termlimits.asp)

Jose Serrano has been introducing this each year since 1997...so the premise that he's doing this for Obama falls flat.

I was talking about Zelaya's attempt to grab power through an illegal referendum designed to end term limits (without an actual Constitutional Amendment or change of law) and make him President of Honduras for Life (aka "Dictator"). What does that have to do with the 22nd Amendment of the US Constitution or attempts to repeal it legally?

Elliot

The question is why you wouldn't. Aren't you the big defender of the Constitution, even at the cost of American lives? Or is that only for the Constitutional Rights of Criminals and Terrorists. Regular civilians can just become slaves to a tyrannical government for all you care. They don't deserve your defense.Hello again, El:

You and I don't agree on the term "regular civilians". I include gay people who want to enjoy the same rights YOU do, as "regular civilians". You don't. I include people who are charged with a crime, as "regular civilians". You don't. I include sick people who need treatment and can't get it. You don't.

So, as long as you maintain your LISTS of people who aren't "regular civilians", we're not going to be able to discuss what happens to people in this country.

In terms of the Constitution, sure I support it. Show me the part that says a final check on power belongs to the military... No wonder Homeland Security is viewing rightwing stuff as dangerous. You're sounding downright scary these days.

excon

Hello again, Steve:

So, it wasn't a military coup, and the Supreme Court wasn't being "activist".....

Dude! What flavor you drinking today?

excon

Ex, the government wasn't overthrown, the government enforced the constitution and arrested the government officer that disobeyed the court's orders. The courts and the legitimate, elected government are still in power minus the man that violated the law. That is NOT a coup d'état. The activism here was a rogue president that attempted an illegal power grab. As I asked you before (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/obamas-foreign-policy-370182-2.html#post1829910), "which part of the Honduran rule of law do you support?"

By the way, I'm drinking Caffè Verona (http://www.starbucks.com/coffee/p15c7-caff%C3%A8-verona.aspx#num=01&id=caff%C3%A8_verona%C2%AE), a wonderful blend of Latin American and delicious, earthy Indonesian coffee. It may even be partly from Honduras.

a wonderful blend of Latin American and delicious, earthy Indonesian coffee. It may even be partly from Honduras.Hello again, Steve;

We DO have something in common. I'm smoking a wonderful, and delicious blend that might partly be from Honduras too.

Ex

Hello again, Steve;

We DO have something in common. I'm smoking a wonderful, and delicious blend that might partly be from Honduras too.

ex

And I'm sure it would go fabulous with the blend I'm drinking, but that's another subject.

Hello again, El:

You and I don't agree on the term "regular civilians". I include gay people who want to enjoy the same rights YOU do, as "regular civilians". You don't. I include people who are charged with a crime, as "regular civilians". You don't. I include sick people who need treatment and can't get it. You don't.

Where did you get the idea that I don't consider gays or sicj people to be civilians with the same rights as everyone else? It's not true. I believe that they should have exactly the same rights and treatments as everyone else.

What I do not believe is that they should get SPECIAL treatment, which is what you are advocating.


So, as long as you maintain your LISTS of people who aren't "regular civilians", we're not going to be able to discuss what happens to people in this country.

According to you, anyone who doesn't believe the same liberal ideas you believe in are unpatriotic, morally inferior, and are out to get everyone. The only one keeping lists of people who don't deserve the same rights as everyone else is you, and every conservative on this board is on that list.


In terms of the Constitution, sure I support it. Show me the part that says a final check on power belongs to the military... No wonder Homeland Security is viewing rightwing stuff as dangerous. You're sounding downright scary these days.

Excon

The final check on ANY power is in the hands of the military. That is why having a strong military is essential to the rule of law. That is also why the Constitution puts control of the military into the hands of the CIVILIAN LEADERS. And when someone tries to overthrow the government via non-constitutional power grabs, it is the job of the Civilian government to prevent that via use of the military if necessary. Which is exactly why the SUPREME COURT OF HONDURAS and the CONGRESS OF HONDURAS took the action of using the military to put down Zelaya and re-establish the Constitutional control of the government by the rightfully elected leaders.

This is simple civics 101. This is about the civil contract. Did you miss that part in school? Or did your teachers simply skip it.

Elliot

Hello again, Steve:

So, it wasn't a military coup, and the Supreme Court wasn't being "activist".....

Dude! What flavor you drinking today?

excon

In military coups, the military takes control of the government. That is not what happened here. The military simply acted under the order of the already existing and duly elected power to remove a usurper to the presidency of Honduras and put control back into the hands of the duly elected government. There was no military coup.

Elliot

Hello again, Steve;

We DO have something in common. I'm smoking a wonderful, and delicious blend that might partly be from Honduras too.

ex

I think you should put down whatever you're smoking, dude. It's rotting your brain.

Elliot

The President of Honduras now is a leader selected from the duly elected legislature. The military did not seize power .They were executing the law and removing a rogue leader.

I asked in the other post on this subject the hypotetical... suppose Nixon had refused to step down if Watergate had played out to it's conclusion. Would a forced removal from office had been considered a coup also ?

The President of Honduras now is a leader selected from the duly elected legislature. The military did not seize power .They were executing the law and removing a rogue leader.

I asked in the other post on this subject the hypotetical ....suppose Nixon had refused to step down if Watergate had played out to it's conclusion. Would a forced removal from office had been considered a coup also ?

Or if Bill Clinton had been found guilty of purgery in his impeachment trial in Congress and had been required by law to step down and refused to do so. Would the military or police arresting him and removing him from his office have been a "military coup"?

Good question, Tom.

Here former Honduran Minister of Culture Octavio Sanchez speaking of the constitutional removal of Zelaya:


These are the facts: On June 26, President Zelaya issued a decree ordering all government employees to take part in the "Public Opinion Poll to convene a National Constitutional Assembly." In doing so, Zelaya triggered a constitutional provision that automatically removed him from office (http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0702/p09s03-coop.htm).

Constitutional assemblies are convened to write new constitutions. When Zelaya published that decree to initiate an "opinion poll" about the possibility of convening a national assembly, he contravened the unchangeable articles of the Constitution that deal with the prohibition of reelecting a president and of extending his term. His actions showed intent.

Our Constitution takes such intent seriously. 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."

Even the liberal Cato Institute agrees his removal was proper (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/06/29/honduras-president-is-removed-from-office/). Which side of the rule of law, democracy and the Honduran constitution does Obama stand on?

Even the liberal Cato Institute agrees his removal was properHello Steve:

You had me up to there. Bwa, ha ha ha.

excon

Hello Steve:

You had me up to there. Bwa, ha ha ha.

excon

Excuse me, Cato is liberal and dovish on foreign policy.

Btw, just because I got a bit confused on all those institutes doesn't negate the point. So goof on me... then tell me which side of what rule of law Obama should be on.

Obama has already determined the winner of Germany's election (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090712/wl_afp/germanyusdiplomacyelectionmerkelobama).


Walking to a joint press conference on June 26, Merkel told Obama that she "was preparing her election campaign", according to news magazine Spiegel, citing footage captured by public television channel ZDF but only partially released.

Turning to Merkel with a grin, Obama is quoted as saying: "Oh, you've already won. I don't know you're always worrying."

According to Spiegel, a surprised-looking Merkel laughed briefly.

But for her challenger in the September 27 election, Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, the reported comments are no laughing matter.

Spiegel reports a source close to Steinmeier as saying the minister "thinks a great deal of Obama but even an American president is not a prophet".

We wouldn't want to interfere with and take sides in a democratic election would we?

Another example of Obama NOT meddling (http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/07/22/jerusalem___one_city_undivided/?rss_id=Boston+Globe+--+Jeff+Jacoby+columns). Last week the Obama administration demanded that Israel stop construction of planned housing project in east Jerusalem.


The property to be developed - a defunct hotel - was purchased in 1985, and the developer has obtained all the necessary municipal permits.

Why, then, does the administration want the development killed? Because Sheikh Jarrah is in a largely Arab section of Jerusalem, and the developers of the planned apartments are Jews. Think about that for a moment. Six months after Barack Obama became the first black man to move into the previously all-white residential facility at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, he is fighting to prevent integration in Jerusalem.

It is impossible to imagine the opposite scenario: The administration would never demand that Israel prevent Arabs from moving into a Jewish neighborhood. And the Obama Justice Department would unleash seven kinds of hell on anyone who tried to impose racial, ethnic, or religious redlining in an American city. In the 21st century, segregation is unthinkable - except, it seems, when it comes to housing Jews in Jerusalem.

It is not easy for Israel’s government to refuse any demand from the United States, which is the Jewish state’s foremost ally. To their credit, Israeli leaders spoke truth to power, and said no. “Jerusalem residents can purchase apartments anywhere in the city,’’ Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Sunday. “There is no ban on Arabs buying apartments in the west of the city, and there is no ban on Jews building or buying in the city’s east. This is the policy of an open city.’’

Once again, hypocrites of the world unite!