Skip to content

why is obama defending zelaya?

On principle, he asserts, but why say anything? The ousted Honduran president is allied with Chavez and Castro, and his departure should be quietly welcomed by the U.S. administration. Hell, Zelaya’s own political party wonders if he’s mentally fit to remain in office.

I understand opposing military coups. I don’t understand speaking out when one manages to overthrow a Marxist thug with autocratic impulses.

Just say nothing.


11 thoughts on “why is obama defending zelaya? Leave a comment

  1. This one is mystifying. Obama was slow to say anything about Iran, but quickly jumped on the Honduran issue. He has now put America in ally with Chavez and Castro.

    Perhaps he really is a socialist marxist as accused by the right. What else are we to assume from his actions?

    2010 can’t get here fast enough. Sadly the Libertarians are not a powerful party because there isn’t a heck of a lot of leadership in the republican party.

  2. We’ve been engaged in diplomacy to try and avoid this outcome, which explains the quick response. As to the content of the response, I don’t know. It sounds like Zelaya had gone off the reservation — perhaps we knew the (non-binding!) referendum would fail anyway, and this would have been a preferable outcome to a coup.

    IC, of course, jumps to the most absurd conclusion possible. The most obvious conclusion that doesn’t involve sewing a curtain in order to look behind it is that Obama supports democratic processes.

  3. I wouldn’t call that a democratic process in Honduras. Of course what is a Constitution anyway, but to be disregarded if it gets in ones way.

  4. This is not in the least complicated.

    Ths US must be against any coup in Latin America because its interests are dependent upon keeping US-friendly leaders in place.

    Guys like Chavez must oppose any coup in Latin America because he could be next.

    In short, leaders of countries both within and without Latin America have a vested interest in condemning coups occurring within the region. None of them wishes to return to the state of affairs that existed in Latin America during the 1970s.

  5. It really isn’t complicated. If coups once again become the norm in Latin America, then anyone either not unfriendly or (worse) friendly to the US could be next. I know it is hard for a lot of Americans to accept, but most of the people the US calls “friends” in Latin are usually just as big of bastards as the ones the US labels as “unfriendly.” Any or all of them have the potential to be overthrown by means of a coup.

    In any case, no one, friend or foe, wants to return to a situation like that which existed in the 1970s, were coups in Latin America were commonplace.

  6. I’m not endorsing US-backed coups. I’m aware we’ve supported them in the past. We shouldn’t revive that practice. But if one goes our way, why fight it? Yes, it’s inconsistent, but EVERY country acts in their own self-interest, so expecting consistency in foreign policy is naive.

  7. I don’t think I am making my meaning clear so I will try again.

    Let’s say that coups again become the norm in Latin America. Not only would the likes of Chavez be vulnerable to overthrow by coup–but governments–say some of those who have recently signed trade deals with the US–would also be vulnerable to overthrow by coup. Most of our allies in the region are as hated (and maybe more hated) by the people they govern as those who are not our allies. Therefore, they are just as vulnerable to overthrow by coup.

    Everyone involved has a vested interested in making sure that coups do not once again become the norm in Latin America. A state of affairs similar to that which existed in the 1970s would simply be, at the very least, too disruptive for the United States to really benefit and, of course, it would be hell on the leadership of most countries there–not to mention for the people unfortunate enough to live under those governments and who would invariably be the victims of the consequences of civil unrest in the event that coups were to take place.

    This really isn’t about the ideal of democracy. It’s about stability and practicality–far less romantic ideas, I know, but this is why we see the likes of Hugo Chavez and President Obama in agreement on the issue.

  8. Him and the United Nations, IC Atlanta. Not everyone feels the need to play “John Wayne, Cowboy Idealist” when it comes to every issue, you know. There are times when reality really does beckon.

  9. The same UN that has place Syria & Libya on the Human Rights Commission?

    Who says John Wayne – Obama is the one intervening in Honduras when less than 14 days ago he said America shouldn’t mettle in other countries elections.

    Funny how the UN didn’t have much to say about the Iranian elections either. Wonder what Neda’s last thoughts were?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: