2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHillary's Latin America: Zero Hedge: In Honduras, "Hillary Supported the Fascists"
HONDURAS
On 28 June 2009, the Honduran military grabbed their nations popular democratically elected progressive President, Manuel Zelaya, and flew him into exile.
The AP headlined from Tegucigalpa the next day, World Leaders Pressure Honduras to Reverse Coup, and reported: Leaders from Hugo Chavez to Barack Obama called for reinstatement of Manuel Zelaya, who was arrested in his pajamas Sunday morning by soldiers who stormed his residence and flew him into exile.
Secretary Clinton, in the press conference the day after the coup, Remarks at the Top of the Daily Press Briefing, refused to commit the United States to restoration of the democratically elected President of Honduras. She refused even to commit the U.S. to using the enormous leverage it had over the Honduran Government to bring that about. Here was the relevant Q&A:
Mary Beth Sheridan. QUESTION: Madam Secretary, sorry, if I could just return for a second to Honduras, just to clarify Arshads point so, I mean, the U.S. provides aid both under the Foreign Assistance Act and the Millennium challenge. So even though there are triggers in those; that countries have to behave not have coups, youre not going to cut off that aid?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Mary Beth, were assessing what the final outcome of these actions will be. This has been a fast-moving set of circumstances over the last several days, and were looking at that question now. Much of our assistance is conditioned on the integrity of the democratic system. But if we were able to get to a status quo that returned to the rule of law and constitutional order within a relatively short period of time, I think that would be a good outcome. So were looking at all of this. Were considering the implications of it. But our priority is to try to work with our partners in restoring the constitutional order in Honduras.
QUESTION: And does that mean returning Zelaya himself? You would insist on that in order to
SECRETARY CLINTON: We are working with our partners.
She refused to answer the question, even though Zelaya had been an ally of the U.S., a progressive democrat. (Though Republicans decried Zelaya for pushing land-reform, the fact is that Honduras is virtually owned by two dozen families, and drastically needs to drag itself out of its feudal system. Doing that isnt anti-American; its pro-American. Its what Zelaya was trying to do, peacefully and democratically.
Our nations Founders fought a Revolution to overthrow feudalism British in our own country. Hillary was thus being anti-American, not just anti-democratic, here.) This is stunning. The U.S had even been outright bombed by fascists, on the day that will live in infamy, December 7, 1941; and, then, we spilled lots of blood to beat those fascists in WWII. What was that war all about, if not about opposing fascism and fascists, and standing up for democracy and democrats? A peaceful democratic U.S. ally had now been overthrown by a fascist coup in Honduras, and yet Hillary Clintons response was noncommittal?
The coup government made no bones about its being anti-democratic. On July 4th of 2009, Al Giordano at Narcosphere Narconews bannered Honduras Coup Chooses Path of Rogue Narco-State, and he reported that, Last night, around 10 p.m. Tegucigalpa time, CNN Español interrupted its sports news programming for a live press conference announcement (no questions, please) by coup president Micheletti. There, he announced that his coup government of Honduras is withdrawing from the Democratic Charter of the Organization of American States. ... The Honduras coups behavior virtually assures that come Monday, the US government will define it as a military coup, triggering a cut-off of US aid, joining the World Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank, PetroCaribe, the UN and the rest of the world in withdrawing economic support for the coup regime. But that didnt happen. The U.S. just remained silent. Why was our Secretary of State silent, even now?
It certainly couldnt have been so on account of her agent on the ground in Honduras, the U.S. Ambassador to that country: he was anything but noncommittal. He was fully American, not at all neutral or pro-fascist.
Here was his cable from the U.S. Embassy, reviewing the situation, for Washington, after almost a months silence from the Administration:
From: Ambassador Hugo Llorens, U.S. Embassy, Tegucigalpa, Honduras, 24 July 2009.
To: Secretary of State, White House, and National Security Council.
SUBJECT: TFHO1: OPEN AND SHUT: THE CASE OF THE HONDURAN COUP
This lengthy message from the Ambassador closed:
The actions of June 28 can only be considered a coup detat by the legislative branch, with the support of the judicial branch and the military, against the executive branch. It bears mentioning that, whereas the resolution adopted June 28 refers only to Zelaya, its effect was to remove the entire executive branch. Both of these actions clearly exceeded Congresss authority. ... No matter what the merits of the case against Zelaya, his forced removal by the military was clearly illegal, and [puppett-leader Roberto] Michelettis ascendance as interim president was totally illegitimate.
On the same day when the Ambassador sent that cable, AFP headlined Zelaya Reckless to Return to Honduras: Clinton, and reported that our Secretary of State criticized Zelaya that day for trying to get back into his own country. President Zelayas effort to reach the border is reckless, Clinton said during a press conference with visiting Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. ... Washington supports a negotiated peaceful solution to the Honduran crisis, Clinton said. It wasnt the Honduran coup she wouldnt call it a coup it was the Honduran crisis; so, she accepted the juntas framing of the issue, not the framing of it by Zelaya and everyone other than the fascists. She wanted a negotiated peaceful solution to the forced removal at gunpoint of Hondurass popular democratically elected President.
Furthermore, Hillarys statement here was undiplomatic: if she had advice for what the elected President of Honduras ought to be doing, that ought to have been communicated to him privately, not publicly, and said to him by suggesting what he ought to do, not by insulting what he already was doing, publicly calling it reckless. Such a statement from her was clearly not meant as advice to help Zelaya; it was meant to and did humiliate him; and diplomats around the world could see this. Manifestly now, Hillary Clinton supported the fascists.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-02-21/hillary-clinton%E2%80%99s-six-foreign-policy-catastrophes
John Poet
(2,510 posts)Regarding Hillary--- this thing hurts me more than anything else she's done.
pottedplant
(94 posts)I keep hearing her supporters explaining away her Iraq vote as a mistake for which she's apologized. Iraq was no mistake. She knew exactly what she was doing. She is both Dulles brothers rolled into one.
Raster
(20,998 posts)...information resulting from: (1) her previous years in the White House as full partner to Bill; and (2) who, as a former POTUS is entitled to a daily CIA situational briefing, of which such information Hillary is certain to have access.
Bottom line: Clinton knew that Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11 and knew that Iraq had no WMD. Her vote to authorize the invasion and war in Iraq was a calculated political move, plain and simple.
WhiteTara
(29,718 posts)suspect to slam Clinton.
Also, this post violates the 4 paragraph rule.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Hillary said: "Send them back"
These were just children seeking to have a life.
And after she supported the killing of democracy in Honduras, she sends them back to that hell?
Hell NO Hill!~
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)And never a straight answer just like now.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)From Fight Club, right?
postatomic
(1,771 posts)Because you're not.
Or is this just a personal reaffirmation?
No one expects the Hate Squad.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)I merely disliked her for president. Now I fucking hate the idea that she becomes president!~
postatomic
(1,771 posts)I'm not going to get into Bernie's Great Adventures in South America. He is reckless and we stand a greater chance of being plunged into a major military conflict with him wandering around in the White House.
Well, I'm off get really really high. Do some reading. Listen to some music.
You have wonderful evening.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)First she fucked over the Honduran democracy and then she sent back the Honduran refugee children to the HELL she helped create!~
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)it's better for the country.
creeksneakers2
(7,473 posts)Maybe I'm wrong but I don't think so. They were of the same party as Zelaya. Hillary's solution was an election. Zelaya's first successors lost it. So if she was supporting them she wasn't very effective. She did have to work with the successor government to get the election.
Hillary says she feared a civil war. That would explain why she didn't like Zelaya returning without a negotiated agreement.
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)She seems to like doing this sort of thing. Republicans did it in Iran as I recall. We are still living with the results of that one. But dabble away Hillary. We've got many, many poor and diverse kids ready to go to war for you. They don't have anything else to do.