A Few Facts About the Honduran Military Coup

[Orwellian_Ghost]

A Few Facts About the Honduran Military Coup
By Ken Silverstein

1)
There’s very little truth to anything you’ve read about the coup in American newspapers.

2)
President Manuel Zelaya is no radical. He approved a big minimum wage increase, which was desperately needed in a country where so many workers are poor, but he otherwise has been a very cautious, ineffectual reformer. The intensity of the reaction against him by the Honduran elite — as seen in the coup — reflects the feudal mentality of the traditional economic and political leadership, not Zelaya’s politics.


3)
Zelaya was not seeking to stay in power by unconstitutional means; even if his political reforms had succeeded, he would have been out of power within the year. The only side guilty of unconstitutional action is the coup plotters.


4)
Based on his response to events in Honduras, Barack Obama may as well be Ronald Reagan or George Bush when it comes to coups in Latin America. The Obama administration initially managed to muster “concern” about the coup, and has been acting in a cowardly fashion ever since. The only reason it has moved at all was that it was forced by the united front by Latin governments of left and right. If Zelaya is returned to power, it won’t be because of anything Obama did.

5)
The American media does not believe in democracy, as seen in the routine portrayal of a moral equivalence between the elected government and the coup plotters. The Washington Post is the worst of the pack. For its editorial page, “democracy” is strictly utilitarian; it’s OK when our side wins; otherwise, we will justify vote-rigging or military action by the other side, even while pretending we support constitutional order.

...

http://harpers.org/archive/2009/07/hbc-90005301

[scarletwoman]

1. Some more facts:

(I'm re-posting this from a reply I posted yesterday on another thread)

Zeleya was proposing a non-binding poll asking the citizenry if they were interested in convening a National Constituent Assembly to look into writing a new Constitution.

He was not attempting to run for another term, nor would he have any control on what any new Constitution would have to say about term limits. If a National Constituent Assembly were to draft a new Constitution, it would be put to the voters to approve or not approve. You know, like how a democracy is supposed to function.

Here's a piece that actually contains the facts:

Why President Zelaya's Actions in Honduras Were Legal and Constitutional

Zelaya attempted to give Hondurans the gift of participatory democracy. It was the coup leaders who violated the constitution. Those who say otherwise are wrong.

By Alberto Valiente Thoresen, RebelReports Guest Contributor

EDITOR’S NOTE: RebelReports is publishing this original article as a response to those who claim that the coup in Honduras was legal and/or constitutional and to the reporting by those media outlets that consistently repeat false characterizations of Honduran law and President Zelaya’s actions.—JS

<snip>

For example, most reports have stated that Manuel Zelaya was ousted from his country’s presidency after he tried to carry out a non-binding referendum to extend his term in office. But this is not completely accurate. Such presentation of “facts” merely contributes to legitimizing the propaganda, which is being employed by the coup-makers in Honduras to justify their actions. This interpretation is widespread in US-American liberal environments, especially after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that the coup is unacceptable, but that “all parties have a responsibility to address the underlying problems that led to ’s events.” However, President Zelaya cannot be held responsible for this flagrant violation of the Honduran democratic institutions that he has tried to expand. This is what has actually happened:

The Honduran Supreme Court of Justice, Attorney General, National Congress, Armed Forces and Supreme Electoral Tribunal have all falsely accused Manuel Zelaya of attempting a referendum to extend his term in office.

According to Honduran law, this attempt would be illegal. Article 239 of the Honduran Constitution clearly states that persons, who have served as presidents, cannot be presidential candidates again. The same article also states that public officials who breach this article, as well as those that help them, directly or indirectly, will automatically lose their immunity and are subject to persecution by law. Additionally, articles 374 and 5 of the Honduran Constitution of 1982 (with amendments of 2005), clearly state that: “it is not possible to reform the Constitution regarding matters about the form of government, presidential periods, re-election and Honduran territory”, and that “reforms to article 374 of this Constitution are not subject to referendum.”

Nevertheless, this is far from what President Zelaya attempted to do in Honduras the past Sunday and which the Honduran political/military elites disliked so much. President Zelaya intended to perform a non-binding public consultation, about the conformation of an elected National Constituent Assembly. To do this, he invoked article 5 of the Honduran “Civil Participation Act” of 2006. According to this act, all public functionaries can perform non-binding public consultations to inquire what the population thinks about policy measures. This act was approved by the National Congress and it was not contested by the Supreme Court of Justice, when it was published in the Official Paper of 2006. That is, until the president of the republic employed it in a manner that was not amicable to the interests of the members of these institutions.

Furthermore, the Honduran Constitution says nothing against the conformation of an elected National Constituent Assembly, with the mandate to draw up a completely new constitution, which the Honduran public would need to approve.

<snip>

The poll was certainly non-binding, and therefore also not subject to prohibition. However it was not a referendum, as such public consultations are generally understood. Even if it had been, the objective was not to extend Zelaya’s term in office. <snip> The National Constituent Assembly, with a mandate from the people, would derogate the previous constitution before approving the new one. The people, not president Zelaya, who by that time would be ex-president Zelaya, would decide.

It is evident that the opposition had no legal case against President Zelaya. All they had was speculation about perfectly legal scenarios which they strongly disliked. Otherwise, they could have followed a legal procedure sheltered in article 205 nr. 22 of the 1982 Constitution, which states that public officials that are suspected to violate the law are subject to impeachment by the National Congress. As a result they helplessly unleashed a violent and barbaric preemptive strike, which has threatened civility, democracy and stability in the region.

I hope people will go to the link and read the entire piece -- it's very good.

Thank you, OG, for your service to the TRUTH.

sw

[troubledamerican]

20. I don't even have to know facts about Zelaya. Military "deposing a president" ain't democracy.

Impeachment is the process under a rule of law.

"Deposing a president" is for Banana Republics run by a handful of white megawealthy oligarch families who use military/paramilitary force to obtain power.

It really isn't any more complicated than that. Military in the streets = not a democracy.

[geek tragedy]

26. The coup was an atrocity.

And Zelaya should be reinstated, no ifs ands or buts.

Period.

[scarletwoman]

28. "Military in the streets = not a democracy." Yes, that really is it in a nutshell.

It's just been really disappointing watching so many DUers fall for disinformation, and parroting the right-wing talking points about Zeleya's "faults".

[leftstreet]

2. K&R

[scarletwoman]

3. I wonder if more people would notice this thread if OG had put Michael Jackson in the subject line.

:banghead:

[leftstreet]

27. Michael Jackson is so yesterday. Today it's Sarah Palin

Who knows what tomorrow will bring...

[redqueen]

91. Maybe a color theme would hellp...

not to mention constant mentions on the M$M.

[Judi Lynn]

4. Thanks for this article. I'm returning to read it late tonight. It looks GREAT. n/t

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

5. Ad off to the Greatest page you go. -nt

[ColbertWatcher]

6. Thank you for setting me straight on this. k+r, n/t

[scarletwoman]

7. *kick* (nt)

[HughMoran]

8. I was with you until 4), then your bizzare addiction for posting shit crapping on Obamas face

happened.

Oh, so very predictable.

Oh, so very pathetic.

Oh, so little credibility.

You cry wolf every fucking day - dear God how can anybody take you seriously?

Posting shit calling Obama cowardly is funny???

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

[starroute]

11. This article paints it as Clinton challenging Obama

The author thinks Obama is "fumbling" on foreign policy and Clinton is taking advantage of that to solidify her own control at State. I'm not sure I'm convinced -- but at the very least, it suggests some behind-the-scenes power moves influencing events.

Zelaya is scheduled to meet with Clinton tomorrow. We'll have to see how that plays out.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/A-breach-in-the-Obama-Clinton-truce-49521037.html

In the gestation and infancy of the Obama presidency, one of the favorite points of the president's media admirers was his ability to turn Hillary Clinton from rival into teammate. But there are signs that the secretary of state is striking out on her own as the president grapples with what shape his own foreign policy will approach. . . .

On Honduras, though, the president acted fast to denounce the moves by the country's supreme court and legislature, calling the expulsion and impeachment of the Chavista President Manuel Zelaya was "not legal." Clinton, on the other hand, withheld legal judgment and said that the situation evolved into a coup, but didn't start as one.

Insiders say Clinton wants to get Zelaya to agree not seek an unconstitutional vote to extend his power, a la Chavez, as a condition of the U.S. backing his return to power. While Obama, who recently restored U.S. diplomatic relations with the Chavez's regime, seems to be looking for the solution that will least upset the tenuous relationship between America and the Chavista governments in Latin America.

It's possible that Obama and Clinton have decided to follow good cop, bad cop roles, but that seems unlikely for two reasons -- Public dissent invites critics foreign and domestic and the two have switched sides. While Obama took the go-slow approach on the unrest in Iran, he was for speedy denunciation of the expulsion of Zelaya. Clinton, meanwhile, pressed for movement on Iran but now counsels for restraint in Honduras.

[HughMoran]

13. That article paints a very reasonable give and take between two powerful people

...and one interesting thing it does is say that "the president acted fast to denounce the moves by the country's supreme court and legislature, calling the expulsion and impeachment of the Chavista President Manuel Zelaya was "not legal."", which is the opposite of what the idiot quoted in the O/P said.


Does a "cowardly acting" person "act fast to denounce"?

Fucking people and their opposing opinions. Of course the O/P inevitably finds the most harsh criticism of Obama and posts is as he is wont to do (for many years now.)

[geek tragedy]

17. Half this site hates Obama more than the Freepers do.

And they're every bit as stupid and pathetic.

[redqueen]

92. Maybe they can't help it.

Maybe it's just so all-fired exciting and novel to agree with the M$M for once, that they just really cannot help themselves.

[UTUSN]

9. Facts?!1

1) It's a "coup"?!1

2) "very little truth...(about "it" or whatever) in American newspapers..."?!1

3) "he's no radical. HE APPROVED...big minimum (whatever)..." What -- there's no Congress to do the "approving"?!1

4) So he's "an INEFFECTUAL REFORMER..." So we want somebody "ineffectual"?!1

5) So "THE REACTION" to his INEFFECTUALITY is what PROVES his opponents are "FEUDAL"?!1

6) "NOT ... trying to stay in power by UNCONSTITUTIONAL MEANS..." No, just ramming through CHANGES to the constitution for WHOSE benefit ---Mayor BLOOMBERG's, Huguito CHAVEZ's, or the other dudes who BENEFIT from STAYING IN OFFICE LONGER?!1 Yeah, we know how to overturn provisions of constitutions by "democratic voting".

7) Oh, the ONLY *un*constitutional action" was by "the coup plotters". This would be the congress and the supreme court. O.K., got it.

8) Oh, so OBAMA has been on the wrong side. Actually, he is: I would have expected him to support the congress and the supreme court. I hear that ZELAYA is now willing to return withOUT his "constitutional" extension of power.

9) "The American media does not believe in democracy." Well, alRIGHTy, then!1

10) "it's OK when OUR SIDE WINS." The irony here is too thick.

[scarletwoman]

10. What kind of "legal" action is kidnapping?

Is that what the Honduran Constitution calls for? Hauling someone off in his pajamas and whisking him out of the country?

Is that the accepted legal remedy?

If the coupsters are so sure that Zeleya has committed crimes, why didn't they insist that he appear before a court of law?

[troubledamerican]

18. In a democracy, there is no "ordering the military to depose" anyone. Impeachment is the process.

Some DUers don't believe in democracy. Many of those pro-military coup, anti-democracy DUers strangely have ties to LATAM landed gentry & oligarchy. Funny how that works.

[scarletwoman]

22. "Funny how that works." Indeed. Fervent defenders of Oligarchy -- both in LatAm AND here.

They will find themselves on the losing side of history, the tide of authentic democracy will eventually sweep them away.

[UTUSN]

29. "Funny" how the Hugo-AMLO-Fidel-Correa contingent here

DON'T believe in democracy, how "strangely" they have ties to NO-TIES to anybody in "LATAM" but only know abstract, ideological "facts". Basically ivory tower types withOUT any contact with real life, here or anywhere else.

In contrast, the people I *do* know in "LATAM" (who would not conceive that coinage) are Middle to Lower-Middle (the few there are) class persons who work, who struggle with small business, and are otherwise a bit strait-laced, and who want a NOT-corrupt government ruled by LAW, or rather, the same groundrules, REASONABLE-EXPECTATIONS, level playing field for everybody.


And could somebody explain why the Hugo-AMLO-CORREA followers here frequently say how "sexy" and "drop dead gorgeous" CORREA supposedly is?!1 Along with how EVERYTHING GOOD belongs to these dudes, and EVERYTHING BAD is the rest of us?!1 And how every news story citing inconvenient data MUST be coming from TAINTED sources?!1 Could it be more ABSTRACT cultism going on?!1

[nadinbrzezinski]

37. Tell me, so in a nutshell we should have had the US Army arrest Bush

for illegal acts.

I get it now

By the way my ivory tower about Latin America was GROWING in Mexico City, and working the streets as a medic in both Mexico City and Tijuana

The ivory tower views that support the coup are you Sir.

There are many in the working class, what we in the know like to call bases populares, who do not like Chavez, Correa, AMLO and the rest of the gang, but there are plenty who DO

It is also a fact that those gentlemen you cite are FEARED by the elites... I happen to know a few who are part of that.

It is also a fact that some of us can see through the illegal act of a COUP. And I am proof positive the Honduran Constitution has the LEGAL remedies in there to remove a President. WHY didn't they use them?

For the record hearing Chavez spout very hard core, old fashioned Marxist analysis is just as old as listening to people HERE on this board applaud an old fashioned coup.

As you said, OH THE IRONY!

It does drip

[UTUSN]

51. Well, nothing drips more than the CONTEMPT you "in the know" peeps drip

You all always ascribe horrible, nasty, malicious motives to what are matters of personal experience, beliefs, and opinions.

Well, all I can say is that *I* would have been a very happy camper for Shrub NEVER to squat in the U.S. pResidency, and frankly, for him never to have been in my national consciousness life AT ALL, including if he had never been born. How's THAT for an uncharitable emotion!1

O.K., so you say that "many" (in the working class) don't like those dudes and "plenty" who do. Well, just scratch me into the tally of the "many." So, uh, which is MORE, quantitatively speaking, "many" or "plenty." "Plenty" doesn't sound as many as "many."

Those "gentlemen" are not gentlemen. They are THUGS. Just because you say they inspire FEAR in "the elites" is not a basis for enlightenment. *I* am not a member of whatever "elites" and I can tell that just the THOUGHT of possibly being subservient to those THUGS *IS* severely frightening to me. Just looking at their SNEERING RIDICULE, their CONTEMPT for anybody who disagrees with them, looking at it through the DISTANCE of a television screen, is very convincing that any one of them would be capable of whatEVER physical and mental torment towards others IF THEY THOUGHT THEY COULD GET AWAY WITH IT.

Thanks for showing a TINY bit------NO, actually, QUITE A BIT----of free thinking in admitting that the CHAVEZ ideology is "old". You are different from most of the apologists for that group of thugs.


It's late for me, so I'm not running, but I *am* leaving before I fall over asleep, but this "coup" business needs explanation: Congress and the Supreme Court took steps to stop what they saw was a step towards overturning a constitutional provision. They themselves will not stay beyond their elected terms.

By the bye, Senor ZELAYA is a "rich" something or other, no?!1 Is *he* a member of "elites"?!1

Nighty night!1

[nadinbrzezinski]

52. And you my dear sir are using the same old ideology of the John Birch

society.

By the way, you may want to take this as you may but the BASES POPULARES are not a single thing, nor are the elites.

You are trying to make this a black and white, I just injected the GRAY there

But the point is this... you are defending the ILEGAL removal of a HEAD OF STATE by the military. They used extra-legal means, and that is the damn point.

By defending that act, you are justifying our military also using extra legal means. GET IT NOW?

Many and a few, the only way to quantify this in most democracies is through a ballot by the way... you are aware of that.

Now have a good night, and yes, the irony of YOU using old fashioned RIGHT WING AMERICAN talking points to defend a COUP is just funny to me.

By the way, some of my experience in the 80s included debriefing some of the victims of the last round of military coups

And here is the final irony... you do realize President Obama called this a coup... just thought you'd like to KNOW that... and he said, I am paraphrasing of course that we could not afford to go back to the bad habits of the 1980s.

Chew on that.

[UTUSN]

Ah, ME "using (wingnut) talking points" - and here I've spent my life as a Democratic party voter!1

Ah, how you and your pals love to CONDESCEND to others and cite some oh-so-arcane past experience ("debriefing ... victims... coups"). Somebody who did THAT debriefing should be more discriminating and sophisticated in forming alliances with other DEMOCRATIC adherents like ME and attacking the enemies of democracy. When you're attacking ME, you are wasting your time, supposed education, and talent, wasting it all on the WRONG TARGET.

I don't know all the ins-and-outs of Honduran government, but what I've heard is something about the CONGRESS and the SUPREME COURT doing something like voting and ordering the military to remove El Rico (suave), guitar playing, singing ZELAYA. The daily events have shown SELF-government, LIMITING their actions, promising to LEAVE office when their terms expire. The military didn't rise up without "legal" machinery.

Now, I've posted in a couple of these threads where you have been present and I myself have voiced confusion as to why President OBAMA and his policy practioners (Secretary CLINTON) and the OAS and UN have popped up on the same side as Huguito. I don't have an answer for myself for now, but will someday!1

The "bad habits" of OUR U.S. government don't date back only to the '80s. But I see this situation as different from what RAYGUN and the B.F.E.E did.

[nadinbrzezinski]

59. You are using right wing talking points, they are insidious in this country

but you are.

Does not matter if you have voted all your life for a democrat or not. IN fact, you are using the RW talking points that support Empire.

By the way, chew on this one.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=acfQ6OCSxKMA

We are actually having a HEAD of state, who was deposed, a lefty mind you, seeking a meeting with the Secretary of State. The way I read it, we will have a meeting

Riddle me this one... when was the last time we had that?

I expect your views of Zelaya to conform to the approved views soon.

So you know, my craw is the extra legal act of a coup, not whether he is a thug, a nice man, or just your regular politician. There was an illegal act committed by a military in this hemisphere...

Oh and I agree, the bad habits of the US Government in LatAm don't date to the 1980s, they date further than that. Some might even date them to the rise of empire on or about 1898... but lets not quible

[truth2power]

130. Nadin, could you bring me up to speed on this? That some of the military

coupsters were trained at the (formerly known) School of the Americas at Ft. Benning?

If true, it tells me all I need to know about who is benefitting the PEOPLE in this struggle.

Zelaya belongs back in power on that account alone.

[troubledamerican]

43. WHAT's with THE weird WRITING style?1 ALL the LITTLE numeral ONES1

and THE barely DISGUISED neocon PROPAGANDA equating HUGO who DOES not HAVE death SQUADS or MASS graves LIKE alvaro URIBE or ALAN garcia OR honduras?1

WHERE are THE mass GRAVES of CHAVEZ like URIBE'S or MASS killing LIKE garcia's AND why DO latin AMERICAN oligarch-FRIENDLY posters LIKE this ONE not SEEM so UPSET about URIBE or GARCIA as MUCH as THEY are ABOUT chavez?1

[HughMoran]

48. Note: The "1" can only go after a "!", not a "?"

It's a rule. :rofl:

It's TRUE!!!11!!!

:P

[UTUSN]

54. When you can't respond, DISTRACT!1

Since you want to find CONSPIRATORIAL PLOTS, but cannot *imagine* simple reasons for what you supposedly want to know, I *will* respond rationally to your burning questions:

My capitalization habits are not RANDOM, the way you have absurdly, supposedly "exemplified." Pricking your imaginary bubble, the caps are merely for emphasis, and a matter of convenience, since using HTML codes for BOLD, and ITALIC, and UNDERLINING would severely encroach on my rapidly diminishing life span. K?!1

"barely DISGUISED neocon PROPAGANDA"!1 HaHAH!1 Do you know *any* principles of rhetoric and propaganda, such as YOUR using "ad hominem" and "demonizing" and flat out HYSTERIA when you can't make a point for yourself?!1


As for your ill conceived attempt to mimic my punctuation in combination with the numeral "1" ---if you were familiar with DU joking, the "1" goes with the exclamation point, NOT with the question mark. It came about when an excited DU typist "stepped" on the exclamation point key too long and let it slip and a "1" resulted.

The only peg I've hung my hat on regarding Honduras has been the Congress and the Supreme Court. As a generations-long Democratic voter (this would be family, not MY living generations-long, so you will understand), I am no oligarch, but thanks for insulting somebody who is more on your side than you will ever know. Nighty night!1

[troubledamerican]

62. Hypocrisy & poor writing

Your accusations of "ad hominem demonizing" are interesting in juxtaposition with your own earlier remarks in this thread about "ivory tower types who have no contact with reality", etc.

Your demonizing equivalence of Chavez & Castro is a well-worn Neocon talking point. There simply is no equivalence. Castro's Cuba is not a democracy with free elections or a free press, and Chavez hasn't executed his own citizens. Meanwhile, the actual threat in Latin America is the factual widespread historic pattern of Far Right military dictatorships & their modern incarnations such as Alvaro Uribe & Alan Garcia, who kill their own citizens, use Death Squads & mass graves, a point never addressed by those DUers who are quick to equate Chavez & Castro.

In other words, if you're using Neocon talking points, such as those about Chavez & Castro, without any differentiation from Neocon sympathies for Uribe/etc., then you should not be surprised to be interpreted as a Neocon.

Finally, using CAPS for EMPHASIS as OFTEN as you DO, you have little clout for being taken seriously with an accusation of "DISTRACTION". Nothing is more distracting than overuse of capitals.

And nothing is more useless and topically tone-deaf than having a serious debate about a serious topic whilst you feel some compulsion to insert "DU inside-joke numeral-ones". Can I start inserting random Muppet jokes into a conversation about Death Squads yet expect to be taken seriously?

[UTUSN]

85. HaHAH!1 *You* canNOT tell me what or how to TYPE, think, say, or anything else!1

The hatred and contempt that bubbles up to the surface SO easily is the proof of the AUTHORITARIANISM that is at the foundation of Huguito-ites: You can't BEAR to have others have thoughts different from what you think they should be.

I don't CARE whether YOU "take me seriously." I am free of you. YOU are not free of me!1

[eridani]

78. Translation: Light-skinned "European" wealthy Latin Americans

--are Real Human Beings (TM). The dark-skinned poor are disposable human garbage.

[EFerrari]

64. In addition to being wrong about people who follow Latin America on this site

you also are wrong about the facts of this case.

[geek tragedy]

16. To the hateful nutjobs here, opposing a coup while NOT

trying to dictate terms to the entire hemisphere is just as bad as arming the contras and mining Nicaragua's harbors.

The OP and his fellow anti-American travelers have no credibility outside the nutjob echo chamber.

[LAGC]

23. Say huh?

How is it anti-American to take a moral stance in opposition to the coup?

Didn't Obama himself initially come out in support of Zelaya and against the coup plotters?

[geek tragedy]

24. It's the people who equate Obama to Reagan for

his, well, for being too humble and too multilateral in his opposition to a rightwing coup.

They hate the US, and will blame it no matter what it and its leaders do.

[scarletwoman]

25. Just keep kicking this thread. You're doing a great job.

[HughMoran]

33. Yes, the hate filled attention whores are loving it!!!111!!!

:eyes:

How pathetic.

[scarletwoman]

35. I guess you would know.

[HughMoran]

36. I have been reading posts from this crew for a while

They hate:

Capitolism &

Democrats

...think most DUers are idiots as they are elitists

... have been posting anti-DU crap on anti-DU websites for many years.

Yeah, I would know - I actually have a memory and pay attention.

[geek tragedy]

44. They're worse than the creepy crawlies at Free Republic.

At least they know enough to form common cause with those who would advance their interests. These people want Obama to fail out of psychological pathology.

[JoseGaspar]

111. David Horowitz, is that you?

Thought I recognized you. How goes, Dave?

[tkmorris]

50. Hate-filled attention whores?

You need a break. Desperately. Civil discourse is not only good manners, it's in the very rules of the website you are on.

[readmoreoften]

31. You're right. Reagan never invaded Pakistan. My bad.

I don't think the JSOC assassination squad was around either. Sure Cheney invented it, but Obama keeps it going. Even appointed one of its leaders.

[geek tragedy]

38. Repeating McCain bullshit talking points re: invading Pakistan.

Just what I'd expect from an embittered Edbot.

[Flaneur]

40. I know Ken Silverstein. He is hardly "anti-American."

And you actually said "fellow travelers"? Senator McCarthy, is that you?

Maybe we could bring Silverstein up before HUAC?

[geek tragedy]

42. Anyone who thinks Obama is behaving like Reagan here

is a complete moron who was probably high during the 1980's.

Ronald Reagan committed acts of war against Nicaragua. He funded terrorists. He mined harbors. He openly supported death squads.

If Silverstein isn't anti-American, then he's just a complete idiot who has no business writing about any topic that requires intelligence.

[Flaneur]

55. Take a deep breath. No need to hyperventilate.

No, Obama is not fomenting subversion like Reagan did. But Silverstein is suggesting he is tacitly supporting the coup--and the same elements Reagan supported--by being too passive.

I guess time will tell. Today's (Tuesday's) meeting between Zelaya and Clinton should be telling.

Is that US military aid cut off yet?

I'll let Ken know about your review of his work. I'm sure he'll file it in the appropriate place.

[geek tragedy]

65. I'm sure he will put it in the same place

where the Obama administration puts his knee jerk complaints about them.

Ronald Reagan would be pinning a medal on the coup leaders' chests and helping assassinate the supporters of Zelaya. The comparison to Reagan was obscene to anyone who remembers what Reagan actually did.

[Joe Chi Minh]

123. You are stupid beyond belief. Just two examples from the laundry list:

"4) So he's "an INEFFECTUAL REFORMER..." So we want somebody "ineffectual"?"

He was too effectual for you and your pals, in providing for the poor to receive a subsistence-level income, you dolt.

" 2) "very little truth...(about "it" or whatever) in American newspapers..."?!"

What a scandalous thing to say! Their unbiased reporting on South American politics and on the ruthless, hegemonic interventionism of the US is legendary. Ask Noam Chomsky. Actually, he'd kick your backside from here to breakfast, so I wouldn't advise it.

Irony? your post is the most unintentionally ironic post I have ever seen. Without exception. Anywhere. You are as dim as pond life.

[malaise]

12. Just the truth

K &R

[bluesmail]

14. K&R

[Name removed]

15. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Agony]

19. Opinion piece: The Honduras Coup: Is Obama Innocent?

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0907/S00072.htm

I am particularly interested in the Seventh item in this piece... if factual

"Seventh, under a law passed by the US Congress, any democratic government that is the victim of a military takeover is to be denied US military and economic aid. Obama still has not cut off the economic and military aid to Honduras as he is required to do under this law. This is perhaps the most telling datum regarding whose side he is on."

I am so tired of our militarization of the planet.

[geek tragedy]

21. A piece of shit Obama hater who blames Obama because

"nothing bad happens unless Obama lets it."

These people are the ones who think Obama is a god, not his supporters.

Trash minds producing trash writing and promoted by trash leftists.

[troubledamerican]

45. Not sure who's a leftist here & who's COINTELPRO here to divide the left against itself

[geek tragedy]

47. Parenti supports Kim Jong Il against Obama.

Anyone who finds a way to make Dear Leader an innocent victim is not to be trusted.

[troubledamerican]

49. Link?

[geek tragedy]

53. Link:

http://michaelparenti.org/NorthKorea.html

Excerpt:

Nations that chart a self-defining course, seeking to use their land, labor, natural resources, and markets as they see fit, free from the smothering embrace of the US corporate global order, frequently become a target of defamation. Their leaders often have their moral sanity called into question by US officials and US media, as has been the case at one time or another with Castro, Noriega, Ortega, Qaddafi, Aristide, Milosevic, Saddam Hussein, Hugo Chavez, and others.

So it comes as no surprise that the rulers of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK or North Korea) have been routinely described as mentally unbalanced by our policymakers and pundits. Senior Defense Department officials refer to the DPRK as a country “not of this planet,” led by “dysfunctional” autocrats. One government official, quoted in the New York Times, wondered aloud “if they are really totally crazy.” The New Yorker magazine called them “balmy,” and late-night TV host David Letterman got into the act by labeling Kim Jong-il a “madman maniac.”

Rather than passively await its fate sitting in Washington’s crosshairs, nation #3 on the US hit list is trying to pack a deterrence. The DPRK’s attempt at self-defense is characterized in US official circles and US media as wild aggression. Secretary Clinton warned that the United States would not be “blackmailed by North Korea.” Defense Secretary Robert Gates fulminated, “We will not stand idly by as North Korea builds the capability to wreak destruction on any target in Asia–or on us.” The DPRK’s nuclear program, Gates warns, is a “harbinger of a dark future.” . . . Having been pushed to the brink for so long, the North Koreans are now taking a gamble, upping the ante, pursuing an arguably “sane” deterrence policy in the otherwise insane world configured by an overweening and voracious empire.

In Michael Parenti's world, Kim Jong Il, Mahmoud Ahhadinejad, Slobo Milosevic, Manuel Noriega, Moammar Qaddafi, and Saddam Hussein--not to mention FIdel Castro and Danny "No abortion even if it means the mother dies" Noriega are the good guys and the US is the evil empire which must be resisted.

[troubledamerican]

56. Thanks, interesting, I don't think that contradicts my

statement that you responded to. Of course Far Leftists exist -- although I don't see many (if any) like Parenti -- but that doesn't invalidate COINTELPRO's historically factual activities, and the two can operate side-by-side.

Better yet, Parenti's positions can be called upon to exploit notions of a "vast Far Leftist" zombie horde who are leading astray the reasonable commonfolk.

I don't disagree with Obama's stance yet. It's early. The jury's out. I'm not comfortable with the arguments I've heard on either side of the Honduras/Obama debate.

One thing's for sure: Honduras is a coup. Military in the streets = not a democracy. Impeachment & rule of law is the process in a democracy. Honduras has crossed a line. And there are big differences between Honduras & Iran.

[geek tragedy]

63. I don't think harsh disagreement amongst leftists is

necessarily a product of COINTELPRO mischief. Just as there are those who sell out to corporate concerns with apparent glee (Max Baucus) there are those who become so doctrinaire and extreme in their 'anti-imperialism' that up becomes down.

[EFerrari]

66. It's not doctrinaire or extreme to expect Obama to do as much as any other

member of the OAS. But don't let the facts get in the way of your raging. :)

[HughMoran]

32. So Obama is "militarizing the planet" because he didn't "deny aid" to Honduras after the fact?

Are you sure you meant to say that - is today "nonsense day"?

Palin is infecting us all!

[Freddie Stubbs]

30. What exactly should Obama be doing which would differentiate himself from Reagan or GHW Bush?

:shrug:

[geek tragedy]

41. He should invade Honduras to install Zelaya.

Silly you--Obama is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't for this collection of sociopaths and embittered supporters of Hillary and Edwards.

[EFerrari]

57. "This collection of sociopaths"? Nice. n/t

[EFerrari]

58. Well, three things would help. Recalling our ambassador,

acknowledging the now week old coup which triggers cutting off all their aid -- which is more than half of their budget, and freezing their assets.

[Freddie Stubbs]

79. Sounds like what we have been doing with Cuba. How well has that worked out?

[EFerrari]

96. Honduras isn't Cuba. It's not full of revolutionaries bent on

proving the US wrong and it doesn't have a wealthy patron like the Soviets were. Honduras pretty much exists in its present form because Reagan wanted a base in order to mess with Nicaragua and El Salvador.

Honduras is the anti-Cuba and will fold like a bad poker hand shortly after Obama pulls the money. Not only that, but Obama would gain immeasurable respect in Latin America were he to do that. It's hard to see a downside for him, which is of course his first consideration and should be.

Does that make sense?

[maryf]

34. Tip of the iceberg?

http://www.guatemala-times.com/opinion/editorial/1136-honduras-coup-is-just-the-tip-of-the-iceberg-who-is-next.html

K&R, thanks.

[leftstreet]

74. That was a very interesting article

Thanks for posting it.

These threads get so thick with bullshit I give up hoping for something of substance.

:thumbsup:

[maryf]

88. OG posted much more Latin American History here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=5949265

a wealth of information in the last batch of posts there...

[Lydia Leftcoast]

86. Yes, it is fascinating to see this former stronghold of right-wing feudalism

(Latin America) turn leftward.

I bet the oligarchs ARE running scared, and it's about time.

When I was in grad school in the 1970s, I met someone who had celebrated his college graduation by driving to Panama with a friend. He had spent his junior year in Spain, so his Spanish was quite good. He said that he was shocked by the poverty in Mexico, but that Central America outside of Costa Rica made even the poor parts of Mexico look prosperous. (Not so coincidentally, Costa Rica abolished its military in the 1940s and has been the most stable and prosperous country in the region since then.) This was during the time that we were just beginning to hear about the FMLN and the Sandinistas here in the States, and this young man's opinion was that the region really needed a revolution.

A few years later, I heard a talk by a Maryknoll priest who had spent his career in Mexico and Central America. He recalled a day in the 1960s or so when he had gone to help distribute grains and beans to a certain impoverished village in Honduras. They scooped the grains and beans out of 100-lb. sacks into containers that the people had brought. When they had distributed all the food, they were packing up to leave when they saw that people were still crowding around their truck, asking for something.

What they wanted--and were fighting over--were the sacks that the food had come in. Many of them were sleeping on bare dirt floors and wanted to make some sort of bedding out of the grain sacks.

This same priest also told about how brutal the authorities were to anyone suggesting even minor changes. His contention was that the wealthy and powerful had brought the guerrilla movements upon themselves with their callousness and cruelty.

Someone in the audience (it was the Reagan era) asked if it wasn't important to stop Communist influence in Central America. The priest said that he had thought the same way when he first went to the field. People he met would listen to Cuban stations on the radio and talk excitedly about how the Cuban people had overthrown the oligarchs and now had universal education and health care. He asked them if they wouldn't miss their political freedom, and they'd give him this look that said, "You really don't have a clue, do you?" The fact was, they had no political freedom at that point. Anyone who spoke up against current conditions was likely to end up as a mutilated corpse by the roadside. (This priest contended that the most revolutionary force in Central America was the cheap transistor radio, which people could hear when they went to market if not in their own villages. Before that, they had known they were miserable but had assumed that everyone lived like they did.)

[maryf]

89. Trannies and other communication media...

are the people's tools against isolation and oppression. Link to help protect our rights in this regard on edit... http://www.freepress.net

[raccoon]

93. I spent a week on a mission trip in Honduras. The poverty is truly appalling.

People lived in shacks that in the US we would consider a sorry excuse for a toolshed. Tin roofs weighted down with rocks. Windows were holes cut in the wall. No running water--they collected water in cisterns.

I said to one of the ministers in the group that the Hondurans needed regime change.

What I saw and experienced there still haunts me, but I'm glad I went.

[bertman]

39. This whole scenario is just starting to play itself out. If President Obama steps in and

starts rattling a saber now he'll be no different from Reagan, Poppy, or Dubya.

Our new President has stated that he favors diplomacy over military action. It seems that in this instance he is walking the walk and not just talking the talk.

I'm not real happy with Afghanistan, Pakistan, or Iraq, but so far, I'm very glad that our President is backing up the leaders of Central and South America who have gone on record against the coup.

It shouldn't be too long before we see what kind of decisive action is taken on the anti-coup side. But right now it's too early to tell. IMO.

[EFerrari]

60. He doesn't need to rattle any sabers. He could just do as much as others

are already doing. Recall our ambassador and stop the aid. They wouldn't last out the month.

[bertman]

70. Excellent point, EFerrari. I'm going to hope that is his next step after Sec. Clinton meets

with Presidente Zelaya.

[nadinbrzezinski]

46. There is very little truth in any paper, regardless of where they come from

yesterday I noted that while translating Telesur.

That said, here is a point that might not have occurred to many... and let me throw it out there.

1.- The Coup might have been approved, or pushed by a few folks at State, remains form the Bush years... knowing how a large bureaucracy works that would not surprise me.

2.- For many HISTORIC reasons the US cannot OVERTLY get involved. There are signs we are, in some ways though but you need to read tea leaves. The president did declare the coup a coup. The army cut all ties and exercises with Honduras, and my favorite... acting, not acting... we allowed that Venezuelan civilian plane to fly Zelaya yesterday... the crew were AF personnel from Venezuela, thing one learns form Telesur.

3.- We have a bunch of wide eyed folks who will defend Obama regardless of what is happening. But if I am right in my readying of the tea leaves, you will see some folks at State quietly retire to spend more time with family. But you will not see the US act openly. No way, no how. And these wide eyed defenders are gonna do this regardless, making a huge mistake. We do not elect leaders, we elect representatives. Which means you need to do your job.

4.- US Papers are not with the administration if indeed I am readying the tea leaves correctly. Why? OUr media is quite right wing, and the people might get some ideas, and we would not want that, now would we?

Now our wide eyed, we will do whatever, are using the same tactics the right uses, hate america first crowd goes back to the 1950s, and stalinist.. find a new line boys and girls.

That is all

[EFerrari]

61. Declaring the coup a coup should trigger consequences

and it has not, aside from keep some of our personnel on base, if that.

[nadinbrzezinski]

67. Which is far more than usual

there are things that are going on background that I am sure nobody can speak about

The way I read this... some folks went rogue at State and right now it is about cleaning this mess, quietly, diplomatically and without the US to seem to be taking a role in this, an overt role.

Many said that there would be no actions whatsoever. The SOS is meeting Zelaya tomorrow. Tell me, because i cannot remember this, when was the last time the SOS met with a lefty deposed leader?

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=acfQ6OCSxKMA

Yes, that story is important. And diplomacy is at times slower than your legal system.

[EFerrari]

68. More than usual? It's the law here. So, we're within the law more than usual?

:)

The US needs to take up its overt role as a member of the OAS, no more, no less. And it's not clear that Clinton will be meeting with Zelaya. Someone will meet with him from State.

[nadinbrzezinski]

69. Again when was the last time we met with a deposed leader?

We haven't

There are things going on background

We also LET a civilian plane, piloted by AF personnel from a foreign nation, fly out of Reagan.

There are things going on, and unfortunately diplomacy takes a while. But the US cannot, under any circumstance, get overtly involved, There is a long history and you are aware of it.

[EFerrari]

71. That's impossible. We already are involved. Honduras is our pensioner.

To now claim we can't get involved is disingenuous.

[nadinbrzezinski]

72. What part of overtly involved are you missing?

Seriously.

And it is not our pensioner, client state perhaps, but pensioner no.

We are acting as part of the OAS... not as a world policeman

For one I would not approve of the US invading, UNLESS, it was under a UN or OAS mandate... and as part of a multinational force

As to ambassadors and recalling of such... we have not recognized the government of Honduras. Only two states, OUTSIDE of the American Area have. To me it tells me that indeed there are many ways to skin a cat.

And once again, we have never before in the history of the US met with a left wing deposed leader. To me that tells me that there is plenty of background there.

[EFerrari]

73. We're not overly involved, we're doing less than other members of the OAS.

We're not enforcing our own laws which call for withdrawing our ambassador and cutting off aid right away.

Honduras gets about 65% of its budget from us in aid and remittances. They are our pensioners.

[nadinbrzezinski]

75. We truly cannot be too overt and that is the point

If I cannot make this clear, it is my failing. But we cannot

There are MANY ways to skin a cat. If I am wrong, we will soon know, but if I am right, we will see results in the strangest of ways.

[EFerrari]

76. The United States must overtly enforce its own laws

and its own obligations as a member of the OAS. If that isn't done, then we do not have the rule of law here and our contracts with other nations are worthless.

And the last time someone told me to trust a super secret back room plan, Kerry was going to retake Ohio. This is a democratic republic, not the Wizard of Oz.

[nadinbrzezinski]

77. Ok let me play devil's advocate

the US recalls her ambassador and breaks relations

The US does what Zelaya has requested the OAS or the UN to do, which is to send an armed force... yes I heard HIM say that on TELESUR.

Tell me exactly how that will play in Caracas... or for that matter a number of other capitals, given the history of US armed involvement in Latin America, starting with 1898.

Just amuse me.

There is a reason why it looks to me like we are using the carrot right at the moment... but the stick is probably not that far behind. And yes, this does look like diplomacy on steroids. At least to me.

[scarletwoman]

81. I don't see anyone advocating U.S. military involvement of any sort.

Recalling our ambassador and cutting off aid -- that's all. And it's supposedly our law to do so in the case of a military coup.

I certainly DON'T want to see any U.S. troops deployed to Honduras, that would be insane. And I don't see anyone on this thread seriously proposing that -- except for the batshit frothing at the mouth reactionaries here who have tossed it into their mix of ad hominem, fallacy and strawmen.

The bottom line for me is; the coup is an illegal, undemocratic act - period.

sw

[EFerrari]

95. I'm the last person who'd even think about an armed intervention

as a solution to a problem. lol

It's not necessary anyway. If we stop the money, they can't keep the lights on.

[scarletwoman]

124. I agree with you completely. I heard on NPR on the way home from work this evening that the U.S.

is "pausing" all "non-humanitarian" aid -- those were the exact words the reporter used. I haven't had time yet to dig deeper -- it sounds like a good thing, but there's always so much double-speak involved in U.S. foreign policy that I'm disinclined to take anything at face value.

The same report had quite a bit about "working out a compromise" between Zeleya and the coupsters, which I find a bit confounding. Why should the victim of a flagrantly illegal act have to "compromise" with the perpetrators of the illegal act?

I'm off to do more research...

sw

[nadinbrzezinski]

97. I paraphrased Zelaya and that is the point

he did ask for a military action under the authority of either the UN or the OAS.

Not the reactionaries here, but President Zelaya.

As to breaking relations and the rest, there is this thing about carrot and stick, and this is what this looks like

I will ask you the same question I asked her. WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME A MEMBER OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT MET A DEPOSED LEFT WING LEADER?

The answer is never.

[scarletwoman]

126. Asking for backup from the UN or the OAS is a whole different kettle of fish than asking

for U.S. military involvement.

Yes, it is indeed a break from the past when our Sec. of State meets with the victim of a right-wing coup. However, the result seems to be a bit desultory at best -- Zeleya is urged to find a "compromise" with the coupsters, thus legitimizing the original military overthrow, imho, instead of condemning it outright as an illegal act and the perpetrators as outlaws.

sw

[EFerrari]

94. No one is talking about an armed intervention. Some of the protesters

have called for UN peacekeepers because they see their human rights going into the toilet.

The US doesn't need to invade Honduras. That's the wrong stick and unnecessary. It just has to freeze remittances and suspend the aid that makes up most of their budget. They won't last very long.

[nadinbrzezinski]

98. And this is what I said would happen

this is what diplomacy looks like... and this is a break from the norm in our relations with Latin America

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3957479

By the way Zelaya HIMSELF asked for that intervention two days ago over the Telesur airwaves. I am quoting HIM, not the reactionaries here

[EFerrari]

102. We have been using soft coups in Latin America for a long time.

There's an ongoing one in Venezuela and Bolivia and if Correa gains any more ground against Exxon, he can look forward to one, too.

I haven't heard Zelaya invoke armed intervention. I have heard calls for "blue helmets" from the UN but not from him, that I can remember. Invading Honduras would be like invading Oakland, lol. It would cause many more problems than it would solve. :)

[nadinbrzezinski]

103. He did, I translated as he said the UN or the OAS need to have

the resources, armed resources, to return conditions. That was a call for blue helmets

[EFerrari]

104. Okay. And that's different than asking the US to invade Honduras.

He may not be wrong. SOA Watch is reporting active death squads. Journalists and protest organizers are at physical risk. The media is being heavily manipulated -- the people are more or less hostages right now.

I'm sorry this happened so early in Obama's tenure but it also makes sense that it would. Somebody wanted to do it now, at exactly this point in a new administration, imo.

[nadinbrzezinski]

105. Ok let's try to explain this simply

WHO has the logistics resources (and plans in place) to do this job?

The Mexican Military is the closest to having a fleet of AF planes for the supply chain, yes Antonov and C-130. That follows with Venezuela. After that NOBODY comes even close. Ok Canada, which is stretched too thin due to Afghanistan.

So by default it would be the US Military leading the effort, under UN or OAS authority.

Again, how do you think this will look like in a panoply of capitals? Let alone the US...

Right now they are using the soft approach, the carrot. I am positive, that the stick is not that far behind. But the INTENT is to return Zelaya to power.

[EFerrari]

106. All of Latin America is lined up behind Zelaya and no one would object

to UN troops, no matter where they came from, being used in this situation.

But, again, it's unneccesary at the moment. If the golpistas step up their killing of the populace which they may do at any moment, that's a different matter.

[nadinbrzezinski]

107. Oh they would

yankee go home... I can already see it

Gringos Imperialistas!

As to the coup leaders part of this soft approach, I am positive, includes the ever so popular safe haven.

By the way, Costa Rica has no military, why the President of Costa Rica is getting the mediating role

It is a signal... carrot.

[EFerrari]

108. No, that's wrong. Maybe you should go back and look at the

recent conversations at the OAS. And as far as Costa Rica goes, what matters isn't that they don't have a military force but that they are entirely at the service of the State Department.

[nadinbrzezinski]

110. You tell me that the people would not take to Reforma

and surround the US Embassy and scream Gringos Go Home!

Gringos Imperialistas?

I am willing to lay odds on that one happening.

[EFerrari]

112. Some would. We know from all the trolls at DU over the weekend

that the right wing started screaming "no US meddling" before Zelaya had even landed in Costa Rica. But that's not a majority opinion in Honduras, let alone, in the region. The lefty leaders, and that's most of them, wouldn't be promoting that at all.

[nadinbrzezinski]

113. I lay odds that this would happen

and it matters little what the leaders tell them.

Now you are not happy as to what is going on. I am very happy. It is such a refreshing change from situation normal (they are our bastards, good boys) that it is not even funny.

[EFerrari]

115. It won't happen so we can't lay bets. The lefty leaders in LatAm

are very popular. This isn't the same region it was in the 80s.

As far as "our bastards", I haven't heard a word about the generals we trained at SOA. They are being left out of the discussion. What is happening right now is simply in line with State et al having switched over to non-military interventions. That has been "situation normal" for quite a while.

The real struggle here is not really in Honduras but in Washington, as far as I can see. Obama's people are dealing with entrenched, right wing Cold War @ssholes both in the Pentagon and at the State Department, that and imperial habits. Their goals may overlap but they also diverge. Obama's real challenge isn't in Tegucigalpa.

[nadinbrzezinski]

116. Ok, we will disagree here on the reaction

as to DC... yes, he is having that fight

I am willing to lay bets that this coup was a rogue operation from left over bush appointees

Problem is ... due to classifications I will not find out, as I will be dead and buried by the time that is declassified.

And if this was exactly what you are saying it is, why the hell are we working to return Zelaya to power? Those are not even the non military interventions of the past.

This is a break from situation normal, and if I cannot convey this, it is my fault

[EFerrari]

117. The question is, who is trying to return Zelaya to power

and what does that really mean?

I betcha there are parts of our government that aren't trying very hard.

The Obama admin has a lot to gain if they do return him -- he will owe them, and that's more than we had before this happened.

It's complicated. :)

[nadinbrzezinski]

119. Yes it is complicated and this is not situation normal

we are seeing a new paradigm emerging... and looking at this through old glasses is not helping, another point I will make.

Some of us have been able to read the tea leaves and to realize this cannot be hurried along, as much as I would hope the crisis was over last Saturday.

So the best counsel is patience.

Carrot\ stick... carrot, stick, carrot, stick

But if this was Bush...

Can we pin medals on them? Need help setting death squads? That is the major difference.

If you will, if you need to think of an OLDER parading, why I keep going carrot, stick, think of Teddy to a point.. and the analogy breaks even there. This is that new.

Now motives, no clear motives here. Small economy, return the lefty... what was Hugo telling us just the other day on Telesur? All them fascist plots to unseat the lefties all over... accusing the US RIGHT WING, but even he got it. He softened his stance RE Obama... after all, he is also a lefty who is a prisoner of his own fascist elites. I have to give it to Chavez, he got exactly how this will weaken him in the region.

[EFerrari]

120. Hugo Chavez backed Obama in the election but he was smart enough

to be very quiet about it -- which was no small effort for him, I imagine. But, there has been no "softening" at all, just a continued effort on Chavez's part to frame Obama as above the machinations of the same old. Let's see how long he can keep that up.

And, btw, the death squads are already active, per SOA Watch.

What is happening today obviously seems new to you, as you've said repeatedly. I guess we disagree on that point. It seems to me very much in the same vein as our most recent tactics in the region which avoids overt military action and seeks instead to pour money into the right wing strategically to keep the lefties busy and off balance.

[nadinbrzezinski]

121. Key point are these death squads trained and funded by us?

NO.

And yes this is new. This is not the same as the usual. Sorry, but I know the history of the region, and this is the FIRST TIME we are actually working to return a lefty to power.

Now again, I will say this again, I cannot make this clear. Perhaps you should look for the last time the US worked to get a lefty back into power? The only time historically I can think of is during the Mexican Revolution, and only because Carranza was less dangerous to the US elites than the rest of the crew.

Now that is the best case and Carranza was not that lefty either, not was he deposed by a coup, just supported by the US Federal Government.

Now if you think this is the Chicago School, you have your right to think that, but the facts on the ground are very different from usual. We are actually supporting the return of a lefty to power who was deposed. Point to me the last time that happened.

[EFerrari]

122. Nadin, the people at the top of this coup were trained by us

and human rights activists started pointing out on Day 1 that these are the same people involved in torture in the 80s. So, in answer to your very first question, yes, they were trained by us. :shrug:

You are too stuck on left/right, and not on our MO or recent history, imho.

[nadinbrzezinski]

127. Yes they were trained at the SOA, but we are NOT supporting them

right NOW.

This should be clear as water by now

The situation normal is... we turn a blind eye NOT TRY TO RETURN THE DEPOSED PRESIDENT TO POWER.

This is not situation normal

Now they expected us to openly embrace them. We haven't.

Am I being that unclear?

Perhaps I am. Do you want me to write this in Spanish?

Si los entrenamos hace veinte anos, pero no les estamos dando el apoyo necesario. Esto es lo que es diferente en esta situacion.

[EFerrari]

128. No, "not situation normal" has been your mantra today.

But that means very little in terms of the events in progress. It is now very normal for these things to happen without military intervention. And the State Department has decided that Zelaya needs to negotiate with criminals who've overturned the elected government of Honduras. That's not different at all.

Maybe you need a new water filter.

[nadinbrzezinski]

129. And maybe you need to buy a clue

this is so un normal it is not even funny.

Perhaps it is time for people to get a clue, the empire is ending, and this is exactly what was promised at the OAS meeting.

Perhaps we should go back to the old habits of the past and have open coups with desaparecidos and guerra sucias.

The problem I see is that this is so different that you are trying to look at it with the same glasses, and it ain't working.

I knew something was different when signals were given. This is not Chicago school, this is something different, how different we don't know yet. As to Zelaya being asked to negotiate with criminals, here is a reality check, in international relations this happens very often in crisis. I wish it wasn't so, but in an ideal world you'd have bush at the Hague. Forget it, in the world where I live this is quite standard.

I can already see a way for everybody to save face and for Micheleti and the rest to get a nice house in Miami and truth be told, for new elections well ahead of schedule.

That is the reality of the world, not the ideal world where you live.

Now I think we are done.

[truth2power]

132. May I barge in, here? I'm learning a lot just reading the comments

betwen you and EFerrari. I think you answered the question I posed upthread...Are there SOA people involved?

Help...I'm working on my Spanish: If they were trained 20 years ago, but have no support (dando) now? This is what is the difference in this situation.

So there are some old SOA people, but they're on their own (?)


They expected that we would not try to return Zelaya, but that's not the case.

Also, it makes sense that Obama is trying to clean up the mess created by rogue people at State.

edit> change spelling on EFerrari

[Orwellian_Ghost]

125. Zelaya

is nowhere near being a lefty. That's how reactionary things have become. even the tepid proposals from Zelaya were too much for the craven capitalists.

[nadinbrzezinski]

131. You know that, I know that,,, but you are talking of the US press

after all Obama is a raging commie... just read the papers.

Same thing at work here.

In the politics of lating america he is actually a center left populist, closer to the center than the left

BUT... the center in LatAm is quite to the left of the US. I mean the man imposed a minimum wage increase! Oh the horror! We know how well that will go over here as well... just look at the fight over EFCA.

So you always have to take into account the source

[cali]

80. the author doesn't know a fact from his asshole- or opinion

he's expressing opinions not facts. do try and learn to distinguish between the two.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

82. I know, it's tough when people with facts or actual experience in the region

contradict your preconceptions.

[maryf]

109. It was the title of the article he linked to...

by Ken Silverstein. Please do try to read the links so that you can distinguish what an OP is trying to post...of course your posts are always welcome as they serve as kicks...

[Vidar]

83. K&R

[fascisthunter]

84. people are trying to get this thread locked

notice the amount of uncivil discourse, name calling and personal attacking? Use the ignore button...

[Enrique]

87. Obama's response is very different from Bush's

Obama 2009 very different than Bush 2002, seems to me.

[redqueen]

90. Where's the Twitter brigade on this?

[anonymous171]

99. lol at #4. I thought that US Involvment in Anything = Imperialism?

[EFerrari]

114. No, imperialist involvment is imperialism. lol

One thing that may be under the radar right now is that before Obama came in, the OAS (Org of American States) was on the brink of extinction. We'd used it to impose so much corporate bs on the region, that it was moribund as a real working group.

This last episode may revitalize it and, for the first, time in the service of democracy, not for Chiquita or Exxon. That would be a great outcome.

[leftstreet]

118. "for the first time in the service of democracy, not for Chiquita or Exxon"

THAT'S a quotable quote if ever I saw one!

:thumbsup:

[anonymous171]

100. dupe. nt

[Echo In Light]

101. Thanks for posting