Political Discussions
Obama stands with Chavez, Castro and Ortega
Posted by anticsrocks • 7/01/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: castro, chavez, constitution, elections, Honduras, iran, obama, ortega, regime, zelaya
Iran:
Iranian people are being beaten in their streets, forcibly removed from their homes, and murdered.
voices.washingtonpost.com/livecoverage/2009/06/report_nedas_family_forced_o...
www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/06/22/iran.protest.stories/index.html
kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/16/the-violence-in-iran/
President Obama says nothing. Then he offers credibility to the totalitarian regime that is responsible for these atrocities in the name of keeping America from being blamed. Iran blames U.S. anyway.
www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2009/05/30/iran_blames_us_for...
Honduras:
Mel Zelaya, President of Honduras was arrested and then exiled because he wanted to change their constitution so that he could be President indefinitely.
"Zelaya, who took office in 2006 and is limited by the constitution to a four-year term that ends in early 2010, had angered the army, courts and Congress by pushing for an unofficial public vote on Sunday to gauge support for his plan to hold a November referendum on allowing presidential re-election."
www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE55R0US20090628
Chavez, Castro and Ortega have all condemned the arrest and removal of the Honduran President Zelaya.
powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/06/023923.php
President Obama is in nice company as he condemns it as well.
www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/01/2613101.htm?section=justin
On the one hand, Obama wants to say that we don't want to appear to be meddling in the affairs of sovereign nations. Because of that he remains quiet as innocent people, protesting a stolen election are beaten and murdered.
Then, when a Latin American President wants to be able to stay in office indefinitely and tries to do something that violates his country's constitution, he is arrested and removed from office by his own government. And what does our, "we don't want to appear to meddle in the affairs of other countries" President do? He makes a public announcement condemning the arrest and removal of Zelaya.
Before the liberals jump to say I am spewing rhetoric, everything I mention is cited and linked. So, just answer me this one question:
Why does Obama continue to side with tin-pot dictators and rogue regimes and fail to support innocent people trying to free themselves?
User Comments
-
I checked this Zelaya
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_Zelaya
appearently he's affiliated to the Liberal International. Odd alliance for Chavez seemingly-
Maybe not so odd for Chavez. Zelaya was trying to change the constitution in order to extend his period of rule. Based on a piece I read in the Washington Post, I believe, if he returns, it cannot be without making sure that he doesn't go against democracy himself.
The OP thinks there is no consistency in approaches between the approach to Iran and Honduras. The comparison is interesting in terms of political legitimacy. Zelaya was removed by extralegal means, and the election results in Iran are in question.
Thing is, though, while the principle is the same, the situations are completely different. We have a different relationship with each country (and its neighbors), and Obama's words and actions would have a different impact. One needs the right tool for the job, not a one-size-fits-all approach. Of course, the problematic nature of Zelaya's power ambitions complicate things, but we can hardly support a coup against a president who hasn't served his term yet. -
But what everyone is missing is this: It wasn't a coup.
Zelaya was arrested and removed after a ruling by the Honduras Supreme Court. That is not a coup. He violated their constitution and paid the price for it.
For Obama to say that it was illegal is telling. He continues to side with dictators like Chavez and Castro. He denies the rule of law that he preached so much on the campaign trail. -
How is it not a coup when the judicial branch arrogates to itself the functions of the executive branch? How is it not a coup when the president is arrested and deported without due process?
That said, the Honduran military agrees with you (www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/world/americas/02coup.html), but that doesn't make it any less a coup. -
So if Obama did something as egregious against our Constitution and was removed from office, that would be a coup?
From everything that I can tell, his illegal actions precipitated this and he was legally removed from office. When he refused to step down voluntarily, he was arrested. -
If the Supreme Court decided the president had no right to fire a general and also ordered the president's removal, it would be a coup. In the U.S. we have definite procedures in our Constitution. There is impeachment by the House of Representatives followed by a trial in the Senate. We've seen that happen twice in our nation's history, neither time ending with a guilty verdict in the trial.
I don't know the Honduran constitution, which has gone through many iterations, but I believe the basic principle of separation of powers still obtains there, on paper at least.
-
-
Quite frankly it's time for the US to stop meddling in foreign affairs, period. We shouldn't intervene unless we are asked. We shouldn't even weigh in unless we are asked.
We've done enough damage over the last 100 years or so - time to stop. -
we've certainly never crushed democracy in our own hemisphere for the sake of stability before *rolls eyes*
-
@Anok and Agit8er: I hear you on our less than stellar history of intervention in Latin America, and I'm not sure what policy will evolve in this case; however, I am certain that the US government cannot be indifferent to such an event.
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
