Honduras' Dictator-for-a-Day Rails vs. Obama & Chávez, Declares Martial Law

You know that you are at your best in moments like this. I've seen this movie at least two times--in Venezuela and in Mexico. Of course, the lamestream press will never catch-up, but that is their function. The lib/progressive press will barely catch up--and then they will move on to the Michael Jackson's that we are inured into valorizing by dint of our squalid conditioning. Maybe the corporate press will look "at the man in the mirror", we are asking the man to change his ways. But, alas....the man's a total bum, he doesn't ever 'get it'.

Obama may not be quite as supportive of Zelaya as we suppose - although it is a bit of a leap from "waiting to see" to being a confirmation of support for the coup leaders - however it is a worrying statement nevertheless.

Obama's First Coup de TAT?

Monday, 29 June 2009, 11:36 am
Article: Waldo Parravicini

Obama's First Coup de TAT?

UPDATE: 12: 18pm - Dan Restrepo, Presidential Advisor to President Obama for Latin American Affairs, is currently on CNN en Español. He has just stated that Obama's government is communicating with the coup forces in Honduras, trying to "feel out" the situation. He also responded to the reporter's question regarding whether Washington would recognize a government in Honduras other than President Zelaya's elected government, by saying that the Obama Administration "is waiting to see how things play out" and so long as democratic norms are respected, will work with all sectors. This is a confirmation practically of support for the coup leaders.

 

juliewp

Julie - I'm surprised and disappointed that you would run with a statement like that when right here on Narco News we've provided you and all readers with statements by the US president, the secretary of state, and the US ambassador to Honduras - all of whom out-rank little Danny Restrepo, and the Ambassador spoke after Restrepo did to make clear that the US does not recognize any other president but Mel Zelaya. Period.

I know some of my friends are nostalgic for the time when every coup could be blamed on Washington. But on this one, the new administration is clearly against it, even provoking - as I quote here - the dictator-for-a-day to attack Obama!

You can stay mired in a geopolitical situation that no longer exists if you wish. Here, we prefer to be reality-based, taking our news only from the known facts, and not inventing factoids to fit our preferred spin. And yes, honestly, I think that's what you (and the author you quote) are doing.

I strongly suggest you read the 11 reports and translations posted on Narco News today on the situation in Honduras and better inform yourself before spouting nonsense.

Finally, think! Do you think it helps the people of Honduras overthrow this coup if some of you are putting out false information telling them that Washington is against them? It's as if you're trying to demoralize them. Shame on you!

That said, you'll note that you've been free to state your opinion here... and I've been free to offer factual correction.

- Al Giordano

Firstly, RESPECT, rather than insult, people - you are behaving no better than those you purport to disdain, in your attacks on people posting here such as myself and Eva Golinger. Secondly, I did read all of the articles here first, as well as those in other media - and posted my comment because of my concern given the time attached to the Restrepo post ie apparently after the narconews posts. For a man of words you appear to have little grasp of the indefinite - such as "may not be" and " a bit of a leap" - clearly indicating that there is doubt in my mind about the veracity of the information.

I will remain worried about the US stance until there is a clear and unquivocal statement issued by Obama, and no amount of your bullying will change that, or the fact that it is not nonsense, but a valid opinion. I have to wonder at your almost cheerleading stance on Obama, especially in the absence of any hard evidence, such as the definitive statement I and Hondurans, particularly Zelaya and his supporters, have been waiting days now for Obama to make.

I have nothing to apologise for or to correct, but I think perhaps you do if you genuinely "prefer to be reality-based, taking our news only from the known facts, and not inventing factoids to fit our preferred spin." It seems to me that is exactly what you have just done - until Obama makes an unequivocal statement, which he has yet to do, your claim is a hope or a wish or a factoid, but not a fact.

 

juliewp

Geez, Al. I know I am not 'normal', but reading some kos comments makes me suspect with respect to some of the folk we are dealing with here in the US that are on the 'progressive/lib' left. Sure, some fire-breathers on the left see the US behind every tree--but the seething antipathy toward democracy as a norm and concept is simply breath-taking. No wonder that here democratic action and the very ethos that it entails (solidarity) is so muted and lacking in our daily narrative. With friends like these....these folk are still fighting the cold war from their Archie Bunker recliners. Lucky they have evolved to wielding the remote--they can always be assured of having thier ignorance and biases confirmed at the push of a button. Archie had to actually get off his fat ass to hear the same shite regurgitated. The internet is wonderous as an information tool--but it still exists the fact that most folk will seek to confirm their deep ignorance and stupidity. just say'n. Critical thinking, anyone? What saves the US is that many ignorant folk are essentially decent--what they lack is a context and the moment through which their heathly and just natures can shine through. We learn through pain and experiencing contradictions in our operative logic. No pain, no gain.

Zelaya is speaking about democracy on live television from Managua at this moment, at a special meeting of the ALBA group of nations. "The colonels flying the plane" that whisked him out of Honduras, he has just said, "did not open the cockpit door because they were ashamed to look me in the face after having served with me for so long." Was the military even really united behind this?

Whatever the coup forces that sent Zelaya out of the country - free to rally the world behind him and be recieved with full presidential honors in Managua - were thinking, they've doomed their little adventure completely.

Julie - If you think the words with which I replied to your nonsense (or that of Golinger) constituted "attacks," you really can't handle any criticism at all.

The US Ambassador said that the US will not recognize any other president than Zelaya.

On a conference call this afternoon, two senior administration officials said the following verbatim quotes:

we’ve been working in the OAS Permanent Council towards a consensus resolution that will condemn the effort to depose President Zelaya of Honduras, calling for his return to Honduras and for full restoration of democratic order. Although that resolution is not done yet, but I think it shows how quickly the OAS under the leadership of a variety of key countries, the United States included, has responded to this event and how relevant the OAS, and in particular the Inter-American Charter, has been in determining how the OAS and the regional countries respond to this kind of event...

It’s profoundly regrettable that that was not the case and that this morning the military moved against President Zelaya, detaining him, and then expelling him from the country to Costa Rica. As noted, we’ve condemned this action. We view President Zelaya as the constitutional president of Honduras, and we’ve called for a full restoration of democratic order in Honduras. And we will continue to work with our partners in the OAS and elsewhere to ensure that that happens...

our ambassador in a public press conference called for the release of all officials who have been detained, demanding that Honduran authorities release them immediately.

 

We have been attempting to communicate with especially members of congress and others who have been driving this process, and insisting that they need to step down and restore full democratic and constitutional order....

We recognize Mel Zelaya as the democratically elected and constitutional president of Honduras. We see no other...

I believe the word “coup” will be used in the OAS resolution. And I would certainly characterize a situation where a president is forcibly detained by the armed forces and expelled from a country an attempt at a coup. We – I mean, we still see him as the constitutional president of Honduras. So it was an attempt at a coup. We don’t think it was successful...

once the forces that have conducted this act in Honduras recognize and understand how isolated they are and how committed the region is to restoring democratic order, that they’ll see they have no choice but to do so...

it was the armed forces that detained the president today and expelled him from the country. But as we’re seeing now with the naming of an interim president by the congress, this was an effort that has included other political institut ions...

You call for a "clear an unequivocal statement" from Obama. Those people speak for him. If you think those aren't "clear and unequivocal," that's your problem, not mine.

You sound like John McCain stammering that Obama should condemn the Iranian regime more than he has, and in the exact words he wants him to use. I really see zero difference between your stances, even if one purportedly comes from the left and the other purportedly comes from the right.

And as for whining that you're somehow being "bullied" and such: You call yourself a journalist! You think you can make criticisms - in this case suggesting a falsehood that Washington somehow plotted this coup in the face of all the evidence - but not receive it?

You don't see me getting all indignant when you portray me as some kind of "Obama cheerleader" because, first, I know where I'm coming from so it really doesn't matter to me what you or anybody else thinks or imagines, and, second, because as a journalist it is my duty (and yours) to accept criticism, even criticism that is as woefully errant and illusionary as that you offer! You seem to think that you can write words and not be subject to criticism for them! That's not journalism. But it's a fatal weakness that corporate journalists - and too many alternative journalists - have.

The suggestion that you are being "bullied" when I've provided you the microphone to type whatever you want here is laughable. It says nothing about this space and everything about your own victim complex. As I tell my students: don't ever be a professional victim. It's counterrevolutionary.

You want "respect"? Earn it!

You know why the left loses too many battles? Because so many of its self-proclaimed adherents spend more time whining with each other than fighting off the enemy. Jebus Christ: there's a coup going on and you want to demand "respect." Get your priorities in order. This is not about you!

First, Al, thanks for the wonderful coverage of this development. The Narco News contributors have shamed the AP and The New York Times, both of which have performed at almost the nadir they achieved after the coup against Chavez.

 

While you are certainly correct that no one in the Obama Administration has condoned the coup-- Secretary Clinton's statement was very clear in rejecting it--President Obama's statement was less clear. There is evidently feeling in Honduras that the US *was* involved in the coup, as evidenced by Radio Es de Lo Menos running a headline to that effect. While it's highly unlikely that Obama was involved, the USG is not unitary. In Haiti, it was reported that the Haiti Station, not its leadership, arranged to have the USS Harlan County greeted with a violent mob, to turn back peacekeeping troops that could have supported Aristide. So, it is possible that the USG was involved in the coup, just at lower levels than the Administration.

 

I realize the need for strict adherence to facts in reporting. I don't think it hurts to keep an open eye to nuance, though. Julie perhaps should have phrased it as, "there is evidence that Obama's position is not simply anti-coup." Weighed in the balance, that evidence may not overcome stronger evidence that he is simply against the coup. But it's evidence, worthy of being included in the weighing.

 

Finally, consider this: The leading member of the opposition has reportedly been killed. Even if Zelaya returns, it's not at all clear that the left can mount a credible political campaign. So the right's objectives may have been fully met. Unless there is a powerful response against the coup, they will take power in the next elections. It matters a lot whether Obama demands accountability or whether he is willing to work with the people who pulled off the coup.

 

Anyway, I was just dropping in to thank Narco News, especially Kristin Bricker and Laura Carlsen, for great reporting.

 

(To preserve the integrity of the Narcosphere, Charles is the pen name under which I write about politics and have done ever since 9/11).

I would like you to show exactly where I suggested "a falsehood that Washington somehow plotted this coup in the face of all the evidence" - I said, and I repeat, "Obama may not be quite as supportive of Zelaya as we suppose - although it is a bit of a leap from "waiting to see" to being a confirmation of support for the coup leaders - however it is a worrying statement nevertheless." One sentence, with no mention of a plot, Washington-backed or otherwise - the comment relates specifically to the statement attributed to Obama, not even to the coup itself, then quotes the article that gave rise to my concern. It would have been a simple matter for you merely to point out that the original statement I was commenting on was wrong, or that perhaps I should even have added "if it is true" before "it is a worrying statement", which would have constituted a perfectly acceptable professional criticism. There is a BIG difference between accepting criticism, and accepting abuse, and I am very sorry that you apparently cannot distinguish between them. I am happy to accept criticism, I am not happy to accept personal abuse, especially under the guise of journalism.

The use of adjectives such as 'stammering,' 'whining,' 'woefully errant and illusionary' are attributes of a person, not of facts, which is what real journalists should concern themselves with.  Play the ball, not the person, Al. Imagine how much more time you and those lefties you complain about would then have for more useful things if you stuck to the issues, instead of indulging in personal attacks.

Re your quotes from two Obama administration officials, they appear to be talking mostly about the OAS resolution, and about actions taken under the aegis of OAS, not about the Obama administration/US position, although it is difficult to establish because they are not in context....to take such implications as facts would be to do what you so strenuously demand journalists do NOT do. Or maybe I am just so naiive that I think the OAS and the United Staes are no longer one and the same....

Even mainstream media have compared Obama's 'even-handed' statement with the outright condemnation by Chavez and others, indicating I am not alone in considering his position to be at least weakly-stated, if not actually weak.

Regarding facts, check out the article below re the alleged assassination of Ham reported on Narconews. 

 http://www.juventudrebelde.cu/internacionales/2009-06-28/un-mar-de-pueblo-hondureno-esta-en-las-calles-pidiendo-que-vuelva-zelaya/ Un mar de pueblo hondureño está en las calles pidiendo que vuelva Zelaya El dirigente Luther Castillo, coordinador del Movimiento Social en Honduras, afirmó en entrevista con la Mesa Redonda de la Televisión Cubana, que la casa presidencial se encuentra rodeada por varias cuadras por el pueblo, reclamando que vuelva el auténtico presidente hondureño. Negó la muerte del diputado César Ham, quien se encuentra en un lugar seguro, junto a otros dirigentes de los movimientos sociales.

See, it's not hard to advise of a correction or make comment without indulging in personal attacks - after all, at times like this it is difficult to obtain accurate information thus to know what and who to believe - which is why I posted here in the first place. That was clearly a mistake!

Respect is not only something you have to earn, Al, it is also something you have to give to other people - especially if you want any yourself.

juliewp

WHILE STRONG CONDEMNATION IS EXPRESSED BY MANY

eg

1. Télam

President Cristina Fernández said on Sunday that the military coup in Honduras "is a return to barbarism" in the hemisphere and announced that Argentina will request the Organization of American States (OAS) to demand "the immediate reposition of President Manuel Zelaya", toppled, arrested and beaten the Honduran military.

http://www.telam.com.ar/vernota.php?tipo=N&dis=1&sec=1&idPub=151669&id=299617&idnota=299617

2. Prensa Latina

Bolivian President Evo Morales condemned on Sunday the kidnapped of his Honduran peer Manuel Zelaya by military officers.

http://www.prensa-latina.cu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=95855&Itemid=1

3. China View

MANAGUA, June 28 (Xinhua) -- The foreign ministers of the Central American Integration System (SICA) member nations Sunday "strongly condemned" the military coup in Honduras. http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-06/29/content_11619535.htm

4. Agence France-Presse

"The EU strongly condemns the arrest of the constitutional president of the Republic of Honduras by the armed forces," Czech Republic Foreign Minister Jan Kohout told reporters on the sidelines of an international meeting here.

5. [Jose Miguel] Insulza [the Secretary General of the Organization of American States] "severely condemned the coup that a group of soldiers have carried out against the government of President Jose Manuel Zelaya." http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/world/view/20090628-212868/EU-calls-for-release-of-Honduran-president

6. Reuters

HAVANA, June 28 (Reuters) - Cuba on Sunday condemned the military coup in Honduras as "criminal, brutal" and demanded the immediate return to office of deposed leftist President Manuel Zelaya. http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN28348369

WHILE OBAMA ONLY EXPRESSES CONCERN, if deep 

Fox News

"I am deeply concerned by reports coming out of Honduras regarding the detention and expulsion of President Mel Zelaya," Obama said in a written statement. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/28/obama-calls-order-military-arrests-honduran-president/

 

Reuters

Obama's statement urged Hondurans to resolve the dispute peacefully but did not explicitly call for Zelaya's reinstatement as president. http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE55R2EJ20090628?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0

New York Times

At the same time, from the Obama administration’s measured response to the reaction of President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela, who put his military on alert over an apparent affront to the  http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/world/americas/29venez.html?ref=americas

AT LEAST TIME THINKS SOMETHING STRONGER IS NEEDED.... Time

Zelaya's defiance of his Supreme Court may not have been the behavior of a leader who respects the rule of law; but when soldiers in Latin America haul a democratically elected president out of his palace and into exile, the U.S. has no choice in this day and age but to roundly condemn it. Not just to throw Washington's hemispheric antagonists off base — but to keep the region's military troglodytes from making a comeback. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1907600,00.html

 

There is a world of difference between a strong condemnation and a deep concern - as many Hondurans are discovering. They need strong action on their behalf, not wishy-washy diplo-speak. It is kind of sad that it is left to media like Time to make such a demand, rather than Narconews, who seem to think Obama's doing just fine....

 

juliewp

Julie, do you want Obama to mobilize Southcom? Why not come out and say it? At this moment, it is not a realistic to expect Obama to take such a drastic measure unless:

a) US Embassy staff are harmed by Honduran forces,

b) US forces in Palmerola come under attack,

c) Honduran forces start a war with a US ally (Guatemala, El Salvador), or OAS member (Nicaragua).

This "wishy-washy diplo-speak" you refer to with contempt will prevent bloodshed. It is so easy to play Monday morning quarterback, when you don't have any skin on the line. There are other ways to win wars - diplomacy is one of them. Another option is for the US to offer protection to Zelaya when he returns to Honduras. I am sure there are soldiers and officers still loyal to Zelaya in the Honduran military. In the video clip Al posted, you can see fear in the eyes of the troops guarding the presidential palace. Now why would they be afraid of unarmed protesters?

 

 

From the New York Times:

"By Sunday night, officials in Washington said they had spoken with Mr. Zelaya and were working for his return to power in Honduras..."

So your objection is that you want certain words spoken by Obama directly, and not by members of his administration? I'm just curious, because Secretary of State Clinton has already condemned the coup.

Another way that this stream of argument against Obama reminds me of a McCain strategy is that it reminds me of how McCain's campaign kept on trying to define the hoops Obama had to jump through in order to get a pat on the head for his performances.  Guess what? The hoops just keep on moving.

Julie - you juxtapose Obama's statement beside quite a few others in order to make your point  - you want a different tone?  That strikes me as reflective of your passion on the subject, wanting some sort of subjective satisfaction from everyone else's response rather than a substantive critique on strategies.  Please explain what tangible outcome would be closer to being achieved if Obama said things in your Little Red Riding Hood just hot enough just cool enough way? It's a little frustrating when the U.S. government's diplomatic approach makes a clear turn in the right direction and people start complaining about the texture, tone and other finer points.

Julie - You began your comments here quoting the following statement - "This is a confirmation practically of support for the coup leaders" (on the part of the Obama administration - and then you came back to defend another writer who called events in Honduras "Obama's first coup."

Now you wish to rewrite the story of your own interventions here as simply some kind of "concern" or raising of questions.

Sorry, but there's a record of what you actually wrote, here for all to see.

As for the John McCain-like demands that Obama speak with more testosterone about the situation, it seems to me that after so many years that so many of us legitimately pointed out that the US's "cowboy diplomacy" - in which it dictated its terms to the hemisphere and expected everyone else to fall in line - an approach that seeks to first build coalitions through the OAS and others would be welcomed!

But apparently some were never serious about that, or never understood that as the central problem.

I'm not sure if what you want is a return of boneheaded US cowboy diplomacy because you think it would more effective in reversing the Honduran coup? Or whether you want its return because you don't know how to analyze a situation in which the US administration is not, in this case, the root of all evil, but actually part of the very same solution urged by Venezuela, Bolivia, the ALBA countries and the rest of the hemisphere?

But, in sum, you are calling for a return to "US cowboy diplomacy."

I reject that stance categorically. And I think that most reasonable folks of conscience do.

 

At least two Kossacks (here and here) have noted that the coup plotters -- who being of the elite classes can afford technology that's out of reach of most Hondurans -- seem to be swarming the blogs and Twitter feeds pushing the same talking points.

Certain elements within the U.S. do support military overthrow of any regime in Latin and South America that doesn't agree to neoliberal trade agreements with the U.S. It would be foolish to deny that reality.  Furthermore, Republican meddlers who are out of power might have encouraged this coup using back-door channels - it would be entirely non-surprising.

Regardless, this one is just too blatant and dishonest to get much traction - but you can see some U.S. newspapers running stories that seem to back the coup:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/world/story/70937.html

"Hondurans show support for Zelaya ouster" Compare that to

http://narcosphere.narconews.com/notebook/kristin-bricker/2009/06/coup-h...

However, then look at Al Jazeera's quality video coverage - the coup has zero public support, by all indications.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2009/06/200962975756886937.ht...

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2009/06/2009628205825226694.h...

Clearly, the issue here has to do with the legality of the supreme court decision to order the military to oust Zelaya over a democratic referendum. It's obviously an attempt by the Court to involve itself in politics (kind of like the U.S. Supreme Court selection of Bush in 2000, actually).

Zelaya quote in the LA Times today:

"The previous military coups often had U.S. backing or blessing. Perhaps recalling that history, Zelaya on Sunday speculated that the U.S. might have had a hand in his ouster. "If the United States is not behind this coup, then the plotters won't last 48 hours in power," he said."

Interesting indeed.

"I am deeply concerned by reports coming out of Honduras regarding the detention and expulsion of President Mel Zelaya. As the Organization of American States did on Friday, I call on all political and social actors in Honduras to respect democratic norms, the rule of law and the tenets of the Inter-American Democratic Charter. Any existing tensions and disputes must be resolved peacefully through dialogue free from any outside interference."

 

Carefully worded, one could say - is he trying to tell the rest of South and Latin America to stay out of it, or something?  I don't see a condemnation or a demand to return Zelaya in that statement, do you?

Self-explanatory, I think.

I just want to say that this blog has made me really stuck between an optimistic "reality-based" rock and a pessimistic "reality-based" hard place that other blogs are based around (I'm thinking Stan Goff, atm, who has an entirely different view, it seems, of this coup).  I say this because I didn't have that optimistic bit before, because I didn't see it as being based in reality; I think I was wrong on that count.

But still! Between a rock and a hard place...

An earlier comment of mine, giving some more credence to the report that Cesar Ham is alive, seems to be stuck in moderation.

This is excellent news and fairly significant if it turns out to be true -- for the electoral fortunes of the left in Honduras and for Honduran society in overcoming the effects of this coup.

I may have screwed up the links by trying to make them inline, so here is the main one:

http://www.elpatriotahn.com/l/content/c%C3%A9sar-ham-est%C3%A1-vivo-aunque-escondido

 

 

 

My sense is that juliewp worries that her (accurate) understanding of the Obama administration as imperial is threatened by evidence that in this particular case the W.H. is not behind another dastardly Cantral American coup.  But she can stop worrying.  Obama is re-branding and re-packaging Empire, to be sure, but in more intelligent ways than Bush.  Backing this particular recent crude ("too blatant and dishonest to get much traction" as cargocult says) assault on democracy would be just plain stupid from an imperial perspective given the changed balance of forces and opinion in Latin America.  BO and his team know this very well - they are not dummies. Meanwhile, they continue to have higher priority difficulties in the Middle East and South Asia, where imperial violence is escalating.

Foreign Minister Patricia Rodas is in Mexico: http://www.lanacion.cl//prontus_noticias_v2/site/artic/20090629/pags/200...

On DemocracyNow, Professor Greg Grandin pointed to the difference between the Clinton and the Obama statements as an issue that calls into question the precise intentions of the Administration. Clearly, the assertion that Obama's statement is "a confirmation practically of support for the coup leaders" is over-the-edge. We don't have enough facts. There are many other possible explanations. However, it is true that in diplomatic language, governments place great efforts on speaking with a unified voice so that people won't parse the language looking to split the government. So to discover a discrepancy between the statements of two major players is significant. It may mean nothing. This is a young Administration, still in its learning phase. But it could also have deeper meaning. Our job is get more facts so that we know. (To preserve the integrity of the Narcosphere, Charles is the pen name under which I write about politics and have done ever since 9/11).

I am trying hard to understand why all US and EU allies are so againt the so called coup except for the word coup scares everyone as it does me to return to the unstable 80's.

I own a house in Honduras and an to return in two weeks but now of course it is a wait and see but I have been up all night and talking to people in Honduras who are scared and staying in their houses but what I am failing to hear is why if the President who was elected had chosen to overrule the congress and Supreme court to try to follow in the footsteps of so many other Dictators I am just trying to find out what other choice the people have. Is that not what we in the US would do if a our President declared himself President for life, or that he decided to run for a third term and forget what the congress or Supreme court said. Trust me the last thing I want is a coup of any kind but something smells wrong when we are all on the same side as Chavez and Cuba. I have been trying to find more info but all that is on CNN is Michael Jackson. Please any news or opinion wanted.

Ken

Ken - The information your contacts in Honduras are telling you is demonstrably untrue.

The nonbinding referendum proposed by Zelaya after the court struck down a binding vote - and therefore not in violation of any court order or law - did not say anything about becoming president for life, or term limits, or anything except do you want to vote again in November on whether to form a Constitutional Convention?

Expat communities are so often the worst informed about what is going on in the governments of the countries they reside in. That has to be especially true now, that the coup regime has banned all critical media, shut down TV and radio stations, and only allowed those that repeat its propaganda to continue reporting.

If you read our dozen-plus reports of the last 36 hours, you'll become much better informed than your friends on the telephone, and will be able to educate them, rather than be misinformed by their own errant perceptions.

Like resonable and educated everywhere, I agree that Tegucigalpa is the pivot point on which the fate of the world and all humanity so perilously turns.

However, I can see Obama's comments about the Honduran coup only within the context of somewhat more distracting events elsewhere, such as the violent civil unrest in Iran, a nation of some 70 million citizens and some 5000 uranium enrichment centrifuges.

Obama's public comments directly regarding the situation in Iran have been carefully measured against America's past role in Iranian politics and Iranian sensitivities to that role.

If Obama has been publicly cautious with regard to Iran, he must be all the more so with Honduras, or run the risk of appearing disproportionately invested in the political turmoil of a country rather less than obviously central to global peace and economic recovery.

Additionally, by allowing Clinton to speak more forcefully than he, Obama has demonstrated respect for his Secretary of State, thereby affording her greater powers of diplomatic suasion and discretion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Al, Thank you that is all I have been trying to find out is what is REALLY going on and pray for a peaceful outcome as I have many friends down there and all are Honduran and they don't seem to know what is going on but are just plain scared. Anyway I have bookmarked this blog and will watch close as the is NOTHING on the news here and I hoped to be a full time resident in the next year after 5 years of back and forth. Thanks for the news keep it coming. Ken

If she -- or the US ambassador to Honduras -- say something, they're saying it knowing that they have Obama's full approval to do so.

And please do try to read the links -- or the previous posts of Al's -- before you put your fingers on the keyboard.  It will save you much embarrassment.

By the way:  Reuters managed to correctly identify the vote as non-binding (even as their story's headline tried to imply that only lefties are in the OAS, as well as implying that their opinions don't count):

 

In previous English-language accounts, the public vote -- which Zelaya said all along was a non-binding vote -- was depicted as an actual vote or referendum to change the Constitution.

If Zelaya's so horribly unpopular, as the US news accounts imply, then why did his political foes need to launch their coup to thwart the holding of a non-binding vote?  Why not let the vote happen and show the world that everyone hates Zelaya's guts? 

Answer:  Because, of course, it's simply not true that everyone in Honduras hates Zelaya's guts.  If they did, there would be big parades and the coup plotters would be broadcasting pics of smiling happy Hondurans to the world.  Instead, they're going Full Metal Khameinei and shutting down not just the phone lines, but even the electrictity, so that it's difficult for Hondurans to tell the outside world what's happening.

Ken - You've just submitted a new comment (I haven't approved it) which quotes extensively from "another blog" but without citing the source and a link to it.

We insist on crediting sources here in this comments section (otherwise, there's no way to see whether the source is credible or not.)

If you'd like to resubmit it with the link to and name of the source, we'd approve the comment. (Although I will then rebut its untruthful claims.)

Al,

I am sending the link did not intentionally leave it out I am just in the dark and you already have your mind made up as you said you will "rebut it's untruthful claim" I am on no side except the majority of the people of Honduras and as I said I am trying by searching the web, watching the news and now the BBX just trying to understand but again feel I am in the dark. The post came from a Honduras travel link that I am sending. Thanks for listening.

Ken

 

http://webmail.aol.com/43524/aol/en-us/Suite.aspx

travel-to-honduras@yahoogroups.com

My point is that Obama's initial statement was singularly weak, particularly in comparison with other leaders, not only in Latin America but even the UN, and Europeans, suggesting that the US commitment to Zelaya is less than many of you from the USA seem to want to believe - it is like telling a kid Santa doesn't exist!!! That word 'condemn' is the key - Obama expressed 'concern', everyone else 'condemns', some more strongly than others. Hilary Clinton did NOT condemn the coup - again we have the diplo-speak - she merely said it "should be condemned by all" but she did not go so far as to actually condemn it, or call for Zelaya's reinstatement - and still has not done so, and nor has anyone else from the US administration. Instead she has announced that the US is not even declaring that the events in Honduras are a coup!! Santa doesn't exist, buddies, and you would do better to turn your attention to lobbying your own government than dumping on me for suggesting what has turned out to be the freaking facts!!

Nowhere have I called for the troops - where is there ANY even remote indication of that in anything I have written??!!  Maybe I am just too subtle for you - my point was that Obama's administration had NOT condemned the coup, had NOT called for reinstatement of Zelaya, and that this should have given us pause. If I was wanting anything, it was a clear and unequivocal statement from the Obama administration that 1) they condemn the coup, and 2) demand the reinstatement of Zelaya. Call it McCain, call it what you like - that's your problem - the propensity to call names and/or put down by association in my experience has always been the favoured weapon in the armoury of the inadequate.  I prefer to stick with my points, and my point is Obamas initial response was weak, indicating a lack of commitment to the return of Zelaya, and now he has decided it isn't even a coup after all, justifying the worry expressed in my first post.  I remain more than deeply concerned, I am frankly outraged. And at the risk of even more vitriol, I go so far as to suggest that if we wait until the crust is broken, we might also see some US fingers in the pie.

My final response to Al - paying attention to detail is essential to establishing facts. Look at my original post AGAIN. I wrote ONE sentence of my own, the first, which I bolded in my third post to make it clear, as it obviously passed you by the first two times. The rest of my post was a direct quote, preceded by the title, date, author, etc then the quote. However you said "and then you came back to defend another writer who called events in Honduras "Obama's first coup." WRONG, Al - that was not me, or even 'another writer' talking, it was ALL part of the one quote from Waldo Parravicini - something that was clear form the form of the post, but that you could also easily have checked yourself before you blew a fuse. As I said in my third post, I wrote one sentence only, which was the first. I don't know how anyone could make it much clearer, and that sentence did not in any way warrant deserve or warrant the vitriol it unleashed.

Maybe you have some other issues, but I remind you that La Otra Campana proposes a 'new way of doing things' based on respect and inclusion, and that you have set yourself up as The other Journalism - as such I believe you should think very carefully about the way you deal with people because your responses to both Eva Golinger and myself were a disgrace to what I believe is the fundamental basis of La Otra - respect for all, not because they have 'earned it' in your terms, but because they are fellow human beings and as such, worthy of it.

juliewp

Julie - If you're going to invoke the principles of the Zapatista Otra Campaña, I must ask: Have you read the communiques and listened to the spoken words of its spokesman, Subcomandante Marcos?

He is far harsher in his critiques of falsehoods - and those who repeat them or quote them, including many on the left - than anything I have penned in this exchange!

If that's where the bar is set, I'm well within those limits!

You don't get to quote a falsehood and then say that just because someone else said it, you're free to absolve yourself of responsibility for what is said. Those who spread false rumors are just as guilty of it as whoever started the falsehood.

Finally, you're apparently confused. My reference to when "you came back to defend another writer" were about your later reference to Golinger (who you mention again here). That's what the words "came back" mean!

But once again, you make it about you. Meanwhile, there's a coup going on. We've reported 15 major stories on it in 36 hours. What have you done to come to the aid of the Honduran people in this same time frame?

Three points: 1) Please identify the falsehood/s you imply I have repeated; 2) I did not defend anything Eva Golinger said, only her right not to be abused by you, and anything you claim to the contrary is a very clear falsehood; 3) It is not a competition - I do what I can when I can with what I have available. Re Honduras, I have written press releases, lobbied parliament, sent out communiques to many people, and attempted to find the facts about what is going on. Unforunately I relied on Narconews for some, which were incorrect, so I have also had to write and send out corrections. juliewp

Julie - I get it. Your peewings are hurt and you still think it's about you!

Talk to me when you can think and act rationally, which is apparently not this week.

All the time you've spent here crying about alleged "abuse" here (do you see Golinger crying? No! She's at least an adult about it) could have been spent doing the work of stopping the coup. 'Nuff said. You're now wasting my time, too.

It is interesting that everything I have called you on, you have ignored/refused to answer, and just hatched another bunch of imaginary accusations to turn on me while claiming it is all about me - only because you are writing your own script, Al! If you can't respond to the questions are ask other than by turning  them into a personal thing about me, how about responding to Hilary's latest statement - to keep you honest, I will quote your own recent post to assist with your repy.

1) "I'll simply remind that when Obama policy toward Latin America is wrongheaded, as with its support for Plan Mexico and its Calderon regime - no news source has been more frequently critical of those Obama policies than Narco News. One need only browse the 436 instances in which we have criticized that harmful US policy regarding Mexico, to see that when Washington is wrong or harmful, we spare no punches and take a back seat to none of its critics." What do you have to say about Hilary's refusal to call it a coup?

2)"Inventing convenient untruths while doing that only muddies the waters. It also loses the credibility any publication or writer needs to have any impact at all. The public is not stupid. Most can see when one is trying to "fool the crowd" in a moment of crisis. It bears repeating the words of our colleague Mario, quoted atop these words: "You will know the true character of a person by his actions during an hour of moral crisis." Yeah, like chasing Obama rainbows, and abusing people...

3) "In this hour, those that adhere strictly to the documented facts are those that are showing character worth trusting, today and into the future. Others are squandering that credibility just as badly as NY Timesman Simon Romero fritters away his own." I have stuck to the documented 'facts', and sought comment on information I found irregular or at odds with them, which was the purpose of my original post. Where does Hilary's statement that it is not a coup leave your claims about US condemnation?

I await your next article with baited breath.

juliewp

Julie - You've lost all perspective and capacity to reason. You could answer each of your questions for yourself if you weren't so hopped up on poutrage.

Meanwhile, when the coup gets defeated, you can brag that you did nothing but "call out Al Giordano" and try to distract him and his news team from getting out the facts. Great work, Julie. I feel nothing but pity for you. But now I must get back to the real work.

Al,

I have now been in contact with friends in San Pedro, Ceiba, Olancho and Roatan and most I am in contact with still overwhelmingly seem to mainly want it to end. But if they had a choice they seem to trust that if he was replaced with a member of the same political party, the support of of course the opposition party, the Supreme court, the congress and the military. I live most of the year in Honduras with only fisherman that are all at least 3rd generation fisherman and they are all of the same party. So I was trying to get as much info as possible and am wondering where you live? And why you think a President that goes against the Supreme court and congress should be reinstated? I am very disturbed by how it was done and very much believe there is much that happened that I still don't know and hope it will all come out but being new best friends with Chavez also scares me as he was not always of that mind set.

Ken

Ken - You ask where I live. Like you, I don't live in Honduras, but I do live in a nearby Spanish speaking country where I've resided for twelve years. And for just as long I've been reporting on events like this.

You ask "And why you think a President that goes against the Supreme court and congress should be reinstated?"

Because he was elected. And the constitution says that the voters - not the court or the political parties in congress - get to decide who is president! It's pretty simple. As for your misconception: Zeleya obeyed the Supreme Court order against the binding referendum. He then went and called a nonbinding referendum. There was no court order against that at all. You're being fed untruthful information by your friends.

Meanwhile, you're making excuses for a dictatorial illegitimate military coup regime that has already in 36 hours killed various demonstrators, shut down most of the press, TV and radio in the country, closed all Internet (except for satellite access, which it doesn't control), kidnapped and beaten foreign ambassadors... do you really think those guys are better equipped to govern democratically than the guy the people elected?

And as for the nonbinding referendum: The "tell" that the people likely supported it was that the coup was carried out as they were going to vote. If the oligarchy was so confident that Zelaya's proposals were unpopular, it would have waited for the vote to come in against him. The timing of the coup is your proof that they believed the nonbinding vote would prove that he is indeed popular.

Anyway, if you want to side with the violent and censorious coup-plotters, that's your right. But as in any other store: You break it, you buy it. It's your coup now.