Oh, Snap! Credibility Comes from Adherence to the Facts

By Al Giordano

A reader writes:

I have been an admirer of your tireless work in getting otherwise un- or underreported news out. I have cited your publications and dispatches repeatedly on my former radio talk show…

This is why I was even more astounded when one of your reporters wrote something along the lines of: "Anyone who thinks Washington is behind the coup in Honduras is as hopelessly stuck in the Cold War as the bad guys themselves." That's a paraphrase, but I believe it correctly conveys the message.

As the evidence is uncovered by other investigative reporters and outlets, it looks as though your staff has quite a bit of egg to wash from your collective faces. Eva Golinger has brought to light a great deal of facts; the U$ admitted it was in on the planning discussions by the gorilas golpistas days--or more--before the coup; yesterday's (Monday, July 20) press conference by one Philip Crowley, mouthpiece for the U$ State Dept., is pretty much a second confession [link to that briefing transcript]. There are plenty more facts, data and logic behind accepting the knowledge that the U$ regime has backed and supported (if not instigated) yet another ouster of a democratic leader.

I think it would be in everyone's best interest if your staff were to come forward and admit this error. It would restore the credibility Narco News has enjoyed for years.

My response to the reader:

I have read every word Golinger and others have written, as well as every State Dept. briefing including the one you cite, and the facts used by you and some others to claim that this was "Obama's coup" do not even come close to proving that claim. There is a lot of slip of the tongue involved.

For example, you write:

"the U$ admitted it was in on the planning discussions by the gorilas golpistas days--or more--before the coup."

That's a misstatement and less than honest portrayal - a distortion - of what was said, which was, more correctly, that US officials knew that a coup was being discussed and tried to dissuade it from happening. What Golinger and some others are doing is using a set of facts to try and claim the opposite of what those facts clearly demonstrate to any honest appraiser that is not desperate to paint a picture from a different script.

The same with your citation of the State Dept. briefing by Crowley. US officials and Venezuelan officials routinely criticize each other and say bad things about each other. None of that proves anything about the US having organized a coup in Honduras.

To the contrary, I agree with Immanuel Wallerstein who has noted that this coup is a challenge to Obama, including from right wing interests in the United States and possibly - though not yet documented - some freelancers his own government, and it is a very inconvenient coup to him.

I have criticized some of the ways that Washington has behaved after the coup, but none of that proves its involvement as an organizer of the coup. The way that some are so desperate to refight the 2002 Venezuela coup all over again (of which I documented US involvement in the first days of it) does reflect a mirror of the Cold War mindset. If you don't like my saying it (and the words you paraphrase were mine, not that of anybody else here), tough luck: That's my informed opinion based on real and reported facts.

Narco News' credibility will survive intact whether you want it to or not. To the contrary, it would be a betrayal of our strict adherence to the facts to jump onto the "Obama coup theory" bandwagon simply to appease those of you who keep shouting that claim but have not at all proved it, and who use evidence that disproves it - see above – in order to claim that it is "proved." It's not rational on your part and it gives you a false geopolitical roadmap to base all other action on, which is a sure road to defeat in any organizing struggle.

My position is in fact closer to the stated views of Chávez (Obama as "prisoner of the empire") and Castro than those of some of their aspiring sycophants.

And to hear some of them talk, or watch some of them write, their view - that nothing could have happened without Washington's approval, and likewise that nothing can be undone unless Washington undoes it – is profoundly ignorant and even disrespectful toward the gains social movements have made over the past 12 years weakening Washington's power throughout the hemisphere. Their eyes are fixated on the circus up above and they're certainly not putting much time into reporting the struggle in Honduras from below, which has been our emphasis. They haven't absorbed the basics of Zapatismo 101 in that sense.

It's nakedly clear to me that some seem to think that repeating a falsehood over and over again somehow makes it true, or even if they know it's not true they think it proffers some kind of tactical advantage for pressuring Washington to do more against the coup.

If you're convinced that Obama co-plotted this coup, file some Freedom of Information Act requests and go out and prove it. Nobody's been able to do demonstrate that yet. If they do, then I'll surely issue a correction, but I don't think that they will, because that's not my interpretation of what has happened.

And, obviously, I don't care what people who don't adhere to the facts say or think about my credibility, which has been built over many years and will continue for many more. I've never cared about what others thought in the "situational ethics" of the game of "if I disagree with you, you have no credibility." Oh, snap! That's why I have credibility.


Al Giordano

Addendum: I really don't mean to pick on Golinger, I don't have any personal bone to pick there, nor do I believe that differing conclusions make for a rivalry - they don't - but in the link cited by the letter writer she includes this excerpt from yesterday's State Department briefing to claim that "the United States government has today stated it doesn't consider a coup has taken place":

"QUESTION: Have you ruled this as a coup d'état there legally --


The operative word in the question was "legally" and as has been reported here and everywhere, the State Department has not yet ruled in or out whether it will determine that the coup in Honduras triggers the consequences of being defined, legally, as a "military coup." It is that definition that would trigger certain sanctions (ones that are already in place pending the final ruling). US officials have stated they are holding off on such a ruling, pending the talks in Costa Rica, whose 72-hour deadline set by mediator Oscar Arias clicks down to zero tomorrow.

The "no" is clearly to any alert observer an answer to the question of "have you ruled?" (or made a ruling). As in: No, the State Department has not made a ruling.

There's no way to read that accurately as evidence that "the United States government has today stated it doesn't consider a coup has taken place."

One can be harshly critical - as I am - of Secretary Clinton and the Obama administration for putting faith in talks that haven't resolved anything, that only serve as a stalling tactic by the coup regime, and that I and others foresaw would not likely bring an agreement, without distorting their gamble on those talks as somehow being proof of a non-existing denial that the coup happened (and continues to happen). Indeed, all the major US officials - Obama, Rice, Clinton, Shannon, Restrepo, Llorens - have used the word "coup" to describe it.

It is the legal definition that awaits a ruling as a tactic of holding a sword over the head of the talks. I don't like the talks. But it doesn't take a degree in rocket science to see the moves on the chess board for what they are.

Finally, that Washington knew that a coup was being plotted doesn't mean it was among the plotters. Hell, Narco News' Kristin Bricker reported that it was being plotted three days before it happened.

Everybody knew, including President Zelaya, that such moves were afoot. That doesn't make Zelaya a coup-plotter against himself, either. Duh.

My concern, always and forever, is to chart the most accurate road map. If others want to insist their maps are more accurate, I wish them well as they wander around the forest in circles. But that don't mean I'm going to follow them into the woods when I can see such gaping lacunas on the maps they have drawn.

Update: And now back to our regularly scheduled journalism...

Guess where Honduran coup General Romeo Vásquez Velásquez is scheduled to be this week?

Yup, the former car thief cum coup general is featured as some kind of "special guest" at this four day (July 22-25) event at the Miami Beach Convention Center. The event features speakers that call themselves "prophet," so I'm guessing it's a holy roller deal of some sort. Check out the video and if anyone can shed light on what this group - MIGAPartners - is about, please inform us in the comments section.



the marvel comic and the tragic


There is indeed an 'I told you so' affliction within independent media, where everyone has a latent wish to prove a hypothesis previously formulated.  Counterpunch has to prove that Obama's a bum, Eva takes a pro-Chavez approach.  You have your latent hypothesis..  I am not interested in who was better at prophesizing Obama's credibility ahead of time - readers can analyze, opine, and moralize on their own.  I applaud the fact that you are a truly great journalist with few 'no go' topics, searching for the truth in the service of real change.

I just wish that you would cool it with the rivalries, because, as someone who has read and counted on Narconews for years, it takes the focus away from the real injustice being reported.  If someone gets something wrong you just make sure the facts are set straight.  What is most troublesome is when info is omitted that doesn't prove a latent thesis, something you do more infrequently than others.



I found this site that advertises the event:


The good general is scheduled to speak on Sunday morning, it appears.

This event seems to be related:


Al, you made reference to

Al, you made reference to Chavez describing Obama as a 'prisoner of the empire' to Telesur.  That might be an apt metaphor.  A member or official in the empire, not its prisoner, would have actively supported the Honduras coup.  As you've said, based on the known facts, Obama hasn't done that.

Do you think it's worth asking, though, whether Obama is to some degree a willing or cooperative prisoner of empire rather than a stubbornly resistant captive?  Is that an important distinction to make while charting your map, from a social movement point of view?  While the administration isn't happy with the coup, it doesn't appear to be doing all that it can to break it.  Obama was lauded on this blog and elsewhere for carefully condemning authoritarian violence against protesters in Iran.  No similar statement from the president for Hondurans.  Or any direct threat to cut off military aid.  Honduran soldiers are still training at the former SOA.  The Wall Street Journal reported on Saturday that US officials are discouraging Zelaya from returning. 

Citizen power in Honduras and elsewhere is starting to break down the empire's prison walls, but maybe Obama's not doing all that he can, at least in this instance, to chip away at them from within.  I'm glad Gollinger et. al. are calling him out the way they are, even if their analysis may lack nuance at times.

@ Ansel

Ansel - The dude ran for president. Of course he's a willing participant in that empire! He volunteered for the job! It is also a government that he ran to change. That change has come fast on some fronts, slow on others, and hasn't come at all on still others. It's been six months. Compared to Clinton in 1993, or Carter in 1977, it's been impressive how much the ball has been moved forward on so many fronts.

And one of the same reasons why I think Secretary Clinton and some other staffers have been able to make some ill advised moves on Honduras is also a reason why I find it absurd to presume that the US President took part in a scheme to create a coup that causes nothing but headaches for him and a distraction from his currently greater agendas (health care, getting a Supreme Court justice through the Senate, not to mention the economy): It's a very small country, with a very small economy. It's just not that high up the totem pole of priorities, for better and for worse.

There are those who presume - I am among them - that the coup plotters in Honduras hope to trampoline this coup into other military coups throughout the region. And the active involvement of the ex-Cuban and ex-Venezuelan mafias is a given. But, really, has the coup - and the hemispheric and global reactions to it - somehow weakened Chavez's hand? Or, more realistically, has it strengthened it? I think the latter is true.

I do - and did rather loudly the other day - take great exception to the administration's public stance of seeking to discourage Zelaya from returning. I think that is frankly a far more dangerous and sabotaging position than the matter of whether there are a few soldiers still training at the School of the Americas (which Washington has not in any way claimed to have stopped) or whether or when the legal definition of "military coup" comes hammering down.

That position - the nonsense that "Zelaya shouldn't return" - is one that has, so far, exclusively come from the State Department, and I've focused more effort targeting that than what I consider the more symbolic matters. And I have a few moves to pull in the coming days to underscore that one.

As for those "calling him out," some of them seem to spend as much time trying to call me out - i.e. Ciccariello-Maher's nonsense on the importance of "creating our facts" and the email I quoted above - as they are with their Obama-directed poutrage. It drives them crazy. We can all speculate as to why.

And that way of doing things has as little effect on what the president does, I'm sure, as it does determining my actions. If such poutrage has any impact at all, it's just a distraction from "doing all we can do" whether we're a lowly authentic journalist or a president of the empire. After all, even mosquitos tend to slow down the real work out in any field.

I'm not glad, nor am I un-glad, that the Poutrage Club is "calling anybody out." It's a self-marginalizing ritual in the academic left. Nothing new. Nothing particularly interesting nor ground-breaking about it. And it's doing nothing to hasten the end of the coup.

What I am interested in, always, is drawing the most accurate map. I think the one I've been drawing here is better for navigation purposes if we want to win this thing. If others feel differently, well, go ahead and follow another one! I don't really care.

More on MIGApartners

Who is behind the curtain?

When the coup happened it appeared to me that Obama had somewhat of a perplexed look about him. This leads me to wonder if somone (s) went behind his back and okayed the events without authorization. 

I'm certain the golpistas would not have the gonads to do what they did without serious monetary and political support from some  group within the US government.

If neither Obama nor H Clinton would back the coup, it means someone else did; which poses a very serious problem. A serious problem of working against the US and its current foreign policies which is nothing other than treason.


Hi Al-

With respect to the bizarre video (which unfortunately may seem "mainstream" in Miami) and who these people are, my view, given the title "Government of the King", might well be that they are on a jihad to install a theocracy in the US and elsewhere where Christ is King and he has the sword and Jesus is pissed off, cuz he's going to use nuclear weapons and HASTEN Armageddon, Praise the Lord, because the ONLY book in the Bible that they have read is the Book of Revelations.

Kind of like the movie Jesus Camp, Heaven on Earth, Jesus talks to me (NOT You) through this little earpiece I'm wearing, excuse me, what did you say holy father, Yes, I'm channeling now, "WHY don't they realize Sarah Palin is an intellectual?"

See you at the Rapture!  Let's bring on Armageddon, cuz Jesus is in a rush to come home to his flock.

Matt Dubuque

my two cents


I accept that you have a point in claiming that there is no hard proof of Obama's involvement in the coup in Honduras. But it seems to me from reading your recent articles that you are completely convinced he *didn't* have anything to do with it, pouring scorn on those who suggest otherwise, and I just can't see why that's self-evident -- in fact, it seems to me that you and Eva Golinger have in common that you have both taken firm positions on Obama's involvement (for and against) when I don't see that there's hard proof either way (I can't see that a government's public statements really offer proof of anything).

The fact that US officials talked to Honduras in the lead-up to the coup, and the coup still went ahead, seems to me, if not 'smoking gun' evidence, certainly suspicious -- if the US had said 'Look, there's no way we'll let you get away with this; we'll shut down your aid and place a trade embargo on you', it seems likely to me that that would have dissuaded the plotters.

We also have the post-coup behaviour of the US, which would seem at very least ambiguous -- while there are public statements condemning the coup, there is also the notably tepid response overall (which you criticise, but without seeming to offer any analysis beyond 'this is stupid [on their part]', ie without considering the idea that it is deliberate strategy rather than incompetence).

To sum up, I usually admire your work, but I can't help feeling that your dismissal of the Obama-involvement theory is based more on faith than hard facts.

@ Jonathan

It seems to me that you are asking Al to prove a negative (a logical fallacy) and in this context that would be extraordinarily difficult if not impossible to do. You seem to ask him for facts to show Obama was not involved.

On the other hand Golinger has been asserting that Obama has been involved with the coup. Her problem is that she is stating a positive but where is her evidence?

My personal take is that based on a comparison of how just one fact is handled, I think Golinger has overreached. I don't read her widely but I can only wonder how often she does this. Compare Al's addendum above with Golinger's comments on that radio interview link (about 5:15-5:50). And also read the State Department transcript.



Tsss, Al. Credibility obviously comes from using Dollar signs in names.


Perhaps they told them that

Perhaps they told them that the coup would not be supported but the golpistas just heard what they wanted to hear?}

It wont be the first time, Galtieri thought the US would not support the UK in the Malvinas, Saddam thought the US would accept iraqui ocupation of Kuwait...

"Obama's coup"

I think it's really unfortunate that so much energy of some journalists and bloggers on the left, is given to trying to prove Obama orchestrated or was involved in this coup.  If any of the "evidence" or the arguments I've read so far were presented in court, their cases would be thrown out.  While there is an argument to be made that the U.S. government new about it before it happened, knowing about it and planning it are 2 different things.

So, while twisting and stretching to prove this is "Obama's coup" where is the investigation into how the Republicans fit into all of this, or other like-minded groups and individuals throughout this hemisphere?  If you can't definitely prove Obama orchestrated the coup, why aren't these people moving on to other possible sources for the coup?  Where is the analysis about the people that stand to benefit from this coup?  Or is this solely about Obama?

It seems to me that some on the left want so badly for Obama to be proven as some fake progressive, or crooked in some way.  This is why he will never be able to truly push a progressive platform - he has insufficient backing from too many progressives on the ground.  Some are too busy proving that he's an operative for Goldman Sachs based on his cabinet members' previous employment.  Or he's an operative for Blue Cross/Blue Shield because he allowed insurance a seat at the table during this effort to reform health care.  Or he's really a warmonger like Cheney because he's continuing the war in Afganistan, something he always said he'd do.  And now, he's a coup plotter because he's not causing an international crisis with this matter by cutting off all aid and withdrawing our troops the day the coup went down.  And while making these assertions that he's in the pocket or on the side of those entities and individuals, almost no consideration is being paid to the enormous resistance these same entities and individuals are giving him. 

Bottom line, Al, I enjoy your writing.  I think you see things in a big picture way, understanding the dynamics of the situation and the players involved, that many on the left just aren't doing.  They are sticking to the same playbook and objections that I was reading for 8 years of the Bush regime.  For them, it is as if nothing has changed, when a lot has changed except for their mindsets about government and power.

I think partly there are old fears & healthy suspicions

I think there are a lot of arguments here which are occurring at different levels, and partly reflect a healthy tendency by people to not forget the past and not get fooled again.

So, sure, it's a good thing to keep scrutinizing all different sorts of acts and expressions from various U.S. agencies and officials for any signs of coup-backing or Zelaya undermining.  I do the same.

But it doesn't make you ideologically better adjusted if you choose to go with some suspicions to make conclusions about what the U.S. or Obama is or isn't doing.

I certainly sympathize with those suspicions as well -- people have heard in the past about the U.S. professing good intentions only to learn somewhat or a great deal later that there were also efforts to undermine the good and right forces or to ally with the bad guys.  It happens.  So a lot of people want to avoid making the mistake of not looking carefully because the U.S. President is supposedly more on the side of right.  Yet that analytical approach shouldn't be used to support any particular analysis that the facts do not yet support.

And people can also choose to look at these situations at a variety of moral levels -- there is a level of international relations on which the U.S. like many other governments are opposing the coup mongers of Honduras;  now, there's nothing wrong with going on to analyze a greater context in which the U.S. is still operating in more of an imperial fashion, or that it mostly favors more conservative forces in the hemisphere, etc. 

But those levels of analysis don't make the more prosaic levels meaningless -- it just means that we're still in the world we've been in, and even the election of an overall decent leader like Obama doesn't mean anyone's claiming that we've turned the corner to a moral paradise.

You can have simultaneous things going on.

The right wing governments of Mexico and Colombia, for example, would probably much prefer that the more conservative forces be in power in Honduras.  They don't care for Zelaya, or his turn to be sane about relations with Venezuela.

And so given an election, they'd probably much prefer the pro-coup forces to Zelaya any day.  But that doesn't mean that, overall, they really want to encourage the hemisphere's militaries to get the idea that an elected government can be overthrown and recognized as long as the coup-mongering military then claims to be supported by a court order or an argument about that nation's Constitution.  Although, yes, some of their administrations will favor this in the case of Honduras, and they certainly want to gain some advantage if this coup proves / is allowed to stand at least until the next elections.

To me it's very similar in a lot of ways to the overthrow of Aristide in Haiti -- the U.S. establishment really detested Aristide, but didn't want a new plague of military coups spread throughout the Caribbean and the hemisphere.

In my view the U.S. establishment would likely prefer a reversal of the actual coup and Zelaya to be returned as the official President, along with a simultaneous disempowerment of Zelaya and his political base, but maybe also some sort of disempowerment of the Honduran military just enough that they can linger in the background but are less likely to intervene again.  That's not an expert view, but it does reflect my read of the situation.

But the situation is indeed more complicated than just what the U.S. foreign policy establishment (that complex of Executive branch officials, high Congress / Senate committee chairs, military and intelligence agency leaders, certain influential and well-funded and connected 'think' tanks and foreign policy groups, major news corporations and very prominent elite pundits) might want.  In particular South America's leaders have no interest in encouraging yet another generation of aspiring juntists.

People need to read the Crowley presser more closely

Assistant Secretary Philip Crowley, who gave the press briefing quoted by Eva Golinger and Al Giordano above, is not obviously a bad guy. He was a fellow at the Center for American Progress and a sometime Olbermann guest. But if you read the transcript closely, he gives clear indications that the State Department was not troubled by the coup, indeed, that it saw the coup as a good thing. 


He says, "If [not aligning with Venezuela] is the lesson that President Zelaya has learned from this episode, that would be a good lesson…"  For a senior member of State to be talking about teaching lessons to a Latin American president should raise eyebrows; in Latin America, it will raise hackles. In fact, Crowley's demeanor is so indifferent toward the coup that one of his questioners asks directly "Can you say that again? (Laughter.) It’s like – it’s justifying, sort of, the coup d’état..." Crowley doesn't deny it in the slightest. He says, well, we have a lot of problems with Venezuela but we've sent our Ambassador back. 


Now, Crowley is a military man. He may not have appreciation for the niceties that we expect in such a senior diplomat. But it is not at all unreasonable to believe that his attitude-- that they coup is good since it will teach Zelaya a lesson not to hang around with pinkos like Chavez-- represents the view of some people in the US government, especially in the military. 


One need not believe that Obama (or Hillary Clinton) was behind the coup to believe that the US government helped to bring it on. Let's follow the facts-- this press briefing deserves being listened to as a relevant.


(To preserve the integrity of the Narcosphere, this is the name under which I write about politics, and have done since 911) 

@ Charles

Charles - Whether or not Crowley worked for the Center for American Progress or for Mother Theresa, his words yesterday were an embarrassment to the country and the world. And I among others are pushing hard that he be delivered an "attitude adjustment" by some of those who he embarrassed.

But the words of a non-policy-making press flack in response to a question do not necessarily constitute US policy. Crowley was certainly gloating (while also firing some shots at Venezuela - the main point of his comments - which has Washington upset more over the troubles Caracas is causing for the Colombian government of Alvaro Uribe in recent hours than for the Honduras situation) and it was very revealing of Crowley's personal opinion. Still, my read is that he went "off script" as press secretaries sometimes do in response to questions.

It was a gaffe - in the sense that gaffes often reveal what the gaffer is really thinking - but to suggest that it represents policy is also a kind of equal and opposite gaffe.

Furthermore, gloating by Crowley or anyone, even if it did represent US policy (a stretch, but let's play along), does not in any way demonstrate the holy grail of the "Obama coup theory" lobby: that this was somehow "Obama's coup."

Washington is capable of trying to extract advantage from events it did not plan. That's standard operating procedure. Had Micheletti and the Simian Council been smarter about tapping into that instinct in DC, it might have been able to play it better. But this we know about Secretary Clinton: the coup regime's mockery of what is "her" mediation process is something her ego is likely to take personally. I look forward to watching that unfold...

Traces of US fingerprints on the coup

Al, first, I am definitely not arguing that this was Obama's coup. And, yes, gloating after the fact is not evidence that the US was in on it before the fact.


Second, Crowley is NOT a press flack. He is Assistant Secretary of State, as well as a colonel, a former NSA and NSC staffer and Assistant Secretary of Defense. His specialty may be public affairs, but he's at such a high level that his words do have the effect of making policy.

And, here's another tidbit that should give pause. According to El Libertador, Pacifica did an interview of Andres Pavon, president  of CODEH in which he stated that Zelaya was flown out via a US airbase, Palmerola.


If confirmed, that would be evidence of involvement of the US military in the coup, but not evidence of more than that. Since the military cannot really be said to be under full civilian control anymore, this could easily have taken place without knowledge by Clinton or Obama.


I'll follow wherever the evidence leads.



Check out the website of the event hosting the Honduran Coup Minister.   Right wing evangelical Christians, determined to install "God's Kingdom" on earth:


Is Pat Robertson funding this, just like he backed the death squads in Guatemala?

Matt Dubuque 


MIGA in Spanish iniatials stands for Ardent Glory Intercontinental Ministry, founded in 1995 by Jaime Chavez, who bills himeslef as the "spiritual counselor" to the Honduran Armed Forces and General Romeo personally. They have a whole rambling Web site here, written by someone in Tegucigalpa. Looks to me like Chavez is a local favorite of Evangelical churches in Miami and he decided to bring his friend the General along.

@ Erin

Erin - I guess that makes the General a "chavista," eh?


And more about MIGApartners specifically. (Note: Spacing not my fault, this is actually how they wrote it.)

El deseo es iniciar este año, y lo haremos enviando información a todos los empresarios, lideres y gente interesada en el proyecto de bendecir los continentes.
Queremos tener el fondo para este diciembre del 2007 entre el 7 y el 15 de diciembre para ello necesitamos mantenerlo informado.

Este año en vista de que estamos experimentando este proyecto que creemos es realidad, no llevaremos el pacto de socio personalmente, lo enviaremos a una cuenta que mas adelante le detallaremos.

La visión es empezar el proyecto como mínimo con cien personas y como mínimo con $100,000.00 dólares americanos.
Empezamos el año 2008 con un fondo determinado para comenzar a bendecir los continentes.
Daremos inicio con cinco eventos anuales, exceptuando nuestro evento general para la entrega del pacto de MIGApartners (financieros del reino) el cual seria todos los diciembres de cada año en el país seleccionado.
Estaremos enviando información de la fecha y el país en donde nos reuniremos cada año.

Oh, really?


Heh yeah, I always knew Hugo was a pious religious fanatic!

Romeo Vasquez -Some Christian!

President Zelaya says that he fears being assassinated upon his return to Honduras, and if such action were to take place, he would personally hold General Romeo Vasquez responsible.


Considering that he will be one of the featured freaks at the "holy roller" convention for being a "good Christian," I thought the Ten Commandments taught "Thou shalt not kill!" (Unless it is convenient according to Vasquez.) God forbid such a horrible thing would ever occur.) There is also a commandment about not bearing false witness and not lying. Something this piece of human work has not assimilated.

my third cent

Hi Jeff, thanks for your reply.

You write: "It seems to me that you are asking Al to prove a negative (a logical fallacy) and in this context that would be extraordinarily difficult if not impossible to do."

I certainly wouldn't expect anyone to do that. What I was questioning is, what makes him so apparently certain that Obama was not involved? I respect his point that it is incorrect to say categorically that Obama *was* involved -- I just wondered why he has taken such a strong stand the other way when the evidence seems (to me, anyway) to be somewhat ambiguous?

PS sorry for the delayed reply, I have been really busy these last few days.

Add comment

Our Policy on Comment Submissions: Co-publishers of Narco News (which includes The Narcosphere and The Field) may post comments without moderation. A ll co-publishers comment under their real name, have contributed resources or volunteer labor to this project, have filled out this application and agreed to some simple guidelines about commenting.

Narco News has recently opened its comments section for submissions to moderated comments (that’s this box, here) by everybody else. More than 95 percent of all submitted comments are typically approved, because they are on-topic, coherent, don’t spread false claims or rumors, don’t gratuitously insult other commenters, and don’t engage in commerce, spam or otherwise hijack the thread. Narco News reserves the right to reject any comment for any reason, so, especially if you choose to comment anonymously, the burden is on you to make your comment interesting and relev ant. That said, as you can see, hundreds of comments are approved each week here. Good luck in your comment submission!

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

User login


About Al Giordano


Publisher, Narco News.

Reporting on the United States at The Field.

RSS Feed