If you are interested in this topic, there is an interesting article here.
However, a more academic analysis was done by Max Bader, senior counsel at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. He writes:
Obama is quite wrong to claim that the removal of Zelaya was "illegal." The Honduran president forfeited his right to rule under Article 239 of the Honduran Constitution, which bans presidents from holding office if they even propose to alter the constitutional term limits for presidents. And the Honduran military, which acted on orders of the Honduran supreme court, expressly had the right to remove the president for seeking to alter the constitutional term limit, under Article 272 of the Honduran Constitution. . . .The Honduran military's role in enforcing the court order does not make it a "coup" anymore than federal troops' role in enforcing the court-ordered integration of the Little Rock public schools in 1957 constituted a military occupation or takeover.
So it appears that Obama is again on the wrong side of an international incident and his recent positions seem to always fall on the side of those against freedom and democracy. Only in the case of Iran did he finally make a statement in favor of the protesters, but only by being goaded into it by Hillary Clinton (who I still think would have been a better president).
5 comments:
Oh good. Now I know I am not crazy! I honestly thought that this administration was wrong to insist they let Zelaya back in office. But since I wasn't sure of all the facts, I stayed quiet to hear more about it. My initial reaction was "yes! kick that guy out"....he is trying to follow in the footsteps of the likes of Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Avo Morales etc...all in latin America. We don't need any more crazed, anti-American, leftist leaders in Latin America. But when I saw the U.S. insisting that he be put back into office I was confused about whether or not this administration knows exactly what kind of person they are dealing with here. Not only does Obam lean too far left for me....he might be falling off into socialist sympathizer space. I am very weary about the direction the Obama administration is taking our nation. It's like the frog in a pot of slow boiling water....he doesn't realize he is getting cooked until it is too late to try and get out. I fear we American's are in that slow boiling pot with the Obama Administration as the cook. I have also read that a huge majority of the Hondurans are in agreement with his ouster and are saying that this isn't a coup...because they have the constitutional right to remove him. (Now I understand why they are saying that.)
Neal Boortz had explained this as soon as it happened. I never thought it was a coup even though the media portrayed it as such...I thought I would hold my tongue on this one since I seem to come down hard on Obama on just about everything he does. I too think he is on the wrong side again.
I would like to be able to make a succinct comment on this, the truth is that I only followed it on a cursory level. It appears (I read the article Alan cited) that you were all right in your collective suspicions.
However, I am not concerned about President Obama's response. In the Iran case, he was excoriated by the right for taking too long to respond like they wanted, and when he responded too quickly (not like you who hesitated, by your own admissions), he is lambasted again.
I assumed that Zelaya had been wronged: I hadn't paid close attention. The fact is that military coups in South America (the vast majority of which have always been condemned by the world) have been common enough and as far as I know always undemocratic resulting in military regimes, another one seemed par for the course and worthy of the same condemnation. Nevertheless, Obama has all the info at his fingertips via his staff, or at least he ought to have.
BUT I do not read into this that he, in any way, is against democracy or justice! Do you? If you do, then no wonder you are so agitated with his presidency! I too would be angry and frustrated if I thought that our president was fundamentally against these principles.
It can be very well argued that the Bush administration overreacted to the Iraq situation and under-reacted to the Putin regime (his dealings with former satellite states ). So are these criticisms just partisan?
Yes, I admit to being partisan, but we often equate being partisan as being unfair or even being wrong. However, being partisan does not necessarily mean being wrong. If that were that case, then most of us would be wrong most of the time.
That being said, I am not sure if Obama's missteps are due to inexperience (and he is inexperienced in foreign affairs), or whether he has a certain agenda that is not necessarily harmonious with democratic principles. Take the union card check issue for example. Even uber-liberal McGovern has denounced it, but Obama is always loyal to his supporters above correct principles. The Walpin firing is another example of such behavior.
I do not know a lot about the Walpin firing or about the union card check question, but from what I do know, these situations reflect normal politics. That is to say hiring and firing, questions on union membership and open/secret union voting. Whether right or wrong, bi-partisan/cronyistic the positions and actions seem to fall into politics commonly practiced on both sides the aisle. I don't therefore see that they speak to his commitment to democracy. We all do things that are not strictly 'harmonious' with our principles or ideals.
Post a Comment