Remember Obama's Muscular Diplomacy?
Friday, October 30, 2009 at 02:23PM I always wondered what President Obama meant when he spoke of "muscular diplomacy" during the campaign. Now I know. He meant that he would return lawfully deposed dictators to power.
“Today's news brings word that Manuel Zelaya will return as the president of Honduras thanks to American diplomatic pressure. It is perfectly fitting that the signal diplomatic triumph of President Obama's first year in office is the restoration to power of the lawfully deposed Honduran thug and friend of Fidel Castro, Daniel Ortega and Hugh Chavez. It is inimical to the national interest of the United States. it is a setback for the supporters of democracy in the beleaguered country of Honduras. And it is a defeat for those who believe in the rule of law. It is, in other words, a triumph of "smart diplomacy." (my emphasis)
View Printer Friendly Version
Reader Comments (16)
It's the same old thing of the US ( now aided by the thug Chavez ) pushing around a small Latin country.
"lawfully deposed dictators"
where "lawfully deposed" means "sent into exile at gunpoint"
and "dictators" means "democratically elected President"
The Honduran president broke that country's laws and was removed by Hondurans for that reason.
Chavez is a quite beautiful man, Phantom. You ought to show a little respect.
Quiet day
mahons, what did you think of Pedro's performance last night?
>> return lawfully deposed dictators to power.
it is a setback for the supporters of democracy in the beleaguered country of Honduras. <<
You are talking total crap, Patty. Zelay was certainly not a dictator and he was deposed illegally.
I understand you are maybe confused at this novel situation of the US supporting democracy and the rule of law in Latin America.
The legality of his deposition and of his misdeeds preceding that move are matters best commented on by Hondurans, and not Cubans, Europeans, Venezuelans, or Americans.
And if the likes of Castro the caudillo and his fellow thug Chavez are on his side, that does not give one a warm and fuzzy about his commitment to democracy and to the law
>>The legality of his deposition and his actions preceding that move is a matter for Hondurans to say<<
Exactly, yet you seem to be supporting the army's action in seizing and deporting him without due process.
Even if he did break the law, which is rather unlikely in this case, that does not make a democratically elected president a dictorator, as Patty suggests. Ronald Reagan undisputedly broke the law when President, yet Patty was singing his praises only yesterday!
>>if the likes of Castro the caudillo and his fellow thug Chavez are on his side, that does not give one a warm and fuzzy about his commitment to democracy and to the law<<
Silly comment, Phantom. Castro and Chavez also supported Obama over his rival last year.
The Honduran Congress -unanimously- voted to oust this guy.
The violation of Honduran sovereignty and rights is what has happened today, not what happened before.
----
Not a silly comment for those who have grave suspicions about Barack Obama.
Castro and Chavez are very bad allies to be known by.
>>The Honduran Congress -unanimously- voted to oust this guy. <<
What? Total nonsense. Does someone tell you these lies or do you make them up yourself?
>>Not a silly comment for those who have grave suspicions about Barack Obama. <<
Let's say it's not a silly comment for those who think Obama is a dictator. I'll agree with that.
The Honduran Congress did support his ouster and I was told it was unanimous. You tell me what the vote was. The Congress absolutely supported the military on this matter.
The new deal, under the threat of foreign big country boycotts against a small and poor nation, will leave Zelaya's fate in the control of the Honduran Congress.
---
Only silly people say that Obama is a dictator, but there are others who believe that he is a stealth Marxist who aspires to dictatorship.I do not hold these views, but there have been such people in history, who spoke pretty democratic words for a time until " the time was right "
Obama has made comments in the past that seemed to favor redistribution of wealth. That wealth isn't gonna redistribute itself.
Castro in 1959 comes to mind. You know, the guy who speaks well of Obama.
>>The Honduran Congress did support his ouster and I was told it was unanimous.<<
Then you were told wrong.
>>You tell me what the vote was.<<
Who said there even was a vote? Only you, and you said it was passed "unanimously". You are wrong on both counts.
>>but there are others who believe that (Obama) .. aspires to dictatorship.I do not hold these views, but there have been such people in history, who spoke pretty democratic words for a time until " the time was right "<<
So is such a belief nonsense or is it not?
>>Obama has made comments in the past that seemed to favor redistribution of wealth. That wealth isn't gonna redistribute itself. <<
Another word for redistribution of wealth is taxation. But are you saying that that would make him a dictator?
And if you aren't, then what are you saying?
Obama and hids administration have behaved abominably towards Honduras, a country seeking to preserve its democracy against an onslaught by Zelanya and his friends Chavez, Castra and Morales, and Lula in Brazil The ousting of Zelanya was according to the rule of law (though the army removing him from the country was not), approved by the Attorney General and ther Honduran Congress.
Obama, and the free world had a clear duty to support the Honduran democracy, but did not do so, preferring to become allies of the dangerous and ruithless demi-decator Chavez. This is shocking in the extreme. Where do we look for an answer? I suspect a lot is to do with oil concessions being sought by US oil companies in the massive oil fields off the Brazilan coast. It was no accident, I think, that Zelaya holed up in the Brazilian embassy.
I used to consider Obama as merely inexperienced, but daily it becomes more clear he has a crypto-marxist agenda for the US and is a real danger for that country.
Noel, you speak essential gibberish. The Honduran Congress supported the military on the ouster of a President, as did that nation's Supreme Court
If there's been an undemocratic coup against Honduran institutions and society, it is the one with the dirty fingerprints of Obama, Castro and Chavez on it.
>>Noel, you speak essential gibberish. <<
Well, let's see how you're faring:
>>The Honduran president broke that country's laws << (Phantom at 3:19)
>>The legality of his .. misdeeds .. are matters best commented on by Hondurans, and not ... Americans.<< (Phantom, an American, just 3 hours later!)
Then we had you claim that "The Honduran Congress -unanimously- voted to oust this guy"
When I called you on that lie you lamely backed down to "The Honduran Congress did support his ouster and I was told it was unanimous", something totally different.
As it was, the Congress had no say in "his ouster" either way; which was carried out by the military even while due process was still pending, as the military knew that Zelay's acts would be found to be quite legal (they were not binding on any govt or congress and had absolutely no constitutional consequences).
But who supported his removal is in any case as irrelevant as the fact that he is still the most popular politician in the country. The ousting of a President by the army was obviously illegal according to that country's laws. Phantom may consider it legal, but it's was expressly declared illegal by the US, Europe and the UN and as far as I know every other state that commented on it.
Noel
You respond by using the word " lie ".
I may have been wrong on that particular point ( but not on any of the larger ones ) but I have never lied, on this point or any other.
When one resorts to the tactic of shouting " liar ", there is no dialogue and there will be no further conversation.