Any "condemnation" by Obama would have only helped Ahmadinejad and Khamenei. His response was well played. I've yet to see an honest refutation of that point.

 

 

 

That is an absurd and irrational argument. Since you cannot possibly prove your bold accusations, I will not bother with a refutation.

 

Nice way to avoid the truth that is in the news everyday and you wish to ignore.

I know many of you do not like Rush, but he must read BGP as much of the early part of his show today was about what I have been saying. I guess I'll have to charge him for copyright violations. Although he did say it better than I did and added a few extra points. Now let all the condemnation of Rush begin.

The Iranian Americans I saw said that Obama jumping in would only further fan the flames.

Nice way to avoid the truth that is in the news everyday and you wish to ignore.

 

Habib isn't one that avoids the truth. He just avoids the spin.

At least Obama has solid backing on this issue. Obama, Chavez and Castro are all for supporting the Marxist leader of the Honduras, even though that nation's supreme court has already ruled that the Marxist would be violating their constitution by remaining in office. Won't be long before we're one big happy family under the USSA banner.

Everything I am reading is indicating that the people wanted him out, the legislature wanted him out and the supreme court wanted him out.

 

I am failing to see the problem in the military getting involved and fulfilling the will of all those previously mentioned.

 

If it were a true military coup they would have killed him and installed one of the generals as the new leader.

Everything I am reading is indicating that the people wanted him out, the legislature wanted him out and the supreme court wanted him out.

 

I am failing to see the problem in the military getting involved and fulfilling the will of all those previously mentioned.

 

If it were a true military coup they would have killed him and installed one of the generals as the new leader.

 

Also from my readings it indicates according to Article 239 of the Honduran Constitution, it forbids any former chief executive from being re-elected President. It also says that any citizen who proposes reforming said article, and any others who support such a person directly or indirectly, are to immediately "cease carrying out" any public office.

 

It indicates to me that the methods used were in fact according to the law of the land in Honduras. There is no defined constitutional method for removing a sitting president from office in the Honduran Constitution, oddly enough, so the only option available was to enforce the Constitution via the actions of the military. He was not harmed in the process.

Everything I am reading is indicating that the people wanted him out, the legislature wanted him out and the supreme court wanted him out.

 

I am failing to see the problem in the military getting involved and fulfilling the will of all those previously mentioned.

 

If it were a true military coup they would have killed him and installed one of the generals as the new leader.

 

Also from my readings it indicates according to Article 239 of the Honduran Constitution, it forbids any former chief executive from being re-elected President. It also says that any citizen who proposes reforming said article, and any others who support such a person directly or indirectly, are to immediately "cease carrying out" any public office.

 

It indicates to me that the methods used were in fact according to the law of the land in Honduras. There is no defined constitutional method for removing a sitting president from office in the Honduran Constitution, oddly enough, so the only option available was to enforce the Constitution via the actions of the military. He was not harmed in the process.

 

Interesting points, Pep. The Honduran government deserves some heavy criticism for having such a poor constitution too. Why is there no legal means to remove an executive? Why not simply have a parliamentary system? Why can't the constitution be amended?

 

However, I take issue that a military coup is in accord with the law of the land. By having such a myopic constitution as to allow the executive to commit illegal acts but no way to hold them accountable, sans elections, does not give sanctity to coups. While perhaps more desirable for the military to install a civilian executive instead of running the country as a junta, it is no matter - a coup is a coup. It is still illegal here and is incompatible with a democratic system.

 

As to Obama's response, I continue to agree with it. In my estimation, both the acts by Zelaya and the coup were illegal. In this light I would choose to support the most democratic side. If the people are largely in opposition to Zelaya, they would still have their say in the election (or his illegal referendum, if they so chose). Supporting a non-democratic takeover has proven poor policy in the past, especially with regards to Latin America. Of course, I would also offer nothing else but a comment on the situation. I don't think there is a right answer here, just one that is less wrong, and Obama was being diplomatic.

Everybody keeps calling this a coup, but it looks to me as though the military was simply enforcing Honduran law. They did not overthrow the government, in fact they upheld both their government and their constituition by removing a president who broke the law.

 

I'm not sure Habib, how you can support Obama's response yet say that the acts of Zelaya were illegal. Obama wants him to remain in office, much as his buddy Chavez did.

Referring to Obama as Chavez's "buddy" doesn't exactly do much to establish credibility ...

Referring to Obama as Chavez's "buddy" doesn't exactly do much to establish credibility ...

Try telling that to Obama!

Interesting points, Pep. The Honduran government deserves some heavy criticism for having such a poor constitution too. Why is there no legal means to remove an executive? Why not simply have a parliamentary system? Why can't the constitution be amended?

 

However, I take issue that a military coup is in accord with the law of the land. By having such a myopic constitution as to allow the executive to commit illegal acts but no way to hold them accountable, sans elections, does not give sanctity to coups. While perhaps more desirable for the military to install a civilian executive instead of running the country as a junta, it is no matter - a coup is a coup. It is still illegal here and is incompatible with a democratic system.

 

As to Obama's response, I continue to agree with it. In my estimation, both the acts by Zelaya and the coup were illegal. In this light I would choose to support the most democratic side. If the people are largely in opposition to Zelaya, they would still have their say in the election (or his illegal referendum, if they so chose). Supporting a non-democratic takeover has proven poor policy in the past, especially with regards to Latin America. Of course, I would also offer nothing else but a comment on the situation. I don't think there is a right answer here, just one that is less wrong, and Obama was being diplomatic.

 

While you may disagree with the Honduran Costitution, it does not matter what you think about the actions they took. As pointed out by HHS they acted in a legal manner. It may be a poor way of getting rid of an elected official, but it was legal.

This is a perfect example of some in this country of ignoring the facts, because the facts get in the way of acheiving their goals.

Everybody keeps calling this a coup, but it looks to me as though the military was simply enforcing Honduran law. They did not overthrow the government, in fact they upheld both their government and their constituition by removing a president who broke the law.

 

I'm not sure Habib, how you can support Obama's response yet say that the acts of Zelaya were illegal. Obama wants him to remain in office, much as his buddy Chavez did.

I'm a little skeptical of the claims that due process was followed through as the Hondurans are now suggesting. While it is clearly possible that we simply don't know that much, I can tell you from an interveiw I heard from the Honduran ambassador who is appearently supporting the coup now that he really didn't know what going on until it happened but now is claiming it was legal. I mean really ask yourself, if he simply broke the law why did they need to bust in his house in the middle of the night and drop him off in the next country in his pajamas.

 

I would need some substancial evidence to actually believe this is anything more than a strong armed power grab.

Habib isn't one that avoids the truth. He just avoids the spin.

 

I know of some who ignored the day to day news and the facts that were given day and by September 1, 1939 they wished they had paid attention. The leaders of Europe, espically the French and British leaders, now realized extending a hand in peace with no preconditions did not work.

 

It is one thing to have beliefs, but to think you are going to change the evil in the world by talking nice is not going to work. "Diplomacy without force is like music without instruments."-Metternich. If Obama is trying to make peace in the world, he is going to have to realize that sometimes he is going to have to get tough. Otherwise he is going to look soft or he just wants to be one of the gang.

While you may disagree with the Honduran Costitution, it does not matter what you think about the actions they took. As pointed out by HHS they acted in a legal manner. It may be a poor way of getting rid of an elected official, but it was legal.

This is a perfect example of some in this country of ignoring the facts, because the facts get in the way of acheiving their goals.

 

I'm ignoring no facts. The coup was illegal.