July 08, 2009

Still more on Honduras

The word here in Costa Rica is that if Bush was still president, he'd have told the OAS to stuff it and he'd be backing Honduran President Zelaya's ouster. WTF is Obama's problem? He doesn't want to "meddle" in Iran and says he'll still hold talks with the mullahs who ripped off the election there, yet right away he denounces the "coup" in Honduras as "undemocratic." And people called George Bush stupid??

The insanity of this policy by the Obama administration cannot be understated. It used to be the GOP that was (oftentimes rightly) criticized for propping up tyrants and despots because they were “our” tyrants and despots. At the height of the Cold War, a valid defense for that realpolitik position could be made. But where is the greater evil on the horizon that we are willing to sacrifice the Honduran people for? It is no longer the Soviet Union and worldwide communism.

In fact, the main evil we face in much of the world today is the thugocratic regimes like Iran and Venezuela, wacko nut-jobs like North Korea, and communist China. Yet, in this situation, we’ve actually allied ourselves with Venezuela’s Chavez!

My advice to democracy lovers everywhere: If you’re going to overthrow a strongman, kill him. (Link.)

Indeed. Look at what we get from "progressive" administrations: Backing of a leader because he was ousted for totally disregarding the laws of his country merely because the ... military did it? Imagine if Richard Nixon was impeached and convicted back in 1974 -- and then he refused to abandon office. Would it have been an "illegal coup" if the military had entered the White House to remove him?

Hoystory's (link, above) remedy is not unlike that advocated for American soldiers on the battlefield fighting al Qaeda-style terrorists. Why not just kill the MFers so that they don't end up enjoying the same rights as American citizens? As I've stated here numerous times, imagine the insanity of granting all Japanese and German POWs full habeas corpus rights in American courts during (and after) World War II. We'd still be prosecuting some of them. And their lawyers would be having a field day with "illegally obtained evidence," accusations of "racism" (particularly against the Japanese) and complaints of "excessive force"/cruel and unusual punishment. It'd be a total farce, in other words.

And that's what we've seen from our current administration these last six months.

Posted by Hube at July 8, 2009 11:52 AM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)

Obama's decisions do seem to be based on supporting whichever side in a dispute is more anti-American.

Posted by: Paul Smith at July 8, 2009 12:50 PM

If Obama can't support the institutions of the Honduran government upholding that nation's constitution, how can we expect him to follow his oath to follow ours?

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at July 8, 2009 06:41 PM

"If Obama can't support the institutions of the Honduran government upholding that nation's constitution, how can we expect him to follow his oath to follow ours?"

Well, Obama didn't take an oath to uphold the Honduran Constitution. I don't know if it means anything to him that he took an oath to uphold ours. Judging by what he said during the campaign, and Sotomayor's testimony, I think these people will say anything to get power.

Posted by: George Bruce at July 16, 2009 10:24 PM