Obama’s Emily Litella moment on Honduras: “never mind”
Good news is always welcome, and it’s very good news indeed that Obama seems to have backed off at least somewhat on his support of would-be-dictator Zelaya.
The reason is unclear. Perhaps he saw how revelatory his previous position was about his own possible agenda. Perhaps he got too much flak even from his supporters, who were having trouble defending his indefensible policy. Perhaps the eloquence of the other side got to him—for example, when Micheletti’s excellent op-ed defending the actions of the anti-Zelaya forces in Honduras was published in the WSJ, and even the usual Obama-friendly LA Times allowed Miguel Estrada to have a definitive say on the matter, eviscerating whatever was left of Obama’s lame legal “argument.”
Whatever, right?:
As it turns out, the U.S. Senate can’t find any legal reason why the Honduran Supreme Court’s refusal to let Zelaya stay in office beyond the time allowed by Honduran law constitutes a “military coup.”
This marks a shift. The U.S. at first supported Zelaya, a man who had been elected democratically but didn’t govern that way. Now they’re reaching out to average Hondurans, the real democrats.
Sure, the U.S. continues to condemn Zelaya’s ouster and still seeks mediation of the dispute through Costa Rican President Oscar Arias. But no U.S. sanctions means Hondurans have won.
Let’s hope so, despite the best efforts of President Obama to thwart them. And don’t sit on a hot stove till the MSM reports this properly. Wouldn’t do to let Obama look so wrong, and so stupid.
But things are looking up for the brave people of Honduras, and perhaps even other Latin American nations as well:
This isn’t to say U.S. policymakers are happy or that the dispute is over. Honduras is still suspended from the Organization of American States, its trade has been disrupted, Venezuela’s oil is still cut off, and its officials still can’t get U.S. visas. But the worst is over. Whatever changes that come will be by Honduran consent alone…This, by the way, also opens the door to a return of democracy in troubled nations like Ecuador, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Cuba and Venezuela. People in those nations can take courage from Honduras.
People in those nations? How about people here, as well? After all, it may be that we’re fighting against a similar menace. Who would have thought that Honduras would be an inspiring beacon of defiance against a US administration intent on stifling liberty?
[Hat tip: commenter “Baklava.”]
[ADDENDUM: Commenter “MrsWhatsit” points out that Obama may be pulling a double Emily Litella. Never mind the never mind?
Here’s the relevant quote, from today’s NY Times:
“Let me be very clear in our belief that President Zelaya was removed from office illegally, that it was a coup and that he should return,” Mr. Obama said. He dismissed as “hypocrisy” the criticism from some in Latin America who say the United States has done too little to pressure Honduras’s de facto government to return Mr. Zelaya to power ”” among them Mr. Zelaya himself.
“The critics who say that the United States has not intervened enough in Honduras,” he said, “are the same people who say that we’re always intervening, and that the Yankees need to get out of Latin America.”
They are? I suppose a few of them are the same people, but most of them are not. That’s been a cry of the Left for many years, not the Right—although of course some on the Right, especially its more isolationist wing, echo it. But it’s neither the Left, nor the isolationist wing of the Right, who are Obama’s main critics for his support of Zelaya.
Not to mention the fact that there is still absolutely no legal support for Obama’s assertion that Zelaya was removed illegally, or that it was done through a coup (plus, Obama’s critics are not even asking him to intervene in support of Zelaya’s opponents—just that he be neutral, stay out of it, and let the Hondurans handle it). Au contraire; the law is squarely behind Zelaya’s removal. But we can’t very well expect Obama to understand anything about law, especially of the constitutional variety, can we?]
On the other hand . . . Obama and the State Department may not be communicating quite as well on this subject as one might hope. Here’s Obama himself, speaking today in Guadalajara, Mexico today, as quoted in today’s New York Times:
“Let me be very clear in our belief that President Zelaya was removed from office illegally, that it was a coup, and that he should return,” Mr. Obama said. And he dismissed as “hypocrisy, the criticism from some in Latin America who have accused the United States of doing too little to pressure Honduras’s de facto government to return Mr. Zelaya to power, among them, Mr. Zelaya himself.
“The same critics who say that the United States has not intervened enough in Honduras,” he said, “are the same people who say that we’re always intervening, and that the Yankees need to get out of Latin America.”
too many todays . . .
I think Obama backed off on Honduras because as he said the same people that want intervention in Honduras are the same people that say Yankee go home, it makes me wonder, “Well where the hell do you stnd on this matter, mister!?” For him to continue down a road that appears to coincide with Huge Chavez doesn’t do Obama any good, the far far left is steaming over this, and will chalk it up to,”see, you can’ trust the either party…” To be critical of Obama I might say his centrist reversal on this issue just so happens to favor the right and freedom-loving position to have … one he should have had from the get go.
Maybe its because chavez is massing troops and making noise about incursions?
Actually if you dont pay attention to american news and cruise the different subjects by subject calling up news articles, you would see
“Venezuela’s socialist President Hugo Chavez, who pulled the plug on 34 radio stations that broadcast opposition news, turned his attention Monday to the country’s coffee plants”
and
Politics has become an especially rough contact sport for Venezuelan state and local officials who oppose President Hugo Chavez
Several governors and mayors who beat the fiery socialist leader’s chosen candidates in November elections say Chavez has hijacked many of their resources and prerogatives. Now, proposed legislation that would give the president power to squeeze minority parties and arbitrarily redraw legislative districts has set off additional alarms.
and on obama himself, even the press is losing shine for him.
World burns, ObamaCare churns
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/s_637286.html
on korea: Glad the gals are back in the Land of the Big PX. But the message we sent was that you can grab gringos and instantly become a Friend of Bill. Wonder what Iran will want for hostages? Will the Taliban demand face-time with Tina Fey in exchange for the soldier it holds?
Tehran grabbed three knuckleheaded U.S. hikers.
wont admit they have them…
Obama’s counterpart in Caracas…. decided that criticizing Chavez merits a prison sentence.
Russian nuclear subs appeared off our Eastern seaboard. Hey, it’s been a long time, tovarishi!
Our troops faced another deadly week in Afghanistan. Still without a strategy.
and the obama people are worried about posters, real american protesters (as a hint of what will come later real fast if things start popping rivets). did you hear something like a ball park frank plumping?
Obama Says Immigration Changes Must Wait Till 2010
and “Obama Heads to Town-Hall Meetings” which should be interesting.
maybe honduras is not another issue he can bother with, especially if it puts him so close to chavez, chavez goes into columbia (or honduras) and obama is on the wrong side of the issue (given americans protesting)
and then FARC…
Obama never has a problem rising above principle or doing a 180. He seems to be backing off on lots of issues this week — Honduras, immigration reform, Canadian style health care, and un-American protests. Has he put a finger in the wind?
This was a classic case of jumping to a conclusion well before the facts of the mater were learned. Team 44 blew this one. Perhaps they learned a lesson, but I doubt it.
Thanks Mrs. Whatsit. Why is the fact that Obama is giving a mixed message and/or backtracking not at all surprising?
Obama backed off of the Honduras because their elections are in less than four months. Zelaya won’t be on the ballot and the Hondurans could weather any tyranny the Obama administration could throw at them. After the election even Obama couldn’t justify further oppression of the little Honduran Republic. Truth to power.
Barack showed weakness via succumbing to pressure from Congress. Reuters:
You can see weakness in the way Barack is surrounding this issue, i.e. Zelaya was illegally removed, we want him reinstated, and we will do nothing about it – not even sanctions. If Zelaya had been illegally removed, and Sen. DeMint was playing politics over the issue, then a strong Pres. Obama could excoriate Sen. DeMint and use the issue to make Repubs look bad. Instead, Pres. Obama only has the power of lies on his side. Weak. Weak. Weak.
The major media’s refusal to cover Honduras – to really cover it, to get to the bottom of it (which could be done at tiniest expense) – ………. I cannot find words. If there were a way to do it, I would kick U.S. media in the cojones, and then I would kick them some more. Sadly, such is impossible: they have no cojones.
I found it rather ironic that ∅bama spoke on Monday in Mexico about Zelaya.Venezuela News and Views (Daniel Duquenal) blog reported on Friday about Zelaya’s leaving Mexico under duress.
La Prensa in Managua also reported about this, as did La Tribuna in Honduras. If anyone wants translations, I will do them.
http://www.laprensa.com.ni/archivo/2009/agosto/07/noticias/ultimahora/342604.shtml
So, you all are going to deprive me of a conspiracy theory about how the whole process of removing Zelaya must be shady because they had to bundle him off in his pajamas to another country for an “extended vacation?” (Like that’s ever written or implied in a constitution)
It’s almost like there’s double standards around here, instead of principle and truth.
How can I ever hope to join Neoneocon in delivering the conservative message at this rate with such poor examples?
Thanks for the link. I wrote the editorial. It’s true that Obama’s rhetoric is still turned toward re-seating Zelaya, as the quotes today show. But if he won’t use military force or economic sanctions, it’s empty words.
I actually think he likes it that way – it gives him political cover with much of the left, saying he’s on their same page in wanting Zelaya back. But it also means he doesn’t have to send in the Marines or choke the tiny country with sanctions, which would soon enough make the US look like a bully.
Can you imagine what a mess it would be if the US returned Zelaya back by force? We’d be dealing with bloody riots for one, and be blamed for those, but we’d also have the example of history to warn us, too – when the US forcibly re-seated President Aristide in Haiti in 1994, the result was a disaster. You can’t reseat a president after he’s already damaged a democracy or destroyed its institutions. I think it explains why the US is content to let things be and to express itself only with handwringing. This suits the Hondurans, who only want to be left alone, fine.
Okay, I declare that Monica Showalter has cojones. Salute.
This is the typical MO for Obama: Speak first and then find someone else to tell the people what you really said. One of the perks of the presidency is having a huge staff to clean up after you.
The only hope BO offers us is a solution to out energy problems. We need only mount a rig on his head and he will exude oil forever. I wouldn’t, however, invest in extracting calcium from his backbone. There is no evidence of any reserves there.
Almost forgot: Dorothy Rabinowitz has a great op/ed on Obama and healthcare in today’s WSJ.
well, Neo, you can read the transcript of the news conference itself, never mind the “MSM” reporting it “properly”; Prime Minister Harper of Canada says towards the end, “I’m just going to also weigh in a little bit, as a friend of the United States, on a question that was posed to President Obama. If I were an American, I would be really fed up with this kind of hypocrisy — you know, the United States is accused of meddling except when it’s accused of not meddling, and the same types of — same types who are demanding the United States to somehow intervene in Honduras, the same type of people who would condemn longstanding security cooperation between Colombia and the United States, which is being done for legitimate security and drug traffic reasons that is, frankly — that are in the interests of all the countries of this hemisphere.”
I realize your site has become practically anti-Obama all-the-time; from the beginning he was “arrogant”, now “thuggish” and “stupid”…but there is another side to things, nuanced, not necessarily “left ” or “right”
Pingback:Fausta’s Blog » Blog Archive » No sanctions for Honduras: 15 Minutes on Latin America
Logern, go ahead and support Zelaya, whose running off at the mouth got him booted out of Mexico. Those who were most vehement in wanting Zelaya reinstated were Thugo Ché¡vez, the Castro brothers, and the Sandinstas, such as Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega and Miguel Descoto, President of the UN General Assembly.
Thugo was the leader in 1992 of an unsuccessful coup against a democratically elected government that resulted in the death of 200. If you still believe in the democratic bonfides of Thugo, I suggest you inform yourself via the best three English language blogs: Miguel Octavio’s Devil’s Excrement, Daniel’s Venezuela News and Views, and Caracas Chronicles.
The totalitarian, murderous bonfides of the Castro brothers have been on record for a half century. Interesting that they support “democracy” in Honduras, but not in Cuba.
The Sandinistas lined up with the USSR after it invaded Afghanistan. From the Central American Crisis Reader. (also Barricada March 23, 1980)
These people are friends of human rights, peace, and democracy? Go ahead, Logren, line up with them.
Logern, here is a gem from Miguel Descoto. He said this upon receiving the Lenin Peace Prize in 1987, while the USSR was warring in Afghanistan.
Go ahead, Logern. Line up with Miguel Descoto in supporting Zelaya.
“I think it explains why the US is content to let things be and to express itself only with handwringing. This suits the Hondurans, who only want to be left alone, fine.
Hey Monica, thanks for writing that editorial. I still would prefer that the US actually came out publicly and clearly on the right side of this issue. You lay out the case quite clearly that our current position is just plain wrong. It does not accord with the facts. Shouldn’t our country be on the side of the facts? It’s important not just in the current instance but as a guide for future events in other countries.
“The same critics who say that the United States has not intervened enough in Honduras,” he said, “are the same people who say that we’re always intervening, and that the Yankees need to get out of Latin America.”
Obama hit the nail on the head on that one.
The entire Honduran situation raises concerns.
Foremost is the apparent lack of cohesive foreign policy that is consistent with US interests in supporting democratic allies.
Second is the absence of meaningful input from the Secretary of State who now appears to be relegated to a backseat and political obscurity.
Thirdly, what is to be gained from foreign policy that panders to the left? Such policy will not win new votes for Team Obama since they already own the left. It can only undermine Democrat’s support from independent voters in future elections. It appears to be ideology trumping good political sense. Something that Bill Clinton, (and Hillary?) would never have done.
# md Says:
“I realize your site has become practically anti-Obama all-the-time; from the beginning he was “arrogant”, now “thuggish” and “stupid”…but there is another side to things, nuanced, not necessarily “left ” or “right””
Its ending well, but do you really think this was all Obama’s plan from the start? Or was he moved along by reactions to his initial position?
The most important sentence in the article is:
But no U.S. sanctions means Hondurans have won.”
That’s huge.
Thanks Monica.
Stark Says:
“Thirdly, what is to be gained from foreign policy that panders to the left? Such policy will not win new votes for Team Obama since they already own the left”
Maintaining a little international leftist support?
Anyway, I don’t see the point either. As in, what good is it and how long will it stick anyway? A lot of anti Americanism is simply nationalism (even right wing in nature) rerouted. Your not going to keep these people. The hard left won’t buy it forever (you can’t charm them, they want concrete results). Even if he did manage to keep some, eventually a republican will be elected.
md wrote, “nuanced, not necessarily “left ” or “right””
no nuance md. none whatsoever. he’s not centrist either.
He’s:
1) Economically illiterate
2) Historically inaccurate
3) Incurious
4) Incapable of logic
5) Unclear on his constitutional role
6) More inexperienced than anyone on either presidential candidate ticket in the last 10 elections.
# Tournefort Says:
“Obama hit the nail on the head on that one.”
Yeah, I enjoyed that quote.
I think the strong outpouring of support for the constitutional process in Honduras has created the political situation in which it is “too politically expensive” for the administration to support Zelaya. I do have to agree with Obama when he talks of people complaining that the United States is too intrusive, then is not intrusive enough. That is total hypocrisy. But, the administration is not without doublespeak as well.
La Gringa, who lives in Honduras, had an excellent article on John Kerry flip-flopping on Honduras.
My take on it is that it is beer diplomacy in Honduras.
Can we just call a spade a spade? Obama is a liar, by instinct, by reflex, by upbringing, and by career development. Remember the old slur against Nixon, “Would you buy a used car from this guy?” Doesn’t begin to touch what Obama is. He is a drug peddler, a pimp, a mafioso.
I realize your site has become practically anti-Obama all-the-time; from the beginning he was “arrogant”, now “thuggish” and “stupid”…but there is another side to things, nuanced, not necessarily “left ” or “right”
How about “quick on the trigger”? instead of waiting for the facts to become known, once again The One opened his mouth and firmly inserted his foot.
First it was Honduras. Then SkippyGate. And the accolades rained down on Ahmadinnerjacket.
Looks like a pattern to me. Not so much thuggish as much as inexperienced and no policy built on a firm foundation of belief in something greater than ourselves. Things like truth, justice, freedom, loyalty.
Of course, we’ve seen that from the beginning. Anyone who caused a “distraction” was thrown firmly under the bus. And now, finally, comes the realization that leading is much more difficult than electioneering.
Remember the old slur against Nixon, “Would you buy a used car from this guy?” Doesn’t begin to touch what Obama is.
Except Obama wants to sell you a new car. And lend you $4,500 of your own money to do it with, too!
I know that this is Obama’s first job, but hasn’t he figured out that quacking about an issue and then backing down makes him look weak and irrelevant?
A leader has to look as though he’s driving events, not always reacting to them and being buffetted and wrong-footed by them. So even if the leader isn’t driving a given event, he has to anticipate how it will play out and get in front of it, so he looks as though he’s leading the parade.
C’mon, Barry. Maybe you should’ve been high school class president for a while first to get the hang of this stuff.
Neo, your link for the IBD editorial (“Obama seens to have backed off.”) is bad. These will work.
http://www.ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=334537207260360
http://ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=334537207260360
I R A Darth Aggie Says:
“Looks like a pattern to me. Not so much thuggish as much as inexperienced and no policy built on a firm foundation of belief in something greater than ourselves. Things like truth, justice, freedom, loyalty.”
Dude, freedom is a job and free healthcare. Your so middle class. 😉
/lefty off
Anyway, that’s the mindset that’s producing this…
More than anything else that Obama has done, his support for Zelaya frightened me.
It indicated that Obama had no concept of the basis of freedom and no understanding that what makes us great is that *he* can be elected and become the President without bloodshed.
It demonstrated ignorance of the supremacy of the Constitution (rule of law) over Democracy and why that even matters to both Peace and Freedom. It proved that he has no personal concept of the reality of the tyranny of the majority.
Who is Zelaya? For that matter, who is Chavez?
Who are these men that their countries can not function without them? Are there no competent people in Zelaya’s party to step in, interchangable, into the top slot while Zelaya makes himself useful in service in other ways?
That Obama seemed only to see Zelaya’s planned election and circumvention of the Honduran constitution as a matter of majority democratic rule showed him to be shockingly unaware that such a thing as the need for checks and balances even exists.
What does that say about how he views HIS service?
As de Gaulle once famously said, on being told that a certain man was indispensable, “The cemetaries are full of indispensable men.”
Thanks Gringo. I fixed the link.
to md (and Tournefort):
md, I fail to see how the quote from Harper that you offer changes a single thing.
Obama was as wrong as he could be on Honduras. Wrong in the moral sense, the strategic sense, the legal sense, and probably a few other senses as well. Harper is speaking in general of the “intervene, don’t intervene” question—but does anyone have the common sense to understand that the issue is not about intervention vs. no intervention, but about when intervention is justified, and what kind might be justified? For example to take a medical analogy, sometimes it’s best to do nothing, and sometimes an intervention is necessary, depending on circumstances, so that one could in fact criticize a certain intervention and be in support of a different intervention by the same person but in a different circumstance.
But even that is moot re Honduras, because Obama’s critics (as I wrote in one of my previous comments) are not asking him to intervene on the part of Micheletti and the Honduran people. They are asking Obama to stay out of it, to stop intervening on the part of the wannabe dictator Zelaya. Instead, Obama intervened mightily, both before Zelaya was ousted and afterwards. So the people who are criticizing his intervention and are also saying “Yankee, go home” in general are actually being remarkably consistent in saying “Butt out, United States.”
My reasoning is different. I don’t think the US must butt out in all circumstances. I take it on a case-by-case basis. And the situation couldn’t be more clear here: Obama should either support Micheletti or stay out of it. Either way would be okay with me. It’s his support of Zelaya that is so pernicious.