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.

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?

“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…

http://www.ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=334537207260360

http://ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=334537207260360

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.

Except Obama wants to sell you a new car. And lend you $4,500 of your own money to do it with, too!

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.