Obama Blasts the “Hypocrisy” of Critics over the Handling of Honduras Coup

I don’t suppose he addressed the hypocrisy of keeping mum for so long over Iran’s elections and then jumping right in there to condemn the ouster of Zelaya?
All I have to do is look at who is supporting Zelaya to know that we ought to not touch him with a 10 foot pole.

Honduras is suffering for a dictator who governed honduras in a bad way and now he is claiming for his return.
Manuel zelaya is a criminal and is sad how many people in the world are trying to kill hondurans people, restoring such dangerour dictatos as Manuel Zelaya rosales. What obama needs to do is defend the next electoral process in honduras in november 29 of this year, with a new president elected. Anything else is only a obama’s hipocrisy.

What in the hell is Obama babbling about? Critism of his handling of Hondorus comes from the fact that he was trying to force Hondorus to take their LEGALLY EVICTED dictator and socilist (like chavez and Obama) back. Where does he get people were saying they wanted him involved? He’s playing games again.

Of course, sanctions against Honduras is an intervention. Obama will not admit that he is trying to help a socialist dictator get installed for life against the constitution of that country with the help of foreign powers, Chavez to start with, now Obama is helping the dictator. So he is intervening, he is hoping his mindless democrat party people either agree or aren’t smart enough to figure out he is lying.

Can you imagine if Bush had said he wanted to amend the Constitution to allow him a third term, by a one-day national referendum? Then after the Supreme Court tells the Federal Election Commission not to hold the referendum, Bush says he’ll bring in election machines and poll workers from a foreign country, to conduct a “non-binding poll”. The Americans supporting Zelaya would be going crazy if the same thing happened here!

Yehudit, I suspect that the State Department was perfectly well aware that Zelaya is a leftist thug trying to become the next Latin American Dictator for Life. But Obama either wanted to score some brownie points with the likes of his new BFF Hugo Chavez, or his instincts are way off kilter.

I can’t believe the ignorance in this thread. Don’t you people read?
Obama is the hypocrite. He’s dancing on a very thin line, on the one hand saying Zelayas was removed illegally and on the other hand refusing to call it a coup.
When the military grabs you out of your room, takes you out of the country and forges a resignation letter, its a coup.
The reason Obama is being coy is that if it is recognized as a coup, then the Honduran military (which is totally dependent on the US) is no longer eligible for US assistance.
Obama knows full well the debate isn’t about the US doing more, its about the US doing less. Tell Obama to stop supporting the coup.

@James B. Rhoads – funny that hasn’t made the news yet. Todays news: the Supreme Court’s constitutional branch has accepted an injunction alleging the dawn ouster of Zelaya violated the president’s constitutional rights.

OBAMA, STOP SUPPORTING THE COUP IN HONDURAS!!!

Thankfully Flash Overdrive is providing some facts. The Hond. military’s own lawyers admit removing the President from the country was illegal. His removal from office was also illegal – based on a faked resignation letter (and the invocation of Article 239, which was never cited once by the Courts…)
Obama is trying to score cheap political points by calling out the criticism from Latin America, who want the US to do more to pressure the coup government to re-instate Pres. Zelaya. The US holds all the cards in Honduras – economic, military, ect.
Unfortunately, Obama is out of his mind with this”hypocrisy” line. Latin America has criticized the US in the past for intervening against democracy, against the will of the region. Here the region is begging the US to support democracy and its priorities. Whether he’s just spouting an anti-Chavez line or really believes that crap, I have lost a lot of respect for him. More importantly, any goodwill he was hoping to have in LA is gone.

I agree with ubu1991 and his comment:
“Obama and Carter never met a dictator they didn’t like”
My mom is Nicaraguan and anyone nicaraguan knows how much they love to tell stories about their country over and over again. Now, I wasn’t there and I know enough to know that there are certain facts not known to us that force presidents to make bad decissions to avoid catostrophic results if make what should have been the correct one. However, after Carter handed over Nicaragua to the Sandinistas, and after they raped and pillaged what was once a very beautiful country, and after waiting till the rest of the world discovered Nicaragua and it’s communist government, and even after years an years of fighting to return democracy only to watch them vote that fool Ortega back into power, Carter still returned to the last election in order to justify what he did. They voted the man back in, obviously Carter was right, right? He actually said, the rightful leader has returned. Maybe it’s me, but doesn’t anyone else notice that democrats don’t have a clue about how a real super power should act. I think Bush was a fool, however, I have to respect that he refused to even acknowledge anything Chaves says. Didn’t even attend his big speach to the UN. What does Obama do? Meets him, shakes his hand, and poses with him accepting an anti-US book written in Spanish to add insult to injury. There’s a difference between thinking you’re better than someone else and just not giving any kind of credibility to some clown that keeps insulting you and babbling on and on about all these conspiracies to get him.

What about Afghanistan and Iraq? The US under the leadership of George Bush followed a very near-sighted policy of occupying a country, depleting its resources and economy, and then deserting it when nothing is left. Why should Honduras be any different?

This is another example of Obama lying by using a strawman. No one, except Obama and other dictators in the region, advocated interference. We advocated non interference.
Either we have a President who cannot tell the difference between interference and non interference or we have a pathological liar as the President. I favor the latter explanation.

“Why in the world would an American President side with a two-bit would-be Dictator, Zelaya, Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro?”
I’ll get pasted for saying this but I have a theory. Leftists all have one thing in common, a belief in the utopian society and the justice of socialism. Doesn’t matter if your left in America or left in Cuba, its the same principled belief. In order to strive for this utopia, certain sacrifices must be made and they convince themselves and attempt to convince others using emotional based rationale. Meaning, we must all sacrifice for those suffering. The problem is however, that those in power end up being the ones that never have to sacrifice. Also human nature is the path of least resistance. No one will work harder for someone else’s benefit. While it may work for a hive a bee’s, it fails in the human society.
Yet, these leaders such as Castro, Chavez, etc all still believe it, or if they don’t anymore, they are enjoying the power it gives. The end result is that there is only one power broker standing, and they make no sacrifices. They believe their system is dependent on a single cult of personality who can persuade the masses to sacfrifice for the good of all.
Enter Chavez, who rules on cult of personality and strong arms opposition to secure his popularity and power. Zelaya, wants to replicate Chavez’s successes. The nation however, kicked him out.
Fidel Castro also rules on cult of personality. Questions loom over the future of Cuba after he dies. Chances are, a major crack down on opposition will occur to preserve Raul Castro’s position of power. After he dies, it could be a free for all.
One thing is certain among leftists, they all admire what Hugo Chavez has done, essentially turning this democratic nation into a singularity power of the left and securing his place and role as the defacto leader. What Zelaya was doing was trying to replicate it.
Hate to say it but Obama has taken similar actions in his early career that Chavez did. Maybe its the blueprint for the rise of socialist/communist power. Time will tell. In any case, one would understand why those who defend Zelaya are probably a little motivated to preserve the strategy of a socialist/neo-communist take over from within.

” The referendum itself would have to have passed congress.”
Not sure where your getting your info but its a bit off. The referendum was to change a portion of the constitution that cannot be changed. Honduran constiution has 8 articles that cannot be changed, term limits of the President is one of them.

Article 239 of the Honduran Constitution reads:
Article 239 — No citizen that has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President.
Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform, as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years.

Im amazed at how ingnorant the average american is about politics…. ppl claim Obama wants Zelaya to become the next latin american dictator? Lets be serious, if the US/Obama really supported Zelaya, he would have been returned to power 2 days after he got ousted. The Honduran military defends the Honduran elite’s interest along with foreing/US investment. The honduran military is also almost fully sustained by the US…. and if im correct the Honduran military did the ousting?? You put the “puzzle” together.
p.s. IF dont even kno how to spell honduras plese dont bother to comment… read a book ppl

“In my opinion, it is a type of “beer diplomacy” in which Obama jumped to a conclusion, made a big mistake with a statement, and then has backtracked.”
Posted by: Karateka | Aug 11, 2009 12:24:11 PM
It’s interesting to note in which direction he invariably jumps, no?

“President Obama said today that the US has been very clear that they believe Zelaya was removed from office illegally and that he should return to power.”
Then president obama today verified yet again that he isn’t a very smart individual. He would be wise to “have all the facts” about the Honduran situation before opening his capacious pie hole- one would think he’d have learned this lesson during skip-aquiddick.
Our ignorant president needs to acquaint himself with article 239 of the Honduran constitution before commenting stupidly on this topic again.

Obama is just plain Wrong: A Citizen’s View. He is guilty of
meddling in other countries affairs and being “stupidly”
uninformed.
It was interesting to see the reaction to Heads of State of the
countries around the world when the corrupt President,
supported by illegal drugs from Hugo Chaves, was Legally
removed from office according to the Honduran Constitution.
Again, the President of the United States has spoken without
understanding the facts as he has done quite frequently.
President Obama has again stated that the removal of Zelaya was
illegal. Not quite so.
The President, Manuel Zelaya, was removed and replaced by the
President of the congress in accordance with the Honduran
Constitution. President Obama might well be advised to read
articles 42, 239, 244, 272, 278, 373, 374 of the Honduran
Constitution.
Using his own words, he once again has acted “STUPIDLY”, with-
out knowing the facts. Not only was the removal justified, but
done in strict accord to the Honduran Constitution. Zelaya, in
effect, removed himself from office by his illegal, unconstitutional
actions and lost his rights as a citizen, and therefore lost his
eligibility to be President.
“The rights of any citizen is lost if the citizen incites, promotes,
or supports the continuance or re-election of the president of
the Republic.” Article 42. (Note: They have a one-term restriction
as constitutional law)
The obvious reason this is so upsetting to the Heads of State like
President Obama is that he, too, on examination of his statements
and actions has, in my opinion, usurped his constitutional
authority, has violated his oath of office both as a U.S. Senator
and as President to uphold and defend the constitution, and has
infringed on the Peoples and States rights guaranteed in the U.S.
Constitution.
If we had a congress that represented the people rather that
name calling and labeling the people “un-American” we would
be impeaching President Obama, Our “Bill of Rights” has and is
being trampled. The problem is that many or most of congress
members on both sides of the ideological isle are equally guilty.
So it appears that Honduras is more of a ‘republic’ and a
‘democracy’ than the United States. I respect the actions of the
Congress and of their Military.

Obama is wrong on this. Zelaya violated the Honduran Constitution he swore to uphold. The Supreme Court ruled Zelaya had to be removed from office. The Army had to carry out the order. The same thing could happen here in the US if the US Supreme Court rules Obama does not meet the Constitutional requirement to serve as president. In like manner, the Army would be called in to remove Obama from office. This is democracy at work. It is the rule of law. Obama supports Zelaya mainly because he fears this happening to him. If the US Supreme Court decides to remove Obama from office, will that be called a coup also? Of course not!