When you said Ros-Lethinen was on the Foreign Affairs Committee, never mind the ranking member, I assumed you were slipping in a joke.

I guess I should have checked. Incredible. The woman contests the theory that sound cannot travel in a vacuum, simply by displaying the ability to hear. Didn't there used to be an assumption that people who were called to public service were the best their kind had to offer?

Nah, they'll just wait til the next time it comes up and then go back to arguing that the coup was all about freedom. Otherwise, they would have to, you know, admit that "new facts" should actually make one "reevaluate one's positions" (not that the fact that the coup was anything about Freedom! in the first place).

They'll just say that the restrictions on civil liberties are a temporary measure to keep the country safe from being taken over by Communists, or Chavez or somebody, and that Zelaya should stop causing trouble.

The republicans in Congress are doing what they usually do when they are proved wrong: they symbolically line their lips with superglue to keep themselves from making further fools of themselves.
They use emotional responses while President Obama uses logic and information to analyze issues. There is a propensity on the part of the GOP to continue using emotional responses because they worked so well in the past. They do not know that the tactics in their playbook are no longer viable.

We've always been at war with the anti-democratic coup plotters.

Interesting that the recent news headlines
just before the coup plotters shut down pro-Zelaya
stations was news of the "US 'blasts' ousted Honduran for 'foolish' return." and "Zalaya's return to Honduras 'irresponsible': US official" .

If only the pro-coup congress could have held out a little longer they would have the US on their side.

News Flash!

Republicans are wrong again!

What else is new? Someone wake me when they take the right side on anything.

Majii:
When did the Republicans stop talking in order to avoid saying additional stupid things?

Is this the same Republican congress that includes
Michele Bachmann, Virginia Foxx, and Todd Tiahrt?

I did not hear liberals being disturbed by Hugo Chavez's closing down of private radio stations and confiscating golf courses, all in the name of 'democracy'?

Double standards much? I mean, seriously, not matter how bad Micheletti might infringe on civil rights, he can't beat Chavez. Hugo's got that prize in the bag.

Seriously, I don't mean this as snark, but has the recent history of rightwing rationalization & enablement of mass slaughter in Central America just completely gone down the memory hole? The coup-makers in Honduras are in many cases the same people who not so long ago implemented a semi-genocidal war in the region. The US conservatives who support & justify them see the current struggle as a continuation of the earlier, more sanguinary conflict of fond memory. If they didn't quail at that butchery, what on earth makes you think they could feel anything remotely like embarrassment at the comparatively minor thuggery being employed now?

I'm still waiting for the part where liberals praised Hugo Chavez's "Freedom-Loving Agenda" and formed a "coup caucus" to help him promote his brand of leadership. I must have missed that. Or is it only when one screeches like a Republican that one is plainly "disturbed"?

Seriously, try not to be any dozier than nature intended, how 'bout?

Myles

"I did not hear liberals being disturbed by Hugo Chavez's closing down of private radio stations and confiscating golf courses, all in the name of 'democracy'?"

President Chavez was democratically elected twice by huge majorities of the Venezuelan citizenry.

Take it up with them.

Myles and Mark, A few differences between the two situations. 1. Chavez IS the elected President. Michelleti is illegally purporting to be President after a military coup. 2. Those who control the media that were shut down in Venezuela funded the military coup against Chavez. The media shut down by the Honduran military were against the coup plotters. 3. Chavez disembowled - through a plebisite - a judiciary that was corrupt. The Honduran court system, that I worked with as a lawyer in the 80s, is similarly massively corrupt and also fears a plebisite. 4. No Latin American nation has called Chavez's actions illegal. Every nation in Latin America agrees that Zelaya was removed illegally and the current government is the result of a military coup.

The Central American right wing that oppressed and slaughtered people in the 1980s without most of the world being aware is now fighting informed world opinion. They can make up communist nonsense all they want it and have right wing Americans believe them, but the military rule gig is up as anyone can now read the Honduran Consitution. There is absolutely no doubt that the Honduran Congress stripped itself of impeachment powers and could not impeach Zelaya. There is also no doubt that the Supreme Court did not comply with the Honduran Code of Criminal Procdure bofore the military deported President Zelaya. The internet is a wonderful thing.

It is just another 'flavor' of the right's chicken hawkishness.

Where is the Republican causus now? Somewhere else, they already used up the 15 minutes they allocate annually to deal with Latin America.

I don't disagree with any of that, and I believe my point was that the two situations are in no way similar. What I objected to was Myles' simplistic, dildonian and - to my mind - typically conservative attempt to reframe the debate in terms that suggest if you didn't form a congressional caucus against it, you are for it.

I don't recall any "liberals" singing Chavez's praises, even when he was providing discounted heating oil through his company to New Englanders who might otherwise have frozen into boiled-dinnersicles because their hopelessly inept government have caused the price of oil to achieve escape velocity. Chavez may well have done that to embarrass the Bush government, who damned well should have been embarrassed, but it didn't win him any points with Americans, liberals or otherwise.

"had" caused, I meant, not "have".

It wouldn't surprise me at everyone who's anyone in the world stage is quietly awaiting Hondura's November elections to then say, "It's over now. Look, democracy has been restored." This is a balancing game more than anything else. Nobody who's not a friend of Chávez et al. does not want Zelaya to manipulate Honduras' constitution to being the road towards dictatorship. See Venezuela, then Ecuador, Bolivia and Nicaragua - they all started with reforming the constitution. Watch out!!! One of my Poli Sci professors used to say the greatest proof of power is one's ability to change a nation's constitution. I doubt rich nations want to see this happening in Honduras; even if they condemn the coup and appear "all angry and stuff".

Honduras is facing a crisis created by outsiders. It is a tragedy. Zelaya is crazy and Obama, Chavez, Castro and Ortega are trying to subvert democracy. Mexico has the exact same provision in its constitution to prevent would-be Chavezes from seizing power. Michelleti, the legal president cannot even go to the UN while Ahmadinejad and Ghaddafi give crazy speeches there. It's a sad day.

It's tempting to take the position that whatever position a dingbat like DeMint takes, the opposite must be the right one. But the situation in Honduras isn't so clear-cut. After the initial condemnation etc. you don't hear much from the administration either. And there's a good reason for that, too. It does appear that the new government is supported by the usual oligarchic forces. On the other hand Zelaya appears to have been attempting to circumvent the Honduran constitution and some of the other civilian elements of the government -- the congress and the supreme court -- were involved in the legal maneuvering that resulted in his removal (which is why Steve said "military-backed coup" rather than "military coup").

Things do seem to be heading in a worse direction though.

Honduras is facing a crisis created by outsiders. It is a tragedy. Zelaya is crazy and Obama, Chavez, Castro and Ortega are trying to subvert democracy.

Every single nation on earth rightly condemned the coup. If you were familiar with the details, which as usual you are not, you would know that Zelaya did not contravene the Constitution but was thrown out, and I quote the Honduran army chief, because he was a "leftist" and had become too friendly with Chavez -- and the military had been trained at the School of the Americas not to serve leftists. End quote.

I'd he happy to revisit this issue in detail and post the evidence showing that Zelaya was the victim of a right-wing coup.

Meanwhile, the right-wing oligarchy is subverting democracy. What a shame.

The same people who used force to overthrow a Democracy are now violating civil rights. Who could have predicted that?

I guess we'll see a front-page story in the NY Times and the Washington Post to tell the story.

Not holding my breath for that.

GOP lawmakers--flying by the seat of their pants.
No brilliance, no ideas.
Just reactive.

If you were familiar with the details, which as usual you are not, you would know that Zelaya did not contravene the Constitution but was thrown out, and I quote the Honduran army chief, because he was a "leftist" and had become too friendly with Chavez -- and the military had been trained at the School of the Americas not to serve leftists. End quote.

Was that the talking points memo at the party meeting ?

You poor fool.

just when you think they can't drain any more water out of the pool, the wingnuts sink even deeper by supporting and apologizing for a military coup.

pathetic. Shame on Mike K and his fellow ilk.

Mike,

"Michelleti, the legal president"

How many votes did he win by again ?

An election is coming in a month.

Yet, Michelleti is the legal president.

How did you establish an internet connection from Bizarro World ?

Mike,

Thanks once again for the opportunity to show what an ignorant jackwad you are. It really makes my day.

Claim 1: The Chief Attorney for the Honduran Army Admits Because of his training that they could not work for a "leftist" and admist that deposing Zelaya was illegal

``It would be difficult for us, with our training, to have a relationship with a leftist government. That's impossible. I personally would have retired, because my thinking, my principles, would not have allowed me to participate in that.''

http://www.miamiherald.com/1506/story/1125872.html

Mr. Inestroza, like the coup leader and army chief General Romeo Vasquez, was trained at Washington’s infamous School of the Americas.

Claim 2: Zelaya was deposed illegally by a ruling cabal

Here is the ballot question for a non-binding resolution that Zelaya proposed:

"Do you agree that, during the general elections of November 2009 there should be a fourth ballot to decide whether to hold a Constituent National Assembly that will approve a new political constitution?"

Are there any reference to term limits in this question?

No. So Article 239 of the Honduran Constitution is not invoked, because in no way whatsoever did Zelaya try to extend his term in office. None.

Furthermore, the poll would have been non-binding. Just an opinion poll. And people could have simply voted "no." Or they could have voted yes and if an Assembly were ultimately convened, which would take years, it might never take up the question of term limits.

And Zelaya did not stand to benefit because he can only serve one term; his name was not on the ballot for November with the other candidates.

Interviews with Hondurans suggest that merely because he associated with Chavez earlier this year the ruling cabal in government decided he had to go.

You're done, idiot.

Zelaya was deposed illegally by a ruling cabal

Here is the ballot question for a non-binding resolution that Zelaya proposed:

"Do you agree that, during the general elections of November 2009 there should be a fourth ballot to decide whether to hold a Constituent National Assembly that will approve a new political constitution?"

How many votes did Nixon get in 1972 ?

Oh, I forgot this juicy little bit from the Miami Herald interview:

Inestroza acknowledged that after 34 years in the military, he and many other longtime soldiers found Zelaya's allegiance to Chávez difficult to stomach. Although he calls Zelaya a ''leftist of lies'' for his bourgeoisie upbringing, he admits he'd have a hard time taking orders from a leftist.

"We know there was a crime there,'' said Inestroza, the top legal advisor for the Honduran armed forces. ``In the moment that we took him out of the country, in the way that he was taken out, there is a crime. Because of the circumstances of the moment this crime occurred, there is going to be a justification and cause for acquittal that will protect us."

Mean, motive, and opportunity. Zelaya was guilty of NOTHING more than ending up further left ideologically than the moneyed interests -- and as history shows us, even though it's not illegal that is always the worst crime.

Oh -- and the communist jabs just make you look even stupider than usual for not being familiar with the facts but engaging in your little agitprop campaign anyway.

[this is not a forum for endlessly broadcasting unsupported claims -- mod.

"Myles and Mark, A few differences between the two situations. 1. Chavez IS the elected President. Michelleti is illegally purporting to be President after a military coup."

That is true, except that Michelleti is recognized by both the judiciary and the legislature, so guess what, no matter what liberals think, if both the dully appointed judiciary and the dully elected legislature recognize someone's executive power, then he is the chief executive.

"2. Those who control the media that were shut down in Venezuela funded the military coup against Chavez. The media shut down by the Honduran military were against the coup plotters."

State power cannot be used to settle petty, personal vendettas. Chavez has long crossed the boundary of using the state's monopoly on the use of force to quell dissidents.

"3. Chavez disembowled - through a plebisite - a judiciary that was corrupt. The Honduran court system, that I worked with as a lawyer in the 80s, is similarly massively corrupt and also fears a plebisite."

This is too stupid and ignorant for me to even address, but I'll give it a push: dude, democracy does NOT, EVER, override the RULE OF LAW. To do so is nothing more or less than full-on mob rule. But we already knew that, didn't we, that Chavez is the face of mob rule? Quelle surprise. It doesn't matter how corrupt the judiciary may or may not be (and I take your claims with huge spoonfuls of salt): there is no justification, WHATSOEVER, in crossing the judiciary-executive dividing line and killing judicial independence. To do is MOB RULE and equally COMPLETE ILLEGITIMACY.

"4. No Latin American nation has called Chavez's actions illegal. Every nation in Latin America agrees that Zelaya was removed illegally and the current government is the result of a military coup."

Latin American governments have as much credibility when it comes to legitimacy as the Bush administration had on environmental policy. You can take their endorsements, or lack thereof, and blow on it. Nobody in the entire world could care less what a bunch of credibility-poor Latin American governments (Kirchner, Correa, Chavez, Castro, anyone?) think.

Long story short, Hugo Chavez is a piece of scum. But we already knew that, so I guess it was a waste of time explaining it to you.

I think we should make it the new litmus test for determining whether liberals are sound or not: ask them what they think of Chavez. Likely a good number of Democrats probably can't come up with an answer satisfactory to the majority of Americans, who are vehemently opposed to Chavezism of any form.

Come to think of it, every single prospective Democratic senator and presidential hopeful should be asked this question in debate and interview to determine their position on foreign policy: Do you condone or condemn Hugo Chavez and his political ideologies? Do you condone or condemn confiscating golf courses and shutting down private radio stations and sending in the street thugs to molest and beat up your opponents?

I should like to see how Al Franken answers this next election. I suspect Barack Obama would answer this rather well.

There's only one "l" in "duly", unless you actually meant "dully", which perhaps you did. However, I'm not the best proofreader, so we'll spot you that one.

I take it you're one of that "majority of Americans" for whom you speak who doesn't think George W. Bush used state power to settle petty, personal vendettas. Uh huh.

Leaving that as well, perhaps you could provide an example of a liberal endorsing Chavez's political ideologies. I can't say as I've ever heard one.

I did not hear liberals being disturbed by Hugo Chavez's closing down of private radio stations and confiscating golf courses, all in the name of 'democracy'?

Chavez has not confiscated a single golf course. Cite? I thought not.

Certain city officials, however, have for years proposed that some golf courses be confiscated -- because they are enormous wastes of land in areas where there are severe housing shortages. You see, when the government of any country makes a change in land use for the common good, say to build the U.S. highway system, or -- per the Kelo Supreme Court decision here in the U.S. to take private property from homeowners and hand it to corporations "Chavez-style" because corporations will provide more tax revenue -- it's called "eminent domain."

Likely a good number of Democrats probably can't come up with an answer satisfactory to the majority of Americans, who are vehemently opposed to Chavezism of any form.

Some Americans are opposed to how Chavez governs? Who cares? It's not their country or culture or history or political system, and most Americans couldn't so much as locate Venezuela on a map much less give a remotely adequate description of their political and cultural landscape or god forbid provide a coherent critique of Chavez' administration.

Particularly if they, like you, don't even understand that their own government engages in eminent domain.

Myles,

President Kirchner, President Correa, and President Chavez were all democratically elected under the auspices of international election monitors. Too bad we didn't have them during the 2000 and 2004 elections.

"Leaving that as well, perhaps you could provide an example of a liberal endorsing Chavez's political ideologies. I can't say as I've ever heard one."

Congresswoman Diane Watson, of Los Angeles, endorses Fidel CASTRO for chrissakes, and in fact compares Barack Obama, positively, to him. CASTRO. Not even just Chavez.

She just so happens to be a member of the (now officially insane) Congressional Black Caucus, which, by the way, ALSO endorsed CASTRO in their Cuban trip, at least partially. And frankly, I haven't heard any apologies coming from them about it.

Here's the video:

http://belowthebeltway.com/2009/08/31/congresswoman-diane-watson-castro-lover/

"Some Americans are opposed to how Chavez governs? Who cares?"

I dare you to say that at election time, when a good chunk of Democrats are shown to be Chavez sympathizers. In a good number of districts that would be mean automatic disqualification by ballot by the majority of voters as a viable representative.

Just as we had been vigilantly practiced anticommunism in the past, so must we uphold anti-Chavez principles now.

"I take it you're one of that "majority of Americans" for whom you speak who doesn't think George W. Bush used state power to settle petty, personal vendettas. Uh huh."

So you take Bush's abuse of power to be manifest, self-evident justification and license for Chavez to abuse power on a far greater and more disturbing magnitude.

Such is the face of modern liberalism, which regards two (unequal) wrongs as making one right.

The fact that prominent Republican lawmakers can use words like "freedom" and "democracy" to describe a military coup of a popularly-elected government whose politics and policies these reactionaries presumably disagree, tells you something about the rhetorical tangle that radical reactionaries like DeMint have gotten themselves into in this country. It is also why the words and concepts that DeMint and other right wingers use to describe politics in the US are literally meaningless (liberalism = fascism; universal health care = an assault on our liberties) bear no resemblance to reality.

Moderator, I knew you'd go back to deleting posts you don't like.

[simply asserting that something is true over and over, without argument, and in the face of contradicting facts, and further using that as platform to attack posters and to distribute a political meme is the definition of trolling -- mod.]