U.S. policy is mystifying since the ousted president’s removal from office was a rare example in Latin America of an institutional defense of democracy as envisioned by the constitution and interpreted by the Supreme Court that ruled that the president be removed.
Precisely. Isn’t a functioning democracy and one that is not a third-world socialist strong-man state what we want for our central American neighbors… hell, for everybody? Yet, we do everything in our power to subvert the sovereign decisions of a nation that acted in a constitutional manner setting a horrible precedent for all the other nations of that region striving for the free state of democracy.
Apparently, there is a legal analysis at the State Department prepared by their top lawyer that the State Department is unwilling to make public. Why? As it could possibly be another source of embarrassment for the administration’s handling of this affair? Stay tuned.
UN experts concluded that there was no coup in Honduras.
The study of the crisis in Honduras coincided with that conducted by the Library of Congress *** The study of the political crisis in Honduras was endorsed with official information received by the UN experts in the country visit last week coincided with the foreign ministers of the OAS. Washington, USA. A study by the Department of Political Affairs of the United Nations Organization (UNO) on the causes of the crisis in Honduras, concluded that the removal of President Manuel Zelaya, "was constitutional under the laws of the country," confirmed officials of that agency.
Did we have this whole Honduras thing wrong? Honestly. One begins to question oneself when the U.N. comes to the same conclusion.
Or does this just point to how monumentally the administration has botched this thing when even the Star Wars cantina scene can figure it out?