(no subject)
So, last time I posted, it was about the new Presidential policy of non-interference.
Then, the Honduran Supreme Court and the Honduran Legislature declared that the Honduran President was attempting to circumvent the Constitution, and got the Army to remove him- which they did with a bit too much gusto, picking him up in his PJs and tossing him over the border! (Apparently, the law there is quite clear- the penalty for breaking the Constitution is loss of citizenship) And it turns out the Administration was working through the Embassy to deflect the crisis.
So my question is, can anyone give me a rational explanation as to why it's wrong to speak strongly about an election being completely rigged in Iran, but it's perfectly fine to be trying to pull strings to shape events in a functioning democracy in this hemisphere. As before, I'm just so angry that when a democratic institution is subverted, the word from the President is "Well, we have to see. And I look forward to talking with the leaders of Iran soon. If they want to. I mean, my schedule is open. Whenever, you know." But when two co-equal branches of government in a democracy decide that the third branch is acting unConstitutionally, he declares it a coup and has our UN ambassador sponsor a damn UN resolution supporting the man who was trying to take power for life, like Chavez and Castro. God I miss John Bolton.
There are two conclusions I can come to: Either Obama makes foreign policy decisions based on 'What would George Bush NOT do' or he really believes in the ideologies of these people more than in democratic institutions. Common to both is approval-seeking from nations and groups that hold beliefs that are antithetical to our own, or at least to the beliefs that led to our prosperity and security.
The irony, of course, is that in so many other areas, Obama is really a continuation of the Bush presidency, something that causes me both amusment and discomfort- the latter moreso because no one really points out the hypocrisy of Obama arguing for indefinite detention, rendition, and White House secrecy after criticizing the previous Administration for those policies- in addition to endorsing legislation that would cripple the economy, though that would be a subject for a different ironic post.
But yeah- why is it wrong to speak forcefully on events in Iran (until it's suddenly the right thing to do), but okay to work behind the scenes to prevent the removal of a Honduran President who is attempting to subvert his nations' Constitution?
Then, the Honduran Supreme Court and the Honduran Legislature declared that the Honduran President was attempting to circumvent the Constitution, and got the Army to remove him- which they did with a bit too much gusto, picking him up in his PJs and tossing him over the border! (Apparently, the law there is quite clear- the penalty for breaking the Constitution is loss of citizenship) And it turns out the Administration was working through the Embassy to deflect the crisis.
So my question is, can anyone give me a rational explanation as to why it's wrong to speak strongly about an election being completely rigged in Iran, but it's perfectly fine to be trying to pull strings to shape events in a functioning democracy in this hemisphere. As before, I'm just so angry that when a democratic institution is subverted, the word from the President is "Well, we have to see. And I look forward to talking with the leaders of Iran soon. If they want to. I mean, my schedule is open. Whenever, you know." But when two co-equal branches of government in a democracy decide that the third branch is acting unConstitutionally, he declares it a coup and has our UN ambassador sponsor a damn UN resolution supporting the man who was trying to take power for life, like Chavez and Castro. God I miss John Bolton.
There are two conclusions I can come to: Either Obama makes foreign policy decisions based on 'What would George Bush NOT do' or he really believes in the ideologies of these people more than in democratic institutions. Common to both is approval-seeking from nations and groups that hold beliefs that are antithetical to our own, or at least to the beliefs that led to our prosperity and security.
The irony, of course, is that in so many other areas, Obama is really a continuation of the Bush presidency, something that causes me both amusment and discomfort- the latter moreso because no one really points out the hypocrisy of Obama arguing for indefinite detention, rendition, and White House secrecy after criticizing the previous Administration for those policies- in addition to endorsing legislation that would cripple the economy, though that would be a subject for a different ironic post.
But yeah- why is it wrong to speak forcefully on events in Iran (until it's suddenly the right thing to do), but okay to work behind the scenes to prevent the removal of a Honduran President who is attempting to subvert his nations' Constitution?