Obama sides with Chavez style "democracy"

[_bcspace]

This is a moment when the U.S. ought to be on the side of the rule of law, which the Honduran court and Congress upheld. If Washington does not reverse course, it will be one more act of appeasement toward an ambitious and increasingly dangerous dictator.

Honduras at the Tipping Point

[_JohnStuartMill]

If Obama sided with the coup (which, even if it were justified, would be a dangerous precedent), then Chavez's accusations that the coup was American-led would appear to be substantiated. Obama's refusing to play into Chavez's hand. The administration is backing an agreement in the works right now that would reverse the coup and reinstate constitutional freedoms in Honduras. That solution would neither help Chavez nor set a dangerous precedent.

[_bcspace]

If Obama sided with the coup (which, even if it were justified, would be a dangerous precedent), then Chavez's accusations that the coup was American-led would appear to be substantiated. Obama's refusing to play into Chavez's hand. The administration is backing an agreement in the works right now that would reverse the coup and reinstate constitutional freedoms in Honduras. That solution would neither help Chavez nor set a dangerous precedent.

Your calling it a coup shows that at best you are ill informed on the issue and probably failed to read the article and other related articles. The Supreme Court ordered his arrest in response to numerous constitutional (and very Chavez-like) violations.

The bottom line is that the dictator Chavez and Obama are cut from the same political cloth which is why Obama is supporting the constitutionally ousted president in the UN.

[_JohnStuartMill]

If Obama sided with the coup (which, even if it were justified, would be a dangerous precedent), then Chavez's accusations that the coup was American-led would appear to be substantiated. Obama's refusing to play into Chavez's hand. The administration is backing an agreement in the works right now that would reverse the coup and reinstate constitutional freedoms in Honduras. That solution would neither help Chavez nor set a dangerous precedent.

Your calling it a coup shows that at best you are ill informed on the issue and probably failed to read the article and other related articles. The Supreme Court ordered his arrest in response to numerous constitutional (and very Chavez-like) violations.

Oh, I understand all that quite well. Obama and I don't like this guy any more than you do, bcspace. The difference between you and us is that you're only thinking about the next move on the chessboard, and not the whole game. Stop thinking with your heart (as neoconservatives are wont to do in foreign policy matters), think a little, and you'll find that Obama's actions on this have been sensible.

The bottom line is that the dictator Chavez and Obama are cut from the same political cloth

LOL. Not even close. Hugo Chavez wouldn't hire Larry Summers. Your paranoia is showing again.

which is why Obama is supporting the constitutionally ousted president in the UN.

No. I already explained to you why this is not the case.

[_bcspace]

Oh, I understand all that quite well. Obama and I don't like this guy any more than you do, bcspace. The difference between you and us is that you're only thinking about the next move on the chessboard, and not the whole game. Stop thinking with your heart (as neoconservatives are wont to do in foreign policy matters), think a little, and you'll find that Obama's actions on this have been sensible.

LOL! Then why would Obama ask that he be reinstated? Why does the Obama administration call this a coup (thus showing that you're drinking their Kool Aid)? What then in your opinion is the next move on the chessboard? I've never seen evidence that leftwingers think farther ahead than their own hedonism and greed.

Hugo Chavez wouldn't hire Larry Summers.

But he would hire someone named Ayers (or Marx or Stalin)....

which is why Obama is supporting the constitutionally ousted president in the UN.

No. I already explained to you why this is not the case.

Then why is the Obama administration asking that he be reinstated? Explainations till you're blue in the face won't change the facts on the ground.

[_bcspace]

The Obama administration is going to find it harder to extracate themselves. But maybe they don't want to.....

"Clinton also called on all parties to refrain from further violence in an effort to resolve the political crisis.

Who threatened violence? Chavez.

She said her meeting with Zelaya was productive.

"I reiterated to him that the United States supports the restoration of the democratic, constitutional order in Honduras," she said."

What restoration of constitutional order is needed? The army acted under direction of the Congress and the Supreme Court. Sounds like the constitution is working just fine.

And what exactly is it that Zelaya did? He tried to hold an illegal vote on Chavez-style constitutional changes.

[_JohnStuartMill]

Oh, I understand all that quite well. Obama and I don't like this guy any more than you do, bcspace. The difference between you and us is that you're only thinking about the next move on the chessboard, and not the whole game. Stop thinking with your heart (as neoconservatives are wont to do in foreign policy matters), think a little, and you'll find that Obama's actions on this have been sensible.

LOL! Then why would Obama ask that he be reinstated? Why does the Obama administration call this a coup (thus showing that you're drinking their Kool Aid)? What then in your opinion is the next move on the chessboard? I've never seen evidence that leftwingers think farther ahead than their own hedonism and greed.

In chess, players alternate turns. So according to the analogy, if Obama has just moved, then it's Chavez's turn. If Obama had moved the way you wanted him to, then Chavez would now be able to make the "See! The U.S. was involved in the coup!" play with a patina of credibility. But because Obama is much smarter than you are, and chose a different move, Chavez no longer has that option.

What happens next? I already told you: the agreement that is currently in the works.

Hugo Chavez wouldn't hire Larry Summers.

But he would hire someone named Ayers

What position does Bill Ayers occupy in the Obama administration?

(or Marx or Stalin)....

Okay, bcspace, we get it: you're crazy. I think you've made your point by now.

No. I already explained to you why this is not the case.

Then why is the Obama administration asking that he be reinstated? Explainations till you're blue in the face won't change the facts on the ground.

Asking that the president be reinstated for tactical reasons /= supporting the president. But I don't expect you to understand that, because it is a subtle difference, and you are quite stupid.

[_bcspace]

In chess, players alternate turns. So according to the analogy, if Obama has just moved, then it's Chavez's turn. If Obama had moved the way you wanted him to, then Chavez would now be able to make the "See! The U.S. was involved in the coup!" play with a patina of credibility. But because Obama is much smarter than you are, and chose a different move, Chavez no longer has that option.

You're fantasizing that Obama and Chavez are not on the same side.

What happens next? I already told you: the agreement that is currently in the works.

No you didn't. But it's a good bet Obama will back away from his initial position and you will call it "strategy".

What position does Bill Ayers occupy in the Obama administration?

Never claimed he did. But he does occupy a warm spot in Obama's heart and is a keystone of his political development. He is essentially a de facto advisor. Either your analogy doesn't work, or mine does. There are no other options for you at this point.

(or Marx or Stalin)....

Okay, bcspace, we get it: you're crazy. I think you've made your point by now.

Chavez is not a Marxist? It is a common Marxist tactic to claim their political opponents are crazy and institutionalize them.....

Asking that the president be reinstated for tactical reasons /= supporting the president. But I don't expect you to understand that, because it's a subtle difference, and you are quite stupid.

Making excuses for your beloved president? This will turn out for the better only if and when Obama backs away from his initial reaction. But he's too far indebted to his supporters not to at least tease them with possibilities. Hopefully he's not stupid enough yet to carry them out. The time is not yet right and the American public not blinded enough.

[_JohnStuartMill]

Signed,

B.C. Space, Ph.D.
Associate Professor, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs

[_JohnStuartMill]

In chess, players alternate turns. So according to the analogy, if Obama has just moved, then it's Chavez's turn. If Obama had moved the way you wanted him to, then Chavez would now be able to make the "See! The U.S. was involved in the coup!" play with a patina of credibility. But because Obama is much smarter than you are, and chose a different move, Chavez no longer has that option.

You're fantasizing that Obama and Chavez are not on the same side.

You are dumb. I used to work for Obama's campaign. I know many people in the administration, none of whom are ideological kin to the Chavistas. Stop talking out of your ass, please.

What happens next? I already told you: the agreement that is currently in the works.

No you didn't. But it's a good bet Obama will back away from his initial position and you will call it "strategy".

I'll take that bet, and I'll give you 3:1. You're willing to put your money where your mouth is, right?

What position does Bill Ayers occupy in the Obama administration?

Never claimed he did.

You said he was "hired" by Obama. Well, if he was "hired" by Obama in the same sense that Larry Summers was, then he'd have a job in the administration.

But he does occupy a warm spot in Obama's heart and is a keystone of his political development.

Is clairvoyance a priesthood power now?

He is essentially a de facto advisor. Either your analogy doesn't work, or mine does. There are no other options for you at this point.

LOL. You need to go back to college and take a few logic classes, bub, because this is a non sequitur.

Okay, bcspace, we get it: you're crazy. I think you've made your point by now.

Chavez is not a Marxist? It is a common Marxist tactic to claim their political opponents are crazy and institutionalize them...

It is also a common Marxist tactic to string words together to form sentences. Good thing you're incapable of doing that, bcspace, because otherwise, you'd be a Marxist.

Look, the Chavez regime has significant Marxist elements, and even though it's not precisely Marxist, I don't have much of a problem when people call it Marxist. But this isn't what you said. You said that Obama would "hire" Marx. That's not the kind of statement that anyone with serious economic training and a thorough knowledge of Obama's policies would make. (Not to mention the more hilarious problem: Obama doesn't possess Sparkle Jesus Magic, so he can't bring Marx back from the dead in order to hire him).

Asking that the president be reinstated for tactical reasons /= supporting the president. But I don't expect you to understand that, because it's a subtle difference, and you are quite stupid.

Making excuses for your beloved president? This will turn out for the better only if and when Obama backs away from his initial reaction. But he's too far indebted to his supporters not to at least tease them with possibilities. Hopefully he's not stupid enough yet to carry them out. The time is not yet right and the American public not blinded enough.

When I have nothing to say, my lips are sealed. Maybe you should try the same thing.