it's pretty clear the side of the story you have been following.
the deposed president wanted to have a referendum (he didn't want "to change the constitution", he wanted a referendum on changing the constitution). the honduran supreme court ruled that he couldn't (the referendum had to be further spaced form other voting), and the head of the army, who is in charge of running the election/referendum, said the army wasn't going to distribute the ballots...so the president fired him, and that is when they ended up shipping the president to costa rica.
the issue is the rule of law. if the president was afoul of the law, there are legal avenues to prosecute him. there was a coup; the military took him at gunpoint, put him on a plane, and sent him out of the country.
tell me, do you believe the constitution of honduras says it is legal for the army to seize the president of honduras, force him to sign a resignation letter and put him on a plane to another country, is somehow legal? I seriously doubt it.
so the question is do we as a principle of our foreign policy respect the will of the voters in a country, and respect the rule of law, or do we just throw those out the door and say that if a country's army wants to seize power we are OK with it?
obama, and the rest of the world, says the former. the fact that castro and chavez also say the same isn't a knock on obama, and to portray the confluence of castro, chavez and obama's opinions as somehow being evidence of obama being in error is just asinine.
|