MSM Plays Catch-Up on Honduras

By Philip Giraldi • July 10, 2009, 6:05 AM

Interesting to note that the Wash Post and NYT, who were braying “coup” a week ago, have gone all revisionist on Honduras now that they realize that Manuel Zelaya’s “Bolivarian revolution” plans for his country might not be a very good thing either for Honduras or for the United States. The Times had an editorial today suggesting that Zelaya’s return to office with a pledge to drop his demand for a referendum on changing the constitution might be an acceptable outcome. The Post said pretty much the same thing yesterday, with a header “The best way to defeat deposed president Manuel Zelaya lies in allowing his return.” Maybe they should have looked a bit more carefully at what they were writing in the first place when they were braying about the suppression of democracy. It just might be that Zelaya was the one doing the suppressing. One might reasonably argue that the NYT and Wash Post and others like them who immediately jumped on the narrative being orchestrated by Hugo Chavez were the ones who created the “crisis” in the first place.

On another note, the Post had a front page article on the many problems of the F-22 fighter. As I recall, The American Conservative ran a feature article some months ago that said the same thing.

Posted in Foreign policy, War.

10 Responses to MSM Plays Catch-Up on Honduras

Thomas O. Meehan says:

July 10, 2009 at 10:35 am

Democracy as a fetish doesn’t accomplish nearly so much as an appreciation of the rule of law and respect for natural rights such as the right to property and freedom of expression. When assessing foreign leaders and movements, an earlier generation of American statesmen weighed such things with a critical eye.

Now however, our slavish devotion to a democratic ideal in which the Man of the People can do whatever he wants gets us into trouble when dealing with populist tyrants like Chavez or Zelaya. Obama, must have particular difficulty in interpreting Zelaya, given that they are both slick populist manipulators.
brainfood says:

July 10, 2009 at 11:01 am

Interestingly, the Honduran Constitution of 1982 does provide for loss of citizenship for those who “incite, promote or aid in the continuation or re-election of the President” http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/Honduras/hond05.html (article 42):
ARTICULO 42.- La calidad de ciudadano se pierde: 5. Por incitar, promover o apoyar el continuismo o la reelección del Presidente de la República.
Further, Article 239 indicates that anyone who has held the office of chief executive cannot be president or vice president and anyone who proposes reform to that prohibition can be barred from holding public office for ten years: ARTICULO 239.- El ciudadano que haya desempeñado la titularidad del Poder Ejecutivo no podrá ser Presidente o Vicepresidente de la República. El que quebrante esta disposición o proponga su reforma, así como aquellos que lo apoyen directa o indirectamente, cesarán de inmediato en el desempeño de sus respectivos cargos y quedarán inhabilitados por diez años para el ejercicio de toda función pública.
My educated guess on that provision is that it is aimed move at banning past military dictators from pursuing the office than it is a stricture contra re-election, per se.
Additionally, Article 374 bars any amendments regarding the length of the presidential term (amongst other things:
ARTICULO 374.- No podrán reformarse, en ningún caso, el artículo anterior, el presente artículo, los artículos constitucionales que se refieren a la forma de gobierno, al territorio nacional, al período presidencial, a la prohibición para ser nuevamente Presidente de la República, el ciudadano que lo haya desempeñado bajo cualquier título y el referente a quienes no pueden ser Presidentes de la República por el período subsiguiente.
As such, it is pretty clear why the Supreme Court of Justice ruled against Zelaya’s plebiscite proposal in the first place. It also means that if the vote had been allowed to happen it would have had no legal standing.
bud says:

July 10, 2009 at 4:27 pm

the referendum was not about Zelayas re election . It was about deciding to hold a referendum in November on electing a constitutional congress next year to review and suggest changes that would give the underclass more say in how the country was run. Changes like recalls and ballot initiatives. Currently there is no vehicle for those changes and congress runs the country with an Iron Fist. The fact that they did not want the public to be heard speaks volumes to that point. the “Zelaya lie” is being repeated ONLY in the US press…….much to their discredit throughout the world.
Philip Giraldi says:

July 11, 2009 at 7:42 am

Bud – Not exactly. The referendum was to to approve a commission to revise the constitution. As had been noted, revising some parts of the constitution is illegal so the referendum and commission are both illegal. Giving the “underclass more say in how the country is run” is a euphemism used by Hugo Chavez in Venezuela to centralize power in his own hands, a la Castro’s Cuba. Playing the class warfare card in countries where most people are poor is an easy way to grab power. Revising the constitution so you can continue to be in power is an easy was to establish one party continuous rule. As far as I am concerned the Hondurans have a perfect right to whatever form of government works for them and we should not be interfering in the process. My blog is merely a commentary on how the US media can jump into a situation without any understanding of it and then flip themselves within a week.
Zac in CA says:

July 11, 2009 at 11:16 am

Philip, after your second use of the word ‘illegal’, you stopped contributing information to this discussion.
VP Cosmicum says:

July 11, 2009 at 8:35 pm

Philip: You wrote “The referendum was to to approve a commission to revise the constitution.” But the “referendum” question was: “Do you agree that a fourth ballot box be installed through which the people will decide to convene a constitutional assembly? Yes…….or………..No.”

So wouldn’t that be a “referendum” to determine whether to hold a referendum, as the poster you responded to said?

Your animosity to Chavez appears to be tainting your objectivity.

All these years of reading your insights on national security matters I have wondered how it is that you say what you say and yet remained a partner at Cannistraro. Then, when Deep Throat was purported to have been a-disgruntled-former-insider-with-an-axe-to-grind, I realized that nobody ever really “leaves it behind” — you’ve continued to play dirty pool, but to the casual reader you appear to be a whistleblower.

In any event, thanks for the “info” on Sibel Edmonds, Brewster Jennings, Niger Uranium Forgeries and the rest. I’ll never know which parts were true and which were red herrings, but it’s been fun.
MattSwartz says:

July 11, 2009 at 9:17 pm

Zac,

Whether you’re interested in his commentary or not, it cannot be denied that everything he says in the first three sentences is established, well-recognized fact.

His getting that right, while TV and print get it wrong, means that he’s worth hearing out. His deep well of experience, of course, is just gravy.

It isn’t his fault (or any of ours) if you shut down emotionally the moment someone questions the standard, Marxist-class-theory consensus about Latin America.
James ben Goy says:

July 12, 2009 at 11:27 am

Mr. Giraldi, in your prior life, you have probably visited, even lived in Latin American countries like Honduras, where most if not all economic, politcal & financial resources are controlled by an elite consisting almost entirely of descendents of the European colonists. You’re not implying these places are actually responsive to the needs of the powerless & the poor, are you? That their votes matter? Not that any so-called democracy, such as our own, is any different. After all, democracy, as none other than Boris Berezhovsky said, “. . is the rule of big money, everywhere.” In referring to flip-flops from official mouthpieces like the Times or the Post, you make it sound as if a coup to depose & exile an elected president is OK if he is proposing something threatening to the existing oligarchy. Proposing a referendum, a vote, is now a threat to democracy? Please!!
Philip Giraldi says:

July 13, 2009 at 4:53 am

Two quick responses are in order. First, VP, your suggestion that no one ever leaves the intelligence serviice, meaning that the writings of former CIA officers must always be considered to be “red herrings” is completely false. I assure you that the government would love to silence us if they could. We may sometimes come out with wrong or misleading judgments, but it is all on us – we are not a conduit for anyone or anything.

James ben Goy, you are absolutely right about inequality and the survival of the oligarchy in Latin America. All I am saying is that the Chavez solution that exploits poor voters to change the way the country is run to the beneifit of the new ruling clique is no solution at all. Chavez has hobbled his country’s judiciary, eliminated most of the media critical of him, and wrecked the Venezuelan economy. Along the way he has set himself up to become president for life. Morales and Correa are following the same pattern of aggrandizement and it would have been unfortunate to see Zelaya go the same way.
VP Cosmicum says:

July 18, 2009 at 10:12 pm

Philip – My apologies for the hyperbole and unfounded speculation. My doubts about the pureheartedness of ex-intel people aside, I should not have said that “no one ever leaves” (as I do not have a basis to know about “everyone”) and I have no specific reason to doubt that you and other former government intelligence professionals engage in whistleblowing.

I was motivated to comment because:

1. you appear to have misstated the basic facts of Zelaya’s “referendum”, and

2. you appear to have been motivated to do so by your animosity towards Chavez (or at least Chavez-inspired political programs).

I hope you understand, based on the foregoing, why a reader might question your objectivity/motives on this issue.

Again, I acknowledge that the remainder of my post was highly speculative and hyperbolic and I am sorry for that.