|
(Re Braulio's silly comment above, the article is by Arnold August, not magbana.)
August writes:
"Fourthly, the political clout against the Micheletti regime would have been devastating if the coup was declared to be military according to Section 7008. The putschists, who were very conscious about the controversy surrounding Section 7008, would probably not have lasted as long as it did."
I don't think this is true. Section 7008 would not only have required suspension of all funds to Honduras, it would also have required that the "military coup" classification be approved by the US Congress. I think that was what Jim DeMint (Puke-SC) and brethren were expecting, and they were laying in wait to hand Obama his ass on his stated policy of "peace, respect and cooperation" in Latin America.
August then quotes Time magazine (ultra corpo-fascist 'news' monopoly) in support of the argument that the Obamites kept it out of Congress (by not declaring it a "military coup") in order to then legitimize the Honduran junta, and restore whatever funding the Obama administration had suspended, without the participation of the US Congress. But this whole argument--the reverse of what I think occurred--presumes that Jim DeMint and his Bush Cartel handlers are not controlling Congress, on most issues, and on Latin America (source of 'easy pickuns' oil in "our own backyard") in particular.
How this first term senator has so much power in Congress is a real mystery--except maybe for the fact that SC has THE most non-transparent voting system in the USA.
I think the overriding issue in the entire Honduran situation is the US/Colombia agreement for SEVEN new US military bases in Colombia--signed by the Bushwhack ambassador in Colombia last week and heading for the US Congress. The US Honduran military base (and port facilities) is also important as a strategic war asset, but the South Vietnamization of Colombia is of primary importance. DeMint has been holding up all of Obama's Latin American appointments ostensibly because Obama didn't seem to back the coup in Honduras. But the issue looming behind that issue is Colombia--and looming behind Colombia, like a dim but monstrous shadow, is the next oil war.
I'm not sure how to put these pieces together--especially as to Obama's complicity (or not) in the Honduran coup--but I think that the interpretation that Obama is basically just George Bush (or Dick Cheney) and has been pursuing a devious, backstabbing, fascist agenda from Day One of the coup is too simplistic.
And the corpo-fascist media criticism of Obama--the Time magazine article, for instance--may be a clue to how we are being played. Consider this: The first goal of the Honduran coup was to secure the US military base in Honduras--a Pentagon goal. The second goal was to disable--sabotage, end--Obama's more peaceful policy in Latin America.
Chavez has said that Obama "is a prisoner of the Pentagon." I tend to agree. Obama was caught between this Pentagon goal (which might have been pursuing its goal without his knowledge--permitting the plane carrying the kidnapped president to land and refuel at Palmero, for instance), and the Diebolded-into-office Bushwhack forces in Congress which are sabotaging him on every front, including this one, on the one hand, and leaders like Lulu and all of Latin America, on the other. And then there's Clinton--whom he obviously made a deal with, to get to the White House. I think she probably prefers a peaceful US corporatizing of Latin America, rather than a bloody one. But, like her husband, she may help pave the way for war--as they both did on Iraq--while trying to appear peaceful. Former Latin American ambassador Robert E. White calls her efforts in Honduras "amateurish" and "a debacle." I would not be that charitable to Clinton. She has too often acted as an agent for Bushwhackery.
Is Obama just a hapless, powerless, but maybe well-intentioned observer of these events? Or is he truly a liar on his stated policy in Latin America--and an agent of evil power players comparable to Bush? Or something in between?
It's important to know where to put whatever public pressure we can muster. This is vital strategic knowledge--and it's hard to come by, in our Byzantine political establishment. Despite what has occurred, I think it may be inaccurate--and lead to strategies that might serve the lords of war and oppression--to just paint Obama and his entire administration as evildoers comparable to the Bush Junta. I have long feared this kind of "divide and conquer" strategy by the far rightwing billionaires who are running things--so very like Hitler's strategy in the early 1930s, whereby the center-left was rendered unable to govern. And they don't have to stuff ballot boxes and beat up voters, today. They have Diebold (now called "Premier," recently bought out by ES&S, which is even worse than Diebold, as to far rightwing connections and total lack of scruples, and now has a monopoly on our vote counting system). They have the capability--the EASY capability--of putting Sarah Palin or even Dick Cheney into the White House in 2012, and that will be the end of all hope for peace in Latin America.
A tough nut, this. And I don't think the combined intellect and research of the left has cracked it yet. What really went down in Honduras? Whose plot was it? And what to do now, to help the Honduran people, and to bend US policy in Latin America back toward peace?
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
