Never Forget?

Although the invasion of Iraq is no longer (or so we are led to believe) a pressing issue, as we have (we are told) mostly withdrawn, I thought this video, which I came across recently, would be good for anyone to see.

It is extremely important to remember that the invasion of Iraq is not over. The primary reasons - which were clearly not the reasons (a smoking gun, WMDS, atrocities Saddam committed while we funded his government) - for the actual invasion, have no place in the post-invasion rhetoric. I won't go on too long a rant this time, since I already do that far too often - here's the promised video:

-the ambassador

Not a Coup?

Since it has been a couple of weeks and some developments in the political situation in Honduras have occurred, I thought I'd do a short follow-up post to "Coups for Breakfast."

Earlier this week, the State Department sent a letter to the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee which, among other things, indicated that it had not even been decided as to whether or not what happened in Honduras was a coup. I may be wrong, but I'm fairly certain that when a democratically-elected president is gotten out of bed and forced onto a plane by his country's military, the only word for it is coup. Additionally, the $16.5 million in suspended military aid to the country has done little to show disapproval. As noted in an article in today's New York Times, a business leader in Honduras had this to say about the Obama administration's response to the coup: "Their bark is worse than their bite." Surprise, surprise. If Zelaya had been a little less friendly with Hugo Chavez and a little more friendly to the United States, I'd be willing to put money on a lot more suspended aid and a much more forceful 'bite.'

The letter, laughably, also says that the administration's policy is "based on finding a resolution that best serves the Honduran people and their democratic aspirations." Since this sentence follows one saying that the administration does not support any one side or politician - including, as I've said before, the democratically-elected president - it seems slightly hypocritical. In addition to all of this, the letter says that Zelaya's 'provocative actions' in the weeks leading up to the coup led directly to his removal. However, in a democratic country - or one that claims to be, at any rate - there are presumably other, less violent and controversial methods for confronting a president.

Although President Obama has said, and continues to say, since my last post that he supports the reinstatement of Zelaya, the actions and statements of the administration - and, more broadly, of the U.S. government as a whole - indicate otherwise. Again: surprise, surprise.

-the ambassador