And then there's this:

“I know that your real reason for carrying out this pretense is because Velaya is a leftist, supported by other leftist leaders in the region, and Velaya's political opponents in the Honduran government are conservative or right-wing. If it's against a leftist, then it's perfectly democratic and legal, and not a coup.”

Jeesum. I gotta agree with DaGoat: you're sounding really paranoid, Kathy.

He expressed no preference for either Zelaya's administration or for his political opponents. He said only that political differences between the two should be resolved peacefully, in democratic elections, NOT by military force.

This is similar to the approach he used with Iran, in which he expressed no preference for the dissenters' point of view over the current government of Iran, but merely said that violence was not an appropriate way to resolve the conflict and that people everywhere and anywhere had the right to non-violently protest government policies.

It's certainly relevant to most of the people — bloggers, readers, media pundits, etc. — who are saying that overthrowing Zelaya and exiling him was the correct thing to do. However, if you mean it shouldn't be relevant, that's another thing.

The phrase “legitimately removed” is problematic because that word, “legitimate,” has several different nuances of meaning — it is not necessarily synonymous with “legal.” For example, the final result of the 2000 U.S. presidential election was reached via a legal process, but the result, in my view and the view of many other Americans, was not at all legitimate — it was a political outcome, and one in which the U.S. Supreme Court should never have involved itself. And no, I'm not trying to start a side argument; I'm simply using this as an example to explain why I cannot and do not agree with the assertion that Zelaya was “legitimately removed.

What are the consequences provided by the Honduran constitution for the president having a difference of opinion with Congress and the Supreme Court over whether it is permissible to ask the Honduran people, via nonbinding ballot initiative, whether they agree to convene a constitutional assembly to explore the possibility of amending the part of the Constitution that deals with term limits? Let's set aside the issue of whether doing such is a heinous constitutional offense, or a perfectly acceptable thing to do in a democracy. What are the prescribed consequences under the Honduran constitution?

If you tell me that the prescribed consequences for doing the above are having the Supreme Court order the military to enter the presidential palace by force, wake the sleeping president and force him to leave the palace, get in a car, be driven to the airport, and then flown permanently out of the country, I'm going to say I very much doubt that.

Your comments are approaching paranoia, Kathy. Unlike many conservatives I thought Obama was right not to choose sides in Iran, although I did criticize him for not speaking out more strongly against the violence. I also complimented him when he finally did speak out more forcefully. If this is all left-hating on my part why did I do that? Just to fake you out?

Now I think Obama is wrong for taking sides with Honduras for the same reasons I thought he was right with Iran. While I think the use of the military was improper and overdone, as far as I can tell the decisions of the Congress and Supreme Court were legal. I honestly don't know whether the interim president is any less of a leftist than Zelaya (since you're upset I'm guessing he's not a leftist), but that's not relevant to the issue on whether Zelaya was legitimately removed.

It is possible to try and look at issues without checking your party's position first.

Who is it who is not looking at the issue, DaGoat? If you were looking at the issue, you would not be pretending that Iran and Honduras are the same country with the same history, the same political realities, the same strategic and historic relationship with the United States. If you were actually looking at the issue of what's happened in Honduras and what the U.S. response to it should be, you would not be pretending that you believe the United States should have a “fine with us, no problem” foreign policy because to express concern, opposition, or disapproval would be “meddling in the internal affairs of another country.”

And I say “pretending” because I know you don't actually believe that U.S. foreign policy should be identical all over the globe, but you are pretending that you do.

I'm also surprised that Father Time would be so short-sighted as to spare the USA from similar “liberation” that so many lefties would want, albeit more commonly imposed from within Washington instead of at the hands of others. (Plus the beloved Soviet Union is no more.)

DaGoat, I am going to hold on to this comment and show it to you again when you tell us, in the context of a future conflict, that different countries require different approaches.

I guess I'm just simple in that the Honduran Supreme Court saying he did violate the constitution not to mention violating without a doubt the new law passed outlawing any referendum so close to a election. So he obviously violated the new law and since it's hard to see your opinion on the Honduran Constitution mattering more than the Honduran Supreme Court. Also you continue to fail to indicate that there doesn't seem to any unilateral actions taken by the military.

Now they need a more official way of impeaching or removing a president then they now have. That is clear. Regardless of how I feel about the legality it's obviously a public relations nightmare and raised the specter of a military coup. That can't be good. I also wonder if as bad as it might be, it's still not better than the possible consequences of leaving Zelaya in power. In a few months they will have a new election and it's hard to see how anyone will still be able to continue action against Honduras at that point. Pres Zelaya would of been gone, the interim Pres has already said he wont be running, the new Pres will be elected the same as he would of been if nothing happened (unless Zelaya majorly interfered with the legal process). So what then?

Me I would hold fast and refuse thinking that would be the safest (assuming they believe the threat of Zelaya is and was real and serious) way to go.