Reply #1: Interesting paragraph from our end of the telescope....

[Peace Patriot]

It took four months for the White House to understand the high cost that a coup regime would exact in the region. Beset by the various problems which he faces in his foreign policy, above all, by the rapid deterioration of the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan and the miring of his troops in Iraq, Obama wrested the steering wheel from his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, the main architect of support for the putschists, and sent Thomas Shannon to Tegucigalpa with the task of restoring order in the tumultuous back yard. Shortly afterward, Micheletti shelved his bravado and meekly accepted what had previously been unacceptable. Of course, Shannon had just laid down the imperial mandate. To sweeten the moment, he publicly expressed his admiration for the two leaders of Honduran democracy: the putschist and the deposed.

November 1, 2009
Honduras: An Improbable Solution
By Atilio A. Boron
English translation: Machetera

-----------------

It'll be interesting to see if this turns out to be the common perception in Latin America--that Hillary Clinton was the bad guy as to the coup, not Obama. I don't know if this writer is just guessing, or has some confirming scuttlebutt. He makes this statement confidently, but without backing it up at all.

It is certainly true that the US seemed to be a "house divided" over the last four months, with Obama saying the right things--Zelaya must be restored, etc.--from Day One, but the US not acting aggressively (as it obviously had the clout to do, when Shannon swooped in) to oust the coup. I wasn't sure about Clinton (and I still am not), primarily because Jim DeMint (a Bushwhack puke) has been blackmailing Obama on Honduras (or ostensibly on Honduras), holding up all Obama's Latin America appointments because Obama supported Zelaya. I had it figured that Obama/Clinton refrained from officially deeming this a military coup, because US law would then not only trigger automatic, severe economic sanctions, but required that the matter be approved by Congress, and the Bushwhacks had set it up so that Jim DeMint was laying in wait for Obama to hand him his ass on this--a stunning setback on L/A policy.

I thought it may have been quite a shrewd move by Obama/Clinton to keep the matter out of Congress, and that seemed very Clintonian. We may not agree with Clinton on much, but she is without question a smart political maneuverer. It was looking to me like an internal "hawks vs doves" (Bushwhack vs Obama) power struggle, within the US government (rife with Bushwhack moles), with both Obama and Clinton struggling to gain control of the government, and Clinton possibly on Obama's side. (She may be a corpo-fascist herself, but she was trying to implement Obama's stated policy of peace, respect and cooperation--and the cooperation part involves deals they want with Brazil, whose president has backed Zelaya 100%.)

So, I suspected Bushwhack moles in the Pentagon, the CIA and the State Dept. (the diplomatic corps, particularly) working with DeMint, McCain, James Baker, Negroponte, et al, to, a) sabotage Obama's policy of peace, respect and cooperation in L/A, and b) secure an important asset (the US military base in Honduras) for Rumsfeld's oil war plan in S/A.

As to the latter, another part of the war plan has EXTREMELY QUIETLY been "signed" this week in Colombia, by the Bushwhack operative in the embassy (Amb. Brownfield)--a deal negotiated in secret, excluding Colombia's congress and its people, and without consulting other L/A leaders (who have strongly objected) for the establishment of seven new US military bases in Colombia. With those bases, the US air/naval bases in Honduras and the US 4th Fleet (reconstituted by the Bushwhacks in summer '08), the US military has Venezuela's main oil reserves and operations (northern Caribbean coast) surrounded. In addition to war planning, these war assets involve a whole lot of US taxpayer booty. The 7-bases deal involves 600 US soldiers and 600 mercenaries and military contracts of every kind and more military aid for Colombia (already receiving $6 BILLION from you and me)--a country with one of the worst human rights records on earth. And this deal for new bases DOES have to be approved by the US Congress. That is where it is heading next.

These things--the Honduran coup, the 7 new US bases in Colombia, the US 4th Fleet and other actions were set in motion prior to Obama, and it is very difficult to know for sure what he thinks of them, but if he wants peaceful relations in L/A, and wants deals with Brazil, consider this: Brazil's president has not only backed Zelalya 100%, he has said that the US 4th Fleet is a threat to Brazil's oil fields (not just Venezuela's), and it is Brazil that proposed a "common defense" in the context of the newly formalized S/A "common market," UNASUR. The new left in L/A (an overwhelmingly successful political movement, with leftist presidents elected in almost every country) considers the US military a threat. They don't like it or the US "war on drugs." Latin Americans overwhelmingly want the US military out of their countries. Ecuador, Bolivia and Paraguay have kicked them out, recently. Interestingly, Mel Zelaya had proposed converting the US military base in Honduras to a commercial airport--which likely sealed the coup from the point of view of Pentagon war planners, and may be why the US commanders at their Honduran base stood down when the plane carrying the kidnapped president stopped at that base for refueling. There may be other reasons for that stand-down, but collusion with the coupsters is the no. 1 probability. (And a very interesting question is: Who gave that order to stand down? Obama? Clinton? Neither? The Bushwhack ambassador? The "Southern Command" acting on its own? )

Anyway, this is the line-up of things in Latin America: hawks vs doves; war planning and hostility vs peaceful cooperation. Obama on one side (stated policy) and an array of Bushwacks and warmongers on the other. Where is Clinton in all this? Is she paving the way for war, or trying to implement a better policy against a strong Bushwhack undertow? I don't know the answer to that for sure, nor how sincere Obama is on his stated policy. They did the right thing in Honduras at long last, but it is a lousy, late-in-the-day deal which ignores the people of Honduras and their demand for reform. Was Obama/Clinton's lassitude deliberate or the result of an Obama/Clinton disagreement, or the result of their not being in full control of the US government?

A lot of leftist commentators have been quick to condemn the Obama team, and they certainly have history on their side (past US policy), and they also have reason to distrust both Obama and Clinton because of previous positions (campaign statements, campaign advisors, votes, policies, etc.--especially Clinton, but Obama has not been great on L/A issues either). This commentator is seeing something I also perceived, which was division--a conflicted policy, a US internal struggle--and blames Clinton. I'm still not sure.