Hillary's sickening role in the right wing Honduran coup

[cali]

<snip>
HONDURAS

On 28 June 2009, the Honduran military grabbed their nation’s popular democratically elected progressive President, Manuel Zelaya, and flew him into exile.

The AP headlined from Tegucigalpa the next day, “World Leaders Pressure Honduras to Reverse Coup,” and reported: “Leaders from Hugo Chavez to Barack Obama called for reinstatement of Manuel Zelaya, who was arrested in his pajamas Sunday morning by soldiers who stormed his residence and flew him into exile.”

Secretary Clinton, in the press conference the day after the coup, “Remarks at the Top of the Daily Press Briefing”, refused to commit the United States to restoration of the democratically elected President of Honduras. She refused even to commit the U.S. to using the enormous leverage it had over the Honduran Government to bring that about. Here was the relevant Q&A:

Mary Beth Sheridan. QUESTION: Madam Secretary, sorry, if I could just return for a second to Honduras, just to clarify Arshad’s point – so, I mean, the U.S. provides aid both under the Foreign Assistance Act and the Millennium challenge. So even though there are triggers in those; that countries have to behave – not have coups, you’re not going to cut off that aid?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Mary Beth, we’re assessing what the final outcome of these actions will be. This has been a fast-moving set of circumstances over the last several days, and we’re looking at that question now. Much of our assistance is conditioned on the integrity of the democratic system. But if we were able to get to a status quo that returned to the rule of law and constitutional order within a relatively short period of time, I think that would be a good outcome. So we’re looking at all of this. We’re considering the implications of it. But our priority is to try to work with our partners in restoring the constitutional order in Honduras.

<snip>
http://www.globalresearch.ca/hillary-clintons-six-foreign-policy-catastrophes/5509543

[yourpaljoey]

1. Karn evil

[CorporatistNation]

22. Madam Secretary The Master Of Circular Bullshi!

This is who we want to replace Barack?

Watch THIS!!!

[kenn3d]

53. Ode to #ImWithHer

Yes she lies, we choose to excuse
Sure she's a crook, we just overlook
Time for a woman, don't make a fuss
We be with her, but #ShesNotForUS

Sanders supporters will never understand this.

[VulgarPoet]

2. inb4 "right wing talking point" Weathervaners.

You know they're comin'.

[MisterP]

29. "we've had nothing but warmongering MEN: it's time for a WOMAN"

almost verbatim from one comment somewhere

[malletgirl02]

41. That was a low information voter, for sure.

[DeGreg]

66. Here's what I say...

I want A WOMAN PRESIDENT
too, but not a woman president who
thinks exactly like the MEN who
got us into this MESS.

[panader0]

3. Her response approaches Palin as far as word salad--where was the answer?

"assessing", "looking at it", "circumstances" "implications" "constitutional"
Did you get that?

[jfern]

4. And then she supported deporting all the resulting child refugees

And the most unbelievable thing was when she said during the debate that we had to deport them because they had been treated poorly. Does she know what the word refugee means?

[HooptieWagon]

64. Yep. Sent the child refugees back to their deaths.

It takes a village to raise a child, takes a neo-con to kill them.

[TeddyR]

5. Hillary also

Killed Kennedy and created capitalism. And Bernie actually blackmailed the other 64 senators that voted in favor of the PLCAA and created socialism, with the help of Lenin. Or maybe neither of these candidates is the right wing or communist evil people on DU make them out to be.

[cali]

7. Lame, lame deflection because you can't deal with the facts

[TeddyR]

12. I'm a Bernie supporter

Over Hillary. But the hysterical accusations cast by the anti-Bernie/Hillary folks on DU make me ashamed to be a Dem. Reading some of these posts you'd think that people legitimately think that Hillary was responsible for killing Kennedy. Or Bernie hates African Americans. How about we leave the lies and hyperbole to Trump and Cruz?

[cali]

13. These are facts. Period.

[TeddyR]

17. A lot of people on World Net Daily

Think it is a "fact" that President Obama is both Kenyan and Muslim

[merrily]

83. Irrelevant.

[ReasonableToo]

26. Democracy now interview last year...

An independent and well-respected news source: http://m.democracynow.org/stories/15391

[wouldsman]

71. TeddyR, I respectfully ask

that you read the article posted in OP, and check the many links before using the term "hysterical accusations".
Part of a campaign is introducing new ideas, thoughts and information to the masses. I had always had reservations about the coup in Honduras that Hillary supported, but I must say that right now I am just sick to my stomach about the details that I have learned about what MY countries role was in the destruction of a Democracy and the support of a Military backed dictator.
Just sick to my stomach. Murder capital of the world.
Please read this and check links, and to fellow Democrats who support this, look deep inside and ask yourself, "what have we become"?

And TeddyR, I promise out of respect to your statement "ashamed to be a Dem.", I will take a moment of silence and seriously consider your point of view also.

Respectfully.

[merrily]

86. Candidly, I personally doubt that very much, but it's irrelevant anyway.

Your posts speak for themselves, regardless of whom you support or claim to support. Either your posts are valid or they're not. Either they stand on their own or they don't.

Bernie Butter has been spread around this board far too much.

[Dragonfli]

10. I wish I could blow sunshine up your as, but this is true and well documented

Hillary was SOS at the time and the OP's facts are unfortunately accurate.
Her tenure as SOS was not what I would call "good for the people of central America". In fact, I would say she caused far more damage than good.

Don't believe me, I beg you, instead do the research so you know the unfortunate truth for yourself.

[merrily]

87. Anything at all to say about the contents of the OP? Anything?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. And, some people seem to think that her much touted "foreign policy experience" is a good thing.

Which is kinda like touting John Dillinger's banking experience.

[John Poet]

30. Hey, experience counts

when you're trying to decide where to start the next war...

[left-of-center2012]

8. Remind me how HRC rates for honesty & integrity?

[CorporatistNation]

24. One More Time...

[jfern]

67. 30% yes 67% no

[Arazi]

9. She is drenched in blood

wake up HRC supporters!

This disgusting blood drenched candidate will only further destroy millions of lives with her warmongering

[TeddyR]

14. This is what I was referencing a few minutes ago

When I mentioned we should tone back the the rhetoric. Hillary Clinton is "drenched in blood"? Really? You think the former Secretary of State and senator is "drenched in blood"? The person who might be the next president of the United States is "drenched in blood"? Hitler was "drenched in blood," or Stalin or the Khmer Rouge. But Hillary Clinton?

[Arazi]

21. Yes, she voted for the Iraq War - how many killed and maimed there?

Millions.

She voted for and supports the use of cluster bombs - care to speculate how many shredded children there are from those?

She supported the Libya and Syria messes which are the very definition of drenched in blood

The Honduran coup she maneuvered is also resulting in near civil war there - exactly how many people she's responsible for murdering because of her actions is still up in the air but I'm sure it's not small.

Sorry but "drenched in blood" is 110% accurate imo. Exactly what language would you use knowing (the small fraction of) what we know?

I'm open to suggestions.

[TeddyR]

31. Drenched in blood is hyperbole

Meant to make a point without factual support. Her voting record is similar to that of many other Dems.

[truebluegreen]

37. Her voting record is the problem with the Party,

and their anointed candidate.

Just because others do it doesn't make it right, even with a "D" after their names.

BTW, how many people have to die because of congressionally-voted-on policies for the term "drenched in blood" not to be hyperbole?

[merrily]

80. And that makes it right? Are those other Dems running for POTUS/CIC now?

This a combination of the "Tommy did it, too" defense, ineffective even when used for 3-year olds, and a false equivalency.

[merrily]

85. So? Hyperbole is a perfectly legitimate way to express oneself.

People use terms like "blood on their hands" all the time without being literal.

[Eko]

69. So now

She caused the Honduran coup? Is anyone who voted for ending the Gaddafi regime drenched in blood? I believe Sanders did.

[John Poet]

88. You STILL haven't read the article, have you?

The right-wing coup in Honduras, to which Hillary and President Obama acquiesced, resulted in the purging (murders) of at least several hundred people in Honduras who were considered a "threat" to the "new government".

Isn't that "drenched in blood" enough? How many murders does it take?


Frankly, if I'd have been aware of this fascist coup in Honduras, and how the US practically all alone, with President Obama's consent, was responsible for its long-term success,
I would have supported primarying Obama in 2012, instead of arguing against it!

We went through a very long period of this country supporting fascist regimes and/or movements in Central and South America, culminating in the 1980s support for right-wing Nicaraguans attempting to overthrow the Sandinistas, and support for the fascist government in Guatamala which murdered thousands of people, particularly indigenous people in Guatamala while our government denied everything about it.

I hoped to never hear of such things happening again, PARTICULARLY under a Democratic administration! Usually, it's the Republicans giving such support for fascists (and if you read the article, it was Mitch McConnell and Jim DeMint who were four-square in support for the new Honduran fascists). I would never have expected the president, supposedly liberal, for whom I voted twice, to allow this bullshit to stand on our own doorstep! And it seems to be a Democratic Secretary of State, HILLARY, who was pulling the strings to allow this fascist coup to stand (who now employ Bill Clinton's former counsel as their chief lobbyist, which can hardly be a coincidence either). This is simply unconscionable and corrupt to the very core.

If the Democratic party establishment insists on nominating this "person" (and I use that term loosely) as its presidential nominee, I don't think I can support it. I prefer to keep the blood OFF of my hands, and my ballots clean.

[Carolina]

114. Excellent post, excellent points, K&R

I totally agree.

So much for HRC's claim of a long record of fighting for people. She's horrid, but TPTB love her because she's a corporatist MIC ally.

[Onlooker]

27. LOL

If the left was so upset about this matter, where the hell were they when it happened? Indeed, Sanders supporters and Sanders are as drenched in blood as Hillary, I suppose, for not speaking out about this sooner. Do some yoga. You'll feel better.

[VulgarPoet]

32. In middle school, wondering why my father was in the fucking sand pit. n/t.

[Onlooker]

39. Well, that's awful ...

... and I'm sorry to hear that, but the reality is that the Honduran coup was by and large largely ignored. A search for Bernie Sanders and Honduran coup between 2009 and 2012 turns up nothing. Now, it's simply being exploited politically and will probably be forgotten when the primary season is over. There's a bigger issue here. Sanders is basically a liberal nationalist -- and has never concerned himself much with foreign affairs.

[rpannier]

60. It was covered here a lot

Besides, it is irrelevant what people here were doing or saying
She was Sec of State at the time and she seemed unwilling to leverage the Honduran coup into returning democracy
To try and claim that Sanders and his supporters bear some culpability assumes that they knew it was going on - as you even said, it was not wisely covered and second they had more leverage with the administration than their own Secretary of State
There are lots of things that happen we are unaware of. It does not make it exploiting anything because you find out information or more details about it and express a more intelligent opinion

[merrily]

92. First, you may want to look up the definition of "nationalist." Second, Sanders concerned himself

with foreign affairs sufficiently to know what was correct and what wasn't.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nationalist

[Arazi]

34. I was protesting the Iraq War, body and soul. You?

I went to DC protesting SOS Clinton's actions in person. You?

I LOVE yoga! Namaste.

[Onlooker]

48. I protested the Iraq war too

But, to my knowledge opposition to the Honduran coup was covered by a few progressive outlets, but never really attracted a strong political following. I think I'm primarily aware of it because it's being exploited as a way to attack Hillary. I couldn't find one statement of Sanders condemning the coup anywhere near when it happened.

[Arazi]

51. Stop.Assuming.You.Know.Us.Then

That makes DU suck

[merrily]

89. Your inability to find a Senator's condemnation of the Executive Branch's actions vs. what

the Executive Branch actually did.

Wow!

[Onlooker]

103. My point is that some Sanders supporters are merely exploiting tragedy for political ends n/t

Why suddenly pretend you care about the Honduran coup? Strikes me as sleazy politics. Sanders to my knowledge still hasn't condemned it. What if he doesn't?

[merrily]

104. Political ends? Sleazy politics? Huh? Are Sanders supporters who post on DU running for office now?

Geebus. People say anything anymore.

Why suddenly pretend you care about the Honduran coup?

Huh" Where did I do that? Please be specific. Direct quote specific.

And, as long as we are throwing around the p word so carelessly, why are you suddenly pretending you care about what I care about?

It's the Presidential primary section of a a political discussion board. Hillary's running for President. Anything relevant to that is open for discussion.

Why are you suddenly pretending that a Senator's alleged failure to condemn something is so frickin' meaningful?

Why are you posting on a thread when you apparently have not one thing to say that is on topic with the OP?

[Onlooker]

106. Well, don't know why you're participating in this thread then ...

... but at least you admit you don't care about the Honduran coup! (Strange admission, though.)

Yes, I agree anything is relevant. That includes my response.

His failure to condemn something at the time suggests he doesn't occupy the high ground anymore than Hillary does. Hillary and Obama had to make a decision, and they made the wrong decision. Perhaps if they were both Senators, they would have done as Bernie did -- nothing. A lot of Hillary's choices were made because she was in a position of power and compelled to make choices. Bernie, being from an essentially all-white, liberal state, rarely had to make difficult choices, except on gun control, and we see that was certainly an area where he compromised.

In both the Obama and Clinton presidencies, compromise was the order of the day because the Republicans controlled Congress.

[merrily]

107. So, no answer to my question? You just made up up sh*t about an admission instead of either

answering it or admitting you pulled pretending to care about Hondouras out of your ear for no reason?

I don't have the patience for that kind of posting game. It's not a substitute for making sense; and I pity the fool it impresses, if anyone. Try to stay away from massive logical fallacies in the future.

[Onlooker]

109. The thread is in the primary section of DU

It's criticizing Hillary for her support of the Honduran coup. She was wrong, but my point is that this tragedy is merely being exploited for political ends, which is sleazy. Yes, it's a political season, and Sanders supporters have as much right to exploit information as Hillary supporters. Pointing out that Hillary supported the Honduran coup, the left was basically quiet on the matter, and Sanders still hasn't said anything, I think pretty much answers your question. In fact, I answered your question even before you asked. You seem confused. Perhaps it's your bedtime?

[merrily]

110. Please see my prior post. You've obviously not understood it.

[ucrdem]

36. Sanders voted to pay for the Iraq war on the same day he voted against the AUMF:

On October 10, 2002, he voted against the Iraq AUMF, but on the same day, he voted to fund the Defense Department in fiscal year 2003:

https://votesmart.org/bill/3083/12790/27110/use-of-military-force-against-iraq#.VYZ9uba1qSo
https://votesmart.org/bill/3122/8511/27110/department-of-defense-appropriations-fiscal-year-2003#.VYZ8NLa1qSo

I guess he was for it before he was against it?

[truebluegreen]

43. Sure, voting for the Defense Dept.

is totally the same as voting for a war.

Do you even read what you write?

Hills, of course, voted for both.

[cherokeeprogressive]

70. Since he couldn't stop Hillary and the rest of the warmongers...

He voted they should have proper equipment.

Seriously out of date meme, bruh.

[ucrdem]

76. As out of date as Hillary's vote and the EXACT same rationale applies

With the added virtue of her vote being honest and willing to take the rap, which she has, many times over for the whole freaking war, that is when it's not being blamed on Barack.

[merrily]

90. Oh, come on. After people voted to put troops in harm's way, he voted to feed them while they were

in harm's way. Surely, you can see the difference between those two things?

Oh, and since he voted against the war before voting to support the troops while they were in harm's way, you even used the cliche you copied from DIck Cheney incorrectly.

[ucrdem]

98. Cynical political posturing any way you slice it.

If he really objected to the war he should have stood on his much-touted principles and not voted to fund it. If he supported it as he appears to have he should have shouldered his share of blame and publicly voted yes on the AUMF. Is counting votes unusual? No. Happens in every city council meeting where there's a recording secretary or a camera. But it's every bit as cynical as Hillary's vote if you insist on going there.

[merrily]

99. Absolutely not. The only cynicism is your cynical desire to fault him, no matter what.

I have little doubt if he had voted against funding food, etc. for the troops, you'd be faulting him for that as well.

If you recall, Cheney's remark was precisely because Kerry had voted to put troops in harm's way and then voted against funding.

There was no political posturing in voting CORRECTLY against the invasion. At the time, that was the politically courageous vote.

In any event, the focus should be on who voted WRONGLY to put troops in harm's way, not who voted to feed them while they were getting shot at, killed and injured.

This sort of deflection attempt is shameful and disgusting.

[ucrdem]

100. Then neither is Hill's. To apply different standards is pure solipsism. nt

[merrily]

101. She herself said her vote was a mistake. I am not applying different standards.

Her vote--and advocacy--for the invasion was a mistake, period. Once people voted the way she did, feeding the troops that she sent into harm's way was decent, not a mistake. I have no idea why you can't grasp that.

[ucrdem]

11. After looking into the utterly bogus "Clintons-forked-Haiti" meme launched last week

and finding it to be bullshit I'm not even going to bother with this one. But go ahead and splash it around if it makes you feel righteous.

And for the record it was Bush I and II that abducted Aristide, on two separate occasions, and both times he returned to Haiti on Clinton's watch, the first time in triumph backed by the full weight of the US Congress led by a newly-elected Democrat from a place called Hope:

Jean-Bertrand Aristide meets Bill Clinton in the Oval Office, October 14, 1994.

[cali]

15. This is well documented

[ucrdem]

18. So is Alex Jones.

Impeccably.

[cali]

20. What bullshit. So lame. Hill supporters can justify or deny anything

Even her own words.

[malletgirl02]

19. You are wasting your time

Hillary Clinton supporters won't admit her foreign policy disasters.

[Warren DeMontague]

16. Wow, an actual story about an actual issue that affected the actual lives of actual oppressed people

As opposed to the endless stream of virtue signalling bullshit that seems to be all some here seem to want to talk about.

[asuhornets]

23. Your ..

desperation is oozing out of your pores.

[cali]

28. Jaysus. You win the prize for lamest comment, hands down

Hillary supporters can never face the facts. It's quite remarkable, hornet.

And sorry, dear hornet, but whether you think I'm desperate or not, doesn't change the facts about your candidate.

[Tarc]

25. "...refused to commit the United States to restoration..."

In other words, Clinton declined to blindly jump into a sovereign nation's internal affairs and preferred to gather facts and pursue diplomatic and non-violent options?

This a sad state of affairs, when Camp Sanders is so badly flailing that they are now screaming at Clinton because she didn't engage in "cowboy diplomacy" 6 years ago. You guys are channeling Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bolton to a T...

[CentralMass]

33. Her reaction after Gaddafi was killed on live tv.

[Tarc]

35. Works for me

[truebluegreen]

45. Ugh.

[CentralMass]

46. Nasty individual for sure but not exactly the right tone for a SOS.

Particularly considering that the effort was an I'll conceived cluster f..k that destabilized the country and opened the countries massive cache of weapons to flood the region.

[WillyT]

38. K & R !!!

[arcane1]

40. This is the money-quote, right here:

"Much of our assistance is conditioned on the integrity of the democratic system. But if we were able to get to a status quo that returned to the rule of law and constitutional order within a relatively short period of time, I think that would be a good outcome. "


In other words, a dictatorship is just fine as long as the "markets" are secured and running. Just fine as long as there is "constitutional order", otherwise known as "any legal body that can sign contracts to privatize Honduran industry".

Same old shit.

[AzDar]

42. Blood on her hands. Dirty money in her pockets.

[Jitter65]

44. I believe the SOS takes policy orders from the President...but nice try. nt

[jalan48]

47. Looks like Hillary has been groomed to be the perfect little MIC Puppet.

[HillareeeHillaraah]

49. This has been thoroughly debunked...

In an post at the Daily Kos. http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2015/10/25/1438997/-It-Takes-Fortitude-and-Hillary-Clinton-Has-It-The-Honduras-Edition

The 'leftist' president of Honduras was in reality a very wealthy cattle rancher who didn't want to leave the presidency after his fours years were up so he tried to change the constitution.

From Mark Lippman's article:
The President of Honduras serves a 4-year term and is constitutionally prohibited from re-election. When Zelaya reached the last year of his term, he decided to tinker with the Honduran Constitution. There was reason to believe he intended to remain in office indefinitely.
The US Government Accountability Office compiled a timeline of events that led to the coup:

In October2008, Zelaya proposed postponing the presidential primary elections scheduled for November 16, 2008. (The general election was scheduled to be held a year later in November 2009.)
In January 2009, Zelaya tried to change the composition of the Honduran Supreme Court. Both proposals were strongly opposed by the Honduran National Congress.
In March 2009, Zelaya proposed a referendum asking Hondurans whether to call a constituent assembly for a new Constitution.
In May 2009, after the Honduran courts ruled against the referendum, Zelaya ordered the military to provide the necessary logistics and support to carry it out anyway.
In June 2009, the Honduran Supreme Court ordered the military to desist from supporting the referendum as it would have been unconstitutional. The top military leaders also refused to carry out the logistical support Zelaya ordered and they resigned with the Defense Minister.

Zelaya defied the National Congress, the military, and the Supreme Court and decided to go ahead with the referendum. In the early morning hours of June 28, he was roused from his bed and flown to Costa Rica while he was still in his PJs. The Constitution doesn't have provisions for impeachment. The National Congress simply elected its Speaker, a member of Zelaya's party, to lead the de facto government until the election in November.


It's worth clicking on the link to read more detail and to read just how well then SOS Clinton navigated the situation. I wonder what Bernie would have done?

[IDemo]

52. That was a long and thoroughly damning read

Positively Kissingerian, in fact. Bookmarked.

[GoneFishin]

54. Her eagerness to meddle in other countries to help large corporations steal their oil and other

resources is despicable.

[malletgirl02]

55. Link about the Honduran Coup from Salon

In case people have a problem with your source here is a link about Hillary Clinton's involvement in the Honduran coup from Salon.com

http://www.salon.com/2015/06/08/exclusive_hillary_clinton_sold_out_honduras_lanny_davis_corporate_cash_and_the_real_story_about_the_death_of_a_latin_america_democracy/

[HillareeeHillaraah]

57. Read the Salon link (above)...

But read the Daily Kos link as well....just be a little bit curious...and then make up your mind about the Honduran story.

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2015/10/25/1438997/-It-Takes-Fortitude-and-Hillary-Clinton-Has-It-The-Honduras-Edition

[Jester Messiah]

56. No wonder she's all buddy - buddy with Kissinger.

Always, there are two.

[Cheese Sandwich]

58. Hillary's foreign policy straight up sucks.

[Uncle Joe]

59. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, cali.

[davidthegnome]

61. There are several versions of this story.

I am wondering... which one is the truth. Who has done their fact checking and how the heck do we know the difference? Some accuse Zelaya of wanting to create a dictatorship, others praise him as a great progressive. I certainly suspect foul play though. It seems the heritage foundation played quite a large part in praising the coup and the new supposedly democratic election as a "conservative awakening". Any time the Heritage Foundation is involved at all, I suspect foul play.

There's a lot to sift through here, looks like I've got some research to do.

[Eko]

62. I am amazed

at how much power the SOS has, they can apparently do what they want, even present their own policies and not that of the Presidents. Its like a super President, since obviously she was not following what the President wanted but was doing what she wanted. Truly amazing. The author of that article also says such jems as "Obama’s coup in Ukraine", has articles titled "Shouldn’t the U.S. Compensate Syria for Invading?" and "No Matter How Well Russian Media Expose Western Lies …" "Is the New U.S. ‘Law of War Manual’ Actually ‘Hitlerian’?". Great stuff.

[lovemydog]

63. How does this show that Hillary Clinton played a sickening role

in the right wing Honduran coup?

[DeGreg]

65. Wanna really get sick....

Do some research on The Clinton Foundation and it "helped" in the aftermath of the Haiti disaster.

[FairWinds]

68. Geez Me. Eko, but that is what empires do . .

I know it's hard for average folks to keep up with,
but I used to keep up for a living.

Those headlines are true.

And those events are substantially on Sec. Clinton.

It especially galls me when she brags about her role in
creating the disaster that is Libya.

[Eko]

72. Were you replying to me?

[FairWinds]

73. Yes, I was replying to you.

What are you suggesting, that it's all so complex that
no one is responsible?

As a former spear carrier for the empire, I'm saying that
you are mistaken.

I'm responsible for everything that I have done, and so are you.

And so is Sec. Clinton.

I'm a Vietnam vet, and I am here to tell you that the 1960's
anti-war protesters were 100% right.

I've also traveled and researched in Honduras, and we had a
Honduran exchange students in our home for a year.

[Eko]

74. 1st

I am suggesting that you should use the "reply to post" on my comment instead of the "reply to thread" on bottom of page like you just did.

[Eko]

77. 3rd

I am not suggesting but saying that the President is responsible for the policies his administration puts forth unless there is evidence for it not being. As far as being responsible for everything that someone does, that is a very cut and dried view of the world and easily disproved.

[Eko]

75. 2nd

I keep up pretty well thank you and I would never let anyone convince me of anything because they say so like you tried. The SOS presents the policies of the President. As she was not fired I'd say she presented the Presidents policies well enough, so that lends credence that they were his policies. If you have any evidence whatsoever that they were not the Presidents policies but Clintons then you are welcome to present them. As of yet none has been presented.

[FairWinds]

81. Well of course, the Prez is responsible for Honduras too . .

He deserves a pass no more than HRC.

And as for us not being responsible for our actions . .

"As far as being responsible for everything that someone does, that is a very cut and dried view of the world and easily disproved."

Since it is so easy, how about if you prove that folks are not responsible for what they do?

Ever been to Honduras? Soto Cano? San Pedro Sula?

[Eko]

84. Ok.

If I got to a store and someone set the back of the building to explode when the door opens am I responsible for it when I open the door?

[FairWinds]

93. Actually that is a pretty good example . .

(but of course not proof).

Hillary (and the USG) knew the door of Honduras was rigged to blow up
when the coup occurred.

They opened that door anyway -

as nearly as I can tell because they just do
not care very much about that country or its people.

[Eko]

94. Thanks. And it seems

she did exactly what the article says she didn't,

"September 3, 2009
State Department

Clinton met with Zelaya again. After the meeting she announced a renewal of the diplomatic effort with additional pressure applied on the coup government by terminating non-humanitarian aid to Honduras."
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2015/10/25/1438997/-It-Takes-Fortitude-and-Hillary-Clinton-Has-It-The-Honduras-Edition

If you go here you can see the entire timeline. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d129r.pdf#page=5

[FairWinds]

95. Dueling Sources . .

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/09/24/hillary-clinton-emails-and-honduras-coup

[Eko]

97. I dont get it.

What did she do wrong? Not canceling aid? She did that just not as soon as some people wanted. They did it in just over 30 days,,, that is too long to assess and figure it out? They didnt choose a moderator that was more favorable to the ousted president? What are you suggesting that she should play favorites in another nations government? They had talks with the Honduran congress as well? Once again should she play favorites? What did she do wrong?

[FairWinds]

105. I am thinking you have never been to Honduras . .

please make a visit, and you will see the results of
US bullying.

There are a host of policies that the USG could adopt to
help the people of Honduras.

Just for openers, HRC should withdraw all US military from the country.

[Eko]

111. We are talking about what Clinton did specifically

and Clinton has no power to withdraw the military from any country, so what you ask is impossible. You keep acting like your knowledge of Honduras trumps the use of logic, it doesn't.

[dchill]

78. Number 9? Number 9?

Number 9?

Number 9?

(John Lennon, Revolution #9)

[SidDithers]

79. Globalresearch...

Sid

[BreakfastClub]

82. LOL this is ridiculous. Now she's to blame for a rightwing coup! LOL LOL nt

[merrily]

91. No, only for her own actions around the coup. But, you knew that.

[Eko]

96. The really funny thing

is that the article you posted was written February 22, 2016, on sept 3rd 2009 the state department terminated the assistance programs that the article make look damming of Clinton, yet nowhere in the article does it state this. In the article waaaaayyyyy down it does say on 5 March 2010, “Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.....announcing that the Obama administration will restore aid that had been previously suspended.” Why did it leave out that fact? Because its a biased hit piece and uses innuendo, falsehoods and leaving out information to paint a very specific picture. Here is a timeline from the state, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d129r.pdf#page=5

[burrowowl]

102. K&R!!!!!!

[vdogg]

108. Must not criticize the Sanders!

He is perfect! He does no wrong! Hillary Evil 1!1!111!!! Infantile bullshit...

[cali]

112. Poor deflection. Of course hill fans got jack.

[Bad Dog]

113. Not just Clinton, the whole Obama administration was up to its neck in this.

Stand up to the empire and face the consequences. America tried to protect the interests of American business over the people, and is doing to Venezuela exactly what it tried to do to Cuba.

Now however the word from every involved agency in Washington is that Zelaya should be allowed back on the strict condition that he does not upset friends of the US, the Republican party and the telecommunication companies in DC with his state-owned corporation Hondutel. This is ridiculous for two reasons. The first is to do with simple justice – Zelaya won a victory in clean elections. The second has to do with the US president's image in the western hemisphere. The last eight years in the Middle East and the unfolding debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan should have taught the US and the British governments that if they attempt the impossible – such as trying to invade and occupy countries on spurious grounds and with recourse to kidnapping and torture – they will get egg all over themselves. And egg stains never look good on presidential or prime ministerial lounge suits – much less on military uniforms, gold braid and medal ribbons.

Yet Obama is presiding over a group of politicians and civil servants who appear to think that they have it in their power to convince Latin Americans and the world that a Honduran coup d'etat is not a coup d'etat and that a dictatorship which imposes curfews and gags the media as part of a drive to help the interests of foreign businessmen is a democratic government.

The leaders of all the members of the Organisation of American States have condemned Micheletti, as have the UN and the EU. If Clinton and the survivors of the wilder rightwing fringes of the Bush administration to whom she is bizarrely allied have their way US reaction to the impostor will be ineffectual.

Instead of treating the impostor government with all the weapons that the US has used against successive Cuban governments and against the elected government of Venezuela, Micheletti has been asked to play along with president Oscar Arias of Costa Rica. Arias has treated him as an equal, which he isn't, rather than an aspiring Pinochet, which the deaths and injuries his police and troops on the border have inflicted on Zelaya's supporters demonstrate that he is.

And that – as Clinton knows better than anyone – will be very damaging for Obama. The claims made by Hugo Chávez of Venezuela and Fidel Castro of Cuba that nothing much has changed between the Bush era and the Obama era will have been vindicated. As Zelaya is denied his rights, the stronger Chávez and Castro become, along with President Lula of Brazil, the giant of South America. The Brazilian has said that anything short of Zelaya's restoration to office would be unthinkable.

Chávez meanwhile has sent his foreign minister Nicolas Maduro to accompany Zelaya to the Nicaraguan-Honduran border, thus clearly identifying himself with the good guy. The shots of Zelaya and Maduro at the sharp end of the conflict will have done much to counteract the careful campaign of slander and denigration of Chávez that the State Department has mounted – not without success in the US and even European media – since the failure of its own coup d'etat against the Venezuelan leader in 2002.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/jul/29/honduras-coup-barack-obama

I'd like to think a Sanders administration would be different, but if the comments on DU about the democratically elected government in Venezuela are anything to go by I wouldn't bank on it.

[Bryce Butler]

115. Someone lost alerting privileges for 24 hours...

An alert was sent on the following post:

Hillary's sickening role in the right wing Honduran coup
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511313181

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Pure, unadulterated mud slinging from the worst of the Berniebros.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Feb 23, 2016, 08:06 AM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: mud-slinging, yes... and a bad source quoted, but not disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate for a discussion site.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Alerter complains of mudslinging but has no problem throwing insults right back.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The alert uses the term Berniebros while claiming the high road, that in itself is ironic.
The OP is well documented and the source is verified, Clinton judgement is exposed
for the primary discussion which we are currently in. The purpose of the OP is to
discuss her foreign policy and its negative consequences. If one finds the facts to be false
they can attempt to refute it. LEAVE IT.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Oh FFS! What a silly alert! LEAVE IT! I wish I could alert on the alerter for using the term 'Berniebros'!
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Execrable but not hideable...

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[arcane1]

116. Their fear is starting to make them irrational n/t