I read Mary O’Grady’s piece, in the WSJ with great interest, yesterday, because I was hoping it would shed more light on why the Obama administration took the side of the wannabe dictator for life, Zelaya, and regional commie tyrants, Castro, Chavez and Ortega over the pro-Democracy, pro-American government of Honduras. The cables didn’t shed new light, really. But they do confirm our worst fears about what happened.
The cables reveal that outgoing Ambassador, Charles Ford informed the Obama State Dept. of the dangerous and anti-Democratic nature of Zelaya:
Although Mr. Zelaya can be “gracious and charming,” wrote Mr. Ford, “there also exists a sinister Zelaya, surrounded by a few close advisors with ties to both Venezuela and Cuba and organized crime.” He eerily observed what Zelaya opponents would repeatedly allege privately in the year to come: “Due to his close association with persons believed to be involved with international organized crime,” the president could not be trusted. “I am unable to brief Zelaya on sensitive law enforcement and counter-narcotics actions due [to] my concern that this would put the lives of U.S. officials in jeopardy.”
The insightful diplomat also recognized Mr. Zelaya’s disdain for other institutions. He “resents the very existence of the Congress, the Attorney General and Supreme Court.” That resentment rose to the surface in June 2009 when the Supreme Court ruled that a referendum on his re-election was unconstitutional. Mr. Zelaya responded by leading a mob to break into a military installation where the ballots for his initiative were being stored.
Hondurans were appalled. The Supreme Court issued an arrest warrant, the military deported him, and Congress voted to remove him from office.
Another cable has Ford explicitly telling the Obama administration that Zelaya is not a friend:
10. (S) I have found Zelaya’s real views of the United States hidden not too very deeply below the surface. In a word, he is not a friend. His views are shaped not by ideology or personal ambitions but by an old-fashioned nationalism where he holds the United States accountable for Honduras, current state of poverty and dependency. Zelaya,s public position against the Contra War and against the establishment of Joint Task Force Bravo at Soto Cano Air.
The leaks also finally disclose the State Dept’s warped legal analysis of the situation, (written by transnationalist, Harold Koh), which they had refused to release throughout the crisis. The reason being, Koh’s analysis was laughably flimsy, illogical and bizarre.
So what’s the real reason why Obama chose to side with our enemies, instead of our friends in the Honduran government? Why did they cut off aid to the impoverished nation, revoke visas, and threaten not to recognize their upcoming election?
As Selwyn Duke had noted last year in The American Thinker, the US was becoming an “evil empire” under Obama:
It’s not just that he has adopted a policy that was unthinkable for most of America’s history. There is something far more striking, far more telling and far more alarming: in the current Honduran situation, Zelaya is precisely the man the Soviet Union — that evil empire — would have sided with.
Now I want you to let that sink in for a moment . . . .
This reality merely illustrates the obvious in an emotionally gripping way. While Reagan opposed Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega by funding his anti-communist opponents, Obama sides with a reinvented Ortega in supporting Zelaya. In doing so, he also lines up with unrepentant communists, either in name or spirit, such as Chavez and Fidel Castro. Fine company you keep there, Mr. Obama.
O’Grady soft-pedals the answer, here:
Honduras offered a bonding opportunity. Mr. Zelaya was a protégé of Mr. Chávez. Standing up for him as democratically elected was a way to score points with Latin America’s hard left.
I think that was a nice way of saying what we already knew: “birds of a feather, flock together”:
Why would it surprise anyone that a man of the hard left would stand up for Latin America’s hard left?