By: Mark Weisbrot
Hard choices: Hillary Clinton admits role in Honduran coup aftermath
Clinton’s embrace of far-right narrative on Latin America is part of electoral strategy
September 29, 2014 6:00AM ET
by Mark Weisbrot – @MarkWeisbrot
In a recent op-ed in The Washington Post, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton used a review of Henry Kissinger’s latest book, “World Order,” to lay out her vision for “sustaining America’s leadership in the world.” In the midst of numerous global crises, she called for return to a foreign policy with purpose, strategy and pragmatism. She also highlighted some of these policy choices in her memoir “Hard Choices” and how they contributed to the challenges that Barack Obama’s administration now faces.
The chapter on Latin America, particularly the section on Honduras, a major source of the child migrants currently pouring into the United States, has gone largely unnoticed. In letters to Clinton and her successor, John Kerry, more than 100 members of Congress have repeatedly warned about the deteriorating security situation in Honduras, especially since the 2009 military coup that ousted the country’s democratically elected President Manuel Zelaya. As Honduran scholar Dana Frank points out in Foreign Affairs, the U.S.-backed post-coup government “rewarded coup loyalists with top ministries,” opening the door for further “violence and anarchy.”
The homicide rate in Honduras, already the highest in the world, increased by 50 percent from 2008 to 2011; political repression, the murder of opposition political candidates, peasant organizers and LGBT activists increased and continue to this day. Femicides skyrocketed. The violence and insecurity were exacerbated by a generalized institutional collapse. Drug-related violence has worsened amid allegations of rampant corruption in Honduras’ police and government. While the gangs are responsible for much of the violence, Honduran security forces have engaged in a wave of killings and other human rights crimes with impunity.
Despite this, however, both under Clinton and Kerry, the State Department’s response to the violence and military and police impunity has largely been silence, along with continued U.S. aid to Honduran security forces. In “Hard Choices,” Clinton describes her role in the aftermath of the coup that brought about this dire situation. Her firsthand account is significant both for the confession of an important truth and for a crucial false testimony.
First, the confession: Clinton admits that she used the power of her office to make sure that Zelaya would not return to office. “In the subsequent days [after the coup] I spoke with my counterparts around the hemisphere, including Secretary [Patricia] Espinosa in Mexico,” Clinton writes. “We strategized on a plan to restore order in Honduras and ensure that free and fair elections could be held quickly and legitimately, which would render the question of Zelaya moot.”
This may not come as a surprise to those who followed the post-coup drama closely. (See my commentary from 2009 on Washington’s role in helping the coup succeed here, here and here.) But the official storyline, which was dutifully accepted by most in the media, was that the Obama administration actually opposed the coup and wanted Zelaya to return to office.
“Clinton’s position on Latin America in her bid for the presidency is another example of how the far right exerts disproportionate influence on US foreign policy in the hemisphere.”
The question of Zelaya was anything but moot. Latin American leaders, the United Nations General Assembly and other international bodies vehemently demanded his immediate return to office. Clinton’s defiant and anti-democratic stance spurred a downward slide in U.S. relations with several Latin American countries, which has continued. It eroded the warm welcome and benefit of the doubt that even the leftist governments in region offered to the newly installed Obama administration a few months earlier.
Clinton’s false testimony is even more revealing. She reports that Zelaya was arrested amid “fears that he was preparing to circumvent the constitution and extend his term in office.” This is simply not true. As Clinton must know, when Zelaya was kidnapped by the military and flown out of the country in his pajamas on June 28, 2009, he was trying to put a consultative, nonbinding poll on the ballot to ask voters whether they wanted to have a real referendum on reforming the constitution during the scheduled election in November. It is important to note that Zelaya was not eligible to run in that election. Even if he had gotten everything he wanted, it was impossible for Zelaya to extend his term in office. But this did not stop the extreme right in Honduras and the United States from using false charges of tampering with the constitution to justify the coup.
In addition to her bold confession and Clinton’s embrace of the far-right narrative in the Honduran episode, the Latin America chapter is considerably to the right of even her own record on the region as secretary of state. This appears to be a political calculation. There is little risk of losing votes for admitting her role in making most of the hemisphere’s governments disgusted with the United States. On the other side of the equation, there are influential interest groups and significant campaign money to be raised from the right-wing Latin American lobby, including Floridian Cuban-Americans and their political fundraisers.
Like the 54-year-old failed embargo against Cuba, Clinton’s position on Latin America in her bid for the presidency is another example of how the far right exerts disproportionate influence on U.S. foreign policy in the hemisphere.
Mark Weisbrot is a co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, D.C., and the president of Just Foreign Policy. He is also the author of the forthcoming book “Failed: What the ‘Experts’ Got Wrong About the Global Economy.”
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera America’s editorial policy.
Share This:
Related News
PlacesAmericas, Honduras TopicsElection 2016, Foreign policy, Politics, State Department
Editor’s Picks
As thousands enter Europe, EU flails in anti-smuggling efforts
As thousands enter Europe, EU flails in anti-smuggling efforts
Gone Girl
Gone Girl
Small businesses for Trump: ‘Just get somebody different in there’
Small businesses for Trump: ‘Just get somebody different in there’
New Orleanians see tourism bias in post-Katrina public transport
New Orleanians see tourism bias in post-Katrina public transport
Six hot media startups to watch in 2016
Opinion: Six hot media startups to watch in 2016
More From Mark Weisbrot
Opinion: Sanders’ surge marks public outrage with rigged system
Opinion: For US in Haiti, black votes don’t matter
Opinion: Democratic presidential primary gets real
Opinions
The way news should be done
by David Cay Johnston
Al Jazeera America allowed me to ‘speak whatever must be said’
by Rafia Zakaria
Requiem for a media pioneer
by Lauren Carasik
We need labor journalism now more than ever
by Amy B. Dean
How the rich control policymaking
by Sean McElwee
Start the Conversation
Write a comment
67 Comments
Subscribe
RSS
119 days ago
Sandro Spano
This article, continuously, addresses the situation as a “coup.” But, Secretary Hillary Clinton makes it an effort to explain why the government actually stayed away from calling the situation a “coup,” and she explains why that was a difficult decision to make. So, I would suggest that we look at this situation by looking at the situation as it really was. Then make an argument whichever way.
Hillary Clinton explained that if the situation was going to call it s coup, the American government would have to cut all political and humanitarian the ties with Honduras, including stop sending food. Did I get it right? Whichever way, any discussion on Honduras and Secretary Clinton needs to be approached using what she said, and she said it was not a coup and gave the reasons why. I guess we can take that version and see what can transpire before we make accusations. That’s the law.
Reply
Share
+1
138 days ago
Davis Foulger
This article is a lie. There was no coup. There was a constitutional removal of a President. The change was initiated by the legislature and accepted as valid by the country’s Supreme Court, which ORDERED the Honduran military to arrest him. When he was arrested and deported a new President was sworn in according to the constitutional succession described in the Honduran constitution. The constitution specified the head of the legislature as the next in line. That’s who became President. The military never assumed power.
There was some confusion about that outside Honduras at first. That led Hillary, as Secretary of State, to make some hard choices, as outlined in her book. We did not overthrow the Honduran government. We did not invade Honduras. We simply suspended military aid (but not humanitarian aid) to Honduras while we discussed the situation with both the deposed President and the government of Honduras)/ Tjeu scheduled new elections and that ended the matter. The truth is that Hillary didn’t do a lot, but what she did do prevented a somewhat disorderly, but otherwise constitutional, change in government from staring people.
Reply
Share
3 replies
0
137 days ago
M.E. Baz
Two of the generals involved in the coup were trained here in the United States at the School of the Americas.
Reply
Share
1 reply
+1
128 days ago
Patrick Lewis
And that refutes his assertion how exactly?
Reply
Share
0
118 days ago
Daniel Shippee
The military illegally deported the Honduran president. I say “illegally” because of the article in the Honduran constitution forbidding the forced expatriation of a Honduran national. So, this was, in fact, the very definition of a coup.
Reply
Share
0
171 days ago
Heather Mccullough-Wood
@JohnKneeland. As president, Bernie Sanders would NEVER approve the support of another nation’s coup. He has spoken out against regime change many times. It DOES make a difference who holds the presidency. We CANNOT let someone like Hillary into office. That would basically guarantee more US-funded/supported wars and/or a US-Iran nuclear war, as she has publicly threatened.
Reply
Share
1 reply
+1
161 days ago
Jon Gindick
Same with Trump. Not into nation-building.
Reply
Share
0
201 days ago
John Ryden
we are not the world’s police force… look at Iraq, Afghanistan,Syria, Vietnam, Korea,… enough is enough stay out of it
Reply
Share
+4
208 days ago
John Kneeland
I think the U.S. policy on Latin America is despicable. But it’s been going on since the 1800s, and will continue after Clinton. Bernie Sanders cannot stop it. Awareness is good, but once you are president, you do not have the luxury of making a lot of speeches on what is important to you, as you do when a member of Congress. The pressures are great from all kinds of vested interests and various alliances. Talk is cheap.
Reply
Share
2 replies
+3
179 days ago
JonLocke70
Bernie will do more than Talk. Those who expect a miracle over night will of course be disappointed. He certainly will not support it. and has already lined out a platform that does not include the USA being every where
Reply
Share
0
175 days ago
Sam Jacobs
I disagree – its not impossible even as president. not if you successfully hijack a party and are a good public speaker….
Reply
Share
+1
218 days ago
modusjoe
Here’s the really sad thing – this won’t ever make it to the national conversation, because it’s not what you’re supposed to hear. You’re not supposed to think about the fact that we secretly overthrow foreign leaders all the time. So what if someone running for president has OPENLY ADMITTED to participating in a coup against a democratically elected leader? So what if someone running for president supports keeping an endless war going for eternity, a war that can’t EVER be won because it’s a war against an emotional state – the emotional state of fear, and there will literally ALWAYS be some new scary thing to point at and say that this is why we need to be engaged in our endless war on terror? Whoever the president becomes, the generals and shady intelligence czars will remain in control of our country. The military Junta that began with the assassination of John F. Kennedy is still alive and well, and therefore the president will remain the press secretary for the military party, the one party that exists in this country. We, the american people, are simply a military with a country, we aren’t a country with a military.
Reply
Share
1 reply
+5
179 days ago
Chris Jones
This hits the nail directly on the head. Excellent
Reply
Share
0
232 days ago
Jonathan Spector
This piece explains perfectly why Sanders has been an Independent all his life. He could not support or condone such policies. As president, I hope that his Secretaries follow his lead rather than go their own way.
Reply
Share
6 replies
+4
230 days ago
Kit Kimberly
So what did Sanders do to stop US involvement?
Why did he call Chavez, the most successful ACTUAL democratic socialist of the last 100 years, “a dead communist dictator”?
His disingenuity about this and about socialism– which has nothing to do with his proposals; they’re part of the social welfare state that exists only under capitalism– reveal that he’s just as much a panderer as any other candidate.
Reply
Share
3 replies
-1
226 days ago
Christina Jonsson
What could Bernie do to stop the US involvement in overthrowing Latin American leaders? The coups didn’t come up for a vote because they were secret operations involving the State department and the CIA, from what I understand. US citizens would not have condoned our country’s interfering with foreign governments if they were aware of it at the time. Neither would Senator Sanders.
Reply
Share
+5
221 days ago
Erica_Waddell
I agree that it could be better more recently, but Bernie spent much of the 1980s while Mayor of Burlington interested in opposing Reagan / Bush on their Nicaragua and El Salvador terrorism. Tom Brokaw did a news piece on him teasing him as a small town mayor who has a foreign policy, let alone a pro-leftist Central America policy and bringing in Noam Chomsky to talk at town halls. Bernie does regular spots on progressive radio shows as a Q&A commentator for callers, so I’d have to go back in the records to remember what he commented on Zelaya. I do recall the coup well on the aytime progressive talk shows, but the shows he was on I didn’t listen to regularly.
Reply
Share
0
179 days ago
JonLocke70
Because he did not support Chavez? the most successful? Have you been to Venezuela? Chavez still had overwhelming poverty, lack of resources., Chavez started problems with Columbia. If you are looking for socialist state to point to you missed Bolivia
He does not say anything about socialism . he has stated openly that his polices are democratic socialist.
Reply
Share
0
205 days ago
Sandi Elliott
My good friend has just finally succeeded in getting her grand daughter out of Honduras…it took over two years…stolen passports most likely sold on the black market etc. I was appalled at the first hand accounts I heard of how the danger had increased since the coup. It is very dangerous for little girls or boys there. Mia and her mother arrive at the Vancouver airport on the 6th of April. Clinton’s remarks during one of the debates about the child immigrants enraged me…’send them back’ Sanders ‘they are just children’ Clinton ‘send them back…we have to send a message’….she lost my vote in the general right there.
Reply
Share
+2
119 days ago
Sandro Spano
Dream on!
Reply
Share
0
234 days ago
John Worthington
And Hillary has the audacity to claim that she supports women’s rights and LGBT rights while she’s dismantling their rights and helping to mass murder them in other countries.
Reply
Share
4 replies
+8
208 days ago
John Kneeland
She has worked around the world for women’s rights. Honduras is not specifically about women’s rights. It is about a country being run by the military. Name another country where she’s worked on “dismantling” women’s rights.
Reply
Share
3 replies
+2
190 days ago
fem_financier
Saudi Arabia. She loves them
Reply
Share
0
179 days ago
JonLocke70
Honduras was run by a democratically elected president. Hillary involved the USA in backing the coup. Bernie’s plan is to make Saudi Arabia step up efforts in the middle east. not have the USA lead. Why elect Hillary while she will keep squandering money and lives in war. She has made this very clear
Reply
Share
+2
161 days ago
Jon Gindick
When she destabilizes countries like Libya, Honduras, when she condones illegal immigration, when she psychologically brutalizes Bills young victims, she is working against women for her own political gain. Trump, on the other hand, hires more women executives than men and has done more for women than either candidate has. Nor just making speeches but creating opportunities.
Reply
Share
0
239 days ago
Peggy James
Senator Bernie Sanders has all the qualities of a true leader! Bernie is fair, kind, honest, humble, energetic, authentic, intelligent, experienced, and passionate about helping all children succeed, thus building a stronger and brighter USA for future generations! Check out Bernie’s long record fighting for Americans on you tube. There is a big difference in democratic (by the people) socialist (for the people). In one way or the other, every single person born in this country has benefited from this country’s social programs. Public schools, post office, our roads, utilities, national parks (which saved the buffalo) social security, etc etc. are examples of democratic socialist programs. 170 of the world’s top economists say Bernie’s plan will save the middle class and help more people reach the middle class by creating a fair min wage which is long over due. The average family will save approx 5,000 a year on health costs. Vote smart! Vote Bernie!
Reply
Share
2 replies
+5
208 days ago
John Kneeland
You need to remember that the $5,000 savings claim is being made by Sanders. I don’t think he can back it up other than by theoretical calculations made by economist Gerald Friedman, on whose work he is basing his promises. Friedman’s work has been criticized by numerous economists, and not because they’re associated with Clinton. Sanders is not being forthright about the enormous costs associated with converting an economy based on private insurance to single payer, or about the objections there will be from doctors, hospitals, insurance company employees, etc. You simply can’t order them all to get in line. And Republicans will never accept it. It is more important at this stage to protect the Affordable Care Act. Sanders has already had to change his tune on taxes. He started off saying no one but the rich would see an increase in taxes. Now he wants to implement a tax increase on everyone. The governor of Vermont already tried to implement single payer and abandoned the idea, saying that the startup costs and level of disruption were too great. But Vermont has a small economy. In general, I think the way to introduce single payer is for individual states to implement versions of it. And I would like to know who are those 170 economists who think Sanders is on the right track, because I have not heard of them.
Reply
Share
1 reply
+2
179 days ago
JonLocke70
Everybody knows this. Everybody is aware. thank you Why should doctors and hospitals not support this?. They already have Medicare. They are already accepting this. Just drop the age requirement
. Also if startups are so costly then why did it not stop ACA ? Vermont does not have a huge over bloated military budget that invades every one..
The only people we have to worry about is repubs and that depends on lazy people voting midterm. Colorado is now working on single payer and Vermont has not abandoned the idea
Reply
Share
0
746 days ago
Emmet Bondurant
That this neo-Fascist corporatist is the anointed of the DNC illustrates once again that there is no “Left” in US politics any more; there is only “Far Right”, “Extreme Right”, and “Forthing-at-the-mouth, barking-mad, lunatic-fringe Right”. The “Moderates” are actually Fascists.
Reply
Share
1 reply
+11
736 days ago
Austin Konrad
100% right!
Reply
Share
+2
746 days ago
Britalianissima
I would agree with the main thrust of this article except your contention that the ‘far right’ is exerting a disproportionate influence is really failing to take into account the false left/right paradigm. There is no real difference between the establishment left or right any more and the two party system ensures this will continue to be the case. Would you seriously call Obama ‘far right’? And yet he supports the use of drones and having a ‘kill list’ policy. The old labels of ‘left’ and ‘right’ are meaningless and is the reason why Hillary Clinton has much in common with Kissinger.
Reply
Share
1 reply
+4
744 days ago
Gary Williams
The mistake you make is the expectation the DNC should behave like leftists or that they somehow represent left-wing politics in America, with the RNC representing the right wing of US politics. You see little difference between the two parties because BOTH parties behave in a manner characteristic of right-of-center politics.
But that doesn’t negate the fact that the DNC platform espouses more left-wing (egalitarian) policies than does the RNC, which has moved ever farther to the right (pro-dominance and anti-equality) over the last 3 decades especially. “Left” and “right” actually have meaning beyond what most Americans assume ….as nothing more than some sort of 3D or mnemonic tool i.e. left = DNC; right = RNC
Reply
Share
+1
746 days ago
Harvey Thornhart
Major General Smedely Butler is from whom the quote is in my previous post.
Reply
Share
+1
746 days ago
Harvey Thornhart
It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country’s most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.
I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.
I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.
During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.
Reply
Share
5 replies
+8
745 days ago
Carmen Carolina Rezende
Nice comment. Should make an youtube video about your journey and your thoughts. You are a good writer.
Reply
Share
+5
743 days ago
Warren Pollock
Just spent three years in Central America. On the main these countries have survived all this foreign interference and there is not a lot of sense in raking through the past looking for skeletons. Nicaragua and Honduras need the most help now and the US, Canada and Mexico should give these two countries a helping hand.
Reply
Share
1 reply
0
179 days ago
JonLocke70
There is no use raking over the past. True. Still why elect Hillary in the future given her past support for aiding and abetting a coup, just like we did int h4e past
Reply
Share
0
187 days ago
mae_quez
Well-written, but the time span you listed your personal involvements in ranged from 1909 to 1916. If you were 18-years-old in 1912, you would be at least 120-years-old when you posted this comment. That makes it political rhetoric/propaganda (even if accurate rhetoric), not sharing personal experiences.
Reply
Share
+2
149 days ago
Lebisa Morales
You realize you are over 100 years old according to this post. At least 123 if you were a soldier in 1909.
Reply
Share
0
746 days ago
Fred Robinson
Never forget all the US supported dictatorships in Lain America and continuing destabilization of legitimate, well run governments that refuse to suck up to Washington. I have no doubt that Brasil is having some problems with its presidential election not only with the aid of the elite and their fully owned media, but with the help of well placed dollars and instigators. Just anther reason not to ever see Hillary as a significant alternative to the status quo. She well knows on which side her bread is buttered. No one gets anywhere near the American presidency these days without knowing this.
Reply
Share
2 replies
+6
745 days ago
Carmen Carolina Rezende
Tell me about it. I grew up in Brazil after the 1964 Brazilian coup d’état. Now I see USA sliding to tyranny in the same way: militarized policie, The Patriotic Act…
Covert United States foreign regime change actions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions
Reply
Share
1 reply
+4
179 days ago
JonLocke70
i agree with both of you
Reply
Share
0
747 days ago
Jay Paasch
Let us not forget about when we meddled in Iran with our puppet the Shah.
I think we have seen the results of that approach.
Reply
Share
+4
747 days ago
Amy Anderson
‘yawn’; nothing new here. Anyone that pays half attention to what is going on knows that this govt. answers to the the corporatist/bankster whistle and does what is good for them, not the people. We are just cogs in the Machine and our consciousnesses are being manipulated each and every day by that Machine. We are taught who should be our ‘enemies’, after the Machine has created them. We are taught that ‘farm factories’ can give us healthy food. We were subjected to drugs by the Machine, in order to make us unfit to understand what is happening to us. We are given distractions like sports in order that we don’t think about what is actually happening around us. The Machine goes forward toward its goal-world government ruled by the .0001% elite. We don’t have too many years to go and the Machine is patient.
Reply
Share
+5
747 days ago
aeskylos
I may have to vote for her against Cruz or McCain but her persona gets dirtier and dirtier.
Reply
Share
4 replies
+5
744 days ago
Pete Alvarado
Think Elizabeth Warren! She is the gold-clad standard compared to “show me the money” Clinton’s tarnished brass.
Reply
Share
2 replies
+2
744 days ago
Elizabeth DePriest
Amen, brother!
Reply
Share
0
743 days ago
Gary Vey
Her position on the recent Israeli war against Palestine eliminated any consideration I had for her (Warren).
Reply
Share
+1
716 days ago
Pat Morrison
Why not an honest person, Dennis Kucinich?
Reply
Share
+1
747 days ago
Dave Schubert
In the USA, free and fair elections = US bourgeoisie gets their person in power, even if it means killing 10,000 of the locals.
Reply
Share
+4
747 days ago
Michael Mayo
…don’t any of these stupid people understand “blow-back” in it’s various forms?…
Reply
Share
1 reply
+6
746 days ago
Richie Lomas
we’re already receiving the blow back. Thousands of central American immigrants are seeking refuge in the US from a disaster we created. But just as with all blow back, the US public practices a collective amnesia and ask why on earth this is happening to little old them
Reply
Share
+6
747 days ago
Jim H.
Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State and her and the U.S.’s actions in Honduras again are proof that U.S. foreign policy in general is selfishly, imperialistically, hypocritically and immorally motivated and carried out. There has been very little substantive change since Obama has been president and anti-American sentiment grows among the non-wealthy and the impoverished in the affected countries while those privileged people who profit from U.S. foreign misadventures are all the more pleased with U.S. interference.
Reply
Share
+8
747 days ago
hoyeru zaharia
Not surprising at all.
USA has a decades long very well documented history of meddling/overthrowing governments around the world they don’t like. it is very well documented too as I said. From Iran in the 1950s to Chile in 1970s USA’s arrogance and insolence has done more harm to the world that any other country.
Reply
Share
1 reply
+5
226 days ago
Reid Whitton
It goes back much farther than that. Read Stephen Kinzner’s Overthrow for the complete history.
Reply
Share
0
747 days ago
Dan de la Torre
Slow, steady, and very successful1 That has been the transfer of control over the US Federal government from the hands of the people, where it rightly belongs, and into the hands of special interest groups like the privately-owned for-profit Banking Cartel, Corporate American profiteers, Wall Street manipulators, and the Globalist Elite.
It does not matter which Candidates wind up as representatives. The polluted Political Pool DOES NOT represent the welfare of the people or their Nation. It represents it’s own interests… personal power and wealth, and always at the expense of the people.
Reply
Share
+5
747 days ago
Mark Tracy
Clinton writes. “We strategized on a plan to restore order in Honduras and ensure that free and fair elections could be held quickly and legitimately, which would render the question of Zelaya moot.”
Sounds like the same strategy that the US used to overthrow the democratically elected government in the Ukraine.
Reply
Share
1 reply
+12
747 days ago
Ingeborg Hanson
She wants free and fair elections in Honduras? What a farce and hubris. She better clean up at home first before running around the world telling everyone what to do.
Reply
Share
+6
748 days ago
claude9
This woman for President? No way. There has been too much of this anti-democratic meddling from the U.S., for too long.
Reply
Share
5 replies
+12
747 days ago
hoyeru zaharia
Yes but the truth is that a Republican will be MUCH MUCH worse. If a Republican gets into the office we can expect them to openly start advocating a war against Russia and/or Syria China within the first week of office. Then we can expect them to do something really provocative and stupid against Russia especially.
Reply
Share
4 replies
+2
747 days ago
Napoleon Bonaparte
You know Hoyeru, that is exactly the type of SCAREMONGERING the Democratic Party relies on to get votes. How about voting with your conscience, voting for the candidate that truly represents your values? I don’t think we’ll ever see positive change in the USA, until the people STOP LISTENING TO THE SCAREMONGERING and elect a third party candidate.
Reply
Share
3 replies
+1
746 days ago
Nicko Thime
All you have to do is look at the record.
Republicans invade countries like Grenada, Iraq and Afghanistan. McCain’s answer for everything is to bomb it and then invade.
It is who the right is.
Reply
Share
+1
746 days ago
Fred Robinson
I am not surd who’s left to elect from any party. The libertarians and rethugs are completely controlled by big business. Democrats have no clear and ethical candidate. And let us not forget that congress and the supreme court are not likely to change very much anytime soon. AND . . . never forget the executive branch bureaucracy that will allow only so much real power into the hands of the occupant of the oval office, no matter what party. This bureaucracy consists of the entire staff of the executive branch, not to mention th advisors who are foisted upon the president through the bureaucracy or the devil’s bargain any candidate must agree to before he is selected by the oligarchy to occupy that office. The American people have absolute no control with their vote or otherwise, to what the agenda of the US is for the rest of the world. Real opposition must come from outside, and I fear or any country that resists alone.
I love my country, but even the founders feared what the government’s agenda would become eventually, if it was not properly controlled. I fear that the dream of the founders has become our nightmare.
Reply
Share
0
716 days ago
Pat Morrison
Exactly!
Reply
Share
0
748 days ago
Fuad Rahaman
Does Hilary Clinton believe that ” [a] return to a foreign policy with purpose, strategy and pragmatism” justify her support of the overthrow of President Zelaya? Perhaps she is also saying that she supported the overthrow of President Morsi as well. These men were reforming their countries’ constitution, but that did not sit well with her purpose, strategy or pragmatism. This policy is a throwback to a Jean Kirkpatrick’s approach. for the future Kissinger’s or Kirkpatrick’s approach, although pragmatic in many respects in the past, lacks relevance to the purposeful and strategic interests on the U. S. If Hilary Clinton’s foreign policy would be informed by anachronistic throwbacks, then American voters, who understand the need for a strong and tolerant American foreign policy, would not have to make such a hard choice in 2016. This woman would be a disaster for the U. S.!
Reply
Share
2 replies
+10
747 days ago
pjd412 .
By “purpose, strategy and pragmatism”, she means impose the will of the US all all other poeple of the world and if they don’t like it we will kill them.
Reply
Share
1 reply
+4
226 days ago
Rosemary Molloy
That’s EXACTLY right: “…if they don’t like it, we will kill them.” Well said.
Reply
Share
0
BEST OF VIDEO
Miss Japan challenges the norm
Al Jazeera America News
Miss Japan challenges the norm
Tiny homes provide shelter for Nashville’s homeless
America Tonight
Tiny homes provide shelter for Nashville’s homeless
Flint water crisis: How Al Jazeera America reported it a year ago today
Al Jazeera America News
Flint water crisis: How Al Jazeera America reported it a year ago today
Investigations into Chicago’s red light traffic cameras
Questions abound over a proposed US-Mexico border wall
Al Jazeera LogoNEWS
OPINION
VIDEO
SHOWS
About
Our Mission, Vision and Values
Code of Ethics
Social Media Policy
Leadership
Contact Us
Press Releases
Awards and Accomplishments
Visit Al Jazeera English
Mobile
Newsletter
RSS
Site Map
Privacy Policy
Terms of Use
Subscribe to YouTube Channel
FAQ
Community Guidelines
Site Index
© 2016 Al Jazeera America, LLC. All rights reserved.
kommonsentsjane 