**Posted by Phineas
I’ve written before about the Administration’s shameful interference in the 2009 constitutional crisis in Honduras. Strangely quiet during revolts by people demanding fair elections in Iran, they were Johnny-on-the-spot with protests against the removal of a man who wanted to be another Hugo Chavez.
Well, there they go again. Not the White House or State, this time, but in the person of Representative “Red” Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), a member of the House Progressive caucus and (as of 2009) a member of the Democratic Socialists of America. Schakowsky is continuing her efforts in support of the ousted would-be dictator, Manuel Zelaya, and ignoring his blatant Jew-baiting:
Schakowsky has circulated a letter among Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives (a similar letter exists in the Senate) that asks the state department to suspend aid to the Honduran military and police because of alleged human rights abuses.
In the wake of his removal, Zelaya incited a wave of anti-Jewish violence in Honduras by claiming that “Israeli mercenaries” had been trying to poison him. Schakowsky visited and embraced Zelaya as he hid in the Brazilian embassy. Her congressional office notes that she “raised serious concerns about the widespread human rights abuses,” yet she failed to say anything about Zelaya’s own abuses or his anti-Semitism. She also co-sponsored of H. Res. 630, calling for Zelaya’s reinstatement as president of Honduras.
Of course, Leftists will answer with the ever-popular “You did it, too!”, pointing out US support for dictatorial regimes in the decades after World War II, such as in Greece, Chile, and South Korea. In that case, though, those were unpleasant choices made in the context of a global struggle (1) with the Soviet Union and Communist China, choices made for a perceived greater good. (2) And they were bipartisan, supported by both Republican and Democratic presidents. I’ve no doubt that some wrong choices were made, that America’s interests in spreading liberty and liberal democracy were sometimes unduly sacrificed on the altar of “realism,” but those decisions can’t be understood without acknowledging the context.
So, let me ask this: When Obama, Clinton, Schakowsky and others among our Progressive Betters (all bow) coddle leftist, anti-American and antisemitic dictators; when they stay silent while oppressed people in other lands fight for democracy and women for basic human rights; and when they coddle and apologize to their oppressors while slapping our allies, what is the context? What is the global struggle that justifies these choices? If there is one, I’m not seeing it.
Unless, of course, it’s the struggle against liberty and democracy, and for American decline.
Nah. Couldn’t be.
(1) Cold or not, it really was a war.
(2) Just as with the US/UK “deal with the Devil” alliance with the USSR to defeat Hitler.
(Crossposted at Public Secrets)