McCarthyism motivates the Hondurans!

The AP (here)nicely slants this story against those supporting Rule of Law in Honduras with this nice characterization of what happened there . . . they were skeered of them Commies!!!

In June, the country's Congress and courts, alarmed by Zelaya's political shift into a close alliance with leftist Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Cuba, backed the president's removal.

Do HRC and BHO understand rule of law?

I'm not sure what caught my eye about what is going on in Honduras--the purported "bloodless military coup." Maybe it was the prominence of characters like Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro in the narrative; nonetheless, it appears that what is happening down south is less a military coup and more of a constitutional stand-off.

And it sounds like the Obama administration is engaging in knee-jerk foreign policy regarding the situation. From a WSJ article on the matter:

That Mr. Zelaya acted as if he were above the law, there is no doubt. While Honduran law allows for a constitutional rewrite, the power to open that door does not lie with the president. A constituent assembly can only be called through a national referendum approved by its Congress.

But Mr. Zelaya declared the vote on his own and had Mr. Chávez ship him the necessary ballots from Venezuela. The Supreme Court ruled his referendum unconstitutional, and it instructed the military not to carry out the logistics of the vote as it normally would do.

The top military commander, Gen. Romeo Vásquez Velásquez, told the president that he would have to comply. Mr. Zelaya promptly fired him. The Supreme Court ordered him reinstated. Mr. Zelaya refused.

Calculating that some critical mass of Hondurans would take his side, the president decided he would run the referendum himself. So on Thursday he led a mob that broke into the military installation where the ballots from Venezuela were being stored and then had his supporters distribute them in defiance of the Supreme Court's order.

The attorney general had already made clear that the referendum was illegal, and he further announced that he would prosecute anyone involved in carrying it out. Yesterday, Mr. Zelaya was arrested by the military and is now in exile in Costa Rica.

Biden's foreign policy "experience" . . . impressive!!!

Palin's supposed to be gaffe prone? inexperienced on foreign policy? Ol' Biden had this whopper during the VP debate.

Here's another, regarding spending on Iraq v. spending on Afghanistan.

Biden's "experience" . . . impressive!!

In response some pre-VP-debate trash talk from Sean Braisted, I was reminded of a splendid analysis (here) of Joe Biden's much-ballyhooed (by the Left) foreign policy "experience." The conclusion any objective observer would reach after reading Andy McCarthy's extensive report, is summed up in this sentence:

For all Biden’s twaddle about doctrines and concepts, there is a simple technique for divining this foreign-policy solon’s bobs and weaves: Consult the polls and the calendar.

We'll have to wait and see if any "foreign policy" questions during the debate go beyond, "how many years have you been sitting in on foreign policy discussions?"

As Thomas Sowell asserts in a recent op/ed"experience":

[Biden] has had a front-row seat as an observer of foreign policy. But Senator Biden has never had any real experience of making foreign policy and taking the consequences of the results.

The difference between being a spectator and being a participant, with responsibility for the consequences of what you say and do, is fundamental.

You ought to read the whole article. And feel free to attempt a rebuttal.

A hit (yellow) dog howls--update

Interesting Mark Steyn op/ed about Bush's speech to the Israeli Knesset, and offense taken by various Democrats.

Update: speaking of howling (not to mention hit dogs howling), this is a funny op/ed from Ann Coulter on the subject. I especially liked the line about Wal-Mart.

Chavez not chagrined

I have been a bit out of pocket since last Friday, so I hadn't heard until this evening that Chavez' ballot-box revolution had failed. That's encouraging, but Chavez--a masterful politician, is keeping his chin up ("Venezuela's Chávez defiant, despite defeat" | csmonitor.com):

Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez says the time has come for "profound reflection" following his first electoral defeat in nine years at the helm Sunday night.
. . . .
But Chávez's acceptance of the results has strengthened his democratic credentials, and analysts say he'll use that to push his socialist "revolution" just as fervently as he has been.

Well, it depends on how you define "democratic." The article continues:

"Speculation has begun to mount about how and when Chávez will attempt to push some of the reforms into law, whether unilaterally by decree or through the National Assembly, which he dominates. He also controls the country's courts, most of its media, and almost all local and state governments.
. . . .
But Chávez has the power to pass any law unilaterally, until August 2008, that does not explicitly contradict the current Constitution. During that time, analysts expect him to pass such reforms as a 36-hour workweek, universal social security, and a fund for independent workers."

How would you define "experience"?

I was a little surprised to read the headline "Brownback says governors not equipped to become president," but, in fairness to Brownback, maybe it was a response to a loaded question on the matter.
Here's the first 'graph:

"MERRIMACK, N.H. - Republican presidential candidate Sam Brownback on Tuesday criticized President Bush and two GOP rivals, saying the presidency isn’t a foreign policy classroom.

Brownback’s criticism that governors often do not have the foreign policy experience necessary to be president was aimed primarily at rivals Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee, both former governors. But in the process, he also took a jab at the man they all seek to replace, former Texas Gov. George W. Bush."

I'm not sure I've ever heard someone (a U.S. Senator running for president) come right out and say that, but surely they're always thinking it. The problem is how categorical it is, which may point to Brownback's ability or inability to be statesmanlike.

But I have to wonder what Brownback means by "experience." I would submit that there is more aptitude than "experience" involved in effective foreign policy and effective executive leadership. That being said, the value of "experience" is generally that it would reveal a person's aptitude more than somehow "equip" him or her to be the leader of the free world (read: "world"). I don't think it would be wise for Brownback to make this proposition--that former Governors are not equipped to become president, a major theme of his campaign.