REMEMBER HONDURAS?

That small country of Honduras was in the news quite a bit between June 28th, 2009 and November elections there. It was high stakes and high drama for an underdog nation that was taking on the world. Sitting president of that country, Manuel Zelaya attempted to install himself as dictator; the Constitution was followed by the other branches of government, thereby preventing it.

The Obama administration sided with the world against interim leader Roberto Micheletti, who stuck to his guns and his principles to defeat the world. Regardless of what people might say or how it is spun, Obama's Alinsky-ite / Community Organizing tactics failed to bully Honduras on a world stage.

The AP reported just this past April 30th that the U.S. Ambassador to Honduras basically conceded defeat but in true Obama fashion, blamed someone else. In this case, that someone else was Zelaya himself. In fairness, Zelaya was a certifiable kook but the White House lost an international battle when everything BUT Zelaya was stacked in Obama's favor.

U.S. officials who voiced strong opposition to Honduras' coup last June now say the ousted president took an "erratic and imprudent course of action" in the months leading up to his overthrow.

The comments from U.S. Ambassador Hugo Llorens mark the first time U.S. officials have so directly criticized former President Manuel Zelaya for his pre-coup actions.

Llorens told about 300 community leaders at a Thursday meeting of the Honduran Cities Association that the November election of President Porfirio Lobo was a crucial step toward putting this poor Central American country back on track.

"We understood very well that former President Zelaya pursued an erratic and imprudent course of action in the management of the country, and the growing opposition to his polarizing style," Llorens said.

Did Llorens actually concede defeat while citing "growing opposition to (a) polarizing style"? Perhaps Mr. Llorens should step back and look at how his boss in the White House fits that description. The irony here is that Zelaya is being blamed for Obama's loss in Honduras while his attributes that are allegedly responsible for that defeat are very much applicable to how Obama is governing his own country. Can anyone say health care and immigration? Two instances of many in which Obama has shown that he can generate growing opposition to a polarizing style.

Read it all.