increasing U.S. pressure on Micheletti

[Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's chief spokesman, P.J. Crowley] said that [Clinton] made it clear that the United States was ready to use its enormous leverage over Honduras if Micheletti's government does not comply [with the San Jose negotiations]. The administration has so far withheld $18.5 million in aid to Honduras, but it could also stop an additional $180 million in development aid. The United States also has huge leverage through trade because 70% of Honduras' exports go to the United States.

...and...

Micheletti confirmed he had spoken to Clinton and said he told her to send a trusted envoy to Honduras to get a "real" picture of what is happening. "We've tried to explain what went on here before June 28," he said, "and everyone just wants to hear what happened on June 28."

Source: Los Angeles Times

It seems the U.S. position is to support the elected executive (Zelaya), no matter what. Doesn't matter if he is an extreme danger to the very democracy they claim they are wanting to protect. Seems to me that is like drowning the baby (democracy) in the nasty, dirty bath water (Zelaya).

You know, when I read about what has happened in Venezuela and to a lesser extent in Ecuador these last few years, i.e., the installation of socialist dictatorships, I often asked myself questions like: Why did these people let this happen to them? Didn't they see it coming? How could they allow one person to gather so much power that he could undo their constitutions and institutions and remake them in some twisted new fashion that is such a sharp departure from the way things were before? Are they all wimps and pushovers? Don't they give a rat's ass about their form of government?

Now I'm starting to understand. I'm sure there were people in Venezuela who saw what Chavez was going to do and stood up to him. In fact, I'm sure there are people in Venezuela who gave their lives trying to stop Chavez. But if we use the current situation in Honduras as evidence, when push comes to shove, the international community will turn its back on the patriots and lend to support the desires of the megalomaniac.

This betrayal of patriots and democracy is done under the label of "protecting our interests." The U.S., for example, is scared shizless of appearing to support a coup (even a "wise" coup) because it doesn't want to be knocked of its "Beacon of Democracy and Liberty" pedestal. "Losing this moral high ground" would give it "less leverage" in "future events" "when democracy is threatened around the world." Therefore, the U.S. takes an unreasonable position -- like the one it has with the current Honduras crisis -- of sacrificing the desires of an entire nation of people whose democracy is, in fact, threatened in order to support one freak simply because he was the 'elected official.' So, the U.S. is not really a supporter of democracy per se, but rather it is a supporter of its image that it is a supporter of democracy. That's some screwed up shiz, if you ask me.

What about our Constitution? What about our other democratic institutions? Our Supreme Court and Congress exist specifically to provide the 'checks and balances' that prevent egomaniacs like Zelaya from destroying our form of government. Why are these institutions less worthy of international support? Why? Please - somebody - explain this to me.