Posted by
Roxanna M. on Monday, June 29, 2009 6:18:23 PM
When the people of Iran didn't like how their recent election turned out, they protested. Despite the fact that the government was forcibly silencing dissent, it was not until the streets were running red with the blood of those either gunned down or hacked to death that America's fearless leader ventured any kind of reaction. I believe he said that he was not going to comment because "we respect Iranian sovereignty".
Compare that to what he is saying with regard to events in Honduras, which were just a short 48 hours ago. BO said that the ouster of Honduran leader Manuel Zelaya was not a "legal" coup. (I believe "legal" coups are called elections, but I digress.) But, he wasn't finished. He went on to say that while President Zelaya is the democratically-elected president, the US currently had no plans to demand that he be restored to office.
Really? America has the right to "demand" that another sovereign nation put someone in office? Didn't hear that in regard to Iran.
Hillary Clinton added her voice to the mix by saying, "Our immediate priority is to restore full democratic and constitutional order in that country."
Really? America has the right to say what kind of government another sovereign nation can have? Didn't hear that in regard to Iran.
Iran had a phony election, and Honduras had a coup. Why was it hands off for the former, but full speed ahead for the latter?
Somebody's playing favorites. The question is, Why?