Lies, Rumor, and Crisis

The War in Georgia was the first time I saw how the media bias worked on issues outside of the United States. Now, with Honduras, I see it again. Aljazeera has reported that the Honduran military is choosing the next president, while the truth is the Honduras Congress voted in Roberto Mitcheletti as the successor until January when the next president, following the scheduled November election, will be inaugurated. The military is not behind the removal of the president of Honduras. It is the checks and balances system within the Republic style government of Honduras that has protected its constitution.

So why have the military arrest him? Because his personal bodygaurd was too much for the local police to handle on their own. The military fought a twenty minute gun battle, reports on casualties I've yet to find, before they arrested him. The military sent him to Costa Rica. The referendum on the alteration of the Honduras Constitution that would allow former President of Honduras, Manuel Zelaya, was timed within six months of a presidential election. The timing was unconstitutional but the president insisted on the referendum. I will go as far to say that he violated the constitution and was, upon resisting the Supreme Court and Congress, illegitimately in power. Due to this illegitimacy, he was removed from office and replaced.

I am not saying the way the military is conducting the shift is good, they are doing quite the botch job actually. However at the end of the day the military is still following orders from the government, not its own commanders. They are told to do something from the Supreme Court, Congress, and new President, and they will. Their generals still follow the orders, instead of making them. That is what makes this accusation of a coup entirely wrong.

The protestors outside the Presidential house were not prevented by the military at the house from burning tires and protesting in the street outside. This is not Iran. Another note, why has the world attention diverted onto Honduras' Constitutional dilema from Iran's massacres of protestors? Why has the world defended, in contrast to Russia's invasion of Georgia, a leader who is very critical of the United States and a strong ally of Venezuela?

Domestically I inquire:
Why is it that Hillary Clinton can call this a coup, yet the State Department does not formally list it as a coup and shut off all aid to the country?
Why did Hillary say we are not demanding that Manuel Zelaya be returned to power yet we signed onto a statement by the Organization of American States that did?

Globally I question:
How can Zelaya say he wants to alter the Constitution because it favors the countries elites in a way that allows him to remain in power, and thus elite, longer?
Then why does Hugo Chavez place his military on high alert and say he is willing to defend Zelaya from this rebellion of the poor when it is the elite that Zelaya stated he opposed?

Conclusion:
I believe Zelaya, regardless of the details of how he was removed, presuming non-violence is preferred option by the military, should not be president of Honduras. As the military is following orders from the Supreme Court and the Honduras Congress, this is not a coup. The military is following orders from a civilian government. It has a job to do and will do so. Five days, the same time it took Obama to critisize Iran, should be given to this new government to determine if it is legitimate as I claim, or if the military will make a grab for power that they have not done yet.