Obama and Clinton Differeing on Honduras? by Tom Hayden

[magbana]

If Obama has a rogue Secretary of State, he needs to boot her out. Sorry, Hayden, but Obama has done nothing to suggest that he and Hillary are at odds on Honduras. Both Hillary and Obama are getting their talking points on Honduras from the likes of Lanny Davis and Bennett Ratcliff and Obama is meant to be in the background on this. This may make him appear to be less enthusiastic than Hillary for the coup, but it is meant to keep him way in the background -- plausible deniability.
magbana

OBAMA AND CLINTON DIFFERING ON HONDURAS?
By Tom Hayden
For Huffington Post

Apparent differences between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are threatening to confuse American policy towards the coup in Honduras.

The differences seem to go back to the 2008 presidential primaries when Obama embraced a broad new direct diplomacy while Clinton hewed to a tougher traditional stance. Clinton era advisers like James Carville and Stanley Greenberg had gone on to become political consultants for Latin American presidential candidates favoring free trade policies in Venezuela, Bolivia, Mexico, and Argentina, as depicted in the documentary film “Our Brand Is Crisis.”

Now Obama, fresh from a hemispheric summit in Trinidad, is trying to collaborate with the Organization of American States in its unified pressure and isolation against the coup leaders in Honduras. The newly-appointed “foreign minister” of the coup-based regime has called Obama “that little black guy who doesn’t even know where Tegucigalpa is located.” So much for appealing to the United States for any support, or so one would think.

Secretary Clinton, while formally supporting the Obama/OAS initiative, has questionable links with the coup leaders through two close associates. First, her pugnacious media spokesman from campaign days, Lanny Davis, is the paid spinner and lobbyist for the Latin American equivalent of the Chamber of Commerce, the alliance supporting coup leader Robert Micheletti. One of Davis’ first moves so far was to announce that “foreign minister” Enrique Ortez had been removed from office for calling Obama an ignorant “little black guy.” Otherwise, Davis is a launching a full-court press to change Obama’s policy in Honduras from rejecting the coup as illegitimate to one of open-ended talks that could last indefinitely, allowing the coup to consolidate.

At the same time, another close Clinton ally, Bennett Ratcliff, was appointed – along with his interpreter – as an actual member of the negotiating team for the coup in current talks being held in Costa Rica. According to a source cited by the New York Times, “Every proposal that Micheletti’s group presented was written or approved by the American.” . Who, one wonders, does Bennett report to? He comes from the high-powered consulting firm of recently-deceased Bob Squier.

Obama cannot long support both the OAS efforts at isolating the coup plotters and also tolerate Clinton-identified political consultants lobbying on behalf of the military-installed regime.

Even the Clinton-chosen mediator of the talks, Costa Rican president Oscar Arias, told the US that Honduran elections scheduled for November will be illegitimate if sponsored by the coup organizers.

Obama could recall the American ambassador to Honduras. In addition to suspending $18.5 million in US military assistance, Obama can disallow the $180 million presently in the pipeline. Spending that money is arguably illegal under the 1997 Leahy amendment to prohibit assistance to a military which overthrows an democratically-elected government, as Honduran forces did on June 29.

The background narrative here is the rise of an irrational Cold War mentality, echoed by the mainstream media, in response to the surge of independent nationalism in Latin America. Anyone who has spent time in Honduras knows it to be desperately poor and dominated by an extremely repressive military trained and supported by the United States. But the Beltway and the Pentagon detect a threat in the Honduran government’s alliance on certain issues with Venezuela. The exact threat is that President Zelaya wanted a popular referendum this week on whether Honduran voters wished to vote on a constitutional assembly, which could lead, in the future, to a voter-mandated revision of term limits on the presidency. Thus the coup.

If the US fear of new bogeymen seems overdone, one must ponder Clinton’s other gaffe of the week, this one exposed by Washington Post reporters. Our well-briefed and highest foreign policy official actually declared that Iran was building a monster embassy in Nicaragua, “and you can only imagine what that’s for.” This flap was about an embassy, not about a military base like those operated by the US. But the embassy allegation wasn’t even true. One wonders how old cronies might have misled Clinton into this fantasy projection. The largest embassy in Nicaragua continues to be the American one. #

[flamingdem]

1. This explains a lot about the dissonance in US policy

but I wonder if Clinton is being mislead on some things. Is she so stupid as to believe the Iran stories without researching it a bit?

She was accused of wanting Insulza out of the OAS but that turned out to be a lie as confirmed by Hillary and by Bachelet. Who started that rumor?

The connection to her ex/advisors needs more examination. Is there any way to draw media attention to what they are doing?

It seems somehow illegal to work for an illegal government.

I hate the idea of Hillary undercutting Obama in trying to build her power at State.

[Peace Patriot]

3. I'm glad to hear that that rumor is untrue (that Hillary wants Insulza out).

But I stand by my analysis below. I don't think it's a matter of confusion or dissonance, Obama policy vs. Clinton policy (or Obama/Clinton policy vs Bushwhack mole policy) on Latin America. I think Hillary was put in charge of "pacifying" Latin America--where the Bushwhacks had failed--was put in charge not by Obama, but by the war profiteers and global corporate predators with whom Obama had to compromise, to become president (i.e., to have a fairly honest vote count--not a 100% honest one, but sufficient to put him in the White House). NO ONE can become president of the U.S. these days who poses any threat of real reform. The 'TRADE SECRET' voting system insures that. That's what it's for. Obama certainly had the potential to be a real reformer, and he had to prove to certain powers that he would not "rock the boat" in any significant way. Hillary as Sec of State, I think, was part of that behind-the-scenes deal. And she--and all of her advisers from Mark Penn down--are varying degrees of Bushwhack on Latin America. And the main issue, for Bushwhacks, in Latin America, is the OIL. That is what it is all about. Look at the strategic launching pads that the Bushwhacks put in place--the US 4th Fleet now harrying Venezuela's oil coast along with US overflights of Venezuelan territory, Colombia ($6 BILLION in Bushwhack/US taxpayer military aid) right on Venezuela's border and constantly harassing it and testing it, the testout of war systems in the bombing/raid on Ecuador early last year, and now the installation of a rightwing junta in Honduras, traditional launching pad for US aggression in Latin America, with its long Caribbean coast and borders with three countries that now have leftist governments allied with Venezuela.

Is Hillary on board for Oil War II: South America? I suspect that she is, although she may just be--as Bill was--the preparer of corporate oil wars. It is what I feared, for Latin America, when she was appointed Sec of State. Her chief campaign adviser was a paid agent of the Colombian government, for godssakes! That could be just corporate bullshit, not necessarily war bullshit. It is perhaps too early to tell. But my fears seem to be coming true. I'm not happy about it. I always hope for better. But the Honduran coup is stark evidence that U.S. policy has not changed one bit, and it will be up to the Latin Americans to save their own democracies and forestall U.S. aggression, with no help from Barack Obama. I think they will succeed in that endeavor, but the result will be alienation of the northern and southern parts of our hemisphere for the rest of the century.

[EFerrari]

5. It's not dissonance, but strategy. Obama is the good cop

or, that's what it looks like anyway.

[Peace Patriot]

2. The compromises that Obama made, to become President--that is, to be permitted

to be elected, by the far rightwing voting machine corporations that now control our elections with 'TRADE SECRET, ' PROPRIETARY programming code, with virtually no audit/recount controls--are becoming clearer every day. One is no prosecution of the Bush Junta principles--for a list of horrendous "high crimes and misdemeanors" so long that it could circle the earth. (Obama's statement about this is absurd--we have to "look forward, not backward." Do we fail to prosecute murderers because the murder occurred in the past?) Another is probably keeping the Forever War going (now moved to Afghanistan). Others no doubt have to do with the kinds of reforms that our Corporate Rulers will permit as to health care, banking regulation, credit card usury, taxation and other important centers of corporate theft. And then there is Hillary Clinton--who not only has close ties to the Honduran coup's advisers, but had Mark Penn, a paid agent of the narco-fascist Colombian government, as her chief campaign adviser, being put in charge of Latin American foreign policy.

Those of us who closely followed the presidential candidates' statements on Latin America, and events in Latin America over the past five years or so, know how important this matter is--not only because of the overwhelmingly successful leftist democracy movement in South America and recently in Central America, and the long bloody history of US interference in this hemisphere that this movement has overcome, but also because of OIL. Oil is the overriding issue to our Corporate Rulers. The Latin American countries have lots of it--especially the biggest target countries of Venezuela and Ecuador. The Bushwhacks lust to regain control of that oil, and, indeed, I think there is very strong evidence that they had--and still have--a plan for Oil War II: South America.

I don't think the problem is that Obama is two-faced or oblivious. I think the problem is that he compromised going in. I tend to think he had--and has--good motives. He figured he could do more good as President, even with limited powers--tied down on every hand by the war profiteers and global corporate predators who rule over us--then as a senator or community organizer. I don't think he's an "Andy Young"--a once great civil rights leader now wholly bought and paid for, by the Corporate Rulers. Or, in any case, Obama has extraordinary ability at projecting good intentions. Hard to say, these days, given the state of our corpo/fascist media, who anybody in GlitzWorld really is. But he seems to be one of the good guys. His books--which he really did write--reveal an astonishingly good heart (great sensitivity and atunement to other people) and high intelligence (strong analytical ability, great command of the language). One other thing: Given the utter looting and ruination of this country that took place under the Bush Junta, our Corporate Rulers have the problem of potential rebellion in the vast underclass in the U.S., much of it brown and black. Obama being president greatly complicates any kind of rebellion, because no one in the underclass, other than the skinhead fringe, and no one on the white left, wants to dis the first black (actually mixed race) president of the U.S.

Further, it could well be a corpo/fascist plan to have all the terrible ills inflicted upon us by the Bushwhacks fall on the head of a Democratic president--and a black president, at that. The voting machine situation alerted me to the probability of such a plan. Permit Obama to be elected, dump it all on Obama--including potential civil unrest--then Diebold someone even worse than Bush into the White House in 2012. I repeat: far rightwing corporations now have total control of our vote tallies. They can elect anyone they wish as president (and to other elected positions, pretty much), and we have no recourse against them. The Democrats have gone along with it. Obama is caught--has placed himself, or has allowed himself to be placed--between these forces: the greedbags and murderers who have usurped our government and our voting system, on the one hand, and most of the people of the U.S. and our interests, on the other. I still don't think he is complicit in any corpo/fascist scenario, whether to dampen dissent, or stir it up prior to 2012--his motives are different than theirs--but that is where he sits, to be manipulated by the Corporate Rulers as far as their extensive power can manage, while our war machine and extremely fascist policies of every kind continue to enrich them and impoverish us and destroy our democracy.

None of this will change until we restore TRANSPARENT vote counting, but that is another discussion. Back to Hillary Clinton and Latin America. One of the biggest failures of the Bush Junta was the enormous success of democracy in Latin America over the last decade. Indeed, I suspect that this may have been one of the major reasons that the Corporate Rulers--or some of them--went along with the ouster of Bush/Cheney (and I do think it was an ouster). It was not only that nuking the Middle East would probably be "bad for business" (what with "nuclear winter" and all); it was that they had reached the end of their usefulness to the war profiteers and global corporate predators who installed them in office in the first place. Also, there was China and Russia--and possibly India as well--standing in the way of their nuking of Iran. Latin America--their "backyard," location of all 'their' backup oil reserves, as well as vast reserves of slave labor and other resources, meanwhile went into full rebellion against the Empire, based on decades of hard work on transparent elections and other democratic institutions, and began electing leaders who are acting in the interests of the majority poor. It is Hillary Clinton's job to destroy this democracy movement, to break its back, and she may be--although I don't think Obama is--in cahoots with the Oil War plan. We have only to look at how Bill Clinton set up the corporate oil war against Iraq for the Bushwhacks to understand how this could well be true. Bill Clinton pummeled Iraq with perimeter bombings throughout his presidency, and arguably killed millions of Iraqi children and others with economic sanctions. Iraq was a basket case by the time Bush was crowned king. The "Project for a New American Century" then got its "Pearl Harbor," one way or the other, and that became the excuse for invading Iraq, a country with no air force and one that had been greatly weakened in every way, by U.S. policy prior to Bush.

Hillary is, of course, not Bill. But I have seen no evidence that she differs from him on major policy matters. And I think that it is very arguable that she has been appointed--not by Obama, but by the Corporate Rulers with whom he had to compromise--to get more oil, and where are the biggest pots of undefended oil, right to hand? In Venezuela, Ecuador, Brazil, Bolivia--all now with leftist (majorityist) governments--and Mexico.

As to Mexico, the Bushwhacks tried to privatize Mexico's oil with a stolen election, and a bit later--last summer--with billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars for the "war on drugs" (to militarize and nazify Mexico, for suppression of rebellion there). (Note: Calderon has had a very hard time of it fulfilling his promise to the Bushwhacks--Mexicans have been very resistant to the privatization--theft--of their oil.) Also, oil has been found off Cuba. Add that to the war profiteers' goals in Latin America--to gain control of Cuba's oil as well.

Brazil's president Lula da Silva said something interesting about all this. When the Bushwhacks reconstituted the U.S. 4th Fleet in the Caribbean, he said that it was a threat to Brazil's oil, not just to Venezuela's. (Everybody south of the Rio Grande knows that it is a threat to Venezuela's main oil reserves, on Venezuela's Caribbean coast). Brazil's oil is under threat, according to its president. How can that be? Why would he think that? Brazil is a U.S. ally. Lulu himself negotiated a highly criticized biofuels deal with the Bushwhacks. He is a leftist and a democrat, who has backed up Chavez and Venezuelan democracy at every turn (also Morales in Bolivia, and others). But he is the South American leader (in addition to Michele Batchelet in Chile) whom the Bushwhacks could talk to--and the one invited to the Obama White House. He thinks that the U.S. poses a threat to Brazil's oil. He supported the creation of a "common defense" in connection with the new South American "common market" (UNASUR). In fact, every member of UNASUR--even Colombia, in the end--supported creating a "common defense." Against what?

So, how are Exxon Mobil, Chevron and other war/oil profiteers going to regain control of the oil in Venezuela, Ecuador and other Latin American countries, the profits from which are largely being 'wasted'--in their view--on education, medical care, local infrastructure and other worthy projects, given the Bushwhacks utter failure to accomplish it, despite the expenditure of billions and billions of U.S. tax dollars, and dirty rotten schemes of every kind--from attempted coups (Venezuela, Bolivia) to intense media brainwashing campaigns ('Chavez the dictator'), to "war on drugs" nazification (Colombia, Mexico) to reconstituting the US 4th Fleet and threatening aggression, to pouring multi-millions of dollars, through USAID-NED and other budgets, into every rightwing political group in Latin America, and more, much more--items like the US/Colombian bombing/raid on Ecuador early last year--trying to entice Ecuador into a shooting war--and the ridiculous "suitcase full of money" caper out of Miami, trying to paint Venezuela's and Argentina's leftist leaders with corruption?

All failed. Latin Americans just kept electing leftists to act in their true interests. Paraguay (Paraguay!). Nicaragua. El Salvador! Consider this list of Bushwhack failures (election of real leaders in Latin America): Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, Uruguay, Paraguay, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Guatemala, Nicaragua and El Salvador. And add to these a supporter of democracy as head of the OAS, and another Latin American supporter of democracy as head of the UN General Assembly.

Oil Psychosis seems to dictate endless repetition of failed policies--policies that oppress and impoverish most people--then war. Some of us, who have been closely following events in Latin America had hope that Obama would actually END the failed policies, and begin a new era of cooperation, respect and support for real democracy. I was hopeful, too--but wary, because Obama's speech to the Miami mafia was rife with elements of the "Monroe Doctrine." His stated policy was better than Clinton's, but not a whole lot better. His biggest difference was in opening relations with Cuba. Once he became president, he said and did more, along the respectful/cooperation lines (after getting an earful from Lula da Silva, it seems). But whose policy is actually being pursued? It was hard to tell, at first. With the Honduran coup, things have become much clearer. Obama's stated policy of respect, cooperation and support for real democracy is...how shall I put this?...bullshit? I don't think he is bullshitting. I really don't. But what has become clear is that he does not have the power to implement his own policy. He gave that away in the compromises he had to make to become president.

I think Hayden is right to point out the difference between what Obama says and what Clinton does. I think there IS a dramatic difference in their mind-sets, and some important differences in their stated policies. But Hayden doesn't address the important issue of why. How did a Secretary of State who adheres to the Democrat/Puke war continuum get appointed by a leftist insurgent Democratic candidate, whom the American people elected by far bigger numbers than we know because he opposed the Iraq War? How did a "War Secretary of State" get appointed?

In the past--pre-Diebold--I might have said that it was just "politics as usual" in the U.S. Fascists never have to compromise. But Leftists do--despite the fact that they represent most people. Obama had to mollify the War/Corporate Party within our own party, in order to pull everyone together to win the election. But Diebold & brethren and their 'TRADE SECRET' code change everything. They have the power--the EASILY EXERCISED power--to deny office to the rightful winner. They could have put Hillary Clinton in the White House. They could have put John McCain in the White House. They didn't. Why not? I think that the answer to that is becoming clearer, as the Obama administration unfolds. The first signal was no prosecution of the Bush Junta principles. And the Honduran coup--which likely could not have taken place, and certainly could not still be in power--without U.S. complicity--is another. Obama's hands are tied on some very important issues, by his own agreement to some very serious compromises that paved his way to the White House.

Hayden, being a politician (in his later life; earlier he was a firebrand leftist) may not want to say this. But he certainly could say something about 'TRADE SECRET' vote counting. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think he has--and, in any case, he has not said anything about it in connection to the Obama administration and the power structure in Washington DC. 'TRADE SECRET' vote counting is the determinative factor in all that has happened since the plague of 'TRADE SECRET' voting machines was spread all over the land, during the 2002 to 2004 period, including the stolen presidential election of 2004 (and many Senatorial and House elections in that year as well), many stolen elections in the House in 2006 to curtail reform, the refunding of the Iraq War by the Democratic Congress, Nancy Pelosi's "impeachment is off the table" pronouncement, the Financial 9/11 of 2008, and Obama's relatively modest win (he won by much bigger numbers) a month later (also to curtail reform). It is the seminal issue of our times. It is the most profound open assault on our democracy that has ever occurred. And I think that Barack Obama's failure to implement true reform of our government is directly related to it. They can un-elect him in 2012--quite easily--and we would have no recourse.

And this is more than likely why the Pentagon and the State Department permitted (and possibly instigated) a rightwing military coup in Honduras, and our President apparently has no power to undo it. I still believe that he does not approve of this kind of brutal use of U.S. imperial power. And the story is not over yet. But that's what it looks like, at this point. And I can only hark back to how Clinton became Secretary of State--and the compromises and power giveaways that were likely involved--to explain it. And that, in my opinion, is all about Diebold and who the far rightwing billionaires who control our government will permit into the White House.

[flamingdem]

4. Thanks for your thoughts, will read it all tonight ;) nt

[Judi Lynn]

6. US advises Honduran Micheletti

Thursday, 16 July 2009
US advises Honduran Micheletti

The head of the Honduran de facto Government Roberto Micheletti had the US advisory for talks in Costa Rica, a meeting meant to put an end to the situation that the country is undergoing, The New York Times said on Monday.

Each proposal presented by Micheletti's group was written by a US citizen, member of the negotiating team, said officials quoted in an article published by the daily.

Ginger Thompson, a journalist of The New York Times, said the comment referred to Bennett Ratcliff, who was in San Jose last week, during the talks between the pro-coup faction members and representatives of Honduran constitutional President Manuel Zelaya.

Ratcliff is an expert in public relations who worked for President William Clinton (1993-2001), the journalist said. Thompson asserted that Micheletti is involved in a media offensive, in which there is an increasing hiring of US high-profile lawyers, closely related to US power circles.

One of those that joined is Lanny Davis, known for serving as Clinton's personal lawyer and member of his campaign, she said.

The journalist of the influential newspaper commented on the measures adopted by Barack Obama's administration against the coup regime, although she said that Washington's ambassador has stayed in Tegucigalpa, in contrast to the withdrawal of diplomats by most of the Governments in the hemisphere.

http://www.dailynews.lk/2009/07/16/wld25.asp

[Judi Lynn]

7. Banking interests behind Lanny Davis regarding Honduras: "Whose paying for this charade?"

Davis may be many things, but one thing he is not is cheap. So the question is begged: Whose paying for this charade?

The best way to get a peek under those covers most certainly should be to take a look at who is in bed with CEAL, Davis’ current contract employer.

Well, here’s the scoop on the pecuniary bedfellows:

Camilo Alejandro Atala Faraj, president of the Honduras chapter of CEAL, also happens to be a vice president of a major banking institution in Honduras, Banco Financiera Comercial Hondurena S.A
The president of the lender is an individual named Jorge Alejandro Faraj Rishmagui, and at least three other bank managers have last names indicating they are likely related to the Faraj clan.

...

The Honduran banking community is not all that large, at least by U.S. standards, with only a couple dozen banks operating in the country — and only a small slate of foreign-owned banks, one of which happens to be Citigroup. That famous brand name bank, of course, was once home to Robert Rubin, who served as its director, executive committee chair and briefly as chairman — after a stint as Treasury Secretary under Bill Clinton and before that as a suit at Goldman Sachs.

Citigroup, under its subsidiary Citibank Overseas Investment Corp., operates Banco Citibank de Honduras S.A. Now, given the cozy size of Honduras’ banking industry, it’s likely Citigroup and Banco Ficohsa officials have shared some wine and cheese over discussions of global politics and free trade, but there is no indication at this point that any Citigroup money is in the pot to pay Davis’ lobbying expenses on behalf of CEAL.

http://agonist.org/nat_wilson_turner/20090715/the_reflexivity_of_american_and_latin_american_political_corruption