Please understand that I am not an Obama apologist. I just see no evidence that Obama's approach to Central and South America, or indeed to the rest of the world, is following some kind of standard American imperial policy - even Iraq and Afghanistan don't fit that model since he has inherited from Bush et al compex situation in which we are tightly embedded in both countries, trying in Iraq to get us out, and in Afghanistan to get us out by completing the mission. Mind you, I have many questions and worries about the latter, and the former, come to think of it, but there is no denying the total mess left to Obama as a result of the Bush policies both in Afghanistan and in Pakistan.

The CIA has plenty to answer for, past and present, without theorizing on the basis of no information. and the single piece of evidence pointing in the opposite direction.

Obama's personal response to Chavez at that conference was already a major break from the Bush policies. And though the Nixon administration encouraged the Pinochet coup against Allende, the Chilean army was fully capable of doing it's own dirty work without CIA assistance, and close to half of the Chilean people, tragically, supported both the coup and the death, torture and suppression that followed it.

Be assured that I've read "The Open Veins of Latin America," as well as pretty much everything else Galeano has written, (not, unhappily in the original Spanish), and this old-fashioned military coup in Honduras is depressing as hell without reaching for explanations for which there is not a shred of evidence.

I'm curious; did you not view Obama's response to the Iranian "crises," as a significant break not merely from Bush's policies, but also from bi-partisan foreign policy reflexes we've seen from American political elites for decades into the last century?

None of the above is meant to deny that there are myriad institutional pulls toward the old, imperial American foreign policy instincts, nor that I assume that in all instances Obama is immune to them - see Iraq and Afghanistan.

I meant to say "THE usual Banana Republic script." The US's, that is, not the Obama administration's.

I'll correct that now.

I agree with you. I actually think that the Obama administration is open to changing the old ways. And I'm wondering whether what's just happened in Honduras might be a sign that there's some resistance to that. Or at least some crossed signals between State and the CIA.

But there's also the strong possibility that the coup represents something internal and specific to Honduras, and has nothing to do with US policy at all.

I'm curious; did you not view Obama's response to the Iranian "crises," as a significant break not merely from Bush's policies, but also from bi-partisan foreign policy reflexes we've seen from American political elites for decades into the last century?

Only superficially. It gave the Company branch he represents room to move in, not to mention a martyr for the upcoming insurgency. With Stanley McChrystal next door, and a "color" revolution on the boil, it looks pretty much like business as usual to me.

Digby is right. The principal difference between Obama's Company faction and Cheneyburton is that Obama is smart enough to lie better.

in the Christian Science Monitor:

Across Latin America, leftist leaders have successfully rewritten their constitutions to enable their re-elections. But while Mr. Chávez, Evo Morales in Bolivia, and Rafael Correa in Ecuador have successfully modified their charters to elongate their rule, it seems Zelaya miscalculated his institutional backing.

"Zelaya confused himself with (other) governments by assuming that he had a constituency when he didn't really," says Larry Birns, head of the Council on Hemispheric Affairs in Washington. "He is not a person who had hit a respondent chord in the population, which he could politically rely upon. ... It was a miscalculation."

Zelaya won election in 2005 by a small margin of 75,000 votes. I scanned through the forum comments at some of the Honduran newspapers and the NY Times and they're a mixed bag of pro and con.

Looks as though he might have tripped on his own accord.

coup. Eva Gollinger.

Zelaya says letter of resignation was forged. Interesting that a similar letter was forged for the Chavez coup. And, iirc for the Aristide removal, which the US helped with (or managed?). Of course, that was under BushCo.

Coups in the Americas usually tend to have US input somewhere.

Interesting that the WSJ says the US warned against the coup...to whom?

The Obama administration worked in recent days to prevent President Zelaya's ouster, a senior U.S. official said. The State Department, in particular, communicated to Honduran officials on the ground that President Obama wouldn't support any non-democratic transfer of power in the Central American country.

"We had some indication" that a move against Mr. Zelaya was a foot, said a U.S. official briefed on the diplomacy. "We made it clear it was something we didn't support."

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton joined Mr. Obama Sunday in criticizing the Honduran coup and calling for the restoration of the democratic process.

"We call on all parties in Honduras to respect the constitutional order and the rule of law, to reaffirm their democratic vocation, and to commit themselves to resolve political disputes peacefully and through dialogue," Mrs. Clinton said in a statement.