Is this the reason?
It has been suggested, too, that there was an initial misreading of what had happened -- that this was like all those Latin American overthrows in the bad old days. But has the administration really been that thoughtless about something that matters so much?
I admit that when I first heard of a coup in Honduras, I assumed there was a coup in Honduras. It would not be that odd considering the history of Honduras or the region. So when I clicked on the first story I ever read about the affair, I was prepared to read about a coup in Honduras.
But as I read the story, even though it assumed there was a coup, the actual facts reported in the story seemed to contradict the idea that a coup had taken place. By the time I finished that first story, I didn't think a coup had taken place--I thought a coup (by Zelaya) had been prevented. But I was still prepared to be convinced, given the history. Yet ss I read more news, that first impression that there was no anti-Zelaya coup was strengthened.
But bizarrely, the news--and then the world including our own government!--continued to call the event a coup against Zelaya.
If I could revise my first assumptions when confronted with facts, is it beyond our own government to do so?
Or do we have to make the painful conclusion that our government now favors left-wing radicals who would usurp power?
If so, my long-time fantasy that our State Department will staff an "American desk" just joined my Zooey Deschenel fantasy in the toilet.
Oh well, I'm used to crying myself to sleep at this point, what's one more disappointment?
