Ken Berwitz

For many years, New York City's venerable Russian Tea Room  (on 57th Street next to Carnegie Hall) used the following slogan to establish that it was a full-menu restaurant:

"When is a tea room not a tea room?  When it's the Russian Tea Room"

I was reminded of this slogan while reading the New York Times' account of what happened in Honduras over the past this weekend:

"When is a coup not a coup?  When it's the Honduras coup" 

The Times certainly has made its opinion known:  between the headline, the text and Barack Obama's comment, the Times referred to the Honduras situation as a coup 9 times. 

It also took pains to assure readers of how badly the US has acted toward Latin America in the past and how deeply involved the US is with Honduras' military.  

Why this was necessary is a bit of a mystery, since there has not been any coup in Latin America, USA-supported or otherwise, in 16 years and US involvement with the Honduras military existed throughout zelaya's entire reign as President.  But, hey, this is the New York Times, right?  Who cares if it's in the news section.  What a great opportunity to propagandize.

However, even the Times has to cover itself by inserting the other side of the story here and there.  So, buried deep in the article, there are also these little tidbits:

-"...things reached a boil last Wednesday and Thursday, when Mr. Zelaya fired the leader of the armed forces and the Supreme Court followed up with a declaration that Mr. Zelaya’s planned referendum was illegal."

 

 

-"Roberto Micheletti, the veteran congressional leader who was sworn in by his fellow lawmakers on Sunday to replace Mr. Zelaya, seemed to plead with the world to understand that Mr. Zelaya’s arrest by the army had been under an official arrest warrant based on his flouting of the Constitution.

“We respect the whole world, and we only ask that they respect us and leave us in peace,” Mr. Micheletti said in a radio interview, noting that previously scheduled elections called for November would go on as planned."

In other words, the article insists this was a coup.  But, in as unobtrusive a location within the article as possible, we find that Honduras' supreme court declared the President's actions illegal, his replacement was an elected congressional leader, he was sworn in by his fellow lawmakers, there was an official arrest warrant for the President because he acted illegally and that the November elections will go on as planned.

I don't know about you, but when I hear the word "coup" and see that the military was involved, I think of some General or Colonel imposing a junta (unelected military government).  I don't think of a series of legal moves to oust someone who was found by the supreme court to have flouted the law.

It seems to me that the side acting legally is the side that removed zelaya.  He is not some aggrieved party ousted in a coup, he is a wannabe dictator whose actions caused the country's supreme court to order him removed.

Maybe somebody should tell that to the New York Times

And maybe somebody should tell that to President Obama -- the guy who couldn't find a reason to support freedom marchers in Iran but happily stood up with a leftist dictator-in-progress in Honduras.