I have always been extremely curious about this Administration treatment of Honduras in the aftermath of Zelaya's attempted coup and puzzled by the blatant way in which Obama leaned in favor of Chavez and his dangerous games in Latin America.
Now, thanks to Fausta, we finally understand why Obama has again changed his position by 180" (an automatic translation of the excellent Montaner article follows):
The State Department found that the Honduran institutional support to the dismissal and arrest of Zelaya was virtually unanimous and held firm, despite sanctions and cancellation of visas. The legislature and judiciary, the churches, the army and, according to surveys, 80% of the population, preferred Zelaya from power. The report of the legal department of the Library of Congress on the removal of Zelaya, requested by a legislator, left no doubt: Zelaya had been removed from office and replaced by Micheletti under Honduran law. Expelled from the country was probably illegal (perhaps due to leave jail), but both require restitution was like asking the Hondurans who violated the law. The new government of Honduras, deftly, had moved the debate within American society, through Congress and Senate Republicans and the Obama administration was paying a political price for supporting internal antidemocratic stance contrary to the interests and values the American people. At the State Department circulated two pages compiled by U.S. intelligence in which the alleged crimes were recorded and complexities of the intimate environment of Zelaya with drug trafficking and corruption. There was no point placed in the same side as Washington remained in the country Palmerola military base, supposedly dedicated to monitor and control activities related to family and friends who performed his contradictory protected. He did not seem wise to encourage the artificial survival of a regime that was active in the field openly Chavez, allied with Iran political family. Chavez, who until recently was classified as a whimsical trouble associating itself with Iran and provide support for the development of nuclear weapons has become a dangerous enemy.
However enlightening, this doesn't explain why their initial approach was so totally wrong; I have read many theories about it, but only one fits the facts: Obama and his "experts" wanted to be seen to side with the weak (with the people, on the side of democracy, protecting the oppressed) but they completely and utterly misunderstood the situation.