Soccer Dad

For zelaya, ironically

A number of op-ed columnists at the New York Times have (unfairly) taken issue with Gov. Palin's death panel comment. However, Times blogger Timothy Egan goes a step further:

But is it any wonder that some are moved to violent threats, given the level of misinformation being injected into the system? If you really believed that Obama was going to kill your baby and euthanize your parents, well -- why not act in self defense?

I'm not going to go into Palin's comments here, but point you to a recent editorial in the Times, Mr. Micheletti's Dangerous Game which argues:

Mr. Zelaya, a self-styled populist and favorite of Venezuela's Hugo Chávez, is no fan of the United States. But, as Mr. Obama rightly pointed out, Mr. Zelaya was democratically elected.

Washington condemned the coup and suspended about $18 million in mostly military and development aid to the de facto government. But it carefully modulated its rhetoric to keep the focus where it belonged -- on Mr. Micheletti and the illegal coup. And it held off on imposing more drastic penalties, like withdrawing Washington's ambassador to Tegucigalpa or freezing the bank accounts of people associated with the coup, as some Democrats in Congress have urged.

This has given the United States room to encourage negotiations led by President Óscar Arias of Costa Rica, a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. The administration has rightly held to that course, even after some Congressional Republicans -- whose support for democracy is apparently selective -- criticized this approach.

There's a lot wrong in these three paragraphs. Foremost is the omission of Zelaya's attempt to shred his country's constitution in order to become President for life. The editors of the Times - whose support for democracy is apparently selective - ignored this central fact.

But worse, it appears that the international support given to Mr. Zelaya has emboldened his supporters. Fausta observes that an anti-Zelaya newspaper and media professionals have been attacked. But this is not coming for the government, but from Zelaya's supporters. (Fausta also notes that most newspapers feel that Micheletti and the army acted properly. This would contradict the Times's baseless assertion that most Hondurans opposed the removal of Zelaya.)

Whether the editors of the Times realize it or not, their support of Zelaya is encouraging those who would deny freedom of the press to others. If the Times will allow its writers to throw around reckless charges about inciting violence, it ought to examine its own role in encouraging the thugs in Honduras first.