Skip to comments.New York Times Report on Honduras is False
Posted on 07/30/2009 6:57:24 PM PDT by Mount Athos
Congressman Connie Mack (FL-14), the Ranking Republican of the House Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, tonight stated strongly that the report in todays New York Times is utterly untrue, and is deeply concerned that the Obama Administration appears to be siding with Hugo Chavez against the people of Honduras.
Todays New York Times asserted that Honduran President Roberto Micheletti is working on a deal to bring former President Manuel Zelaya back to power.
I spoke to President Micheletti today by telephone. The New York Times story is utterly untrue and there is no deal to bring Manuel Zelaya back to power. The people of Honduras do not want and will not accept Zelayas return.
Zelaya was removed from the presidency through a legal process established by the Honduran Constitution. He was voted out of office by the Honduran National Congress. The Honduran Supreme Court ordered Zelayas arrest. This was not a coup. This is a matter of Honduran law and sovereignty.
The ones supporting the ousted President include Hugo Chavez and other leftist dictators in Latin America.
The Obama Administrations position is appalling. They are siding with the forces of evil against the forces of freedom. They are involving themselves in the internal politics of a sovereign nation. It is wrong and must be stopped.
Furthermore, I am outraged that the Obama Administration pulled the visas of Honduran officials who didnt agree with the Administrations policies, and threatened to pull more. They are retaliating against Honduran judges and Members of Congress for taking positions against Hugo Chavez and other leftists in Latin America.
Manuel Zelaya broke the law. The New York Times story is inaccurate and fabricated.
Interesting. That story sounded like B.S. Now it’s been confirmed as B.S. Whew. Stay strong, Honduras....
Thanks for posting this and thanks go to Congressman Connie Mack for staying on top of this and getting the truth out from an elected member of our government.
It’s a coin flip at best if any story from the Times is accurate.
If only Connie’s wife, Mary RINO Mack would start listening to her husband . . .
New York Times Report on EVERYTHING is False
(in one way or another)
Jayson Blair was one of their better employees... and he made up entire articles.
Oh lookie! Someone dares to ‘speak truth to power’ - a phrase I have come to hate, but turn-about is fun.
Truth from the NY Times?...
Is it true that Dan Rather was the one who produced Obamas BC.
I like what I hear coming out of these guys in Honduras.
I wonder if they take middle-aged American expatriots...
He ought to go down to that homo Sulzbergers office on 42st and demand they retract the story.
On September 8, 2004, Dan Rather cited exclusive information, including documents to justify major CBS Evening News and 60 Minutes stories alleging that George W. Bush shirked his duties when he was in the Texas Air National Guard in the 1960s and 1970s. Within a few hours of those documents being posted on CBS Newss Web site, however, typography experts voiced skepticism that the documents had actually originated with their alleged author and Bushs former commanding officer, the late Lt. Colonel Jerry Killian. As the evidence mounted, Rather stubbornly clung to the idea that his story was bulletproof, and he derided critics as partisans and Internet rumormongers. When he apologized on September 20, Rather would not concede that the documents were forgeries, only that he and CBS could no longer vouch for their authenticity.
CBS Disregarded Experts, Challenged Laura Bush: ABCs Brian Ross reported on the September 14 World News Tonight that two experts hired by CBS News say the network ignored concerns they raised prior to the broadcast about the disputed National Guard records. But over on CBS, reporter John Roberts wondered why President Bush wasnt taking those memos seriously: The President has yet to weigh in on new documents about his National Guard record made public last week by 60 Minutes. Roberts also chastised First Lady Laura Bush for doubting CBSs memos were authentic: Laura Bush offered no evidence to back up her claim, and CBS News continues to stand by its reporting.
Sticking By His Smear: On September 10, Dan Rather responded to charges the memos he cited as proving Bushs dereliction were forged, telling his CBS Evening News audience that the memos were genuine and attacking any doubters as partisan rumor-mongers. Today, on the Internet and elsewhere, some people, including many who are partisan political operatives, concentrated not on the key questions of the overall story, but on the documents that were part of the support of the story, Rather castigated. But his lame defense ignored key challenges to the documents typography and content, and the doubts voiced by the widow and son of the supposed author, the late Lt. Col. Jerry Killian. Instead, Rather chose to repeat his indictment of President Bushs National Guard service. Rather arrogantly concluded: If any definitive evidence to the contrary of our story is found, we will report it. So far there is none. (CyberAlert, September 11, 2004)
God Bless you, Connie Mack. May your voice be joined with hundreds of others (534 to be exact) in expressing the same outrage.
I read that NYT story this morning, and was furious. I should have known better than to buy the story as it was the lyin’ NYT.
The NYT lying? I’m shocked, shocked I say! :-)
What a disgrace this paper has become.
I posted a couple of days ago that the alleged statement by the honduran army thet supported the agreement of San Jose, was written in Washington DC at the office of a DEMOCRAT SENATOR by 2 traitor colonels and a former advisor of Ted Kennedy.
2 slime bag Colonels that are trying to become Generals. What pigs!
Ted Kennedy.. Par for the course...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.