In fact, there was no way for Zelaya to "extend his rule" even if the referendum had been held and passed, and even if he had then gone on to win a binding referendum on the November ballot. The June 28 referendum was nothing more than a non-binding poll of the electorate, asking whether the voters wanted to place a binding referendum on the November ballot to approve a redrafting of the country's constitution. If it had passed, and if the November referendum had been held (which was not very likely) and also passed, the same ballot would have elected a new president and Zelaya would have stepped down in January. So, the belief that Zelaya was fighting to extend his term in office has no factual basis -- although most people who follow this story in the press seem to believe it. The most that could be said is that if a new constitution were eventually approved, Zelaya might have been able to run for a second term at some future dateI've seen this clarification a few times now. It seems almost understated. But if it's true, then Zelaya could not have run for a successive term regardless of the outcome of the nonbinding referendum. You could argue that he would have done other things, but assumes facts not in evidence.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
The lie on which all the other lies are based?
If this is true, then yes, this is the lie which gives putative justification for all the other lies being told by the spin-in-overdrive Honduran media and coup apologists in the rest of the world.