Manuel Zelaya, the former president of Honduras, was overwhelmingly removed from office by the Honduran Congress, in accordance with its constitution. So why is the US saying that Zelaya is still the legitimate president?
UPDATE: How often do you see National Review, Investor’s Business Daily, and The New Republic agree on something? The Washington Post is more muddled, but still recognizes the basic truth. (They say it would be best if Zelaya temporarily resumes his post, and presumably is then re-deposed.) The New York Times says nothing, which I interpret to mean they weren’t able to come up with an argument defending the president.
Internet Scofflaw 