When in 2009 Hondurans acted constitutionally and properly via the military, Supreme Court, and the legislature to remove a president who gave signs of becoming a dictator and despot, the Obama administration was outraged and demanded that the president, Manuel Zelaya, be reinstated despite the wishes of the peoples' representatives.
When the Iranian people rose in protest of the fraudulent elections in 2009 which returned Ahmadinejad to power, the Obama administration justified their silence by saying that we shouldn't meddle in the affairs of other nations.
When the leader of China, one of the most oppressive regimes in the world, visited the U.S. several weeks ago, President Obama, himself a Nobel Peace Prize recipient, feted his Chinese counterpart with a lavish state dinner while many Chinese, including another Nobel Peace Prize winner, languished in prison.
Now, when the people of Egypt rise to demand the resignation of a man who has been one of our best friends, President Obama throws in with the Egyptian masses and demands that Mubarak leave office immediately.
Set aside the unseemliness of Mr. Obama sounding as though he was dictating terms to Mr. Mubarak rather than advising him. Let's grant, moreover, that taking the side of the pro-democracy protesters is the proper thing to do.
The question I wish to pose is what principles guide this president in making decisions as to whom he will support in these conflicts? What guides him to side with the people in the case of Egypt, but with a likely despot in Honduras, and to remain silent while the people of China and Iran suffer under the crushing weight of tyranny?
It would be very interesting to hear him explain the principles, if any, which light his path in these matters.