When We Say Security, We Really Mean Coup and Terror

I don't remember reading all that much about Honduras recently in the New York Times, even though at least one Congressman was happy to warn of what a "strongman" like Zelaya might do there (if we didn't support the coup). But the "unity government" that we helped install is accused of shooting on peaceful protestors.

Reading the foreign press turns up something interesting in regards to the war in Libya. The threat of "bloodbath" which Obama keeps referencing was first stated by the government of Oman, namely, "Minister Responsible for Foreign Affairs" Yusuf bin Alawi . Now I can't read this squiggly text:

وأعلنت دول مجلس التعاون الخليجي تأييدها لفرض حظر جوي على ليبيا، لكنها شددت على ضرورة موافقة الجامعة العربية، وناشدت دول مجلس التعاون الخليجي الدول العربية الأخرى «تحمل مسؤولياتها لوقف حمام الدم»، معتبرة أن القذافي بات الآن «غير شرعي».

..but Google can:

"[bin Alawi] announced that the GCC support for a ban air strike on Libya, but stressed the need for the consent of the Arab League, and appealed to the GCC countries and other Arab «carry out its responsibilities to stop the bloodbath», saying that Gaddafi is now «illegal»."

If Obama is serious about peace, he should clue in Congress about this prophetic ruler, who can even read the mind of another ruler countries apart and dictate his legitimacy. Then the Congressmen can relay their understanding to the public and we can tell the world that we shouldn't be messed with when we think about bombing for freedom.

ADDING IN RETROSPECT:
Realized I got a big haughty here. And on another blog, I made the stupid mistake of looking at Gadaffi's troops and saying they don't look like killers. But our involvement is hard to justify still, since we bombed a heck of a lot of civilians in Libya, even intentionally (like their press), going way beyond prevention of a bloodbath to participating in one.