First you tell us that the spy had been working undercover "since 2007, when he first insinuated himself into local activist circles". Then you tell us that Obama sent him. Huh? Obama wasn't running Homeland Security in 2007. Bush/Cheney was. In fact, it was under the Obama administration that the information about this spy was made public and his cover was blown.

There's more than enough to criticize in the Obama administration's policies with regard to civli liberties without exaggerating, and spinning this stuff doesn't help your case.

WTH?

I have great respect for Mr. Giraldi's accomplishments and his analytical abilities, and I generally find myself in wholehearted agreement with the views he expresses in his Antiwar.com columns. On this particular matter, though, we differ, though I certainly subscribe to the general principle that intervening in another country's politics is "a recipe for disaster. "

"Zelaya’s gambit and his blatant appeal to class interests had made him highly unpopular, with approval ratings in the twenties."

It's very difficult to see how a "highly unpopular" president with "approvel ratings in the twenties," could win in a popular referendum on the country's constitution. If the statement above is accurate, why wouldn't the opposition/oligarchy let the vote proceed and then, afterwards, take appropriate legal action?

One suspects that it is more likely that Zelaya's approval ratings among members of the oligarchy and "and a middle and upper class that is much better off and politically empowered to stay that way" might have been in the twenties, while his approval ratings among the "70% of the population mired in poverty" were and are much, much higher.

First-rate media criticism!