Not that you would expect them to, but the CNN journos should have pressed Hayden on what he means by "destabilization". It is clear that the Iranian "threat" is understood as being an effective check to US/Israeli dominance in the region. This hegemony is what will be "destabilized", and by leaving that unsaid the hinted implication for the great unwashed is an aggressive Iranian military "destabilizing" the region by force.
The opposite, of course, is what is actually happening. The mainstream US media, simply by being pathetic, is as responsible for the deprivations of empire as any other institution.

Some historians have claimed that Kennedy directly ordered the coup and even the assassination of Diem. Releases since the JFK Records Act have established a much more complex story, as the above alludes to. James Douglass' recent book "JFK And The Unspeakable" goes into much greater detail about the events surrounding the Diem coup and is highly recommended.

Good summary. It seems the contentious issue centers on Zelaya's motivations for revisiting the constitution. He claims no interest in being "president-for-life", or even in seeking a second term, while his opponents insist that this is the agenda. I have followed the story and I have yet to see any solid evidence that Zelaya was seeking to extend his mandate. Those making this assertion have not brought forward any statement or writing that demonstrates this intent, so I am not sure how they are so certain. Without this assertion the legal case against him becomes a lot shakier. Proponents of the "president-for-life" scenario also fail to explain how a referendum for a constituent assembly creates the mechanics to keep him in power, when the new president is being voted for on the same day. Constitutional change in Venezuala and Bolivia, for example, was a process extended over a few years, so it makes little sense - if it indeed was to be used to secure another term in office - for Zelaya to begin this process near the end of his term.

It's also worthwhile to remember that the Congressional resolution, the NIE, etc also served a domestic political purpose - there was a congressional election campaign underway at the time. Opposition to the resolution would be used as a stick to pound the Democrats as soft on terror and soft on the enemies. It would later be used as a stick anyway - "you're opposed to the war now, but you signed off on the resolution" or "you believed Saddam was a threat back in November 2002", or "everyone believed Saddam had WMD".