Let freedom ring, bitches! The U.S. has just come out with some whacked policy statement explaining that while the situation in Honduras is like totally a coup d'état, we are technically going to refrain from calling it that. How lame is that? Super lame! But it's really just the latest of all the bizarre ways people have decided to described the violent overthrow of a democratically elected government in the last 24 hours. All this begs the question: Whose description is the most tortured, Orwellian, or otherwise insane?
- Candidate 1: Interim dictator Roberto Micheletti describes how he found himself in this new role: "I did not reach this position because of a coup. I am here because of an absolutely legal transition process."
- Candidate 2: The WSJ's Mary Anastacia O'Grady describes the military overthrow as all part of a country's democratic system of "checks and balances."
- Candidate 3: Ed Morrissey at Hot Air invents an awesome new concept. This was "less of a coup and more of a military impeachment."
- Candidate 4: At the Corner, Ray Walser praised the way "Congress, the courts, and the military joined forces" in a "deliberate, bipartisan manner."
- Candidate 5: Rick Moran at the American Thinker doesn't care if it's a coup, only who it serves: "Does the fact that the coup is in the interests of the United States even matter to our president?"
Your turn starts...now!