Justifying a Coup

Our right wing is really something special:

Evidently, there is actually some question among certain people as to whether or not the ousting of the president of Honduras by the Honduran military can be considered a coup. You see, they did it on behalf of the legislature, supposedly, so that makes it completely different.

I don't know about you but if it walks like a junta and talks like a junta...

Anyway, in their quest to turn this into a blow for freedom and democracy, some people on the right have found some interesting new ways to describe it.

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!

Go here to vote for your favorite Orwellian Euphemism.

I can't decide. They're all such wonderful examples of the Con tendency to twist into mental pretzels trying to justify the unjustifiable. 2 and 4 win points for their spectacular misunderstanding of common political terms. 3's just being a glib dickhead, so although his phrase wins on the "Orwellian" side, it loses on the "tortured" and "insane" scales.

They're all so precious, aren't they?