Sunday, July 23, 2017

The Guardian Gets One Right Regarding Regime Change in Venezuela

A student takes part in a protest against Nicolas Maduro's government in Caracas, Venezuela on 4 February 2014. 

Photograph: Jorge Silva/Reuters

Even the picture is implicitly propaganda insofar as it shows the pretty and innocent student confronting the presumably merciless state.

Abby Martin has been following this on-site in Venezuela and she's advised multiple times there are many examples of ducks being made to look like chickens in the reporting about unrest there.

When is it considered legitimate to try and overthrow a democratically-elected government? In Washington, the answer has always been simple: when the US government says it is. Not surprisingly, that's not the way Latin American governments generally see it.

On Sunday, the Mercosur governments (Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, and Venezuela) released a statement on the past week's demonstrations in Venezuela. They described "the recent violent acts" in Venezuela as "attempts to destabilize the democratic order".

The Guardian:  US support for regime change in Venezuela is a mistake

That continues a dark history of US engagement in South America going back over fifty years.

Note:  the article wasn't written by one of their standard columnists so that may explain the cogency.

Of course we all know who the US government supports in Venezuela. They don't really try to hide it: there's $5m in the 2014 US federal budget for funding opposition activities inside Venezuela, and this is almost certainly the tip of the iceberg – adding to the hundreds of millions of dollars of overt support over the past 15 years.

- Guardian

In language adults understand, the tip of the iceberg doesn't show how much clandestine support takes place via America's dark side in the CIA.

Note:  yes I will crank about cheesy cliche since they pose as writers so fucking write something original.

It took a long time for the opposition to accept the results of democratic elections in Venezuela. They tried a military coup, backed by the US in 2002; when that failed they tried to topple the government with an oil strike. They lost an attempt to recall the president in 2004 and cried foul; then they boycotted National Assembly elections for no reason the following year. The failed attempt to de-legitimize last April's presidential election was a return to this dark but not-so-distant past. It remains to be seen how far they will go this time to win by other means what they have not been able to win at the ballot box, and how long they will have Washington's support for regime change in Venezuela.

- Guardian

While a good effort, it's not complete since it doesn't go deeply enough and the CIA is only a tiny hint we infer from some of the scribes.  That's not sufficient since the CIA's history goes far back with this relentless effort toward unwarranted regime change and the story isn't fully told without full cognizance of their evil agenda.

Ed:  well, no, that wasn't purple

I don't think really purple so call it fuchsia since that's somewhat purple, right?  For example, I did not mention their sex lives or parentage all of which is highly questionable.

No comments: