With the power struggle between Venezuela’s President Maduro and US-backed interim-president Juan Guaido continuing, Guaido now says he will not rule out personally authorizing a US military intervention to force Maduro out.
Guaido says he will “do everything that is necessary,” saying his goal is to generate “governability and stability to deal with the emergency.” He admitted that a US invasion is a “very controversial subject.”
That’s putting it mildly. Maduro’s ability to maintain power for years has rested on having the support of the military, and portraying his opponents as US puppets trying to foster a coup. With Guaido, the US is now very public about how much they endorse his rule, and how open they are to attacking Venezuela to make that happen.
As the US continues to scorn international efforts to resolve the situation with negotiations, the Pentagon is trying to convince more Venezuelan military personnel to defect. So far that doesn’t seem to be having much impact.
Don’t know very much about Venezueala, but I cannot believe that anyone who invites a foreign state to invade his country will find much genuine support.
Guaido should be arrested,
tried as a traitor,
and then executed.
no more of this mister nice guy stuff like where Chavez let the traitors off to come back with their treason another day
Which is what the Yankees want
A reason to invade.
TV2012, the US military industrial complex always have their reasons to sanction, undermine, bomb, coup d’etat, invade etc etc, regardless..
btw, here’s an excellent one
http://www.unz.com/tsaker/saker-interview-with-michael-hudson-on-venezuela/
Saker Interview with Michael Hudson on Venezuela
Great article, thanks
Chavez respected democracy. No one wins by forfeiting the moral high ground. The ends don’t justify the means.
Maduro really blew it when he didn’t install the National Constituent Assembly backed by a referendum like Chavez did.
That it wasn’t legally required, is beside the point and reflects poorly on Maduro’s political and democratic instincts. He’s a cunning bureaucrat at heart, more used to gaming the rules than understanding why rules exist.
That would be like Pelosi authorizing China invading the US.
If Trump and Pence were simultaneously removed by impeachment, Pelosi WOULD be president.
And if Trump and Pence then decided to contest the matter and pretend to remain in office, would Pelosi be a traitor if she accepted foreign assistance in putting down their rebellion?
No – but if a foreign military force came in and forced Trump and Pence out, and backed Pelosi with military force, then Pelosi would be a traitor.
……but, whoever wins this contest will be right, because “might makes right” and the victor doesn’t “get asked questions”.
All too true.
The Guaidó/Trump cabal’s fig leaf for legitimacy is based on the bogus argument that Article 233 of the Venezuelan constitution gives the National Assembly the power to declare a national president’s “abandonment” of the office. In which case, the president of the National Assembly can serve as an interim national president, until presidential elections are held. The inconvenient truth is that Maduro has shown no inclination to abandon his post, and the constitution says no such thing.
In fact, the grounds for replacing a president are very clearly laid out in the first paragraph of Article 233 of the Venezuelan constitution and do not include fraudulent or illegitimate election, which is what the cabal has been claiming. In the convoluted logic of the US government and its epigones, if the people elect someone the cabal doesn’t like, the election is by definition fraudulent and the democratically elected winner is ipso facto a dictator.
The function of adjudicating the validity of an election, as in any country, is to be dealt with through court challenges, not by turning to Donald Trump for his approval. And certainly not by anointing an individual from a party that could have run in the 2018 election but decided to boycott.
The Supreme Tribunal of Justice (TSJ), which is the separate supreme court branch of the Venezuelan government has certified Maduro’s reelection, as have independent international observers. Further, no appeal was filed by any of the boycotting parties, while all participating parties – including opposition ones – signed off on the validity of the election after the polls closed.
Above from CounterPunch article “Juan Guaidó: The Man Who Would Be President of Venezuela Doesn’t Have a Constitutional Leg to Stand On” by Harris
If the US Supreme Court ruled that Trump was still President and the military backed Trump, then Pelosi would be a traitor to accept foreign assistance to topple the constitutional regime.
Foreign intervention to resolve a domestic constitutional crisis is almost always wrong and has disastrous results. There are rare occasional exceptions when the constitutional crisis is created by foreign intervention or invasion, such as the armed foreign intervention to topple the Syrian government or the Nazi occupation of continental Europe.
Maduro never abandoned the presidency. Guaido’s claim to be acting president is based on a pretext that has been rejected by the Venezuelan Supreme Court. Guaido is a political non-entity who is being used by the Yankee imperialists to topple a socialist regime to gain control of the world’s largest proven oil reserves.
https://youtu.be/Mw99E6Kr5_M
This is just so blatant that you can’t support it if you claim to be a human being.
https://www.rt.com/news/451037-lee-camp-venezuelan-crisis/
Great. Now a foreign politician gets to authorize an illegal and unconstitutional intervention by the US military to save the constitution of the country he wasn’t elected to run.
Really????
In most countries, a person who invites a foreign state ( US ) to invade his country would be tried and convicted for treason.
These are US coupe planners talking points and just shows again how dangerous the US is for the world.
This is the US model for the New World Order.
Should Assad be tried and convicted for treason in Syria for inviting a foreign state (Russia) to invade his country to help him put down the Islamic State rebellion?
No – because he’s the legal President of Syria.
Guaido’s position is that he’s the legal president of Venezuela, while Maduro is just a rebel falsely claiming the title. Maduro’s position is the opposite.
Guaido has invited another country to come in and support his claim.
Maduro already has another country in there supporting his claim.
If Venezuela is lucky, one of the two will end up bowing to the sentiments of the Venezuelan people, whatever those sentiments may be.
As long as there are no new elections or the current results are legally nullified Maduro is the legal president of Venezuela. Or am I wrong?
If I am not wrong then Guaido is a traitor.
I’m not trying to litigate the VALIDITY of the claims, just pointing out that competing claims exist.
The claim of Venezuela’s elected legislature, the National Assembly, is that since Maduro’s term expired last year the office became vacant when there was no valid election. Under the Venezuelan constitution, in that case the office is filled by the president of the Assembly until valid elections can be held.
The claim of Maduro is that the election he won was a valid election.
Venezuela has had competing governments since 2016, when Maduro’s hand-picked Supreme Court suppressed the (opposition-dominated) National Assembly and Maduro claimed to have replaced it with a hand-picked new “constituent assembly” in which all of the seats are either 1) occupied by members of his coalition or 2) vacant.
It was presumptive that the National Assembly was going to contest the validity of anything that came after that, including a presidential election.
Competing claims need to be legitimate. Not every claim is. It will be interesting to see just how far out Trump will stick out his (our) necks in trying to smash the Bolivarian oil treasure trove.
And deny Russia and China access to that market. Which I think is the bigger play.
Thomas just wants to score a rhetorical victory for his insane economic model of the 1780’s.
And Dave wants to pretend that I have some economic model in mind here, that it derives from the 1780s, and that it’s insane.
The battle in Venezuela is between to equally interventionist, equally authoritarian, political models, and two different stages of the same equally insane economic model.
Bullcrap, it’s about one economic model that is trying to use debt to stay in power despite the fact it is insufficient going forward.
Guaido’s position may be that he’s the legal president of Venezuela, but the thing is, he’s not, so there’s that minor stumbling block.
Legally, Maduro can be challenged in a popular national referendum in 3 years.
Not now though, as Maduro has at least four levels of sovereign Venezuelan support; the Supreme Tribunal of Justice, the Military, and Constituent National Assembly in addition to the people who voted for him in 2017.
Your position completely ignores the legal process by which the sentiments of the Venezuelan people are verified.
Exactly!!
your question bears the sign of ignorance and lack of basic knowledge.
Do some research and reading before displaying your ignorance
in public.
In other words, you’re right because you want to be right. Noted.
No, but it seems that like the Neocons, you don`t give a damn, about international laws, treaties and a sovereign country`s constitution.
That sovereign country’s constitution says that the leader of the Assembly becomes president if the office is vacant. And the Assembly says the office is vacant. Obviously, Maduro disagrees.
Unlike the neocons, I don’t see that it’s any of the business of the US government to settle Venezuela’s internal argument.
Unlike you, I don’t pretend that that internal argument is easily disposed of by just deciding which one you like and proclaiming him the “legal” president.
Wrong again. Here’s the language of Article 233: “The President of the Republic shall become permanently unavailable to serve by reason of any of the following events: death; resignation; removal from office by decision of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice; permanent physical or mental disability certified by a medical board designated by the Supreme Tribunal of Justice with the approval of the National Assembly; abandonment of his position, duly declared by the National Assembly; and recall by popular vote.”
The Assembly does not get to decide on its own that the office of President is vacant or abandoned. The office actually has to BE vacant for any of the specific reasons cited. They clearly making stuff up as they go along. Lawless.
Well, which is it?
“abandonment of his position, duly declared by the National Assembly”
or
“The Assembly does not get to decide on its own that the office of President is vacant or abandoned?”
I guess it all depends on what the definition of “is” is.
“Duly: in accordance with what is required or appropriate; following proper procedure or arrangement.”
There is nothing appropriate or within procedural arrangement for a rogue assembly to strip a president of power. There is a Constitutional procedure for that, and it requires a decision by the Supreme Court, no the National Assembly.
You are straining at gnats. There is no equivalency here. One position is unconstitutional and backed by the Empire, the other is within all reasonable definitions and constitutional requirements.
By the way, whether you, or the US, or Guaidó like it, the election in May was legitimate. The extremist opposition wanted to create a constitutional crisis, so they boycotted the election, knowing that they would lose if they participated. They’re sore loser lackeys who need Uncle Sam to defend them.
“There is nothing appropriate or within procedural arrangement for a rogue assembly to strip a president of power.”
There’s also nothing appropriate or within procedural arrangement for a president to strip an elected assembly of power, then replace it with a packed impostor legislature, then hold a sham presidential election in which he gets to decide which, if any of his opponents, will be allowed to run against him.
“There’s also nothing appropriate or within procedural arrangement for a
president to strip an elected assembly of power, then replace it with a
packed impostor legislature, then hold a sham presidential election in
which he gets to decide which, if any of his opponents, will be allowed
to run against him.”
That’s the CIA talking point anyway.
Add to that Article 349 “… The existing constituted authorities shall not be permitted to obstruct the Constituent Assembly in any way.”
The Constituent Assembly and Supreme Tribunal stripped the National Assembly of any remaining powers in support of Maduro, the Supreme Tribunal holding them in contempt.
To try to say that Maduro has abandoned his office, which is what the phonies in the National Assembly are trying to say, is to redefine the word “abandon.” Webster: abandon: a: to give up to the control or influence of another person or agents
b : to give up with the intent of never again claiming a right or interest in
According to the common definition, Maduro has not abandoned his office. Only lawless people can claim otherwise.
Does the assembly have the right to say The Presidency is vacant? From what I understand they don’t.
Unlike you I don’t pretend this is an internal argument
This is Yankee gun boat diplomacy in it’s most crass form We don’t accept socialism and would rather have a Pinochet than an Allende.
“Unlike you I don’t pretend this is an internal argument”
I certainly don’t pretend it’s ENTIRELY an internal argument.
On one side are Maduro and Cuba. On another side are Guaido and the US.
Russia and China are coming in on the side of Maduro and Cuba. Most of the OAS and EU states are coming in on the side of Guaido and the US.
It should be left up to the Venezuelan people. Maduro has made clear that that’s unacceptable to him. I suspect the same is true of Guaido, although at the moment he’s at least pretending otherwise.
As far as socialism is concerned, once Maduro’s horror show comes to an end, socialists will insist that his rule wasn’t “real socialism.”
As far as socialism is concerned, once Maduro’s horror show comes to an
end, socialists will insist that his rule wasn’t “real socialism.”
And libertarians will continue to conveniently leave out US intervention prior to his election.
All to push the fairy tale of “free market” capitalism which is a mere debunked concept and never been realized due to the fact markets cannot organize themselves let alone a society.
Cuba didn’t put Chávez in power. Drawing an equivalence between Cuba’s influence and the United States project of regime change is absurd. Chavismo is entirely an internal movement in response to the corrupt regime we propped up for so many years.
Crushing socialism by any means is what the American empire does. Then it’s witless flunkies cite the horror show created by the various coups, crippling sanctions and invasions proof of the failure of progressive social policies.
Stealing the wealth of Venezuela or any exploited nation is at it’s essence real capitalism. The slums of Caracas is proof of its success
you clearly don`t know the Venezuela’s constitution and article 133.
The president office is only vacant before election, if
1. the president has died and there is no VP
2. The Supreme court votes and decides it.
3. The president steps down and there is no VP.
Here is the FM for Venezuela at the UN sec.counsil.
explaining to the coupe plotters the constitution.
And under the UN charter, no foreign government can demand a other country elected president to step down, only the UN sec.counsil can decide that.
At 2:23:00
And you clearly don’t understand that I’m not taking either side of the argument, just pointing out that there is one.
The Assembly’s position is that when Maduro’s term ended he automatically “stepped down” because the election in which he won another term was not valid.
I’m not saying that position is correct.
Obviously you and I have different definitions of “clearly.”
I consider the matter unclear (and, again, not any business of the US), and both sides’ claims suspect.
You’ve decided who you want to be in power, and therefore it is automagically “clear” that that’s who’s “legally” in power.
Rubbish. You’re carrying water for the coup. And, as is your usual MO, claiming to be neutral.
I’m not “neutral” at all. I oppose US intervention in Venezuela, full stop.
I don’t have to sort out Venezuela’s internal politics to oppose US intervention.
To the extent that I do attempt any such sorting, it goes like this:
Maduro heads an existing state regime. Guaido heads an aspiring state regime. As an anarchist, I oppose state regimes. A pox on both their houses. I hope the Venezuelan people stretch both their necks.
You are elevating the CIA front man to equality of legitimacy with the elected president.
You are carrying water for the coup.
All the anarchist sophistry in the world won’t hide that.
One need not be “elevated” to be on the same level as Maduro. If I noticed Maduro or Guaido on the sole of one of my shoes, I’d scrape either of them off so as not to track feces into the house.
There you go again. Giving the CIA asset unwarranted legitimacy.
You’re transparent.
And you’re illiterate.
Lolz..
The National Assembly has no authority to declare an election valid or invalid. At best they have to take that claim to the Supreme Justice.
The notion of a separate and equal competing claim to the Presidency by Guaido is nonsensical.
Except it’s pretty dubious that a CIA asset backed with tons of oiligarch money and unknown to most everyone in that country suddenly rises to almost power and still needs the US military to maintain power.
Don’t give Pelosi any ideas.
Assad saught help in repelling foreign agents and invaders from Russia and as he Assad was the legitimate ruler of Syria, there was no motive of overthrow. Moreover Russia had had a presence prior to the attempted ouster of Assad. Lastly, most of the very effective Russian assistance was accomplished by air power much of which was based out of Syria. The Islamic State Rebellion ..???? It was much more an invasion than a rebellion with Uncle Sam as paymaster ,personified by Jon McStain!!!
Any attempt to bestow legitimacy on the aforementioned events in Stria of Islamic State or on the clownclown Guiado in Venezuela is lipstick on those pigs you seem to have chosen for what reason I cannot fathom….
“lipstick on those pigs you seem to have chosen”
Well, see, there’s your problem.
I have precisely zero preference between Maduro’s existent regime and Guaido’s emerging regime except to the extent that the latter is at least partially powered by US intervention, which I oppose.
I don’t have to believe that Maduro is good to assume that Guaido is bad. My non-interventionist holding is independent of such judgments.
“In other words, you’re right because you want to be right. Noted.”
I guess that pretty much sums up your argument then doen’t it Thomas ?
You pretend not to have a preference while constantly omitting the context in which the situation has evolved within.
Much like this site has neglected to cover the extent of US involvement over time since it would shine a negative light on who runs capitalism.
I don’t pretend not to have a preference. My preference is this: The US should get the hell out, and stay the hell out, of Venezuela’s internal politics.
“Much like, in my imagination, this site has neglected to cover the extent of US involvement over time”
Fixed, no charge.
” I pretend not to have a preference.”
There, fixed it for you. All anyone has to do is read our posts to see you pull punches on the CIA puppet’s claim to power and dunk on Maduro’s legitimacy via refusing to connect the past to the present.
Yes, all anyone has to do is read my posts. After undergoing a 50-point IQ reduction surgery.
If Assad called in Russian troops to put down domestic protests he would be a traitor. But Assad’s regime was being attacked, bombed and invaded by foreign troops and foreign ISIS militants.
“But Assad’s regime was being attacked, bombed and invaded by foreign troops and foreign ISIS militants.”
You know, the ISIS militants we let accidentally escape into Syria so we could invade it……
This is what he learned at George Washington University?
Makes you think George Washington should change it’s name to King George
The shoe could so easily be on the other foot. I don’t think the empire’s establishments really understand just how many active fault lines exist within America and how easy it would be to run a regime change operation here.
These blatant in-your-face coups are the finest blowback generators of all time. It wouldn’t surprise me if someday in the near future China and Russia are delivering metric tons of weapons to disaffected and disenfranchised areas of the USA while running a global full court press against us.
I suspect many of our regime change experts do know how easy it would be to do here.
I suspect they even have plans, “as an exercise” on just how to do it.
Greedo is NOT “Venezuela’s Guaido” but Mike Pence’s little creep with NO legal authority to do anything.
Guiado who ?
The best scenario will be angry group people will play hangman just like they did with Mussolini for inviting a foreign power to occupy and kill Venezuelan people.
Maduro maintains power by winning democratic elections.
AW is giving Guano way too much credibility and authority.
It fits their economic policy of never evolving beyond capitalism. They have to demonize socialism in order to preserve capitalism.
Did Venezuela’s President Really ‘Steal’ the 2018 Election from an Unknown Who Didn’t Run? That wouldn’t make sense. Because Guaidó didn’t even run in the 2018 presidential election.
Oiligarchs made sure some parties sat out the election and made sure the election monitoring was stopped so that they could set up yet another puppet.
Maybe this is why real dictators don’t have elections or actual independent legislatures? That way, no one can say an election is null and void or fixed.
Saddam Hussein held elections with astoundingly flattering results to validate his rule. Dictators don’t get more real than that.
The Saudi dictators are worse.
…………….and they don’t have elections.
The Saudi monarchy is probably more accurately a tyranny; absolute power invested in one personage.
Napoleon was the first modern dictator, taking the form of a modern state leader with implied limits to power.
https://www.quora. com/What-is-the-difference-between-a-tyrant-and-a-dictator
It may seem a minor nitpick, but given the present times, understanding historical contexts may be important.
Do you have any evidence of electoral malfeasance in Venezuela?
“How Washington Funded the Counterrevolution in Venezuela”
“Self-declared
president Juan Guaidó comes from the right-wing, US-backed student
movement that tried to subvert Hugo Chávez’s government.”
https://www.thenation.com/article/venezuela-washington-funded-counterrevolution/
It’s the same bullbutter they were selling when they decided to destroy the entire ME and anywhere else they can get their evil hands on.
When you have a mass murder economy like we presently do, you can’t allow people to opt out of paying protection money to the winners of the capitalist crime racket.
Context is purposely left out(and comments turned off) of coverage here on Antiwar.com in order to cover up the fact private sector interests are once again destroying people’s lives for profit. Then it’s blamed on the government despite the FACT that there’s little or no support among the population for these corporate raiders and their private aspirations.
“Then it’s blamed on the government despite the FACT that there’s little or no support among the population for these corporate raiders and their private aspirations.”
Check your premises. Where on Earth did you get the idea that what governments do is determined by whether or not there’s “support among the population?”
The government IS “these corporate raiders and their private [sic] aspirations.”
Actually it’s the other war around if you live in the real world.
The state is in debt to the private sector. Once again the libertarian getting clubbed over the head gets mad at the club and ignores the person swinging it……
Corporations are not anything resembling a “private sector.” They exist entirely as a result of state action. They were created by the state. They are chartered by the state. They are given artificial privilege (e.g. “corporate personhood” and “limited liability”) by the state. They are regulated by the state. They are part of the state. And they largely control the state.
“They are part of the state. And they largely control the state.”
They were created by private citizens. The state didn’t come up with the idea, a capitalist or feudalistic lord did.
Would you like to blame the state for anything else that elite’s have inflicted upon society ??
Could you provide some evidence that government decided to create the legal status of incorporation so that it would eventually usurp it’s own power….
“They were created by private citizens.”
The prototypical modern corporation, the East India Company, was formed by Royal Charter of Queen Elizabeth I to “George, Earl of Cumberland, and 215 Knights, Aldermen, and Burgesses.” The charter awarded the compan a monoply on all British trade with countries east of the Cape of Good Hope and west of the Straits of Magellan.
Subsequent corporate charters haven’t always been quite as expansive, but by definition a corporation is an entity chartered by the state and given special privileges by the state. Absent those special privileges, a “corporation” would just be a large partnership with full severable liability for all partners and no artificial “personhood” of its own.
The state has run the corporations since it invented them, and the corporations have run it since shortly after that.
Could you please show me how many government office holders set on the board of Apple or Amazon…..
“The state has run the corporations since it invented them, and the corporations have run it since shortly after that.”
At who’s request and once again, where does the money go Thomas ?
You keep trying to convince everyone that the state is the reason for people oppressing people when it’s just false.
If it were the state running corporations then those in the state would be on the boards of those corporations and would have majority control of the shares.
Is the US government majority shareholder of Apple or Amazon, etc……. ???
You’re conflating authorization with partnership and the fact that people had no choice but to gain state recognition of their scam. At the same time you keep forgetting to mention where the profit goes and who actually holds power within the corporate structure.
Once again, why would government usurp it’s own power and give away revenue.
Do you honestly believe the state is giving all this money, power, and prestige to private citizens so it can later be split up evenly among the citizenry ?
What’s the motive ?
“Do you honestly believe the state is giving all this money, power, and prestige to private citizens so it can later be split up evenly among the citizenry ?”
Er, no.
The state serves the political class. That’s what it was created to do, that’s what it’s always done, and that’s what it will always do.
And corporations are the top of the political class food chain.
Where does the profit go again Thomas ? That’s right, it doesn’t go to the state does it ? When has it ever gone to anyone but the elite again ??
So when the elite abuse the state you blame the state. Not very perceptive of you is it ?
Governments don’t oppress and exploit people, capitalists oppress and exploit people.
They aren’t doing it to evenly divide everything up equally later on……
“Where does the profit go again Thomas ? That’s right, it doesn’t go to the state does it ? When has it ever gone to anyone but the elite again ??”
Well, which is it? Does it go to the elite (aka the state), or not?
The state isn’t the elite. The Elite are far too lazy and want nothing to do with the possibility of accountability.
Guaido is acting outside the Venezuelan Constitution just by calling himself ‘Interim President’. Nonetheless,:
“Article 13 … The geographical space of Venezuela is an area of peace. No foreign military bases or facilities having purposes that are in any way military shall be established within such space by any power or coalition of powers.”
The U.S. or any other invader will need bases; no-one can authorize such.
“Article 187: It shall be the function of the National Assembly: [which presently has no legal authority anyway, being subject to the National Constituent Assembly…]
11. To authorize the operation of Venezuelan military missions abroad or foreign military missions within the country.”
This is not a function Guaido could ‘personally authorize’ even if he were legally ‘Interim President’, or even full President, which he is neither. The National Assembly, which is subject to the National Constituent Assembly override anyway, would have to vote on this proposal and pass it.
However, its not clear where Wagner Group Russian mercs fit under Article 187.11. The Constituent National Assembly may have to look into this.
Hopefully the National Constituent Assembly is taking note of all of Guaido’s abuses of the shortcomings of the 1999 Constitution as they formulate a new one.
“The U.S. or any other invader will need bases; no-one can authorize such.”
The Russians will be disappointed to hear that they don’t get to build a base for their long-range bombers on La Orchila after all.
I’m actually more curious to know what the National Constituent Assembly has to say about Wagner Group mercs.
The Russian base hasn’t been built yet, not the base officially authorized by the National Constituent Assembly.
A fair amount of power is vested in the NCA. There’s nothing saying a referendum had to be held to form it, either.
“Hold on, this is waiting to be approved by News from Antiwar.com.”
That’s one way of censoring out counter points to your argument I guess.
Once again, get mad at the club and ignore the person or people swinging it…..
This site is revealing itself to be more libertarian/pro capitalist than anti war and or anti intervention every day.
“That’s one way of censoring out counter points to your argument I guess.”
No, that’s one way of preventing the forum from being overrun with spam. “Amazon” is one of the tripwire words that triggers the spam filters. The delay between your comment submission and them being posted was the time between you hitting publish and me coming by to clean out the spam traps.
But nice try at making yourself out to be oppressed here.
Where did the comments go then ? Funny how your comment didn’t trigger the spam filter don’t you think ?
The comments went to the spam filter. Then when I saw them, I approved them and they were published.
My comment DID trigger the spam filter. As I knew it would, so I simply hit publish, then went into the spam filter, and approved it.
Nothing “funny” about any of it. I’m also not speaking to you through the fillings in your teeth.
I’m inviting all my Mexican friends to come America and overthrow a President who took office in a fraudulent election
Where exactly in the Constitution does it say the fake president of Venezuela can authorize use of US military force? Bolton has already admitted this is about Venezuelan oil for American oil companies. US blubbering about freedom, democracy and humanitarianism has been exposed to all but the willfully blind (most of us, apparently). Humanitarian governments do not turn modern cities to rubble and brag about starving foreigners to death.
I would like to comment on the article you published today by James Harkin from the Intercept, “Douma:Searching for Facts in the Fog of Syria’s Propaganda War.” The main body of evidence presented in this article for the accusation that Assad was responsible for the chemical weapons attack on Douma is from Bellingcat, (Eliot Higgins), a notorious UK/US outlet which receives funding from M16 and the CIA.
Also read the comments by the Wolf in the comment section following this article which are quite revealing concerning this propaganda and its author.
would like to comment on the article you published today by James Harkin,
“Douma: Searching for Facts in the Fog of Syria’s Propaganda War”The
main body of evidence for the accusation that Assad was responsible for
the chemical weapons attack in Douma is from Bellingcat, (Eliot
Higgins) a notorious UK/US outlet which receives funding from M16 and
the CIA?