AP report exposes US role in right-wing coup in Venezuela - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#14983732
Eric London wrote:
AP report exposes US role in right-wing coup in Venezuela

By Eric London
28 January 2019

The United States intensified its coup operation against the Venezuelan government of Nicolas Maduro over the weekend as the European Union swung behind the US effort.

Speaking on Saturday before the United Nations Security Council, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo declared, “The regime of ex-president Nicolas Maduro is illegitimate. We therefore consider all of its declarations and actions illegitimate and invalid.”

Calling Venezuela an “illegitimate mafia state,” Pompeo addressed the governments of the world: “Either you stand with the forces of freedom, or you’re in league with Maduro and his mayhem.”

Also on Saturday, several European governments—including France, Germany, Spain and the UK—delivered an ultimatum, declaring that they would recognize US-backed, self-declared president Juan Guaidó unless Maduro called new elections within eight days. As expected, Maduro rejected the ultimatum.

Throughout Sunday, Maduro visited military bases and tweeted videos of himself in military garb addressing troops and conducting exercises with the Army and Navy.

“To guarantee peace, we must prepare ourselves,” Maduro said. “In this world we respect the brave, the courageous, and we have to respect the Venezuelan nation with military power.” He reiterated that the military would hold the country’s largest nationwide military exercises beginning February 10.

At the same time, Maduro rescinded his previous threat to expel US diplomats in Venezuela, allowing Saturday’s initial expulsion deadline to pass without incident. Maduro announced that he would let US diplomats stay for another 30 days. He indicated in an interview on Turkish CNN that he had sent Trump “many messages” and was interested in “engaging in comprehensive dialogue.”

The US categorically rejected Maduro’s 30-day deadline in a statement yesterday that declared: “We do not have any plans to close the embassy.”

While Guaidó refused Maduro’s offers for talks, the US government is openly acknowledging its role in orchestrating the anti-Maduro coup. The Associated Press published a report Friday titled “Anti-Maduro coalition grew from secret talks,” which noted that the US-backed Guaidó coalition “came together over weeks of secret diplomacy that included whispered messages to activists.”

The AP reported that “in mid-December, Guaidó quietly traveled to Washington, Colombia and Brazil to brief officials on the opposition’s strategy of mass demonstrations.” According to anonymous US officials, “long sessions of encrypted text messages became the norm,” and when the decision was made to launch the coup, it was Guaió and his far-right supporters who were chosen to lead the coup. “Some moderate factions were left in the dark,” the report said.

Thus Guaidó met with the three most reactionary government leaders in the Western hemisphere—Donald Trump, Brazil’s fascistic President Jair Bolsonaro and Colombia’s far-right Iván Duque Márquez—and launched the coup with their support.

In a Sunday interview with the Washington Post, Guaidó said the opposition was engaged in negotiations with the Venezuelan military, encouraging them to switch sides and support the US-backed efforts to remove Maduro.

“We have been in talks with government officials, civilian and military men,” Guiadó told the Post. “This is a very delicate subject involving personal security. We are meeting with them, but discreetly.”

Guaidó’s interview with the Post took place after Reuters reported Saturday that Colonel Jose Luis Silva, a top Venezuelan military envoy at the country’s embassy in the US, publicly broke with Maduro and posted a video calling for his fellow military officers to support the US-backed opposition.

“Today I speak to the people of Venezuela, and especially to my brothers in the armed forces of the nation, to recognize President Juan Guaidó as the only legitimate president,” Silva said in a video recorded in his office in Venezuela’s embassy in Washington.

Since Maduro pulled back from threats to physically remove US diplomats from the embassy, the Trump administration has found a new potential provocation for direct military intervention. According to Guaidó, the US, through the opposition, may soon seek to deliver $20 million in promised food aid in order to force Maduro to choose between allowing the food to enter the country—thereby acknowledging the legitimacy of the Guaidó government—or rejecting the aid and allowing Guaidó, the US and European powers to denounce Maduro for “spreading hunger and disease,” as the Post put it.

Speaking last night, Guaidó announced new demonstrations set for Monday and “ordered” Venezuelan soldiers not to fire on protestors. Some 30 people have died in demonstrations in recent days.

There is a concern in the US-backed opposition that a protracted period of instability will incite the Venezuelan working class to take independent action.

According to a January report from the Venezuelan Observatory of Social Conflict (OVCS), there were 12,715 anti-government demonstrations over the course of 2018, or 35 per day.

The OVCS reports that only 11 percent of the demonstrations were led by the upper-middle class. A full 89 percent of the protests “occurred based on demands for economic rights” largely in the working class neighborhoods. The OVCS report notes that “the lack of social services also played a protagonistic role as one of the motives for the growth of protests in 2018. In fact, 3,716 protests were for this reason: 1,731 for lack of gas in homes, 1,138 for lack of access to water and 847 for lack of electricity.”

Just days before the January 23 opposition-led demonstration, Venezuelan teachers initiated a one-day national strike, which received widespread support among teachers and workers across the country.

On January 17, tens of thousands of teachers poured out into the streets, demanding massive raises and increases in spending for public education in what protesters called a “day of dignity for teachers.”

Like their counterparts in France, Mexico, Argentina and the US, Venezuelan teachers initiated spontaneous demonstrations numbering in the thousands, with slogans such as “The teacher who is fighting is also teaching.” Though the Maduro government downplayed the significance of the strike, videos and photos from across the country show that participation was in the tens or hundreds of thousands.

The Democratic Party in the US has lined up entirely behind Trump’s coup. The AP report exposing secret talks between Guaidó and the US noted: “Just as impressive, [Trump’s] tough-handed approach drew bipartisan support, with two of the Senate’s most senior Democrats, Dick Durbin and Bob Menendez, offering praise.”

On his show Friday, liberal media personality Bill Maher launched a colonialist rant, praising Trump’s coup as a sign that the president is bucking his supposed Russian backers:

“Today, Venezuela—this is the front page of the New York Times —Venezuela, okay, they have a guy, an opposition leader who finally stood up, and we are backing him. And Russia warned us to back off because they’re backing the dictator. This was the Monroe Doctrine! This is our backyard! And Russia is now telling us to back off of what goes on in Venezuela, because they know they can? Because they’re so emboldened? That doesn’t bother you?”

Washington’s cynical claims to be defending “democracy” in Venezuela are belied by the fact that the Trump administration appointed Elliot Abrams to oversee the “transition to democracy” on Friday. Abrams was convicted of lying to federal investigators during the Iran-Contra scandal and was a prominent advocate of the use of death squads in Central America during the civil wars that ravaged the region in the 1980s.

Copyright © 1998-2019 World Socialist Web Site - All rights reserved
#14983735
Your title for the thread is deliberately misleading. You do not provide an AP source. You provide a Socialist source saying it is quoting the AP intermixed with it’s own view. Please provide the actual AP story.
#14983748
One Degree wrote:
Your title for the thread is deliberately misleading. You do not provide an AP source. You provide a Socialist source saying it is quoting the AP intermixed with it’s own view. Please provide the actual AP story.



AP Exclusive: Anti-Maduro coalition grew from secret talks

By JOSHUA GOODMAN, LUIS ALONSO LUGO and ROB GILLIES
January 25, 2019

https://www.apnews.com/d548c6a958ee4a1fb8479b242ddb82fd
#14983761
ckaihatsu wrote:AP Exclusive: Anti-Maduro coalition grew from secret talks

By JOSHUA GOODMAN, LUIS ALONSO LUGO and ROB GILLIES
January 25, 2019

https://www.apnews.com/d548c6a958ee4a1fb8479b242ddb82fd


Thank you. From your source...
On Jan. 4 — a day before Guaido was sworn in as national assembly president — foreign ministers from 13 nations of the Lima Group, which doesn’t include the U.S., said they wouldn’t recognize Maduro’s second term.

That set off a scramble at the White House to make sure it wasn’t being left behind, said a former U.S. official and congressional staffer who was in close contact with the national security council. Both spoke on the condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to discuss the administration’s planning.


This hardly sounds like the US was leading a coup.
After the above quote, the article suggests Canada was the main player in this.
#14984044
@One Degree,

@ckaihatsu, provides horrible sources, and never actually shares his own thoughts/ideas/opinions. You should see the thread about the Matamoros strike. I provided more REAL information that he has.

My point? Don't take this guy seriously at all.

That said, I do not doubt the US is at least in some way involved in the anti-maduro movements. However, it's probably overblown by the likes of the OP.
#14984142
OD and Rancid,

I'm not getting whatever reasons you may have for being so summarily dismissive and off-target regarding the revelation of pre-meditated *coup-planning* from within U.S. circles.

Your tone, from the both of you, is *way* too provocative here -- you sound downright *deflecting* in your treatment of developments within this topic.

Here's from the article, that plants motives and coup-strategizing squarely in the U.S. camp:



In mid-December, Guaido quietly traveled to Washington, Colombia and Brazil to brief officials on the opposition’s strategy of mass demonstrations to coincide with Maduro’s expected swearing-in for a second term on Jan. 10 in the face of widespread international condemnation, according to exiled former Caracas Mayor Antonio Ledezma, an ally.



Long sessions of encrypted text messaging became the norm, the opposition leader said. A U.S. official said intermediaries were used to deliver messages to Guaido’s political mentor and opposition power broker Leopoldo Lopez, who is under house arrest after he tried and failed to lead a mass uprising against Maduro in 2014. The U.S. official spoke on condition of anonymity out of security concerns.
#14984146
ckaihatsu wrote:OD and Rancid,

I'm not getting whatever reasons you may have for being so summarily dismissive and off-target regarding the revelation of pre-meditated *coup-planning* from within U.S. circles.

Your tone, from the both of you, is *way* too provocative here -- you sound downright *deflecting* in your treatment of developments within this topic.

Here's from the article, that plants motives and coup-strategizing squarely in the U.S. camp:


Talking to people is not proof of a US led coup. Why don’t you think Brazil or Canada are behind this ‘coup’?
What evidence do you have that implicates the US more than any other? I am not being dismissive. I read your ‘evidence’ and found it did not support your claims. I only argued from your source. If it upsets you that your own source is not compelling, then that is not my problem.
#14984149
One Degree wrote:
Talking to people is not proof of a US led coup. Why don’t you think Brazil or Canada are behind this ‘coup’?
What evidence do you have that implicates the US more than any other? I am not being dismissive. I read your ‘evidence’ and found it did not support your claims. I only argued from your source. If it upsets you that your own source is not compelling, then that is not my problem.



I'm not trying to be 'compelling' -- I'm just going by the AP article, like anyone else here.

Of *course* it's an international *conspiracy*, so I'm not claiming that the involvement is limited to only the U.S. alone. Here's a relevant excerpt from the WSWS article....



[O]n Saturday, several European governments—including France, Germany, Spain and the UK—delivered an ultimatum, declaring that they would recognize US-backed, self-declared president Juan Guaidó unless Maduro called new elections within eight days. As expected, Maduro rejected the ultimatum.



And two excerpts from the AP article:



Despite Guaido’s personal assurances in Bogota that he would declare himself interim president at a Jan. 23 rally coinciding with the anniversary of the 1958 coup that ended Venezuela’s military dictatorship, the suspense lasted until the hours before the announcement, said a Latin American diplomat from the Lima Group who requested anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media. Some moderate factions were left in the dark or wanted to go slower, worrying that a bold move would lead to another failure for the opposition. In the end, those differences were smoothed over internally, without any public discord.

“This is the first time in at least five years the opposition has shown an ability to come together in any meaningful manner,” said a senior Canadian official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk publicly.



On Jan. 4 — a day before Guaido was sworn in as national assembly president — foreign ministers from 13 nations of the Lima Group, which doesn’t include the U.S., said they wouldn’t recognize Maduro’s second term.

That set off a scramble at the White House to make sure it wasn’t being left behind, said a former U.S. official and congressional staffer who was in close contact with the national security council. Both spoke on the condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to discuss the administration’s planning.

Playing a key role behind the scenes was Lima Group member Canada, whose Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland spoke to Guaido the night before Maduro’s searing-in ceremony to offer her government’s support should he confront the socialist leader, the Canadian official said. Also active was Colombia, which shares a border with Venezuela and has received more than 2 million migrants fleeing economic chaos, along with Peru and Brazil’s new far-right President Jair Bolsonaro.
#14984156
ckaihatsu wrote:I'm not trying to be 'compelling' -- I'm just going by the AP article, like anyone else here.

Of *course* it's an international *conspiracy*, so I'm not claiming that the involvement is limited to only the U.S. alone. Here's a relevant excerpt from the WSWS article....





And two excerpts from the AP article:


So you are confirming my argument, so why the title for the thread? The thread title clearly implicates only the US.
#14984158
One Degree wrote:
So you are confirming my argument, so why the title for the thread? The thread title clearly implicates only the US.



Don't you think you're being rather *nit-picky* -- ?

The article itself goes into detail about the international conspiracy of nation-states against Maduro -- you shouldn't expect extensive detail from just a headline itself.
#14984163
ckaihatsu wrote:Don't you think you're being rather *nit-picky* -- ?

The article itself goes into detail about the international conspiracy of nation-states against Maduro -- you shouldn't expect extensive detail from just a headline itself.


I expect the headline to accurately reflect the purpose of the thread. If your purpose was not to target the US, then you should have used a different headline. Obviously, the arguments presented will be determined by the indication you give. This is not being nitpicky, it is objecting to a misleading title.
Actually, my guess is you were caught in the deception and are now pretending you were not being deceptive by moving the goalposts. I don’t know if that is true, but the title and source choices certainly indicate propaganda.
#14984170
One Degree wrote:
I expect the headline to accurately reflect the purpose of the thread. If your purpose was not to target the US, then you should have used a different headline. Obviously, the arguments presented will be determined by the indication you give. This is not being nitpicky, it is objecting to a misleading title.
Actually, my guess is you were caught in the deception and are now pretending you were not being deceptive by moving the goalposts. I don’t know if that is true, but the title and source choices certainly indicate propaganda.



'Target' the U.S. -- ?

From my reproducing of an existing article, to this discussion board -- ??

And what headline am I to conceivably *use*, when I'm not affiliated with the SEP / WSWS, and I had zero involvement in the creation of that article? Why *shouldn't* I just copy-and-paste the existing headline, and article?

I don't think you're understanding *why* the WSWS article borrowed so heavily from the AP article -- it's because the AP article showed, from investigative journalism, that this was a behind-the-scenes premeditated *collusion* among international political players, sponsored by Washington (the U.S.). At face-value that's *corruption*, because a country like the U.S. (etc.) is *not allowed* to summarily foment a coup in another, sovereign country, by international law, of which the U.S. is a signatory, presumably.

It's *definitely* being nitpicky when *anyone* expects a headline to fully represent the *entire content* of the multi-paragraph *article*. This is not "deception", this is how journalism *works*. If you don't like the headline then you've got to make the effort to read the whole article, potentially for whatever level of *detail* you may be looking for, yourself.

OD, I'm not 'moving the goalposts' because I've only been referring to the reportage itself, which I've had *no* hand in creating. You're unable to object to the headline because your *expectations* of what a headline can communicate are *overblown*, you're unable to object to the *article* because you haven't *addressed* its content, and you can't object to *me* because I have no special role in the articles' reportage.

What's your basis for characterizing the WSWS article as being 'propaganda'? That it went for its facts to an Associated Press article? That its chosen *headline* isn't *detailed-enough* for you? (Yeesh!)
#14984178
ckaihatsu wrote:'Target' the U.S. -- ?

From my reproducing of an existing article, to this discussion board -- ??

And what headline am I to conceivably *use*, when I'm not affiliated with the SEP / WSWS, and I had zero involvement in the creation of that article? Why *shouldn't* I just copy-and-paste the existing headline, and article?

I don't think you're understanding *why* the WSWS article borrowed so heavily from the AP article -- it's because the AP article showed, from investigative journalism, that this was a behind-the-scenes premeditated *collusion* among international political players, sponsored by Washington (the U.S.). At face-value that's *corruption*, because a country like the U.S. (etc.) is *not allowed* to summarily foment a coup in another, sovereign country, by international law, of which the U.S. is a signatory, presumably.

It's *definitely* being nitpicky when *anyone* expects a headline to fully represent the *entire content* of the multi-paragraph *article*. This is not "deception", this is how journalism *works*. If you don't like the headline then you've got to make the effort to read the whole article, potentially for whatever level of *detail* you may be looking for, yourself.

OD, I'm not 'moving the goalposts' because I've only been referring to the reportage itself, which I've had *no* hand in creating. You're unable to object to the headline because your *expectations* of what a headline can communicate are *overblown*, you're unable to object to the *article* because you haven't *addressed* its content, and you can't object to *me* because I have no special role in the articles' reportage.

What's your basis for characterizing the WSWS article as being 'propaganda'? That it went for its facts to an Associated Press article? That its chosen *headline* isn't *detailed-enough* for you? (Yeesh!)


Your source cherrypicked from the AP article.
You are now back to claiming the US was the power behind the coup after abandoning that position in your last post. What exactly is the position you are arguing?
Please post where the AP article claims the US was the power behind the coup? Not from your source, but from the AP article itself as that is your claim. I will even admit to not bothering reading the whole article after seeing how much your source was misrepresenting it.
#14984419
One Degree wrote:
Your source cherrypicked from the AP article.
You are now back to claiming the US was the power behind the coup after abandoning that position in your last post. What exactly is the position you are arguing?



The WSWS article headline is accurate and not misguiding -- it says 'AP report exposes US role in right-wing coup in Venezuela'. The headline does *not* say 'AP report exposes US lead in right-wing coup in Venezuela'.

'Cherrypicking' -- a term with a *negative* connotation -- is done *all the time* in journalism, where articles will refer to a prior, establishing, scooping article that originally broke the news.


One Degree wrote:
Please post where the AP article claims the US was the power behind the coup? Not from your source, but from the AP article itself as that is your claim. I will even admit to not bothering reading the whole article after seeing how much your source was misrepresenting it.



Your imputed line of 'the U.S. was the power behind the coup' has now been discredited. You can find whatever details for yourself, in either article.
#14984421
ckaihatsu wrote:The WSWS article headline is accurate and not misguiding -- it says 'AP report exposes US role in right-wing coup in Venezuela'. The headline does *not* say 'AP report exposes US lead in right-wing coup in Venezuela'.

'Cherrypicking' -- a term with a *negative* connotation -- is done *all the time* in journalism, where articles will refer to a prior, establishing, scooping article that originally broke the news.




Your imputed line of 'the U.S. was the power behind the coup' has now been discredited. You can find whatever details for yourself, in either article.


You are changing your position again? You said...


I don't think you're understanding *why* the WSWS article borrowed so heavily from the AP article -- it's because the AP article showed, from investigative journalism, that this was a behind-the-scenes premeditated *collusion* among international political players, sponsored by Washington (the U.S.).

You keep discrediting your own position and then going right back to it.
#14984425
ckaihatsu wrote:Now you're not even showing comprehension -- please just stop, OD.


Perhaps you can explain what I am missing.
You blamed the US.
I asked for evidence.
You said you weren’t blaming the US.
I asked why the title then.
You go back to saying the US sponsored the coup.

All I see is you insisting the US sponsored the coup and you want me to accept it without evidence because you can’t provide any. This is exactly what your source is doing. This is pure propaganda.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the US was behind it, but that is not what your own evidence shows.
#14984426
ckaihatsu wrote:OP article


The main article you posted is weird to say the least.

On one hand it states that Guiado is somehow evil for planning to allow foreign aid to descredit Maduro while the population is starving then on the other hand it doesn't mention that Maduro blocked it himself in the first place. So of course Maduro will get blamed and Guiado is doing the right thing. Maduro blocked the aid because he refused to aknowledge the food crysis as a crysis and said it was "Economic warfare" on Venezuela at some point.

Here is a link but there are many more: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/dip ... is-n907056

It also doesn't mention that the whole problem comes from the fact that Maduro banned and fractured opposition parties to prevent them from properly taking part in the presidential election. Not to mention calling the "Right wing counter revolutaniaries".

There are a lot more i can mention but why bothers. The article is crap.
The Evolution Fraud

I understand what evidence I should have and I ha[…]

And every nation, government and scientist in the[…]

Trump, Oh my god !

On Tuesday, the F.B.I. said it had arrested a Nazi[…]

YouTube is not a public forum. It's a corporation[…]