There is a sad disregard for human life among the neocon regime-changers. The devastation of Iraq, with its million dead, was a mere stepping stone to a "re-making" of the Middle East. A Libya turned into a modern day slave market after neocon-backed "liberation" is off the radar screen. Who cares, right?
Syria suffered a half million dead after a US backed jihadist insurgency - strongly backed by the neocons - and not a word of remorse.
In fact, in a remarkable act of chutzpah, neocons have taken to blaming the victims in Syria, with the Washington Post's Josh Rogin branding Assad, who fought and ultimately defeated US-backed terrorists (and in so doing saved Syria's ancient Christian community) an "enemy of humanity." One need not join the Assad fan club to come to the easy conclusion that an al-Qaeda-controlled Aleppo, for example, was a living hell while an Aleppo liberated by Assad very soon was on its feet again as a multi-confessional and multi-cultural center of Syria.
The sick disregard for human life as Washington gins up the regime change machine is on display again, bolder and more sadistic than ever. Witness the neoconservative Senator from Florida, shown above, who Tweeted this week that as hunger is growing in Venezuela, that country's military must make a choice whether to support the US-backed overthrow of its government or allow the people to starve. Clearly threatening war, Rubio wrote, "military leaders should make a choice, before a choice is made for them."
MintPressNews writer Whitney Webb put it best: "Marco Rubio is openly saying that if Venezuela's military doesn't turn on Maduro soon, 'a choice will made for them' by the United States. Scariest threat for an imminent invasion of Venezuela I have yet to see."
Other neocons behind this regime change operation are showing signs of desperation as after more than a week of their backing the US-selected "interim president" - who had never run for the office - there are not yet any major signs of the Maduro government crumbling under the pressure.
National Security Advisor John Bolton, who has spearheaded this idiotic operation (as he helped spearhead the idiotic 2003 invasion of Iraq), is almost begging the Venezuelan military to change sides. He is no doubt frustrated that the "cake walk" he likely promised Trump is to this point looking like no such thing.
Bolton Tweeted on Wednesday:
The U.S. will consider sanctions off-ramps for any Venezuelan senior military officer that stands for democracy and recognizes the constitutional government of President Juan Guaido. If not, the international financial circle will be closed off completely. Make the right choice!
Translation: "Want some money? Help us overthrow your government!"
The cynicism goes even deeper than that, however. After supporting the most brutal and aggressive sanctions against Venezuela for years - a policy that no doubt contributed to the misery they now pretend to seek to ameliorate - the regime changers are now dangling US "humanitarian" aid in front of Venezuelans if only they come over to the pro-rebel side and help overthrow their government.
A US convoy of "humanitarian" relief trucks has set out in Colombia all the way to the Venezuelan border. After trying to starve Venezuelans for years, suddenly the US government dangles food in front of them. For a price.
That's not humanitarianism, it's inhumanitarianism.
But the US "aid" convoy to Venezuela was so obviously a political move to use food as a weapon that even the UN and other NGOs refused to take part in the charade. Unsurprisingly, the Venezuelan government did not allow the US convoy to enter its territory and deliver aid to any rebels that might be eager to receive it.
Another example of how paranoid and unstable the Venezuelan government really is? No, actually just a couple of days earlier another "aid" shipment was found to contain a cache of weapons slated for delivery to the rebels.
Maybe they were just "moderate" rebels"?
You don't believe the US government would make such a dishonest and dangerous move as to hide a cache of weapons inside a "humanitarian" aid shipment? Ha! For Bolton and his new/old comrade in charge of regime change in Venezuela, Elliot Abrams, this was a return to the "good old days" where such practice was all in a day's work.
As an article in the 1987 Los Angeles Times informs us:
Oliver L. North and other Reagan Administration aides deliberately used a 1986 program of "humanitarian aid" for Nicaraguan rebels to help support the secret effort to deliver military aid to the contras , U.S. officials said Monday.
The aid was administered by the State Department's Nicaraguan Humanitarian Assistance Office, but officials said that all significant decisions were made by a "Restricted Inter-Agency Group," consisting of North, Assistant Secretary of State Elliott Abrams and Alan D. Fiers, chief of the CIA's Central America Task Force. (emphasis added)
Boltlon, Abrams, and the rest of Trump's neocons aren't even trying to make this original. They have pulled the old 1980s "support Latin American dictators" playbook off the shelf and are blatantly plagiarizing themselves! And the tens of thousands of innocent dead littering the scorched earth of their murderous policies? Don't expect an apology: they are panting for more death and destruction!
The US "aid" convoy to Venezuela was a farce from the beginning. Delivering humanitarian aid was the last thing on the neocon mind. Much more important was to deliver a message. And thanks to the slavishly compliant mainstream media in the US and among its allies, that message was amplified to all corners of the globe. As German government mouthpiece Deutsche Welle put it, "Maduro rejects humanitarian aid as nation starves."
Score that headline a major win for the CIA and other psy-op masters.
Except unlike in Yemen, where the Germans and other "allies" back the US and Saudi genocide of the population amidst plenty of concrete evidence of horrific starvation, there is no evidence of anything remotely resembling a Yemen-like starvation nightmare in Venezuela. If there was, we'd see it in full livid detail. And again, Yemen doesn't count because it's the US and its allies doing the starving and blocking the humanitarian relief.
The neocons still have not broken up the Venezuelan government but they are not out of weapons. Secretary of State and top neocon dog Mike Pompeo may be about to go nuclear. In the face of a stalled regime change Pompeo came out yesterday with the outlandish claim that the Venezuela is now a central battle ground in the "War on Terror"! He told FoxNews' Trish Regan that Venezuela is full of "active Hezbollah cells." And that, "The Iranians are impacting the people of Venezuela and throughout South America."
He added, ominously: "We have an obligation to take down that risk for America.”
Having over decades established Hezbollah as the ultimate bogeyman (despite their not targeting Americans or the US and in fact being primarily focused against Israeli expansionism and aggression), the neocons are now doing their best to use raw fear of terrorism to motivate Americans to support a US invasion of Venezuela.
And if Americans are not sufficiently propagandized that the Venezuelan government is the new Hitler and must be deposed before it throws more babies from incubators and distributes more Viagra to its troops? Breitbart is always good for a few low-IQ chunks of red meat to the feverish masses. Today they breathlessly report - PROOF of the depravity of Maduro - that..."Nicholas Maduro Threatens to Kill American Troops if They Invade Venezuela."
What a revelation! Has there been country in history that actually welcomed a hostile invasion?
What is next for Venezuela and the neocon regime change plan? Well it is not going to plan at present, but as with all of these operations it is the neocons holding the cards (and the cash). The "correlation of forces" are definitely on their side. The neocon regime changers must only hit the target once, while the legitimate government of Venezuela must parry each blow.
As for the obligatory disclaimer (this is getting tedious): No, we do not "support" Maduro or socialism or all the really bad things he is accused of in Venezuela. Our opposition is as American patriots: We do not want a global US empire that arrogates to itself the authority to decide who is and who is not acceptable to govern a foreign country. No sanctions, no meddling, no "regime change". A sound defense of this country and a passionate dedication to leading not by force or subterfuge, but by example.
The neocons have been given carte blanche by a seemingly lazy or uninterested President Trump. Will we rise to the occasion and defend real American values against their obsessive, failed attempts to conquer the globe? Will we hold our representatives in Congress accountable to real American values? There is some wavering in Congress about an implied authorization for the use of force in Venezuela. It is a unique opportunity for us to make our preferences known in a way that might make a difference. What do you say? It's not that hard.
Your continued support for our efforts to get the real news out to the American people is so much appreciated. Now more than ever!
On February 7th, a fugitive Venezuelan Colonel was shown on video confessing to ties with the CIA and Colombian officials. He was captured in January after slipping back into the country.
The Trump administration’s now completely overt effort to overthrow Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro had a very successful public relations effort this week, as major Western media outlets uniformly echoed its simplistic, pre-packaged claim that the Venezuelan government was heartlessly withholding foreign aid
On January 23 US Vice President Pence sent a message via Twitter that Washington recognized the 35-year-old Speaker of the Venezuela National Assembly, Juan Guaido, as the “legitimate” President of the troubled country, and not elected President Maduro. The fact that it was first Pence and not the US President, who seemed forced to play catch-up, says much about the intervention. The question is whether oil was the reason as neo-con Security Council adviser John Bolton claimed or something else. The evidence suggests something else, but what something? .
For much of the past twenty years, critics of U.S. foreign policy have noted that it is often countries with sizeable oil reserves that most often find themselves the targets of U.S.-backed “humanitarian” interventions aimed at “restoring democracy.” Analysis of the nearly two-decades-long U.S. effort aimed at regime change and “democracy promotion” in Venezuela has long linked such efforts to the fact that the South American country has the world’s largest proven oil reserves.
Our IP Address: