Je
vergeet dat soort zaken, zoals de Democraten, die in 2003 voor de illegale oorlog
van de VS tegen Irak waren en daar via hun politieke invloed ‘dapper aan mee hebben gewerkt…..’
Information Clearing House bracht een videodocumentaire waarin de rol van
destijds senator Biden in aanloop naar die oorlog uit de doeken wordt gedaan.
Goed te
weten met wie je te maken hebt als je over Biden spreekt, neem alleen
al zijn smerige machinaties in Oekraïne om de openbaar aanklager te laten ontslaan, dit daar die
een strafrechtelijk onderzoek deed naar zijn zoon Hunter wegens witwassen en corruptie, met het dreigement dat anders de beloofde militaire hulp
niet door zou gaan…… Vreemd dat men daar amper over spreekt in de VS, terwijl dezelfde bemoeienis en chantage (want dat is het) van Trump heeft geleid tot een ongelofelijke zaak, waarvoor de Democratische Partij, de partij van Biden, hem NB wilde afzetten middels een impeachment procedure…….
Overigens, vanmorgen werd bekend gemaakt dat de geheime diensten in de VS stellen dat Rusland al bezig is met de manipulatie van de presidentsverkiezingen in de VS (Russiagate 2.0)…… Volgens zeggen doet Rusland dit om Trump te verzekeren van een tweede termijn >> volkomen belachelijk!!! Alsof Trump Rusland heeft geholpen door het land sancties op te leggen, de EU en dan m.n. Duitsland te dreigen de aanleg van de Nord Stream 2 (NS2) pijpleiding te stoppen…..
Of wat dacht je van het schenden van het INF-verdrag, waarvoor de Trump administratie de brutaliteit had om te zeggen dat Rusland dit verdrag heeft geschonden, terwijl dat aantoonbaar niet zo is, wel schendt de VS dit verdrag met haar raketschild in Polen en Roemenië…..
Dit raketschild van de VS moet raketten uit Iran tegenhouden (volkomen achterlijk idee dat Iran de EU aan zou willen vallen), echter de raketten van dit schuld kunnen in een mum van tijd worden voorzien van (meerdere) kernkoppen en daarmee Rusland aanvallen, waardoor juist die raketten onder het INF-verdrag vallen gezien de afstand die ze af moeten leggen: dichtbij o.a. de grote Russische steden Sint-Petersburg (het voormalige Leningrad) en Moskou……
Later wellicht meer over Russiagate 2.0, zeker daar de Nederlandse reguliere media en politici nog steeds volhouden dat Rusland de presidentsverkiezingen in de VS heeft gemanipuleerd, terwijl daar geen schijn van bewijs voor is…… Zelfs de advertenties die Rusland op Facebook heeft geplaatst hebben die verkiezingen niet beïnvloed, dit daar het om een bedrag gaat dat vergeleken met de bedragen die het (grote) bedrijfsleven in de VS geeft aan kandidaten voor het verkrijgen van invloed, zonder meer is te verwaarlozen, anders gezegd: de werkelijke beïnvloeding van die verkiezingen in de VS wordt gekocht door o.a. het grote bedrijfsleven en de superrijken….. Daarbij moet niet worden vergeten dat Israëlische politici invloed uitoefenen door rechtstreeks het kiezerspubliek in de VS aan te spreken, zoals Netanyahu dat heeft gedaan in 2016…… (wat Israël herhaalde bij de verkiezingen van vorig jaar in GB, waar de Israëlische politici Jeremy Corbyn uiterst smerig demoniseerden, met hulp van o.a. de BBC)
Worth
The Price? Joe Biden and the Launch of the Iraq War
Watch
A
documentary short reviewing the role of then-Senator Joe Biden (D-DE)
in leading the United States into a devastating foreign policy
blunder costing the lives of more than a million people*.
Produced
and directed by Mark Weisbrot and narrated by Danny Glover, the film
features archival footage, as well as policy experts who provide
insight and testimony with regard to Joe Biden’s role as the Chair
of the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in 2002.
Posted
February 18, 2020
===================================
* Het werkelijke aantal dodelijke slachtoffers als gevolg van de illegale oorlog van terreurstaat VS en haar NAVO-partners (in oorlogsmisdaden) tegen Irak is intussen al boven de 2 miljoen gestegen…… (in feite is het nog steeds oorlog in Irak, ondanks de tegenstrijdige ambtsberichten die ons ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken doet uitgaan en die ons moeten doen geloven dat die oorlog voorbij is…….)
Een door
de VS (CIA) georganiseerde en geregisseerde opstand, heeft geleid tot het
intrekken van de steun die politie en leger gaven aan de Boliviaanse socialistische president
Evo Morales en zijn succesvolle regering, waarop Morales nog maar één ding kon doen om
bloedvergieten (op vooral de oorspronkelijke bevolking van Bolivia) te
voorkomen: aftreden……
De media
in de VS mijden het woord ‘coup’ in de verslaggeving, een coup tegen
een leider die de ergste armoede in het land wist weg te werken en
die een succesvol economisch beleid voerde, waarbij hij de
oorspronkelijke bevolking van Bolivia bevoordeelde, die zo te leiden
hadden onder het beleid van de voorgangers van Morales….. Let wel,
dat deel van de bevolking is het grootst in Bolivia, terwijl de macht
in dat land altijd in handen was van de eerdere Spaanse
kolonisten, een minderheid in dat land……
Morales
nationaliseerde daarvoor o.a. de lithium productie, lithium
belangrijk voor accu’s t.b.v. smartphones en andere
computerapparatuur, plus uiteraard de accu’s voor auto’s en fietsen.
Bolivia bezit de grootste lithium voorraden ter wereld…..
Je hoeft
in Latijns-Amerika maar de indruk te wekken dat je het opneemt voor
het grote arme deel van de bevolking en in Washington staan de
signalen op (communistisch) rood. Daarop wordt de CIA losgelaten op
de oppositie en wordt samen met die oppositie een opstand
georganiseerd….. Een beproefde methode van de VS om tot een staatsgreep te
komen, mocht dit niet lukken worden politie en leger van het
betreffende land onder druk gezet (inclusief de belofte van een zak geld en zo mogelijk promotie)
om de democratisch gekozen regering ten val te brengen, waarbij in veel gevallen CIA agenten meehelpen met het smerige antidemocratische werk…..
Het
voorgaande is gelukt, de legerchef eiste dat Morales zou aftreden en
nadat de politie zich al eerder achter de opstand had gesteld,
bleef voor Morales niets anders over dan af te treden… Reken maar
dat Morales binnenskamers te verstaan is gegeven dat wanneer hij
niet zou aftreden, hij en zijn familie vermoord zouden worden……
(zijn familie werd al langer bedreigd….)
De
zoveelste daad van terroristische agressie door de VS uitgeoefend
tegen een democratisch gekozen president en diens regering…
Voorheen waren er in Bolivia geen regels voor de ambtstermijn van een president,
waardoor dictators in het verleden konden blijven zitten, echter
onder Morales wist men het voor elkaar te krijgen dat de ambtstermijn
van een president op maximaal 2 termijnen werd gezet……
Men
beschuldigt Morales van het manipuleren van de verkiezingen, terwijl
het tot Morales standaard was dat verkiezingen werden gemanipuleerd,
e.e.a. kan ook niet anders als je ziet dat de meerderheid van het
volk tot de oorspronkelijke bevolking behoort….. (waardoor er altijd een leider van deze bevolking ‘op de democratische troon’ zou moeten zitten) Het is dan ook zeker
dat vanaf nu de verkiezingen gemanipuleerd zullen worden, zodat niet
nog eens een lid van de oorspronkelijke bevolking tot president kan
worden gekozen, zoals je begrijpt zal dit samengaan met een regering
die de volgende ‘witte’ dictator terzijde zal staan……
Zoals
gewoonlijk heeft ook de vereniging van Amerikaanse staten, de OAS
zich achter de coup tegen Morales gesteld, niet zo vreemd als je
bedenkt dat de OAS in feite bestuurd wordt door de VS, dat ook 60%
van de kosten betaalt……. De OAS stelt zich dan ook altijd
vijandig op tegen landen die ofwel de VS niet welgevallig zijn, dan
wel die socialistisch worden bestuurd (waar deze twee natuurlijk hand
in hand gaan…)…..
Een
zwarte dag voor de democratie, waarover de VS keer op keer liegt dat
men die nastreeft in het buitenland, het buitenland waar deze
vereniging van terreurstaten niets te zoeken heeft, maar wel verkiezingen manipuleert, opstanden organiseert, staatsgrepen regisseert en zelfs illegale oorlogen tegen begint, althans al deze zaken als zo’n land zich niet schikt naar de wensen in Washington en de grote bedrijven van de VS……..
Het
volgende artikel over deze zaak komt van Caitlin Johnstone, let op de volkomen terechte toespraak van Morales over de VS, die hij deed in de VN Veiligheidsraad (!!), daarvoor heeft Johnstone ook de video met die toespraak opgenomen in haar artikel:
Fully
support the findings of the @OAS_official report
recommending new elections in #Bolivia to
ensure a truly democratic process representative of the people’s
will. The credibility of the electoral system must be restored.
As is
usual,
mass media’s reporting on this story is in full alignment with the US
State Department, with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo also advancing
the “disputed election” line in a
tweet shortly
before the forced resignation of Morales. Pompeo cited
the evidence-free
and discredited allegation
of suspicious vote tallies during Morales’ re-election last month
from the Washington-based Organization
of American States (OAS).
As
Mark Weisbrot of the Center for Economic & Policy
Research (CEPR) explains
in a recent article for The
Nation,
the OAS receives 60 percent of its funding from Washington, which
gives the US tremendous leverage over the supposedly neutral and
international body. This ties in interestingly with what we discussed
the other day about
Washington’s known history of using its disproportionate financial
support for the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) as leverage to force that supposedly neutral and international body
to comply with US agendas.
The
field of narrative management keeps making more and more advances.
They
never did find any evidence of fraud in the October 20th election,
but the media repeated the allegation so many times that it became
“true,” in this post-truth world.
Thread: https://t.co/8oWFNKNebT
The
US-centralized empire just keeps throwing coup attempts at unabsorbed
governments until they stick. The coup in Venezuela failed in 2002
and again in 2019, but they’ll just keep attempting them until one
takes hold. A kickboxer throws strikes in combinations with the
understanding that most attacks will miss or do minimal damage
against a trained opponent, but eventually one will get through and
score the knockout blow. Imperialist regime change agendas employ the
same punches-in-bunches philosophy: just keep attacking and
undermining at every possible turn, and eventually something will
stick.
And
the empire can afford to do this. When you have all the power and
resources, you can bide your time, knowing that if the current
attempt at toppling the government in a sovereign nation fails,
there’s always tomorrow.
At
a United Nations Security Council meeting last year, President
Morales summed
up the true nature of
America’s role in the world very accurately, and, it turns out, very
presciently.
“I
would like to say to you, frankly and openly here, that in no way is
the United States interested in upholding democracy,” Morales
said. “If such were the case it would not have financed coups
d’etat and supported dictators. It would not have threatened with
military intervention democratically elected governments as it has
done with Venezuela. The United States could not care less about
human rights or justice. If this were the case, it would have signed
the international conventions and treaties that have protected human
rights.It would not have threatened the investigation mechanism of
the International Criminal Court, nor would it promote the use of
torture, nor would it have walked away from the Human Rights Council.
And nor would it have separated migrant children from their families,
nor put them in cages.”
“The
United States is not interested in multilateralism,” Morales
continued. “If it were interested in multilateralism it would
not have withdrawn from the Paris Agreement or given the cold
shoulder to the global compact on migration, it would not have
launched unilateral attacks, nor have taken decisions such as
illegally declaring Jerusalem to be the capital of Israel. This
contempt for multilateralism is motivated by the thirst of the United
States for political control and for the seizing of natural
resources.”
“Each
time that the United States invades nations, launches missiles, or
finances regime change, it does so behind a propaganda campaign which
incessantly repeats the message that it is acting in the course of
justice, freedom and democracy, in the cause of human rights or for
humanitarian reasons,” Morales also said.
“The
responsibility of our generation is to hand over a fairer and more
secure world to the following generation,” Morales concluded.
“We will only achieve this dream if we work together to
consolidate a multipolar world, a world with common rules that are
respected by and defended from all the threats ranged against the
United Nations.”
Indeed,
the only reason the US is able to wage its endless campaign of regime
change agendas against unabsorbed governments is because the unipolar
world order it rules has allowed it the power, resources and leisure
to do so. A multipolar world would enable the citizenry of this
planet to have a say in what happens to them in a way that is not
dictated by a few sociopaths in and around Washington, DC. A
multipolar world is to democracy as a unipolar world is to monarchy.
The citizens of the world should oppose this unipolarity.
‘VS vermoordde meer dan 20 miljoen mensen sinds het einde van WOII……..‘ Tot het jaar 2000, waar er deze eeuw intussen al meer dan 2,5 miljoen moorden aan toe zijn te voegen, moorden begaan door de VS en de NAVO (waar deze terreurorganisatie onder militair opperbevel stond en staat van de VS, de grootste terreurentiteit op aarde…)….
Persbureau
Reuters heeft willens en wetens een maand lang een rapport
tegengehouden waarin werd aangegeven dat de sancties van de VS tegen
het soevereine Venezuela vanaf augustus 2017 intussen aan 40.000
Venezolanen (inclusief veel kinderen…) het leven heeft gekost, ofwel deze mensen zijn vermoord
door illegale acties van de VS, illegaal daar de VN Veiligheidsraad
hier geen toestemming voor heeft gegeven………
Het is
om doodmoe van te worden, de terreur die de VS op dagelijkse basis
uitoefent tegen een aantal landen die haar niet welgevallig zijn. Hoe
is het mogelijk dat zelfs de reguliere media, die de ene leugen van
de VS na de andere herhalen, dit weten en desondanks door blijven gaan nieuwe leugens te herhalen…… Sterker nog als sociale media
die leugens doorprikken heeft men in de reguliere (massa-) media het gore lef te stellen dat deze sociale media nepnieuws (fake news) brengen, of zelfs samenzweringstheorieën in de wereld brengen…….. De reden daarvoor, één die ik al
meerdere keren heb gehoord uit de mond van ‘journalisten’ en
politici, is dat de VS onze bondgenoot is en er dus geen reden is aan
haar beschuldigingen te twijfelen, zoals de laatste beschuldigingen aan het adres van Iran,
na aanvallen op 2 olietankers in de Golf van Oman….*
Eerder leidden dit soort leugens zelfs tot illegale oorlogen van de VS tegen Afghanistan, Irak, Libië en Syrië, waar de VS uiteindelijk ook verantwoordelijk is voor de oorlog in Oekraïne, immers de opstand die tot de coup tegen de democratisch gekozen president Janoekovytsj leidde, werd door Hillary Clinton (minister van BuZa onder Obama) gefinancierd met 4 miljard dollar (!!) en voor een groot deel uitgevoerd onder regie en hoogstwaarschijnlijk deelname van de CIA……
Reuters meldt vooral vanuit het zieke gezichtspunt van de Trump administratie, dus vooral anti-Maduro en men geeft hem dan ook de schuld voor de ontstane desastreuze economische situatie in Venezuela….. Waar het voor een ieder die er 2 minuten tijd insteekt, duidelijk zal zijn dat de sancties en eerdere economische oorlog van de VS de grote boosdoeners zijn (en zoals je begrijpt, daarmee is de VS de werkelijke dader)……..
Zojuist schreef ik over een eerdere economische oorlog tegen Venezuela, daar de terreur van de VS op dit gebied niet van vandaag of gisteren is…… Voordat de VS de zogenaamde officiële sancties tegen Venezuela afkondigde. voerde het een geheime economische oorlog tegen Venezuela, al onder Obama en Bush……. Onder Obama werden VS winkelketens met winkels in Venezuela te verstaan gegeven hun voorraden zo mogelijk aan te vullen en ook de farmaceutische industrie werd te verstaan gegeven zo min mogelijk te leveren aan Venezuela (de VS heeft zelfs 5 miljard dollar van Venezuela dat in de VS was gereserveerd voor de aankoop van medicijnen en medische apparatuur, geblokkeerd voor gebruik door de Venezolaanse autoriteiten….. Tegelijk meldt de VS dat Maduro het volk medicijnen onthoudt…..)
Nogmaals: Reuters wist dat de VS sancties de economie van Venezuela ernstig hebben geschaad en schaden, maar hield een rapport daarover onder de pet….. Reuters zou een onafhankelijk nieuwsorgaan zijn, echter ook dat blijkt eens te meer onzin te zijn……
(FAIR) — I
emailed Stephanie Nebehay of Reuterson
May 22 about her article, “Venezuela Turns to Russia, Cuba, China
in Health Crisis” (5/22/19).
Her article depicted the impact of US sanctions as an allegation that
Venezuelan government officials are alone in making.
Reuters
(5/22/19)
attributes the idea that US sanctions are causing a health crisis in
Venezuela to Venezuelan Health Minister Carlos Alvarado.
The
article stated:
The
opposition blames [medical shortages] on economic incompetence and
corruption by the leftist movement in power for two decades, but
[President Nicolás] Maduro says US economic sanctions are the cause.
I
asked why the piece made no mention of a study (CEPR, 4/25/19)
released a month earlier by economists Mark Weisbrot and Jeffrey
Sachs, which directly linked US sanctions to 40,000 deaths in
Venezuela since August of 2017.
Her
reply to me on May 23 was quite telling:
I
was not aware of that study, but am now and will bear in mind.
It
would indeed have been impossible for a Reuters reporter
to be aware of the study if they depended only on Reuters articles
to keep informed. The news agency hadn’t mentioned the study since
it was released, never mind written an article about it.
I
asked a contact I have at Reuters about this, and he
was also surprised that Reuters hadn’t even
mentioned the study. He suggested I query some of Reuters’
Venezuela-based reporters, which I did a few days later.
In
my email to them, I passed along a list of
news articles since August 2017, when Trump first dramatically
intensified economic
sanctions, that described worsening economic conditions.
I
also noted that though the Sachs/Weisbrot study was ignored
by Reuters,
it had been intensely debated
in public by
Venezuelan opposition economists (i.e., the kind of
people Reuters and
other Western media actually pay attention to on Venezuela).
CEPR compared oil
production in Venezuela and neighboring Colombia to illustrate the
impact of US sanctions.
The
Brookings Institution published a few rebuttals to the study
(here and here),
which I also pointed out to Reuters. The objections Brookings made were essentially already
addressed by
Weisbrot and Sachs in response to other critics.
On
June 9, Reuters finally
mentioned the study, at the end of an article by
Nebehay, who is based in Geneva:
One
study in April, co-authored by US economists Jeffrey Sachs and Mark
Weisbrot, blamed sanctions for causing more deaths and
disproportionately hitting the most vulnerable.
“We
find that the sanctions have inflicted, and increasingly inflict,
very serious harm to human life and health, including an estimated
more than 40,000 deaths from 2017–2018,” they said, arguing they
were illegal under international law.
Nevertheless,
since the day Nebehay replied to me, Reuters has
continued to portray the severe impact of US sanctions as an
allegation that only Maduro and other Venezuelan officials have made.
It was even done by Reuters in
an article published
June 10, the day after the wire service finally mentioned the study:
The
government of President Nicolás Maduro says Venezuela’s economic
problems are caused by US sanctions that have crippled the OPEC
member’s export earnings and blocked it from borrowing from abroad.
Reuters
(6/1/19)
treats the idea that US sanctions are responsible for deaths in
Venezuela as an allegation made by Maduro–placing it after the
statement, “The opposition has blamed their deaths on President
Nicolás Maduro, whose socialist administration has presided over the
collapse of the once-wealthy nation’s economy and severe reductions
in healthcare spending.”
Other
instances of Reuters representing the idea that US
sanctions work as they are intended to do—in other words, that they
hurt the Venezuelan economy—as an allegation made by Maduro or his
government:
“He
[President Maduro] says the country’s economic problems are the
result of an ‘economic war’ led by his political adversaries
with the help of Washington.” (5/23/19)
“Maduro,
who maintains control over state institutions, calls Guaidó a
puppet of Washington and blames US sanctions for a hyperinflationary
economic meltdown and humanitarian crisis.” (5/26/19;
repeated almost verbatim, 5/28/19)
“Maduro’s
government, however, says US-imposed sanctions were responsible for
the children’s deaths, by freezing funds allocated to buy medicine
and send the children to Italy for treatment under the 2010
agreement.” (6/1/19)
“Maduro
blames the situation on an ‘economic war’ waged by his political
adversaries as well as US sanctions that have hobbled the oil
industry and prevented his government from borrowing abroad.”
(6/7/19)
“Maduro
says Venezuela is victim of an ‘economic war’ led by the
opposition with the help of Washington, which has levied several
rounds of sanctions against his government.” (6/7/19)
Two
recent articles by Reuters, however, stated the obvious
about the most recent US sanctions that were implemented in 2019:
“Venezuela
is in the midst of a years-long economic and humanitarian crisis
that has deepened since the United States imposed sanctions on the
country’s oil industry in January as part of an effort to oust
Socialist President Nicolás Maduro in favor of opposition leader
Juan Guaidó.” (6/7/19)
“Venezuela’s
oil exports dropped 17 percent in May because of the sanctions.”
(6/6/19)
But
the study Reuters belatedly mentioned shows that US
sanctions have been devastating to Venezuela’s economy, and
seriously aggravating the humanitarian crisis, since August 2017.
Apologists
for Trump always rush to say that Venezuela’s depression began
years before Trump’s sanctions—as if that made it acceptable to
deliberately worsen a humanitarian crisis. To tweak an
analogy Caitlin
Johnstone used,
think of a defense attorney saying, “Your Honor, I will show that
the victim was already in intensive care when my client began to
assault him.”
Moreover,
as Steve Ellner recently discussed,
US support for an insurrectionist opposition in Venezuela goes back
over a decade before the crisis, and was a factor in causing it.
Economic sanctions Obama introduced in 2015 were also
harmful—Weisbrot (The
Hill, 11/6/16)
in 2016 called them “ugly and belligerent enough to keep many
investors from investing in Venezuela and to raise the country’s
cost of borrowing”—even before Trump’s dramatic escalation of
economic warfare that they paved the way for.
Putting
aside a study by prominent US economists, the “Maduro says”
formulation is also inexcusable because US Sen. Marco Rubio, who has
been widely
reported as
a major influence on Trump’s Venezuela policy, gleefully tweeted on
May 16 that Maduro “can’t access funds to rebuild electric grid.”
Rubio
didn’t pretend he was referring to an imaginary electric grid used
exclusively by Maduro. Reuters (5/30/19)
has itself referred to Rubio as the “leading voice in the crafting
of President Donald Trump’s Venezuela policy,” in a lengthy piece
about US sanctions that said absolutely nothing about their impact on
the general population, implying throughout that sanctions only
impacted Maduro and other officials. (“Being blacklisted also
crimps the lifestyle of Venezuelan officials’
families,” Reuters reported.)
My
fellow FAIR contributor, Alan MacLeod, interviewed many
Venezuela-based journalists for his book Bad
News From Venezuela.
He wrote last year (FAIR.org, 5/24/18):
Media
copy and paste from news organizations like Reuters and Associated
Press (AP), which themselves employ many cheaper local journalists.
In
Venezuela, these journalists are not neutral actors, but come from
the highly partisan local media, affiliated with the opposition,
leading to a situation where Western newsrooms see themselves as an
ideological spearhead against Maduro, “the resistance” to the
government.
Even
worse than being the “resistance” to Maduro is that Reuters has
often made itself the “assistance” to politicians like Rubio, who
are vicious enough to celebrate the
economic strangulation of millions of people.
Reuters may
carry on as if it had never reported the study by Weisbrot and Sachs.
Western media outlets are perfectly willing to ignore their own
reporting when it suits powerful interests (Extra!
Update, 10/02).
It is therefore up to all of us to not be passive consumers of news,
and continually bear in mind that the news we are getting about
official enemies may be less than half the story.
PS: vannacht en vanmorgen werd er bericht over de cyberaanvallen van de VS op het elektriciteitsnet van Rusland en dat al vanaf 2012 (later nog een bericht daarover), waar de VS eerder durfde te stellen niet verantwoordelijk te zijn voor de grote elektriciteitsstoringen in Venezuela…… ha! ha! ha! ha! Ach ja, volgens de reguliere westerse media en westerse politici is de VS een bondgenoot, dus twijfel over de woorden van de VS is totaal uit den boze……
Toch
altijd weer leuk als de VS op haar eigen duivelse gevorkte staart gaat staan
en daarmee ten overvloede nog eens aantoont dat we hier met een
terreurentiteit te maken hebben van gigantische proporties, die niets
maar dan ook helemaal niets uit de weg gaat om haar smerige doelen te
bereiken…..
Zo dook
er enige tijd geleden een folder van de CIA op waarin staat te lezen
hoe je als oppositie je land naar de knoppen kan helpen om zo het
volk tot opstand te dwingen tegen het land van keuze, in dit geval was dat land Nicaragua…….*
The Grayzone
wist de hand te leggen op een lijst met gevolgen van ingrijpen in
Venezuela, door het VS ministerie van BuZa op de site gezet en daarna weer verwijderd, niet voor niets verwijderd, immers het gaat hier om dezelfde soort informatie die je op WikiLeaks kan vinden en waarvoor Julian Assange wordt vervolgd……
Duidelijk
is dat de VS zich ziet als organisator van de niet eindigende
couppoging in Venezuela, waar de VS de voor de Venezolanen tot dan
onbekende fascist Guaidó als interim-president heeft geparachuteerd,
waarbij men de leugen lanceerde dat Guaidó de oppositieleider is
van Venezuela….. (terwijl hij de voorzitter is van een kleine, onbeduidende partij…)
Voorts
wordt er opgeschept over de zaken die Guaidó, de totaal lamme en illegale ‘interim-president’ van Venezuela, al voor elkaar heeft
gekregen…… Onzinnige zaken, waar in werkelijkheid het Venezolaanse volk onder
regie van de VS wordt bestolen van haar tegoeden in het buitenland en
waar men trots vertelt dat de oliewinning met een enorm aantal vaten
is gedaald, daar Venezuela van terreurentiteit VS geen olie mag
verkopen……. Met deze zaken begaat de VS een zware overtreding van artikel 33 van het Verdrag van Genève……
De olievoorraad van Venezuela zou de op één na grootste ter aarde zijn, deze olievoorraad is dan ook de belangrijkste reden voor de VS om haar marionet Guaidó op de plaats van Maduro te willen zetten….. (voorts heeft Venezuela grote voorraden Coltan, een belangrijke grondstof voor smartphones….) Guaidó heeft al beloofd dat wanneer hij president zal zijn, de Venezolaanse olie voor de VS oliemaffia zal worden gereserveerd…..** (waarin hij het woord ‘maffia’ uiteraard niet noemde)
De VS is
er zelfs trots op dat het de economie van Venezuela naar de kloten
heeft geholpen, waarmee deze vereniging van terreurstaten nog eens
fijntjes aangeeft waarom het economisch zo slecht gaat in Venezuela
>> de terreursancties van de VS…… Weet je wat de reguliere media ons
al jaren laten geloven? Maduro heeft de economie om zeep geholpen, je
weet wel van die media die keer op keer de bek open hebben over fake
news (nepnieuws) en manipulatie….. ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!
Beste
bezoeker, weet niet of je al meerdere berichten van mij over
Venezuela hebt gelezen, die je wellicht ziet als overdreven, lees
het volgende artikel van Anya Parampil, eerder gepubliceerd op The Grayzone en laat je ogen openen (en zegt het voort, er
moet een eind komen aan het lijden van het Venezolaanse volk door
de grootschalige terreur van de VS, met hulp van o.a. de EU en dus zogenaamd
namens ons allen……):
The
Grayzone has obtained a list of “key outcomes” on Venezuela
deleted out of apparent embarrassment by the State Department. It
boasts of wrecking the nation’s economy, destabilizing its
military, and puppeteering its political opposition.
By
Anya Parampil
On
April 24, six days before self-proclaimed Venezuelan “interim
president” Juan Guaido’s attempt to violently overthrow
Venezuela’s democratically elected government alongside a handful
of military defectors, the U.S. State Department published a fact
sheet that boasted of Washington’s central role in the ongoing coup
attempt. After realizing the incriminating nature of its error, the
State Department quickly acted to remove the page.
The
Grayzone has obtained a
full copy of the expunged report.
The deleted page puts to bed any claims of Guaido’s independence
from Washington, as the State Department emphasizes the fact that he
“announced his interim presidency… in January” at the the top
of a section dedicated to breaking down “key outcomes” of U.S.
efforts with regard to Venezuela.
U.S.
Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Kimberly
Breier recently took to Twitter to
claim that “since he became acting president, Juan Guaido has given
tangible results to the people of Venezuela.” Her tweet was
accompanied with an infographic detailing alleged accomplishments of
the powerless coup administration based on data compiled by the
legally defunct National Assembly, the only governing body actually
controlled by Guaido.
But
the Venezuela fact sheet posted and then deleted days earlier by the
State Department told a dramatically different story.
Read
the entire expunged fact sheet here [PDF]
and at the end of this article.
The
State Department’s economic hit list
Entitled
“U.S. Actions on Venezuela,” the document boasted that U.S.
policy had effectively prevented the Venezuelan government from
participating in the international market and has led to the freezing
of its overseas assets. It read like a sadistic celebration of
Washington’s retribution against the Venezuelan population as a
whole, the kind of collective punishment which is illegal according
to Article 33 of the Geneva Conventions.
The
State Department gloated in the deleted fact sheet that its policy
had ensured that the Maduro government “cannot rely on the U.S.
financial system” to conduct business, noting “key outcomes” of
U.S. actions include the fact that “roughly $3.2 billion of
Venezuela’s overseas are frozen.” It went on to boast that
“Venezuela’s oil production fell to 736,000 barrels per day in
March… substantially reducing” government revenue.
“If
I were the State Department I wouldn’t brag about causing a cut in
oil production to 763,000 barrels per day — which is a 36 percent
drop, in just the two months of February and March this year,” Mark
Weisbrot, Co-Director at the Center For Economic and Policy Research (CEPR),
told The Grayzone. “This means even more premature deaths than the
tens of thousands that resulted from sanctions last year.”
Weisbrot
recently co-authored a bracing
report which
found that 40,000 Venezuelans died between 2017 and 2018 as a direct
result of U.S. sanctions. The State Department patted itself on the
back for announcing its preparedness “to provide an additional $20
million in initial humanitarian assistance” to Venezuela, however,
the CEPR report concluded that Trump Administration sanctions
implemented in August 2017 resulted in “a loss of $6 billion in oil
revenue over the ensuing year” alone.
While
the State Department praised the opposition for “providing medical
and hygiene attention to over 6,000” Venezuelans, those numbers
dwarf in comparison to the 300,000 people CEPR “estimated to be at
risk because of lack of access to medicines or treatment…
[including] 80,000 people with HIV who have not had antiretroviral
treatment since 2017, 16,000 people who need dialysis, 16,000 people
with cancer, and 4 million with diabetes and hypertension.”
In
other words, the supposed “Venezuela Crisis Response Assistance”
touted by the State Department is not even a band-aid over the gaping
wound that US unilateral coercive measures have inflicted on the
country.
In
Weisbrot’s view, the “policy” and “outcomes” promoted by
the State Department in the disappeared document will merely lead to
“more cuts in imports of medicine, food, medical equipment, and
inputs necessary to maintain water, health, and sanitation
infrastructure.”
Having
denied the Venezuelan government the ability to provide for its own
population, the U.S. has essentially promised that thousands more
deaths will occur.
The
State Department did not respond to The Grayzone’s request for a
comment on the fact sheet it deleted.
“A
list of confessions”
In
a recent
interview with The Grayzone,
Venezuela’s ambassador to the United Nations Samuel Moncada
characterized the deleted State Department fact sheet as “a list of
confessions.”
“Imagine
if any other country says… it’s proud of saying that we are
destroying the economy of our neighbor; we are proud that we
destroyed the political system of our neighbor; we are proud that
they are suffering. They are saying we are waging war against
Venezuela,” Moncada emphasized.
The
ambassador went on to accuse the U.S. of engaging in “bullying”
rather than international diplomacy.
The
State Department’s own fact sheet appears to support this
accusation, as it asserts “diplomatic pressure resulted in fewer
markets for Venezuelan gold.” The document further highlighted
U.S. actions that have supposedly led “more than 1,000 members of
the military [to recognize] Juan Guaido as interim President” and
defect to Colombia, as well as stranding “an estimated 25 crude oil
tankers with 12 million barrels” off Venezuela’s coast.
“They
[say] it’s our ‘key’ achievements,” Moncada commented. “They
are saying that they are causing trouble in our military and inducing
a military coup, [which] so far they haven’t achieved, but they are
working towards.”
“If
any other person says that themselves,” the ambassador concluded,
“and you take that confession to court, they would be in prison.”
The
State Department’s fact sheet even frames recent decisions by the
Organization of American States, Lima Group, Inter-American
Development Bank, and European Union to either recognize or support
Guaido’s shadow administration as a U.S. achievement, highlighting
Washington’s outsized influence within each of these supposedly
international governing bodies. The decision to mention the E.U. and
Lima Group is particularly noteworthy considering the United States
is not a member of either organization.
“They
are so far out of any normal parameters of decency, morality,
legality, reason, that really they are dangerous,” Moncada said of
the Trump administration. “They are a real threat to international
peace, and they are a real threat to my people.”
Anya
Parampil is a Washington, DC based journalist. She previously hosted
a daily progressive afternoon news program called In Question on RT
America. She has produced and reported several documentaries,
including on the ground reports from the Korean peninsula and
Palestine.
Hier een belangrijk bericht , dat ik van de site van Stan van Houcke heb gehaald. Het artikel bericht over de media in de VS, die via zelfcensuur, geen artikelen plaatst, waaruit blijkt hoe zwaar misdadig, om niet te zeggen terroristisch en staatsondermijnend, het handelen van de VS in hun (en ons) buitenland is.
Het artikel is in het Engels (helaas voor diegenen, die het Engels niet beheersen), maar goed te volgen en te lezen. Ook van belang voor Nederland, daar meer en meer ‘journalisten’ hardop durven te zeggen, dat je sommige zaken niet met het publiek moet delen, of ‘journalisten’ die met grote graagte de mening van de regering, of die van de VS overheid*, ventileren als onafhankelijke journalistiek…..
*Zoals Max van Weezel nog niet zo lang geleden deed.
Hier het artikel, (overigens onderaan deze pagina, vindt u een link naar Stan van Houcke’s site):
WOENSDAG 7 AUGUSTUS 2013
Western Mass Media
MASS MEDIA HELPS KEEP AMERICANS IN THE DARK ABOUT US FOREIGN POLICY
Tuesday, 06 August 2013 13:24
By Mark Weisbrot, The Guardian | Op-Ed
Juana Brito prays over the bodies of her father and an unidentified youth, both killed by Guatemalan soldiers in the civil war 30 years ago, as a team from the Guatemalan Forensic Anthropology Foundation exhumes their remains in the El Quiche Department of Guatemala, Feb. 13, 2013. (Photo: Victor J. Blue / The New York Times)
The United States still has military spending that is higher in real, inflation-adjusted terms than it was during the peak of the Reagan Cold War build-up, the Vietnam War, and the Korean War. We seem to be in a state of permanent warfare, and – we have recently learned — massive government spying and surveillance of our own citizens. This is despite an ever-receding threat to the actual physical security of Americans. Only 19 people have been killed acts of terrorism in the United States since September 11, 2001; and none or almost none of these were connected to foreign terrorists. And there are no “enemy states” that pose a significant military threat to the United States – if any governments can be called “enemy states” at all.
One of the reasons for this disconnect is that most of the mass media provide a grossly distorted view of U.S. foreign policy. It presents an American foreign policy that is far more benign and justifiable than the reality of empire that most of the world knows. In a well-researched and thoroughly documented article published by the North American Congress on Latin America (NACLA), Keane Bhatt provides an excellent case study of how this happens.
Bhatt focuses on a very popular and interesting National Public Radio (NPR) show, “This American Life,” and most importantly an episode that won the Peabody Award. The Peabody Award , for distinguished achievement in electronic journalism, is a prestigious prize; so this makes the example even more relevant.
The episode was about the 1982 massacre in Guatemala. The story gives compelling eyewitness accounts of a horrendous slaughter of almost the entire village of Dos Erres, more than 200 people. The women and girls are raped and then killed, the men are shot or bludgeoned with sledgehammers, and many, including children, are dumped into a dry well – some while still alive – that would become their mass grave. The broadcast walks the listener through a heroic investigation of the crime – the first ever to win punishment for such murders. And finally, it provides a moving account of one survivor who was three years old at the time. Three decades later, while living in Massachusetts, he discovers his roots and his biological father as a result of the investigation. The father lost his wife and his eight other children but survived because he happened to be out of town on the day of the massacre.
The story makes it clear that this bloodbath was one of many:
“This happened in over 600 villages, tens of thousands of people. A truth commission found that the number of Guatemalans killed or disappeared by their own government was over 180,000.”
But there is one striking omission – the U.S. role in what the UN Truth commission in 1999 later determined to be genocide. The UN specifically noted Washington’s role and President Clinton publicly apologized for it – the first and to my knowledge the only apology from an American president for U.S. involvement in genocide. The U.S. role in providing arms, training, ammunition, diplomatic cover, political and other support to the mass murderers is well-documented and has gotten some more documentation and attention as a result of the recent trial of former military dictator General Efraín Ríos Montt, who ruled from 1982-83. (As Bhatt notes, the program states that the U.S. embassy had heard reports of massacres during this time but “dismissed” them; but this is very misleading at best — there are cables showing that the embassy clearly knew what was going on).
In fact, one of the soldiers who participated in the Dos Erres massacre, Pedro Pimentel, who later was sentenced to 6,060 years in prison, was airlifted the day after the mass murder to the School of the Americas, the U.S. military facility known for training some of the region’s worst dictators and human rights violators.
It is astonishing that one of the worst genocides of the post-World War II era was allowed to reach its peak, just a couple of hours of flying time from the U.S. mainland, with almost no media reporting on it. Here you can find investigative journalist Allan Nairn interviewing a Guatemalan soldier in 1982, who describes how he and his comrades murdered whole villages, as in Dos Erres. And yet the major media ignored it, allowing Ronald Reagan to promote Rios Montt as “a man of great personal integrity and commitment.” So the omissions of This American Life are ironic in this historical context as well.
It is clear from the piece that Ira Glass, the show’s host, was well aware of the U.S. role in the Guatemalan genocide. In the 1980s, it appears, he travelled to Central America and was active against the U.S. –funded wars and war crimes in the region. In an email correspondence with Bhatt, he acknowledges that “maybe we made the wrong call” in leaving out the U.S. role.
That is an understatement, but a vitally important one. For a program broadcast in English throughout the United States, this is arguably the most important thing that Americans need to know about the genocide.
I’m not faulting Glass. He may well have guessed that if he had made a point out of the U.S. role, and maybe questioned some of the U.S. officials who were responsible for it, the story would have run into trouble at NPR. It certainly wouldn’t have gotten a Peabody award.
That’s what makes this such a compelling illustration of how censorship and self-censorship operate in the U.S. media. It demonstrates, at the micro level, something that I have seen countless times in the past 15 years of talking with journalists about these issues. They have a good idea what the boundaries are and how much truth they can get away with. I have met many good journalists who try to cross these boundaries, and some succeed — but they often don’t last very long.
Scott Wilson, who was a foreign editor at the Washington Post and covered Venezuela during the short-lived coup against the democratically elected government of Venezuela in 2002, stated in an interview that “there was U.S. involvement” in the coup. Yet this important fact never appeared anywhere in the Post, nor was it reported by any of the major U.S. media, despite considerable evidence from U.S. government documents that it was true. Again, this is arguably the most important part of the story for a U.S. audience – especially since it played a major role in poisoning relations between Washington and Caracas over the past decade, and probably had a significant impact on relations with the whole continent of South America. But, as in the Dos Erres story, the U.S. role in the crime is considered unmentionable.
The same is true for the U.S. role in the coup that destroyed Honduran democracy in 2009. The Obama administration’s considerable efforts to support and legitimize the coup government were not considered to be newsworthy by U.S. journalists. (A program on Honduras was Bhatt’s other shot at “This American Life,” where they left the U.S.-supported coup out of a picture in which it should have had a prominent place). But this too, is off limits for the U.S. media.
What would U.S. foreign, military, and so-called “national security” policy look like if the media reported the most important facts about it? There would be a lot fewer corpses abroad and returning home. And we wouldn’t be cutting “meals on wheels” or other nutrition programs for the poor or elderly in order to sustain the world’s most fantastically bloated military budget.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.
MARK WEISBROT
Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, in Washington, DC. He is also president of Just Foreign Policy.
Nederlands
English
Русский
Español
简体中文
Français
Deutsch
हिन्दी
Italiano
Português