Clinton to face tough questions on Benghazi, email scandal with 2016 bid
The days of answering softball questions at paid speaking engagements have ended for former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who will face a slew of tough questions that she has sidestepped for months now that she has formally announced her bid for the Democratic presidential nomination.
She will have to wrestle with a broad range of topics — from foreign policy issues, such as how she would handle the Islamic State terrorist army that grew up on her watch as secretary of state, *(Remember how she said that America left Al Qaida in the cold? After America used them to get rid of the Soviet Union from Afghanistan.. here is a picture on how friendly she is with these groups)
to domestic priorities pushed by her Democratic Party’s liberal base, including whether she is willing to crack down on big Wall Street banks that have been major donors to her campaigns.
The former first lady, senator and top diplomat also must field questions on matters of ethics, including being pressed to more fully address an email secrecy scandal and a potential conflict of interest with the Clinton Foundation accepting foreign donations while she served as secretary of state.
Mrs. Clinton has begun taking steps to distance herself from the Clinton Foundation. That likely will not deflect questions about whether donations from wealthy interests in foreign countries influenced her actions at the State Department or even may sway her decisions if she succeeds in her quest for a return trip to the White House.
At a press conference last month, Mrs. Clinton attempted to allay the furor over her exclusive use of a private email account hosted on a private server in her home for conducting official business as secretary of state, a practice that may have violated federal open records laws.
But her explanation that it was simply more convenient for her to mingle personal and government email didn’t settle the controversy, which only deepened when she revealed that she had wiped clean the server, destroying all the emails except those selected by her team to be turned over to the State Department. Also, some of her explanations, such as not wanting to carry multiple devices, rang hollow or proved false upon investigation.
Questions persist about why she didn’t turn over her emails when she left the State Department in early 2013, how she selected the roughly 63,000 emails from her tenure to destroy and why she erased the server memory amid the scandal.
*(Even Nixon did not dare to erase the tapes of Watergate)
Mrs. Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, have weathered a lifetime of political scandals. Still, her responses to these ethical issues and how she handles other criticism as she navigates the campaign trail once again will test her character.
“Presidential elections are not just about issues and partisan politics, they are character tests about specific candidates at specific moments in history,” said Democratic campaign strategist Craig Varoga, who previously worked on Mr. Clinton’s 1996 reelection team and for former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, who is preparing to challenge Mrs. Clinton for the Democratic nomination.
“Americans are divided down the middle, in a foul mood and think the country’s going to hell in a handbasket. Hillary’s greatest strength is her experience, but every one of her opponents will try to use that experience against her,” said Mr. Varoga. “The candidate who eventually wins in November 2016 will be the one who does the best job of showing that he or she has the experience to be steady and strong, but also has the temperament to take the country in a new direction.”
Indeed, many of the questions swirling around Mrs. Clinton arose from her four years as American’s top diplomat under President Obama.
She remains a key figure in the probe by the House Select Committee on Benghazi, which is investigating the 2012 terrorist attacks on a U.S. diplomatic compound in Libya that killed U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.
The attacks, and the Obama administration’s response to them — including initially blaming them on a spontaneous riot over an anti-Islam YouTube video — left an indelible black mark on Mrs. Clinton’s record as secretary of state. She could be called to publicly testify before the Benghazi committee in the middle of the campaign and answer questions about her role in the episode, as well as her secretive handling of emails. *(We know she was involved in the murder of the late Ambassador Stevens and three military men.”)
Mrs. Clinton also will perform a careful balancing act as she defends the actions of the Obama administration that she served, while breaking with Mr. Obama to demonstrate that she’s her own woman and offers voters something new.
She will encounter criticism of her dealings with Russia, symbolized by the embarrassing “reset” policy. But she will also have to offer a new vision for dealing with Russian President Vladimir Putin, who led his country’s takeover of Crimea and continues to sow unrest in eastern Ukraine with disregard for U.S. sanctions and admonishments.
“Now, if this sounds familiar, it’s what Hitler did back in the ‘30s,” Mrs. Clinton said last month at a fundraiser in California, comparing Mr. Putin’s moves to those of the Nazi German dictator who started World War II, reported the Long Beach Press-Telegram.
Despite the stinging rhetoric, Mrs. Clinton has yet to offer a strategy to confront Mr. Putin.
On another foreign policy front, Mrs. Clinton likely will have to elaborate on her views of Mr. Obama’s decision to release five terrorist leaders from the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in exchange for the Taliban returning captive Sgt. Bowe Berghdal, whom the Army later charged with desertion.
Mrs. Clinton defended Mr. Obama’s decision in June, before the charges were brought but amid widespread speculation that Sgt. Berghdal had abandoned his post and sought out the Taliban.
“It doesn’t matter how they ended up in a prisoner-of-war situation,” Mrs. Clinton told ABC News. “It doesn’t matter. We bring our people home.”
She will have to revisit the issue now that she’s a candidate and Sgt. Berghdal faces a court-martial on charges of desertion and misconduct in the face of the enemy.
Mrs. Clinton must take stands on U.S. spy agencies’ massive domestic surveillance programs and America’s use of drones to kill terrorist suspects — and, sometimes, Americans — overseas.
She has called Mr. Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran a “step in the right direction.” But she will be asked about her plans to deal with Iran in the future, and she will be pressed about how she would restore the U.S. relationship with Israel, which has been badly damaged under Mr. Obama’s tenure.
Some of the most pointed questions will come from her own party, as Democratic activists push Mrs. Clinton to the left and prod her to adopt the populist agenda championed by Sen. Elizabeth Warren, including expanding Social Security benefits, creating “debt-free college” and breaking up Wall Street banks.
Mrs. Warren, Massachusetts Democrat, so far has resisted calls to enter the presidential race, but she represents an ominous presence on the sidelines as Mrs. Clinton begins her run.
“Hillary Clinton’s biggest challenge at the outset is reassuring the Democratic grass roots that she can represent them,” said veteran Democratic strategist Joe Trippi. “Look for her to proactively talk about issues like Wall Street, wages and equality as a result.”
Still, he said that any divide within the Democratic Party would quickly repair itself in response to attacks by Republicans, especially on issues that party activists view as partisan, such as Benghazi.
“That will only solidify her base of support in the Democratic Party and make her an even more formidable candidate in November 2016,” said Mr. Trippi.
Mrs. Clinton faces criticism from the left over her cozy relationship with Wall Street. Three of the four top donors throughout Mrs. Clinton’s political career — Citigroup, Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase — are among the same megabanks that liberals want to bust up.
“Hillary Clinton’s campaign launch is an opportunity to make clear to Americans that she will campaign on big, bold, economic populist ideas like debt-free college, expanding Social Security, clean energy jobs and reforming Wall Street,” said Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, which is pulling Democratic candidates to the left.
“The battle over the direction of the Democratic Party is coming to an end — the Elizabeth Warren wing has won, and the battle of big versus small ideas is here. Americans are ready for boldness,” he said. “We hope Hillary Clinton thinks big and takes on powerful interests on behalf of everyday working families. Progressives will continue working to put big, bold, economic populist ideas at the center of the national conversation.”
In my opinion who ever votes for Clinton is putting another nail to the coffin of America. America started loosing control from the era of Bush senior showing that the agencies have gone rogue with kidnapping leaders, then came B.Clinton were he completely embarrassed the White House with Lewinsky sex scandal and balkanized Yugoslavia and the beginning of the small groups of terrorists trained of course by the Rogue agencies and Private war companies. Then comes Bush junior dummier than a gold-fish orchestrated with his father & other warlords the collapse of the twin towers so that he could invade Iraq and Afghanistan. Americans seem that they have no memory of the loss of soldiers in the thousands. After the Bushes comes Obama with Hillary Clinton engaging in an illegal wars in LIBYA, SYRIA, UKRAINE both are responsible for the failed state in Libya the cold blood murder of Qaddafi leader of the Libya and the late Ambassador Stevens with three American Soldiers and hiding emails to the fact. I believe America needs a change and has to stop voting between these two parties which are sold out to corporate companies and govern with the corporate agendas.
The BBC, the Weapons Industry and War Propaganda
By Global Research
Last week the Chairman of Europe’s largest arms firm BAE Systems, Roger Carr, was appointed Vice Chairman of the BBC Trust. Will Carr’s close ties to the arms industry “get the best out of the BBC for licence fee payers” as its mission statement promises?
On the trust’s web site we can read the following:
“The BBC exists to serve the public, and its mission is to inform, educate and entertain. The BBC Trust is the governing body of the BBC, and we make sure the BBC delivers that mission.”
For many years, however, the BBC has been caught delivering weapons of mass deception, lying, censoring important stories and engaging in war propaganda on more than one occasion. Here are just a few articles we published about BBC lies and propaganda:
The BBC’s Big White (Phosphorus) Lie and BBC and Fallujah: War Crimes and Media Lies, about the BBC’s biased coverage of the U.S. army’s use of white phosphorus bombs against civilians in Iraq.
The Media War on Libya: Justifying War through Lies and Fabrications, about “all sorts of inaccurate reports […] fabricated by the BBC […] and other major networks.”
Her Majesty’s BBC’s Syria Coverage: “Sorry for the Lies”…, about several BBC lies in the coverage of the events in Syria. Among others a “picture of victims of a ‘massacre in Syria’, shown by the BBC as proof that the government was responsible, turned out to be ”photographic evidence” (taken from the BBC’s photo archives) of a 2003 massacre in Iraq.”
Israeli lies unchecked, Palestinian perspectives censored on BBC, about the BBC’s “habit of inviting Israeli politicians or the Israeli government spokesperson […] to speak without challenge. Meanwhile, Palestinians and those who would convey a Palestinian perspective are not given the same opportunity.”
MH17 Witnesses Tell BBC They Saw Ukrainian Jet. BBC Deletes Video, about a BBC Russian correspondent who “interviewed numerous eyewitnesses who described seeing a second aircraft in the sky moments before MH17′s fatal crash. The BBC pulled the report. Why?”
But the mother of all BBC lies is without a doubt its 9/11 coverage of the WTC7 collapse before it happened. In a historic court judgement, Tony Rooke, a British citizen, won his law suit against the public broadcaster claiming: “The fact that the BBC reported the collapse of WTC 7 twenty-three minutes before it actually fell indicates that the UK was aware of the attacks on 9/11 before they actually happened. The direct implication is that they were working with the ‘terrorists’, all arguments as to who the terrorists actually were aside.”
We must remember that 9/11 is the mother of all lies which holds the “War on Terrorism” narrative together. Can people expect anything else but more of the same BBC war propaganda with the arrival of the most important Chairman of the European arms industry as number two of the BBC’s governing body?
CNN: Libyan “Rebels” Are Now ISIS
(Tony Cartalucci – LD) – The United States has attempted to claim that the only way to stop the so-called “Islamic State” in Syria and Iraq is to first remove the government in Syria. Complicating this plan are developments in Libya, benefactor of NATO’s last successful regime change campaign. In 2011, NATO armed, funded, and backed with a sweeping air campaign militants in Libya centered around the eastern Libyan cities of Tobruk, Derna, and Benghazi. By October 2011, NATO successfully destroyed the Libyan government, effectively handing the nation over to these militants.
What ensued was a campaign of barbarism, genocide, and sectarian extremism as brutal in reality as what NATO claimed in fiction was perpetrated by the Libyan government ahead of its intervention. The so-called “rebels” NATO had backed were revealed to be terrorists led by Al Qaeda factions including the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) and Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM).
The so-called “pro-democracy protesters” Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi was poised to attack in what NATO claimed was pending “genocide” were in fact heavily armed terrorists that have festered for decades in eastern Libya.
Almost immediately after NATO successfully destroyed Libya’s government, its terrorist proxies were mobilized to take part in NATO’s next campaign against Syria. Libyan terrorists were sent first to NATO-member Turkey were they were staged, armed, trained, and equipped, before crossing the Turkish-Syrian border to take part in the fighting.
CNN Admits ISIS is in Libya
CNN in an article titled, “ISIS comes to Libya,” claims:
The black flag of ISIS flies over government buildings. Police cars carry the group’s insignia. The local football stadium is used for public executions. A town in Syria or Iraq? No. A city on the coast of the Mediterranean, in Libya.
Fighters loyal to the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria are now in complete control of the city of Derna, population of about 100,000, not far from the Egyptian border and just about 200 miles from the southern shores of the European Union.
The fighters are taking advantage of political chaos to rapidly expand their presence westwards along the coast, Libyan sources tell CNN.
Only the black flag of Al Qaeda/ISIS has already long been flying over Libya – even at the height of NATO’s intervention there in 2011. ISIS didn’t “come to” Libya, it was always there in the form of Al Qaeda’s local franchises LIFG and AQIM – long-term, bitter enemies of the now deposed and assassinated Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi.
CNN’s latest article is merely the veneer finally peeling away from the alleged “revolution” it had attempted to convince readers had taken place in 2011.
ISIS Didn’t “Come to” Libya, It Came From Libya
Even amid CNN’s own spin, it admits ISIS’ presence in Libya is not a new phenomenon but rather the above mentioned sectarian extremists who left Libya to fight in Syria simply returning and reasserting themselves in the eastern Cyrenaica region. CNN also admits that these terrorists have existed in Libya for decades and were kept in check primarily by Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi. With Qaddafi eliminated and all semblance of national unity destroyed by NATO’s intervention in 2011, Al Qaeda has been able to not only prosper in Libya but use the decimated nation as a spingboard for invading and destroying other nations.
Worst of all, Al Qaeda’s rise in Libya was not merely the unintended consequence of a poorly conceived plan by NATO for military intervention, but a premeditated regional campaign to first build up then use Al Qaeda as a mercenary force to overthrow and destroy a series of nations, beginning with Libya, moving across North Africa and into nations like Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and eventually Iran. From there, NATO’s mercenary force would be on the borders of Russia and China ready to augment already Western-backed extremists in the Caucasus and Xinjiang regions.
In 2011, geopolitical analyst Dr. Webster Tarpley in his article, “The CIA’s Libya Rebels: The Same Terrorists who Killed US, NATO Troops in Iraq,” noted that the US strategy was to:
…use Al Qaeda to overthrow independent governments, and then either Balkanize and partition the countries in question, or else use them as kamikaze puppets against larger enemies like Russia, China, or Iran.
Dr. Tarpley would also note in 2011 that:
One of the fatal contradictions in the current State Department and CIA policy is that it aims at a cordial alliance with Al Qaeda killers in northeast Libya, at the very moment when the United States and NATO are mercilessly bombing the civilian northwest Pakistan in the name of a total war against Al Qaeda, and US and NATO forces are being killed by Al Qaeda guerrillas in that same Afghanistan-Pakistan theater of war. The force of this glaring contradiction causes the entire edifice of US war propaganda to collapse. The US has long since lost any basis in morality for military force.
In fact, terrorist fighters from northeast Libya may be killing US and NATO troops in Afghanistan right now, even as the US and NATO protect their home base from the Qaddafi government.
Indeed, the very terrorists NATO handed the entire nation of Libya over to, are now allegedly prime targets in Syria and Iraq. The “pro-democracy rebels” of 2011 are now revealed to be “ISIS terrorists” with long-standing ties to Al Qaeda.
US Long-Planned to use Al Qaeda as Mercenaries
Not even mentioning the fact that Al Qaeda’s very inception was to serve as a joint US-Saudi mercenary force to fight a proxy war in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union, the terrorist organization has since played a central role in the Balkans to justify NATO intervention there, and as a divisive force in Iraq during the US occupation to blunt what began as a formidable joint Sunni-Shia’a resistance movement.
In 2007, it was revealed by Pulitzer Prize-winning veteran journalist Seymour Hersh that the United States, Israel, and Saudi Arabia were conspiring to use Al Qaeda once again, this time to undermine, destabilize, and destroy the governments of Syria and Iran in what would be a regional sectarian bloodbath.
Hersh would report (emphasis added):
To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.
Hersh would note that Iran was perceived to be the greater threat and therefore, despite a constant barrage of propaganda claiming otherwise, Al Qaeda and its various affiliates were “lesser enemies.” Even in 2007, Hersh’s report would predict almost verbatim the cataclysmic regional sectarian bloodbath that would take place, with the West’s extremists waging war not only on Shia’a populations but also on other religious minorities including Christians.
His report would note:
Robert Baer, a former longtime C.I.A. agent in Lebanon, has been a severe critic of Hezbollah and has warned of its links to Iranian-sponsored terrorism. But now, he told me, “we’ve got Sunni Arabs preparing for cataclysmic conflict, and we will need somebody to protect the Christians in Lebanon. It used to be the French and the United States who would do it, and now it’s going to be Nasrallah and the Shiites.
And this is precisely what is happening, word for word, page by page – everything warned about in Hersh’s report has come to pass. In 2011, geopolitical analyst Dr. Webster Tarpley and others would also reiterate the insidious regional campaign Western policymakers were carrying out with Al Qaeda terrorists disguised as “rebels,” “activists,” and “moderate fighters” for the purpose of arming, funding, and even militarily intervening on their behalf in attempts to effect regime change and tilt the balance in the Middle East and North Africa region against Iran, Russia, and China.
CNN’s attempt to explain why ISIS is “suddenly” in Libya is one of many attempts to explain the regional rise of this organization in every way possible besides in terms of the truth – that ISIS is the result of multinational state sponsored terrorism including the US, UK, EU, Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Israel as its chief backers.
NATO Handed ISIS Libya, Wants to Hand ISIS Syria
Inexplicably, amid allegedly fighting ISIS in Iraq and Syria, the United States now claims it must first overthrow the Syrian government, despite it being the only viable, secular force in the region capable of keeping ISIS and its affiliates in check. CNN, in an article titled, “Sources: Obama seeks new Syria strategy review to deal with ISIS, al-Assad,” would report:
President Barack Obama has asked his national security team for another review of the U.S. policy toward Syria after realizing that ISIS may not be defeated without a political transition in Syria and the removal of President Bashar al-Assad, senior U.S. officials and diplomats tell CNN.
Neither CNN, nor the politicians it cited in its article were able to articulate just why removing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad from power would somehow diminish the fighting capacity of ISIS. With CNN’s recent article on ISIS’ gains in Libya despite US-led NATO regime change there, after decades of Libyan leader Qaddafi keeping extremists in check, it would appear that NATO is once again attempting not to stop Al Qaeda/ISIS, but rather hand them yet another country to use as a base of operations.
The goal is not to stop ISIS or even effect regime change in Syria alone – but rather hand Syria over as a failed, divided state to terrorists to use as a springboard against Iran, then Russia and China.
Clearly, ISIS’ appearance in Libya negates entirely the already incomprehensible strategy the US has proposed of needing to first depose the Syrian government, then fight ISIS. The Syrian government, like that of Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi, is the only effective force currently fighting ISIS and Al Qaeda’s many other franchises operating in the region. Deposing the government in Damascus would compound the fight against sectarian terrorists – and the West is fully aware of that. Therefore, attempts to topple the secular government in Damascus is in every way the intentional aiding and abetting of ISIS and the sharing in complicity of all the horrific daily atrocities ISIS and its affiliates are carrying out.
The morally bankrupt, insidious, dangerous, and very genocidal plans hatched in 2007 and executed in earnest in 2011 illustrate that ISIS alone is not the greatest threat to global peace and stability, but also those that constitute its multinational state sponsors. The very West purportedly defending civilization is the chief protagonist destroying it worldwide.
THE JOKE OF THE YEAR: Press Laughs After U.S. Spokeswoman Claims We Do Not Support Coups
So as you can see the United States is famous for backing coups or changing sovereign governments when ever it suits their purposes….. by denying it, it only makes you laugh so hard that tears come to your face, with their audacity that reporters and anonymous readers would believe such a blatant lie. Here is a small preview of the above table which I got it from this article and I suggest you read the whole article maybe some people will wake up from their lethargic sleep and do something
Some common themes can be seen in many of these U.S. military interventions.
First, they were explained to the U.S. public as defending the lives and rights of civilian populations. Yet the military tactics employed often left behind massive civilian “collateral damage.” War planners made little distinction between rebels and the civilians who lived in rebel zones of control, or between military assets and civilian infrastructure, such as train lines, water plants, agricultural factories, medicine supplies, etc. The U.S. public always believe that in the next war, new military technologies will avoid civilian casualties on the other side. Yet when the inevitable civilian deaths occur, they are always explained away as “accidental” or “unavoidable.”
Second, although nearly all the post-World War II interventions were carried out in the name of “freedom” and “democracy,” nearly all of them in fact defended dictatorships controlled by pro-U.S. elites. Whether in Vietnam, Central America, or the Persian Gulf, the U.S. was not defending “freedom” but an ideological agenda (such as defending capitalism) or an economic agenda (such as protecting oil company investments). In the few cases when U.S. military forces toppled a dictatorship–such as in Grenada or Panama–they did so in a way that prevented the country’s people from overthrowing their own dictator first, and installing a new democratic government more to their liking.
Third, the U.S. always attacked violence by its opponents as “terrorism,” “atrocities against civilians,” or “ethnic cleansing,” but minimized or defended the same actions by the U.S. or its allies. If a country has the right to “end” a state that trains or harbors terrorists, would Cuba or Nicaragua have had the right to launch defensive bombing raids on U.S. targets to take out exile terrorists? Washington’s double standard maintains that an U.S. ally’s action by definition “defensive,” but that an enemy’s retaliation is by definition “offensive.”
Fourth, the U.S. often portrays itself as a neutral peacekeeper, with nothing but the purest humanitarian motives. After deploying forces in a country, however, it quickly divides the country or region into “friends” and “foes,” and takes one side against another. This strategy tends to enflame rather than dampen a war or civil conflict, as shown in the cases of Somalia and Bosnia, and deepens resentment of the U.S. role.
Fifth, U.S. military intervention is often counterproductive even if one accepts U.S. goals and rationales. Rather than solving the root political or economic roots of the conflict, it tends to polarize factions and further destabilize the country. The same countries tend to reappear again and again on the list of 20th century interventions.
Sixth, U.S. demonization of an enemy leader, or military action against him, tends to strengthen rather than weaken his hold on power. Take the list of current regimes most singled out for U.S. attack, and put it alongside of the list of regimes that have had the longest hold on power, and you will find they have the same names. Qaddafi, Castro, Saddam, Kim, and others may have faced greater internal criticism if they could not portray themselves as Davids standing up to the American Goliath, and (accurately) blaming many of their countries’ internal problems on U.S. economic sanctions.
One of the most dangerous ideas of the 20th century was that “people like us” could not commit atrocities against civilians.
German and Japanese citizens believed it, but their militaries slaughtered millions of people.
British and French citizens believed it, but their militaries fought brutal colonial wars in Africa and Asia.
Russian citizens believed it, but their armies murdered civilians in Afghanistan, Chechnya, and elsewhere.
Israeli citizens believed it, but their army mowed down Palestinians and Lebanese.
Arabs believed it, but suicide bombers and hijackers targeted U.S. and Israeli civilians.
U.S. citizens believed it, but their military killed hundreds of thousands in Vietnam, Iraq, and elsewhere.
Every country, every ethnicity, every religion, contains within it the capability for extreme violence. Every group contains a faction that is intolerant of other groups, and actively seeks to exclude or even kill them. War fever tends to encourage the intolerant faction, but the faction only succeeds in its goals if the rest of the group acquiesces or remains silent. The attacks of September 11 were not only a test for U.S. citizens attitudes’ toward minority ethnic/racial groups in their own country, but a test for our relationship with the rest of the world. We must begin not by lashing out at civilians in Muslim countries, but by taking responsibility for our own history and our own actions, and how they have fed the cycle of violence.
and here is the rest of the article with the joke that America is not involved in any coups:
Venezuelan President Nicholas Maduro has publicly accused the United States of trying to foment a coup in Venezuela. The accusations come as the Obama Administration has bizarrely labeled Venezuela a national security threat to the United States despite that obviously not being true.Maduro’s accusation stems not just from being labeled a national security threat but from a plot Venezuelan security services uncovered which was publicly detailed by Maduro on Venezuelan TV.
According to Maduro the plot involved Carlos Manuel Osuna Saraco who operates out of New York and Miami, allegedly with the help of the US government. There is audio of Osuna dictating a statement rebel leaders should read after the coup.
If the plot is true it will be the second attempt by the US to foment a coup in Venezuela this century. The first being an amazingly blatant attempt in 2002 against President Hugo Chavez which the White House itself publicly supported before the coup was reversed and Chavez was returned to power.
Which brings us to the laughing stock State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki became yesterday when she claimed [VIDEO] in response to Maduro’s accusations:
As a matter of long standing policy the United States does not support transitions by non-constitutional means. Political transitions must be democratic, constitutional, peaceful, and legal.
We’ve seen many times that the Venezuelan government tries to distract from its own actions by blaming the United States or other members of the international community for events inside Venezuela. These efforts reflect a lack of seriousness on the part of the Venezuelan government to deal with the grave situation it faces.
The Associated Press reporter, Matt Lee, immediately jumped in with quite reasonable incredulity saying “I’m sorry. Whoah, whoah, whoah. The US has a long-standing practice of not promoting [coups] – how long-standing would you say?” Lee continued audibly scoffing and laughing “In particular in South and Latin America that is not a long-standing policy.”