NYT Asks: Can We Legally 'Run' Venezuela After Coup?
The mainstream media's fascination with the 'legality' of U.S. intervention in sovereign nations is always a masterclass in obfuscation. The NYT asks if it's 'legal' for the U.S. to 'run' Venezuela after Maduro's capture, as if decades of CIA-backed coups and regime change operations didn't already establish a rather obvious pattern of disregard for international law. One might wonder if they
asked the same about Iraq, Libya, or Chile. This isn't geopolitical chess; it's a centuries-old game of 'might makes right,' thinly veiled in 'concern for democracy' – a concern that curiously only ever materializes when a nation possesses oil, rare earth minerals, or otherwise defies U.S. corporate interests. The idea that Washington would suddenly care about 'legality' after orchestrating an
overthrow is a rhetorical flourish worthy of a Pulitzer, if only for sheer audacity. The question isn't 'is it legal?', it's 'whose legality are we talking about?'