NYT Discovers American Troops Aren't Just for Oil Anymore
The NYT's recent scoop reveals a Justice Department memo from the Trump administration asserting the president's unilateral authority to deploy troops to Venezuela. While the Times frames this as a significant constitutional discussion, it glosses over the historical precedent of US interventionism in Latin America, consistently driven by corporate interests and resource control under the guise of
'national security.' One might wonder if the same legal gymnastics apply when a US administration arms regimes committing atrocities overseas. Instead of probing the implications for yet another regime-change playbook, the analysis remains safely within Beltway legalisms. There's no mention of the humanitarian costs, the historical pattern of failed interventions, or the glaring double standard
applied to nations that dare to nationalize their resources. Apparently, 'checks and balances' are only a concern when the target isn't sitting on vast oil reserves. How many 'authoritarian regimes' must be 'liberated' before we question the liberators?