The Hill Discovers Venezuela, Ignores US Meddling for Decades
When The Hill publishes a piece titled 'Who are the key Venezuelan political players after Maduro’s capture' (a capture, mind you, that never actually occurred, suggesting a certain... creative interpretation of reality), one might expect a modicum of context. Instead, we receive a tidy list of internal figures, as if Venezuela's political landscape materialized out of thin air. What's notably
absent is any serious engagement with the decades of U.S. intervention, sanctions, and attempted coups that have actively shaped—if not created—the very 'crisis' they now purport to analyze. From the 2002 coup attempt against Hugo Chávez, quietly backed by Washington, to the explicit endorsement and funding of figures like Juan Guaidó, (who, despite U.S. backing, never actually 'captured' Maduro's
power), the U.S. footprint is indelible. To discuss 'key political players' without acknowledging Washington’s role is like discussing a puppet show without mentioning the puppeteer, or at least the one furiously pulling strings from afar. Perhaps The Hill believes American audiences enjoy their international news served with a side of historical whitewash. Or maybe reporting on the actual foreign
interference would complicate the clean narrative of a self-inflicted 'dictatorship' that serves as a useful bogeyman. One might wonder who truly benefits from this remarkably sanitized version of geopolitical events—certainly not a well-informed public.