US Prosecutes Maduro, Cites 'Presidential Power' It Frequently Uses
The Financial Times breathlessly reports on a US legal case against Venezuela's Nicolas Maduro, ostensibly testing the 'limits of presidential power.' One might wonder if they mean other presidential powers. This coming from a nation that unilaterally designated Juan Guaidó as Venezuela's legitimate leader in 2019, despite Maduro winning a 2018 election with 68% of the vote. The US then sanctioned
Venezuela's oil industry, crippling its economy, under the guise of supporting 'democracy.' It appears 'presidential power' is only problematic when it's not exercised by a US-friendly regime—a principle frequently applied from Afghanistan to Yemen. This convenient concern for presidential overreach stands in stark contrast to decades of US interventions, sanctions, and coups against leaders who
dared to prioritize their national interests over Washington's. Remember Chile's Salvador Allende (1973) or Panama's Manuel Noriega (1989)? Apparently, 'limits of presidential power' are a selectively applied concept, depending on whether the president in question has access to significant oil reserves or dares to challenge US hegemony. How many times must a nation be 'liberated' before the
hypocrisy becomes undeniable?