The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Boyd D. Cathey Archive
Venezuela, the Deep State, and Subversion of the Trump Presidency
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

There he was, right there on the stage to the right side of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo who was briefing the press on America’s position concerning the recent coup in Venezuela. I rubbed my eyes—was I seeing what I thought I was seeing?

It was Elliot Abrams. What was HE doing there? After all, back in February 2017, after then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson had pushed for his nomination as Deputy Secretary of State, it was President Trump himself who had vetoed his appointment.

Here is how the anodyne account in Wikipedia describes it:

In February 2017, it was reported that Abrams was Secretary of State Rex Tillerson‘s first pick for Deputy Secretary of State, but that Tillerson was subsequently overruled by Trump. Trump aides were supportive of Abrams, but Trump opposed him because of Abrams’ opposition during the campaign. [emphasis mine]

Abrams during the 2016 campaign had been a NeverTrumper who vigorously opposed Donald Trump and who had strongly attacked the future president’s “Make America Great Again,” America First foreign policy proposals.

Abrams, a zealous Neoconservative and ardent globalist was—and is—one of those foreign policy “experts” who has never seen a conflict in a faraway country, in a desert or jungle, where he did not want to insert American troops, especially if such an intervention would support Israeli policy. He was deeply enmeshed in earlier American interventionist miscues and blunders in the Middle East, even incurring charges of malfeasance.

Apparently, President Trump either did not know that or perhaps did not remember Abrams’s activities or stout opposition. In any case, back in 2017 it took an intervention by a well-placed friend with Washington connections who provided that information directly to Laura Ingraham who then, in turn, placed it on the president’s desk And Abrams’ selection was effectively stopped, torpedoed by Donald Trump.

But here now was Abrams on stage with the Secretary of State.

What was that all about?

Again, I went to Wikipedia, and once again, I quote from that source: “On January 25, 2019, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo appointed Abrams as the United States’ Special Envoy to Venezuela.”

Despite President Trump’s resolute veto back in February 2017, Abrams was back, this time as a Special Envoy, right smack in the department that President Trump had forbade him to serve in. Did the president know? Had he signed off on this specially-created appointment? After all, the very title “Special Envoy on Venezuela” seems something dreamed up bureaucratically by the policy wonks at State, or maybe by Mike Pompeo.

Then there was the widely reported news, accompanied by a convenient camera shot of National Security Adviser John Bolton’s note pad (which may or may not have been engineered by him), with the scribble: “5,000 troops to Colombia.”

What gives here?

Last week suddenly there was a coup d’etat in Venezuela, with the head of the national assembly, Juan Guiado, proclaiming himself as the country’s new and rightful president, and the theoretical deposition of then-current President Nicolas Maduro. And we were told that this action was totally “spontaneous” and an “act of the Venezuelan people for democracy,” and that the United States had had nothing to do with it.

If you believe that, I have an oil well in my backyard that I am quite willing to sell to you for a few million, or maybe a bit less.

Of course, the United States and our overseas intelligence services were involved.

Let me clarify: like most observers who have kept up with the situation in oil-rich Venezuela, I heartily dislike and find despicable the socialist government of Maduro, just as I did Hugo Chavez when he was in power. I have some good friends there, one of whom was a student of mine when I taught in Argentina many years ago, and he and his family resolutely oppose Maduro. Those socialist leaders in Caracas are tin-pot dictator wannabees who have wrecked the economy of that once wealthy country; and they have ridden roughshod over the constitutional rights of the citizens. My hope has been that the people of Venezuela, perhaps supported by elements in the army, would take action to rid the country of those tyrants.

And, in effect, I wish for the success of Juan Guaido in his struggle with Maduro, and I support American diplomatic and economic pressure on Maduro to step down. After all, Venezuela is in our back yard with huge oil reserves.

But potentially sending American troops—as many as 5,000—to fight in a country which is made up largely of jungle and impassible mountains, appears just one more instance, one more example, of the xenophobic internationalism of men like Bolton and the now state department official, Abrams, who believe American boots on the ground is the answer to every international situation. Experience over the past four decades should indicate the obvious folly of such policies for all but the historically blind and ideologically corrupt.

While we complain that the Russians and Chinese have propped up the Maduro government and invested deeply in Venezuela, a country within our “sphere of influence” in the Western Hemisphere (per the “Monroe Doctrine”)—we have done the very same thing, even more egregiously in regions like Ukraine that were integrally part of historical Russia, and in Crimea, which was never really part of Ukraine (only for about half a century) but historically and ethnically Russian. Did we not solemnly pledge to Mikhail Gorbachev, under George H. W. Bush, that if the old Soviet Union would dissolve and let its some fourteen socialist “republics” go their own way, leave the Russian Federation, that we, in turn, would not advance NATO up to the borders of Russia? And then we did the exact opposite…almost immediately go back on our word and move our troops and advisers right up to the borders of post-1991 Russia?

From mid-2015 on I was a strong supporter of Donald Trump, and, in many ways, I still am. In effect, he may be the only thing that stands in the way of a total and complete recouping of power by the Deep State, the only slight glimmer of light—that immovable force who stands up at times to the power-elites and who has perhaps given us a few years of respite as the managerial class zealously attempts to repair the breach he—and we—inflicted on it in 2016.

My major complaint, what I have seen as a kind of Achilles’ Heel in the Trump presidency, has always been in personnel, those whom the president has surrounded himself with. And my criticism is measured and prudential, in the sense that I also understand what happens—and what did happen—when a billionaire businessman, a kind of bull-in-the-china shop (exactly what was needed), comes to Washington and lacks experience with the utterly amoral and oleaginous and obsequious political class that has dominated and continues to dominate our government, both Democrats and, most certainly, Republicans.

The wife of a very dear friend of thirty-five years served in a fairly high post during the Reagan administration. Before her untimely death a few years ago, she recounted to me in stark detail how the minions and acolytes of George H. W. Bush managed to surround President Reagan and subvert large portions of the stated Reagan Agenda. Reagan put his vice-president effectively in charge of White House personnel: and, as they say, that was it, the Reagan Revolution was essentially over.

In 2016 a number of friends and I created something called “Scholars for Trump.” Composed mostly of academics, research professors, and accomplished professionals, and headed by Dr. Walter Block, Professor of Economics at Loyola-New Orleans, and Dr. Paul Gottfried, Raffensperger Professor of Humanities at Elizabethtown College, in Pennsylvania, we attempted to gather real professed believers in the stated Trump agenda. We received scant mention (mostly negative) in the so-called “conservative” press, who proceeded to smear us as “ultra-right wingers” and “paleo-conservatives.” And, suddenly, there appeared another pro-Trump list, and that one composed largely of the same kinds of professionals, but many if not most of whom had not supported Donald Trump and his agenda during the primary campaigns.

What was certain was that many of the amoral time-servers and power elitists had decided that it was time for them to attach themselves to Trump, time for them to insinuate themselves into positions of power once again, no matter their distaste and scorn for that brash billionaire upstart from New York.

Remember the (in)famous interview that the President-elect had with Mitt Romney who desperately wanted to be Secretary of State? Recall the others also interviewed—some of whom we remembered as Donald Trump’s opponents in the campaign—who came hat-in-hand to Trump Tower looking for lucrative positions and the opportunity once again to populate an administration and direct policy? And, yes, work from within to counteract the stated Trump agenda?

It would be too facile to blame the president completely: after all, the professional policy wonks, the touted experts in those along-the-Potomac institutes and foundations, were there already in place. And, indeed, there was a need politically, as best as possible, to bring together the GOP if anything were to get through Congress. (As we have seen, under Paul Ryan practically none of the Trump Agenda was enacted, and Ryan at every moment pushed open borders.)

Our contacts did try; we did have a few associates close to the president. A few—but only a few—of our real Trump Agenda supporters managed to climb aboard. But in the long run we were no match for the machinations of the power elites and GOP establishment. And we discovered that the president’s major strength—not being a Washington Insider—was also his major weakness, and that everything depended on his instincts, and that somehow if the discredited globalists and power-hungry Neoconservatives (who did not give Trump the time of day before his election) were to go too far, maybe, hopefully, he would react.

And he has, on occasion done just that, as perhaps in the case of Syria, and maybe even in Afghanistan, and in a few other situations. But each time he has had to pass the gauntlet of “advisers” whom he has allowed to be in place who vigorously argue against (and undercut) the policies they are supposed to implement.

Donald Trump, for all that and for his various faults and miscues, is in reality the only thing standing in the way of the end of the old republic. The fact that he is so violently and unreservedly hated by the elites, by the media, by academia, and by Hollywood must tell us something. In effect, however, it not just the president they hate, not even his rough-edged personality—it is what he represents, that in 2016 he opened a crack, albeit small, into a world of Deep State putrefaction, a window into sheer Evil, and the resulting falling away of the mask of those “body snatchers” who had for so long exuded confidence that their subversion and control was inevitable and just round the corner.

President Trump will never be forgiven for that. And, so, as much as I become frustrated with some of the self-inflicted wounds, some of the actions which appear at times to go flagrantly against his agenda, as much as I become heartsick when I see the faces of Elliot Abrams—and Mitt Romney—in positions where they can continue their chipping away at that agenda, despite all that, I continue to pray that his better instincts will reign and that he will look beyond such men, and just maybe learn that what you see first in Washington is usually not what you’ll get.

All Comments Hidden • Show  266 Comments • Reply
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World
Becker update V1.3.2