DW: Venezuelan air force general rejects Maduro in video
In an online video, Venezuelan General Francisco Yanez publicly renounced Nicolas Maduro's "dictatorial" rule and endorsed Juan Guaido. The military leadership quickly responded by accusing him of treason.
A senior officer of the military's high command rejected the authority of Nicolas Maduro and endorsed his opposition rival in Venezuela, as the country gears up for rival rallies on Saturday
The uniformed man identifies himself as Air Force General Francisco Yanez, before rejecting Maduro's "dictatorial and irritating authority" in a video circulating on Twitter.
"I am recognizing Juan Guaido as the president in charge of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela," he says.
"The time of democracy has arrived."
Read more ....
WNU Editor: He is the highest ranking military defection to hit the regime. I am sure the Venezuelan government is now rushing to arrest him. For every moment that he is free will only increase the possibility of more defections.
More News On A Venezuela Air Force General Defecting From The Maduro Government
Venezuelan general recognizes opposition leader Guaido as president: Twitter video -- Reuters
Venezuela air force general defects from Maduro government -- AP
Top Venezuela general rejects Maduro's legitimacy, throws support behind interim president -- FOX News
Venezuelan General Breaks With Maduro Ahead of Street Protests -- Bloomberg
High-ranking Venezuelan general publicly recognises Guaido as interim president -- Euronews
Venezuelan air force general recognizes Juan Guaidó as president -- Axios
Venezuelan Military Slams 'Traitor' Air Force General Who Defected to Opposition -- Sputnik
15 comments:
Trump Sought a Loan During the 2016 Campaign. Deutsche Bank Said No.
Russia Appears to Begin Propaganda Campaign in Favor of Tulsi Gabbard
Postman: get on this
...
This is big news! Any minute now the Earth will stop spinning and we will all fly off the surface! This has never happened before, a real estate developer being denied a loan. Stop the presses!
Anon (1:29),
"Postman get on this." I'm assuming you mean me. As you may know, I am a Certified Public Accountant. As such, I am VERY BUSY right now at work. Additionally I have family needs to attend to. As such, I have very little time to "get on this." Furthermore I have limited my commenting here to much more limited areas where I will be better able to focus and will not be multi-tasking as much as in the past and frankly this early in the "race" who the Democratic party candidates are does not particularly interest me.
Now you did appear to ask for my input. As stated, my time is very limited. First of all it is way to early for any one except for perhaps candidates themselves and those associated with them to worry to much over any given candidate or want to be candidate at this juncture. Any one wishing to influence the outcome of the presidential election would likely want to take a "wait and see" approach before getting involved. As such, I think it is highly unlikely the Russians or any other foreign actor would get involved in any significant way at this point. Doing so offers little in the way of potential gain and has much downside risk. Might someone express an opinion? Of course they might!! I've lost count of the number of times US leaders have expressed opinions on a given foreign political situation. This does not equal involvement in the inner workings of another nation's political system in and of itself.
Before you mentioned Tulsi Gabbard I knew nothing of the Hawaii politician. The first thing that came up is an NBC article. Apparently I am not the only one who knew nothing of her as the article admits that she is not well known among the voting public at large.
I have not had time to read it but I did skim it. A couple of things stand out. The NBC article treats as a given the allegation of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election even though nothing is proven and the allegation makes little sense upon close analysis. For example, any Russian messaging/propaganda is like a child's toy water gun compared to the vast ocean that is HRC's messaging/propaganda. Such interference has little upside potential along with much downside risk. The allegations make little sense and no real proof has been provided. To treat an extraordinary claim such as this as fact without offering any real proof, seems like shoddy journalism to me. I'd tend to be extremely skeptical of the rest of their analysis.
Apparently she had a meeting with the Syrian leader in 2017. For any US president cordial working relations with important world leaders of which Bashar al Assad is one will be important for any US president should they wish to actually successfully represent American interests. While I have only had time to skim the article, the writers appear to be critical of this. Such things have often been referred to as "Statesmanship." These things seem to be alien concepts to much of the punditry.
While I know little of Ms. Gabbard which is more than I knew of her before you asked for my opinion, I know even less of how Russian leadership operates. This is not a well known US politician. As such, anyone would want to take a wait and see approach before reaching any firm conclusions about her. I would think the Russians would not approach this any differently.
As for the breathless headline to the NBC article, might someone in the US establishment be trying to get an early start in quashing this candidate? I have observed that the establishment does try and smear candidates and leaders they don't approve of with a Russian association label hoping it will stick. To me, this is the question that should be asked. Are they trying to smear this candidate now and if so why are they afraid of her?
You work on Saturday? FDR gave us the 5 day work week. In America.
Anon (1:28) & (1:29),
I think it is highly likely that you are each the same person. Of course when anon posts, it is hard to know WHICH anon it is!!
The topic of the editor's post is the defection of a Venezuelan Air Force general and how it affects the government of that country. You have deviated from this topic by going off on tangents of a possible bank loan that POTUS may or may not have sought and whether or not an obscure US politician has the support of the Russian government. This is by definition internet "trolling."
Now back to the topic at hand. I have already expressed how I think this is likely to end and see no need to rehash in full at this time. Essentially I don't think this defection is going to make any difference. I suspect the general was on the way out anyway. I also suspect this is a highly sought after position and they are at least 10 people clamoring to fill this spot. Essentially the hope is that yet another half-baked, poorly thought out, and ill-conceived plan on the part of the US government and its "allies" will somehow end differently than the previous ones have. At least this is my "take" and hopefully I am wrong.
Trump was burning cash that was both funding his campaign and expanding his business group's collection of properties, the Times reported. Citing two unnamed sources, the Trump Organization specifically sought a loan against a Miami property to fund work on a Scotland golf course called Turnberry.
However, bank officials who spoke to the Times under the condition of anonymity said Trump's divisive campaign made loaning him money too risky. The bank feared if he defaulted, the bank would have to choose between not collecting on the debt, or attempting to seize the assets of the President of the United States.
3:53
Some comments
1) Poster did not link the article, because he was afraid we might actually read it, find the glaring inconsistencies in the article and have a good chuckle at his expense. So many Trump stories are poorly sourced (2 unnamed sources), shallow, and evaporate after a week, you wonder why the codger even tries.
2) 2 years in and no default. The bank was wrong, the story is BS or something.
3) Some one ran away from their post of "But Woodrow Wilson was only racist because of his wife!"
It reminds me of a classmate, whose father was a PhD professor and constantly belittled their spouse, a homemaker. IMO such person could come up with a "He was racist, because of his wife defense". Makes me wonder what goes on at home of the poster.
try twisting to make me look bad. does not work. He was southerner and his wife very racist...and then this:
Yet his fellow Southerners in Congress feared his reforms would expand federal power and overwhelm states’ rights – especially those “rights” that would justify the Jim Crow laws that kept African-Americans disenfranchised.
The Southern bloc supported Wilson in exchange for his segregation of the Civil Service. As O’Toole tells it, Wilson knew he was wrong to make that devil’s bargain, which would ensnare succeeding presidents for decades. The denunciations of white liberals and black voters who supported him in 1912 drove him, arguably, to despair.
the first real racist: Andrew Johnson, gop
But you folks love to go back to Obama etc. Your Orange Moron is racist and identifies with racists and fascists.
It was LBJ that integrated the South. It was Truman who integrated the Military...
"The Southern bloc supported Wilson in exchange for his segregation of the Civil Service. As O’Toole tells it,..."
Wilson;s dad was racist and Wilson himself wrote many racists things through his life, but some how PhD comes up with the idea that it was anyone but Wilson's fault.
His wife, congressional Democrats, ...
The military was being integrated before Truman's order, before the end of WW2. Two or more years before.
Heck, it would been integrated 20 or 30 years before Truman except for ... Wilson.
It is the great thing about organizational stress. This discard stupid stuff and just want the job done. Color barriers, ethnic barriers begin to fall away.
Anon (5:36),
Very respectfully linking an article is time consuming and tedious. For a visually challenged person such as myself this is more time than I want to spend especially when my time is very limited. Furthermore anything I post here is easily found on the internet.
This article was found with a very limited google search and I pointed out the source as an NBC article making it even easier to find. I am a bit puzzled as to why the chuckle would be at my expense as I actually want people to find out for themselves.
I still haven't had time to fully read this article and likely won't this evening as I have a family who needs my attention. I did notice the sources are anonymous (unnamed) but didn't feel a need to point this out as I thought this obvious. Personally I've NEVER liked anonymous sources.
As I stated before, an obscure HI politician seems hardly worthy of attention at this point. Clearly NBC saw this worthy of an article. A good question would be why an obscure HI politician with little to no national support or recognition is worthy of the excited attention of major US media at this early stage.
Depending upon which Forbes list of most powerful people we consult Putin is either the most powerful or second most powerful person on earth. I generally agree with their analysis. Furthermore it's generally assumed that Putin is the Russian government. For such powerful people to express interst in an obscure person at this point seems rather extraordinary. As such, it seems unlikely the Russians would have any special intetst in her. In any event, NBC will need to back up their breathless headline with evidence which seems lacking or they would have presented it in the first couple of sentences. They didn't.
One could ask what are they afraid of. She did manage to get a meeting with the Syrian leadership. Perhaps they are afraid she might be in a position to facilitate an end to Cold War 2. This may scare them. A very good question, I think.
Also, we are asked to believe that RT is part of the Russian government based upon what the CIA says. Given the numerous failures of US Intelligence over many decades, prudence would suggest anything they come up with will need to be corroborated with other sources. this is off the topic of the post. I would say the very definition of internet "trolling."
,
With that said I'm largely in agreement with you.
Poster u r anon source
Fred,
An anonymous source to me is one that can't be verified. I've provided information on this site multiple times that would make it easy for anyone wishing to find me to do so. Also, I post here under the tag of B.Poster making my posts here eady to identify. This would not meet the definition of an "anon source."
Post a Comment