It’s Clear Now that the American People Can No Longer Rely on the Washington Post for Truth and Light

Compare Editorials from Washington Post with New York Times

Below the masthead at the Washington Post sits this small phrase: “Democracy Dies in Darkness”.

But with the almost giddy editorial by the Post on Saturday, Jan. 3, in total full-throated support for Trump’s illegal strike in Venezuela, the Post editorial board have now proven that they’re willing to help snuff out whatever light is left in American democracy. They need to remove that phrase from the masthead for the American people can no longer rely on the Washington Post for truth and any light in the darkness.

If Jeff Bezos had owned the Post back in the early 1970s, we would never have known about the Watergate scandal — that eventually forced President Nixon to resign.

With Bezos’ manly bear hug of Donald Trump’s authoritarianism, America not only lost one of the country’s great pillars of truthful journalism, it’s just one more incredible sign that US corporate media are bending their knee to our tinpot dictator wannabe. One more institution has fallen.

Here are a few key segments of the Post’s editorial:

President Donald Trump’s decision to capture [Maduro] on Saturday was one of the boldest moves a president has made in years, and the operation was an unquestionable tactical success. The next step is ensuring that this triumph sets Venezuela up for stability and prosperity rather than more of the same, or worse.

One of the “boldest moves … in years”? A flagrant violation of the US Constitution and a nose thumbing at the concept of three branches of government gets this embroidery?

 What happened in Caracas was a clear reminder that America’s military, intelligence and cyber capabilities are second to none.

Nothing like returning to the ‘good ol’ days’ of American hegemony in the Western Hemisphere. The days of the imperial presidency are back — and the Post is celebrating.

Here’s another: “This is a major victory for American interests.”

What — Venezuela’s oil? It’s a major victory for American oil companies. It does nothing for the American people or our credibility around the globe.

Maduro’s removal sends an important message to tin-pot dictators in Latin America and the world: Trump follows through.

Trump had telegraphed for months that Maduro could not remain in power, yet Venezuela’s illegitimate leader clung on. What are Iranian leaders thinking now as they consider how to respond to widespread anti-government protests? Are the communists in Cuba sleeping well after Secretary of State Marco Rubio put them on notice Saturday?

These are Trump and Rubio’s talking points. Watch out Iran! Watch out Columbia and Cuba!

As for the future …

… Trump signaled that they expect Maduro’s No. 2 to be pliant to U.S. demands, especially relating to opening oil fields for U.S. companies. The president often shoots from his hip in these press conferences and would be wise to reconsider. Empowering a Maduro flunky would be an unforced error with catastrophic consequences.

Who’s in control? Eh Rubio? We don’t need no Maduro flunkies.

There are also legitimate legal questions about the operation, though Maduro was viewed as a criminal by both Trump and Biden, who raised the reward to $25 million for information leading to his arrest.

Wow! A tiny reference to the legality of the operation. The US Constitution wasn’t mentioned. But Biden was. So Biden did it — and Trump just did it too.

And what about notification or consultation with Congress — you know the ONLY branch of government that can call for war?

Again, the Post merely offers Trump/ Hegseth / Rubio’s points:

The administration says it did not give anyone in the legislative branch a heads up because of concerns about leaks, and they sold the operation as a law-enforcement action. That’s a stretch given the extensive involvement of the military, and it’s good for democratic hygiene to scrutinize the decision.

Leaks? Who’s been responsible for leaks? Why, it’s been Pete Hegseth himself. Oh, but it’s “good for democratic hygiene to scrutinize the decision.” So, WaPo admits that the decision to invade and kidnap deserves a little scrutiny especially after it’s labeled “a law enforcement action”. But only after the fact and not too much.

Their overall view? It’s time “to celebrate.”

The Post’s embrace of Trump’s authoritarian moves into war must have deep and serious long lasting consequences. Jeff Bezos is throwing dirt on the burial of his paper. The Washington Post is no longer the Washington Post we have known for over 50 years.

In stark contrast, here’s the New York Times editorial:

“Trump’s Attack on Venezuela Is Illegal and Unwise”

Over the past few months, President Trump has deployed an imposing military force in the Caribbean to threaten Venezuela. Until now, the president used that force — an aircraft carrier, at least seven other warships, scores of aircraft and 15,000 U.S. troops — for illegal attacks on small boats that he claimed were ferrying drugs. On Saturday, Mr. Trump dramatically escalated his campaign by capturing President Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela as part of what he called “a large scale strike” against the country.

Few people will feel any sympathy for Mr. Maduro. He is undemocratic and repressive, and has destabilized the Western Hemisphere in recent years. The United Nations recently issued a report detailing more than a decade of killings, torture, sexual violence and arbitrary detention by henchmen against his political opponents. He stole Venezuela’s presidential election in 2024. He has fueled economic and political disruption throughout the region by instigating an exodus of nearly eight million migrants.

If there is an overriding lesson of American foreign affairs in the past century, however, it is that attempting to oust even the most deplorable regime can make matters worse. The United States spent 20 years failing to create a stable government in Afghanistan and replaced a dictatorship in Libya with a fractured state. The tragic consequences of the 2003 war in Iraq continue to beset America and the Middle East. Perhaps most relevant, the United States has sporadically destabilized Latin American countries, including Chile, Cuba, Guatemala and Nicaragua, by trying to oust a government through force.

Mr. Trump has not yet offered a coherent explanation for his actions in Venezuela. He is pushing our country toward an international crisis without valid reasons. If Mr. Trump wants to argue otherwise, the Constitution spells out what he must do: Go to Congress. Without congressional approval, his actions violate U.S. law.

The nominal rationale for the administration’s military adventurism is to destroy “narco-terrorists.” Governments throughout history have labeled the leaders of rival nations as terrorists, seeking to justify military incursions as policing operations. The claim is particularly ludicrous in this case, given that Venezuela is not a meaningful producer of fentanyl or the other drugs that have dominated the recent epidemic of overdoses in the United States, and the cocaine that it does produce flows mostly to Europe. While Mr. Trump has been attacking Venezuelan boats, he also pardoned Juan Orlando Hernández, who ran a sprawling drug operation when he was president of Honduras from 2014 to 2022.

A more plausible explanation for the attacks on Venezuela may instead be found in Mr. Trump’s recently released National Security Strategy. It claimed the right to dominate Latin America: “After years of neglect, the United States will reassert and enforce the Monroe Doctrine to restore American pre-eminence in the Western Hemisphere.” In what the document called the “Trump Corollary,” the administration vowed to redeploy forces from around the world to the region, stop traffickers on the high seas, use lethal force against migrants and drug runners and potentially base more U.S. troops around the region.

Venezuela has apparently become the first country subject to this latter-day imperialism, and it represents a dangerous and illegal approach to America’s place in the world. By proceeding without any semblance of international legitimacy, valid legal authority or domestic endorsement, Mr. Trump risks providing justification for authoritarians in China, Russia and elsewhere who want to dominate their own neighbors. More immediately, he threatens to replicate the American hubris that led to the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

As a presidential candidate, Mr. Trump seemed to recognize the problems with military overreach. In 2016, he was the rare Republican politician to call out the folly of President George W. Bush’s Iraq war. In 2024, he said: “I’m not going to start a war. I’m going to stop wars.”

He is now abandoning this principle, and he is doing so illegally. The Constitution requires Congress to approve any act of war. Yes, presidents often push the boundaries of this law. But even Mr. Bush sought and received congressional endorsement for his Iraq invasion, and presidents since Mr. Bush have justified their use of drone attacks against terrorist groups and their supporters with a 2001 law that authorized action after the Sept. 11 attacks. Mr. Trump has not even a fig leaf of legal authority for his attacks on Venezuela.