It seems that Chief Trump has been egregiously lied to, as if he has been given a taste of his own medicine, considering he systematically announces all kinds and colors of lies.
Yes, because the latest feat of the US Marines, according to the president’s statement alongside the butcher Netanyahu, was that they had destroyed a port area on the Venezuelan coast, from where he claimed tons of drugs flow freely—it's unclear whether cocaine, fentanyl, or adulterated dietary supplements, in any case.
Trump presented the episode in thriller mode, sowing more doubts and expectations. It’s unclear whether this supposedly enigmatic method aims to keep Venezuelans in turmoil to break their internal unity—which apparently hasn’t worked at all—or is meant to entertain his MAGA base and any other indifferent person patient enough, in the middle of the holiday season, to listen to what the White House occupant has to say.
The fact is that the announcement practically coincided with a regrettable fire that occurred in the municipality of San Francisco, in the state of Zulia; specifically along the shores of Lake Maracaibo, in a warehouse of an animal feed factory owned by the private company PRIMAZOL; the fire was promptly controlled and information was accordingly provided to the public. So this is a problem for those who used it as proof on social media; the fire occurred by the mentioned lake, which has no Caribbean coast, a lake after all; thus, this too is ruled out. Aside from that accident, there has been no other incident reported by anyone, in a country and era where no fewer than 19 million cell phones with built-in cameras circulate. Strange, isn’t it?
As the news travels through the endless information highway of social networks and other major media outlets, which quickly present their own versions, the matter begins to get complicated; of course, some exercise caution and warn that, as usual, Chief Trump did not provide evidence of such destruction, and they even insist on the language used, where the term "maybe" predominates in the account.
To get out of the bind, the option emerges that it was a drone attack carried out by the CIA. Yes, it’s no laughing matter because the CIA, whose purpose is already well-known, is also an excellent cover story to claim that covert operations took place—obviously to the extent that they blew up a port complex with a bunch of ships, but it was so secret that no one noticed; luckily for the world, Trump is there to reveal it. It is suggested to be patient, as at any moment they might release some edited or AI-generated image, which is very trendy these days.
In real life, several analyses have been warning about the complications of a military action on Venezuelan territory, but the pressure on the U.S. government is now enormous; its credibility has become entangled in this meritless story.
Almost six months after deploying one of the largest naval-air operations in recent years in the Caribbean, with successive maneuvers of aircraft near Venezuelan coasts and even, to the extreme, transforming those “honorable” troops into common pirates attacking supertankers, in truth, they have been unable to show anything other than the vile murder of more than 100 people, reclassified as narco-terrorists, who happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time—in the crystal-clear waters of the Caribbean or the American Pacific.
Returning to the issue of the destroyed port, there is also a complicated angle to present and clarify. For example, if this event indeed occurred, under what legality was it carried out? Who pays for the supposed dead, who the attack must have caused, possibly annihilated without prior trial, like the crews of the “narco” boats? Does the CIA have jurisdiction to operate as a competent authority in a third country without violating several international laws? And so the range of doubts about this treachery can continue to expand.
Given the topic, up to this point it seems more reasonable to assume that they lied to President Trump, which naturally raises another question: who was it? How did it occur to someone to deceive the head of state, thereby violating, among other things, U.S. regulations such as the Public Service Code of Ethics, along with the necessary working atmosphere where national security matters require the utmost trustworthiness.
It is difficult at this moment to answer this question categorically. However, following the logic of who is responsible for handling this type of matter, all arrows point to the ineffable, incorrigible liar, Mr. Rubio.
This individual is, in any case, in charge both of managing imperial foreign policy and the serious and complex issues of international security, which, according to this country, they must control under the well-known universal policeman complex.
Mr. Rubio’s reputation, once again, is called into question. He accumulates failures beginning with the fact that the fall of the Bolivarian government has not occurred, as is known—the true focus of his interest and corporate commitments—and time is working against that outcome; the promise made to Trump to seize Venezuelan oil, gold, and other resources dissipates into thin air without concrete achievements.
Following his list of defeats is the disaster, the endless genocide, a shame for the human race, observed every day in Gaza, where a perverse ideology like Zionism justifies the murder of hundreds of thousands of people as something natural.
There is the war in Ukraine, the one Trump claimed he would end in 24 hours, with the participation of Mr. Rubio as his Secretary of State. This problem has also become more complicated by the minute. To mention something recent, the attempted attack on the residence of the Russian leader hides inscrutable twists, and those responsible, more concerned with preventing peace from advancing, have just complicated the U.S. president's year-end show.
And regarding the eight wars that Trump says he managed to end, the truth is that numerous pieces of evidence point to the fact that, at best, these were temporary ceasefires, some of which have reignited, or they were specific de-escalations or disputes, but not formal wars.
Mr. Rubio is also involved in this quantum fantasy; after all, it does not matter that he is not the one publicly boasting about such peace efforts, since it should be inherent to the Department of State he leads.
Mr. Rubio finishes his first year in charge of foreign policy without results, nothing to show, not even in favor of imperial interests.
Recovering the Panama Canal, occupying Greenland, annexing Canada, or defeating Maduro—none of that has happened. His only, and arguably ridiculous, achievements are a Nobel Prize for María Corina Machado, tarnishing the famous award and going against Chief Trump, who was convinced he deserved it; or generating an authentic political crisis in Honduras, with an uncertain outcome following the imposition of a candidate who clearly did not win, in a vulgar reprise of fraudulent methods to impose subordinate rulers.
And well, Mr. Rubio, although you tried to kill the Cuban Revolution, it is still alive, despite your villainies and the resources allocated to its destruction.
Yes, Mr. Rubio, you lied to President Trump. Perhaps at some point in the coming months someone will think to take stock of your management and, well, send you home. It’s not known if you now stay overnight in a military barracks or your usual residence in Florida. We shall see.
(Taken from CubaSí)
