Elliott
Abrams, who is steering Trump’s Venezuela policy, has a long track
record of war crimes. Yet a number of liberal commentators are
rushing to his defense.
by
Paul Heideman
Part
1
Practically
the entire American political establishment and corporate press are
repeating the Trump administration’s claims to have humanitarian
motives in Venezuela. As that administration inches closer to
full-blown military invasion, whether direct or by proxy, it behooves
us to look into the track record of the officials steering this
so-called “humanitarian policy.” None other are more deserving of
scrutiny than Elliott Abrams, whose crimes have spanned the globe,
from El Salvador to Nicaragua to Iraq.
Before
this month, Elliott Abrams was likely glad to have been largely
forgotten by the U.S. public. When the Trump administration announced
Abrams’ appointment as U.S. Special Representative in Venezuela in
late January, the news caused some ripples on the Left, but across
mainstream media outlets, the reaction was mostly sedate.
Politico
described Abrams as “a somewhat controversial figure,”
while Bloomberg focused on his criticisms of Trump. In the
wild world of Trump appointees, this was hardly exciting stuff. While
Abrams has been associated with some of the darkest moments in
American foreign policy over the last 40 years—from death squads in
Central America to the Iran-Contra affair to the invasion of Iraq—his
appointment failed to resonate with the media obsessions of the
moment. This history was simply too long ago to generate much
controversy today. A relic from another era, Abrams was on the verge
of ascending to the coveted position of “elder statesman.”
All of
that changed February 13, when Rep. Ilhan Omar subjected Abrams to a
withering interrogation. Citing his conviction in 1991 of withholding
information from Congress concerning the Iran-Contra affair, Omar
declared “I fail to understand why members of this committee or
the American people should find any testimony that you give today to
be truthful.” When Abrams, incensed, replied, “If I could
respond to that,” Omar casually informed him “It wasn’t
a question.”
She went
on to question Abrams about his record, from supporting U.S.-backed
military dictatorships in Central America in the 1980s to his recent
role in promoting right-wing coup-plotters in Venezuela. Throughout,
Abrams protested again and again about the unfairness of her line of
questioning. This was simply not how things were done in polite
society.
Immediately
following this exchange, Abrams and his record began attracting
significantly more attention than they had when his appointment was
first announced. Prodded by Omar, media outlets across the country
suddenly remembered the El Mozote massacre in El Salvador, committed
by the right-wing military forces that Abrams and the Reagan
administration were backing.
Yet even
this rude intrusion of history into the public sphere only hinted at
the full extent of the blood on Abrams’ hands. In her five minutes
of questioning, Omar could merely reference his record in shorthand.
Yet Abrams’ full career, and its memory in public life, are worth
considering in further detail, as they reveal important truths about
how foreign policy is made in America.
Despite
his bloody history, in the aftermath of Omar’s interrogation, a
number of mainstream liberal commentators such as the Center for
American Progress’s Kelly Magsamen and prominent Joe Biden ally
Dave Harden jumped to Abrams’ defense. This exculpation by a sector
of the liberal intelligentsia also reveals the continuity of U.S.
foreign policy across political parties, and the threat posed to this
consensus by Omar’s inquiry.
Source,
links:
http://inthesetimes.com/article/21758/war-criminal-elliott-abrams-nicaragua-venezuela-maduro-trump-ilhan-omar
[2] [3] [4] [5]
[2] [3] [4] [5]
Comments
Post a Comment