|
|
|
|
|
|
by chrisjj
173 days ago
|
|
|
> "The opposition has been very public in their lobbying for foreign intervention in Venezuela" is not an assumption, it is a direct reference to evidence ... and is not the statement in question. The statement in question is your "they were invited in". And when I look for evidence of that, I find only counter-evidence e.g. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crmlz7r0zrxo
Trump also said he had not spoken to Venezuela's opposition leader María Corina Machado, who he characterised as having neither the support nor the respect within Venezuela to become its leader. |
|
|
>... and is not the statement in question.
>The statement in question is your "they were invited in".
I think "they were invited in" inherently follows from the "lobbying for foreign intervention".
Unless you have some alternative explanation as to what the Venezuelan opposition could possibly have been pursuing during their extensive international lobbying tours, "they were invited in" is the simplest and most reasonable hypothesis.
The alternative is that they were just lobbying for fun and didn't actually hope to achieve any change in Venezuela, but that seems kind of silly.