There's a very common motte and bailey on this topic, motte = US supported coups materially, bailey = at some point the last decade, US diplomat went on the rec

There's a very common motte and bailey on this topic, motte = US supported coups materially, bailey = at some point the last decade, US diplomat went on the record with anodyne statement of support for winner of internal struggle. It's insidious because it equates supporting a winner with interfering. Morales is a poor example given the, uh, extrajudicial circumstances.