The quoted part doesn't start until "overwhelming force". They added the self-defense part themselves.

This is indeed a quote, so ABC is just repeating what the source said. However, the source is an American Joint Chiefs Chairman, he is saying that the invading American forces were fired upon and responded in self-defence. Which is a weird take.

Perhaps they should have also interviewed someone not from the Trump establishment about how a bunch of armed US kidnappers shooting at Venezuelan defence forces while abducting their President cannot be characterized as "self defense".

Even if the quote was not just about the overwhelming part, publishing a straight quote does not get you off the hook when it's straight up lies. You should point out the quote is false.

you got it the wrong way around, the article is saying that the kidnap special forces "defended" themselves when the guards of the president attacked the invading kidnappers. defended is a very positive word and aims to put this illegal infiltration, murder and kidnapping (war without a declaration) in a good light. as a clueless teen i used to not think about the substance and material conditions of things. if the overwhelming majority of news i see calls something "defended", i would be swayed. a lot of adults are still clueless, only able to barely survive under the massive stress and pressure that these systems create. they do not care about this nuance out of necessity. they need to survive. this sneaky wordplay is aimed at them.

Also, if criminals are trying to kidnap you and you fight back, is that not self-defence?

But it was the criminal kidnappers that claimed self-defence ....