I agree with you that we'll see how this is received in the longer term. But in the immediate future, I think Trump sees the political advantage of cheaper gas prices (gasoline AND natural gas), cutting deeply into the illicit narcotics supply moving into the country, establishing a legitimate government in Venezuela (we can now ship the 1.2 million Venezuelans back to their home) - as all near-term net positives. It also "sends a signal" to China, Russia and Iran regionally that their destabilizing influence won't be tolerated (add to that, the demonstrated proof that their vaunted "impenetrable" air defense systems are a total joke). It also strains Russia's and China's economy. It also pokes a finger in the eye of the "international community" - which for half the country, at least, is long-overdue. It also places the Democrats in the reflexive position of supporting a thug dictator who ignored elections and threatened to kill the current recipient of the Nobel Peace prize. So in the context of all that (and the numerous precedents you already listed), I can't imagine why Trump would have consulted Congress or sought a "resolution" of some kind. This action has all the benefits of pissing off all the right people while delivering what the American electorate "voted for" in 2024. In the long term, we're all dead anyway - as some miserable economist once said.
I get and agree with that, and will also note that odds are it would have leaked out of Congress and imperiled the operation.
My complaint is broader.
This isn't how it's supposed to work. Trump's action is not extraordinary or outside current norms, but that's because we've accepted it and keep voting posturing clowns rather than serious people into Congress.
I have no doubt it would have leaked out of Congress. I keep a copy of the Constitution in my purse, yet am elated that the administraton was wise enough not to go there.
I think there is adequate justification (and plenty of precedent) for such an action. Mark Levin says the War Powers Act clearly gives the authority. Also, there is a distinction between "make war" and "declare war". Congress can declare war, but that is not an authorization. It's just a declaration. It's nice to have, but it doesn't preclude the president's use of the military. For egregious misuse, congress can impeach.
Well, Maduro had to go. Still, I don't like the idea of Trump saying we're going to help "run" Venezuela until a more legitimate government can be established. Considering America's track record involving itself with South American nations and with such a big oil reserve in play along with Chevron being present things can easily be misinterpreted. There must be some decent democratic loving Venezuelans ready to help pick up the pieces with the assistance of America's council.
The photos are especially confusing. I can't tell if those are Venezuelans(bottom left corner) who are asking for Maduro's head or Americans(top right corner) outraged by Trump's actions or both.
Well and necessarily said!
I agree with you that we'll see how this is received in the longer term. But in the immediate future, I think Trump sees the political advantage of cheaper gas prices (gasoline AND natural gas), cutting deeply into the illicit narcotics supply moving into the country, establishing a legitimate government in Venezuela (we can now ship the 1.2 million Venezuelans back to their home) - as all near-term net positives. It also "sends a signal" to China, Russia and Iran regionally that their destabilizing influence won't be tolerated (add to that, the demonstrated proof that their vaunted "impenetrable" air defense systems are a total joke). It also strains Russia's and China's economy. It also pokes a finger in the eye of the "international community" - which for half the country, at least, is long-overdue. It also places the Democrats in the reflexive position of supporting a thug dictator who ignored elections and threatened to kill the current recipient of the Nobel Peace prize. So in the context of all that (and the numerous precedents you already listed), I can't imagine why Trump would have consulted Congress or sought a "resolution" of some kind. This action has all the benefits of pissing off all the right people while delivering what the American electorate "voted for" in 2024. In the long term, we're all dead anyway - as some miserable economist once said.
I get and agree with that, and will also note that odds are it would have leaked out of Congress and imperiled the operation.
My complaint is broader.
This isn't how it's supposed to work. Trump's action is not extraordinary or outside current norms, but that's because we've accepted it and keep voting posturing clowns rather than serious people into Congress.
I have no doubt it would have leaked out of Congress. I keep a copy of the Constitution in my purse, yet am elated that the administraton was wise enough not to go there.
I think there is adequate justification (and plenty of precedent) for such an action. Mark Levin says the War Powers Act clearly gives the authority. Also, there is a distinction between "make war" and "declare war". Congress can declare war, but that is not an authorization. It's just a declaration. It's nice to have, but it doesn't preclude the president's use of the military. For egregious misuse, congress can impeach.
I referenced all that. My objection lies in principle and spirit.
Well, Maduro had to go. Still, I don't like the idea of Trump saying we're going to help "run" Venezuela until a more legitimate government can be established. Considering America's track record involving itself with South American nations and with such a big oil reserve in play along with Chevron being present things can easily be misinterpreted. There must be some decent democratic loving Venezuelans ready to help pick up the pieces with the assistance of America's council.
The photos are especially confusing. I can't tell if those are Venezuelans(bottom left corner) who are asking for Maduro's head or Americans(top right corner) outraged by Trump's actions or both.