Let's talk about Congress missing its chance to curtail Trump....

episode

Belle of the Ranch 4 min 1 speaker 5 chapters transcribed 1 month ago

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

Why did Congress miss its chance to stop Trump’s Venezuela campaign?

Belle of the Ranch 0:01

Well, howdy there internet people it spell again. So today, we're going to talk about Congress missing its chance to curtail Trump. Congress missed what may have been the last chance to stop serious escalations in Trump's bizarre and incoherent campaign against Venezuela. The effort to curtail Trump's campaign against the boats and stop the slow roll into a potential military quagmire in Venezuela. Failed by a vote of two hundred ten to two hundred sixteen. The measure would have prohibited strikes against designated organizations in the Western Hemisphere without congressional approval. A measure that was more specifically tailored to prevent escalation against or within Venezuela also failed by an even slimmer margin.

Belle of the Ranch 0:57

That boat was two hundred eleven to two hundred thirteen. Gregory Meeks of New York, who is a top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said quote

What did Senator Richard Blumenthal say about criminal culpability in the strikes?

Belle of the Ranch 1:08

These strikes have not been authorized by Congress, and the administration has not sought congressional authorization to use lethal military force to address alleged criminal activity. This discussion is occurring against the backdrop of wider belief that the US may have violated the law of war during the September second strikes. Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut recently said quote I think there are serious questions about criminal culpability here. And there is certainly a need for more intensive federal investigation. Beyond the designations and measures, congressional discussion seemed almost completely detached from the actual events occurring in American foreign policy. At one point, a Republican arguing against curtailing Trump said quote.

Belle of the Ranch 2:07

This resolution is preemptive surrender. Russia delivers nukes there.

How did Republican leaders justify not curtailing Trump’s actions?

Belle of the Ranch 2:13

President can't respond. Once you walk off Capitol Hill, most people who watch foreign policy understand that Trump has been actively trying to surrender Western interest to Putin for months. Ukraine just won't go along with his plans, said While Trump talks about oil, land, regime change, and military conflict that has no clearly defined metrics for victory. The only person on the Republican side of the aisle supportive of Trump's potential war that seems to be speaking plainly about what's happening is Senator John Thune. His comments aren't encouraging if you're one of those who would like to avoid a needless military confrontation. Thune indicated he wasn't sure if the administration had really publicly stated its desire for regime change.

Belle of the Ranch 3:09

But then followed that up with quote. I would certainly not have a problem if that was their position.

Why are clear victory conditions essential before entering a conflict with Venezuela?

Belle of the Ranch 3:17

Representative Thomas Massey of Kentucky said quote If it were about drugs, we'd bomb Mexico or China or Colombia. This is about oil and regime change. Minerals, Massy. It's also about minerals. At the end of this, almost all of the Republican Party voted to continue what seems to be a slow walk towards war. While almost all of the Democratic Party opposed it. Like any military operation, there have to be discernible victory conditions established prior to entry in a conflict and a plan to get out. Without those, the operation should not take place.

What are the implications of the boat‑strike debate for future U.S. foreign policy?

Belle of the Ranch 4:03

There's been no clear communication from the administration on what victory would even look like. Those who are supportive of this endeavor need to decide whether we're moving towards war with Venezuela because of an ill conceived boat strike operation with ill defined victory conditions leading to Mission Creek. Or The boat strike operation was simply a pretext to manufacture consent for a conflict. And if either of those are true, then Why they would support it? Anyway. It's just a thought. Y'all have a good day.

Select any passage to copy it with its citation or turn it into a shareable card.