Let's talk about Congress missing its chance to curtail Trump.... - Belle of the Ranch

[TexasTowelie]

Well, howdy there internet people. It's Belle 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 stopped the slow roll into a potential military quagmire in Venezuela failed by a vote of 210 to 216. 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. That vote was 211 to 213.

Gregory Meeks of New York, who is the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said, quote, "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, "This resolution is preemptive surrender. Russia delivers nukes there. 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.

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

Representative Thomas Massie 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, Massie. 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 discernable victory
conditions established prior to entry in a conflict and a plan to get out. Without those, the operation should not
take place.

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 creep or the boat strike operation was simply a pretext to manufacture consent for a conflict. And if either of those are true, why
they would support it?

Anyway, it's just a thought. Y'all have a good day