The headline is a rhetorical question.
Every now and then—the last was the assassination of Charlie Kirk—all the masks come off and anyone capable of objectivity can see exactly who the unethical, untrustworthy and dishonest among us are. Unfortunately, most people are not capable of objectivity, because bias makes you stupid. One would think, however, that at least those who present themselves to the public as skilled and independent analysts would take some care not to expose their double standards, lack of integrity and hypocrisy for all to see. One would be wrong to think that, as the video compilation above vividly demonstrates.
But why, oh why, do otherwise intelligent people continue to trust these hacks?
Well, you can decide whether that is a rhetorical question or not.
Meanwhile, here is the first part of an incomplete collection of telling reactions to the U.S.’s perfectly executed incursion into Venezuela to remove an illegitimate ruler and his wife who were both under U.S. indictment.
1. Two lawyer bloggers, Ann Althouse and Jonathan Turley, who I respect and often reference here, made it clear—Turley a bit more expressly than Ann—that the U.S. action was legal and justified. Althouse went back over her previous comments on Maduro—gee, why didn’t Jen Psaki do that?—to find her expressing sympathy with the plight of Venezuelans and the absence of U.S. action, as in her discovery of a post from 2019:
When Trump was pleading with the Venezuelan military to support Juan Guaido, I wrote: “I was surprised that on the channel I was watching — Fox News — the analysis after the speech was about the 2020 presidential campaign…. People in Venezuela are suffering. They’re starving. We need to help. I thought Trump was trying to get something done, but the news folk rush to talk about the damned campaign, as if that’s what sophisticated, savvy people do. I found it offensive.”
Turley has posted twice already explaining that the action was legally justified, with some other useful analysis today, including a pointed reference to Axis hypocrisy:
…Some of us had written that Trump had a winning legal argument by focusing on the operation as the seizure of two indicted individuals in reliance on past judicial rulings, including the decisions in the case of former Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio and General Dan Caine stayed on script and reinforced this narrative. Both repeatedly noted that this was an operation intended to bring two individuals to justice and that law enforcement personnel were part of the extraction team to place them into legal custody. Rubio was, again, particularly effective in emphasizing that Maduro was not the head of state but a criminal dictator who took control after losing democratic elections.
However, while noting the purpose of the capture, President Trump proceeded to declare that the United States would engage in nation-building to achieve lasting regime change. He stated that they would be running Venezuela to ensure a friendly government and the repayment of seized U.S. property dating back to the government of Hugo Chávez.
… [Trump]is the most transparent president in my lifetime with prolonged (at times excruciatingly long) press conferences and a brutal frankness about his motivations. Second, he is unabashedly and undeniably transactional in most of his dealings. He is not ashamed to state what he wants the country to get out of the deal.
In Venezuela, he wants a stable partner, and he wants oil.
Chávez and Maduro had implemented moronic socialist policies that reduced one of the most prosperous nations to an economic basket case. They brought in Cuban security thugs to help keep the population under repressive conditions, as a third fled to the United States and other countries.
After an extraordinary operation to capture Maduro, Trump was faced with socialist Maduro allies on every level of the government. He is not willing to allow those same regressive elements to reassert themselves.
The problem is that, if the purpose was regime change, this attack was an act of war, which is why Rubio struggled to bring the presser back to the law enforcement purpose. I have long criticized the erosion of the war declaration powers of Congress, including my representation of members of Congress in opposition to Obama’s Libyan war effort.
The fact, however, is that we lost that case. Trump knows that. Courts have routinely dismissed challenges to undeclared military offensives against other nations. In fairness to Trump, most Democrats were as quiet as church mice when Obama and Hillary Clinton attacked Libya’s capital and military sites to achieve regime change without any authorization from Congress. They were also silent when Obama vaporized an American under this “kill list” policy without even a criminal charge. So please spare me the outrage now.
My strong preferences for congressional authorization and consultation are immaterial. The question I am asked as a legal analyst is whether this operation would be viewed as lawful. The answer remains yes.
A couple items in that analysis warrant special attention, like…
- “[Trump]is the most transparent president in my lifetime.” That is absolutely true, yet the narrative being pushed by the unscrupulous Axis is that he is a habitual liar of epic proportions.
- “….most Democrats were as quiet as church mice when Obama and Hillary Clinton attacked Libya’s capital and military sites to achieve regime change without any authorization from Congress.” Indeed, this is the gold standard of double standards that should be shaken in the faces of the reflex Trump-haters like a terrier shakes a rat.
2. 2024’s Ethics Hero of the Year Elon Musk called the elimination of Maduro “a win for the world.” Well, the Good Guys of the world, anyway. Russia, China, Iran and Cuba, as well as neighboring South American leftist states like Columbia and Brazil and drug cartel-run states like Mexico, condemned Trump’s action. Gee, wouldn’t that collection provide the Mad Left a big clue regarding the distribution of bad Guys and Good Guys on this issue? No, because to the Trump Deranged and the anti-Americans, wherever Trump is automatically is the House Where Evil Dwells.
3. Speaking of Ethics Villains, here’s the revolting Senator Adam Schiff:
Of course, it does not erode America’s standing on the world stage, but enhances it. The contrast would be Biden’s botched withdrawal from Afghanistan, Obama’s shrug when Russia took the Crimea, President Carter’s disastrous attempt to rescue the Iran hostages, and President Biden’s weak response to Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.
4. Here’s another of the worst Democratic Senators who never let facts get in the way of their attacks on Trump, Maryland’s Chris Van Holland.
Trump didn’t put any Americans in harm’s way, and that why no American were harmed. There is no war, because Venezuela has no capability or stomach to fight with the U.S., and as Turley mentioned, Democrats have a creatively flexible concept of war powers depending on whether they control the White House or not. The bit about Trump’s “billionaire buddies” is pure Trump Derangement narrative for idiots.
5. There are pro-Maduro, anti-Trump protests in Portland, New York City, and Boston, with many protesters holding professionally-printed placards and signs. The “Hands Off Venezuela” protests are organized by “The People’s Forum,” an NGO that has received over $20 million dollars from a billionaire who lives in China with ties to the CCP. China has been dependent on Venezuelan oil. Here’s a shot from Massachusetts:
(What “blood”?)
5. Yes, Pete Buttigeig is still regarded as a prime contender for the 2028 Democratic Party Presidential nomination. Think about that for a moment. The first post was when he was running in 2020, and condemning President Trump for not doing anything about Venezuela. The one beneath is from yesterday.
6. Predictably, two of the worst, most ethically-inert conservatives extant, Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens, the first a principle-free huckster and the latter bat-house crazy, oppose Maduro’s removal. Owens:
Zionists?
6. United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres condemned the arrest. This is one more in the long line of reasons why the United States should reduce its support of the U.N. to a bare minimum. He’s says he’s “deeply concerned” that the rules of international law have not been respected. That’s because international law is a joke, and the U.N. has neither the means nor the guts to enforce it. All of your Trump-Deranged social media pals blathering about “international law” do not know what they are talking about. There is no international law because there is no world government, and the “law” is constantly warped by bad actors. “International law” holds that Israel can’t defend itself against a terrorist government, but it is toothless when those bad actors stage a sneak murder and rape attack on Jewish civilians.
***
Yikes! That’s a lot already, and Part 2 is on the runway!
Ethics Alarms 
Great job on Part I, I’m looking forward to Part II.
There was a time that the Democrat party had politicians of great moral and intellectual stature, who where able to reach out across the isle in order to get things accomplished, and who were robustly patriotic. Examples are Speaker Tip O’Neil, Senators Henry “Scoop” Jackson, Patrick Daniel Moynihan, Hubert Humphrey. Those were men with ideas that where consistent, and did not change with which party is in power.
The Democrat Party of today does not have politicians with that stature. Do they have consistent ideas? A viable platform, that forwards the interests of the country? Are they even patriotic?
My impression is that the Democrat Party only cares about the interests of the Democrat Party. They are reflexively against anything the Trump administration does or proposes. If Biden made a statement about a dictator all the Democrats clap like seals, but if Trump makes a similar statement, they all run to the microphones to offer the strongest condemnations.
As all the bad guys of the world (Russia, China, Iran, Cuba) are condemning arresting Maduro, would it be safe to say that the Democrat Party have become one of the bad guys?
It’s interesting to see that different respectable law blogs can come to different conclusions on whether the US action was legal. As Jack indicated in #1, “Two lawyer bloggers, Ann Althouse and Jonathan Turley, who I respect and often reference here, made it clear—Turley a bit more expressly than Ann—that the U.S. action was legal and justified.” Then there is Scott Greenfield who posts, “Maduro Was Terrible, But Invading Venezuela Was Unlawful”
First, Scott is a criminal defense lawyer, so his bias is always in that direction. Heck, he might defend Maduro. Second, he is a Democrat, a progressive, and strongly anti-Trump. That doesn’t mean his expert opinion is wrong, but his opinion is exactly as I would expect it to be.
The NGO in question is a 501c3 organization and is clearly in violation of the prohibition on political activities. The IRS needs to look into their activities. Democratic Socialism is a political movement and organizations promoting it must use a different non profit status. This is not charitable or educational which is what determines 501c3 status
The video you posted was introduced by its poster with these words “The MSM/Democrats repeatedly claimed that Maduro remaining in power was proof that Trump was “Putin’s puppet.”
Of the many commenters in the video, NOT ONE said anything remotely like that.
Not remotely? I think that’s an excessive characterization, but not so far of as to be called false. The sneering, smirking innuendo is pure collusion hangover. You don’t think so?
Obviously, I don’t. Saying that Democrats were mad at Trump because Maduro was still in power is simply wrong. Saying that they linked his being in power to Trump is a sad fantasy. Passing along sad fantasies as truth isn’t good. Stop.
No, the point is that they criticized him for not getting Maduro out, and they criticized him when he did what they said he should have done. I don’t know what they really think, or if they know. They have no integrity, no standards. Just an agenda and no interest in genuine analysis. These people are making public statements that are scripted after tests with focus groups–I can’t respect that. No one should. Bitching about “affordability” in discussing a President’s foreign policy makes as much sense as criticizing FDR for Lend Lease on the grounds that he wasn’t doing enough to fix the Depression.
I don’t remember a single elected Democrat criticizing Trump for not taking Maduro out. If it was as common as you say…can you find me one? And I don’t mean “find me a Democrat criticizing Trump’s Venezuela policy” That’s easy. I mean, find me one saying what you say they said. For the record–the goalposts are moving, from “saying Trump was Putin’s lapdog for not taking Maduro out” to “criticizing Trump for not taking Maduro out.” At a certain point, you may need to admit that it was bullshit? And you were getting angry about something that….didn’t even happen?
Hey, I’m not angry about anything. Why would you think I’m angry?
Gee, does Joe Biden count? Scott Jennings today reposted a tweet from Joe in 2020 that said, “Trump talks tough on Venezuela, but admires thugs and dictators like Maduro. As President, I’ll stand with the Venezuelan people and for democracy.” That means, it’s fair to say, “Trump isn’t doing anything about Maduro, and he should.” Of course, for Biden, “standing with the Venezuelan people” was typical empty bluster, but still. Or are you going to argue that because Biden didn’t say specifically that he was criticizing Trump for not taking Maduro out, that isn’t what “he talks tough but he isn’t doing anything” means followed by “I’ll stand for democracy”? I wouldn’t think so. See, weenies, Democrats and other Trump critics believe in pretending to care and to want to do tough stuff that needs doing. Like illegal immigration: oh no, we didn’t mean he should actually start rounding up illegals and deporting them! Or cutting waste in the budget: Oh no, not a meat-axe! We need studies, and commissions and nuance!
That approach ensures that nothing changes. If a POTUS stands for democracy in Venezuela, there is only one way to do it: kick the dictator out, and if he’s been indicted, arrest him.
(I don’t blame you for not remembering anything Joe wrote or said.)
“Or are you going to argue that because Biden didn’t say specifically that he was criticizing Trump for not taking Maduro out, that isn’t what “he talks tough but he isn’t doing anything” means followed by “I’ll stand for democracy”? “
That is precisely what I would argue. I think that “not doing anything” could well mean tougher sanctions, greater material support to the opposition, gather regional powers, etc. You cannot say that “Democrats blamed Trump for not taking Maduro out!” and then point to this anodyne statement as a call to TAKE MADURO OUT. Words mean things. This isn’t hard. Find a Democrat saying what you said they said, or retract the statement, if your words mean things.
Now you’re splitting hairs and engaging in Clinton-esque word-smithing. Biden effectively blamed Trump for Maduro still being in power, which is tantamount to blaming Trump for NOT doing something to get him out of power.
President Trump has removed Maduro from power your side is whining about it. Someday you will realize how stupid your side looks when it acts like this, but today is clearly not “someday.”
If President Biden had done with Maduro in 2023 what President Trump did in 2026 (rather than just sit at the children’s table eating Jell-O), you’d STILL be celebrating it. VP Harris could have used it as a “win for the Western Hemisphere” in her campaign. Pity her only ability was to let millions of illegals into our country while being completely inept at getting one illegal out of Venezuela.
You’re wrong and you know it.
I’m frequently wrong, and try to own it when I am, but in this debate, I’m not convinced. The statement by Biden does not call for Trump to take Maduro out. The original post said the DEMOCRATS were calling for Trump to take him out in his first term…but we’ve yet to see a single statement saying that by any elected Democrat. So…it seems like it’s a debunked claim but no one is able to admit it. Again, I’m frequently wrong, but I try to own it.
Not exactly on point, but Althouse posted this….
I wouldn’t be supporting this intervention if it were done by a Democrat, trust me. I wasn’t a Democrat in 1998 when Clinton bombed Afghanistan and Sudan in the midst of the Lewinsky crisis, but I was pretty sure it was a wag the dog situation and opposed it (turns out I was wrong–he was bombing Al Qaeda, and he should have done more of it, but my point would be that I tend to be opposed to the use of U.S. force without Congress, multilateralism, or national interests, or some combination). I traveled in Eastern Europe after the bombing of Serbia under Clinton, and the scars went deep. A Moldovar saw me, an academic sent to his country by the state department, as a representative of the U.S., and gave a speech about U.S. imperialism, and dramatically returned, to me, the NATO keychain that he had been given, saying he didn’t want imperialism in his pocket any more, and fuck Clinton forever. He was 4-5 cups into excellent Moldovar $2 cabernet, and it is a region in love with dramatic historical flourishes, but still, it made an impression. (He later insisted I go with 4-5 of them to a bordello, so he clearly didn’t hold personal grudges, but when I pointed out I had a girlfriend in LA and couldn’t go along, he accused me of homosexuality. It was quite a night.)
On this point we are pretty much in lock-step agreement.
Jack–the Althouse comment is not the evidence to support your claim. You said “One would think, however, that at least those who present themselves to the public as skilled and independent analysts would take some care not to expose their double standards, lack of integrity and hypocrisy for all to see. One would be wrong to think that, as the video compilation above vividly demonstrates.” The double standard you said was in the video was people calling for Trump to take Maduro out. You’ve taken several swings at providing evidence for that assertion, and failed every single time. If you were doing this in court, what would the judge say about your claim, as a matter of fact? You have yet to show me a single Democrat blaming Trump for not taking Maduro out. yet you said the video showed many. It didn’t. So…is it time for you to do the hard work, and admit you’re wrong?
I can understand your angle on this, and I won’t say you don’t have a viable rhetorical argument that I am overstating what these people have said and meant by saying it. But take Ann: “People in Venezuela are suffering. They’re starving. We need to help. I thought Trump was trying to get something done, but the news folk rush to talk about the damned campaign, as if that’s what sophisticated, savvy people do. I found it offensive.” The Left is addicted to empty “Do something!” pleas. “Do something!” about mass shooting, though literally nothing consistent with the Second Amendment is likely to work. “Do something!” about climate change, even though the science is dubious and the solutions proposed are fanciful. I’m giving Althouse the benefit of the doubt,I guess, but what “something” was going to address the suffering of Venezuelans other than taking him out? And I sincerely believe that is what her statement and others (like Biden’s) meant and were intended to imply.
If you think Democrats were calling on Trump to use force with that rhetoric, than pass whatever it is you are smoking, because it is some GOOD SHIT. Like, thinking Jerry Garcia is a cherubim from the 7th level of heaven good shit. Seriously, read over your sad shifting of the goal posts to avoid admitting what a clever 5th grader could see–No one was saying what you said was said. Now, you’ve moved the goalposts to “implied” by their comments. If I press further, you’ll be analyzing hypothetical thoughts in their minds. If you have to do so many somersaults to avoid admitting error…ask yourself why. The inability to admit you were wrong is a terrible virus, and there is no vaccination other than intellectual rigor. See if RFK has banned that one.
I frequently admit that I’m wrong, here and elsewhere. In this case, I’m not.
Advocating something that can only be done with force and saying that advocacy didn’t include advocating force is typical deceit and double-talk, but I don’t accept it. It’s like Trump promising to lower prices in 2024, then saying, well, you know, I didn’t mean actually lowering them , just reducing the speed at which they are rising. You can’t reverse inflation.” The only way we will stop weasel words is by holding the speakers responsible for them. Trump’s critics thought they could criticize Trump for not acting on Maduro because they wouldn’t have acted on Maduro, and thought they safely had him trapped—damned if he did, damned if he didn’t. As Nelson Muntz says, “Ha Ha!”
I agree that Trump’s critics attacked him for his Venezuela policy (although it was probably item 85 on the list of priorities) in his first term…but…again…that’s not what you said. I don’t think Democrats were, by word or implication, asking for him to be TAKEN OUT. Remember, this is Democrats. They don’t tend to favor unilateral invasions, unilateral kidnappings, and so on. The only time I can remember Democrats calling for military action is multilateral actions (Libya, Kosovo, Bosnia, some advocacy of action against Assad for genocide/chem weapons,) or against people that directly harmed the US (Al Qaeda and its offshoots primarily). There’s never been a national Democrat that advocated taking Maduro out–if there WERE, Venezuelan Americans would have voted more Democratic. The proof is in the pudding. You’re wrong two ways–wrong on the facts, and wrong to be utterly unable to admit it. You’ve squirmed like jello, but I have managed to nail you to the wall of facts. The fact that the jello does not admit it, does not free the jello from the wall.
This is a confirmation bias conflict. Yes, I am inclined to see cynical anti-Trump partisan liars like Psaki as straight up hypocrites, flip-flopping to whatever position opposed Trump. To me, the phenomenon we are seeing is a whole class of Orange Man Bad critics going from “Why doesn’t President Trump “do something” about that ruthless dictator who has ruined the country and ignored elections? I”t is because he LIKES ruthless dictators and wants to be one!” to “How DARE he take out Maduro like that! We didn’t mean Trump should literally use the military to remove the guy!” although removing Maduro by force was the only way “something” that could be done to end his reign.”
You are not inclined to see these people as the cynical hypocrites they are.
I agree we differ in our view of some of these people, but we also disagree about what words mean, and what one should do when called out on their wild exaggerations and misstatements. We all make them. Only some of us walk them back and admit our partisan or ideological bias made us see things that weren’t there.
Honest to Pete, Jerry, I think we are in the realm of plain meaning here, and thus deceit. Denying that today’s Axis critics of the Maduro raid were implying in his first term that Trump wasn’t interested in removing Maduro when they didn’t think he’d do it and saw a cheap score (like the Epstein files and so much else) does seem Clintonian to me, as when he defended saying he was never “alone” with Monica in the White House…since when you’re with someone, you aren’t “alone.”
I’d run a poll on this, but I can’t figure out the new WP polling ap…..maybe everyone agrees with you.
Well, I wouldn’t be so harsh on yourself. I didn’t say deceitful–just unable to admit you were wrong.
Yeah, but I tend to be that way when I’m convinced I’m right…
Aside: Have you ever read Saroyan’s essay, “I’m right and everybody else is wrong”? It’s pure Saroyan, and I think you’d like it.