Posted on 09/13/2019 7:30:36 PM PDT by rintintin
President Donald Trump ousted John Bolton in part due to frustration with his third national security adviser’s guidance to pair military power with economic pressure against Venezuela, according to current and former administration officials.
One senior administration official said that Trump had grown weary of repeated vows from Bolton that Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro would be out of office in short order. A second official said that they had clashed over Bolton’s efforts to advance planning for military intervention.
That official pointed to the administration’s national security strategy, which predated Bolton’s tenure and called for “strong diplomatic engagement” to isolate rogue nations in the Western Hemisphere. “That has been and remains the policy,” the official told McClatchy, although officials across the administration insist that all options are on the table.
Bolton left the White House on Tuesday over several bitter disputes with the president and Cabinet members.
“I disagreed with John Bolton on his attitudes on Venezuela – I thought he was way out of line,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office.
(Excerpt) Read more at mcclatchydc.comhttps: ...
Only because you can't refute the analogy or aren't smart enough to understand. It's probably the latter.
If you can't grasp that not everyone in Venezuela is a socialist and there are millions of free market conservatives there, you're clueless or racist because you don't want to believe brown people can be conservatives.
I never, ever said we should go to war in Venezuela. Pay attention to the points being made.
But, we can and should arm and assist those seeking to be free from socialism or communism. It's a positive for the world economy to have more economic freedom and less socialism and communism.
And, yes, the US should be the shining city on the hill, the ideal for the oppressed people of the rest of the world. That's is what Reagan believed.
But, self-centered Paultards are nothing like Reagan.
Only because you can't refute the analogy or aren't smart enough to understand. It's probably the latter.
Your analogy didn't apply, and was hyperbole, jackass. I did refute it. I said: By your logic, because not everyone voted for 0 - some foreign country should arm an insurgency in the U.S.
I never, ever said we should go to war in Venezuela. Pay attention to the points being made.
How about you pay attention to the points being made.....we never went to war in Cuba, Syria, or China......we armed insurgencies there with negative repercussions.
In other instances we tried to intervene and it inevitably lead to boots on the ground (which, even in Syria and China led to boots on the ground). Cuba and Nicaragua (in the 80s) are the few example where we armed an insurgency and didn't put boots on the ground (though CIA helped the Contras mine the ports). In Cuba it led to a slaughter on the beach. In Nicaragua, it lead to a decade of civil war, and thousands of lives lost. In 1990, the Contra bases were closed and Ortega voted out of office.........surprise surprise - Ortega and other communists were voted back in. (This was after nearly a century of U.S. military involvement in Nicaragua - including putting U.S. Marines on the ground).
But, self-centered Paultards are nothing like Reagan.
Nice try - I've never supported either paul.
Further, is arming an insurgency selfless? Have you seen first hand what an insurgency can do to the population? They are not quick and easy endeavors. They cause untold amounts of suffering, high loss of life, and spread fear throughout the communities. The Contras in Nicaragua are a prime example.
I know that it's easy for you as a covert keyboard warrior to advocate for an insurgency as some selfless Reaganite principle.......but I've spent my entire adult life deploying to these areas. In the end the people often don't really care who wins - just so long as the fighting stops.
The Contras already had a well formed and armed opposition. They still couldn't hold power because the majority of Nicaraguans voted for, and favored, socialism. Ortega is is in power 10s of thousands of lost lives later.
The Venezuelans already tried their coup TWICE- they failed.
The people didn't rise up to support them. The military didn't defect en masse. Further, with the collectivos and banditos, it is rather hard to tell friend from foe.
But, we can and should arm and assist those seeking to be free from socialism or communism. It's a positive for the world economy to have more economic freedom and less socialism and communism.
The opposition IS socialist. If the Popular Will party is armed by the U.S. and stages a successful coup - Venezuela will not be any less socialist. There are no movements or political parties of any speakable size in Venezuela unaligned with socialism. Further, it's doubtful the Popular Will could even hold power once they seized it. The infighting amongst the various factions will inevitable create a power vacuum as they squabble over who does socialism better.
What don't you understand about that? Do you think socialism will work if the "right" people are in charge? While the U.S. should be a shining city on the hill - you still haven't articulated why arming an insurgency in Venezuela is in the best interest of the U.S. and the taxpayers footing the bill.
You can't even name one political movement in Venezuela with any sizable support of the public that isn't socialist.
How does exchanging one socialist faction for another serve U.S.interests?
How does that lead to economic and political freedom?
The U.S.' proven track record in 99% of our involvement in trying to foment revolution (or keep "our guy" in power - see Shah of Iran) in foreign countries has led to failure and/or U.S. boots on the ground in some fashion or another.
Where we have been successful have been instances where we DIDN'T arm the populace, but gave verbal support for the cause - see Poland and Solidarnosc (Reagan and Pope John Paul II).
This is the exact course that Trump is on - verbal support and recognition of the opposition.
I just read your response. WOW, how interesting, the USA changed its immigration rules , and you consider that the fault of the rest of the world? Holey moley! Just F-ing WOW!
I thought the left delusional, then I see YOU!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.