"[T]here is no way on earth we should be going to war or trying to do regime change in Venezuela," US Representative Adam Smith (D-WA) told The Hill on December 4. The US, says Smith, "should be out of the regime-change business."
So, did Smith still think that on December 9, when US military aircraft overflew the Gulf of Venezuela, and on December 10, when US troops -- in a blatant act of piracy on the high seas -- hijacked a Venezuelan oil tanker in the Caribbean?
On December 10, Smith, the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, came out in support of forking over nearly $1 trillion to the US regime-change machine.
"I do support this bill. This does not mean that I do not have concerns. I do," Smith said as he speechified for, then voted in favor of, the latest "National Defense Authorization Act."
That money constitutes the entire revenue stream for the "regime-change business" Smith claims he wants to shut down.
It pays for the troops. It pays for the guns. It pays for the planes. It pays for the boats. It pays for the bombs.
In what universe do you shut down a business by shoveling money at it?
The most Congress could bring itself to do in terms of funding reductions over this matter was to insert a provision cutting US secretary of defense Pete Hegseth's travel budget by 25% unless he turns over video of recent US military murders (of supposed narcotics traffickers) in the Caribbean.
Not that a 25% reduction would cut Hegseth's actual travel -- he'd just hitch a ride on Air Force One or with some general or admirable whose travel budget HASN'T been cut -- but even if it would, that's some pretty weak tea right there.
Spare me any pretend shock that the executive branch is "out of control" on foreign and military policy ... when's the last time it was UNDER control?
Congress hasn't declared war since the early 1940s, but that hasn't prevented presidents from waging wars large and small around the globe, at their sole discretion and without meaningful pushback from Congress or the courts.
Oh, there's frequent performative chest-beating over war powers, and occasionally an instantly dismissed lawsuit from politicians in the current congressional minority, but never anything as convincing as a credible impeachment attempt ... and never, ever, EVER an actual use of Congress's most effectual power -- the power of the purse -- to put a stop to the nonsense.
Money talks, and Smith's support for throwing outlandish amounts of money at the "regime-change business" loudly contradicts the words coming out of his mouth.
So long as Congress keeps paying presidents to wage wars, presidents will happily take that money, and enthusiastically deliver the goods.
Post Article Comment and Rate This Article
