Tag: war

Posted on

A Provocative Claim About Presidential Responsibility

In a striking segment on MSNOW’s The Last Word, host Lawrence O’Donnell argued that Donald Trump is the only American president whose peacetime policies have resulted in more deaths than those occurring under his wartime actions. The claim immediately ignited fierce debate. Supporters of Trump dismissed it as hyperbolic political theater, while critics said it merely put numbers to what they see as the lethal consequences of policy choices.

To be precise, the argument is not that Trump personally “killed” anyone, but that decisions made under his administration produced deadly outcomes. O’Donnell’s central focus was the sweeping DOGE cuts, which he contends slashed critical foreign aid programs and humanitarian assistance. According to the segment, those reductions led to food shortages and medical supply disruptions in vulnerable regions—particularly in parts of sub-Saharan Africa—contributing to starvation deaths, interruptions in HIV treatment, and preventable fatalities among infants and immunocompromised patients. The broader moral claim is straightforward: when the United States withdraws life-sustaining aid at scale, the consequences are measured in lives lost.

O’Donnell’s case draws added force from history. For decades, humanitarian aid to Africa enjoyed bipartisan backing. Republican President George W. Bush, for example, earned praise for expanding anti-HIV/AIDS initiatives that saved millions of lives. By that standard, O’Donnell suggests the Trump-era retrenchment marked not just a policy shift but a break from a rare area of cross-party moral consensus.

A related point, not specifically raised by O’Donnell but relevant to the broader debate, is that the United States continues to provide substantial aid to strategic allies such as Israel. That reality complicates a blanket “America First” defense of foreign aid reductions, since it suggests the issue is less about ending foreign assistance altogether and more about where and to whom it is directed.

Critics of O’Donnell’s assertion counter that it stretches causation beyond responsible limits. Foreign aid systems are complex, involving NGOs, host governments, and multilateral institutions; attributing downstream deaths directly to a single administration’s budget decisions can oversimplify reality. They also argue that every president makes trade-offs and that fiscal restraint, even when painful, is not equivalent to intent to harm. Some pro-Trump voices further contend that global poverty, corruption, and logistical failures—rather than U.S. policy alone—bear primary responsibility for humanitarian crises. From this vantage point, labeling Trump as uniquely deadly in peacetime risks politicizing tragedy.

Yet supporters of O’Donnell’s framing respond that intent is not the only moral metric—foreseeability matters. If experts warned that cutting HIV medication pipelines or food assistance would predictably result in deaths, and those warnings were ignored, responsibility cannot be shrugged off as indirect. They also fold in the administration’s handling of COVID-19, arguing that inconsistent messaging, resistance to mitigation strategies, and delayed responses contributed to avoidable American deaths. When those domestic losses are considered alongside alleged foreign aid consequences, the cumulative toll becomes central to the debate.

Ultimately, O’Donnell’s claim sounds bombastic at first hearing. Comparing peacetime and wartime death tolls is inherently fraught, and presidential accountability for global mortality is complex. Still, given the scale of reported COVID fatalities and credible estimates that reductions in humanitarian aid can translate into hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths, it is not unreasonable to argue that Trump-era policies may have produced an extraordinary peacetime human cost. One can dispute the framing, question the arithmetic, and challenge the causation—but it is no longer far-fetched to make the claim.

Posted on

A Strong Case For Trump’s Military Intervention In Venezuela

Please consider $upporting GDPolitics by scanning the QR code below or clicking on this link

An interesting segment on MSNOW featured Hagar Chemali, who made one of the most coherent and intellectually serious cases yet for President Trump’s military posture toward Venezuela. Going into the segment, the prevailing narrative across television news was nearly unanimous: Trump’s actions were framed as a reckless violation of international law, untethered from any legitimate U.S. national security interest. What Chemali did—methodically and without theatrics—was complicate that narrative in a way most pundits either cannot or will not.

Chemali did not dispute that Trump’s actions strain, and may even violate, existing international legal frameworks. Instead, she argued that focusing exclusively on legality misses the more consequential question of national security. According to Chemali, the post–World War II international system—particularly institutions like the United Nations—has become largely incapable of enforcing the very rules it was designed to uphold. That vacuum, she contends, has been aggressively exploited by rogue states and non-state actors who operate with near impunity, often embedding themselves in fragile or hostile regimes much closer to U.S. shores than many Americans appreciate.

What gives Chemali’s argument particular weight is her background. She is not a partisan talking head or an armchair strategist. Chemali served in senior roles at the U.S. Department of the Treasury, including in the Office of Terrorist Financing and Financial Crimes, where she worked directly on counterterrorism, sanctions policy, and efforts to disrupt the financial networks of hostile states and extremist groups. She also held positions during the Obama administration and has worked closely with interagency national security teams, giving her firsthand exposure to how threats are assessed when cameras are not rolling. In other words, she understands how national security doctrine is applied in practice, not just debated on cable news panels.

From that vantage point, Chemali argues that Venezuela cannot be viewed in isolation. It is not merely a failing state or a humanitarian crisis; it has become a strategic foothold for U.S. adversaries seeking influence in the Western Hemisphere. In that context, she suggests, the United States asserting a policing role in the Americas is less about imperial ambition and more about responding to a security architecture that no longer functions. When international bodies fail to act—or selectively enforce rules—power vacuums do not remain empty for long.

Chemali’s analysis effectively provides the Trump administration with a serious national security rationale that goes beyond bluster or appeals to raw power. It offers a framework for countering the charge that the administration is acting lawlessly by arguing that the law itself has become disconnected from enforcement realities. Whether one agrees with that conclusion or not, it is a far more substantive defense than the caricature of Trump acting on impulse or ego.

Trump has occasionally gestured toward the Monroe Doctrine when addressing Venezuela, at times referring to his own version as the “Donroe Doctrine,” but he has rarely articulated the argument with the clarity or discipline Chemali brings to it. Her explanation distills what the administration seems to believe but has struggled to communicate: that American restraint, in a world where enforcement mechanisms are broken, can itself become a liability. Whether Trump adopts this rationale more explicitly going forward remains to be seen, but Chemali’s intervention may well give the administration an opening to reframe the debate on terms that are strategic rather than merely legalistic.

Posted on

Machado Leaves No Doubt This Has Always Been About Regime Change

Maria Corina Machado’s appearance on CBS’ Face The Nation all but confirmed what many Americans have suspected as President Trump escalates pressure on Venezuela: regime change, not narcotics enforcement, is the true objective. While the administration continues to frame its military buildup and aggressive posture as a necessary response to so-called “narco-terrorists,” Machado’s own words exposed that justification as little more than political cover.

For months, President Trump has insisted that his actions toward Venezuela are narrowly focused on combating drug trafficking networks that he claims threaten U.S. national security. The administration’s repeated use of the term “narco-terrorism” is meant to evoke urgency and legitimacy, suggesting a defensive posture rather than an interventionist one. Yet this explanation has always strained credulity, particularly given Venezuela’s vast oil reserves and strategic importance. Those realities have inevitably fueled skepticism that Washington’s true aim is to remove Nicolás Maduro and install a government far more amenable to U.S. economic and geopolitical interests.

That skepticism has only grown sharper because Trump himself campaigned aggressively in 2024 on a “no regime change” platform. It was a message designed to reassure a war-weary electorate and an America First base deeply suspicious of foreign entanglements. Many of those same supporters are now openly questioning how a military buildup, veiled threats, and constant escalation toward Caracas square with the promises they were sold. The administration’s narco-terrorism rationale has functioned as a convenient way to bridge that contradiction—until Machado spoke plainly.

During her interview with Margaret Brennan, Machado did not merely criticize Maduro or call for international pressure. She openly discussed preparations for governance after his removal. In doing so, she revealed that plans are already in place for what comes once Maduro is toppled. That single admission dismantled the White House’s stated rationale. You do not develop detailed post-Maduro contingencies unless regime change is not only desired, but anticipated and actively pursued.

Brennan never had to explicitly ask whether the Trump administration is seeking regime change because Machado answered the question unprompted. She spoke about how a future Venezuelan government would manage destabilization efforts by foreign powers such as Russia and China—an extraordinary acknowledgment that she views Maduro’s fall not as hypothetical, but as imminent. That kind of forward-looking strategizing does not occur in a vacuum. It only makes sense if Washington has signaled, implicitly or explicitly, that removing the current regime is the goal.

Machado’s remarks effectively stripped away the last fig leaf of the narco-terrorism argument. If the mission were truly limited to drug interdiction, the discussion would center on law enforcement cooperation, intelligence sharing, and regional partnerships. Instead, what emerged was a clear blueprint for political transition. Her interview made it obvious that the Trump administration’s posture toward Venezuela has never been about drugs alone, and certainly not about restraint.

As this saga unfolds, the political consequences may prove just as significant as the geopolitical ones. Republicans who loudly embraced the “no regime change” mantra in 2024 will soon face voters again in the 2026 midterms. Machado’s candid interview has made it far harder for them to reconcile their past rhetoric with present reality. What was once denied outright is now being openly discussed by the very opposition leader the U.S. appears poised to empower.

In the end, Face The Nation did more than host an interview—it pulled back the curtain. And what was revealed leaves little room for doubt: regime change in Venezuela is not a byproduct of Trump’s policy. It is the policy.

Posted on

The History Of Lies Preceeding Findings Of War Crimes

Please consider $upporting GDPolitics by scanning the QR code below or clicking on this link

An interesting segment on MSNBC’s Last Word dug into what it described as a familiar pattern in U.S. military history: deny wrongdoing first, then slowly acknowledge pieces of the truth once outside evidence becomes impossible to dismiss. Lawrence O’Donnell used the current controversy surrounding Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s alleged “boat strikes” in the Caribbean as his launching point, arguing that the initial denials and evasions coming from the Pentagon echo earlier moments when U.S. officials misled the public about military actions that later proved indefensible. O’Donnell’s implication was unmistakable—that when the dust settles, investigators may conclude not only that the strikes were unlawful, but that Hegseth or those operating under his authority initially misrepresented what happened.

O’Donnell’s framing draws on a long and painful history. From the My Lai massacre in Vietnam, to the Pentagon’s early false account of Pat Tillman’s death, to the denials surrounding the Kunduz hospital airstrike in Afghanistan, the United States military has repeatedly issued confident, categorical explanations that later unraveled. The pattern is not merely that the military gets things wrong; it is that it often knows its initial explanations are incomplete or misleading. In the Kunduz case, commanders first claimed that the deadly strike on the Doctors Without Borders hospital was an accident caused by bad intelligence. Later investigations revealed systematic procedural violations and inconsistencies in the official story. In other incidents, the military has been accused of cleaning up sites, withholding footage, or pressuring witnesses—all in the name of preserving institutional credibility. These reversals feed the larger concern O’Donnell was highlighting: when allegations of war crimes arise, the public’s first encounter with them is often a narrative shaped to minimize responsibility.

That context matters in the current debate over the so-called “double tap” strikes. The term refers to a practice—widely condemned by human rights groups—where an initial strike is followed minutes later by a second one timed to hit rescuers rushing to help the wounded. International law experts have long argued that the tactic constitutes a war crime because it intentionally targets medics, civilians, or anyone giving aid. According to MSNBC’s reporting, the controversy swirling around Hegseth includes allegations that at least some of the Caribbean boat strikes may have followed this pattern. Early statements from Defense Department officials reportedly downplayed or denied this, but as often happens, additional footage and testimony have begun to contradict the earliest claims. O’Donnell suggested that even Hegseth’s own language has shifted—initially presenting the strikes as precise, justified, and unambiguous, while later remarks seem more cautious, as if acknowledging that the official story may not hold under scrutiny. Critics note that this rhetorical drift mirrors earlier cases where U.S. officials’ first instinct was to shield themselves rather than openly confront what occurred.

The pressure is not only coming from television pundits. MSNBC has also reported that the family of a Colombian fisherman killed in one of the “narco-terrorist” drone strikes has filed a formal complaint with a Washington, D.C.–based human rights organization. The filing seeks monetary compensation but also demands an end to the drone campaign altogether. More significantly, it accuses Secretary Hegseth of authorizing extrajudicial killing—an allegation that, if taken up by international bodies, could draw the attention of the International Criminal Court or other tribunals. While the ICC rarely targets officials from powerful nations, a complaint of this nature can still generate diplomatic headaches, congressional scrutiny, and sustained media investigation.

What stands out even more is that, despite the deep polarization in Washington, these boat strikes have triggered bipartisan unease. Lawmakers in both parties have struggled to accept the administration’s rationale that small vessels thousands of miles from U.S. shores pose such a grave and imminent threat that the only viable response is to blow them out of the water. Even some Republicans—normally inclined to defend a Republican administration reflexively—are questioning whether the intelligence behind the strikes is as airtight as officials claim. The complaint filed by the fisherman’s family underscores the fragility of the administration’s narrative; if one case unravels, others may follow, and with them the assertion that all strikes have been lawful counter-narco operations rather than disproportionate uses of force.

The open question is whether Secretary Hegseth will adjust course. Will he dial back the strike policy to accommodate bipartisan concerns, or will he press forward under the belief that forceful action now will be vindicated later? The political calculus is complicated by the reality that former President Trump, as a former head of state, will almost certainly remain shielded from any serious war-crimes prosecution; the ICC has historically avoided pursuing former U.S. presidents, and legal scholars widely agree it is unlikely to break that precedent. Hegseth, however, does not enjoy the same protective aura. Officials below the level of head of state have faced international legal jeopardy before, and those in the Trump administration who assume they are untouchable may discover that this confidence is misplaced.

Whether the unfolding controversy becomes another entry in the long ledger of U.S. military denials followed by partial admissions—or something more legally consequential—remains to be seen. But as O’Donnell’s segment underscored, history has taught observers to pay close attention not only to what officials say at the beginning of these crises, but how their stories change once the evidence emerges and the truth becomes harder to hide.

Posted on

Gov Pritzker Blasts DHS Sec Noem on CNN’s State of the Union

Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker appeared on CNN’s State of the Union (10/05/25), where he sharply criticized DHS Secretary Kristi Noem over the conduct of federal officials in Chicago.

Pritzker disputed Noem’s earlier claim that Chicago residents were “clapping” for DHS agents—calling it a misleading portrayal meant to suggest public support. He argued that DHS is turning Chicago into a “war zone” by targeting peaceful protesters instead of focusing on “the worst of the worst.”

The clash may soon land in court. Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul has warned that if federal troops are deployed to Chicago, the state will file suit.  Raoul is already suing over the administration’s withholding of public safety funds from states that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement. 

The question now: will the courts permit President Trump to deploy military forces in Chicago over Gov. Pritzker’s objections?

Posted on

Is The Media Covering Up The Damage In Israel?

Troubling reports on social media are increasingly suggesting that the public is not being told the truth about the extent of damages the state of Israel has sustained, and is sustaining, in its war with Iran. On Thursday 06/19/25, Col Wilkerson appeared on MSNBC’s All In w/Chris and all but confirmed these troubling reports. He told host Hayes that Prime Minister Netanyahu, and indeed the citizens of Israel, are stunned at how effective the Iranian missiles have been–essentially that they they underestimated their capabilities.

Long story short, it appears that initial indications suggest that Israel’s PM Netanyahu may have grossly underestimated Iranian military capabilities when he he recently launched a preemptive attack.

The Trump administration has recently showed signs of an eagerness to join Israel in its bombardment of Iran. It will be interesting to see how they process these new reports that Israel is actually suffering more than PM Netanyahu is publicly admitting.

Posted on

House Speaker Grilled Over “Big Beautiful Bill”

$upport via Cash App👇

House Speaker Mike Johnson appeared on CBS’ Face The Nation (05/25/25) to discuss among other things, the recent House passage of the Trump administration’s budget bill—dubbed “Big Beautiful Bill”. The Bill’s fate now lies with the Republican majority in the U.S. Senate.

Among the issues raising concerns with the budget bill, is that it is projected to increase the national debt significantly, something Republican lawmakers lamented throughout the Biden administration. The bill also makes significant cuts to Medicaid and food stamps(SNAP), programs crucial for working families generally, and specifically, the working poor.

Speaker Mike Johnson’s Louisiana is one of the poorest states in the nation, so cuts to Medicaid and food stamps are bound to have relatively more disastrous effects on families there. Asked by host Margaret Brennan how he can justify pushing such cuts knowing full well that his state is one of the poorest in the nation, Speaker Johnson responded that all the bill cuts is waste, fraud and abuse.

It will be interesting to see how Speaker Johnson and other House Republicans use this excuse once their poor constituents start complaining about the cuts. Even more interesting, will be the way Republicans defend this tricky position as we approach the 2026 midterm elections. 

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the CashApp “tip jar” below on your way out.

Email author at admin@grassrootsdempoliticst.com

Posted on

Dem Sen Murphy Accuses Trump-Vance Of Steering America Towards Kleptocracy

Support via Cash app👇

U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) appeared on CNNSOTU (022825) where he dropped a bombshell, telling host Dana Bash that the shouting match we recently witnessed at the White House between President Trump, his VP Vance, and the President of Ukraine, was not an anomaly, but rather, a conscious effort by Trump-Vance to steer America towards kleptocracy.

The characterization by the mainstream media thus far, has been that the confrontation at the White House was just an unfortunate case of a good meeting gone bad—something that happened out of happenstance.

What Sen Murphy is saying however, is markedly different, and that is, this was a pre-meditated, conscious effort by Trump-Vance to humiliate the President of Ukraine for the benefit of Vladimir Putin. Furthermore, Sen Murphy adds that this is part of their larger effort to align America with dictators around the world, so as to make it easier for them to transform America into a kleptocratic oligarchy like Russia.

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the CashApp “tip jar” below 👇

Email author at admin@grassrootsdempolitics.com

Posted on

Russia Behind GOP’s Opposition To Ukraine Funding

$upport via Cash App

Rep Marjorie Taylor-Greene(R-GA), the loudest opponent to Ukraine funding

A bombshell segment on Alex Wagner Tonight show (04/17/24), citing a Washington Post piece, confirmed what we’ve suspected all along, and that is, Putin’s Russia is behind the Republican Party’s opposition to efforts by Congress to provide funding for Ukraine, as it defends itself against a Russian invasion. The bombshell report essentially says that Rep Marjorie Taylor-Greene(R-GA), aptly nicknamed “Moscow Marge”, and other congressional Republicans currently opposed to Ukraine funding, are either willing or unwilling participants in Vladimir Putins propaganda campaign–a sad state of affairs indeed.

Host Alex Wagner(5:43): “…Ukraine and the vote for Ukraine funding has become a leverage point for Russia. The Washington Post has some explosive reporting…on newly revealed documents from inside Vladimir Putin’s government, documents which show how Russia is seeking to subvert western support for Ukraine and disrupt the domestic politics of the United States and European countries through propaganda campaigns and supporting isolationist and extremist policies. Russia is formenting division over Ukraine because it wants to weaken America’s role in the world. In particular, one Russian policy expert cited in one of these documents, specifically calls on Russia to continue to facilitate the coming to power of isolationist right-wing forces in America.”

Host Wagner then got very specific, adding, “Russia very much wants the Marjorie Taylor Greene’s to continue doing exactly what they are doing, because it serves Russia’s interests.”

Bottom line folks, host Alex Wagner and the Washington Post are absolutely correct. Trump GOP’s opposition to Ukraine funding is not rooted in some legitimate conservative ideology as they would like the public to believe. Instead, it is a shameless assist to Russia’s strongman Vladimir Putin, who they are banking on to help them win Congress and possibly the White House in 2024. You read that right, a win for Trump in 2024 is a win for Vladimir Putin.

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out. You may also Cash App

Email author at admin@grassrootsdempolitics.com

Become an Octapharma Plasma donor. Make up to $200 in one week and help save lives too! Learn More

Posted on

Michael Moore Slams Michigan Officials For Zero Criminal Prosecutions Over Flint Water Scandal

$upport via Cash App

Film Producer and Activist Michael Moore appeared on MSNBC’s Politics Nation show (11/04/23) to discuss among other things, the ongoing Israel-Palestine conflict. Moore’s home state is Michigan, which is home to the largest Arab-American population in the United States. Later in the interview, the discussion moved on to another disaster that Moore got intricately involved in as an activist, and that is, the Flint water scandal, which caused lead poisoning of poor (primarily Black) families in Flint Michigan. Moore expressed frustration that to date, no Michigan state official has been criminally held responsible for the poisoning.

Here’s what Michael Moore told host Al Sharpton regarding the decision by the Michigan Attorney General to end the investigation into Flint without any criminal prosecution (8:38): “It’s so disgusting, appalling, and again, sad…Here we are, talking really about…an ethnic cleansing of a majority Black city, where the state of Michigan in order to save some money, took the city off the clean water supply from Lake Huron, and made the people of Flint, Michigan, majority Black, drink from the Flint River, a massively polluted river, for decades, and what it did was, it poisoned nearly 10,000 children. Any lead poisoning, if you’re…six years and younger, you will have permanent brain damage…And the Governor, and his people, once they knew what was going on, they tried to cover it up…and they got away with it…If this was a White town in Michigan…you never would have seen this. This is going on for seven years, and nobody convicted, nobody having to be responsible for what they knew what was going on, they knew what was going to happen…”

Moore then went on to subtly call out the current Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, a Democrat, for not criminally prosecuting the people responsible for the Flint water poisoning. To be clear, AG Nessel assumed office in 2019, long after the Flint water scandal broke (2014-2016). She was not the state’s AG as the crisis was playing out. Any reasonable person would conclude however, judging from Moore’s tone, that he is terribly disappointed with AG Nessel for the lack of criminal prosecutions.

Bottom line folks, unless and until we start holding public officials criminally responsible for atrocities such as Flint and many others that have happened before (MKULTRA, Cointelpro etc), atrocities that cause irreparable harm to unsuspecting citizens, we will continue to see them happen again in the future. It’s really that plain and simple.

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out. You may also Cash

Email author at admin@grassrootsdempolitics.com

Become an Octapharma Plasma donor. Make up to $200 in one week and help save lives too! Learn More