Speaker 1: I just finished listening to President Trump's press conference down
Speaker 1: at mar A Lago describing the bombing and the kidnapping
Speaker 1: of President of the Venezuela Nicholas Maduro, and it was
Speaker 1: so much more insane than I even could have imagined
Speaker 1: that we had to do another breaking news segment to
Speaker 1: break down what was said and what was announced in
Speaker 1: this press conference. The TLDR here is that he announced we,
Speaker 1: as in the United States of America, are going to
Speaker 1: be running Venezuela at least for a time. He did
Speaker 1: not rule out that that time period could be years,
Speaker 1: did not rule out that could involve direct boots on
Speaker 1: the ground. Additionally, threatened other countries to include Cuba and Colombia,
Speaker 1: just absolute insanity. Talked about the way that our oil
Speaker 1: companies are going to exploit the resources in Venezuela. Talked
Speaker 1: about how we are going to rebuild Venezuelan infrastructure. To
Speaker 1: go ahead and bring you a series of these clips.
Speaker 1: Our friend from drop Site maybe joining us as well
Speaker 1: at some point if he's able, but let me go
Speaker 1: ahead and pull up these first couple where he is
Speaker 1: talking about how we are going to run Venezuela. Take
Speaker 1: a listen we're.
Speaker 2: There now, but we're going to stay until such time
Speaker 2: as the proper transition can take place. So we're going
Speaker 2: to stay until such time as we're going to run it, essentially,
Speaker 2: until such time as a proper transition can take place.
Speaker 1: And in case you didn't think that, you know, in
Speaker 1: case you thought, oh, maybe he's just speaking off the cuff,
Speaker 1: he doesn't really mean it. No, Kiri is repeating the
Speaker 1: same thing even more clearly, that we are going to
Speaker 1: run the country until some sort of power transition occurs.
Speaker 1: Here you go, we're going.
Speaker 2: To run the country until such time as we can
Speaker 2: do a safe, proper and judicious transitions. We don't want
Speaker 2: to be involved with having somebody else get in and
Speaker 2: we have the same situation that we had for the
Speaker 2: last long period of years. So we are going to
Speaker 2: run the country until such time as we can do
Speaker 2: a safe, proper and judicious transition.
Speaker 1: Now what does this actually mean? No one really knows.
Speaker 1: He was asked a series of questions about Okay, who
Speaker 1: what are we talking about? Who was going to be
Speaker 1: Are there going to be boots on the ground, what
Speaker 1: is this going to look like? Not a lot of
Speaker 1: answers were forthcoming, However, he did seem to indicate basically,
Speaker 1: Marco Rubio and Pete hag Seth and the US military
Speaker 1: are effectively going to be in charge of running Venezuela
Speaker 1: for the immediate future. Also, no India. I mean it's possible,
Speaker 1: we still have assets on the ground there. I don't
Speaker 1: think that any of that is really clear. But here's
Speaker 1: what he had to say in response to the question
Speaker 1: of like, Okay, what do you mean we are going
Speaker 1: to be running Venezuela.
Speaker 3: Country are designated.
Speaker 2: It's all being done right now. We're designating people, We're
Speaker 2: talking to people. We're designating various people, and we're going
Speaker 2: to let you know who those people are that would
Speaker 2: run Venezuela. Well, it's largely going to be for a
Speaker 2: period of time. The people that are standing right behind me,
Speaker 2: we're going to be running it.
Speaker 3: We're going to be bringing it back.
Speaker 2: It's a it's a dead you know, I talk about
Speaker 2: a dead country. A year and a half ago, we
Speaker 2: were a dead country.
Speaker 1: So people standing behind him being Marco Rubio and Pete
Speaker 1: hag Seth and military leader General Kine was that raising.
Speaker 1: Kine was there as well, So that seems to be
Speaker 1: who he is indicating would quote unquote run the country.
Speaker 1: There was also a question that was asked about, well,
Speaker 1: right now, Maduro's vice president has been sworn in as president.
Speaker 1: She is in charge, like you kidnapped Maduro, but his
Speaker 1: vice president and the rest of his administration is still
Speaker 1: there and still in charge of the country. So what's
Speaker 1: going on with that? And he seemed to indicate that
Speaker 1: Marco Rubio had spoken with her and that she was
Speaker 1: open to working with the US and serving effectively as
Speaker 1: our puppet or easing the transition or something of that nature.
Speaker 1: Let me go ahead, and let me go ahead and
Speaker 1: pull this one up for you, because this is a
Speaker 1: significant piece. Let's see, uh here, here's the one.
Speaker 4: Weren't going to back Machado to come back and get
Speaker 4: the opposition later in your Box and Friends interview and
Speaker 4: then you also mentioned.
Speaker 1: By the way, at another point, he was asked about Machado,
Speaker 1: who was just giving them no belt piece prize unbelievably,
Speaker 1: and who was seen as a potential puppet leader. And
Speaker 1: he poured a lot of cold water on the idea
Speaker 1: as saying she didn't have support of the people. So
Speaker 1: now he's going to be asked about the vice president
Speaker 1: who's currently in charge.
Speaker 3: Vice president of Venezuela.
Speaker 4: Are you gonna work with vice president of Venezuela or
Speaker 4: how do you course.
Speaker 3: See the relationship.
Speaker 2: She was just sworn in, but she was, as you know,
Speaker 2: picked by Maduro, So Marco's working in that directly. He
Speaker 2: just had a conversation with her, and she's essentially willing
Speaker 2: to do what we think is necessary to make Venezuela
Speaker 2: great again, very simple.
Speaker 1: So indicating that she's willing to collaborate with the Trump regime,
Speaker 1: with Marco Rubio and Hegseth and whoever else we're going
Speaker 1: to install there as transitioner transitional rulers of this country.
Speaker 1: I don't even know what to say, guys. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is actually even more insane than Iraq. And if
Speaker 1: you thought it was some kind of a weird leftist
Speaker 1: conspiracy theory, that what we're really after is the oil.
Speaker 1: Trump talked about that quite explicitly as well, which is
Speaker 1: not a new thing. I mean, he and other administration
Speaker 1: officials and other Trump allies have been talking about the
Speaker 1: oil resources as a major motivator for this illegal offensive war,
Speaker 1: and he spoke to that as well. He talked about
Speaker 1: how our oil companies are going to go in and
Speaker 1: they're going to spend billions of dollars, and they're going
Speaker 1: to make all kinds of money here. So let's go
Speaker 1: ahead and take a listen to what he said about
Speaker 1: the oil companies and how they will profit from this action.
Speaker 2: As everyone knows, the oil business in Venezuela has been
Speaker 2: a bust, a total bust for a long period of time.
Speaker 2: They were pumping almost nothing by comparison to what they
Speaker 2: could have been pumping and what could have taken place.
Speaker 2: We're going to have our very large United States oil companies,
Speaker 2: the biggest anywhere in the world, go in, spend billions
Speaker 2: of dollars, fix the badly broken infrastructure, the oil infrastructure,
Speaker 2: and start making money for the country.
Speaker 1: And we are He was asked at one point also
Speaker 1: about how China and Russia would feel about this, given
Speaker 1: that they have interests in Venezuela, and he said, oh, well,
Speaker 1: we'll sell them oil. I think it'll be fine, no problem.
Speaker 1: He was also asked about what's going on with Russia
Speaker 1: and Ukraine and indicated that he was frustrated with Putin.
Speaker 1: But that's where we are. Trump has said, we are
Speaker 1: running Venezuela. So this was a direct regime change operation,
Speaker 1: that we may well have boots on the ground, that
Speaker 1: this could last for years, That we are going to
Speaker 1: rebuild Venezuela's infrastructure and quote unquote make Venezuela great again.
Speaker 1: That we may take similar actions in other countries in
Speaker 1: the region, specifically Cuba and Columbia. He spoke about, which
Speaker 1: no one should be surprised about, since not only is
Speaker 1: this about seizing the resources and exploding the resources of Venezuela,
Speaker 1: this is also a frankly multi decade project to destroy
Speaker 1: any sort of left wing government in the region, and
Speaker 1: Venezuela being a key part of that fantasy, which is
Speaker 1: now becoming reality with Marco Rubio there as Secretary of State.
Speaker 1: MI go ahead, Jose Luis Garnado Seja has joined now
Speaker 1: from drop site. Let me go ahead and let him
Speaker 1: into the room and we can get his reaction as well.
Speaker 1: Jose louis great to have you again. Welcome, Thank you
Speaker 1: very much. Yeah, so I played some of the clips
Speaker 1: of Trump saying We're going to run Venezuela, seeming to
Speaker 1: indicate specifically like Marco Rubio and Pete Hegseth apparently saying
Speaker 1: we may have boots on the ground, saying that this
Speaker 1: could last years, saying also that Rubio had reached out
Speaker 1: to the vice president, Doro's vice president, who has now
Speaker 1: been sworn in as president of the country, and that
Speaker 1: she seemed open to some sort of collaboration. I mean,
Speaker 1: what is your reaction to all of this?
Speaker 4: The first one is quite a surprise there. I had
Speaker 4: speculated earlier that they would use this as an opportunity
Speaker 4: to kind of move away from this engagement with Venezuela,
Speaker 4: to finally put an end to this most recent round
Speaker 4: of escalations. But those words from Trump and this press conference,
Speaker 4: I think are very very clear. They intend to occupy
Speaker 4: the country of Venezuela. That's obviously going to require a
Speaker 4: huge mobilization of troops. I think Trump is being deliberately
Speaker 4: vague or even misleading, and his response is suggesting that
Speaker 4: it wouldn't take a lot, that it's just about protecting
Speaker 4: oil infrastructure. I don't think that's the case whatsoever. I
Speaker 4: think they're in for a conundrum. The Venezuelan armed forces
Speaker 4: have talked about Venezuela becoming a new Vietnam for the
Speaker 4: United States if they chose to invade. If they try,
Speaker 4: if they're going to do what Trump just said in
Speaker 4: his press conference to try to administer the country as
Speaker 4: an buying power, it's going to require an extraordinary amount
Speaker 4: of US forces. This is going to be a very serious,
Speaker 4: major US operation right here in the Western Hemisphere. I
Speaker 4: imagine his comments around oil are a bit of an
Speaker 4: echo of their strategy that they've used in Iraq and
Speaker 4: in Syria to try to take control of the oil
Speaker 4: fields directly. But these are not similar situations when we
Speaker 4: think about Venezuela. Like I said earlier, Venezuela is a
Speaker 4: country that has undergone a very long political process. And
Speaker 4: even if there are elements of the existing state that
Speaker 4: maybe break away or align themselves with the US administration occupation,
Speaker 4: which I find hard to believe given that essentially you're
Speaker 4: a trader to your homeland, there are still going to
Speaker 4: be guerrilla struggles, sabotage. This is not going to be
Speaker 4: an easy ride whatsoever. I think the United States and
Speaker 4: the people of the United States need to be aware
Speaker 4: of what he's actually talking about, A very serious military
Speaker 4: mobilization to occupy a sizable country, far larger than what
Speaker 4: we in Panama. You know, there's been some military analyst
Speaker 4: speculating that at least one hundred thousand troops at least
Speaker 4: to be able to try to actually invade and occupy Venezueline.
Speaker 4: Of course, it's going to be a huge conundrum for
Speaker 4: them because there it won't be easy.
Speaker 1: I mean, is this just cope on my part? Is
Speaker 1: it possible? This is just some sort of a weird,
Speaker 1: you know, chest move threat bluster kind of a situation,
Speaker 1: because I mean, and do we know are there assets
Speaker 1: on the ground right now that have remained in country?
Speaker 1: You know, do we have any any sense of that
Speaker 1: right now?
Speaker 4: It doesn't appear that there are US troops on the
Speaker 4: ground right now. He talked about in the past tense
Speaker 4: there were boots on the ground in order to carry
Speaker 4: out this kidnapping of President Nicolas Maduro. But we do
Speaker 4: know that there are at least twenty thousand troops nearby,
Speaker 4: either in Puerto Rico or and then all those ships
Speaker 4: that are stationed off the coast. So I don't think
Speaker 4: that's enough to invade the country, but that is a
Speaker 4: say up sizable amount of manpower there that could easily
Speaker 4: be mobilized and used as part of another Asian Trump
Speaker 4: talked specifically about a second round of attacks, that they
Speaker 4: were actually prepared for a second one, that they actually
Speaker 4: didn't carry it out, but they were.
Speaker 3: Willing to do it.
Speaker 4: That they're willing to kidnap any Venezuelan leader who rises
Speaker 4: to fill the power vacuum.
Speaker 3: We could say that is situation.
Speaker 4: Right now, given that we now know that Nicolas Maduro
Speaker 4: is indeed in US custody, a board that Yuajima and
Speaker 4: Trump also said that he would be sent to New
Speaker 4: York to face these federal indictments. So that means that
Speaker 4: obviously there has to be at least for the time being,
Speaker 4: some kind of transition inside of Venezuela, given that the
Speaker 4: president cannot.
Speaker 3: Rule if he's detained.
Speaker 4: It looks like that's going to be Delsi Rodriguez, the
Speaker 4: executive vice president. But it's very very odd comments from
Speaker 4: him saying that she's essentially going to play along, which
Speaker 4: is very surprising with people who are familiar with on
Speaker 4: his own politics. Desid Rodriguez is a very powerful figure
Speaker 4: inside of Venezuela, a close ally of confidant of Maduro.
Speaker 4: For there's a reason why she was named directly by him.
Speaker 4: The vice president is not elected in Venezuela to be
Speaker 4: the executive vice president, that she would allow herself to this,
Speaker 4: to lend herself to this, I don't find very credible
Speaker 4: that aspect.
Speaker 3: Oh absolutely yeah. And not to mention, I mean what.
Speaker 1: She may have said on the flone to Marco Rubio
Speaker 1: exact moment versus what the actual.
Speaker 4: Void another strike from her location, because it's clear that
Speaker 4: they do have some intelligence terms of where people are moving.
Speaker 4: You know, Trump even mentioned that they had images of
Speaker 4: Doodle making it to the door of a safer room
Speaker 4: but unable to actually be able to seal himself in.
Speaker 4: I mean, this is this is pretty serious in terms
Speaker 4: of what we're talking about. What the amount of forces,
Speaker 4: the amount of resources that the US appears to have
Speaker 4: used in this in this operation quite quite well could
Speaker 4: have been her just trying to protect herself, to try
Speaker 4: to ensure that there is a succession. I don't think
Speaker 4: that she's going to play US imperialism's game. Not to
Speaker 4: mention the fact that she has been on the air
Speaker 4: all day talking about the need to resist this. So
Speaker 4: I don't think that's the case. But even if she did,
Speaker 4: she would be pushed out by the revolutionary forces.
Speaker 3: No, no one died of Venezuela is.
Speaker 4: Going to tolerate anybody who's going to be a traitor
Speaker 4: to her homeland, and somebody else would rise to fill
Speaker 4: her shoes if that is the case. So it's a
Speaker 4: very unpredictable, unstable situation as of now, and really really
Speaker 4: quite surprising. But I will say I think at the
Speaker 4: point but I want to emphasize, is that what Trump
Speaker 4: is talking about is a large scale military operation or mission.
Speaker 3: In South America.
Speaker 4: I guess you know, I heard that one of the
Speaker 4: the reporters asked, how is this America first? I mean,
Speaker 4: it's apparently that word can that phrase can be used
Speaker 4: for anything, because in no way is this America first.
Speaker 4: This is another US military adventure without a clear outcome
Speaker 4: in terms of how they're actually going to be able
Speaker 4: to get out of this.
Speaker 1: Let me play a little bit of this where Trump
Speaker 1: is talking about the Monroe doctrine and they now call
Speaker 1: it the Donro doctrine. American dominance in the Western hemisphere
Speaker 1: will never be questioned. Again. Let's listen to this.
Speaker 2: All of these actions were in gross violation of the
Speaker 2: corporate incibals of American foreign policy dating back more than
Speaker 2: two centuries and not anymore, all the way back dated
Speaker 2: to the Monroe doctrines. And the Monroe doctrine is a
Speaker 2: big deal, but we've superseded it by a lot, by
Speaker 2: a real lot. They now call it the donro Document.
Speaker 2: I don't know, it's Monroe doctrine. We sort of forgot
Speaker 2: about it. It was very important, but we forgot about it.
Speaker 2: We don't forget about it anymore. Under our new national
Speaker 2: security strategy, American dominance in the Western Hemisphere will never
Speaker 2: be questioned again, won't happen.
Speaker 1: What do you make of those comments? And it's consistent
Speaker 1: with some of the things that have been laid out
Speaker 1: in his national security strategy previously.
Speaker 4: Now listening to him talk, I'm not sure he actually
Speaker 4: understands what the Monroe Doctrine was or how it could
Speaker 4: be applied in twenty twenty six. You know, the Monroe
Speaker 4: Doctrine was a policy of the United States that was
Speaker 4: aimed at Europe of the law to dissuade them from
Speaker 4: engaging in any champ of colonization or recolonization here in
Speaker 4: the Western hemisphere. He seems to understand it as the
Speaker 4: United States can do whatever it wants in the Western hemisphere,
Speaker 4: that this is its exclusive sphere of influence. Obviously, in practice,
Speaker 4: that is what the Monroe Doctrine ultimately became. But that's
Speaker 4: not really what it was intended as. And certainly, even
Speaker 4: if we accept the you know, the principles behind the
Speaker 4: Monroe Doctrine, what the United States did is not about,
Speaker 4: you know, containing the influence of foreign powers inside of
Speaker 4: the Western hemisphere. This is US military adventurism. It's the
Speaker 4: US imperialist policy of imposing its will on countries through might.
Speaker 4: You know, it's interesting we heard the comments there from
Speaker 4: US officials about how peace through strength. There's nothing peaceful
Speaker 4: about what just happened. You know, this is a very
Speaker 4: violent act. You know, there's already reports of casualties as
Speaker 4: a result, and of course, you know, the kidnaping of
Speaker 4: a sitting president is it's just absolutely extraordinary, extraordinarily violent act.
Speaker 4: And so this is not piece whatsoever. And I hope
Speaker 4: that there's pushback from US policy makers, from lawmakers, from
Speaker 4: the US public around this. That's not what's happening here.
Speaker 4: The US once again has reminded us because this is
Speaker 4: something that the peoples of Latin America are very much
Speaker 4: aware of that. They are willing to engage in these
Speaker 4: kinds of illegal actions to impose its will. And like
Speaker 4: I said in the other segment that we talked about,
Speaker 4: you know, I hope this is a wake up call
Speaker 4: because we really have to.
Speaker 3: Understand who we're dealing with here.
Speaker 4: And there's already as I mentioned earlier, there's already him
Speaker 4: talk of him talking about something.
Speaker 3: Similar in Mexico. Now he was asked directly about this.
Speaker 4: Yeah, and you know this is the problem is that
Speaker 4: you know, this could lead to a sort of domino
Speaker 4: effect where the US says, look what we're.
Speaker 3: Willing to do. You want us to do that to
Speaker 3: you do exactly as we say.
Speaker 1: Let me go ahead and play to bolster your point
Speaker 1: portion where he's talking about Cuba and Columbia, I believe
Speaker 1: in this particular response, let's listen to that.
Speaker 2: Go ahead as a messagere for Cuba and Canal Well,
Speaker 2: Cuba is an interesting case. Cuba is, you know, not
Speaker 2: doing very well right now. That system has not been
Speaker 2: a very good one for Cuba. The people there have
Speaker 2: suffered for many, many years. And I think Cuba is
Speaker 2: going to be something we'll end up talking about because
Speaker 2: Cuba is a failing nation right now, very badly failing nation,
Speaker 2: and we want to help the people. It's very similar
Speaker 2: in the sense that we want to help the people
Speaker 2: in Cuba, but we want to also help the people
Speaker 2: that were forced out of Cuba and living in this country.
Speaker 2: Do you want to say something about that?
Speaker 1: In markup, I'm sure Marco does want to say something
Speaker 1: about that, doesn't he? And another part though he did,
Speaker 1: he was asked about Columbia as well. You talked about Mexico.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's just a whole other, wild level of insanity.
Speaker 1: It's hard for me to wrap my head around all
Speaker 1: of this. And you know, I mean, I guess the
Speaker 1: best case scenario is this is all like blustering threats
Speaker 1: and him acting like a mad man to try to
Speaker 1: coerce these various countries and leaders. But I mean, part
Speaker 1: of this is incredibly deadly real, not only the regime
Speaker 1: change in Venezuela, but now the promise that we are
Speaker 1: directly going to govern in even if it takes boots
Speaker 1: on the ground, even if it takes years. And I
Speaker 1: think this also just improcess upon everyone and for you know,
Speaker 1: those who had any doubt that this is part of
Speaker 1: a long time project to destroy any sort of left
Speaker 1: wing governance in the region.
Speaker 3: Absolutely. You know.
Speaker 4: One of the terms that I've been using more recently
Speaker 4: is the strategic retreat of the United States, you know,
Speaker 4: and I think it's actually the national security strategy as
Speaker 4: a confession that they are very much willing to admit
Speaker 4: that the struggle for total spectral dominance, which is what
Speaker 4: they used to talk about of the end of the
Speaker 4: Cold War, has largely been lost. That they do have
Speaker 4: a pure rival in China, and I think there is
Speaker 4: an acknowledgement that they need.
Speaker 3: To kind of rebuild their forces.
Speaker 4: The United States is not in a position today to
Speaker 4: be able to dispute hegemony at a global level, you know,
Speaker 4: and actually be able to kind of keep up with
Speaker 4: this pure rival.
Speaker 3: And so that's why we see.
Speaker 4: This pivot toward traditional spheres of influence and why we're
Speaker 4: seeing what's happening here in Latin America. This attempt to
Speaker 4: try to secure access to cheap resources, cheap labor, to
Speaker 4: client governments that are willing to do whatever the United
Speaker 4: States is willing to do, and those that aren't are
Speaker 4: going to face these kinds of threats, and that helps
Speaker 4: us understand what he's talking about when they talk about
Speaker 4: Cuba and Colombia and Mexico. And like I said, this
Speaker 4: is pretty serious because of the precedent it sets, you know,
Speaker 4: and that they are willing to put boots on the ground. Now,
Speaker 4: can the US really engage in military conflicts in several
Speaker 4: countries at once? I think that's quite difficult. So if
Speaker 4: they really do intend to occupy Venezuela, that's going to
Speaker 4: be a very long distraction and could ultimately define the
Speaker 4: Donald Trump presidency.
Speaker 1: Oh, absolutely, no doubt about it. Yeah, I mean, it's
Speaker 1: it's absolutely wild to see. And to your point about
Speaker 1: hoping that some media outlets and some you know, political
Speaker 1: leaders stand up, there have been some, but the Washington
Speaker 1: Post editorial board has come out in support. I just
Speaker 1: was reading Haquem Jeffrey's statement, which was incredibly weak and
Speaker 1: just basically, you know, did some handwringing about the process.
Speaker 1: So why didn't you go to Congress before doing this
Speaker 1: completely insane thing, which like, okay, that's yes, we want
Speaker 1: you to follow the process, but also let's talk about
Speaker 1: the meat and potatoes of what was done here. You know,
Speaker 1: I think that the Democratic Party will be somewhat split,
Speaker 1: and the leaders of the party, Keem Jeffreys and Chuck
Speaker 1: Schumer in particular, will be somewhat supportive.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 1: I think the base of the Democratic Party is going
Speaker 1: to be very opposed. And we'll see. There's so much
Speaker 1: propaganda already on all the cable news nets that it's
Speaker 1: just I mean, I can barely listen to it. It's
Speaker 1: so disturbing and so insane.
Speaker 4: That's why we need alternative meet and that's why we
Speaker 4: need to be able to hear from voices on the.
Speaker 3: Ground inside of Venezuela.
Speaker 4: We actually just published right now a report on drop
Speaker 4: site News featuring some commentary from a young man who
Speaker 4: an Afro Venezuelan man who immediately mobilized. He spoke of
Speaker 4: how both his siblings and his mom we're scared and crying,
Speaker 4: and he said, no, we need to get together and
Speaker 4: we need to resist us, because then we know what's
Speaker 4: happening and we have to push back against this. And
Speaker 4: those are the kinds of attitudes that people need to
Speaker 4: be aware of when Trump talks about an occupying force,
Speaker 4: about an invasion of their so called administration of Venezuela
Speaker 4: is that you're talking about millions of people who are
Speaker 4: not going to stand for it. And that's really, I
Speaker 4: think something that we need to drive home, particularly amongst
Speaker 4: those who are listening to this program and who want
Speaker 4: to push back against this narrative, because you're right, that's
Speaker 4: what we're going to hear. We're going to hear about
Speaker 4: how this is necessary. The bipartisan imperialist consensus is going
Speaker 4: to suggest that, well, we didn't like the methods, but
Speaker 4: we like the ends, and so we're going to continue
Speaker 4: to support this or probably be billions of dollars spent
Speaker 4: on this effort now, and those are billions of dollars
Speaker 4: that could be going to healthcare, for example, inside of
Speaker 4: the United States. These are all things that I think
Speaker 4: put into really clear picture the contradictions that define us
Speaker 4: political life here. And it's tragic that once again the
Speaker 4: peoples of a global South country like Venezuela are going
Speaker 4: to have to pay the price. But I hope it
Speaker 4: serves to wake up a lot of people inside the
Speaker 4: United States.
Speaker 1: Yeah, where we are is as of the new year,
Speaker 1: you have I don't know how many Americans who have
Speaker 1: seen their healthcare premiums, millions of Americans who've seen their
Speaker 1: healthcare premiums spike. You've seen the Epstein scandal continue to
Speaker 1: spin out a control. I recorded a segment earlier this
Speaker 1: week the Wall Street Journal reporting that mar A Laco
Speaker 1: was a key hunting ground for Glaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein.
Speaker 1: So you have that, you have plunging approval rating and
Speaker 1: scandal and incompetence on all fronts. I do think the
Speaker 1: timing of that has to do, you know, in part
Speaker 1: with wanting to distract from some of those scandals. But yeah,
Speaker 1: I have to think as the American people and even
Speaker 1: some people, some people who are in the Trump coalition
Speaker 1: listen to him talk about We're going to rebuild Venezuela's infrastructure,
Speaker 1: that they may feel like, hey, you know, we could
Speaker 1: do with some nation building and some infrastructure here at home.
Speaker 1: So look, I'm not under any illusions. Partisanship runs very deep.
Speaker 1: The Trump MAGA coalition was more actually adversarial towards his
Speaker 1: strikes in Iran and potential war with Iran. There have
Speaker 1: been you know, pretty widespread I think acceptance in the
Speaker 1: right wing influencer class, at least of potential war with Venezuela.
Speaker 1: I did see Marjorie Taylor Green put out a good statement,
Speaker 1: but you know she's she's about to resign and she's
Speaker 1: on the ounce with the MAGA coalition. So you know
Speaker 1: that is that is where we are. And the last thing,
Speaker 1: and I'll say to your point about how it almost
Speaker 1: feels you're sort of like watching the that you are
Speaker 1: watching the end of an empire in real time, and
Speaker 1: that this action and the National Security Doctrine all is
Speaker 1: reflective of that decline in stature and stance globally. You know,
Speaker 1: the imagery from this press conference when he wasn't speaking,
Speaker 1: Trump was there falling asleep, like announcing this insane regime
Speaker 1: change war with dire immediate consequences, and he can't even
Speaker 1: at you know, almost eighty years old. He can't even
Speaker 1: stay awake for the whole thing. Talk about an image
Speaker 1: of a declining empire. That's it right there.
Speaker 4: Although you as other officials, you know, Rubio Vans, they're
Speaker 4: much younger and they're very much on board with this
Speaker 4: same plant, so that.
Speaker 3: Part is really weird.
Speaker 1: We're ready to go.
Speaker 4: Yeah, after we finished recording the early one, we talked
Speaker 4: about how I injured my hand in yesterday's earthquake here,
Speaker 4: and I think it's worth mentioning this crisis that the
Speaker 4: United States is living in right now, especially when it
Speaker 4: comes to issues like health care.
Speaker 3: It doesn't have to.
Speaker 4: Be that way. The United States is still the richest
Speaker 4: country in the history of the world. There's plenty of
Speaker 4: resources there to give a better quality of life to
Speaker 4: the US population, and they don't get it because they
Speaker 4: spend money doing this instead. Just as a quick anecdote,
Speaker 4: you know, as I mentioned to you, I went to
Speaker 4: my clinic, I went to the trauma hospital, I was
Speaker 4: served in the emerge in less than four hours, and
Speaker 4: had my injury attended. That's all of that in a
Speaker 4: middle income country like Mexico, which has decided to invest
Speaker 4: in its welfare of the population. That's what you could
Speaker 4: have if you're able to push back against you know,
Speaker 4: these imperialist designs of the US.
Speaker 1: Really class I want people to release it with this.
Speaker 1: You know, here you are in Mexico, a country with
Speaker 1: a lot less wealth and resources than the US, and
Speaker 1: you're able after you your hand is injured, you're able
Speaker 1: to go in get it treated less than four hours,
Speaker 1: receive quality care for zero cost, zero cost, and then
Speaker 1: you know, it's no wonder that Claudia Scheinbaum has one
Speaker 1: of the highest aproval ratings in the entire one now
Speaker 1: that she is entirely responsible for that. But you know
Speaker 1: that has been the direction of leadership in Mexico is
Speaker 1: to actually, you know, put the care for their people
Speaker 1: first and foremost, which I think is what some people
Speaker 1: thought when they were voting for America first.
Speaker 4: Yeah, it's certainly also what the Bolivarin Revolution was about.
Speaker 4: It was about redistributing that country's wealth to those who
Speaker 4: had never been able to access to it. But apparently
Speaker 4: that was too much for the US ruling class to tolerate,
Speaker 4: and that's why we've seen action after action after action
Speaker 4: culminating and what we're witnessing today.
Speaker 1: Well, thank you so much for joining me again. I've
Speaker 1: taken up much more of your day than I originally intended,
Speaker 1: but I'm really grateful for it, and your analysis has
Speaker 1: been absolutely invaluable. So thank you so much.
Speaker 3: Thank you so much for giving me this space to
Speaker 3: talk about this