Thursday, May 2, 2019

En español se llama: "Irak "

After the ridiculous tragicomedy of the failed "coup" (if that is, indeed, what it was) in Venezuela the usual wild rumors are flying about whether Caesar Orangius will use U.S. armed force to do what the Venezuelan "opposition" couldn't, and before you could say "Achmed Chalabi" the usual suspects were blabbering on about regime change:
"Your time is up. This is your last chance. Accept Interim President Guaido’s amnesty, protect the Constitution, and remove Maduro, and we will take you off our sanctions list. Stay with Maduro, and go down with the ship." (Bolton on Twitter)
I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry, frankly.

I think the fears of a Venezuelan intifada are overblown. I don't see this as another Iraq Occupation with GIs getting blown up on roads and mortars hitting the Green Zone in Caracas.

What I do see is that regardless of who rules in Venezuela the nation is completely fucked, and only a great fool (or John Bolton and Mike Pompeo and Donald Trump, but I repeat myself...) would want to have anything to do with it.

How quickly we forget that the very reason there is a Maduro - and before him, a Chavez - is because the rule of the people like Guaidó and López was worse for Jose and Maria Desayuno than Chavez and Maduro were, at least initially. The rabiblancos or whatever they're called in Venezuela ruled for the 1% in Caracas, and the notion that the mass of Venezuelans want them back in 2019 is as idiotic as believing that installing the Iraqi National Congress would make them the Federalist Party of Iraq back in 2003.

Add to that the simple fact the Venezuela was and is a massively corrupt petrostate at a time when petroleum prices have cratered. Yes, the Trumpkins are doing their best to bollix the petroleum market by screwing with Iran, but it's unlikely that they can jack prices up enough to save Venezuela from itself. The place is simply screwed in the short- and, probably, the medium-term, no matter who runs it.

But it's hard to underestimate the Great Wall of Stupid that runs through the Fraudulency Administration:
"The president has occasionally mused to others that Bolton wants to get him into wars. Two advisers who have discussed Venezuela with him said Trump often brings up Florida politics, and his golf club in Doral, when talking about the subject. Both said Trump was unlikely to authorize any sort of long-term military action there. At the same time, however, aides said he has given Bolton wide purview over Venezuela."
I like the golf club thing; that's particularly Trumpy.

(I wonder if he knows there's a par-3 one-hole "golf club" along the Korean DMZ?)

With any luck my Army brothers will be spared a dip in this shitpool, because right now only the locals get to enjoy the dysfunctional mess that is Venezuela...but remember the "Pottery Barn Rule"?

Jesus wept. The stupid, it burns.


  1. Bolton is only the public attack dog.

    The Venezuela policy is all Elliott Advancing-Democracy-Abroad Abrams. He pioneered the concept in Central America 35-plus years ago. He was BFF to Guatemalan war criminal Rios Montt, and with the Salvadoran perpetrators of the Mozote Massacre. He was shoulder deep in the Iran-Contra cesspool, and also in the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

    And he is no stranger to Venezuela. In 2002 he green-lighted the coup against Hugo Chavez. Most older Venezuelans know of his 2002 monkeyshines and would rally to Maduro if they knew Juan Guaidó was being pushed by Abrams (and Abrams' exiled 2002 coup buddy Pedro Carmona). Which is why Elliott is trying to keeping a low profile. He's letting Bolton loose - so far there are 150 (and still counting) Bolton tweet-threats on Venezuela.

    1. Abrams. Hard to believe that even the Trumpkins want that old Iran-Contra felon around. But given their addiction to grifting, yeah, well...

      Again, the thing I don't get is how anyone in US politics, even a fucking moron-grade Trumpkin, sees a "good option" to this dumpster fire. Let's assume the "best-possible" option; U.S. armed force blasts the country open. Maduro grabs a hat, the Venezuelan military chieu hoi's, and the Guiado/Lopex crowd comes tumbling in, the GIs tip their hats and saddle up, and...

      Then what?

      The place is still a wreck. There's no real revenue producer. The bulk of the people are still jobless, foodless, and pissed off. The local coppers and troops are not much better, plus they're pissed off because Uncle Sam just showed them his whole ass and they were helpless to resist.

      At what point after that does the place devolve into failed- or semifailed-statehood? And how is that "better" than what's going on now?

      This seems to me all of a piece with nonsense like Trump's love note to that Libyan field marshal; nonsensical fiddling with a problem that doesn't really NEED to be fiddled with. What I can't figure out is why the hell the Trumpkins want to do this stuff. They have a full plate right here trying to turn the U.S. into 1892 complete with the overt economic, racial and social discrimination of the Gilded Age. You'd think that'd be enough even for bloodthirsty idiots like Abrams, Bolton, and Pompeo...

    2. It is all about Florida politics. There are some rich Venezuelans living in Florida and he wants them to assist with his 2020 election campaign. Rubio is also up to his eyebrows in this as well..

    3. Yeah, I get that these bozos are playing the expat community in Florida (Cubans, too, with the "you can sue for stuff expropriated in 1959!" bullshit). Which is still a stupid way to run a foreign policy.

  2. I don't believe boots on the ground are going to happen. Knock on wood. The Trump/Abrams strategy is to starve them out.

    They are trying to starve out Cuba also. Trump recently reintroduced sanctions on Cuba. Florida politics for sure, but probably also to minimize Cuban support to Maduro. Or maybe Trump's revenge on Cuba for freezing him out of a Trump Tower Havana deal that he tried to finesse 20 years ago: Newsweek-donald-trump-violated cuban-embargo

    The restrictions on travel to Cuba and sending money there will probably NOT break any Cuban banks or willpower. But the opening up of lawsuits by persons whose assets were confiscated by Castro might take some wind out of their sails. This would allow those persons to sue foreign businesses that deal with Cuba. It would mostly affect the many Dutch, Canadian, and Spanish companies that are Cuba's major trading partners. And possibly Marriott as they run one of their Sheraton hotels in Havana.

    But maybe the Hague, Ottawa, and Madrid will tell the US courts to pound sand.

    1. I hope not. There really isn't a "good" military option in the sense that fucking with Venezuelan internal politics is worth the bones of a single Minnesota grenadier.

  3. Sadly, Mike, except for the Hague (which, sadly, never mattered much) you're probably going to strike out on international resistance to the US.

    We may be the big dump deaf, blind, giant idiot in the room but the rest of the world has to live with our actions. Nobody wants to attract US attention by resisting us (which gives us an easy excuse to make their lives harder). I keep waiting for Pence to lead a palace coup against the Orange Fool but he seems to respect the Fool's ability to destroy people for the stupidest reasons.

    Where's that good Christian sense of self-sacrifice when you need it?! Of course, would Pence, led by Trump's surviving advisors be any better? That's a pretty awful thought and I can't answer it. Heck, I don't even want to think about it right now.

    Why can't 2020 hurry up?!!!?!!!

  4. Pluto -

    The CEO of Canada's Sherritt International Corporation, which is one of the targets of lawsuits, is thumbing his nose at US courts. Bloomberg says Sherritt is "undaunted by Trump's tightening of embargo on Cuba". They apparently have no assets in the US and no business dealings here either, so maybe they are untouchable by Trump??? And why would Trudeau twist their arm?

    I don't know about Spain. But I understand that the EU has said it would protect European companies that do business in Cuba. Two days ago the EU said it may file a WTO lawsuit against Bozo's blackmail, or maybe levy its own sanctions against U.S. entities that sue.

  5. Huh, I see it very differently. To me, this all talk, we won't be taking any military action against Venezuela.

    Just remember the thing that Trump cares most about: Trump. He's not the type who will take a high-risk/low reward action like military intervention since it put's the Trump brand (and therefore him) at risk.

    1. He's a moron. Morons do moronic things.
      He could very well do this moronic thing.

    2. Gotta go with Sven on this, Andy. Yes, he's a selfcentered narcissist. He's also a mental fourteen-year-old with all the nasty love for hurting things and blowing shit up. He's surrounded himself with a bunch of belligerent dopes who have little more foresight than he does. The possibility of him doing, or turning them loose to do, something extremely stupid is fairly high.

      And I'm kind of amazed the we're less than 20 years from watching a similar malleable DOPUS get played by his ambitious, belligerent, moronic associates and somehow this is getting played as "Trump, enh, whatchagonnadoo?".

    3. And a good example of this is the latest Mustache of Idiocy on Iran. There's no real evidence that suggests that Trump wants to actually war on the Iranians. He wanted out of the nuclear agreement because it was engineered by That Negro Who Mocked Him. He hates Iran because they're Dirty Muslim Wogs, but I don't get the sense that he wants to get thrown into the Middle Eastern tarbaby like Dubya did.

      But he's being played by the Saudis, and he's got Bolton and Pompeo wriggling all over with eagerness to have a Glorious Little War. So this could easily explode simply because the monkey doesn't realize that they're handing him a live grenade.

    4. Is there anything more to this analysis than "he is moron?" I mean, if that is going to be the analytical standard for judging what he might do, then moron argument means he might literally do anything.

      In order to convince me you'd have to present something more that your personal disdain for the man.

      "He's also a mental fourteen-year-old with all the nasty love for hurting things and blowing shit up."

      Except he doesn't appear to have a love of "blowing shit up." He's wanted to get out of Afghanistan and Syria only to be talked out of it. He's consistently complained about spending money on foreign adventuring going back to at least 2003.

      Secondly, as noted in my original comment, he does what he thinks is best for Trump and his brand. He wants to be seen as "winning" above everything else. How, exactly, does a risky and expensive military intervention, much less one in Venezuela, further this goal?

      And whether Trump is a moron or not, he's actually pretty predictable and consistent. He's not all that hard to figure out. He's not some black box full of stupidity or crazy where literally anything might come out the other side. He has a lot of stupid and crazy ideas, but they aren't random.

      "There's no real evidence that suggests that Trump wants to actually war on the Iranians."

      Yeah, I agree with that too. He's got some of the worst neocons on his staff, but there isn't any indication (yet) that they have the ability to convince Trump to go against his own judgement. Because remember, Trump thinks he's the smartest guy in the room and trusts his own instincts over just about anything else. And instinctively, whatever one thinks of him, he's not an interventionist at heart.

    5. But that's kind of the point of "belligerent, stupid and ill-informed"; it's difficult to con people who aren't belligerent, stupid, and ill-informed. It's relatively easy to get mental fourteen0-year-olds to grab after things you tell them will be KEWL because...well, go figure.

      That's the problem with assuming that Trump will do "what he thinks is best for Trump"; when you're dealing with someone so apparently dim and volatile that they literally CAN do anything then nothing's off the table.

      Look at the trade talks with the PRC; good example. The Administration's trade team was (apparently) getting down to the nitty with the PRC delegation when Goofus tweeted that he was slamming down tariffs on the tricksy yellow devils. Immediately the market goes nuts, the talks grind to a halt, and Xi's people sit back and wait for the inevitable mess to collapse. And this is something that he supposedly knows something about (except he doesn't and still thinks that the PRC is the one playing the tariffs...)

      So, as you point out, he's not anything "at heart" except a Trumpist, and that means;

      1. He hates furriners, especially Muslims,
      2. He will do anything he thinks will make him look "strong", so
      3. If these jokers can convince him that attacking Venezuela or Iran will kill dusky heathens and make him look strong, there's no real reason to assume he WON'T do that.

      THAT's why "stupid, belligerent, and ill-imformed" are the crucial elements of what passes for his character. At least with a Cheney you knew there was an objective, even if it was pretty invidious. With this guy? Who the hell knows?

    6. "Except he doesn't appear to have a love of "blowing shit up." He's wanted to get out of Afghanistan and Syria only to be talked out of it. He's consistently complained about spending money on foreign adventuring going back to at least 2003."

      That IS "blowing things up". He tried to blow up Obamacare. He blew up the Iran deal. He thinks of the Syrian small war participation as Obama's, so he wanted to blow it up as well. Same with Afghanistan. NATO - not a fan, but he couldn't blow it up, Senate wouldn't tolerate it.

      His motivation there is breaking other people's things. Nobody else shall be admired for anything or have success at anything, only himself.

      The lying moron CAN be talked into a stupid war. It might begin as cruise missile diplomacy - the entire nation has been desensitised to the point that it doesn't understand cruise 'missile diplomacy' as the naked aggression that it is, anyway.
      Then the generals will report that the initial strike did not achieve much - as they did after the first Yugoslavia target list was exhausted in 1999. More bombing might follow. Yet another target list swill be exhausted without 'victory' becuase war DOES NOT WORK, and the mess may grow bigger and bigger.

      The supposed adults in Washington have to remove the lying moron with the maturity of a toddler ASAP. Everything else is irresponsible.

    7. "That's the problem with assuming that Trump will do "what he thinks is best for Trump"; when you're dealing with someone so apparently dim and volatile that they literally CAN do anything then nothing's off the table."

      Well, I guess if you really believe that, that everything's on the table, and Trump is so nutty he might do literally anything and we can't predict it, then there isn't much to discuss. Or maybe there's everything to discuss. You mentioned Trump hates brown people, why is no one talking about an invasion of Mexico? They are nice and close and according to our doe-eyed media Trump wants our military forces deployed on the border there to start shooting them.

      "Look at the trade talks with the PRC; good example."

      Except that's classic Trump. That's not Trump being randomly crazy doing something that's utterly unpredictable or out of line with his established record - that's a known Trump negotiating tactic and not surprising at all. That it's stupid doesn't mean it's crazy or that Trump is the kind loon who would do that and immediately turn around and invade Venezuela.

      "1. He hates furriners, especially Muslims,
      2. He will do anything he thinks will make him look "strong", so"

      So why did/does he want to get out of Afghanistan and Syria? There are plenty of Muslims there to kill and staying, or even plussing-up our involvement would certainly make him look "strong" to some. If he's unwilling to kill the dusky heathens there, then why should we suddenly believe he wants to kill them in South America?

      Again, I don't see any indication that Trump would actually invade Venezuela or that it's party of his circuitry. I don't buy the "crazy Trump will do anything" theory because there's a lot of evidence against it. They theory that he would invade because he hates brown people and wants to appear strong fails because he's passed up many juicy opportunities to do that already.

    8. Sven,

      There's a contradiction.

      Apparently, Trump is, all at once, a raging egotist who believes he is the smartest, most important person in the room, and that everyone exists to do his bidding and make him look good. As a result, Trump is famous for not taking the advice of experts on everything from Climate Change to diplomacy. Yet, despite these clear and well established facts about Trump not trusting experts and even his own advisers, people turn around and assert he can be talked into anything. Again, where's the evidence that he can be talked into a war? Asserting it or believing it doesn't make it true.

    9. He can be talked into doing stuff because they know to appeal to some of his instincts that are not about the issue. The Saudis manipulated him into supporting them on Yemen and Iran not so much by talking about those countries, but by flattering him.
      Manipulation goes well beyond mere overt advice. Thus there's no contradiction.

      He's lacking a moral compass save for his egoism and a little bit of (selective) caring about his children. You cannot reliably stay steady on a course without a compass.

    10. "He can be talked into doing stuff because they know to appeal to some of his instincts that are not about the issue."

      Do you have any specific examples?

      "The Saudis manipulated him into supporting them on Yemen and Iran not so much by talking about those countries, but by flattering him."

      He is pro-Israeli which makes him anti-Iranian which aligns him with the Saudis and their war in Yemen. There's no evidence he was "manipulated" into his anti-Iran and pro-Saudi stance.

      Yes, he doesn't have much of a moral compass, but that doesn't means he doesn't have any compass at all.

    11. Uhmm, I thought the Saudi example qualifies as an example.
      Moreover, I cannot remember any example of Trump being "pro-Israel" in any significant way before Kushner began his internal lobbying. Nor was he known for being a friend of Saudi-Arabia until his visit there where they flattered him and gave him a faux "110 bn" arms sale (of which a year and half later, only four billions had happened, an ordinary if not below average amount).

    12. Pluto 1 of 2:
      Andy: "Except he doesn't appear to have a love of "blowing shit up.""

      Andy, if you can say that with a straight face you haven't been watching the US-China trade talks, where he has been an unmitigated roving disaster. He's blown up several promising discussions solely for the enjoyment of watching highly polished diplomats sweat under intense pressure. His most recent comments about tarrifs and trade wars (in part due to bad luck and poor timing) have the potential to make 2008 look fairly mild by comparison. And I am NOT speaking about what will happen if he follows through.

      Apparently relatively few people noticed that we've economically built a brush pile around us of debt and over-purchasing that has gotten uncomfortably large. Those people were mostly told that they were probably too early in their warnings and they might have been but for Trump.

      Brief recap of this week's events:
      Monday morning: Trump threatens China with absolutely outrageous trade tariffs (5-10% would have been huge, 25% is life-threatening and I bet he gave it 10 seconds thought before uttering the fateful words). Stock market goes into free fall and barely recovers its original values by the end of the day because the traders convince themselves that Trump's advisors will talk him out of it.

      Monday Evening: Trump's economic advisors make statements that suggest:
      a) They are behind their guy all the way
      b) 25% trade tariffs might not be enough

      Tuesday: Unmitigated freefall

      Wednesday Morning: Chinese announce an unexpected major drop in exports last month and they are "investigating." This data normally is developed across the entire month and slowly leaks out from the government agencies. That this popped out all of a sudden is extremely surprising, especially from China, which hates surprises. There are too many possibilities to describe here (from negotiation tactics to major storms to ?) but they all have a unifying theme: extraordinarily bad news.

      Heads roll in China when the variance between the expected and the unexpected is greater than 0.25% (like I said, they like certainty); when the Chinese announce a variance of -2.7% you've basically won the bad luck lottery. The US stock market is, predictably, panicking.

      Unfortunately, we're getting to the stage where that is not only logical but a practical response to the current situation. There are only four ways out of the current situation:
      1. Trump comes out and says "just kidding folks." It is possible, but hard to see happening in such tough negotiations.
      2. The stock market receives a single piece of completely positive news that they forget all the bad news. Fortunately, they have lots of experience in this. Ironically, the only logical source of such good news is Disney announcing the results of their direct-to-consumer broadcasting after hours. I've always said that traders have the attention span of 3 year old girls watching pretty princesses while on a sugar high. Now it might be the only thing that can save the market, even temporarily.
      3. The stock market does a reset in expectations and takes a chill pill. This happens only once per generation. Highly unlikely to happen now but it's still possible, which is why I mention it.
      4. The market inexorably drops to around 35-45% of it's current value over the next 6 months to a year with NOTHING being able to stop it. I've saved this for last because it is the worst possible and most likely result.

    13. Pluto 2 of 2:
      I want to emphasize that I AM NOT BLAMING Trump for the size of the fire. I am blaming him for thinking it was safe to start one.

      The New York Times reports that they've laid their hands on his tax records for 1984-95 and he reported losses of more than $1 Billion during that time. My responses are as follows:
      a) This is essentially rumor at this time
      b) If true, YOWZA, who let this pathetic moron touch our economic engine? We did! Way to go us!
      c) The only way Trump could lose that much money back then is if it was mostly other people's money. See any similarities?

      Last note before I go. My personal, historically informed, view is that Trump is the worst human being to ever occupy the White House. He combines the lack of trustworthiness of "Tricky Dick" Nixon with the stubborn determination to "make his mark" of Herbert Hoover with the lack of caring about his fellow humans of Andrew Johnson. None of the above affect his ability to actually do the job. They just affect his inclination to do it WELL!

      Good night and good luck, everybody, we are going to need it.

  6. I gotta go with Andy on Trump versus Venezuela.

    But Iran is a different story. Too many opportunities for escalating violence there. Bozo Bone-Spurs may not want the fight, but the men he has personally picked seem to be doing their best to ramp it up a notch or two - or more. And as FDC mentioned, his best buddies Bibi and the Prince are egging him on.

    Still, no boots on the ground in Iran itself is my forecast. Strictly an AF and Navy grab-ass. But of course that puts US ground troops in Iraq and Syria at risk.

    1. Like I said - I don't THINK it'll happen (largely because unlike the Fraudulency Administration, most of the ops people at DoD aren't bone-stupid) but that's not to say it COULDN'T. They really ARE that stupid.

      I think it's worth keeping in mind that Trump actually does like to "fight" provided, like any bully, he knows that he personally (or his "brand") won't get their hair mussed. Having moronic slavering war-pigs like Pompeo and Bolton doesn't help, but the Orange King himself is a belligerent, ill-tempered little bastard.

      And he despises the browns and blacks and, especially, fear Muslims - not that he understands, say, the difference between Sunni Wahhabi Saudis and Twelver Shiite Persians - so it wouldn't be hard for him to kill them. Remember his campaign promise to go after the "terrorists" families? Why not blow up some Iranian kiddies if it makes you feel like a Real Man?

  7. I know Andy will disagree, but the whole point here is to remind us all what a completely unpredictable and unprecedented situation we're in here. Back in the 70's Dick Nixon supposedly wanted the North Vietnamese government to believe that he was an unpredictable madman who might do ANYthing up to nuclear war to get what he wanted. He was, in fact, calculating that this would terrify the government of the North into suing for peace.

    Now we have, in fact, someone who really IS as volatile and unpredictable as Nixon was pretending to be. We may think, as Andy does, that he's all about not spending money on foreign wars or we may think - as I do - that he doesn't really care one way or the other so long as he does what makes him look strong and virile to his followers. But the real crux of the biscuit is we, none of us, just don't know. We have no way of knowing which way this cat will jump, including into a war. A sensible chief executive would weigh the pros and cons, get a raft of advice, and think long and hard before doing something like that.

    But this guy?

    I'm telling you; we Just. Don't. Know.

    And that's kinda scary when you think of the OTHER aspects of his personality.

  8. "Now we have, in fact, someone who really IS as volatile and unpredictable as Nixon was pretending to be."


    "But the real crux of the biscuit is we, none of us, just don't know. We have no way of knowing which way this cat will jump, including into a war."

    The thing is, I don't think the evidence supports the supposition that he is that volatile or unpredictable. I honestly don't understand why people think he's unpredictable and could literally do anything, like start a war, on a whim. What is that supposition based on?

    His track record, goals and methods are all pretty consistent. The argument that he could suddenly, at any moment, act differently to the established pattern for no predictable reason requires, I think, more logic and explanation than a declaration that he is crazy and therefore "we don't know" what he will do.

    I would agree that Trump wants to keep his opponents off-balance - but again, that's long been his style and it would be strange if he didn't try to do that. He's been using that for years to play the press, and they still haven't learned. That's how he thinks he wins. But that's just a tactic - it's a mistake to think that his tactics reflect his actual goals and policies.

    1. You've partially normalised his behaviour already.

      The swings in the North Korea policy, the swings in contact with NATO allies - this erratic behaviour would not have happened under the deliberative Obama or the Neocons. Trump is more erratic than Sarkozy.

    2. I'm not normalizing his behavior, I'm explaining his behavior. I'm not a Trump supporter, never have been, didn't vote for him and won't vote for him in 2020.

      You're right his erratic behavior wouldn't have happened under Obama or the Neocons. He's not an establishment politician - he's not really even a politician at all. He's a New York real estate hustler/grifter which is why he acts the way he does. You have to look at his tactics in that context and not the context of a normal politician.

    3. Andy, the last paragraph in your last comment is right on in the sense of his keeping people off balance. He's done this his whole business life. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. His goal is to get reelected in 2020, period, and to achieve this, he will talk crazy shit, some of it unpredictable, yet aimed at the elites, in order to get the downtrodden and the dispensationalists to the polls.
      If he achieves a win, he will unload many current White House executive types like so many used condoms. Sure, he is not bright, but I think he believes that the presidency is like the businesses he has run (sometimes into the ground), but often with partners/investors holding bags of Shite. It doesn't mean he'll succeed, but the show could be interesting. .....PS.... I predicted he was going to shitcan Kelly and Mattis (good riddance).

    4. Fast,

      Like a mob boss, I think he will shit-can everyone but his family. His expectations for loyalty are completely one-way.

      I just hope the Democrats don't nominate a turd. At least now I live in a state where I can vote in the primary.

    5. Andy -

      Won't matter to me whether the Democrats nominate a turd, or my drunken brother-in-law, or a bag lady off the street. Any of them would be better than Cadet Bone-Spurs.

  9. And now WAPO, CNN and others are reporting Trump is pissed off at the warhawks stirring up trouble. Again, no surprises here:

    "The president’s dissatisfaction has crystallized around national security adviser John Bolton and what Trump has groused is an interventionist stance at odds with his view that the United States should stay out of foreign quagmires.

    Trump has said in recent days that Bolton wants to get him “into a war” — a comment that he has made in jest in the past but that now betrays his more serious concerns, one senior administration official said…

    Trump has … complained over the past week that Bolton and others underestimated Maduro, according to three senior administration officials who like others interviewed for this story spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private deliberations.

    Trump has said that Maduro is a “tough cookie” and that aides should not have led him to believe that the Venezuelan leader could be ousted last week, when Guaidó led mass street protests that turned deadly."

    Trump wants "winning" and Bolton's promises fell short with a predictable result.

  10. Trump has always blamed his fuckups on others. Doesn't matter whether those others are close to him or whether they are Democrats, or "neverTrump" Republicans, or former business competitors. In his fairytale world, it is never his fault that things go wrong.

    Trump is a whiner. Always has been. And he will go on whimpering and bellyaching even after he is kicked out of office.

    1. Yes but! ........ This Orange Blurt is geared to put mustachio and Plompeo Pathetus Maximus and their retinue of yes men on notice that this is like a " Ooo's on first! Watson's second." moment for these would
      be clowns. Or, conversely, this could be that both the former entity and His Excellency are taking turns being triple agents, kinda. They'll use the "Mutt & Jeff," and the "We Know All" plays on the rubes, with the results showing to be effective on one part of the populace, vice not on the other somewhat smaller part of the people, whom are not, nor have ever been oxygen thieves, and possess a modest modicum of G-2. They would look askance and squirm in the presentation of these performances, especially, with latter of the two theatrical gimmicks showing much worse results for effect on the normal. Everybody's off balance.