By Matt Underwood Bolton on Trump’s Venezuela plan: ‘I don’t think he understands anything’ – and it’s a sentiment that, frankly, resonates pretty strongly. The whole situation feels less like a calculated strategy and more like… well, a complete lack of understanding. The core of this seems to be that Trump doesn’t grasp the complexities of international relations, geopolitical strategy, or even the basic nuances of economics, beyond how they can personally benefit him. This isn’t a new revelation; it’s a running theme of his political career.
It appears that Trump’s decisions are primarily driven by self-interest and a desire to consolidate power. The idea that he’s capable of crafting an intricate, multi-layered plan, especially one involving international policy, seems far-fetched. It’s hard to imagine him grasping the intricacies of the situation, especially when there are potential for personal gain. This suggests that the actual drivers behind this are different, and that there are people who are driving the overall plans for him.
Perhaps even more concerning is the assertion that Trump might be functionally illiterate. While the exact phrase comes from a specific source, the broader point about his reading comprehension and ability to process information is widely discussed and it suggests a deeper problem. How can someone who struggles with basic comprehension effectively navigate the complexities of foreign policy? This opens up a lot of questions about how decisions are actually made, and who’s really pulling the strings.
The focus on the potential for personal financial gain, like the mention of oil deals and potential profits, paints a clear picture of Trump’s priorities. He might understand the basic principles of a “shakedown,” but that doesn’t necessarily translate into a comprehensive understanding of the implications of such actions. This highlights a fundamental difference between seeing an opportunity for personal enrichment and understanding the broader consequences of a decision.
The comments raise questions about the role of advisors and the influence they wield. The mention of figures like Stephen Miller suggests that others may be the primary decision-makers, feeding him information that serves their own agendas. This raises a crucial question: if Trump doesn’t fully understand the situation, who is providing the narrative, and what are their motivations? It’s a classic case of power behind the throne, which isn’t exactly a secret, but that is rarely discussed.
One of the more interesting observations is how Trump’s actions are perceived by those who previously were staunch critics. Seeing a figure like John Bolton, who, as a noted neocon, is known for strong stances on foreign policy, criticize Trump suggests a profound level of concern about the implications of the plan. This criticism could be because Bolton realizes that his life-long dream of bombing Iran is out the window, or it could be for some other reason. This isn’t just a political disagreement; it’s a fundamental questioning of competence and understanding.
This situation also makes you consider what’s happening internally, the discussion of the “weekend at Bernie’s” dynamic. It brings up a very cynical view of how things work in Washington, and it paints a picture of advisors and handlers pulling the strings while the figurehead makes pronouncements and takes credit. This is a potentially dangerous cocktail, especially when combined with a lack of understanding, because it suggests a level of recklessness and unpredictability.
The discussions about the potential for abuse of power, resource acquisition, and the potential manipulation of elections further complicate the picture. This scenario suggests that the plan is not about helping the people of Venezuela or furthering any grand strategic goals. It’s a very pragmatic view, seeing things on a surface level to be in Trump’s best interest. This raises serious questions about the ethics and the legality of the plan.
The final piece of this puzzle is the question of what happens next. The article’s lack of explicit steps for a solution highlights the difficulty of addressing a situation that seems so fundamentally misguided. It underscores the urgency of understanding the situation and the implications of this plan. Ultimately, the future relies on people being informed, questioning the underlying motivations, and resisting what is being planned.