By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Former Vice President Kamala Harris criticized the Trump administration’s capture of Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro and his wife, deeming the operation “unlawful” and “unwise.” Harris argued that Trump’s actions, motivated by oil interests, would not make America safer or stronger, and she accused the administration of destabilizing the region and endangering U.S. troops. She asserted that the American people did not support this and were tired of being lied to, emphasizing that the focus should be on lowering costs, enforcing the rule of law, and strengthening alliances. Harris also highlighted the lack of a legal basis, an exit plan, or domestic benefits resulting from the operation.
Read the original article here
Kamala Harris blasts Trump administration’s capture of Venezuela’s Maduro as ‘unlawful and unwise’.
It appears that a significant reaction has erupted around Kamala Harris’s response to the Trump administration’s actions regarding Venezuela and its leader, Nicolás Maduro. The core of the criticism seems to center on Harris labeling the capture of Maduro as both “unlawful and unwise,” and many feel that the response is far too muted. The general sentiment is that a stronger condemnation was warranted, with some commenters suggesting phrases like “insane maniac” or more robust language would have been more appropriate given the gravity of the situation. Some feel that her response lacks the necessary punch to truly reflect the seriousness of the situation.
The criticism, however, goes deeper than just the choice of words. Several people are pointing out what they perceive as hypocrisy. The claim is made that Harris and the Biden administration, when in power, have taken or supported actions that are similar to those of the Trump administration. They mention the Biden administration’s bounty on Maduro, which some see as a prelude to a capture attempt. The fact that the current administration might have considered similar actions makes the criticism of Trump’s actions seem less sincere, according to those commenters. There is an implication that Harris’s position is not entirely consistent and that her actions might have been different, if she had been in charge.
Furthermore, a key thread of the conversation focuses on the idea of political theatrics. Some commenters accuse Harris of engaging in performative politics, suggesting that her words don’t match the reality of her actions or past stances. The feeling is that this response is purely for show and doesn’t reflect a genuine commitment to justice or a strong stance against questionable political actions. Several are frustrated that the response isn’t accompanied by any concrete action or plan to rectify the situation, which contributes to the perception of ineffectiveness.
Another significant viewpoint is about the consequences of these actions. Several commenters express concern over the potential implications of the capture of Maduro, not just in terms of international law, but also in terms of the precedents it sets. There’s an underlying fear that this could lead to a dangerous escalation of political conflict, with the U.S. acting unilaterally in other countries. The absence of input from the Venezuelan people is noted, as the true stakeholders in this situation. The importance of respecting international norms and the potential fallout from ignoring them is very present in this conversation.
The lack of decisive action on the part of the Democrats is a major point of contention. The consensus is that the Democrats haven’t been strong enough. Some express a long-term frustration with the Democratic Party, claiming they haven’t been proactive or forceful enough in standing up to what is perceived as authoritarianism, both domestically and internationally. They argue that the Democrats need to be much more resolute in their language and actions to effectively counter such actions in the future.
Lastly, some commenters are using this opportunity to castigate specific actions of both the Harris and Biden administrations, such as the support for Israeli actions. They are also taking into account how this situation may be viewed by international actors. They are noting that any action against Maduro has to be considered alongside existing U.S. actions. The perception is that the United States is not acting from a position of authority in the situation.