Trump's sleeping! These people around him--his Cabinet, close friends(?) Administration are guilty of elder abuse. Trump is an old demented man they take advantage of as routine. Lock them up! Come on Congress! Do your job! Yoo, hoo SCOTUS anybody out there?🦅🇺🇸🦅
Trump doesn't care about belly buttons. He prefers to delegate everything but club selection to the schmucks standing behind him on that stage - the ones that are actually running this country (into the dirt).
It's a shame that the American people got so bent that they elected a common NY RE fraudster President of the USA. They thought he was Frank Costello when he was actually Peter Gotti.
I had a pretty dark view of what a second Trump regime would be like. That didn't include stepping on every country in the hemisphere. It's hard to see how we escape this without an economic depression lasting decades, and the rest of the world including all former allies looking on us with hatred and disdain.
“…all boasting and bullying and lying, greed and narcissism and vanity.” As succinct and accurate summary of Trump as I’ve read. Bill Kristol is a fantastic writer and thoughtful analyst.
A great column by Gen. Hertling, and when bookended with his Friday column about regime change in Venezuela, a superb pair of insightful assessments about the dangerous cluelessness of the Trump regime. Trump has never accepted responsibility for anything, and, led by his example, no one in his administration does either. This is a feature, not a bug, of whatever they do. The results may be catastrophic, but hey- it won’t be their fault, right?
Trump's most Republican characteristic is that he never accepts responsibility for anything. They just keep digging and leave it for the next Democratic administration to repair the damage. Too bad the American people are too stupid to notice.
The EU could destroy the US economically. Its our largest trading partner. A yuge amount of American jobs depend on European trade. The EU has an economy about a large as the US. MAGA loves it when Russia threatens Europe but if Europe has military, political or economic insecurity it's bad for America
I stand corrected. I'm developing a concept where "Europe" now has to save the civilized world. International law, climate change, human rights. Sadly America is caught up in one of our periodic family driveway fights where we work out our issues in a very ugly way
Thank you kindly, Mark, for your concise article on
“The Belly-Button Rule”:
“Most of all, clearly assigned responsibility signals credibility. To allies, it shows unity. To subordinates, it provides clarity. To adversaries, it communicates resolve.
Complex operations do not fail primarily because they are hard. They fail because responsibility is blurred. If the strategic leader—in this case the president—doesn’t put his finger into the belly button of the person he is placing in charge, he’s not leading. He’s just hoping things magically work out.
And hope, as every commander learns, is not a method or a plan.”
This monk is grateful that we have folks like you for a good perspective.🙏
Maybe the War Powers Act has been transgressed too many times, but Congress' the power of the purse remains. What happens if Congress simply refuses to fund any more of Trump's international misadventures? What kind of limits could congress impose?
Also, what happens if Maduro is acquitted?
And what happens if the MAGA base, who largely despises another indeterminate foreign war, who is frustrated by the Epstein file cover up, or who feel the cost of goods and healthcare has grown worse, not better -- starts to demand Trump's impeachment? Do GOP Senators and Reps snub them, or do they let impeachment become a topic of actual debate?
Since I refuse to believe that any coherent thought can come from his rotten melon, who do we think is pushing this radical foreign agenda that 'as a matter of national security, we need to control the majority of valuable assets in the hemisphere'?
Was it Putin? (or any number of the autocrats that seem to visit on a weekly basis)
Is it Rubio? Stephen Miller?
I do think he loves the rush of watching the military do its thing (which is why we should have known this was coming the moment Dept of War was decided on) so I doubt he needed much prodding to do it - and it's clear this one is on behalf of his Oil & Gas "friends" (I also believe he holds a TON of old fossil fuel stocks which fuels his green energy hatred) - but I do think the more bold moves within this admin comes from someone needling him to give into his darker impulses.
We can't simply pin all the egregious acts on Stephen Miller, can we?
Thiel is in charge of all our personal security, he is Mission Impossible on steroids, OSS, MI6 , CIA, all wrapped together, he has created for HSI and DHS
all the data, he has data on me, I'm positive. He's one odd dude, Yarvin is lately takin' the heat. Thiel is American born, but a lot of ' dutch ' he is gay, I think,
his personality is observe, learn . spent some years in S. Africa and also Europe for parts of perhaps grades 3-11 ? that was a guess. He got his power
partly in 2010, He is the one who paid for Vance 26 million to get the OHIO
SEN seat, to steer him, where he is now. you think erik prince was a tad dangerous, so is thiel.
"I’m tempted to close by denouncing Trump’s hubris. But to use that term would be to dignify him too much. Hubris implies a certain grandeur of purpose."
This is why I have a needle-across-the-record moment when Trump is called the "worst" President. It sort of implies he aspires to something worth judging.
1) This is a little bit off topic of this Morning Shots, but I have to ask this question: in what fundamental ways does our invasion of Venezuela differ from our invasion of Iraq? I can partly answer my own question and start with the obvious similarity – that we unilaterally took out the head of government of a sovereign country (and another similarity is that both of those leaders were terrible people). A couple of differences come to mind: (1) Bush got Congressional authorization for Iraq while Trump acted as if Congress didn’t exist, and (2) Bush seemed to believe that removing Sadaam would bring democracy to the Middle East while Trump just wants to steal the oil.
Now if it turns out that we leave Venezuela be I see this as more similar to the Noriega abduction. But if we decide to stay in almost any capacity, it will almost certainly show another similarity – an almost total lack of credible planning for the future. In Iraq, Bush clearly had cultural blinders on, believing that if given the chance, Iraquis would immediately stop their internecine fighting and embrace democracy. Why would we need to plan when we would “be greeted as liberators”? In the case of Venezuela, Trump simply isn’t interested in planning. Going to meetings and listening to regional experts and (God forbid) reading something on the subject is somebody else’s job (Gen. Hertling has correctly pointed out the breathtaking incompetence and lack of concern for the future when Trump couldn’t point to the specific people who he said were going to be “running Venezuela”, especially considering this was AFTER the invasion.). It may have arisen from different causes, but in one case we had a President who didn’t think planning was necessary and in the other case we had a President who didn’t care. But in both cases, the upshot is that they both acted as if it would somehow all just work out.
I don’t know which is worse – being oblivious to the realities on the ground or being so greedy and depraved that any negative consequences don’t matter to you. (Note: According to the NYT and Mr. Google “Reports indicate that Nicolás Maduro's public dancing in the face of U.S. ultimatums was a significant factor in infuriating President Trump and influencing the decision to authorize military action against him in early 2026”. Invading a country and getting people killed is pretty depraved behavior when it’s based on someone simply mocking you.)
Another similarity is the fanciful notion floated by the supporters of the invasion that the leaders we took out were somehow a real threat to our national security.
There are, of course, many dissimilarities in the specifics such as the size of the country, the capability of its military, and the disposition of the population to being invaded. But I see these as more of a tactical consideration rather than a political one.
The reason that I raise this question is because The Bulwark is likely populated with many folks who supported the invasion of Iraq and don’t support the invasion of Venezuela, and I would like to hear them explain how anyone could have both of those beliefs (I may be wrong of course, but I’m pretty sure that I’m not).
And then they get to explain Grenada.
2) I originally believed that Trump’s coolness towards María Corina Machado becoming Venezuela’s President was because he didn’t think he could effectively cow her. She had faced down Maduro at great personal risk so I think she wouldn’t have bent the knee to Trump so easily. On the other hand Delcy Rodríguez is likely a pretty corrupt individual who will do whatever it takes to stay in power – which means Trump can easily bully her (I expect her to start saying nice things about Trump which apparently is already happening). Now it sounds like it was because she won the Nobel Peace Prize and Trump didn’t. So once again we see that Trump’s biggest concern is not the fate of the U.S. or Venezuela – it’s his hurt ego.
3) It’s a minor thing, but in his speech on Saturday, Trump said that the oil companies would “spend billions of dollars” fixing Venezuela’s oil infrastructure. Then in literally the next sentence he said that they would be reimbursed for the money they spend. These, of course, are two different things entirely. Why am I not surprised that Trump can’t provide consistent information? What a shock!
And, of course, the idea that there isn’t even a plan or (seemingly) a plan for a plan for the oil companies’ involvement just shows how rushed this operation was. Sort of lends credence to the story of Maduro’s dancing driving Trump to order the operation right now.
But I’d hold off on touting the initial coolness of the oil companies. First of all, there might very well be a lot of money to be made (especially if they are reimbursed for their initial costs – something I believe Trump will definitely do if it looks like it might be necessary to get them on board). And second, Trump won’t take “no” for an answer. He’ll publicly humiliate and threaten them until they give in.
4) Just a few weeks ago, I was thinking that Trump had given up on Greenland. Clearly I was wrong about that. It will be interesting to see how Trump tries to pull that off (assuming he really does). Is there no limit to the “national security” card that Trump repeatedly plays?
Trump's sleeping! These people around him--his Cabinet, close friends(?) Administration are guilty of elder abuse. Trump is an old demented man they take advantage of as routine. Lock them up! Come on Congress! Do your job! Yoo, hoo SCOTUS anybody out there?🦅🇺🇸🦅
Trump's a demented old man playing dress up with his Elder abusing Cabinet so they can do what they want.
Trump's Cabinet needs arresting--Guilty of elder abuse. Taking advantage of this demented old man.
Trump doesn't care about belly buttons. He prefers to delegate everything but club selection to the schmucks standing behind him on that stage - the ones that are actually running this country (into the dirt).
It's a shame that the American people got so bent that they elected a common NY RE fraudster President of the USA. They thought he was Frank Costello when he was actually Peter Gotti.
If there is a plan for Venezuela, it is about as well thought through as the day the Trump family first walked through the White House in 2017.
The staff made a note to count the silverware after they left.
2025 has seen the naked exploitation of every opportunity for the Trumps to enrich themselves at the nations expense.
If I were a Venezuelan, or anyone for that matter, I’d be hiding the silver.
I had a pretty dark view of what a second Trump regime would be like. That didn't include stepping on every country in the hemisphere. It's hard to see how we escape this without an economic depression lasting decades, and the rest of the world including all former allies looking on us with hatred and disdain.
“…all boasting and bullying and lying, greed and narcissism and vanity.” As succinct and accurate summary of Trump as I’ve read. Bill Kristol is a fantastic writer and thoughtful analyst.
A great column by Gen. Hertling, and when bookended with his Friday column about regime change in Venezuela, a superb pair of insightful assessments about the dangerous cluelessness of the Trump regime. Trump has never accepted responsibility for anything, and, led by his example, no one in his administration does either. This is a feature, not a bug, of whatever they do. The results may be catastrophic, but hey- it won’t be their fault, right?
Trump's most Republican characteristic is that he never accepts responsibility for anything. They just keep digging and leave it for the next Democratic administration to repair the damage. Too bad the American people are too stupid to notice.
I wonder if Keir Starmer will have the nerve to send British troops to Greenland, considering that Trump could destroy us economically.
The EU could destroy the US economically. Its our largest trading partner. A yuge amount of American jobs depend on European trade. The EU has an economy about a large as the US. MAGA loves it when Russia threatens Europe but if Europe has military, political or economic insecurity it's bad for America
We’re not in the EU, unfortunately, thanks to mini-Trump Farage.
I stand corrected. I'm developing a concept where "Europe" now has to save the civilized world. International law, climate change, human rights. Sadly America is caught up in one of our periodic family driveway fights where we work out our issues in a very ugly way
Thank you kindly, Mark, for your concise article on
“The Belly-Button Rule”:
“Most of all, clearly assigned responsibility signals credibility. To allies, it shows unity. To subordinates, it provides clarity. To adversaries, it communicates resolve.
Complex operations do not fail primarily because they are hard. They fail because responsibility is blurred. If the strategic leader—in this case the president—doesn’t put his finger into the belly button of the person he is placing in charge, he’s not leading. He’s just hoping things magically work out.
And hope, as every commander learns, is not a method or a plan.”
This monk is grateful that we have folks like you for a good perspective.🙏
Maybe the War Powers Act has been transgressed too many times, but Congress' the power of the purse remains. What happens if Congress simply refuses to fund any more of Trump's international misadventures? What kind of limits could congress impose?
Also, what happens if Maduro is acquitted?
And what happens if the MAGA base, who largely despises another indeterminate foreign war, who is frustrated by the Epstein file cover up, or who feel the cost of goods and healthcare has grown worse, not better -- starts to demand Trump's impeachment? Do GOP Senators and Reps snub them, or do they let impeachment become a topic of actual debate?
Walz’ “fall from grace”?? Wow
The "Walz Had His Friends Killed" BS is batting 1.000 among the "The Clintons Left a Trail of Dead People" crowd.
Since I refuse to believe that any coherent thought can come from his rotten melon, who do we think is pushing this radical foreign agenda that 'as a matter of national security, we need to control the majority of valuable assets in the hemisphere'?
Was it Putin? (or any number of the autocrats that seem to visit on a weekly basis)
Is it Rubio? Stephen Miller?
I do think he loves the rush of watching the military do its thing (which is why we should have known this was coming the moment Dept of War was decided on) so I doubt he needed much prodding to do it - and it's clear this one is on behalf of his Oil & Gas "friends" (I also believe he holds a TON of old fossil fuel stocks which fuels his green energy hatred) - but I do think the more bold moves within this admin comes from someone needling him to give into his darker impulses.
We can't simply pin all the egregious acts on Stephen Miller, can we?
Miller has ' methods' and very old ideas, these are not his plans
think
Peter Thiel, our real President. trump is a vain shallow immature clown, but also
dangerous, he wants glory all day every day.
Possibly? On a related note, this admin granted 3 nuclear power contracts today - at $900M each - Thiel conveniently is behind one of them.
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/5673730-trump-nuclear-energy/
Thiel is in charge of all our personal security, he is Mission Impossible on steroids, OSS, MI6 , CIA, all wrapped together, he has created for HSI and DHS
all the data, he has data on me, I'm positive. He's one odd dude, Yarvin is lately takin' the heat. Thiel is American born, but a lot of ' dutch ' he is gay, I think,
his personality is observe, learn . spent some years in S. Africa and also Europe for parts of perhaps grades 3-11 ? that was a guess. He got his power
partly in 2010, He is the one who paid for Vance 26 million to get the OHIO
SEN seat, to steer him, where he is now. you think erik prince was a tad dangerous, so is thiel.
"I’m tempted to close by denouncing Trump’s hubris. But to use that term would be to dignify him too much. Hubris implies a certain grandeur of purpose."
This is why I have a needle-across-the-record moment when Trump is called the "worst" President. It sort of implies he aspires to something worth judging.
A few comments...
1) This is a little bit off topic of this Morning Shots, but I have to ask this question: in what fundamental ways does our invasion of Venezuela differ from our invasion of Iraq? I can partly answer my own question and start with the obvious similarity – that we unilaterally took out the head of government of a sovereign country (and another similarity is that both of those leaders were terrible people). A couple of differences come to mind: (1) Bush got Congressional authorization for Iraq while Trump acted as if Congress didn’t exist, and (2) Bush seemed to believe that removing Sadaam would bring democracy to the Middle East while Trump just wants to steal the oil.
Now if it turns out that we leave Venezuela be I see this as more similar to the Noriega abduction. But if we decide to stay in almost any capacity, it will almost certainly show another similarity – an almost total lack of credible planning for the future. In Iraq, Bush clearly had cultural blinders on, believing that if given the chance, Iraquis would immediately stop their internecine fighting and embrace democracy. Why would we need to plan when we would “be greeted as liberators”? In the case of Venezuela, Trump simply isn’t interested in planning. Going to meetings and listening to regional experts and (God forbid) reading something on the subject is somebody else’s job (Gen. Hertling has correctly pointed out the breathtaking incompetence and lack of concern for the future when Trump couldn’t point to the specific people who he said were going to be “running Venezuela”, especially considering this was AFTER the invasion.). It may have arisen from different causes, but in one case we had a President who didn’t think planning was necessary and in the other case we had a President who didn’t care. But in both cases, the upshot is that they both acted as if it would somehow all just work out.
I don’t know which is worse – being oblivious to the realities on the ground or being so greedy and depraved that any negative consequences don’t matter to you. (Note: According to the NYT and Mr. Google “Reports indicate that Nicolás Maduro's public dancing in the face of U.S. ultimatums was a significant factor in infuriating President Trump and influencing the decision to authorize military action against him in early 2026”. Invading a country and getting people killed is pretty depraved behavior when it’s based on someone simply mocking you.)
Another similarity is the fanciful notion floated by the supporters of the invasion that the leaders we took out were somehow a real threat to our national security.
There are, of course, many dissimilarities in the specifics such as the size of the country, the capability of its military, and the disposition of the population to being invaded. But I see these as more of a tactical consideration rather than a political one.
The reason that I raise this question is because The Bulwark is likely populated with many folks who supported the invasion of Iraq and don’t support the invasion of Venezuela, and I would like to hear them explain how anyone could have both of those beliefs (I may be wrong of course, but I’m pretty sure that I’m not).
And then they get to explain Grenada.
2) I originally believed that Trump’s coolness towards María Corina Machado becoming Venezuela’s President was because he didn’t think he could effectively cow her. She had faced down Maduro at great personal risk so I think she wouldn’t have bent the knee to Trump so easily. On the other hand Delcy Rodríguez is likely a pretty corrupt individual who will do whatever it takes to stay in power – which means Trump can easily bully her (I expect her to start saying nice things about Trump which apparently is already happening). Now it sounds like it was because she won the Nobel Peace Prize and Trump didn’t. So once again we see that Trump’s biggest concern is not the fate of the U.S. or Venezuela – it’s his hurt ego.
3) It’s a minor thing, but in his speech on Saturday, Trump said that the oil companies would “spend billions of dollars” fixing Venezuela’s oil infrastructure. Then in literally the next sentence he said that they would be reimbursed for the money they spend. These, of course, are two different things entirely. Why am I not surprised that Trump can’t provide consistent information? What a shock!
And, of course, the idea that there isn’t even a plan or (seemingly) a plan for a plan for the oil companies’ involvement just shows how rushed this operation was. Sort of lends credence to the story of Maduro’s dancing driving Trump to order the operation right now.
But I’d hold off on touting the initial coolness of the oil companies. First of all, there might very well be a lot of money to be made (especially if they are reimbursed for their initial costs – something I believe Trump will definitely do if it looks like it might be necessary to get them on board). And second, Trump won’t take “no” for an answer. He’ll publicly humiliate and threaten them until they give in.
4) Just a few weeks ago, I was thinking that Trump had given up on Greenland. Clearly I was wrong about that. It will be interesting to see how Trump tries to pull that off (assuming he really does). Is there no limit to the “national security” card that Trump repeatedly plays?
The price of gas is lower than the oil companies would like it to be, unfortunately. Why would they risk billions in Venezuela?