Margaret Hoover is host of a weekly program about public affairs every Friday night on PBS. It’s called “Firing Line,” the same title as William Buckley’s talk show of decades back.
Margaret, a direct descendant of Herbert Hoover, is a Republican but is not especially conservative.
On this program, she interviews Elliot Abrams.
Elliot Abrams is an expert on foreign affairs and national security. He worked for President Reagan, President George H.W. Bush, and President Trump, in his first term. Abrams is known as a hawk.
What’s fascinating about the conversation is that Abrams is highly critical of Trump’s invasion.
He acknowledges that Maduro was a ruthless, brutal dictator who ran the Venezuelan economy into the ground and caused millions of Venezuelans to flee the country. Some of maduro’s top leaders have hidden bank accounts in which they have stowed hundreds of millions of dollars.
He asks why Trump failed to consult Congress.
He wonders why Trump ordered the arrest of Maduro and his wife but not the others who were indicted and are now running the country.
He wonders why Trump left the leaders of this corrupt regime in place. He assumes they will wait Trump out and continue to reap the rewards of their corruption. Given the cost and difficulty of reviving Venezuela’s oil industry, he doubts that any of the major American oil companies will risk doing so.
It’s a fascinating conversation. I urge you to watch.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
SMDH. Maduro didn’t run the Venezuelan economy into the ground. U.S. sanctions did that. Abrams is smart enough to know that, so everything he says after that is not worth listening to.
LikeLike
You seem to admire brutal dictators like Putin and Maduro. Trump grows more like them daily.
LikeLiked by 1 person
BTW, Putin is such a brutal dictator that he has a 70%+ approval rating in Russia (as determined by U.S. research). Maduro is such a brutal dictator that Venezuelans have been marching in the streets for two straight weeks now demanding his return.
LikeLike
In Venezuela, it’s illegal to show support for the removal of Maduro. That explains why people who are glad to see him gone stay quiet. 2 million Venezuelans fled the country because of his dictatorship.
I don’t believe Soviet propaganda. If Putin is so popular, why does he murder anyone who dares to challenge his rule?
You just proved my point.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Venezuelans, depending on their socioeconomic status fled because (a) the rich gusanos didn’t like Maduro’s redistributionist policies or (b) U.S. sanctions made life for ordinary Venezuelans miserable, by intent. That is standard U.S. policy toward any country that doesn’t fall into line. Call their ruler a tyrant, squeeze the people and then support a “spontaneous” uprising. Except there never has been a spontaneous uprising against either Chavez or Maduro. Sure, there have been some isolated protests by the right-wingers like Machado (which were not suppressed or in any way endangered). But the majority of people support Maduro, which is why he was able to arm them without expecting to get a bullet in the back. The version of the election that you’ve been fed is pure U.S. propaganda.
And, again, Putin holds a 70%+ approval rating AS DETERMINED BY U.S. RESEARCHERS. Not “Soviet” (LMAO – what decade do you live in?) propaganda.
LikeLike
Putin rules by force. He has never participated in a free election. His opponents are murdered.
LikeLike
And, no, I didn’t “prove your point”. That’s risible. If people support a leader, that doesn’t prove he’s a tyrant. What garbage! No U.S. president since Obama’s first term has had an approval rating above 50% – so I suppose by your “logic” (sic) that proves the U.S. is a democracy? Your thinking is so backward – I can’t tell if you don’t even realize it, or if you do and you’re just flailing desperately against the cognitive dissonance.
LikeLike
Eliot Abrams should still be in prison.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Beat me to the punch!
LikeLike
Yes!
LikeLike
Abrams is a war mongering scum dog. He should still be in prison for his role in the Iran Contra Affair.
LikeLike
Yes!
LikeLike
I guess I’m 3rd to note this but I’ll say it a bit differently:
Introducing Abrams without referencing his clearly illegal involvement and his adjudicatedly-illegal perjury to Congress about the Iran-Contra corruption, theft, war crimes, etc, is fundamentally irresponsible. You shouldn’t send people to look at this believing that Abrams is trustworthy and should be presumed honest.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Whether Abrams is scum or not, the point is that people who previously tucked under Trump’s tailfeather, are beginning to gain a voice. He’s saying the things that all of us are thinking and writing about.
If he has forum to speak against Trump, we need all the help we can get. At this point, I would sell my soul for there to be justice against Trump’s tyranny.
Also, Diane clearly says that Abrams is a hawk. She’s not giving him praise, but she is saying that it’s a good conversation that should be watched. To be informed, you have to listen to everyone. Read everything. Then use your voice for/against.
Thank you, Diane, for sharing the conversation.
LikeLike
Sorry, Diane, not Nan 🙂 I had just come from reading her post right before yours. The old mind gets confused sometimes lol.
LikeLike
Thanks, Amy.
I thought it more than interesting that even a flaming hawk like Elliott Abrams was stunned by Trump’s invasion of Venezuela and the absence of planning for “the day after.”
Abrams is a Reagan Republican. I assumed that readers would find his reaction interesting. I did.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Notwithstanding Abrham’s involvement in all the corruption in the Reagan/Bush years, it is still remarkable that he would rise from his crypt now. It is certainly symptomatic of the different constituency that makes up trump land Republican Party. The old guard is out.
I believe Abrhams when he says that destroying the NATO alliance troubles him. What amazes me is that he seemed not to see the connection between his own breaking of democratic norms and present day shattering thereof. The Reagan years paved the way for massive deficits brought about by republican tax cuts and expansion of the executive power.
All that said, it is obvious in Trump’s arbitrary treatment of Venezuela and his careless talk about Greenland that he wants to expand dramatically the power of the executive and to destroy our nato alliance. Both these goals are also goals of Putin.
LikeLiked by 1 person