Massie Questions Venezuela Action While Colleagues Greenlight Genocide
When Rep. Thomas Massie questioned the legal basis for Trump's past actions in Venezuela, he touched on a fundamental issue: executive overreach in foreign policy. The Hill, and much of mainstream media, report this as a specific instance of principled opposition. What they conveniently ignore is the deafening silence from many of Massie's colleagues when it comes to the ongoing, legally
questionable, and thoroughly funded actions of the Israeli government in Gaza. The principle of questioning executive action abroad apparently only applies when the target isn't a recipient of billions in US aid. One might wonder if the legal framework for international intervention only becomes critically important when it doesn't involve an ally, or perhaps when AIPAC hasn't funneled significant
donations to key decision-makers. No such inquiries from The Hill-featured lawmakers about the legality of providing advanced weaponry used against civilian populations, or the continuous violation of international law via expansionist settlements—those actions apparently fall under a different, more acceptable, foreign policy rubric. It appears some interventions are more equal—or more legal—than
others.