The Hill Discovers 'Literally Murder' Is Only Republican When Convenient
The Hill's opinion piece decries Republicans for their alleged silence on Trump-era actions in Venezuela, framing it as 'literally letting Trump get away with murder.' This convenient outrage conveniently overlooks the fact that congressional silence on US-fueled 'murder'—ranging from proxy wars to sanctions that decimate civilian populations—is a bipartisan tradition. One might recall the
bipartisan applause for the bombing of Iraq (2003) or the continued funding of Saudi Arabia's war in Yemen, which has led to one of the world's worst humanitarian crises. Where was the 'literal murder' outcry from The Hill then? The media's selective indignation is striking. When a Democrat occupies the White House, the framing often shifts from 'murder' to 'complex geopolitical challenges' or
'promoting democracy.' It seems the definition of 'literal murder' in US foreign policy isn't about human cost, but about which party is currently holding the reins of the imperial project. Funny how that works.