by William Skink

Rachel Maddow called John Bolton a human and expressed concern that his job to overthrow the Venezuelan President is being undermined by his boss, Comrade Trump.

Did you get that? Rachel Maddow, on MSDNC, is worried that a neocon sociopath like Bolton is being kept from finishing off a coup in another country.

I know I am not the only one who sees how insane this is.

Before I ditched cable (and before Democrats ditched opposition to war) I was an avid viewer of Maddow. Those were the good old days, when Bush was prez and the world made sense.

Now up is down, and Tucker Carlson on Fox is where one has to go to get a meager hint of opposition to foreign policy insanity, like the Trump regime’s pathetic push to overthrow Maduro. Caitlin Johnstone does a fine job pointing this insanity out. Here is how she frames Maddow’s performance:

On a recent segment about Donald Trump’s controversial phone call with Vladimir Putin, Maddow expressed concern for the way the White House’s mustachioed Thanos wannabe has been unable to push back against Russian interests in Venezuela with sufficient aggression. She discussed Trump’s nonsensical claim that Russia isn’t active in the affairs of its ally Venezuela (which propaganda mouthpieces like Maddow are calling “interfering” now), then went on a rambling tirade about how this impedes Bolton’s bloodthirsty instincts as though that’s a bad thing.

“Hey, John Bolton, hey, Mike Pompeo, are you guys enjoying your jobs right now?” Maddow asked. “You each thought your job this week was to name and shame and threaten and counter Russian government involvement in Venezuela while sabre-rattling about how everyone better get out of the way because the US is really mad about it. Guys, turns out your actual job is figuring out why you work for a president who says whatever Vladimir Putin tells him. I mean, just to be clear here, how do you come to work anymore if you’re John Bolton?”

“Regardless of what you thought of John Bolton before this, and his whole career and his track record,” Maddow continued, waving her hand dismissively as if to suggest that John Bolton’s murderous track record is somehow irrelevant or unimportant. “Just think of John Bolton as a human being. This is what John Bolton, human being, thought his job was this week.”
…
“I mean John Bolton, God bless you,” Maddow continued after running a clip of Bolton’s previous hawkish rhetoric toward Russia and Venezuela. “Good luck delicately and carefully shaving around that impressive mustache when you have to look at yourself in the mirror in coming days, Mister National Security Advisor. I mean, this is who you’re working for. You thought your job was to push Russia back because of what they’re doing in Venezuela. The president spent an hour on the phone with Vladimir Putin today; Putin told him he’s not in Venezuela, so now the new position of the US government is that Putin’s not in Venezuela. What’s your job?”

That’s right, the host of MSNBC’s top show dedicated a segment to hang-wringing over the notion that John Bolton wants to escalate tensions with Russia and Venezuela worse than they already are, but Trump won’t let him and it makes him sad.

It’s blathering anti-Russia propaganda like this that exacerbates Trump Derangement Syndrome for MSDNC viewers.

And now, to contrast the Madcow, here’s Tucker:

Contrast Maddow’s “Trump is making John Bolton act too nice” monologue with a recent segment on Fox News’ Tucker Carlson Tonight, conducted in the aftermath of last week’s attempt at a military coup by opposition leader Juan Guaido. Journalist Anya Parampil appeared on the show and delivered a scathing criticism of the Trump administration’s heinous actions in Venezuela based on her findings during her recent visit to that country. She was allowed to speak uninhibited and without attack, even bringing up the Center for Economic and Policy Research study which found Trump administration sanctions responsible for the deaths of over 40,000 Venezuelans, a story that has gone completely ignored by western mainstream media.

Carlson introduced the interview with a clip from an earlier talk he’d had with Florida Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart, who supports direct military action to overthrow Maduro and whose arguments Carlson had attacked on the basis that it would cost American lives and cause a refugee crisis. Parampil said the media is lying about what’s happening in Venezuela and compared Guaido’s coup attempt to a scenario in which Hillary Clinton had refused to cede the election, banded together 24 US soldiers and attempted to take the White House by force.

“I was there for a month earlier this year,” Parampil said. “The opposition has no popular support. Juan Guaido proved today, once again, that he will only ride in to power on the back of a US tank. And what’s more, we hear about a humanitarian crisis there, Tucker, but what we never hear is that is the intended result of US sanctions that have targeted Venezuelans since 2015, sanctions which according to a report that was released just last week by the Center for Economic and Policy Research has led to the deaths of 40,000 Venezuelans, and will lead to the death of thousands more if these sanctions aren’t overturned. President Trump, if he truly cared for the Venezuelan people, and the American people for that matter, he would end this disastrous policy. He would end the sanctions, and he would look into John Bolton’s eyes, into Elliott Abrams’ eyes, into Mike Pompeo’s eyes, and say you are fired. You are leading me down a disastrous path, another war for oil. Something the president said–he was celebrated by the American people when he said Iraq was a mistake, and now he’s willing to do it again.”

“I believe in an open debate,” Carlson responded. “And I’m not sure I agree with everything you’ve said, but I’m glad that you could say it here. And you were just there, and I don’t think you’d be allowed on any other show to say that.”

“No I certainly don’t,” Parampil replied. “And I really appreciate you giving me the opportunity, because President Trump promised to drain the swamp, and he flooded his national security team with that exact swamp.”

“Well I agree with that actually,” said Carlson, who had a heated exchange with Bolton last year immediately before his appointment as National Security Advisor.

Is Tucker Carlson as good as it’s going to get for those opposed to US meddling in Venezuela’s domestic affairs? Apparently so. According to FAIR, zero percent of elite commentators oppose regime change in Venezuela:

A FAIR survey of US opinion journalism on Venezuela found no voices in elite corporate media that opposed regime change in that country. Over a three-month period (1/15/19–4/15/19), zero opinion pieces in the New York Times and Washington Post took an anti–regime change or pro-Maduro/Chavista position. Not a single commentator on the big three Sunday morning talkshows or PBS NewsHour came out against President Nicolás Maduro stepping down from the Venezuelan government.

Of the 76 total articles, opinion videos or TV commentator segments that centered on or gave more than passing attention to Venezuela, 54 (72 percent) expressed explicit support for the Maduro administration’s ouster. Eleven (14 percent) were ambiguous, but were only classified as such for lack of explicit language. Reading between the lines, most of these were clearly also pro–regime change. Another 11 (14 percent) took no position, but many similarly offered ideological ammo for those in support.

Nice free press we have here in America, isn’t it? Disgusting.