Core Viewpoint - Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene criticized President Trump's military strike against Venezuela, questioning its rationale and highlighting inconsistencies in the administration's approach to drug trafficking and narco-terrorism [1][5]. Group 1: Criticism of Military Action - Greene questioned why the Trump administration did not take action against Mexican cartels if the goal was to save American lives from drugs, emphasizing that fentanyl, responsible for over 70% of U.S. drug overdose deaths, comes from these cartels [2][3]. - She argued that the military action against Venezuela seemed more focused on controlling oil supplies rather than genuinely combating drug trafficking [4]. Group 2: Political Implications - Greene's comments reflect a growing divide within the Republican party regarding foreign policy and military intervention, suggesting a shift in priorities towards domestic issues [5]. - Her outspoken nature on these matters may continue to influence political discourse even as her congressional tenure concludes [5].

Geopolitical & Military Operations - US Southern Command reports another boat strike in the Eastern Pacific, resulting in four fatalities [1] - Since September 2nd, there have been approximately two dozen strikes [2] - Controversy surrounds the legality of the initial strike and subsequent strikes, particularly concerning survivors in the water [2][3] - Admiral Bradley and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegs have been justifying the decision to members of Congress and senators [4] - Concerns exist regarding the "double tap" strategy, even among Republicans [5] - Strikes are occurring in both the Eastern Pacific and the Caribbean, roughly in equal proportions [6] Economic & Political Strategy - The US has shifted from a largely military-based pressure campaign to an economic one against Venezuela [6] - The US seized an oil tanker last week [6] - President Trump intends to halt all sanctioned tankers [7] - The Trump administration aims to pressure Nicholas Maduro, with a stated interest in both drugs and oil [7]

Drug Interdiction Strategy Comparison - The report contrasts Coast Guard's law enforcement approach with DoD's military strikes against drug vessels, questioning the legal justification for the latter [1][2] - The industry suggests that military strikes may hinder intelligence gathering and prosecution efforts, as killing suspects prevents obtaining information and achieving legal convictions [3] Resource Allocation and Effectiveness - The analysis indicates that the Coast Guard's methods, including precision gunfire to disable engines, are understood and accepted by partner nations [5] - The industry argues that the primary issue is not a lack of knowledge or capability, but insufficient resources dedicated to interdiction efforts [2][7] International Partnerships and Intelligence - The report highlights the risk of losing international partnerships and intelligence sources due to the "strike first, look later" approach [4][6] - The industry emphasizes the importance of cooperation with other nations and maintaining established relationships for effective drug interdiction [5]

Security & Defense - US military reports eight fatalities in recent strikes targeting suspected drug boats [1]

Crime & Safety - France is experiencing panic due to children falling victim to lethal violence from drug gangs in Marseille [1] Geopolitical Impact - Drug gang violence is escalating to a level that causes national concern in France [1]

It's pop quiz time. Don't worry, this one's easy. Try to think about what the following people have in common.First, Ross Olrich, sentenced to life in prison 10 years ago for building what was at the time the single largest digital black market for illegal drugs, and other illicit items. Then there's Larry Hoover, Chicago gang boss, convicted in 1997 of conspiracy, extortion, and money laundering. The third name is Garnett Gilbert Smith.He's a Baltimore drug kingpin found guilty of charges related to distri ...

Uh, Republican Senator Eric Schmidt of Missouri repeatedly dodged questions about whether he supported President Trump's pardon of former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernandez, who was convicted of conspiring to traffic 400 tons of cocaine into the US. The Republican lawmaker instead insulted the show's host and attempted to defend Trump's boat strikes while claiming to not know the details of the widely reported pardon story. I think that happened here.>> Do you support this pardon of the former Hondur ...

At a ceremony last night for the Kennedy Center honores, President Trump said the US military is prepared to launch even more air strikes in the Caribbean. This time on land as he announced a drop in drug trafficking by boat with numbers that can't be substantiated. By the way, drugs coming into our country by sea down 94%.Okay, down 94%. And I'm trying to figure out who the other 6% is because frankly I think they are the most that they got to be the bravest people. Who are the 6% that are still trying to ...

And joining me now is the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee who was in those briefings this week, Republican Tom Cotton of Arkansas. Senator Cotton, welcome back to Meet the Press. >> Thanks for having me on, Kristen.>> Thank you so much for being here after a very big week. I want to ask you about our new reporting. NBC News is reporting this morning that defense secretary Pete Hgsith, his order was to kill all 11 individuals on that boat because they were on a list of narco terrorists who inte ...

Legality of Military Action vs Police Action - The central question revolves around whether the actions against drug boats are considered legal, hinging on the perspective of whether it's a war or law enforcement scenario [1][2][3] - A second strike is deemed legitimate if the situation is classified as war, but not if it's considered law enforcement [3] - The President possesses considerable authority as commander in chief to initiate war and designate groups as terrorists, potentially justifying the Pentagon's actions [8] - The challenge to the President's authority and the legality of the strikes would likely need to be resolved in the courts [7][8] Political and Public Perception - Reactions to the strikes are heavily politicized, with Democrats expressing concerns and labeling it as potentially a case of murder [4] - Members of Congress hold differing views on the footage of the strikes, largely influenced by their political affiliations [6] - Public trust in the administration's intelligence regarding the individuals on the boats being drug traffickers is questionable, reflecting a broader skepticism towards official pronouncements [10][11] - Questioning the intelligence pronouncements from the intelligence community and the White House has become more prevalent [11] Evidence and Transparency - The administration emphasized having intelligence confirming drug trafficking activities [9] - The President supported the public release of the video footage related to the strikes [12] - Republicans who initially questioned the strikes became more comfortable with the narrative after viewing the video [13][14]