When Process Becomes the Distraction

When Process Becomes the Distraction

This piece isn’t a defense of executive overreach. It’s a critique of selective outrage — focusing on procedure while refusing to acknowledge corruption, illegitimacy, and real harm.

Let’s slow this down for a second and talk straight.

Nicolás Maduro didn’t suddenly become controversial because of American politics or because Donald Trump woke up one day and decided to cause chaos. Long before this moment, long before now, a lot of countries never recognized Maduro as the legitimate president of Venezuela.

That matters.

His elections were disputed. Opposition leaders were jailed or silenced. Independent media was shut down. Courts were controlled. Power was centralized. That’s not democracy, and deep down everyone knows it — even the people who won’t say it out loud now.

So let’s stop pretending this was some normal, duly elected leader quietly running a sovereign country and minding his own business.

Let’s Be Honest About the Damage

Under Maduro, Venezuela didn’t just struggle — it collapsed.

The economy was destroyed.
Hyperinflation wiped out people’s savings.
Food and medicine became scarce.
Millions of people fled the country.

Regular people paid the price, while the people at the top lived well. That didn’t happen by accident, and it didn’t start with sanctions. It started with corruption, theft, and absolute power.

And the damage didn’t stop at Venezuela’s borders.

Drugs, Crime, and Real Consequences

Drugs don’t magically appear in American cities.

They move through routes.
They move through protection.
They move because people at the top allow it.

When boats are intercepted or shot at in the ocean, it’s not because they’re delivering humanitarian aid. It’s because those routes are tied to narcotics, organized crime, and violence that kills real people here at home.

Thousands of Americans die every year from drugs. That’s not a political argument — that’s funerals, broken families, and destroyed communities.

So when the United States targets a regime accused of facilitating that kind of damage, acting shocked feels dishonest.

We’ve Been Here Before: Panama and Noriega

This isn’t new.

In 1989, the U.S. went into Panama and removed Manuel Noriega.

Why?

Because he was illegitimate.
Because he was corrupt.
Because he was tied to drug trafficking.
Because he destabilized the region.

Nobody back then pretended Noriega was just a misunderstood sovereign leader who deserved endless patience. We acknowledged reality: he was doing real damage, and leaving him in place wasn’t an option anymore.

That wasn’t imperialism. It was recognizing consequences.

Sovereignty Isn’t a Suicide Pact

Yes, Venezuela is a sovereign country.

No one is arguing that the United States should run around the world overthrowing governments for fun or profit.

But sovereignty doesn’t mean you get to:

• destroy your economy

• crush your people

• enable drugs and organized crime

• destabilize neighboring countries

• and hide behind borders like nothing’s happening

Especially when you’re in the same hemisphere and the damage spills directly into everyone else’s backyard.

At some point, pretending “hands off” becomes willful blindness.

The Afghanistan Contradiction

Here’s where the double standard becomes impossible to ignore.

When Joe Biden pulled out of Afghanistan, it was an absolute disaster.

People falling off airplanes.
Allies left behind.
The Taliban back in power in a matter of days.
Billions of dollars in military equipment abandoned.

There was no clean congressional process. No national consensus. No perfect execution. It happened fast, and the consequences were brutal.

And yet, you didn’t hear many Democrats screaming about presidential authority then.

The message was:

“It had to end. Staying was worse.”

Intent mattered.
Outcome mattered.
Context mattered.

Now fast-forward to Venezuela.

Same Government, Different Rules

In Venezuela, we’re talking about removing an illegitimate leader accused of corruption, repression, economic destruction, and enabling drugs.

No occupation.
No endless war.
No mass bombing campaign.

And suddenly the loudest voices aren’t asking:

• Was this man legitimate?

• Did he destroy his country?

• Did he cause harm beyond his borders?

They’re asking:

“Did the president follow every procedural step?”

So which standard are we using?

Because it can’t change depending on who’s in office.

You Can’t Flip the Rules When It’s Convenient

Either:

• outcomes matter, or

• process matters more than consequences

But you don’t get to switch the rule based on party loyalty.

If Americans were told to accept the Afghanistan withdrawal because “enough damage had already been done,” then it’s not unreasonable to ask why removing a destructive, illegitimate leader in our own hemisphere suddenly becomes unthinkable.

That contradiction is what people are reacting to — even if they can’t always put it into words.

Congress, Gridlock, and Reality

People love to say, “This should’ve gone through Congress.”

Okay — when?

Congress can barely pass a budget. Can’t fix immigration. Can’t deal with drugs. Can’t even agree on basic facts without turning everything into theater.

That doesn’t mean presidents should act like kings.
But pretending Congress is some nimble, moral authority that moves quickly when lives are on the line isn’t honest either.

Sometimes things happen because paralysis itself becomes dangerous.

Let’s Not Pretend This Was About Personal Gain

This wasn’t a real estate deal.
This wasn’t lining pockets.
This wasn’t self-enrichment.

You can criticize the method — that’s fair.
But pretending this was done for personal benefit doesn’t pass the smell test.

Where I Land

My view is simple.

If someone:

• didn’t legitimately win

• destroyed their economy

• crushed their people

• enabled crime and drugs

• destabilized the region

Then removing them is not the moral problem.

How it was done matters — but it’s secondary to the reality of what was stopped.

Ignoring that because politics demand outrage doesn’t make us principled.
It makes us unserious.

Final Thought

This isn’t about cheering Trump.
It’s not about ignoring the Constitution.
And it’s not about pretending America should run the world.

It’s about refusing to pretend that stopping a corrupt, illegitimate, destructive leader is somehow worse than letting him keep going.

We should be able to debate authority without losing moral clarity.

The fact that this even has to be said tells you how broken the conversation has become.