Tangle - The U.S. strikes another Venezuelan boat.
Episode Date: October 8, 2025On Friday, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said that the United States had struck a small boat in international waters off the coast of Venezuela, killing four people. Hegseth alleged that... the boat was operated by the drug cartel Tren de Aragua and was trafficking narcotics to the United States. The strike is the fourth confirmed time the Trump administration has sunk a small craft it alleges was controlled by “narco-terrorists,” including a strike on September 2 that killed 11 and two others on September 15 and September 19. Tangle LIVE tickets are available!We’re excited to announce that our third installment of Tangle Live will be held on October 24, 2025, at the Irvine Barclay Theatre in Irvine, California. If you’re in the area (or want to make the trip), we’d love to have you join Isaac and the team for a night of spirited discussion, live Q&A, and opportunities to meet the team in person. You can read more about the event and purchase tickets here.Ad-free podcasts are here!To listen to this podcast ad-free, and to enjoy our subscriber only premium content, go to ReadTangle.com to sign up!You can read today's podcast here, our “Under the Radar” story here and today’s “Have a nice day” story here.Take the survey: Do you think the U.S. will go to war with Venezuela? Let us know.Disagree? That's okay. My opinion is just one of many. Write in and let us know why, and we'll consider publishing your feedback.You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here. Our Executive Editor and Founder is Isaac Saul. Our Executive Producer is Jon Lall.This podcast was written by: Isaac Saul and edited and engineered by Dewey Thomas. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75.Our newsletter is edited by Managing Editor Ari Weitzman, Senior Editor Will Kaback, Lindsey Knuth, Kendall White, Bailey Saul, and Audrey Moorehead. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Transcript
Discussion (0)
At Medcan, we know that life's greatest moments are built on a foundation of good health,
from the big milestones to the quiet winds.
That's why our annual health assessment offers a physician-led, full-body checkup
that provides a clear picture of your health today
and may uncover early signs of conditions like heart disease and cancer.
The healthier you means more moments to cherish.
Take control of your well-being and book an assessment today.
Medcan. Live well for life.
Visit medcan.com slash moments to get started.
From executive producer Isaac Saul, this is Tangle.
Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening, and welcome to the Tangle podcast, the place where you get views from across the political spectrum, some independent thinking,
in a little bit of our take. I'm your host for today's episode, Tangle's managing editor, Ari
Weizman, and I'm stepping in today because we're talking about the recent strikes on some
boats outside of Venezuela. This was something that we've been discussing covering for the last
two weeks, and I'd been kind of pulling my hair out over the fact that it's just been falling
under the radar. And now that it's today's edition, I'm the one who's going to be stepping forward
to deliver our take for today.
So before we get started, just a couple of quick announcements.
First, we are coming to a theater near you, if near you is in Irvine, California.
We've done a couple live shows in the past, and now, for the first time, the Tangle team is coming out to the West Coast.
We've got an exciting slate of guests for everybody.
Tangle's executive editor, Isaac Saul, and our editor-at-Large, Camille Foster will be sharing the stage with Anna Kasparian and Alex Thompson.
chance to get to see what we do
live with a couple high profile
and very smart guests. We'll also
be doing an audience Q&A and after the show
you'll have a chance to meet some
members of the Tango team. So we're going to put
a link to where you can go to get tickets
in the show notes and we'll hope to see as many of you
as we can out in Irvine, California
later this month.
All right, with that said, I'm going to
pass it over to John for quick hits
in today's main topic. Then I'll be right back
here for my take.
Thanks, Ari, and welcome, everybody.
Here are your quick hits for today.
First up, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee
on Tuesday, answering questions about investigations into President Trump's political
adversaries and her handling of files related to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
Bondi also defended the Trump administration's recent deployment of National Guard
troops to U.S. cities.
Number two, the White House has reportedly prepared a memo that says,
furloughed federal workers aren't guaranteed compensation for the time they are forced not to work
during the ongoing government shutdown, potentially denying back pay to as many as 750,000 federal
workers.
Number three, several U.S. airports experienced flight delays and cancellations due to staffing shortages
linked to the government shutdown.
Airports in Nashville, Dallas, and Chicago were among the locations operating with significantly
limited staffing on Tuesday.
Number four, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a case challenging Colorado.
Borders ban on treatments for minors intended to change their sexual orientation or gender identity,
also known as conversion therapy. Some justices appeared swayed by the plaintiff's argument
that the law discriminates against her religious views, while others seem open to sending
the case back to the lower court. And number five, the European Union proposed a 50% tariff
on steel imports and a reduction in its quota on tariff-free steel imports in response to the
global oversupply of the material and the United States' similar tariffs.
The Pentagon announcing another U.S. strike on an alleged drug trafficking boat decimated
off the coast of Venezuela. Secretary Pete Hegseth says four men were killed. He described them
as narco-terrorists. Despite questions about evidence and due process, the administration insists
lethal strikes like these will continue. On Friday, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth
said that the United States had struck a small boat in international waters off the coast of
Venezuela, killing four people. Hegsteth alleged that the boat was operated by the drug cartel
Trendaragua and was trafficking narcotics to the United States. The strike is the fourth
confirmed time the Trump administration has sunk a small craft it alleges was controlled by
narco-terrorists, including a strike on September 2nd that killed 11 and two others on September 15th
and September 19th. Much of the military's allegations, including the location of the strikes,
identities of those on board and the destination of the boats have not been confirmed,
and the total number of strikes may be as high as six.
Furthermore, drugs have only been confirmed to be retrieved from the September 19th strike.
The Dominican Republic announced it had recovered over 2,000 pounds of cocaine from the wreckage.
For context, earlier in his presidency, President Donald Trump designated Latin American drug cartels as terrorist groups.
The United States deployed several warships to the waters near Venezuela to counter maritime narcotics trafficking in August,
Simultaneously, the U.S. State Department increased its reward for information leading to the arrest of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro to $50 million, alleging that he led a drug trafficking organization.
In a notice to Congress last week, the Trump administration stated that the United States was in a non-international armed conflict with cartels operating out of Venezuela that it classified as terrorists.
According to recent reporting from The Guardian, the military operations have been orchestrated by the Homeland Security Council, which White House Deputy Chiefs.
of staff Stephen Miller leads.
The Maduro administration is not a government.
It is a drug cartel, a narco-trafficking organization that is running Venezuela, Miller said in an interview in September.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio has also criticized the Maduro administration, saying that the Trump
administration would not tolerate a cartel masquerading as a government operating in our own hemisphere.
On Thursday, the administration called off diplomatic outreach to Venezuela, citing Maduro's
reluctance to step down.
Recent reporting suggests that the United States.
could be preparing to launch an attack within the South American nation's borders.
The Maduro administration accuses the United States of lying about the strikes,
alleging that the United States is seeking to control Venezuela's oil reserves.
President Maduro has accused Trump of instigating a war
and denies that the people killed by the U.S. strikes were drug traffickers.
Many legal experts have called the strike's extrajudicial killings,
saying that the use of lethal force was illegal.
The White House says that the use of force against an international terrorist organization
is justified under the powers granted to the president under Article 2 of the Constitution.
Today, we'll cover what the right and left are saying about the strikes,
and then managing editor Ari Weitzman will give his take.
We'll be right back after this quick break. At Medcan, we know that life's greatest moments,
are built on a foundation of good health
from the big milestones to the quiet winds.
That's why our annual health assessment
offers a physician-led, full-body checkup
that provides a clear picture of your health today
and may uncover early signs of conditions
like heart disease and cancer.
The healthier you means more moments to cherish.
Take control of your well-being
and book an assessment today.
Medcan. Live well for life.
Visit medcan.com slash moments to get started.
All right, first up, let's start with what the raid is saying.
The right is mixed on the ongoing strikes, with some arguing that Trump is taking necessary
action to confront an immediate threat.
Some question the legal basis of the strikes.
Others say Trump's approach risks worsening the problem he wants to solve.
In PJ media, Sarah Anderson explored why the U.S. can't afford to ignore Venezuela anymore.
Niglas Maduro and his illegitment narco-terrorist Venezuelan government must fall,
not just for the sake of the majority of law-abiding Venezuelans who deserve to have the government
they voted for in summer of 2024, but for every single one of us in the U.S. as well, Anderson wrote.
Maduro isn't just some random dictator.
Venezuela isn't just a failed country.
It serves as a launch pad for cartels and narco-terrorists, poisoning and destabilizing American communities,
and it's a safe haven for terrorist groups like Hezbollah.
The Maduro regime itself is a cartel.
Venezuela faces one of the largest displacement crises in the world.
Between 2014 and 2024, 7.7 million Venezuelans fled their home country.
While many of those people coming from Venezuela just wanted to get away from Maduro and find a new life, some of them had darker motives, Anderson said.
Human trafficking, drug trafficking, terrorism, you name it.
That's how the TDA thugs get here.
That's how terrorists from other parts of the world, like Hezbollah, who wish ever.
every American dead, get here.
Venezuela is their starting point.
In the Washington Post, John Wu said Trump's boat strikes
risk crossing the line between law enforcement and war.
The Trump administration is right that illicit drugs
are inflicting more harm on the U.S. than most armed conflicts have.
More than 800,000 Americans have died of opioid overdoses since 1999,
but the U.S. cannot wage war against any source of harm to Americans.
Americans have died in car wrecks at an annual rate of about 40,000,
in recent years. The nation does not wage war on auto companies, Wu wrote. Our military and
intelligence agents seek to prevent foreign attacks that might happen in the future, not to punish
past conduct. To perform that anticipatory and preventative function, we accept that our military
and intelligence forces must act on probabilities, not certainties, to prevent threats that might
never be realized. The use of military force against the cartels may plunge the U.S. into a war
against Venezuela. But a conflict focused against the Maduro regime is not a broad, amorphous military
campaign against the illegal drug trade, which would violate American law and the Constitution,
Wu said. The White House has yet to provide compelling evidence in court or to Congress that drug cartels
have become arms of the Venezuelan government. That showing is needed to justify not only the
deportations, which were just overturned by the conservative U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit,
but also the naval attacks in the South American Seas.
In the Washington Examiner, Daniel DePetris criticized Trump's unconstitutional forever war against the cartels.
To say there is a litany of problems with this militarized approach would be an understatement.
Taking the fight to drug cartels has been done in the past, including in Colombia, Ecuador, and Mexico,
all driven by the assumption that military pressure will, over time, result in drug trafficking organizations fracturing into irrelevance.
But it hasn't turned out that way, DePetrizzan.
Mexico's murder rate is slowly going down, but the numbers remain staggeringly high compared
to what they were at the beginning of the century. Columbia used to be a success story, but now
it is viewed as a failure. Coca cultivation increased by more than 50 percent between 2022 and
2023. Trump can't order somebody's death simply by calling them a terrorist. Drug traffickers
may be the scum of the earth, but they aren't terrorists using violence to achieve a political
objective. To mix the two together, as the Trump administration is doing, has dangerous practical
implications to Petrus said. Let's remember, Venezuela's Tren de Aragua is not the only Latin American
criminal group labeled by the U.S. State Department as a terrorist organization. The list now includes
Vive Anzam and Grand Grief in Haiti, Los Joneros and Los Lobos in Ecuador, and a litany of
cartels in Mexico. By Trump's logic, the U.S. is now free to bomb any and all of these groups at whim.
All right, that is it for what the right is saying, which brings us to what the
left is saying.
The left continues to oppose the strikes, suggesting Trump is acting lawlessly.
Some argue the strikes have no legal justification.
Others criticize the media's coverage of the military actions.
In the New York Times, W.J. Hennigan wrote,
If we're at war, Americans deserve to know more about it.
The Trump administration told Congress this week that the United States is engaged in an armed
conflict with drug cartels. The average American knows vanishingly little about what its government
seeks to accomplish in this fight. Citizens aren't in possession of the metrics by which
to judge the administration's pursuit of those goals, Hennigan said. We haven't been told which
specific drugs they seek to stop. We haven't been told much about what specific groups they seek to
destroy. We haven't been told much about what legal authorities they are acting on. Withholding this
information from the American public is the administration's way to escape scrutiny.
So what's the ultimate goal? The Pentagon has amassed a wide range of firepower in the region
that indicates that its ambitions extend beyond destroying drugboats, F-35 stealth fighter jets,
a marine expeditionary unit, and a flotilla of warships. Perhaps, as experts have speculated,
the strikes are merely the opening salvo to push Venezuela's president, Nicolas Maduro, from power,
Hennigan wrote. The current deployment of U.S. forces, while sizable, still isn't enough for a
full-scale invasion, but we should know and hear more about the underpinning rationale for positioning
them there.
In just security, Marty Letterman described the legal flaws in Trump's actions.
The Trump administration's armed conflict justification is groundless.
No one, in the public, in Congress, or most importantly, in the military itself, should treat
it as a plausible legal basis that might justify lethal strikes on the alleged drug vessels
and the civilians on those boats, Letterman said.
It is necessary, at minimum, one, that the non-state
entity is an organized armed group with the sort of command structure that would render members
targetable on the basis of their status because they're subject to commanders' directions and
control, and two, that the organized armed group has engaged in armed violence against a state
that is of some intensity. Think of al-Qaeda's attack on September 11, 2001, and that has been
protracted. The Trump administration hasn't made any effort, not publicly anyway, to demonstrate that
any of the drug cartels in question are organized armed groups with the sort of command structure.
that would render members targetable on the basis of their status.
But even if it could do so, those cartels haven't engaged in any protracted or intense armed
violence against the United States, Letterman wrote.
When the president uses the term armed attack, he is referring not to any actual armed
attack as any states or international tribunals understand that term, but instead to the flow
of illicit narcotics into the United States.
The distribution of dangerous narcotics, however, isn't an armed attack or armed violence
in the sense used in international law.
In common dreams, Joseph Bouchard asked,
why hasn't the mainstream media
pressed the administration on these strikes
being illegal and dangerous?
Within hours of these strikes breaking,
major outlets were repeating the Trump administration's line
that this was a strike on a drug boat.
According to this framing,
the attacks were justified, necessary,
and part of a broader war on drug trafficking.
Virtually none of those outlets
even entertained the obvious legal and ethical questions.
Instead, they served as stenosis.
for the administration, Bouchard said.
This is reminiscent of the Iraq war era, when corporate media parroted the Bush administration's
ludicrous arguments paving the way for an invasion and occupation that would kill at least
200,000 maim millions and destroy American democracy further.
Due process was ignored.
There was no trial, no arrest, no attempt at interdiction, just summary execution.
And the strikes occurred in Venezuelan territorial waters, not in an international conflict
zone. If another country did this, say Russia bombing a fishing boat in the Baltic or China attacking
smugglers near Taiwan, the Western media would have declared it a war crime the same day, Bouchard
said. Add to this list of Western double standards in the international arena, we are seeing
the destruction of the liberal order in real time. All right, let's head over to Ari for his take.
I'm sorry, but are we going to war with Venezuela?
I know there's been a lot going on lately.
Bouts of political violence, ceasefire negotiations of Gaza,
the National Guard deployments of congressional hearing with the Attorney General,
the Supreme Court term just got started.
The government is literally shut down.
But a new extraordinary use of military.
military force to kill alleged drug traffickers outside of U.S. borders should probably be
headline news everywhere. And the fact that it's not that the headlines take on a blasé
tone of, oh, by the way, the U.S. sank another Venezuelan boat, is making me feel a little
crazy. A month ago, on our suspension of the rules podcast, I personally channeled this
attitude of non-plus acceptance, which I regret doing. But I did. I argued. I argued.
that, based on Trump's pattern of behavior, the administration would present a dramatic show
of force and deliver explosive rhetoric before claiming some kind of victory moving on.
The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior, and we've seen this show before
with this administration. Mexico and Canada were both targets of emergency orders due to
what Trump described as, quote, the flood of illegal aliens and drugs pouring across our
borders. Then they reached the deal, Trump declared victory, and we moved on. Iran was also the
target of a military strike. Then they reached the deal, Trump declared victory, and we moved on.
Those situations are far from totally resolved, but Trump and the media and the rest of us,
including Tangle, have all moved on all the same. So why would this be any different?
I expected some bluster, maybe a few more boats to be sunk than the U.S. and Venice,
Venezuela would reach some kind of deal, probably involving trade, likely petroleum,
Trump would declare a victory, and we would move on.
Then, as much as our podcast listeners know that I loathe to credit Isaac,
he said something on that podcast that stopped me in my tracks.
We were talking about how Trump will probably sink a couple more boats,
but that really trivializes what that means.
It's really him ordering the killing of additional handfuls of people,
without any attempted interdiction, without a trial, without conviction, all for alleged drug smuggling.
This is an insane normalization of what should be a major, stop you in your tracks, likely illegal use of military force.
After the first strike in early September, we were pretty clear where we stood.
We criticized the lack of evidence for the government's claims.
We question the legality of the attack, and we called the military operation that killed 11 to be Trump's most lethal use of
executive authority yet. But now, the U.S. has struck at least three more boats off the coast
of Venezuela, and we still don't know who was on them, where they were headed, and even if they were
in international waters at the time. How is this not a bigger deal? But let's back up for a sec and
talk about Venezuela. Venezuela has certainly been inviting some kind of intervention from the U.S.
over the last few years. Both the Trump and Biden administrations have said Maduro's election was
illegitimate. As president, he has overseen hyperinflation and allowed street crime and international
drug trafficking to flourish. This has impacted the United States, where the influx of Venezuelan migrants
has contributed to the overwhelming of our immigration system. And Trenda-Iragua, or TDA,
gang members have been incredibly accused of everything from drug dealing to human trafficking to
murder. The instability of the Venezuelan government and the inability of the Maduro administration
to control an international criminal organization does justify a U.S. response.
But we have other tools at our disposal for how to respond. Sanctions.
De-certification campaigns, joint task forces with local governments, even trade deals,
which the administration has proven they are pretty friendly towards doing.
Or we could just capture these boats and question those on board.
That's been the standard approach to suspected drug runners.
and it's something we're already doing in the Pacific.
The actions of TDA gang members simply do not justify the United States engaging in extrajudicial killings.
A lot of people with far more experience covering international affairs than I do have said it better than I could.
Here are some quotes from three of them.
Our procedures and practices for identifying lawful targets are extremely robust.
In my experience, the principles of distinction and proportionality that the United States applies are not,
just recited at meetings. They are implemented rigorously through the planning and execution of
lethal operations to ensure that such operations are conducted in accordance with all applicable law,
wrote political scientists Mika Zenko. It is vital that the legal basis, and to the extent possible,
factual basis, for our targeted killing policy, be publicly debated so that Congress and the
American people can decide an informed way if they approve or if they wanted a deeper congressional
role, wrote former Bush legal counsel Jack Smith. If a person is driving a truck in the desert of
Yemen, he's not actively engaged in any warfare against the United States of America. It is
absolutely criminal for the president to kill that person. The authority simply doesn't exist,
and it's denied expressly by the Constitution, said Judge Andrew Napolitano.
Oh, by the way, none of those quotes were about Trump strikes on these alleged drugboats.
All of them were about President Barack Obama's drone strikes in Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen.
And our deadly interventions in those three countries also serve as a reminder that extrajudicial killings
typically fail to resolve the unrest intentions that create international strife.
Just look at all three of them.
Pakistan is still home to burgeoning in powerful terrorist groups.
the State Department has Somalia at its highest level of risk for American travelers,
and we all know about the Houthis in Yemen.
As for what happens next, I truly don't know.
But the situation does look extremely precarious.
My prediction that Trump would strike a few more boats has sadly come true.
But the Trump two-step of a quick deal and a big headline doesn't seem to be on the horizon.
In fact, the opposite seems to be the case.
Reliable reporting has indicated that high-ranking members of the administration
are considering strikes within Venezuela itself or even military action against Maduro's government.
The naval operations in Caribbean haven't been sudden or covert.
They've been intentionally provocative and carried out over the course of the past few months now.
And the administration's stance on Maduro has been steadily getting more and more aggressive.
In other words, it's very possible.
that we haven't seen the final escalation
towards Venezuela. Despite all this,
I still don't think this president
is ever going to be the one who stands up in front of Congress
and asks it to officially declare war.
Even if Rubio, Hegsef, Miller,
and teams of people behind the scenes
are edging us towards putting boots on the ground
in a petro state, our favorite.
Trump has shown time and again
that he will make the final call,
and he seems to care a lot about his image as a peacemaker,
and despite some hardlining and isolated military actions,
he has also been consistent about not bringing the U.S. into prolonged military entanglements.
I don't feel highly confident in this read,
but if I had to make a call one way or another,
I'd say that Trump is probably going to keep being the person he's always been,
and he'll find an off-ramp.
It worries me that I can't see what that off-ramp could look like,
but at the end of the day, I think his attachment to his image,
and pressure from the MAGA base
are going to motivate Trump to find one.
We'll be right back after this quick break.
At MedCan, we know that life's greatest moments
are built on a foundation of good health,
from the big milestones to the quiet winds.
That's why our annual health assessment
offers a physician-led, full-body checkup
that provides a clear picture of your health today.
and may uncover early signs of conditions like heart disease and cancer.
A healthier you means more moments to cherish.
Take control of your well-being and book an assessment today.
Medcan. Live well for life.
Visit medcan.com slash moments to get started.
Okay, that's it for my take today, which brings us to your questions answered.
Today's reader question comes from Cameron in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, who asks,
I was wondering what you all thought of the Pentagon reassigning 600 military lawyers to be temporary immigration judges.
Isaac has mentioned one of the solutions to our immigration masses, more immigration judges, so is this the right move?
Thanks for the question, Cameron, and just to catch us up, in late August, the Trump administration approved a plan to send up to 600 military lawyers to serve as temporary immigration judges in the Justice Department.
The first group of these temporary judges started training on Monday,
and about half of them will begin a six-month term as soon as their training ends.
If the Trump administration successfully appoints 600 new judges,
it will roughly double the current number of working judges,
even after 139 left their positions, were fired, or were involuntarily transferred.
On its face, dumbling the number of working judges seems like a step in the right direction,
especially when over 3.4 million immigration cases are currently pending.
frankly, the number of judges probably couldn't increase quickly enough to deal with all these
cases in a timely manner without a program like this, even if more experienced judges had not
been forced out of their positions. Of course, the experience, or lack thereof, that these lawyers
have, provides a point of contention. The Army and National Guard asked for candidates with experience
in, quote, administrative law, immigration law, service as a military judge, end quote, or related
fields, and at least some are likely to have enough experience elsewhere to qualify them
to enter the position. But other applicants may not have much or any experience in these fields.
At the same time, asking 600 military lawyers to fill these roles at a temporary capacity
on a condensed timeline and after firing over 100 judges doesn't seem like a robust long-term
solution. And it's possible, perhaps even likely, that some of the inexperienced judges won't be able to
adjudicate the enormous backlog of cases fairly. On net, it's a semi-desperate solution to a very
desperate issue. But any effort to clear this backlog is going to be good for our system as a whole.
That's it for our reader question today, and that's it for my contribution to the podcast today.
So I'm going to send it back over to John for the rest of the podcast, and I'll talk to you all soon.
You'll hear from me on a suspension of the rules podcast this Friday. Until then, have a good day.
Thanks, Ari. Here's your under-the-radar story for today, folks.
Gold futures have risen 50% this year, and on Tuesday, they surpassed $4,000 per ounce for the first time.
The surge has coincided with a 10% drop in the U.S. Dollar Index and investor uncertainty over President Trump's global tariffs and trade policies.
Central banks and retail investors in particular have been buying more gold this year,
and the price recently spiked after the Federal Reserve cut interest rates in September.
However, on Monday, Bank of America advised investors that gold could face upward trend exhaustion
with the potential for considerable correction in the final months of 2025.
CNBC has this story, and there's a link in today's episode description.
All right, next up is our numbers section.
Between fiscal year 2017 and fiscal year 2024, the United States,
provided Venezuela with approximately $336 million of funding for democracy, development, and health
assistance. 17 total people were reported killed in the three U.S. strikes on alleged drug vessels
in September, while four people were reported killed in the U.S. strike on the alleged drug vessel
on Friday. There are approximately 4,000 sailors and Marines that are on three amphibious
assault ships deployed to the Caribbean waters. According to the betting website, Polly Market,
as of 1130 a.m. Eastern time, the odds of a.m.
engagement between the United States and Venezuela by the end of 2025 is 54%, and the odds of
a military engagement between the U.S. and Venezuela by the end of October is 29%.
According to a September 2025 U.Gov poll, 36% of U.S. adults approve of sending U.S. Navy
ships to the sea around Venezuela, while 38% disapprove.
16% of U.S. adults approve of U.S. using military force to invade Venezuela, while 62% disapprove.
And last but not least, our Happy Nice Day story.
One day while working as a shop cart collector in Toowoomba, Australia,
Scott Shaw found a large, strange book that looked like a Bible.
Unsure of what to make of it, Shaw decided to leave it inside a friend's car as a practical joke.
When his friend's wife saw the book, she thought it might be important,
and soon discovered that the book was a stolen, handwritten ledger of locals who had served in World War II.
Now, the ledger, still in good condition, has been safely.
returned to the church that kept it. ABC Southern Queensland has this story, and there's a link
in today's episode description. All right, everybody, that's it for today's episode. As always,
if you'd like to support our work, please go to retangle.com, where you can sign up for a newsletter
membership, podcast membership, or a bundled membership that gets you a discount on both.
We'll be right back here tomorrow. For Isaac and the rest of the crew, this is John Law signing off.
Have a great day, y'all. Peace.
Our executive editor and founder is me. Isaac Saul, and our executive.
producer is John Lull. Today's episode was edited and engineered by Dewey Thomas.
Our editorial staff is led by managing editor Ari Weitzman with senior editor Will
Kback and associate editors Hunter Casperson, Audrey Moorhead, Bailey Saw, Lindsay Canuth, and Kendall
White. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75. To learn more about Tangle and to sign up
for a membership, please visit our website at reetangle.com.
at medcan we know that life's greatest moments are built on a foundation of good health from the big milestones to the quiet winds
that's why our annual health assessment offers a physician-led full-body checkup that provides a clear picture of your health today
and may uncover early signs of conditions like heart disease and cancer the healthier you means more moments to cherish
take control of your well-being and book an assessment today
Medcan, live well for life.
Visit medcan.com slash moments to get started.