In this episode, Royal Webster and Cathy Cannon slow down a fast-moving and emotional moment in U.S. foreign policy.

As news breaks about U.S. military action in Venezuela, public debate has quickly split between technical explanations and raw public reaction. This conversation brings those two perspectives together.

Royal draws on his military experience to explain what actually happened — and what didn’t — clarifying the difference between strikes, invasions, and occupations, and why military force has real limits when it comes to creating stability or democracy.

Cathy focuses on political psychology and voter perception, unpacking why this moment feels familiar and unsettling to so many Americans. She explains how historical patterns, language choices, and the merging of military power with corporate interests trigger alarm — even before all the facts are known.

Together, they explore:

• Why people react to patterns, not timelines
• How “bad man” rhetoric short-circuits democratic debate
• Why legality and process matter as much as outcomes
• What happens when power moves faster than accountability

This episode isn’t about defending or condemning a single country or leader. It’s about understanding how power is exercised, how trust is built or broken, and why constitutional restraint matters most when tensions are high.

Calm, honest, and grounded — this is a conversation for listeners who want clarity instead of chaos.