What was evident from today's balanced discussion of international diplomacy and domestic issues is that as Mr. Todd noted, 'we're in for more politics than Putin' because of the lack of bi-partisanship hence Congress's inability to get anything big done. However, when you have have Mitch McConnell, do you really need more Putin?
Fiona Hill noted that the United States inability speak with a unified voice on domestic issues spills over internationally as someone like Putin uses that. It's no secret to the world that the Republican party in the United States cannot be relied upon to negotiate in good faith. Allied and advisarial governments alike look at this intransience and know that stability within the United States and with regard to diplomacy predictability has gone out the window.
The United States, the champion of democracy, is rated a flawed one. The discussions today are the cases in point.
On infrastructure, according to Cornell Belcher and the consensus in Washington is that Democrats will not kill a bipartisan deal, they won't like a lot of the concessions to get there, but they'll swallow it. In essence they'll concede to an enhanced version of what Republicans call 'infrastructure' but by Senator Rob Portman's (R-OH) own admission the Republican plan is to borrow the money. In other words, deficit spend with the justification of it being a long-term investment, which by the way, makes no sense. What also didn't make sense was putting a user fee on people who purchase hybrid and electric cars, as the senator suggested. Ah, no... one should get a tax break for purchasing such automobiles.
And then there's our own version of Putin's 'no happiness in life' in the form of Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY).
A bipartisan group of Senators is negotiating said infrastructure package, which Mr. McConnell will kill because someone that he thinks shouldn't be taxed gets taxed.
A bipartisan police reform bill being negotiated by Senators Tim Scott (R-SC) and Cory Booker (D-NJ), which Mr. McConnell will kill because somewhere in it there will be a weakening of qualified immunity.
A moderate Democrat proposes some major concessions on a Voting Rights bill, but Mr. McConnell will kill it, having already deemed it unnecessary and of course because Stacey Abrams endorsed the compromise.
Speaking of which, to clearly illustrate the above, Republican strategist Brad Todd (no relation) said that Ms. Abrams purposely endorsed the compromise with the clear intent of defeating the notion. The degree of cynicism was unbelievable to the extent that no one on set, in fact, believed it.
So to answer the question of whether President Biden's meeting with Vladimir Putin was a success of a mistake...
Putin looked small and at time squeamish in interviews, press conferences and photos during the summit. It was necessary for President Biden to set down a marker and tell Putin what's what when it comes to his country's interference of the U.S.'s internal infrastucture and discourse as well as its agression toward allies of the United States, particularly when it comes to cyberattacks.
We liked how Ms. Hill framed the conversation when it comes to cyberattacks. She cited the example of what happened in Syria when Russian troops tried to decieve American forces by posing as separatists. Russian troops shot at American troops and got some. The Americans embarrassed the Russians because of their own foolishness. Think of that example, when it comes to cyber, she suggested.
We'll have to wait and see how Mr. Putin reacts in the coming months, but for right now, we don't need more Putin, we have our own champion of 'there's no happiness in life.'
Thank you very little, Mr. McConnell.
Panel: Amna Nawaz, PBS; Ashley Parker, The Washington Post; Cornell Belcher, Democratic Strategist; Brad Todd, Republican Strategist
No comments:
Post a Comment