"For God's sake, this man cannot remain in power."
USA Today's Susan Page explained that President Biden said what everyone in Washington is thinking and discussing which is Vladimir Putin needs to be out of power. However, the president saying the quiet part out loud is no doubt a mistake because unless some drastic, unlikely shift happens in the Kremlin, The West, NATO, and the United States are going to have to talk to the Russian dictator.
Two more points there - Putin is a dictator, no other description is applicable, and this dictator is going to need to talk to the west unless he also wants the task of trying to build an economy from scratch in the 21st century, which is where he is heading.
As The Dispatch's Stephen Hayes explained, it's not so much the adhoc statements themselves but that the administration keeps walking things back that have an effect on how Americans perceive his handling of the conflict.
However, a matter of perspective is needed here. Was it a mistake to say that Putin needs to go, many would say 'yes' because it doesn't show message discipline and it's not the official policy of the United States. Does an off-script statement like this become dangerous as Ms. Page asked? We'll have to wait and see, but it isn't like it's an opinion that is not agreed upon. The perspective is warranted because what is not in question is Mr. Biden's devotion to democratic values and standing up for them, and lest we not forget 14 months ago we had a president that was not interested in defending democracy.
Frankly, we'd take Biden's gaffes, however cringeworthy, over Mr. Trump's anti-democratic, Putin-praising idiocy everytime.
And Ukraine's president Volodymyr Zelensky has a point, too much talk and not enough action. As Ukraine's Ambassador to the United State, Oksana Markarova explained, Putin cannot be trusted and if Ukraine doesn't win, it will be a threat to all democracies and the world order that has been in place since WWII. If Putin wins, she said that the will show that dictator and military force are the only things that matter. To back up President Zelensky's point, she said that the Ukrainians had the best boots on the ground but that they needed the weapons.
The best part of the interview with the Ambassador was when Mr. Todd asked her about the independent territories in Ukraine like the Donbas and whether her government would negotiate on those points. Her answer: There are no independent territories with the borders of Ukraine.
The ambassador also said that Putin has no red lines, so it was interesting to hear Senator Rob Portman say that the use of chemical or biological weapons is a red line that the United States should enforce and retailiate, not in kind, but militarily.
Despite the gaffes, President Biden's defense of democracy and his handlining of the situation have been overall quite good. We think about this because we know that it could have been a lot worse with western democracies in full cowering stance instead of standing up as a united force.
On other matters, like the Supreme Court, with each passing day confidence in the court wains. Mr. Todd pointed out that the only thing that changes in confirmation hearings is that the hearing for Supreme Court nominees are televised, which encourages Senators to grandstand. There's your answer right there on how to get these proceedings reigned in so that we don't have a senator like Josh Hawley bring conspiracy theories to the hearing questions. Even conservative writer, Stephen Hayes said that the Republican party has a problem with conspiracy theories. Wow, you think? Susan Page explained that 1 in 4 Republicans believe some aspect of Q Anon... sad.
All this does is serve to put further doubt in people's minds about the legitimacy of the Court. And then there's Justice Clarence Thomas and his 'best friend' his wife Ginni, who apparently is wrapped up in January 6th conspiracies and was a de facto advisor to the White House Chief-of-Staff Mark Meadows on how to unlawfully overturn the election.
Senator Portman explained that given this revelation, if a case on January 6th comes before the Court, then perhaps Justic Thomas should recuse himself from the case. But the fact is that a case on January 6th already has come before the court in the form of releasing documents from the National Archive and Justic Thomas was the lone dissenter in releasing them. Coincidence? Not bloody likely.
Panel: Susan Page, USA Today; Yamiche Alcindor, PBS Newshour; Stephen Hayes, The Dispatch; Jeh Johnson, fmr. Secretary of Homeland Security
No comments:
Post a Comment