George Will gave the best explanation I've heard for us not establishing a no-fly zone; his explanation is simple.
The second use of nuclear weapons was three days after the first in Nagasaki. There hasn't been one since. It's an amazing human achievement and we really don't want Putin to erase that line.
Jon Karl wondered if there was more we could be doing, and he suggested that taking something off the table without drawing a red line in the sand over something - Putin using chemical or biological weapons for example - doesn't make sense.
Heitkamp pointed out that we did draw a red line: it's NATO territory - that's our obligation under NATO's Article 5 commitment, but she noted some people think we should be doing more.
So, this idea that there is no -- you know, we're not going to provoke World War III, they believe we're already there and that we're simply capitulating for no good reason when we could be stopping it right here.
Mary Bruce was upset that no one in the administration would tell her specifically what they'd do if Putin used chemical or biological weapons. We've already done layers of sanctions.
So, what is still left, if Putin does take this step? And I do think it is notable, while the president has said over and over again, "There will not be any direct engagement between American forces and the Russians," when asked what would happen if Putin did use chemical weapons, he didn't give a definitive answer...
Coaston echoed Will's thoughts on the no-fly zone: it sounds good, which is why over 70% of Americans support it, but at the same time, we're just out of a 20-year war.
...I think that this is a really complicated issue because, on the one hand, you have the optics concerns here, but if you're this administration, you're thinking, if Russia hits a NATO country, if Russia engages in nuclear proliferation, that -- that's a calculus they have not yet begun to contemplate.
Moving to gas prices (anyone with a microphone must mention this at least once a day), Karl referenced some polling showing we think it's OK to "ban Russian oil even if it means higher prices, but we're going to blame Biden."
Heitkamp said the party in power always gets blamed, but she also pointed out that Biden folks haven't been pushing back effectively on the red herrings, like
"It's because you didn't build the Keystone XL Pipeline." And I remind them, one of the first things Donald Trump did was give the permit. And in four years the pipeline didn't get built. Why not? Because it wasn't -- it wasn't economical to build that pipeline in those price points.
She also deflated the inflation argument, pointing out that "it was the Trump administration that overspent and drove up inflation." When Karl pointed to the "shocking increase" since February, Heitkamp said it's because we started at "an artificially low price," and "we're shocked because we got used to $2 gas. And that's the problem."
The best part was when Coaston chimed in.
I also think it's worth recognizing -- and there was a great Fox News piece from 2008 -- that noted that the president has markedly little control of what gas prices are. There is no big "cheap gas" button in the Oval Office. And if there were, somebody would have pushed it.
There was much laughter about her "great Fox News piece" intro, but it's true: there may have been a Diet Coke button, but there's no cheap gas button.
Karl and Mary Bruce spent some air time patting Trump patsy Kevin McCarthy (R-Cali-largo) on the back for being critical of the people who support Putin. Here's Bruce, saying "that's a lot" for Kevin McCarthy,
who has gone to some lengths to maintain a relationship with Donald Trump. I think you are seeing not just Kevin McCarthy but also Mitch McConnell come out and make clear where they stand on Vladimir Putin. They haven't gone as far though as to directly call out Trump.
McCarthy won't, for sure. The last time he did that, he immediately tucked tail and crawled to Mar-a-Lago to kiss the club championship trophy or a fake Time Man of the Year cover or something.
I can't decide whether to leave the last word to George Will, or to Sen. Heitkamp; you can decide which you'll carry with you longer.
First, here's Will:
...Putin, like some of the acolytes in this country, is a weak person's idea of a strong person. Strength, you hear all the time, it’s sort of chest beating, dime-store Mussolini kind of toughness and I don't think it goes much deeper than that.
And, here's Heitkamp:
... right now, brave people within Russia are risking their lives to tell the truth about what's happening in Ukraine, to tell the truth about Putin... trying to get rid of disinformation, and we have useful idiots here in this country and, you know, I’m not going to call the whole Republican Party but they own some of this, right? ...people are risking their lives in Russia today to get... the correct information. And ...the propaganda machine in Russia is using these useful idiots in Congress.
Will's right, and so is Heitkamp. The question is, will anyone listen to them?
See you around campus.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for sharing your thoughts!