(h/t Heather the Amazing for vid)
I'm trying to wrap my head around what the media elites think foreign policy is supposed to be. Clearly, there's a distinct disregard for human lives, be it Russian, Ukranian or American. The overarching need appears to be dick-swinging to prove who has the biggest one hanging. Seriously, it's a Freudian wet dream to listen to these guys.
So that's why Dancin' Dave Gregory is so worried that Putin isn't learning the "right lessons" by our lack of military aggression towards him. What are these lessons, Dave? That we're packing bigger 'guns'? And what does that mean? That every country should concede we are the "big man" on the global campus? Why? I'm still confused as to why we should feel obligated to be involved in what's happening in Ukraine. It's not for the sake of global peace to hear Gregory speak about it. It's all about being the alpha dog and establishing dominance.
Ahem...that's not global peace, you nimrod.
And as for Putin feeling no penalty for his actions, I'm more concerned by the consequences that we don't apply in this country and what that means for the continued existence of this republic. Entities like the Bush administration and Wall Street have done more to devastate the lives and well-being of Americans than Vladimir Putin could ever do with his actions in Ukraine, and they've not only gotten off scot-free, they're lauded as supermen by the Beltway elites.
And then there's Bob Corker. To Corker, Obama's reticence for bombing Putin's troops to kingdom come is not concern about loss of life, but because he only cares about not being "embarrassed".
David, I had some degree of difficulty hearing everything that you said. But, again, I think the administration is basically saying to Russia, "Look, don't do anything overt. Don't come across the border with 40,000 troops. Don't embarrass us in that way. But you can continue to undermine the sovereignty of Ukraine by doing the things that you've done."
And, again, I've urged in every way that I can for this administration to go ahead and, again, push back now. It's going to be too late. Just like we did in Syria, where in essence, let's face it, (I hate to say such a crass thing on Easter Sunday morning) the wisest thing that Assad did really was to kill 1,200 people with chemical weapons. Because, in essence, we said, "Don't embarrass us anymore that way. You can go ahead and kill another 60,000 people with barrel bombs and by other means, but don't embarrass us."
And I think that's what we're saying to Russia today by the actions that we're not taking: "Don't embarrass us, but you can continue the black ops activities. You can continue the other things that you're doing. We know that over time you're going to reach the goals that the prime minister so eloquently laid out before. You're going to reach those, but don't do it in a way that embarrasses us."
Again, the world is watching. Our allies in Europe are watching. Our N.A.T.O. friends and others know that this is where we are. And I think we need to step on out and do the things that we've threatened because I don't think Putin will respond to anything else, other than us overtly doing the things that we've laid out.
Forget that we've practiced five decades of short-sighted foreign policy that has resulted in us eventually fighting against forces we armed years earlier. Forget that there appears to be sizable support for Russian annexation both globally and amongst the people there and nakedly manipulative anti-Russian propaganda from nebulous sources are making it hard to get good intelligence on the ground. Never mind that our troops are strained and overworked already from ill-advised occupations in the Middle East. Ignore completely that American corporations are openly telling Putin that they will bypass any sanctions. (There's that lack of penalty again, David. Gonna speak up about that? Didn't think so, you fascist.)
That's much too nuanced for the conservative mind looking for anything possible to criticize the president (remember when that was un-American and unthinkable to do in the time of war?).
And how telling that David Gregory doesn't give the Democratic politician Chris Murphy, there to pretend that this is a bipartisan discussion, a chance to respond to Corker, but reframes his question to force Murphy to defend the health of American corporations rather than the tricky nuance and foresight that smart foreign policy requires.