For the record, I have no problem with President Biden's ad-libbed comment about Putin yesterday. Blunt talk about autocrats is sometimes welcome, and wartime seems like an especially auspicious occasion for it. What's more, I very much doubt that it will cause Putin to blow his top or anything like that. Quite the opposite: the fact that Biden is obviously very sincere in his loathing of Putin makes it clear that the US and NATO are unlikely to back down in Ukraine. This in turn should motivate the Russian leadership to look for ways to retreat from an obvious quagmire.
134 thoughts on “Nine words: “For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power””
Comments are closed.
Russians who live abroad say Moscow is hardening views of those back home,
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/russians-live-abroad-say-moscow-hardening-views-back-home-rcna20605
Social conservatives and everyone else are quickly separating from one another, and sooner rather than later social conservatives will try seriously to kill everyone else.
too true....
Have you seen this piece in the Atlantic yet:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/03/putin-kremlin-foreign-policy-strategy/629388/
That book would be laughable if there weren't an audience for it, it's like the Turner Diaries.
Here's the Western equivalent actual evil conspiracy, involving dark money, private intelligence agencies, Brexit, Donald Trump and Peter Thiel,
https://www.eurozine.com/brexit-dark-money-big-data/
“ representatives of the American elite: President [George] Bush III and former presidents Bill Clinton, Bush Junior, and Hillary Clinton; current and former members of the cabinet, the House, and the Senate; bankers and industrialists; newspaper commentators and television anchors; famous attorneys and top models; pop singers and Hollywood actresses. All of them passed through Red Square in shackles and with nameplates around their necks. ”
My goodness, this sounds like the wish dream of the GQP. Is there any doubt that the likes of Gianni Thomas and Tucker Carlson would be in the grandstands with honored seats cheering the proceedings?
Why wouldn't they be in the procession?
5th columnists. They welcome “strong” Putin leadership.
Did Elizabeth Bruenig or Conor Friedersdork write it up approvingly?
It might have been a little better for our allies if he phrased as "de-nazify the Kremlin"
I would have preferred if he'd said, "Putin needs to stand trial at The Hague."
The difficulty with that phrasing is that it implies the complete military defeat and perhaps the occupation of Russia by someone. Nobody has ever been the subject of a war crimes trial without first being militarily defeated and delivered into the hands of his enemies. Putin isn’t going to stand trial at The Hague any more than GW Bush will be standing trial for this country’s war of aggression against Iraq.
Putin being killed by his own disaffected stooges is a realistic threat that western sanctions can realistically bring about. The threat is being sent to The Hague is simply empty and meaningless posturing.
What he said!
That's the way it worked in the Five Families. And the Five Families is a pretty good representation of the way Putin's Russia works now, isn't it?
+++
I think anything is possible, including Putin being deposed without too much violence.
It’s essentially a mafia society in which “retirement” isn’t really an option. Putin is almost certainly the richest man in the world. If he would be allowed a graceful retirement, nobody involved in deposing him or their families would ever know a moment of peace.
And there’s a particularly Russian logic in this. There was no middle ground with either Stalin or Lavrentiy Beria. There was absolute power or there was death; nobody could afford to have Beria lurking around waiting for the opportune moment to make a comeback and take his revenge on those who’d betrayed him.
And yet Stalin died of a stroke at the age of 74.
That’s the point. Alive, he held everything together through fear (in no small part fear of Beria, whom everyone, including Stalin, feared. But it was a combination of their powers that was important.
Stalin’s death created openings and a structure for power, which Beria lost. But apart from the pent up resentment and hatred of Beria, two things were clear to the Russian elites who’d served Stalin: Beria couldn’t simply be allowed to walk away. There was a moment of weakness and a power vacuum which created a very small window of opportunity to kill him before he could regain his footing and reassert his power. Beria alive and taking revenge was unthinkable so everyone who matter set aside their differences and claims to power to kill him.
The second thing everyone one understood was that once the deed was done, there’d be no blowback. Beria wasn’t the kind to have any friends once he’s gone. And neither is Putin.
The Russian Constitution provides a process for impeachment, but the thresholds are prohibitively high - two-thirds votes in the Duma and Federation Council, concurrence of the Supreme Court and Constitutional Court (Wikipedia). In reality, removal would almost certainly have to be extralegal, unless Putin goes completely nuts.
Not sure what additional pressure at all accomplishes at this stage. If Putin thinks he and his family will be killed if he does nothing, of course he will do something drastic. I don’t want nukes to even be under consideration
I don’t see how Putin can mechanically use even “tactical nukes” since even if he himself is cray cray enough to order it and risk the end of the world, he’s also creating an interesting game theory problem for the people closest to him. To obey is almost certain death for yourself and perhaps for everyone on the planet (including, obviously, one’s own family) but to refuse is certain death.
The surprisingly lower risk option is to kill Putin and hope that others in his inner circle will be happy to see him gone. The same would be true within the military chain of command—as we’ve seen with what appears to have been the fragging of a Russian colonel based on the number of casualties which his battalion sustained presumably due to his poor leadership.
And, since I mentioned the death of Lavrentiy Beria, there’s a logic of collective action to achieve a new state of affairs in which you are a hero of the republic rather than a corpse. I think a part of the reason why Russia is so flippant about using nukes is that it’s likely a death sentence for whoever gives the order.
Putin has a family? Yikes. And I thought Ted Cruz's kids had it bad.
In a villa in Switzerland with his mistress, who must love him very much.
I bet she never wears heels!
Only when whe is eating foie gras.
In the court on which America imposed sanctions a few years ago? I doubt even the USA is brazen enough to engage in that kind of hypocrisy.
I agree with Kevin completely. This is simply ratcheting up the pressure.
But I’d add something: I think there’s some people who didn’t understand the message that the sanctions on the oligarchs and the hard men who are Putin’s core supporters. The inescapable point is that the West is incentivizing those people to remove Putin from power; which is a more politic way of saying that he and his family should be killed.
Basically, we’ve already declared open season on Putin. The next step is legislation to seize and forfeit Russian assets in the West as reparations to help rebuild Ukraine. If it becomes clear that these men can’t just ride out the sanctions after which they get their super yachts back and all is forgiven, we will greatly increase the likelihood of the desired outcome.
It makes clear that there will be no return to "business as usual" as long as Putin is in power - a sentiment with which i fully agree and I hope the western alliance stay firm on. Any substantial reversal of the sanctions in a negotiated settlement should have as a non-negotiable condition that Putin leave power.
I agree. This is a crucial issue for a post-invasion world. If sanctions can be negotiated away and, for example, the oligarchs wealth and yachts are returned to them, the sanctions on the Russian elites will be nothing more than a temporary suspension of yachting holidays, visiting their estates in London, New York, and the south of France, and shopping in Beverly Hills.
I don’t, however, see a way to negotiate Putin’s leaving power since in a mafia state that would likely be a death sentence for him. I think we need to begin confiscating Russia’s foreign assets and those of the oligarchs and hard men, too. And make it clear that this is only the beginning. One can create the conditions for bringing about Putin’s demise but I think it would be unrealistic to expect him to cut his own throat.
Remember that quite a few foreign companies, that could have continued operations without violating sanctions, have pulled out of Russia anyway. Even were sanctions to be revoked, how many of these will return while there is a reckless, irresponsible government in power? How many that were contemplating entering Russia will have another think?
Good point. But to really change corporate SOB we need to keep up the pressure. First for punishing Russia while it makes war against Ukraine and then for money to allow them to rebuild.
Might help if someone besides the first world countries sanctioned Russia but they aren't. None in Africa, South America, or SE Asia. They can park their wealth right there.
Will it be there when they want it?
They could but there’s excellent reasons why the oligarchs and hard men don’t do so now and wouldn’t want to in the future. Part of what the oligarchs want is the good shopping and creature comforts of the first world. But, perhaps more importantly, they need the stability and entrenched rule of law as a way to protect themselves from people like themselves. It’s worth remembering that the elites from the places you mention keep their wealth in the first world for exactly the same reasons as do the Russians and Chinese.
“protect themselves from people like themselves” - Hah! Exactly, and nicely phrased.
"For the record, I have no problem with President Biden's ad-libbed comment about Putin yesterday. .."
Suppose Ronald Reagan had said something like that? It is strange to me how the left has gone from being terrified of a nuclear war to seemingly believing that nuclear war is impossible.
It's completely easy to imagine Reagan saying something like that, it isn't close to threatening nuclear war or escalating the present war but puts the responsibility for the entire catastrophe on the Russian establishment, those people best able to stop it, and, if they can't that's their failure.
On top of all their other failures, to add to their remarkable collection.
I don't recall Kevin or any other commenter here expressing the belief that nuclear war is impossible. Quite the contrary, and my past posting record here will find me expressing the opposite view.
Still, I don't see that Biden's statement makes nuclear war any more likely than it already was. Ultimately, I think it won't happen because Putin and the Russian oligarchs would personally lose all of their purloined wealth, not to mention their precious lives. They would go from the top of the heap to the bottom of the rubble.
There was a discussion this morning, either Face the Nation or NPR (?), where Putin was referred to as a Messianic Nazi. If that's the case, then we have to count on someone interdicting his orders to use nukes. I'd guess some of it is for show to "scare" the West into submission. And we have to at least pretend Putin hasn't gone off the deep end for negotiations.
Of course causing a nuclear crises at a power plant isn't using a nuke....
"Suppose Ronald Reagan had said something like that? "
You mean like that time in 1984 when he joked about launching a nuclear first strike against the Soviet Union?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFCABnWlN8E
Or how about all those times Trump threatened "fire and fury like the world had never seen" against North Korea? (although, to be fair, Trump is a moron, and it was plain that no matter how much nuclear hellfire he threatened, he could be enchanted/bought off with some flag ceremonies and a personal letter on fancy cardstock).
FFS, being terrified of nuclear war (which everybody ought to be) doesn't mean we all have to make kissy faces at an idiot Russian dictator. Russia needs to get its house in order, and take back some of the power it placed in the hands of the elderly ex-KGB mob boss who is plainly in thrall to a ridiculous neo-medievalist prophecy about a farcical Russian empire.
What? You mean the Reagan that deemed the Soviet Union the "Evil Empire"?
He said something even more jarring, you know.
Tell me, troll, am I 'of the left?'
Didn’t Reagan jokingly quip, “ the bombing will commence…” in reference to the former Soviet Union? How did reaction to that fall?
Ah, but he said it with a twinkle in his eye, and a fistful of jelly beans in his mouth, so that was just him being America's lovable grandpa like when he laundered money to Nicaraguan death squads via arm sales to the Ayatollah.
I agree with Kevin completely. How many people has Putin murdered, for no sane or rational reason. The man is a war criminal. Yet we seemingly place a higher value on Putin's well-being than those of the people he is putting through hell.
I view Biden's statement as an emotional response to this situation. He was saying that a man like this should not have the power to commit these crimes. And indeed, in any sane world, he should not.
"... Yet we seemingly place a higher value on Putin's well-being than those of the people he is putting through hell."
The people he is putting through hell don't have 4000 nuclear weapons.
Non sequitur much?
I am glad we have a president that says what he means; I think the media and public were fore warned this is President Biden's style. I don't care for the media & WH staff back peddling on his adlib. I don't think his remarks changed the course of the war at all.
Amen. It's ridiculous how some people are freaking out over this. And I don't care what some White House flunkie says for foreign audiences. Biden said it and he meant it.
Massive trolling of Trump
Failure on top of failure on top of failure, that is the entirety of social conservatism everywhere, until finally, rather than admit it or address it in any way, they retreat into an ever more benighted fantasy world, where god gives them the right, in fact the duty, to kill everyone else.
I have a different take, this wasn't a misstatement, a gaff, or some kind of confusion...this was:
...this is simply another Preemption by Mr. Biden of Mr. Putin...so, if in fact Mr Putin does use chemical or small tactical nuclear weapon....
Mr Biden has already Told You So....Now do it!
And so this acts as a deterrent from using more terrible weapons that again go to prove how terrible Mr. Putin is.
The reasoning is that while not in the prepared speech hand out, the phrasing and the WH walkback were vetting, thought out, fought over...and everything was ready for Biden to make his Gaff...(making his point), and a swift response to take away some of this sting.
I know this seems fairly sophisticated, but I think that being with the Refugees truly moved Mr. Biden...who then pushed for this.
Best Wishes, Traveller
Let me add:
3.5 Million People Have Been Put On the Road By Russia's Aggressive War
...they have lost or left behind everything they loved or owned. (think Kevin without his Medications or cats!)
How would you feel if you were driven out of your house, your state? Try to put yourself in someone else's shoes for a moment...try to feel what they feel. There is no moral equivalence here.
Russia could of and should of just tried to be a good neighbor to Ukraine...there is no reason for this war.
There have been no attacks on Russian civilians or infrastructure. Someone needs to tell the Russians to get the hell out.
This is pretty simple actually...go back to your own land.
Traveller
The objective is peace in Ukraine, stopping the killing, and the threat of WMD including nuclear weapons. Not peace at any price, but a deal that Zelensky would be willing to make, and he's willing to compromise. As emotionally satisfying as Biden's statement was, personally threatening Putin hinders that objective.
I've been thinking that is exactly not what the Ukrainians want. I've been thinking they want every single BMP and T-72/80/90 on fire or with Ukrainian colors painted on the hull. I've been reading from some Ukrainian sources this is their war of independence. No matter what comes, no matter what shape the border, no matter how long, there will be a new Ukraine, her own place in this world with no longer a yoke to mother Russia. If land is ceded to Russia, I foresee the Troubles, Slavic Style.
These are my opinions.
As long as Putin is in power the Ukrainians will not feel safe and they will not be safe. As long as Putin is in power there will be the threat of “next time”.
Nor will Poles, Lithuanians, Latvians, Estonians, Moldovans, Georgians … feel safe and secure. There simply is no place in 21st-century Europe for Putin’s worldview.
I didn't hear any kind of "personal threat." It was simply a stated view of the way things should be in a sane world. Why are so many people constructing their own version of what Biden's words "really mean"? They meant what was said, nothing more, nothing less.
Three thumbs up!
As I’ve said, I don’t think this statement by Biden is a significant problem. But, in the context of my assessment of Russian society, it is a death threat because it is unlikely that Putin can be peaceful removed from power. And it’s equally unlikely that the Russians who deposed him would allow Putin to live the good life in the South of France while plotting his comeback.
To a large degree, we’re beginning to learn how Putin has divided up the security services and the military in ways that make a coup d’était very difficult and unlikely even at the expense of making those services less capable. The amount of pressure which must be brought to bear against those close to Putin or in a position to join with others to remove him must be massive, unrelenting, and ever increasing.
Nevertheless, Putin can only be removed by killing him. I think Biden’s got a clear understanding of the situation. It’s important to speak softly and euphemistically but it is important to be realistic about the situation.
+1
That is not the objective. Having demonstrated that they are a threat to all, they must be ground into submission.
I was greatly heartened by Mr Drum's posting and the responses here to it. The rest of the media is wringing its collective hands about President Biden's "gaffe"; how he seemingly called for "regime change" (oh dear!); how he went "over the line", "gave away" NATO strategy, yada yada yada.
I've continued to argue that the President has merely said what everybody has been thinking. We all know it's what has to happen. If not soon, then ultimately (All men are still mortal, right?). We all know that, in the 21st c, there's no room for 1700s-vintage military conquerors.
Putin has to go.
+1
No matter what, the media will always, always, always go with "He didn't say his words right."
Well said.
Those phrases could've been code words for the mission is Go Go Go!
Whereas I thought it was Thunderbirds are Go!
Or was that Thundercats are Go!" Either way works for me 🙂
Snarf.
Tag!
Well, this statement by Biden has made it easy for Putin to make the Russian people believe there is a real threat from the West/NATO. Not that I don't agree with the sentiment, of course, but not everything should be said out loud by a powerful president in a delicate situation where making another powerful president angry might result in nuclear war..
The Russian people are already indoctrinated with outlandish and nonsensical narratives about America and Europe. I can't imagine that Biden's statement -- if it were accurately quoted, which of course it will NOT be -- would make the slightest difference. Putin had already said that the U.S. is trying to "cancel" Russia. I don't think Biden's words change anything there. I feel like U.S. media is projecting the American news cycle dynamic on a country that doesn't share that particular affliction.
+1
The difference is that this time Putin will be right when he claims that the American president is threatening him. Even if the Russian people are used to such claims from their president, hence may not realize this is different, Putin will know. And it will be harder for peace negotiators.
You may not think this makes any difference, but if you check what people that are involved in diplomatic efforts say, they will all tell you that what Biden said will make their work harder.
Instead of denying that Biden was calling for regime change, which required the spokespersons to use the term ‘regime change’, they should simply (and correctly) have pointed out that a Russian President can be impeached and removed, or voted out of office. Not a threat at all, and ascribes all the agency to Russians.
Agreed. Given that they had to save the situation/"explain" what Biden meant, this is what they should have said. I just don't agree with Kevin here, I think it would have been better, in this particular situation, if Biden hadn't said it at all.
Although of course a president who would start a nuclear war in a fit of anger is certainly a president who shouldn’t be in that office …
I can see the case why Biden's remarks were an unforced error. They upped the chance Putin will view anything short of "victory" (which is increasingly unlikely) as unacceptable. In desperation, Putin will do the unthinkable.
I can see the case why Biden's remarks were welcome. He stated an obvious truth (everyone know no peace can come while Putin remains in power). Meanwhile, no one, inc. Russian elites, should be wasting time working toward some alternative ending.
We may not know which case is a better description until we know the outcome of the conflict.
Meanwhile, Joe Biden knows more about what's going on than the rest of us. For months he had US intelligence telling him about Putin's plans. We don't know the sources but fair to say the US has contacts among high-ranking officials in Russia that have been disloyal to Putin for some time. For one thing, Putin knows that and it probably is driving him crazy. What Biden knows, or may have been signalling, is speculation, but it could be a lot of different things. Maybe some plot is afoot or at least under consideration? Maybe the military has a plan to derail Putin if he decides to go nuclear. Who knows?
Maybe Biden just made an offhand remark. Possible, but I tend to think he gave a lot of consideration to those words before he said them.
I think that ‘the chance Putin will view anything short of "victory" as unacceptable’ was already 1.00 …
It certainly does seem that the US had good intelligence in advance of the invasion, and it’s likely that’s continuing. Your speculation is not without basis.
Let’s go Joe! He is telling cautious and frightened Americans that this is worth doing. It is time to intervene. The Russians can be ejected from all of Ukraine with NATO troops. It’s worth the cost and the risk. The Russian army is in disarray. Now is the time to nail the coffin shut on Russia. Beat them, disarm them, and make them pay reparations for the privilege of survival.
To be clear… I recognize the risk that the Russian people and military will want to kill millions of us when threatened and humiliated, but this is no time to give them a face saving out. Nope… this is when you put the knee on their neck and kill the mother fuckers.
And no… they won’t shoot off those nukes. They just won’t. They don’t want to die. They love the good life. Yachts, sports, whores, and drugs. That’s who they really are.
On the Podcast "Winter is Here" one of the guests said the Putin only has contact with his minions via Zoom.
But ... but ... OMG OMG OMG! The beltway media is EXPLODING over this "gaffe"!
I actually agree with Charlie Sykes that the real gaffe was the craven frenzy from the White House staff to "clean up" Biden's comment, without which it never would have been deemed a "gaffe." I would note, as a fluent English speaker, that I never once heard the words "regime change" spill from Biden's lips. But of course, once the White House Comms Dept declared "not regime change," that became the news cycle narrative. In true Beltway fashion, the news story is that a view that is shared by all decent people the world over (V Putin should not be in charge of a nuclear-armed country) must never be uttered or even hinted at because it would "embolden" him. Imagine if that happened!
Biden should be tougher on Putin but for God's sake don't make him mad.
He's already mad--both crazy mad and angry mad.
Peace advocates now have a great slogan for the 2024 presidential election.
Cue the Jill Stein campaign!
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/guess-who-came-dinner-flynn-putin-n742696
The shrieks of excitement with which members of the Washington Press Rabble whipped this throwaway line into the most significant event of the 21st century demonstrated everything that is contemptible about political discourse in the Twitter era. It ought to be the responsibility of a professional journalist to explain an administration's positions as accurately and comprehensively as possible. Most American journalists delight in doing the opposite.
It was asinine to suggest Biden had announced a massive shift in American foreign policy in one line of a speech - a shift, moreover, to a goal which America has no means of achieving. It was even more asinine to persist in that suggestion after the White House had clarified the meaning of the words in question. But journalists did it anyway, knowing it would be meat and drink for the never-ending propaganda wars in the USA.
Hear hear!
+1
It was asinine to suggest Biden had announced a massive shift in American foreign policy in one line of a speech
Nobody's suggesting this. They're suggesting it's a verbal own-goal which may complicate the problem and make it harder for Putin to retreat/withdraw.
Or, it makes it easier--Putin could claim to his people that Biden made it clear that the West/NATO/Imperialists wants Putin gone, but Putin, after having taught those Ukrainian Nazis a lesson about Russian strength, is still in power. Don't worry, Russian people! Toothless NATO is powerless to accomplish their real goal of getting rid of Russia's favorite Vlad!
I think that the fact that we can spin all sorts of "plausible" scenarios in response to Biden's comments mean that those comments aren't of much moment one way of the other.
"It ought to be the responsibility of a professional journalist to explain an administration's positions as accurately and comprehensively as possible."
But that doesn't bring in eyeballs or bucks. No drama there. The Washington Press rabble will be the death of us yet. In their eyes, dramatic ignorance Trumps responsible but boring competence.
Is there already a power struggle in the Kremlin? What are the Russia experts saying about an announcement of a major strategy change by an officer four or five levels down from Putin? Also, has there been more than the initial huffing from Peskov, who didn’t pass along any reaction from Putin himself?
Considering that Russia’s initial goal, stated multiple times, was regime change in Ukraine, they’ve got some chutzpah …
Replacing Putin with another despicable tyrant is not the answer. Russia must be humiliated and destroyed. It’s people must be impoverished and the entire country turned into a mechanism for funding the rebuilding of Ukraine. That is choice for the Russian people: destruction or a generation of reparations and repentance.
It's not the biggest gaffe ever, but, no, it wasn't good or smart. Biden should stick to the script.
And I say that it was not a gaffe at all. TL;DR: I'm giving your opinion the consideration which it is due.
Kevin, you should go to Costco, but a 50 pound sack of sugar, and see about opening a lemonade stand.
The media's treatment of Biden's "poor choice of words," if you can call it that, compared to TFG doing something like this literally *every fucking day* for his entire term is, to say the least, laughable. Do we remember the threats to rain down nuclear horror on North Korea? Oh yeah! It was totes lulz! Because Trump!
JFC these idiots
+1
There was plenty of media critique and exposition of Trump's daily idiocies and inanities. They just didn't stand out very much after a while (or indeed, by the time he had been inaugurated). People had become numb to them.
Biden's not a pig-ignorant lunatic so his (just like Obama's, and just like Hillary Clinton's) occasional gaffes are more noticeable.
The entire lineup every single day on CNN were Trump's gaffes. And the people defending Trump's gaffes are the ones attacking Biden's. And visa versa now.
The entire lineup every single day on CNN were Trump's gaffes
Exactly.
The awfulness of Trump became white noise very quickly—before he even took office in my recollection. Biden's not awful and so his missteps simply stand out more. It's a bargain I'll gladly live with. But it is frustrating. But the notion the media "ignored" Trump's incessant inanities, brainfarts and gaffes is invalid (although admittedly there were so many of them it was likely beyond the media's capacity to keep up with them all: perhaps that's what people are thinking of).
You don't seem to have a lot of credibility in these parts, do you? FOAD troll.
Oatmeal not sitting too well?
No, I just don't like people spouting the most inane opinions as if they were indisputable facts ... particularly when so many of them seem to have been speechifying against Biden withdrawing American troops from Afghanistan.
I don't find it hard to ignore comments or commenters I disagree with.
I get upset when someone is wrong with a clear intent of promoting harm and preventing a right answer.
Aside from that, other people are fine with me.
It's not a matter of disagreement; it's the dishonest presentation of the argument. Stating opinion as fact, providing links as if the linked material provides support, pretending to misunderstand a point, etc., what these rhetorical devices have in common is both a fundaental dishonesty (let's just call it what it is - a casual disregard for the truth) and a studied lack of respect for the intended audience.
That's not something I'm inclined to tolerate in a traditional student, let alone a presumed adult who ought to know better.
I get none of that from Jasper, and unless you're getting more in depth than the off-the-cuff and brief nature of an internet comment ordinarily entails I don't think it's needed to provide a bibliography or footnotes for every line.
Certainly asking me where I read something forty years ago is probably going to produce little more than a shrug, but if you really want to press a point of disagreement I would think it's you who need to bring the backup, don't just assume to tell me I'm wrong and think that proves anything.
I'm a partisan Democrat. Scent is a blind partisan Democrat. Which means "thou shalt not critique Democrats in power."
I call 'em as I see em, and this to me was a classic DC gaffe (I mean, Joe's people were practically tripping over themselves to correct their boss's words). I can appreciate that others may disagree, and, as I said at the outset, I expect it won't be a big deal either way, but it could prove problematic, and may make it easier for Putin (and critically, Beijing, which is something that tends to get lost in all this) to claim to various important actors that Western concern for Ukraine is just regime change in disguise. In any even most of our allies seems to be distancing themselves from the White House on this. So, as I'm wont to do with regularity, I disagree with Kevin on this one.
Oh, dear lord, who doesn't say they calls 'em as they sees 'em? Let us not forget this is one of the individuals who didn't like the 'optics' of Biden's troop withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Probably thins he's still right about that one too.
Yeah, well, when you're corrrected and then say you're still right anyway, because the bar is different for the respective sides, well, that tell me they're not that interested in the truth.
IMHO, of course 😉
BTW, look up above to see where I addressed your last point. Done and done. Really, you could just as well have said "Don't presume to tell me you're right, as if that proves anything." So are you going to acknowledge that I've already answered your critique ... before you even made it?
I will accept that you did though skimming above I admit I cannot see it.
In other Oscar news,
when did Al Pacino become a hunchback?
When did Chris Rock become a slapstick comedian?
Just lucky it wasn't Triumph the Insult Comic Dog, Smith would have beaten him to death with a rock.
Let me note all respect and honor to Chris Rock who was pro0fessional enough to hold it together....shame on Will Smith who like ever wife beater, violent a**hole, blames it on love...love made me do it.
I might also venture the idea here, where I dare not at other progressive sites, that this is not only a bad look for the black community, too many men will see this example as the proper way to handle matters if you or your woman gets diss`ed.
I am really unhappy about this.
Traveller
Probably the smartest observation I've seen online so far.
A comedian coming out and razzing the celebs in the front row is literally the most Oscar tradition there is.
The internet seems to naturally divide into 14-year-olds and everyone else, and people who are defending this and aren't 14 any more, they're mental cases.
It was the “God” and “Love” stuff Smith said in his speech that bugged me. If you want to talk about that stuff, It was Chris Rock who “turned the other cheek” by not retaliating and not filing criminal charges.
And these people who keep trying to say what an awful joke it was and how that was the real abuse here.
Honestly, that was a really mild joke that could have been taken as complimentary since most people thought Demi Moore was pretty hot in G.I. Jane, but Smith took chose to take it as a juvenile triggering device, presumably because he's been surrounded by enablers telling him he can do no wrong since he was 14.
The thing many of those defending Smith don't seem to acknowledge or even realize is that Smith himself was laughing at the joke. He only reacted that way when he saw Jada was upset by the joke. Standing up to punch Rock was about the worst possible way he could have handled the situation. I never thought much about Smith one way or another, but with this reaction it seems that the man has some serious anger issues.
Giant man-baby.
People defending him are either Republicans or secretly think Republicans sound pretty cool, especially that part about carrying guns around.
Seen the latest Chris Rock joke? He kicked Tiny Tim's crutches out and pissed in his face as he lay sprawled on the pavement. I haven't seen such a knee-slapper since Trump made fun of handicapped the NYT reporter- or maybr back when Limbaugh mocked Michael J. Fox or called Chelsea Clinton the White House dog. Too funny!
The snide remark (it wasn’t a joke at all) is the only reason Rock got smacked. Some people have this term they bandy about… “micro aggressions”. Even if you consider this sort of thing part of the show business world, it certainly qualifies as exactly that. I guess Smith was just supposed to sit there and take it… For the laugh. But why should he have to put up with that?
What passes for stand up comedy these days is mostly, I think, pretty awful. Calling people names isn’t something I find funny. Imagine you were at a social event with your friends and family and someone made a remark like that about someone else. Called them fat, dumb, ugly, whatever. You won’t hit them, but would you laugh?
People want to focus on what Smith did, but to me, Rock was way out of line. So, yeah… Will Smith is my hero. Chris rock is a creep. I’d like for the world to be free of cruelty and violence. To achieve that, we have to stop enabling it. Why did Rock think it was fair game for a joke? Because there are lots of creeps like him out there in the audience.
Calling people names can be funny. Making fun of people's diseases or handicaps is not.
To those outside of the Western bloc this can be seen as another example of the US arrogantly dictating who should rule a given country - regardless of what context or circumstance the remark was made. I think the calls of 'gaffe' and 'walkback' are largely aimed at that audience.
Wow… the Russians invade Ukraine and kill thousands. I don’t think I’m too concerned with US arrogance on this topic. We all know what that’s about, though, and it’s not a good look.
Biden is handling this well and so are other Western leaders but I think we look too much at them. Why no equally strong language against MBS despite the war in Yemen being even more inhumane than that in Ukraine? Not because of oil, because that plays an equal role with Russia. Nor only because Putin threatens democracy in the West more than MBS does. But because of the public.
Yes it is we the people who to our pride support Ukrainians and to our shame don't care much if Yemeni children die of starvation. Our "leaders" are following our sentiment. The glory of democracy, to be sure. And I'm glad our "leaders" have names not beginning with "tr" and ending with "ump". But let's not give them too much credit for their principles either.
Russia has been able to get away with a lot of evil crap for a long time and there hasn't before been any direct, high profile angle to act against them. The Ukraine war provides almost a heaven-sent opportunity to address the entire circumstance of how Russia has been acting throughout the world for the past two decades.
The war in Yemen, terrible as it is, or China's acts against the Uighurs, simply don't provide the same breadth of engagement.
Everything is alright, which is a weird thing to say when a madman is on the loose, but it's not one madman, listen to the Russian parliamentarians. Murder and carnage is not acceptable, this is a crucial point in human history, we will not tolerate this.