His speech today was shot through with bravado but the line about Putin not remaining in power is "a quote that may be referenced for years to come," as the Times delicately put it.
Threatening Putin personally is such a bad idea that I've wondered if the White House should explicitly say that we're *not* seeking regime change in Russia.
His answer: If Russia is facing an "Existential threat." Putin might not distinguish an existential threat to Russia from an existential threat to his own power, though.
Having now heard that Biden wants him out of power, Putin might reasonably conclude that most sanctions will remain in place even after the war ends, so long as he continues to rule Russia.
If the cause here is regime change in Russia, not Ukrainian sovereignty, why is the entire burden being left to Ukraine? If Putin is still in charge when the war ends, does that now amount to a Russian victory?
From a White House official after Biden's speech: "The President's point was that Putin cannot be allowed to exercise power over his neighbors or the region. He was not discussing Putin's power in Russia, or regime change."
U.S. officials confirm what had become readily apparent: Biden's declaration that Putin should not remain in power was NOT in the prepared text.
It's becoming increasingly difficult to discern fact from fiction, and unfortunately the media has a strong bias. They spin stories to make conservatives look bad and will go to great lengths to avoid reporting on the good that comes from conservative policies. There are a few shining lights in the media landscape-brave conservative outlets that report the truth and offer a different perspective. We must support conservative outlets like this one and ensure that our voices are heard.
Sunday, March 27, 2022
Biden goes there: For God's sake, Putin cannot remain in power
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment