HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Rachel Maddow Drops a Tru...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 07:39 PM

Rachel Maddow Drops a Truth Bomb On Republicans Who Want War With Russia

http://www.politicususa.com/2014/03/03/rachel-maddow-drops-truth-bomb-republicans-war-russia.html

Rachel Maddow Drops a Truth Bomb On Republicans Who Want War With Russia
By: Jason Easley
Monday, March, 3rd, 2014, 4:50 pm


On MSNBC, today, Rachel Maddow dropped a truth bomb on Republicans, and their media lackeys, who are saber rattling and calling for war with Russia.

Video @ link~

Maddow said:

When you think about the American range of options. I mean there’s all of this sort of chatter in Washington about what how President Obama has to look whether or no he seems muscular or tough, or whether or not he seems weak. Well, that’s all sort of esoteric stuff when you start comparing it to the actual range of options that the United States has.

Obviously, there’s no boots on the ground option here. Even the Ukrainian government is not saying that there is any military option in response to what Russia has done right now.

What else can we do? Well, we can give money to Moldova, and we can give money to Georgia, and we can give money to Ukraine. Part of what turned Ukraine around from its sort of pro-European drift back to Russia was a fifteen billion dollar bribe from Vladamir Putin. If the West, EU, and the U.S. want to start matching that kind of money, it may sort of lead them back in a direction where most of their population wants anyway.

The options that we have can be punitive, but almost nobody believes they are military.

I think Vladimir Putin in the long run doesn’t have many military options beyond Crimea either. But we have to think about what we can do, not just how we want to look, but what our options are, and the saber rattling, I think, in an esoteric way, without talking what we ought to do is less productive than it ought to be.


Maddow’s comments were a direct rebuttal to the Republican hand-wringing and cries that Obama must look tough while doing something. She delivered a comprehensive slam to the Republican war hawks like Sens. Lindsey Graham and John McCain who seem barely able to contain their desire to escalate the conflict with Russia.

The options of the international community are limited, but they could also be very effective. The oligarchical Russian economy could grind to a halt if the United States and Europe decide to freeze Russian assets. Economic sanctions would do more damage to Putin and his dreams of restored Russian influence than a billion Republican threats of military response.

Sanctions to Russia and economic aid for Ukraine don’t get the Republican blood pumping, but they do require the strong presidential skills of cooperation and coalition building.

Republicans and the media are making the situation worse with their endless posturing and calls for saber rattling. Tough talk is a poor substitute for having a policy that works. Republicans are all about all about appearances, but in this case, actions matter more than words, and the policy path that President Obama is on will do more damage to Putin than all the tough talk that Republicans can muster.

26 replies, 2728 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 26 replies Author Time Post
Reply Rachel Maddow Drops a Truth Bomb On Republicans Who Want War With Russia (Original post)
babylonsister Mar 2014 OP
jcamp Mar 2014 #1
sheshe2 Mar 2014 #9
WhiteTara Mar 2014 #26
KeepItReal Mar 2014 #2
go west young man Mar 2014 #14
Scuba Mar 2014 #22
pampango Mar 2014 #24
SDjack Mar 2014 #3
Thinkingabout Mar 2014 #4
mindwalker_i Mar 2014 #10
pampango Mar 2014 #25
Johonny Mar 2014 #5
lastlib Mar 2014 #17
justiceischeap Mar 2014 #6
JHB Mar 2014 #23
Cha Mar 2014 #7
okaawhatever Mar 2014 #8
Cheese4TheRat Mar 2014 #15
okaawhatever Mar 2014 #18
Cheese4TheRat Mar 2014 #21
sheshe2 Mar 2014 #11
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Mar 2014 #12
Jenoch Mar 2014 #13
OldRedneck Mar 2014 #16
okaawhatever Mar 2014 #19
Adrahil Mar 2014 #20

Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 07:40 PM

1. hi

this is a great article, cant wait to read more

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jcamp (Reply #1)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 09:31 PM

9. Hi jcamp,

Welcome to DU!

Babylonsister posts some of the best of the best.

You kicked the thread by posting. If you like it and recommend it you can hit the rec tab in the OP.

Have fun~

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jcamp (Reply #1)

Tue Mar 4, 2014, 08:52 AM

26. Welcome to DU!

This is a treasure trove of good article and thoughtful (for the most part) commentary. See you around!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 07:50 PM

2. Cuba type economic sanctions on Russia are fine by me

Their economy is propped up in part by sky high oil prices (thanks to Bush & Co) . What if that open market trade was threatened?

Don't think President Obama would have to go that far, but that threat should be out there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KeepItReal (Reply #2)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 10:02 PM

14. Except for one thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_in_the_European_energy_sector They need Russia more than Russia needs them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KeepItReal (Reply #2)

Tue Mar 4, 2014, 05:50 AM

22. Because those have worked so well with Cuba?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #22)

Tue Mar 4, 2014, 08:22 AM

24. It worked well to punish Cuba (and South Africa, for that matter), it was just a stupid idea

to "punish" Cuba in the first place and even stupider to keep the sanctions in place for so long for reasons of domestic politics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 07:52 PM

3. How can we go to war? According to the GOP, we are on the brink of economic

collapse, due to our debt. Idea: if the GOP really wants a war option, then it should immediately enact a tax on the rich to pay for one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SDjack (Reply #3)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 08:26 PM

4. Yes and the same bunch of complainers bitch about the spending. Bush omitted

The cost of wars from his budget but was still spent. War is not going to fix the problem in Ukraine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SDjack (Reply #3)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 09:31 PM

10. We've always got money

for blowing people up.

Reassembling them, not so much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mindwalker_i (Reply #10)

Tue Mar 4, 2014, 08:25 AM

25. Agree. We are extravagant with "blowing things up" money; not so much with "helping

people build their lives" money.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 09:14 PM

5. I always wonder in what world is threatening violence as a first solution appear tough

It sounds like the solution of a 2 years old to every problem they face. Republic solution to every problem cry, and try to bite. I'm waiting for the first time it works to solve a problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Johonny (Reply #5)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 10:29 PM

17. Repuglikkkans still live by the law of the jungle. In their world,

the dog with the biggest teeth and the loudest, most guttural growl is the leader of the pack. It's a feel-good option to them, because their brains have not evolved to a point yet that they can comprehend that other approaches can resolve things more effectively.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 09:21 PM

6. When did diplomacy become unfashionable? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to justiceischeap (Reply #6)

Tue Mar 4, 2014, 06:10 AM

23. It was always unfashionable in some quarters...

...and those quarters have controlled Republican foreign policy since the 90s. Not that they weren't there before, it just wasn't't total control.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 09:29 PM

7. Tweet: McCain Mumbling in his Sleep..

kara vallow ✔ @teenagesleuth
Follow
"American superiority.....boots on the ground....regime change in the Ukraine..."
- John McCain, mumbling in his sleep

8:28 AM - 3 Mar 2014
39 Retweets 26 favorites
Reply
Retweet
Favorite

http://theobamadiary.com/

Republicons are a house of cards.. slight wind and it's gone.

Thank you, babylonsistah~

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 09:29 PM

8. Rachel is not a dove either. Her father was in the Air Force and she considers herself a

"national security liberal." Her criticism isn't coming from the far left on this particular issue, but rather the center-right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okaawhatever (Reply #8)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 10:02 PM

15. What the deuce is a National Security Liberal?

 

I am so damn tired of "National Security". It's the blanket answer for all things secretive and militaristic.

Maddow drops a notch in my book.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cheese4TheRat (Reply #15)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 10:44 PM

18. Pretty much that getting involved in WWII was okay but not the other stuff. She wrote a book called

Drift: The Unmooring of the American Military Power. Here's a link to a review in Slate, and an excerpt from the review:

Maddow has two problems with Johnson’s decision. First, it divided the military from the rest of the country in a way that previous wars had not—and that the end of the draft has perpetuated. Since 9/11, Maddow writes, less than 1 percent of the U.S. population has been called on to serve. This has drastically altered how presidents tally the cost of going to war. “We’ve never been further from the ideal of the citizen-soldier, from the idea that America would find it impossible to go to war without disrupting domestic civilian life,” Maddow writes.

SNIP

Maddow is very good on the master of executive-branch high jinks, Ronald Reagan. We first meet him starring in World War II propaganda films for the Army Air Corps’ First Motion Picture Unit, better known as Fum-Poo. Forty years later, as president, Reagan seems like he’s still in a movie when he tilts at the windmill of “Soviet-Cuban militarization” by attacking Grenada. Maddow reminds us just how thin the justification for bombing that small island really was: In an Oval Office speech, Reagan made Grenada’s new airfield sound like Castro’s personal launching pad when in fact it was built for tourists with funds from the British government. These are details that I’d forgotten. By making us remember, Maddow doesn’t just send up Reagan. She reminds us how easy it is for the government to make claims that are utterly ridiculous only in retrospect.

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/books/2012/03/rachel_maddow_s_drift_reviewed_by_emily_bazelon_.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okaawhatever (Reply #18)

Tue Mar 4, 2014, 12:02 AM

21. So when she says National Security she means when the nation's security is ACTUALLY at risk.

 

That would mean that only WWII would qualify as a national security breach.

I can live with that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 09:35 PM

11. They want boots on the ground?

John and Lindsey can be the first there, full battle gear! You talk the talk however you don't walk the walk.

I prefer this President to lead.

Thanks bsister!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sheshe2 (Reply #11)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 09:38 PM

12. Maybe those two can re-enact the charge of the Light Brigade

It took place in Crimea after all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 09:53 PM

13. There is no way we are going to put

'boots on the ground'. There is no way we will lob any cruise missles. This is not Iraq or Afghanistan, it's the effin' Red Army.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 10:16 PM

16. Remember . . .

According to what I've read today, as a result of Putin's invasion:

-- Moscow stock market dropped 10-11 percent
-- Russian banks have run u-- Commodity markets are running up prices in expectation of interruptions in goods from Ukraine
-- Worldwide stock markets are jittery

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldRedneck (Reply #16)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 10:46 PM

19. Moscow had to spend at least $10 Billion to keep the ruble from falling any further. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 11:01 PM

20. A kick and a rec NT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread