Does Biden Want Putin Put Down?
Another cleanup — Biden’s puppeteers quickly walk back “regime change.”
After Joe Biden mumbled and bumbled through his Brussels remarks to NATO four days ago, he set off for Poland — which has now taken in more than two million Ukrainian refugees.
In another rambling speech after his Warsaw photo op with refugee women and children, Biden concluded his remarks with this decree on Russian dictator Vladimir Putin: “For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power.”
Ironically, that has been precisely our position on Biden from day one! But his regime change remark about Putin set off the third round of cleanups in as many days.
First, it was clarification that the U.S. will not use chemical weapons in what Biden called an “in kind” response if Putin uses such weapons. Next, it was a clarification that the U.S. will not send troops to Ukraine after Biden told 82nd Airborne Division personnel what “you’re going to see when you’re there.”
Now, it’s Biden’s suggestion that Putin “cannot remain in power.” Actually, it was the most compelling moment of his remarks but fell too far outside the administration’s “appeasement” policy, so there was a scramble to walk it back.
Responding to objections from NATO partners, Biden’s White House handlers clarified: “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.”
Secretary of State Antony Blinken added, “As you know, and as you’ve heard us say repeatedly, we do not have a strategy of regime change in Russia or anywhere else.”
Barack Obama’s former acting CIA director, Michael Morell, says, “I think his comment that Putin had to go was an unforced error.” Morell continued: “It strengthens Putin at home, makes it difficult for any domestic opposition to coalesce together. And no Russian citizen, none, wants to be told by the leader of Russia’s main enemy about what their leadership can look like and not.”
Regarding Biden’s insistence that the conflict with Russia constitutes a “battle between democracies and autocracies,” Morell adds: “I think we should frame this narrowly — Russia out of Ukraine — and impose so much pain on this man that he never thinks about doing this again. I think framing it as democracy versus autocracy drives the Chinese closer to the Russians and makes it difficult for some of our own allies who are autocrats to stand with us.”
For the record, there is a battle between democracy and autocracy on American soil, the battle to sustain American Liberty against the rise of socialist Democrat Party autocrats. But I digress.
As for Biden and Putin, I would suggest a mano a mano cage fight, but we all know how that would end.
Notably, Biden again felt compelled to proclaim he has no responsibility for the Ukraine invasion — you know, like he had no responsibility for his deadly surrender and retreat from Afghanistan. According to Biden: “It is Putin, it is Vladimir Putin who is to blame. Period.”
Well, yes, it was Putin’s decision to invade. But as I repeated last week, Biden’s blame-shifting to Putin immediately comes full circle. Biden empowered Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, and he has manifestly proven his ineptitude, leading from behind. Power does not tolerate a vacuum, nor an inept and vacuous appeaser, and, consequently, weakness invites aggression.
Let me make this clear again: The most dangerous threat to U.S. national security has been and remains Joe Biden. Everyone who voted for Biden voted for Putin’s invasion, voted for the terror that is besieging millions of Ukrainian families, and voted for the bloodshed of Ukrainian defenders.
A majority of Americans have no confidence in Biden’s handling of the Russian invasion.
Fact is, as I have written previously, the tidiest way to terminate Putin’s murderous Ukraine invasion – and his tyrannical dictatorship in Russia, is for a member of his security or military detail to put a bullet in his head. The more war and sanction-related civil unrest that emerges in Russia’s major cities, the more likely a proud and heroic individual may impose that “regime change” – and that individual would qualify for a “Hero of Russia” medal. As Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) put it more plainly: “Is there a Brutus in Russia? Is there a more successful Colonel Stauffenberg in the Russian military? The only way this ends is for somebody in Russia to take this guy out. You would be doing your country — and the world — a great service.”
Update: Adding fuel to the regime change fire, back on American soil, Biden was asked about his administration’s effort to walk back his remarks, and he walked back the walk back, angrily insisting, “I’m not walking anything back.”
Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Pro Deo et Libertate — 1776
Start a conversation using these share links: