Ukraine: Dem orthodoxy evolves

Inside the impeachment inquiry is a classic satire of democratic politics struggling to get out. (I would like to take up Quigley on Evidence. For the moment I will only observe that Quigley should find his place in a sequel to My Cousin Vinny.)

On the substance of yesterday’s hearing in the impeachment inquiry hearing before the House Intelligence Committee, I wondered: wasn’t it only yesterday that the Obama administration refused to provide lethal military aid to the Ukraine? Obama, as I recall, didn’t want to ruffle Putin’s feathers. That sounds like an impeachable offense by itself.

Now support of lethal military aide appears to have become a holy sacrament in the evolving Democratic orthodoxy, one with its own martyrs and rites and hymns. You know, like abortion and LGBTQ “rights” and detachment from biological reality (or from reality, period).

I am somewhat surprised by how little the evolution of Democratic Party orthodoxy on the Ukraine has been noted. This aspect of Obama foreign policy has been deposited down the memory hole. Miranda Devine, however, draws on her knowledge of ancient history to note the evolution in her New York Post column addressing the so-called whistleblower.

Digression: The identity of the “whistleblower” is apparently known by everyone in DC except House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, although the “whistleblower” consulted with Schiff’s staff before filing his “complaint.” Something tells me that Chairman Schiff is not entirely on the level. End of digression.

Reviewing the testimony before the House Intelligence Committee yesterday, Devine writes:

[T]here was something missing in [the two House Intelligence Committee witnesses’] description of “alarm” at the withholding of US military aid to Ukraine.

For all their concern about Ukraine’s ability to defend itself against Russia, they were remarkably sanguine about the Obama administration’s inaction after Russia annexed Crimea and began aggressing into eastern Ukraine.

Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko went to Washington and begged for military assistance but the Obama-Biden administration refused, out of deference to Moscow.

Poroshenko complained at the time: “one cannot win a war with blankets.”

This was surely the low point of Ukrainian-US relations, not Trump’s phone call in July.

Despite the witnesses’ dissatisfaction with President Trump’s Ukraine policy, it was President Trump who approved the supply of weapons to Ukraine.

So if concern for Ukraine is not the real motivation behind the diplomatic community’s alarm about Trump, all that’s left is protecting the Bidens.

Without a real whistleblower we can only think the worst.

Whole thing here.

Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.