Elizabeth Stauffer declares that “Tucker’s back” in the adjacent post and includes Tucker’s new ten-minute monologue posted to Twitter. “Tucker’s back” doesn’t quite have the zing of “Winston is back!” — the message signaled to the British Fleet when Churchill returned to the Admiralty in the opening days of World War II — but it’s good news. Like Elizabeth, I hope he has found a new home on Twitter.
Tucker devotes the first six minutes of his monologue to bashing Ukraine. Coincidentally, Tucker brings up Churchill. President Zelensky — he’s not Churchill. He’s “sweaty and rat-like, a comedian turned oligarch, a persecutor of Christians, a friend of BlackRock.” He’s “our shifty, dead-eyed Ukrainian friend in the track suit…”
What about Vladimir Putin? Tucker mocks those who posit that “Putin is evil.”
Tucker also mocks Lindsey Graham in lascivious terms. He mocks Nikki Haley for making a tautological argument in support of Ukraine. Haley asserted that supporting Ukraine is “in the best interest of America” and “in the best interest of our national security.” Haley’s statements are asserted rather than proved, but I’m not sure they are tautological. If she is guilty of a fallacy, it might be ipse dixit. Tucker disagrees with Haley, but he doesn’t make an argument either.
All this in support of the proposition that Ukraine blew up the Kakhovka Hydroelectric Power Plant in the early morning hours yesterday and is therefore guilty of terrorism. I’m not sure. Interested readers may want to check out the June 6 Russian offensive campaign assessment from the Institute of the Study of War. With respect to the dam explosion, “ISW has not yet observed clear evidence of what transpired at the KHPP on June 6 and is therefore unable to offer an independent assessment of responsibility at the time of this publication.” By the same token, the Wall Street Journal story offers competing considerations that might support an attribution of responsibility either to Ukraine or to Russia.
However, Tucker has it figured out and perhaps he is right: Ukraine did it. Even so, it wouldn’t necessarily constitute a terrorist act. On the question of terrorism, if he were in the mood, he might find himself guilty of ipse dixit.
I identify with Tucker’s contrarianism. I hate having crap shoved down my throat by our presumed betters in virtually every institution of American life. I have an open mind about what level of support for Ukraine is in the best interest of the United States or what the limits on it should be. However, I certainly would prefer Ukraine to win and have no doubt that Russia is the aggressor. I think Russia is also guilty of war crimes in its prosecution of the war.
As Tucker winds down the Ukraine portion of his monologue, Tucker throws in the JFK assassination for good measure. The clock strikes 13.
I don’t recall Tucker ever having a good word to say about Ukraine’s resistance to the Russian invasion. He has never had a good word to say about Zelensky’s leadership of the Ukrainian resistance. He has never had a bad word to say about Putin, at least since he ordered the invasion of Ukraine. I don’t understand it. Indeed, I find it mystifying.
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.