Kamala Harris Wags Her Finger as She Lectures Ron DeSantis on Ukraine: “If You Really Understand the Issues, You Probably Would Not Make Statements Like That”
Kamala Harris taped an appearance on the CBS show the Late Show with Stephen Colbert in New York City Wednesday night where she was jeered by protesters as she arrived and departed the Ed Sullivan Theater. In a promo clip posted by the Late Show, Harris wagged her finger as she haughtily lectured Florida Governor Ron DeSantis (R) over his recent position statement on Ukraine that is not in line with the groupthink in Washington.
DeSantis wrote in response to questions on Ukraine sent to Republican presidential hopefuls by Fox News Channel host Tucker Carlson that Ukraine is not a vital interest of the United States and called Russia’s war on Ukraine “a territorial dispute.”
Harris: “So, as vice president I have now met with over a hundred world leaders: Presidents, prime ministers, chancellors and kings. And when you have had the experience of meeting, and, and understanding the significance again of international rules and norms and the importance of the United States of America standing firm and clear about the significance of sovereignty and territorial integrity, the significance of standing firm against any nation that would try to take by force another nation. If you really understand the issues, you probably would not make statements like that.”
To her credit, Harris made it through her remarks without cackling. But on the other hand she looked like someone trying to impress guests at a cocktail party.
DeSantis’ answers to the Tucker Carlson questionnaire that triggered Harris:
“While the U.S. has many vital national interests – securing our borders, addressing the crisis of readiness within our military, achieving energy security and independence, and checking the economic, cultural, and military power of the Chinese Communist Party – becoming further entangled in a territorial dispute between Ukraine and Russia is not one of them. The Biden administration’s virtual “blank check” funding of this conflict for “as long as it takes,” without any defined objectives or accountability, distracts from our country’s most pressing challenges.
Without question, peace should be the objective. The U.S. should not provide assistance that could require the deployment of American troops or enable Ukraine to engage in offensive operations beyond its borders. F-16s and long-range missiles should therefore be off the table. These moves would risk explicitly drawing the United States into the conflict and drawing us closer to a hot war between the world’s two largest nuclear powers. That risk is unacceptable.
A policy of “regime change” in Russia (no doubt popular among the DC foreign policy interventionists) would greatly increase the stakes of the conflict, making the use of nuclear weapons more likely. Such a policy would neither stop the death and destruction of the war, nor produce a pro-American, Madisonian constitutionalist in the Kremlin. History indicates that Putin’s successor, in this hypothetical, would likely be even more ruthless. The costs to achieve such a dubious outcome could become astronomical.
