Search Results for “Unlock Your Potential With Real Tableau TCA-C01 Exam Dumps 🐕 Open website ➠ www.pdfvce.com 🠰 and search for ▶ TCA-C01 ◀ for free download 😕TCA-C01 Test Duration” – Page 13

Trump Is Right About Cuomo’s Failure to Procure Ventilators, and the So-Called Fact Checkers Are Wrong

Trump Is Right About Cuomo’s Failure to Procure Ventilators, and the So-Called Fact Checkers Are Wrong

By John R Guardiano on March 26, 2020

As we reported here at ResCon1, Tuesday, March 24, New York’s Democratic Governor, Andrew Cuomo, bears significant responsibility for his state’s lack of ventilators.

U.S. intelligence agencies and public health experts, we observed, warned Cuomo and other government officials years ago of likely pandemics that would overburden our hospitals and healthcare system.

A New York state task force, in fact, specifically warned Cuomo of the lack of ventilators during a pandemic. Cuomo, though, opted not to purchase the requisite number of ventilators.

These are all facts, not opinion or conjecture, and this a matter of public record.

What is a a matter of opinion is Cuomo’s assertion that Trump needs to “nationalize” the medical supply chain, because doing so would mean that 30,000 ventilators would suddenly be produced and descend upon New York State hospitals.

Trump, as we reported here at ResCon1, has wisely resisted Cuomo’s call to have the federal government take over the medical supply chain, because doing so would not solve anything.

Instead, nationalization would create more problems because the government is inept at running commercial businesses. That is simply not a public-sector comparative advantage.

Trump, meanwhile, hit back against Cuomo in a Fox News virtual town hall:

This [article] says that New York Governor Cuomo rejected buying recommended 16,000 ventilators in 2015 for the pandemic—for a pandemic; established death panels and a lotteries instead.

So he had a chance to buy, in 2015, 16,000 ventilators at a very low price and he turned it down.

I’m not blaming him or anything else, but he shouldn’t be talking about us. He’s supposed to be buying his own ventilators. We’re going to help.

But, you know, if you think about—if you think about Governor Cuomo, we’re building him four hospitals. We’re building him four medical centers.

We’re working very, very hard for the people of New York. We’re working along with him, and then I watch him on the show, complaining. And he had 16,000 ventilators that he could have had at a great price and he didn’t buy them.

As a result of these comments, two news organizations, The Dispatch and FactCheck.Org, have published overly long, tendentious, and convoluted criticisms of Trump for allegedly not telling the truth about Cuomo and the ventilators. But their criticisms really miss the mark and are beside the point.

FactCheck.Org flags Trump for charging that, because New York failed to purchase more ventilators years ago, it would be forced to employ a “lottery system” and “death panels” to ration the use of available ventilators. This is “misleading,” they argue.

Moreover, says FactCheck.Org, the New York State task force that looked into the matter in 2015 “did not recommend whether the state should buy more ventilators (and hire the staff necessary to operate them).”

But this is splitting hairs. As Betsy McCaughey explains in the New York Post,

In 2015, that task force came up with rules that will be imposed when ventilators run short.

Patients assigned a red code will have highest access, and other patients will be assigned green, yellow or blue (the worst), depending on a “triage officer’s” decision.

In truth, a death officer. Let’s not sugar-coat it. It won’t be up to your own doctor.

Exactly. Let’s not sugar-coat it. As for the reference to a “lottery system,” that came from a Feb. 27, 2020, New York Times article:

The task force that issued the report devised a formula, relying partially on medical criteria, to help hospitals decide who would get ventilators and who would not.

It also envisioned a lottery system in some instances. And age could play a role, with children being given preference over adults.

Rationing. But the larger-scale point, which we made here at ResCon1 is this: without more ventilators soon, ventilators will have to be rationed, and that means deciding who will live and who will die.

Call it what you will, that is a problem—a big and serious problem.

And whether the task force recommended that the state buy more ventilators is immaterial. The reality is that, as Governor of New York State, Cuomo has a responsibility to safeguard the health and safety of his people, the residents of New York. He failed.

He failed by not buying more ventilators—even though he had been warned of this problem, and even though he had been warned about the likelihood of a pandemic that would require many more ventilators.

Maybe he failed for good reason: because the tradeoffs were too difficult and too stark. Still, he failed. As governor, the buck stops with him.

The Dispatch, meanwhile, complains that “Trump provided no evidence to support his claim that Cuomo could have had the ventilators ‘at a very low price’ in 2015, and that Cuomo ‘turned it down.’”

But cost, too, is really immaterial. When it comes to public health, government has an obligation to spend whatever it takes to protect the health and well-being of their people—us.

That is a fundamental and non-negotiable obligation of the state.If government officials think the cost of public health is too high or prohibitive, then they should say so, clearly and publicly.

That way, we can openly and rationally discuss and debate the tradeoffs involved, our public policy and spending priorities, and what level of risk we, as a society, are willing to assume.

In any case, Trump was echoing what McCaughey argued in her New York Post piece. “In 2015,” she wrote,

the state could have purchased the additional 16,000 needed ventilators for $36,000 a piece, or a total of $576 million. It’s a lot of money, but in hindsight, spending half a percent of the budget to prepare for a pandemic was the right thing to do.

The Dispatch also gets lost in the weeds on the origins of the New York State task force and its precise findings; but this is all background noise and beside the point.

The bottom line is this: Cuomo was warned of a problem and yet, he did not act.

But what’s done is done. What matters now is: where do we go from here? How do we ramp up production and delivery of ventilators to New York and other states that are suffering most from the coronavirus?

The most obvious place to begin is with the Strategic National Stockpile, “the government reserve meant to fortify overwhelmed hospitals in a crisis.” But that stockpile has only 16,600 ventilators, reports the Center for Public Integrity—far fewer than the 64,000 to 742,000 that might be needed.

In truth, only an unleashed and unchained private sector free to innovate can possibly produce the requisite number of ventilators quickly enough to meet the anticipated demand. Fortunately the Trump administration is relaxing the regulatory burden and companies are stepping up to produce.

A company called Prisma Health, for instance, is using 3D printing to manufacture a new ventilator model that can support up to four patients simultaneously.

The company says that it “has received emergency use authorization” from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and is working with “COVID-19 [treatment] teams who have no more ventilator capacity, and who can initiate emergency use of the prototype.”

The good news, reports the Wall Street Journal’s William McGurn, “is that players in the private sector… have already been in touch with one another to see how they might team up.”

For example, he writes, before the coronavirus hit, one company’s “peak output was roughly 150 ventilators a month.” However, within the next 90 days, they expect to increase that to 1,000 ventilators a month.

“It won’t be easy [nor will it happen] overnight,” says Chris Kiple, “but it can be done.”

Mr. Kiple is CEO of Seattle-based Ventec Life Systems. He says Ventec is one of about a dozen players in the global market for ventilators, only about half of which are U.S.-based companies.

“Ventec,” McGurn writes, recently

announced it will work in partnership with General Motors. The idea is to combine GM’s experience of mass-production manufacturing with Ventec’s technology.

Mr. Kiple says the partnership will mean getting “more ventilators to more hospitals much faster.” The president tweeted Sunday, [March 22, 2020]: “Go for it auto execs.”

Feature photo credit: NY1

Raheem Mostert’s Remarkable Story Shows Why We Love Professional Sports

Raheem Mostert’s Remarkable Story Shows Why We Love Professional Sports

By John R Guardiano on January 21, 2020

Adam Kilgore’s wonderful profile of San Francisco ’49er running back Raheem Mostert, published in today’s Washington Post, reminds us again why we love professional sports:

Because the stories of the athletes can be so inspiring. Because the trials and tribulations that they endure and overcome can be so compelling.

And because we know that professional sports is a hard-fought and hard-won meritocracy, where only the strong survive—and where unheralded and overlooked underdogs can and do defy the odds, through sheer grit, perseverance, and determination.

Consider, for instance, the remarkable story of one Raheem Mostert. He

“entered the league out of Purdue after every team passed on him in the draft, signing as a free agent with the Eagles in 2015. The Philadelphia Eagles cut him after training camp… and signed him to their practice squad.

“The Miami Dolphins signed him, only to cut him a month later. He spent two months with the Baltimore Ravens and finished the season with the Cleveland Browns, who would cut him a week before the start of the 2016 season.

“After his rookie year,” Kilgore reports, “Mostert was unsure he could withstand the psychic toll of getting cut again. He talked with his wife about leaving football behind.

“She told me, ‘If you truly love this game, you’re going to do what you need to do,’ ” Mostert said. “That’s what I needed.”

“But his second season unfolded like his first. The New York Jets picked him up, only to cut him a week later. The Chicago Bears signed him, and Mostert lasted about two months before Chicago released him.”

In all, Kilgore notes,”six franchises waived Mostert before he stuck with the San Francisco 49ers. On some of those days, he did not believe he would make it in the NFL. On others, he considered quitting football…

“Not everybody can deal with that type of stress and pain and agony that I went through,” Mostert told Kilgore. ” I kept the faith in not only myself, but whoever gave me the opportunity.”

Since joining the ’49ers in 2016, no one had ever heard of Mostert. He spent the entire 2016 season minus the final game on the practice squad. He was placed on injured reserve for much of the 2017 and 2018 seasons and contributed little to the team. He was consigned to special teams, where he reportedly played well, but was still a bit player.

However, all of that began to change this season, as Mostert broke out in a big way, rushing for 772 yards on 137 carries. And, in the ’49ers’ resounding victory over the Green Bay Packers in Sunday’s NFC championship game, Mostert had a game for the ages, rushing for an incredible 220 yards on 29 carries while scoring four touchdowns.

To put that into perspective, only one player in NFL history has ever rushed for more yardage in a playoff game, and that player’s name is Eric Dickerson, who now resides in the NFL Hall of Fame.

“While Jimmy Garoppolo passed only eight times,” reports Kilgore, “Mostert exploded through holes, sprinted away from defensive backs, and bowled over defenders. Teammates admire his style—’fearless,’ left tackle Joe Staley said—and his story…

“He’s just earned everything,” ’49ers’ head coat Kyle Shanahan told reporters after Sunday’s win. “He earned today. He’s such a good person. I can’t say enough good about Raheem.”

“Mostert,” writes Kilgore, “called Sunday the happiest day of his life behind his wedding and the [June 22] birth of his son,” Gunnar Grey. And Mostert is especially grateful that he was able to hold Gunnar close and in his arms after Sunday’s spectacular performance and glorious win.

“That’s a moment I’m going to cherish forever,” Mostert said. “For him to be able to have that opportunity, be onstage with me after what I accomplished, after what I done been through, I can’t put it into words how it feels.”

Fortunately for us, Washington Post reporter Adam Kilgore has a way with words and has given us a strong sense of how it must feel.

I know how I feel after reading Kilgore’s profile: elevated and inspired. Motivated. Raheem Mostert was knocked down repeatedly; yet he never gave up. And his spirit of determination and ultimate triumph over adversity is what sports fans love about sports.

It is why we watch the game. And it is why we will be watching Sun., Feb. 2, when Mostert and his fellow ’49ers take on the Kansas City Chiefs in the Super Bowl. Mostert and his teammates are not yet done and neither are we.

The Moral Myopia of Populist ‘New Right’ Republican Foreign Policy

The Moral Myopia of Populist ‘New Right’ Republican Foreign Policy

By John R Guardiano on September 20, 2023

Russia’s war on Ukraine was never about a “territorial dispute” between the two countries. Instead, it is a battle between good and evil; and, in that fight, America cannot be impartial or indifferent.

One of the most fallacious, disgraceful, and repugnant assertions made by some isolationists or anti-interventionists is that, when it comes to Russia and Ukraine, both countries are morally and ethically besmirched; and so, the United States should refrain from taking sides in their “territorial dispute.”

Of course, such moral equivalence has absolutely no basis in fact. It has been cut out of whole cloth by populist “New Right” Republicans eager to have America disengage from messy and bloody overseas conflicts.

Horrific Russian War Crimes. In truth, as anyone familiar with Russian history and Vladimir Putin well knows, Russia is a criminal state that has habitually committed horrific war crimes, and this is true in Ukraine today.

Indeed, Russia deliberately and routinely launches missile strikes against Ukrainian civilian population centers, schools and hospitals; pillages Ukrainian cities and homes; rapes Ukrainian women; tortures and executes Ukrainian men; and abducts and kidnaps Ukrainian children.

And these are not scarce or isolated incidents or the work of a few bad actors who have gone rogue. Instead, these horrific war crimes are widespread and the deliberative actions of a Russian state that has long seen barbarism and criminality as necessary instruments of war and statecraft. As Rich Lowry observes:

Where the Russian military goes, war crimes are sure to follow. It is a reflection of a twisted Russian political culture that has never developed an appreciation for individual worth, democratic accountability or humanitarian norms.

Vladimir Putin is not to be confused with Lenin or Stalin—he paints his horrors on a much smaller canvas. But his cold-eyed brutality is characteristically Russian…

What the Russian lacks in planning and proficiency, it makes up in barbarity and utter disregard for humanity. War is hell, but almost all advanced nations try to keep it within some bounds of decency. Russia is an outlier. For it, the cruelty is the point—and the reflexive practice.

The Associated Press reported in April that, according to Ukrainian Prosecutor General Andrea Kostin, “nearly 80,000 cases of war crimes have been registered in Ukraine since the war began in February 2022.”

Ukrainian military action against Russia is in no way comparable. The Ukrainian military does not rape, torture and pillage; it does not target schools and hospitals; and it does not employ terror as a weapon of war.

Instead, the Ukrainian military fights to liberate its country and to free its people of Russian tyranny.

The worst that can be said of Ukraine is that, after a year of horrific Russian war crimes, it began to launch retaliatory drone strikes against Russian airports and military infrastructure inside Russia. But none of these drone strikes compares in intensity or firepower to the horrific missile strikes launched by Russia against Ukrainian civilian targets.

False Moral Equivalence. Yet despite the sheer moral clarity of this war and the stark differences between Russia and Ukraine, populist “New Right” Republicans have tried to draw a moral equivalence between these two countries.

In practice, this has meant seizing upon any evidence that Ukraine might be anything but a pure and perfect liberal democracy; and arguing that the war between Russia and Ukraine stems from a messy “territorial dispute” that is of little interest to the United States.

In truth, Ukraine is a fledgling liberal democracy that aspires to be part of the West, and which fundamentally shares our liberal democratic values.

And we Americans should care about Ukraine because, as the world’s most powerful and influential nation, the United States has a preeminent interest in maintaining a liberal, rules-based international order. American economic preeminence, after all, depends on international trade and commerce, especially with Europe.

Moral clarity also is an integral part of American foreign policy. Countries and people the world over know that the United States does not covet land, territory, or people. They view us as an honest broker who can be trusted, more so than any other country, to be fair and just and to do the right thing.

Our moral standing, in fact, gives us tremendous leverage and influence, militarily and diplomatically. Which is why we mustn’t squander it by trying to pretend that Ukraine and Russia are equally culpable and blameworthy; and that Russia’s war on Ukraine is of little interest to the United States.

Nothing could be further from the truth. This war is fundamentally a battle between good and evil; and in that fight, America cannot be impartial or indifferent. This is, as Ronald Reagan once said, a time for choosing.

Feature photo credit: A Ukrainian civilian population center targeted and destroyed by the Russian military, courtesy of Alexander Ermochenko/Reuters, published in The Globe and Mail.

Imminence Is Irrelevant in Judging the Suleimani Strike

Imminence Is Irrelevant in Judging the Suleimani Strike

By John R Guardiano on January 12, 2020

One of the most pointless policy debates ginned up of late by the anti-Trump media and Dems in Congress is whether an Iranian attack on U.S. interests was “imminent” prior to the U.S. military strike that took out Iranian General Qassem Suleimani. If such an attack was imminent, they say, then the U.S. military strike may have been justified; but if not, then the strike is probably illegal and Trump may have committed a war crime.

What this analysis ignores, of course, is that, regardless of whether such an attack was “imminent,” Iran has been waging war against the United States for the past 40 years, ever since its 1979 revolution and seizure of 52 American hostages.

Suleimani himself, moreover, had orchestrated the death of more than 600 Americans serving in Iraq for the past 16 years. Suleimani’s blood-stained record provided more than ample justification for targeting him while he was in Iraq plotting yet more terror attacks against American military personnel and civilian contractors.

Indeed, the U.S. military strike against Suleimani is best understood as a quick defensive measure taken when a moment of opportunity suddenly arose. Trump wisely seized upon this opportunity to free the world of a dangerous terrorist mastermind. A good deed and good riddance.

Why Italy’s New Conservative Prime Minister Supports Ukraine

Why Italy’s New Conservative Prime Minister Supports Ukraine

By John R Guardiano on September 25, 2022

—and why American conservatives should, too.

Italy’s new conservative Prime Minister, Giorgia Meloni, has much to teach American conservatives—especially so-called nationalist conservatives, who too often have been hostile or indifferent toward Ukraine.

Not Ms. Meloni. She is, reports the Wall Street Journal, “robustly pro-Ukraine.”

“We are fully committed to supporting Ukraine and condemning Russia,” said Raffaele Fitto, a senior member of the Brothers of Italy party, which leads a right-wing alliance that polls suggest could win around 60% of the seats in Parliament.

“Sanctions must be supported,” he said, “no ifs or buts.”

Western Civilization. Amen. Ukraine today is at the epicenter of the fight for Western Civilization; and Italy, of course, is one of the cradles of this civilizational inheritance. Our civilizational inheritance.

Indeed, the rule of law, the Judeo-Christian moral code, market-based commerce, and representative democracy all owe a debt of gratitude to the Romans who pioneered these concepts in the Italian peninsula and beyond in the millennium before Christ.

So it is perhaps not surprising that modern-day Italians are among the strongest supporters of Ukraine in its fight for independence against an alien and countervailing political tradition manifest in 21st Century Russia.

As Ms. Meloni explains:

We did not fight against and defeat Communism in order to replace it with a new international regime, but to permit independent nation-states once again to defend the freedom, identity, and sovereignty of their peoples.

Ms. Meloni’s remarks were not directed toward Ukraine specifically, but they apply there nonetheless. To translate:

the West did not defeat the Soviet Union in order to replace it with an imperial Russia that tramples upon the rights and liberties of free and sovereign nation-states like Ukraine.

America Conservatives. Yet a disconcerting number of American conservatives, especially so-called nationalist conservatives, are soft on Putin’s Russia and antagonistic toward Ukraine. Bizarrely and perversely, some so-called conservatives even hold up Putin as a sort of model leader. Why?

Part of this is simple ignorance and a lack of education. Generations of dismal public schooling have taken their toll. Consequently, too many Americans are ignorant of the origins of Western Civilization and the struggles of our ancestors as they attempted to form a more perfect union in these United States. Novus ordo seclorum.

This lack of historical understanding and appreciation is overlaid with an obsession over current events and the very recent past, which, together, distort our understanding and confuse matters.

Iraq and Afghanistan. For Americans, especially younger Americans, the very recent past is Iraq and Afghanistan. All conflict is viewed the prism of these two wars. And so, the fear all along has been that Ukraine might become yet another “endless war” that consumes our time and our resources at the expense of other, more pressing issues like China.

But of course, as we’ve noted, Ukraine is neither Iraq nor Afghanistan. It is a very different country in a very different time and place. And the war in Ukraine is orders of magnitude more important to the United States than the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan ever were.

A Taliban-run Afghanistan overrun with jihadists who seek to do us harm is a problem, to be sure. But terrorists in caves do not pose the same level of threat as a Russia, nuclear-armed and China-aligned, that is intent on expanding westward to gobble-up Eastern Europe.

The Italians, fortunately, are not burdened with the legacy of Iraq and Afghanistan. Thus they are able to see Ukraine for what it is: a war the West must win.

Grazie a Dio per l’Italia.

Feature photo credit: Italy’a new Prime Minister, Giorgia Meloni, courtesy of Wikipedia.

Fox News’ Tucker Carlson Spreads Malicious Lies about Ukraine and the United States

Fox News’ Tucker Carlson Spreads Malicious Lies about Ukraine and the United States

By John R Guardiano on December 11, 2022

In his zeal to vilify Ukraine and malign the United States, Carlson betrays an appalling ignorance of the politics and history of both countries.

Is Tucker Carlson a knowing Putin propagandist or historically obtuse and ignorant?

It’s hard to tell, but that is the inescapable conclusion one must draw after listening to his myriad commentaries trying to portray Ukraine in the worst possible light, while saying little or nothing critical of Putin and Russia.

Most recently (Dec. 7, 2022), Carlson declared that Ukrainian President Zelensky is a Lenin-like dictator who is using American tax dollars to stamp out opposition parties and religious liberty in Ukraine.

Zelensky is a “dangerous authoritarian” who “has no interest in freedom and democracy,” Carlson intoned. And, for this reason, any comparison to World War II, the proverbial “good war” for freedom and democracy, is wrongheaded.

American support for Ukraine today does not mirror American support for Britain at the outset of World War II. No, Sir, said Carlson.

The Biden administration “baited” Russia into invading Ukraine: by “telling Zelensky to join NATO, which they, [the Biden administration], knew was a Russian red line. They, [the Biden administration], wanted this war,” Carlson said.

Russia Threats. Carlson then brought left-wing journalist Glenn Greenwald on air to tell viewers that the U.S. government “actually doesn’t care about spreading democracy.” That is a “fairy tale,” Greenwald said.

Russia, he scoffed, is no threat to the United States. Russia is not our enemy. Presidents Obama and Trump didn’t see Russia as an enemy and neither should we. Only crazy left-wing Democrats who still cling to the Trump-Russia collusion hoax think that, Greenwald said.

As Luke Coffey observes, “Tucker would make a fantastic spokesman for the Kremlin.” And, in fact, as The Guardian points out:

Carlson’s commentaries on the Ukraine war generally reflect Putin’s speeches and claims. Russian television then plays back the monologues as evidence that Putin is right because the same is being said by “the most popular television presenter in America”.

But while Americans of all political stripes do not accept the lies spewed by a Russian dictator, American conservatives are inclined to accept the falsehoods spouted by Fox News’ Tucker Carlson, and therein lies the problem.

Carlson is opposed to U.S. aid to Ukraine, which is a legitimate, albeit wrongheaded position.

What is illegitimate is deliberately lying about the United States and Ukraine, and deliberately defaming and demonizing these two great countries, to try and make your case for cutting off American aid dollars.

Zelensky v. Lenin. First, to compare Zelensky to Lenin is obviously idiotic and slanderous. Lenin seized power in a violent Communist revolution and was guided by dictatorial Communist ideology. Zelensky was elected president peacefully and democratically, and is guided by the broad-based concerns of the Ukrainian people.

As for religious liberty, it is guaranteed in the Ukrainian Constitution, and it is, in the main, respected and protected. However, because Putin has weaponized the Orthodox Church and manipulated the church to try and conquer and subdue Ukraine, matters are considerably more complicated than Carlson acknowledges.

Ukraine is fighting for its very survival and has a legitimate interest in rooting out spies, traitors, and saboteurs.

Perhaps Zelensky and his government have overreached. But if that is the case, they did so as a wartime exigency and not out of any ideological desire to stamp out legitimate democratic opposition and dissent.

Let us remember: the United States, too, has sometimes stifled dissent and infringed upon liberty while at war.

Lincoln. During the Civil War, for instance, President Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus to ensure that Union commanders could arrest and detain people seen as a threat to military operations. Yet, only the historically illiterate would suggest that, because of this, Lincoln was a “dangerous authoritarian” opposed to democracy.

Instead, historians understand that Lincoln was a wartime leader trying to preserve the union and save his country.

This doesn’t meant that Lincoln was right to suspend habeas corpus. That is a legitimate historical argument to have. But any fair-minded historian will place Lincoln’s suspension of the writ into historical context to arrive at a judicious and fair-minded conclusion regardless of whether he thinks what Lincoln did was right or wrong.

So, too, with Zelensky. Political and wartime context is required to understand his actions vis-a-vis the Orthodox Church. Yet, Carlson eschews such context precisely in order to demonize Zelensky and portray him as a cartoonish political villain.

Ukraine. What is beyond dispute and debate is that Ukraine is a burgeoning democracy that aspires to be part of the West. The Ukrainians wish to share in our political and cultural patrimony. They wish to be a free, sovereign, and independent country.

Russia, by contrast, wants to dominate and subjugate Ukraine. They want to isolate Ukraine from the West and make it dependent upon and subservient to Russia. And, more ominously, in so doing, they want to wipe Ukraine off the map and destroy its culture and its nationhood.

American support for Ukraine is thus morally just and righteous and something all Americans ought to be proud of—Carlson and Greenwald to the contrary notwithstanding.

But make no mistake: America supports Ukraine not just because it is the right thing to do, but because it serves the American national interest.

Russia. Again, Russia is an avowed enemy of the United States that has spent the better part of two decades undermining American national security interests in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. So any opportunity to bloody and weaken Russia is a good and welcome opportunity for the United States.

This doesn’t mean that the United States baited or lured Russia into waging war on Ukraine, as Carlson and Greenwald idiotically assert. To the contrary: the United States and its European allies went to great pains for many years to allay Russian concerns.

The problem is that Putin has been hellbent on resurrecting a new Russian empire and could not be assuaged by anything less than utter appeasement and surrender.

Putin launched a war on Ukraine not because of anything the United States or NATO did or did not do. He launched a war on Ukraine because he wants to conquer and subsume Ukraine.

The United States is supporting Ukraine because it recognizes that Russia success there will threaten peace and stability throughout Europe, while inspiring dictators worldwide to redraw national boundaries and rewrite the wold map.

In other words, American support for democracy is no fairy tale; it is reality, hard-headed realism in a dangerous world. And the only lies being told are those by Carlson and Greenwald, who portray an illiberal, authoritarian Ukraine that doesn’t exist.

The bottom line: Ukraine is a good country and its president, Zelensky, is a great wartime leader, despite whatever mistakes he might have made and, undoubtedly, will make in the future.

Ukraine and Zelensky, in fact, can be compared, favorably, to Great Britain and Winston Churchill as they heroically fought back against Nazi Germany at the onset of World War II.

Russia, by contrast, is a bad country and its dictator, Vladimir Putin, is a bad man. Russia and Putin can be compared, unfavorably, to Nazi Germany and Adolph Hitler as they savagely tried to conquer Europe during World War II.

And then, as now, the United States is doing the Lord’s work in supporting the forces of freedom and democracy. May it always be so.

Feature photo credit: Fox News’ host Tucker Carlson and left-wing journalist Glenn Greenwald, courtesy of a Fox News screenshot.

Biography

John R. Guardiano [pronounced Guard-Dee-On-Oh] is a writer, analyst, investor, and observer in Arlington, Virginia. His interests include American politics, defense and foreign policy, options trading, equities investing, health and fitness. He is a Marine veteran of the Iraq War and holds a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science from Binghamton (Phi Beta Kappa) and a Master’s Degree (with distinction) in National Security and Strategic Studies from the Naval War College.

Financial Disclosure: ResCon1 is a news and information site designed to correct error and promote truth. There are no “tip jars,” no “GoFundMe” solicitations, and no corporate or governmental donations. This is a voluntary, non-profit, charitable endeavor. I report and analyze the news and write what I think without fear, favor or prejudice—and without concern for the almighty dollar. If I have a financial or professional interest in something that I write about, I will disclose that.

Political Disclosure. I write from a conservative perspective; however, I am not a Trump Republican. In fact, I dislike our former president for his vulgarity, lack of professionalism, and incompetence. Yet, I find much to like about his administration and its policies.

I pride myself on being independent-minded and thus criticize the president and GOP lawmakers frequently when I believe they have erred. I do not censor myself or pull my punches because I think that something I write might hurt the GOP or the conservative cause. If it does, too bad. The pursuit of truth regardless of the consequences is what guides me.

Copyright. Media organizations and individual writers are free to borrow or publish anything that I post to this site. I ask only that you credit me for my work; and that if you do compensate writers and contributors, you do so for me as well.

Does Putin’s Nuclear Threat Mean the West Should Stand Down in Ukraine?

Does Putin’s Nuclear Threat Mean the West Should Stand Down in Ukraine?

By John R Guardiano on March 15, 2022

The risk of nuclear war is minimal and cannot be an excuse for American and NATO inaction as innocent Ukrainians are slaughtered and Ukraine is destroyed.

The West and, indeed, the world is united in its revulsion over Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and perpetration of war crimes to bring that proud nation to heel.

Yet, whenever anyone dares to propose that the United States and its NATO allies intervene to stop the horrific slaughter of innocent men, women, and children, the councils of caution ominously warn that we must sit on our hands because Vladimir Putin has nuclear weapons and intervening could mean “World War III.”

Now, of course, no one can completely discount the possibility of nuclear war should America and NATO intervene in Ukraine. That is a risk in any conflict involving countries armed with nuclear weapons.

But a fair-minded analysis must conclude that the risk is quite small; and that, short of invading Russia, the United States and its NATO allies can and should legitimately use military power to stop the slaughter of innocent Ukrainians.

First, some military and historical perspective: Both the United States and Russia have had nuclear weapons for the past 70+ years. Yet, despite being engaged in a Cold War for nearly four decades (roughly 1950-1990), both countries never engaged in a nuclear exchange, let alone a nuclear war.

Does this mean a nuclear war now or in the future is an impossibility? No, of course not. But this historical record is a compelling precedent and reason for optimism.

In truth, the Russians realize, no less than us, that a nuclear war would mean the annihilation of their country and ours. As Alexander Vindman explains:

I can say from my significant experience dealing with the highest levels of Russia’s military leadership that it has no interest in a bilateral confrontation with the U.S.

Russian leaders have zero desire for nuclear war, and they understand that they would inevitably lose in a conventional war. However, Russia excels at compelling the U.S. to self-deter.

Exactly. And Vindman, unlike many Western commentators, knows of what he speaks. He served as the director for European affairs for the National Security Council when Trump was president.

History. Some commentators, such as the New York Times’ Ross Douthat, note that when, in 1956, the Soviet Union invaded Hungary, America and NATO stood down. Likewise, in 1968, when the Soviets invaded Czechoslovakia, the West stood down.

Why? Because we did dared not risk a nuclear conflagration with Russia.

But those are fallacious and misplaced historical analogies, because during the Cold War, Hungary and Czechoslovakia were Soviet satellite states.

Ukraine, by contrast, is a free and sovereign state. And, through its fierce and heroic resistance to Russian military domination today, Ukraine shows that it has absolutely no desire to forfeit its sovereignty and independence to Russia.

“When the Ukrainians are willing to spill their blood, seemingly without limit, in a wholly admirable cause, American hesitation is heartbreaking,” writes Eliot A. Cohen, a professor at The Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies.

Nuclear weapons, he adds,

are why the United States should refrain from attacking Russia directly, not why it should fear fighting Russians in a country they invaded.

Only a few years ago, the United States Air Force killed Russian Wagner mercenaries by the hundreds in Syria; American and Russian pilots tangled in the skies over Korea and possibly Vietnam.

Nuclear deterrence cuts both ways, and the Russian leadership knows it. Vladimir Putin and those around him are ill-informed but not mad, and the use of nuclear weapons would threaten their very survival.

Military Doctrine. Other commentators, such as David French, note that Russian military doctrine reportedly allows for the use of tactical nuclear weapons on the battlefield; and that Russia has a huge numerical advantage in tactical nukes.

Maybe so, but military doctrine is not some rigid and inviolable instruction that mandates strategic and tactical decisions; rather, it is a guide for military decision-makers.

Moreover, Putin’s use of tactical or battlefield nukes would risk a counterstrike that could utterly destroy Moscow and other Russian cities, and Putin knows this.

“Vladimir Putin can accomplish what he needs [to] by using conventional weapons as he is doing,” says retired four-star Admiral James Stavridis, the former NATO Supreme Allied Commander (2009-2013).

So he doesn’t have a tactical reason to use nuclear weapons….

The only thing I can foresee that would cause him to use a tactical nuclear weapon would be if NATO attacked Russia. [But] NATO has no interest in invading Russia.

Finally, there is the “mad man” theory, which asserts that Putin has become mad and unhinged and, if cornered, may well lash out and order a nuclear strike. So we better tread gently and appease him.

But as Michael O’Hanlon points out, there is no reason to think that Putin has lost his mind.

He clearly is “angry, arrogant and autocratic,” O’Hanlon writes, “and more reckless than we had appreciated. But his behavior can otherwise be explained simply by allowing for the kinds of mistakes that leaders often make.

“Given that he has his finger on the nuclear trigger, that’s a relief.”

It’s also important to note that although Putin is a dictator, the Russian state necessarily involves many more people, functionaries, and decision-makers.

Thus an order to use nuclear weapons would have to pass through several hands in addition to Putin’s; and there is no reason to think that everyone in and around Putin is irrational and suicidal.

The bottom line: nuclear saber rattling by the Russians is nothing new. We have encountered it before and we have survived it before without a nuclear conflagration.

Indeed, a fear of nuclear war did not stop President Kennedy from interdicting Russian ships on the high seas during the 1962 Cuban missile crisis; and it did not stop Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis from ordering U.S. forces to “annihilate” Russian mercenary forces in Syria in February 2018.

We will avoid a nuclear war this time as well. What is becoming less clear, however, is whether Ukraine will avoid being utterly destroyed by a horrific Russian military assault that is deliberately targeting civilian population centers and innocent men, women, and children.

The time for the West to act is now. American and NATO intervention is long overdue. And a legitimate fear of nuclear war is not a legitimate reason for continued inaction when the risk of such a conflagration is quite low.

Feature photo credit: A Ukrainian maternity hospital deliberately targeted and destroyed by Russian military forces, courtesy of Social News XYZ.

Why Congressional Republicans Must Vote to Impeach and Convict Trump

Why Congressional Republicans Must Vote to Impeach and Convict Trump

By John R Guardiano on January 12, 2021

Impeachment and conviction will allow the GOP to wash away the stain of dishonor that Trump has stamped upon their party.

As a matter of principle, Congressional Republicans should support the impeachment and conviction of Donald Trump.

The Republican Party, after all, is the nation’s conservative party—the party of liberty, the rule of law, faithful adherence to the Constitution, and the separation of powers.

Yet, all this and more was flagrantly assaulted in the Jan. 6, 2021, violent attack on the Capitol that Trump shamelessly and unapologetically orchestrated.

Why, then, are so few Republican lawmakers in favor of impeachment? In a word: politics.

Congressional Republicans have convinced themselves that Trump commands the allegiance of too many voters in their districts and their states to risk supporting his impeachment.

Their fear: that they will face a pro-Trump challenger who will defeat them in a primary and destroy their political careers.

This fear is understandable, but shortsighted and myopic—and it risks destroying the Republican Party.

The obvious truth is that Trump is intensely loathed and despised by a clear majority of voters nationwide. And everything he has done in the past two months since losing the election to Joe Biden has made him even more reviled, and justly so.

As the New York Times’ Bret Stephens points out:

The president attacked the states, in their right to set their own election procedures. He attacked the courts, state as well as federal, in their right to settle the election challenges brought before them.

He attacked Congress, in its right to conduct orderly business free of fear. He attacked the vice president, in his obligation to fulfill his duties under the 12th Amendment.

He attacked the American people, in their right to choose the electors who choose the president.

The risk to Republicans is that by trying to appease Trump’s base, they risk losing the country, as they did in the election, and it wasn’t even close. Trump lost the popular vote by more than seven million votes, and he lost the electoral college 306-232.

Trump Voters. Republicans obsess over Trump voters; but the truth is that Trump voters, all 74 million of them, are hardly a monolith.

Sure, many of them may be diehard Trump fans, but many (yours truly, for instance) are not. Many can be constructively engaged and persuaded through good-faith efforts to tell them the truth.

Unfortunately, too few Republican officeholders are willing to tell their voters the truth—the truth about the 2020 election and the truth about Donald Trump; and, until they do, the future of the Republican Party is in grave danger.

Indeed, if Republicans think the loss of two winnable Senate seats in Georgia was bad, they ain’t seen nothing yet. Worse and even more catastrophic political losses may be yet to come, and precisely because of their uncritical embrace of Trump.

Watershed Moment. The Jan. 6, 2021, Trump-engineered assault on the Capitol was a watershed event that will live in infamy. Elected Republicans need to recognize this and respond with the seriousness of purpose that the times and the moment demand.

Impeaching and convicting the ringleader of this attack, Donald J. Trump, is the right and necessary place to start.

Feature photo credit: Violent thugs, summoned by Trump to Washington to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power, scale the walls of the United States Capitol as they begin their assault on Congress (José Luis Magaña/Associated Press, courtesy of the Philadelphia Inquirer.)

Senate Republicans Must Acknowledge Trump’s Wrongdoing—Even, If, and Especially If, They Don’t Convict Him

Senate Republicans Must Acknowledge Trump’s Wrongdoing—Even, If, and Especially If, They Don’t Convict Him

By John R Guardiano on January 22, 2020

Given that we’re less than 10 months out from the Nov. 3, 2020, presidential election, it is reasonable and legitimate to conclude that:

a) what President Trump did vis-a-vis Ukraine was wrong and perhaps even impeachable. However,

(b) because of the proximity to the election, he should not be convicted by the Senate and removed from office. Instead,

If Republicans were making that argument, there would be little to quarrel with.

Unfortunately, too many Republicans have insisted that Trump did nothing wrong: that he is the victim of a political witch-hunt and an ongoing political vendetta by angry Democrats who have never reconciled themselves to his election as president.

Trump himself, moreover, has never acknowledged any wrongdoing. To the contrary: he continues to insist that his phone call to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was a “perfect conversation” and “totally appropriate.”

This is patently false and a complete denial of reality. In truth, as we now know beyond the shadow of a doubt, Trump abused his authority as president to try and secure personal political favors from a foreign government, and he tried to use Congressionally authorized aid to that government as leverage to secure these favors.

This is the very definition of an abuse of power and a violation of the public trust.

Now, whether this rises to the level of an impeachable offense is legitimately debatable. And whether the Senate should convict Trump for this offense and remove him from office is even more debatable. But there can be no debate about the underlying offense and wrongdoing by the president.

The facts don’t lie, but political partisans often do. And too many Republicans, in Congress and the media, are lying and spinning about what Trump did, why he was impeached, and why he is now being tried in the Senate.

In so doing, they are contributing mightily to a debilitating national cynicism that ascribes all political disputes to a raw lust for power and revenge.

To the cynics, and to the wild-eyed partisans, there can be no principled, good-faith disagreements, just high-pitched, life-and-death political struggles in which anything goes. Just win, baby. Truth, after all, is relative.

This, of course, does not serve our country and our politics well. It results in a hardening of the partisan arteries, political arteriosclerosis, and legislative paralysis. Nothing gets done because the two sides refuse even to communicate honestly, fight fairly, and legislate respectfully.

For Republicans eager to secure the border, check the regulatory state, reform entitlements, rebuild the military, and liberalize healthcare, this is an ominous and foreboding development.

Worse still, by failing to speak honestly and forthrightly about Trump’s wrongdoing, Republican officeholders are handicapping themselves when the next Democratic President abuses her power and authority to, say, ban and confiscate guns, grant amnesty and citizenship rights to illegal immigrants, limit options and choices in the health insurance marketplace, force local schools to accommodate transgender identity and “inclusion,” and make college “free.”

What standing, after all, will Republican congressman and senators have to oppose these naked power grabs after they spent the better part of a year rationalizing and excusing Trump’s abuse of power?

A republic if you can keep it, warned Benjamin Franklin. Let’s at least try to keep it by honestly calling out wrongdoing no matter where it occurs, and regardless of which side of the political aisle it originates. That may not mean convicting Trump and removing him from office; but it surely means leveling with the American people about his abuse of power and wrongdoing.

Note: Tim Carney and Quin Hillyer at the Washington Examiner, and the editors at National Review, share similar thoughts about the Senate Republicans vis-a-vis the Trump impeachment.

Feature photo/illustration credit: QuotesGram via Tunnel Wall.