Fill Your Hands!

Agree with him or not, our guest today is a man of true grit. Former Navy SEAL and representative of Texas’ 2nd congressional district, Dan Crenshaw joins the podcast to discuss the Intel Community; the rising temperature of the conflict in Ukraine; and our very own border, which, you may have heard, has its own problemos.

Florida man Charlie Cooke is with us again, and he’s got thought on football and his governor. James defies Twitter, comes out as pro-“the” and anti-peasantry; Peter still likes what we used to call chivalry.

Subscribe to The Ricochet Podcast in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.

Please Support Our Sponsors!

4Patriots

Use Code: RP

Boll & Branch

Now become a Ricochet member for only $5.00 a month! Join and see what you’ve been missing.

There are 93 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. ThomasMcInerny Coolidge
    ThomasMcInerny
    @ThomasMcInerny

    The world  cries  for “Fill your hands you Sweet ol’ Bobs” (or words to that  effect).Crenshaw and Gallagher give us hope that we won’t  be coming with our  dicks in our hands. Cite please : WWI, WWII. Korea, Vietnam…etc.

    • #1
  2. BDB Coolidge
    BDB
    @BDB

    Haven’t listened to this yet — did his calling us “terrorists” come up?  Anything on his deplorable cowardly speak-power-to-truth stance in the HFC speakership kerfuffle?

    Talk about blowing your wad  over small change — or revealing too much.  Either way, this has a precedent.

    John McCain was a true hero — until his behavior forced many of us to cleanly separate his admirable behavior back then from his miserable treachery and unacceptable attitude/motivations later.

    Separation accomplished.  This Eyepatch McCain Pinto (discount Maverick) fool could shut up and vote right if he wants anything but derision from us.  But I bet he can’t.  He just can’t shut up.

    p.s. I did try to listen in live, but I got there as he was leaving, and it was a workday after all.

    • #2
  3. Leslie Watkins Member
    Leslie Watkins
    @LeslieWatkins

    I support our efforts on behalf of Ukraine (national sovereignty being as important to practical liberty as freedom of speech), but I don’t find criticism, even sharp criticism, of our involvement out of line, as Congressman Crenshaw seems to. Better to say he disagreed with the 20’s tactics in the Speaker fight than to reveal that he’s taken on the DC tic of describing his GOP sparring partners as lightweights. … My biggest fear is that, despite the recent show of tanks, the U.S. and NATO will force Zelensky down the river of a negotiated peace and that that will be crushing to the Ukrainians: their cities destroyed, hundreds of thousands of dead soldiers on all sides, much of the world’s breadbasket despoiled, only to be back where they were on Feb. 23, 2022. The spreadsheet’s not looking good.

    • #3
  4. Taras Coolidge
    Taras
    @Taras

    BDB (View Comment):

    Haven’t listened to this yet — did his calling us “terrorists” come up? Anything on his deplorable cowardly speak-power-to-truth stance in the HFC speakership kerfuffle?

    Talk about blowing your wad over small change — or revealing too much. Either way, this has a precedent.

    John McCain was a true hero — until his behavior forced many of us to cleanly separate his admirable behavior back then from his miserable treachery and unacceptable attitude/motivations later.

    Separation accomplished. This Eyepatch McCain Pinto (discount Maverick) fool could shut up and vote right if he wants anything but derision from us. But I bet he can’t. He just can’t shut up.

    p.s. I did try to listen in live, but I got there as he was leaving, and it was a workday after all.

    John McCain spent decades undermining the conservative movement, earning the love of the liberal media, so it’s a little — how can I put this tactfully — premature to compare Dan Crenshaw with him.

    • #4
  5. BDB Coolidge
    BDB
    @BDB

    Taras (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    Haven’t listened to this yet — did his calling us “terrorists” come up? Anything on his deplorable cowardly speak-power-to-truth stance in the HFC speakership kerfuffle?

    Talk about blowing your wad over small change — or revealing too much. Either way, this has a precedent.

    John McCain was a true hero — until his behavior forced many of us to cleanly separate his admirable behavior back then from his miserable treachery and unacceptable attitude/motivations later.

    Separation accomplished. This Eyepatch McCain Pinto (discount Maverick) fool could shut up and vote right if he wants anything but derision from us. But I bet he can’t. He just can’t shut up.

    p.s. I did try to listen in live, but I got there as he was leaving, and it was a workday after all.

    John McCain spent decades undermining the conservative movement, earning the love of the liberal media, so it’s a little — how can I put this tactfully — premature to compare Dan Crenshaw with him.

    Fool me once…

    … we won’t get fooled again!

    • #5
  6. Wolfsheim Member
    Wolfsheim
    @Wolfsheim

    Leslie Watkins (View Comment):

    I support our efforts on behalf of Ukraine (national sovereignty being as important to practical liberty as freedom of speech), but I don’t find criticism, even sharp criticism, of our involvement out of line, as Congressman Crenshaw seems to. Better to say he disagreed with the 20’s tactics in the Speaker fight than to reveal that he’s taken on the DC tic of describing his GOP sparring partners as lightweights. … My biggest fear is that, despite the recent show of tanks, the U.S. and NATO will force Zelensky down the river of a negotiated peace and that that will be crushing to the Ukrainians: their cities destroyed, hundreds of thousands of dead soldiers on all sides, much of the world’s breadbasket despoiled, only to be back where they were on Feb. 23, 2022. The spreadsheet’s not looking good.

    Leslie Watkins (View Comment):

    I support our efforts on behalf of Ukraine (national sovereignty being as important to practical liberty as freedom of speech), but I don’t find criticism, even sharp criticism, of our involvement out of line, as Congressman Crenshaw seems to. Better to say he disagreed with the 20’s tactics in the Speaker fight than to reveal that he’s taken on the DC tic of describing his GOP sparring partners as lightweights. … My biggest fear is that, despite the recent show of tanks, the U.S. and NATO will force Zelensky down the river of a negotiated peace and that that will be crushing to the Ukrainians: their cities destroyed, hundreds of thousands of dead soldiers on all sides, much of the world’s breadbasket despoiled, only to be back where they were on Feb. 23, 2022. The spreadsheet’s not looking good.

    Congressman Dan Crenshaw mentions Tucker Carlson, to whom I regularly listen and with whom I generally agree, though not on Ukraine, despite the valid points he makes. The reality, grim though it may seem, is that total victory is not possible. Putin knows that he cannot survive the humiliation of defeat; he also knows that Biden and his friends can well afford to sell Zelensky down the river. Sending in the tanks may be of military significance, but such will not alter the political reality.

    • #6
  7. Rightfromthestart Coolidge
    Rightfromthestart
    @Rightfromthestart

    I agree with Peter, it’s hair on fire time, we have every right to be outraged.

    ‘Moderation in defense of liberty is no virtue…’

    How about some actual punishment for the coup plotters in the FBI for a start other than a cushy CNN gig.

    Years ago a NY State Assemblyman quit saying ‘The longer you stay there the more you lose your sense of outrage.’ That’s what Crenshaw sounds like to me.

    • #7
  8. Taras Coolidge
    Taras
    @Taras

    Rightfromthestart (View Comment):

    I agree with Peter, it’s hair on fire time, we have every right to be outraged.

    ‘Moderation in defense of liberty is no virtue…’

    How about some actual punishment for the coup plotters in the FBI for a start other than a cushy CNN gig.

    Years ago a NY State Assemblyman quit saying ‘The longer you stay there the more you lose your sense of outrage.’ That’s what Crenshaw sounds like to me.

    Congressman Crenshaw’s point is that when you rave as if your hair’s on fire, you may relieve your feelings, but you help the Democrats discredit the conservative side.

    There’s a reason the Democrat donor class poured money into Republican primaries, to help nominate conservative purists.   

     

    • #8
  9. Taras Coolidge
    Taras
    @Taras

    BDB (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    Haven’t listened to this yet — did his calling us “terrorists” come up? Anything on his deplorable cowardly speak-power-to-truth stance in the HFC speakership kerfuffle?

    Talk about blowing your wad over small change — or revealing too much. Either way, this has a precedent.

    John McCain was a true hero — until his behavior forced many of us to cleanly separate his admirable behavior back then from his miserable treachery and unacceptable attitude/motivations later.

    Separation accomplished. This Eyepatch McCain Pinto (discount Maverick) fool could shut up and vote right if he wants anything but derision from us. But I bet he can’t. He just can’t shut up.

    p.s. I did try to listen in live, but I got there as he was leaving, and it was a workday after all.

    John McCain spent decades undermining the conservative movement, earning the love of the liberal media, so it’s a little — how can I put this tactfully — premature to compare Dan Crenshaw with him.

    Fool me once…

    … we won’t get fooled again!

    And some people are just fools …

    Incidentally, Dan Crenshaw earned my undying gratitude when one of his mailings included a souvenir eyepatch.   As it happened, a close relative was having problems with her eyes, and was immediately able to put the eyepatch to good use.

    • #9
  10. Scott Wilmot Member
    Scott Wilmot
    @ScottWilmot

    Totally unimpressed with Crenshaw – his shoulder shrugging over the FBI was pathetic. He seems to be more PO’d at his own party than the Democrats. Good for him for serving his country as a Navy Seal but he doesn’t seem to be serving his country as a congressman. Very disappointing.

    • #10
  11. GlennAmurgis Coolidge
    GlennAmurgis
    @GlennAmurgis

    Rightfromthestart (View Comment):

    I agree with Peter, it’s hair on fire time, we have every right to be outraged.

    ‘Moderation in defense of liberty is no virtue…’

    How about some actual punishment for the coup plotters in the FBI for a start other than a cushy CNN gig.

    Years ago a NY State Assemblyman quit saying ‘The longer you stay there the more you lose your sense of outrage.’ That’s what Crenshaw sounds like to me.

    Congress has the power of the purse; the only thing bureaucrats understand is funding (or lack of ir)

    • #11
  12. Taras Coolidge
    Taras
    @Taras

    Wolfsheim (View Comment):

    Leslie Watkins (View Comment):

    I support our efforts on behalf of Ukraine (national sovereignty being as important to practical liberty as freedom of speech), but I don’t find criticism, even sharp criticism, of our involvement out of line, as Congressman Crenshaw seems to. Better to say he disagreed with the 20’s tactics in the Speaker fight than to reveal that he’s taken on the DC tic of describing his GOP sparring partners as lightweights. … My biggest fear is that, despite the recent show of tanks, the U.S. and NATO will force Zelensky down the river of a negotiated peace and that that will be crushing to the Ukrainians: their cities destroyed, hundreds of thousands of dead soldiers on all sides, much of the world’s breadbasket despoiled, only to be back where they were on Feb. 23, 2022. The spreadsheet’s not looking good.

    [Deleted duplicate comment]

    Congressman Dan Crenshaw mentions Tucker Carlson, to whom I regularly listen and with whom I generally agree, though not on Ukraine, despite the valid points he makes. The reality, grim though it may seem, is that total victory is not possible. Putin knows that he cannot survive the humiliation of defeat; he also knows that Biden and his friends can well afford to sell Zelensky down the river. Sending in the tanks may be of military significance, but such will not alter the political reality.

     

    I used to record the Tucker Carlson show, and watch it faithfully,  but stopped because of his credulous and irresponsible coverage of the UFO issue.   (In dozens of shows, he seemed to be entirely unaware of what UFO skeptics have to say, or even that UFO skeptics exist.)

    Based on my necessarily more limited acquaintance with his Ukraine coverage since then, it seems he has continued credulous and irresponsible on this vastly more important issue.   But then he had always been prone to a simple-minded isolationism (if there is any other kind).

    For one thing, Carlson always falls for what I call the “corruption scam”.    This is the same thing that helped Soviet agents and sympathizers in the State Department trick Harry Truman into dishonorably abandoning our allies, the Chinese Nationalists, even as American munitions were being shipped by Stalin to the Chinese Communists, who had mostly sat out the war with Japan.

    I think Ukrainian President Zelensky has read The Art of the Deal.   He knows that, to eventually end up with X, you have to start out with 2X as your “intransigent, non-negotiable” demand.   Of course, as Dan Crenshaw points out, this is part of what can be discussed between the US and Ukraine only in private.

    On the other hand, I don’t know how Ukraine can make a deal with Putin, who routinely violates treaties, and thinks those old softies, Lenin and Stalin, were wrong to recognize the existence of Ukraine.

    Of course, medicine teaches us stress will shorten Putin’s life …

     

    • #12
  13. Gazpacho Grande' Coolidge
    Gazpacho Grande'
    @ChrisCampion

    Taras (View Comment):

    Rightfromthestart (View Comment):

    I agree with Peter, it’s hair on fire time, we have every right to be outraged.

    ‘Moderation in defense of liberty is no virtue…’

    How about some actual punishment for the coup plotters in the FBI for a start other than a cushy CNN gig.

    Years ago a NY State Assemblyman quit saying ‘The longer you stay there the more you lose your sense of outrage.’ That’s what Crenshaw sounds like to me.

    Congressman Crenshaw’s point is that when you rave as if your hair’s on fire, you may relieve your feelings, but you help the Democrats discredit the conservative side.

    There’s a reason the Democrat donor class poured money into Republican primaries, to help nominate conservative purists.

     

    Democrats don’t need an excuse to discredit someone.  They’ll just call them “racists” and be done with it.

    Crenshaw’s characterizations of great swaths of people doesn’t do him credit.  It’s straw man arguments, and he is, now, part of the machinery of gov’t that’s put us where we are.  His arguments about Russia still don’t a compelling argument make in terms of military support of Ukraine, and he contradicts himself about getting involved and the inadvertently drawing in NATO later, as if it’s Putin’s fault that NATO was drawn in by NATO getting involved (and NATO is us, and that’s how NATO is perceived).

    Weird.  

    • #13
  14. Gazpacho Grande' Coolidge
    Gazpacho Grande'
    @ChrisCampion

    Scott Wilmot (View Comment):

    Totally unimpressed with Crenshaw – his shoulder shrugging over the FBI was pathetic. He seems to be more PO’d at his own party than the Democrats. Good for him for serving his country as a Navy Seal but he doesn’t seem to be serving his country as a congressman. Very disappointing.

    When you’re busy saying “there’s a lot of good rank and file people in the FBI”, it’s just a prelude to a sidestep.

    If it’s doing such a smack up job of stuff, fabricating stories to indict sitting presidents, most rational people would call that actionable.  Apparently not Dan.  Dan seems pretty unconcerned.  Dan spouts platitudes about a few bad apples.

    Those apples kill people, Dan, on our dime.  Maybe get off your can and do something about it in between podcasts.

    • #14
  15. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Gazpacho Grande' (View Comment):

    Scott Wilmot (View Comment):

    Totally unimpressed with Crenshaw – his shoulder shrugging over the FBI was pathetic. He seems to be more PO’d at his own party than the Democrats. Good for him for serving his country as a Navy Seal but he doesn’t seem to be serving his country as a congressman. Very disappointing.

    When you’re busy saying “there’s a lot of good rank and file people in the FBI”, it’s just a prelude to a sidestep.

    If it’s doing such a smack up job of stuff, fabricating stories to indict sitting presidents, most rational people would call that actionable. Apparently not Dan. Dan seems pretty unconcerned. Dan spouts platitudes about a few bad apples.

    Those apples kill people, Dan, on our dime. Maybe get off your can and do something about it in between podcasts.

    Hey, you can’t expect him to accomplish much, he’s only got one eye left!

    • #15
  16. Wolfsheim Member
    Wolfsheim
    @Wolfsheim

    I would generally agree that one should not “set one’s hair on fire,” but when Peter Robinson, eminently reasonable man that he is, speaks with passion and even exasperation, one should listen. 

    • #16
  17. Quickz Member
    Quickz
    @Quickz

    Rep. Crenshaw: “…what I call opportunistic deep state challenges, because that’s what you’re dealing with… you don’t have this top-down policy of screwing republicans. What you have are biased people in the right position at the right time making a very poor ethical decision – and happening way too often. Since that’s an anomalous event…” 

    *Sigh*

    No hope for change if this is the (ridiculous) place where you are Congressman. The word anomalous is counter to the phrase “happening way too often,” and when those biased people are at the very top of leadership, also make up teams of those below them, and are heads of various field offices – those effects spill down to those around them, which by any understanding qualifies as top-down sir. And “poor ethical decision” is soft-peddling the actual blatant and grave violations of law that should be severely punished and passionately called out, especially from someone who holds dear their country and sits on the committees you sit on. So very disappointing.

    Charles askes the correct question and the correct answer is, “we are going to get answers and if they for one minute try to drag their feet, ignore subpoenas, or otherwise block/slow-walk our oversight efforts, you are damn right we will do everything at our disposal – we will shut the whole government down, defund their agency, and tear this information from them. This is the most dangerous set of illicit and likely illegal spying, lying, and undermining of the base foundations of this nation. IT. WILL. NOT. STAND!”

    But I highly doubt we will ever hear that from you. Just more sniping at your betters, more dismissive rhetoric at those who disagree or wish to debate with you (in the House of deliberation no less! What are they thinking, representing their constituents!?) when it comes to military provocation and funding something that the people wish discussed. Oh hell, you even winged about Sen. Paul wanting accountability in the very first package.

    Well, next time you are on the flagship podcast Congressman perhaps you can share your investing tactics – you did better than even Pelosi! Number 5 in Congress for beating the market! Such skills you have. Such a man-of-the-people you are.

    Get bent.

    • #17
  18. Quickz Member
    Quickz
    @Quickz

    I forgot to thank Rep. Crenshaw for the Strawman of the opposing views that he built and burned down – it really warmed things up! You ahistorical simpleton. If he was just thoughtful like he so wishes to be taken as – what a missed opportunity of a Representative. The idea he is a “thought leader” in the GOP is laughable.

    EDIT: The podcast is, “Hold these Truths” … underwater until they stop moving! – Amiright? LOL Get it? Because he’s so untruthful! It’s sooo funny!

    • #18
  19. Functionary Coolidge
    Functionary
    @Functionary

    Did Dan Crenshaw accuse our dear Mr. Robinson of uttering Russian propaganda tropes when  Peter asked about the legitimacy of Russian historical claims to Crimea (Sebastipol)?

    I know it was difficult to interrupt Representative Crenshaw, as he spoke at length, but I thought this implication was ridiculous and outrageous (despite my respect for Representative Crenshaw’s personal history). I was surprised that none of our hosts objected.

    Generally, people who speak at length without offering opportunity for discussion — as apparently is Representative Crenshaw’s habit — are not sincere. (There are exceptions.)

    • #19
  20. BDB Coolidge
    BDB
    @BDB

    Functionary (View Comment):

    Did Dan Crenshaw accuse our dear Mr. Robinson of uttering Russian propaganda tropes when Peter asked about the legitimacy of Russian historical claims to Crimea (Sebastipol)?

    I know it was difficult to interrupt Representative Crenshaw, as he spoke at length, but I thought this implication was ridiculous and outrageous (despite my respect for Representative Crenshaw’s personal history). I was surprised that none of our hosts objected.

    Generally, people who speak at length without offering opportunity for discussion — as apparently is Representative Crenshaw’s habit — are not sincere. (There are exceptions.)

    Your biennial post is overdue.

    • #20
  21. BDB Coolidge
    BDB
    @BDB

    Functionary (View Comment):

    Did Dan Crenshaw accuse our dear Mr. Robinson of uttering Russian propaganda tropes when Peter asked about the legitimacy of Russian historical claims to Crimea (Sebastipol)?

    I know it was difficult to interrupt Representative Crenshaw, as he spoke at length, but I thought this implication was ridiculous and outrageous (despite my respect for Representative Crenshaw’s personal history). I was surprised that none of our hosts objected.

    Generally, people who speak at length without offering opportunity for discussion — as apparently is Representative Crenshaw’s habit — are not sincere. (There are exceptions.)

    Quite so.  Filibustering “on-side” media is a real red flag.  As if we needed more.

    • #21
  22. Taras Coolidge
    Taras
    @Taras

    BDB (View Comment):

    Functionary (View Comment):

    Did Dan Crenshaw accuse our dear Mr. Robinson of uttering Russian propaganda tropes when Peter asked about the legitimacy of Russian historical claims to Crimea (Sebastipol)?

    I know it was difficult to interrupt Representative Crenshaw, as he spoke at length, but I thought this implication was ridiculous and outrageous (despite my respect for Representative Crenshaw’s personal history). I was surprised that none of our hosts objected.

    Generally, people who speak at length without offering opportunity for discussion — as apparently is Representative Crenshaw’s habit — are not sincere. (There are exceptions.)

    Quite so. Filibustering “on-side” media is a real red flag. As if we needed more.

    Congressman Dan might have succinctly explained that Russia’s “historical claims” to Crimea closely resemble Russia’s “historical claims” to Alaska.

    In other words, the legitimate government of Russia gave up the territory voluntarily and now, with no leg to stand on legally, goes back on its word.

    One big difference is that in Crimea Russia exterminated or deported the indigenous population and made it a playground for high Communist Party officials.  

    I don’t think that strengthens Russia’s claim, however.   Do you?

    • #22
  23. BDB Coolidge
    BDB
    @BDB

    Taras (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    Functionary (View Comment):

    Did Dan Crenshaw accuse our dear Mr. Robinson of uttering Russian propaganda tropes when Peter asked about the legitimacy of Russian historical claims to Crimea (Sebastipol)?

    I know it was difficult to interrupt Representative Crenshaw, as he spoke at length, but I thought this implication was ridiculous and outrageous (despite my respect for Representative Crenshaw’s personal history). I was surprised that none of our hosts objected.

    Generally, people who speak at length without offering opportunity for discussion — as apparently is Representative Crenshaw’s habit — are not sincere. (There are exceptions.)

    Quite so. Filibustering “on-side” media is a real red flag. As if we needed more.

    Congressman Dan might have succinctly explained that Russia’s “historical claims” to Crimea closely resemble Russia’s “historical claims” to Alaska.

    In other words, the legitimate government of Russia gave up the territory voluntarily and now, with no leg to stand on legally, goes back on its word.

    One big difference is that in Crimea Russia exterminated or deported the indigenous population and made it a playground for high Communist Party officials.

    I don’t think that strengthens Russia’s claim, however. Do you?

    Oh, I support our support of Ukraine, for many reasons.  I’m just anti-Dan-Crenshaw.

    • #23
  24. Taras Coolidge
    Taras
    @Taras

    Gazpacho Grande' (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    Rightfromthestart (View Comment):

    I agree with Peter, it’s hair on fire time, we have every right to be outraged.

    ‘Moderation in defense of liberty is no virtue…’

    How about some actual punishment for the coup plotters in the FBI for a start other than a cushy CNN gig.

    Years ago a NY State Assemblyman quit saying ‘The longer you stay there the more you lose your sense of outrage.’ That’s what Crenshaw sounds like to me.

    Congressman Crenshaw’s point is that when you rave as if your hair’s on fire, you may relieve your feelings, but you help the Democrats discredit the conservative side.

    There’s a reason the Democrat donor class poured money into Republican primaries, to help nominate conservative purists.

     

    Democrats don’t need an excuse to discredit someone. They’ll just call them “racists” and be done with it.

    [[This is muddled.   Yes, Democrats don’t need an excuse to try to discredit a Republican.    However, how well they succeed, especially with independent voters, depends on the Republican.    For example, a charge of racism may be more, or less, plausible, depending on what a particular Republican says and does.—Taras]]

    Crenshaw’s characterizations of great swaths of people doesn’t do him credit. It’s straw man arguments, and he is, now, part of the machinery of gov’t that’s put us where we are. His arguments about Russia still don’t a compelling argument make in terms of military support of Ukraine, and he contradicts himself about getting involved and the inadvertently drawing in NATO later, as if it’s Putin’s fault that NATO was drawn in by NATO getting involved (and NATO is us, and that’s how NATO is perceived).

    [[For NATO and the US, supporting Ukraine has the advantage of letting Ukrainian soldiers do the fighting, instead of NATO and American soldiers. Incidentally, on Gutfeld! the other day, former tank commander Mike Pompeo pointed out that, if anything, Ukrainian soldiers are better educated than American soldiers, so they have no trouble learning how to use American tanks and other weapons.—Taras]]

    Weird.

     

    • #24
  25. Functionary Coolidge
    Functionary
    @Functionary

    Taras (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    Functionary (View Comment):

    Did Dan Crenshaw accuse our dear Mr. Robinson of uttering Russian propaganda tropes when Peter asked about the legitimacy of Russian historical claims to Crimea (Sebastipol)?

    I know it was difficult to interrupt Representative Crenshaw, as he spoke at length, but I thought this implication was ridiculous and outrageous (despite my respect for Representative Crenshaw’s personal history). I was surprised that none of our hosts objected.

    Generally, people who speak at length without offering opportunity for discussion — as apparently is Representative Crenshaw’s habit — are not sincere. (There are exceptions.)

    Quite so. Filibustering “on-side” media is a real red flag. As if we needed more.

    Congressman Dan might have succinctly explained that Russia’s “historical claims” to Crimea closely resemble Russia’s “historical claims” to Alaska.

    In other words, the legitimate government of Russia gave up the territory voluntarily and now, with no leg to stand on legally, goes back on its word.

    One big difference is that in Crimea Russia exterminated or deported the indigenous population and made it a playground for high Communist Party officials.

    I don’t think that strengthens Russia’s claim, however. Do you?

    “Congressman Dan might have succinctly explained that Russia’s “historical claims” to Crimea closely resemble Russia’s “historical claims” to Alaska.”

    Instead, he implied that Peter Robinson was parroting the Putin line, when Peter very clearly was not. That this was Crenshaw’s knee-jerk response does not reflect well on him.

     

    • #25
  26. ToryWarWriter Reagan
    ToryWarWriter
    @ToryWarWriter

    Taras (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    Functionary (View Comment):

    Did Dan Crenshaw accuse our dear Mr. Robinson of uttering Russian propaganda tropes when Peter asked about the legitimacy of Russian historical claims to Crimea (Sebastipol)?

    I know it was difficult to interrupt Representative Crenshaw, as he spoke at length, but I thought this implication was ridiculous and outrageous (despite my respect for Representative Crenshaw’s personal history). I was surprised that none of our hosts objected.

    Generally, people who speak at length without offering opportunity for discussion — as apparently is Representative Crenshaw’s habit — are not sincere. (There are exceptions.)

    Quite so. Filibustering “on-side” media is a real red flag. As if we needed more.

    Congressman Dan might have succinctly explained that Russia’s “historical claims” to Crimea closely resemble Russia’s “historical claims” to Alaska.

    In other words, the legitimate government of Russia gave up the territory voluntarily and now, with no leg to stand on legally, goes back on its word.

    One big difference is that in Crimea Russia exterminated or deported the indigenous population and made it a playground for high Communist Party officials.

    I don’t think that strengthens Russia’s claim, however. Do you?

    The entire existence of the USA is based on the extermination or deportation of the indigenous population is it not?

    • #26
  27. ToryWarWriter Reagan
    ToryWarWriter
    @ToryWarWriter

    Hey why didnt @blueyeti book one of the 20 holdouts to do the show?  Someone that the membership might actually care to hear from and was much more relevant given how they brought radical change to the house and got things we care about done.

    There is not a single one of the podcasts that I can tell that reflect any of the membership anymore.  Its all just neocon right, mainsplaining issues.  Maybe even Barry Weiss to talk about the Twitter files?  

    All I ask is a populist every now and then.  

    • #27
  28. BDB Coolidge
    BDB
    @BDB

    ToryWarWriter (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    Functionary (View Comment):

    Did Dan Crenshaw accuse our dear Mr. Robinson of uttering Russian propaganda tropes when Peter asked about the legitimacy of Russian historical claims to Crimea (Sebastipol)?

    I know it was difficult to interrupt Representative Crenshaw, as he spoke at length, but I thought this implication was ridiculous and outrageous (despite my respect for Representative Crenshaw’s personal history). I was surprised that none of our hosts objected.

    Generally, people who speak at length without offering opportunity for discussion — as apparently is Representative Crenshaw’s habit — are not sincere. (There are exceptions.)

    Quite so. Filibustering “on-side” media is a real red flag. As if we needed more.

    Congressman Dan might have succinctly explained that Russia’s “historical claims” to Crimea closely resemble Russia’s “historical claims” to Alaska.

    In other words, the legitimate government of Russia gave up the territory voluntarily and now, with no leg to stand on legally, goes back on its word.

    One big difference is that in Crimea Russia exterminated or deported the indigenous population and made it a playground for high Communist Party officials.

    I don’t think that strengthens Russia’s claim, however. Do you?

    The entire existence of the USA is based on the extermination or deportation of the indigenous population is it not?

    Not to mention Canada, eh hoser.

    • #28
  29. ToryWarWriter Reagan
    ToryWarWriter
    @ToryWarWriter

    BDB (View Comment):

    ToryWarWriter (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    Functionary (View Comment):

    Did Dan Crenshaw accuse our dear Mr. Robinson of uttering Russian propaganda tropes when Peter asked about the legitimacy of Russian historical claims to Crimea (Sebastipol)?

    I know it was difficult to interrupt Representative Crenshaw, as he spoke at length, but I thought this implication was ridiculous and outrageous (despite my respect for Representative Crenshaw’s personal history). I was surprised that none of our hosts objected.

    Generally, people who speak at length without offering opportunity for discussion — as apparently is Representative Crenshaw’s habit — are not sincere. (There are exceptions.)

    Quite so. Filibustering “on-side” media is a real red flag. As if we needed more.

    Congressman Dan might have succinctly explained that Russia’s “historical claims” to Crimea closely resemble Russia’s “historical claims” to Alaska.

    In other words, the legitimate government of Russia gave up the territory voluntarily and now, with no leg to stand on legally, goes back on its word.

    One big difference is that in Crimea Russia exterminated or deported the indigenous population and made it a playground for high Communist Party officials.

    I don’t think that strengthens Russia’s claim, however. Do you?

    The entire existence of the USA is based on the extermination or deportation of the indigenous population is it not?

    Not to mention Canada, eh hoser.

    Right!  Lets not pretend that pretty much every country has done that since the dawn of time.  Its either Empire or extermination.  The Russians arent special.  

    • #29
  30. BDB Coolidge
    BDB
    @BDB

    ToryWarWriter (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    ToryWarWriter (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    Functionary (View Comment):

    Did Dan Crenshaw accuse our dear Mr. Robinson of uttering Russian propaganda tropes when Peter asked about the legitimacy of Russian historical claims to Crimea (Sebastipol)?

    I know it was difficult to interrupt Representative Crenshaw, as he spoke at length, but I thought this implication was ridiculous and outrageous (despite my respect for Representative Crenshaw’s personal history). I was surprised that none of our hosts objected.

    Generally, people who speak at length without offering opportunity for discussion — as apparently is Representative Crenshaw’s habit — are not sincere. (There are exceptions.)

    Quite so. Filibustering “on-side” media is a real red flag. As if we needed more.

    Congressman Dan might have succinctly explained that Russia’s “historical claims” to Crimea closely resemble Russia’s “historical claims” to Alaska.

    In other words, the legitimate government of Russia gave up the territory voluntarily and now, with no leg to stand on legally, goes back on its word.

    One big difference is that in Crimea Russia exterminated or deported the indigenous population and made it a playground for high Communist Party officials.

    I don’t think that strengthens Russia’s claim, however. Do you?

    The entire existence of the USA is based on the extermination or deportation of the indigenous population is it not?

    Not to mention Canada, eh hoser.

    Right! Lets not pretend that pretty much every country has done that since the dawn of time. Its either Empire or extermination. The Russians arent special.

    Go ahead.  Extend your “argument.”

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.