Tag: biden gaffes
Hey 'New York Times'! You Should Be Ashamed (Again)

Hey 'New York Times'! You Should Be Ashamed (Again)

Let’s leave aside for the moment the larger argument that we have an outright fascist running for president who has proposed an entire program of disassembling, even in his own words “canceling” the Constitution and the normal functions of the nation’s government and substituting one-man rule in their place. If you are reading this column, I’m certain you agree that this is hardly the time to be pissing on ourselves just because we have the urinary equipment to do so.

In its never-ending quest to be even-handed in its political coverage, and in the absence of anyone from the Biden administration under indictment or serving prison time, the New York Times on Sunday, in the words of Happy Days, jumped the shark. An article has appeared under the title, “Biden Loves to Tell Tall Tales, We Cut Them Down to Size.” The author of the piece, Linda Qiu, is described in a footnote as “a reporter who specializes in fact-checking statements made by politicians and public figures. She has been reporting and fact-checking public figures for nearly a decade.”

So given all that extensive expertise, what does she provide us to support her allegation of Biden’s “tall tales?” A short list of what any consumer of political news would call mild exaggerations with a touch of typical self-aggrandizement by a regular old-fashioned politician. None of the examples she gives involve illegality or any sort of moral failings, or engage an issue of national importance.

She makes a big deal out of Biden saying he “used to drive an 18-wheeler” by appearing to count the wheels on a school bus he once drove and the wheels on a “cargo truck” he took “a five-hundred-mile trip on,” without bothering to define what a “cargo truck” is, or even how one takes a trip “on” such a vehicle. And just to be even-handed, 18-wheel over the road tractor-trailers, to which Biden clearly referred, are “cargo trucks.”

In further hair-splitting, she appears to call Biden’s claim that he is “first in my family to ever go to college,” a lie by pointing to a quote from Biden’s autobiography that his maternal grandfather was the “only person in the house with a college degree.” Qiu then attempts to say Biden was lying about that by noting that the grandfather’s 1957 obituary said he “attended and played football for Santa Clara College in California,” without confirming that he graduated. Gee, isn’t it too bad she couldn’t have found the 1957 obituary writer and interviewed him about where he got that fact? Or maybe she could have called up Santa Clara College and asked them if they had an “Ambrose Finnegan” listed as either a student or a graduate, so she could nail down once and for all the truth behind Biden’s “tall tale” about his grandfather.

But her exhaustive investigative dissection of Biden’s “tall tales” leads with a claim he made that he had been appointed to the Naval Academy in 1961 by Senator J. Caleb Boggs of Delaware. “It is possible that this nomination occurred, but The New York Times could not verify Mr. Biden’s claim,” Qiu states, making it sound as if the Times is engaging one of the great questions of our age.

Qiu states that the Senator who appointed Biden “started his first term in January of 1961.” He couldn’t have appointed Biden, Qiu indicates, because “if the current deadline is any indication,” members of Congress can submit appointments only until the deadline of January 31…leaving out the fact that he had 28 days between his swearing in and the alleged deadline. She then takes time to note that Biden obviously didn’t attend the Naval Academy because after graduating high school in June, he entered the University of Delaware in the fall. A call to the Delaware Historical Society reveals that no record of Biden’s appointment in 1961 could be found in Boggs’ papers, only the Senator’s appointments in 1962. So, the Biden appointment seemingly couldn’t have been made. Got that?

Appointments to the service academies in the early 1960’s happen to be something that I know quite a bit about. In the same timeframe, 1965, Patsy T. Mink of Hawaii, a freshman Representative who entered Congress on Jan 3, 1965, appointed me to West Point in March of that year. Deadlines for congressional appointments to the service academies were flexible, especially for new members of Congress.

When I read this strained disquisition about whether or not Joe Biden had received an appointment to the Naval Academy, my jaw dropped. What possible reason would Biden have to stretch the truth about a moment like that in his life?

The answer is nothing.

How about that alleged whopper about being the first to go to college in his family? The answer to what Biden might have gained from any of the other so-called “tall tales” the New York Times investigated is nothing. Zero. Nada. Zip.

So, why take the trouble to assign the Times' ace fact-checker with “nearly a decade” of experience to go spelunking through Joe Biden’s so-called “tall tales?” The question of its coverage of this election is an issue the Times will probably have to deal with for decades. Journalism schools should begin preparing now to teach a semester-long class on the gaping black hole in the judgement of Times’ management has the potential to endanger this nation’s existence, should Donald Trump achieve the presidency and stay there for four years, or even the extra four years he appears to be contemplating seizing for himself from his “canceled” Constitution.

You know what would have been more appropriate for the Times to print in the run-up to this election? A reprise of the long piece they ran back in 2017 about why it took them until after the 2016 election to print the word “lie” with respect to the outrageous falsehoods that poured without stop from Donald Trump’s mouth in 2015 and 2016...and ever since, for that matter.

If the New York Times really wanted to be even-handed, they could have published this one: “Let’s compare Trump’s outrageous lies to Biden’s harmless tall tales.”

Lucian K. Truscott IV, a graduate of West Point, has had a 50-year career as a journalist, novelist, and screenwriter. He has covered Watergate, the Stonewall riots, and wars in Lebanon, Iraq, and Afghanistan. He is also the author of five bestselling novels. You can subscribe to his daily columns at luciantruscott.substack.com and follow him on Twitter @LucianKTruscott and on Facebook at Lucian K. Truscott IV.

When Biden Smacked Putin, He Was Playing Bad Cop

When Biden Smacked Putin, He Was Playing Bad Cop

In Michael Kinsley’s immortal definition, "a gaffe is when a politician tells the truth—some obvious truth he isn't supposed to say." By that standard, the term would definitely apply to Joe Biden’s recent condemnation of Vladimir Putin.

“For God’s sake,” Biden blurted out “this man cannot remain in power.”

An international coalition of Nervous Nellies and lunchroom monitors pronounced themselves aghast. You’d think the president had purposely broken wind at a state dinner, or proclaimed a Supreme Court justice’s wife to be as crazy as an outhouse rat.

No sooner had he made the remark at the end of a powerful speech expressing the West’s determination to resist Russian aggression—Biden warned Putin not to advance “on one single inch” of NATO territory—than White House staff began walking it back. “Regime change” in Russia, they emphasized, is not American policy.

A hand-wringing Washington Post headline read: “Biden’s Putin remark pushes U.S.-Russia relations closer to collapse.”

Not Putin’s manifest crimes against humanity, mind you, but Biden’s outburst. Might it not push Putin’s imagined paranoia over the edge?

On the Sunday talk shows, Republican politicians competed with Kremlin spokesmen to express their shock. On NBC’s Meet the Press, GOP Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio worried that Biden’s indignation “plays into the hands of Russian propagandists and plays into the hands of Vladimir Putin.”

Kremlin mouthpiece Dmitri Peskov said it wasn’t up to Biden to decide who the Russian president should be. Somewhat laughably, he insisted that was up to the “Russian people,” whose say-so is entirely theoretical, given Putin’s practice of having political rivals jailed or murdered. Indeed, the Little Tsar’s reign resembles nothing so much as a series of footnotes to Dostoyevsky’s prophetic 1872 novel The Possessed. Suffice it to say that Russia has never experienced democracy—lurching periodically from one form of dictatorship to another.

Even so, America’s imaginary determination to conquer Russia is a major feature of the Putin regime’s propaganda, despite the U.S. having restrained itself from trying since 1945. Anybody familiar with Russian suffering in World War II can understand a degree of national paranoia, although Biden was surely correct to say that Putin’s pledge to “de-Nazify” Ukraine is both “cynical” and “obscene.”

Nevertheless, to many Russians, it plays,

That said, and much to President Volodymyr Zelensky’s dismay, everything about President Biden’s strong, but measured approach to Ukraine’s agony has demonstrated extreme U.S. reluctance to go to war in Russia’s backyard. First Napoleon and then Adolf Hitler long ago proved the futility of doing so.

And that was before Russia acquired nuclear weapons.

Even so, God forbid that the Russian dictator should get his little feelings hurt. Why he might do something crazy, such as bomb Ukrainian apartment buildings, hospitals and orphanages.

War crimes all.

Even French President Emanuel Macron of France, a stalwart NATO ally, expressed a degree of concern with Biden’s outburst. “I wouldn’t use this kind of words,” Macron of France said in a television interview. He said that he hoped to broker a cease-fire and a Russian withdrawal by diplomatic means. “If we want to do this,” Macron added, “we mustn’t escalate,” he said, “neither with words nor with actions.”

Down at the police station, this tactic is known as the Good Cop/Bad Cop approach to dealing with recalcitrant suspects. And cops use it because it works. Do you want to cut a deal with the very angry American president, or the more understanding French one?

Italy’s foreign minister, Luigi Di Maio, put it another way. President Biden, he said, had used words “that must make Putin clearly understand that he has to stop.” The American president,” he added, made “a very clear speech, he used resolute words…But let’s remember that on the other side, Putin uses bombs.”

Was Ronald Reagan wrong to call the Soviet Union an “Evil Empire?” Was it a terrible gaffe by a doddering old man to personalize the Cold War, when Reagan urged “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall?” Many thought so at the time, but few would say so now.

In his Warsaw speech, Biden cast the Ukraine crisis as a new Cold War, a generational conflict: “a new great battle for freedom: a battle between democracy and autocracy, between liberty and repression, between rules-based order and one governed by brute force.”

Like blogger Kevin Drum, I doubt Biden’s spontaneous remark will send Putin over the edge. “Quite the opposite: the fact that Biden is obviously very sincere in his loathing of Putin makes it clear that the US and NATO are unlikely to back down in Ukraine.” He’d be well advised to find a pathway to retreat from a disaster of his own creation.

Good cop/Bad cop.

Biden himself now says he never meant to endorse a policy of “regime change,” but had an emotional reaction to meeting with Ukrainian refugees in Poland.

That’s good enough for me.

Answering Her 'Gazpacho' Critics, Margie Makes Matters Worse

Answering Her 'Gazpacho' Critics, Margie Makes Matters Worse

When Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) decided to address the controversy behind her embarrassing "Gazpacho Police" blunder, she probably didn't count on her rebuttal leading to more mockery and criticism. But it did.

On Friday, February 11, the conspiracy-driven Georgia lawmaker took to her Congressional Twitter account as she attempted to pivot on her initial error. Days ago, Greene attempted to level an attack against President Joe Biden but confused Adolph Hitler's secret law enforcement agency, known as the Gestapo, for Gazpacho, a chilled soup.

"Some of us slip up a word every now and then, but Joe Biden doesn’t even know the words coming out of his mouth practically all the time," she tweeted on Friday. "The good news is that the people know the difference."

Greene ended the bizarre tweet with a reference to one of former President Donald Trump's biggest blunders on Twitter. "So in the famous words of someone I hold dear.. Covfefe!"

The extremist lawmaker's latest remarks were in agreement with Donald Trump Jr.'s tweet attempting to push back against the media for its criticism of Greene. He tweeted, "All those people & media sources trying to dunk on Marjorie Taylor Greene for 48 hours straight over a word slip-up should really go watch Joe Biden speak pretty much anywhere. I look forward to their commentary. [Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene]"

However, the tweet only made things worse as Twitter users were not convinced Greene just slipped up with the embarrassing tweet.




Donald Trump, Joe Biden

Biden Is Cruising While Trump Is Losing It

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden did something simultaneously clever and stupid recently in full view of TV cameras. He went bicycle riding with his wife Jill at Rehoboth Beach, Delaware with no helmet.

Smart because it's basically impossible for a 77 year-old man to look like anything but a total dork in a helmet—summoning for geezer Democrats the image of Michael Dukakis riding in a tank, the photo op blunder that may have settled the 1988 presidential election.

Read NowShow less

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World