Posted originally on the conservative tree house on April 28, 2022
April 28, 2022 | sundance | 89 Comments
Yes, this actually happened today. During her press briefing Press Secretary Jen Psaki said the White House doesn’t want to “define what success in Ukraine looks like,” but demands U.S. taxpayers to give them another $33 billion toward it.
A few moments later Psaki admits the money will be spent subsidizing not only Ukraine, but NATO allies who are suffering the results of inflation.
Psaki stated the Biden demand for more money “is not all for Ukraine, it’s also for some of our Eastern European partners and others to help support them during this time as well.” Wait, now we are paying to subsidize the economy of EU countries while our own economy is contracting?
Seriously, the scale of this hubris is blood boiling. First, they cannot tell us what success consists of, but give us money anyway. The first segment to watch happens at 18:15 of the video, WATCH (prompted):
TRANSCRIPT – Q Against the backdrop of the President’s announcement today and request for this $33 billion aid package, can you say: Is it the policy goal of the United States for Ukraine to defeat Russia?
MS. PSAKI: Well, look, it depends on how you — we’re not going to define that from here. That’s for the Ukra- —
Q How would you define it?
MS. PSAKI: Well, that’s for the Ukrainians to define.
What we are going to do from here is to continue to provide them with a range of security and military assistance, as is evidenced by the package that the President proposed and put forward to Capitol Hill today; to strengthen their ne- — their hand at the negotiating table; and ensure that they have the support and backing of the United States and the world.
Q Just to be clear — and I understand what you’re saying: It’s for the Ukrainians to define. But does the United States think that success has to include Russians leaving all of the new portions of Ukraine that they currently invaded?
MS. PSAKI: Again, we’re not going to define that from here, Kristen. There are a range of negotiations that may happen and may take place, and we’re just not going to get ahead of that. (read more)
Q And then, is there any effort, I guess — you heard this a little bit from him today talking about how Ukrainians are giving up their lives, so the money — I guess, is there anything that the White House is doing to address the concern from some Americans that this is an awful lot of money going to a foreign country when we have domestic needs at home?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I would say that we’ve also seen an incredibly heart- — heartfelt outpouring of support from the American people for the efforts of the United States to lead in standing up to Russian aggression and to stand up in favor and support of the Ukrainians.
You know, to the President, this is about American leadership in the world. It’s also about standing up for democracy versus autocracy. It’s about standing up against one foreign country invading another foreign country. And, you know, it’s about American leadership in the world.
So, we will continue to articulate that and make that clear. And that is part of the reason why the President also detailed in specificity today what all of this would go to. I mean, some of it — a great deal of it is, of course, to military assistance to fight this war, but there is funding in there, as he noted this morning, for food security and ensuring that we are addressing any food shortages around the world. There is assistance that is going into humanitarian assistance and helping the outflow of refugees. And so, it was important to him personally to lay out the specifics in his remarks this morning.
At 42:15 of the video, Psaki is asked directly why should the U.S. taxpayer be stuck paying for the pensions of Ukraine politicians? Psaki responds by saying ‘that’s who we are.” WATCH (prompted)
Q — to follow up on the issue of, you know, Americans being concerned about the amount of money being sent out to Ukraine: One of the things that the President outlined today in his speech was not just humanitarian assistance, but also allow pensions and social support to be paid to the Ukrainian people.
So, what would you say to the American public who says, “Okay, it’s one thing to help Ukrainian refugees with food and shelter, but why should we be paying for their pensions?”
MS. PSAKI: Well, look, I would say that we have provided a range of economic assistance, because we know that their economy has been devastated — not of their doing, because they were invaded by a foreign country.
Q But how is that —
MS. PSAKI: And they’re going — let me — let me finish. And they are going to need assistance in order to recover. We provide assistance — economic and humanitarian assistance — to a range of countries around the world because that’s part of American leadership. And so, I would say that’s the reasoning for this assistance being proposed in the package.