will lead at some points. to fighter jets and tactical nukes and to that there se mission creenep. the new plan seems to be to take russian crimea from russia, which will spur nuclear war.crimea are you worried about those things? i m very worried about those things, tucker.p, is th and i think that the second point, the missionis creep, weee is really the bigger issue here. means and thsmatch between the means and the ends that ared being proposed by the biden administration. they rmie talking about retaking crimea from russia. but the thirty one abrams tanksr that they re sending are notende sufficient to accomplish that. and so when they fai tl, it sar. clear that they re going to send more tanks and more armaments. and so this is jushe beginningt the beginning of opening the floodgates to an unlimited takely of american unlim arms ud for the goal of taking territory that russia s said it will use nuclear weapons to defend. well, it s just so crazy. i mean, crimea is controlled
you know, we get about six or seven percent of our energy from wind and solar power. it sar completely insignificantl and this will hurt our oil and gas industry. it s going to give all this money to the climate change industrial complex and one thing you left out, john , don t forget the the big the other big pay for in this bill is these price controlsru on the on the drug industry. how are we going to have things like operation where speedre how are we going to win the race for the cure for alzheimer s and parkinson s and cancer and al-bassam and lou gehrig s disease. if we re iff we re taking moneyg out of an industry that saves lives, i don t get it. i you know, ari, from a political point of view, newt gingrich had a good point. he s challenging everyd republican running in every office for the house or senate to go back and challenge their opponents to debate just on this bill alone. i think that would be a goodto opportunity to get this out before people, especially during the
near the beginning of the briefing on how the u.s. would respond to a russian chemical weapons attack. she said we have not let anything go unanswered in the attack to date. but she did not offer any sort of red line, and she was also offered by a reporter to perhaps give up a deterrent for vladimir putin to do that, and why they are not doing that in this moment. wondering what you thought as you were hearing that, if you did. don t forget, president obama was burned when he said a red line for the use of chemical weapons in syria. assad regime crossed the red line and the obama administration did not do anything about it. and they are not going to send troops in here. we heard about the russians potentially using a false flag operation, releasing chemical weapons in the country to justify their ongoing attacks. it sar if the administration would do anything
0 i m not going to get into intelligence but the president s intention of sending u.s. military to fight in ukraine against russia has not changed. even if there is a chemical weapons attack, the calculus will not change? i want to be clear what the response would be. we are conveying to all of you what the capabilities are. the steps they have taken in past. the president and our nato partners have not changed their assessment about their plans to send u.s. troops in. president biden let a chemical weapons attack in ukraine go unanswered by the united states. we have not let anything go unanswered to date. we have not let anything go unanswered to date, any steps that president putin has taken to date. what that would look like, i can t give you assessment of that from here. one other question. the u.s. says their assessment is ukraine has planes that they could use, they don t think it would be effective to send more aircraft to ukraine right now. president zelenskyy has pl