Why, Tucker? Tucker speaks...
-
No, Tucker did not win. Tucker got suckered.
two hours of Putin droning on and on by laying blame, gaslighting, distorting reality through half truths and outright lies and playing the victim all the while FuCa lobbing a select few softball questions. No mention whatsoever of the kidnapping of children, massacres of civilians or deliberate targeting of Ukrainian civilians and infrastructure.
This one statement from Putin really got me:
“I will say something I have never said publicly, I will say it now for the first time. When then outgoing US President Bill Clinton visited Moscow in 2000, I asked him how America would feel about admitting Russia to NATO. I will not reveal all the details of that conversation, but the reaction to my question was quite restrained….”
Putin may very well have put a question regarding NATO membership to Clinton. Am sure Clinton will be asked about this encounter in the coming days. What Putin did not say is how he framed his question. At around the same Putin approached the then Sect’y General of NATO, James Robertson, and demanded that Russia be invited to join NATO. Robertson then explained that membership to NATO was not upon invitation but rather, by application and that membership was contingent on applicants meeting specific criteria. Russia was welcome to apply and the process could commence. Putin was offended by this answer and demanded that Russia was owed special consideration as a global superpower and the application process must be waived. Robertson replied that there could be no exceptions to the application process.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in Why, Tucker? Tucker speaks...:
@Copper said in Why, Tucker? Tucker speaks...:
There isn't a single journalist in the world that wouldn't love to do this interview.
He did it.
He wins.
Ask any of the losers, if they are honest, they will agree.
Sitting there giggling along with a murderous thug isn't really journalism in the traditional sense of the word.
As I said, I didn’t watch the interview.
Did he really giggle?
@George-K said in Why, Tucker? Tucker speaks...:
Did he really giggle?
He did a bit...Not really the full Mozart job, but still a bit chuckly....
Link to video -
I'm with Copper.
It's a marketing win.
-
@Jolly said in Why, Tucker? Tucker speaks...:
I'm with Copper.
It's a marketing win.
Yes, I agree as well that it was a marketing win for Putin. Some might even think it was ‘uge.
Putin made it clear to all that Russia is prepared to
negotiatereceive at any time the inevitable unconditional surrender of Ukraine and Ukrainian sovereignty from the POTUS, whoever that might be.Like I said earlier, Putin was going to sodomise FuCa. He did just that and used plenty of grease doing it.
I am so glad - although not at all surprised - to hear that at least two people here enjoyed the spectacle as much as FuCa.
-
Here is a compilation of memes from all over lampooning Putin’s gospel to FuCa the other night:
https://meduza.io/en/feature/2024/02/09/what-about-nato-please-say-nato
One I really liked:
-
So as it turns out, the Tsar is disappointed with his encounter with FuCa. Seems that he regrets that his interlocuter threw him softballs instead of hardballs.
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2024/02/15/putin-thanks-right-wing-us-journalist-for-interview-a84084
No surprise FuCa came across as wholly unprepared for the interview.
On the other hand, despite what FuCa says to the contrary he said and acted exactly what and how Peskov and Kremlin staff laid out his script in advance. Played him like a fiddle.
-
https://www.pressreader.com/usa/chicago-tribune/20240215/281612425318429
Opinion Piece
Watching Tucker Carlson’s recent interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin reminds me of the notorious reporting by former New York Times journalist Walter Duranty, who defended Soviet leader Josef Stalin’s policies and knowingly excused, covered up and lied about the mass murder and starvation in Ukraine deliberately fomented by Stalin’s policies in the 1930s.
Carlson’s willful and perhaps malign ignorance raises the specter of a Duranty in our times, who persists despite the many warnings that those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
and
appalled by Carlson’s lack of basic knowledge about most of the subjects covered by Putin in the interview — Ukrainian and Russian pre-20th century history, the collapse of the Soviet Union and Ukraine’s independence, its 2004 Orange Revolution, and Russia’s 2014 occupation of Crimea and parts of the Donbas.
and
Carlson claims that Crimea is legitimately part of Russia, populated by Russians who held a referendum to join Russia. Really? He conveniently neglects the fact that historically, the principal inhabitants of the peninsula were Crimean Tatars who were then systematically exterminated or deported by the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union. The 2014 referendum that Carlson lauds has been largely condemned as a sham. However, there was a free and fair referendum held in December 1991 in which a majority of Crimean residents voted for Ukrainian independence.
-
That is not first instance that the parallel between Duranty and Carlson has been drawn. Duranty was however only a print media journalist/propagandist. In Carlson’s on sensationalist TV and Internet visual presentations there is also the stylistic gossip of Walter Winchell’s radio reports and editorials. There’s also more than a just a hint of Fr. Charles Coughlin in FuCa’s style and substance as well.
-
