Lindsey Graham is a Pissant

Vonnegut. Cat’s Cradle. 1963. In classic Vonnegut form, the character Crosby says,

“A pissant is somebody who thinks he’s so damn smart, he never can keep his mouth shut. No matter what anybody says, he’s got to argue with it. . . . No matter what you say, he knows better.”

A pissant, in the common parlance, is a small man–not so much in stature but in significance, import, perhaps in intellectual weight. In the midst of an international crisis, threatening the security and sovereignty of the nation of Ukraine, on Sunday’s State of the Union show, Lindsey Graham said that

President Obama “should stop going on television and trying to threaten thugs and dictators.” [like Putin] Whenever he does, “everybody’s eyes roll, including mine. We have a weak and indecisive president that invites aggression.”

So, instead of considering the well-being, the safety of the citizens of the Ukraine, Graham plays the pissant, mocking Obama. Contrast that with the sensible, supportive and bipartisan approach from (of all people) House Majority Leader Eric Cantor who released a statement yesterday saying:

“Russia’s invasion of Ukraine violates international law and its long-standing agreements. Russian aggression must cease, . . .

I have spoken to Administration officials to express our interest in working together to ensure that President Obama has the appropriate tools to impose real consequences on Russia for this aggression.”

So, take your pick, pissant or bipartisan patriot. There’s a reason no one expects Lindsey Graham ever to be Commander in Chief. This is the latest example. Facing four Tea Party primary opponents, he has his own small-minded interests at stake rather than international affairs. There are few who could underestimate the political astuteness of the Tea Party, but Graham may be one of them.

3 thoughts on “Lindsey Graham is a Pissant”

  1. There are certain things that are self evident about the situation in the Ukraine:

    1. It in no way affects the interests of the United States or any Americans (unless they were planning to move to Crimea).

    2. Russia’s only warm water port is in Crimea and it is naive to think they would not move to protect it.

    3. The overwhelming majority of the Ukrainian people approve of what has happened.

    4. The government in Kiev is not our friend. The idea that we should supply them with weapons is insane.

    1. Thanks for the comments, Bob. I more or less agree with # 2 & 3, although I don’t think the port in Crimea was in danger. #1 is mostly true, except to the extent that should the U.S. and Western Europe (and the rest of the world) tolerate Russia summarily moving into and annexing territory on the same pretext as Hitler did (or as Stalin did, for that matter) things could get out of hand very quickly. Still, most people in the U.S. are a lot more isolationist than they were 15 years ago before Iraq and Afghanistan and have NO appetite for any military response of our own. While there are some in Congress that might want to supply Kiev with weapons, there are probably not a majority. It would be foolish indeed; while Russia today is nothing like the former Soviet Union, the Ukraine is no match militarily even with a robust infusion of armament. Best choice is humanitarian/diplomatic.

Comments are closed.