You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Caucasus/Russia/Central Asia
Joe Biden Says NATO Would Respond ‘In Kind' If Russia Uses Chemical Weapons
2022-03-25
The problem when dealing with weak men (and the eminences gris guiding them) is they may suddenly feel cornered and overreact, doing something overly destructive after being previously ineffective. President Putin needs to calibrate very carefully to not push him over that edge.
[PJMedia] Joe Biden was at NATO Headquarters in Brussels, Belgium on Thursday, where he made a rather troubling remark during a press conference regarding Russia’s potential use of chemical weapons against Ukraine.

After Biden ruled out military action against Russia, Cecilia Vega of ABC News asked him if he was making a mistake to do so.

"Could Putin have been emboldened, knowing that you were not going to get involved directly in this conflict?"

"No, and no," Biden insisted.

"You do not believe that?" Vega asked. "And to clarify, on chemical weapons: Could — if chemical weapons were used in Ukraine, would that trigger a military response from NATO?"

"It would re- — it would trigger a response in kind, whether or not — you’re asking whether NATO would cross; we’d make that decision at the time."

Wait ... what? To respond in kind means to respond in a similar matter, which means Joe Biden quite literally said that NATO would respond to a chemical attack by Russia on Ukraine with a chemical attack on Russia. Did he really mean that? Chemical weapons are banned according to the Chemical Weapons Convention.

Whether or not Biden actually meant what he said, he still said it. Either he didn’t understand what he was saying or "misspoke," but when you’re playing the role of President of the United States, words actually matter, and I can only wonder what kind of headaches this absurd statement caused for the White House.
Idiot
Posted by:DarthVader

#26   (My French is very rusty; but shouldn't it be "grises," plural?

French is not actually one of my languages, Tom, though I can order chocolates in the language in Belgium — a critical life skill at one point of my life. But the noun is eminence, gris (grey) being the adjective. One pluralizes nouns, after all. Like parents-in-law, not parent-in-laws.

Update: I just looked it up before posting, and it turns out you, I, and inconsequence gris (I melted when I saw that nym in the poster list) are all partially correct. Both parts take the plural, to whit: éminences grises. Now we all know.
Posted by: trailing wife   2022-03-25 22:06  

#25  #19 shouldn't it be "grises," plural?

[nods in... uh... agreement]
Posted by: inconsequence grise   2022-03-25 20:53  

#24  Strongly worded letter?

And *this* time, we will not use Comic Sans.
Posted by: SteveS   2022-03-25 20:39  

#23  Putin's been looking for way out for while now...
Posted by: Rupert The Bear   2022-03-25 20:07  

#22  How does Joe intend to respond in kind to a Sarin or Mustard Gas attack? We don't have any of that stuff anymore.

Strongly worded letter?
Posted by: DarthVader   2022-03-25 16:41  

#21  How does Joe intend to respond in kind to a Sarin or Mustard Gas attack? We don't have any of that stuff anymore.
Posted by: Super Hose   2022-03-25 16:36  

#20  I think it's "gristle", considering the subject parties
Posted by: Frank G   2022-03-25 14:28  

#19  "The problem when dealing with weak men (and the eminences gris guiding them) is they may suddenly feel " and overreact, doing something overly destructive after being previously ineffective.

Truer words were never spoken. (My French is very rusty; but shouldn't it be "grises," plural?
Posted by: Tom   2022-03-25 14:22  

#18  Like the very likely staged by McCain's Heroes chemical use in Syria?

Biden may be weak but he's irrelevant.

That is absolutely wrong. What these people say on the camera, on or off script, shapes public opinion, which is policy. Its Serious People Time.
Posted by: swksvolFF   2022-03-25 14:00  

#17  /\ You'll have to see me about that first.
Posted by: Besoeker   2022-03-25 12:21  

#16  Join me, Hunter. Together we can rule the galaxy!
Posted by: Abu Uluque   2022-03-25 11:40  

#15  The stench of hypocrisy is strong.

Rumsfeld 'helped Iraq get chemical weapons'

I read some place, can't remember where...maybe saw it on TV, Rumsfeld said in the build up to the second Iraq War he knew Saddam had chemical weapons because he (Rumsfeld) provided them to Saddam to fight Iran.
Posted by: Abu Uluque   2022-03-25 11:11  

#14  The hypocrisy is strong with this one.

Hunter Biden Bio Firm Partnered With Ukrainian Researchers ‘Isolating Deadly Pathogens’ Using Funds From Obama’s Defense Department.
Posted by: Abu Uluque   2022-03-25 11:00  

#13  The puppet does not matter, it's whoever pulls his strings that do. The problem for the swamp now is that their figurehead is not only a manipulatable lifelong moron, but now he is a senile moron.

Respond in kind? Right. Where is Biden going to get mustard gas/sarin/VX/Novichok (wanna bet Dow Chemical could whip some up and make big bucks doing so), and where would he use it? In Russia? Inviting a nuke response. In Ukraine? Yeah, great idea, they already have a chemical strike to deal with, let's poison even more of the country we are supposedly assisting.

If there are chemical weapons, try looking at Bryansk, 75KM from the Ukraine border. There is a Russian "Chemical Weapons Destruction" facility there. Undoubtedly the Russians have some chemical weapons stored there.
Posted by: Chealing Chomotle4158   2022-03-25 10:55  

#12  But remember, Trump had all those mean tweets.

I despise the "white church lady" crowd that gave the vegetable enough votes to put the election within the range of being stealable.
Posted by: Crusader   2022-03-25 10:32  

#11  weak men
Biden may be weak but he's irrelevant. What evidence is there that Biden is calling the shots?
Posted by: Elmaique Henbane9043   2022-03-25 09:41  

#10  Good comment TW. Been trying to articulate that idea.
Posted by: Mercutio   2022-03-25 09:35  

#9  like he believed Hunter got the stripper "a little bit pregnant"?
Posted by: Frank G   2022-03-25 07:19  

#8  Gramps was thinking of a "limited incursion" -- y'know, the... "thing"
Posted by: Percy Elmeresing4624   2022-03-25 07:14  

#7  ...I'm pretty sure we don't have any deployable CW warheads or bombs left in the inventory, and the Russians know that because we're stupid honest that way.

The only realistic retaliatory option if they use CW is to conventionally erase a Russian unit in Ukraine from the map. If we hit anything inside the borders of the Rodina, all bets are off and the Russians WILL throw a nuke at us to make a point.

Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski   2022-03-25 06:35  

#6  IIRC, when the US decided to stop their military use of chemical and biological weapons -- largely because they didn't work on a usable timeframe (bio), were too much of a hassle (chemical), or killed the wrong people (chemicals and especially bio!) -- the Official Word was "Use Chemicals = Using Biologicals = Using Nukes and Global Thermonuclear Warâ„¢ in 5,3,2,..."

Biden really has no freaking idea what he is threatening the 'paranoid Russian Bear' with by using this language.
Posted by: magpie   2022-03-25 04:15  

#5  Yes. Let us dust the blasted things off and see if they even work after all these years.
Posted by: Cthulhu of Ryleh   2022-03-25 03:24  

#4  Boy, the deep state are just chomping at the bit to use nuclear weapons, aren't they? Because that's what "in kind" means, even though this journalist doesn't understand that. WMD, which the USA actually does possess, unlike Iraq.

Heck, and why not use the nukes? They're just sitting around gathering dust anyway. Why do we even have them?
Posted by: Omomolet Phutch9064   2022-03-25 03:01  

#3  he does his masters bidding
Posted by: 746   2022-03-25 01:15  

#2  Another 'red line in the sand', eh moron?
Posted by: magpie   2022-03-25 00:54  

#1  fucking idiot
Posted by: Chris   2022-03-25 00:41  

00:00