Tucker Carlson isn’t backing down in his confrontation with fellow conservatives who want to provide Ukraine with more military assistance.
Indeed, fireworks between Carlson and Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar (R-Fla.) began immediately last night.
WATCH:
Per Mediaite:
Last week Salazar was asked if the United States should impose a no-fly zone over Ukrainian airspace, which would require shooting down Russian aircraft.
She enthusiastic replied “Of course!” in what appeared to be an impromptu interview, as ALN’s Paul Crespo described at the time. The reporter then pressed Salazar further, asking “So, conventional war with Russia?”
At that point, she politely ended the interview.
Crespo said the interaction highlighted the urgency for “articulate” and “generally well-informed” lawmakers like Salazar to become better acquainted with what enforcing a no-fly zone entails.
As he noted at the time:
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has repeatedly called for NATO to impose a no-fly zone over Ukraine, but since this would require U.S. and NATO planes to enforce it, likely bringing them into direct conflict with Russian combat jets, Biden and NATO have rejected the call.
And while I am sympathetic to Zelenskyy’s request, this is one of the few times I may agree with Team Biden.
The time to put boots on the ground, or planes in the air, in Ukraine was before the invasion began, to deter Putin, not now. Sadly, President Biden foolishly and very publicly took that option off the table well before Putin invaded.
I write about this not to bash Salazar, who I have known for well over decade, and like and respect, or to lessen the U.S. and NATO response to Vlad the Invader Putin, who must be forcefully rebuffed, but to highlight the need for calm and clarity during an emotional and dangerous time.
Returning to last night, Salazar said she knows what a no-fly zone means and that Congress should give Zelenskyy what he needs to defend his country.
Mediaite transcribed her response:
“No troops on the ground, let’s give him the MiGs and the S-300s, what he needs to defend his own airspace, so he will create his own no-fly zone,” she said. “And that’s what I think we should have done months ago. It’s embarrassing that this guy, this president who is under the bullets has come to Congress to beg for us to give him something we should have down a long time ago.”
Salazar stressed that Zelenskyy had asked for alternatives to a no-fly zone when Carlson asked if she would deny the Ukrainian president’s request for one.
At the same time, she reiterated that the U.S. can’t allow Vladimir Putin to dictate the terms and conditions on the ground.
Who do you think made the better argument? Tell us below, and — while you’re at it — let us know what you think the United States should do next!
ALN Staff is a dedicated group of liberty-minded professionals available 24/7 to keep you informed on the news that matters.
I watch, like and trust Tucker but in this exchange I think that congresswomen Salazar was correct and ate Tuckers lunch
Each made some valid points but neither of them won the argument. I can’t agree with congresswoman Salazar especially considering the unconscionable number of people who have illegally crossed the border in the last 24 months. We have as much right to demand that illegal invasion to be stopped as Ukraine has to have their borders respected. While I don’t want American pilots and soldiers in the battle, giving Ukraine the weaponry to create their own No-Fly Zone seems to be the answer. Russia has already escalated this War that the US being tied to “old” ROE’s seems naive.
Ukraine is really fighting for the fr
I think that the Congresswoman was right on. If we do not stand up to Putin now what will be next, Putin would not use the Nuc option because we have them also. Lack of action will be the start of WWIII.
I like Tucker, but it seems to me that the point he was focusing on was that we should be afraid of messing with anyone who has nuclear weapons. Since Russia is capable of firing one on us, we should not do anything that might trigger their aggression. I totally disagree with that mindset. Being passive and “nice” has never satisfied a bully. The only thing that might accomplish is putting you last in the bully’s line of attack, but he WILL come. You must counter strength with more strength. That’s why this situation didn’t occur while Trump was president.
I have lost respect for Tucker, not for his logic on the no fly zone but his unwillingness to realize he is dealing with Puten who is a terrorist and will do what ever it take to win the battle he started and including nuclear. We know he could and will use nuclear if he is losing, so we should be planning on how to stop him before that happens unless you feel it’s better to let him continue to butcher civilians men, women and children and let him win to avoid a nuclear confrontation. Then I think their blood is on your hands.
George You said it just as good as i could have,Carlson needs to study history a bit better, you fight fire with fire.
The Congresswoman was so much more logical and understandable. When Tucker kept interrupting her and trying to conflate the southern border catastrophy with the military atrocities going on in Ukraine it was bizarre – to be generous. He lost. She impressed.
I agree with these comments. I used to be a Tucker fan, but can’t back him on this one. The Congresswoman won that argument!
Recently, Tucker has completely gone off the rails! His laugh is becoming as obnoxious as Kamala
Harris’!! He needs to shape up!
Think Jesse is eating his lunch!!!!
I agree with Salazar! Tucker sometimes gets in a rut.. We cannot be afraid to support friends as well as independent democratic countries like Ukraine.. What is next ? Poland? Romania?” Taiwan” If our enemies all think we will fight with our one arm tied behind our back and not at least show our actual force then I think we will lose and lose more than just the free world. Usually Tucker is more brave than he now appears.