By now you know Mitch McConnell helped steer $45 billion in more Ukraine aid in the latest spending bill. Those monies bring America's total taxpayer-funded contribution to Ukraine in its war with Russia to over $100 billion.
But how McConnell decided to sell this expenditure made no sense. I know Twitter is a safe-space for poor grammar and rhetoric, but this tweet from McConnell left me scratching my head:
Continuing our support for Ukraine is morally right, but it is not only that. It is also a direct investment in cold, hard American interests.
I'm genuinely curious: What is a "cold, hard" American interest anyway? Let's separate the two descriptors: What is a cold American interest? Why do we invest in cold ones? Why not warm ones? What is a hard American interest? What makes an American interest hard vs. soft?
If the United States is investing by PROXY, sending money, weapons, etc. -- and not human resources -- isn't that, by definition, an indirect investment, not a direct investment?
I feel like Truman talking to his fake wife.
McConnell's claim that the aid was "morally right" is all the more curious given Mitch's propensity to keep whatever agenda he might have close to the vest. As Axios reported back in 2021, McConnell had no intention of revealing what he wanted to do, if he were given the majority. Pertinent screenshot:
So McConnell didn't have an agenda going into the midterms, or I suppose better put: didn't want to tell anyone of his agenda going into the midterms, and then decides helping Ukraine is "morally right" all along, and oh by the way...the majority of Republicans all feel this way, even though he couldn't be bothered to articulate that to anyone as folks prepared to vote:
McConnell is all over the map, can no longer make a persuasive argument in favor of his policy prescriptions, and his only real superpower is access to other people's money.