Cotton to Biden: Send More Support to Ukraine

Plus: Cotton speaks on McConnell's aptitude

By
62

Sen. Tom Cotton joins The Dispatch Podcast and pushes back against the growing GOP opposition to sending aid to Ukraine. David Drucker also asks Cotton his thoughts on:
-U.S.-China policy
-Dealing with Iran
-McConnell’s current aptitude

Show Notes:

-Watch this episode on YouTube

You're out of free articles
Create an account to unlock 1 more articles
By signing up with your email, you agree to The Dispatch’s privacy policy and terms and conditions
Already have an account? Sign In
By
Comments (62)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    CP

    What have we come to as a nation when even our politicians are disingenuous?

    I mean to say...

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Sean M

    Tom’s extreme partisanship and party loyalty makes it difficult to discern when he’s actually being honest and forthcoming with his analysis on foreign policy. I felt he was largely correct on his assessment, but discredited himself when he implied that Republican resistance to supporting Ukraine was because the Biden administration wasn’t being supportive enough. This is a ridiculously stupid assertion. I hope he realizes that if he wants to be taken seriously, he’ll need to be an honest broker even when it’s not politically advantageous to do so. The interview was great until I realized he was in campaign mode. Now I don’t trust anything he said. Might as well have not listened.

    Collapse
    1. Brandon Hartley

      Ditto - I was very disappointed in those comments (and the abortion ones, as I'm so sick and tired of hearing that absurd line - but let me not go there again, lol). Honestly, it was so absurd and distracting, I'm a bit disappointed that David Drucker didn't follow up on it: "Senator, I have to push back on that a bit -- did you really just say that the percentage of your own party in the house that opposes further aid to Ukrain is also Biden's fault?" As far as the kind of news organization that The Dispatch hopes to be, shouldn't that have been the response at that point? Perhaps I'm not sure of what is involved in getting a standing senator to come on a podcast, but do you have to promise not to call them out on misleading statements like that? That seems smarmy to me if so, and if that was not the explicit or implicit "agreement" then why didn't he follow up on that absurdity? I really like David Drucker and I think he does great work, but am I wrong in thinking that letting a comment like that go with no rebuttal isn't exactly the type of institution The Dispatch is wanting to create?

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Rajeev

      It’s on par with him. He’s been one of the unserious Trump sycophants since the beginning.

      Joe Biden has been the greatest ally in the world to Ukraine. Boris Johnson was even more supportive but no longer is in power. But Biden rallied Europe in particular Germany in a way no one expected. He courageously traveled to Ukraine in the middle of the war and has given many clear speeches supporting Ukraine as well as other nations such as Taiwan.

      Tom Cotton had national ambitions but realized he lacked even the basic charisma to even compete in a Republican primary.

      Collapse
    3. Erik Mokriski

      Yeah that’s the exact point he lost me….

      Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    The Bell Tower

    MFN! I’ve been waiting to hear someone mention that since they gave that bull crap to China back in 2000.

    The Senator knows his history. Why isn’t he running for president? Dang.

    As for pushing back on other Republicans:

    Yawn.

    Cotton is giving his own views on the war. Biden never pushes back on his own jackass wing and you’ll never hear a single reporter ask him to. Seems like the comments here just want to see a Republican bloodbath. I may enjoy that but it isn’t the Senator’s role.

    Collapse
  4. Ejscharf

    I thought I was listening to Fox. I love The Dispatch because of the unbiased war it calls balls and strikes. Sadly, that was not the case here. This was just one softball after another, with no follow-up. I could not believe he allowed Cotton to spin the Republican opposition to funding Ukraine aid by blaming it on Biden. Really shameful interview. I hope there's not a repeat.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Rajeev

      Especially since Tom Cotton has always been a scripted politician that doesn’t do well if pushed back against. He’s been insignificant especially given his national ambitions.

      Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    SeanM76

    David, I thought you let Senator Cotton off the hook by saying republican opposition to support was because of Biden. Arguably the top polling presidential candidates are all really vague or against the type of support Tom Cotton is talking about.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photocircle-angle-nib
      David M. Drucker vertical-nib Author

      Appreciate the feedback. I disagree but I'll explain: I framed the question very clearly by stating the GOP opposition that exists in Congress and asked him to explain it. This was his explanation. I don't think it's an adequate explanation. But there is some truth to it, which itself speaks to the partisanship of these Republican members of Congress. But beyond that, this was an interview, not a debate, and I didn't see the value in pushing him to acknowledge a different side of what is ultimately a subjective point. As an aside, I'll note that I didn't ask him to address the opposition of Republican presidential candidates. In any event, thanks for giving this a listen and sharing your thoughts.

      Collapse
      1. Ejscharf

        I don’t understand how there could be “some truth” to stating that a wing of the Republican Party opposes Ukraine funding because Joe Biden has moved too slowly to do just that. It strikes me as simply illogical, and clearly a pre-programmed talking point. While I don’t expect these interactions to become debates, I do think it’s fair to ask follow-up questions when statements strain credulity. Otherwise, it’s not an interview, it’s just a speech.

        Collapse
      2. Avatar photo
        Rajeev

        I think you did a great job on the interview but Tom Cotton more than even most partisans says the exact same partisan platitudes that don’t even pass the basic smell test. His responses are so scripted that I don’t think we really learned a thing especially since the Dispatch has an overwhelming majority of its subscribers are actual thinkers and not the Newsmax/Fox types that take everything at face value even when very little of it makes sense.

        I don’t know what goes into choosing the congressional guests. However, I think there are Congressional republicans that would actually answer these questions in good faith. In particular I’ve found representative Dusty Johnson of South Dakota, a powerful member & McCarthy ally to be an old-school style representative that both answers questions thoughtfully & is willing to go deeper than the partisan window dressing. I think someone like him would be great for the Dispatch.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photocircle-angle-nib
          David M. Drucker vertical-nib Author

          Appreciate the kind words. There is no particular script we follow as to which members of Congress we choose to interview. But personally, I like to choose from a wide variety, even understanding that some of them might offer scripted answers, political answers, or substantively evasive and illogical answers. I think garnering insight into the wide variety of Democrats and Republicans serving on Capitol Hill is more informative than focusing only on a certain kind of Republican or Democrat. Even unsatisfactory answers teach us something, inform us. Re Cotton: He's long been a conservative populist on many domestic issues but more a traditional, internationalist Reagan Republican on foreign policy. I was curious to see where he was with Ukraine and why. And I think this interview accomplished that. Also notable: Despite maintaining friendly relations w/ Trump, he hasn't changed his stripes on Ukraine just because opposing military aid seems to be en vogue with elements of the GOP base (mainly Trump loyalists.) He also explains how what happens in Ukraine relates directly to China, which not even all pro-Ukraine Republicans articulate. Finally, I'll say that my general approach to these interviews is that it's an interview, not a debate, and I don't tend to confront a politician on every partisan assertion unless they slip into factual inaccuracies (ie claiming Trump won the 2020 election.) Not everyone agrees w/ my approach, which I appreciate. Hope this sheds some light on my process.

          Collapse
      3. Avatar photo
        SeanM76

        That makes sense I guess my mind is always thinking of the upcoming Presidental election. As someone who actually lives in Arkansas, I did enjoy the interview. It is nice to hear someone who is more thoughtful even if I don't always agree with him. I wish we had more people like this in the house of representatives.

        Collapse
  6. Phillyex1

    Cotton was disingenuous when he answered the question about Republican opposition to support for Ukraine. It’s NOT because the think Biden is moving too slowly. It’s because their glorious leader got caught trying to shake down Zelenskyy for dirt on Biden. Plus they’re all fans of that manly man Putin

    Collapse
  7. Alex Elliott

    Given Sen. Cotton's push for a breakneck buildup of the American military, I would have liked to hear a follow-up question about what he thinks of Sen. Tuberville's blanket hold on military promotions.

    Collapse
    1. Alan.Crystal

      That would have been a very good question!

      Collapse
  8. Thomas Irwin

    Folks - part of the job of the Interviewer is to let the person they are interviewing give their perspective, even if its partisan and silly, because the goal is to learn more about Tom Cotton, not David Drucker.

    What I learned from this interview is that if Trump or Vivek or another GOP candidate soft on Ukraine wins in 2024, do not expect Tom Cotton to stand up to him when he tries to cut aid, because he is scared of honestly confronting the pro-Putin sentiments in his own party. And I appreciate Drucker for letting Cotton reveal that

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Retired Prosecutor

      I respectfully disagree. Cotton is in my opinion a lone voice calling attention our attention to the larger issues of American national security, and our defense unpreparedness. There are lots of criticism in these comments about Cotton's partisan views, particularly about Ukraine, but not a word about his comments on our unpreparedness to address the situation of China and Taiwan.

      Our national defense is in shocking condition -- the war in Ukraine has -- if nothing else -- exposed our absolute lack of sufficient munitions and other hardware to deal with other national security challenges. And under this Administration our strength is steadily declining. Any attempt to deter the Chinese from invading Taiwan must necessarily be maritime in nature. But our current 298-ship U.S. Navy will buy only nine ships next year while retiring 24. The fleet would shrink to 280 ships in 2027, even as the Navy says it needs a fleet of 500 to defeat China in a conflict. Every other month our all-important submarine force loses one sub as it is taken out of commission. Our defense outlay in 2022 declined to 3.2% of GDP. Less than 1% of the American population serve in the military. The recruiting crisis is severe -- the traditional sources of recruits has dried up as military families discourage their children from enlisting for varied reasons including the Afghanistan debacle and the social justice preaching currently in vogue among the leadership. Remember, the military personnel we require almost invariably are from flyover country and conservative backgrounds. College ROTC programs have experienced a similar decline.

      Here is a Tom Cotton story I have enjoyed for years. After he graduated from Harvard Law, and while working for the prestigious law firm of Gibson, Dunn, and Crutcher, Cotton enlisted in the Army in 2005 and was deployed to both Iraq and Afghanistan. While there, he wrote an op-ed about the conduct of the war which he submitted to the NY Times. The NY Times rejected publication, believing the submission was a hoax. After all, a Harvard Law graduate claiming to have enlisted in the Army to be a combat infantryman in the Middle East . . . ridiculous! The editorial staff of the NYT had been culturally conditioned to know that such a biography was preposterous on its face.

      Today I (a USAF veteran) learned still another disturbing fact about our national security. Here is a virtually unreported development -- the USAF missed its recruiting quotas for the year -- the first time this had happened (wait for it) in 76 years! Time for someone to write a book entitled "While America Slept."Expand full commentShow less

      Collapse
      1. Bluemango2026

        President Trump ordered the resurrection of dozens of Navy ships. My husband is a government contractor. He said his company is trying to refit ships that were decommissioned some number of years ago. He said as the ships sat there, active ships stripped parts out and no one bothered to trace lines to remove pieces properly, items were just cut out as the ship was "dead". Same for anyone keeping an inventory of what was being removed. Their task for the past few years has been to try and get these ships sea-ready. Imagine trying to install a new system and then realizing what you thought you were attaching it to, either doesn't exist, or was butchered.

        As AF, I'm sure you can imagine a yard filled with out of service aircraft, along with the manpower and cost it would take not just to make those aircraft airborne, but performance ready.

        The Navy has spent much of their budget on this pet project, hence the lack of funds to buy "new" ships.

        Collapse
      2. Avatar photo
        Marc Frischhertz

        Out defense budget is over $800b. If we are that unprepared, first, it didn’t happen in the last 2 years, and 2nd, I would love for the Tom Cottons of the world to hold hearings on the issue as opposed to Hunter Biden.

        What had Tom Cotton to address this problem you lay out other than launch partisan finger pointing?

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Retired Prosecutor

          I'm sorry, but after the misnamed "Inflation Reduction Act," numbers like $800B no longer impress me. It's 3% of GDP, while we pressure our Allies to pony up a marginally lower percentage. It's about the same amount as our expenditure on Medicare, and is less than our expenditure on Social Security which amounts to about 5% of GDP.

          The threat from China didn't happen in the last 3 years of course, but it unquestionably dramatically ramped up with balloon overflights, aerial and maritime confrontations, and an unrelenting hostile posture from their diplomats. The past few years our envoys have been going hat in hand and that hand seems to have been bitten. In response, I have not seen anything approaching serious military or diplomatic pushback by the Biden Administration against the Chinese. Perhaps I have missed it.

          A vote of the majority of a Senate Committee in question triggers hearings in Senate Committees. Perhaps such hearings will occur with a different majority.

          Collapse
      3. Thomas Irwin

        All of that may be true - though I would push back on some of it - but that avoids this core question: Do you think Cotton will stand up to Trump/Vivek/DeSantis when their political instincts clash with what he sees as good national security strategy?

        Collapse
        1. Deleted Comment

          This comment has been deleted

          1. Thomas Irwin

            I agree that national security should be elevated above partisan talking points - ideally, both parties would be able to put aside their differences to try to solve these existential issues like military preparedness and confront geo-political rivals. And I think there are plenty of issues where the (nonperformative) members of Congress could do that. But to channel the frustration with Cotton on this message board, you cannot do that if you ONLY blame Biden for the geopolitical problems the US faces. I don't doubt Cotton is a very informed and smart guy, but Cotton is the one who is making national security a partisan issues in this interview, when he could have chosen to strike a different tone. I get it - politicians have to throw some red meat; but I think its fair for people looking for substance to criticize them for that!

            As someone who voted for Biden, I am very willing to say he has not performed well on several subjects, and I can 100% agree with you (and Cotton) that, in hindsight, he really could have done a lot more leading up to the invasion. But I also think his critics probably underplay the complexity of the situation - one can both think the folks who are on Twitter droning on about escalation and cutting a deal are full of it, while also saying that these are not concerns to dismiss out of hand. Hes had to try to balance being forthrightly supportive of Ukraine, while also bringing allies along and try to avoid potential risks re: escalation. Whilch is again, not to say he has handled Ukraine perfectly by any means, just that he's had a genuinely difficult task. And while its unfair to assume how Trump would have responded, I don't see trump as a figure who had a track record of building international coalitions very well (to say nothing of his frequent equivocations about NATO and PUTIN)

            Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Todd T

      I kind of agree. Cotton revealed a lot about himself and ultimately that is the goal of the interview.

      Collapse
  9. Westgroupinc

    Don't understand all the disparaging comments. I found the interview to be enlightening and it increased my regard for Sen. Cotton.

    Would love to see him on the ticket next time, but I understand that he would not sacrifice his one big chance on this cycle.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Xsearnold

      I'm not a fan of Cotton. I thought his piece against the First Step Act was dishonest, arguing against things that were not in the bill. I found this interview to reinforce my impression. Cotton made excellent arguments about why Republicans might be opposed to what Biden is trying to do for Ukraine. Unfortunately, he characterized these as being the widely-held Republican position despite the fact that NO ONE in the Republican Party is making those arguments! And certainly NONE of the presidential candidates were making any of these arguments during the first debate.

      I felt like Drucker let him off the hook instead of challenging his assertion that his position is the widely held position in the party.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Xsearnold

        Cotton seems to be very competent when it comes to defense arguments. Economic arguments, not so much, saying Trump's tariffs were good for the country. I thought Cotton was a conservative, but I guess I was mistaken.

        Collapse
  10. BPhillips

    I used to think more highly of Cotton. Apparently the Republican reps lack of support for Ukraine is Biden's fault - he should have explained the importance of supporting Ukraine to them like they were 3rd graders.
    I'm surprised Cotton didn't blame the end of the fighting season on Biden's climate agenda - they wouldn't have such harsh winters if it wasn't for Biden.

    Collapse
Load More