If you can believe it, Wednesday marked the 200th episode of The Psaki Show (as per the AP’s Chris Megerian) and it featured some of everything, including a quintessential softball question about whether President Biden’s a morning or evening person and hardballs from Fox’s Jacqui Heinrich and Gray TV’s Jon Decker on the latest Biden White House word games.
The Washington Post’s Ashley Parker lobbed the embarrassing query in context of daylight savings time. It started out as worthwhile because she had sought the administration’s position on the Senate’s unanimous passage of a bill to make it permanent, which Psaki said they “don't...at this point in time.”
Instead of stopping, Parker drew giggles with this follow-up: “Is the President more of a morning person or afternoon person cause people are often divided in those ways, so I'm just curious if...”
Psaki played along, but gently stated her befuddlement:
That is true. Now, to delink it from the specific question, he is more of an evening person, but I don't know what analysis you’ll provide, but I look forward to reading tomorrow.
A few reporters later, it was Jacqui Time and she picked up on an argument Psaki had made throughout the briefing that the guns, missiles, and other military equipment and firepower supplied to Ukraine in the war against Russia were merely “defensive” weaponry and not “offensive”
Asking her to “lay out for us why the administration sees MiGs as provocative and javelins and stingers as not provocative,” Psaki said with a straight-face that “javelins and stingers are defensive weapons” whereas “MiGs are planes — are offensive weapons, which are a different type of military system.”
Heinrich moved on, but thankfully Decker would later drawing Psaki’s ire on this topic.
Following an observation that the U.S. has stated two different things regarding their mission in Ukraine, Heinrich dropped what Cable News Watch on Twitter has often called a “Jaq Hammer.”
This time, it was regarding reports that, as part of a new Iran nuclear deal, the U.S. would remove the Iranian military’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) from a list of terrorist organizations (click “expand”):
HEINRICH: And then, moving on to the nuclear deal, General McKenzie told the Armed Services Committee that from everything that he can see, the IRGC is a terrorist organization. Is the White House willing to de-list the IRGC from the foreign terrorist organization list in order to get a deal with Iran?
PSAKI: We’re still in negotiations, so I’m not going to speculate or outline from here what the final details look like.
HEINRICH: And these are likely the group responsible for firing missiles at U.S. facilities in Iraq. So, as long as Americans aren’t killed, are there — are there no consequences for something, all in an effort to get a nuclear deal?
PSAKI: Again, you’re speculating on something that is not even finalized. The deal is not finalized. What I would note, and I would just go back to why we are negotiating this deal, and right now we are negotiating this deal because Iran's nuclear gains are threatening U.S. interests. There’s urgency to taking steps to contain that, which is why we have been engaged so closely. And that is all a result of President Trump pulling out of the deal and Iran moving closer to having the capacity and acquiring a nuclear weapon and speeding up their breakout time, so we are here thanks to the actions of the last president, and the last administration and it is in our interest — it is in the global interest, to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.
Decker — who spent six years with Fox News Radio before joining Gray TV, a local TV conglomerate — closed the briefing on a spicy note by reading from a White House fact sheet on what’s being sent to Ukraine as a way of wondering how anyone could see the haul as just “defensive” tools: “100 grenade launchers, 5,000 rifles, 1,000 pistols, 400 machine guns, and 400 shotguns. Are you saying those items are not offensive weapons?”
Psaki predictably stuck to her talking points, merely saying “[t]hey’re weapons that help the Ukrainian people fight against an invasion by a foreign country.”
Decker followed up by wondering if “[t]hey can be used offensively, can they not,” but again, Psaki stammered.
This led the longtime reporter to twice inform her “the answer’s yes” even though “you don't want to say it[.]”
Cross-talk ensued, but Decker hung in, saying he needed to “finish...making my point,” which included the reality that “[i]f a Ukrainian...take[s] out a Russian military official of some sort with these weapons,” it would be “offensive in nature.”
Nonetheless, Psaki didn’t budge other than to insist he’s mistaken because this whole matter was about “a difference that most people recognize.”
To see the relevant briefing transcript, click “expand.”
White House press briefing [via CBSN]
March 16, 2022
3:28 p.m. EasternJEN PSAKI: I would note that the equipment we’ve provided is defensive, as you know, not offensive and we see that as being the difference. We’re also looking at —
DAVID SANGER: But the planes can be used for offensive purpose and the anti-missile systems —
PSAKI: — correct.
SANGER: — cannot?
PSAKI: Correct. Also — also, I made note that what are department of Defense officials also assessed is what’s most effective. And while the Ukrainians still have squadrons of planes to utilize, as I think any military official could confirm for you, the types of assistance that we are providing today, including stingers and other assistance that we’re amping up support for, is exactly what we feel is effective in fighting this war.
(....)
3:31 p.m. Eastern
ASHLEY PARKER: And, on a slightly lighter note, does the administration have a position on the effort in Congress to make daylight savings time permanent?
PSAKI: I have seen those reports. I was trying to think of a joke. I couldn’t think of one. I don’t have a specific — we are, obviously, coordinated and work closely with Congress on all legislation they consider, but I don't have a specific position from the administration at this point in time.
PARKER: Is the President more of a morning person or afternoon person cause people are often divided in those ways, so I'm just curious if...
PSAKI: That is true. Now, to delink it from the specific question, he is more of an evening person, but I don't know what analysis you’ll provide, but I look forward to reading tomorrow.
(....)
3:34 p.m. Eastern
JACQUI HEINRICH: Just one more. I know a lot of people have asked about the MiGs, but can you lay out for us why the administration sees MiGs as provocative and javelins and stingers as not provocative?
PSAKI: Well, first, javelins and stingers are defensive weapons. MiGs are planes — are offensive weapons, which are a different type of military system. I would say the other assessment that we’ve done, not through the White House or the President, from — from the Department of Defense, is to assess what is effective and what works in terms of fighting this war on the ground and that is why we provided an additional $1 billion — 800 million announced today, but $1 billion this week of assistance, utilizing a number of the high level military systems, stingers, javelins, counter artillery, counter mortar radar, anti-armor systems that we know have been effective and we know the Ukrainians are trained on. Third, Ukraine’s air force already has several squadrons of mission capable aircraft and giving them more would not significantly change their effectiveness. And, finally, I touched on this in the beginning, offensive versus defensive, but we also do risk assessments from the Department of Defense about what would be escalatory and that is obviously what we would like to avoid.
HEINRICH: And then, John Kirby has said that success for the U.S. mission in Ukraine is a free, independent, sovereign Ukraine. We've also heard that the official mission is to prevent escalation beyond Ukraine. Which is it?
PSAKI: Both are true.
HEINRICH: If we’re not specific about what exactly the desired outcome is, how do we expect to be able to —
PSAKI: Why could — why could both not be true? A sovereign Ukraine and preventing them from expanding beyond.
HEINRICH: Okay. And then, moving on to the nuclear deal, General McKenzie told the Armed Services Committee that from everything that he can see, the IRGC is a terrorist organization. Is the White House willing to de-list the IRGC from the foreign terrorist organization list in order to get a deal with Iran?
PSAKI: We’re still in negotiations, so I’m not going to speculate or outline from here what the final details look like.
HEINRICH: And these are likely the group responsible for firing missiles at U.S. facilities in Iraq. So, as long as Americans aren’t killed, are there — are there no consequences for something, all in an effort to get a nuclear deal?
PSAKI: Again, you’re speculating on something that is not even finalized. The deal is not finalized. What I would note, and I would just go back to why we are negotiating this deal, and right now we are negotiating this deal because Iran's nuclear gains are threatening U.S. interests. There’s urgency to taking steps to contain that, which is why we have been engaged so closely. And that is all a result of President Trump pulling out of the deal and Iran moving closer to having the capacity and acquiring a nuclear weapon and speeding up their breakout time, so we are here thanks to the actions of the last president, and the last administration and it is in our interest — it is in the global interest, to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.
(....)
3:44 p.m. Eastern
JOSH WINGROVE: Going back to the drones, is your position that the drones were assessed by the Defense Department to not be perceived as escalatory and to not be perceived as offensive weapons?
PSAKI: Again, I don't have anything more to confirm beyond what was in the fact sheet and specifics in there, but defensive weapons is what we have provided.
(....)
3:52 p.m. Eastern
JON DECKER: You put out a list of all the military equipment —
PSAKI: Yeah.
DECKER: — included in that $400 million — $800 million —
PSAKI: Yeah.
DECKER: — that’s being provided to Ukraine. Among those items, let me read them to you: 100 grenade launchers, 5,000 rifles, 1,000 pistols, 400 machine guns, and 400 shotguns. Are you saying those items are not offensive weapons?
PSAKI: They’re weapons that help the Ukrainian people fight against an invasion by a foreign country.
DECKER: They can be used offensively, can they not?
PSAKI: Again, there are weapons — what I’m talking about — is weapons that can —
DECKER: The answer’s yes, Jen.
PSAKI: — be used by —
DECKER: The answer’s yes. I mean, although you don't want to say it, that answer to that question is yes. And so, obviously you’re trying to make this distinction between offensive —
PSAKI: Well, what we’re talking about —
DECKER: — and defensive weapons.
PSAKI: — let me finish. Let me finish.
DECKER: Well, let me finish —
PSAKI: Let me finish.
DECKER: — cause I’m making my point —
PSAKI: Let me finish my answer.
DECKER: — and you keep — no. I was finishing a point and then you can respond to my answer.
PSAKI: Okay. Go ahead.
DECKER: Okay. You're making this distinction between offensive and defensive weapons. Anybody that looks at that list of weapons that I just mentioned, they would say clearly they are offensive. If a Ukrainian military officer, or someone who is enlisted has one of these weapons, they can take out a Russian military official of some sort with these weapons. They’re offensive in nature, so why not provide more offensive weapons like this to the Ukrainian military?
PSAKI: Well, first of all we are providing a range of rifles, et cetera. There is a difference between a plane, and planes, and massive military systems. I think anybody would recognize this. And what we were talking about — which is giving rifles and pistols to, many of them farmers and people living in countrysides to defend themselves. I think there’s a difference that most people recognize.
