Was Tucker Carlson right about his comment here?

Post Reply New Topic

Even though I find Tucker Carlson's opinions to be biased and skewed a good deal of the time, I don't know if he deserved the controversy he got over it because maybe he is right.  It sounds like Biden wants to make fighter pilot suits for pregnant women to fight, based on what he said. Biden's comment on it is at 1:43 into the clip, and Tucker's comments on it followed where he said pregnant women are going to fight our wars, based on what Biden said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COQ8exApyEc&t=164s

Now one woman, a major in the military, criticized Tucker, for not knowing what he is talking about since he is never served.  In this video at 3:43, she talks about how the army does not send 8-9 month pregnant woman to fight, and she then says, the flight suit is there to serve a job.  But it seems she contradicts herself here, because if they do not send pregnant women into combat, then why would they have pregnant flight suits?  It doesn't make any sense, and seems like a contradiction:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrrQSRj_FKc&t=388s

That is where I have doubts about what she says if she contradicts herself and I thought maybe Tucker has a point there, over her then, since she contradicted herself and couldn't explain the suit it seemed
And at 6:58 into the video, she talks about how pregnant women do fight in the suits.  So they do fight while pregnant then it seems and Tucker was right.  So why does she criticize his comment then, if she contradicts herself and is just confirming what she is saying?  Or what do you think?

Last edited by ironpony on 16 Apr 2021, 12:23 am, edited 1 time in total.

Fact check

Oh okay, but if it says that Biden is not the one who brought the pregnant combat suit to life, doesn't Carlson have a point that maybe sending pregnant women to fight, knowing it could kill or harm the babies, maybe not the best idea? Plus why did Biden say it as if he is going to be the pioneer in this, if it's been around for a while and he's not going to be?

That just makes everyone confused and causes Carlson to make a comment based on Biden giving misleading people.

Not sure that first link was what you intended to post...

This does sound like a case of people looking at the same details and seeing different images - Looking at the wording of the speech given, the maternity flightsuits were mentioned immediately after other combat related uniform changes:

Source: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/03/08/remarks-by-president-biden-on-international-womens-day/

Depending on how the speech was presented, it could appear as though the flight suit changes were connected with the combat uniform\body armor changes, and so combat related (as viewed by Mr Carlson), or just one of a series of changes (of which the first 2 were combat related), as viewed by the woman in the second video. It would have been better, potentially, had the "non-combat" changes been mentioned first, or some obvious division between what was "combat related", and what was not, rather than merging all the changes into one list ("For combat related roles we are doing..., other changes we are making to support non-combat roles are...", for example) which is the responsibility of whoever writes the speeches - ambiguity such as this should have been spotted and eliminated.

Sorry, the wrong link posted when I tried to copy and paste. I posted the right one in the OP now, I apologize.

But if the pregnant flight suit has been around for a while than why does the woman in the video say that the army does not send 8-9 month pregnant women out to fight, but at the same time, she says they have a combat pilot suit for pregnancy? Why send pregnant women to fight? Why indanger unborn kids that way? I think that is Carlson's point he was trying to make as it's not a good idea, yet she doesn't seem to have a problem with it. But at the same time, she says they do not do it. But if they don't then why the flight suit since you would only need a specialty pregnancy suit if you are already late in the pregnancy.

That's the problem with ambiguity (coupled with the delivery of the speech as read from the teleprompter) - "Maternity flight suits" as mentioned in the speech, following on directly after combat related changes, provides an implication they are related to combat uniform changes, whether or not that is the case.

As I understand it, flight suits aren't only for pilots, but are also used by other sections of the military, and even the pilots who wear them wouldn't necessarily be flying combat aircraft (there are transport aircraft, as well as used in training\keeping qualifications in aircraft current).

The whole issue appears to stem from a speech writer who both failed to consider potential ambiguity in the speech as well as how the person being written for would deliver the speech (It looked\sounded like a forced speech, rather than one where the person giving it was enthusiastic about the subject - The "smile", for example, seemed very forced (and a little creepy), rather than looking natural)...

Oh okay, but why would you need a flight suit if you are not in combat though? For example, wouldn't you just wear other clothes if you are not in combat, like other people who get on plains? Why not just wear other clothes then, then a combat flight suit, if not in combat?

But the woman in the video criticized Tucker Carlson though, rather than criticize Biden for misleading Carlson though.

I think "combat suit" is just a generic term for air force flight suits. The fact you're wearing one doesn't mean you're going into combat. Same as wearing hiking boots doesn't automatically mean you're going hiking. The suits have qualities you're going to need as a USAF pilot, even if you're only in the early stages of training, that jeans and a sweatshirt simply won't provide.

It's not unusual for politicians to claim credit for decisions made before they came to office, so perhaps Biden was doing that. Or perhaps he has made some additional changes, but the previous ones were also covered again in the same press releases and announcements.

As far as I can work out, these suits are for pilots in training who've been assessed as safe enough to continue flying for a while. And they've been produced because previously such pilots were having to modify their own kit or borrow kit from partners, which has safety implications too. Pregnant pilots won't be flying into battle.

That does open up a particularly surreal question about "what age is it acceptable to be shot in active service?", though. Everyone seems appalled at the idea of a mother and unborn baby getting shot, but why's that any different to a 20-something pilot being killed? They're still somebody's baby.

I am wary of Tucker Carlson's motives here because this smacks of old-school male control-freakery over pregnancy. Essentially pretending to be concerned and caring, but actually using that as a excuse to patronizingly tell women they're weak and vulnerable and need to stay at home. There's an awful lot of concern over the welfare of unborn babies that seems to instantly evaporate the moment they hit fresh air in the delivery room. Which tends to suggest it's not really about the welfare of the kids at all.

Last edited by Redd_Kross on 16 Apr 2021, 1:12 am, edited 2 times in total.

Members of the military have multiple different uniforms depending on duties at any given time. For pilots, they would be required to wear a flight suit when piloting an aircraft, but that doesn't mean they are flying in combat situations - transport aircraft, for example, or routine flying of "combat" aircraft as part of training, and keeping their "qualifications" for flying a given aircraft current (pilots need to spend a certain amount of time each year flying an aircraft in order to be "current"\remain qualified with it.).

I'm not certain, but I believe ground crew (aircraft maintenance, etc.) may also be required to wear flight suits.

Oh okay, I iddn't think that Tucker Carlson was being a male control freak over it. I thought he was just saying that Biden was being too much about the clothes and the fashion of the military rather than focusing on national security. It Biden was talking about male clothes in the military for example, and male fashion, I thought Carlson would have reacted the same way, in that Biden seemed to be too much about clothes and fashion over national security focus.

It should be noted that every time tucker carlson gets sued over something he says, Fox News' official legal excuse is that he's saying these things for entertainment, and no rational person would take them seriously. Take Fox's own official legal position as advice. Don't take anything he says seriously.

You can always have pregnant women pilot drones - shoot a kid on one side of the planet while gestating one on the other. It's the circle of life!

Oh okay I thought Fox News was just saying that to avoid law suits, and they didn't mean that, and it's just a law suit avoiding tactic.

Who takes anything corporate journalists say seriously? Rachael Maddow pushed a conspiracy theory for nearly three years. We should all be awake to this crap, now.

Well the woman in the video says such a pregant flight suit actually exists, so she confirms what he was saying, so I was using her as a source to confirm it. So I take what he says seriously, if there is a real person in what he is talking about to confirm it.

There is a massive leap between "pregnant flight suits exist" and "pregnant women are being sent out in fighter jets". Just because someone "says" that they exist, even if they do exist, that doesn't mean they exist for the reasons little Tucky says they do. Just cos she confirmed that the suits exist doesn't mean that it cascades and Tucky is automatically right about everything else cos he was right about the one thing.

Wearing a flight suit is a safety practice. It's pretty common to have people wear one under a variety of non-combat situations, just because of the environment they're in. There are a wide variety of reasons to be required to wear one. Not unlike wearing a hard hat in a construction zone, or safety glasses in a laboratory.

You can be pregnant enough to have a baby bump, but no so pregnant that you can't still do things like work a flight deck in some capacity, like driving a plane taxi, or doing electronics checks on craft. Still need to wear a flight suit for those, for safety reasons unrelated to combat or flight.

Furthermore, if what Fox / Tucky said was true, there'd be nothing to sue them over, cos they'd be saying something true. You can't sue someone for saying something bad but true. If it were true, there'd be nothing to sue over. The fact that they have to not only claim it's NOT true, but also so silly that "nobody would believe it", shows the absence of validity. Otherwise it would be much easier to get out of it by simply demonstrating that it's true, or just ignoring it, knowing that, since it's true, if someone did sue, all they had to do was file for a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the statements were true, and demonstrate that fact.

And, you don't gain credibility by saying "it's all made up!" - that would be a fairly stupid tactic, to report on things you say are true, but then claim it's made up later, but also expect people to still believe it...

Then again, a lot of people are damn stupid, and fall for it anyways...