Who are “they?” Blinken or Biden? Biden’s proposal for ceasefire takes the State Department out of the equation and allows him to assess the conflict with direct oversight.
He’d be acting in bad faith without support of either the State Department or Congress.
Biden has three options:
Mandate reassessment from the State Department, hoping the report will be conclusive of crime justifying amendment of support
Investigate suppressed intelligence in the State Department, eventually leading to a reassessment of intelligence
Amend existing agreements against advisement from the State Department and Congress and face the impending impeachment hearing
Ah yes, the famously anti-Israel congress that would definitely be against Biden's administration saying that they couldn't find conclusive evidence of something that lots of other parties have found very conclusive evidence for.
I don’t understand the point you’re making. Congress does not report to the State Department.
Congress is the Legislative Branch.
The State Department is part of the Executive Branch.
Deviating from advisement of both branches will find Biden in an impeachment hearing for acting in bad faith.
It's really adorable that you don't think the U.S. government, which has given Israel billions of dollars worth of weapons over the years and is sending them more and more as they bomb Gaza to ruin isn't behind Israel 100% no matter what they do.
I'm not sure why that isn't totally obvious to you like it is almost the entire rest of the world, but...
It’s cool if you want to paint the entire problem with broad strokes, but don’t minimize the understanding of those who want the details. Accuracy is important to some of us.
In the general sense of right vs. wrong, we’re in absolute agreement that it’s wrong. I’m just discussing how the government can do something about it.
Weird that the US missed those really obvious fucking details.
I don’t need you to send me news of atrocities I’ve already seen. I need the State Department to determine them to be in violation of international law so our President can do something about it without facing a trial.
If you’ve been reading my comments with intent to understand, rather than looking for points to combat with general opinions, you’d already know that.
It was a 25-page UN report on genocide which, in fact, says that they are violating international law, and not a news article.
So, again, how did the U.S. miss those really obvious details?
Like I said, it's a 25 page report so take your time reading it and tell me why the U.S. missed those details since you seem convinced that the U.S. assessment is correct.
Again, you’re missing the point. It’s not about the UN report, or even the impending trial of Israel for genocide by the ICJ.
POTUS does not listed to news, protesters, the UN, the ICC, or the ICJ. They listen to US intelligence reports provided by the State Department. They can deviate from following advisement if backed by the support of Congress. Without either, they would be challenged by Congress in the form of an impeachment hearing.
Like it or not, this is how the US government is structured. Knowing how it works allows us to find the problem.
In this case, the problem is suppressed intelligence in the State Department. That doesn’t mean Biden is free to amend legislation without repercussion. He can mandate reassessment, investigate the suppression, or take action against advisement and inevitably face impeachment from Republicans.
Yet again, I am asking why the state department claims it is inconclusive and Biden accepts that claim if it is conclusive without any suppressed intelligence?
@Flying: Something is getting lost in the sauce. This guy is in agreement with you. They're simply pointing out how the executive branch executes their decisions and who they are beholden to. The US president can read UN reports, but ultimately they are beholden to the state department and the intelligence reports they get which clearly should be reevaluated. That's it.
They are not saying there isn't validity in news articles or UN reports. Is that making sense?
The state department is not some magically neutral apolitical arbiter, time and time again we see that the president’s political appointees at the top direct the department to act in a way he wants. That means biasing reports; burying reports that say what the president doesn’t want public and commissioning reports to say what the president ultimately wants.
Didn’t we all see how the president leaned on the CIA to play up WMD claims in Iraq?
The Iraq war case is an example of the executive branch going against intelligence reports and stretching the truth extensively to make the case for war.
The evidence linking Iraq to Al-Qaeda or any production of WMD was very flimsy at the time and there was no strong consensus among state agencies. This was a failure of the executive branch to make a correct assessment based on the reports it received. In fact, there were multiple agencies that came out against some of the statements by Bush and Cheney. The 170 page Senate Intelligence Committee report details all this and includes how CIA and FBI reports dismissed the claims of the president. In fact, multiple articles of impeachment were brought forward during Bush's presidency because of this gross misuse of truth. Also, the feelings of Americans post 9/11 was ripe for driving another war so Cheney and Co had the perfect mix. They could go off the flimsiest excuse at the time.
To summarize: Bush and Cheney exploited American sentiment in the wake of 9/11 and grossly exaggerated reports by state agencies which were later confirmed to be misconstrued or outright false.
It appears you’ve arrived at the source of the problem. This is exactly what I was saying at the start of our conversation. He’s not allowed to dismiss the findings without a reassessment. So what do you think he should do?
I don't know, how about ask for a reassessment?
Or how about acting on that red line he said Israel couldn't cross and then crossed...
The red line is not actionable, and Netanyahu knows it.
I agree. Reassessment is the best of the three options. The most immediate option would have been the ceasefire, because it takes the State Department out of the equation and allows Biden to oversee negotiations and agreements directly, but I just read that Netanyahu declined. So now he needs to mandate a reassessment immediately.
Who are “they?” Blinken or Biden? Biden’s proposal for ceasefire takes the State Department out of the equation and allows him to assess the conflict with direct oversight.
He’d be acting in bad faith without support of either the State Department or Congress.
Biden has three options:
Mandate reassessment from the State Department, hoping the report will be conclusive of crime justifying amendment of support
Investigate suppressed intelligence in the State Department, eventually leading to a reassessment of intelligence
Amend existing agreements against advisement from the State Department and Congress and face the impending impeachment hearing
Ah yes, the famously anti-Israel congress that would definitely be against Biden's administration saying that they couldn't find conclusive evidence of something that lots of other parties have found very conclusive evidence for.
I don’t understand the point you’re making. Congress does not report to the State Department.
Congress is the Legislative Branch.
The State Department is part of the Executive Branch.
Deviating from advisement of both branches will find Biden in an impeachment hearing for acting in bad faith.
It's really adorable that you don't think the U.S. government, which has given Israel billions of dollars worth of weapons over the years and is sending them more and more as they bomb Gaza to ruin isn't behind Israel 100% no matter what they do.
I'm not sure why that isn't totally obvious to you like it is almost the entire rest of the world, but...
It’s cool if you want to paint the entire problem with broad strokes, but don’t minimize the understanding of those who want the details. Accuracy is important to some of us.
In the general sense of right vs. wrong, we’re in absolute agreement that it’s wrong. I’m just discussing how the government can do something about it.
Details like these?
https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/03/1147976
Weird that the US missed those really obvious fucking details.
I don’t need you to send me news of atrocities I’ve already seen. I need the State Department to determine them to be in violation of international law so our President can do something about it without facing a trial.
If you’ve been reading my comments with intent to understand, rather than looking for points to combat with general opinions, you’d already know that.
It was a 25-page UN report on genocide which, in fact, says that they are violating international law, and not a news article.
So, again, how did the U.S. miss those really obvious details?
Like I said, it's a 25 page report so take your time reading it and tell me why the U.S. missed those details since you seem convinced that the U.S. assessment is correct.
Again, you’re missing the point. It’s not about the UN report, or even the impending trial of Israel for genocide by the ICJ.
POTUS does not listed to news, protesters, the UN, the ICC, or the ICJ. They listen to US intelligence reports provided by the State Department. They can deviate from following advisement if backed by the support of Congress. Without either, they would be challenged by Congress in the form of an impeachment hearing.
Like it or not, this is how the US government is structured. Knowing how it works allows us to find the problem.
In this case, the problem is suppressed intelligence in the State Department. That doesn’t mean Biden is free to amend legislation without repercussion. He can mandate reassessment, investigate the suppression, or take action against advisement and inevitably face impeachment from Republicans.
Yet again, I am asking why the state department claims it is inconclusive and Biden accepts that claim if it is conclusive without any suppressed intelligence?
@Flying: Something is getting lost in the sauce. This guy is in agreement with you. They're simply pointing out how the executive branch executes their decisions and who they are beholden to. The US president can read UN reports, but ultimately they are beholden to the state department and the intelligence reports they get which clearly should be reevaluated. That's it.
They are not saying there isn't validity in news articles or UN reports. Is that making sense?
The state department is not some magically neutral apolitical arbiter, time and time again we see that the president’s political appointees at the top direct the department to act in a way he wants. That means biasing reports; burying reports that say what the president doesn’t want public and commissioning reports to say what the president ultimately wants.
Didn’t we all see how the president leaned on the CIA to play up WMD claims in Iraq?
The Iraq war case is an example of the executive branch going against intelligence reports and stretching the truth extensively to make the case for war.
The evidence linking Iraq to Al-Qaeda or any production of WMD was very flimsy at the time and there was no strong consensus among state agencies. This was a failure of the executive branch to make a correct assessment based on the reports it received. In fact, there were multiple agencies that came out against some of the statements by Bush and Cheney. The 170 page Senate Intelligence Committee report details all this and includes how CIA and FBI reports dismissed the claims of the president. In fact, multiple articles of impeachment were brought forward during Bush's presidency because of this gross misuse of truth. Also, the feelings of Americans post 9/11 was ripe for driving another war so Cheney and Co had the perfect mix. They could go off the flimsiest excuse at the time.
To summarize: Bush and Cheney exploited American sentiment in the wake of 9/11 and grossly exaggerated reports by state agencies which were later confirmed to be misconstrued or outright false.
It appears you’ve arrived at the source of the problem. This is exactly what I was saying at the start of our conversation. He’s not allowed to dismiss the findings without a reassessment. So what do you think he should do?
I don't know, how about ask for a reassessment?
Or how about acting on that red line he said Israel couldn't cross and then crossed...
The red line is not actionable, and Netanyahu knows it.
I agree. Reassessment is the best of the three options. The most immediate option would have been the ceasefire, because it takes the State Department out of the equation and allows Biden to oversee negotiations and agreements directly, but I just read that Netanyahu declined. So now he needs to mandate a reassessment immediately.