• disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    It isn’t. It’s just the most heavily weighed piece of intelligence in the Executive Branch. The Legislative Branch is the other factor, and Congress voted in favor of legislation for munitions supply.

    • Ajen
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      But not necessarily the biggest factor in making the decision.

      • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        Yes, it is. That’s how POTUS decides how to proceed in international affairs. It’s not just some shot from the hip.

        News outlets and citizens can talk all day, but we pay tens of trillions annually to have the most informed State Department in the world. It’s the President’s job to trust their intelligence. If the State Department says there is no proof of war crimes, it’s POTUS’s job to take that as fact. If he doesn’t agree with the findings, he can mandate a re-assessment, as I initially suggested that he should.

        • Ajen
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          6 months ago

          Yes, it is. That’s how POTUS decides how to proceed in international affairs. It’s not just some shot from the hip.

          Are you saying all US presidents react to intelligence reports in the same way? That’s ridiculous. When candidates are campaigning for the office of POTUS they normally publicize the international policy that they intend to enforce. And each candidate has a unique view on international politics, even within the same party.

          You don’t honestly believe both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump would act the same as Joe Biden in response to Blinkens’ intelligence reports, do you?

          • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            I’m saying that amending existing bills and contracts for allied support, against congressional approval and without substantiated cause from US intelligence would be considered an act of bad faith, yes. I’m honestly not even sure the last time that was done by a President.

      • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        That’s true. He did that prior to pausing shipments pending the State Department investigation. Chronology is important.

        • DancingBear@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          So are the facts. And the fact is Biden has received more Israeli pac money than any other politician in United States history over the course of his career.

          • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            I absolutely agree that should be considered if he were supporting Israel against congressional legislation or the advisement of the State Department.

            • DancingBear@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              Which he did multiple times the most recently being only a few weeks ago.

              What are you actually defending.

              There is no lower moral bar than Biden’s current policy with Israel.

              I get it you don’t like Trump, but on this issue dude there is no defense and there is no worse policy position than the one being implemented by Biden administration right now.

              To say otherwise makes you look like a psychopath.