First of all, no he isn’t. In fact, it’s illegal for the US government to supply arms that might be used in the commission of war crimes. In this case there’s not even any doubt.
As for the GOP, they’ve already demonstrated that whether or not they try to impeach has nothing to do with reality. Even if they DID somehow manage to make impeachment stick by a one-vote majority, there’s literally no risk that 2/3 of the senate will vote to convict, so that’s not anything remotely resembling a valid excuse to keep contributing to a genocide either.
He actually is in the case that the initial arms shipment was sent, Israel was attacked by Hamas and he had to respond by sending aid. He has gone on record stating that the current war crimes Israel has been committing raise question of the legality of providing further support.
Obviously still remains to be seen if anything will actually come of that though. Words are cheap.
There’s no congressional approval needed as he is driven by treaty to provide arms, if anything he is compelled by Congress to send arms as long as Israel is at war as a US ally due to NATO.
He’s trying to make the argument that Israel committing genocide with those arms is reason to withdraw support, unfortunately the US government moves at a glacial pace on it’s best day to the point that the US military is actually somehow faster. Given the number of Democrats that do support Israel, its entirely realistic that he could get successfully impeached if he failed to comply.
Anyway… Thanks for the civil debate but work is starting so I need to go, I’ll read your next message bit I probably won’t have time to reply.
Cool, sounds good to me. Thanks again, I was finding myself eagerly anticipating your responses because I was definitely learning some new things about why people dislike his handling of the Gaza genocides. You’ve made some really good points. I think he’s made a good enough case at this point that NATO is no longer applicable in the case of genocide. At least with to protect him from retaliation if he did command a stop of US support to a NATO ally.
there’s literally no risk that 2/3 of the senate will vote to convict
I dunno about that - Democrats are not “the same” as Republicans (some might have some ounce of integrity? wow that gave me a laugh, but still…), then too there is his own legacy to consider, and his own personal code of ethics. Look, I know, genocide, but still there is a distinction between content vs. process. And the latter it turns out, especially at a level of power that high up, is pretty damn important. The next President could use that same identical power for a far lesser ideal, and so on it goes and before you know it we have a King, not a President. This is the same reason why guilty people go free, so as to attempt to avoid putting innocent people into jail (I know, sometimes that happens too, unfortunately, but the goal should always be to minimize that).
Anyway, long story short: Repubs can huff & puff & try to blow the Dems house down all day long - and that pack of lies is on them - but what Biden chooses to do, is on him. And he is choosing to do this by the books. Which I kinda respect. If only the American people were not so divided - where half the nation wants to increase the military aid we are sending to Israel!! - then he + Congress could act swiftly. But we are divided so… instead we will not. Though keep in mind that if Trump comes to power, he + Congress will send more aid to Israel - and there’s a not-insignificant chance that we may send more aid to Russia too (you read that right, not just stop sending aid to Ukraine but join with the aggressor there!). Yes, it can always get worse:-(.
I still think Biden should do more. Though I have to admit that I am not knowledgeable enough to know what else he possibly could do.
I don’t find that argument compelling at all without more of a source. As if we haven’t already gone above and beyond in supplying arms and funding to Israel’s government.
Why should a piece of paper compel the United States to continue to unconditionally fund a genocide?
Let’s not forget, Biden has gone out of his way to bypass Congress to provide further weapons to Israel. And his administration has repeatedly vetoed any UN resolutions pertaining to the situation.
The two that apply here are that arms can be dispersed with only congressional notification and that we’re have multiple bilateral defense agreements with them.
Hamas issued an attack on Israel which triggered the bilateral defense agreements and one way to remedy would be to deploy supplies to the region with congressional notification.
Just imagine the damage to the region if we took bilateral defense to it’s logical conclusion and dispatched actual military aid.
This is not Biden “going around Congress”. This is Congress explicitly granting permission in advance to do it as long as they are notified.
(Worth noting I’ve never looked this deeply into this before so I’m learning about this clown fiesta as well. It goes pretty deep…)
You can find the entire text of the treaty online btw. Google is enshittified now so I would not know how to search for it, but I do recall that I’ve seen it once:-).
But in general that is simply how America works: Congress passes the laws, then the President enforces those. The line gets blurry when the President suggests things to Congress to pass, like a budget, but ultimately if Congress refuses, there is nothing he can do (his power lies in vetoing laws that are passed, but there is no corresponding veto to anti-block things that they refuse to pass; with only minor exceptions possible e.g. changing how he uses his own budget to change things within solely the federal government - which Israel is not a part of).
This is to prevent a totalitarian regime from rising up, which the founding fathers seemed to fear more than just about anything, given how we started by kicking out the English King, and then we decided to build in protections to ensure that another local one could not rise up from within.
Biden is legally obligated by treaty to provide Israel with arms. Not doing so would give those maniacs in the house actual reason to impeach
First of all, no he isn’t. In fact, it’s illegal for the US government to supply arms that might be used in the commission of war crimes. In this case there’s not even any doubt.
As for the GOP, they’ve already demonstrated that whether or not they try to impeach has nothing to do with reality. Even if they DID somehow manage to make impeachment stick by a one-vote majority, there’s literally no risk that 2/3 of the senate will vote to convict, so that’s not anything remotely resembling a valid excuse to keep contributing to a genocide either.
He actually is in the case that the initial arms shipment was sent, Israel was attacked by Hamas and he had to respond by sending aid. He has gone on record stating that the current war crimes Israel has been committing raise question of the legality of providing further support.
Obviously still remains to be seen if anything will actually come of that though. Words are cheap.
While continuing to send the weapons anyway, as much as he possibly can without congressional approval.
His public pretense at being a moderating influence means less than nothing as long as he keeps being an active supplier of the genocide.
There’s no congressional approval needed as he is driven by treaty to provide arms, if anything he is compelled by Congress to send arms as long as Israel is at war as a US ally due to NATO.
He’s trying to make the argument that Israel committing genocide with those arms is reason to withdraw support, unfortunately the US government moves at a glacial pace on it’s best day to the point that the US military is actually somehow faster. Given the number of Democrats that do support Israel, its entirely realistic that he could get successfully impeached if he failed to comply.
Anyway… Thanks for the civil debate but work is starting so I need to go, I’ll read your next message bit I probably won’t have time to reply.
This is getting circular and I have better things to do with my day. Let’s just agree to disagree.
Cool, sounds good to me. Thanks again, I was finding myself eagerly anticipating your responses because I was definitely learning some new things about why people dislike his handling of the Gaza genocides. You’ve made some really good points. I think he’s made a good enough case at this point that NATO is no longer applicable in the case of genocide. At least with to protect him from retaliation if he did command a stop of US support to a NATO ally.
I dunno about that - Democrats are not “the same” as Republicans (some might have some ounce of integrity? wow that gave me a laugh, but still…), then too there is his own legacy to consider, and his own personal code of ethics. Look, I know, genocide, but still there is a distinction between content vs. process. And the latter it turns out, especially at a level of power that high up, is pretty damn important. The next President could use that same identical power for a far lesser ideal, and so on it goes and before you know it we have a King, not a President. This is the same reason why guilty people go free, so as to attempt to avoid putting innocent people into jail (I know, sometimes that happens too, unfortunately, but the goal should always be to minimize that).
Anyway, long story short: Repubs can huff & puff & try to blow the Dems house down all day long - and that pack of lies is on them - but what Biden chooses to do, is on him. And he is choosing to do this by the books. Which I kinda respect. If only the American people were not so divided - where half the nation wants to increase the military aid we are sending to Israel!! - then he + Congress could act swiftly. But we are divided so… instead we will not. Though keep in mind that if Trump comes to power, he + Congress will send more aid to Israel - and there’s a not-insignificant chance that we may send more aid to Russia too (you read that right, not just stop sending aid to Ukraine but join with the aggressor there!). Yes, it can always get worse:-(.
I still think Biden should do more. Though I have to admit that I am not knowledgeable enough to know what else he possibly could do.
I don’t find that argument compelling at all without more of a source. As if we haven’t already gone above and beyond in supplying arms and funding to Israel’s government. Why should a piece of paper compel the United States to continue to unconditionally fund a genocide?
Let’s not forget, Biden has gone out of his way to bypass Congress to provide further weapons to Israel. And his administration has repeatedly vetoed any UN resolutions pertaining to the situation.
Summary of our obligations from the state department https://www.state.gov/u-s-security-cooperation-with-israel/
The two that apply here are that arms can be dispersed with only congressional notification and that we’re have multiple bilateral defense agreements with them.
Hamas issued an attack on Israel which triggered the bilateral defense agreements and one way to remedy would be to deploy supplies to the region with congressional notification.
Just imagine the damage to the region if we took bilateral defense to it’s logical conclusion and dispatched actual military aid.
This is not Biden “going around Congress”. This is Congress explicitly granting permission in advance to do it as long as they are notified.
(Worth noting I’ve never looked this deeply into this before so I’m learning about this clown fiesta as well. It goes pretty deep…)
You can find the entire text of the treaty online btw. Google is enshittified now so I would not know how to search for it, but I do recall that I’ve seen it once:-).
But in general that is simply how America works: Congress passes the laws, then the President enforces those. The line gets blurry when the President suggests things to Congress to pass, like a budget, but ultimately if Congress refuses, there is nothing he can do (his power lies in vetoing laws that are passed, but there is no corresponding veto to anti-block things that they refuse to pass; with only minor exceptions possible e.g. changing how he uses his own budget to change things within solely the federal government - which Israel is not a part of).
This is to prevent a totalitarian regime from rising up, which the founding fathers seemed to fear more than just about anything, given how we started by kicking out the English King, and then we decided to build in protections to ensure that another local one could not rise up from within.