The death of dozens of Palestinian civilians after an Israeli strike is escalating pressure on the Biden administration to pull back its military support for the country.
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.
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.
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?
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.
State Dept intelligence might influence POTUS’ decisions, but it isn’t the only factor.
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.
But not necessarily the biggest factor in making the decision.
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.
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?
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.
And Biden also went around congress to fast track weapons multiple times.
That’s true. He did that prior to pausing shipments pending the State Department investigation. Chronology is important.