• disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 months ago

    Not if Blinken continues to provide inconclusive reports. POTUS makes international diplomacy decisions based on intelligence provided by the State Department. It’s not based the President’s opinion, US citizens, news, the UN, the ICC, or the ICJ, but state intelligence. Biden needs to put pressure on Blinken to provide a thorough and conclusive report, or replace him with someone who will.

    • homura1650@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      Blinken is releasing the reports thr president wants released. The actual intelligence is provided in classified reports provided to the president and some members of Congress. What gets made public is a policy decision that flows down from the top.

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

        That does not change if the report is conclusive or inconclusive, nor does it change the content within. It only limits what can and cannot be shared with the public.

        • Ajen@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          The evidence that makes the difference between conclusive and inconclusive could easily be classified. In which case it wouldn’t be shared with the public.

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

            That’s not how classified documents work. It would still be a conclusive report. He would be able to act on the information, and only disclose what he is capable of disclosing. The report was found to be inconclusive, meaning there was no proof of crimes committed by Israel found by the State Department.

            If POTUS was not allowed to act on classified information, there would be no point in having a State Department at all.

    • DancingBear@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      I’m fairly certain the fact that Biden has received more Israeli political donations than any other United States politician in history has more influence of potus than the state department

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

          Dude, the state department looks like a bunch of chuckle fucks trying to say that there is no ground offensive in Rafah while Israel is broadcasting their tanks in the middle of the city.

          Biden’s policy on Israel is as morally reprehensible as it gets. There is no lower. There is no worse position.

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

            I agree. They also just had members step down and say their reported information was suppressed or altered. He needs to press Blinken for a conclusive report or replace him.

            To amend existing contracts against the advisement of the State Department, against congressional legislation, is unfounded. He could even be impeached for bad faith.

    • Ajen@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      State Dept intelligence might influence POTUS’ decisions, but it isn’t the only factor.

      • 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.

          • 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@sh.itjust.works
              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.