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.
Close. All the postwar analysis including mentions in the Senate Report on Iraqi WMD Intelligence and independent reporting (Slow Burn podcast did a good summary) discussed how analysts were pressured to write reports backing up claims of WMDs or pre-assuming WMDs existed and that anyone who wrote reports otherwise was reprimanded from above and their career impacted negatively in a way that others saw and tried not to repeat. Some Bush supporters tried to make the case that the CIA came up with WMD claims on their own and Bush was unwittingly dragged into a war reluctantly because of the bad intelligence and that’s a laughable claim; it was the White House pressuring reports to say what they wanted to hear. Cheney personally set up an office in Langley to drive that point home.
My point still stands; the top levels of the Executive Branch can influence pretty far down into the bureaucrat levels. The White House can pressure the CIA to issue reports that favor the existing policy and bury papers that contradict it. The State Department can issue reports that favor the administration’s foreign policy objectives and bury reports that contradict it. The Trump (and Biden) administrations wielded control over the CDC and issued guidelines that sometimes went against what independent public health experts and the medical community were recommending; promoting ideas with weak evidence and burying other ideas with strong evidence because they contradicted the political policies at the time (see also needle exchange policies vs evidence based public health community recommendations).
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?
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.
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.
Close. All the postwar analysis including mentions in the Senate Report on Iraqi WMD Intelligence and independent reporting (Slow Burn podcast did a good summary) discussed how analysts were pressured to write reports backing up claims of WMDs or pre-assuming WMDs existed and that anyone who wrote reports otherwise was reprimanded from above and their career impacted negatively in a way that others saw and tried not to repeat. Some Bush supporters tried to make the case that the CIA came up with WMD claims on their own and Bush was unwittingly dragged into a war reluctantly because of the bad intelligence and that’s a laughable claim; it was the White House pressuring reports to say what they wanted to hear. Cheney personally set up an office in Langley to drive that point home.
My point still stands; the top levels of the Executive Branch can influence pretty far down into the bureaucrat levels. The White House can pressure the CIA to issue reports that favor the existing policy and bury papers that contradict it. The State Department can issue reports that favor the administration’s foreign policy objectives and bury reports that contradict it. The Trump (and Biden) administrations wielded control over the CDC and issued guidelines that sometimes went against what independent public health experts and the medical community were recommending; promoting ideas with weak evidence and burying other ideas with strong evidence because they contradicted the political policies at the time (see also needle exchange policies vs evidence based public health community recommendations).
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.
I am close to certain that he will not do so.