“It’s almost a cruel joke on the electorate that the longest presidential election potentially ever might also be the one that they’re least excited about,” said one Democratic pollster, speaking anonymously to candidly discuss the race.
“It’s almost a cruel joke on the electorate that the longest presidential election potentially ever might also be the one that they’re least excited about,” said one Democratic pollster, speaking anonymously to candidly discuss the race.
You should definitely quit while you’re behind.
Shutting down the border does not negate Biden’s progressive policies.
Biden has actively contradicted netanyahu since the war started, and has openly said he won’t support an extended war and is focusing on a two-state solution.
He’s expanded healthcare in a ton of ways(lower premiums, increased access to Obamacare, expanded Medicaid eligibility, LGBTQ coverage, mental health services, telehealth services, reducing drug prices) while pursuing the policy he prefers. That does not negate Biden’s other progressive policies either.
Biden has not signaled that nothing will change, biden has progressively reformed social, civil, business, economic domestic and foreign policies.
Biden has routinely set the US up as Netanyahu’s staunchest ally where it actually matters: delivery of weapons and money,
He bypassed congressional review to send tank shells, asked congress for removal of all arms export restrictions on Israel, sent us military assets to assist in surveillance and target selection, and that’s just what we know about.
On other fronts, the US is the only vote standing between Israel and UN sanctions.
Following a major terrorist attack, Biden is continuing a 70 year mutual defense policy with an extremely active ally, and now that there is undeniable evidence that the ally is committing atrocities, Biden is diplomatically trying to draw down the aggression in a war he has no soldiers in.
Diplomatic action would include stuff like not vetoing UN censure resolutions or reducing embassy staff or issuing specific public criticism.
Remember the French government officially telling the GWB administration that we should not invade Iraq, that it would be a disaster, and that they would not support us if we did? That’s what diplomatic action trying to talk down a long- term ally bent on bloody reprisals after a terrorist attack looks like. It has actual costs, it has actual stakes.
Saying “hey, you’re making me look bad here!” while continuing to ship arms and provide military support is far weaker than I’d prefer.
I think it’s both a moral and strategic failing.
No, that is a misconception brought on by a poor understanding of aid for Israel and Palestine.
The EU was laboring under the same misconception you are, that if you give a country complete military control over a region, they will still act in everyone’s best interest rather than their own.
That’s why different EU leaders have been saying " hey, we might want to take back control of some of the regions of the world, rather than be completely reliant on US policy."
Because of course immediately following a major terrorist attack, the u.s is going to continue to back a 70-year mutual defense Ally who is extremely active in furthering US interest stability in the region.
Also that Iraq war metaphor you used to demonstrate diplomatic action? Exactly what Biden is doing right now, he has told netanyahu that he won’t support an extended war and that he focusing on a two-state solution. Exactly the same thing.
Duplomatic de-escalation is not a strategic failing.
Biden isn’t telling netanyahu that he’s making him look bad, Biden is telling netanyahu that he won’t support and extended war on Palestine and that he’s focusing on a two-state solution, which no other president has done.
He’s directly contradicting one of the oldest active us allies, I would agree based on public outcry and based on his compassionate civil policies and practical political realities, presumably on moral grounds as well.
What happens if Biden immediately abandons an ally of 70 years?
Of course his reactions are weaker than you prefer, he is the commander-in-chief of the most powerful military globally, stationed across more than 100 countries in, and it’s a single issue among literally hundreds he is directly engaging with.
Your perspective, understanding and comprehension of these situations and that of the president of the United States probably don’t exactly match.