While it doesn't raise to the level of Trump's personal quid quo pro asking for Zelenskyy to start a Hunter Biden investigation - I do think that the Republicans have a point here. If Congress passed a law that says that the US is sending aid to Israel, it is NOT Joe Biden's job to override that. There's a solid case to be made that Biden is doing this for political benefit (to buttress his progressive base, who have called him Genocide Joe), and the GOP would be well within reason to start impeachment proceedings.
I think his defense to charge is simply that he believes Netanyahu’s strategy is wrong and an overreach. It makes sense that Biden’s views would likely be similar to those of his voters (and probably a majority of the voters).
I could be persuaded that the move is wrong if it’s shown to be unlawful, but I really don’t think it is. It might be if it extends into the next fiscal year.
It depends under what parts of the relevant laws said munitions were being provided. For example: part of the aid provided to Israel is Foreign Military Financing (grants or loans), which basically gives Israel money to purchase military equipment/arms from the US - which then means POTUS/the US can choose which equipment/arms we sell (ex: yes we'll sell you artillery, no we're not selling you F-35 [this is not a specific example to Israel]). My understanding of the 2K/500lb bombs were being purchased by Israel under FMF, so it's fair game to state we will not sell them those weapons at this time. They could spend those grant dollars on other items, like Iron Dome missiles, without issue at this time.
Trump withheld $400mil Congressionally appropriated dollars entirely from Ukraine, in secret, for his personal gain.
These situations just are not the same: Trump's was in violation of the Impoundment Control Act, while Biden is not violating the FMF. It is normal for politicians to factor in constituent opinion when deciding policy. It's part of their job, and it's not odd or wrong. That said: I think Biden is doing what he thinks is right, and not factoring in much in the way of public sentiment. He has said for months that he wants to see plans for minimizing Palestinian civilian deaths, and for there to be a plan for the day after: he set a red line, and he's actually holding it (unlike Obama did with Syria and chemical weapon use).
You're 100% correct that the specifics of the law actually matter. I imagine that Biden (unlike Trump) is actually smart enough to not stray into illegal territory on this.
That said, an impeachment against Biden isn't going anywhere given the setup of the Senate. (Look how quickly the Mayorkas affair disappeared.) And given the make up of Biden's base, an impeachment at this point probably works in his favor, much in the same way that Trump's impeachment only pulled his base closer.
No impeachment. A waste of time and legislative effort. If Joe Biden can be reelected, the country is in serious trouble. The only reason he stands a chance is Republicans were too stupid to nominate Ron DeSantis. I'm firmly in the Bill Barr camp. Trump is Russian roulette. Biden is suicide.
Barr is a true believer that secular liberal democracy ultimately leads to a place he doesn't want to be. The ends justify the means for him.
Quoting someone of conservative political beliefs: "Sometimes I sound like I think Biden is a great President. I don't. I just think he's bad within normal parameters. And I really do want us to stay within normal parameters."
I stand with Barr and disagree with whoever you quoted but I do like your comment. The ends do justify the means within limits for Barr and for me. Thats why I, and probably Barr also, vote and do not resort to violence.
Do you read the Bible, Mr. Thornton? In the Old Testament, there are quite a few instances where God told Israel to completely wipe out their immediate enemy, and if they didn't, God would punish Israel. Hamas, and to the north, Hezbollah, have been thorns in the side of Israel for decades. At some point, you have to remove the thorn/thorns to actually survive. I will also say this; if prosecuting the Rafah battle depends upon leaning on the United States for it's war implements, they should figure out how to manufacture them themselves, or procure them from another country. And just as an aside, Biden would do well to heed God's warning in Genesis, "I will bless those who bless Israel, and I will curse those who curse Israel."
While it doesn't raise to the level of Trump's personal quid quo pro asking for Zelenskyy to start a Hunter Biden investigation - I do think that the Republicans have a point here. If Congress passed a law that says that the US is sending aid to Israel, it is NOT Joe Biden's job to override that. There's a solid case to be made that Biden is doing this for political benefit (to buttress his progressive base, who have called him Genocide Joe), and the GOP would be well within reason to start impeachment proceedings.
I think his defense to charge is simply that he believes Netanyahu’s strategy is wrong and an overreach. It makes sense that Biden’s views would likely be similar to those of his voters (and probably a majority of the voters).
I could be persuaded that the move is wrong if it’s shown to be unlawful, but I really don’t think it is. It might be if it extends into the next fiscal year.
It depends under what parts of the relevant laws said munitions were being provided. For example: part of the aid provided to Israel is Foreign Military Financing (grants or loans), which basically gives Israel money to purchase military equipment/arms from the US - which then means POTUS/the US can choose which equipment/arms we sell (ex: yes we'll sell you artillery, no we're not selling you F-35 [this is not a specific example to Israel]). My understanding of the 2K/500lb bombs were being purchased by Israel under FMF, so it's fair game to state we will not sell them those weapons at this time. They could spend those grant dollars on other items, like Iron Dome missiles, without issue at this time.
Trump withheld $400mil Congressionally appropriated dollars entirely from Ukraine, in secret, for his personal gain.
These situations just are not the same: Trump's was in violation of the Impoundment Control Act, while Biden is not violating the FMF. It is normal for politicians to factor in constituent opinion when deciding policy. It's part of their job, and it's not odd or wrong. That said: I think Biden is doing what he thinks is right, and not factoring in much in the way of public sentiment. He has said for months that he wants to see plans for minimizing Palestinian civilian deaths, and for there to be a plan for the day after: he set a red line, and he's actually holding it (unlike Obama did with Syria and chemical weapon use).
You're 100% correct that the specifics of the law actually matter. I imagine that Biden (unlike Trump) is actually smart enough to not stray into illegal territory on this.
That said, an impeachment against Biden isn't going anywhere given the setup of the Senate. (Look how quickly the Mayorkas affair disappeared.) And given the make up of Biden's base, an impeachment at this point probably works in his favor, much in the same way that Trump's impeachment only pulled his base closer.
No impeachment. A waste of time and legislative effort. If Joe Biden can be reelected, the country is in serious trouble. The only reason he stands a chance is Republicans were too stupid to nominate Ron DeSantis. I'm firmly in the Bill Barr camp. Trump is Russian roulette. Biden is suicide.
Barr is a true believer that secular liberal democracy ultimately leads to a place he doesn't want to be. The ends justify the means for him.
Quoting someone of conservative political beliefs: "Sometimes I sound like I think Biden is a great President. I don't. I just think he's bad within normal parameters. And I really do want us to stay within normal parameters."
I stand with Barr and disagree with whoever you quoted but I do like your comment. The ends do justify the means within limits for Barr and for me. Thats why I, and probably Barr also, vote and do not resort to violence.
Can't say I'm surprised that you do not believe in secular liberal democracy.
Letting the ends justify the means does mean violence is in play.
So, now that we know you're on the side of illiberalism we can respond to you accordingly.
Do you read the Bible, Mr. Thornton? In the Old Testament, there are quite a few instances where God told Israel to completely wipe out their immediate enemy, and if they didn't, God would punish Israel. Hamas, and to the north, Hezbollah, have been thorns in the side of Israel for decades. At some point, you have to remove the thorn/thorns to actually survive. I will also say this; if prosecuting the Rafah battle depends upon leaning on the United States for it's war implements, they should figure out how to manufacture them themselves, or procure them from another country. And just as an aside, Biden would do well to heed God's warning in Genesis, "I will bless those who bless Israel, and I will curse those who curse Israel."
And as a Christian the New Testament says...?
God never changes...