Israel/Hamas War Superthread

[Dill]

(05-11-2024, 09:36 AM)masonbengals fan Wrote: Dill, you & I both know Hannity didn't come up with that one although I'm sure he probably repeats nightly. (I wouldn't know because I can't stand watching it)
That came from someone who actually served beside Joe. But you already knew that.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/robert-gates-thinks-joe-biden-hasn-39-t-212615128.html

At least that's my understanding.
On a side note, why do you feel you have to inject Fox news every time someone has a different opinion of things than you?
Is that meant to belittle other posters? Because you have made clear your opinion of them as a news source. I can only assume that's meant to imply conservative & independent leaning minds as being naive or easily manipulated.

I'm quite open to critiques of Biden's foreign policy. Leaving A-stan was a mistake, and he was pushing that all through the Obama administration. I have complaints about him that go back to the Vietnam war and afterwards, when he was fine with leaving Hmong to fend for themselves after serving as US allies for a decade. But unsupported, general opinions are about the weakest evidence possible. So that's what I'm addressing; this is about principle.

My primary comment was that assessments of Joes' FP seems to depend rather a lot on value/goal based perspective. E.g., from Putin's perspective his Ukraine policy was wrong. I could add that Gates seems to share Biden's perspective on Ukraine, though he complains Joe should move faster providing support. 
(Gosh, what or who is holding him up?)  Facts in such cases are not the primary issue, but the value framework from which they are assessed.

Fox watchers know their commentators systematically link whatever to Biden. There is not a foreign policy move Biden could make regarding Russia or Israel or Tahiti that would not be wrong. That indicates a rigid perspective unaffected by facts.

So the point was to get a contrast between judgments based differing values/goals and judgements made independently of facts. Assessment of Biden can start from the other side of that, using examples, evidence, recognition of values/goals.

I'm happy you are participating in these discussions and have no intent to "belittle" you. But I like to see criticism about Biden's or anyone's foreign policy resting on something like evidence, of which there was precious little in your article and you were reluctant to add any of your own. Without that, there can be no assessing Gate's judgement. THAT he worked for Biden adds nothing to Gates' charge Biden was on the wrong side of "nearly" every foreign policy decision. When assessments of Biden's FP are not supported by those who make them, then the "independence" of the assessments can't just be assumed.