From the inclusion of a moron’s nonsensical quote tweet and your history, I gather that you think this is supposed to look bad for AOC. Even your title criticism is nonsensical, as she says what you want her to say, just not the exact string.
I’m starting to think you may not be that bright.
It’s better than I feared, but not as good as I hoped. She can’t seem to decide if the war itself is wrong or if war without Congressional approval is wrong. She says some good things here, I like that she called out the blatant aggression, but it’s mixed with this weak liberal garbage about Congress’s authority and the Constitution that undermines her condemnation.
What will she say if there is a vote, and the warmongers that control Congress vote for war?
She spends the first four paragraphs calling it out as immoral, and at the end includes that it’s also illegal. She isn’t undermining her point by calling on congress to limit executive authority for military action, the war would still be everything she described it as in the first four paragraphs.
She can’t call it an illegal war of aggression without calling it illegal.
The fact that it’s up for interpretation actually demonstrates my point, that’s what I mean by “she can’t seem to decide” and that it’s mixed with “weak liberal garbage.” This isn’t a strong enough statement for me to be satisfied.
Though, like I said, it’s better than I feared. European liberals are coming out much more strongly in support of the war.
I think that’s just shotgun argumentation. Say all the reasons something’s wrong so that if one doesn’t move someone the other might. The problem in the “think of the process” argument is when it becomes the primary argument because it assumes the “don’t kill people” one isn’t important.
If it’s both “war is wrong” and “presidents siezing war powers is wrong” and Congress gives its approval, then that doesn’t take away her other criticism. She spends a lot more space taking about why the war is wrong than the process issue, but the process issue is also important because without taking back war powers statements of moral opposition mean nothing.
The current top journalist in the world from Dropsite, Jeremy Scahill, also known as “a moron”.
Have you considered Reddit?
Does she use the term “illegal war of aggresion”?
I understand most people aren’t aware of how politics works but hacks like AOC know how to spam the term “illegal war of aggresion” when it comes to Russia invading Ukraine. But for Israel they spontaneously forget them.
Did she say those exact words in this one statement? No. Has she condemned bombing iran as illegal in the past? yes.
She didn’t say the the exact phrase in this release, possibly because what you’re demanding was word-for-word already said by Mamdani in his condemnation. She describes it as illegal and repeatedly calls it a war, both in no uncertain terms, and has almost nailed the same phrase in the past the last time this happened.
Mr. President, don’t take your anger out on me - I’m just a silly girl. Take it out on whoever convinced you to betray the American people and our Constitution by illegally bombing Iran and dragging us into war. It only took you 5 months to break almost every promise you made.
Oh the one from the 12 day war. Yeah that doesn’t apply anymore.
Say do you think AOC could find bad words to describe Hamas on oct7?
I didn’t criticize her for her word usage during the 12 day war? I criticized her for her word useage NOW.
Politicians know extremely well what their words mean and are very selective in how they use them.
AOC used softball terms here. She didn’t even condemn the US-Israeli attack. And the term “combat operations” cmon bruh
But for Israel they spontaneously forget them.
No you criticized her for her word usage in general, please do not try and present this like I said you were criticizing her for what she said during the 12 day war. She used the same terms used by trump to emphasize what she was responding to - and then repeatedly clarified in the body of the statement what it actually was. That’s a completely reasonable choice to make.
She’s a politician. War is a definitive term in politics. I don’t know how US laws exactly dictate it, but I’d guess it needs to be somehow declared and it has legal consequences and whatever else it includes. However, as there’s no congress approval for it then it, by definition, can’t be a war. So it’s a ‘combat operation’. Just like Russia claimed their attack was ‘special operation’ instead of ‘war’.
So, she’s, for all intents and purposes, saying that it’s illegal war operation, but keeping it politically/legally truthful, which is a pretty big deal on her job.
It’s excactly how it works. USA has not been, from their legal point of view, in war since second world war. Their ‘special operation’ equivalent is (based on a very quick search) ‘armed conflict’ or ‘prolonged period of sustained combat involving U.S. Armed Forces’.
If you insist on the term ‘illegal war’ the proper legal equivalent would be ‘act of war’. In politics correct use of terms at least used to be pretty important, but obviously today, and specially in the USA, that goal has been flushed down the golden toilet multiple times. But that doesn’t change the fact that she condemned the attacks while defending their constitution and that fact doesn’t change even if you try to twist that to something else.
Saying words confidently doesn’t mean you understand how politics works.
Also AOC didn’t condemn the attacks at all
Trump proved you can just say shit and there aren’t consequences.
Just call it a war. What are they gonna do about it?
Dude. I’m sorry she’s imperfect for your particular criteria. She can still be the best for America’s evolution while not being perfect. Maybe the libel of marking someone before their trial date is just a bridge too far; but we all got it from context clues.
I’m actually glad this is the best issue today you could come up with: the amount of hair-splitting is almost a good sign.
My main concern is that she does not center the Iranian people as a reason to oppose the war. The war is bad to her because it puts US citizens and troops in danger, because it wasn’t approved by Congress and so is unlawful, and because US wars don’t ever actually create democracy. It’s a very US-centric response, and she’s a US politician so that makes sense, but we should demand she goes farther and condemns the killing of Iranians and condemns the violation of Iranian sovereignty.
Now is exactly the time when we should be demanding the strongest condemnations from our electeds and not letting them off the hook. It’s our job to push our electeds to be better, and part of that means holding them accountable for their public statements.
geneva_convenience
Zaktor
queermunist she/her
IsoKiero
Dessalines
davel
HiddenLayer555