It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: DBCowboy
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: DBCowboy
originally posted by: operation mindcrime
a reply to: network dude
I think "personal benefit" is the key feature we should be looking at...
Peace
Semantics.
A president benefits from a successful foreign policy.
And what was the advantage to the entire US, from the withholding of aid to Ukraine?
How does it advantage all the citizens of the US?
Why don't you ask Obama who did it his entire time in office!
If you're going to go all, "bleeding heart" then better get your facts straight first!
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: DBCowboy
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: DBCowboy
originally posted by: operation mindcrime
a reply to: network dude
I think "personal benefit" is the key feature we should be looking at...
Peace
Semantics.
A president benefits from a successful foreign policy.
And what was the advantage to the entire US, from the withholding of aid to Ukraine?
How does it advantage all the citizens of the US?
Why don't you ask Obama who did it his entire time in office!
If you're going to go all, "bleeding heart" then better get your facts straight first!
Obama withheld military aid to Ukraine to assist Trump's campaign to smear a political rival? That's a bit of a stretch.
originally posted by: operation mindcrime
a reply to: DBCowboy
Yeah...but it is not the president who should benefit, it's the country he represent that should benefit...right?
Peace
originally posted by: network dude
Since the entire impeachment is based on Trump withholding aid to Ukraine because he wanted in investigation into corruption (the same corruption the new president of Ukraine ran his campaign on removing) I thought it would be interesting to see if that had ever been done before. Kind of like "precedent" or something.
It is hard to get that info right off, as the Goggle likes to push "orange man bad" stories on your first. Luckily, I used a different engine.
thinkprogress.org...
Flashback: Bush Also Threatened To Withhold Loan Guarantees From Israel
Oh my:
What right-wing critics of Mitchell’s suggestion do not acknowledge is that threatening to freeze loan guarantees is hardly unique to the Obama administration. In fact, the last time such a threat was made was under President George W. Bush. In 2003, Bush made the explicit threat to withhold loan guarantees from the Israelis due to the expansion of their “security fence” deep into Palestinian territory. Bush’s father went even further. In 1991, President George H.W. Bush briefly cut off loan guarantees to the Israeli government over their settlement policies, successfully forcing “Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir…to attend the Madrid Peace Conference.”
Bush, Obama ? wait, what?
Maybe I don't understand all this. Maybe it's me. But isn't this kind of similar? Kind of a quid-pro-quo if you will? And all before Donald even decided he wanted to be president.
I am afraid it looks like this entire thing is based on nothing.
back in 2013 it was a tool in diplomacy
U.S.-Myanmar relations in the past few years have been largely based on a quid pro quo or tit for tat strategy. Some analysts also call it action for action or give and take strategy. The Myanmar government has meticulously responded to the U.S. demands for rapprochement. One best example is on the issue of political prisoners. In Oct. 11, 2011, the Myanmar government released 220 political prisoners. In response, then Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton made a three-day visit to Myanmar, which was the first U.S. Secretary of State’s visit since John Foster Dulles in 1955. In January and February 2012, on the anniversary of the country’s Independence Day and Union Day, the Myanmar government released more than 600 political prisoners, including prominent student leaders of the 1988 democracy uprising and ethnic minority leaders. In response, the U.S. government decided to resume diplomatic relations at the ambassadorial level. The US-Myanmar diplomatic representation was downgraded to Chargé d’affaires in the aftermath of the 1988 democracy uprising and the subsequent nullification of the 1990 general election results.
But that's not exactly true. The United States engages in quid pro quos all the time when it comes to foreign assistance. Our aid is not charity; Americans expect to get something in return for it. We have leveraged U.S. assistance in exchange for a host of objectives: economic reform, democratic reform, better pursuit of corruption, access to strategically important areas and so on. In 1978, Jimmy Carter agreed to provide Egypt with billions of dollars in foreign aid in exchange for making peace with Israel, as part of the Camp David Accords. That was a quid pro quo. In 2004, George W. Bush created the Millennium Challenge Account, which required countries to meet a host of eligibility requirements — free speech, free assembly, rule of law, property rights, transparency — before they could receive a grant of aid. That program was one big quid pro quo. Congress imposes quid pro quos on U.S. foreign aid all the time, as well. Democrats howled when Trump cut aid to Central America earlier this year, but as Lester Munson, former staff director of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, points out, "If you look at the appropriations bill that actually provided the president with the money to give assistance to Central America, there are 15 different reasons you might suspend the aid there." Even former vice president Joe Biden has admitted to a quid pro quo with Ukraine. He held up $1 billion in loan guarantees (a quid) to get them to fire a prosecutor who was not investigating corruption (a quo). This was perfectly legitimate, he says, and he may well be right.
originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: DBCowboy
Hearing how important the aid was to defend Ukraine from all the ambassadors, really made me wonder why nobody had harsh words for Obama, you know, since he gave them MRE's and blankets, and no weapons. But I suppose that's a lot like why can aren't allowed to question Biden....about anything.
originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: network dude
The president is not being impeached for withholding funds. He is being impeached for abuse of power in withholding those funds which he did for a completely selfish and personal reason.
Because he is a completely selfish person.