Has any other president withheld aid to another country before?

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.

a reply to: network dude
I would imagine there was lots of quid pro quo at the meeting between the USA, England, and Russia at the end of ww2. Was there strings attached during the Marshall plan?

You can bet they all have and why in the hell WOULDNT they? Pretty sure Obama held up aid to Pakistan...and of course we have Reagan and the contras.

This was a stupid thing for Dems to do. Thets the whole bit about foreign aid...do as we say or no hay.

a reply to: lakenheath24

Yep, this is kind of what I mean. if this is an impeachable offence, we as a nation had better get out of the Aid giving business right about now. Or we won't be able to govern, we will just impeach everyone, all the time.

"Step right up, who will be the next contestant on 'Who wants to be impeached!' "

a reply to: network dude

Or how about just denying any kind of military aid whatsoever, like Obama did.

You remember... when Russia annexed 1/3 of the Ukraine and in response Obama stood there with his lower lip trembling and did absolutely nothing about it but send humanitarian aid because he was scared of Putin.

They needed military aid and we sent them blankets.

I wouldn't mention Obama's $1.8B transfer to Iran for some hostages. Nothing like some real extortion and bribery.

a reply to: network dude

Trump threatened to close the southern border unless Mexico started policing their side.

If it was legit...ok..i am good with it. BUT, FFS every admin has done this. Its surely part of negotiating deals and why on gods green earth would you not pull the carrot(thats not a masturbating euphamism) when some third world pleb wont play ball?

Its the stupidest take ever.



a reply to: network dude

a reply to: network dude

I think "personal benefit" is the key feature we should be looking at...

Peace

a reply to: network dude

I think an equally interesting and ethical question should be how many politicians have used giving aid packages for similar results?

Does promised aid packages then used as leverage for specific wants ethically = no aid packages on the docket, but one created in turn for ________?

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.

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: 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

Semantics, again.

A successful foreign policy agreement does benefit the nation.

a reply to: DBCowboy

How does an investigation into Joe Biden help the nation?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: DBCowboy

How does an investigation into Joe Biden help the nation?

It’s an investigation into corruption.

Do we ignore corruption if a leftist is involved?

How does ignoring corruption benefit a nation?

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

Seems our country is currently benefiting rather well under a President trump...

So does our country not continue to benefit if he stays in office?

As opposed to having a Democrat run the country, which is being pointed out will make said good economy go away in short order?

At the end of the day, why are Democrats not interested in finding out if there is major corruption in their leadership?

Don't they care about Americans benefiting from a Trump Presidency?

Or do they only care about regaining power and don't care about the average American at all?

a reply to: DBCowboy

I hear you...but a succesful foreign policy should be based on what is best for the nation...

Let me guess...semantics. lol

We be going in circles...

But in all seriousness...if Trump was holding back financial aid because he wanted corruption taken care of, I could see how this would represent American interests.

If Trump was holding back aid because he wanted to expose a political rival than that would make it a personal issue.

I am not in the position to judge which one is the case.

Peace

a reply to: Lumenari

That's like saying your favorite boxer is winning although he keeps hitting his opponent below the belt.

Yeah Trump is doing a lot of good stuff for you guys but we weren't discussing that...

Peace

originally posted by: lakenheath24
You can bet they all have and why in the hell WOULDNT they? Pretty sure Obama held up aid to Pakistan...and of course we have Reagan and the contras.

This was a stupid thing for Dems to do. Thets the whole bit about foreign aid...do as we say or no hay.

jesus, the above examples are COMPLETELY different, and not being discussed at all, in the impeachment hearings...why?...because NONE of those "aid-hold-outs" were used to bribe a foreign leader into announcing an investigation into their American political opponents.....

it sounds like from this thread, that nobody has heard a word said, or what the impeachment is even about....

Obama withheld aid to Nigeria for his personal quest to make Africa gay again .


Not to mention that fighting corruption was tied to the money Trump held back. Through the 2014 Ukraine freedom support act .

Democrat’s say Trump can’t be above the law .

I guess they’re OK with Biden ?

Hypocrisy what is surprise .