Fully aware of that fact, but depending on how one looks at it, “Germany” has been in existence in one form or another since at least the late 1200s or early 1300s. So if you’re going to pluck out a ten year period, you might want to make the time you’re referring to a little less vague. You mentioned Hitler, so I could be forgiven that you were referring to the late Weimar and early Nazi era, if one concludes that Nazi German domination of Europe might have qualified in the eyes of some as “leadership.”
I don’t see anything contradicting my cite which says:
When come back, bring substance.
Its key provisions were being implemented but not in ways that were satisfying North Korea.
Again, it’s clear what Clinton wanted to do, and it’s equally clear that the Republicans were opposed to it. You could certainly argue that Clinton could have given temporary relief through executive orders, but had he done that, the Republicans would have had weapons of their own, including cutting off funding for the implementation of the agreement entirely.
What’s clear is that a president can’t just always execute policy on his own. He can do a lot in terms of symbolic importance, and he can unilaterally execute US foreign policy in the near term. But if any policy is truly to have any staying power, there has to be bipartisan support for it.
So we come back to my point: without bipartisan support, without support from congress, presidential power has limits. Allies aren’t going to just forget about the preceding 4 years if Biden wins. That’s our wish, but that’s not reality. And that’s because they’ve been alarmed by what they’ve been seeing for at least the past 20 years, not just the past 4.
Trump’s diplomacy now gives us this:
That is one sweet TEL-mounted ICBM. I love the things.