Reading past headlines is really, really hard for a lot of people.
Then the issue becomes one of why should it be Biden who achieves that. Something they could have waited for Niv. 9 to ask for anyway.
I mean, if Biden can do it, of course he should. And I’d say the same for anyone else who could do it. I don’t know if there’s anyone who can, but I’d love to be proven wrong.
What does this mean?
The OP is complete nonsense. Nothing in dale’s criticism has anything to do with the actual contents of the letter. Just the ramblings of an old buffoon who is unwilling or unable to read a 2 page letter.
As per usual, I must say.
Twitter has destroyed people’s ability to consider any idea that can’t be expressed in 280 characters. (Well, probably not. But I blame Twitter anyway.)
There’s a lot of that going around in this thread. It’s a page and a half really. Eight paragraphs.
Here’s the concluding paragraph in its entirety.
In conclusion, we urge you to make vigorous diplomatic efforts in support of a negotiated settlement and ceasefire, engage in direct talks with Russia, explore prospects for a new European security arrangement acceptable to all parties that will allow for a sovereign and independent Ukraine, and, in coordination with our Ukrainian partners, seek a rapid end to the conflict and reiterate this goal as America’s chief priority.
Nothing traitorous.
Nothing pro-Putin.
Nothing even hinting at cutting the Ukrainians out.
What they’re asking for may be a little too pie in the sky, but it is in no way offensive.
@dalej42 is a fucking joke and a racist at his core.
That wasn’t what I was asking. But nice to know that my idiot radar isn’t broken.
I don’t really get why you’d publish this letter today calling for a US-negotiated ceasefire when Ukraine is so clearly against that. The support for Ukraine’s position doesn’t feel genuine to me.
IMO the reason you’re getting that feeling is about how closely it maps to this kind of disingenuous pro-Russian argument that the US has been an obstacle to peace in the war.
The only thing it’s really missing is outright stating the accusation being stated directly.
I think the possibility of a peaceful settlement that Ukraine agrees to without a complete Russian withdrawal is very unlikely, but nothing in the letter cited says anything positive about Russia or Putin, anything negative about Biden’s approach so far, or anything negative about Zelensky and Ukraine. Quite the opposite, in fact – the letter is full of praise for Biden’s approach and full of justification for Ukraine’s defense and agency.
In general, it is largely 8 paragraphs of not saying anything beyond, “Let’s not do anything unreasonable, pro or con of anything. BTW, that’s what you’re already doing, Mr. President, so good on ya!”
Of course, that means that either:
- It’s a completely useless letter that need not have been sent. And certainly that need not have been signed by all those folks.
- It’s mostly camouflage to deflect away from accusations like the OP title and provide fodder for the defenders of the Caucus to say that it “just doesn’t say that”.
Personally, I would land on #2 and I would read it the same as @DeadTreasSecretaries did:
So while, yes, they start by saying that the people of Ukraine should support the agreement, they end by saying, “But as legislators responsible for the expenditure of tens of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars in military assistance in the conflict, we believe such involvement in this war also creates a responsibility for the United States to seriously explore all possible avenues, including direct engagement with Russia, to reduce harm and support Ukraine in achieving a peaceful settlement.”
Which is basically saying that there’s only so much money available for Ukraine and, if an agreement between the US and Russia seems close enough to grab to spare us some more cash, we should jump on it and pressure Ukraine to settle or lose all support altogether.
It’s hard to say whether this is pro-Putinist or simply an inept attempt to make themselves seem somewhat fiscally sound against McCarthy’s accusation of Congress writing blank checks on our tax dollar, but I’m not seeing any good outcome for them in the election, because of this letter. Most reasonable people are going to read it and do the same analysis: Either it’s a big nothing - in which case, why write it? - or they’re trying to say something - in which case it’s mostly a capitulation to Russia.
Personally, I won’t mind too much if they shot themselves in the foot.
Why should anyone give a shit about your feelings?
They’re asking Joe Biden to seek a peaceful resolution that all sides, including and explicitly the Ukrainians, are happy with. That’s probably not achievable, but it’s not pro-Putin or anti-Ukraine.
The progressive Caucus is asking Biden to seek a peace that the Ukrainians find acceptable. The Australian blogger’s post you linked to thinks the US should negotiate an end to the conflict with Russia and without input from the Ukrainians. The one argument does not “map” to the other, closely or otherwise.
Try to end the violence in a way Ukraine finds acceptable is not the same as who gives a shit what the Ukrainians think. That’s fucking ridiculous.
Of course it’s a useless letter. “Joe, please ask everyone to hold hands an sing Kumbaya,” is not likely to produce significant change in the world.
What it isn’t is pro-Putin. Nothing in the actual letter comes close.
Everyone who finds this objectionable is equating it with things they don’t like and arguing against those things. The actual letter is a milquetoast request to end violence in a way that everyone agrees to. If Joe Biden actually did do what they are asking him to do, they would build statues of him in Kyiv. A completely peaceful resolution to the conflict that is acceptable to Ukraine? Yes, please. Who doesn’t want that?
Did I say everyone, I should have said almost everyone. One dumb mother fucker cited his feelings.
Sorry, typo: November 9. So it would not be used by the other side before the election as some sort of proof of… something. Especially when the letter itself really says little or nothing that has not been said before.
Again, either there’s a goal or there is not a goal.
If the letter is to be read in accordance with the first few paragraphs then it simply agrees with the world as it is and with what everyone is doing in it. That would say that there was absolutely no goal, no purpose, and no value to the exercise.
So then why bother writing it and why bother spending the time to put your name on it?
If you see some alternate goal to the one that has been identified then you’re free to point it out. An agenda free letter that simply likes how Biden is approaching the war is, however, not the answer.
If you have no theory then saying that the only one imaginable idea that everyone can see from it is wrong, is probably wrong.
I could get behind that.
Sure, right wingers will make up lies about this letter and say it’s proof that the Progressive Caucus is pro-Putin, but in the absence of this letter they’d make up other lies, probably that the absence of this letter is proof that the Progressive Caucus is pro-Putin.
They’re going to tell lies 24/7 up to election day, and then keep on telling 24/7 every day after election day. You can’t let the fact that these liars exist influence what actions you take.
The actual letter is pro-peace and pro-Ukraine. These are incredibly popular, non-controversial stances. “We would like to avoid all out nuclear war,” is a bipartisan issue.
One, congress does useless, feel good shit all the time.
Two, they really would like Biden to negotiate a completely peaceful end to the conflict that Ukraine supports. The goal of asking for something you want is self evident. They literally state their goal in the letter.
Three, now their pro-peace, anti-Putin, pro-Ukraine stance is on the record. It’s there for all to see. That won’t stop some shit for brains trusting his feelings about what the letter says rather than what the actual words on the page say, but putting the truth out for the sake of putting the truth out is occasionally worth the effort of typing a whole page and signing it.
My guess is they’ve been feeling some pressure from the far far left (Chomsky types) that normally are supportive of them, so they want to put something out that shows that they want peace, but without appearing to criticize or sabotage Biden’s approach.
Maybe a bit silly at worst, but standard politics. The Chomsky types are very wrong on Ukraine, but some progressive politicians probably think they still need their support.
If Joe Biden went directly to Putin and somehow negotiated and end to hostilities in the region, in coordination with our Ukrainian partners, in a manner that Ukraine found acceptable, would you support that deal or oppose?
If you’d support it, you support the Progressive Caucus plan.
If you’d oppose it, you’re a monster.