For Republicans who are pro-Israel: you don't need to worry at all about the posture of the US Govt here. Biden for decades has been one of the most pro-Israel politicians in the country & will fully support the Israeli attacks, as Obama did in 2014.
In 2014, Obama did make noise about concerns over the number of civilians being killed in Gaza and was also concerned about a ground invasion, but was still steadfast in his support for Israel. Biden is vastly more pro-Israel with a much longer record.
Here's the person who is in charge (nominally) of the US Government right now. If you're pro-Israel, the absolute last thing you need to worry about is whether the US Govt under him will fully support everything Israel does: with money, tech, weapons, and rhetoric. You're good.
Other than the stutter that he subsequently developed, Biden has not changed since that video, certainly not when it comes to his views on Israel and Palestine. He's about the most pro-Israel President you could possibly hope for if that's your ideology.
Top 10 recipients of political donations from pro-Israel groups in 2020. Number one by far: Joe Biden (h/t @dr_ranchstyle):
Many US liberals now feel comfortable criticizing Israel but won't acknowledge the fact that none of this could have or would have happened without the Biden administration giving the explicit approval for all of it:
It's hard to overstate how severely the audience for MSNBC has collapsed with Trump gone. For the key demographic of 25-54, they barely can get 150,000 to watch even their prime time shows (outside of Maddow). More people watch a YouTube show.
CNN's problems are a little different but just as bad. For their prime-time shows, they can barely get 1 million people *total* to watch, including all the old people who make up the vast bulk of cable news watchers for the two liberal networks. Look at this:
Liberal media outlets were dying before Trump came along. He was like some artificial 5-year sugar high that saved all their jobs. But now that he's gone, they're doing as badly as digital liberal media, with *zero* self-critique or attempt to figure out why.
At some point, journalists are going to need consistent, universally applicable standards that answer this:
Why is it OK to use a billionaire's money to produce a video attacking reporters @Julio_Rosas11 & @VenturaReport, but it's immoral to criticize NYT & Intercept writers?
My view is very clear: any journalist who enters the public discourse and tries to influence political debates is fair game for criticism.
But you can't have a double standard where liberal journalists are sacred & untouchable and only non-liberal journalists can be attacked.
Put another way: if you produce a 20 minute video that has no point but to attack working-class journalists of color who cover a dangerous and violent group that routinely assault reporters, you don't get to whine and self-victimize when people criticize how you did it.
Good @mtracey article asking how and why the new Trump-led Right - which brands itself as both America First and anti-war - not only reflexively sides with Israel but seems to see that country as one of their most important & passionately held priorities:
"Israeli warplanes pounded the Gaza Strip Saturday, killing at least eight children in a refugee camp and flattening a high-rise building housing the offices of international media outlets as Hamas unleashed a new barrage of rockets."
It will be interesting to see how US journalists -- who spent 4 years equating mean tweets and petty insults as some sort of grave attack on press freedom -- talk about this:
I'm really sorry @charlie_savage's huge CIA scoop about Russian bounties -- that misled so many people for so long in very dangerous ways -- fell apart. But attacking me won't save it. Read here about who actually debunked it. CIA isn't a great source:
I guess if I were a NYT reporter who did stenography service for CIA to prolong a war and escalate tensions with a nuclear power, only for it to blow up in my face, I'd also want to pretend it's one person's fault. But everyone pointed it out, not just me
Charlie keeps denying that the reason his CIA friends leaked this story to him about Russian bounties was because they wanted to prevent Trump withdrawing from Afghanistan. I guess it's a *huge coincidence* that the NYT told the CIA tale *one day* before Trump's withdrawal plans:
If you, your relatives, or your friends are Gab users, remember that @micahflee is spending his days and nights trolling through your/their personal data with the intent -- as @TheIntercept proudly announced when fund-raising -- to expose them if they have the wrong ideology.
Acting like the NSA/FBI, @TheIntercept and Lee have already doxed one person -- not an official with any government agency, just someone with a political group whose ideology they oppose -- and they got it completely wrong when exposing him.
In 2013, I had a long exchange with then-Executive Editor of the NYT Bill Keller about the new media outlet I was building with @jeremyscahill & Laura Poitras. It's hard to put into words how completely the NYC editors who had no role in creating this have violated all of this:
As part of her ideological war to reclaim the GOP for neocons, the now-deposed House leader falsely denied to @BretBaier yesterday her role in a tale designed to block withdrawal from Afghanistan. She lied repeatedly in this short clip (from @CurtisHouck):
To justify her opposition to Trump's plan to withdraw troops from Afghanistan, Liz Cheney cited the CIA's Russian bounty story without skepticism in a June 27 statement she posted. She then threatened Russia with retaliation based on this discredited story. Watch: