1. I think @JoeBiden's #NordStream2 waiver decision was ill-advised. Putin has not moderated and is acting more aggressively. The additional pipeline will allow an economy smaller than California to make the EU a Russian client state. That's not in the US strategic interest.
2. Russia has plied the EU elite with Russian corruption, making them happy to look the other way when the project violates their own laws and regulations. There is no present need for Nordstream2. And I believe the 2022NDAA prevents the
3. Biden administration from granting Putin another national sanctions waiver. As always, my analysis is from a domestic political perspective. If Biden is tarred with what coming from NordStream2, it can cost him the midterms, regardless of how he does on the domestic economy.
4. He doesn't need this fight with a Congress his party controls. Kill the pipeline. Guarantee EU and #Ukraine an #LNG backstop if Putin throws a fit. And I personally like fixing Libya to get that gas flowing north. @WHCOS@WHNSC@PressSec
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1. I saw a report by the @thehill that tries to portray @JoeBiden's remarks about defending #Taiwan as a misstatement. When asked if it was a policy shift, @PressSec pointed to the Taiwan Relations Act. From its reaction, it's apparent staff at The Hill haven't read it.
2. The Act provides our relationship with #PRC is based on its commitment to address Taiwan peacefully. Moreover, the principal finding of policy is to maintain peace in the Western Pacific. We are close to war with China over its South Sea aggression. It's not just Taiwan.
3. And the Act states the policy was,
"to make clear that the United States decision to establish diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China rests upon the expectation that the future of Taiwan will be determined by peaceful means;
1. Why can we see the Turkish Drones over Idlib and not over Kobane on @flightradar24? He's why I think that is and why the civilians in #AANES may want to check this out. When a drone or any other aircraft flies, it can transmit a radio signal via ADS-B receivers can pick up.
2. Typically, military aircraft don't all this to give away their position. But some still leak enough radio data to be seen. I live near a big US Air Force base and I can say from experience our folks know how to deal with this. If they want to not be seen, they won't be.
3. For whatever reason, the Turk drones over Idlib remain visible. I surmise it is because the anti Assad
2. In a quick survey, I find nothing in major US print press on Biden's comment on defending Taiwan. CCP English propaganda pit-bull Global Times reports about an imaginary strong domestic US opposition to the policy of standing up to Communist aggression, but takes a very soft
3. approach now that the Central Military Commission's aggressive, arguably Imperialist policies have brought China to the brink of US sanctions and possible major naval war on its coast. Claiming that the US would never dare to face the 1.4 billion Chinese, the CCP ruling
1. “Is there no justice?”: Trump complains GOP ally was indicted for “telling some lies” to the FBI salon.com/2021/10/20/is-…
2. TFG is quoted by @Salon saying, "Isn't it terrible that a Republican Congressman from Nebraska just got indicted for possibly telling some lies to investigators about campaign contributions, when half of the United States Congress lied about made up scams."
3. #45 damns Fortenberry with faint praise by saying, in effect, "sure, he may have possibly told lies to investigators." That subtle statement where he agrees that Fortenburry is likely a liar whose lies are bad enough to go to prison for several years was not likely random.
Multiple sources report @Centcom confirming US base at at-Tanf on the Syria-Jordan-Iraqi border was attacked by drones. I have not seen an official statement. @PentagonPresSec
What if @SenSchumer calls for the parliamentarian to rule on a point of parliamentary inquiry that only 51 votes are need to invoke cloture on bills to protect the right to vote? I think that's how killing the filibuster is actually done.
Then the parliamentarian rules it requires 60 and the majority leader calls for a vote to overrule the parliamentarian. That vote can pass on 51 votes and when it does, no more filibuster.
Schumer just changed his vote to no. That gives him the right to call to reconsider. He just moved to reconsider.