189
There's No "Progressive Foreign Policy" Without a Reckoning for Dems Who Supported Genocide
(theintercept.com)
this post was submitted on 26 Feb 2026
189 points (92.0% liked)
politics
28580 readers
2798 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Biden went around Congress to provide arms we had clear evidence would be used in a genocide.
Just because he's not the biggest war criminal, doesn't mean he shouldn't be held accountable.
Not holding "our own" accountable just depresses turnout and let's maga win
We can't afford to put Joe fucking Biden or any other Dem politician over the entire country. We have to hold them accountable, and if they don't want to be held accountable they can stop committing war crimes, or at least get out of office.
Like, it's not just international law he violated, US law too:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leahy_Law
It's not that I don't think everyone involved needs to be held accountable, they absolutely do, but sloppy sloganeering also hurts the cause by making it sound like we don't know what we're talking about. How many times has fairly reasonable gun regulation been sidelined because someone got pedantic over whether a rifle was clip fed or magazine fed.
I know, we all hate semantics, but that doesn't mean they don't matter.
...
It's weird I have to keep saying this in 2026:
People complaining that the Dem candidate doesn't reflect the policy positions of Dem voters isn't the problem, and even if they all shut up, it wouldn't solve anything.
The problem is forcing candidates dem voters don't want, rather than fair primaries.
We'll have a fair primary in 2028, so there won't be a problem.
If you truly think people talking about the candidate is worse, look at 2008 and Hillary's campaign team literally and loudly advocating for Kerry over Obama.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_United_Means_Action
That didn't stop Obama from flipping a shit ton of red states, because Dem voters supporting a platform means more than people saying they don't like the platform.
Did you ever notice how criticizing the candidate is only a problem when it's an uncharismatic candidate no one likes with a shitty platform?
Quick edit:
Bro, I love semantics...
Um... what does any of that have to do with the subject of the post though? The OP stated:
I said I don't know that "War Criminals" is the right way to frame what they did. I do not disagree with your point that:
It's a valid point, but I didn't suggest not holding them accountable, I suggested being precise in how we frame what they did wrong. We devalue the term "War Crime" if we use it too loosely.
Dude, what are you even talking about? We're talking about the (prospective) candidates. That's what this whole conversation has been about. My point was about how to frame the way we talk about it. I never suggested they shouldn't be thoroughly vetted by the voter and people shouldn't be held accountable for their bad decisions. Who are you arguing with? Because it doesn't sound like anything I said.