Maybe some of the old hands at the State Department decided that continuing to improve our relations with Russia is more valuable than some cheap virtue signaling.
It is regrettable that anyone would think that appeasement by offering silence to the crimes of lying murderers is a sound way to improve relations.
Trump is more an action guy than a word guy. I imagine these has Putin more concerned than a proclamation:
That was a month ago. Since then Trump groveled.
We really don’t know why. We don’t even know that it’s true. But if it’s true, there is either a meritorious reason for it, or there is not.
At this point, we don’t know anything other than that some online magazine says it. Among the other things it says are that the State Dept actually did make a statement condemning it, but two days later than this magazine thought appropriate. It cites an unnamed “spokesman” saying the Monday publication was quashed by Pompeo, who thought it wasn’t accurate. It was published Wednesday.
So, kind of seems like this liberal source is making a big deal out of two days. But that’s what most liberal condemnations of Trump are; making a big thing out of minutiae.
In any event, the article title (and thus the thread title) is misleading because the State Dept actually did make its statement. But I guess the wording was sufficiently cagey for plausible deniability inasmuch as the S.D. was “silent” for two days, all right.
We don’t? Then show the statement.
i guess the statement from May 24 this year does not count.
Correct. It doesn’t not count as noting the anniversary of the carnage.
The article says the STate Department “should have” released its statement condemning the act on Monday, but didn’t do it until Wednesday because initially Pompeo didn’t agree with the language in the initial statement.
What’s to know?
Maybe. Hey, maybe the Katyn Forest massacre should go down the memory hole too.
You questioned the article: “State Department Silent on MH17 Anniversary Following Trump-Putin Firestorm”.
You said that we do not know if that is true. I think we do know that strong condemnations have been sent out on anniversaries in the past, but not made this year. We do know.
The entity that committed the crime went down the hole in 1989…
We don’t know that anything in a liberal site is true, ever. One is always well advised to wait until their assertions are verified by multiple sources and over at least a few days.
But more specifically, we don’t know that the STate Dept really was “silent”. Doesn’t appear that it was. Some countries issued their statements on a Monday. The anniversary itself was on a Tuesday. Pompeo rejected Some bureaucrat’s statement. The final result came out on Wednesday.
So, while it may rightly be said the statement was 'delayed" it’s entirely incorrect to say the State Dept was “silent”, because it wasn’t.
How long after the anniversary do you propose that we wait? We can check back then.
PS How do you determine that foreign policy is a liberal site, and what evidence, apart from the prejudicial evidence of ideological difference, do you have to undercut its accuracy?
It seems the answer is one day, which is literally worse than Hitler.
Are you assuming that the final result actually is a statement from the State Department?
In this particular instance, there’s no need to wait any longer. The article’s claim that the State Dept was “silent” is rebutted in the article itself. It did issue a statement, but one day later than previously.
So the title is misleading. Did they intend to mislead with the title or was it inadvertent? Well, it’s hard to think they didn’t mean “silent” when they said 'silent".
It appears to have signed on to a statement made with others.
But did not issue its own statement.
I’ll grant the article is a bit confusing. In one place it says:
“Foreign ministers of the G-7 group—including the U.S. secretary of state—released a statement on Sunday criticizing the attack and Russia’s role in it. The Canadian and British Foreign ministries promptly posted it on their websites. But the State Department did so only on Wednesday…”
So, it would seem the U.S. made the same statement the others did on the Sunday before the Tuesday anniversary. But it did not put it on its website until Wednesday.
But before that, even, the State Dept released the following about the shoot-down:
“The United States has complete confidence in the findings of the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) as presented today by the Dutch Public Prosecutor: the missile launcher used to shoot down Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 originated from the 53rd Anti-aircraft Brigade of the Russian Federation, stationed in Kursk.
MH17 was shot down by a Russian-made BUK surface-to-air missile fired from territory in eastern Ukraine controlled by Russia and Russia-led forces.
We recall the UN Security Council’s demand that “those responsible … be held to account and that all States cooperate fully with efforts to establish accountability.” We call upon Russia, in particular, to respect and adhere to UN Security Council Resolution 2166 (2014). It is time for Russia to cease its lies and account for its role in the shoot down."
Hard to be much clearer than that. But the article still complains because notwithstanding the statement was published in Kiev the day before the anniversary, it was not published in Moscow even on Wednesday. It doesn’t mention the previous history of publication in Moscow.
So the truth is, the U.S. did issue a strong statement well before the anniversary date, but then didn’t release it again when the rest of the G-7 countries did, but re-released it two days later.
An enormous nothing.