• Rekhyt@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    The problem is this: regarding Netanyahu she says “Well he is very clearly a war criminal.” Regarding Putin she says “With Russia it’s far more complicated” and “In so many words, yes.” She’s hedging out of calling Putin a war criminal directly so she can plausibly deny it. She will agree with general statements saying he could be a war criminal under those circumstances but she won’t say it directly so she can go “Oh no, Hasan called him a war criminal, I didn’t, I just agreed that if all of those things were true then he could be considered a war criminal!”

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      She’s hedging out of calling Putin a war criminal

      “In so many words, yes.”

      Hasan won’t take “yes” for an answer. Which is a weird thing to do, given that he keeps looping back around to attack her for her condemnation of Biden and Netanyahu.

      She will agree with general statements saying he could be a war criminal under those circumstances

      Under what circumstances is Hasan conceding that Netanyahu is a war criminal? All he does is deflect blame for war crimes away from Netanyahu, which is a really weird thing to do across multiple interview questions.

      she won’t say it directly

      She will and she did. Of course, Hasan keeps cutting her responses off to interject with new defenses of Netanyahu. Which is, again, a very weird way to establish Jill as a Putin-defender. It seems more like Hasan is hedging on Netanyahu and trying to back Jill into recanting her views on Israel.

      • Cadeillac@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Say weird some more. We aren’t going to be desensitized to it. The right will still be fucking weird

      • njm1314@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        I think it’d be easier to take yes for an answer if she said the word yes. And frankly I question why someone can’t use the word yes if it’s such a clear yes

          • TheFonz@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            How come she can give a clear yes for Biden but Putis it has to be surrounded by a million qualifiers? Multiple times.

            We all watched the interview. What are you trying to prove.

            • jumjummy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              Eh, the OP asking the question is operating in bad faith. They are most likely some disinformation shill or useful idiot who just espouses 3rd party or bust vibes every time I see them. You’re going to have as much luck getting through to them as Hasan had of getting Stein to say “yes.” with no qualifiers attached.