Boehner defies Obama on Iran sanctions, invites Netanyahu

[Steely Dan]

So will this visit actually help Netanyahu domestically in Israel in the upcoming Israeli elections?

Maybe Obama is arrogant enough to think so! Reality is, probably not. Netanyahu will be re-elected unfortunately!

Interesting.

Well, I do understand the "excuse" of not wanting to seem to get involved either way in internal Israeli politics when elections are close.

Netanyahu is not the only player in this situation, the Saudis are far from happy about the prospect of a nuclear Iran and though I very much doubt they would undertake unilateral military action against Iranian nuclear sites I strongly suspect they will acquire nuclear weapons themselves if they have any doubts about the efficacy of any deal with Iran, the cooling of relations between the Saudis and the Obama administration are another factor congress may be considering.

[chuckd]

Perhaps if Obama had been consulting minority Congressional leaders before he had taken his previous unilateral actions on existing laws, those same Congressional leaders might have felt an obligation to consult him when they decided to invite a speaker to address a joint session of Congress.

Obama chose not to consult them on his various Presidential Orders and Memoranda.

Congress chooses to invite speakers without prior consultation.

Live with it.

[chuckd]

<snip>

In the meantime, the White House said just now Netanyahu's visit is not and will not be an official state visit, which means Netanyahu will lack the regular standing for a foreign head of state or government to address a joint session of Congress, and that Prez Obama will not meet with Netanyahu while he is in Washington because long standing White House policy over many decades is not to meet with a leader on the eve of an election he's having back home.

<snip>

I seriously doubt if Prime Minister Netanyahu will be visibly upset by being ignored on his visit. Obama has done it before.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Obama Avoids Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu Meeting

Reuters

Posted: 09/11/2012 2:36 pm EDT Updated: 11/11/2012 5:12 am EST

By Matt Spetalnick and Allyn Fisher-Ilan

WASHINGTON/JERUSALEM, Sept 11 (Reuters) - In a highly unusual rebuff to a close ally, the White House said on Tuesday that President Barack Obama would not meet Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during a U.S. visit later this month, as tensions escalated over how to deal with Iran's nuclear program.

The apparent snub, coupled with Netanyahu's sharpened demands for a tougher U.S. line against Iran, threatened to plunge U.S.-Israeli relations into crisis and add pressure on Obama in the final stretch of a tight presidential election campaign.

An Israeli official said the White House had refused Netanyahu's request to meet Obama when the Israeli leader visits the United States to attend the U.N. General Assembly, telling the Israelis "the president's schedule will not permit that."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/11/obama-avoids-israeli-prim_n_1874814.html

[chuckd]

Sorry to make your conspiracy theory look stupid, but John Boehner is a Roman Catholic.

meaning what? One fact is that Religion and State are separated under US constitution and the many radical Christians hate that, particularly the loopy wing of the Republicans.

Do you have time to tell us where we could find separation of church and state in the US Constitution?

The article number would be nice.

Thank you

[Morch]

The Chamberlain analogy is correct. Appeasing an aggressive violent bully who has their own agenda doesn't work.

Some politicians and regimes simply lie.

Have a look at Pat Buchanan's take on Chamberlain, Czechoslovakia and Poland.

More than HALF of the U.S. population saw it that way as well . . . . . And then, "my goodness gracious, are those Japanese warplanes in the sky over Pearl Harbour ?...

All politicians and all regimes have their agenda.

ALL lie.

The attack on Pearl Harbor was a hoax, then?

No more than your remark is a craven appeal to intellectual laziness and ignorance.

How does that sound ?

Pompous?

*Sigh* if you wish.

I prefer well-read, well-researched, well-supported; with an aversion to the sealed up lock-box approach to scholarship and its relationship to the accurate historical record. This usually happens after that inexplicable 50-year security seal we've been conditioned to expect.

It used to be that 50 years was long enough for most of the players to have safely died off.

Really, if the so-called hard sciences like Physics and Chemistry can be revised and re-formulated why not History ?

Nonetheless, there you go again with that famous "appeal" of yours. . . . . a shopworn nostrum to the same old audience.

(Spotty bookings in the Catskills this season ?)

(Now, let's have a little "I don't know what you're talking about" along with all that world-famous chopped liver you dish out so humbly.)

Thinking folks have had a real belly-full of it by now.

If it could only be well-expressed as well....

I don't know what you're talking about. Guess I got a little lost what with all the coughing and them supposed innuendo attempts. But sure is entertaining reading.

Chopped liver is on par with water boarding, as far as I'm concerned. No score.

[Morch]

So will this visit actually help Netanyahu domestically in Israel in the upcoming Israeli elections?

Netanyahu's sour relationship with the the current USA administration may be electorally beneficial with regards to securing the right wing voters from drifting elsewhere, not a very popular stance on other quarters of the political scene. Meeting with Obama may not be such a good idea for him anyway, too much potential embarrassment, plus Obama is not very popular among right wing voter in Israel anyway. A warm reception by the Congress would serve him much better as far as PR goes.

[Morch]

Well, there are all bad choices here in dealing with Iran. You can't regard their extremist Islamist regime (the grand poobahs not the happy faces fronting to the world) as any kind of rational force and no, such types should never have nuclear weapons. (See North Korea.) I think it's a good thing that there is right wing pushback on Obama about Iran policy ... it might help keep Obama honest about this and possibly result in a slightly better "deal" assuming any kind of "deal" is ever managed. Anyway, the game Iran is playing is pretty obvious to anyone who's watching ...

Exactly my thoughts and probably this has some bearing on the timing of congress inviting Netanayhu. The Iranian regime are not a rational player and can't be dealt with as such. It is however worth recalling that the Iranians released the U.S embassy hostages the day Reagan came to power and Carter left. I suspect the Iranians are confident of being able to attain a nuclear bomb if Obama continues to be the sole factor preventing them, with the prospect of Congressional intervention they may decide discretion is preferable and hope to hoodwink a future Clinton administration should they get the chance to.

Doubt that Iran's leadership could be called irrational. They have their own interests and take on things, and they take action according to these. Might not be the rational from a Western point of view, but none to say that's the only option out there. Also, it would probably not be correct to assume total unity in the higher echelons. If it was possible for Iranians to freely comment on political issues, their topics would probably look about as partisan as those dealing with USA politics on TVF.

[Morch]

Perhaps if Obama had been consulting minority Congressional leaders before he had taken his previous unilateral actions on existing laws, those same Congressional leaders might have felt an obligation to consult him when they decided to invite a speaker to address a joint session of Congress.

Obama chose not to consult them on his various Presidential Orders and Memoranda.

Congress chooses to invite speakers without prior consultation.

Live with it.

A lot of the USA's international prestige and political power projection issues seem to stem from the partisan squabbles between the parties. Regardless of who-started-it, I'd like to see whomever gets elected next term making the bridging of this rift a priority.

A house divided and all that.

[Publicus]

Sorry to make your conspiracy theory look stupid, but John Boehner is a Roman Catholic.

meaning what? One fact is that Religion and State are separated under US constitution and the many radical Christians hate that, particularly the loopy wing of the Republicans.

Do you have time to tell us where we could find separation of church and state in the US Constitution?

The article number would be nice.

Thank you

No problem and you're welcome, for sure.....emphasis added along with some of the more recent SCOTUS rulings developing the separation of church and state enunciated right off in the First Amendment. I didn't want to provide too much information.

I just know this is not unfamiliar....and I just had to jump in...keep me posted.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Wex Resources

First Amendment

The Establishment Clause

Establishment Clause

Lee v. Weisman (1992)

Van Orden v. Perry (2005)

Free Exercise Clause

Free Exercise Clause

State Action Requirement

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment

[ggold]

So will this visit actually help Netanyahu domestically in Israel in the upcoming Israeli elections?

Maybe Obama is arrogant enough to think so! Reality is, probably not. Netanyahu will be re-elected unfortunately!

Interesting.

Well, I do understand the "excuse" of not wanting to seem to get involved either way in internal Israeli politics when elections are close.

Obama has already said he would not meet with Netanyahu, So he wouldn't be meddling in Israeli politics!But isn't this more about Obama being pissed with not being told of the visit before it was made public?

But Netanyahu is getting involved with US politics. IMO that is wrong. The irony is, If Obama makes Netanyahu pay a price for this (as has been reported) It may very well backfire on Netanyahu when the Israeli Public see what the price might be!

[chuckd]

Sorry to make your conspiracy theory look stupid, but John Boehner is a Roman Catholic.

meaning what? One fact is that Religion and State are separated under US constitution and the many radical Christians hate that, particularly the loopy wing of the Republicans.

Do you have time to tell us where we could find separation of church and state in the US Constitution?

The article number would be nice.

Thank you

No problem and you're welcome, for sure.....emphasis added along with some of the more recent SCOTUS rulings developing the separation of church and state enunciated right off in the First Amendment. I didn't want to provide too much information.

I just know this is not unfamiliar....and I just had to jump in...keep me posted.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Wex Resources

First Amendment

The Establishment Clause

Establishment Clause

Lee v. Weisman (1992)

Van Orden v. Perry (2005)

Free Exercise Clause

Free Exercise Clause

State Action Requirement

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment

Thank you for the critique. Now can either you or kingalfred answer my question?

Exactly where in the Constitution does it call for the separation of church and state?

Kingalfred stated this: "One fact is that Religion and State are separated under US constitution and the many radical Christians hate that, particularly the loopy wing of the Republicans."

My question had nothing to do with the establishment or free exercise clauses.

It specifically addressed his stated fact that separation of state and church is in the Constitution. Where is it?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'll save both of you a little research time. The first mention of separation was made in a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to Danbury Baptist Church in 1802. He coined the phrase in that letter, with the SCOTUS later ruling the intent of the founders was there should be a wall of separation between the state and church and they ruled accordingly.

The separation of church and state is found nowhere in the Constitution. It came about as a result of a Supreme Court ruling, Reynolds v. United States (1879).

Nor is freedom from religion mentioned in the Constitution. Freedom OF religion is guaranteed by the first amendment but freedom FROM religion is not mentioned.

You are both now up to date.

http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html

[Thorgal]

So will this visit actually help Netanyahu domestically in Israel in the upcoming Israeli elections?

Maybe Obama is arrogant enough to think so! Reality is, probably not. Netanyahu will be re-elected unfortunately!

Interesting.

Well, I do understand the "excuse" of not wanting to seem to get involved either way in internal Israeli politics when elections are close.

Obama has already said he would not meet with Netanyahu, So he wouldn't be meddling in Israeli politics!But isn't this more about Obama being pissed with not being told of the visit before it was made public?

But Netanyahu is getting involved with US politics. IMO that is wrong. The irony is, If Obama makes Netanyahu pay a price for this (as has been reported) It may very well backfire on Netanyahu when the Israeli Public see what the price might be!

Bibi is coming to visit AIPAC. He doesn't need Obama for official protocol.

It's pure Israeli arrogancy...and provocation...

[Publicus]

meaning what? One fact is that Religion and State are separated under US constitution and the many radical Christians hate that, particularly the loopy wing of the Republicans.

Do you have time to tell us where we could find separation of church and state in the US Constitution?

The article number would be nice.

Thank you

No problem and you're welcome, for sure.....emphasis added along with some of the more recent SCOTUS rulings developing the separation of church and state enunciated right off in the First Amendment. I didn't want to provide too much information.

I just know this is not unfamiliar....and I just had to jump in...keep me posted.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Wex Resources

First Amendment

The Establishment Clause

Establishment Clause

Lee v. Weisman (1992)

Van Orden v. Perry (2005)

Free Exercise Clause

Free Exercise Clause

State Action Requirement

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment

Thank you for the critique. Now can either you or kingalfred answer my question?

Exactly where in the Constitution does it call for the separation of church and state?

Kingalfred stated this: "One fact is that Religion and State are separated under US constitution and the many radical Christians hate that, particularly the loopy wing of the Republicans."

My question had nothing to do with the establishment or free exercise clauses.

It specifically addressed his stated fact that separation of state and church is in the Constitution. Where is it?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'll save both of you a little research time. The first mention of separation was made in a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to Danbury Baptist Church in 1802. He coined the phrase in that letter, with the SCOTUS later ruling the intent of the founders was there should be a wall of separation between the state and church and they ruled accordingly.

The separation of church and state is found nowhere in the Constitution. It came about as a result of a Supreme Court ruling, Reynolds v. United States (1879).

Nor is freedom from religion mentioned in the Constitution. Freedom OF religion is guaranteed by the first amendment but freedom FROM religion is not mentioned.

You are both now up to date.

http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html

Sooooooo predictable....as I'd noted above, to keep me posted and you sure did do that chief, exactly as anticipated....threw out the standard and predictable hook, line and sinker.....which has since sunk.

My post contains the basics which Mr. Jefferson was also involved in composing.

Studies in my undergraduate major decades ago took me to Mr. Jefferson and church and state.

Sooooo predictable there chief.

[NeverSure]

Benjamin Netanyahu is the new Republican party Senator from Israel....Likud.

Republicans are siding with a foreign country over their own president

http://www.vox.com/2015/1/21/7866089/netanyahu-boehner-congress

As I'd said, the tea party has contempt of the Constitution.

What a tin foil hat site.

Please quote me the part of the Constitution which says Congress doesn't control Congress?

As a matter of fact, the founders of the USA were careful to create three independent branches of government to assure that the US never had a Obama dictator.

Congress doesn't answer to Obama but Obama does answer to Congress. No? They could impeach him. They could withhold funds from anything he wants to do.

If anyone was to hold Obama in contempt of Congress, it would be Congress. Congress could deny Obama the opportunity to speak to Congress.

Congress could defund the heat bill at the White House.

Congress may invite anyone to speak it wishes to.

[Publicus]

Benjamin Netanyahu is the new Republican party Senator from Israel....Likud.

Republicans are siding with a foreign country over their own president

http://www.vox.com/2015/1/21/7866089/netanyahu-boehner-congress

As I'd said, the tea party has contempt of the Constitution.

What a tin foil hat site.

Please quote me the part of the Constitution which says Congress doesn't control Congress?

As a matter of fact, the founders of the USA were careful to create three independent branches of government to assure that the US never had a Obama dictator.

Congress doesn't answer to Obama but Obama does answer to Congress. No? They could impeach him. They could withhold funds from anything he wants to do.

If anyone was to hold Obama in contempt of Congress, it would be Congress. Congress could deny Obama the opportunity to speak to Congress.

Congress could defund the heat bill at the White House.

Congress may invite anyone to speak it wishes to.

The Supreme Court has ruled that, "In international relations the president is the sole organ of the Federal Government."

It does not matter who the president is nor does it matter what the president's skin color happens to be.

The SCOTUS even refers to the presidency's authority to make "executive agreements" with foreign governments independent of the Congress or the judiciary.

Read and weep........

The president or his designated representative, such as the Secretary of State, has the exclusive authority to communicate with other nations, recognize foreign governments, receive ambassadors, and make executive agreements.

Throughout U.S. history, Congress and the courts have granted thepresident great deference in conducting foreign policy. This deference is based, in part,

on the need for one person, rather than 535 members ofCongress, to represent and speak for a national constituency.

In addition to the authority to recognize foreign governments, the president is empowered by Article II to make treaties with foreign nations, subject to the consent of the Senate.

A treaty is an agreement between two or more nations containing promises to behave in specified ways..

At one time,executive agreements involved minor matters, such as postal relations and the use of radio frequencies. Since the 1930s, however, presidents have negotiated important

foreign policy issues through these agreements rather than through treaties. The Supreme Court has recognized that an executive agreement is legally equivalent to a treaty

and therefore the supreme law of the land. Executive agreements enable the president to achieve results while avoiding the uncertainty of treaty ratification.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Foreign+Policy+Power

This is generally recognized as the most definitive Supreme Court ruling on the matter of the constitutional foreign policy powers of the presidency, regardless of who is president....

United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. (No. 98)

Argued: November 19, 20, 1936

Decided: December 21, 1936

In international relations, the President is the sole organ of the Federal Government. P. 319.

(10) In view of the delicacy of foreign relations and of the power peculiar to the President in this regard, Congressional legislation which is to be made effective in the international

field must [p306] often accord to him a degree of discretion and freedom which would not be admissible were domestic affairs alone involved. P. 319.

(11) The marked difference between foreign and domestic affairs in this respect is recognized in the dealings of the houses of Congress with executive departments. P. 321.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/299/304

[Publicus]

Here's a nutcracker that relates directly to all of this.....who decides recognition of citizenship of an American born abroad, the president or the congress?

And which decides recognition of foreign sovereignty, the president or the congress?

IMHO the president does obviously but the Supreme Court is going to make its decision and to settle the differences between two presidents and the congress.

The executive branch, which issues passports, says a US citizen born in Jerusalem (of US parents) can only have Jerusalem in the blank line of the passport that states place of birth. Congress says it can say Israel if the parents choose.

Presidents G.W.Bush and Barack Obama say no, it can't say born in Israel. The presidents do not recognize Israeli sovereignty of Jerusalem, as being solely of Israel, the Congress apparently does.

Both presidents in office have ignored the law and the Congress, citing their constitutional role as also defined by the SCOTUS, that, "In international relations, the president is the sole organ of the Federal Government." That of course is not all there may be to this particular case, but the SCOTUS will have to decide this one because the congress can't force the president to obey the law and the president who signed the legislation in to law, G.W.Bush, said he wasn't going to enforce that part of it, and he did not. Same for Prez Obama, who is not enforcing the particular provision of the totality of the law.

Supreme Court to rule on use of Jerusalem in U.S. passports After years of litigation, the Supreme Court on Monday said it would decide

if Congress or the State Department has the final say in whether U.S. passports acknowledge Jerusalem as part of Israel.

This touches on one of the most sensitive issues in decades of Middle East conflict, and the case also presents a major separation-of-power conflict between the legislative

and executive branches.

The controversy is over a 2002 law passed by Congress regarding passports. It says that a U.S. citizen born in Jerusalem may request his or her birthplace to be listed as Israel. This was an attempt to nullify State Department instructions that only “Jerusalem” be listed, a recognition of the official U.S. policy of neutrality over national sovereignty

of the holy city.

The directive was inserted into a broader spending bill that President George W. Bush signed, even as he announced that his administration would not carry out

Congress’s passport dictate. The Obama administration has adopted the same view: that Congress was intruding on the executive’s responsibility for making the

nation’s foreign policy.

The case was brought by Ari and Naomi Zivotofsky , U.S. citizens whose son, Menachem Binyamin, was born in a western Jerusalem hospital in 2002.

They want the boy’s passport to say he was born in Israel.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-to-rule-on-use-of-jerusalem-in-us-passports/2014/04/21/d18f042a-c985-11e3-93eb-6c0037dde2ad_story.html

Edited January 23, 2015 by Publicus

[NeverSure]

Here's a nutcracker that relates directly to all of this.....who decides recognition of citizenship of an American born abroad, the president or the congress?

And which decides recognition of foreign sovereignty, the president or the congress?

IMHO the president does obviously but the Supreme Court is going to make its decision and to settle the differences between two presidents and the congress.

The executive branch, which issues passports, says a US citizen born in Jerusalem (of US parents) can only have Jerusalem in the blank line of the passport that states place of birth. Congress says it can say Israel if the parents choose.

Presidents G.W.Bush and Barack Obama say no, it can't say born in Israel. The presidents do not recognize Israeli sovereignty of Jerusalem, as being solely of Israel, the Congress apparently does.

Both presidents in office have ignored the law and the Congress, citing their constitutional role as also defined by the SCOTUS, that, "In international relations, the president is the sole organ of the Federal Government." That of course is not all there may be to this particular case, but the SCOTUS will have to decide this one because the congress can't force the president to obey the law and the president who signed the legislation in to law, G.W.Bush, said he wasn't going to enforce that part of it, and he did not. Same for Prez Obama, who is not enforcing the particular provision of the totality of the law.

Supreme Court to rule on use of Jerusalem in U.S. passports After years of litigation, the Supreme Court on Monday said it would decide

if Congress or the State Department has the final say in whether U.S. passports acknowledge Jerusalem as part of Israel.

This touches on one of the most sensitive issues in decades of Middle East conflict, and the case also presents a major separation-of-power conflict between the legislative

and executive branches.

The controversy is over a 2002 law passed by Congress regarding passports. It says that a U.S. citizen born in Jerusalem may request his or her birthplace to be listed as Israel. This was an attempt to nullify State Department instructions that only “Jerusalem” be listed, a recognition of the official U.S. policy of neutrality over national sovereignty

of the holy city.

The directive was inserted into a broader spending bill that President George W. Bush signed, even as he announced that his administration would not carry out

Congress’s passport dictate. The Obama administration has adopted the same view: that Congress was intruding on the executive’s responsibility for making the

nation’s foreign policy.

The case was brought by Ari and Naomi Zivotofsky , U.S. citizens whose son, Menachem Binyamin, was born in a western Jerusalem hospital in 2002.

They want the boy’s passport to say he was born in Israel.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-to-rule-on-use-of-jerusalem-in-us-passports/2014/04/21/d18f042a-c985-11e3-93eb-6c0037dde2ad_story.html

Do you know that if, when viewing a website, you press CTRL+A it will select the whole page? Next, if you press CTRL+C it will copy the whole page to your clipboard? NOW all you have to do is return to the forum where you want to post, click to get your cursor, and then press CTRL+V AND YOU WILL PASTE THE WHOLE DAMN PAGE IN HERE? PAGE AFTER PAGE?

Do you know that if you'd paste the info from the webpage into Notepad first it would strip the text of all formatting except paragraph breaks and YOU WOULDN'T MAKE THE DAMN PAGE SCROLL?

Do you know that if you'd READ what you're going to make a massive paste of first, you wouldn't post off topic NONSENSE ABOUT PASSPORTS?

If I wanted to read THE ENTIRE DAMN INTERNET IN ONE POST, I'd ask you to post it. !!

Edited January 24, 2015 by NeverSure

[SiSePuede419]

Funny, Republiçans ran in the last election on a "jobs" platform.

How does getting a foreign leader who's economy is dependent upon the $3 Billion/year from the U.S., to jabber about another country building nukes create jobs?

Israel has nukes. Many countries have nukes. Even North Korea has nukes.

Whoop dii do.

[NeverSure]

Funny, Republiçans ran in the last election on a "jobs" platform.

How does getting a foreign leader who's economy is dependent upon the $3 Billion/year from the U.S., to jabber about another country building nukes create jobs?

Israel has nukes. Many countries have nukes. Even North Korea has nukes.

Whoop dii do.

Huh?

[Ulysses G.]

How does getting a foreign leader who's economy is dependent upon the $3 Billion/year from the U.S., to jabber about another country building nukes create jobs?

What nonsense. Israel is not dependent on the USA. It is a prosperous country with a healthy, rapidly growing and diverse economy. The $3 billion in military aid is a bonus for being America's closest ally in the Middle East and the only one that is really trusted. Almost all that money is required to be spent on arms from American companies, so it benefits both countries.

FYO, the Islamic Republic of Iran is not just building nukes. They are also working away on ICBMs that would reach the USA and the West. It is not just Israel's problem.

Edited January 24, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[daveAustin]

Some may consider this naive, but what gives any nation the right to say another nation cannot have nuclear power? If they can't have then we should not have it either. The simple threat of mutually assured destruction (MAD) should be enough to deter the use of nuclear weapons as long as everybody has them. Does anybody really believe that any country, knowingly will commit murder and suicide? If anyone lets loose we will know instantly who it was and unleash a retaliatory attack. I know the world is run by idiots, but surely they are not stupid!

You're right, it is a naive (and typically PC) train of thought. By having the power, we (hopefully) realise how stupid it is and that rogue nations (like Iran) also having that power can only be a bad thing. When said nations spew bile thusly "we want to erase this country", it really should dispel comments such as yours. This is serious stuff, it's not peashooters we're talking about here. The nuclear thing is out of the bag, more will attain the ability, but as the only remaining superpower, it is sort of in the US's court (as a, generally, force for the good ) to try to contain it somewhat.

With regards the country in question and nuclear capability, it is not so much the scenario of MAD (you need hundreds of megaton bombs to go down that road), more so that they will have more clout to dictate on that region if left to do as they will and, ultimately, more control over the movement of oil.

At the end of the day, that Iran will attain the bomb is only a matter of time. Anything done to try to stop it will only delay it, but to do nothing (because we have them so why shouldn't they ) is folly.

[chuckd]

<snip>

Sooooooo predictable....as I'd noted above, to keep me posted and you sure did do that chief, exactly as anticipated....threw out the standard and predictable hook, line and sinker.....which has since sunk.

My post contains the basics which Mr. Jefferson was also involved in composing.

Studies in my undergraduate major decades ago took me to Mr. Jefferson and church and state.

Sooooo predictable there chief.

Translation:

"You're right. Separation of the church and state isn't in he Constitution."

[johna]

So what do Boehner and the his crazy Republican congress want to do? Attack Iran? Using a Neville Chamberlain analogy shows how some are not up with history. Stick with your poster name US civil war stories!

The Chamberlain analogy is correct. Appeasing an aggressive violent bully who has their own agenda doesn't work.

Some politicians and regimes simply lie.

You're talking about American policy to Israel right??

[Ulysses G.]

Not just there. Leaving Iraq completely way too early. Telling the Taliban when we were leaving Afghanistan. Drawing red lines that are not enforced. Withdrawing sanctions against Iran, before a deal is reached to stop them from enriching uranium. And so on. Neville Chamberlain has nothing on Obama.

Edited January 24, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[Publicus]

One can see the Boehner Boyz over on the right have no response pithy or otherwise to the Supreme Court's decisions concerning the constitutional authority of the presidency in the country's international relations and policies.

The Congress is free to invite foreigners to speak before it but the president is the chief of state and as such s/he is in charge of US foreign policy and the international relations and policies of the United States.

House Speaker John Boehner is again showing why he is the worst House speaker ever due to his complete confusion concerning the constitution and his inability to lead and direct his party's members and actions in the House. Boehner has been filing lawsuit after frivolous lawsuit over issues that are routinely resolved by the normal legislative or executive processes.

And now the leader of the Republican majority in the Senate Mitch McConnell thinks Benjamin Netanyahu is the newest Republican senator from Israel and the Likud.

It's only January yet this new Congress has already gone over the moon.

[chuckd]

Is this thread about making treaties or inviting a speaker to address Congress?

It is irrelevant who can make treaties since there is not one on the horizon.

Obama sure ain't gonna get one in Iran and Congress isn't trying to get one from Israel.

Untwist your knickers and relax. Nobody on this forum can do one thing about it.

If, as you claim, Boehner is incompetent, that makes the President and the next two in the succession chain all equal.

[Publicus]

House Speaker John Boehner and the leader of the new Republican majority in the Senate Mitch McConnell have decided to have their own foreign policy, which one might say is, well, constitutionally quaint, among other possible descriptions. The two want additional sanctions on Iran which the president says he does not need in his pursuit of an executive agreement with Iran concerning nuclear energy and possible nuclear weapons.

This connects directly to our vital ally Israel whose leader on political overstay Benjamin Netanyahu loves the Republican party in the US while simultaneously disapproving the fact Prez Obama flatly turned down Netanyahu's demand to be his butler and on call 24/7 besides.

Co-inviter of the PM John Boehner is a lost cause in this because he needs a copy of the Constitution that has pictures instead of words. Boehner has shown since taking over as speaker that if he had a brain he'd be dangerous. Boehner can only aspire to mediocrity given that he cemented his legacy as a failure somewhere around the House's 50th vote to repeal Obamacare while also filing frivolous lawsuits against the president.

[chuckd]

It would seem not only those two evil Republican leaders want additional sanctions on Iran.

Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and 11 other Democrats in the Senate are proposing additional sanctions as well.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Menendez challenges Obama on Iran sanctions

January 21, 2015 at 5:43 PM, updated January 22, 2015 at 7:24 AM

WASHINGTON — U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez called for new sanctions on Iran a day after President Obama used his State of

the Union address to argue against them.

At a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee today, Menendez pushed for additional penalties if the U.S. and its allies

cannot reach an agreement with Iran that rolls back its nuclear program. He has introduced legislation that would mandate new

sanctions only if a nuclear deal is not reached by March, a timetable that has already been extended past the original November

deadline.

Article here: http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/01/menendez_challenges_obama_on_iran_sanctions.html

PS: Can you make 3-4 quick posts so we can get off this ridiculously formatted page? Nobody reads your stuff but me and I

will sacrifice the knowledge you impart for the more readable format.

[Publicus]

House speaker John Boehner's small and slow mind has been working double overtime to align himself and the Republican party majority in Congress against the foreign policies, priorities, principles of the president whom the constitution places in charge of these very matters.

The extreme and unrelenting hostility of the Republicans in Congress to include the far right tea party against the president is well known, but now they have recruited a foreign head of government to join their ongoing cabal, Benjamin Netanyahu the PM of US ally Israel.

The White House is right to say...

“Senior American official” as quoted by Haaretz: “We thought we’ve seen everything. But Bibi managed to surprise even us. There are things you simply don’t do. He spat in our face publicly and that’s no way to behave. Netanyahu ought to remember that President Obama has a year and a half left to his presidency, and that there will be a price.”

Barack Obama isn’t a president who bellows and rages. He doesn’t wear his emotions on his sleeve, but his administration doesn’t forget. When they say that there will be a price to be paid, that price will not be cheap.

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/01/23/white-house-warns-netanyahu-price-spitting-obama.html

It is past time for the PM to find a scheduling conflict that will make it impossible for him to join the Republicans in Congress in trying to establish a Republican party foreignh policy in violation of the constitution and in their refusal to accepts the results of the 2012 presidential election.

If the PM does not find his own way out of the speaking date then the idiot Boehner and the hapless jerk Republican leader of the Senate Mitch McConnell need to rescind the invitation.

[chuckd]

Why don't we just drop the sanctions idea and let Obama have his way with the negotiations?

Here's one very big reason.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Iran Lawmakers Drafting Law on Nuclear Enrichment Hike

by Naharnet Newsdesk 1 hour ago

Iran's parliament has started to draft a law that would allow the country's nuclear scientists to intensify their

uranium enrichment, a step that could complicate ongoing talks with world powers.

The move, announced Saturday by parliament's National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, comes

after U.S. lawmakers said they were planning legislation that could place new sanctions on Iran.

The negotiations between Iran and the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council -- Britain, China,

France, Russia and the United States -- plus Germany, face a June 30 deadline for a final deal.

But with two deadlines already missed last year both sides have admitted big differences remain on the

hard detail of what a comprehensive agreement would look like.

http://www.naharnet.com/stories/en/164583-iran-lawmakers-drafting-law-on-nuclear-enrichment-hike

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Surely we can trust the Iranians!