Boehner defies Obama on Iran sanctions, invites Netanyahu

[chuckd]

Sure you can. Congress are a coequal branch of government and there are lots of democrats as well as republicans that do not trust this president to stop the Iranians from enriching uranium. It is too important of an issue to let him sell us all out and pretend that it was an "accomplishment".

Rightists don't get the Constitution in many ways, one of which is that the Constitution and the Supreme Court establish the president as the foreign policy and international relations chief of the United States government.

Congress can invite whomever it wants to speak before it but Congress is not in charge of the international relations or foreign policies of the United States Government.

The president is in charge.

The far right has a lot of trouble understanding and comprehending the Constitution, and this is yet another instance of it.

"The president is in charge."

He is not in charge of Congress.

Tell you what.

When Congress begins negotiations with Netanyahu on a peace deal, I promise to write my Congressman and Senator and tell them to cease and desist.

Until they do, I don't see anything Congress has done that places the Constitution in any jeopardy.

Edit in to add comment.

I've posted repeatedly to the thread that the Constitution and the Supreme Court say the president determines the international relations and policies of the United States.

But the rightists here don't get it and keep avoiding the Constitution except for the way you like the Constitution to read.

I'll call the rightists out on this each and every time and anyone can post all the horses they like.

Now that you are through beating your chest for a few minutes, let me ask a question.

Exactly what policies of the United States have you heard are being proposed for discussion between Congress and Netanyahu?

What is the subject matter, to whom does it apply and how is it to be worded?

Is a treaty being proposed, legislation requested or binding commitments being made by either party?

Until you can provide some specifics, I don't see anything Congress has done that places the Constitution in any jeopardy.

But I repeat myself.

[Publicus]

"The president is in charge."

He is not in charge of Congress.

Tell you what.

When Congress begins negotiations with Netanyahu on a peace deal, I promise to write my Congressman and Senator and tell them to cease and desist.

Until they do, I don't see anything Congress has done that places the Constitution in any jeopardy.

Edit in to add comment.

I've posted repeatedly to the thread that the Constitution and the Supreme Court say the president determines the international relations and policies of the United States.

But the rightists here don't get it and keep avoiding the Constitution except for the way you like the Constitution to read.

I'll call the rightists out on this each and every time and anyone can post all the horses they like.

Now that you are through beating your chest for a few minutes, let me ask a question.

Exactly what policies of the United States have you heard are being proposed for discussion between Congress and Netanyahu?

What is the subject matter, to whom does it apply and how is it to be worded?

Is a treaty being proposed, legislation requested or binding commitments being made by either party?

Until you can provide some specifics, I don't see anything Congress has done that places the Constitution in any jeopardy.

But I repeat myself.

The post is pointed because you're missing a lot, the whole assorted group of you. The leaders of the congress which is in opposition to the president on the negotiations and on the whole of the issue of Iranian nuclear energy, power, weapons, have invited to speak to a joint session the following person who said the following thing....

Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel's prime minister, welcomed the apparent lack of progress at the Vienna talks.

"No deal is better than a bad deal. The deal that Iran was pushing for was terrible. A deal would have left Iran with the ability to enrich uranium for an atom bomb while removing the sanctions," Netanyahu said.

"The right deal that is needed is to dismantle Iran's capacity to make atomic bombs and only then dismantle the sanctions.

"Since that's not in the offing, this result is better, a lot better," he said, in response to news the Vienna talks were likely to break off and resume next year.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/11/cloneofiran-nuclear-talks-likely-adjourned-20141-2014112417038331438.html

The quote is from last November when the P5+1 and Iranian negotiators agreed to meet again in July this year.

The negotiators with Iran are the 5 permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and Germany, so the five are: US, UK, France, PRChina, Russia. That's six major countries of the world as members of the United Nations negotiating with Iran over its nuclear program.

There is widespread concern across the US and in Israel over the fact the opposition to the president in the congress has invited a foreign leader who is diametrically and categorically opposed to the president's foreign policy, which includes cooperating with the other permanent members of the UNSC and Germany, to manage Iran's inevitable nuclear development.

The Congress needs only to pass the new sanctions legislation that is unwanted by the P5+1 and is unwelcomed by them, to send it on to the president so he can return veto it, which Congress lacks the votes to override. That's the regular order proscribed in the Constitution. There's nothing in the Constitution that empowers Congress to invite a foreign head of government to address a joint sitting to speak in opposition to the president's foreign policies and international relations.

[Chicog]

Read and learn. This whole deal has been mistake after mistake.

Syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer said Wednesday on Special Report with Bret Baier that the presidents failure to impose further sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program is yet another broken promise to the American people.

Obama promised when he began these negotiations 18 months ago, he had a time limit This was the last ditch negotiation, the last chance for Iran to come clean, Krauthammer said. [Obama] said were going to do this for six months, then we will reimpose sanctions if Iran hasnt [made an agreement] What does he do? He doesnt impose sanctions. He extends talks.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/01/21/krauthammer-on-administrations-iran-policy-this-is-obama-saying-if-like-your/

Quoting that right wing gasbag hardly constitutes an answer to my question. Most of the time he states the obvious, or a version of it that appeals to O'Reilly and his followers. "Give up its nukes" indeed. What nukes? They haven't got any. It's a stupid soundbite.

Moreover, Krauthammer explained that sanctions are the alternative to either capitulation to Iran over its nuclear program – or to war.

“That’s exactly why Congress wants to impose it, triggering it only if Iran doesn’t agree to give up its nukes,” he said.

That's simply a glib statement of what Republicans want.

Maybe I'm missing something, but there are already sanctions in place - plenty of them.

This isn't two people sat in a room having an argument, it's a complex process that takes time - 12 years so far.

The Iranian people are already suffering enough, which might trigger enough unrest to cause a military coup; who knows, perhaps that is the real pressure being applied.

But in the meantime tell me this isn't hurting Iran:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iran#Effects

The very fact Iran is still negotiating is a positive sign in my book.

Let's face it, if they shut up shop, Israel will be baying for blood, and the US will be expected to pick up the transfusion bill.

And I'm fairly certain the West knows exactly what they are doing and will escalate sanctions if they aren't keeping their side of the bargain.

Like I said, speak softly and carry a big stick.

The big stick can come out well before they get anywhere near having a usable nuke.

Two comments strike me from last weeks talks that are nearer the mark than Krauthammer will ever get with his nonsense:

"If a sanctions bill does go through, some Iranian lawmakers hinted that they could push to resume unlimited uranium enrichment." and "Among issues complicating negotiations are hardliners in Washington and Tehran who appear willing to torpedo the efforts."

Who'd have thought Al Jazeera would make more sense and understand things better than Fox News?

By the way, perhaps this could have been sorted out earlier.

Spring 2003: Iran makes a comprehensive proposal of negotiations with the United States that offers "full transparency for security that there are no Iranian endeavors to develop or possess WMD", joint decisive action against terrorists, coordination on a stable Iraq, coordination on nuclear matters, stop of any material support to Palestinian opposition groups (Hamas, Jihad etc.) resisting Israeli occupation, and a normalization of relationships. The offer is spurned by V.P. Cheney and the Bush administration, which instead criticizes the Swiss ambassador who forwarded the offer.

What an enormous surprise it was to read that.

Edited January 28, 2015 by Chicog

[chuckd]

<snip, snip, snip,>

There's nothing in the Constitution that empowers Congress to invite a foreign head of government to address a joint sitting to speak in opposition to the president's foreign policies and international relations.

I see you are not going to answer my questions but instead fill the forum with needless rhetoric. So be it.

I will make my post short and sweet.

You state this:

"There's nothing in the Constitution that empowers Congress to invite a foreign head of government to address a joint sitting to speak in opposition to the president's foreign policies and international relations."

I counter with...there is nothing in the Constitution depriving them of their right to issue joint session speaking invitations to whomever they wish.

You may not like it and Obama may not like it but until you can post something that says Congress cannot invite speakers of their own choosing, you are, yet again, tilting at windmills with more of your verbal gymnastics.

[Publicus]

<snip, snip, snip,>

There's nothing in the Constitution that empowers Congress to invite a foreign head of government to address a joint sitting to speak in opposition to the president's foreign policies and international relations.

I see you are not going to answer my questions but instead fill the forum with needless rhetoric. So be it.

I will make my post short and sweet.

You state this:

"There's nothing in the Constitution that empowers Congress to invite a foreign head of government to address a joint sitting to speak in opposition to the president's foreign policies and international relations."

I counter with...there is nothing in the Constitution depriving them of their right to issue joint session speaking invitations to whomever they wish.

You may not like it and Obama may not like it but until you can post something that says Congress cannot invite speakers of their own choosing, you are, yet again, tilting at windmills with more of your verbal gymnastics.

I'd said a half dozen times at this thread the Congress have the right to invite whomever they wish to invite and for any purpose or reason, so the statement seems to overlook several of my posts. You guys on the other side over there keep chasing after your own tails.

We know that only the Congress can dissolve or adjourn itself, that neither the president nor the Supreme Court can shut down the Congress for any reason or for any period of time. It is an explicit provision of the Constitution.that only the Congress can convene itself, adjourn itself temporarily or sine die, decides what it does, when, how etc.

The questions throughout the US and in Israel concern the judgement of the leaders of the Republican controlled Congress to invite the head of a foreign government who loudly opposes the foreign policy and international relations of the United States as constitutionally defined by the president. It is a matter of the judgement of the leaders of the House and the Senate and its is terrible judgement. Their authority is not in question. The issue is their judgement.

Their abysmally horrendous judgement.

[Jingthing]

Let's face it, Obama and Netanyahu hate each other.

But the USA and Israel do NOT hate each other.

The republican actions are throwing salt on the wound of the Obama-Netanyahu personality conflict and damaging relations between these two long standing close allies.

[Anthony5]

Let's face it, Obama and Netanyahu hate each other.

But the USA and Israel do NOT hate each other.

The republican actions are throwing salt on the wound of the Obama-Netanyahu personality conflict and damaging relations between these two long standing close allies.

Please let me correct that error for you.

But the USA US Republicans and Israel do NOT hate each other.

[Jingthing]

Let's face it, Obama and Netanyahu hate each other.

But the USA and Israel do NOT hate each other.

The republican actions are throwing salt on the wound of the Obama-Netanyahu personality conflict and damaging relations between these two long standing close allies.

Please let me correct that error for you.

But the USA US Republicans and Israel do NOT hate each other.

You're wrong. That's what is DISGUSTING about what the republicans are doing. The U.S. left is not the same at the European left but if the republicans keep at this divisive crap, that might change.

Edited January 29, 2015 by Jingthing

[Anthony5]

Let's face it, Obama and Netanyahu hate each other.

But the USA and Israel do NOT hate each other.

The republican actions are throwing salt on the wound of the Obama-Netanyahu personality conflict and damaging relations between these two long standing close allies.

Please let me correct that error for you.

But the USA US Republicans and Israel do NOT hate each other.

You're wrong. That's what is DISGUSTING about what the republicans are doing. The U.S. left is not the same at the European left but if the republicans keep at this divisive crap, that might change.

I should have explained myself better. I didn't mean that the rest of the US hate Israel, but rather that the US Republicans are in bed with them.

[Ulysses G.]

Plenty of democrats support Israel too. That is why Obama can't throw them under the bus and embrace the Muslim Brotherhood instead.

[mania]

It Is Time For Iran To Tell The West ‘Goodbye’

[Pakboong]

Somebody asked for a link on this earlier. I am just the messenger. I have no opinion on it one way or the other.

The Obama campaign strategist who could break the Israeli elections wide open

The group V15, which denies that its motto is ‘anyone but Bibi,’ is working with U.S. political strategist Jeremy Bird to replace the government in March.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/israel-election-2015/.premium-1.639158

[mania]

anyone but Bibi,

At first sight I thought.....That would make a great T-Shirt & I would buy one.

But after a few seconds I realized...there is no shortage of wackos there who could be even worse

than Bibi. So the "anyone" may have to specify "Anyone Better/More Humane"

[Morch]

Somebody asked for a link on this earlier. I am just the messenger. I have no opinion on it one way or the other.

The Obama campaign strategist who could break the Israeli elections wide open

The group V15, which denies that its motto is ‘anyone but Bibi,’ is working with U.S. political strategist Jeremy Bird to replace the government in March.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/israel-election-2015/.premium-1.639158

Thanks.

Still not seeing how this is any news - hiring USA election campaign hotshots as advisers is something which been part of Israeli elections for a while now. If memory serves, the trend began with Netanyahu's first campaign. As it is with donors, these sort of things often fall along partisan lines (Netanyahu's Likud party tends to choose advisers identified with Republican campaigns). The notion raised earlier was that he was sent by Obama, as payback for Netanyahu's move. Not saying this is impossible, just that there are simpler explanations, and no shortage of funds on both sides.

Seriously doubt that bringing in a foreign adviser, who is unfamiliar with local politics would have a major effect on the outcome. If anything, it could sure cost the opposition some votes - if presented as it was earlier. Being associated with Obama is not a vote winner in Israel.

[Jay Sata]

Netanyahu,is a bully .

He never considers the consequences of unleashing his IDF thugs from time to time on Palestinian,civilians to bolster his image as saviour of Israel.

However he may be miscalculating the US public which is increasingly disgusted with Israel and increasingly less willing to accept interference with US politics.

Israel is a freeloader on the US taxpayers. The US government pays some $4b annually to Israel, while in the US there isn't any money for basic services like education,and medical care.

Americans are fed up with austerity just to support the Israeli right wing warmongers and offended by the Zionists interference with US governance. Netanyahu's address to Congress is,try and convince the US public that Iran has an atomic bomb programme and will have to fight a war on Iran to save Israel.

Great headlines back in Israel for a cunning man trying to get re elected to cause more misery and mayhem.

Never bite the hand that feeds you so the saying goes and Netanyahu may find his battle with Obama will mark his downfall.

Edited February 1, 2015 by Jay Sata

[ggold]

I've posted repeatedly to the thread that the Constitution and the Supreme Court say the president determines the international relations and policies of the United States.

But the rightists here don't get it and keep avoiding the Constitution except for the way you like the Constitution to read.

I'll call the rightists out on this each and every time and anyone can post all the horses they like.

Now that you are through beating your chest for a few minutes, let me ask a question.

Exactly what policies of the United States have you heard are being proposed for discussion between Congress and Netanyahu?

What is the subject matter, to whom does it apply and how is it to be worded?

Is a treaty being proposed, legislation requested or binding commitments being made by either party?

Until you can provide some specifics, I don't see anything Congress has done that places the Constitution in any jeopardy.

But I repeat myself.

The post is pointed because you're missing a lot, the whole assorted group of you. The leaders of the congress which is in opposition to the president on the negotiations and on the whole of the issue of Iranian nuclear energy, power, weapons, have invited to speak to a joint session the following person who said the following thing....

Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel's prime minister, welcomed the apparent lack of progress at the Vienna talks.

"No deal is better than a bad deal. The deal that Iran was pushing for was terrible. A deal would have left Iran with the ability to enrich uranium for an atom bomb while removing the sanctions," Netanyahu said.

"The right deal that is needed is to dismantle Iran's capacity to make atomic bombs and only then dismantle the sanctions.

"Since that's not in the offing, this result is better, a lot better," he said, in response to news the Vienna talks were likely to break off and resume next year.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/11/cloneofiran-nuclear-talks-likely-adjourned-20141-2014112417038331438.html

The quote is from last November when the P5+1 and Iranian negotiators agreed to meet again in July this year.

The negotiators with Iran are the 5 permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and Germany, so the five are: US, UK, France, PRChina, Russia. That's six major countries of the world as members of the United Nations negotiating with Iran over its nuclear program.

There is widespread concern across the US and in Israel over the fact the opposition to the president in the congress has invited a foreign leader who is diametrically and categorically opposed to the president's foreign policy, which includes cooperating with the other permanent members of the UNSC and Germany, to manage Iran's inevitable nuclear development.

The Congress needs only to pass the new sanctions legislation that is unwanted by the P5+1 and is unwelcomed by them, to send it on to the president so he can return veto it, which Congress lacks the votes to override. That's the regular order proscribed in the Constitution. There's nothing in the Constitution that empowers Congress to invite a foreign head of government to address a joint sitting to speak in opposition to the president's foreign policies and international relations.

If there is nothing in the constitution that empowers congress to invite a foreign head of power to address a joint sitting, I assume there is also nothing prohibiting this either. It would also seem that you disagree with Boehner who has said that they have a right do invite whom they wish!

I wonder who knows the constitution better you or Boehner?

As for the P5+1 apart from Russia who is helping Iran with it's nuclear ambitions. I dare say the only reason the rest of them are sitting around a table with Iran is because of America, or rather Obama, his ass licking European lackeys are just following the monkey, and don't have any real say in it.

Your argument is childish, to say the least. Any opposition party in government has a right if not a duty to oppose what they feel is a bad mistake by the head of their government. If every politician would follow blindly the leader in power we would have dictatorship. The opposition are part of the checks and balances against a run away leader.

By your argument, Nixon should never have been impeached, he was the President. Everyone should have just shut up and followed their dear leader!

[Steely Dan]

Plenty of democrats support Israel too. That is why Obama can't throw them under the bus and embrace the Muslim Brotherhood instead.

Wait till 2030 when the projected Muslim population reaches 7.8 million.

[chuckd]

Netanyahu,is a bully .

He never considers the consequences of unleashing his IDF thugs from time to time on Palestinian,civilians to bolster his image as saviour of Israel.

However he may be miscalculating the US public which is increasingly disgusted with Israel and increasingly less willing to accept interference with US politics.

Israel is a freeloader on the US taxpayers. The US government pays some $4b annually to Israel, while in the US there isn't any money for basic services like education,and medical care.

Americans are fed up with austerity just to support the Israeli right wing warmongers and offended by the Zionists interference with US governance. Netanyahu's address to Congress is,try and convince the US public that Iran has an atomic bomb programme and will have to fight a war on Iran to save Israel.

Great headlines back in Israel for a cunning man trying to get re elected to cause more misery and mayhem.

Never bite the hand that feeds you so the saying goes and Netanyahu may find his battle with Obama will mark his downfall.

"The US government pays some $4b annually to Israel, while in the US there isn't any money for basic services like education,and medical care."

I don't know where you are sourcing your information but you really should try to come up with some legitimate facts before you shoot from the hip.

Let's assume your statement is correct that the US is giving $4 Billion to Israel.

Since the requested federal budget for 2015 is pegged at $3.9 Trillion, the payments to Israel amount to 0.001026% of federal expenditures.

Hardly an insignificant amount for you and me but to the bean counters at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, this is chump change.

Now addressing your concern for the lack of funding for education and medical care, the requested amount for the Department of Education this fiscal year is $117.350 Billion, and they have no students, while medical care under the auspices of Health Department and Medicare amount to the grand sum of $1.044 Trillion and they run no hospitals nor do they directly treat any patients.

I seriously doubt if there is one single individual in the US that has missed a meal, failed to get a doctor's appointment or dropped out of school as a result of payments being offered by the federal government to the Israelis.

The federal government spent $1.7 Billion on the Obamacare website and it still presents problems.

An investment of $4 Billion in the only Democracy in the Middle East is hardly a wasted investment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_United_States_federal_budget

Edited February 1, 2015 by chuckd

[Jay Sata]

The Washington Post and others suggest his move is not working.

House Speaker John A. Boehner's decision last week to invite Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address Congress in March, just ahead of an election in Israel, appears to be backfiring.

"There are things you simply dont do. [Netanyahu] spat in our face publicly and thats no way to behave," an unnamed White House official told the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. "Netanyahu ought to remember that President Obama has a year and a half left to his presidency, and that there will be a price."

Source Washington Post and Haaratz.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2015/01/30/netanyahus-congress-speech-stirs-growing-backlash-in-israel-and-the-u-s/

Edited February 1, 2015 by Jay Sata

[Publicus]

Now that you are through beating your chest for a few minutes, let me ask a question.

Exactly what policies of the United States have you heard are being proposed for discussion between Congress and Netanyahu?

What is the subject matter, to whom does it apply and how is it to be worded?

Is a treaty being proposed, legislation requested or binding commitments being made by either party?

Until you can provide some specifics, I don't see anything Congress has done that places the Constitution in any jeopardy.

But I repeat myself.

The post is pointed because you're missing a lot, the whole assorted group of you. The leaders of the congress which is in opposition to the president on the negotiations and on the whole of the issue of Iranian nuclear energy, power, weapons, have invited to speak to a joint session the following person who said the following thing....

Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel's prime minister, welcomed the apparent lack of progress at the Vienna talks.

"No deal is better than a bad deal. The deal that Iran was pushing for was terrible. A deal would have left Iran with the ability to enrich uranium for an atom bomb while removing the sanctions," Netanyahu said.

"The right deal that is needed is to dismantle Iran's capacity to make atomic bombs and only then dismantle the sanctions.

"Since that's not in the offing, this result is better, a lot better," he said, in response to news the Vienna talks were likely to break off and resume next year.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/11/cloneofiran-nuclear-talks-likely-adjourned-20141-2014112417038331438.html

The quote is from last November when the P5+1 and Iranian negotiators agreed to meet again in July this year.

The negotiators with Iran are the 5 permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and Germany, so the five are: US, UK, France, PRChina, Russia. That's six major countries of the world as members of the United Nations negotiating with Iran over its nuclear program.

There is widespread concern across the US and in Israel over the fact the opposition to the president in the congress has invited a foreign leader who is diametrically and categorically opposed to the president's foreign policy, which includes cooperating with the other permanent members of the UNSC and Germany, to manage Iran's inevitable nuclear development.

The Congress needs only to pass the new sanctions legislation that is unwanted by the P5+1 and is unwelcomed by them, to send it on to the president so he can return veto it, which Congress lacks the votes to override. That's the regular order proscribed in the Constitution. There's nothing in the Constitution that empowers Congress to invite a foreign head of government to address a joint sitting to speak in opposition to the president's foreign policies and international relations.

If there is nothing in the constitution that empowers congress to invite a foreign head of power to address a joint sitting, I assume there is also nothing prohibiting this either. It would also seem that you disagree with Boehner who has said that they have a right do invite whom they wish!

I wonder who knows the constitution better you or Boehner?

As for the P5+1 apart from Russia who is helping Iran with it's nuclear ambitions. I dare say the only reason the rest of them are sitting around a table with Iran is because of America, or rather Obama, his ass licking European lackeys are just following the monkey, and don't have any real say in it.

Your argument is childish, to say the least. Any opposition party in government has a right if not a duty to oppose what they feel is a bad mistake by the head of their government. If every politician would follow blindly the leader in power we would have dictatorship. The opposition are part of the checks and balances against a run away leader.

By your argument, Nixon should never have been impeached, he was the President. Everyone should have just shut up and followed their dear leader!

It would also seem that you disagree with Boehner who has said that they have a right do invite whom they wish!

I wonder who knows the constitution better you or Boehner?

By your argument, Nixon should never have been impeached, he was the President. Everyone should have just shut up and followed their dear leader!

Wrong and wrong. And John Boehner is the Rodney Dangerfield of the Obama presidency.

To the first quote, you have not been reading my posts. In several posts here and elsewhere I have recognized the latitude of the Congress to invite whomever it likes to address it. I haven't ever denied the right of Congress to do this. Never. So the post is completely wrong and off base. Anyone making this untrue claim has no idea of what I have been posting.

I have been questioning the judgement of the leaders of Congress to do this because the foreign relations of the United States are determined by the president, as the Supreme Court has said based in their reading of the Constitution. The post misses my posture on this entirely and completely. The post is wrong, upside down, inside out.

To the second point concerning Nixon, and given the post does not state my argument, it too is confused, uninformed, wrong.

John Boehner btw is the lost in the wilderness speaker who hatches wild schemes from shutting down the government to voting 50-something times to repeal Obamacare, can't control his own party in the House, says nothing intelligent at his press conferences, keeps filing frivolous lawsuits against the president rather than settle matters by regular processes of legislating and so on.

Boehner needs not to be concerned about his legacy as speaker because he has already sealed his legacy as the most inept, ineffective, irrelevant speaker in history. If John Boehner had a brain he'd be dangerous.

[beechguy]

The Washington Post and others suggest his move is not working.

House Speaker John A. Boehner's decision last week to invite Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address Congress in March, just ahead of an election in Israel, appears to be backfiring.

"There are things you simply dont do. [Netanyahu] spat in our face publicly and thats no way to behave," an unnamed White House official told the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. "Netanyahu ought to remember that President Obama has a year and a half left to his presidency, and that there will be a price."

Source Washington Post and Haaratz.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2015/01/30/netanyahus-congress-speech-stirs-growing-backlash-in-israel-and-the-u-s/

The last sentence says it all, in a year and a half, Obama will be gone. Netanyahu will still be around, even if he loses this election, he's not leaving Israeli politics, and will still have influence. Obama? he doesn't really have much respect now, what do you think the Chinese or the Russians think about the guy, never mind what goes on in conversations with Merkel and the other Europeans.

[Jay Sata]

Netanyahu might be gone a lot sooner with Bottlegate as it is being called in the Israeli media.

State Comptroller Joseph Shapira announced on Thursday that he is turning over the Netanyahu family bottle deposit scandal to Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein, who will decide whether or not to open a formal investigation into the matter.

It emerged on Wednesday that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahus wife, Sara Netanyahu, kept thousands of shekels from deposits on empty bottles that were returned, on her orders, to supermarkets in Jerusalem over the course of several years even though the bottle deposits were state property.

Shapira's office noted that the scandal must be turned over to the attorney general because Sara Netanyahu is not an official figure subject to investigation by the state comptroller, and as a private citizen she falls under the jurisdiction of the attorney general.

Source;http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/1.639717

Nice to know while Bibi was organising the bombing of the poor Palestinian civilians his wife was watching the shekels.

Edited February 1, 2015 by Jay Sata

[Publicus]

The Washington Post and others suggest his move is not working.

House Speaker John A. Boehner's decision last week to invite Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address Congress in March, just ahead of an election in Israel, appears to be backfiring.

"There are things you simply dont do. [Netanyahu] spat in our face publicly and thats no way to behave," an unnamed White House official told the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. "Netanyahu ought to remember that President Obama has a year and a half left to his presidency, and that there will be a price."

Source Washington Post and Haaratz.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2015/01/30/netanyahus-congress-speech-stirs-growing-backlash-in-israel-and-the-u-s/

The last sentence says it all, in a year and a half, Obama will be gone. Netanyahu will still be around, even if he loses this election, he's not leaving Israeli politics, and will still have influence. Obama? he doesn't really have much respect now, what do you think the Chinese or the Russians think about the guy, never mind what goes on in conversations with Merkel and the other Europeans.

Well perhaps Boehner will invite other foreign leaders to address the Congress.

There for instance is Xi Jinping, there's Vladimir Putin, Raul Castro, not to mention the new Greek PM Tsipras. There are many possible critics of Prez Obama abroad, same as at home, so there might be no reason for Republican leaders of Congress to make any distinctions.

After all, Republican leaders just recently completed a round of high praise of Putin as a strong and decisive leader even though they may not agree with Putin.

America awaits the new Boehner-Netanyahu foreign policy of the United States that will put Obama in his place back there in Kenya.

[beechguy]

The Washington Post and others suggest his move is not working.

House Speaker John A. Boehner's decision last week to invite Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address Congress in March, just ahead of an election in Israel, appears to be backfiring.

"There are things you simply dont do. [Netanyahu] spat in our face publicly and thats no way to behave," an unnamed White House official told the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. "Netanyahu ought to remember that President Obama has a year and a half left to his presidency, and that there will be a price."

Source Washington Post and Haaratz.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2015/01/30/netanyahus-congress-speech-stirs-growing-backlash-in-israel-and-the-u-s/

The last sentence says it all, in a year and a half, Obama will be gone. Netanyahu will still be around, even if he loses this election, he's not leaving Israeli politics, and will still have influence. Obama? he doesn't really have much respect now, what do you think the Chinese or the Russians think about the guy, never mind what goes on in conversations with Merkel and the other Europeans.

Well perhaps Boehner will invite other foreign leaders to address the Congress.

There for instance is Xi Jinping, there's Vladimir Putin, Raul Castro, not to mention the new Greek PM Tsipras. There are many possible critics of Prez Obama abroad, same as at home, so there might be no reason for Republican leaders of Congress to make any distinctions.

After all, Republican leaders just recently completed a round of high praise of Putin as a strong and decisive leader even though they may not agree with Putin.

America awaits the new Boehner-Netanyahu foreign policy of the United States that will put Obama in his place back there in Kenya.

Unfortunately, I think it's too late for that, Obama has probably already done most of his damage. When were back to having boots on the ground in the Mideast, I'm sure you guys will be still blaming GW, instead of Obama dropping the ball. As a matter of fact, I can't think of very much that Obama has gotten right, $2.00 gasoline? Unemployment? The only reason the deficit hasn't been as bad, is because he got caught running his mouth, and got stuck with sequester.

Edited February 1, 2015 by beechguy

[Publicus]

The Washington Post and others suggest his move is not working.

House Speaker John A. Boehner's decision last week to invite Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address Congress in March, just ahead of an election in Israel, appears to be backfiring.

"There are things you simply dont do. [Netanyahu] spat in our face publicly and thats no way to behave," an unnamed White House official told the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. "Netanyahu ought to remember that President Obama has a year and a half left to his presidency, and that there will be a price."

Source Washington Post and Haaratz.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2015/01/30/netanyahus-congress-speech-stirs-growing-backlash-in-israel-and-the-u-s/

The last sentence says it all, in a year and a half, Obama will be gone. Netanyahu will still be around, even if he loses this election, he's not leaving Israeli politics, and will still have influence. Obama? he doesn't really have much respect now, what do you think the Chinese or the Russians think about the guy, never mind what goes on in conversations with Merkel and the other Europeans.

Well perhaps Boehner will invite other foreign leaders to address the Congress.

There for instance is Xi Jinping, there's Vladimir Putin, Raul Castro, not to mention the new Greek PM Tsipras. There are many possible critics of Prez Obama abroad, same as at home, so there might be no reason for Republican leaders of Congress to make any distinctions.

After all, Republican leaders just recently completed a round of high praise of Putin as a strong and decisive leader even though they may not agree with Putin.

America awaits the new Boehner-Netanyahu foreign policy of the United States that will put Obama in his place back there in Kenya.

Unfortunately, I think it's too late for that, Obama has probably already done most of his damage. When were back to having boots on the ground in the Mideast, I'm sure you guys will be still blaming GW, instead of Obama dropping the ball. As a matter of fact, I can't think of very much that Obama has gotten right, $2.00 gasoline? Unemployment? The only reason the deficit hasn't been as bad, is because he got caught running his mouth, and got stuck with sequester.

Categorical claims such as those in the post need documenting....gas prices, employment and unemployment, the deficits etc.

Gas prices overall and unemployment are down as are the deficits, employment is consistently up long term.

Prez Obama has done what no other president has done, which is to regain his approval and popularity after having suffered declines in each.

Barack is back despite the deniers and the naysayers, John Boehner being chief among them. Boehner is too busy these days running Republican party foreign policy in Congress to have any time to legislate or negotiate. For years now Beohner's press conferences have sounded like the WWF in their Sunday suits.

[Chicog]

Unfortunately, I think it's too late for that, Obama has probably already done most of his damage. When were back to having boots on the ground in the Mideast, I'm sure you guys will be still blaming GW, instead of Obama dropping the ball. As a matter of fact, I can't think of very much that Obama has gotten right, $2.00 gasoline? Unemployment? The only reason the deficit hasn't been as bad, is because he got caught running his mouth, and got stuck with sequester.

Notwithstanding the economic arguments which are spurious and unsupportable, the "boots on the ground" in Iraq is an unwanted leftover of a genie that was let out of the bottle in 2003 and which I suspect will never be put back in unless Iraq is forcibly repartioned into three states, or perhaps even four including parts of Syria.

As for the mess in Syria which has been exploited by IS, once that genie was out of that bottle after Syria's over-the-top reaction to Syria's Arab Spring, Obama should have quickly gone in and removed the murderous Shi'a regime and let the Sunni take over, which - while at the cost of some retribution - would have probably restored the Sunni-Shi'a balance in the northern crescent and provided what would now be a buffer against IS in that country. But of course with a sabre-rattling Putin backing them up, that could have escalated badly.

Sadly, bombing the crap out of IS is not working,but another lengthy military campaign in Iraq and Syria would soon lose public support in the US and Europe.

It's time for the Arab countries to sort out their own mess,

Which in a way explains this news that was reported earlier this week in various local media:

An Iranian official said Friday during a visit to Beirut that his country wants good relations with its Middle East neighbours, especially regional rival Saudi Arabia. Alaeddin Boroujerdi, who heads the Iranian parliament's national security and foreign policy committee, told reporters after meeting with Lebanon's Prime Minister Tammam Salam that they discussed "the latest developments in Saudi Arabia". Boroujerdi was referring to the death last week of Saudi King Abdallah. "Iran's long-term policy is essentially based on establishing the best of brotherly relations with countries in the region, especially Saudi Arabia," Boroujerdi told reporters. "We believe that the more the countries in the region consolidate and strengthen their relations, the more we can establish security and stability," said Boroujerdi. Iranian-Saudi relations have been strained since Iran's 1979 Islamic revolution. The two regional power centres have competed against each other for influence, and in recent years, their rivalry has translated into Shiite/Sunni fighting in several countries in the region.

[mania]

Boehner defies Obama on Iran sanctions, invites Netanyahu

I thought Bibi usually just phones his orders in?

[Credo]

Perhaps they could invite Assad to speak as well. It would be more interesting to hear what he has to say that Bibi.

Obama was elected with the hope that he would drastically scale back some of the military misadventures going on around the world. He has done that. The big criticism by many foreigners is that the US is a bully and should stay home. Now that it is doing that, it is viewed as being weak.

Perhaps a few other countries should step up to the plate and engaged their perceived enemies. It seems in these military situations there are more cheerleaders than players.

[Morch]

Netanyahu,is a bully .

He never considers the consequences of unleashing his IDF thugs from time to time on Palestinian,civilians to bolster his image as saviour of Israel.

However he may be miscalculating the US public which is increasingly disgusted with Israel and increasingly less willing to accept interference with US politics.

Israel is a freeloader on the US taxpayers. The US government pays some $4b annually to Israel, while in the US there isn't any money for basic services like education,and medical care.

Americans are fed up with austerity just to support the Israeli right wing warmongers and offended by the Zionists interference with US governance. Netanyahu's address to Congress is,try and convince the US public that Iran has an atomic bomb programme and will have to fight a war on Iran to save Israel.

Great headlines back in Israel for a cunning man trying to get re elected to cause more misery and mayhem.

Never bite the hand that feeds you so the saying goes and Netanyahu may find his battle with Obama will mark his downfall.

The IDF is not Netanyahu's, Israel is not quite a banana republic as you seem to think. Obviously, if Netanyahu, as you claim uses the IDF to further his personal political aims, then he actually does consider the consequences of such actions. One may disagree on his take, of course.

Most of the USA aid to Israel remains in the USA. Since this point was made many times, and backed with credible links, and on topics which you participated in, it seems like just run of the mill talking point. Some would claim that there could be better uses for their tax dollars, and that may be the case. The USA aid to Israel is the cause of supposed USA austerity? Obviously, not much grasp of USA overall budget in relation. Guessing that "austerity" was picked through glancing at the current EU news stories, must be this week's key word

No "great headlines" in Israel, and most media channels do not seem very appreciative or supportive of Netanyahu's conduct.

[Morch]

The Washington Post and others suggest his move is not working.

House Speaker John A. Boehner's decision last week to invite Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address Congress in March, just ahead of an election in Israel, appears to be backfiring.

"There are things you simply dont do. [Netanyahu] spat in our face publicly and thats no way to behave," an unnamed White House official told the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. "Netanyahu ought to remember that President Obama has a year and a half left to his presidency, and that there will be a price."

Source Washington Post and Haaratz.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2015/01/30/netanyahus-congress-speech-stirs-growing-backlash-in-israel-and-the-u-s/

The last sentence says it all, in a year and a half, Obama will be gone. Netanyahu will still be around, even if he loses this election, he's not leaving Israeli politics, and will still have influence. Obama? he doesn't really have much respect now, what do you think the Chinese or the Russians think about the guy, never mind what goes on in conversations with Merkel and the other Europeans.

There is a lot that could happen during a year and a half.

It can be predicted with certainty that Israel will have need of the USA's support during this time. Why risk that?