Angry over Israeli's planned speech, Dems hope to limit harm

[Publicus]

Well, I have mixed feelings. A agree with lots of what you say. I do assert that foreign policy, while the prerogative of the executive, is only balanced with the support and consent of the congress, irrespective of who is what party. Ideally, the two should speak with one voice, at least to the remainder of the world. But it is not a surprise that there would be gridlock and its attendant appearances. This executive has simply alienated a large portion of the American fabric and has indeed alienated most of our allies.

Yes, I think the Speaker is a clown and among history's worst Speakers; but I am just basing that off my personal thoughts. I think the Speaker et al was trying to influence pressure on the executive. Not really very appealing but I believe a power of his office nonetheless.

It is curious that the congress would be called radical. As you note, I try to see both sides of the issue as objectivity as possible without revealing in detail bias; apparently your bias scuttles objectivity. The reason there is an opposition majority, in spite of the "radical transformation of America" is because American's have buyer's remorse and are aghast at what this executive is doing in their name. In the name of their loaned power to him he undoes the very mechanisms that allow them to loan that power, thus its nothing less than usurpation. I deplore this executive not because he is democrat but because he is anti-American, anti-Western, pro-Islamic jihad, and destructive of all rational faculties of leadership.

I deplore this executive not because he is democrat but because he is anti-American, anti-Western, pro-Islamic jihad, and destructive of all rational faculties of leadership.

The statement is not objective, it is not neutral, it is not balanced. It is outlander political spam that is presented repeatedly by the poster and by a number of other marginal posters.

The president of the United States is not "anti-American."

The president of the United States, elected in 2008, re-elected in 2012, is a natural born citizen of the United States, a former United States Senator elected from the state of Illinois, the same state that elected Adlai Stevenson its governor who twice was the (unsuccessful) nominee of the Democratic party for president (1952, 1956).

The president of the United States is not "pro-Islamic" nor is the president of the United States "destructive of all rational faculties of leadership."

The views stated in the post are extreme in the extreme and are made only by extremists.

Ah, now I see why so many TV posters have a "go" at you and you at them. That I am extreme, or those who hold similar views, show just as inverse you necessarily are to state that= extreme- I assume you "extremely" oppose my views? Ok. It is a fair point you make that I comment on the neutral but actually reveal I am not so much. I concede this. You are correct.

I do post often, when relevant, that the US president enacts policies and makes statements that are not only detrimental to America, but Americans. The inclination of the congress to invite a speaker or insinuate into foreign policy making is directly due to the mounting shame and horror that the executive is actually successful in "fundamentally transforming America;" the problem is, it is not the "Hope and Change" and "Promise" that Americans expected, nor is it moving the USA "Forward." Frankly, the utility of this president can actually be measured by mid term elections alone. When the executive acts contrary to the collective will "of the people" midterm elections always reveal the rebuke. That a new and novel interpretation of this fact is offered is arrogance and demonstrates the resolve to which the executive acts, and his contempt upon "the people."

An example of how, finally, your position weakens, is if one considers the scenario that perhaps the framers feared; perhaps an executive sold out to the enemy, or crashing the US abroad into the rocks, or some other negligence or malfeasance. The notion that the congress lacks the authority to act is absurd. It has tools to do so, and recourse by the executive if in overstep. It is of no academic value to consider whether or not this president is run amok abroad because ipso facto the congress has bypassed him and invited a speaker to realign foreign policy. This means it is pointless to consider whether or not is a valid perception theoretically- the congress thinks it is practically.

If my posts are "extreme" and "in the extreme," and I decidedly demonstrate [to you] I am an "extremist" it necessarily follows you are equally to the opposite end of the spectrum. This is not a conundrum, though this is not apparent to you. That is why discourse takes place. Were there no opposing sides there would never be progress. When an appeal is made to impugn or label a speaker who differs from us, we define our position as vacuous. What is absent from our exchange is my impugning you. When the amulet "extrem[ist" or "islamophobia" is employed in dialogue it will reveal the character of the position every time. You have great posts and have enlightened me to some things; thank you. But less emotive conduct reflects your position better. Good luck with the others. They have far more patience than I do and I have loaned your position far more legitimacy than deserved.

I deplore this executive not because he is democrat but because he is anti-American, anti-Western, pro-Islamic jihad, and destructive of all rational faculties of leadership.

The statement is consciously extreme and it is deliberately malicious.

This is true no matter how couched in the language of bogus ruses it may be.

ruse

noun [C] UK /ruːz/

US a trick intended to deceive someone

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/ruse

[Naam]

It is a THREAT to destroy Israel and there are plenty more on those links. Fact are facts.

facts like the weapons of mass destruction depicted and explained by the blatant liar Colin Powell in 2003 at the UN (not to mention Tony B. Liar and his "45 minutes) we envisaged a déja vu performed by Netanyahu.

Not sure how that means Iran isn't seeking nukes as pretty much all rational analysts think that they are. Different countries.

it goes without saying that Iran would love to have nuclear weapons. but that's a different story.

[JDGRUEN]

Well, I have mixed feelings. A agree with lots of what you say. I do assert that foreign policy, while the prerogative of the executive, is only balanced with the support and consent of the congress, irrespective of who is what party. Ideally, the two should speak with one voice, at least to the remainder of the world. But it is not a surprise that there would be gridlock and its attendant appearances. This executive has simply alienated a large portion of the American fabric and has indeed alienated most of our allies.

Yes, I think the Speaker is a clown and among history's worst Speakers; but I am just basing that off my personal thoughts. I think the Speaker et al was trying to influence pressure on the executive. Not really very appealing but I believe a power of his office nonetheless.

It is curious that the congress would be called radical. As you note, I try to see both sides of the issue as objectivity as possible without revealing in detail bias; apparently your bias scuttles objectivity. The reason there is an opposition majority, in spite of the "radical transformation of America" is because American's have buyer's remorse and are aghast at what this executive is doing in their name. In the name of their loaned power to him he undoes the very mechanisms that allow them to loan that power, thus its nothing less than usurpation. I deplore this executive not because he is democrat but because he is anti-American, anti-Western, pro-Islamic jihad, and destructive of all rational faculties of leadership.

I deplore this executive not because he is democrat but because he is anti-American, anti-Western, pro-Islamic jihad, and destructive of all rational faculties of leadership.

The statement is not objective, it is not neutral, it is not balanced. It is outlander political spam that is presented repeatedly by the poster and by a number of other marginal posters.

The president of the United States is not "anti-American."

The president of the United States, elected in 2008, re-elected in 2012, is a natural born citizen of the United States, a former United States Senator elected from the state of Illinois, the same state that elected Adlai Stevenson its governor who twice was the (unsuccessful) nominee of the Democratic party for president (1952, 1956).

The president of the United States is not "pro-Islamic" nor is the president of the United States "destructive of all rational faculties of leadership."

The views stated in the post are extreme in the extreme and are made only by extremists.

Ah, now I see why so many TV posters have a "go" at you and you at them. That I am extreme, or those who hold similar views, show just as inverse you necessarily are to state that= extreme- I assume you "extremely" oppose my views? Ok. It is a fair point you make that I comment on the neutral but actually reveal I am not so much. I concede this. You are correct.

I do post often, when relevant, that the US president enacts policies and makes statements that are not only detrimental to America, but Americans. The inclination of the congress to invite a speaker or insinuate into foreign policy making is directly due to the mounting shame and horror that the executive is actually successful in "fundamentally transforming America;" the problem is, it is not the "Hope and Change" and "Promise" that Americans expected, nor is it moving the USA "Forward." Frankly, the utility of this president can actually be measured by mid term elections alone. When the executive acts contrary to the collective will "of the people" midterm elections always reveal the rebuke. That a new and novel interpretation of this fact is offered is arrogance and demonstrates the resolve to which the executive acts, and his contempt upon "the people."

An example of how, finally, your position weakens, is if one considers the scenario that perhaps the framers feared; perhaps an executive sold out to the enemy, or crashing the US abroad into the rocks, or some other negligence or malfeasance. The notion that the congress lacks the authority to act is absurd. It has tools to do so, and recourse by the executive if in overstep. It is of no academic value to consider whether or not this president is run amok abroad because ipso facto the congress has bypassed him and invited a speaker to realign foreign policy. This means it is pointless to consider whether or not is a valid perception theoretically- the congress thinks it is practically.

If my posts are "extreme" and "in the extreme," and I decidedly demonstrate [to you] I am an "extremist" it necessarily follows you are equally to the opposite end of the spectrum. This is not a conundrum, though this is not apparent to you. That is why discourse takes place. Were there no opposing sides there would never be progress. When an appeal is made to impugn or label a speaker who differs from us, we define our position as vacuous. What is absent from our exchange is my impugning you. When the amulet "extrem[ist" or "islamophobia" is employed in dialogue it will reveal the character of the position every time. You have great posts and have enlightened me to some things; thank you. But less emotive conduct reflects your position better. Good luck with the others. They have far more patience than I do and I have loaned your position far more legitimacy than deserved.

I deplore this executive not because he is democrat but because he is anti-American, anti-Western, pro-Islamic jihad, and destructive of all rational faculties of leadership.

The statement is consciously extreme and it is deliberately malicious.

This is true no matter how couched in the language of bogus ruses it may be.

ruse

noun [C] UK /ruːz/

US a trick intended to deceive someone

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/ruse

I think you missed the point that arjunadawn thinks you are a "Nattering nabob" who thinks that anyone with an opinion other than yours is an 'extremist' ... Many TVF posters find your nabobisms to be extreme - but it is hard to look in the mirror and see thine self (To use a rather adroit phrase coined by William Safire).

[Publicus]

At least I don't try to sound like Spiro Agnew or Pat Buchanan.

Wm Safire RIP was a journalist who was also a self-appointed dilettante of the English language, one of several journalists of his time to include Edwin Newman of NBC who presumed to become lexical experts to lecture to the rest of us. Safire as you'd well recall was the NYT House Conservative, succeeded presently by David Brooks who makes no self-appointed or otherwise linguistic claims or assertions.

I think Brooks is a more thoughtful and less sneering guy than Safire was. Safire and Buchanan were the Republican White House speechwriting wiseguys. Both supported Israel and I don't know what Buchanan thinks of this Netanyahu thing, but Safire might not have liked it.

Shifting briefly for a moment and as long as we're talking about the Republican right, Richard Pearl visited my grad school journalism group one muggy Washington evening to give us all the horrors in what became forever known among us afterward as fright night.

Cheers.

[Ulysses G.]

At least I don't try to sound like Spiro Agnew or Pat Buchanan.

Agreed. You have a lot more in common with Jay Carney when he was spinning for the White House.

[Publicus]

It is better than sounding like the idiot Boehner.

[chuckd]

Now he sounds like Josh Earnest.

[Chapy]

I find this Israeli cringe mentality totally weird.

Democrats seething with anger because Netanyahu is bad mannered enough to accept an invitation secretly above the head the POTUS, but unable to voice their feelings for fear of upsetting the Jewish vote. While Republicans gleefully applaud the Democrats’ frustration and the humiliation of their own President

This episode alone dismisses all counter claims as to who exactly is running the most powerful country in the world...the elected government (twice) or some pariah state 6.000 miles away, rapidly descending into racist tribal mayhem.

Talk about the tail wagging the dog. It could happen nowhere else in the world.

I would be bemused if it had not such tragic consequences for the people in the Middle East.

Who "owns" America ? One would think it's citizens would at least own it's money...... well they do its debt anyway.

The Fed is privately owned.

Its shareholders are private banks. In fact, 100% of its shareholders are private banks. None of its stock is owned by the government.

The question in relation to this topic....... What religion are the owners of these private banks and how strong supports of the said country in discussion are they?

[Publicus]

Now he sounds like Josh Earnest.

Gotta keep having the last wiseguy word eh.....

[Publicus]

At least I don't try to sound like Spiro Agnew or Pat Buchanan.

Agreed. You have a lot more in common with Jay Carney when he was spinning for the White House.

Another one....

....it means you guys win I guess.....

[ggold]

I find this Israeli cringe mentality totally weird.

Democrats seething with anger because Netanyahu is bad mannered enough to accept an invitation secretly above the head the POTUS, but unable to voice their feelings for fear of upsetting the Jewish vote. While Republicans gleefully applaud the Democrats’ frustration and the humiliation of their own President

This episode alone dismisses all counter claims as to who exactly is running the most powerful country in the world...the elected government (twice) or some pariah state 6.000 miles away, rapidly descending into racist tribal mayhem.

Talk about the tail wagging the dog. It could happen nowhere else in the world.

I would be bemused if it had not such tragic consequences for the people in the Middle East.

Who "owns" America ? One would think it's citizens would at least own it's money...... well they do its debt anyway.

The Fed is privately owned.

Its shareholders are private banks. In fact, 100% of its shareholders are private banks. None of its stock is owned by the government.

The question in relation to this topic....... What religion are the owners of these private banks and how strong supports of the said country in discussion are they?

well that's obvious isn't it! The Muslims Not that I'm being racist or anything. But I guess you were.

[chuckd]

At least I don't try to sound like Spiro Agnew or Pat Buchanan.

Agreed. You have a lot more in common with Jay Carney when he was spinning for the White House.

Another one....

....it means you guys win I guess.....

Was there ever any doubt?

[up-country_sinclair]

Netanyahu's political stunt has backfired so severely and in ways he never imagined, that there's really no way of knowing what he'll do next. Pressure is rising in Israel and the US for him to cancel this campaign speech, but his outsized ego won't allow him to admit he was wrong. But with every day that he doesn't cancel, the chances of him not being the PM increase. It will be interesting to see what happens.

[Publicus]

At least I don't try to sound like Spiro Agnew or Pat Buchanan.

Agreed. You have a lot more in common with Jay Carney when he was spinning for the White House.

Another one....

....it means you guys win I guess.....

Was there ever any doubt?

Ahh, the last word again from the right in more ways than one.

The obsessive compulsives of the right.

[Ulysses G.]

You are really complaining about other people being obsessive compulsive and trying to get the last word? The irony.

Edited February 10, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[Publicus]

You are really complaining about other people being obsessive compulsive and trying to get the last word? The irony.

[Publicus]

Netanyahu's political stunt has backfired so severely and in ways he never imagined, that there's really no way of knowing what he'll do next. Pressure is rising in Israel and the US for him to cancel this campaign speech, but his outsized ego won't allow him to admit he was wrong. But with every day that he doesn't cancel, the chances of him not being the PM increase. It will be interesting to see what happens.

Quite.

He's beginning to look and sound like Putin.

[Ulysses G.]

It looks like Netanyahu won't be able to rely on the Israel-hater and Obamabot vote in this election.

[up-country_sinclair]

It looks like Netanyahu won't be able to rely on the Israel-hater and Obamabot vote in this election.

The most recent polling data from the Times of Israel shows that:

A plurality of Israeli's think Netanyahu should cancel the speech.

25% of all voters say they are undecided, but more of them are leaning away from Netanyahu.

Likud is dropping fast.

And as for their opinion of Netanyahu himself:

http://www.timesofisrael.com/1-in-4-israelis-still-undecided-but-more-of-them-leaning-toward-herzog/

Netanyahu overplayed his hand with this political stunt of trying to give a campaign speech before a joint session of congress.

Netanyahu has done what Israel's greatest adversaries could only have dreamed of doing: He forced Israel into becoming a partisan issue in the US.

Edited February 10, 2015 by up-country_sinclair

[Jingthing]

Well, as an American Jew who definitely supports the existence of Israel and opposes Iran getting nukes, I can definitely relate to this:

The petition, with some 20,000 signatures, according toThe New York Times, is meant to show that while the prime minister may represent Israelis, "He certainly cannot claim any mandate to speak for Jews in the United States."

http://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/J-Street-petition-against-Netanyahus-Congress-speech-rallies-20000-signatures-390575

But to add some balance, a pro speech view is presented here. I just can't get past the potential damage being done to the history of the USA relationship with Israel NOT being a partisan issue. I get the "existential" threat thing ... I just don't think this U.S. partisan politics divisive speech is the way (even more so as most American Jews are DEMOCRATS):

Edited February 10, 2015 by Jingthing

[snarky66]

Dems in general do not support Israel. They support Hamas. The headlines says "Dems Angry" what else is new? Like Barry they are only happy when they get their own way. But there is a new sheriff in town. Back backbenchers can shut up.

Edited February 10, 2015 by snarky66

[Pakboong]

It is normal to like or dislike other countries for your own reasons but to be American and support another country over America is in fact treason.

“This is, I think, a critical visit by the prime minister. If these Democrats would rather put partisan politics ahead of principle and walk out on the prime minister of Israel, then we have an obligation to make that known,” said Matt Brooks, the executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition, a political lobbying group which promotes Jewish Republicans.

Netanyahu’s well-funded Jewish conservative backers say they may use their funds to draw attention in the districts and states of any Democratic lawmaker who is not present at the US Capitol.

[Jingthing]

Dems in general do not support Israel. They support Hamas. The headlines says "Dems Angry" what else is new? Like Barry they are only happy when they get their own way. But there is a new sheriff in town. Back backbenchers can shut up.

I think you're confusing the American left with the European left. There still remains very strong bipartisan support for Israel in the USA while of course there is also support for a two state solution. But Netanyahu's game is damaging this tradition of bipartisan support and will make it easier for more democrats to become more like the European left.

[Ulysses G.]

It is normal to like or dislike other countries for your own reasons but to be American and support another country over America is in fact treason.

Which pretty much no one does. Another far-left straw man.

[Ulysses G.]

A plurality of Israeli's think Netanyahu should cancel the speech.

In other words, less than half of Israelis. He should go ahead with the speech and it looks like he will.

Edited February 11, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[Choctastic]

Netanyahu’s well-funded Jewish conservative backers say they may use their funds to draw attention in the districts and states of any Democratic lawmaker who is not present at the US Capitol.

A similar threat was made during Netanyahu's ludicrous 'Speech of a Lifetime' where he received 29 standing ovations and showed to the world the U.S. is absolutely in thrall to a foreign power.

'AIPAC staffers who prowl congressional offices daily, let it be known that videos of the Members listening to Bibi would be kept on file and insinuated that how the Member’s performed during his speech to Congress would be taken into consideration when planning this summer’s Jewish fundraising events.'

This piece explains how Bibi got his 'spontaneous' standing ovations... http://mycatbirdseat.com/2011/05/franklin-lamb-is-the-arab-spring-spreading-to-us-congressional-staffs/

I do hope Netanyahu attends. The damage he did to U.S. prestige around the world (as if there were any left), last time, was colossal.

[up-country_sinclair]

It is normal to like or dislike other countries for your own reasons but to be American and support another country over America is in fact treason.

I may have written this before, but I am genuinely shocked at how many American posters are "Israel-Firsters". It literally has me shaking my head when I read these posts which would have at one time been unthinkable.

By the way, many members of the Congressional Black Caucus are intending to skip Netanyahu's campaign speech if he doesn't do the right thing and cancel. There are long and historic ties between Israel and the CBC, but Netanyahu seems determined to damage those ties for his campaign speech.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/benjamin-netanyahu-congressional-black-caucus-115103.html?hp=rc1_4

Edited February 11, 2015 by up-country_sinclair

[dexterm]

It is normal to like or dislike other countries for your own reasons but to be American and support another country over America is in fact treason.

“This is, I think, a critical visit by the prime minister. If these Democrats would rather put partisan politics ahead of principle and walk out on the prime minister of Israel, then we have an obligation to make that known,” said Matt Brooks, the executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition, a political lobbying group which promotes Jewish Republicans.

Netanyahu’s well-funded Jewish conservative backers say they may use their funds to draw attention in the districts and states of any Democratic lawmaker who is not present at the US Capitol.

Like a roll call for the naughty boys club whose only crime is to actually put America first ahead of Israel. What a blatant interference in another country's affairs.

This week the Israeli-American lobby group J-Street, which is against Netanyahu's visit, wrote to all Congress members asking them to urge postponement until after Israel’s election.

“One of the chief objections to the visit – and the reason so many supporters of Israel including prominent American Jewish leaders like Abe Foxman and Rabbi Rick Jacobs, the leader of the Reform Movement, have asked the Prime Minister to postpone his appearance – is the possibility that the speech will be used to advance the Netanyahu campaign,” says its letter.

“Our Congress should not be used as a prop in another nation’s election.,,, That means that both nations stay out of the other’s democratic process.”

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/10/binyamin-netanyahu-speech-congress-democrats-boycotting

Edited February 11, 2015 by dexterm

[Ulysses G.]

I may have written this before, but I am genuinely shocked at how many American posters are "Israel-Firsters".

Can you produce any evidence at all of any American posters suggesting anything like this? Of course not, because, as usual, you are making it up. It is a lot easier arguing with a made up straw man than with reality.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/straw%20man

[Steely Dan]

Well, as an American Jew who definitely supports the existence of Israel and opposes Iran getting nukes, I can definitely relate to this:

bibistayhome.jpg

The petition, with some 20,000 signatures, according toThe New York Times, is meant to show that while the prime minister may represent Israelis, "He certainly cannot claim any mandate to speak for Jews in the United States."

http://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/J-Street-petition-against-Netanyahus-Congress-speech-rallies-20000-signatures-390575

But to add some balance, a pro speech view is presented here. I just can't get past the potential damage being done to the history of the USA relationship with Israel NOT being a partisan issue. I get the "existential" threat thing ... I just don't think this U.S. partisan politics divisive speech is the way (even more so as most American Jews are DEMOCRATS):

You have to,consider which way the wind is blowing, the Muslim population is growing rapidly and they will vote democrat, at a price. Like it or not Israel may eventually become a partisan issue, though I doubt that will apply during the next decade and certainly not as soon as Obama leaves office.

Edited February 11, 2015 by Scott