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

[Exsexyman]

Twenty nine orchestrated standing ovations! Even Stalin would have struggled to match that!

According to some nutty far-left blog. Really convincing.

How about The guardian? ABC News? Too many other sources who counted them to list here. But that's OK, you just carry on burying your head in the sand and adding your favourite childish little emoticon to try and discredit anything that counters your blinkered views. Whether you like it or not there were 29 orchestrated standing ovations, and also whether you like it or not that is positively Stalinist.

[Ulysses G.]

Why don't you link to a credible source instead of some loony blog, if you want to prove your point? I very much doubt if you can find one telling the same story.

Edited February 11, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[ggold]

Twenty nine orchestrated standing ovations! Even Stalin would have struggled to match that!

According to some nutty far-left blog. Really convincing.

How about The guardian? ABC News? Too many other sources who counted them to list here. But that's OK, you just carry on burying your head in the sand and adding your favourite childish little emoticon to try and discredit anything that counters your blinkered views. Whether you like it or not there were 29 orchestrated standing ovations, and also whether you like it or not that is positively Stalinist.

Didn't you know America has more in common with Russia than any other country!

[Exsexyman]

Why don't you link to a credible source instead of a loony blog, if you want o prove your point? I very much doubt if you can find one telling the same story.

Sigh!

http://www.theguardian.com/world/richard-adams-blog/2011/may/24/binyamin-netanyahu-congress-ovation

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/05/israeli-prime-minister-gets-20-standing-ovations-in-congress-sends-message-to-white-house/

[ggold]

If Israel becomes a bipartisan issue then it is the Dems that will make it so.

Exactly, but there are a lot of democrats who support Israel and don't trust Obama. There is a very good chance that when push comes to shove, they will refuse to be bullied into his boycott. If they allow him to get away with this, I predict that he will make a stupid deal and we will all come to regret it.

All this just seemed unnecessary. Israel has established channels to voice concerns. I don't see the value of this congress noise. Anyway, I think Hillary will be the next president and she will be more hawkish than Obama.

You might be right, but it will probably be too late by then. Once Iran has nukes or the capability to produce them very quickly, the nuclear arms race in the Middle East will likely spin out of control.

Which makes you wonder what is Obama's agenda? He seems more willing to pick a fight with Russia over the Ukraine, than being strong with Iran over it's Nuclear capabilities. The whole thing just seems very fishy.

[Ulysses G.]

Why don't you link to a credible source instead of a loony blog, if you want o prove your point? I very much doubt if you can find one telling the same story.

Sigh!

http://www.theguardian.com/world/richard-adams-blog/2011/may/24/binyamin-netanyahu-congress-ovation

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/05/israeli-prime-minister-gets-20-standing-ovations-in-congress-sends-message-to-white-house/

Just as I suspected, two rave reviews about how well the speech went over and not a word about it being "orchestrated" as the crazy blog claimed. No conspiracy here. Thanks for proving my point.

[JDGRUEN]

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.

Actually he sounds more like Baghdad Bob...

[Jingthing]

Which makes you wonder what is Obama's agenda? He seems more willing to pick a fight with Russia over the Ukraine, than being strong with Iran over it's Nuclear capabilities. The whole thing just seems very fishy.

My feeling is that his agenda is to make it to the end of his term without engaging the U.S. in another major war and to kick this mess to the next prez. I think the majority of Americans support that to some degree. Yes I guess I'm in the Obama is over his head on foreign policy crowd, he looks weak and unfriendly nations are taking advantage.

Consider the Syria red flag ...it was crossed, and then nothing.

Talk about a signal to enemies!

Edited February 11, 2015 by Jingthing

[Ulysses G.]

Very perceptive, but issues like Iran getting nukes are way too important for Obama to put off or just let happen.

[Jingthing]

Very perceptive, but issues like Iran getting nukes are way too important for Obama to put off or just let happen.

Agreed ... but doesn't make the diplomatic implications of the Bibi speech necessary productive.

[ggold]

Which makes you wonder what is Obama's agenda? He seems more willing to pick a fight with Russia over the Ukraine, than being strong with Iran over it's Nuclear capabilities. The whole thing just seems very fishy.

My feeling is that his agenda is to make it to the end of his term without engaging the U.S. in another major war and to kick this mess to the next prez. I think the majority of Americans support that to some degree. Yes I guess I'm in the Obama is over his head on foreign policy crowd, he looks weak and unfriendly nations are taking advantage.

Consider the Syria red flag ...it was crossed, and then nothing.

Talk about a signal to enemies!

I hope you are right. But he still has the best part of two years left, and that is too long to be kicking the can down the road. I have a feeling that people want to bury their head in the sand as far as what is happening in the Ukraine. Left to the Republicans the

[Chicog]

Which makes you wonder what is Obama's agenda? He seems more willing to pick a fight with Russia over the Ukraine, than being strong with Iran over it's Nuclear capabilities. The whole thing just seems very fishy.

Iran hasn't annexed part of a sovereign nation (yet).

[Steely Dan]

Why don't you link to a credible source instead of a loony blog, if you want o prove your point? I very much doubt if you can find one telling the same story.

Sigh!

http://www.theguardian.com/world/richard-adams-blog/2011/may/24/binyamin-netanyahu-congress-ovation

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/05/israeli-prime-minister-gets-20-standing-ovations-in-congress-sends-message-to-white-house/

It's lucky there weren't thirty standing ovations or someone might have got all worked up about it.

[Steely Dan]

According to this article the last time Netanyahu was invited to speak by congress there was no shows of indignation. True it is close to Israeli election time, but this is an existential issue, not a short term political one, though Obama no doubt wants to gallop off into the sunset with a short term fix, which is akin to lighting the blue touch paper.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2015/noah-beck/speechless-on-iranian-nukes/

Seldom if ever has there ever been a U.S president more out of his depth and more psychologically unfit for office than Obama.

Edited February 11, 2015 by Steely Dan

[Jingthing]

But the trouble now is that Obama and Bibi kind of hate each other personally. Time for diplomacy not provocation.

[Jay Sata]

But the trouble now is that Obama and Bibi kind of hate each other personally. Time for diplomacy not provocation.

Can you email Netanyahu and give him a couple of google links to what the word diplomacy means?

[Chicog]

According to this article the last time Netanyahu was invited to speak by congress there was no shows of indignation. True it is close to Israeli election time, but this is an existential issue, not a short term political one, though Obama no doubt wants to gallop off into the sunset with a short term fix, which is akin to lighting the blue touch paper.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2015/noah-beck/speechless-on-iranian-nukes/

Seldom if ever has there ever been a U.S president more out of his depth and more psychologically unfit for office than Obama.

Rubbish, he's the first man to actually stand up to the Israelis constant desire for handouts and the US to do all of their dirty work for them.

About time someone did.

You want it - you earn it.

[Jay Sata]

If Israel was a truly independent nation it would not be running cap in hand to the USA all the time to ask it to do its dirty work.

I would never dream of asking my relatives friends or neighbours for money or help whatever my problems.

[up-country_sinclair]

Israel (and in particular Netanyahu) needs to be told in no uncertain terms of its place in this relationship with the US. The US needs to cut Israel loose and let them fend for themselves in the next two years. From the $3 billion in annual handouts to hiding behind our skirt at the UN, they're now on their own. Come January 2017 and there's a new president, then we'll see if they have a better understanding of whether or not the tail wags the dog.

[Morch]

Israel (and in particular Netanyahu) needs to be told in no uncertain terms of its place in this relationship with the US. The US needs to cut Israel loose and let them fend for themselves in the next two years. From the $3 billion in annual handouts to hiding behind our skirt at the UN, they're now on their own. Come January 2017 and there's a new president, then we'll see if they have a better understanding of whether or not the tail wags the dog.

Those $3 billions are mostly spent in the USA buying from USA firms.

They are also, in many cases, already invested in future deals and sales.

Check who lobbies hardest for the USA military aid to Israel. Ain't AIPAC.

[Jay Sata]

Israel (and in particular Netanyahu) needs to be told in no uncertain terms of its place in this relationship with the US. The US needs to cut Israel loose and let them fend for themselves in the next two years. From the $3 billion in annual handouts to hiding behind our skirt at the UN, they're now on their own. Come January 2017 and there's a new president, then we'll see if they have a better understanding of whether or not the tail wags the dog.

Those $3 billions are mostly spent in the USA buying from USA firms.

They are also, in many cases, already invested in future deals and sales.

Check who lobbies hardest for the USA military aid to Israel. Ain't AIPAC.

Just cut and pasted from the same old replies you post all the time.

Morch...can you please post something original for a change?

When you say the money is spent in the USA buying from USA firms why not say Israel is having free arms and goods from the american taxpayer.

I doubt the people of Gaza welcomed the free munitions dumped on them last year.

Edited February 11, 2015 by Jay Sata

[beechguy]

Israel (and in particular Netanyahu) needs to be told in no uncertain terms of its place in this relationship with the US. The US needs to cut Israel loose and let them fend for themselves in the next two years. From the $3 billion in annual handouts to hiding behind our skirt at the UN, they're now on their own. Come January 2017 and there's a new president, then we'll see if they have a better understanding of whether or not the tail wags the dog.

I think that is a great idea, then let's watch all of the money get sucked out of the Democrat Party between now and 2016. And when we do get a new President, either party, aid will not only be reinstated, but probably be increased.

One problem though, Obama doesn't have the guts to do it.

[Morch]

Israel (and in particular Netanyahu) needs to be told in no uncertain terms of its place in this relationship with the US. The US needs to cut Israel loose and let them fend for themselves in the next two years. From the $3 billion in annual handouts to hiding behind our skirt at the UN, they're now on their own. Come January 2017 and there's a new president, then we'll see if they have a better understanding of whether or not the tail wags the dog.

Those $3 billions are mostly spent in the USA buying from USA firms.

They are also, in many cases, already invested in future deals and sales.

Check who lobbies hardest for the USA military aid to Israel. Ain't AIPAC.

Just cut and pasted from the same old replies you post all the time.

Morch...can you please post something original for a change?

When you say the money is spent in the USA buying from USA firms why not say Israel is having free arms and goods from the american taxpayer.

I doubt the people of Gaza welcomed the free munitions dumped on them last year.

About as original as the post I replied to.

The funds are allocated by the USA government. They are not secret and it is the right of each USA citizen to bring up any issue he wants with his elected representative. The funds are not, for the most part, taken from the USA taxpayers - as they are fed back to the system via purchases made.

Did you have some original thought of your own to contribute?

Edited February 11, 2015 by Morch

[Jay Sata]

Yes I do.

I wonder if it went to a vote how many Americans would want to see their tax dollars wasted on munitions given to Israel free of charge to dump on civilians in Gaza?

Israel is rich enough to pay its own bills without freeloading on the USA taxpayers.

Be nice if they allowed international weapons inspectors to check out their nukes as well.

Edited February 11, 2015 by Jay Sata

[ggold]

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/191216#.VNt97y7QrfU

Senators and Vice Presidents may be boycotting Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's speech to Congress next month – but the members of the Defenders of Liberty Motorcycle Club will be out in full force to support Israel's leader as he warns the US against compromising on an Iranian nuclear deal.

[Jay Sata]

While he is addressing congress maybe,as a gesture to Iran he can invite the international weapon inspectors to check out Israel's nuclear stockpile.

[Publicus]

According to this article the last time Netanyahu was invited to speak by congress there was no shows of indignation. True it is close to Israeli election time, but this is an existential issue, not a short term political one, though Obama no doubt wants to gallop off into the sunset with a short term fix, which is akin to lighting the blue touch paper.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2015/noah-beck/speechless-on-iranian-nukes/

Seldom if ever has there ever been a U.S president more out of his depth and more psychologically unfit for office than Obama.

The real current state of the P5+1 nuclear negotiations with Iran need to be known because the heated rhetoric from the usual suspects of the far right continues unabated.

The hard-liners in the US and the hard-liners in Iran have the same purpose and goal, which is to scuttle the negotiations. Leaders in both countries are in fact taking the responsible and reasonable approach, which is to continue negotiating.

There are those in the US and in Iran and in Israel who would return relations among Iran, Israel, the United States, to their past 35 years of hollering insults, shouting threats, issuing denunciations. Yet, instead, there are now new words from Tehran and Washington such as "productive" and "positive" which are being spoken for the first time since any Iranian-American encounter or exchange since 1979. Some people however can't stand it.

The fact is the seven countries involved in the 14 months of negotiations have what might still be 80% of the issues outstanding and still unresolved. There is the matter of the quality of centrifuges Iran could keep, the disposition of enriched fuel in Iran's possession, the depth and extent of IAEA inspections, the extent of allowable Iranian nuclear research, the timeline for sanctions relief, the duration of the agreement itself and much more.

This is a full plate of seven set pieces among the P5+1 and Iran.

So here is what has in fact been agreed...

The principles that have already been agreed to are crucially important. These principles are: 1) Iran will remain a non-nuclear weapons state; 2) Iran will have the full right to use nuclear energy and materials for peaceful purposes under the terms agreed to as an Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) signatory; 3) Iran has agreed to International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) monitoring, inspections, and safeguards in accordance with the requirements of the NPT, including the Additional Protocol; 4) the IAEA has effective means to monitor and verify Iran’s observance to the terms of an agreement, provided that the IAEA receives Iran’s full cooperation; and 5) economic and other sanctions imposed against Iran related to its nuclear program will be removed.

There is no reason to believe that the technical gaps that remain between the parties’ positions cannot be bridged in ways that are perceived by all parties as fair and just.

http://iranprimer.us...-next-diplomacy

Neither side has given away the store nor will either side give away the store. The hard-liners in the US are wrong, the hard-liners in Iran are wrong, the hard-liners in Israel are wrong. The Republicans who control the Congress in Washington are simply lost in their own ongoing and long running subterfuge.

[Hardie]

Here's an idea: deny him a visa.

[Steely Dan]

According to this article the last time Netanyahu was invited to speak by congress there was no shows of indignation. True it is close to Israeli election time, but this is an existential issue, not a short term political one, though Obama no doubt wants to gallop off into the sunset with a short term fix, which is akin to lighting the blue touch paper.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2015/noah-beck/speechless-on-iranian-nukes/

Seldom if ever has there ever been a U.S president more out of his depth and more psychologically unfit for office than Obama.

The real current state of the P5+1 nuclear negotiations with Iran need to be known because the heated rhetoric from the usual suspects of the far right continues unabated.

The hard-liners in the US and the hard-liners in Iran have the same purpose and goal, which is to scuttle the negotiations. Leaders in both countries are in fact taking the responsible and reasonable approach, which is to continue negotiating.

There are those in the US and in Iran and in Israel who would return relations among Iran, Israel, the United States, to their past 35 years of hollering insults, shouting threats, issuing denunciations. Yet, instead, there are now new words from Tehran and Washington such as "productive" and "positive" which are being spoken for the first time since any Iranian-American encounter or exchange since 1979. Some people however can't stand it.

The fact is the seven countries involved in the 14 months of negotiations have what might still be 80% of the issues outstanding and still unresolved. There is the matter of the quality of centrifuges Iran could keep, the disposition of enriched fuel in Iran's possession, the depth and extent of IAEA inspections, the extent of allowable Iranian nuclear research, the timeline for sanctions relief, the duration of the agreement itself and much more.

This is a full plate of seven set pieces among the P5+1 and Iran.

So here is what has in fact been agreed...

The principles that have already been agreed to are crucially important. These principles are: 1) Iran will remain a non-nuclear weapons state; 2) Iran will have the full right to use nuclear energy and materials for peaceful purposes under the terms agreed to as an Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) signatory; 3) Iran has agreed to International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) monitoring, inspections, and safeguards in accordance with the requirements of the NPT, including the Additional Protocol; 4) the IAEA has effective means to monitor and verify Iran’s observance to the terms of an agreement, provided that the IAEA receives Iran’s full cooperation; and 5) economic and other sanctions imposed against Iran related to its nuclear program will be removed.

There is no reason to believe that the technical gaps that remain between the parties’ positions cannot be bridged in ways that are perceived by all parties as fair and just.

http://iranprimer.us...-next-diplomacy



Neither side has given away the store nor will either side give away the store. The hard-liners in the US are wrong, the hard-liners in Iran are wrong, the hard-liners in Israel are wrong. The Republicans who control the Congress in Washington are simply lost in their own ongoing and long running subterfuge.

You are putting a very naive spin on negotiations. Iranian commentators observed that the U.S was begging them for a deal. I don't believe much that comes out of Iran, but in this I'm inclined to believe them.

Edited February 12, 2015 by Scott

[Ulysses G.]

Israel (and in particular Netanyahu) needs to be told in no uncertain terms of its place in this relationship with the US. The US needs to cut Israel loose and let them fend for themselves in the next two years. From the $3 billion in annual handouts to hiding behind our skirt at the UN, they're now on their own. Come January 2017 and there's a new president, then we'll see if they have a better understanding of whether or not the tail wags the dog.

Those $3 billions are mostly spent in the USA buying from USA firms.

They are also, in many cases, already invested in future deals and sales.

Check who lobbies hardest for the USA military aid to Israel. Ain't AIPAC.

Just cut and pasted from the same old replies you post all the time.

He is replying to the same ignorant nonsense that he has successfully refuted numerous times already. Why would he need to come up with a new angle to present well known facts?