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

[chuckd]

There is an Israeli election coming up in a few weeks. In care you're unaware, President Obama is not on the ballot, but Netanyahu is.

Only 42% of Israelis want Netanyahu to be PM, and even fewer think he should persist with his self-serving agenda of giving a campaign speech before the US Congress.

Do you have a point in there somewhere?

[Publicus]

Netanyahu in Israel has to crawl himself out of the crapper there, not the Democratic party in the United States.

[chuckd]

Perhaps if Obama had kept his people out of the Israeli election to begin with, Netanyahu might not have considered the speech.

You think?

[ggold]

So what's your point?

My point is, You don't have one!

http://www.worldsecuritynetwork.com/Iran/shahriar-kia-1/Iranian-regime-on-the-verge-of-collapse-1

The Iranian regime survives only by execution, torture and repression against its opponents. The average of daily execution in Iran is 2 persons per day and the average of hourly arrests is 80 persons per hour. This is why the Iranian people do not want this regime.

The mullahs would either have to stop dedicating enormous funds to suppression and terrorism and lessen the influence of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) in the Iranian economy, which would pave the way for widespread popular protests. Or, the regime would have to continue on with the current catastrophic situation, which would produce a

massive explosion caused by the anger of the unemployed, the hungry and the impoverished.

Edited February 14, 2015 by ggold

[Chicog]

So what's your point?

My point is, You don't have one!

http://www.worldsecuritynetwork.com/Iran/shahriar-kia-1/Iranian-regime-on-the-verge-of-collapse-1

The Iranian regime survives only by execution, torture and repression against its opponents. The average of daily execution in Iran is 2 persons per day and the average of hourly arrests is 80 persons per hour. This is why the Iranian people do not want this regime.

The mullahs would either have to stop dedicating enormous funds to suppression and terrorism and lessen the influence of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) in the Iranian economy, which would pave the way for widespread popular protests. Or, the regime would have to continue on with the current catastrophic situation, which would produce a

massive explosion caused by the anger of the unemployed, the hungry and the impoverished.

My point stands. If Syria falls to IS, then the chances are they will make control of Sunni areas of Iraq untenable. Creation of a two- or three-state Iraq will be the only option to keep it together.

The utter - and desperately hopeful - tosh you linked is written by an exiled opposition writer.

The Guardian council and the military can do what they like in Iran.

Saudi Arabia will fall before Iran does.

(Added: Excepting of course another pointless US invasion).

Edited February 14, 2015 by Chicog

[up-country_sinclair]

Perhaps if Obama had kept his people out of the Israeli election to begin with, Netanyahu might not have considered the speech.

So you've decided to admit that this is a thinly veiled campaign speech by Netanyahu. Good for you.

[Ulysses G.]

More like he is killing two birds with one stone. Stopping Obama from making a really stupid deal is of the ultimate importance.

Edited February 14, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[up-country_sinclair]

Stopping Obama from making a really stupid deal is of the ultimate importance.

Please explain how Netanyahu's campaign speech will stop the US President from making a deal with Iran.

Let me help you with that: It can't. Netanyahu can hold up silly posters and bluster to his heart's content (and the US members of congress who are addicted to AIPAC donations can echo that bluster), but it still won't stop the president from doing what he thinks is best. And this is as it should be. This may come as a shock , but most US citizen's are not "Israeli Firsters". President Obama will make the deal that he thinks is in the best interest of the US (not Israel). If you disagree with his worldview or agenda then you can vote accordingly in the next presidential election.

By the way, many informed people (who aren't "Israeli-Firsters) think that the broad outlines of the proposed deal with Iran are clearly in the strategic best interests of the US. And as a US citizen, that is unquestionably where my loyalties lie. Just like any other country that tries to puts its interests before mine, Israel can go pound sand.

[Ulysses G.]

Stopping Obama from making a really stupid deal is of the ultimate importance.

Please explain how Netanyahu's campaign speech will stop the US President from making a deal with Iran.

You've got to be kidding. Did you see what happened last time? 29 Standing Ovations. That kind of support puts a lot of political pressure on the White House.

Stopping Iran's nuclear weapons program has nothing to do with "Israel first". They are also very close to ICBMs that can reach US and the West. Iranian nukes are everybody's problem.

Edited February 14, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[up-country_sinclair]

Stopping Obama from making a really stupid deal is of the ultimate importance.

Please explain how Netanyahu's campaign speech will stop the US President from making a deal with Iran.

You've got to be kidding. Did you see what happened last time? 29 Standing Ovations. That kind of support puts a lot of political pressure on the White House.

You need to realize that the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue isn't attached to AIPAC's puppet strings. I have no doubt that President Obama will make his decision based on what he determines is in the best interest of the United States.

[Scott]

A number of off-topic, troll posts and an inflammatory post along with replies have been removed. Continue at your own peril.

Nonsense, one-line responses to other posters is nothing more than trolling. If you cannot respond intelligently, do not respond.

You have been warned.

[Chicog]

Stopping Obama from making a really stupid deal is of the ultimate importance.

Please explain how Netanyahu's campaign speech will stop the US President from making a deal with Iran.

You've got to be kidding. Did you see what happened last time? 29 Standing Ovations. That kind of support puts a lot of political pressure on the White House.

Stopping Iran's nuclear weapons program has nothing to do with "Israel first". They are also very close to ICBMs that can reach US and the West. Iranian nukes are everybody's problem.

I would say Pakistan's are a bigger threat.

[up-country_sinclair]

Netanyahu's campaign speech in front of the US congress aside, a historic deal between the US and Iran could be fast approaching:

Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has responded to overtures from U.S. President Barack Obama amid nuclear talks by sending him a secret letter, the Wall Street Journal reported on Friday.

Citing an Iranian diplomat, the paper said the Iranian cleric had written to Obama in recent weeks in response to a presidential letter sent in October.

Obama's letter suggested the possibility of U.S.-Iranian cooperation in fighting Islamic State if a nuclear deal was secured, the paper said, quoting the diplomat.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/1.642426

Edited February 14, 2015 by up-country_sinclair

[spidermike007]

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.

It is estimated that Israel spends 2 billion dollars per year, lobbying congress and the US government. It is very obviously money well spent. They get what they want, regardless of how ridiculous their leaders are. Even at home, Bibi is quickly losing support. He is a pale shadow of a leader. Without a creative bone in his old, fragile body. He is a relic. He is a hate monger.

[Ulysses G.]

What nonsense. Netanyahu is surging in the polls.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/israel-election-2015/.premium-1.640442

http://www.jpost.com/Israel-Elections/Post-poll-Support-for-PM-hits-peak-390209

[up-country_sinclair]

What nonsense. Netanyahu is surging in the polls.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/israel-election-2015/.premium-1.640442

http://www.jpost.com/Israel-Elections/Post-poll-Support-for-PM-hits-peak-390209

One of the polls you're citing was published on February 2nd.

The other was conducted on February 4th and published on the 6th.

The most recent Jerusalem Post poll which shows that only 42% of Israelis want Netanyahu to remain as PM was published two days ago.

http://www.jpost.com/Israel-Elections/Obama-interfering-in-Israeli-election-according-to-Jerusalem-Post-poll-390925

This arrogant campaign stunt by Netanyahu is taking it's toll on his polling numbers.

[Ulysses G.]

Which means he is still ahead. That is the bottom line.

None of this will help his opposition:

Sixty-two percent of respondents said the Obama administration is interfering with election in Israel.

A majority of respondents, 56%, said Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is correct in principle in his desire to address Congress on the Iranian nuclear threat.

Edited February 15, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[Morch]

What nonsense. Netanyahu is surging in the polls.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/israel-election-2015/.premium-1.640442

http://www.jpost.com/Israel-Elections/Post-poll-Support-for-PM-hits-peak-390209

One of the polls you're citing was published on February 2nd.

The other was conducted on February 4th and published on the 6th.

The most recent Jerusalem Post poll which shows that only 42% of Israelis want Netanyahu to remain as PM was published two days ago.

http://www.jpost.com/Israel-Elections/Obama-interfering-in-Israeli-election-according-to-Jerusalem-Post-poll-390925

This arrogant campaign stunt by Netanyahu is taking it's toll on his polling numbers.

There are discrepancies between different polls, but not huge differences. Currently Netanyahu's party gets about the same amount of support as the main opposition party, if not a bit more. Netanyahu's personal approval rating is immaterial, as his opponents get even less. A few quotes from your own link demonstrate that things are less clear cut then you attempt to present:

A majority of respondents, 56%, said Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is correct in principle in his desire to address Congress on the Iranian nuclear threat, while 36% said he is not right, and 8% had no opinion.

Nevertheless, only 41% said that the prime minister should actually deliver the address, while 36% said he should not go to Washington at all, 17% said he should go, but speak only at the AIPAC policy conference, and 6% did not know......

....

....Netanyahu’s Likud fell two Knesset seats in the past week, from 26 to 24, while the Zionist Union rose from 22 to 23, narrowing the Likud’s lead from four seats to one.

[Steely Dan]

According to this link there was an amendment in the New York post which stated Netanyahu DID actually inform Obama before accepting the invitation to speak before congress. If this is so there was no breaking with protocol and the politically motivated shit storm that followed is solely down to Obama. He must be so desperate to hand Iran nuclear weapons on a plate he will stop at nothing to further this aim.

http://carolineglick.com/mainstreaming-jew-hatred-in-america/

[Publicus]

According to this link there was an amendment in the New York post which stated Netanyahu DID actually inform Obama before accepting the invitation to speak before congress. If this is so there was no breaking with protocol and the politically motivated shit storm that followed is solely down to Obama. He must be so desperate to hand Iran nuclear weapons on a plate he will stop at nothing to further this aim.

http://carolineglick.com/mainstreaming-jew-hatred-in-america/

The report in the New York Post will not withstand the test of time.

Neither will the portrayal of Prez Obama as a Muslim surrender monkey.

[chuckd]

According to this link there was an amendment in the New York post which stated Netanyahu DID actually inform Obama before accepting the invitation to speak before congress. If this is so there was no breaking with protocol and the politically motivated shit storm that followed is solely down to Obama. He must be so desperate to hand Iran nuclear weapons on a plate he will stop at nothing to further this aim.

http://carolineglick.com/mainstreaming-jew-hatred-in-america/

The report in the New York Post will not withstand the test of time.

Neither will the portrayal of Prez Obama as a Muslim surrender monkey.

While the NY Post might not meet your high standards, how about a copy of the article from the NY Times?

Their correction reads as follows:

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

"Correction: January 30, 2015

An earlier version of this article misstated when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel accepted Speaker John A. Boehner’s invitation to address Congress. He accepted after the administration had been informed of the invitation, not before.

Complete article here, along with the correction at the end: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/30/us/politics/benjamin-netanyahu-is-talking-to-harry-reid-and-leading-democrats-to-little-effect-so-far.html?_r=0

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

It seems the Obama administration was informed BEFORE Netanyahu accepted the invitation to speak...not AFTER as the Obama administration claimed.

Now watch the spinning tops come out.

[NeverSure]

Neither will the portrayal of Prez Obama as a Muslim surrender monkey.

I don't know why. It's stood more more than 6 years so far.

[Publicus]

According to this link there was an amendment in the New York post which stated Netanyahu DID actually inform Obama before accepting the invitation to speak before congress. If this is so there was no breaking with protocol and the politically motivated shit storm that followed is solely down to Obama. He must be so desperate to hand Iran nuclear weapons on a plate he will stop at nothing to further this aim.

http://carolineglick.com/mainstreaming-jew-hatred-in-america/

The report in the New York Post will not withstand the test of time.

Neither will the portrayal of Prez Obama as a Muslim surrender monkey.

While the NY Post might not meet your high standards, how about a copy of the article from the NY Times?

Their correction reads as follows:

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

"Correction: January 30, 2015

An earlier version of this article misstated when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel accepted Speaker John A. Boehner’s invitation to address Congress. He accepted after the administration had been informed of the invitation, not before.

Complete article here, along with the correction at the end: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/30/us/politics/benjamin-netanyahu-is-talking-to-harry-reid-and-leading-democrats-to-little-effect-so-far.html?_r=0

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

It seems the Obama administration was informed BEFORE Netanyahu accepted the invitation to speak...not AFTER as the Obama administration claimed.

Now watch the spinning tops come out.

This is old news. Shoot, it's not even news.

Where have the eager beaver posters been on it...I quote below from the February 8th article in the Washington Post that the White House was advised immediately before Netanyahu formally accepted, but the White House had not been consulted beforehand, and that Netanyahu knew about the invitation weeks before it had been finalized while the White House knew nothing of it until the very last minute.

And that Netanyahu had been planning for several weeks to accept the invitation weeks before the White House knew anything about it.

The fact remains that Israeli PM Netanyahu will not be addressing the Congress on an official state visit, which means he has not been invited to the US by the head of state of the US, the president.

In fact, Netanyahu accepted the inaccurate invitation from Speaker Boehner who falsely claimed had been extended "on behalf of the bipartisan leadership of the US House and the US Senate," which we and PM Netanyahu have since learned was false.

This may end up being Netanyahu's 'out' if he might decide not to speak or not to make the trip, or to make the trip but to speak to some other private voluntary civic group.

Did the Obama Administration lie about Netanyahu? (Updated and revised)

When John Boehner announced that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu had accepted his invitation to address Congress, the Obama Administration reacted strongly. The criticism was not directed primarily at Boehner, who apparently did not inform the White House of the invitation until shortly before it was formally delivered, and may have acted unconstitutionally in delivering it, but against Netanyahu, for breaching diplomatic protocol by accepting the invitation from Boehner without prior coordination with the Administration.

The story of Netanyahu’s perfidy grew to the extent that the New York Times reported, incorrectly, that Netanyahu accepted the invitation before the White House had been informed of it.

Were senior White House aides exaggerating the story, or did the Times get caught up in its own anti-Netanyahu narrative? Or perhaps the Times was failing to distinguish between Netanyahu’s formal acceptance after the White House had been notified, and White House anger that the details of the visit had been worked out before notification to the White House, meaning that Netanyahu was planning to accept the invitation before the White House knew about it

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/02/08/did-the-obama-administration-lie-about-netanyahu/

Is Netanyahu’s address to Congress unconstitutional?

By David Bernstein January 25

Likely yes, says University of San Diego’s Michael Ramsey, for the reasons enumerated here. Basically, the point is that the president and not Congress has the constitutional authority to receive foreign leaders.

I’d put the question slightly differently. Netanyahu can’t be acting unconstitutionally, because he’s not bound by the American Constitution. So, the question is whether the House leadership’s invitation to Netanyahu to address Congress without going through the president, and then receiving Netanyahu once he accepts the invitation, is unconstitutional.

House Majority leader Boehner indirectly addressed this issue in a comment I heard on the news the other day. He suggested that given that President Obama has been ignoring Congress’ constitutional prerogatives, as by unilaterally rewriting immigration law, Congress can retaliate by ignoring the president’s constitutional prerogatives.

But two constitutional wrongs don’t make a right, and since I give Obama a hard time when he acts unconstitutionally and contrary to the separation of powers, I hereby give Boehner a hard time for inviting Netanyahu despite the absence of any apparent constitutional authority to do so.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/01/25/is-netanyahus-address-to-congress-unconstitutional/

Edited February 15, 2015 by Publicus

[Chicog]

Neither will the portrayal of Prez Obama as a Muslim surrender monkey.

I don't know why. It's stood more more than 6 years so far.

Which says an awful lot about the people that are dumb enough to believe it.

[ggold]

Stopping Obama from making a really stupid deal is of the ultimate importance.

Please explain how Netanyahu's campaign speech will stop the US President from making a deal with Iran.

You've got to be kidding. Did you see what happened last time? 29 Standing Ovations. That kind of support puts a lot of political pressure on the White House.

You need to realize that the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue isn't attached to AIPAC's puppet strings. I have no doubt that President Obama will make his decision based on what he determines is in the best interest of the United States.

I wonder what is in the best interest of the US, and does that really figure in Obama's thinking?

I'm sure you were being sarcastic

[ubonjoe]

A off topic and abusive post has been removed.

[faranginexile]

Perhaps they should listen to what he has to say first. There's plenty of time to get angry afterwards.

I don't think they are angry about what he has to say, but about the processes used to invite him to speak.

but I like your suggestion, is that a policy we should apply to all world leaders or just Israeli?

The three branches of government are separate but equal.

Congress has the right to invite whomever they wish to address their body. Why should they get the permission of the Executive Branch to invite a speaker?

Using your logic, the Judicial Branch might need to request input from the Legislative Branch as to which cases the SCOTUS should hear.

Following that same train of thought, the Executive Branch perhaps should have consulted the Judicial Branch to see if the many Executive Orders and Memoranda were Constitutional before the President signed them.

None of that happened nor is it required.

You illustrate why a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. Yes, the three branches of government are separate but equal, and no, it is not chrystal clear that the invitation violates the Logan Act, but the procedure used by Boehner and Dermer to set up a lecture by a foreign head of government to a joint session of Congress is unprecedented. The Constitution and custom both vest the power of conducting foreign affairs in the President. You can argue that the inviation is not, strictly speaking, illegal, but you cannot pretend that it's no big deal. Because it is.

Edited February 17, 2015 by faranginexile

[JDGRUEN]

Perhaps they should listen to what he has to say first. There's plenty of time to get angry afterwards.

I don't think they are angry about what he has to say, but about the processes used to invite him to speak.

but I like your suggestion, is that a policy we should apply to all world leaders or just Israeli?

The three branches of government are separate but equal.

Congress has the right to invite whomever they wish to address their body. Why should they get the permission of the Executive Branch to invite a speaker?

Using your logic, the Judicial Branch might need to request input from the Legislative Branch as to which cases the SCOTUS should hear.

Following that same train of thought, the Executive Branch perhaps should have consulted the Judicial Branch to see if the many Executive Orders and Memoranda were Constitutional before the President signed them.

None of that happened nor is it required.

You illustrate why a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. Yes, the three branches of government are separate but equal, and no, it is not chrystal clear that the invitation violates the Logan Act, but the procedure used by Boehner and Dermer to set up a lecture by a foreign head of government to a joint session of Congress is unprecedented. The Constitution and custom both vest the power of conducting foreign affairs in the President. You can argue that the inviation is not, strictly speaking, illegal, but you cannot pretend that it's no big deal. Because it is.

Such hurt feelings done in proxy for obama.... Congress has a right to allow ANYONE to speak not withstanding the ire of the sitting president... Congress has the right to counter the president on any topic using any method. America is not a dictatorship - yet

[Publicus]

Congress is reckless and irresponsible at best and at any time. This Republican controlled Congress is already out of control besides as it tries to establish its own foreign policy of the United States.

Boehner and the Senate Republican majority leader Mitch McConnell publicly and openly arguing with each other shows neither can get along with anyone much less Prez Obama.

Press conferences and statements by Republican leaders of the House and Senate sound like WWF hustlers and blowhards dressed in their Sunday suits.

So now Bibi Netanyahu is reduced to this.

[chuckd]

"So now Bibi Netanyahu is reduced to this."

What can you expect from somebody the administration has labeled a "chicken-Shit"?

The White House could hardly expect to receive a Valentine's Day card.