Netanyahu assails Iran deal, touts US-Israel ties

[Scott]

Off-topic posts removed. Please stay on topic.

[Jingthing]

Sorry Netanyahu, but you haven't affected the negotiations in any meaningful way whatsoever, and now it's time to go home and face the voters.

He just informed the whole world that Obama has accepted the Iranian demand that any restrictions on its program be temporary. After that, the mad mullahs can produce as much enriched uranium as they want to and turn it into nuclear weapons. You can bet your bottom dollar THAT is going to affect negotiations and make it very difficult for Obama to get away with.

Yes that is true, but some credible criticisms I've read also ring true. First the Bibi path is also risky (war) and second Bibi framed the threat too much to be about saving Israel (possibly for election purposes) and not enough focus on the greater threats from Iran beyond towards Israel that would have had more relevance to the mainstream world audience. Yes he did mention that but the emotional emphasis was on Save The Jews from Holocaust 2.0.

(Because face it it's clear from history the world isn't much interested in saving the Jews.)

Edited March 4, 2015 by Jingthing

[BKKBobby]

Sorry Netanyahu, but you haven't affected the negotiations in any meaningful way whatsoever, and now it's time to go home and face the voters.

He just informed the whole world that Obama has accepted the Iranian demand that any restrictions on its program be temporary. After that, the mad mullahs can produce as much enriched uranium as they want to and turn it into nuclear weapons. You can bet your bottom dollar THAT is going to affect negotiations and make it very difficult for Obama to get away with.

Yes that is true, but some credible criticisms I've read also ring true. First the Bibi path is also risky (war) and second Bibi framed the threat too much to be about saving Israel (possibly for election purposes) and not enough focus on the greater threats from Iran beyond towards Israel that would have had more relevance to the mainstream world audience. Yes he did mention that but the emotional emphasis was on Save The Jews from Holocaust 2.0.

(Because face it it's clear from history the world isn't much interested in saving the Jews.)

Come on, even a anti-semite might reconsider his disgusting values if he thought about millions of people being killed as in the holocaust.

Is that what you think of people in the western world? I dont think youre talking about people from the ME. Even though I think a overwhelming majority of muslims dont want a holocaust 2.0

Wake up.

Edited March 4, 2015 by BKKBobby

[Jingthing]

Yes, that is what I think based on history but going deeply into that is too off topic.

[Rancid]

Netanyahu apart from being defacto president is a psychopath and war criminal.

[jdinasia]

Netanyahu accomplished far less than he wanted imho

Sadly he probably did get a bump in the polls from his paranoid rhetoric.

That he was given the opportunity to speak certainly was wrong headed of the GOP.

[Publicus]

Sorry Netanyahu, but you haven't affected the negotiations in any meaningful way whatsoever, and now it's time to go home and face the voters.

He just informed the whole world that Obama has accepted the Iranian demand that any restrictions on its program be temporary. After that, the mad mullahs can produce as much enriched uranium as they want to and turn it into nuclear weapons. You can bet your bottom dollar THAT is going to affect negotiations and make it very difficult for Obama to get away with.

The world has confidence in the P5+1 in dealing effectively with a nuclear Iran and no confidence whatsoever in the hard liners everywhere who want to kill the negotiations with no peaceful alternative course having been presented or proposed.

No deal will lead to no deal, period. To Netanyahu no deal is a good deal and Netanayhu has been absolutely clear about it.

No deal means we would have an Iran under sanctions that may or may not be continued by the major governments and the UN alike, and an Iran with no constraints at all on the nuclear weapons program -- none -- that the hard liners in Iran want and are fiercely determined to pursue and obtain.

BTW: Congress is not involved daily with the negotiating teams of the P5+1, especially the negotiators from Russia and China, which means the 535 members of the House and Senate have no relationship,with Russian or Chinese and UK, German and French negotiators, foreign ministers, IAEA ambassadors, intelligence services, prime ministers and/or presidents and more.

The 535 members of Congress do not have a working knowledge of the negotiations or a working relationship with the several teams of international negotiators in Geneva which leaves the mobs in Congress in the position of a bunch of guys in T-shirts slouched on the sofa hollering and throwing shoes at the television.

Edited March 4, 2015 by Publicus

[Jingthing]

A humor break:

[Chicog]

Yes, that is what I think based on history but going deeply into that is too off topic.

I don't think the Jews are being singled out.

Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died and no-one really gives a toss.

A million Tutsi got butchered in Rwanda in a matter of months and the world sat and did nothing.

How many North Koreans have the muppet family starved to death?

Sadly, most people don't seem to bother unless it affects them directly.

[Bangkok Herps]

Yes, that is what I think based on history but going deeply into that is too off topic.

I don't think the Jews are being singled out.

Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died and no-one really gives a toss.

A million Tutsi got butchered in Rwanda in a matter of months and the world sat and did nothing.

How many North Koreans have the muppet family starved to death?

Sadly, most people don't seem to bother unless it affects them directly.

This is, sadly, extraordinarily true. And there are a hundred other examples. There are a certain % of people who care about the welfare of other humans across the world and are willing to actually willing to do something about it, a somewhat higher % who really do care but not enough to do anything, and a majority who only care about their own demographic.

[Chicog]

And for some reason we never hear about 10 million the Japanese killed in China and the estimated 50 million that Stalin put to death.

[Publicus]

Genocide or mass slaughters are not unique to the 20th century as numerous groups have been targeted on all continents for various purposes at different times throughout history.

In Western civilization one group has persistently been the target of the deranged and the demented, or simply the prejudiced, the bigoted, the pious, the religious. Sometimes some of my Jewish friends have asked me if they seem paranoid but I say to 'em they're only and just paying attention, which is good, and which seems to be a necessity.

[NeverSure]

Wow. (The unimportant) Bibi and (the unimportant) Republican Congress really got to some people, didn't they, LOL.

5 pages, days go by and it's still going.

[up-country_sinclair]

Wow. (The unimportant) Bibi and (the unimportant) Republican Congress really got to some people, didn't they, LOL.

5 pages, days go by and it's still going.

And in the end, what came of it?

Bupkis.

The P5+1 negotiations move forward as if this campaign speech never happened.

Well, that's not entirely true. Netanyahu managed to do something that Israel's enemies could never have done: He made Israel a partisan issue. Over 50 members of the US Congress (I believe all Democrats) boycotted his speech.

Kol ha kavod, Bibi!

[GentleGentile]

Neither Idi Amin, Saddam Hussein or the late Mr. Gaddafi were offered a prestigious Joint Session of Congress speech. But here comes Mr. “Being investigated for Crimes Against Humanity in Gaza” Netanyahu, getting the red carpet treatment from the Jewish Lobby branch in Congress, primarily the NeoCon Republicans, and too many Democrats who should know better.

Here he admitted he was trying to undermine and, if needed, reverse an international agreement by any means at his disposal. Our Congress is occupied Israeli territory here, an old joke that is really not a joke… but a significant national security threat.

This is a criminal maniac going about his business.

[GentleGentile]

Dear Mr. Netanyahu, we have come around now to being happy you are doing the speech, because we think it will be the downfall of your popularity in America.

We will review your history of being a nuclear threat, going back to your days in California, where you were part of an espionage team illegally exporting nuclear triggers. This is material released last year from declassified FBI files.

This is the start of an open letter to the world's biggest nuclear threat.

[GentleGentile]

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/03/04/the-end-of-netanyahu/

[tsigane]

Iranian mullahs worship a death cult that longs for End of Days. MAD would not deter them It would encourage them.

Finally you show your true colors... A Persian hater, nothing more.

[Steely Dan]

It seems the Chicago mobsters will even throw their own to the wolves if they don't tow the party line by favoring senate approval being required for any deal with Iran.

http://app.debka.com/p/newsupdate/10696/

[Publicus]

It seems the Chicago mobsters will even throw their own to the wolves if they don't tow the party line by favoring senate approval being required for any deal with Iran.

http://app.debka.com/p/newsupdate/10696/

Senate approval of a diplomatic agreement with Iran is not required unless it is a treaty and the pending agreement would necessarily be an agreement, it is not going to be a treaty.

The president has the authority in the Constitution to make an "Executive Agreement" with foreign governments that allows the president a Constitutional latitude to act independently and freely in such matters as these negotiations, which involve the P5+1 negotiators negotiating with Iran....that's the whole world pressuring Iran for an agreement.

The president and his team are negotiating with the other four permanent members of the UN Security Council, namely, Russia, UK, China, France plus Germany on the one side, and Iran on the other side. The president needs the executive latitude the Constitution provides for him to make this agreement on his own Constitutional authority and based on his own powers as president, head of state, chief diplomat of the United States, commander in chief.

It's the Constitutional system and scheme of an institutional balance of powers and the interaction of checks and balances. Sometimes the president can do something independently, sometimes he has to get Senate or House agreement to do something, or Supreme Court validation. This one concerning the P5+1, Iran, nuclear energy/ weapons, the president can do all by his lonesome self.

[Steely Dan]

Michael Curtis absolutely nails it when commenting on the petulance of Nancy Pelosi and her boss Narcissus.

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/5682/queen_esther_and_netanyahu

[chuckd]

Just for the record, Executive Agreements are not mentioned in the Constitution.

They came about as a result of a 1937 Supreme Court decision.

While it is true Obama may execute an Executive Agreement all "by his lonesome self", it is interesting to note that the next, or any successor, President may cancel Obama's Executive Agreement "by his lonesome self" as well.

[jazzyfrosty]

Netanyahu’s speech to Congress, in which he called Obama’s negotiation a “very bad deal,” generated plenty of umbrage in Washington. The Congressional Black Caucus protested the speech, Nancy Pelosi was insulted, President Obama dismissed it as containing ‘nothing new.’ All of this is significant for demonstrating that the Republican Senator from Israel gave such a deeply controversial speech to Congress that he threatens to make his country’s half-century alliance with the United States a partisan issue for the first time. But Netanyahu’s greatest slight was not to the government or the Democratic party or any particular leaders. Bibi’s greatest insult was to the American people.

[Publicus]

Just for the record, Executive Agreements are not mentioned in the Constitution.

They came about as a result of a 1937 Supreme Court decision.

While it is true Obama may execute an Executive Agreement all "by his lonesome self", it is interesting to note that the next, or any successor, President may cancel Obama's Executive Agreement "by his lonesome self" as well.

The president derives the authority to enter into a sole Executive Agreement with Iran from inter alia his Constitutional office as president, as head of state, as chief diplomatic officer, as commander in chief.

This president can on his own Constitutional authority make Executive Agreements involving each of the other governments of the P5+1 and with the government of Iran. This agreement with Iran and involving the five major world powers who are members of the UNSC is too complicated to submit to the 535 members of the House and the Senate.

The agreement must be implemented expeditiously and as agreed, which also precludes direct formal involvement by the Republican and destructive right wing naggers and quibblers in the Congress.

The Constitution recognizes a distinction between “treaties” and “agreements” or “compacts” but does not indicate what the difference is.392

http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-2/22-international-agreements-by-authorization.html

Executive agreements become of constitutional significance when they constitute a determinative factor of future foreign policy and hence of the country's destiny. In consequence particularly of our participation in World War II and our immersion in the conditions of international tension which prevailed both be fore and after the war, Presidents have entered into agreements with other governments some of which have approximated temporary alliances. It cannot be justly said, however, that in so doing they have acted without considerable support from precedent.

http://constitution.findlaw.com/article2/annotation12.html

The presidency has a second alternative to concluding a sole Executive Agreement, and that is pursuant to a treaty, in this instance of the US signing an Executive Agreement among the other governments, namely Iran, China, UK, Russia, France, Germany, the president can sign on the basis of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to which the US is a signatory (all the six countries have signed it). By citing an Iran nuclear agreement as related to the non-proliferation treaty, the president can also use his constitutional sole Executive Agreement making authority.

Many scholars have aggressively promoted the use of executive agreements, in contrast to treaties, as a means of enhancing the role of the United States, especially the role of the President, in the international system.

Edited March 7, 2015 by Publicus

[Ulysses G.]

Netanyahu’s speech to Congress, in which he called Obama’s negotiation a “very bad deal,” generated plenty of umbrage in Washington.

Over one quarter of Netanyahu’s speech to Congress consisted of applause and standing ovations and that was from a bipartisan audience. Say what you will, Obama is going to have a very difficult time forcing his BAD DEAL down America's throat, after Netanyahu exposed some of it's details to the world.

[Publicus]

Netanyahu’s speech to Congress, in which he called Obama’s negotiation a “very bad deal,” generated plenty of umbrage in Washington.

Over one quarter of Netanyahu’s speech to Congress consisted of applause and standing ovations and that was from a bipartisan audience. Say what you will, Obama is going to have a very difficult time forcing his BAD DEAL down America's throat, after Netanyahu exposed some of it's details to the world.

As Jon Stewart noted that night, it wuz "the longest bl*wjob ever received by a Jew."

Edited March 7, 2015 by Publicus

[phrodan]

Netanyahu’s speech to Congress, in which he called Obama’s negotiation a “very bad deal,” generated plenty of umbrage in Washington.

Over one quarter of Netanyahu’s speech to Congress consisted of applause and standing ovations and that was from a bipartisan audience. Say what you will, Obama is going to have a very difficult time forcing his BAD DEAL down America's throat, after Netanyahu exposed some of it's details to the world.

You'll find that the speech made it easier to sell the deal.

The Law of Unintended Consequences writ large.

[BKKBobby]

Netanyahu’s speech to Congress, in which he called Obama’s negotiation a “very bad deal,” generated plenty of umbrage in Washington.

Over one quarter of Netanyahu’s speech to Congress consisted of applause and standing ovations and that was from a bipartisan audience. Say what you will, Obama is going to have a very difficult time forcing his BAD DEAL down America's throat, after Netanyahu exposed some of it's details to the world.

He dont need to force it down Americas throat.

He just dont need to give a...

I bet 50 satang that he will follow the course he has taken, there will be a deal.

The american population gave their trust in Obama and now he have the possibility to use his own judgement in some instances without having to push something down anyones throat.

Deal or no deal?

Wait and see with popcorn and some soda.

Edited March 7, 2015 by BKKBobby

[Publicus]

Netanyahu’s speech to Congress, in which he called Obama’s negotiation a “very bad deal,” generated plenty of umbrage in Washington.

Over one quarter of Netanyahu’s speech to Congress consisted of applause and standing ovations and that was from a bipartisan audience. Say what you will, Obama is going to have a very difficult time forcing his BAD DEAL down America's throat, after Netanyahu exposed some of it's details to the world.

The danger in this is that Bibi is right and the world is wrong and Bibi is not going to stop until the entire world comes around to see the light as God has given Bibi the sight to see that light.

Heaven help us as this right wing extremist militarist goes about doing whatever he needs to do to prevail in the election on the 17th much as the Bushes did what they needed to do to prevail in the 2000 election abortion.

He's taken full flight.

Netanyahu enters never-never land Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to Congress was eloquent, moving and intelligent in identifying the problems with the potential nuclear deal with Iran. But when describing the alternative to it, Netanyahu entered never-never land, painting a scenario utterly divorced from reality. Congress joined him on his fantasy ride, rapturously applauding as he spun out one unattainable demand after another.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/netanyahu-enters-never-never-land/2015/03/05/2f279c3c-c372-11e4-ad5c-3b8ce89f1b89_story.html?wprss=rss_opinions

[up-country_sinclair]

say what you will, Obama is going to have a very difficult time forcing his BAD DEAL down America's throat, after Netanyahu exposed some of it's details to the world.

You keep posting this again and again on various threads but you never provide specifics on how this is supposedly going to happen.

What is it going to take for you to provide step-by-step details to support your claim?