So, Any thoughts on Bibi Netantahu's address to Congress

Forums: Politics, Israel, Iran, Middle East, Congress
Email this Topic • Print this Page

I'm watching Netanyahu on CNN, but I'm not sure if he is delivering anything new and I'm puzzled why Boenher thought this would be useful. I'm uncomfortable that the House didn't think it was important to consult with the President (it doesn't matter if you love or hate this president, I believe this is a reckless violation of protocol). Especially cringe worthy to me, was his speech severely lacking in original material, was delivered as if it was the State of the Union, with House and Senate Members standing and clapping after each tired piece of rhetoric was repeated.

I respect Israel as a strong ally of the United States, however I stop short of seeing the Prime minister of Isreal speaking as if he and the President of the United States are co-leaders of our country. I think Boehner has inadvertently set many precedents counter to years of protocol. Ever since this country was created, the House, the Senate and Commander in Chief have had to deal with each other regardless of their personal animus toward each other.
During Obama's time as President I've been shocked to see how easy it's been for Congress to display lack of respect in so many instances. But this is a dangerous precedent to set, will we have to endure such dysfunctional behaviour when the next president is elected, or will Congress decide it's time to conduct themselves in accordance with long established protocol.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 8 • Views: 28,676 • Replies: 429

@glitterbag,

Glitterbag...I think the Republicans have been making some horrendous moves for the last decade...

...but this one takes the cake.

This is beyond rude and insulting.

I only hope the American public makes them pay a heavy price for this abominable move.

3 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

I personally didn't watch it just out of pure protest, I am hoping it didn't get good ratings coming as it has in the middle of the morning on a weekday when a lot of people are at work.

What about senate democrats and house democrats, did they show up in numbers?

3 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

The problem as I see it is too many Americans have dulled their intellect with nonsense like 'Bridzillas', 'the real house wives of (enter location), shock radio and the like and seem to think outrageously rude behaviour is a great in your face way to show what an independent you are.

I suspect I know why Obama has been the target of such insulting behaviour, but what happens when the next President is sworn in. Will the Speaker of the house and majority leader refuse an invitation to the Oval Office to meet with the President because they have a calendar conflict????? Can you guess how long a Colonel would remain a Colonel if summoned to a Generals office and replied, now is not a good time, maybe tomorrow. 'Whatever Dude' is not the right answer. Congressional hearings have remained extremely ridged, Darrel Issa's head would explode if anyone refused or delayed attending one his public witch hunts. So, you can't disrespect the a House or Senate for fear of prosecution, but the potentates of Congress can publicly and intentionally snub the office of the President. It's startling, and unsustainable.

1 Reply

@glitterbag,

glitterbag wrote:

The problem as I see it is too many Americans have dulled their intellect with nonsense like 'Bridzillas', 'the real house wives of (enter location), shock radio and the like and seem to think outrageously rude behaviour is a great in your face way to show what an independent you are.

Maybe it's because I too am a guilty party for not paying that much attention to this political hullabaloo but I don't get the fuss over this one particular speech.

1. Nothing is going to happen in result of this speech.
a. Peace isn't going to come to the Middle East.
b. The Palestinian question will remain unresolved.
c. The Republicans can't thusly crow over their subsequent foreign policy accomplishment from allowing such a nonevent speech.

2. The Jewish demographic isn't going to overwhelmingly change their collective decades' worth of voting for the Democratic Party and suddenly vote Republican because of this one aberrant one off speech in front of a Republican held congress.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/jewvote.html

1 Reply

What Does Iran think of Netanyahu's interference?

0 Replies

@revelette2,

Beats me, Revelette. I did not watch it. It is political farce.

2 Replies

@revelette2,

I know a number of Democrats begged off, but insisted it wasn't a boycott. Joe Biden was not there, but generally it appeared the seats were full. However, unlike the State of the Nation, there were few close ups so some of those seats could have been filled with staffers. The Washington post printed the names of members who were not attending, but I would have to recheck to provide the names. Bernie Sanders said he would skip it, I think Charlie Rangel as well as about 20? Others.

Bibi painted a picture of mushrooms clouds, where have I heard that before. Bibi made mention of the help the US has provided to Israel, he said help, but more accurately he should have referred to Israel as a dependent of the US. I am ok with the massive amounts of aid we provide because Israel is a useful partner, my complaint it that Bibi never thinks it's enough, he's rattling sabers that he expects the US to deploy.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Wasn't really a question, it is a link to Juan Cole article. According to him, most of the hardliners don't really care, they don't believe the US has any intention of lifting sanctions anyway unless Iran bends al the way over backwards. Reformist and moderates remain hopeful and hope Obama does not listen to the "extremist" in the US congress.

0 Replies

@glitterbag,

Quote:

Secretary of State John Kerry on Wednesday slammed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's opposition to a potential nuclear deal with Iran, calling it as wrongheaded as the prime minister's backing of the Iraq War.

"Israel is safer today with the added time we have given and the stoppage of the advances in the nuclear program than they were before we got that agreement, which by the way the prime minister opposed," Kerry said during a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing. "He was wrong."

Kerry was later asked to address Netanyahu's criticism of a hypothetical deal with Iran as a threat to Israel.

"The prime minister was profoundly forward-leaning and outspoken about the importance of invading Iraq under George W. Bush," Kerry replied. "We all know what happened with that decision."

The secretary of state again pointed out that while Netanyahu opposed the interim deal reached with Iran in 2013, that accord froze the country's nuclear program. He warned that the prime minister shouldn't make another premature judgment about the nuclear talks going forward.

"We won't take a backseat to anybody in our commitment to the state of Israel, but [Netanyahu] may have a judgment that just may not be correct here," Kerry said.

source

1 Reply

@tsarstepan,

The only reason this is a problem, is because the House invited Bibi without consulting the President. It's an outrageous violation of protocol and an intentional insult to the office of the Presidency. I didn't see if anyone even bothered to engage the State department. Boehner overstepped the authority of his position and he can only hope that he appeared stronger and more decisive than the President, but what actually happened was Boehner anointed himself 'leader of the free world' for a day. What kind of message did Boehner sent to our allies and enemies? He broadcast that the House and Congress will undermine US policy when it suits them. He announced that the US is in disarray and ripe for exploitation. I'm not happy with this state of affairs, I don't want petty motivations of our politicians to endanger the safety of the American people.

0 Replies

@revelette2,

Revelette, I didn't write the item below.

quote="revelette2"]

Quote:

Secretary of State John Kerry on Wednesday slammed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's opposition to a potential nuclear deal with Iran, calling it as wrongheaded as the prime minister's backing of the Iraq War.

"Israel is safer today with the added time we have given and the stoppage of the advances in the nuclear program than they were before we got that agreement, which by the way the prime minister opposed," Kerry said during a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing. "He was wrong."

Kerry was later asked to address Netanyahu's criticism of a hypothetical deal with Iran as a threat to Israel.

"The prime minister was profoundly forward-leaning and outspoken about the importance of invading Iraq under George W. Bush," Kerry replied. "We all know what happened with that decision."

The secretary of state again pointed out that while Netanyahu opposed the interim deal reached with Iran in 2013, that accord froze the country's nuclear program. He warned that the prime minister shouldn't make another premature judgment about the nuclear talks going forward.

"We won't take a backseat to anybody in our commitment to the state of Israel, but [Netanyahu] may have a judgment that just may not be correct here," Kerry said.

source
[/quote]

1 Reply

Spent several minutes making this online. It would be a shame to let the visual joke go to waste now. Confused

My apologies in hindsight.

1 Reply

@tsarstepan,

ned to make the letters larger. Otherwise its worth a coupla bucks.

0 Replies

I have never liked the man. I think he is as big an obstacle to peace as anybody over there.

0 Replies

@glitterbag,

Sorry if I made it seem like you did. It is only what you said about Netanyahu use of the words "mushroom clouds" reminded me of the comments John Kerry made earlier this week or last week. Should have made that clear, my mistake.

He is right though, the same ones who are against more peaceful means of settling the Iran/nuclear program are the same ones who were beating the drums for the Iraq war, including Netanyahu.

0 Replies

@glitterbag,

Possibly the lack of congressional concern for the president relates to the presidents lack of concern for congress. Those executive orders are in the nature of lawmaking, which I believe is reserved for congress.

4 Replies

@roger,

Obama reached out to a hostile congress quite a few times before he had to resort to executive orders to get anything done.

4 Replies

@edgarblythe,

You mean he respects the separation of powers - until he doesn't get what he wants.

2 Replies

NYT's asks if BIBI is right. I ask "has he ever been right?"

I dont have a problem with him speaking before Congress as this issue is very important to Israel and they have had a long special relationship with us.While I dont think we needed to let Israel do this speech, it was a nice gesture.

0 Replies

So, Any thoughts on Bibi Netantahu's address to Congress

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know