Speech before Congress
BrotherDog 
chubby It's ok, unless that leader is in the midst of elections - then it becomes part of "their" campaign strategy...
pmnsk valid question brotherdog, but the refusal to allow politicians to co-opt our political system in order to make gains in their own makes sense to me, and has been our policy across presidencies - why, now, did congress choose to make this statement - to go against protocol that others have had in place? In order to instigate? - to create political tensions or lead people to make the statements/questions you offer in criticism of obama? - or their own other agenda? Could have/should have been handled differently imo.
5catmom No law against it. Go for it in this PC world. Protocol is not law. It just shows respect to one another. PC now has us more divided then ever. When we used to hold back emotions a little at times, is over. Just let HATE fly of our lips in all forms.
Old Gent Nothing wrong with it. Congress members have the choice of attending the speech or not. Free world!
botheredbyuu2 You are right; one of the only foreign leaders to adress congress was Churchill just after the bombing of Pearl Harbor.
The two others were French Ambassador Andre de Laboulaye in 1934, to mark the centennial of Lafayette and Cuban Ambassador Guillermo Belt inl 1948 to celebrate Cuban independence. Clearly the current speaker is not commemerative.
So sure, there's nothing wrong with the concept of a world leader address; one might question the timing given current negotiations, and the in-your-face very public style of the invite to a joint session but let's face it, style is not the forte of the current Congress.
For example, holding up the funding for Homeland Security over immigration and deportation as a style point. Isn't Homeland Security the guys who protect the border? Talk about radical extremism.
mistergoogle There is actually plenty of precedent for foreign leaders before Congress, it's just all modern day precedent that was set by Churchill. You'll not this is actually Bibi's second time around.
It's also not true about laws against it, there are very specific laws about how it happens by two types of vote, and whether it is a joint "session" for commeration or a joint "meeting" for all other purposes. The breach in protocol is more about Boehner organizing the whole speech in a deal with Netanyahu to keep the White House in the dark. Any joint meeting of Congress without a heads up to the Executive branch is just plain wrong as would be any Supreme Court meeting without Congress and the White House knowing.
Bibi could just as well make his speech in front of the UN, he's in the US and that would be easy enough to arrange. Instead Bibi announces he's going to reveal state secrets because he's already got his deal in place with Boehner. That's not right either, it's bullying for going public trying to scuttle the agreement, and it's bullying to let Congress floor space be used to score points against the President.
Not wrong in principle, there are any number of times when leaders are effective speakers in front of Congress. But it needs to be the right venue and it needs to be bipartisan.
GC 
Considering how our current administration treats the Israel/Palestine....and Iran issue, Bib's speaking in America MAKES it "bi-partisan".... Bibi is the balance that our own president refuses to have on the issue.
JeffersonRepub A Rice cartoon? How odd.
GC, while you are right in process, I think it has only happened four times for a foreign leader to address Congress in a joint session so it is unusual by definition although handled by a usual accepted process.
Mr G - More ironic than odd, Iran doesn't currently have anything in their hands but could if Bibi gets his way and scuttles the deal.
As for the process, it's not a "joint session". That's what I was saying about there actually is a rule against that. It would have to be for ceremonial purposes as there is a prohibition of actually being in session and conducting business. I believe the point of ceremony is it allows Congress to pass a motion in commemoration of the event, declare it "Lafayette Day", etc.
That's not what's going on here, it's not a commemorative event, and it's not Congress in session. They go on break, they have a "joint meeting" when there is no voting and no law making going on. That has happened a couple dozen times before, all post WWII. Including Bibi has addressed a Joint Meeting (not Session) before this time. It's considered the same as after the day is done all the times you see on CSPAN the terminally long winded have to read pages of diatribe on their favorite topic so it gets in the Congressional Record even though it has zero meaning.
The part of the process that was by passed was notification. If it was all on the up and up, everyone could have been notified months in advance, and it could be rescheduled for another month if need be. That's what's being averted.
How about this..... we have a Pres. that gives Executive orders that allow him, in his mind, to create new laws, policies etc. without involving Congress? and some are wondering if Congress can invite a world leader?
How about this.... where are the Courts in all this? The Constitution clearly grants certain powers to certain branches. The Court, for example is responsible for Declaring actions of either the POTUS or The Congress unconstitutional if deemed so. That tends to work real well.
let's be honest nowI really think I'll take the Obama administration's stance on Iran talk to them put a little pressure on them nudge them away from making nuclear weapons because the alternative is to put somebody's loved ones on the ground to be killed and that's what it's going to take if negotiations and pressure don't work JeffersonRepub it's obvious you have never been in a combat zone because if you were you would hope and pray that the Obama administration succeeds in their talks and not this Yahoo from Israel who is like a lot of people in Congress never met a war they didn't like as long as there constituents make money off of it and they get to send someone else's kids to fight it
Jaywhy- 
Ollie 
DaveDigsDucats 
snowsvcks I thought it was great. And the talking points are out." Sounded like Dick Cheney, fear mongering, didn't want to be part of a commercial, he acted like a child" While they act like a bunch of babies Iran moves forward with obtaining a nuke.
Well, now we know how BiBi feels and how Obama feels. Now lets wait to see whats in the proposal, if we ever do before it's voted on. I just found out how Garrett feels
Dear Friend,
Today Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed Congress about the ongoing threat of Iran’s nuclear proliferation program. The radical Iranian regime is a known sponsor of terrorism and, as a member of the Conference Committee that considered the Iran Sanctions Act, I agree with Prime Minister Netanyahu that allowing them to have nuclear weapons would have a devastating impact on the Middle East, on our allies, and most importantly, on the United States.
Currently, Secretary of State John Kerry is beginning another round of negotiations to put an end to Iran’s nuclear arms race by the end of this month. While we have seen deadlines for these negotiations pass time and time again, we must act now as Iran could be only months away from having enough nuclear material to create a bomb. Unlike the administration, I believe tougher sanctions must be implemented immediately. The United States can in no way allow Iran to continue their hunt for nuclear weapons.
The Iranian regime has shown they cannot be trusted for a number of reasons. They have refused to answer basic, longstanding questions from the International Atomic Energy Agency about their nuclear ambitions, they sponsor terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, and they have repeatedly proclaimed that the state of Israel should be violently destroyed.
I will continue to call on President Obama and Secretary Kerry to negotiate an agreement that ends Iran’s nuclear ambitions once and for all. Again, I thank Prime Minister Netanyahu for sharing his unique insight on this growing threat to the safety and security of the United States and its allies.
Sincerely,
(signed)
Scott Garrett
Nice, if we're including other people, let's not leave out good ol' Rudy....
(yes, the link is to Foxnews- but it's a 2-part video of Giuliani's recent speech on the Israel/USA/Iran issue...)
http://nation.foxnews.com/2015/02/19/watch-giuliani-destroys-obama-epic-speech-netanyahu-man-who-fights-his-people-unlike-our
Here's a link to the transcript of Giuliani's speech, for those who don't want to take the time to watch the video:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/02/22/giuliani_on_obamas_iran_negotiations_playing_poker_with_a_guy_who_cheated_you_twice_who_does_that_a_moron.html
My favorite part:
"The president reformer who runs Iran, Rouhani, in ’03 and ’05 continued to enrich uranium while they had a standstill agreement with us. He did it secretly and bragged about it, and we’re negotiating with them. This is like playing poker with a guy who cheated you twice before. You know who does that? A moron. "
I don't think that having a foreign leader speaking before Congress is really an issue. Supposedly, we elect them for their wise judgement.
Our representatives are so thoroughly corrupted, delusional and/or stupid that having said foreign leader do so.... and get so much publicity for doing so...could be related to propagating just another neo-facist line item on their agenda.
Remember, the resources you are asked to commit to this agenda include your tax dollars, your loved ones (in the military) and your long-term national security (which encompasses a lot more than just the "terrorist threat")
BTW, are you referring to "this" guy? He has enough credibility problems that I wouldn't trust him to clean my cat's litterbox: http://tinyurl.com/p5w9rjy
jjmonth4 strong leader who gave a good outline of the current situation
spoke well,
sure wish we had a president who is a strong leader who speaks well,
Net on Net's speech: mostly true: http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/03/politics/netanyahu-speech-5-claims/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/03/netanyahu-speech-congress-fact-check_n_6792054.html
That said, so buck up Congress and pass the stricter sanctions. You've "owned' Congress since 1/1/2015. What, not even talking about it until the next deal falters? Grow a pair.
Meanwhile, I agree with Oldred +1 on this one. You can rattle the saber all you want but at the end of the day, I do not want to commit our boys to save an Israel that might face a nuclear bomb someday. Because after we level the place from a relatively safe altitude with "death from above," we have found that the mop up is costly. Remember the brave 4,500 dead to save us and Israel from Iraq before you create a new memory. There's still plenty time to wait on that.
And if you're fraid of Muslim's with enriched uranium, they already have it in Pakistan.
Mostly true is par for the course for CNN and Huffpo I guess. I've been waiting for Congress to do their job for 6 plus years.
I saw the news about the speech. Didn't read the article or watch the speech, don't care to hear the propaganda. This was done for someone's political agenda (as is every speech in the political world) and not worth even the time to write this post.
justintime Bibi is a very passionate speaker so the comments about a dynamic speech aren't surprising. But why did Boehner go out on a limb for this? Bibi promised something we never heard before. He gave us everything we heard 20 years ago in his first Congressional address. If he was such a great leader and achieved his goals, why is he doing the exact same thing all over again? Bibi even shot himself in his own foot to some extent - he said Isreal will still be standing no matter what. In which case, what does he need us for anyway?
Emotionally powerful, certainly. But ineffective and lacking substance. In the end, if Iran gets anything really close to nuclear capability, Israel will bomb the daylights out of it and not ask anyone else's permission. That's why there are no alternatives in the speech.
Vuja de - The feeling you've had deja vu before. (ie akin to Yogi Berra "deja vu all over again")
No more lacking in substance than anything our president has said or done. The middle east is on fire and I'm sure our president will find time to pick his march madness brackets. Now there's substance for you.
netanyahu has to do what he must to protect Israel in the face of this anti-semitic administration led by oresident obama who is an anti-semite at his core
A nuclear bomb against Israel would kill two million Palestinians and make the region unlivable for a long time. It also would result is a massive retaliation. Don't see Iran doing anything like that, if they acquire the bomb.
(But yes, of course the threat of nuclear war/nuclear terrorism/nuclear accidents is real and dreadful, agree.)
jd2 "Mostly true is par for the course for CNN and Huffpo I guess." Only par, why is that?
"sad to say, but i think we will see a nuclear war in our lifetimes" A statement that could be made every year since 1950 or so.
"The middle east is on fire and I'm sure our president will find time to pick his march madness brackets." yet another statement that could be made every year since 1950 or so.
" anti-semitic administration led by oresident obama who is an anti-semite at his core" Got facts?
+1 jd2
Wow. Brotherdog, please back up your statement that the President is an anti-semite.
gadfly I think Israel is worthless to the U.S. Does that make me an anti-semite? Obama is pushing for a Palestinian state and is holding Israel accountable for some of their actions. Israel is no longer innocent in this conflict. Gee, real antisemitic.
It's amazing to me that conservatives are so vehemently opposed to illegal immigration and yet Israel is the result of illegally displacing a race of people for another.
emaxxman Yeah, let's see the Republicans deport 15 million people without a tax increase.
obama's actions imo are rabidly anti-semitic, he works against the valid security interests of the Jewish people at every opportunity, obama demonstrates over and over again that he is anti-jewish and anti-semitic, and he lies about supporting Israel, he really doesn't want to do it.
and that's a form of racism is it not?
it's time to call him and his administration out on it,
thank god netanyahu got an opportunity to lay out the situation clearly before congress, this puts the backroom giveaways that obama is orchestrating right now in a clear light. the administration is back on it's heels right now, (good!) and they are mightily peeved at netanyahu and Israel, and it is showing in their communications how they really feel. the dems got their panties in bunch over this historic and great speech and are in full attack mode, i fully expect to be roundly attacked here personally by the usual h-life entrenched liberals who still have their rose colored glasses all fogged up by the light of their Savior, but it remains that obama is anti-semitic in his approach to Israel
time to call him out on it,
Ok, so to be clear you have no concrete reasons to call the a President antisemitic. It's just more name calling. Just wants to give you a chance to back up your outrageous claims.
so what's a concrete reason? you get to decide what's concrete or not? your question sets up it's own predetermined conclusion, that 's your particular style of rhetoric for sure , but it's not applicable in this case, and it's not name calling if it's true, from where i sit, it's true, obama's actions at their core are anti-semitic and many of my Jewish friends also believe it's true, and more and more Jewish people (and some long time democrats) out in hollywood are coming to grips with this, they are changing their minds about this president.
i say good, it's about time.
Consider this hypothetical statement:
George W Bush is a viscous racist. Bush's actions are at there core racist. Many of my black friends are saying it. I expect to be criticized by the crazy conservatives that consider him perfect, but the fact remains that Bush was very racist in his approach to Africa.
Now, have I actually said anything meaningful? Have I proved the point? Or have I just blustered and hurled insults without any providing any concrete basis for my claims?
"but it remains that obama is anti-semitic in his approach to Israel"
Specific policies BD? I usually ignore any discussion that mentions antisemitism because it's usually a cop out IMO, kind of like when someone uses the phrase "white supremacist". That's bound to be a 99% emotional discussion rather than rational in either case.
That was some speech by Bibi... it sounded REALLY familiar....
http://theweek.com/articles/542072/sky-isnt-falling-benjamin-netanyahu-credibility-iranian-threat
ianimal 
The anti-semitic claim is a red herring unless everytime someone speaks against Israeli interests, policies, and programs one is deemed it. I guess since BDog has spoken against Obama, he is racist too.
Obama has agreed less with Israel than most Presidents to the point of cedeing a significant traditionally Democratic voting block. He must really believe in the success of negotiation with Iran because his political risk in this gambit is huge. His current negotiations even if "successful" may further threaten the entire Democratic party depending on how the deal is struck, if there even is one. If there isn't, I guess Bibi will be coming to the White House for dinner again.
Meanwile away from the strategic politicking and back to "oh god, oh god, we're all gonna die. While Bibi's speech was indeed familiar, and we would fault him if if wasn't; he has now updated his "it's cartoon-simple why we must go to war" theory from time-to-make-a-bomb to "breakout time" which he claims is incredibly short. Via the UN-presented Wile E. Coyote-style bomb diagram ending in a bomb in 2013, he now uses the breakout period which he said " Iran's breakout time would be very short -- about a year by U.S. assessment, even shorter by Israel's." Amazingly, while the metrics he is judging by (breakout versus bomb) have changed, we still only have less than a year, even though it's 3-years since we had the last year before the Iranian nuclear bomb according to Bibi.
Sounds even scarier than the bomb diagram, which apparently was a Netanyahu error by at least 18 months now and still counting. But what is breakout? And is life as we know it over right after Iran breaks out? Breakout is defined as the time to make enough enriched uranium to make a bomb. Is that a bomb? Hardly.
It's the explosive stuff to make a bomb. You still have to refine the stuff, build a bomb, probably want to test the bomb, and when all this is done ---- you can actually make a bomb. If the first test is beyond perfect of course. And then you need to test it with your existing delivery systems or pray that you have a plug n play nuclear delivery solution. We're not even sure North Korea has viable long range missles; Iran has no long range missles and best guess is they couldn't before 2020 ----- at best. Again, to have a viable long range missle --- testing, testing, testing.
In case you missed it, the key point is test. And any test will not be secret; we always know.
So yes, Israel has a real probem, Iran's current missles can reach them. But Iran is not one year away from a bomb and Isreal will have plenty of warning before they are capable of delivering one. The only thing Netanyahu's breakout has in common with his last inaccurate estimate of a Iranian nuclear bomb delivery is the one year to doom to act scenario --- that has not changed.
Here's some background on what it takes: http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/3/2/five-misconceptions-about-iran-nuclear-talks.html
oh, it's not just me, here's one from 2013, an anti--semitic action by obama :
"because he is a hard-core, anti-Israel fanatic who believes that Israeli power represents the chief threat to peace in the Middle East."
This week, President Barack Obama doomed Israel to a choice between unpalatable options: either striking at Iran's nuclear facilities in its own defense and thereby internationally isolating itself, or watching as its most ardent enemy goes nuclear. The deal, put into place with Iran by the Obama administration, allows Iran to continue developing nuclear-enrichment processes, encompasses virtually no real monitoring standards and grants cash to a regime busily preparing for a second Holocaust.
Obama made the conscious decision to shove Israel into this corner for two reasons. First, because he is an egotist determined to divert attention from his domestic political woes. Second, because he is a hard-core, anti-Israel fanatic who believes that Israeli power represents the chief threat to peace in the Middle East.
http://townhall.com/columnists/benshapiro/2013/11/27/obama-sinks-israel-n1753828/page/full
being silent in the face of threats of annihilation thereby co-enabling the ones making the threats of genocide is anti-semitic
and there are many more examples of this from obama himself, susan rice and sec of state john kerry, (and others, denying that there were anti-semitc attacks on Jews in the kosher deli at the state level and in the white house briefing room is anti-semitic, they tried to walk it back later in the day by weasel-tweeting lies about their positions, but they both revealed themselves as anti-semtic)
trust me, i am not the only one who thinks so, many others are starting to wake up to the fact that this current administration is no friend to Israel, waking up to the fact that obama, susan rice, josh earnest, john kerry, jen psaki and marie harf all display their contempt for israel on a regular basis, that's anti-semitic in and of itself in my view
because Jewish lives matter, that's why.
btw, gadfly; many african-americans (and others) did proclaim that bush was racist when he was president. were they right? or were they wrong? did they have any 'concrete' reasons to make the claim?
BD, please keep posting as often as you like. The entertainment value is off the charts.
yankeefan Speak and then ask for another 300 million (see my newer thread). When will this insanity end?
What about all of the misery in Africa, I guess they don't matter as much as a fairer-skinned Jew already living a First World life in Israel...
iJay Obama commented on the speech, even though he didn't bother to listen to it, or the tapes of it! It would be nice if Congress would concern itself with protecting its hard working American citizens, before working on the rest of the world's problems. When will Congress choose to work for US? And when can we impeach this Non- Presidential buffoon?
fussylady Netanyahu gave almost the same exact speech to a congressional committee in 2002 look it up about the dangers of Iraq being nearly ready to produce nuclear weapons and how the world needs to stop it will tell me how did that turn out this clown now comes to the US again about the dangers of Iran gives the same speech to get the United States to do his dirty work and the Republicans fall for it hook line and sinker if you are too dumb to remember history you're going to repeat it
Israel bombed nuclear facilities in Syria and Iraq. Israel has an unofficial inventory of 200 nuclear bombs. Hmmmm, no wonder the Arabs don't like them...
Israel is in survival mode. It is behaving in a very selfish manner to guarantee its security. It has worked so far, but such behavior will not protect them in the long run. For example, how long can they keep nuclear technology from Iran. Iran is an advanced nation. Technology we deployed in the 1940s just won't be kept from them forever...
"being silent in the face of threats of annihilation thereby co-enabling the ones making the threats of genocide is anti-semitic"
First, we aren't silent. Second, this does not necessarily make you anti anything nor is it co-enabling. Likewise, Ben Shapiro is wrong when he says Israel only has two choices; it's just wrong.
We are negotiating for a peaceful solution before we take other steps. We have plently of time before we take a few days to level Iran and then decades to mop up our mess and lifetimes to mourn our dead kids.
That said, sure Netanyahu has every right to speak his piece and tell us once again, as he has for over a decade, that we have one year before doomsday (even if he needs to redefine what doomsday means). And Congress has every right to listen to him.
If Netanyahu belonged to our "company," he would be fired. If we had taken him into our confidence re: "the deal," he would no longer be in our confidence. He is playing a dangerous game leveraging the American Jewish vote and just-say-no Obama detractors against futher Isreali war machine funding which many have issues with without this bru-ha-ha.
Netanyahu says this is a bad deal but we don't know the specifics. Netanyahu says we have one year but that's to breakout and that's just an interim step to reaching a bomb which, in itself, is just an interim step to reaching a missle-based bomb delivery systems capable of reaching the U.S. Basically Netanyahu has spun the danger conjoining Isreal's danger with U.S. antisemitism if we don't agree leaving out that Israel's safety, to date, is based on U.S. funding, technology, and military support.
Just shut up and sit down. Let the deal flow. Both Israel and the U.S. have plenty of time to level Iran if the situation calls for it. Building a bomb takes forever. Building a delivery system that can reach the U.S. takes longer. We can level Iran in a few days.
Maybe it's time to call James Taylor to sing us a chorus of " You've Got a Friend."
Or how about one of the administration's famous # slogans. #why can't we be friends.
I'm shocked (not really) anyone thinks Iran can be trusted, after having not complied with 2 previous agreements we had with them. What makes you think 3rd times the charm? Is Obama THAT charismatic? LOL
Iran has proven they can't be trusted- and they have given us no new reasons to trust them.
from Giuliani's speech:
"The president reformer who runs Iran, Rouhani, in ’03 and ’05 continued to enrich uranium while they had a standstill agreement with us. He did it secretly and bragged about it, and we’re negotiating with them. This is like playing poker with a guy who cheated you twice before. You know who does that? A moron. "
That's a possibility. Only if John Kerry stands there and sways to the music as it's being sung. #how to make America look stupid again
Mister G, we have to stop the level the world attitude. All great nations have fallen and if we have any chance of surviving another 500 years then we need to be the benevolent leader of the world (with a big stick out of view)...
Its not just the Israelis who are afraid of what a nuclear Iran will be like. The Saudis, Jordanians, Turks and others are fearing the day. Iran has its tentacles all over the region and is the major sponsor of terrorism. Not sure what the deal is but the Iranian's put a squash on some restrictions that was supposedly part of the deal the other day. Whatever the deal is I think it has to be approved by Congress.
kb2755 All great nations save one have fallen? Oh no, the great nation of England has fallen? No wait, they lost the Revolution, bought the country instead, and then got them to be the world's policeman. Good deal for a great nation.
Bear in mind that I am not for a bad deal with Iran. Sure, they can't be trusted, neither can we it turns out. Remember Iraq and WMDs? Remember the dead babies in inncubators in Kuwait? Remember being attacked by a armed canoe in Vietnam? Matter of fact, I would say a huge percentage of Americans don't trust Obama even a little bit just like many here at HL just don't trust their own government. Frankly I think that's a good thing as long as you don't go tin foil hat about it. And sure, no one likes nuclear bombs, and other Middle East countries don't like other Middle East Countries, no duh. We don't like half our neighbors and we don;'t even have many. So let them handle the situation in their own back yard. Isn't that what our "foreign aid" is for?
Hopfully, any deal will be a "trust but verify" arrangement which is one we need at home as well. Sure, they lie, they cheat, they can't be trusted, but isn't that worth the risk of saving our kids lives? I mean there is no immediate risk to the U.S. so do we have to die because Isreal says they only have one year (which is a lie they have been purportrating for almost a decade now).
While negotiations drag on, as Iran usually likes to do, I have no problem with lobbing greater sanctions at them. I previously said Congress should man-up, quit the rhetoric, and have the guts to pass further sanctions. Let Democrats stall them, let the President veto them, personally I say call them out --- you're on the side of the angels on this one. Heck, Obama might publicly hem and haw over sanctions, but behind the scenes he would probably be applauding. How dare the Republicans, who have no issues with slapping the President in the face via Netanyahu, not take sanction action? Oh yeah, that would be called legislation and that's not what they came to Congress for.
But drop the dime and go to war before Iran has even tested a bomb? Drop the dime and go to war when Iraq is perhaps one year to breakout but many years to developing a viable bomb (and we will know when they test)? Drop the dime and go to war when their long range missle development is 20 years out? Carry our big stick, draw the line in the sand today as Netanyahu wants? Nope, I don't want to send our sons to die because Netanyahu tells us to. I don't want to send our sons to die when the U.S. is in no immenient danger. I don't want to launch a preemptive strike and then be left as the major player to clean up the mess. We call that Iraq with over 4,500 of our children not returning home.
I say give the deal a chance before we do what Netanyahu wants; we have the time.
Mistergoogle,
Netanyahu specifically said that the alternative to the deal isn't war, it is a better deal. He mentioned the Iranians bluffing in a Persian Bazaar which I found quite humorous.
If his mouth says he doesn't think war is the alternative, why are you saying "I don't want to send our sons to die because Netanyahu tells us to". He went to pains to say he did not want war, just a better deal.
TM
Troublemaker He also said his purpose was not political; just convenient it came just before his next election.
He also said:
"We must all stand together to stop Iran's march of conquest, subjugation and terror."
"In this deadly game of thrones, there's no place for America or for Israel, no peace for Christians, Jews or Muslims who don't share the Islamist medieval creed, no rights for women, no freedom for anyone."
"Iran could soon be armed with intercontinental ballistic missiles and nuclear bombs." (this is a lie.)
"So why would anyone make this deal? Because they hope that Iran will change for the better in the coming years, or they believe that the alternative to this deal is worse?"
And then he makes the statement you allude to with caveats as to what he expects as "the perfect deal," a utopian result that is an impossibility.
OK, he thinks it's a bad deal and has revealed some conclusions from the unstruck deal he says anyone can know to illusttrate it's badness. That;s a good thing and I woulp hope we walk on the deal if those continue to stand. He made his point on those and that's a good thing. However, his alternative, a better deal, though has about as much chance of passing Netanyahu's metric of success than any of Israel's efforts to find peace with Palestine. So a better deal that makes Netanyahu happy probably does not exist so where does that leave you? With what Netanyahu really wants, a line in the sand, and action within a year, his metric for danger from the bomb.
I say let's not do that and let's see the deal. The sanctions are UN, not US so don't have to be removed on a bad deal. Nothing has to change if the world does not like the deal. And then we can draw the line in the sand, probably with the next President. We have the time.
Bibi never did illiterate what a "better deal" would BE...to him. Unlike Giuliani.... (I have a feeling this is also what Bibi wants, but isn't politically suicidal enough to say it in front of the US press)
" An agreement with Iran with regard to nuclear power should be very simple. Iran should not be allowed to have any form of nuclear power." -Rudy Giuliani
(if you read/watch his speech, Rudy, before making this final statement, described WHY Iran doesn't NEED nuclear POWER... let alone nuclear weapons.)
Mistergoogle,
I guess the big question is what is the deal? When are we going to find out, I wonder.
TM
We'll find out IF there is to be a deal.
IF so, will they keep to it? Will we? We're so alarmingly dysfunctional now. They too have groups pulling in opposite directions.
So so difficult.
Probably with the 'NEXT' President, What the hell does that mean? Two years and two months from now. What's wrong with this "CURRENT" president? To much for him to handle. Are you absolutely sure there's enough time? I don't know. Is there a time frame? No deal with Iran I say. No nukes for Iran I say. The only thing our current sitting garbage wants is to make the playing field level in the middle east. Why? So when the bombs start flying everybody gets a chance. That's nuts. The liberal US has been stuffing the equal playing field down our throats for 40 years. What have they accomplished?? More hatred, more diversity, more division. I have never in my lifetime seen more hatred for our fellowman than what has erupted in the past 15 years. Now we have ISIS. These people are dangerous. They have had six years to regroup, look how far they've come. Have you been watching the news the past few months? So what your saying mcg let Iran develop the bomb and test it. Where in the hell do you think they will test it? In their back yard? Hell no. It will go directly to Israel for testing. Iran- lets not waste a bomb on unnecessary testing when we can wipe out a few Jews at the same time. It seems to me what your saying is, we should have let Hitler finish what he set out to do.
auntiel Time for a bit of education. The translation of Iran's supreme leader was translated incorrectly. When they said wipe Israel off the map they meant the government of Israel, not the physical country. They want the country to go back to Palestinian rule. Now for someone like Netanyahu this is the same thing, but for the objective outsider it is not...
Wrong, there are at least 200k Jews in Iran. Governments can't change?
Palestine->Israel->Palestine
People like Netanyahu would rather nuke Iran and/or cost thousands of US soldier lives and 100s of billions of dollars rather than return Israel to what it was previously...
It simply means that if a deal is struck, this President won't break the deal but the next one will have no problem breaking it. Doesn't matter what party they are from.
" Are you absolutely sure there's enough time?" Yes. We have years re the bomb and decades re a intercontinental missle able to hit the US.
"Where in the hell do you think they will test it? In their back yard? Hell no. It will go directly to Israel for testing." Good, because that will not only be a very low yield bomb with less than 1/3 the punch of our WWII drops if trash can sized but only 1/3 of that if suitcased sized. But also practically have almost zero chance of success and every chance of disclosure.
Equating my opinion to negotiate before sending our boys to war as being like Hilter is absurd and distasteful. Chamberlin perhaps, but Hitler is inflamatory, rude, and a complete lie.
Your opinion that we should not deal but take action with a preemptive war cost us 4,500 young Americans last time we went witch-hunting WMDs and a tyrant in a 7-year War that threatens to drag us back in again. I say sanctions and negotiations; we have time before we ask our children to die on a preemptive war.
"Protocol is not law. It just shows respect to one another."
I wonder it is that this President did to deserve disrespect.
LeRoy Grimace I do agree that when you make the terrible decision to go to war, that you go 110% for the win. Terrible because even if right, war is an awful thing that lasts generation even if the war only last days.
Chamberlain, perhaps in this case JR. Time will tell, but I really doubt it will ever be a WWII level mistake even if it was one. Isreal has the Iron Dome; they have many nukes, and like I keep saying, there is plenty of time, and easily recognizable testing, between breakout (1 year) and bomb (many years and test detectable unless you take Auntiel's ridiculous strategy). And even then, that's a bomb with no missle capable to reach our shores; that's another couple of decades away.
But if you have read even a modest number of my rants, I don't think Chamberlain or dove would ever come to mind. I just believe war is the last recourse. And we are in such a position of military superiority, that we should restrain from sending our kids to die, to return physically and mentally wounded --- to pass those wounds on to the next generation, until the last possible moment using every other resource in our command to avert the death of our kids.
While I would listen to Netayahu, I most certainly would not blindly do what he says.
We actually agree on this issue more than we disagree, mg. One problem: we DON'T KNOW *what* Bibi said, other than "a better deal". LOL What is that supposed to mean? For example, if it means "send US troops", he can forget it. If it means "stop negotiating with terrorists (Iran)", I agree. If it means "look the other way when we airstrike their reactor", I agree.
The thing I like about a back-handed compliment is that it doesn't leave finger prints :>)
Actually JR, Bibi made the bigger, better, deal metrics in his speech. It's just that he would never get all of them and, of course to Bibi, that's not a deal.
But they are:
"We can insist that restrictions on Iran's nuclear program not be lifted for as long as Iran continues its aggression in the region and in the world.
Before lifting those restrictions, the world should demand that Iran do three things. First, stop its aggression against its neighbors in the Middle East. Second...
Second, stop supporting terrorism around the world.
And third, stop threatening to annihilate my country, Israel, the one and only Jewish state."
And if there is a deal:
"If the world powers are not prepared to insist that Iran change its behavior before a deal is signed, at the very least they should insist that Iran change its behavior before a deal expires.
If Iran changes its behavior, the restrictions would be lifted. If Iran doesn't change its behavior, the restrictions should not be lifted.
If Iran wants to be treated like a normal country, let it act like a normal country."
OK. Well then- sounds like a "better deal" to me! Just chock full of common sense. So.... Obama not on board? Whyyyyyyyy could that be, I wonder?
For all we know, that is the deal. We only have Bibi's word at this point.
And the devil's in the details; Bibi does not say "nuclear," he says "aggression" which might mean any form of nuclear research, including power or whatever. It's nebulous fer sure.
JeffersonRepub Thanks for the history lesson I guess when I went to school they were teaching me wrong they told me that the Allied army's beat Germany now after all these years I find out we did it
Like Bibi's word about WMDs in Iraq when he was a private consultant circa 2002? Only a fool would listen to this schemer...
oldred as usual i have no idea what you are talking about but thats ok because as usual i dont think you do either have a nice day
"Make the enemy beg us to stop."
JR, maybe Oldred was referring to this comment of yours above. While this can be said about Japan, in the case of Germany it was thoroughly beaten militarily. In addition to US and others capturing western Germany, Soviet troops fought into Berlin right to Hitler's bunker.
Interesting take related to this topic. Yes, it's an opinion piece.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-zogby/obama-won-so-did-netanyah_b_8091984.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592
Great, we are borrowing like no tomorrow:
"...little will change in the short term. Israel will continue to get massive amounts of US assistance, with bipartisan support. "
What is going on, I guess Israel is Mecca and we are all Muslims...
Commenting is no longer available.