Powerful Speech...Thank You PM Netanyahu

[homersapien 11,379]

You are delusional. No one in their right mind would say that Obama is the one treating Netanyahu shabbily.

He deliberately ignored our sensible policy of not entertaining foreign heads of state just before an election. And he deliberately arranged for the visit with Boehner - using a state secretary with GOP ties - without notifying Obama. And this was specifically to weigh in against Obama's efforts to seek a negotiated solution. Boehner, for his purpose, simply wanted to attack Obama.

Obama should have refused to let him in the country.

Senile old troll. Nothing else.

Reports: Netanyahu 'Humiliated' by Obama Snub

For a head of government to visit the White House and not pose for photographers is rare. For a key ally to be left to his own devices while the President withdraws to have dinner in private was, until this week, unheard of. Yet that is how Benjamin Netanyahu was treated by President Obama on Tuesday night, according to Israeli reports on a trip viewed in Jerusalem as a humiliation.

After failing to extract a written promise of concessions on settlements, Obama walked out of his meeting with Netanyahu but invited him to stay at the White House, consult with advisers and “let me know if there is anything new”, a U.S. congressman, who spoke to the Prime Minister, said.

“It was awful,” the congressman said. One Israeli newspaper called the meeting “a hazing in stages”, poisoned by such mistrust that the Israeli delegation eventually left rather than risk being eavesdropped on a White House telephone line. Another said that the Prime Minister had received “the treatment reserved for the President of Equatorial Guinea”.

Left to talk among themselves Netanyahu and his aides retreated to the Roosevelt Room. He spent a further half-hour with Obama and extended his stay for a day of emergency talks to try to restart peace negotiations. However, he left last night with no official statement from either side. He returned to Israelyesterday isolated after what Israeli media have called a White House ambush for which he is largely to blame.

Sources said that Netanyahu failed to impress Obama with a flow chart purporting to show that he was not responsible for the timing of announcements of new settlement projects in east Jerusalem. Obama was said to be livid when such an announcement derailed the visit to Israel by Joe Biden, the Vice-President, this month and his anger towards Israel does not appear to have cooled.

Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, cast doubt on minor details in Israeli accounts of the meeting but did not deny claims that it amounted to a dressing down for the Prime Minister, whose refusal to freeze settlements is seen in Washington as the main barrier to resuming peace talks

Barry is a petulant, amateur, spoiled little man-child compared to many of the other world leaders.

"Senile old troll"? That's pretty good. And it's refreshing to see something new.

Look, the idea that Netanyahu feels "snubbed" is ludicrous. He didn't even bother to pick up the phone and call Obama after he decided to come. (And I say "decided" as who really knows who invited whom?)

Of course Netanyahu knew Obama didn't want him to come and he understood the reasons. But he had several reasons to come, one was to punk Obama. And he pretty much did that.

In fact, I am really surprised you aren't playing the "Obama-got-punked" spin instead of the "Netanyahu-was-snubbed" thing, which is hilarious on it's face.

Either way, you suffer from a severe case of ODS.

[selias 2,398]

I didn't read the transcript nor did I listen to the speech. I have read a few summaries and that's about as far as I'll take it. Netanyahu is right, you cannot expect Iran to negotiate in good faith. It's not going to happen. However, that doesn't mean the next step is automatically war.

For what it's worth, I don't care who snubbed who. It doesn't make a lick of difference to me that Obama refused to meet with Netanyaho this week. I also didn't care that Obama was upset about Israeli snubs. Politicians, by and large, have the emotional maturity of your average 15 year old...regardless of country or political affiliation.

[TitanTiger 20,483]

Well, Netanyahu also have another good point...this framing of working this deal or heading to war is a false dichotomy. As he said, the only alternative to this bad deal isn't war, it's working out a better deal.

[selias 2,398]

Well, Netanyahu also have another good point...this framing of working this deal or heading to war is a false dichotomy. As he said, the only alternative to this bad deal isn't war, it's working out a better deal.

Then he should use the opportunity to sack up and present a better solution. The speech to Congress today was just grandstanding.

[homersapien 11,379]

Netanyahu's favorable rating in the U.S.improves. Nearly twice as many Americans approve of him as disapprove.....45% to 24% according to Gallup poll. Even Dems evenly split at 31%.

http://www.gallup.co..._campaign=tiles

i am proud that He spoke to Congress. We need more Men and Leaders like Him in our World!!!

Yes, yes we do.

Yeah, he sounds like a real stud all right. :-\

"Sources said that Netanyahu failed to impress Obama with a flow chart purporting to show that he was not responsible for the timing of announcements of new settlement projects in east Jerusalem."

Seriously, a "flow chart" to prove it wasn't his fault?

[AURaptor 1,125]

"Senile old troll"? That's pretty good. And it's refreshing to see something new.

Look, the idea that Netanyahu feels "snubbed" is ludicrous. He didn't even bother to pick up the phone and call Obama after he decided to come. (And I say "decided" as who really knows who invited whom?)

" You are delusional. No one in their right mind would say that Obama is the one treating Netanyahu shabbily. "

And yet, there are multiple stories of that exact thing having happened. So it makes PERFECT sense for BN to accept the invite from the Speaker to address Congress. Separation of powers, genius. The House does not answer to Obama.

Of course Netanyahu knew Obama didn't want him to come and he understood the reasons. But he had several reasons to come, one was to punk Obama. And he did pretty much that.

Glad YOU think so. Of course, BN spent the first 10 minutes of his speech tossing bouquets to Obama and the Dems. ( BTW - anyone catch that remark he made to Sen. Reid ? Saying " you can't keep a good man down " ? It was met, best I heard, with dead silence. Not only does everyone in D.C. know that Reid isn't a " good man", but I bet they know the REAL reason for his injury. )

In fact, I am really surprised you aren't playing the "Obama-got-punked" spin instead of the "Netanyahu-was-snubbed" thing, which is hilarious on it's face.

Either way, you suffer from a severe case of ODS.

Operational Data Store ?

Odessa Airport ? ( ODS )

No, all I suffer from is the hiliarity of watching you, yet again, get it wrong, when you said it was delusional to say Obama treated BN shabbily.

[AUFAN78 3,909]

I guess I saw the speech today differently - I saw a close ally basically begging America to be a world leader again. We have been absent for a while now and you have Russia, China ,Iran among others trying to fill the void.

Yes...I went back and read Churchill's 1946 Cold War speech delivered in America. The speech was delivered to a war weary America; certainly not one that wanted to fight the Russians...not one that even wanted to confront them. It was delivered by our staunchest ally; one who had identified Hitler's tyranny long before anyone else...and who wanted to avoid war. He points out that war with Hitler had been avoidable; had we only acted with courage at the time. Stalin denounced the speech as "war mongering". This is my favorite part of the speech and the most prescient:

"From what I have seen of our Russian friends and Allies during the war, I am convinced that there is nothing they admire so much as strength, and there is nothing for which they have less respect than for weakness, especially military weakness....I do not believe that Soviet Russia desires war. What they desire is the fruits of war and the indefinite expansion of their power and doctrines...Our difficulties and dangers will not be removed by closing our eyes to them. They will not be removed by mere waiting to see what happens; not will they be removed by a policy of appeasement."

Churchill was dead on in his assessment of the tyranny the world faced; much closer to his doorstep. He did not advocate war, he advocated strength.

I listened to the full Netanyahu speech. He was respectful and praised the President and the Country. He called out multiple instances where the President had supported Israel; 3 that had not been made public. He pointed out the obvious; much in the same way Churchill had prior to WW2; of Iran's intentions and their growing a control of their region. His line regarding Iran and Isis "the enemy of my enemy is my enemy" will be used for some time to come. This brings absolute clarity to the situation faced in Iraq. He laid-out in simple language the current terms of the deal on the table with Iran...and it is like negotiating for Bergdahl and with Castro just on a larger more dangerous scale.

Not one time did he incite war. He was very thoughtful...if Iran walks from the right deal; keep sanctions on and let them walk. They'll be back. They need us more than we need them. And this was the best part:

"Now we're being told that the alternative to this bad deal is war. That's just not true. The alternative to this bad deal is a much better deal"

His basic message was there's no sense of urgency to make a bad deal. Use your leverage and get a good deal. This path would be more difficult....take longer...but the lessons of history are unmistakable.

I would encourage the naysayers to read the transcript. Half of the assertions in the 3 threads related to this have nothing to do with what he actually said or proposes He made a case for strength; he proposed a simple plan for long term peace.

Call me a skeptic if you must but, partisanship alone will not allow the thorough examination you desire.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Sad but true.

[WarTim 3,456]

Well, Netanyahu also have another good point...this framing of working this deal or heading to war is a false dichotomy. As he said, the only alternative to this bad deal isn't war, it's working out a better deal.

But at the very least, it pushes Iran further away from us.

And we shouldn't just dismiss the possibility of reform in Iran. It' may take a decade or two, but the people of Iran are relatively well educated and appreciate western culture. Even the slightest progress in relations with Iran is a step down the right path.

To simply write-off Iran as politically incorrigible is dangerously closed minded. Buying 10 years (for example) is a worthwhile goal.

I just don't see what the alternative is other than declare an economic war on Iran if not a shooting war. Even the former will serve to consolidate the people of Iran against us and probably delay reform.

Serious question. What would be the downside of,as you call it , an economic war?

[aubfaninga 16]

Well, Netanyahu also have another good point...this framing of working this deal or heading to war is a false dichotomy. As he said, the only alternative to this bad deal isn't war, it's working out a better deal.

But at the very least, it pushes Iran further away from us.

And we shouldn't just dismiss the possibility of reform in Iran. It' may take a decade or two, but the people of Iran are relatively well educated and appreciate western culture. Even the slightest progress in relations with Iran is a step down the right path.

To simply write-off Iran as politically incorrigible is dangerously closed minded. Buying 10 years (for example) is a worthwhile goal.

I just don't see what the alternative is other than declare an economic war on Iran if not a shooting war. Even the former will serve to consolidate the people of Iran against us and probably delay reform.

Serious question. What would be the downside of,as you call it , an economic war?

The United States has had the "economic" head lock on Iran since 1979 through the use of sanctions. In 1995 we tightened the head lock even tighter. Then bibi tells the world that despite these "sanctions", Iran is 90% to their goal. He even had pictures just in case we did not understand or believe him. Keep in mind this was in 2012 after all of this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iran

Here is bibi's message that never changes...

Iran is evil and I love Israel and America.

Sanctions do not work. There will never be a good deal made with Iran. Even though sanctions have never worked (see his picture from 1995), we must reject this deal and wait till they come back. Any deal in the future will be bad too but hey... I am a JEW, I know best and speak for all Jews.

A deal that allows the international community to go in and see first hand what Iran is doing is stupid because I can tell you what they are doing. They are evil. I'm bibi and I am a Jew. Don't listen to our intelligence from Israel either because I am bibi. Listen to me. Iran is evil. This does not mean the alternative is WAR. We never went to WAR with Iraq. Ok, so we bombed a few sites but that is technically not WAR. We planted some seeds about Iraq being capable of these horrible evils and the Bush family cleaned up our problem. But Israel did not solve the problem with WAR. Iraq was dangerous and we did the right thing. Did you not see how technologically advanced their missiles were 10 years after we destroyed their nuclear capability? Them scuds were top of the line so we can be absolutely sure they were on the verge of producing nuclear weapons in 1981.

I am bibi and I will tell you again. WAR does not have to be the answer. Just keep destroying them economically despite the fact that it has never worked because any day now they will have a nuclear weapon. Don't try any deal to get inspectors in because I can tell you where they are in their progress and what they are doing. Any day now they will have a bomb. Iran is evil and wants to wipe Israel away but the answer does not have to be WAR.

By the way, God bless Israel and the United States. (and Iran is evil)

[WarTim 3,456]

So .....would you like to give it the old college try and actually answer the question?

[aubfaninga 16]

So .....would you like to give it the old college try and actually answer the question?

They continue to let their citizens suffer and simply blame it on Israel and the West.

All the while they rely on their allies (Russia, China, Venezuela) for financial assistance to create means to stop the finger (Israel and the West) that is holding down their economy.

Everybody wins!!! Israel and the US look like they are stopping a tyrant. Russia, China, and North Korea get to work under the table and use Iran as a pawn. Iran gets to fuel rage toward Israel and the US to its populace.

Look WarTim. There is nobody in this forum that trusts the powers that be in Iran. I trust them as far as I can spit which is exactly why I would love for them to invite me thru the front door so I can assess what exactly they do have. Let the dominoes fall into place from there.

[WarTim 3,456]

We agree...to a degree. LOOK faninga....Iran will not abide by any deal. Does anyone doubt that fact? Either we help force the issue or Israel will take out the nukes. Not what I want but that is where we find ourselves. My concern now is what happens after Israel is forced to take military action to prevent a nuclear Iran???

[RunInRed 16,411]

Well, Netanyahu also have another good point...this framing of working this deal or heading to war is a false dichotomy. As he said, the only alternative to this bad deal isn't war, it's working out a better deal.

I don't think Bibi wants a deal ... Hell, he's undermining this one while its still being negotiated ... How can you want a "better" deal when this one hasn't even come to fruition?

[RunInRed 16,411]

Iran is currently supporting the Iraqi forces against ISIS.

This is an impt point ...

[RunInRed 16,411]

There's no guarantee that additional pressure on Iran at this time would lead to a better deal, or to Tehran giving up more of its nuclear infrastructure," said Kelsey Davenport, director for nonproliferation policy at the nonpartisan Washington-based Arms Control Association. "What it risks doing is pushing Iran away from the negotiations and killing the prospects for a good deal that blocks Iran's pathways to a nuclear weapon."

...

"I don't think we can get a deal on the terms that Netanyahu proposes," Einhorn said. "He says the alternative to a bad deal is not war -- it's a better deal. That's a good formulation. But what if the better deal is not achievable? What are you left with then?"

http://politi.co/18iWvMQ

[WarTim 3,456]

Iran is currently supporting the Iraqi forces against ISIS.

This is an impt point ...

Its like nazi vs neo nazi...both are determined to bring Islam forcibly on the entire world.

[WarTim 3,456]

There's no guarantee that additional pressure on Iran at this time would lead to a better deal, or to Tehran giving up more of its nuclear infrastructure," said Kelsey Davenport, director for nonproliferation policy at the nonpartisan Washington-based Arms Control Association. "What it risks doing is pushing Iran away from the negotiations and killing the prospects for a good deal that blocks Iran's pathways to a nuclear weapon."

...

"I don't think we can get a deal on the terms that Netanyahu proposes," Einhorn said. "He says the alternative to a bad deal is not war -- it's a better deal. That's a good formulation. But what if the better deal is not achievable? What are you left with then?"

http://politi.co/18iWvMQ

What indeed... A. B a d deal.......

[aubfaninga 16]

My concern now is what happens after Israel is forced to take military action to prevent a nuclear Iran???

Please just skip this post if you feel the bible is just a myth.

WarTim,

Please don't take this as a correction but just take these words as only my opinion.

You have made the statement, "History (not "religion") teaches us all that it is a losing effort to be on the opposite side of Israel......."

I have to disagree and give what history tells me. History teaches me that Israel has taking many beatings. Many!!! The "Dome of the Rock" is all the witness that I need. On the other hand, I personally have total faith in the scriptures and it teaches me a very valuable thing about Israel and the children of Abraham.

(atheists close your ears)

If the children of Abraham put their faith in the GOD of Israel no weapon forged can stand against them. The only thing that can cause "Israel" to stumble is "ISRAEL". Balaam taught Balak that the only way to stop "Israel" is to bless them so much that they become fat with pride and forsake their defender. bibi's words put ZERO "FAITH" that the GOD of Moses will protect them. bibi's faith to save Israel comes in the form of money, alliances, and weapons. Just throwing that out there.

It's hard to see but let me show you something. Once Israel was saved from Egypt they wanted something to worship so they built an idol and said,

Exodus 32 "They have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them; they have made them a molten calf and have worshiped it and sacrificed to it, and said, These are your gods, O Israel, that brought you up out of the land of Egypt!"

Why is this important? Please take the time to look into the Egyptian god Montu. Here is a little something from Wiki...

"Montu was an ancient god, his name meaning nomad, originally a manifestation of the scorching effect of the sun, Ra, and as such often appeared under the epithet Montu-Ra. The destructiveness of this characteristic led to him gaining characteristics of a warrior, and eventually becoming a war-god.

Because of the association of raging bulls with strength and war, Montu was also said to manifest himself in a white bull with a black face, which was referred to as the Bakha. Egypt's greatest general-kings called themselves Mighty Bulls, the sons of Montu. In the famous narrative of the Battle of Kadesh, Ramesses II was said to have seen the enemy and "raged at them like Montu, Lord of Thebes"."

In biblical language I am saying that when "ISRAEL" starts relying on military might, pacts with other nations, and acts "warlike" outside the will of GOD, it usually does not end up too well.

A wise man once gave this advice for anyone living at anytime. ""But when you see the ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION standing where it should not be (let the reader understand), then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains."

So to answer your question, "My concern now is what happens after Israel is forced to take military action to prevent a nuclear Iran??"

Whatever happens it will be, "NOT TOO GOOD"!!!

[WarTim 3,456]

All that aside, protecting your country from one sworn to erase you from the face of the earth is a highly defendable position. Even in the light of God's Holy Word. And how, pray tell, is being Defensive "acting warlike"? JMUHO

[aubfaninga 16]

All that aside, protecting your country from one sworn to erase you from the face of the earth is a highly defendable position. Even in the light of God's word. JMUHO

No debate from me there. I may not agree with bibi but I definitely do not envy his position. Many people would rejoice if Israel or the US were nuked tomorrow. On the other hand, many people are just looking for a reason to hate Israel or the US. Very fine tight rope an Israeli Prime Minister must tread across. VERY THIN!

For the record, I defended Israel's latest actions in regards to Gaza. You shoot anything at me and I will return with 10x the force. The government of Israel showed more restraint than I would have if someone had shot a bullet at my children. So please do not think I am saying that Israel should just roll over and take it nor do I feel the US should just watch it.

[aubfaninga 16]

And how, pray tell, is being Defensive "acting warlike"? JMUHO

Again, this is where bibi and I separate.

bibi only proposes two options. He preaches "sanctions" but reserves "force".

If you heard another alternative from him please let me know. IT WAS NOT IN HIS SPEECH TO CONGRESS.

Neither of these options are "defensive". They are aggressive tactics to pressure another country by weakening it.

You do business with your allies and you put "sanctions" on people you disagree with.

We can paint a pretty picture around the word "sanction" all we want. We can pull up definitions to prove the difference between blockades and sanctions till we are blue in the face but it would not relate to the real world. If the U.N. puts sanctions on a country they might as well just board the place up.

[DKW 86 7,425]

[aubfaninga 16]

Basically what you are saying is that you are with Netanyahu because you are against Obama. "Do what you do"

[cooltigger21 0]

There's no guarantee that additional pressure on Iran at this time would lead to a better deal, or to Tehran giving up more of its nuclear infrastructure," said Kelsey Davenport, director for nonproliferation policy at the nonpartisan Washington-based Arms Control Association. "What it risks doing is pushing Iran away from the negotiations and killing the prospects for a good deal that blocks Iran's pathways to a nuclear weapon."

...

"I don't think we can get a deal on the terms that Netanyahu proposes," Einhorn said. "He says the alternative to a bad deal is not war -- it's a better deal. That's a good formulation. But what if the better deal is not achievable? What are you left with then?"

http://politi.co/18iWvMQ

Iran won't accept a deal that won't allow them to keep enriching uranium. If they continue to do that then they will have the ability to at some point make bomb material out of it. What to do once the deal is made and the term runs out. The sanctions never should have been lifted against them. This administration will not make a deal that is favorable to us or Israel. Trusting them is like Auburn trusting Alabama to act in Auburns' best interest. It ain't gonna happen. They are desperate for a deal and Iran knows it. Never negotiate from that standpoint. Follow the old rule of first do no harm. No deal is preferable to a bad one.