Powerful Speech...Thank You PM Netanyahu

[homersapien 11,379]

Are the statements below lies or just mistakes?

in 1992, then-parliamentarian Netanyahu advised the Israeli Knesset that Iran was “three to five years” away from reaching nuclear weapons capability, and that this threat had to be “uprooted by an international front headed by the U.S.”

In his 1995 book, “Fighting Terrorism,” Netanyahu once again asserted that Iran would have a nuclear weapon in “three to five years,”

Almost two decades ago, in 1996, Netanyahu addressed a joint session of Congress where he darkly warned, “If Iran were to acquire nuclear weapons, this could presage catastrophic consequences, not only for my country, and not only for the Middle East, but for all mankind,” adding that, “the deadline for attaining this goal is getting extremely close.”

For a considerable time thereafter, Netanyahu switched his focus to hyping the purported nuclear threat posed by another country, Iraq, about which he claimed there was “no question” that it was “advancing towards to the development of nuclear weapons.” Testifying again

in 2002, Netanyahu claimed that Iraq’s nonexistent nuclear program was in fact so advanced that the country was now operating “centrifuges the size of washing machines.”

A 2009 U.S. State Department diplomatic cable released by Wikileaks described then-prime ministerial candidate Netanyahu informing a visiting Congressional delegation that Iran was “probably one or two years away” from developing weapons capability. Another cable later the same year showed Netanyahu, now back in office as prime minister, telling a separate delegation of American politicians in Jerusalem that “Iran has the capability now to make one bomb,” adding that alternatively, “they could wait and make several bombs in a year or two.”

In 2012 Netanyahu said in closed talks reported by Israeli media that Iran is just “a few months away” from attaining nuclear capabilities. Later that same year, he gave a widely-mocked address at the United Nations in which he alleged that Iran would have the ability to construct a weapon within roughly one year, while using a printout of a cartoon bomb to illustrate his point.

https://firstlook.or...n-nuclear-bomb/

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman!" or ""If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan."

Lies or mistakes?

Relevance? :-\

[AUFAN78 3,910]

Are the statements below lies or just mistakes?

in 1992, then-parliamentarian Netanyahu advised the Israeli Knesset that Iran was “three to five years” away from reaching nuclear weapons capability, and that this threat had to be “uprooted by an international front headed by the U.S.”

In his 1995 book, “Fighting Terrorism,” Netanyahu once again asserted that Iran would have a nuclear weapon in “three to five years,”

Almost two decades ago, in 1996, Netanyahu addressed a joint session of Congress where he darkly warned, “If Iran were to acquire nuclear weapons, this could presage catastrophic consequences, not only for my country, and not only for the Middle East, but for all mankind,” adding that, “the deadline for attaining this goal is getting extremely close.”

For a considerable time thereafter, Netanyahu switched his focus to hyping the purported nuclear threat posed by another country, Iraq, about which he claimed there was “no question” that it was “advancing towards to the development of nuclear weapons.” Testifying again

in 2002, Netanyahu claimed that Iraq’s nonexistent nuclear program was in fact so advanced that the country was now operating “centrifuges the size of washing machines.”

A 2009 U.S. State Department diplomatic cable released by Wikileaks described then-prime ministerial candidate Netanyahu informing a visiting Congressional delegation that Iran was “probably one or two years away” from developing weapons capability. Another cable later the same year showed Netanyahu, now back in office as prime minister, telling a separate delegation of American politicians in Jerusalem that “Iran has the capability now to make one bomb,” adding that alternatively, “they could wait and make several bombs in a year or two.”

In 2012 Netanyahu said in closed talks reported by Israeli media that Iran is just “a few months away” from attaining nuclear capabilities. Later that same year, he gave a widely-mocked address at the United Nations in which he alleged that Iran would have the ability to construct a weapon within roughly one year, while using a printout of a cartoon bomb to illustrate his point.

https://firstlook.or...n-nuclear-bomb/

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman!" or ""If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan."

Lies or mistakes?

Relevance? :-\

Lies or mistakes.

[homersapien 11,379]

What this all comes down to is that Obama has this belief that he can keep Iran from using any nukes just by the sheer force of his personality. He has always believed that because we elected him president that he could talk the tyrants of the world into not behaving like tyrants. Even after six years of being proven wrong, he still believes that.

That's insane.

Obama is pursuing negotiations because it is logically and rationally his best option. Any intelligent Republican would be doing the exact same thing.

[homersapien 11,379]

Are the statements below lies or just mistakes?

in 1992, then-parliamentarian Netanyahu advised the Israeli Knesset that Iran was “three to five years” away from reaching nuclear weapons capability, and that this threat had to be “uprooted by an international front headed by the U.S.”

In his 1995 book, “Fighting Terrorism,” Netanyahu once again asserted that Iran would have a nuclear weapon in “three to five years,”

Almost two decades ago, in 1996, Netanyahu addressed a joint session of Congress where he darkly warned, “If Iran were to acquire nuclear weapons, this could presage catastrophic consequences, not only for my country, and not only for the Middle East, but for all mankind,” adding that, “the deadline for attaining this goal is getting extremely close.”

For a considerable time thereafter, Netanyahu switched his focus to hyping the purported nuclear threat posed by another country, Iraq, about which he claimed there was “no question” that it was “advancing towards to the development of nuclear weapons.” Testifying again

in 2002, Netanyahu claimed that Iraq’s nonexistent nuclear program was in fact so advanced that the country was now operating “centrifuges the size of washing machines.”

A 2009 U.S. State Department diplomatic cable released by Wikileaks described then-prime ministerial candidate Netanyahu informing a visiting Congressional delegation that Iran was “probably one or two years away” from developing weapons capability. Another cable later the same year showed Netanyahu, now back in office as prime minister, telling a separate delegation of American politicians in Jerusalem that “Iran has the capability now to make one bomb,” adding that alternatively, “they could wait and make several bombs in a year or two.”

In 2012 Netanyahu said in closed talks reported by Israeli media that Iran is just “a few months away” from attaining nuclear capabilities. Later that same year, he gave a widely-mocked address at the United Nations in which he alleged that Iran would have the ability to construct a weapon within roughly one year, while using a printout of a cartoon bomb to illustrate his point.

https://firstlook.or...n-nuclear-bomb/

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman!" or ""If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan."

Lies or mistakes?

Relevance? :-\

Lies or mistakes.

Are we discussing Netanyahu or not.

I didn't figure you would resort to such transparent and sophomoric diversions.

[AURaptor 1,125]

Bush would already have about 4 or 5 wars roaring right now and no one would be thinking about Iran.

Which is a curious thing to say, as Obama has dropped ordinance on more ME nations than any other US President - ever.

and been very efficient about it too. no invasions or occupations. he also has not armed any future enemy.

Worked out just dandy in Libya and Yemen, huh ?

[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.

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?

Because we already have indicators as to what's on the table and it looks really bad. He's not going to sit around and wait until it's inevitable, he wants to put the pressure on now to alter the course of it.

The problem is, he's proposing some arbitrary "hard line" that we know Iran won't agree to, not mention our "partners" in these negotiations China, Japan, South Korea, India and Turkey, who also aren't on board with the tougher sanctions Netanyahu is trying to sell. The only person who is on board with Netanyahu is Netanyahu ... that's a big problem. In, short, I believe he's trying to prop himself up as the tough guy in the midst of an election. Of course, the campaign speech sounds great in theory but there also has to be some sanity check regarding what the negotiations can realistically achieve. So IMO, the "better deal" is really nothing more than pie-in-the-sky rhetoric.

Now, I don't think any of us trust Iran and we all want a "better deal" ... but you have to live in the real world, taking into account all geopolitical factors (e.g., ISIS, Russia, etc.). Sometimes the lesser of two evils is controlling rather than attempting to eliminate Iran's nuclear capabilities ... which I don't know how you do without a military campaign that likely would totally upend the entire Middle East. Again, the rest of the world, who imports oil from Iran, is not on board with the tougher sanctions Bibi is advocating ...

I believe Bibi's thinks the only answer is regime change vis-a-vis strangling their economy through sanctions and have the people rise up and overthrow the Iranian Mullahs. Possible? Maybe. But again, we have no partners in this venture. And do you really want to add a chaotic Iran, to the unstable world of Iraq, Syria, etc.?

I do think he's doing some posturing for the elections back home. But I also think he's pushing for a hard line, but knowing that what he's really hoping to accomplish is pushing line further back toward something Israel can be comfortable with. He knows he won't get everything he wants (or claims to want) but he knows that what's being proposed is not enough. So you make some noise, rattle some sabres, negotiate hard and hope to get a good bit of what you want. Or at least you get what you want on a couple of the most important points from your perspective.

100% Correct!!!

[AUFAN78 3,910]

Are the statements below lies or just mistakes?

in 1992, then-parliamentarian Netanyahu advised the Israeli Knesset that Iran was “three to five years” away from reaching nuclear weapons capability, and that this threat had to be “uprooted by an international front headed by the U.S.”

In his 1995 book, “Fighting Terrorism,” Netanyahu once again asserted that Iran would have a nuclear weapon in “three to five years,”

Almost two decades ago, in 1996, Netanyahu addressed a joint session of Congress where he darkly warned, “If Iran were to acquire nuclear weapons, this could presage catastrophic consequences, not only for my country, and not only for the Middle East, but for all mankind,” adding that, “the deadline for attaining this goal is getting extremely close.”

For a considerable time thereafter, Netanyahu switched his focus to hyping the purported nuclear threat posed by another country, Iraq, about which he claimed there was “no question” that it was “advancing towards to the development of nuclear weapons.” Testifying again

in 2002, Netanyahu claimed that Iraq’s nonexistent nuclear program was in fact so advanced that the country was now operating “centrifuges the size of washing machines.”

A 2009 U.S. State Department diplomatic cable released by Wikileaks described then-prime ministerial candidate Netanyahu informing a visiting Congressional delegation that Iran was “probably one or two years away” from developing weapons capability. Another cable later the same year showed Netanyahu, now back in office as prime minister, telling a separate delegation of American politicians in Jerusalem that “Iran has the capability now to make one bomb,” adding that alternatively, “they could wait and make several bombs in a year or two.”

In 2012 Netanyahu said in closed talks reported by Israeli media that Iran is just “a few months away” from attaining nuclear capabilities. Later that same year, he gave a widely-mocked address at the United Nations in which he alleged that Iran would have the ability to construct a weapon within roughly one year, while using a printout of a cartoon bomb to illustrate his point.

https://firstlook.or...n-nuclear-bomb/

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman!" or ""If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan."

Lies or mistakes?

Relevance? :-\

Lies or mistakes.

Are we discussing Netanyahu or not.

I didn't figure you would resort to such transparent and sophomoric diversions.

Of course homey. My apologies. Anything for you.

[alexava 6,973]

Bush would already have about 4 or 5 wars roaring right now and no one would be thinking about Iran.

Which is a curious thing to say, as Obama has dropped ordinance on more ME nations than any other US President - ever.

and been very efficient about it too. no invasions or occupations. he also has not armed any future enemy.

Worked out just dandy in Libya and Yemen, huh ?

what do you mean? Kadafi is dead ain't he.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

Bush would already have about 4 or 5 wars roaring right now and no one would be thinking about Iran.

Which is a curious thing to say, as Obama has dropped ordinance on more ME nations than any other US President - ever.

and been very efficient about it too. no invasions or occupations. he also has not armed any future enemy.

Worked out just dandy in Libya and Yemen, huh ?

what do you mean? Kadafi is dead ain't he.

Of course but, killing a dictator and destabilizing a country is bad (if done by a liberal Democrat, in this case) but, is good (when done by a conservative, Republican) in the case of Hussein.

Actual results, real costs, long-term implications are all irrelevant in this discussion. This is about rhetoric.

[alexava 6,973]

Bush would already have about 4 or 5 wars roaring right now and no one would be thinking about Iran.

Which is a curious thing to say, as Obama has dropped ordinance on more ME nations than any other US President - ever.

and been very efficient about it too. no invasions or occupations. he also has not armed any future enemy.

Worked out just dandy in Libya and Yemen, huh ?

what do you mean? Kadafi is dead ain't he.

Of course but, killing a dictator and destabilizing a country is bad (if done by a liberal Democrat, in this case) but, is good (when done by a conservative, Republican) in the case of Hussein.

Actual results, real costs, long-term implications are all irrelevant in this discussion. This is about rhetoric.

thx for clearing that up.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

Bush would already have about 4 or 5 wars roaring right now and no one would be thinking about Iran.

Which is a curious thing to say, as Obama has dropped ordinance on more ME nations than any other US President - ever.

and been very efficient about it too. no invasions or occupations. he also has not armed any future enemy.

Worked out just dandy in Libya and Yemen, huh ?

what do you mean? Kadafi is dead ain't he.

Of course but, killing a dictator and destabilizing a country is bad (if done by a liberal Democrat, in this case) but, is good (when done by a conservative, Republican) in the case of Hussein.

Actual results, real costs, long-term implications are all irrelevant in this discussion. This is about rhetoric.

thx for clearing that up.

LOL!

[homersapien 11,379]

Bush would already have about 4 or 5 wars roaring right now and no one would be thinking about Iran.

Which is a curious thing to say, as Obama has dropped ordinance on more ME nations than any other US President - ever.

and been very efficient about it too. no invasions or occupations. he also has not armed any future enemy.

Worked out just dandy in Libya and Yemen, huh ?

what do you mean? Kadafi is dead ain't he.

Of course but, killing a dictator and destabilizing a country is bad (if done by a liberal Democrat, in this case) but, is good (when done by a conservative, Republican) in the case of Hussein.

Actual results, real costs, long-term implications are all irrelevant in this discussion. This is about rhetoric.

Well, that's hard to squeeze in a bumper-sticker response.

[alexava 6,973]

Gadaffi..i meant.

[RunInRed 16,413]

Well, well ...

Majority of Americans favor Obama administration's diplomatic talks with Iran ...

Direct diplomatic negotiations with Iran are broadly popular, 68% favor them, while 29% oppose them. That support cuts across party lines, with 77% of Democrats, 65% of Republicans and 64% of independents in favor of diplomacy between the U.S. and Iran in an attempt to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

Meanwhile, a plurality of Americans also disapproved of the effort by 47 Republican senators to scuttle the talks by sending a letter to the leaders of Iran ...

49 percent said it went too far, 39 percent thought it was appropriate, and 12 percent had no opinion.

Also ...

More Americans (48 percent) trust President Obama to deal with the major issues of the day than they do Republicans in Congress (39 percent)

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2...poll/index.html / http://i2.cdn.turner...6/iran.poll.pdf

[homersapien 11,379]

Good. That makes me feel better.

I am still baffled by the Republican 'posturing' on this . And I say posturing, because I can't believe they really think scuttling negotiations is in our best interests.

The GOP had better learn to stop their wacko tail from wagging the dog.

[cooltigger21 0]

Well, well ...

Majority of Americans favor Obama administration's diplomatic talks with Iran ...

Direct diplomatic negotiations with Iran are broadly popular, 68% favor them, while 29% oppose them. That support cuts across party lines, with 77% of Democrats, 65% of Republicans and 64% of independents in favor of diplomacy between the U.S. and Iran in an attempt to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

Meanwhile, a plurality of Americans also disapproved of the effort by 47 Republican senators to scuttle the talks by sending a letter to the leaders of Iran ...

49 percent said it went too far, 39 percent thought it was appropriate, and 12 percent had no opinion.

Also ...

More Americans (48 percent) trust President Obama to deal with the major issues of the day than they do Republicans in Congress (39 percent)

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2...poll/index.html / http://i2.cdn.turner...6/iran.poll.pdf

I don't care if they do. It's a bad idea and if he makes this deal then it is one we will all regret. He hasn't been right one time on foreign policy.