Netanyahu Speech To Congress Is High-Risk, High-Reward

[irosie91]

It's the Jews!!

No. Quit pulling the effing anti-semite card. It's foreign interference in OUR politics.

How would you feel if it was an Iranian doing this?

good question. I wouldn't mind. Long long ago---when I was a little girl (and still cute) ----I learned ----kinda it was drummed into my reluctant head-----the the US Federal
government is based in a wonderful system of
CHECKS AND BALANCES
---three separate divisions act with relative independence----
each BALANCING AND CHECKING the other

Executive --the president
Legislative ----congress
Judicial -----supreme court

they each could do things -----as they see fit. Some
people in congress invited Netanyahu to talk.......not shoot,
not behead, not drop bombs.........and he said "ok"
I know of no laws which make this situation a criminal offence.
He is going to talk -----at least I think that is the plan. How does a speech constitute interference? why are some people here so afraid? Most people will probably ignore him anyway. ------the response to this talk plan has been HYSTERICAL--------all the way from "kiss my noble ass----
I believe in negotiation -----because I am a superior person
and Netanyahu is going to demand attack"" to
"da joooos is going to force the US into war----because dey
got da moneeeeeey"
I wish the nuts would get brains and come up with something a bit original------this stuff is a replay of Goebbels
in the 1930s

There is a bit of a difference here which makes this particular occassion unprecidented. For one, Congress and the President don't act in defiance of each other when it comes to inviting international heads of state. For another, as was clearly articulated - there is a long-standing policy of NOT meeting with heads of state shortly before elections so as not to give the impression of interference.

Did it bother you that Cameron called members of congress to lobby them against sanctions? Maybe I missed your thread on "foreign interference in OUR politics"?

Was he meeting with Congress shortly before an election after the President had said they would not do so?

the issue is the PHYSICAL presence of Netanyahu? telephone calls would be ok? how about SKY WRITING over Washington DC?

 

[irosie91]

It's the Jews!!

No. Quit pulling the effing anti-semite card. It's foreign interference in OUR politics.

How would you feel if it was an Iranian doing this?

good question. I wouldn't mind. Long long ago---when I was a little girl (and still cute) ----I learned ----kinda it was drummed into my reluctant head-----the the US Federal
government is based in a wonderful system of
CHECKS AND BALANCES
---three separate divisions act with relative independence----
each BALANCING AND CHECKING the other

Executive --the president
Legislative ----congress
Judicial -----supreme court

they each could do things -----as they see fit. Some
people in congress invited Netanyahu to talk.......not shoot,
not behead, not drop bombs.........and he said "ok"
I know of no laws which make this situation a criminal offence.
He is going to talk -----at least I think that is the plan. How does a speech constitute interference? why are some people here so afraid? Most people will probably ignore him anyway. ------the response to this talk plan has been HYSTERICAL--------all the way from "kiss my noble ass----
I believe in negotiation -----because I am a superior person
and Netanyahu is going to demand attack"" to
"da joooos is going to force the US into war----because dey
got da moneeeeeey"
I wish the nuts would get brains and come up with something a bit original------this stuff is a replay of Goebbels
in the 1930s

There is a bit of a difference here which makes this particular occassion unprecidented. For one, Congress and the President don't act in defiance of each other when it comes to inviting international heads of state. For another, as was clearly articulated - there is a long-standing policy of NOT meeting with heads of state shortly before elections so as not to give the impression of interference.

I didn't know-----can you cite the law which states that Congress cannot invite a speaker unless the President invites him first? I do not remember Obama banning Netanyahu from the USA. Long standing policy of not inviting heads of state shortly before elections? can you provide a citation?

It's in the OP.

It's not a law, I never said it was.

a GENTLEMAN's AGREEMENT?

 

[Coyote]

No. Quit pulling the effing anti-semite card. It's foreign interference in OUR politics.

How would you feel if it was an Iranian doing this?

good question. I wouldn't mind. Long long ago---when I was a little girl (and still cute) ----I learned ----kinda it was drummed into my reluctant head-----the the US Federal
government is based in a wonderful system of
CHECKS AND BALANCES
---three separate divisions act with relative independence----
each BALANCING AND CHECKING the other

Executive --the president
Legislative ----congress
Judicial -----supreme court

they each could do things -----as they see fit. Some
people in congress invited Netanyahu to talk.......not shoot,
not behead, not drop bombs.........and he said "ok"
I know of no laws which make this situation a criminal offence.
He is going to talk -----at least I think that is the plan. How does a speech constitute interference? why are some people here so afraid? Most people will probably ignore him anyway. ------the response to this talk plan has been HYSTERICAL--------all the way from "kiss my noble ass----
I believe in negotiation -----because I am a superior person
and Netanyahu is going to demand attack"" to
"da joooos is going to force the US into war----because dey
got da moneeeeeey"
I wish the nuts would get brains and come up with something a bit original------this stuff is a replay of Goebbels
in the 1930s

There is a bit of a difference here which makes this particular occassion unprecidented. For one, Congress and the President don't act in defiance of each other when it comes to inviting international heads of state. For another, as was clearly articulated - there is a long-standing policy of NOT meeting with heads of state shortly before elections so as not to give the impression of interference.

I didn't know-----can you cite the law which states that Congress cannot invite a speaker unless the President invites him first? I do not remember Obama banning Netanyahu from the USA. Long standing policy of not inviting heads of state shortly before elections? can you provide a citation?

It's in the OP.

It's not a law, I never said it was.

a GENTLEMAN's AGREEMENT?

Barack Obama Won t Meet With Benjamin Netanyahu During D.C. Visit

President Obama will not meet Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu next month when he is in Washington to address a joint session of Congress, the White House said Thursday.

“As a matter of long-standing practice and principle, we do not see heads of state or candidates in close proximity to their elections, so as to avoid the appearance of influencing a democratic election in a foreign country,” National Security Council Spokesperson Bernadette Meehan said in a statement. “Accordingly, the President will not be meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu because of the proximity to the Israeli election, which is just two weeks after his planned address to the U.S. Congress.”

On Wednesday, Speaker of the House John Boehner announced that Netanyahu had accepted an invitation to address Congress on Feb. 11, but neither the Republican leader nor the Israelis informed the White House, in a move Press Secretary Josh Earnest called a breach from protocol. The personal relationship between the U.S. and Israeli leader has deteriorated in recent years, even as both leaders argue that the professional relationship has never been stronger.


“The typical protocol would suggest that the leader of a country would contact the leader of another country when he’s traveling there,” he said. “That certainly is how President Obama’s trips are planned when we travel overseas. So this particular event seems to be a departure from that protocol.”​

 

[Coyote]

No. Quit pulling the effing anti-semite card. It's foreign interference in OUR politics.

How would you feel if it was an Iranian doing this?

good question. I wouldn't mind. Long long ago---when I was a little girl (and still cute) ----I learned ----kinda it was drummed into my reluctant head-----the the US Federal
government is based in a wonderful system of
CHECKS AND BALANCES
---three separate divisions act with relative independence----
each BALANCING AND CHECKING the other

Executive --the president
Legislative ----congress
Judicial -----supreme court

they each could do things -----as they see fit. Some
people in congress invited Netanyahu to talk.......not shoot,
not behead, not drop bombs.........and he said "ok"
I know of no laws which make this situation a criminal offence.
He is going to talk -----at least I think that is the plan. How does a speech constitute interference? why are some people here so afraid? Most people will probably ignore him anyway. ------the response to this talk plan has been HYSTERICAL--------all the way from "kiss my noble ass----
I believe in negotiation -----because I am a superior person
and Netanyahu is going to demand attack"" to
"da joooos is going to force the US into war----because dey
got da moneeeeeey"
I wish the nuts would get brains and come up with something a bit original------this stuff is a replay of Goebbels
in the 1930s

There is a bit of a difference here which makes this particular occassion unprecidented. For one, Congress and the President don't act in defiance of each other when it comes to inviting international heads of state. For another, as was clearly articulated - there is a long-standing policy of NOT meeting with heads of state shortly before elections so as not to give the impression of interference.

Did it bother you that Cameron called members of congress to lobby them against sanctions? Maybe I missed your thread on "foreign interference in OUR politics"?

Was he meeting with Congress shortly before an election after the President had said they would not do so?

the issue is the PHYSICAL presence of Netanyahu? telephone calls would be ok? how about SKY WRITING over Washington DC?

There's a difference between official visits and phone calls.

 

[Jroc]

It's the Jews!!

No. Quit pulling the effing anti-semite card. It's foreign interference in OUR politics.

How would you feel if it was an Iranian doing this?

good question. I wouldn't mind. Long long ago---when I was a little girl (and still cute) ----I learned ----kinda it was drummed into my reluctant head-----the the US Federal
government is based in a wonderful system of
CHECKS AND BALANCES
---three separate divisions act with relative independence----
each BALANCING AND CHECKING the other

Executive --the president
Legislative ----congress
Judicial -----supreme court

they each could do things -----as they see fit. Some
people in congress invited Netanyahu to talk.......not shoot,
not behead, not drop bombs.........and he said "ok"
I know of no laws which make this situation a criminal offence.
He is going to talk -----at least I think that is the plan. How does a speech constitute interference? why are some people here so afraid? Most people will probably ignore him anyway. ------the response to this talk plan has been HYSTERICAL--------all the way from "kiss my noble ass----
I believe in negotiation -----because I am a superior person
and Netanyahu is going to demand attack"" to
"da joooos is going to force the US into war----because dey
got da moneeeeeey"
I wish the nuts would get brains and come up with something a bit original------this stuff is a replay of Goebbels
in the 1930s

There is a bit of a difference here which makes this particular occassion unprecidented. For one, Congress and the President don't act in defiance of each other when it comes to inviting international heads of state. For another, as was clearly articulated - there is a long-standing policy of NOT meeting with heads of state shortly before elections so as not to give the impression of interference.

Did it bother you that Cameron called members of congress to lobby them against sanctions? Maybe I missed your thread on "foreign interference in OUR politics"?

Was he meeting with Congress shortly before an election after the President had said they would not do so?

Foreign interference in foreign interference. Congress is co-equal branch...They don't need the presidents permission to invite someone to speak

 

[Coyote]

No. Quit pulling the effing anti-semite card. It's foreign interference in OUR politics.

How would you feel if it was an Iranian doing this?

good question. I wouldn't mind. Long long ago---when I was a little girl (and still cute) ----I learned ----kinda it was drummed into my reluctant head-----the the US Federal
government is based in a wonderful system of
CHECKS AND BALANCES
---three separate divisions act with relative independence----
each BALANCING AND CHECKING the other

Executive --the president
Legislative ----congress
Judicial -----supreme court

they each could do things -----as they see fit. Some
people in congress invited Netanyahu to talk.......not shoot,
not behead, not drop bombs.........and he said "ok"
I know of no laws which make this situation a criminal offence.
He is going to talk -----at least I think that is the plan. How does a speech constitute interference? why are some people here so afraid? Most people will probably ignore him anyway. ------the response to this talk plan has been HYSTERICAL--------all the way from "kiss my noble ass----
I believe in negotiation -----because I am a superior person
and Netanyahu is going to demand attack"" to
"da joooos is going to force the US into war----because dey
got da moneeeeeey"
I wish the nuts would get brains and come up with something a bit original------this stuff is a replay of Goebbels
in the 1930s

There is a bit of a difference here which makes this particular occassion unprecidented. For one, Congress and the President don't act in defiance of each other when it comes to inviting international heads of state. For another, as was clearly articulated - there is a long-standing policy of NOT meeting with heads of state shortly before elections so as not to give the impression of interference.

Did it bother you that Cameron called members of congress to lobby them against sanctions? Maybe I missed your thread on "foreign interference in OUR politics"?

Was he meeting with Congress shortly before an election after the President had said they would not do so?

Foreign interference in foreign interference. Congress is co-equal branch...They don't need the presidents permission to invite someone to speak

I agree, foreign interference is foreign interference - but I have not before seen something like this, where the president is deliberately flouted Have you? When it comes to international relations, the President and Congress should show a unified front whether they agree or disagree and in particular when there is so much pressure on these negotiations. The should be given a chance to work and Netanyahu's been trying to scuttle then since the beginning and now there is a more sympathetic Congress, you have to wonder. I don't think this is good at all.

 

[irosie91]

No. Quit pulling the effing anti-semite card. It's foreign interference in OUR politics.

How would you feel if it was an Iranian doing this?

good question. I wouldn't mind. Long long ago---when I was a little girl (and still cute) ----I learned ----kinda it was drummed into my reluctant head-----the the US Federal
government is based in a wonderful system of
CHECKS AND BALANCES
---three separate divisions act with relative independence----
each BALANCING AND CHECKING the other

Executive --the president
Legislative ----congress
Judicial -----supreme court

they each could do things -----as they see fit. Some
people in congress invited Netanyahu to talk.......not shoot,
not behead, not drop bombs.........and he said "ok"
I know of no laws which make this situation a criminal offence.
He is going to talk -----at least I think that is the plan. How does a speech constitute interference? why are some people here so afraid? Most people will probably ignore him anyway. ------the response to this talk plan has been HYSTERICAL--------all the way from "kiss my noble ass----
I believe in negotiation -----because I am a superior person
and Netanyahu is going to demand attack"" to
"da joooos is going to force the US into war----because dey
got da moneeeeeey"
I wish the nuts would get brains and come up with something a bit original------this stuff is a replay of Goebbels
in the 1930s

There is a bit of a difference here which makes this particular occassion unprecidented. For one, Congress and the President don't act in defiance of each other when it comes to inviting international heads of state. For another, as was clearly articulated - there is a long-standing policy of NOT meeting with heads of state shortly before elections so as not to give the impression of interference.

Did it bother you that Cameron called members of congress to lobby them against sanctions? Maybe I missed your thread on "foreign interference in OUR politics"?

Was he meeting with Congress shortly before an election after the President had said they would not do so?

Foreign interference in foreign interference. Congress is co-equal branch...They don't need the presidents permission to invite someone to speak

that is my impression-----based on that which I learned in the 5th grade

 

[irosie91]

good question. I wouldn't mind. Long long ago---when I was a little girl (and still cute) ----I learned ----kinda it was drummed into my reluctant head-----the the US Federal
government is based in a wonderful system of
CHECKS AND BALANCES
---three separate divisions act with relative independence----
each BALANCING AND CHECKING the other

Executive --the president
Legislative ----congress
Judicial -----supreme court

they each could do things -----as they see fit. Some
people in congress invited Netanyahu to talk.......not shoot,
not behead, not drop bombs.........and he said "ok"
I know of no laws which make this situation a criminal offence.
He is going to talk -----at least I think that is the plan. How does a speech constitute interference? why are some people here so afraid? Most people will probably ignore him anyway. ------the response to this talk plan has been HYSTERICAL--------all the way from "kiss my noble ass----
I believe in negotiation -----because I am a superior person
and Netanyahu is going to demand attack"" to
"da joooos is going to force the US into war----because dey
got da moneeeeeey"
I wish the nuts would get brains and come up with something a bit original------this stuff is a replay of Goebbels
in the 1930s

There is a bit of a difference here which makes this particular occassion unprecidented. For one, Congress and the President don't act in defiance of each other when it comes to inviting international heads of state. For another, as was clearly articulated - there is a long-standing policy of NOT meeting with heads of state shortly before elections so as not to give the impression of interference.

Did it bother you that Cameron called members of congress to lobby them against sanctions? Maybe I missed your thread on "foreign interference in OUR politics"?

Was he meeting with Congress shortly before an election after the President had said they would not do so?

Foreign interference in foreign interference. Congress is co-equal branch...They don't need the presidents permission to invite someone to speak

I agree, foreign interference is foreign interference - but I have not before seen something like this, where the president is deliberately flouted Have you? When it comes to international relations, the President and Congress should show a unified front whether they agree or disagree and in particular when there is so much pressure on these negotiations. The should be given a chance to work and Netanyahu's been trying to scuttle then since the beginning and now there is a more sympathetic Congress, you have to wonder. I don't think this is good at all.

the President was FLOUTED? had he told the congress-----DON'T INVITE NETANYAHU and DON' T TALK TO HIM???

 

[Coyote]

There is a bit of a difference here which makes this particular occassion unprecidented. For one, Congress and the President don't act in defiance of each other when it comes to inviting international heads of state. For another, as was clearly articulated - there is a long-standing policy of NOT meeting with heads of state shortly before elections so as not to give the impression of interference.

Did it bother you that Cameron called members of congress to lobby them against sanctions? Maybe I missed your thread on "foreign interference in OUR politics"?

Was he meeting with Congress shortly before an election after the President had said they would not do so?

Foreign interference in foreign interference. Congress is co-equal branch...They don't need the presidents permission to invite someone to speak

I agree, foreign interference is foreign interference - but I have not before seen something like this, where the president is deliberately flouted Have you? When it comes to international relations, the President and Congress should show a unified front whether they agree or disagree and in particular when there is so much pressure on these negotiations. The should be given a chance to work and Netanyahu's been trying to scuttle then since the beginning and now there is a more sympathetic Congress, you have to wonder. I don't think this is good at all.

the President was FLOUTED? had he told the congress-----DON'T INVITE NETANYAHU and DON' T TALK TO HIM???

Now you're being silly.

 

[Coyote]

I do not want to see us dragged into another Middle East conflict because some people don't want to give negotiations a chance to work.

 

[Jroc]

good question. I wouldn't mind. Long long ago---when I was a little girl (and still cute) ----I learned ----kinda it was drummed into my reluctant head-----the the US Federal
government is based in a wonderful system of
CHECKS AND BALANCES
---three separate divisions act with relative independence----
each BALANCING AND CHECKING the other

Executive --the president
Legislative ----congress
Judicial -----supreme court

they each could do things -----as they see fit. Some
people in congress invited Netanyahu to talk.......not shoot,
not behead, not drop bombs.........and he said "ok"
I know of no laws which make this situation a criminal offence.
He is going to talk -----at least I think that is the plan. How does a speech constitute interference? why are some people here so afraid? Most people will probably ignore him anyway. ------the response to this talk plan has been HYSTERICAL--------all the way from "kiss my noble ass----
I believe in negotiation -----because I am a superior person
and Netanyahu is going to demand attack"" to
"da joooos is going to force the US into war----because dey
got da moneeeeeey"
I wish the nuts would get brains and come up with something a bit original------this stuff is a replay of Goebbels
in the 1930s

There is a bit of a difference here which makes this particular occassion unprecidented. For one, Congress and the President don't act in defiance of each other when it comes to inviting international heads of state. For another, as was clearly articulated - there is a long-standing policy of NOT meeting with heads of state shortly before elections so as not to give the impression of interference.

Did it bother you that Cameron called members of congress to lobby them against sanctions? Maybe I missed your thread on "foreign interference in OUR politics"?

Was he meeting with Congress shortly before an election after the President had said they would not do so?

Foreign interference in foreign interference. Congress is co-equal branch...They don't need the presidents permission to invite someone to speak

I agree, foreign interference is foreign interference - but I have not before seen something like this, where the president is deliberately flouted Have you? When it comes to international relations, the President and Congress should show a unified front whether they agree or disagree and in particular when there is so much pressure on these negotiations. The should be given a chance to work and Netanyahu's been trying to scuttle then since the beginning and now there is a more sympathetic Congress, you have to wonder. I don't think this is good at all.

Obama is incompetent, he doesn't even observe his own set deadlines. they were a "unified front" but Obama keeps moving the lines in favor of Iran.

 

[Coyote]

There is a bit of a difference here which makes this particular occassion unprecidented. For one, Congress and the President don't act in defiance of each other when it comes to inviting international heads of state. For another, as was clearly articulated - there is a long-standing policy of NOT meeting with heads of state shortly before elections so as not to give the impression of interference.

Did it bother you that Cameron called members of congress to lobby them against sanctions? Maybe I missed your thread on "foreign interference in OUR politics"?

Was he meeting with Congress shortly before an election after the President had said they would not do so?

Foreign interference in foreign interference. Congress is co-equal branch...They don't need the presidents permission to invite someone to speak

I agree, foreign interference is foreign interference - but I have not before seen something like this, where the president is deliberately flouted Have you? When it comes to international relations, the President and Congress should show a unified front whether they agree or disagree and in particular when there is so much pressure on these negotiations. The should be given a chance to work and Netanyahu's been trying to scuttle then since the beginning and now there is a more sympathetic Congress, you have to wonder. I don't think this is good at all.

Obama is incompetent, he doesn't even observe his own set deadlines. they were a "unified front" but Obama keeps moving the lines in favor of Iran.

They were never a "unified front" - the Republicans were in a minority then and couldn't do as much. Yes, the deadlines moved but as long as there is some hope of progress over conflict it's worth it, imo, to keep trying unless it becomes clear there is not possible resolution.

 

[Jroc]

Did it bother you that Cameron called members of congress to lobby them against sanctions? Maybe I missed your thread on "foreign interference in OUR politics"?

Was he meeting with Congress shortly before an election after the President had said they would not do so?

Foreign interference in foreign interference. Congress is co-equal branch...They don't need the presidents permission to invite someone to speak

I agree, foreign interference is foreign interference - but I have not before seen something like this, where the president is deliberately flouted Have you? When it comes to international relations, the President and Congress should show a unified front whether they agree or disagree and in particular when there is so much pressure on these negotiations. The should be given a chance to work and Netanyahu's been trying to scuttle then since the beginning and now there is a more sympathetic Congress, you have to wonder. I don't think this is good at all.

Obama is incompetent, he doesn't even observe his own set deadlines. they were a "unified front" but Obama keeps moving the lines in favor of Iran.

They were never a "unified front" - the Republicans were in a minority then and couldn't do as much. Yes, the deadlines moved but as long as there is some hope of progress over conflict it's worth it, imo, to keep trying unless it becomes clear there is not possible resolution.

Copulation isn't synonymous with "hope" and Obama doesn't give a shit about approval from congress

Obama Sees an Iran Deal That Could Avoid Congress

WASHINGTON — No one knows if the Obama administration will manage in the next five weeks to strike what many in the White House consider the most important foreign policy deal of his presidency: an accord with Iran that would forestall its ability to make a nuclear weapon. But the White House has made one significant decision: If agreement is reached, President Obama will do everything in his power to avoid letting Congress vote on it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/20/u...d-avoid-congress-.html?_r=0#story-continues-2
Even while negotiators argue over the number of centrifuges Iran would be allowed to spin and where inspectors could roam, the Iranians have signaled that they would accept, at least temporarily, a “suspension” of the stringent sanctions that have drastically cut their oil revenues and terminated their banking relationships with the West, according to American and Iranian officials. The Treasury Department, in a detailed study it declined to make public, has concluded Mr. Obama has the authority to suspend the vast majority of those sanctions without seeking a vote by Congress, officials say.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/20/u...ran-deal-that-could-avoid-congress-.html?_r=0

 

[Coyote]

Report: Mossad undercuts Netanyahu, warns US Congress against more Iran sanctions

Israel’s political leadership is in disagreement with top members of its intelligence services over the benefit of more Congressional sanctions on Iran as negotiations over its disputed nuclear program continue, Bloomberg News is reporting on Thursday.

The rift is so severe that it compelled the Mossad to contradict Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and directly warn US Congressional officials that more sanctions against the Islamic Republic at this juncture could effectively spell the end of negotiations, according to Bloomberg.

Israeli intelligence officials have apparently come around to the same view shared by both the Obama administration as well as American spy agencies who say that any attempts by lawmakers to pass tougher anti-Iran legislation could chase Tehran from the negotiating table.

Netanyahu has gone on record as enthusiastically supporting sanctions while placing little faith that talks with the Islamic Republic would yield an agreement that would meet Israel’s security needs.​

Why is he meeting with Congress? He wants to scuttle the negotiations and thinks he has a friendly audience in the Republican majority.

 

[Jroc]

Report: Mossad undercuts Netanyahu, warns US Congress against more Iran sanctions

Israel’s political leadership is in disagreement with top members of its intelligence services over the benefit of more Congressional sanctions on Iran as negotiations over its disputed nuclear program continue, Bloomberg News is reporting on Thursday.

The rift is so severe that it compelled the Mossad to contradict Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and directly warn US Congressional officials that more sanctions against the Islamic Republic at this juncture could effectively spell the end of negotiations, according to Bloomberg.

Israeli intelligence officials have apparently come around to the same view shared by both the Obama administration as well as American spy agencies who say that any attempts by lawmakers to pass tougher anti-Iran legislation could chase Tehran from the negotiating table.

Netanyahu has gone on record as enthusiastically supporting sanctions while placing little faith that talks with the Islamic Republic would yield an agreement that would meet Israel’s security needs.​

Why is he meeting with Congress? He wants to scuttle the negotiations and thinks he has a friendly audience in the Republican majority.

You haven't noticed my thread?
Fury in Israel Over Obama s Mossad Lies US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Coyote]

I don't think it's a lie, they're calling it that because it's embarressing.

 

[Jroc]

I don't think it's a lie, they're calling it that because it's embarressing.

Obama propaganda machine...

"

The Head of Mossad did not say that he opposes additional sanctions on Iran,” said the spy agency Thursday.



"Mossad Head Tamir Pardo met on January 19, 2015, with a delegation of US senators,” Mossad said in a statement. “The meeting was held at the request of the senators and with the prime minister's approval. At the meeting, the Head of Mossad stressed the extraordinary effectiveness of the sanctions that have been placed on Iran for several years in bringing Iran to the negotiating table.”



"The Head of Mossad noted that in negotiating with Iran, a policy of 'carrots and sticks' must be adopted, and there are not enough 'sticks' nowadays,” it added.

Furthermore, said the agency, he “said specifically that the agreement that is being formed with Iran is bad and could lead to a regional arms race.”

Sources in Jerusalem told Army Radio Thursday that the story reported in Bloomberg about disagreement between Netanyahu and the Mossad regarding sanctions on Iran is US President Barack Obama administration's “revenge” for Netanyahu's invitation to address Congress.

The invitation was extended by Congress without consulting Obama.

Fury in Israel Over Obama s Mossad Lies - Global Agenda - News - Arutz Sheva

 

[WelfareQueen]

Netyanahu's unprecedented and deliberate attempt to influence and divide American politics along these lines for his own political gain is really not good. If his actions force us into another war I see no good coming out of this at all. The talks need to be given an opportunity to work. We don't need an Iran with nuclear power but we also don't need another Middle East war with OUR soldiers stuck in the middle because Netanyahu wants it.

Netanyahu Speech To Congress Is High-Risk High-Reward Analysts Say NPR

The Republican congressional leadership responded by inviting Netanyahu — loudly critical of those talks — to give his own address to Congress in early March, ignoring usual protocol and surprising the White House with the plans.

Both the threat from Iran and relations with the U.S. are important issues in Israel. Meir Javedanfar, who teaches Iranian politics at Israel's Interdisciplinary Center says that if Netanyahu urges Congress to vote for sanctions against Iran now, he could undermine the ongoing U.S.-Iran negotiations.

"Absolutely nobody in the state of Israel wants Iran to have a nuclear weapon for a nanosecond, nobody," says Javedanfar, but sabotaging the talks would be bad for Israel.

If new sanctions were to be imposed on Iran later, if talks clearly fail, he says that would help Israel by staying aligned with the international coalition involved in the talks.

The Risk

Netanyahu is taking a risk by pushing against the Obama administration in such a high-profile way, says Yaron Ezrahi, an emeritus professor of political science at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Ezrahi worries that if negotiations with Iran fail, military action — even U.S. military action — could follow. Then, he says, Israel could be accused of undermining a diplomatic resolution.

"To involve Israel in the risk of being responsible — indirectly even — for an act of war by the United States is, I think, the utmost form of irresponsibility on the part of the Israeli leadership," Ezrahi says.

Many political watchers say another risk for Israel involves U.S. domestic politics. If the partisan way Netanyahu's speech was arranged splits congressional support for Israel along party lines, it could threaten the strong bipartisan backing Israel has long had.

On the other hand, a congressional speech on Iran two weeks before what could be a tight Israeli election could win Netanyahu votes back home, says analyst Eytan Gilboa of Israel's Bar-Ilan University.

I am not afraid of free speech. I want to hear what he has to say. I know the Iranians are bad actors, but hearing about the situation from the Israeli perspective is fine. I don't see anything to be afraid of.

 

[Coyote]

Free speech is fine...but we have a congress overtly hostile to negotiations and, as some don't trust Obama, I do not trust the Republican Congress and this particular meeting really seems to go against established protocals. I don't trust Netanyahu either, as he is facing a tight election.

Daily Mail has a more recent article, and weights the pros/cons of applying more pressure.

Now Israel s MOSSAD weighs into Iran sanctions row at secret meeting with senators Daily Mail Online

 

[WelfareQueen]

Free speech is fine...but we have a congress overtly hostile to negotiations and, as some don't trust Obama, I do not trust the Republican Congress and this particular meeting really seems to go against established protocals. I don't trust Netanyahu either, as he is facing a tight election.

Daily Mail has a more recent article, and weights the pros/cons of applying more pressure.

Now Israel s MOSSAD weighs into Iran sanctions row at secret meeting with senators Daily Mail Online

There is bi-partisan concern over Obama's strategy with Iran. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) has been an outspoken critic, as have others from the left. I personally think Obama wants an agreement no matter what the cost, or how bad the deal. Obviously many others, including the Israelis feel the same way.