Netanyahu visit

[Cerin]

I'm no fan of the President's, but I feel extremely affronted and outraged by this visit of Netanyahu's. What an appalling act of disrespect to our President. Of our Republicans one expects bad behavior, but that another world leader would join them in thumbing his nose at our President? I can hardly believe it.

[Storyteller]

Thumbing one's nose at the head of a foreign state is, of course, almost as unacceptable as spending six years trying to unseat a head of a foreign state.

Obama's State Department is funding several non-profits who run a full-throated campaign, officially called V15 (V for victory) to unseat Netanyahu in March elections. The campaign is run by former Obama campaign aides like Jeremy Bird, and even their hope-and-change ads are mostly shot in the USA and Israeli landscapes almost don't feature in them. How does that rank on your scale of appaling acts, Cerin?

I don't think it's a good idea for Netanyahu to go through with the speech, mainly because of Obama's well known vindictiveness; I think the best strategy for any Israeli government right now is to play defense and wait that disaster of a President out, THEN make proactive moves. I also think that it's too late to do anything as far as preventing Iran from going nuclear; Obama has succeeded in running down the clock, and the American "red lines" beginning to be published boil down to face-saving - Iran will agree to maintain a year's distance from breakout capacity in exchange for the lifting of sanctions, and should they violate the terms of the deal the USA will attempt to re-impose sanctions... which can neither be done immediately nor can possibly have a sufficiently fast and devastating impact to stop Iran in a year from doing anything. The battle's already lost, and Netanyahu should focus on preparing defenses and looking for a game-changer card to be played two years from now.

But the sheer level of brouhaha around it is pretty interesting.

For one, the outrage. There isn't a breach of protocol since Netanyahu was invited by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, who has the necessary authority. The President is supposed to be informed of the invitation - which he was - but his approval is not, to my knowledge, required. Netanyahu's previous speech was done in the exact same way, protocol wise, with zero fuss from anybody. So where precisely is the misbehavior and the thumbing of noses?

Then, of course, there's the catch 22 factor. Had Netanyahu refused the invitation, he'd be seen as snubbing the US Congress. Since he was put in the position where he had to snub [i]somebody[]/i] and he (and Israel) has much more friends in the Congress than in the White House, was it any kind of fair to expect him to refuse the invitation? You don't insult your friends to appeace your foes.

And then, of course, there's the aforementioned meddling by Obama in Israeli elections. And his history of meeting with the Israeli opposition figures and treating them better than he treated the sitting head of state. And his lies designed for people with selective memory. (If there is some kind of protocol against the US President meeting with a head of state too close before elections, how come Clinton was unaware of it back in 1996 when he met with Shimon Peres and aggressively marketed him as the next Prime Minister of Israel?). And a few other things.

Wish I had as much time for this stuff as I once used to.

[Minardil]

There isn't a breach of protocol since Netanyahu was invited by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, who has the necessary authority.

While the Speaker of the House might well have the necessary "authority" to extend an invitation to any guest, it is certainly a matter of protocol, tradition, and accepted best practices of the past that when the invitee is a foreign Head of State, that our own Head of State be informed of the invitation in advance. Speaker Boehner did not follow this procedure, and instead extended the invitation to Mr. Netanyahu without informing the White House. Speaker Boehner has also explicitly stated that his intention for the visit is to give Mr. Netanyahu a forum in which to make HIS arguments against the treaty negotiations currently under way between the Obama Administration and the government of Iran. In essence, Mr. Boehner is attempting to run his own foreign policy separate from the Executive Branch, and THIS is something he most definitely is NOT authorized to do. In fact the Constitution specifically forbids it.

[ILvEowyn]

I pretty much would echo what Minardil said, and would just like to add this:

Then, of course, there's the catch 22 factor. Had Netanyahu refused the invitation, he'd be seen as snubbing the US Congress. Since he was put in the position where he had to snub [i]somebody[]/i] and he (and Israel) has much more friends in the Congress than in the White House, was it any kind of fair to expect him to refuse the invitation? You don't insult your friends to appeace your foes.

The simple answer is that Boehner should not have extended the invite in this manner, knowing that it would create a catch 22. Boehner is the one being accused of breaching protocol, not Netanyahu so much. Secondly, you are referring to the White House as a 'foe' of Israel, but that it is not. I submit that this is a calculated and deceitful move by Boehner designed to drive a wedge between Israel and the United States, and which won't help either Israel or the United States in the end.

[Minardil]

So not being particularly well-informed on current Israeli elections, I thought I'd do a little research into this delightfully hyperbolic paragraph:

Obama's State Department is funding several non-profits who run a full-throated campaign, officially called V15 (V for victory) to unseat Netanyahu in March elections. The campaign is run by former Obama campaign aides like Jeremy Bird, and even their hope-and-change ads are mostly shot in the USA and Israeli landscapes almost don't feature in them. How does that rank on your scale of appaling acts, Cerin?

So, is it true that the US State Department is funding "several" non-profit organizations in a "full throated" campaign to unseat Mr Netanyahu?

Well, I read several articles from Israeli papers like the Jerusalem Post and Haaretz, and to sum up, yes there IS a group called V15 which is opposed to Mr Netanyahu, this organization is hardly a front for "Obama's State Department", as Storyteller charges. Jeremy Bird was consultant to the Obama campaign and currently IS a consultant to the V15 group, but that's because he is a professional political consultant, one of many American political consultants hired by both sides (or maybe "all sides" would be more fitting) of the Israeli political landscape during this election cycle. It seems Israelis of all political stripes have been hiring American consultants for decades, so the idea that because one of them once worked on Obama's campaign and now works for V15 is neither surprising nor evidence of any wrong doing. The articles from Israeli papers also mention that V15 is accused of accepting foreign donations, including from Americans, but they make no mention of official support from the US government, the donations in question are from private citizens (and I suppose political action groups on the OTHER side of the Israeli political divide are also accepting donations foreign sources, just as Right Wing Israeli campaigns LIKE Mr. Netanyahu's are working with their own American political consultants with ties to prominent Republicans).

I did manage to find one reference to a US State Department grant in the amount of about $230K which had been given to OneVoice, a group aligned with V15, but this grant expired last year, BEFORE the current elections were called and this group is not currently the recipient of any US government funds. So if that old $230K is the money that Storyteller is talking about which is "funding" this Anti-Netanyahu campaign, then either campaigns are dirt cheap in Israel, or his charge is full of nonsense.

Here is an article on the mess for anyone who wants to read it:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2015/02/17/256929/in-israeli-elections-us-political.html

[Minardil]

The simple answer is that Boehner should not have extended the invite in this manner, knowing that it would create a catch 22. Boehner is the one being accused of breaching protocol, not Netanyahu so much. Secondly, you are referring to the White House as a 'foe' of Israel, but that it is not. I submit that this is a calculated and deceitful move by Boehner designed to drive a wedge between Israel and the United States, and which won't help either Israel or the United States in the end.

Agreed, you don't hear Mr. Obama refer to Israel as his "foe" under any circumstances.

I'd also like Storyteller to provide a well documented and verifiable account of an episode of Mr. Obama's "well known vindictiveness", as he called it. Storyteller, tell us what happened, who "offended" the President, and describe what steps the President took as retribution.

[Storyteller]

THREE posts in a row? Minardil, I'm honored!

There isn't a breach of protocol since Netanyahu was invited by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, who has the necessary authority.

While the Speaker of the House might well have the necessary "authority" to extend an invitation to any guest, it is certainly a matter of protocol, tradition, and accepted best practices of the past that when the invitee is a foreign Head of State, that our own Head of State be informed of the invitation in advance.

Tradition - maybe. Accepted best practices - perhaps. But one cannot site any substantial violation of formal procedures here, which nevertheless appears to be the most commonly thrown charge.

Speaker Boehner did not follow this procedure, and instead extended the invitation to Mr. Netanyahu without informing the White House. Speaker Boehner has also explicitly stated that his intention for the visit is to give Mr. Netanyahu a forum in which to make HIS arguments against the treaty negotiations currently under way between the Obama Administration and the government of Iran. In essence, Mr. Boehner is attempting to run his own foreign policy separate from the Executive Branch, and THIS is something he most definitely is NOT authorized to do. In fact the Constitution specifically forbids it.

I would actually agree... which makes me wonder why the thrust of the Democrats' (or Cerin's) anger isn't directed against Boehner first and foremost.

So, is it true that the US State Department is funding "several" non-profit organizations in a "full throated" campaign to unseat Mr Netanyahu?

Well, I read several articles from Israeli papers like the Jerusalem Post and Haaretz, and to sum up, yes there IS a group called V15 which is opposed to Mr Netanyahu, this organization is hardly a front for "Obama's State Department", as Storyteller charges. Jeremy Bird was consultant to the Obama campaign and currently IS a consultant to the V15 group, but that's because he is a professional political consultant, one of many American political consultants hired by both sides (or maybe "all sides" would be more fitting) of the Israeli political landscape during this election cycle. It seems Israelis of all political stripes have been hiring American consultants for decades, so the idea that because one of them once worked on Obama's campaign and now works for V15 is neither surprising nor evidence of any wrong doing. The articles from Israeli papers also mention that V15 is accused of accepting foreign donations, including from Americans, but they make no mention of official support from the US government, the donations in question are from private citizens (and I suppose political action groups on the OTHER side of the Israeli political divide are also accepting donations foreign sources, just as Right Wing Israeli campaigns LIKE Mr. Netanyahu's are working with their own American political consultants with ties to prominent Republicans).

Hiring of American consultants is nothing new in the Israeli politics; a former Obama campaign consultant working for Livni or Kahlon would not be news at all. It's the fact that they aren't working for a political party but running a "non-partisan" campaign purely against the sitting Prime Minister. The sheer number of people from Obama's re-election team working for multiple "non-partisan" anyone-but-Bibi campaigns leaves little doubt that the White House has a hand in it.

I did manage to find one reference to a US State Department grant in the amount of about $230K which had been given to OneVoice, a group aligned with V15, but this grant expired last year, BEFORE the current elections were called and this group is not currently the recipient of any US government funds.

You must have missed references to other organizations, since V15 isn't the only show in town. There's the Get Out the Vote campaign, aiming to increase voter turnout among groups considered to be unsympathetic to the Likud - Israeli Arabs primarily; that campaign is run by a group called Givat Haviva, whose website quite openly boasts of being an awardee of State Department grants. That campaign is also run by people from the Obama re-election team, and it's Israeli staff has an unusually close relationship with the US embassy, including preferential treatment for last-minute visas for "discussions on voter outreach" a month ago. There are others, but you'd need to read Hebrew to find the mentions.

So if that old $230K is the money that Storyteller is talking about which is "funding" this Anti-Netanyahu campaign, then either campaigns are dirt cheap in Israel, or his charge is full of nonsense.

Campaigns ARE pretty cheap here The entire 2013 election cost NIS 250 million ($73 million or so), that's the total spending between all the parties who ran. $230 000 - just over one million shekels - goes a long way in a small territory with population the size of a single large American city. Especially when it's not the only source of funding and not the only campaign being run to the same end.

[Storyteller]

I'd also like Storyteller to provide a well documented and verifiable account of an episode of Mr. Obama's "well known vindictiveness", as he called it. Storyteller, tell us what happened, who "offended" the President, and describe what steps the President took as retribution.

Oh, I'm at a dilemma here. We could talk about multiple insults to Obama from the Syrian government, which he successfully shrugged off and continued with relentless outreach... or we could talk about the blaring headlines of "Israel humiliates US President" when a mid-ranked municipal clerk signed stage X in approval of building permits of a handful of houses in eatern Jerusalem (which was not even covered by the agreed-upon settlement freeze) during Biden's visit back in 2010, after which Netanyahu was subjected to the kind of treatment in the White House [url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/7521220/Obama-snubbed-Netanyahu-for-dinner-with-Michelle-and-the-girls-Israelis-claim.html]described[/u] as "there is no humiliation exercise that the Americans did not try on the prime minister and his entourage"?

[RoseMorninStar]

I find the situation highly offensive as well. For many reasons. Just horrid behavior.

[Minardil]

Hiring of American consultants is nothing new in the Israeli politics; a former Obama campaign consultant working for Livni or Kahlon would not be news at all. It's the fact that they aren't working for a political party but running a "non-partisan" campaign purely against the sitting Prime Minister. The sheer number of people from Obama's re-election team working for multiple "non-partisan" anyone-but-Bibi campaigns leaves little doubt that the White House has a hand in it.

Your argument is not convincing, and the money from the State Department is still a pittance which predates the election. You are just giving us conspiracy-theory-level stuff here.

Your list of examples of Mr Obama's "well known vindictiveness" reads like someone's petty attempt to inflate a series of misunderstandings and imagined slights into genuine offenses in order to retroactively justify their own pre-existing ill-will.

[Minardil]

Hiring of American consultants is nothing new in the Israeli politics; a former Obama campaign consultant working for Livni or Kahlon would not be news at all. It's the fact that they aren't working for a political party but running a "non-partisan" campaign purely against the sitting Prime Minister. The sheer number of people from Obama's re-election team working for multiple "non-partisan" anyone-but-Bibi campaigns leaves little doubt that the White House has a hand in it.

Your argument is not convincing, and the money from the State Department is still a pittance which predates the election. You are just giving us conspiracy-theory-level stuff here.

Your list of examples of Mr Obama's "well known vindictiveness" reads like someone's petty attempt to inflate a series of misunderstandings and imagined slights into genuine offenses in order to retroactively justify their own pre-existing ill-will.

[Minardil]

would actually agree... which makes me wonder why the thrust of the Democrats' (or Cerin's) anger isn't directed against Boehner first and foremost

Well I can't speak for Cerin, but generally speaking, the focus of the disapproval IS on Mr Boehner.

[Minardil]

Okay, I was off today so I watched Netanyahu's speech as it was broadcast live, and having heard him out and having taken some time to reflect on what he said, I have to amend my earlier remarks to say that I will now focus my disapproval on the Israeli PM.

What a shockingly terrible speech.

Oh, it was very well delivered, Bibi is quite the orator and he knows how to pluck all the right heart stings, but once he got through the opening pleasantries, wherein he lavished praise on the US in general and even President Obama in particular, he launched into a protracted and condescending lecture on the dangers of Iran's nuclear development program (as if we didn't know about it) lambasted the nascent deal currently being negotiated by Mr Kerry and the President, and presented himself as the one Leader we should respect and trust to solve the problem in preference to our own American leaders, all without offering a single example of what he would do differently and how he would negotiate a better deal or what such a deal might look like.

Bibi, if you are going to stand at the podium in the House of Representatives and scold America's President for making a bad deal, you damn well better also present some concrete alternative ideas, because if you don't you'll just end up looking foolish. And foolish is how you looked today. Sorry, but "no deal is better than a bad deal" might be a great sound bite for a man who wants to win a few hardline votes at home, but it is hardly a serious proposal for how to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. He reminded me of those Tea Party Republicans who attack Mr Obama for everything he does, but who never offer their own alternative ideas.

I grade the speech as an A+ for delivery, an A+ for chutzpah, probably an A+ for it's impact in Israel among conservative voters there, but an F- for actual content regarding the pending deal with Iran, and an F- regarding the way I regard the Israeli PM.

[Storyteller]

Bibi, if you are going to stand at the podium in the House of Representatives and scold America's President for making a bad deal, you damn well better also present some concrete alternative ideas, because if you don't you'll just end up looking foolish. And foolish is how you looked today. Sorry, but "no deal is better than a bad deal" might be a great sound bite for a man who wants to win a few hardline votes at home, but it is hardly a serious proposal for how to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.

I'm still reading through the speech transcript, but he had that part covered:

My friends, what about the argument that there's no alternative to this deal, that Iran's nuclear know-how cannot be erased, that its nuclear program is so advanced that the best we can do is delay the inevitable, which is essentially what the proposed deal seeks to do?
Well, nuclear know-how without nuclear infrastructure doesn't get you very much. A racecar driver without a car can't drive. A pilot without a plan can't fly. Without thousands of centrifuges, tons of enriched uranium or heavy water facilities, Iran can't make nuclear weapons.
Iran's nuclear program can be rolled back well-beyond the current proposal by insisting on a better deal and keeping up the pressure on a very vulnerable regime, especially given the recent collapse in the price of oil.
Now, if Iran threatens to walk away from the table -- and this often happens in a Persian bazaar -- call their bluff. They'll be back, because they need the deal a lot more than you do.
And by maintaining the pressure on Iran and on those who do business with Iran, you have the power to make them need it even more.
My friends, for over a year, we've been told that no deal is better than a bad deal. Well, this is a bad deal. It's a very bad deal. We're better off without it.
Now we're being told that the only alternative to this bad deal is war. That's just not true.
The alternative to this bad deal is a much better deal.
A better deal that doesn't leave Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure and such a short break-out time. A better deal that keeps the restrictions on Iran's nuclear program in place until Iran's aggression ends.

He is quite specific on the alternative - keep up the pressure, don't be afraid to call Iran's bluff and walk away from the table, exploit the oil prices collapse to your advantage. Insist on maximizing tbe dismantling of Iran's nuclear infrastructure and push for a deal that maximizes breakout time. All very much to the point. He also made the important observation that the deal does not put limits on Iran's development of delivery systems for nuclear weapons.

Edit - You know Netanyahu's right when even Al-Arabiya praises him:

The Israeli PM managed to hit the nail right on the head when he said that Middle Eastern countries are collapsing and that “terror organizations, mostly backed by Iran, are filling in the vacuum” during a recent ceremony held in Tel Aviv to thank outgoing IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz for his role during “challenging” times.

In just a few words, Mr. Netanyahu managed to accurately summarize a clear and present danger, not just to Israel (which obviously is his concern), but to other U.S. allies in the region.

What is absurd, however, is that despite this being perhaps the only thing that brings together Arabs and Israelis (as it threatens them all), the only stakeholder that seems not to realize the danger of the situation is President Obama, who is now infamous for being the latest pen-pal of the Supreme Leader of the World’s biggest terrorist regime: Ayottallah Ali Khamenei. (Although, the latter never seems to write back!)

[portia]

I suspect that any large amount of participation by US political consultants has something to to do with the fact that there is no USA National election this year, and consultants still have to eat.

I did not listen to Netanyau's speech. But I have been repeatedly "impressed" by his (and sometimes Storyteller's) tendency to act as if no one else has any knowledge of the Middle East, and that he and only he has the answers. If he did it again in this speech, it should play well with Israeli voters, but not count for much in the overall scheme of things. It isn't as if we haven't heard it before. But, Bebe is runing for re-election in Israel. Other people have--of course--other priorities, especially other officeholders in other countries.

And, I would comment, that several US Presidents and several Israeli Presidents, have been repeating the same slogan ("If we don't do something, Iran will have a bomb withing two years.") Something is always found and they STILL do not have the bomb. Israel's attempts to lecture the US in public on what its foreign policy should be hasn't done much good.

[Minardil]

He is quite specific on the alternative - keep up the pressure, don't be afraid to call Iran's bluff and walk away from the table, exploit the oil prices collapse to your advantage. Insist on maximizing tbe dismantling of Iran's nuclear infrastructure and push for a deal that maximizes breakout time. All very much to the point. He also made the important observation that the deal does not put limits on Iran's development of delivery systems for nuclear weapons.

Perhaps the word "specific" means something different in your native Russian? His comments offered zero specifics. "Hold out for a better deal" is in no way a "specific" course of action. You have to provide actual details of what the better deal should look like, which he didn't.

[Jnyusa]

And foolish is how you looked today.

I've been trying to find commentary on the European newspapers but so far the pickings are slim. Perhaps tomorrow, since the speech was only delivered today.

My instinct is that Netanyahu got some very bad advice with regard to making this speech under these circumstances. Practically everyone in the world likes Pres. Obama better than they like PM Netanyahu. He kind of ... spit into the wind, imo. It will be interesting to see how the European papers op-ed about this.

Edit - You know Netanyahu's right when even Al-Arabiya praises him:

Well, Al-Arabiya is not the best example. If hardliners call them 'the Jewish news' behind their backs I'm guessing this is not the first time they've gone out on a limb. Al-jazeera soft-pedaled the speech, but also covered various opposing views. So ... each went to his own side of the divide.

As to the content of this deal, though ... I think I agree with Netanyahu that it's a big mistake.

Iran is one country that doesn't need nuclear power as its alternative energy source. There are a lot of countries who have nuclear capability and no intention of using it to modernize, to industrialize, to feed the poor of their country ... whatever, even though this is the big soggy handkerchief they all whip out. (You're denying us necessary technology, sob.) If you're still living off 19th century infrastructure (or 14th century infrastructure, as Pakistan is) it's smarter, cheaper, safer to develop hydro, wind, and solar energy. The US and Europe should be saying No-Go to all these fractious countries with long-standing belligerencies and telling them if they really want development we'll give them all the technology they can safely use but no nukes. I'm afraid I agree that the only conceivable reason a place like Iran would want nuclear power is to weaponize it. Whether Israel is the first place Iran would drop a bomb, I don't know, but the whole region has good cause for unease, imo.

On a wildly tangential note, I really like Martin Cruz Smith's novels about his little Russian detective ... hm ... Arkady something. One of the novels is set in the restricted zone around Chernobyl, and one of his scientist characters makes a comment that if we really want to return large areas of land to untrammeled nature we should pray for lots of nuclear accidents, because just about everything recovers faster than human development does. I've never discussed this with any biologists, so it could be just a novelist playing with an extreme point of view, or maybe there really are scientists working in the Chernobyl area who have made this observation and Smith interviewed them for his novel ... but, we talk a lot about humans being capable of wiping out the planet, and maybe we're really not that powerful after all. Maybe we're only capable of wiping out ourselves.

[The Heretic]

Was Netanyahu warned by Obama not to reveal details of the Iran talks?

[Storyteller]

I did not listen to Netanyau's speech. But I have been repeatedly "impressed" by his (and sometimes Storyteller's) tendency to act as if no one else has any knowledge of the Middle East...

And, I would comment, that several US Presidents and several Israeli Presidents...

You would, wouldn't you?

[Storyteller]

So Obama apparently knows full well that sanctions alone are not sufficient to prevent Iran from pursuing its nuclear ambitions. But somehow, we are meant to believe that negotiations using nothing but said sanctions as leverage will be effective.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration itself does not believe in success of the negotiations, since they are on record declaring that preventing Iran from pursuing nukes is an unachievable ideal. They know it since they made it so.

[Storyteller]

He is quite specific on the alternative - keep up the pressure, don't be afraid to call Iran's bluff and walk away from the table, exploit the oil prices collapse to your advantage. Insist on maximizing tbe dismantling of Iran's nuclear infrastructure and push for a deal that maximizes breakout time. All very much to the point. He also made the important observation that the deal does not put limits on Iran's development of delivery systems for nuclear weapons.

Perhaps the word "specific" means something different in your native Russian?

Why, yes it does! The difference is the same as between annexing Crimea and "taking measures that will increase Russia’s political isolation as well as the economic costs to Russia"

His comments offered zero specifics. "Hold out for a better deal" is in no way a "specific" course of action. You have to provide actual details of what the better deal should look like, which he didn't.

So how would you prefer him to be more specific? Name number of allowable centrifuges? He's on record declaring that zero is good. Anything else?

[portia]

Gee. . . .I am surprised that "everyone knows that "sanctions alone are not sufficient to prevent Iran from pursuing its nuclear ambitions."
When was that decided? By whom? where is it written?

My comment, as before, is that sanctions are not enough. . . until they are. The need for instant results has spread far and wide.


The comment that I called Bebe the President, when i know that is not his office, suggests that you have run out of substantial arguments.

[Storyteller]

Gee. . . .I am surprised that "everyone knows that "sanctions alone are not sufficient to prevent Iran from pursuing its nuclear ambitions."
When was that decided? By whom?

By President Obama, apparently. Follow the link

The comment that I called Bebe the President, when i know that is not his office, suggests that you have run out of substantial arguments.

It was a classic moment, my dear portia - expressing indignation that others would suggest that you know nothing about the Middle East and immediately following it up by a display of ignorance of the basics.

(And it's Bibi, not Bebe, but l ignored that as that would indeed not be substantial).

But if you want to talk substantial arguments, let's talk substantial arguments. You have not listened to the speech. Have you read the transcripts?

[28Lights]

Netanyahu's visit for more then proper, it was vital.
People forget that Iran calls for the destruction of the West and Israel on almost a daily basis. They hate anything and everything about Israel and America, the remarkable thing is that they don't even try to hide it, they speak it out loudly for all the world to hear, and some people like our President and his administration fails to hear, so comes Netanyahu who by the way is a Warrior and a combat Vet, and lets all the world to hear what many choose to ignore, that the deal that is being discussed is a terrible deal and that is why it should be dropped, period.

Netanyahu was invited by the Speaker of the House, by the Congress, and that is a valid invitation by any norms.

[ILvEowyn]

People forget that Iran calls for the destruction of the West and Israel on almost a daily basis.

The leadership of Iran does this?

Netanyahu was invited by the Speaker of the House, by the Congress, and that is a valid invitation by any norms.

Valid? Yes. Normal? No.

and some people like our President and his administration fails to hear

Yes clearly Obama hates America and is secretly trying to help Iran destroy it. Is that what you're getting at?

so comes Netanyahu who by the way is a Warrior and a combat Vet

so?

that the deal that is being discussed is a terrible deal and that is why it should be dropped, period

As has been discussed here already, it's not exactly helpful to say 'the deal is bad' without explaining what about it is bad or what to do in the alternative.

[28Lights]

People forget that Iran calls for the destruction of the West and Israel on almost a daily basis.

The leadership of Iran does this?

Netanyahu was invited by the Speaker of the House, by the Congress, and that is a valid invitation by any norms.

Valid? Yes. Normal? No.

and some people like our President and his administration fails to hear

Yes clearly Obama hates America and is secretly trying to help Iran destroy it. Is that what you're getting at?

so comes Netanyahu who by the way is a Warrior and a combat Vet

so?

that the deal that is being discussed is a terrible deal and that is why it should be dropped, period

As has been discussed here already, it's not exactly helpful to say 'the deal is bad' without explaining what about it is bad or what to do in the alternative.

Where have you been?

A. Do you watch any news? its all over the web, Iran's leadership gathers its people and chants death to Israel and death of America on almost a daily basis. Do a little youtube search please.
B. Non normal times require non normal ways of doing things.
C. its not about hate, its about refusing to accept reality, people like these need a reality check.
D. So he speaks out of real experience , he knows what the world is like, he knows that there are evil people trying to do harm to good people all over the world, something that a community organizer lacks.
E. The speech if you have heard it, outlines an alternative, and the alternative is a good deal, and Netanyahu pointed out these new points very clearly in the speech.

[portia]

Bebe knows what the world is like in relation to Israel. Not from anyone else's perspective.

[28Lights]

Bebe knows what the world is like in relation to Israel. Not from anyone else's perspective.

No one is claiming that Netanyahu has an encompassing view on the entire world, only God has that, but from his perspective as a Free human Being with vast experience is history, warfare and counterterrorism his argument is a valid one for all westerns and not just Israel's.
Case in point when Israel bombed the Iraq nuclear facility in 1982 it was criticized by most of the countries of the world, including the United States, only in recent times after the war in Iraq everyone came to know how critical and visionary that step was, and as a result countless American soldiers were saved. Imagine Saddam with nuclear weapons? that's not a good scenario, and Thank God that Israel didn't listen to the world, who has long buried its head in the sand, and did what it thought to be vital to its national security, and as a result of the wise and intelligent decision makers in Israel the entire world has benefited.
This is not the first time nor the last, that Jewish contributions are criticized and yet later on utilized and celebrated by an ungrateful world.

[portia]

The Israeli view of Iran, and some other subjects, should not be ignored, but it is only one view, and there are other factors to be considered.
The US Congress does not represent even one Israeli citizen, nor does the President. The US has a variety of interests and no one should be surprised if something the US does irritates Israel. Heaven knows plenty of what Israel does is irritating to the USA.

[Storyteller]

The Israeli view of Iran, and some other subjects, should not be ignored, but it is only one view, and there are other factors to be considered.
The US Congress does not represent even one Israeli citizen, nor does the President. The US has a variety of interests and no one should be surprised if something the US does irritates Israel. Heaven knows plenty of what Israel does is irritating to the USA.

So which US interests are served by the upcoming bad deal, then?

Declaring that "well, that's just one opinion out of many" is a poor cop-out when you cannot show what opinions those are and how they are valid.

There are men out there who prefer sheep to women. That, too, is an opinion. In theory, it allows one to claim that there exists a range of views of whether or not one should mate with one's own species.