thunderous applause for NetanYahu

#226
#226
DC_Vol said:
None of what he said was unreasonable. Nor did he ever imply the alternative was war.

It's clear Israel's position is that the US (or other countries) shouldn't be making any deals with Iran that lessen restrictions on their nuclear program. I cannot say that I blame them for not wanting to be part of the deal camp...negotiating with an enemy that cannot be trusted. Israel cannot really afford to make that mistake.

He came to Washington - not crying - but to make his case as a leader does. I just don't see why everyone is so upset, because what he said was not polarizing. It is what I would expect to hear from the leader of Israel.

Most of the noise is just about Obama losing face.
Click to expand...

Wonder what barry would say to Putin making nuclear deals with Cuba in the same situation?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#227
#227
Do we invite any leader to speak to Congress? Is it a forum for world leaders to come air any and all grievances? Or positions that are not agreeable with the current administration whoever it may be? Should Putin, Assad, Maduro get invites?

The invite was done through means outside standard protocols. How many times was this method used prior to this? How many others get these invites? Too many questions on this particular case as it relates to all other instances of this. Again, not an Obama supporter but as a means of consistency and with not allowing Congress as a means for other world leaders to better their own standing and position especially on elections. I had less a problem with Poroshenko speaking before Congress because his was through the typical diplomatic protocols. I am still not a fan of Congress being a means for posturing back home.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#228
#228
CSpindizzy said:
Do we invite any leader to speak to Congress? Is it a forum for world leaders to come air any and all grievances? Or positions that are not agreeable with the current administration whoever it may be? Should Putin, Assad, Maduro get invites?

The invite was done through means outside standard protocols. How many times was this method used prior to this? How many others get these invites? Too many questions on this particular case as it relates to all other instances of this. Again, not an Obama supporter but as a means of consistency and with not allowing Congress as a means for other world leaders to better their own standing and position especially on elections. I had less a problem with Poroshenko speaking before Congress because his was through the typical diplomatic protocols. I am still not a fan of Congress being a means for posturing back home.
Click to expand...

And I'm not a fan of the nuclear pen either. Both are doing what they can to trump the other.
 
#229
#229
CSpindizzy said:
Do we invite any leader to speak to Congress? Is it a forum for world leaders to come air any and all grievances? Or positions that are not agreeable with the current administration whoever it may be? Should Putin, Assad, Maduro get invites?

The invite was done through means outside standard protocols. How many times was this method used prior to this? How many others get these invites? Too many questions on this particular case as it relates to all other instances of this. Again, not an Obama supporter but as a means of consistency and with not allowing Congress as a means for other world leaders to better their own standing and position especially on elections. I had less a problem with Poroshenko speaking before Congress because his was through the typical diplomatic protocols. I am still not a fan of Congress being a means for posturing back home.
Click to expand...

Honestly, why do you care who and how someone speaks to congress? Why is it an issue? He spoke for less than 30 min, was gone by noon and congress passed a bill later on that day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#230
#230
CSpindizzy said:
Do we invite any leader to speak to Congress? Is it a forum for world leaders to come air any and all grievances? Or positions that are not agreeable with the current administration whoever it may be? Should Putin, Assad, Maduro get invites?

The invite was done through means outside standard protocols. How many times was this method used prior to this? How many others get these invites? Too many questions on this particular case as it relates to all other instances of this. Again, not an Obama supporter but as a means of consistency and with not allowing Congress as a means for other world leaders to better their own standing and position especially on elections. I had less a problem with Poroshenko speaking before Congress because his was through the typical diplomatic protocols. I am still not a fan of Congress being a means for posturing back home.
Click to expand...

It does happen a lot more often than you think:

Joint Meeting & Joint Sessions Addresses Before Congress by Foreign Leaders & Dignitaries | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives

As to unorthodox method used, I really don't care. So what if the State Department and protocol were skipped.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#231
#231
VolsNSkinsFan said:
Honestly, why do you care who and how someone speaks to congress? Why is it an issue? He spoke for less than 30 min, was gone by noon and congress passed a bill later on that day.
Click to expand...

Again, would you allow Maduro or Putin? Or Assad? Are you saying it does not matter who comes before Congress? Would you let any and every leader come here to speak and then say whatever they want? Would you give any of these the means to swipe at us in our own forum? Or give them a media field day back home? A means to influence their elections? A campaign tool?

Are you saying it does not matter at all?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#232
#232
Grand Vol said:
It does happen a lot more often than you think:

Joint Meeting & Joint Sessions Addresses Before Congress by Foreign Leaders & Dignitaries | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives

As to unorthodox method used, I really don't care. So what if the State Department and protocol were skipped.
Click to expand...

I know how often it occurs. That does not change my opinion. And the means it occurs is through proper channels and in an environment of our choosing. I guarantee had the Democrats did this with anyone to undercut Bush's policies the Right would be crawling all over themselves even to the point of crying treason.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#233
#233
Grand Vol said:
It does happen a lot more often than you think:

Joint Meeting & Joint Sessions Addresses Before Congress by Foreign Leaders & Dignitaries | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives

As to unorthodox method used, I really don't care. So what if the State Department and protocol were skipped.
Click to expand...


Because foreign relations are an executive matter. A treaty or agreement as to Iran's nuclear capabilities absolutely is. But the reactionary militaristic wing of the GOP loves he idea of going after Iran, consequences be damned. The slight to Obama was just a side benefit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#235
#235
CSpindizzy said:
I know how often it occurs. That does not change my opinion. And the means it occurs is through proper channels and in an environment of our choosing. I guarantee had the Democrats did this with anyone to undercut Bush's policies the Right would be crawling all over themselves even to the point of crying treason.
Click to expand...

You mean kind of like the left being brought to tears over the Prime Minister of Israel giving a speech? (which has been done by how many Israeli PMs in the past?)
 
#236
#236
lawgator1 said:
Because foreign relations are an executive matter. A treaty or agreement as to Iran's nuclear capabilities absolutely is. But the reactionary militaristic wing of the GOP loves he idea of going after Iran, consequences be damned. The slight to Obama was just a side benefit.
Click to expand...

You mean the same treaties that Congress has to approve?

I think I saw that in a Constitution somewhere...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#237
#237
CSpindizzy said:
Do we invite any leader to speak to Congress? Is it a forum for world leaders to come air any and all grievances? Or positions that are not agreeable with the current administration whoever it may be? Should Putin, Assad, Maduro get invites?

The invite was done through means outside standard protocols. How many times was this method used prior to this? How many others get these invites? Too many questions on this particular case as it relates to all other instances of this. Again, not an Obama supporter but as a means of consistency and with not allowing Congress as a means for other world leaders to better their own standing and position especially on elections. I had less a problem with Poroshenko speaking before Congress because his was through the typical diplomatic protocols. I am still not a fan of Congress being a means for posturing back home.
Click to expand...

Pretty long list of them.

Joint Meeting & Joint Sessions Addresses Before Congress by Foreign Leaders & Dignitaries | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives
 
#238
#238
lawgator1 said:
Because foreign relations are an executive matter. A treaty or agreement as to Iran's nuclear capabilities absolutely is. But the reactionary militaristic wing of the GOP loves he idea of going after Iran, consequences be damned. The slight to Obama was just a side benefit.
Click to expand...

:eek:lol: Are you serious, Clark?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#239
#239
Grand Vol said:
You mean kind of like the left being brought to tears over the Prime Minister of Israel giving a speech? (which has been done by how many Israeli PMs in the past?)
Click to expand...

Again, I care less over sides here. But you cannot tell me if the roles were reversed and the Dems went behind W's back and pulled this there would not be weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth. I don't like it either way. But if the invitation is made and it undercuts the protocol that has existed for decades? Don't expect silence on the matter. this was not the typical setting these speeches take place in. These are bipartisan affairs using established means - not all may be on board but the paths are the same. Going against tradition and protocol can be spun however you want. But at the end of the day this was crafted by a group wanting to spite a President and a man working to win reelection. Insert anyone else in these roles and flip partisanship for all I care. Still the same.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#240
#240
lawgator1 said:
Because foreign relations are an executive matter. A treaty or agreement as to Iran's nuclear capabilities absolutely is. But the reactionary militaristic wing of the GOP loves he idea of going after Iran, consequences be damned. The slight to Obama was just a side benefit.
Click to expand...

It's ok for Obama to bypass and subvert congressional authority which you applaud yet condemn congress for stepping on his toes here?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#241
#241
CSpindizzy said:
How does Bibi come to Congress to make his case? Congress is not the branch that deals with these matters. This was all about a sleight at Obama and the means for looking bold before his electorate before the election. Listen, I am no Obama fan. Neither am I an anti-Israel type. But let's be honest and call this as it is. Bibi cannot sit there and alienate himself from the process and then complain about others moving ahead. Add to the fact all his predictions on Iran fall far short, his credibility slips. As I pointed out from what my friend stated, he comes out leaving no room to negotiate or posture and gives wild predictions that never occur. Then to come here to complain about what Obama is doing? His speech before a few members of Congress in 2002 fell short. His "red line" speech before the UN fell short. Forgive anyone who dares question his motives and accuracy this time around.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
 
#242
#242
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#243
#243
lawgator1 said:
Because foreign relations are an executive matter. A treaty or agreement as to Iran's nuclear capabilities absolutely is. But the reactionary militaristic wing of the GOP loves he idea of going after Iran, consequences be damned. The slight to Obama was just a side benefit.
Click to expand...

This is not entirely accurate though. Only Congress can remove sanctions that it has legislated. You act as if this is just a run of the mill treaty like a trade agreement or something.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#244
#244
CSpindizzy said:
Again, I care less over sides here. But you cannot tell me if the roles were reversed and the Dems went behind W's back and pulled this there would not be weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth. I don't like it either way. But if the invitation is made and it undercuts the protocol that has existed for decades? Don't expect silence on the matter. this was not the typical setting these speeches take place in. These are bipartisan affairs using established means - not all may be on board but the paths are the same. Going against tradition and protocol can be spun however you want. But at the end of the day this was crafted by a group wanting to spite a President and a man working to win reelection. Insert anyone else in these roles and flip partisanship for all I care. Still the same.
Click to expand...

The same partisanship over members of the DNC boycotting it? I mean, if we're going to start smacking folks with the partisan baseball bat here, we might as well talk about everyone's partisanship.

Obama didn't like him coming into Congress. And obviously Boehner's DGAF-ometer pegged into the red over that situation. And as well he should since it's his House and he can make the decisions about who comes in and who doesn't.

So why exactly did Obama not want him to address Congress? There's a $50,000 question right there. After so many foreign leaders and dignitaries have spoken before Congress, why this once did he not want someone to speak?
 
#246
#246
CSpindizzy said:
Same answer as before. I know the list. How many of these were counter to the wishes of the sitting President and against protocols of how these work? How many of these went beyond the tradition and happened through the opposing party countering the sitting President?
Click to expand...

You do realize Netanyahu has addressed Congress two other times, right?

Including another time under Obama and one under Clinton.

So what made this time different?
 
#247
#247
Grand Vol said:
The same partisanship over members of the DNC boycotting it? I mean, if we're going to start smacking folks with the partisan baseball bat here, we might as well talk about everyone's partisanship.

Obama didn't like him coming into Congress. And obviously Boehner's DGAF-ometer pegged into the red over that situation. And as well he should since it's his House and he can make the decisions about who comes in and who doesn't.

So why exactly did Obama not want him to address Congress? There's a $50,000 question right there. After so many foreign leaders and dignitaries have spoken before Congress, why this once did he not want someone to speak?
Click to expand...

Why did Boehner want him to come? What was the reason this invite was made?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#248
#248
Grand Vol said:
You do realize Netanyahu has addressed Congress two other times, right?

Including another time under Obama and one under Clinton.

So what made this time different?
Click to expand...

Was either during an Israeli election? Or during ongoing negotiations of the US and another nation? With the intent of sabotaging those negotiations? Was either through the opposite party going behind the back of the Executive that always handles these arrangements? Those other two times and this one have nothing in common with the exception of the man giving the speech.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top