Schmuck With Earflaps Goes Nuclear On Netanyahu

[The Guesser]

May their ranks continue to grow:

[h=1]U.S. Congressman Steve Cohen joins boycott of Netanyahu speech[/h] [h=2]Congresswoman Jan Schakowski also announces she'll skip speech, making it two Jewish lawmakers in one day.[/h] By Haaretz and The Associated Press | Feb. 25, 2015 | 6:10 PM

Denouncing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's upcoming speech to Congress as a "reckless" piece of "high theater for a reelection campaign in Israel," U.S. Congressman Steve Cohen joined the list of Democrats who have announced they will boycott Tuesday's address. The Tennessee lawmaker also called on Congress to enforce the law against the videotaping of floor speeches for campaign ads, rebuking Netanyahu for using clips from a previous address to Congress in his 2013 campaign.

"The prime minister’s use of the U.S. House chamber as a stage to argue against the comprehensive agreement on the Iranian nuclear program, which is currently being negotiated among Iran and the P5+1 — the United States, Russia, China, France, the United Kingdom and Germany, is reckless," Cohen said in a statement on Monday.
"The actions of the speaker [John Boehner] and the prime minister have caused a breach between Democrats in Congress and Israel as well as the administrations of the United States and Israel," he said.
Cohen joins a reported 22 other Democratic congress members and senators who've announced they will either deliberately miss Netanyahu's speech, or will not attend because, they claim, they are previously engaged. Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State John Kerry are in this latter group. President Barack Obama has ruled out meetings in Washington between himself or other administration officials and Netanyahu, saying it is the administration's policy not to meet with foreign leaders so close to an election, in this case two weeks before the March 17 Knesset election. Off the record, though, administration officials have accused Netanyahu of colluding with Boehner and Republicans to humiliate the president, and have promised payback.
Said Cohen: "Speaker Boehner and other Republicans supporting the speech are giving a foreign leader the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives as a forum to present a counterargument to the foreign policy peace efforts of the president of the United States, who has constitutional authority over foreign affairs.
"While Americans and members of Congress may disagree on anything, even foreign policy, providing a forum of such immense prestige and power to the leader of another country who is opposing our nation’s foreign policy is beyond the pale," he said.
Also on Wednesday, Democratic Rep. Jan Schakowsky said she, too, is skipping Netanyahu's speech to Congress.

The nine-term Illinois congresswoman said the speech should be postponed until after the Israeli elections next month. She said Boehner's invitation to Netanyahu without notifying Obama threatens Israel's security and undermines Congress' bipartisan support for Israel.
Schakowsky, who, like Cohen, is Jewish, says she strongly supports Israel and believes that Iran should never be allowed to possess a nuclear weapon, the expected topic of Netanyahu's speech.
She is one of several lawmakers to forgo the speech. Virginia Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine on Wednesday also announced he'd skip the session.

 

[The Guesser]

[h=1]Beyond chutzpah: Here's how Netanyahu could have handled the Iran nuclear talks[/h] [h=2]If Netanyahu moves were really guided by fear for Israel’s security rather than for his own political survival, the Israeli PM would have sought to get the Obama-Khamenei agreement to include a few Israel-related points.[/h] By Amir Oren 12:06 25.02.15

3

An American, an Iranian, and an American of Israeli origin were once in Boston at the same time. Two of them studied, and the third taught, at MIT. Now, two of them are close to an agreement that the third is trying to foil.
The American is Dr. Ernest Moniz, a professor of nuclear physics and secretary of energy in the Obama Administration; he began teaching at MIT in 1973. The Iranian is Ali Akbar Salehi, head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization; he was at MIT from 1973-77, obtaining his doctorate in nuclear engineering. The third man, Ben Nitay, obtained both a bachelor’s degree in architecture and an MBA in four years, from 1972-76, then started, but never completed, a doctorate in political science at Harvard and MIT.
In Geneva this week, Moniz and Salehi, along with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, came close to reaching the agreement that the American-Israeli, now better known as Benjamin Netanyahu, is trying to thwart. Had it not been clear that he was acting out of personal and political interests – despite what he knows, and not because he isn’t very familiar with the material – one might say that Netanyahu was paying the price for the courses Nitay didn’t complete at MIT.
The principal barrier to Iran racing toward a nuclear weapon from the parking lot it hasn’t left in years is political will. Its leadership, under Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, still prefers not to pay the price of doing so. But it also isn’t willing to retreat from that parking lot and suffer the humiliation of a seeming capitulation.
Obama, who has a clear-eyed approach, knows three basic facts: Iran will agree to some formula for a freeze, but not to dismantle its nuclear program; the six powers’ alliance against Iran’s nuclear program is fragile, and support from the other five for tough American negotiating demands isn’t guaranteed; and he lacks both a nation and an army ready and willing to wage war against Iran. What Netanyahu terms a “bad agreement” is, from Obama’s standpoint, a regrettable but bearable reflection of a difficult reality.

U.S. foreign policy must also take other arenas into consideration – for instance, Ukraine, where America is confronting Russia and coordinating with Germany, France and Britain. The combative Republicans in Congress who are pressing Obama to make tougher demands of Tehran are the same ones pressing him not to pay Russia in Ukrainian coin for its support of an Iran deal. A contradiction? It’s not their job to reconcile it; that’s the president’s problem.
Regime change?
What bothers Israel most about Tehran’s nuclear program is the nature of the Iranian regime. If the Pahlavi dynasty were to resume power, disavow revolutionary Islam, rejoin the West and abandon Iran’s enmity toward Israel, any government in Jerusalem would put up with an Iranian nuclear bomb. The fear of a nuclear arms race involving Ankara, Riyadh and Cairo would still exist, but the existential fear would subside, and with it Israel’s threat to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities.
The Pahlavis and their ideological allies, who are more democratic than Iran’s current Holocaust-denying tyrants, don’t currently look to be anywhere near a counterrevolution, but Obama is hoping to build a bridge of time until a regime devoid of hostility to the West (and Israel) arises. Based on his global situation assessment and his contact with Khamenei, Iranian President Hassan Rohani and their emissaries Zarif and Salehi, Obama believes that in another 10 or 15 years, a different Iran is likely to emerge. And if the current Iranian regime seeks to acquire nuclear weapons in gross violation of its commitments, the next president will have an easier time mobilizing both domestic and international support for using force against it.
Since he stopped being Nitay, Netanyahu has learned about two issues of supreme importance – the nuclear understandings with the White House that date back to Prime Minister Golda Meir and President Richard Nixon in 1969, and the Israeli defense establishment’s preparations for action against Iran should the government so decide. But his crude behavior toward Obama endangers the delicate fabric of these understandings (Netanyahu isn’t prepared to bargain over Israeli concessions in exchange for Iranian concessions) and ignores Israel’s ability, which is known to key figures in the political and defense establishments, to greatly limit the damage caused by an Iranian strike on Israel should a conflict break out. Nevertheless, this capability hasn’t yet been tested under real-life conditions, and in time, the balance of power could change to Israel’s detriment.
What Netanyahu could have demanded
Therefore, if Netanyahu’s moves were really guided by fear for Israel’s security rather than for his own political survival, he would not have opted for confrontation with Obama and an alliance with the president’s Republican rivals. He would have sought to get the Obama-Khamenei agreement to include an official Iranian disavowal of its dream of destroying Israel – an idea senior defense officials approve – and at the same time to extract a promise from Obama that Washington would consent to an Israeli attack on Iran if both countries’ intelligence agencies concur that the Iranians have violated the agreement and are racing for the bomb. An Israeli attack – not an American one.

In his inflated resume, Nitay/Netanyahu wrote that during the 1973 Yom Kippur War, he returned to Israel to do reserve duty. Even without having completed his doctorate in political science, he ought to know very well how close Israel came to losing that war, and that it was saved thanks to an American arms airlift – but that even then, Israel never asked American soldiers to risk their lives on its behalf.
Netanyahu can’t prevent the six powers’ agreement with Iran. But his effort to do so is tantamount to asking American soldiers, for the first time in Israel’s history, to risk their lives in a war where the commander in chief wouldn’t be their own president, but Israel’s prime minister. The residue of this outrageous chutzpah will continue weighing on the relationship long after Netanyahu vacates the Prime Minister’s Office.

 

[ScottL]

Who SPAMS more?

Guesser -600
Superbeets +475

 

[Dave007inVegas]

Wouldn't be surprised if Putin built it for them.

If the price is right Putin will do anything.

 

[Dave007inVegas]

Did I mention Kerry and Obama are fools?

 

[SheriffJoe]

Did I mention Kerry and Obama are fools?

 

[ScottL]

Did I mention Kerry and Obama are fools?

Usually it's a curse that things in Washington move so slow. And no, I do not thing these fools want to destroy the world. I just know their distorted views will do that for them given enough time. Hopefully they won't finish the job in the next 18 months. And Iran, why should they change their behavior when Obama keeps rewarding it? Have not other nations reached the nuclear threshold while we thought they were years away? Tomorrow Iran could announce they've reached that threshold and the nuclear blackmail and a new arms race can begin, while Kerry and Obama scratch their heads.
But that Bibi he's so impolite......
azzkick(&^

 

[Dave007inVegas]

You have no idea how true that is.

 

[festeringZit]

So fucking spot on.

 

[Dave007inVegas]

Usually it's a curse that things in Washington move so slow. And no, I do not thing these fools want to destroy the world. I just know their distorted views will do that for them given enough time. Hopefully they won't finish the job in the next 18 months. And Iran, why should they change their behavior when Obama keeps rewarding it? Have not other nations reached the nuclear threshold while we thought they were years away? Tomorrow Iran could announce they've reached that threshold and the nuclear blackmail and a new arms race can begin, while Kerry and Obama scratch their heads.
But that Bibi he's so impolite......
azzkick(&^

Bibi is not PC, he tells it like it is, that’s one of the reasons I admire the man. He is also a warrior unlike our hatchet wound president.

All the Democrats can boycott he speech, but it won’t stop him from giving it. I’m not a Boehner fan but in this instance I have to say OOH RAH!

 

[SheriffJoe]

Hussein shafted Bibi and Israel numerous times before this speech.

Payback's a bitch!

 

[superbeets]

[h=2]Josef Schuster says on German radio that Jews mustn't succumb to fear, but should take precautions.[/h]

A man wears a kippa. . (photo credit:REUTERS)


Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

The President of Germany's Central Council of Jews advised against wearing a kippa in neighborhoods with a high proportion of Muslims on Thursday.

Speaking in an interview with local radio, Josef Schuster said that observant Jews should consider covering their heads with less conspicuous headgear that would not so clearly identify them as Jews in potentially dangerous neighborhoods.

Schuster said that the potential for anti-Semitic attacks in the country had risen. He said that he could not have imagined that it would be necessary to give such advice five years ago.

While people should not succumb to fear, and security at Jewish institutions in the country is sufficient, precautions should still be taken in some neighborhoods, he added.

Germany's foreign minister said at an international conference on anti-Semitism in November that "hatred of Jews" was on the rise once more in his country and across Europe, fueled by spiraling violence in the Middle East.

Frank-Walter Steinmeier said Germany's Jews were subjected to threats and attacks at pro-Palestinian demonstrations, and the conflict between Israel and Hamas in Gaza must not be used as justification for an anti-Semitic behavior.

As well as slogans like "Gas the Jews!" during some marches, in July at the height of the 50-day Gaza war petrol bombs were thrown at a synagogue in Wuppertal which had been burnt down on Kristallnacht - a Nazi attack on the Jews in 1938 - and rebuilt.

"Bold and brutal anti-Semitism has shown its ugly face again," Steinmeier told an Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) event.

 

[superbeets]

 

[The Guesser]

[h=1]Many Israelis deplore Netanyahu's U.S. visit[/h] Negotiations over Iran's nuclear program have pitted U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.




JERUSALEM — President Obama is not the only one unhappy about Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's planned visit to Washington next week. Many Israelis here are, too.

Netanyahu's trip has produced a backlash among those who worry about the consequence: plunging traditionally close relations between U.S. and Israeli leaders to an unprecedented low point.
Obama, administration officials and some congressional Democrats are refusing to meet with Netanyahu next week because the prime minister accepted an invitation from House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, to address Congress on Tuesday without clearing the speech with the White House, as is diplomatic protocol. The president has said it is inappropriate for him to meet Netanyahu just two weeks before Israeli elections.
At the root of Netanyahu's visit and Obama's snub is a dispute over U.S. negotiations with Iran on Iran's nuclear program. Netanyahu has warned that the U.S. is making too many concessions and the U.S. is accusing the Israeli leader of trying to stir up GOP congressional opposition to sabotage a deal.

USA TODAY
Obama sends reps to AIPAC before Netanyahu visit



Most Israelis appear to back Netanyahu on the Iran nuclear talks. A recent Times of Israel poll found that 72% do not believe Obama will limit Iran's nuclear capabilities. Still, many Israelis also fear that Netanyahu's visit will lead to an irreparable rift with its strongest supporter.
"From an Israeli perspective, the prospective nuclear deal with Iran, at least as reported, appears indeed inadequate," Raphael Ahren, diplomatic correspondent for the Times of Israel, wrote in an analysis. But Netanyahu's speech "could also antagonize the government of Israel's closest and most powerful ally for years to come."

"Like everyone else I'm afraid that Iran will develop nuclear weapons," said Iyad Abed Rabbo, an Arab taxi driver with Israeli citizenship. "Netanyahu's message is spot on, but his timing is all wrong."
A "narrow majority" of Israelis oppose Netanyahu's speech before Congress, says Jonathan Rynhold, a senior researcher at the Begin Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar ilan University. But, he says, the controversy "is unlikely to affect him during the election." Polls show a tight race for the most seats in Israel's parliament, or Knesset, between Netanyahu's conservative Likud Party and a liberal coalition, the Zionist Union.
This week, testy relations between the White House and Netanyahu got uglier. Susan Rice, the president's national security adviser, charged Tuesday that Netanyahu's trip is "destructive" to U.S.-Israeli ties and smacks of partisanship.
For his part, Netanyahu said during a campaign speech Wednesday that the U.S. and other countries negotiating with Iran appear to have "given up" on their commitment to thwart Iran's nuclear capabilities.
"I respect the White House and the president of the United States, but on such a critical topic that could determine whether we exist or not, it is my duty to do everything to prevent this great danger to the state of Israel," Netanyahu said.
Trying to defuse partisan tensions, Senate Democrats planning to boycott Tuesday's speech proposed a separate meeting with Netanyahu, but he declined.

Netanyahu, however, will meet with both Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., on Tuesday afternoon after the speech.
Netanyahu's political opponents are trying to capitalize on his soured relations with Washington.
Isaac Herzog, head of the Zionist Union Party, warned Thursday that the congressional speech will harm Israel's ties with the United States.

"I call on Netanyahu again: Stop. Enough, Bibi. ... Don't go. You will cause strategic damage to Israel's standing and to the relationship with the United States," Herzog told a press conference.
Researcher Rynhold said the U.S.-Israeli relationship "is bigger than any crisis" between any one U.S. administration and one Israeli government. "However, by making support for Israel in Congress a partisan issue," he added, "Netanyahu has damaged one of the foundations of the relationship: bipartisan support for Israel."
Lawrence Feldman, an American-Israeli educator based in Israel, agreed: "The speech is counterproductive — unless, of course, his goal is simply to score points domestically before the election, and damn the diplomatic consequences."

 

[The Guesser]

Boycott Baby Boycott. Come on you Wimp Dems. Show some spine for a Change. Kudos to those that have so far.

[h=1]29 Democrats skipping Netanyahu's speech[/h]By Alexandra Jaffe, CNN
Updated 2:39 PM ET, Thu February 26, 2015

Washington (CNN)Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's speech to a joint session of Congress next week has further strained an already tense relationship with President Barack Obama.




And a number of top Democrats — including Vice President Joe Biden, whose job description includes the title President of the Senate — won't be attending.
Netanyahu is expected to use the speech to sharply criticize the White House's efforts to negotiate a deal on Iran's nuclear program and to urge Congress to pass new sanctions on the nation, a position that puts him sharply at odds with the president. On Tuesday, National Security Adviser Susan Rice said Netanyahu's decision to speak was "destructive to the fabric of the relationship" between Israel and the U.S.
Related: Tensions rise between Obama, Netanyahu
Related: White House gets confrontational before Netanyahu visit
The expected substance of the speech, coupled with the fact that the White House was not alerted to the invite ahead of time, has Democrats crying foul.
Twenty-five Democratic House members and four Democratic senators have said in recent weeks they're not going to the speech, many in protest to a move that they say is an affront to the president.
Many more have said they're undecided on whether to attend, and more defections could emerge in the coming days. A full list of the Democrats who have confirmed they're missing the speech follows:
SENATE - 4 members
Sen. Tim Kaine (Va.)
Sen. Patrick Leahy (Vt.)
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)
Sen. Brian Schatz (Hawaii)
HOUSE - 26 members
Rep. Earl Blumenauer (Ore.)
Rep. G.K. Butterfield (N.C.)
Rep. Andre Carson (Ind.)
Rep. James Clyburn (S.C.)
Rep. Steve Cohen (Tenn.)
Rep. Peter DeFazio (Ore.)
Rep. Diana DeGette (Colo.)
Rep. Donna Edwards (Md.)
Rep. Keith Ellison (Minn.)
Rep. Raúl Grijalva (Ariz.)
Rep. Luis Gutiérrez (Ill.)
Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.)
Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (Texas)
Rep. Barbara Lee (Calif.)
Rep. John Lewis (Ga.)
Rep. Betty McCollum (Minn.)
Rep. Jim McDermott (Wash.)
Rep. Gregory Meeks (N.Y.)
Rep. Beto O'Rourke (Texas)
Rep. Chellie Pingree (Maine)
Rep. Charles Rangel (N.Y.)
Rep. Cedric Richmond (La.)
Rep. Jan Schakowsky (Ill.)
Rep. Bennie Thompson (Miss.)
Rep. John Yarmuth (Ky.)
Rep. Danny Davis (Ill.)

 

[The Guesser]

[h=1]Is Netanyahu out to foment war with Iran?[/h] The Israeli prime minister’s attacks on the US government may be brinkmanship – but they could be genuine attempts to goad Obama into military action






Simon Tisdall
Thursday 26 February 2015 09.37 EST Last modified on Thursday 26 February 2015 13.20 EST


Binyamin Netanyahu’s latest hostile jab at the Obama administration, claiming the US has “given up” trying to prevent Iran developing nuclear weapons capability, enraged the secretary of state, John Kerry.
But, like many in Israel and the west, Kerry must be wondering: what does Israel’s pugnacious prime minister really want?
Netanyahu’s acceptance of the Republicans’ divisive invitation to address Congress next Tuesday dismayed Barack Obama and the Democrats, and triggered heated name-calling and mutual snubs.
The Israeli leader will use his speech to warn against the deal with Iran being negotiated by the US and its European allies. Obama is keen to bring Iran in from the cold. He believes detente with Tehran could radically change regional dynamics, help end the Syrian war and open the way to collaboration on fighting Islamic State (Isis).
Netanyahu believes a deal, on almost any terms, would pose an existential threat to Israel by allowing Iran to eventually acquire the bomb. “From the agreement that is forming, it appears that they have given up on their commitment [to stop Iran] and are accepting that Iran will gradually, within a few years, develop capabilities to produce material for many nuclear weapons,” Netanyahu told a meeting of his rightwing Likud party in the West Bank settlement of Ma’ale Adumim.
Kerry quickly slapped him down. It was premature to criticise a pact that was as yet incomplete, he said, echoing White House claims that Netanyahu was deliberately misrepresenting the US position. “He may have a judgment that just may not be correct here,” Kerry said.

In an improbable twist, Kerry portrayed Netanyahu as a hothead because he supported the 2003 Iraq invasion (which Kerry also backed). Netanyahu had been “profoundly outspoken about the importance of invading Iraq ... We all know what happened with that,” Kerry said. The diplomatic path should be fully explored before “extreme measures”, such as military action, are contemplated, he added.
This level of public recrimination has not been seen since George HW Bush fell out with Yitzhak Shamir over illegal settlements in 1991, and perhaps not even then. Obama’s officials put it down to campaign posturing. Netanyahu faces a tight general election on 17 March and, as ever, presents himself as the only leader Israelis can trust with national security.
As the Guardian revealed this week, Netanyahu has repeatedly talked up the Iranian threat in the past, making alarmist claims unsupported by Israel’s intelligence agencies. In this he was assisted by the former hardline Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who appeared to threaten Israel with annihilation.

There is bad blood between Netanyahu and Obama, two very different characters. One is a former special forces commando, the other an urbane intellectual. Maybe the Israeli leader figures he could be dealing with a like-minded Republican president such as Jeb Bush, if he can hold out until January 2017. Netanyahu knows that, however abrasive his exchanges with the Obama administration, the politically influential Jewish-American community will never allow any US government to cast Israel adrift.
And there may be an element of bargaining in Netanyahu’s stance. He knows he cannot scupper a deal with Iran if the US wants it, but he could toughen its terms. Whether accurate or not, leaked details of the negotiations implying a softening of the US position have alerted Congress to take a closer interest. “I think his [Netanyahu’s] voice will resonate more credibly if that’s the deal that’s in the making,” said Abraham Foxman, president of the Anti-Defamation League.
Netanyahu’s immediate objective may be to so undermine the credibility of any accord that the Republican-controlled Congress rejects it, and votes to impose additional sanctions on Iran. But that could backfire. In such an eventuality, Tehran officials say, Iran would accelerate its nuclear programme. Escalation would certainly follow. Iran is already considering buying advanced Russian anti-aircraft missile defences. It might even move to develop the very nuclear weapons capability that, it claims, it has so far eschewed.

This self-fulfilling disaster scenario could lead Israel to undertake the “extreme measures” Kerry cautioned against – namely air strikes, which have long been threatened and planned. Yet, given that the perceived threat posed by Iran is not going to suddenly disappear, could it be that war, with the US sucked in on Israel’s side, is what Netanyahu really wants?

 

[ScottL]

Good Evening Jew Hater

 

[The Guesser]

Good Evening Jew Hater

Good Evening Sick, Right Wing, Israel Hating Extremist.

 

[ScottL]

Good Evening Sick, Right Wing, Israel Hating Extremist.

Good Night, Googler and Spammer of anti-Israel rhetorical garbage you don't read before you tongue punch Iranian mullah asscrack.

 

[The Guesser]

Good Night, Googler and Spammer of anti-Israel rhetorical garbage you don't read before you tongue punch Iranian mullah asscrack.

You sick, Radical Right Wing Spewing, Vile Hate Machine.