Schmuck With Earflaps Goes Nuclear On Netanyahu

[Dave007inVegas]

Thunderous Applause: State of the Union Like Welcome for Bibi.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/thunderous-applause-state-union-welcome-bibi_873616.html

 

[The Guesser]

Like most of the idiot extreme right wing in this Country that now sucks his balls and vice versa, Bibi had no answers for anything, just complaints. What a worthless waste of time. I hope Israel does the right thing and gets back on course with America in a few weeks.

[h=1]Obama pans Bibi speech as 'nothing new'[/h] By David McCabe




There was “nothing new” in Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to a joint session of Congress, President Obama told reporters Tuesday in an 11-minute rebuttal from the Oval Office.
While the president said he missed the speech due to a call with European leaders, he criticized the address as lacking a "viable alternative" to his pursuit of a nuclear accord with Iran.

"I did have a chance to take a look at the transcript, and as far as I can tell, there was nothing new," Obama said.
"The prime minister appropriately pointed out that the bond between the United States of America is unbreakable, and on that point, I thoroughly agree," he said.
But he said that “the prime minister didn't offer any viable alternatives” to diplomacy on the “core issue” of stopping Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

"Keep in mind that when we came to the interim deal, Prime Minister Netanyahu made almost the precise same speech about how dangerous that deal was going to be," Obama said. "And yet over a year later, even Israeli intelligence officers and in some members of the Israeli government have acknowledged that, in fact, it has kept Iran from further pursuing a nuclear program."Netanyahu used his speech before a joint meeting of Congress to slam the administration's talks with Iran, warning a deal would pave the way for the construction of a nuclear bomb.
“The greatest danger facing our world is the marriage of militant Islam with nuclear weapons,” Netanyahu said. “We can’t let that happen.”
The Israeli leader tried to defuse the political tensions caused by his speech. He took a moment at the start of his address to welcome Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who was sidelined earlier this year by an injury to his face and ribs.
More than 50 Democrats skipped the speech, partly in protest of Speaker John Boehner's (R-Ohio) decision to invite Netanyahu without notifying the White House.

Senior administration officials, including Secretary of State John Kerry, have declined to meet with Netanyahu this week because his visit is coming just two weeks before the Israeli elections.
Asked about Boehner's breach in protocol Tuesday, Obama stressed that Congress is not in charge of foreign policy.
"We have a system of government in which foreign policy runs through the executive branch and the president, not through other channels."
The international talks with Iran have a self-imposed, end-of-March deadline. The president said this week that Iran will have to agree to at least a 10-year freeze of their nuclear program for a deal to be reached, and reiterated Tuesday he will not agree to a "bad deal."
"The bottom line is this: We don't yet have a deal. It may be that Iran cannot say yes to a good deal. I have repeatedly said that I would rather have no deal than a bad deal, but if we are successful in negotiating, then in fact this will be the best deal possible to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Nothing else comes close."

— Updated at 2:53 p.m.

 

[SheriffJoe]

More editorials! LMFAO!

 

[ScottL]

The clown show is early tonight. The moron is too stupid to realize that if Bibi provided "answers" he would have to reveal sensitive info. President Pinocchio knows the answers.

The speech was to flawless what guesser is to braincells.

 

[The Guesser]

[h=1]Bibi speech was an 'insult' to America and President Obama, Democrats say[/h] By Burgess Everett and Seung Min Kim
3/3/15 2:35 PM EST
Updated 3/3/15 4:36 PM EST

Scathing Democratic reviews of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to Congress came pouring in just minutes after the address ended: An “insult to the intelligence of the United States.” A “stick in the eye of the president.” An exercise in “circular reasoning.”

Netanyahu’s address to Congress did little to move Democrats toward his position of rejecting a nuclear deal with Iran that is nearing completion, and for many members deepened the rift between the Democratic Party and Israel’s political leadership under Netanyahu.



“This speech was straight out of the Dick Cheney playbook,” said Rep. John Yarmuth, a Kentucky Democrat. The Jewish lawmaker added: “I resented the condescending tone that he used, which basically indicated that he didn’t think anybody in Congress or the country understood the threat that a nuclear, weaponized Iran poses to his country, to the region and to the world.”

The Democratic reactions to Tuesday’s address were far more diverse than the response from congressional Republicans, who were uniformly united in their vigorous support of Netanyahu’s speech and his hawkish message. Senate Republicans said they will try to put a bill on the floor next week that would require Congress to approve any Iran deal, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said. The proposed legislation has a handful of Democratic supporters, but it’s not clear if it can survive a Democratic filibuster.
Consideration of further congressional sanctions on Iran could also be considered, which will test Democratic lawmakers’ loyalty to Obama while negotiations continue.
Some Democrats said they felt it was premature for the Israeli prime minister to label a possible agreement a “very bad deal” and denounce it as paving the way for Iran to obtain a nuclear bomb since it was still being negotiated and provisions haven’t been made public.

Netanyahu had said the concessions he was criticizing weren’t secret and could be found on Google.

“I don’t usually trust things that I find on Google. So I want to actually see the deal,” said Sen. Gary Peters, a Michigan Democrat.
Many of Peters’s Democratic colleagues were less restrained, led by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who was visibly agitated during the speech. She said afterward that she was near tears, “saddened by the insult to the intelligence of the United States” and the “condescension toward our knowledge of the threat posed by Iran.”

During the speech and its myriad applause lines, many Democrats chose to stay seated as Netanyahu criticized the administration’s pursuit of an international accord that would curb Iran’s nuclear program.
After the speech, Democrats seemed to fall into two camps: Those who believed much of the rhetoric was targeting President Barack Obama and those who heard no such characterizations but still scratched their head over Netanyahu’s rhetoric.

“He seemed to say that there was no way [to] ever trust Iran. Which says to me you can’t have a deal with Iran. And then he said, ‘Well, why don’t you work for a better deal?’ So it was confusing,” said Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.). “I think he had circular reasoning.”

Several House Democrats who opposed Netanyahu coming to the House chamber to speak – including some who formally boycotted the address – held a news conference to criticize both Netanyahu and Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), who invited the Israeli leader without first consulting the White House. Two of the House Democrats derided the speech as “political theater.”

“I was hoping to hear something from the prime minister that would justify why he came in the first place to give this speech, two weeks before his election, and why he arranged this speech totally behind the back of the White House with Speaker Boehner,” said Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) “And why he wanted to make a decision that put at risk what has always been a strong bipartisan approach towards Israel and turn it into a partisan battlefield. Frankly, I came away from the speech disappointed.”

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said he was concerned that many who heard the address would assume the United States had already agreed to the terms Netanyahu criticized, when in fact the provisions are still under negotiation.

“I thought it was a stick in the eye of the president. I really worry about the consequences of some of the rhetoric he used,” Murphy said. “If I had faith that every member of the House Republican Caucus was going to sit down and read the deal and look upon it without Obama-colored glasses, I wouldn’t be as worried.”

Still, Netanyahu had some defenders among Democrats.
California Rep. Brad Sherman, a hawkish Jewish Democrat and senior member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, said he disagreed with Pelosi’s characterization of Netanyahu’s speech as “condescension.”
“Every speech contains passages which remind the audience of facts they already know, and conclusions with which they already agree. That is not condescension; that is oratory,” Sherman said. “The prime minister’s speech did contain some new insight that Congress should carefully consider, though it did not contain a clear road map of to how to force Iran to accept a reasonable deal.”
But some liberal Democrats also expressed concern that Netanyahu’s warnings were tantamount to a call for military action, with Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), another Jewish Democrat, telling reporters: “What I heard today felt to me like an effort to stampede the United States into war once again.”

“What you were witnessing today was a very old concept: if you can make the people afraid, you can make them do anything,” said Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.). “And that’s what prime minister Netanyahu was doing. He was trying to make people afraid and somehow saying that the president wasn’t doing his job.”

Several Democrats, even those who held back direct criticisms of the prime minister, said they wished that Netanyahu had taken Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) up on his offer to speak privately to Senate Democrats. But Netanyahu spurned that invitation, leading to the Democratic boycott by liberals like Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and many members of the Congressional Black Caucus. Republicans filled some seats reserved for Democrats to obscure the image of partisanship.
Durbin, who disagreed with Netanyahu’s “characterization of the negotiations,” said he reached out to the Senate historian to see if there was any precedent to the approximately 60 Democratic members skipping the speech. He said there was not.
“It’s the first time in history that so many members of Congress have stepped forward to say that they would not attend a joint session. So that’s never happened before. It was much more partisan and political than it ever should have been,” Durbin said.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/...in-netanyahu-speech-115705.html#ixzz3TNAGQywB
​

 

[ScottL]

Netanyahu, Not Obama, Speaks for Us

While under fierce attack from President Obama, the Israeli prime minister defends Western values and speaks the truth about Iran.
By Quin HIllyer, NATIONAL REVIEW
The leader of the free world will be addressing Congress on Tuesday. The American president is doing everything possible to undermine him.

Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu leads a nation surrounded by enemies, a nation so small that it narrows at one point to just 9.3 miles.

Yet, in a world where the Oval Office is manned by someone openly apologetic for most American exercises of power; and where Western Europe’s economy is enervated, its people largely faithless, and its leadership feckless; and where Freedom House has found “an overall drop in [global] freedom for the ninth consecutive year,” the safeguarding of our civilization might rely more on leaders who possess uncommon moral courage than on those who possess the most nukes or biggest armies.

Right now, nobody on the world stage speaks for civilization the way Netanyahu does. While Barack Obama babbles about the supposedly “legitimate grievances” of those who turn to jihad, Netanyahu talks like this (from his speech to the United Nations on September 27, 2012):
The clash between modernity and medievalism need not be a clash between progress and tradition. The traditions of the Jewish people go back thousands of years. They are the source of our collective values and the foundation of our national strength.

At the same time, the Jewish people have always looked towards the future. Throughout history, we have been at the forefront of efforts to expand liberty, promote equality, and advance human rights.

We champion these principles not despite of our traditions but because of them. We heed the words of the Jewish prophets Isaiah, Amos, and Jeremiah to treat all with dignity and compassion, to pursue justice and cherish life and to pray and strive for peace. These are the timeless values of my people and these are the Jewish people’s greatest gift to mankind.

Let us commit ourselves today to defend these values so that we can defend our freedom and protect our common civilization.

When Hamas fired thousands of rockets into Israel last year, Netanyahu, in his necessary military response, did something almost unprecedented in the history of warfare. As he accurately described in his U.N. speech last year, on September 29:

Israel was doing everything to minimize Palestinian civilian casualties. Hamas was doing everything to maximize Israeli civilian casualties and Palestinian civilian casualties. Israel dropped flyers, made phone calls, sent text messages, broadcast warnings in Arabic on Palestinian television, always to enable Palestinian civilians to evacuate targeted areas.

No other country and no other army in history have gone to greater lengths to avoid casualties among the civilian population of their enemies.

As Barack Obama complains (with scant grasp of the historical context) about how Christians were such gosh-darn meanies a thousand years ago in the Crusades, Netanyahu protects the ability of Muslims today to have free access to the Old City of Jerusalem, even as Jews and Christians are prohibited from visiting the Temple Mount.

At the beginning of his first term, in his first trip overseas as president, Obama delivered a speech to Turkey’s parliament, under the thumb of the repressive Tayyip Erdogan. “The United States is still working through some of our own darker periods in our history,” he confessed, sounding like America’s therapist-in-chief. “Our country still struggles with the legacies of slavery and segregation, the past treatment of Native Americans.”

Netanyahu, in contrast, in a 2011 Meet the Press interview, offered unabashed words of praise for the United States: “Israel is the one country in which everyone is pro-American, opposition and coalition alike. And I represent the entire people of Israel who say, ‘Thank you, America.’ And we’re friends of America, and we’re the only reliable allies of America in the Middle East.” (Netanyahu was accurate in his description of how much Israelis appreciate Americans, as I saw last summer during a visit to the country.)

In thanking America, Netanyahu was not posturing for political advantage. Netanyahu — who spent far more of his formative years on the American mainland than Obama did, and who took enemy fire at the age when Obama was openly pushing Marxist theory, and who learned and practiced free enterprise at the same age when Obama was practicing and teaching Alinskyism — has spoken eloquently for decades in praise of the Western heritage of freedom and human rights. He also speaks and acts, quite obviously, to preserve security — for Israel, of course, but more broadly for the civilized world. On Tuesday, as he has done for more than 30 years, Netanyahu will talk about the threat to humanity posed by Iran.

It’s mind-boggling to imagine that any national leader in the free world would fail to understand the danger. The ayatollahs have never backed down from their stated aim of destroying Christendom. They have never wavered from their depiction of the United States as the “Great Satan.”

Just last week, Iran bragged about its recent test-firing of “new strategic weapons” that it says will “play a key role” in any future battle against the “Great Satan U.S.”

Iran also continues developing, while trying to keep them secret, new missiles and launch sites with devastatingly long-range capability. It continues to enrich uranium, including an allegedly secret program, to a level that’s a short jump-step from bomb strength. It has a lengthy record of lying and cheating about its military activities, its compliance with U.N. mandates (not that the U.N. is worth much anyway), and its protections of even the limited human rights it actually recognizes as such.

About the only thing Iran never lies about is its absolute, unyielding determination to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. It was only a few months ago, for example, that the “revolutionary” regime’s “Supreme Leader,” the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, released a nine-point plan for how to “annihilate” the Jewish state.

Yet Obama not only begrudges the Israeli prime minister the opportunity to make his case against this existential threat to his nation, but he conducts a diplomatic and political assault against Netanyahu of a ferocity rarely seen in the annals of American foreign policy. Obama’s actions aren’t just wrongheaded; they are malignant. They pervert American tradition and American interests, and they attempt to deprive the entire free world of its single most clarion voice for enlightenment values.

Benjamin Netanyahu of course speaks first for Israel, but he speaks also for you and for me, for decency and humaneness, and for vigilance and strength against truly evil adversaries. Congress, by inviting him, is wise. Obama, by opposing him, is horribly wrong. And the civilized world, if it ignores him, will be well-nigh suicidal. — Quin Hillyer is a contributing editor for National Review Online. Follow him on Twitter: @QuinHillyer

 

[The Guesser]

Yes Guesser, I know it sucks how much of a low life scamming tout I am, and how I shamelessly I lick the balls of anyone and everyone to the extreme right to fit in with the crazy cult down here. I can't help it, I want to be popular with the loons.

There there Scotty, it's OK to try and fit in. But with Terrorist supporter and Birthers and Liars, and racists??? There was a time where you tried to do better. Sadly those times have past. But maybe it was me who was fooled. All along you were a low life tout, so why did I expect anything else?

 

[ScottL]

The deal of the century

By Clifford May, ISRAEL HAYOM

Remember when U.S. President Barack Obama said that to prevent the Islamic Republic of Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapons capability, he would keep all options on the table? How long has it been since anyone took that warning seriously?

Remember when Obama said he didn’t bluff, that “when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say,” adding: “We’ve got Israel’s back.” Does anyone think those statements are still operative?

Remember when Obama’s spokesmen said that striking a bad deal with Iran would be worse than striking no deal at all, and that a good deal means Iran dismantles its nuclear weapons programs?

At this point, it’s all but certain that Obama is prepared to accept a deal that will be dangerous for America and the West — and, yes, life-threatening for Israel. For Iran’s rulers, by contrast, it could be the deal of this young but already bloody century. Based on reports and leaks, the agreement now on offer will leave intact most of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, along with its intercontinental ballistic missile program and its ability to continue stonewalling on weaponization research.

In exchange, Iran’s Islamic revolutionaries will pledge to remain months — not years — from the threshold beyond which they can make nuclear warheads. They are to keep that distance for roughly 10 years. Expect Obama to say we will know if they violate the agreement and that we will have time to take action should that happen.

His confidence ignores the intelligence community’s record when it comes to Iran, as well as Iran’s history of deception and continuing refusals to open its military programs to international inspectors.

The deal also is likely to include a “sunset” clause: In about 10 years, the clerical regime will be able to build an industrial-size nuclear program with hundreds of thousands of centrifuges and multiple plutonium reactors that will give the mullahs an easier path to a “breakout” or clandestine “sneak out.” Iran’s nuclear program will be under the same minimal constraints as those of Holland, Japan and Germany — democracies that have never pursued nuclear weapons.

Obama appears to believe that Iran is evolving into a responsible power. No evidence suggests he’s correct. What is evident: Sunni nations such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Turkey and Egypt fear Iran, and are likely to develop their own nuclear capabilities. In other words, we are heading toward multiple nuclear weapons-capable countries on a hair trigger in the most volatile region of the world. Try leading that march from behind.

According to the government Obama heads, Iran remains the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism and a chronic violator of fundamental human rights at home. It has been attempting to establish hegemony over its Arab neighbors and has repeatedly threatened Israelis with genocide. “Death to America!” remains the regime’s rallying cry.

The U.S. and Iran do have a common enemy in the Islamic State. But the U.S. and Iran also had a common enemy in Saddam Hussein. Americans fought and died — in many instances killed by Iranian-backed Shia militias — and eventually prevailed, standing up “a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government,” as Vice President Joseph Biden phrased it in 2010. Then Obama withdrew U.S. forces from Iraq. Predictably, a power vacuum opened. Predictably, Iran filled it.

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei encouraged not just sectarianism but the oppression of Iraqi Sunnis by Iraqi Shiites. That helped revive al-Qaida in Iraq, an organization that had been shattered by the “surge” led by Gen. David Petraeus. With not even a residual U.S. military force left behind following the American withdrawal, we could only look on helplessly as al-Qaida in Iraq morphed into the Islamic State, a self-proclaimed caliphate that now rules significant swaths of both Iraq and Syria, with affiliates in Sinai, Libya and elsewhere.

That’s not all: My colleague, Thomas Joscelyn, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, has highlighted documents seized in the raid on Osama bin Laden’s safehouse in Pakistan and just released by prosecutors in New York as evidence in a trial against a terrorism suspect. These documents confirm that Iran’s rulers have continued to collude with al-Qaida. What’s more, Joscelyn writes, “Terrorists directly tied to al-Qaida’s Iran-based network have plotted attacks in the West on three occasions since Obama took office.”

So in addition to worrying that Iran’s rulers will use nuclear weapons or give them to Hezbollah, their proxy, there is now reason to believe they might provide a bomb to al-Qaida.

Remember when such an idea — the U.S. allowing an al-Qaida collaborator to acquire nuclear weapons — sounded crazy?

Some members of Congress are not blind to this gathering storm. Late last week, Senators Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Tim Kaine (D-Va.) introduced legislation that would require congressional review of any comprehensive nuclear agreement with Iran.

It would direct the president to submit such an agreement to Congress and prohibit him from suspending congressional sanctions for 60 days. During that period, Congress could hold hearings and “approve, disapprove or take no action on the agreement.”

“The content of any final deal is of great significance to the national security of the United States, our allies, and to international peace and stability,” said Kaine, adding that he hopes “to work with my colleagues to provide support for a diplomatic deal that effectively ends Iran’s nuclear ambitions.”

Remember when Obama was saying the same? On Saturday, one of his spokesmen said he would veto the bill.

Clifford D. May is president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and a columnist for The Washington Times.

 

[The Guesser]

One of the few times I agree with Blowhard Nancy:

[h=1]Nancy Pelosi: Netanyahu speech ‘insulting to the intelligence of the United States’[/h] By Lauren French
3/3/15 1:03 PM EST
Updated 3/3/15 2:24 PM EST

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi dismissed a speech Tuesday by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as full of “condescension” and an “insult to the intelligence of the United States.”
The California Democrat was visibly upset during Netanyahu’s address on the House floor, in which the Israeli leader urged Congress to take a more aggressive line against Iran as part of ongoing negotiations over Tehran’s nuclear facilities. Pelosi and other congressional Democrats were critical of the brash language Netanyahu used to describe those negotiations.
“That is why, as one who values the U.S.-Israel relationship, and loves Israel, I was near tears throughout the Prime Minister’s speech — saddened by the insult to the intelligence of the United States as part of the P5 +1 nations, and saddened by the condescension toward our knowledge of the threat posed by Iran and our broader commitment to preventing nuclear proliferation,” Pelosi said in a statement.


Netanyahu used his address, which garnered significant interest from lawmakers, to question the wisdom of crafting a nuclear deal with Iran instead of enacting stricter sanctions against the government.

“Right now, Iran could be hiding nuclear facilities that we don’t know about,” Netanyahu said. “Iran has proven time and again that it cannot be trusted.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/...anyahu-speech-react-115701.html#ixzz3TNE4z4HI
​

 

[ScottL]

Did one of the Three Amigos Of Outcasts at this site just accuse me of trying to "fit in?"


Last post of the night - The rest of the evening belongs to Spammy's bursting enema bags. Everyone be sure to read now. Or just read one. They all say the same stupid shit anyway. Spammy has "succeeded" at one thing. Making this thread totally irrelevant. Actually that's every thread he infests with his keyboard diarrhea. Irrelevant. Like him.


March 3, 2015
Why Netanyahu Will Trump Obama in the Iran Nuclear Deal Showdown

By David Efune, ALGEMEINER

The prophets of doom are out in full force predicting the great harm that will befall Israel as a result of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s upcoming speech to Congresson the Iranian nuclear threat.

Forgive me, but I just don’t see it that way. Israel and Netanyahu have everything to gain from the speech and relatively little to lose. And, as in the past when Obama and Netanyahu have publicly gone head to head, the Israeli premier will emerge the diplomatic victor.

Firstly, all the talk about the “fabric” of the US-Israel relationship being undermined, or the claim that support for Israel is becoming partisan is hardly credible. The pitifully small number of lawmakers who have said they will skip Netanyahu’s talk serves as testament to that. Recent polls show that the American public supports the Jewish State’s right to express its concerns about Iran and the mostly full attendance at the speech is a reflection of that.

Additionally, the bulk of US-Israel cooperation, including the extensive shared military, intelligence and research ventures as well as US aid to Israel, is overseen by Congress and the Pentagon.

A legitimate cause for concern is that Netanyahu’s speech risks inviting some act of vengeance from a spiteful Administration that views Netanyahu’s talk as a slight. The comments coming from John Kerry, Susan Rice and unnamed officials should be viewed as threats, not as observations.

But what steps can the White House consider that would be worse for Israel to countenance than a nuclear armed Iran? The White House may refrain from vetoing a Palestinian Authority move for recognition at the United Nations Security Council, but, if faced with a choice, I imagine Israel would rather take the opportunity to convince Congress to impose its oversight on Iranian negotiations, which would likely serve as the final barrier to the implementation of a bad deal.

Additionally, with the Administration’s foreign policy increasingly maligned domestically, further drastic steps against Israel are liable to further isolate the White House.

On top of all this, it might be recalled that before President Obama’s reelection in 2012, it was widely alleged that Prime Minister Netanyahu, in his perceived backing of Obama’s rival Mitt Romney, had invited fire and brimstone upon the Jewish State. But it seems clear that Obama’s attitude towards Israel is no product of any one particular action taken by any Israeli leader, only a result of his innate worldview that harbors far less sympathy for Israel’s unique challenges than his predecessors have expressed.

The truth is that there is no thin skin epidemic at the White House, which had nothing to say about Iranian foreign minister Zarif’s shouting episodes during negotiations with John Kerry. The “crisis” with Israel has been manufactured because the White House doesn’t like what Netanyahu has to say, and so they are working diligently to undermine it.

Another argument against the speech was made by Robert Kagan in the Washingon Post, who said, that “bringing a foreign leader before Congress to challenge a US president’s policies is unprecedented.”

But Netanyahu is not just any foreign leader; he is the leader of a closely allied state that has a profound interest in the outcome of the talks with Iran, especially since they have effectively tied his hands with respect to other actions that Israel may have been considering against the Islamic Republic. Israel is repeatedly singled out as Iran’s first target for destruction, so before the American administration takes control of Israel’s fate in a way that leaves it feeling vulnerable, surely Israel must be allowed to state its case to the American people.

In an interview on Friday on PBS, New York Times columnist David Brooks said, “I think it’s political disaster for Bibi Netanyahu back home, because they’re — most Israelis are really worried about the state of the relationship.”

This argument may have stood up in the past, but in the case of President Obama, the opposite is true. He is so hated in Israel that standing up to him can only help Netanyahu electorally.

There have been times in his presidency that the number of people in Israel who considered Obama to be pro-Israel hovered around 4%, a figure that is traditionally within a poll’s margin of error.

In the Israeli elections of early 2013, the two political parties that aligned themselves with Obama’s criticism of Netanyahu on the Iranian issue, the Labor party, at the time headed by Shelly Yachimovich, and Hatnuah led by Tzipi Livni, underperformed considerably.

In terms of what will be gained from the speech, firstly, it is clear that Netanyahu, known for his cautious, consensus based leadership style, and criticized at home for lacking a backbone, believed he had no choice but to seize the opportunity to address Congress.

Had he stayed at home, his timidity may have been viewed by the Iranians and others as a de-facto acquiescence to Obama’s deal making with Iran. His other option, to talk less and take military action if the need arose – as his domestic political opponent Avigdor Lieberman has reportedly advised, would likely bring about far greater friction with Obama’s White House and other countries around the world, not to mention the potential loss of life that would likely follow the inevitable Iranian blowback.

In his recent comments, Netanyahu has focused strictly on the issues and has remained supremely deferential and even supplicatory in references to both the US-Israel relationship and to President Obama.

“I would like to take this opportunity to say that I respect US President Barack Obama,” he said before leaving Israel for the US. “I believe in the strength of the relationship between Israel and the US and in their strength to overcome differences of opinion, those that have been and those that will yet be.”

There was no reciprocity from the US President. The White House has expressed little sympathy over what the looming threat of a nuclear Iran means to the lives of millions of Israelis, as well as Jews around the world who have been targeted by Iranian terror proxies. Where is the understanding for Israeli concerns? All we have yet seen is snide dismissals from Obama’s lackeys.

But the main reason why Netanyahu’s calculated gamble will ultimately pay off is because he is backed by popular opinion both in the US and in Israel. In both countries, there is great unease over the direction the Iranian nuclear talks have taken, and Americans are less concerned by perceived slights of the president then they are by the nuclear threat that a recent Gallup poll showed to be the most significant security concern of a full 77% of US citizens.

Obama’s obvious capitulation to the ayatollahs is so thorough that many efforts to justify it have been met with raised eyebrows including from some of Obama’s traditional allies like the Washington Post and The Atlantic columnist Jeffrey Goldberg.

Amazingly, the controversy that has accompanied the Obama administration’s frenzied response to the engagement at Congress has moved the issue of Iran to the center of the world’s diplomatic focus, right where Israel needs it to be.

The last time Obama addressed the AIPAC conference now in full swing in the US capital, he vowed to a skeptical audience that “when the chips are down, I have Israel’s back.”

Now the chips are down and Prime Minister Netanyahu has arrived in Washington to cash in on that pledge. Surely he deserves the backing of all Israelis and all Americans.

The author is the Editor-in-Chief of The Algemeiner and director of the GJCF.

 

[The Guesser]

[h=1]Netanyahu's speech 'win-win' for Iran[/h]

By Jonathan Marcus BBC diplomatic correspondent sraeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu working on his speech to the US Congress in his Jerusalem offices



Nobody will be observing the media frenzy surrounding the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's speech to the US Congress on Tuesday with more interest, and with perhaps a certain amount of amusement, than the Iranians.
The tensions between US and Israeli leaders will be welcome. Nothing Mr Netanyahu can say will derail a nuclear deal if one is really possible.
And if there is no deal, why then Mr Netanyahu may well have to share some of the blame rather than just Tehran. In the short term, it is a win-win for Iran.
This though is a strategic moment for the Iranians and they would do well to disregard the "noises off" from the ebullient Mr Netanyahu. The obituaries for the Israel-US relationship may also be premature.
For many years, Iran has been seen in the West as the prime author of instability in the region, given its support for Hamas, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and its meddling in a variety of other conflicts

No matter that it was US policy in destroying Saddam Hussein's Iraq that vaulted Tehran into this position of regional ambition. Iran had suddenly become a player to be reckoned with.

And now even more so given the chaos in Syria, Iraq and Yemen.
But the rise of Islamic State has changed Tehran's calculations. Its support for Syria's embattled President Bashar al-Assad and for the shaky government in Iraq now has an even more avowedly strategic dimension.
And these same strategic concerns are playing into the debate over its nuclear programme as well.
To be clear, a nuclear deal between Iran and the West is still no certainty.
Mr Netanyahu's angst may be premature. But important progress has been made, not least at a meeting between US Secretary of State John Kerry and the Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif in the margins of the Munich security conference last month.
Iran's Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif held two bilateral meetings with US Secretary of State John Kerry at the Munich security conference

Of course at the outset the initial aim of the talks was to simply roll back Iran's nuclear programme.
Some hoped that it would be forced to abandon uranium enrichment altogether. That though was a forlorn hope. Iran has stuck to its proclaimed right to enrich under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and shows no sign of budging.

What is the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)?

• The NPT was created to prevent new nuclear states emerging, to promote co-operation in the peaceful use of nuclear energy and to work towards nuclear disarmament
• When it came into force in 1970, there were five declared nuclear states - the US, the Soviet Union (now Russia), China, Britain and France. These states are bound not to transfer nuclear weapons or to help non-nuclear states to obtain them
• On 11 May 1995, the treaty was extended indefinitely
• A total of 190 states have joined the treaty, though North Korea, which acceded to the NPT in 1985 but never came into compliance, announced its withdrawal in 2003
• Four UN member states have never joined the NPT: India, Israel, Pakistan and South Sudan
• The treaty allows for parties to develop, research, produce and use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination providing they renounce any desire to have nuclear weapons and allow the appropriate inspections and safeguards by the International Atomic Energy Agency

Full text of the treaty

As the talks have gone on, the fundamental issue (and there were many so this is a simplification) was how to constrain Iran's programme in such a way that any attempt to break out from the NPT's constraints and dash for a bomb would not just be visible, but would be seen in sufficient time for the international community to do something about it.
It is extending this "breakout" time that has been the crux of much of the debate. The deadline for these talks to bear fruit - 24 March - is fast approaching.
Progress has reportedly been made in a number of areas. A balance needs to be struck between enrichment activity; the stocks of enriched material retained and the level of verification required to ensure that any deal sticks.

Benjamin Netanyahu's speech to Congress was arranged by senior Republican opponents of Barack Obama and the Israeli Ambassador to Washington, in effect behind the president's back.

Iran now seems willing to accept a package of measures including a reduction in the number of centrifuges spinning and changes to their configuration.
It also is reportedly willing to export most of its enriched uranium stocks to Russia. It will also countenance changes to the design of the Arak reactor to reduce the level of plutonium it might produce.
There has also been some progress on the duration of any deal - perhaps some 10 to 15 years - and the sequencing of how restrictions on Tehran might be lifted. Some restrictions would remain in place for longer.
Any deal will have to be bolstered by a rigorous effort to ensure it is adhered to. Having sufficient warning time of any breakout is one thing. Deciding in advance what you would do in such a circumstance is quite another.
That is something Mr Netanyahu could usefully talk to the Americans about. Sadly he will not be speaking to any senior officials on this trip!

 

[The Guesser]

Congratulations to these Brave Congress People. Hopefully they get rewarded come election times for their Patriotism, and their avoidance of this clown show spectacle.

SKIPPING
House (48)
Rep. Karen Bass (Calif.) — In a statement, Bass said that she would be in Los Angeles for a city council election. “My support for a strong U.S.-Israel relationship has been consistent during my entire time in elected office, and that support will only continue in the years to come. Support for Israel has traditionally been a non-partisan issue, and I want it to remain so,” she said. "Unfortunately, Speaker Boehner mishandled inviting Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak to Congress. Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech is now marred with controversy. Prime Minister Netanyahu has been provided with other options to talk with members of Congress, but he has turned them down to do the public speech. It is truly sad that Speaker Boehner and Prime Minister Netanyahu have chosen to play partisan and divisive politics.”
Rep. Earl Blumenauer (Ore.) — Wrote a Jan. 29 column in The Huffington Post explaining his decision, saying the Constitution “vests the responsibility for foreign affairs in the president.”
Rep. Corrine Brown (Fla.)
Rep. G.K. Butterfield (N.C.) — The head of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) focused on Boehner undermining Obama in a statement and emphasized he's not urging a boycott.
Rep. Lois Capps (Calif.) — Told constituent in a letter posted to Facebook that she is skipping the speech.
Rep. Andre Carson (Ind.)
Rep. Joaquin Castro (Texas)
Rep. Katherine Clark (Mass.)
Rep. Lacy Clay (Mo.) will skip the speech, his office confirmed Monday.
Rep. James Clyburn (S.C.) — Clyburn is the highest-ranking Democratic leader to say he’ll skip the speech.
Rep. Steve Cohen (Tenn.) — “After deliberation, I have decided I cannot in good conscience attend the Prime Minister’s speech. My decision not to attend is not a reflection of my support for Israel and its continued existence as a state and home for the Jewish people. I have always strongly supported Israel and I always will,” said Cohen in a statement.
Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-N.J.) — "As a fierce supporter of Israel, I am disappointed in Speaker Boehner's efforts to drag Prime Minister Netanyahu into the GOP's endless efforts to undermine President Obama," she said in a statement.
Rep. John Conyers (Mich.)
Rep. Danny Davis (Ill.) will skip the speech, his office confirmed Monday.
Rep. Rosa DeLauro (Conn.) Announced she would not attend the day of Netanyahu's address because of the "partisan" nature of the invitation from Speaker Boehner.
Rep. Peter DeFazio (Ore.)
Rep. Diana DeGette (Colo.)
Rep. Lloyd Doggett (Texas) — "A partisan approach with our critical ally, Israel, is a grave mistake," he said in a statement.
Rep. Donna Edwards (Md.)
Rep. Keith Ellison (Minn.) — He is head of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC), a member of the CBC and the first Muslim in Congress.
Rep. Chaka Fattah (Pa.)
Rep. Marcia Fudge (Ohio)
Rep. Raúl Grijalva (Ariz.) — Grijalva is a co-chairman of the CPC.
Rep. Luis Gutiérrez (Ill.) — A spokesman told the Chicago Sun-Times that Gutierrez has a "strong" record on Israel but called the speech "a stunt."
Rep. Denny Heck (Wash.)
Rep. Ruben Hinojosa (Texas)
Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (Texas) — "The Congresswoman has no plans to attend the speech at this time," a spokeswoman said.
Rep. Marcy Kaptur (Ohio)
Rep. Rick Larsen (Wash.)
Rep. Barbara Lee (Calif.) — A member of the CBC and former head of the CPC.
Rep. John Lewis (Ga.) — His office confirmed he’s not going but emphasized he's not organizing a formal boycott
Rep. Dave Loebsack (Iowa) — Told local press he likely won't attend.
Rep. Zoe Lofgren (Calif.) — “I am disappointed Speaker Boehner chose to irresponsibly interject politics into what has long been a strong and bipartisan relationship between the United States and Israel. As President Obama has noted, it is inappropriate for a Head of State to address Congress just two weeks ahead of their election. I agree that Congress should not be used as a prop in Israeli election campaigns, so I intend to watch the speech on TV in my office.”
Rep. Betty McCollum (Minn.): "In my view Mr. Netanyahu’s speech before Congress is nothing more than a campaign event hosted by Speaker Boehner and paid for by the American people," McCollum said in a statement."
Rep. Jim McDermott (Wash.) — “I do not intend to attend the speech of Bibi,” he said in an email to a Seattle newspaper.
Reps. Jim McGovern (Mass.) — Told MassLive.com the “timing and circumstances of this speech are deeply troubling.”
Rep. Jerry McNerney (Calif.) — “Rep. McNerney is not planning to attend the speech. He’s got several previously planned commitments for that day.”
Rep. Gregory Meeks (N.Y.) — A CBC member.
Rep. Gwen Moore (Wis.)
Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.)
Rep. Beto O'Rourke (Texas)
Rep. Chellie Pingree (Maine)
Rep. David Price (N.C.) — "Speaker Boehner should never have extended the invitation, given the proximity of the speech to Israel's national elections and the fact that delicate international negotiations, which the Prime Minister wishes to upend, are hanging in the balance.”
Rep. Cedric Richmond (La.)
Rep. Jan Schakowsky (Ill.): Said she won’t attend but is “anguished” that Boehner’s invitation could weaken support for Israel in Congress.
Rep. Bennie Thompson (Miss.)
Rep. Mike Thompson (Calif.)
Rep. John Yarmuth (Ky.) — "We know what he is going to say," the Jewish lawmaker said in a statement.

Senate (8)
Sen. Al Franken (Minn.) — “This has unfortunately become a partisan spectacle, both because of the impending Israeli election and because it was done without consulting the Administration,” said Sen. Franken in a statement. “I’d be uncomfortable being part of an event that I don’t believe should be happening. I’m confident that, once this episode is over, we can reaffirm our strong tradition of bipartisan support for Israel.”
Sen. Tim Kaine (Va.) — “There is no reason to schedule this speech before Israeli voters go to the polls on March 17 and choose their own leadership," Kasine said in a statement.
Sen. Patrick Leahy (Vt.) — Leahy called it a "tawdry and high-handed stunt," according to a Vermont newspaper.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) — Sanders, who caucuses with Democrats, said it’s “wrong” that Obama wasn’t consulted about the speech.
Sen. Brian Schatz (Hawaii) — “The U.S.-Israel relationship is too important to be overshadowed by partisan politics," said Schatz in a statement. "I am disappointed in the Republican leadership’s invitation of Prime Minister Netanyahu to address a joint session of Congress with the apparent purpose of undermining President Obama’s foreign policy prerogatives.”
Sen. Martin Heinrich (N.M.) — “I intend to watch his speech about Iran from my office, but I have strong objections to using the floor of the United State Congress as a stage for his election campaign — or anyone's for that matter," Heinrich said in a statement.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) — Warren is "deeply concerned" about the prospect of a nuclear Iran but said Speaker Boehner's actions "have made Tuesday’s event more political."
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.) — “I’m concerned that behind it was a mischievous effort to manipulate domestic politics in both countries, which should not be the terms of engagement between friendly allies,” he said in a statement to local station WPRI.

 

[The Guesser]

[h=1]What Netanyahu's speech left out[/h]By Jeremy Ben-Ami
Updated 2:08 PM ET, Tue March 3, 2015



[h=3]Story highlights[/h]

• Jeremy Ben-Ami: Netanyahu's powerfully worded speech is no substitute for a strategy to keep Iran from getting nuclear weapons
• He says without a plan, the only option is to put U.S. on path to military action
• Netanyahu also lobbied for Iraq invasion in 2002, Ben-Ami says

Jeremy Ben-Ami is the founder and president of J Street, the political arm of the pro-Israel, pro-peace movement. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.

(CNN)As expected, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave a rousing speech to Congress, rich in historic imagery and replete with literary references. Yet a speech filled with powerful words is no substitute for a strategy for actually preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.


Jeremy Ben-Ami


As national security adviser Susan Rice told the pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC on Monday, "Precisely because this is such a serious issue, we must weigh the different options before us and choose the best one. Sound bites won't stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon."
The Obama administration, on the other hand, is making a strong and credible case that the deal it is pursuing would block Iran's pathways to developing the fissile material necessary for a bomb and extend the time for Iran to produce enough weapons-grade uranium to build a bomb from today's estimated three months to at least a year.

Without a deal, Iran would revert to building up its stockpile of nuclear uranium, while the international community would lose the ability to monitor and track Iran's activities.
At the top of the list of questions the Prime Minister failed to address is how such a scenario in the wake of "no deal" would actually make Israel safer?

As Rice said: "Here's what's likely to happen without a deal. Iran will install and operate advanced centrifuges. Iran will seek to fuel its (plutonium) reactor in Arak. Iran will rebuild its uranium stockpile. And, we'll lose the unprecedented inspections and transparency we have today."
If no deal that the United States and five other powers actually might strike with the Iranians would be acceptable to Netanyahu, how does he propose to deal with the Iranian nuclear threat?

He spoke about ratcheting up international sanctions against Iran and keeping them in place until Iran ceased regional aggression, sponsorship of terrorism and threatens to annihilate Israel. But years of extraordinarily tough sanctions did not persuade the Iranians to abandon their nuclear program or prevent them moving it forward. Neither did cyberwarfare or a series of assassinations of Iranian scientists.

And if the United States was seen as walking away from a possible agreement, the international sanctions regime would likely crumble, not strengthen. Iranian hard-liners who oppose an agreement would be back in the driver's seat in Tehran, while those would want to see Iran rejoin the international community would be discredited and sidelined.
It is doubtful that Netanyahu really believes sanctions would end the Iranian nuclear program. That leaves one other option -- military force. Of course, Israel could order a military strike on Iran any time it chooses, but Israel's ability to inflict significant damage on Iran's widely dispersed and heavily defended nuclear facilities is limited. When the discussion turns to military action, what is really meant is U.S. military action.
It is understandable that a foreign leader speaking in the U.S. Congress would shy away from openly asking Washington to attack another country, especially after the experience of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which Netanyahu also lobbied for.

We should recall Netanyahu's September 2002 testimony to the House Foreign Affairs Committee, six months before the U.S. assault on Baghdad began, when he said: "It's not a question of whether Iraq's regime should be taken out but when should it be taken out; it's not a question of whether you'd like to see a regime change in Iran but how to achieve it."

Netanyahu may have learned from that experience. He knows that the U.S. public is weary of war and has no appetite for another military adventure in the Middle East. That's why he advocates policies that would put the United States on a path to military action without mentioning the words "military action."

This Israeli leader, who faces a tough election back home in two weeks, has mastered the art of policy vagueness. He applied the same strategy to the failed negotiations with the Palestinians last year, declaring he was in favor of a two-state solution but never putting forward a detailed proposal for where the border should be drawn -- or on any other substantive issue for that matter. His biggest demand once again was rhetorical -- that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

This is an Israeli leader who believes in the power of words -- especially his words. But words are no substitute for a strategy -- and that's where Netanyahu once again failed himself, his country and his audience.

 

[The Guesser]

[h=1]5 things President Obama’s team thinks Benjamin Netanyahu got wrong[/h] Obama administration officials have been pushing back on key points of contention in Israeli prime minister’s speech.
By Michael Crowley
3/3/15 3:33 PM EST
Updated 3/3/15 6:23 PM EST

In his address about Iran to Congress on Tuesday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made a number of assertions that are challenged by Obama administration officials and some experts on Iran and the nuclear talks. Here are five key points of contention, in the form of direct quotes from Netanyahu’s speech and paraphrased arguments from interviews with Obama administration officials and outside experts who defend the nuclear talks.
Netanyahu: “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.”


Response: More sanctions are not a realistic option. Key countries like Russia and China are unlikely to support them, and the international coalition against Iran could fracture — and some may blame the U.S. for taking an overly hard line. Moreover, years of stiff sanctions have failed to halt — or even slow — the progress of Iran’s nuclear program. By some estimates the program has cost Iran $100 billion. Iran’s leaders have shown they are prepared to make huge sacrifices to maintain it.


Netanyahu: Many of Iran’s Arab neighbors will respond to a nuclear deal allowing it a domestic nuclear program “by racing to get nuclear weapons of their own. So this deal won’t change Iran for the better; it will only change the Middle East for the worse. A deal that’s supposed to prevent nuclear proliferation would instead spark a nuclear arms race in the most dangerous part of the planet.”
Response: Maybe not. As Iran has demonstrated, developing nuclear arms is very costly, both politically and economically. Although officials in Arab states like Saudi Arabia have warned that they will seek their own nuclear programs to match Iran’s, some experts are skeptical. “[T]he prospects of Saudi ‘reactive proliferation’ are lower than the conventional wisdom suggests,” a group of experts, including Vice President Joe Biden’s current national security adviser, wrote for the Center for a New American Security in 2013.


Netanyahu: “I don’t believe that Iran’s radical regime will change for the better after this deal. This regime has been in power for 36 years, and its voracious appetite for aggression grows with each passing year. This deal would only whet Iran’s appetite for more.”

Response: Iran has strong reformist elements and saw huge political protests in 2009. The 2013 election of President Hassan Rouhani was a vote for change and reform against the hard-liners. Most Iranians were born before the 1979 Islamic revolution and many admire the U.S. A nuclear deal could lead to a deeper thaw and more cooperation on issues like the threat of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. Also, Iran’s anti-American supreme leader is 75 years old and has health problems; his death could present new opportunities for reformers.


Netanyahu: “Virtually all the restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program will automatically expire in about a decade.”
Response: The nuclear deal under discussion would reportedly include a sunset clause limiting its duration to 10 or 15 years. After that time, Iran would no longer face unique restrictionson its peaceful nuclear activities. But even after such a nuclear deal expires, Iran will remain bound by the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which it ratified in 1970. The treaty was designed to allow countries peaceful nuclear programs while preventing them from developing atomic weapons. Under it, International Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA) inspectors and cameras will continue monitoring Iran’s nuclear facilities, and Iran will be legally prohibited from developing a nuclear weapon. As part of the interim nuclear deal it accepted in late 2013, Iran has also pledged to accept additional IAEA monitoring and inspection as part of any comprehensive pact.


Netanyahu: “[W]e’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.”
Response: A significantly better deal isn’trealistic. Iran will not accept it. The supreme leader is determined to have a large nuclear program and will make huge sacrifices to achieve it. Our negotiating partners do not want to apply more sanctions or extend the duration of the talks. And if the talks do fall apart, there will be nothing to stop Iran from dramatically expanding its nuclear program — increasing the possibility of a military confrontation. The deal is not perfect, but there is no realistic better alternative.
[h=6]Authors:[/h] Michael Crowley [email]mcrowley@politico.com[/EMAIL]

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/...in-netanyahu-speech-115711.html#ixzz3TNJaaqC1
​

 

[duckhunter]

Bottom line is he didn't bring any new news to the table. He used the same rhetoric as he's been using for the last two decades or so. Same old BS about Iran. He has been saying that Iran was 6 months away from a nuclear bomb since 1992. More importantly, he did not mention what other course of action should be taken, nor did he have an alternate plan. I think the world is tired of his same old BS. The only thing that was missing is a cartoon drawing of a bomb.

 

[The Guesser]

Bottom line is he didn't bring any new news to the table. He used the same rhetoric as he's been using for the last two decades or so. Same old BS about Iran. He has been saying that Iran was 6 months away from a nuclear bomb since 1992. More importantly, he did not mention what other course of action should be taken, nor did he have an alternate plan. I think the world is tired of his same old BS. The only thing that was missing is a cartoon drawing of a bomb.

 

[SheriffJoe]

Netanyahu: ‘even if Israel has to stand alone, Israel will stand’

http://www.breitbart.com/national-s...-israel-has-to-stand-alone-israel-will-stand/

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Translation: If push comes to shove, we'll bomb Iran and the Muslim in the White House can go fuck himself!

:aktion033

 

[The Guesser]

[h=1]Right On Tzipi!!!!

Livni: Netanyahu, Adelson destroying Israel-U.S. ties[/h] [h=2]Zionist Union's No. 2: 'Adelson is a casino magnate who, with his billions, controls the Republicans in the United States, and here, he controls Netanyahu.'[/h] By Jonathan Lis and Nati Tucker 03:03 04.03.15

0

Tzipi Livni, No. 2 on the Zionist Union ticket, yesterday accused Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his political patron, American Jewish multi-billionaire Sheldon Adelson, of destroying Israel’s relationship with the United States.
“The ties between capital, government and [gambling] chips are destroying our vital relationship with the United States and undermining Israel’s security,” Livni told a Ramat Gan conference on the ties between business, government and the media.
Livni also hinted that Adelson, who owns the pro-Netanyahu free newspaper Israel Hayom and is a major donor to the U.S. Republican Party, was involved in organizing Netanyahu’s controversial speech to Congress last night.

“Netanyahu and Adelson conceal the amount of money spent on Israel Hayom’s election propaganda,” she continued. “Adelson is a casino magnate who, with his billions, controls the Republicans in the United States, and here, he controls Netanyahu. And as in a puppet show, he pulls the political strings both there and here.”
“He lives there and controls our lives here. That’s serious,” she added.
After asserting that Zionist Union leader Isaac Herzog would form the next government, Livni pledged that his government’s guidelines would include “a new code of ethics for ministers and transparency in the Ministerial Committee for Legislation.”
“With us, there will be no more transfers of public funds to specific sectors, or as political coalition bribes [given] in the dark, under the table,” she said.
“With us, there will be no more transfers of public funds to specific sectors, or as political coalition bribes [given] in the dark, under the table,” she said. Public funds belong to the public, and the public must know what the state is doing with its money.
“We’ll impose transparency on the Ministerial Committee for Legislation, halt coalition funding, bring sunlight into the rooms where decisions are made about public funds and public assets. As justice minister, I pushed through a cabinet decision on transparency in tenders for privatizing public assets [and] standards that lowered the price of freedom of information requests by 80 percent, and in the last government, I also pushed for transparency in the Ministerial Committee for Legislation. The ones who blocked this vital democratic move were Bibi and Lapid,” she added, referring to Netanyahu and his former finance minister, Yesh Atid chairman Yair Lapid.
She also discussed a bill to stop Israel Hayom from being distributed for free, which passed its preliminary reading in the last Knesset. Livni, who was head of the Hatnuah party and Netanyahu’s justice minister at the time, had worked behind the scenes to promote the bill, and more than a few pundits have suggested that the bill is the real reason why Netanyahu dismantled his coalition and called early elections.

“I spoke with the publisher of Yedioth Ahronoth, Noni Mozes, and received an opinion Yedioth Ahronoth had commissioned,” Livni said yesterday, referring to Israel Hayom’s main rival among the daily papers. “Noni Mozes knows my position, and I know his position.”

 

[The Guesser]

[h=1]Netanyahu's splendid speech and the carnage in its wake[/h] [h=2]Golden boy Bibi delivered the goods for his campaign and for the Republicans, leaving behind embittered Democrats, a fuming White House and no change on Iran.[/h] By Chemi Shalev 01:23 04.03.15

0

Members of U.S. Congress greeted Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday as if they were the Likud Central Committee, in its better days, and he was the revered Menachem Begin, or the lionized Ariel Sharon: you could almost see them breaking out in a rendition of “Bibi King of Israel.” Cynical Israelis may feel they’ve seen it all, especially at election-time, but it’s still an extraordinary experience to witness an Israeli leader being received in the legislature of the world’s superpower as local hero and rock star.
Netanyahu was given a royal welcome. At times it seemed as if this was a presidential State of the Union address, but for the fact that the applause was more extended, the ovations more standing and the cheers much more enthusiastic than those accorded Barack Obama in recent years. Outside the Capitol, Washington seemed to stand still as the Congressional showdown turned into a daytime drama that attracted not only political junkies, but millions of thrill-seekers as well. In coffee shops and restaurants and on the street, ordinary people discussed the pros and cons of Netanyahu’s speech as if he was an all-American boy.
The address actually started off surprisingly lame. Netanyahu seemed hesitant, his throat was parched and he needed some shots of water, a la Marco Rubio; five minutes into his address, he may have tranquilized many Iran-weary Israelis who go into a coma whenever they hear the words “Ayatollah” and “nuclear” uttered in the same sentence. But just like Susan Rice, who opened her Monday night speech at AIPAC with boundless love and shameless flattery before courageously informing her listeners that their positions vis a vis Iran were off the wall, so Netanyahu paid lip service to Obama’s generous support for Israeli security and wellbeing before launching an all-out blitzkrieg on the “very bad” Iranian deal that the administration, in its naiveté if not stupidité, insists on achieving. It was, at its core, a very nasty rebuke.
Under the watchful eye of the ginger-haired Sheldon Adelson, Obama’s red flag, and what has now become his regular coterie of Netanyahu cheerleaders – Elie Wiesel, Alan Dershowitz and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach of the infamous "Rice=Genocide" ad – Netanyahu steadily turned up the heat, worked his audience like the pro that he is, took his listeners from one rhetorical peak to the next oratorical pinnacle, bringing the Republicans repeatedly to their feet with boundless joy and nakhes. From their point of view, John Boehner’s invitation gambit went off like clockwork, golden boy Netanyahu delivered the goods as if he was Ronald Reagan incarnate, and the White House, under its veneer of professed disdain, was obviously fuming with rage.
On the very same day that official election propaganda started to air on Israeli television channels, Netanyahu stood at the center of a campaign ad that no money could buy: filmed in one of the most exclusive studios in the world, with a cast of hundreds of top flight thespians, in the eye of an international storm, preaching against all odds for his people and against their enemies. It’s not clear what effect the event will have on Israeli voters, if any, but one thing cannot be said of Netanyahu, even if he loses: that he didn’t give it all he’s got.
The question remains, however, what effect all of this may have on the nuclear talks with Iran, the alleged reason for the whole shebang, and at what price. Netanyahu’s speech sparked an unprecedented and widespread boycott by several dozen Democratic lawmakers – including most of the party’s African-American representatives as well as Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, the darling of the liberal left. Minority leader Nancy Pelosi’s sour face during the speech, and her harsh verdict that it as “an insult to our intelligence” after it was over, was testament to the bitterness that the prime minister leaves behind him throughout the Democratic Party, with the possible exception of its hawkish wing.

Netanyahu didn’t make any new fans in the White House, either. Despite his promise/threat to reveal new, hitherto unknown details, U.S. officials said that the prime minister’s speech was a rehash of the same things that he has been telling Obama for the past two years. The officials view Netanyahu’s latest moves as much ado about nothing, a rampage with no visible returns, a “destructive” move with no rhyme or reason. Netanyahu’s speech probably won’t divert the Iranian talks from their track but it will leave a lot of bad blood its wake - a fair price to pay, Netanyahu would probably respond, if its helps his return to power.

Nonetheless, Netanyahu’s speech, superbly delivered as it may have been, was no game-changer. The ultimate decision about Iran’s nuclear future still lies, as it did before, with Ayatollah Khamenei in Tehran and not with Netanyahu and Congress in Washington. If the Iranians decide to accept the proposals currently before them, it’s hardly likely that its opponents in Congress would be able to face down a determined president. And if by chance they do, Iran will have an easy time accusing Netanyahu and the Jews of sabotage and this time, especially if the resulting impasse deteriorates to armed conflict, Americans might ultimately agree.

From this point of view, Netanyahu is entirely right: for Israel, it’s an existential danger.

 

[The Guesser]

[h=1]Congress gave Netanyahu right to veto American policy[/h] [h=2]If Netanyahu succeeds in foiling an accord and attacks Iran's nuclear installations, who will bear the responsibility for the destruction wreaked by this armed confrontation?[/h] By Zvi Bar'el 20:15 03.03.15

0

The speech is over, with applause duly resounding on Capitol Hill, and negotiations with Iran ahead of a framework agreement continue. Criticism of the Israeli spectacle in the United States capital addressed all there was to be said, and critics will now start to gauge the temperature of the cold shoulder the U.S. administration will show toward Israel.
During the entire noisy exchanges that took place the responsibility of one person, House Speaker John Boehner, never came up for discussion. He was the one who invited Netanyahu to speak before a joint session of the representatives of the American people. The argument is not over Boehner’s right to invite whoever he wants to, just as Netanyahu is far from being an unwilling captive. Netanyahu initiated the invitation, he coordinated the timing and his political goals are plainly in sight.
However, it is precisely the U.S. Congress, which is so friendly toward Israel and so concerned about its security and well-being, that could have been expected to remove an obstacle before the blind, especially when he is driving under the influence.
A demonstration meant to shame the speaker, staged by a few dozen Democrats who stayed away, is no substitute for good advice, especially since it was only part of the partisan political struggle in the U.S. The voice of close friends, who unconditionally ratify the annual aid package to Israel – larger than that given to any other country receiving U.S. aid – should have been heard loud and clear. It should have stated that “Netanyahu’s appearance is dangerous to Israel. It will damage strategic relations with the Administration and may insult a large part of the American public which foots the bill for the aid, and if Netanyahu doesn’t understand this we must him help do so.”

The Congress doesn’t need Netanyahu to explain the essence of the accord with Iran. It has the authority to legislate laws that will foil its signing. It can impose new sanctions on Iran and withhold increasing the budget required for the monitoring system that will supervise Iran’s nuclear installations, thus voiding the accord of any content. However, when it invites Netanyahu to deliver a speech it makes Israel a partner in decision-making over the future of Iran’s nuclear program, making the U.S. a negotiator on behalf of Israel.
The Congressmen who applauded him gave him “power of attorney,” enabling him to determine that the accord shaping up is “bad,” even though its details have yet to be worked out. Moreover, members of Congress, led by Boehner, will use Netanyahu to prove that the accord, when it is signed, endangers Israel and the world. They thereby gave Netanyahu a right to veto American policy.
There could be no greater and more important political victory than the status granted to Netanyahu. However, this victory is fraught with danger. Members of Congress did not ask him, nor did he offer an answer to the question of what happens if no deal is reached. They already know the answer, since Tuesday they gave him approval to use the “Israeli option” if he doesn’t succeed in thwarting the accord.

Netanyahu’s Israel will not wait to see if Iran attains nuclear weapons. The very existence of a nuclear program is the real threat in its view. Let’s assume that Netanyahu succeeds in foiling the reaching of an accord and Iran continues with its uranium enrichment program and Israel decides to attack its nuclear installations. Who will bear the responsibility for the destruction wreaked by this armed confrontation? John Boehner, who only provided the stage for Netanyahu’s rhetoric? Members of Congress who rose to their feet but didn’t warn him or Israel of the calamity that might befall Israel as a result of the sweeping success of the speech? They were only being polite.

Will anyone be able to complain that the Administration is not cooperating with Israel in its war with Iran after Netanyahu vetoed an accord?