Another idle threat/promise to ignore me that won't be followed?
"Keep it in House" does not apply in this situation in the slightest. Neither of us are voting in the Israeli election, nor are we members of Likud or Zionist Union. We're not on The Bears or the Eagles. This is a posting and discussion forum. There's no House to keep it in. Is a Jew who severely disagrees with Bibi not supposed to post that, simply because he's a fellow Jew?? That is so against anything Jews have fought for and died for.
DH has hardly posted in this thread comparatively I have, you have, SB has, by far more posts in this thread than DH. All posts are welcomed by anyone, and it would have been great to have actual discussion, but you ruined that early on.
Well said. The thought of discussing anything civilly and rationally has been ruined. There is no need to even attempt it. Which is sad, because all of us could have benefitted and learned why others believe what they believe. You can't expect to go against traffic on a one way street and not have a wreck.
The sad part about that gibberish is you will never, ever know what kind of a person I am. What you think I am is only what your imagination thinks I am, and I cannot change that.... that is why I never try to name call and judge total strangers, because you never truly know what a person is until you get to know him personally. Apparently, you don't believe that, and that's fine. To each his own. It's ok, keep on insulting and attacking...............I will not stoop to that level.
[h=1]GOP, Bibi Hurt Israel, USA[/h] Posted: 03/13/2015 4:50 pm EDT Updated: 03/13/2015 4:59 pm EDT
While the recalcitrant rightist government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has left Israel more isolated in the world than at any time since 1948, Bibi's ill-advised recent speech to a joint session of Congress could reduce a historically nonpartisan alliance between Israel and America to a hyperpartisan scheme between the Likud Party and the GOP.
With negotiations to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and triggering a nuclear arms race throughout the Middle East reaching a critical moment, a junior Republican senator with only weeks of Senate experience, Tom Cotton, led 46 Republican senators in sending an ill-advised letter to Iranian leaders that was so grotesquely inappropriate the New York Daily News bannered photos of Cotton, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell and two likely GOP presidential candidates with the word "traitors."
A few legal experts suggest the letter might violate the Logan Act, which bans unauthorized interference in diplomatic negotiations. I do not endorse these views, but they offer a warning Republicans would be well-advised to heed.
While America faces a terror threat from mass-murdering butchers who would behead our citizens, partisan Republicans suffer a distemper so severe they threatened a government shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security that was only averted through the wise bipartisan intervention of Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), the House minority leader.
While six retired directors of the Israeli security agency Shin Bet are so concerned about the future of Israel they participated in the film "The Gatekeepers" to dramatize their support for a fair resolution of the conflict between Israel and Palestinians, Netanyahu has sounded an uncertain and discordant trumpet to play to his far-right base before an election he fears he could lose, appearing to oppose a two-state solution after appearing to support one -- a matter that's vital to Israel's security and standing throughout the democratic world.
While nearly 200 retired leaders of the Israeli military and intelligence agencies pleaded with Netanyahu to cancel his bitterly divisive speech to Congress, fearing it would poison relations between America and Israel, Netanyahu unwisely forged ahead, falsely believing it would advance his reelection campaign.
Netanyahu had previously made a historically unprecedented effort to defeat an American president in the 2012 election. His Cabinet includes members who have publicly insulted President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry, a faithful friend of Israel for decades and one of the most respected statesmen in the world.
Netanyahu's ambassador in Washington, in an unprecedented act of duplicity from an ally, met for two hours with the secretary of State without telling him about his covert planning with the Republican Speaker for Netanyahu's joint session speech, which appalled many Americans and violated core values of U.S.-Israeli relations.
On Tuesday, Israeli voters will make a momentous decision. Netanyahu's opponent, a coalition led by the internationally respected leaders Isaac Herzog and Tzipi Livni, who would govern far more in the tradition of Israeli leaders since 1948 than Netanyahu, has a good chance of winning.
Many of Israel's most devoted friends throughout America and the democratic world privately hope Herzog and Livni prevail, and dread the damage and danger they fear would follow a Netanyahu victory.
They can't say it. I just did.
The free world must respond forcefully to the terror threat from the Mideast, firmly to the imperial ambitions of neo-Soviet strongman Vladimir Putin, and effectively to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power.
Obama and America's European allies are clear: All options remain on the table. Diplomacy must be given every opportunity to succeed. The alternative to diplomacy with Iran is not only more sanctions but war, which Iranian leaders should understand may be inevitable and Republican leaders should understand must be avoided if possible.
Partisanship, extremism and obstructionism from the right in Israel or America that seeks to destroy our diplomacy only divides our alliance, endangers our security and damages America, Israel and the democratic world.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brent-budowsky/gop-bibi-hurt-israel-usa_b_6858022.html
While the recalcitrant rightist government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has left Israel more isolated in the world than at any time since 1948, Bibi's ill-advised recent speech to a joint session of Congress could reduce a historically nonpartisan alliance between Israel and America to a hyperpartisan scheme between the Likud Party and the GOP.
With negotiations to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and triggering a nuclear arms race throughout the Middle East reaching a critical moment, a junior Republican senator with only weeks of Senate experience, Tom Cotton, led 46 Republican senators in sending an ill-advised letter to Iranian leaders that was so grotesquely inappropriate the New York Daily News bannered photos of Cotton, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell and two likely GOP presidential candidates with the word "traitors."
A few legal experts suggest the letter might violate the Logan Act, which bans unauthorized interference in diplomatic negotiations. I do not endorse these views, but they offer a warning Republicans would be well-advised to heed.
While America faces a terror threat from mass-murdering butchers who would behead our citizens, partisan Republicans suffer a distemper so severe they threatened a government shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security that was only averted through the wise bipartisan intervention of Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), the House minority leader.
While six retired directors of the Israeli security agency Shin Bet are so concerned about the future of Israel they participated in the film "The Gatekeepers" to dramatize their support for a fair resolution of the conflict between Israel and Palestinians, Netanyahu has sounded an uncertain and discordant trumpet to play to his far-right base before an election he fears he could lose, appearing to oppose a two-state solution after appearing to support one -- a matter that's vital to Israel's security and standing throughout the democratic world.
While nearly 200 retired leaders of the Israeli military and intelligence agencies pleaded with Netanyahu to cancel his bitterly divisive speech to Congress, fearing it would poison relations between America and Israel, Netanyahu unwisely forged ahead, falsely believing it would advance his reelection campaign.
Netanyahu had previously made a historically unprecedented effort to defeat an American president in the 2012 election. His Cabinet includes members who have publicly insulted President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry, a faithful friend of Israel for decades and one of the most respected statesmen in the world.
Netanyahu's ambassador in Washington, in an unprecedented act of duplicity from an ally, met for two hours with the secretary of State without telling him about his covert planning with the Republican Speaker for Netanyahu's joint session speech, which appalled many Americans and violated core values of U.S.-Israeli relations.
On Tuesday, Israeli voters will make a momentous decision. Netanyahu's opponent, a coalition led by the internationally respected leaders Isaac Herzog and Tzipi Livni, who would govern far more in the tradition of Israeli leaders since 1948 than Netanyahu, has a good chance of winning.
Many of Israel's most devoted friends throughout America and the democratic world privately hope Herzog and Livni prevail, and dread the damage and danger they fear would follow a Netanyahu victory.
They can't say it. I just did.
The free world must respond forcefully to the terror threat from the Mideast, firmly to the imperial ambitions of neo-Soviet strongman Vladimir Putin, and effectively to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power.
Obama and America's European allies are clear: All options remain on the table. Diplomacy must be given every opportunity to succeed. The alternative to diplomacy with Iran is not only more sanctions but war, which Iranian leaders should understand may be inevitable and Republican leaders should understand must be avoided if possible.
Partisanship, extremism and obstructionism from the right in Israel or America that seeks to destroy our diplomacy only divides our alliance, endangers our security and damages America, Israel and the democratic world.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brent-budowsky/gop-bibi-hurt-israel-usa_b_6858022.html
[h=1]Obama’s Iran deal makes US, Israel more secure[/h]12:01 a.m. PDT March 14, 2015
TNS FORUM (EDITORS: The writer is addressing the question, “Does Obama’s pending deal with Iran really endanger the U.S. and Israel?” We suggest pairing this with IRANDANGER-PRO.)
By John B. Quigley
Tribune News Service
(TNS)
Israel’s survival is not at stake in the current flap over U.S. negotiations with Iran about its nuclear program, although Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claimed it was when he spoke to Congress on March 3.
Netanyahu argued that Iran has a “voracious appetite for aggression,” citing a plot by a Persian viceroy, Hamam, to kill Jews 2,500 years ago.
He also cited contemporary situations that he said show Iran’s aggressiveness, hence the danger to Israel were Iran to get nuclear weapons. But his examples all related not to direct aggression by Iran, but that country’s aid to groups in other countries.
One was “the Shiite militias of Iraq,” which, he said, are “rampaging through Iraq.” How that “rampaging” threatens Israel, Netanyahu did not explain. He omitted the fact that these Shiite militias are fighting ISIS in unspoken alliance with the United States.
The Western powers, with the U.S. in the lead, have imposed harsh economic sanctions on Iran to force it to negotiate over its nuclear program.
Iran can be faulted on many grounds. But Iran has not invaded other countries. Its only war in recent history was against Iraq in the 1980s, and that war was started by Iraq.
And Iraq was given material aid by the United States.
If one goes looking for countries in that part of the world that possess nuclear weapons and have committed aggression, there is only one.
Israel has had an arsenal of nuclear weapons since the 1960s. In 1967, Israel committed aggression against Egypt, Jordan and Syria, taking considerable Arab territory in the process.
Netanyahu sees nuclear weapons as just over the horizon in Iran, but the recently retired head of his own intelligence service, the Mossad, was quoted as using a barnyard expletive as he watched Netanyahu tell Congress how quickly Iran could get the bomb.
That reaction was consistent with a 2012 Mossad report, in a document made public only a few days ago, that said that Iran was “not performing the activity necessary to produce weapons” in its nuclear program.
Challenging the United States for downplaying an Iranian threat serves a purpose for Netanyahu. It helps him deflect criticism that he is blocking an accommodation with the Palestinians.
If Israel is under “existential threat,” how can it give up territory? That said, the fewer nuclear weapons around the world, the safer we all are.
That is the commendable idea behind the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1968. It says that existing nuclear powers should scrap their nuclear weapons, and that other states should not develop them.
Unfortunately, the nuclear powers have been slow to comply. That failure deprives them of the moral high road when they pressure non-nuclear powers like Iran. Iran has signed the 1968 treaty, a step that Israel so far refuses to take.
Recently leaked information about the likely content of a deal with Iran is being used by President Obama’s critics to throw cold water on the worth of such a deal. But the likelihood is that the deal would include international inspection of a kind that would make it difficult for Iran to develop nuclear weaponry.
And the jury is still out on whether Iran is trying to develop weaponry in the face of its insistence that it is not.
Within recent days, Iran has let inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency into Iran to see sites the Agency wants to inspect.
Senate Republican opinion notwithstanding, a negotiated solution with Iran is the best route to dealing with this matter. An agreement, even an imperfect agreement, is better than a permanent standoff. An agreement will also give relief to the ordinary people of Iran, who have borne the brunt of the economic sanctions the West has in place against Iran.
TNS FORUM (EDITORS: The writer is addressing the question, “Does Obama’s pending deal with Iran really endanger the U.S. and Israel?” We suggest pairing this with IRANDANGER-PRO.)
By John B. Quigley
Tribune News Service
(TNS)
Israel’s survival is not at stake in the current flap over U.S. negotiations with Iran about its nuclear program, although Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claimed it was when he spoke to Congress on March 3.
Netanyahu argued that Iran has a “voracious appetite for aggression,” citing a plot by a Persian viceroy, Hamam, to kill Jews 2,500 years ago.
He also cited contemporary situations that he said show Iran’s aggressiveness, hence the danger to Israel were Iran to get nuclear weapons. But his examples all related not to direct aggression by Iran, but that country’s aid to groups in other countries.
One was “the Shiite militias of Iraq,” which, he said, are “rampaging through Iraq.” How that “rampaging” threatens Israel, Netanyahu did not explain. He omitted the fact that these Shiite militias are fighting ISIS in unspoken alliance with the United States.
The Western powers, with the U.S. in the lead, have imposed harsh economic sanctions on Iran to force it to negotiate over its nuclear program.
Iran can be faulted on many grounds. But Iran has not invaded other countries. Its only war in recent history was against Iraq in the 1980s, and that war was started by Iraq.
And Iraq was given material aid by the United States.
If one goes looking for countries in that part of the world that possess nuclear weapons and have committed aggression, there is only one.
Israel has had an arsenal of nuclear weapons since the 1960s. In 1967, Israel committed aggression against Egypt, Jordan and Syria, taking considerable Arab territory in the process.
Netanyahu sees nuclear weapons as just over the horizon in Iran, but the recently retired head of his own intelligence service, the Mossad, was quoted as using a barnyard expletive as he watched Netanyahu tell Congress how quickly Iran could get the bomb.
That reaction was consistent with a 2012 Mossad report, in a document made public only a few days ago, that said that Iran was “not performing the activity necessary to produce weapons” in its nuclear program.
Challenging the United States for downplaying an Iranian threat serves a purpose for Netanyahu. It helps him deflect criticism that he is blocking an accommodation with the Palestinians.
If Israel is under “existential threat,” how can it give up territory? That said, the fewer nuclear weapons around the world, the safer we all are.
That is the commendable idea behind the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1968. It says that existing nuclear powers should scrap their nuclear weapons, and that other states should not develop them.
Unfortunately, the nuclear powers have been slow to comply. That failure deprives them of the moral high road when they pressure non-nuclear powers like Iran. Iran has signed the 1968 treaty, a step that Israel so far refuses to take.
Recently leaked information about the likely content of a deal with Iran is being used by President Obama’s critics to throw cold water on the worth of such a deal. But the likelihood is that the deal would include international inspection of a kind that would make it difficult for Iran to develop nuclear weaponry.
And the jury is still out on whether Iran is trying to develop weaponry in the face of its insistence that it is not.
Within recent days, Iran has let inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency into Iran to see sites the Agency wants to inspect.
Senate Republican opinion notwithstanding, a negotiated solution with Iran is the best route to dealing with this matter. An agreement, even an imperfect agreement, is better than a permanent standoff. An agreement will also give relief to the ordinary people of Iran, who have borne the brunt of the economic sanctions the West has in place against Iran.
[h=1]'President Obama does not love Israel': Jon Voight attacks Obama in scathing new video as he voices his support for Netanyahu and desire to protect Israel from the 'mad men of this world'[/h]
+2
Actor Jon Voight (above) has released a video voicing his support for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his disdain for President Barack Obama
+2
The Oscar winner claims Obama 'does not love Israel' and rather wants to control the country to be friends with Israel's enemies
- Actor Jon Voight has released a video voicing his support for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his disdain for President Barack Obama
- The Oscar winner claims Obama 'does not love Israel' and rather wants to control the country to be friends with Israel's enemies
- Voight, a Republican, has repeatedly attacked Obama since he won the Democratic primary back in 2008
- He has labeled him a liar, an anti-semite, and a socialist, among other things
+2
Actor Jon Voight (above) has released a video voicing his support for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his disdain for President Barack Obama
+2
The Oscar winner claims Obama 'does not love Israel' and rather wants to control the country to be friends with Israel's enemies
Showdown in Lausanne: Iran nuclear talks enter their final stretch
US Secretary of State John Kerry takes a contemplative walk in the grounds of Lausanne’s Beau-Rivage hotel during a break in negotiations AFP PHOTO / POOL / BRIAN SNYDERBRIAN SNYDER/AFP/Getty
Photograph: BRIAN SNYDER/AFP/Get
At each stage of the Iranian nuclear negotiations the luxury hotel venues have grown steadily posher. The Beau-Rivage Palace Hotel in Lausanne represents a new peak. An imposing edifice on the banks of Lake Geneva, crammed with solid marble and surrounded by sprawling lawns, it is where the Treaty of Lausanne was signed in 1923, marking the final death rites for the Ottoman Empire and defining the borders of modern Turkey.
The accord being negotiated here 92 years later has the chance to be just as historic, albeit in completely different ways. It could determine the future spread of nuclear weapons, redefine relations between nuclear weapon states and their non-nuclear challengers. It could also mark the start of a new era in Iran’s relationship with the West.
Given the stakes, as well as the length (18 months on and off) and the intensity of the talks, diplomats here argue that the splendour and comfort of the surroundings are appropriate. And if you think diplomacy is expensive, they add, try military conflict. The combined hotel bills are little more than the cost of a single cruise missile.
On the other hand, the investment of time, money and effort could still come to naught if the negotiations in Lausanne fall short. The deadline for a framework agreement is the end of the month and while the differences between the parties here are narrowing, it is unclear whether they are narrowing fast enough.
This is what we know about the state of the talks: The long-running struggle over Iran’s uranium enrichment capacity over the lifetime of a deal appears to have been resolved with a compromise equivalent to between 6,000 and 8,000 of its current model of centrifuges. The stockpile of Iran’s low enriched uranium will be reduced from thousands of kilograms to hundreds of kilograms. The deal’s duration seems likely to be 10 years although some of the restrictions on Iran will last 15 years.
The outstanding differences involve sanctions and Iran’s capability to carry out nuclear industry research and development over the lifetime of a deal. On R & D, the US would like to put strict restrictions on Iranian work on developing new centrifuges. Iran says that is a recipe for perpetual dependence on foreign powers.
The gulf over sanctions is broader and deeper. The Iranian delegation, led by foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, want all UN Security Council sanctions linked to Iran’s nuclear programme lifted at the outset of any agreement. The government in Tehran needs to have something immediate, substantive as well as symbolic to show for sacrificing hard-won nuclear infrastructure. The US and its allies are offering to lift only some UN sanctions, along with the EU oil embargo. They are aware that, given the state of East-West relations, once all UN sanctions are lifted they will be near-impossible to re-impose if things go wrong.
A senior US administration official said: “We believe that sanctions relief has to come in a phased way as Iran undertakes its commitments so that it would be more of a step-by-step process.”
The Iranians have been publicly optimistic in Lausanne. Ali Akbar Salehi, the head of the country’s atomic energy organisation, declared that 90% of the technical issues had been resolved leaving only one major area of disagreement (thought to be a reference to the R & D issue). Zarif is said to be somewhat less confident. The Americans are cautious, wary of raising expectations. A senior administration said:
Meanwhile, however, time is running politically. Congress gave the Obama administration until March 24 before passing new sanctions. The White House probably has a little longer. Congress goes into recess three days after that deadline until April 13. But when the Republican majority comes back they will surely be in an combative mood, and emboldened by the victory of their closest foreign ally, Binyamin Netanyahu, defying expectations and the polls. If there is no deal by mid-April, Congress will unleash new sanctions and the window for talks could close definitively.
Even if there is a framework deal here, it will come under withering fire from Netanyahu and Congress. Its best hope of survival is for Obama to keep it alive in Washington until the end of his term in 22 months time. By then, it is hoped, it will have demonstrably defused tensions in the Gulf and kept Iran at least a year away from even the capacity to make a nuclear warhead. Obama’s successor, even a Republican, would not be able to throw all that away.
US Secretary of State John Kerry takes a contemplative walk in the grounds of Lausanne’s Beau-Rivage hotel during a break in negotiations AFP PHOTO / POOL / BRIAN SNYDERBRIAN SNYDER/AFP/Getty
Photograph: BRIAN SNYDER/AFP/Get
At each stage of the Iranian nuclear negotiations the luxury hotel venues have grown steadily posher. The Beau-Rivage Palace Hotel in Lausanne represents a new peak. An imposing edifice on the banks of Lake Geneva, crammed with solid marble and surrounded by sprawling lawns, it is where the Treaty of Lausanne was signed in 1923, marking the final death rites for the Ottoman Empire and defining the borders of modern Turkey.
The accord being negotiated here 92 years later has the chance to be just as historic, albeit in completely different ways. It could determine the future spread of nuclear weapons, redefine relations between nuclear weapon states and their non-nuclear challengers. It could also mark the start of a new era in Iran’s relationship with the West.
Given the stakes, as well as the length (18 months on and off) and the intensity of the talks, diplomats here argue that the splendour and comfort of the surroundings are appropriate. And if you think diplomacy is expensive, they add, try military conflict. The combined hotel bills are little more than the cost of a single cruise missile.
On the other hand, the investment of time, money and effort could still come to naught if the negotiations in Lausanne fall short. The deadline for a framework agreement is the end of the month and while the differences between the parties here are narrowing, it is unclear whether they are narrowing fast enough.
This is what we know about the state of the talks: The long-running struggle over Iran’s uranium enrichment capacity over the lifetime of a deal appears to have been resolved with a compromise equivalent to between 6,000 and 8,000 of its current model of centrifuges. The stockpile of Iran’s low enriched uranium will be reduced from thousands of kilograms to hundreds of kilograms. The deal’s duration seems likely to be 10 years although some of the restrictions on Iran will last 15 years.
The outstanding differences involve sanctions and Iran’s capability to carry out nuclear industry research and development over the lifetime of a deal. On R & D, the US would like to put strict restrictions on Iranian work on developing new centrifuges. Iran says that is a recipe for perpetual dependence on foreign powers.
The gulf over sanctions is broader and deeper. The Iranian delegation, led by foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, want all UN Security Council sanctions linked to Iran’s nuclear programme lifted at the outset of any agreement. The government in Tehran needs to have something immediate, substantive as well as symbolic to show for sacrificing hard-won nuclear infrastructure. The US and its allies are offering to lift only some UN sanctions, along with the EU oil embargo. They are aware that, given the state of East-West relations, once all UN sanctions are lifted they will be near-impossible to re-impose if things go wrong.
A senior US administration official said: “We believe that sanctions relief has to come in a phased way as Iran undertakes its commitments so that it would be more of a step-by-step process.”
The Iranians have been publicly optimistic in Lausanne. Ali Akbar Salehi, the head of the country’s atomic energy organisation, declared that 90% of the technical issues had been resolved leaving only one major area of disagreement (thought to be a reference to the R & D issue). Zarif is said to be somewhat less confident. The Americans are cautious, wary of raising expectations. A senior administration said:
"This is a bit of a roller-coaster of a negotiation in the sense that one day you may feel, gosh, we might actually get there, and the next day you might feel or maybe the next hour you might feel, well, maybe not so much. So that’s why it is very difficult and very challenging and why one moment you may think that we’re rather pessimistic and another moment we are a little bit more hopeful."
It had been hoped that the current session in Lausanne would be the last of this diplomatic marathon. But there is now talk about the possibility of reconvening next week for a dramatic last few days before the end-March deadline. Much will depend on how solid the negotiators believe that deadline to be. If they feel it can be pushed back they will not bring their final offers to the table. It is a self-imposed deadline, agreed in November by the foreign ministers of the negotiating states (Iran, US, UK, France, Germany, Russia and China). They gave themselves until the end of June to fill in all the details.
Meanwhile, however, time is running politically. Congress gave the Obama administration until March 24 before passing new sanctions. The White House probably has a little longer. Congress goes into recess three days after that deadline until April 13. But when the Republican majority comes back they will surely be in an combative mood, and emboldened by the victory of their closest foreign ally, Binyamin Netanyahu, defying expectations and the polls. If there is no deal by mid-April, Congress will unleash new sanctions and the window for talks could close definitively.
Even if there is a framework deal here, it will come under withering fire from Netanyahu and Congress. Its best hope of survival is for Obama to keep it alive in Washington until the end of his term in 22 months time. By then, it is hoped, it will have demonstrably defused tensions in the Gulf and kept Iran at least a year away from even the capacity to make a nuclear warhead. Obama’s successor, even a Republican, would not be able to throw all that away.
Iran endorses nuclear EMP attack on United States
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/iran-endorses-nuclear-emp-attack-on-united-states/article/2561733
Suspected for years of plotting to dismantle the U.S. electric grid, American officials have confirmed that Iranian military brass have endorsed a nuclear electromagnetic pulse explosion that would attack the country's power system.
American defense experts made the discovery while translating a secret Iranian military handbook, raising new concerns about Tehran's recent nuclear talks with the administration.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/iran-endorses-nuclear-emp-attack-on-united-states/article/2561733
Suspected for years of plotting to dismantle the U.S. electric grid, American officials have confirmed that Iranian military brass have endorsed a nuclear electromagnetic pulse explosion that would attack the country's power system.
American defense experts made the discovery while translating a secret Iranian military handbook, raising new concerns about Tehran's recent nuclear talks with the administration.
I make no predictions, Casper, I only post articles by those with knowledge, who do. I hope they're correct because the stench of Bibi needs to be removed, for the good of Israel. Added to my optimism is now YOU making a prediction. I'll have to ask President Thompson, or is it President Duncan Hunter, about your pathetic predictions, or maybe I'll ask Ex President Obama, who was ousted last year, or was it 2013, when the Universe shattering Info about his Birth Place was released. kth)(&^Loser!@#0ointer:
CBN NEWS – With six right and center-right parties recommending Benjamin Netanyahu as Israel’s next prime minister, Netanyahu now has a 67 seats, more than the 61 seats needed to form a majority in the Knesset (parliament).
It took just two days of official talks with President Reuven Rivlin to put Netanyahu over the top.
Some post-election analysts say poor voters in Israel’s small cities helped the prime minister’s comeback victory. The cities, outside Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, had huge turnouts.
National security issues and anger at the media’s treatment of Netanyahu and his wife, Sarah, were big factors.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just as I predicted, this election will now force Bibi to govern more right with a majority government.
Suck on it, Spammy!
:bigfinger
Mark Levin has apparently gotten the insider details on the phone conversation between Obama and Netanyahu, and reveals that Obama did NOT call Bibi to congratulate him on his victory. Instead, he called him to make demands on him:
Levin also reveals that Netanyahu’s pollster is saying that the media is underreporting the extent of Obama and his team’s participation in the campaign to oust Netanyahu.
I want to give you a little back information that’s not widely available publicly. When Barack Obama called Benjamin Netanyahu, it was not to congratulate him. They spoke for 30 minutes.
Barack Obama insisted that Benjamin Netanyahu remove his ambassador to the United States, Ron Dermer. Netanyahu said he would not. Obama pressed the case. Netanyahu said he will not.
Obama attacked Netanyahu, he said, for the last days of the campaign when he called out the Arabs. And he attacked Netanyahu for his statements about the two state solution.
Unfortunately Netanyahu’s position is that he still supports a two-state solution. However he said as long as that other state is committed to Israel’s demise, as long as they won’t disarm, as long as they will not recognize Israel as a Jewish state, how can there be a two state solution? As I say, the two-state solution would be a final solution.
And so it was a disrespectful, rude conversation on Obama’s part, not a congratulatory ‘oh you won’.
Barack Obama insisted that Benjamin Netanyahu remove his ambassador to the United States, Ron Dermer. Netanyahu said he would not. Obama pressed the case. Netanyahu said he will not.
Obama attacked Netanyahu, he said, for the last days of the campaign when he called out the Arabs. And he attacked Netanyahu for his statements about the two state solution.
Unfortunately Netanyahu’s position is that he still supports a two-state solution. However he said as long as that other state is committed to Israel’s demise, as long as they won’t disarm, as long as they will not recognize Israel as a Jewish state, how can there be a two state solution? As I say, the two-state solution would be a final solution.
And so it was a disrespectful, rude conversation on Obama’s part, not a congratulatory ‘oh you won’.
Levin also reveals that Netanyahu’s pollster is saying that the media is underreporting the extent of Obama and his team’s participation in the campaign to oust Netanyahu.
