# Dems consider boycott Netanyahu address to Joint Congress



## QuickSilver (Feb 5, 2015)

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/190957#.VNNiaE90zcs



> Several Democratic senators said Wednesday that they are considering boycotting Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's upcoming speech before Congress, _CNN _reported.
> 
> The Senators wish to protest House of Representatives' Speaker, Republican John Boehner, for disregarding United States protocol and inviting Netanyahu without the White House's knowledge or involvement.
> 
> ...



Finally some ball inflation.   Those of you lucky enough to have a democratic Representative and/or Senator..  Give 'em a jingle..  encourage them to stand up for what is right.  I certainly will call mine.   Boehner is in direct violation of the Logan act... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act  and he should be charged with a felony.


----------



## rkunsaw (Feb 5, 2015)

I hope they all leave and don't come back. I'm betting most will stay though.

You seem to misinterpret both the Logan act and what Boehner did. 

The Logan act concerns *unauthorized *citizens *negotiating *with foreign countries. Most would argue that a congressional leader is *authorized *but more to the point, inviting someone to speak is not* negotiating *anything.


----------



## Jackie22 (Feb 5, 2015)

A serious mistake, indeed.  I read that Netanyahu is receiving flack at home over this, I hope he will be voted out and the Democrats walk out in March.  Can you just image the investigations if Pelosi had pulled such a stunt.


----------



## Debby (Feb 5, 2015)

Fingers crossed that the Democrats follow through on this threat!  Step in the right direction and I wonder how wound up this will make AIPAC?  Love to be a fly on their wall if the Democrats do this.


----------



## QuickSilver (Feb 5, 2015)

Jackie22 said:


> A serious mistake, indeed.  I read that Netanyahu is receiving flack at home over this, I hope he will be voted out and the Democrats walk out in March.  Can you just image the investigations if Pelosi had pulled such a stunt.




I heard someone say that it would be really cool is all Dems marched in in silence... took off one shoe and placed it on their chair and turned around and walked out...  Of course Dems have too much class for that.... as that would be more of a Republican stunt...  but it still would be very funny.  

I agree Jackie...  the best thing Netanyahu can do is cancel the speech and Boehner certainly will not uninvited him.


----------



## QuickSilver (Feb 5, 2015)

The tensions hit a high in the meeting between Dermer and the seven Jewish Democratic lawmakers: Reps. Jerry Nadler, Nita Lowey and Steve Israel of New York; Jan Schakowsky of Illinois; Sander Levin of Michigan; and Ted Deutch and Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida.

The hour-long confab, in Rep. Israel’s office in the Rayburn House Office Building, was contentious and spirited, several sources said. The lawmakers expressed displeasure and concern over Netanyahu’s decision to arrange the invitation with Boehner, according to a source familiar with the meeting. They said it was a step that could make support for Israel a partisan issue. Lawmakers, they said, are having to choose between supporting President Barack Obama and Netanyahu. Even as staunchly pro-Israel members, they said, they’re put in a tough position by partisan concerns and boycott threats.

“I organized the meeting with Ambassador Dermer, and I invited key Congressional Democratic supporters of Israel to attend,” Israel said. “There were a wide range of views that were discussed, but one thing we all agreed on emphatically is that Israel should never be used as a political football.”
The Democrats suggested that perhaps Netanyahu could speak to lawmakers privately.

In a mark of how controversial the speech has become — after Boehner invited Netanyahu to speak and told the White House only on the morning it was announced to the public — Vice President Joe Biden won’t commit to attending the speech, and neither will dozens of Democrats in the House or Senate. Obama has ruled out meeting with the prime minister on a trip that’s scheduled for just two weeks before the Israeli elections.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/...er-jewish-democrats-114901.html#ixzz3QsKt3iSZ


----------



## QuickSilver (Feb 5, 2015)

Well  I called my Congressman, Dan Lipinski..   and my Senator, Dick Durbin to urge them to both boycott Netanyahu's and Boehner's stunt.  First words out?  They are PRO ISRAEL!!    What the hell does Israel have to do with this?   Other than Netanyahu and the Republicans don't want peaceful negotiations with Iran... but would rather a WAR..     We are ALL pro-Israel... but we are also pro-peace.   AND we are sick and tired of this President being disrespected in any way they can dream up.   It's time that the House and Senate Democrats grow a pair... or at least inflate the ones they have.


----------



## Shirley (Feb 5, 2015)

Tsk. Tsk. Tsk.


----------



## BobF (Feb 5, 2015)

Why hasn't the President been very observant of Israels situation this past couple years or so?    I did not know that only the President would have the power to meet with other countries leaders.   Must be a new rule.   Thanks for the link if you know where that rule is.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Feb 5, 2015)

The Speaker of the House openly violated the so-called Logan Act that was signed into law and enacted in 1799 by President John Adams and codified in 18 U.S. Code § 953. 

_




			Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
		
Click to expand...

_​


> _
> This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.​_






The Code addresses precisely what Speaker of the House John A. Boehner did in conspiring with Netanyahu to address a joint session of Congress to defeat the measures of the United States in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States.


​The Logan Act prohibits any “Private correspondence with foreign governments” and reads; “Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.”

The Supreme Court ruled that Congress cannot and should not conduct foreign affairs; that power rests in the Executive Branch exclusively.

In the 1936 Supreme Court case, United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp, the Court held that “_all ability to conduct foreign policy is vested in the President. It is given implicitly and by the fact that the executive, by its very nature, is empowered to conduct foreign affairs in a way that Congress cannot and should not_.”

Boehner just does not, and Republicans cannot, accept that yes, “_all ability to conduct foreign policy is vested in the President_;” regardless of the fact he is an African American man or that Republicans’ allegiance is to a foreign power; in this case Israel.

Boehner violated the Logan Act just by “_directly commencing or carrying on any correspondence with a foreign government, or agent thereof_” with his admitted and explicit intent of influencing measures of the United States.

Boehner did say publicly that his reason for illegally corresponding with Netanyahu was to “_specifically ask him (Netanyahu) to address Congress and send a clear message to the White House about our commitment to Israel_.”


----------



## AZ Jim (Feb 5, 2015)

Too bad we can't impeach cry baby Boehner.


----------



## WhatInThe (Feb 5, 2015)

I hope they do boycott. We need more open protest. Better than the smoke filled backroom deals normally used to smooth these things out. Heck the Dems already sent campaign operatives to Israel to defeat Netanyahu, something only the CIA would do in South America and South East Asia.


----------



## QuickSilver (Feb 5, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> Too bad we can't impeach cry baby Boehner.




Better yet... throw his arse in the slammer.


----------



## Denise1952 (Feb 5, 2015)

This guys blog made sense to me:

http://www.quora.com/Does-the-Logan-Act-of-1799-apply-to-the-Boehner-Netanyahu-situation

Elliott Mason, parent, geek, Chicagoan, activ... (more) 1 upvote by John Colagioia.

Wikipedia says the Logan Act "forbids unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments."

The key points here for applying it to the Boehner/Netanyahu thing revolve around definitional issues:


unauthorized  citizens - the Speaker of the House is clearly not a mere civilian.  Whether that makes him 'authorized' under the Logan Act is a separate  matter, but there's definitely wiggle room.
negotiating - Are  there any negotiations involved? We'll have to see, but it's currently  being billed as inviting a foreign dignitary to address Congress  assembled (or just the House, reports differ). Asking someone to give a  speech is not negotiating with them.
with foreign governments -  It's an individual. Not everything Netanyahu does is an act of his  government (just as not everything Boehner does is an act of the US  government as a whole).

The Logan Act would not apply if  Speaker Boehner wanted to have a complicated negotiation with Mr.  Netanyahu about where to go for dinner, or which florist Mr. Netanyahu  should use for state functions back in Israel.

Whether it applies  here is still an open question. By some reports, Mr. Netanyahu  effectively wishes to make a campaign speech -- he's trying to score  points in the upcoming Israeli election by what he says in the US.


----------



## Josiah (Feb 5, 2015)

Great research SB, regarding the Logan act.

BobF, international diplomacy is normally conducted in accordance with very strict rules of protocol. Rules which both Boehner and Netanyahu are violating.


----------



## QuickSilver (Feb 5, 2015)

Josiah09 said:


> Great research SB, regarding the Logan act.
> 
> BobF, international diplomacy is normally conducted in accordance with very strict rules of protocol. Rules which both Boehner and Netanyahu are violating.



Exactly... and only the PRESIDENT has the power to negotiate foreign policy.  By bringing in Netanyahu.. Boehner is effectively sabotaging the Presidents negotiations with Iran by allowing Netanyahu to use the US congress as a political platform.


----------



## darroll (Feb 5, 2015)

Forget ISIS and lets fight with our allies.


----------



## QuickSilver (Feb 5, 2015)

darroll said:


> Forget ISIS and lets fight with our allies.



Netanyahu has hardly been much of an ally...   Hope he gets booted out. 

As for Boehner.... nothing short of treasonous


----------



## BobF (Feb 5, 2015)

So far it seems only the far left followers are upset by this invite to talk to the US Congress.   I have not seen any US political discussion going on here as talking about the worlds situation would not be news to anyone at all.   I suppose that there may be something wrong for some folks.   Always have some that wish to see only their ideas and thoughts held and the rest to shut up.

Before I say Boehner is wrong, I will wait and see how things really turn out.   Did Boehner really not approach Obama or is this the reaction to Obama's often too aloof or disinterested in what others think and say to answer a request to have a speaker in the Congress.   Just more things for folks to think about.


----------



## Denise1952 (Feb 5, 2015)

I'm with you Bob, seems any chance there is to bash Republicans, it's like a bunch of ravenous wolves.  Some of the posts were good here like Seabreeze, and I really liked what I found because a lot of things are just assumed, without a thorough look at what's happened.  He may be guilty of a wrong, but I don't like linch mobs, no trial, he's a republican, fry him.  That sort of attitude will continue to tear this country apart.


----------



## darroll (Feb 5, 2015)

Tunnel vision could get a person or persons in trouble quick.


----------



## QuickSilver (Feb 5, 2015)

darroll said:


> Tunnel vision could get a person or persons in trouble quick.




So take off the goggles...


----------



## AZ Jim (Feb 5, 2015)

nwlady said:


> I'm with you Bob, seems any chance there is to bash Republicans, it's like a bunch of ravenous wolves.  Some of the posts were good here like Seabreeze, and I really liked what I found because a lot of things are just assumed, without a thorough look at what's happened.  He may be guilty of a wrong, but I don't like linch mobs, no trial, he's a republican, fry him.  That sort of attitude will continue to tear this country apart.



Well, it's clear to me you are whining because you are a Republican, that is no sin, but I have seen in just today's posts some negative comments directed at members of this forum who were supporting Democrat positions.  I have yet to see you jump in to condemn that.  If you were as meticulous in studying the issues discussed as you feel others should be perhaps you would have a different opinion.  Now as to the issue here, if it is or isn't a violation of law is for others to decide but it is, at the minimum a breach of protocol. If you wish to play at neutrality, be neutral.  I applaud your interest however.


----------



## AZ Jim (Feb 5, 2015)

WhatInThe said:


> I hope they do boycott. We need more open protest. Better than the smoke filled backroom deals normally used to smooth these things out. Heck the Dems already sent campaign operatives to Israel to defeat Netanyahu, something only the CIA would do in South America and South East Asia.



Of course you can document this?


----------



## AprilT (Feb 5, 2015)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act

"In 1987 and 1988, President Reagan was furious at what he felt to be House Speaker Jim Wright's "intrusion" into the negotiations between Nicaragua's Sandinista government and the Contras for a cease-fire in the long civil war. The National Security Council considered using the Logan Act to muzzle Wright, but nothing ever came of it.
*Constitutionality of the Act[edit]"*

"There has been little judicial discussion of the constitutionality of the Logan Act.
In _United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp._ (1936), however, Justice Sutherland wrote in the majority opinion: "[T]he President alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation. He makes treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate; but he alone negotiates. Into the field of negotiation the Senate cannot intrude, and Congress itself is powerless to invade it." Sutherland also notes in his opinion the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations report to the Senate of February 15, 1816:The President is the constitutional representative of the United States with regard to foreign nations. He manages our concerns with foreign nations, and must necessarily be most competent to determine when, how, and upon what subjects negotiation may be urged with the greatest prospect of success. For his conduct, he is responsible to the Constitution".[SUP][7][/SUP]​


----------



## BobF (Feb 5, 2015)

One word keeps coming up in these protests being posted.    NEGOTIATION!!!   Is allowing someone from somewhere else talk to our Congress a negotiation?   Or just asking for comments from others about how they see a situation or items they wish to report on.

Time for some better ideas of what is going on before we have to make lots of political coverage rules be top argument.


----------



## BobF (Feb 5, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> Well, it's clear to me you are whining because you are a Republican, that is no sin, but I have seen in just today's posts some negative comments directed at members of this forum who were supporting Democrat positions.  I have yet to see you jump in to condemn that.  If you were as meticulous in studying the issues discussed as you feel others should be perhaps you would have a different opinion.  Now as to the issue here, if it is or isn't a violation of law is for others to decide but it is, at the minimum a breach of protocol. If you wish to play at neutrality, be neutral.  I applaud your interest however.



One issue is that I don't see her post as whining at all.   She has a right to voice her opinions and nothing less should be afforded without put down comments.   

I am not posting against the lefties at all but I am defending the right of others to speak to our Congress in conversational ways.   Some seem to think that can not be done and have posted reasons why.   So far they have all talked about negotiating.   What if they are not negotiating at all and just telling about how they feel in this or that situation.   Yes, I am defending what has been offered to the leader of the Jewish peoples government.    And until it becomes obvious that he intends to violate our ability to have our Congress hear from him, let him talk.   If it is really such a wrong move then the one who should be talking is Obama.   Not some one sided posters here.   Both sides to this situation have a right to be heard.


----------



## AZ Jim (Feb 5, 2015)

BobF said:


> One issue is that I don't see her post as whining at all.   She has a right to voice her opinions and nothing less should be afforded without put down comments.   I am not posting against the lefties at all but I am defending the right of others to speak to our Congress in conversational ways.   Some seem to think that can not be done and have posted reasons why.   So far they have all talked about negotiating.   What if they are not negotiating at all and just telling about how they feel in this or that situation.   Yes, I am defending what has been offered to the leader of the Jewish peoples government.    And until it becomes obvious that he intends to violate our ability to have our Congress hear from him, let him talk.   If it is really such a wrong move then the one who should be talking is Obama.   Not some one sided posters here.   Both sides to this situation have a right to be heard.



Ahhh so you missed her opening, huh?  *"I'm with you Bob, seems any chance there is to bash Republicans, it's like a bunch of ravenous wolves."  *Sounds like whining to me.


----------



## Warrigal (Feb 5, 2015)

As an outsider I can only say that disrespect for any national leader should be avoided.
To use a national leader as a pawn in a domestic dispute is irresponsible and there are going to be consequences.
Both the Republican and the Democrats should think very carefully about that they are doing.


----------



## BobF (Feb 5, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> Ahhh so you missed her opening, huh?  *"I'm with you Bob, seems any chance there is to bash Republicans, it's like a bunch of ravenous wolves."  *Sounds like whining to me.



No, I don't think her post changes anything I have posted.   Only you trying to twist what I have posted.


----------



## BobF (Feb 5, 2015)

Dame Warrigal said:


> As an outsider I can only say that disrespect for any national leader should be avoided.
> To use a national leader as a pawn in a domestic dispute is irresponsible and there are going to be consequences.
> Both the Republican and the Democrats should think very carefully about that they are doing.



Well Warrigal, if you are talking about my inserting Obama's name as the one who can certainly make a definitive comment, yes or no, about the request to have Israels leader speak to our congress.   That is just a truth about who really has control over our Congress.   None of the posters on this forum have such control as he has.   So far I have seen lots of opinions, little else, posted.   Far too much we do not know about what Israel has been asked to talk to Congress about and some have jumped to the worst probable possibility.


----------



## AZ Jim (Feb 5, 2015)

BobF said:


> No, I don't think her post changes anything I have posted.   Only you trying to twist what I have posted.


As is often the case with you you fail to comprehend what I said.  Where did I make the charge that her post changed anything you posted? Rhetorical question.


----------



## Jackie22 (Feb 5, 2015)

April just posted the answer to this......read it carefully..


"There has been little judicial discussion of the constitutionality of the Logan Act.
In _United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp._ (1936), however, Justice Sutherland wrote in the majority opinion: "[T]he President alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation. He makes treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate; but he alone negotiates. Into the field of negotiation the Senate cannot intrude, and Congress itself is powerless to invade it." Sutherland also notes in his opinion the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations report to the Senate of February 15, 1816:The President is the constitutional representative of the United States with regard to foreign nations. He manages our concerns with foreign nations, and must necessarily be most competent to determine when, how, and upon what subjects negotiation may be urged with the greatest prospect of success. For his conduct, he is responsible to the Constitution".[SUP][7]


[/SUP]


----------



## Warrigal (Feb 5, 2015)

All I know is that when an Australian PM visits Washington we are all watching to see whether he/she is received by the President or by some lesser person. As a people we can be offended by a perceived slight. Being asked to address Congress is seen as a high honour and to have half the house boycott it would also be taken personally by the nation as a whole.

Foreign affairs is not the appropriate arena for domestic political battles. Everyone should look further than their own noses on this one.


----------



## BobF (Feb 5, 2015)

Jackie22 said:


> April just posted the answer to this......read it carefully..
> 
> 
> "There has been little judicial discussion of the constitutionality of the Logan Act.
> ...



Yes April did post this for our reading.   I read and am still responding the same as I did then.   Has Israels leader been asked to come here negotiate anything at all.   Or has he been invited to speak of something much more general and no negotiations.   Nobody has taken on that part at all.   If not negotiating, what is the problem.


----------



## BobF (Feb 5, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> As is often the case with you you fail to comprehend what I said.  Where did I make the charge that her post changed anything you posted? Rhetorical question.



So cover my ignorance and tell me just what your post is saying.   I said you twisted my post, you claim not.   I guess I am missing something real subtle.


----------



## AZ Jim (Feb 5, 2015)

BobF said:


> So cover my ignorance and tell me just what your post is saying.   I said you twisted my post, you claim not.   I guess I am missing something real subtle.



Apparently so.


----------



## QuickSilver (Feb 5, 2015)

Dame Warrigal said:


> As an outsider I can only say that disrespect for any national leader should be avoided.
> To use a national leader as a pawn in a domestic dispute is irresponsible and there are going to be consequences.
> Both the Republican and the Democrats should think very carefully about that they are doing.



Perhaps this will explain it better.   Boehner and Netanyahu deliberately ignored protocol and totally bypassed the White House in arranging this fiasco.  Netanyahu has never been fond of Obama..  Boehner will miss no opportunity to humiliate and insult this President.  Democrats feel as if they are being asked to choose between OUR President and a foreign leader.   Boehner and Netanyahu completely misread the political scene and figured that Obama and the Dems were weakened by last November's midterms.... The complete opposite is true... the Democratic party has been energized.  There is no contest in the choice Democrats are making.   Let Boehner OR Netanyahu carry out their ill conceived scheme..  They can cancel it... or Netanyahu will be talking to a lot of empty chairs.   I have just heard our Vice President Joe Biden will not be attending it either.


----------



## Warrigal (Feb 5, 2015)

I do understand QS. What I'm trying to do is have everyone see the situation through the eyes of the Israelis and the Israeli watchers. 
Foreign policy, including protocols etc, is fraught with danger.

Best not messed with for domestic gain.
It's Congress, both sides, that is playing with potential dynamite here.

The President is not involved as far as I can see.
It's hard to see what he can do to improve the situation other than to be a gracious host of Netanyahu while he is in the country.
It's very ungracious of Boehner to put the president in this situation.

That's the view from outside, anyhow.

We have our own domestic circus going on over here ATM and very entertaining it is too.
Apart from embarrassing the Royal Family, it's all in house so far.
If it should spill over into foreign affairs then I reckon all of us would have to pull our collective heads in.


----------



## QuickSilver (Feb 5, 2015)

Dame Warrigal said:


> I do understand QS. What I'm trying to do is have everyone see the situation through the eyes of the Israelis and the Israeli watchers.
> Foreign policy, including protocols etc, is fraught with danger.
> 
> Best not messed with for domestic gain.
> ...



The President will not meet with Netanyahu... It is a long established policy to NOT host Foreign leaders so close to their re-election..  The Israeli eliction will follow this fiasco by just two weeks.   Boehner knows of this policy..  this was all a poorly conceived scheme that backfired...  It's also my understanding that the Israelis are not too happy about Netanyahu's stunt either.


----------



## Warrigal (Feb 5, 2015)

A right proper mess all round then.


----------



## BobF (Feb 5, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> Apparently so.



Absolutely no effort to clarify.   A bit of attitude showing from your position.


----------



## WhatInThe (Feb 5, 2015)

Good Cop Bad Cop. Obama is telling Iran do it my way or he'll cut  the Republicons and Israel loose on them.


----------



## QuickSilver (Feb 6, 2015)

WhatInThe said:


> Good Cop Bad Cop. Obama is telling Iran do it my way or he'll cut  the Republicons and Israel loose on them.



Well... that would be a better explanation... however, after the last 6 years, do you really believe that any cooperation between Obama and the Republicans is feasible?   I just can't see any colaboration possible..


----------



## rkunsaw (Feb 6, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Well... that would be a better explanation... however, after the last 6 years, do you really believe that any cooperation between Obama and the Republicans is feasible?   I just can't see any colaboration possible..



I believe you are correct. Obama has refused to cooperate with Republicans for 6 years and I don't expect him to change. I do believe some Democrats in congress are beginning to see the light though. We might just get past some of the dictators vetos.


----------



## Debby (Feb 6, 2015)

I try to stay out of your 'in-country' politics, but of course Canada can't help but hear about what goes on in the halls of power in Washington and on that basis, I only ask rkunsaw, could it not be said that the Republicans have likewise proved to be entirely reluctant to work with Obama as well?  Just asking.


----------



## QuickSilver (Feb 6, 2015)

Debby said:


> I try to stay out of your 'in-country' politics, but of course Canada can't help but hear about what goes on in the halls of power in Washington and on that basis, I only ask rkunsaw, could it not be said that the Republicans have likewise proved to be entirely reluctant to work with Obama as well?  Just asking.




lol!!   ya think??

Here's how Republicans have worked with Obama..

Republicans:    "Can we burn your house down?"

Obama:      "no"

Republicans"   "Well,  then can we just burn the 2nd story??

Obama  " No!"

Republicans:   "Then how about just 2 or 3 rooms?"

Obama:   "NO!"

Republicans:   "Ok then, how about just your garage?"

Obama:    "I told you... NO!"

Republicans:    " You simply won't cooperate and compromise, will you!!"


----------



## BobF (Feb 6, 2015)

Over recent years the Republican Congress has sent many bills to the Democrat Senate and most were just piled onto the 'hold' pile rather than being opened and looked at.   Reid was the problem there and Obama apparently never asked for them to be looked into and passed or rejected.   Obama was way too busy playing golf and making political speeches to get to know just how much he was spending.   We must be getting pretty close to not having any money left to make payments, let alone to running the things Obama has spent money on and also keeping our government running.


----------



## Jackie22 (Feb 6, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> lol!!   ya think??
> 
> Here's how Republicans have worked with Obama..
> 
> ...




LOL....perfect.


----------



## Jackie22 (Feb 6, 2015)

[h=1]Israeli official suggests Boehner misled Netanyahu on Congress speech[/h]Source: *Reuters*

(Reuters) - A senior Israeli official suggested on Friday that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had been misled into thinking an invitation to address the U.S. Congress on Iran next month was fully supported by the Democrats. 

Netanyahu was invited by the Republican speaker of the house, John Boehner, to address Congress on March 3, an invitation Boehner originally described as bipartisan. 

The move angered the White House, which is upset about the event coming two weeks before Israeli elections and the fact that Netanyahu, who has a testy relationship with President Obama, is expected to be critical of U.S. policy on Iran. 

"It appears that the speaker of Congress made a move, in which we trusted, but which it ultimately became clear was a one sided move and not a move by both sides," Deputy Israeli Foreign Minister Tzachi Hanegbi told 102 FM Tel Aviv Radio on Friday.


Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/06/us-israel-usa-congress-iran-idUSKBN0LA1AG20150206 


Looks as though he is trying to wiggle out.


----------



## QuickSilver (Feb 6, 2015)

Jackie22 said:


> *Israeli official suggests Boehner misled Netanyahu on Congress speech*
> 
> Source: *Reuters*
> 
> ...




Poor Boehner.....   Hey John!!  How's the view from under that bus?   lol!!


----------



## Debby (Feb 6, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> lol!!   ya think??
> 
> Here's how Republicans have worked with Obama..
> 
> ...




Cute example but I don't think it really answers my question which was, 'have the Republicans not made an effort to not work with Obama in the same way they accuse him of not making any effort to work with them'.  The above sounds like Obama is simply refusing to go along with a  request.


----------



## QuickSilver (Feb 6, 2015)

No... and this example while facetious certainly sums it up..   Republicans  filibuster  nearly every  piece of legislation put forward for the last 6 years.  BUT that is not the issue here Debby.....   It's the lack of protocol..... the obvious attempt to sabotage negotiations with Iran... AND the attempt to make Obama look weak and ineffective.   Not to mention that  established policy is that a sitting US President does NOT meet with a foreign leader so close to there re-election bid.  He is not refusing ANYTHING... and HAS met with Netanyahu extensively in the past.  It was a partisan political STUNT....  nothing more nothing less..


----------



## BobF (Feb 6, 2015)

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...0LA1AG20150206 

Reading this makes a bit more sense that lots of these recent posts.   It helps explain the purpose of this meeting and what Israel will speak about.    The Congress is trying to pass a bill so that Iran will never be allowed nuclear power and weapons.   That makes sense to many people and if Obama's ways fail, this bill will be ready to apply.   It seems that more than 8 years of trying to control Iran and no progress at all should bring us to an end of the allowing Iran to progress on and on while we sit around and do nothing at all.


----------



## AZ Jim (Feb 6, 2015)

Debby said:


> Cute example but I don't think it really answers my question which was, 'have the Republicans not made an effort to not work with Obama in the same way they accuse him of not making any effort to work with them'.  The above sounds like Obama is simply refusing to go along with a  request.



Debby, When the President won his first term the Republicans went on record as saying "our goal is to make this him a one term President!"  That philosophy is still their goal.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...9fd5cd8-0696-11e2-afff-d6c7f20a83bf_blog.html


----------



## QuickSilver (Feb 6, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> Debby, When the President won his first term the Republicans went on record as saying "our goal is to make this him a one term President!"  That philosophy is still their goal.
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...9fd5cd8-0696-11e2-afff-d6c7f20a83bf_blog.html



Not to mention the now well known meeting of TOP Republicans the very night of Obama's inauguration in 2009... to derail all his proposed legislation

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/25/robert-draper-anti-obama-campaign_n_1452899.html

-- As President Barack Obama was celebrating his inauguration at various balls, top Republican lawmakers and strategists were conjuring up ways to submarine his presidency at a private dinner in Washington.
 The event -- which provides a telling revelation for how quickly the post-election climate soured -- serves as the prologue of Robert Draper's much-discussed and heavily-reported new book, "Do Not Ask What Good We Do: Inside the U.S. House of Representatives." 

According to Draper, the guest list that night (which was just over 15 people in total) included Republican Reps. Eric Cantor (Va.), Kevin McCarthy (Calif.), Paul Ryan (Wis.), Pete Sessions (Texas), Jeb Hensarling (Texas), Pete Hoekstra (Mich.) and Dan Lungren (Calif.), along with Republican Sens. Jim DeMint (S.C.), Jon Kyl (Ariz.), Tom Coburn (Okla.), John Ensign (Nev.) and Bob Corker (Tenn.). The non-lawmakers present included Newt Gingrich, several years removed from his presidential campaign, and Frank Luntz, the long-time Republican wordsmith. Notably absent were Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) -- who, Draper writes, had an acrimonious relationship with Luntz. 
For several hours in the Caucus Room (a high-end D.C. establishment), the book says they plotted out ways to not just win back political power, but to also put the brakes on Obama's legislative platform.


----------



## BobF (Feb 6, 2015)

Thanks for that note.   Was  never aware of it then not till now.    But what is the problem with folks having a meeting and trying to figure out how to do whatever in the future.   Sure bet none of the Democrats have ever done that - have they?    All this nonsense about the Republicans as being evil, why not some about the Democrats too.    As they are also quite evil.   Look what they have done to the US budgets and our national debt in the last 8 years of Democrat denomination of the congress.   That is a pretty sad view of what some call progress.   Our nation went from $7+ trillions to $18 trillion under the Democrat leadership of the Congress.   Pretty shameful to say the least.


----------



## WhatInThe (Feb 6, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Well... that would be a better explanation... however, after the last 6 years, do you really believe that any cooperation between Obama and the Republicans is feasible?   I just can't see any colaboration possible..



I don't think the administration planned the scenario but is exploiting the situation to their advantage. Letting congress express opinions and take a stance they say they are moving away from lets the US speak out of both sides of it's mouth as far as Iran is concerned. For Iran it comes down to calling Bonher's bluff or taking what Obama will give them now.

I also find it curious that this report came out now.

https://theuglytruth.wordpress.com/...illed-key-hezbollah-leader-mughniyeh-in-2008/

Is someone reminding somebody of a favor?


----------



## QuickSilver (Feb 6, 2015)

The "UGLY TRUTH"?   What kind of crazy website is that?  Wouldn't be one of them there conspiracy sites now.. would it????  lol!!


----------



## Josiah (Feb 6, 2015)

[h=1]Biden Expected to Miss Netanyahu Speech to Congress[/h]
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/fir...xpected-to-miss-netanyahu-speech-to-congress/


----------



## darroll (Feb 6, 2015)

Israel is in real trouble.
Maybe they should belly up to Putin?


----------



## Debby (Feb 6, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> Debby, When the President won his first term the Republicans went on record as saying "our goal is to make this him a one term President!"  That philosophy is still their goal.
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...9fd5cd8-0696-11e2-afff-d6c7f20a83bf_blog.html




So in other words, what you and QS are saying is that the Republicans are almost entirely oppositional?  Well that must get things done eh?  Can you imagine what kind of things might actually be accomplished if those bozo's would actually learn to cooperate and find a common ground?


----------



## BobF (Feb 6, 2015)

Well Debby, I don't think there is a common ground.   For the many bills sent from the House to the Democrat Senate, most were never opened and considered by the Democrats.    So the opposition is just as bad as they claim the Republicans are.   Two year and we will have a new President of one or the other party.   New House and Senate members mixed in with the older bunch.   I wonder how cooperative that group might be.   I would expect another messed up situation if government is not all of one party.   But it should not be so.   Until recent years the anger was in the election year and the results did work together to get things done.   Which is what our Constitution is supposed to inspire.


----------



## QuickSilver (Feb 7, 2015)

Debby said:


> So in other words, what you and QS are saying is that the Republicans are almost entirely oppositional?  Well that must get things done eh?  Can you imagine what kind of things might actually be accomplished if those bozo's would actually learn to cooperate and find a common ground?



When republicans can come up with ANYTHING that appears to be "common ground".... realistic common ground without demanding their way or the highway.... I'm sure Democrats will listen...


----------



## Shirley (Feb 7, 2015)

Whether you agree or disagree with what he said, I think you will have to agree that it was an unfortunate choice of venues to say it in. To stand in front of a room full of Christians and attack Christianity????? Tsk, tsk, tsk. Bad advice from his handlers.


----------



## QuickSilver (Feb 7, 2015)

Shirley said:


> Whether you agree or disagree with what he said, I think you will have to agree that it was an unfortunate choice of venues to say it in. To stand in front of a room full of Christians and attack Christianity????? Tsk, tsk, tsk. Bad advice from his handlers.



I don't feel he "attacked" Christianity at all..  That is a perception of Christians that are still holding a persecution complex..  and believe me... that's many of them.   I believe all he did was remind us of an unpleasant FACT...  perhaps one that some just don't want to face.  That is not attacking.. it's trying to remind folks of reality..  That's want a GOOD leader does you know.


----------



## BobF (Feb 7, 2015)

Maybe after the next election we will have a good leader from either party.   The one we have now is not a good leader at all.   Our debt level of $18 trillion is one proof of poor leadership and our reduced military strength is another indication of poor leadership.   Two more years and then, hope for a better leader.    Hillary possible, especially if she listens to her husband Bill Clinton for advice.   He was bringing down our national debt while he was in.


----------



## Josiah (Feb 7, 2015)

The following quote is from Kevin Drum's blog

"Poor John Boehner. You almost feel sorry for the guy sometimes. President Obama has been running rings around him for months now, infuriating the Republican caucus and causing Boehner endless headaches over Cuba, immigration, net neutrality, Homeland Security shutdowns, and dozens of other subjects. No matter how hard he tries, Boehner just hasn't been able to get ahead of any of this. Instead he's been forced over and over to respond to Obama's agenda while desperately trying to keep the peace among the tea partiers who control his future.Then, finally, it looked like he'd pulled something off. He announced the Netanyahu speech two weeks ago, catching the president off guard and garnering huzzahs from every corner of the the conservative movement. Finally, a victory!
But now it's all turned to ashes. His big spectacle is in tatters, with Democrats in open revolt and pundits of all stripes agreeing that he overreached by going around the White House on a foreign policy matter. It's been nothing but a headache, and even Netanyahu has joined the lynch mob now. What's worse, there's nothing he can do. The speech is still four weeks away, and Boehner has no choice but to let the whole dreary debacle play out. He already knows his show is a flop, but the curtain has to come up anyway and Boehner has to keep a stiff upper lip the whole time.
Poor guy."


----------



## BobF (Feb 7, 2015)

Well, you are partially right.   Obama has for six years now pretended the he was our king and had no reason to listen to the Congress for anything at all.   Reid was one of Obama's best supporters and would never take any items from the House, read them in the Senate, then act on them, up or down.   We have not had a legitimate government for 6 years now.   I don't expect we will till after the next election and some real US type of person, Democrat or Republican, gets elected.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Feb 7, 2015)

Here's an article about Netanyahu and the republicans.  http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/netanyahu-republicans


There is a measure of truth to this story, but it obscures a more significant reality. In their wars of ideas and political networks, Netanyahu’s Likud and his American supporters are an integral part of the Republican Party’s camp, and Israel is too involved in the American political landscape and defense establishment for Netanyahu to be considered as distant as a foreign leader.

 Netanyahu and Obama are at odds not only diplomatically, in their positions on Iran, but in their affiliated political parties and overarching strategic visions.

 Dermer once worked for the Republican strategist Frank Luntz; before moving to Israel, he helped to design the Contract With America.

 Netanyahu has been a member of the Republicans’ neoconservative circle since the Reagan years; when I interviewed him in 1998, during his first term as Prime Minister, he took up the first ten minutes reading me a column by Charles Krauthammer.

Before the 2012 U.S. election, Netanyahu received Mitt Romney in Jerusalem in a series of encounters arranged by his adviser Dan Senor, once a spokesman for George W. Bush’s Iraq czar, L. Paul Bremer, and the co-author of a gushing book about Israel’s entrepreneurial economy. 

These encounters were clearly calculated to undermine the President’s reëlection efforts.

 Netanyahu, moreover, openly solicits financial support from Sheldon Adelson, who is estimated to have donated at least a hundred million dollars to Romney’s electoral efforts, and who has spent tens of millions subsidizing the freely distributed _Israel Hayom_, which boosts Netanyahu and tears down his opponents. 

Netanyahu may fancy himself a Winston Churchill, warning the U.S. about Hitler’s threat to Britain. Instead, all this makes you wonder if he isn’t more like Texas
Governor Rick Perry, warning about the threat posed to his state by the President’s executive order on immigration.

Netanyahu’s invitation to speak before Congress has precipitated a crisis with the White House, but the clarity it offers comes as a relief. The strategic conflict is not between American and Israeli interests but rather between rival conceptions of how the two countries should exert and coördinate their respective national powers, the United States globally, and Israel regionally.

 Each conception has organized advocates in each country—roughly, the Likud with Republicans and Israeli center-left parties with Democrats. One leftist Israeli party is petitioning the election commission to prevent Netanyahu’s speech from being broadcast.

Obama has kept Netanyahu from bombing Iran, but their differences have hardly been resolved. Increasingly, these conform to party lines. Obama and Kerry take what Steven Simon, the former senior director for Middle East and North Africa affairs in the Obama White House, has called a classically realist approach to global affairs. “Obama was both willing to deal with Egyptian President Morsi and also refused to label his overthrow as a coup, subordinating his concerns about Egyptian domestic political arrangements to a strategic concern for regional stability,” Simon told me.

 Similarly, the realist move for Israel, with regard to the Palestinian territories, would be to strike a deal that reduces the risk of their being inflamed by neighboring conflicts. Obama, Kerry, and many Democrats are joined in these views not only by Labor Party and centrist leaders but also by former Mossad leaders Efraim Halevy, Meir Dagan, and Amiram Levin, and by Yuval Diskin and Yaakov Perry, former heads of the Shin Bet, Israel’s internal security agency.

Simon adds that Obama’s realism is reflected in his management of the Iranian threat, which isn’t popular in Netanyahu’s circle but is certainly understood by many Israelis.

 All Israelis are insistent that Iran’s proxy Hezbollah not threaten Israeli positions on the Golan Heights. But, on the question of how to respond to Iran’s nuclear program, there are differences of degree.

 Realists generally suppose that the value of nuclear weapons lies in deterring their use by others; they don’t consider them useful for much else, although, Simon added, “One cannot be sure that Iranian officials will think them valueless during the period when they adjust to having them.” In fact, Iran may be emboldened to act rashly, believing that its nuclear capability gives it some sort of immunity against a punishing conventional response from Israel, which could spin out of control. Obama’s repeated assertions that the U.S. would not permit Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon reflect this concern.

Obama seems sincerely determined to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear capacity, which would trigger a regional arms race.

 Unlike Netanyahu and the Republicans, however, he wants to play out the negotiations without undermining his interlocutors’ standing with Iranian hardliners. He knows that the other side has hardliners—that is, an internal politics to which he needs to be sensitive.

 He obviously supposes, but cannot be so undiplomatic as to say, that the best way to lower the flame under Iran’s nuclear program, and eventually to undermine the regime’s Islamist xenophobia, is to penetrate the country with Western investment (as happened in China in the seventies). Netanyahu says that he is adamantly against Iran gaining a “threshold” capability.

 Obama, reasonably, is less concerned. He knows that he has the military means to prevent an Iranian bomb, even at the eleventh hour. Why bring things to the point of war before it becomes absolutely necessary?

“I think there is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says, unless you adopt an unwavering, pro-Likud approach to Israel, that you are anti-Israel—and that can’t be the measure of our friendship,” Obama told a Cleveland audience in 2008. He has not said anything so sharp since then. What’s stopping him now? 

The Netanyahu speech has brought the Likud alliance with the Republicans into the open, and to his doorstep. Why shouldn’t the Obama Administration and the Democratic leadership make their alliance with Netanyahu’s opponents just as plain?

The Israeli election is six weeks away, tight as a drum, and will be decided by unaffiliated and not very subtle voters. As I wrote in December, Netanyahu is stoking swing voters' fear of Arab enmity. His chief opponents, Isaac Herzog and Tzipi Livni, are provoking their concern about global isolation and wrecked relations with Washington. Hezbollah and Hamas are inadvertently helping Netanyahu. Are not Obama, Kerry, and the Democrats—by holding to the fiction of bipartisanship, and refusing to embrace European initiatives to pressure Netanyahu’s benighted government—unnecessarily doing the same?


----------



## BobF (Feb 7, 2015)

An interesting article.   As I read it I could feel being pulled one way and then the other.   Sometimes confused, as I am, by the very last sentence.

Just as confused now as I was prior to reading the article.


----------



## QuickSilver (Feb 7, 2015)

Josiah09 said:


> The following quote is from Kevin Drum's blog
> 
> "Poor John Boehner. You almost feel sorry for the guy sometimes. President Obama has been running rings around him for months now, infuriating the Republican caucus and causing Boehner endless headaches over Cuba, immigration, net neutrality, Homeland Security shutdowns, and dozens of other subjects. No matter how hard he tries, Boehner just hasn't been able to get ahead of any of this. Instead he's been forced over and over to respond to Obama's agenda while desperately trying to keep the peace among the tea partiers who control his future.Then, finally, it looked like he'd pulled something off. He announced the Netanyahu speech two weeks ago, catching the president off guard and garnering huzzahs from every corner of the the conservative movement. Finally, a victory!
> But now it's all turned to ashes. His big spectacle is in tatters, with Democrats in open revolt and pundits of all stripes agreeing that he overreached by going around the White House on a foreign policy matter. It's been nothing but a headache, and even Netanyahu has joined the lynch mob now. What's worse, there's nothing he can do. The speech is still four weeks away, and Boehner has no choice but to let the whole dreary debacle play out. He already knows his show is a flop, but the curtain has to come up anyway and Boehner has to keep a stiff upper lip the whole time.
> Poor guy."



Hey John.....  Here's the world's smallest violin playing "My heart bleeds for you"..


----------



## Debby (Feb 7, 2015)

BobF said:


> An interesting article.   As I read it I could feel being pulled one way and then the other.   Sometimes confused, as I am, by the very last sentence.
> 
> Just as confused now as I was prior to reading the article.




 '.....Are not Obama, Kerry, and the Democrats—by holding to the fiction of bipartisanship, and refusing to embrace European initiatives to pressure Netanyahu’s benighted government—unnecessarily doing the same?'



While I'm not sure what it is that they are doing the same (helping Netanyahu, provoking concern about globe isolation or stoking fear of Arab enmity???), the other part that I've underlined is probably a reference to the BDS movement against Israel that I think I read is gaining traction.  BDS is 'boycott/divest/and sanction.  Basically companies and individuals refusing to do business with Israel because of how they treat the Palestinian people.  So the author is saying that by holding to the fiction of bipartisanship and by refusing to go along with the BDS movement they are .......doing the same????  

You're right, that's very confusing!


----------



## BobF (Feb 7, 2015)

I don't see the issue of Israel and the Palestinians to be the true statement at all.   What is happening in the coastal Palestinian territory or Gaza Strip is Israel is busy on occasions fighting the Hamas.   As far as those inland Palestinians living in the West Bank, there seems to be no troubles.


----------

