Every Democrat in Congress Should Walk Out if Netanyahu Dares to Undermine President Obama on Iran.

[sabrina 1]

Last edited Fri Jan 23, 2015, 09:18 PM - Edit history (1)

No way should some foreign leader be allowed to try to usurp the power of the US President.

That is a direct slap in the face to America, regardless of which party the President belongs to.

It is an attempt to undermine the Iran Policies the President spoke about in the SOTU address.

No way should this be allowed to happen. Let Republicans make fools themselves, but let them do it WITHOUT Democrats!

Boehner snubs WH, invites Netanyahu to address Congress

Boehner, R-Ohio, asked Netanyahu to address the threats posed by Iran's nuclear ambitions and the rise of the Islamic State. The invite came a day after the president's State of the Union Address in which Obama warned Congress against enacting new economic sanctions against Iran.

"New sanctions passed by this Congress, at this moment in time, will all but guarantee that diplomacy fails, alienating America from its allies, and ensuring that Iran starts up its nuclear program again," Obama said Tuesday. "It doesn't make sense. That is why I will veto any new sanctions bill that threatens to undo this progress."

Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said the invitation to Netanyahu was a breach of diplomatic protocol, but that the White House was reserving judgment about the invitation until they had a chance to communicate with the Israelis on the prime minister's message.

Invitations to foreign leaders to address Congress are often made in consultation with the White House and the State Department, but it is not required. Earnest said typically a country's leader contacts the White House before planning a U.S. visit, but Boehner's announcement was the first the White House had heard of Netanyahu's address.

I've read that Kerry will not meet with Netanyahu nor will President Obama.

Who is this guy who thinks he can push this country into acting on behalf of his country OVER the head of the POTUS whose job it is to look out for the interests of THIS COUNTRY!

Let's see Dems get tough on these bullies for once.

I doubt many Americans would appreciate their country's interests being hi-jacked by the leader of a foreign nation.

UPDATE: H/T to DUer herding cats for posting this link to more reaction to this ongoing story:

Democrats rally around Obama amid furore over Netanyahu Congress visit

The White House is growing more confident it can withstand efforts to frustrate its policy of nuclear talks with Iran, as a furore over the intervention of the Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, appears to be encouraging wavering Democrats to rally around their president.

It's worth reading herding cats OP and the link provided in that OP.

The article says that J Street has also contacted its supporters, urging them to contact their Reps to ask them not to support this visit at this time.

And in this thread, DUer Cha provided a link in this comment http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026125076#post43 showing that the Mossad has 'broken with Netanyahyu' on this and agrees with President Obama.

[hrmjustin]

1. I would walk out. n/t.

[Jack Rabbit]

18. I wouldn't attend

!!

[2naSalit]

143. Nobody should attend that!!!

And ALL Dems should not attend for certain. Bibi should be sent home with his tail between his legs. Fucker.

[SummerSnow]

58. I wouldn't attend. Then I will make a speech about what Boner did

[Pacifist Patriot]

78. This!

[malaise]

130. Ding ding we have a winner

Boycott!

[madamesilverspurs]

152. Pelosi

and every House Democrat should schedule a news conference for the same time as Bibi's address. For that matter, Kerry could do likewise.

[sabrina 1]

154. I like that idea! Use this because Boner has really made a big mistake this time. Just

read that not only has he angered the WH, but France, the UK, Russia and China who have worked with Obama on the negotiations with France, have written a joint letter to the WAPO asking Republicans not to interfere with these delicate negotiations which are going well right now, for the sake of World Peace and the security of everyone.

So with the Mossad, the WH, now all those countries involved in the negotiations, all more or less slamming these idiots, Dems are getting the courage to support the President.

I think at this point, Dems probably won't show up now that all these people are ganging up on Boehner and Netanyahu.

I think this will not even happen, and Dems SHOULD use this massive error of judgement by Boehner against him every chance they get.

[lsewpershad]

133. Totally agree

[nc4bo]

2. He also tried to influence our elections with one Sheldon Adelson, if I recall correctly.

He needs to go ghost - how? I have no idea, just needs to go.

[sabrina 1]

5. Yes, I remember that. Just who does he think he is? I know he was sent packing after that attempt

to influence our elections. But clearly he hasn't learned.

The correct thing for him to do when Boehner invited him was to say. 'is the President aware of your invitation'?

Respect! The sheer lack of respect for the POTUS is simply stunning.

Boehner needs to be shamed for this.

Dems, as they walk out, need to tell the press that Boehner and this Foreign Leader are posing a threat to America's security and they simply cannot participate in that betrayal.

Over and over they can 'kill two birds with one stone'.

[awake]

3. How about standing up and Turning there backs on him Like the NYPD

[sabrina 1]

4. That works for me. But I like the idea of the spectacle created and the noise as they all stand up

and walk out.

It would make a huge impression and on their way out they can speak to the press about the threat to our national security Boehner presents by undermining his President on a matter of extreme importance to the safety of the American people.

[XD-2050]

157. I like that :)

[karynnj]

109. No - It would be better if they simply did not go -- this is not a command performance

and even if it were --- look at the US Supreme Court, where three members simply did not go - as is custom to the SOTU.

If they did go, they could simply not join any standing ovations or applause -- and pan the recommendations on Iraq in concise, well worded reasons why Netanyahu is wrong. This issue is very unclear and distant to most Americans. The Democrats - hopefully led by the administration need to explain what the stakes are here.

Having read Haaretz for some time, it is clear that the once threat that if the US didn't, Israel would attack Iran was bogus -- they knew the cost would be too high. Yet, Netanyahu and many others really would not accept a deal even if it included putting Iran at say - 2 years - from a nuclear bomb AND continuing surveillance. Why? They would argue that the Iranians at some undefined point in the future could gain the "capacity" of producing a nuclear bomb. However, if an agreement could get even remotely close to that, it would basically eliminate any real threat. (The point - Israel's paranoia will not accept any agreement.)

So, if there is no agreement - what do they want. An even more intensive sanctions regime from the entire world. However if Boehner/Netanyahu derail the talks - there is no way the rest of the world will follow our lead on that. The likelihood is that the international sanctions would be weakened more than now. As the Republicans speak often of our status in the world, they miss that this will weaken our leadership - isolating us with maybe just Israel on our side.

It was interesting than when asked about it in Brussels, Kerry after responding negatively in the most overtly respectful and positive way imaginable quickly changed the conversation to the US Congress having been told by Mossad that new sanctions would be like throwing a grenade at the talks. (Under pressure, Mossad, while implicitly agreeing that it was said - then said they did not mean that was a bad thing!) That needs more coverage than it got.

I don't think most Americans want a war with a bigger, more powerful country than Iraq or Afghanistan were - especially as we are still dealing with the repercussions of those invasions. Imagine that we could fight BOTH the Sunni and Shiite extremists. Who exactly would join us in that fight? I resent that Israel considers that we need to do this because they are concerned. I trust that Obama will not commit us to that -- but what of a future President who is Republican?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

6. no democrat is going to risk appearing to offending Israel.

[sabrina 1]

7. Why? What makes Israel any different from any other nation who insults the President of the US

by joining forces with the Far Right to try to undermine his Foreign Policies? That is an amazing act of disrespect to this President and the country he represents, and that is putting it mildly.

IF they are more concerned about offending this nobody as far as the American people are concerned, than their own President, then all of them need to go.

I will be calling my Reps and letting them know that if they do NOT walk out, we will be working hard to kick them out the next time they come up for reelection.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

9. i can't answer any of these questions

just that i know that democrats will not want to offend Israel. they have never have before and will not now

[sabrina 1]

13. I understand, but this is different. This is a direct slap in the face perpetrated behind the back

of the President by Boehner in cahoots with a foreign leader.

I know they are going to be hearing from Americans about this.

I have never been shy about criticizing this president on policies and his willingness to give in so often to Republicans.

But he is the elected POTUS and has determined with the authority of the American people, what is the best policy to deal with an issue of great importance to the safety and well being of the American people.

Any Democrat who is more afraid of this person than betraying their own country's interests, doesn't belong in Congress.

[busterbrown]

31. Keep it up Sabrina..

Never back down..
Thanks..

[SummerSnow]

54. What are they doingt alking Foreign Policy with him. They do not have that authority.

We have a Sec of State and Potus. Hell with them all

[Fred Sanders]

14. Obama has proven over and over again you can accomplish the same goal without offending.

[KingCharlemagne]

10. Excuse me, but exactly how would a Dem walkout of Netanyahu be "offending Israel"? Netanyahu

is Israel's Prime Minister, not her Head of State. (That honor belongs to Israeli President Rueven Rivlin.)

[La Lioness Priyanka]

25. and you expect the average person to get the difference in this?

seriously, sometimes it's as if you guys don't have apolitical friends or neighbors or family and expect people to make these subtle judgement, which ofcourse they would not do.

[KingCharlemagne]

29. I do expect "the average person" to get the difference PROVIDED A DEM

EXPLAINS TO THEM EXACTLY WHAT IS AT STAKE.

Why do you have so little faith in the average person?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

30. experience. most recently i saw how the health care debate went. i saw how people reacted

to ferguson and other killings of blacks.

to expect people to make this sort of nuanced decision in a fox news era infotainment society is frankly naive

[KingCharlemagne]

39. A unanimous Democratic walkout on Netanyahu will do wonders to

focus the minds of the average Fox News viewer. The mere threat of such should bring Boner and McChinless to heel.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

84. will never happen. obviously we'll find out in a bit who is right about this

but there will be no giant democratic walkout.

[KingCharlemagne]

87. Hence the OP's use of the word 'should' in her OP - nt

[sabrina 1]

33. I have plenty of apolitical friends and relatives. It's even easier if they are not political to

explain something like this to them. They may not be political, but when they hear that a foreign leader is trying to influence our FPs and undermining the POTUS, they are not stupid, they get that something like this is not acceptable.

It's a GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY for Dems to put Boehner in a position of trying to explain why he thinks a foreign leader has the right to influence our policies, especially if it means more war, for HIS benefit.

All Dems need to do now is take every opportunity to express outrage at Boehner going behind the back of the POTUS to ask a foreign leader for HIS advice on OUR FPs.

It's funny how people react no matter what their politics are, when they feel someone is stepping on our sovereignty as a nation.

[former9thward]

35. The President of Israel is a ceremonial position.

He is not the head of state. The PM is. Similar to Great Britain. The Queen is ceremonial. Cameron is head of state as PM.

[KingCharlemagne]

41. Netanyahu is the head of the Likud Party and Israel's Prime Minister. But Rivlin

is the head of state.

The President of the State of Israel (Hebrew: נְשִׂיא הַמְּדִינָה, Nesi HaMedina, lit. President of the State) is the head of state of Israel. The position is largely an apolitical ceremonial figurehead role,[1] with the real executive power lying in the hands of the Prime Minister. The current president is Reuven Rivlin, who took office on 24 July 2014. Presidents are elected by the Knesset for a seven-year term, and are limited to a single term.

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

Be that as it may, we are both dancing around how a unanimous Dem walkout on an Congressional address by Nethanyahu could be construed as an insult to Israel and not simply an insult to Likud.

[2banon]

70. So be it. They "elected" him. and apparently adore him.

He loves to purport himself as Head of State, and he hasn't been rebuked or reigned in.

So yeah I'd love to see the Dems go Full Monty on this a-hole. But they won't dp anything of the kind, because false "anti-semite" charges would be levied so fast and everybody is soooooo afraiid of being accused of being anti-semite, especially our party. Pathetic.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

97. exactly.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

85. that's akin to saying that insulting Obama only insults the democratic party not the united states.

it's pretty absurd

[KingCharlemagne]

86. Obama is the head of state; Netanyahu is not. - nt

[La Lioness Priyanka]

88. and in parlimentary states the official head is a ceremonial position. insulting the prime minister

of India, would be an insult to India. Indians elected him and abhorrent as he is, an insult to him is much worse than the insult to the Indian president, whose name most people don't know. the same goes for Israel, U.K., etc.

[KingCharlemagne]

89. I get what you're saying and don't wish to stand upon pedantry, as I fear I may

have been giving the impression of.

The people of this country and the people of Israel need to understand that the invitation to Netanyahu was not bi-partisan and that Netanyahu's position on Iran does not enjoy bi-partisan support. That message is best conveyed by a near-unanimous Dem boycott\walkout. If Israel is 'insulted' by such, then I dare say Israel needs to grow a thicker skin or pick better leaders.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

91. the democrats will never do it because the political backlash will be unbearable

also not all the democrats support the president in his dealings with Iran. Menendez from NJ is def one who doesn't. I am sure there are others.

[KingCharlemagne]

94. Dems must pick between loyalty to their Prez and Party or loyalty to the leader

of a foreign state. It's really that simple. I have lots of sharp criticisms of President Obama but this one is just a no-brainer.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

96. no, in defense of them, they don't. they can pick loyalty to the people who elected them.

and some of those people want absolute embrace of Israel. This is not a simple issue, regardless of your own personal feelings about Israel or Netanyahu.

[KingCharlemagne]

100. I suppose we shall have to agree to disagree on this matter. IMO, if they cannot support President

Obama's position, they should leave the Democratic Party forthwith and join the Republicans or become Independents. There's a reason party discipline exists and it's not to coddle elected officials who place loyalty to a foreign leader over loyalty to their party and the Constitution's insistence upon separation of powers.

[sabrina 1]

131. No it isn't about personal feelings about Netanyahu and Israel. It is about THIS COUNTRY and getting

into another war with a country that we have no NEED to go to war with, AGAIN. The deaths of OUR SOLDIERS, and millions of innocent people in Iran who are NOT OUR ENEMIES.

Not EVERYTHING is about Israel, and believe it or not, that man Bibi, has caused more harm to Israel than all their feared enemies combined. So no, don't think Americans will support the interference in our Foreign Affairs by a foreign leader who has absolutely no right to do so.

As for the right wing's constituents, it's strange how they suddenly turned into supporters of Israel. I was on some off their forums back in the early 2000s and most of them on those forums, hated Israel and supported Bush's initial statement he was not going to get involved in any peace talks.

It was the liberals on those forums who were trying to explain why the peace process was so importan. Nearly ALL of them could not see why it was any of our business.

Frankly I doubt they have changed at all. So I wouldn't count on them supporting Foreign Leaders from an ME state ordering our government around.

Not to mention a lot on the right have changed their minds about the wars after seeing they weren't going to end in 'months, weeks' and it all didn't turn out the way they thought it would.

[sabrina 1]

11. It's revealing that you would think this is about Israel. Just like bibi. THIS is about THIS country

and just like every other country, Americans don't like their elected President to be dictated to by some leader of a foreign country ANY foreign country.

American interests are what we are talking about here. NOT the interests of a foreign country.

Sorry if that bothers you, that we care greatly about this country and Boehner is going to seriously regret underestimating the American people, other than the Fox educated minority, when it comes to OUR national interests.

[whathehell]

118. Thank you.

[oldandhappy]

12. I sort of hope the Dems

simply do not attend. Let the Speaker introduce the leader of another country to a half filled room. Both Netanyahu and Boner and manipulators.

[Fred Sanders]

15. And since no Democratics were notified they are under no protocol obligation.

Protocol is just another name for respecting an established procedure. The GOP is unilaterally abandoning protocol and abandoning respect, there is nothing to compel attendance by any Democrat.

I wager the March 3 date will be postponed again.

[oldandhappy]

16. good thot! thanks.

[sabrina 1]

20. I agree, I think this will be cancelled. No way can an insult to the President be allowed to stand.

Boehner is a moron and probably didn't anticipate the backlash he's going to get for this.

Already we are told that both the President and Kerry will 'snub' Bibi. Bibi won't want the world to see that.

The world knows Obama, they don't know much about our Congress, certainly not Boehner. So when the idiot realizes that a snub from Obama is far more damaging to his image, than any benefit he thinks he might get from Boehner's sneaky invitation, HE is likely to change his mind.

Which is why the justifiable outrage at this disrespect for the President and more importantly, this country, needs to voiced.

World headlines will say: Netanyahu snubbed by US President Barack Obama and Sec of State John Kerry over Iran.

That is bigger news than his little meeting with Boehner in Congress.

[Fred Sanders]

22. My understanding is the Jewish vote is solidly Democratic, so what is the benefit to Bibi or Boehner

[sabrina 1]

24. For Boehner, two things, the Right WANTS to go to war with Iran, they always have. AND he

thought, he found a way to 'get' Obama, using his new 'powers' or abusing them I should say.

For Bibi, he likes Republican war mongers here. They are more than willing to send our troops to war at the drop of a hat, or a lie.

Why Bibi thinks the US going to war with Iran will benefit Israel, he sure doesn't care about this country, is beyond me. But apparently he does.

[BillZBubb]

73. Two things.

First, the Democrats lock on the Jewish vote has been slipping. The Republicans are viewed as "stronger on Israel" and the Republicans think that is moving Jewish votes their way.

Second, the Fundy base of the Republicans demands the US do anything Israel wants. They have been convinced that the Bible commands this.

[Fred Sanders]

81. Why is the obvious interference of religious ideology influencing government policy not an outrage

that should be splashed across the front pages of all media?

An actual outrage, not the fucked up Deflategate variety of common outrage that litters the media landscape.

NSFDU: Outrages of no consequence are being used as coverage for outrages of actual fucking great importance. All outrages are not the freaking same, use your noggins God gave you, folks, and stop knocking them together for no reason.

The fundies are openly flaunting their dicks at the secular state and the fucking media is to cowardly, complicit is the other explanation, to utter a fucking grunt?

[tishaLA]

111. the Jewish vote really isn't going anywhere

This chart shows it fluctuating for the past 50 years, from 10-40% repub. Obama's numbers with Jews is essentially in the middle of the pack: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/jewvote.html

see also: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/11/are-democrats-losing-the-jews/382665/

[sabrina 1]

132. Well then Dems have nothing to lose by doing the right thing. The Jewish vote is miniscule

compared to other demographics and most Liberal Jews are not fond of Netanyahu anyhow. The younger generation of Jews in this country are not as attached to Israel as their parents are polls show.

Anyhow, none of that matters, the RIGHT thing for Dems to do is to either not attend, turn their backs or leave.

But no way should a foreign leader be allowed to undermine our President especially when he is RIGHT about something that directly concerns our National Security.

There really isn't any way to argue FOR this.

[karynnj]

110. The Jewish population is overwhelmingly Democrat, but AIPAC coordinates many

very rich, mostly Republican people who bundle money for campaigns - both Democratic and Republican.

Right now there is a sharper disagreement between the Israeli PM and the sitting Democratic President than I have seen in my life. I really do not know if this will influence the Jewish vote. I suspect that it likely won't do all that much because Israel is only one issue - and on most other issues, Jewish values are closer to the Democrats than Republicans.

[Fred Sanders]

113. So the root of this evil secret plan was just what it ever is...money?

[karynnj]

114. Campaign contributions - a bigger problem all the time

If I wouldn't have recognized your name (and thus know you know a huge amount on this) I would have linked to Kerry's farewell speech or a Bernie Sanders one.

That and the unique status of Israel. Israel is playing to the Evangelical Christians as well.

[Fred Sanders]

115. Citizen's United must die, yet another fucking tentacle reaching out and strangling democracy.

[branford]

116. Wealthy and politically active Jews can still vote Democratic,

but withhold their money and political organization and support to the party. Jews not only vote as a rule, but disproportionately donate money to political causes and candidates and otherwise support the party machine relative to their small population.

Although most Jews are liberal and more at home in the Democratic Party, Israel is a very important issue, and it transcends a cantankerous Israeli PM's like Bibi. For instance, do you recall the press from Hollywood during the last Gaza war? Imagine a national election where Democrats could not count on the resources of Jewish partisans and their allies in NYC and LA.

Also, relations between Israeli PM's and US Presidents have been really terrible before. Remember Bush I and Shamir?

Lastly, this dispute is mainly between Obama and Bibi personally, not the entire Democratic Party. Even without Bibi's invitation and speech, new Iran sanctions have strong bipartisan support in Congress and polls very well among the general public. Bibi's speech is problematic for the president because it reinforces what is already popular in Congress and with the public, and may even generate sufficient support to override a presidential veto, an event potentially humiliating for the president, but a vote that would be politically popular for many Democratic senators and congressman in their home states and districts.

[karynnj]

119. So, you are not just on a first name basis, but call Netanyahu by a nickname.

It is ridiculous to reduce this to a personal dispute between Obama and Netanyahu. In fact, if it were, it would be even poorer form for "Bibi" to break protocol and go to another country to attack their President's policies.

As to new sanctions being popular among the American people, what can be seen on pollingreport.com is that no poll has shown less than 53% approval for the US working to get a diplomatic agreement. The percent was significantly higher when it was first brought up by Obama and has waned as no agreement has been reached. I assume if an agreement were reached, the popularity would increase. It is very hard to sell an agreement that has not yet happened. Therefore - over the last year and a half, the only side that has been heard is Netanyahu's.

I hope that the Mossad statement is given more coverage. Given that a majority of people want the negotiations (of the P5 + 1) to succeed, I would bet that something that can be categorized as "a grenade thrown at them" would be considered to be a bad thing. (I did see that Mossad's chief backtracked - not denying he said this - but seeming to argue that it would be a good thing.)

Secondly, what do you honestly think will happen if Boehner/Netanyahu wins on this and there are new US sanctions? Even the Israelis do not think that this will cause the negotiations to reach a better agreement. So, what do you think will happen:

- Iran backs out of agreements - meaning all the agreements, that have not been violated by them, that actually moved them further from a nuclear bomb after the interim agreement will be over. I assume you would agree they might return to making the time to get the bomb less.

- Other countries who we worked hard to get to agree to honor the sanctions will drop them - Senator Murphy suggested that China was likely to do this. Note that the US is not even a major trading partner, so making our sanctions unilaterally tougher will not make up for others removing theirs.

So, if both of these things happen, what will your buddy BiBi then ask for? Would you care to poll the popularity of a new MS war with a country bigger and more powerful than Iraq? You don't have to read much - even in the left leaning Haaretz to know that there are many who see an existential need to attack Iran - and many argue for that, but suggest that Israel is not the one that should do this. What is at the root of the P5 +1's effort is that they want to avoid war.

I suspect that you are also wrong on the political issue here. I suspect that many Democratic members of Congress who might have been pushed by AIPAC ( which the Jewish community knows supports the Likud position whether they are in power or not) might NOW not do so because of this stunt.

I don't know about you, but I am a Jew and have been active in the synagogues that I have belonged to. The liberal Democratic Jews are NOT one issue voters - and they are not Israel first. Many, including at least one rabbi, are pretty open that they do not like Netanyahu.

[branford]

124. I, too, am a professional NYC Jew, active in both Jewish organizations and the Democratic Party.

One of the issues that comes-up regularly among my Jewish groups is being taken for granted by the Democratic Party, both in terms of our votes as well as financial support and organization, despite the fact that almost everyone is politically active in our party. Very strong support for Israel, regardless of who is the prime minister, is also virtually universal. If Netanyahu is voted out in March, nothing would change.

Complaining about AIPAC, protocol, and reference to Netanyahu's widely used and cited nickname, no less appeals to authority as a Jew (with at least one rabbi who openly dislikes Netanyahu!), does not make your arguments more convincing (btw, you can easily find many more rabbis who don't like or agree with Netanyahu, but that's not really the point). Moreover, of course most liberal Democratic Jews are not one issue voters, but that does not mean Israel is not or cannot be dispositive in terms of who such individuals vote for in any particular election or, more importantly, whether they choose to give of their time, money and resources. In any event, the vast majority of elected Democrats are very pro-Israel, thereby eliminating the issue as a point of partisanship. When you have everyone from Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders generally agreeing with likes of Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, that leaves little room for partisan attacks. Even the president is strongly pro-Israel, and he characterizes Iran sanctions dispute as simply a disagreement about strategy on how best to protect America as well as Israel, as explicitly stated in his State of the Union. The 2015 AIPAC Policy Conference in March will be one of the few widely attended and supported bipartisan events in Washington, not because of Netanyahu, but despite him.

It's plainly obvious that your real complaint is not with Bibi's invitation and speech, which if not for Obama's State of the Union, would be barely noteworthy considering he has addressed joint sessions on two prior occasions, but that you do not agree with his opposition to the current track in the Iranian negotiations, and the strong bipartisan support for new Iran sanctions in Congress.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, and I do not even necessarily disagree with the president on all points, but that does not justify the boycott or walk-out suggested by the OP. Why would the Democratic Party and individual congressmen and senators risk a public relations and campaign finance disaster among a vital and loyal Democratic constituency in order to support a lame duck president on a matter where they actually do not agree. Boehner's invitation was certainly polarizing, provocative and shrewd, but Democrats should not fall into the obvious trap.

Congress has also invited the Pope to address a joint session of Congress. Do you or others similarly suggest that Democrats walk-out if he discusses "family value" issues, and how would you react if Republicans walked-out if the Pope advocated liberal collectivized economic policies. If protocol is such a concern, Democrats can choose to give fewer standing ovations to Bibi, the Pope or anyone else.

[karynnj]

126. In every post here, I say that there should not be a walk out - I said it would be rude

in at least one.

As to the policy, I think you overstate it's popularity. Please explain why it would be a good idea to purposely blow up the negotiations. Then tell me what the next course of action then would be.

[branford]

127. The OP suggested a walk-out or boycott,

and our sub-discussion was about Jewish politics, voting and election activities.

I certainly don't question the sincerity of your views, but the OP advice would be viewed as more than simply rude. It would potentially have severe political ramifications if widely followed by members of our Party, particularly among Jews. I do not even disagree that Netanyahu is not well-liked personally by many more liberal Jews, but he is still the prime minister of Israel and its representative, and he's speaking on a matter many Jews and quite a few others believe is very important, Iran's nuclear ambitions.

We can also amicably disagree on how popular the new Iran sanctions may be among the public, but it is clear that there is strong bipartisan support in Congress, the only place where it currently matters. Obama would not have both implored Congress to hold off on new sanctions legislation and threatened a veto if he was not truly concerned about what was happening in Congress. Heck, Bob Menendez (D-NJ), the ranking Democratic on the Foreign Affairs Committee, basically accused Obama of espousing Iran's talking points. The White House is afraid that Bibi's visit may (although I personally believe it unlikely) garner support to override any veto.

I personally am not against the current negotiations, but I do not believe all potential agreements are worthy of support. This view is shared by many, if not most, of our party in Congress, and the basis of the strong support for new contingently triggered sanctions. Obama simply has not made American red lines totally clear. He can certainly obviate congressional pressure (and Netanyahu) if he was just more transparent and specific concerning American goals and minimums in the negotiations.

[karynnj]

148. Why would you believe the sleazy Menendez comment?

He is not half the chair of the SFRC that Kerry or Lugar were. He also was not that good at meeting with people in the State. I lived in NJ for 6 years that he was in office and though I was active, I never met him. This was very different than the wonderful Lautenberg.

There is nothing that Obama has said or anyone in his administration has said that could be characterized as "talking points from Tehran". It is not Obama or Kerry who should be criticized here it is the Senator from NJ. Frankly, I hope that he is primaried - something I have almost always been against. But from things like blocking Obama's EPA appointees over his anger on Cuba policy to this - he is a disaster.

[another_liberal]

139. Netanyahu is a War Criminal . . .

He should be placed in custody as soon as his plane arrives in this country. And it would not be "rude," it would be justice.

[sabrina 1]

155. Sorry, the dispute is NOT just between Obama and Netanyahu. Five of the countries that have worked

with the US on Iran, have now publicly asked the Repubs not to go forward with this and they explain why, co-signing an OP Ed in the WAPO. They include the UK, France, Germany, China and Russia.

The Dems are now gaining the courage apparently to 'rally around President Obama'. That is due to the massive backlash from the American public, who are calling their Reps apparently. And of course all the other entities and countries that are publicly opposing it.

In Israel, the Mossad have openly opposed Netanyahu on Iran and are in agreement with Obama and the allies who are involved in the negotiations.

Some Republicans are not going along as easily as Boehner may have thought. J Street is urging its supporters to call their Reps as they too support Obama on this.

I believe there is a shift in how Israel, thanks to Netanyahu mainly, is now viewed by the world.

This is the first time I have seen so many of our allied countries and the POTUS and SOS publicly slap Netanyahu down so swiftly.

It is bad for Israel most of all. The US has a history of turning its back on its allies (see Saddam, Noriega eg) when they become too much of a problem and especially when they try to interfere in our affairs. Though this may be a first in that regard.

I said long ago that Israel should not become dependent on the US and should start working on making friends with its neighbors while they still had that support from the US.

Because when the US walks away, people like Netanyahu have so destroyed any chance of peace with its neighbors, they will be on their own.

This country doesn't have friends, they have allies, often ones they don't like very much. Israel needs to remember that for its own good. Netanyahu appears to have angered so many of our elected officials, Israel needs to get rid of him in order to try to reestablish relations with this country and Europeans.

[erronis]

128. Just like any stereotyped group, there are lots of people with Jewish backgrounds

Who are not on one end or the other of a wide variety of issues.

And what makes me/you a Jew or a non-Jew? Some lineage that goes back to Abraham/Moses? Does it have to be x% on the male side or female side? Which scholar decides all of these rules? And who chose these scholars? I'll bet if you go back 5-6 generations in everybody's genealogy you'll find someone from each group that is being disparaged.

In my brief reading of history many of the most open-minded people have had some Jewish background. For that matter, many have been Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, Confucian, and like me, born-again atheist.

This is nothing but a political/$$$ power play. It has nothing to do with which version of the Koran/Bible/Talmud you read. It only has to do with getting money out of donors and into the pockets of the supposedly powerful lobbies.

Of course AICPAC, NRA would all have you believe that their organized lobbying effort is something to be feared. It's the proverbial empoorer who is naked - naked of decency, naked of humanity but full of ways to make the people's representatives get on their knees (and do what?).

[sabrina 1]

17. And both are Right Wingers. Why is it that the Right just cannot resist trying to bully people?

[closeupready]

19. Yes, I would walk out, because while I support Israel and Palestinians both,

I do NOT support Netanyahu. K&R

[OldRedneck]

21. Piss on Israel

I understand the unspeakable horrors of the Holocaust. As a young Army lieutenant in Germany in the mid-1960's, I visited the concentration camp at Dachau -- saw the ovens, the old barracks, the museum. Later, back in the States, my battalion commander was an old lieutenant colonel, camp survivor, who still wore his concentration camp number tattooed on his wrist.

Still -- it's past time that US Middle East policy no longer be held hostage to Hitler. We support Israel to the tune of billions of $$$ each year. Our political system has bowed and scraped and kissed their ass too long. No one in the Obama administration should have anything to do with Netan-yahoo and every Democrat in Congress should either boycott his speech, or, walk out as soon as he opens his mouth.

[sabrina 1]

23. Israel needs a new Representative. Netanyahu is doing more harm to Israel than any enemy could do.

He is a far right war monger and among the most unpopular leaders in the world. He hates that Obama wants to avoid war in Iran, thank the gods for that.

I don't know why the Israeli people keep him there. He has alienated so many people against him, and by defailt, Israel.

We had the same problem with Bush.

[Blue Owl]

26. Nectarine yahoo invites Netanyahu

n/t

[Fuddnik]

27. Nectarine yahoo invites Nut N Yahoo.

[SunSeeker]

28. K & R

[StevePaulson]

32. Time To Cut Off Israel's Subsidy

Let the Jesus People pay their way.

"We don’t want to give them our money, they don’t get our taxes, to drop bombs on children. Now! - See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2014/07/vedder-israel-children#sthash.ZQqBf2zl.dpuf"

I stand with Eddie Vetter

Dealing with Iran is difficult. The Republicans make it far harder, and so does Bibi.


F-ing traitors.

[StevePaulson]

34. War Means Big $$$ For MIC

If you think "the people" run America, you would be
mistaken.

Boehner should face trial for treason.

[sabrina 1]

37. I know that. And the only reason why that is the case is because our Reps won't stand up

for us. There ARE more of us than of them. And they are afraid of the people still, which is why they are throwing Whistle Blowers in jail, and beating up protesters for no reason at all.

But that shouldn't stop us from fighting back and in greater numbers than they can handle.

Boehner is a rat, like Bibi. Two of a kind, both right wingers, both petty and angry.

But one advantage we, and the President has here, Netanyahu is not very popular around the world.

So when Obama snubs an unpopular leader like him, the world's people will back him up.

[StevePaulson]

36. Dems Are Pussies

There is no way a single one would not kiss Bibi's ass upon request.

Every single Dem will be there participating in Boehner's coup.

Americans, were so screwed.......

[sabrina 1]

38. Omg, I hope you are wrong! They may need a little help from us.

[AtomicKitten]

40. Just when I think they've reached supreme asshole status

... the Republicans out-asshole themselves.

This is hugely inappropriate and a real FU to POTUS.

[KingCharlemagne]

42. I'll be calling my Rep, Maxine Waters, tomorrow to insist she do just that. I'll also be asking

her to help whip the Democratic caucus to do it UNANIMOUSLY.

Great suggestion. Way past time to bring Boner and McChinless to heel, those impudent little asswipes. President Obama was elected twice by a majority of Americans.

[sabrina 1]

48. I know it's a long shot, but they would to it if it was anyone else. I just don't

understand why this guy is treated so differently to other world leaders. And it's time that he learns he has no rights in this country to try to interfere with the President's decisions.

[KingCharlemagne]

56. Just called her D.C. office and was told by the staffer who answered the phone that he

would pass along my suggestions(s).

It's just outrageous. No other word for it. I have sharp disagreements with President Obama on many issues, both foreign and domestic, but he was elected by a majority of Americans twice and Netanyahu has never been elected by any American EVER.

[sabrina 1]

61. I hope their phones are ringing off the hook before the end of the day. My Rep is a Repub

so not sure what good it would do to call. Otoh, there are probably a few Repubs who are not thrilled with Netanyahu calling the shots for this country, or trying to.

[KingCharlemagne]

63. Any Republican on the Libertarian side should be equally outraged over this

blatant contempt for the principle of 'separation of powers.'

[sabrina 1]

65. Yes, I'm thinking they too should be hearing from the public. We've always focused on Dems

so Repubs never get to hear from anyone other than the Fox contingency.

I will call my Rep, it can't do any harm to let them know people are watching what they are up to.

[Cha]

43. Mossad is not amused, either.. "Israeli Mossad Goes Rogue, Warns U.S. on Iran Sanctions"

snip//

The Israeli intelligence agency Mossad has broken ranks with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, telling U.S. officials and lawmakers that a new Iran sanctions bill in the U.S. Congress would tank the Iran nuclear negotiations.

Already, the Barack Obama administration and some leading Republican senators are using the Israeli internal disagreement to undermine support for the bill, authored by Republican Mark Kirk and Democrat Robert Menendez, which would enact new sanctions if current negotiations falter.

MOre
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-01-22/netanyahu-mossad-split-divides-u-s-congress-on-iran-sanctions

[sabrina 1]

49. That's good to know. So Boehner made a fool of himself again. President Obama is

right about this. And it's good to know that he has support on it from Israeli Intelligence.

Hopefully the Israelis will be a bit smarter than Boehner and see the implications of their PM being snubbed by the WH and keep Netanyahu at home.

[Midnight Writer]

44. No way will this happen

You see, over 3000 years ago, as Moses was walking in the desert, all by himself, the Invisible Cloud Being who rules us all appeared to him in the form of a burning bush. The talking, flaming bush spoke to Moses and promised him that the land of Israel would forever be the domain of the Jewish people.

Fast forward 3000 years. After centuries of bloody wars and horrendous genocide against the Jewish people, it was decided that the land of Israel would indeed be the sacred homeland to the Jewish people. The people living in the Jewish homeland of Palestine for centuries were subjugated to non-citizen status, and the Jews returned to the homeland promised them by the Invisible Cloud Being who rules us all.

Since about 85% of Americans believe in the absolute infallibility of anything the Invisible Cloud Being is reported to have said , we have given as a nation our absolute support and fealty to Israel regardless of who is in charge or what their policies are.

When Israel spies on us, they are given a pass.

When Israel undermines our foreign policy, they are given a pass.

When Israel involves itself in our domestic politics, they are given a pass.

When the Israeli PM joins with the opposition party to insult our President, he is given a pass.

Whatever the Israeli government decides to do, even if it embroils us into senseless war, it is A-OK with Americans because the Invisible Cloud Being who rules us all has, in the form of a burning bush 3000 years ago, told a single man that this is the way it will be.

Can I get an Amen?

[zentrum]

45. Will never happen...

But it should.

[branford]

46. You mean the Congress that gave Netanyahu 29 bipartisan standing ovations

the last time he spoke to a joint session, and who have a strong bipartisan majority for Iran sanctions. Where the ranking Democratic Senator of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Robert Menendez, stated that the Obama administration sounds like it's getting its talking points on the Iran nuclear negotiations straight from the Iranians themselves.

A Democratic boycott, no less a walkout, is little more than fantasy.

You claim that Americans wouldn't appreciate Bibi's interference. Would these be the same Americans who just gave the Republicans control of the a Senate, their largest majority in the House in generations, and unprecedented control of a number of state governments?

[sabrina 1]

53. But this time the WH has taken a stand. The last time I remember that happening was when Bush

told Sharon, or announced publicly that he wasn't going to involve the US in Israeli affairs. He was quickly educated airc and his mind was changed for him.

However, things have changed a lot since then. Netanyahu has been sent running eg, after he tried to influence our elections.

And in a comment above from Cha, apparently the Mossad agrees with President Obama.

As for Republican voters, they are a very small minority of the population. There are millions of people here who, while they may not vote, and that includes many veterans, when it comes to this country being bullied by another, they don't like it.

Kerry should undermine Netanyahu and Boehner now and go meet with Israeli Intel who are in agreement with the President's policies on Iran.

I wonder if the idiot Boehner even knew that.

[branford]

108. I think your biggest problem is the issue is Iran sanctions more than Bibi.

Simply, new sanctions on Iran have very strong bipartisan support in Congress and are generally very popular with the American public. Obama knows this, and that is the very reason why he implored Congress to hold off sanctions in his State of the Union and went as far as to threaten a veto. Obama knows that he is running against both congressional and popular opinion. Netanyahu's speech is not merely a political embarrassment, is a truly a threat to his legacy, but more importantly, it's a threat not shared by congressional Democrats.

Netanyahu intends to speak about Iran, as he has done repeatedly in the past. As before, he will not say anything personally negative about Obama or Democrats. Rather, he will praise all Americans strongly and repeatedly. He's no political novice. His celebrity may be the tipping point to garner sufficient congressional support to override a White House veto of new Iran sanctions. This will be humiliating for the president, but strengthen congressional power generally, particularly in light of recent battles like Cuba where there is also bipartisan opposition, and will generally be popular in the districts and states of those who vote for sanctions. Since Obama cannot run again, Democratic congressmen and senators are thinking of themselves and their political fortunes before Obama's reputation.

Additionally, regardless of how you feel about Netanyahu, he's still the prime minister of a long-term American ally, who's spoken before a joint session of Congress on two prior occasions, a record only equaled by Churchill. In light of a worldwide rise in antisemitism like some of the violence in France (where Obama did not show up in solidarity and admitted his mistake), few congressman or senators would be willing to risk the terrible optics of walking out of a speech by a Jewish Israeli leader concerning Iranian nuclear ambitions when Republicans would like nothing more than to portray such Democratic behavior as weak, pro-Iran or even antisemitic.

Simply, if Democrats as a whole walked-out or boycotted Bibi's speech they would be taking unnecessary political risks, on a matter where they actually do not support the president's policies, with little to gain except protecting a lame duck president. For instance, although Hillary Clinton supports Obama's negotiations with Iran and opposes new Congressional sanctions at this time, I do not believe she's made any statements concerning Bibi's invitation to speech before Congress, and she will not, under any circumstances, support Democratic theatrics like a boycott or walk-out.

[karynnj]

112. This sounds like something written by AIPAC - Where is proof of American support for sanctions

that will derail the multi nation diplomatic effort. We know that AIPAC has insured that they have support in Congress. The fact is that the American people are strongly behind a diplomatic agreement with Iran. Not to mention, I wonder how a poll would look if people were asked if they preferred the talks to fail -- something Mossad itself said that new sanctions would do.

I wonder if your "proof" includes asking of possible alternatives to this diplomatic effort working. It is pretty obvious that as people like Senator Murphy has said that if Neatanyahu helps blow up the negotiations, that some countries (like China) will end any sanctions. What will your hero, Netanyahu, want the US to do for him then? I don't need a poll to know that the US does not favor a US military action against Iran. (Israel has apparently ruled out doing it themselves.)

As to your bringing in his not going to France, why not mention that Netanyahu was there AGAINST the wishes of the President of France and that there was never a question of America's solidarity with France. Obama was helping France from day one - and both he and Kerry made statements on that day. The French media was especially touched that Kerry's message was in French. If you really are concerned with our ally France - you should note that they are partner to this effort as well.

I agree with you that no Democrats - or anyone else - would walk out on Netanyahu. It would be incredibly rude and would backfire against them specifically.

As to Clinton, note that Obama himself has not gone on record to attack Netanyahu - and Kerry asked directly, said that Netanyahu is welcome to come - then noted that it was unusual to hear of a visit from the Speakers office. It was not in anyone's interest to publicly attack the PM. Therefore, it is silly to infer anything from HRC saying nothing.

[azurnoir]

158. well when it comes to Iran sanctions and Dems there is this

Siding squarely with Obama, Pelosi warned that the congressional push for new sanctions could be a setback to the international negotiations aimed at dismantling Iran's nuclear program.

“We all agree that Iran cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon,” she said. “The problem is this could seriously undermine the delicate diplomacy that is at work.”


http://thehill.com/homenews/house/230393-pelosi-slams-netanyahu-invite

[sabrina 1]

135. Actually we just learned that Dems are rallying around the President due to the storm of backlash

to Boehner's actions. AND, we are learning, J Street is telling Republicans not to go along with this attempt to interfere with these very delicate negotiations.

I guess Boehner and Bibi underestimated how Americans feel about some foreign leader attempting to interfere in our affairs.

Dems it appears, fearful at first, are gaining courage from all the opposition that this disastrous attempt to undermine a US president in the course of doing his job for THIS COUNTRY, from the American people's reaction.

If Bibi wants to go to war with Iran, he is free to do so, The AMerican people have had enough of these horrible wars which have only made them LESS SAFE. He isn't going to get OUR soldiers killed so he may as well as stay home and see if he can talk his own Government into War With Iran.

Meantime he will have a hard time even there. We have also learned that the Mossad agrees with President Obama.

[branford]

141. You keep on claiming to speak for the American people. You do not.

Let's be clear, I don't doubt your sincerity or resolve, but can you cite any notable elected mainstream Democrats in either the House or Senate (or even the White House), particularly those in leadership positions, who has actually suggested a boycott or walk-out or who has indicated that they have changed their position concerning new Iran sanctions? Obama is heading for a head-on collision with Congress over Iran regardless of Netanyahu.

A small number of congressional Democrats can rally and complain about how the Republicans slighted or embarrassed the president, but it's all theatrics with little substance. Do not extrapolate or extend your own personal feelings about Netanyahu or the Iranian negotiations or sanction legislation to the Democratic Party or Congress.

And I don't understand how J Street, a small and controversial admittedly left-wing group with very little broad-based Jewish support and absolutely no influence with conservatives, demanding the Republican not challenge the president, is particularly meaningful.

[sabrina 1]

142. I am not speaking for the American people, apparently they have been speaking for themselves

to those who are supposed to represent THEM, not some foreign leader.

Nor am I the one saying that some Republicans are now wavering due to contacts from J Street.

You can read it here http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014996372

And elsewhere if you care to look around.

The American people are not known, once they learn what is going on, to tolerate this kind of interference in their affairs by a foreign leader. Especially when it concerns their National Security.

[JonLP24]

67. Christians or Christian Evangelicals (but of many demoninations)

are the largest pro-Israel lobby. Really, I'm making my argument for you and agree it is fantasy since plenty of politicians want to look like they're supporting the right people for a bunch of doomsday ready Americans & certainly one party would take advantage of this situation, probably play both sides against each other make one side look like they're anti-Israel.

Obama's talking points look like they're coming from Iran's talking points. That may be true, but what are the merits of each claim? Remember, the only reason why we're talking about this now is because of Iranian oil (maybe the best time to press them on the nuclear issue but US really needs to stop meddling with Iran's oil, it is not doing them or Israel any favors).

[Cali_Democrat]

47. Not gonna happen though

Even Warren and Sanders are big time Israel supporters.

They were cheer leading the Israeli invasion of Gaza.

[KoKo]

50. Agree! but, not likely to happen...because of the money.

They were all doing standing ovations last time BiBi appeared (23 times, I think was the count) and this would put them in a difficult position.

But, maybe they could refuse to clap and scowl when they stand up with the Repubs. :shrug BTW...I'm not joking when I say this. At least it would be some show of disapproval. IF they disapprove.

[SummerSnow]

51. He will right along with Boner and his cohorts

Boner thinks doing this will make him #1 man in the GOP

[leveymg]

52. Stenny Hoyer is unlikely to lead the rush to the exits. Nor is Menendez.

Dream on.

[Lifelong Protester]

55. I know I'm naive, but I'm surprised Netanyahu accepted!

[KoKo]

59. You must have missed when he elbowed his way to the front in Solidarity March in France....

He wasn't invited but raised a stink and when he got to Paris he pushed himself to the front in the Photo Op with the dignitaries who were there. There were many videos in news reports of him doing it.

[BillZBubb]

72. It shouldn't surprise anyone who has followed Netanyahu's career.

His sense of entitlement and self importance is unlimited.

[ann---]

102. He would do

anything to undermine Obama because Nuttyahoo is a nutty yahoo.

[LawDeeDah]

57. What a horrible little creature Yahoo is. I wonder

why this desperate act? Why is Congress and Yahoo so disrespectful? What is happening behind the scenes?

what a fucking pig.

[JonLP24]

62. I just hope the US makes the right decisions

What if other countries put oil export sanctions on us telling us to stop our nuclear program, we may not have nukes but say its for energy -- not good enough. We need to stop meddling, especially if we are allies with Saudi Arabia. I'm sure other nation's crack up at our hypocrisy.

[drray23]

64. i am even thinking

that the administration should not let that go unanswered and play hardball. They could for example do what the Israelis did to the swedish foreign minister and not provide security for Netanyahu. They could also flat out refuse him a visa for entry. After all, the state department is in charge of that, not congress.

[sabrina 1]

75. Well, the WH has stated they will not meet with him. So that is a change in policy towards

that little bully. Can the President's own party go against him on his policies, which imo, are the correct ones regarding Iran?

I doubt the President would make such a decision, which is a direct insult to Bibi, if he didn't know something Boehner doesn't know?

I know Menendez has already sided with the Repubs on this. He should be on our top list of Dems to go next time he's up for re-election.

But I'm wondering if the President hasn't already anticipated something like this.

Remember when Kerry was overheard slamming the Israelis, and had to explain himself? That gave us an idea of what the WH thinks of Bibi.

Seems like a showdown to me now. I think the 'address' will be cancelled before anyone has a chance to see it play out.

Dems have a choice, Bibi or the President. That should not be a difficult choice at all.

[MoonRiver]

66. Agree, this should not be tolerated.

[azmom]

68. It would be great if someone

Shouted "you lie" in the middle of his speech.

[BillZBubb]

69. AIPAC is too powerful. Few Democrats will fail to do their bidding.

All Americans should be offended by this. Probably a lot of Democratic leaders are, but they won't do anything about it.

[sabrina 1]

76. I don't know. Things have changed slightly towards Bibi. The WH is taking a stand against him, a

very public stand.

So for Dems their choice is 'Bibi OR their President'. It's hard to imagine them betraying their own President for a bully from another nation on something as important as his foreign policies.

The very best thing that could happen would be for Dems, or most of them, to warn Boehner that if he tries to follow through on this, they will not be in attendance.

Netanyahu has greatly harmed Israel's image around the world. Even he must realize that the POTUS refusing to meet with him will make him look like a fool to the many political enemies he has made, even in Israel. The Mossad agrees with Obama on this, see Cha's link above.

[Tatiana]

71. They should not attend.

Period. This is a serious breach of protocol and a direct insult to the Office of the Presidency (not just this President, in particular).

No Democrat should attend. The arrogance of these individuals is appalling.

[2banon]

74. I agree Sabrina, but they won't unfortunately.

I'd love to see that, it would be a significant indicator that Israel no longer calls the shots on ME policy, but we all know otherwise.

[kelliekat44]

77. Won't happen. Too many of them receive money from AIPAC. Better to not attend. nt

[sabrina 1]

79. That might be the best thing to do. While the WH refuses to meet with him.

Which they have already stated. Leave all the warmongers to themselves for the world to see.

Just warning Boehner that they will do this or walk out, should be enough to bring him back to earth from his little 'gotcha' moment to the WH.

[kelliekat44]

106. Let's get those e-mail and phone call to our reps moving. Make the House a "no-go" zone for Dems on

that day.

[Bluenorthwest]

80. Ah the irony. Boehner also invited the Pope to address Congress, DUers argued he has a right to do

so as 'head of State' and many, many DUers vehemently attacked those of us who suggested that Francis' stridently anti gay and anti choice positions, often employing denigrating rhetoric about those he judges harshly, should not be welcomed in our Congress. 'But he's going to talk about income inequality' they all said, without any proof of that and in spite of Francis having made a very nasty anti equality speech just days before in Manila.
So to be honest, when I see people who cheer for some bigoted right wing 'head of State' addressing Congress at Boehner's invitation jeer another bigoted right wing 'head of State' addressing congress, I have to wonder why they are not opposed to all bigoted right wingers addressing Congress and instead oppose only some bigoted right wingers seeking to address Congress as heads of State.

I guess it's 'we only cheer for anti gay bigots when the want to address Congress, not that other kind' or something. It's hard to make it seem like a principled stand when it is so selective and situational, this opposition to right wing activist heads of state addressing Congress.....

[sabrina 1]

82. Is the Pope pushing this country into war with Iran? Is the President being undermined by

the Pope? I haven't heard anything about a 'breach of protocol' there, so I assume the President knows about that invitation and has not taken a stand against meeting with him.

IF that happens, IF the President states that Boehner's invitation to the Pope is undermining his Foreign Policies and the WH will not meet with the Pope, then there would be a comparison.

How about the Saudis, Karamov of Uzbekistan, Uganda? Just to name a few of our allies whose bigotry towards Gays AND women btw, we count also.

Should the US simply cut ties with all nations whose policies towards women and Gays, are bigoted?

The Pope has done the opposite btw, of these bigoted nations, he has instructed his members to STOP the 'focus on Gays and to stop the hatred'.

He has also told his members they have no right to judge anyone, and has been more harsh on our Right Wing bigots than any other group of people.

Women would like to see the church change its attitudes also. But we understand that these things don't happen overnight. However when there are small signs of change we encourage that. Unless you'd rather go back to the way things were in the Church before Francis regarding Gays.

[Bluenorthwest]

93. So you support one right wing bigoted head of State addressing Congress at Boehners invitation

but not the other. The Pope is anti gay. Anti choice. And he never said not to judge gay people, that's a lie that you folks need to stop telling yourselves. His speech in Manila was nasty on the half shell.

Neither one of these right wing, intolerant heads of State should be making sales pitches to our Congress that are opposed to the rights and to the will of actual American citizens. But if you want the anti gay Activist to speak, you have no standing to whine about others. I'll have to do it for you.

[sabrina 1]

95. I asked you a few questions which you have chosen not to answer. That's your choice.

What about Women btw, I have never heard you express any outrage over the way women are treated, both here and by so many of our Allies, including the Church, many of whom have been invited to speak to Congress?

So, according to your logic, you support some who oppress women but not others' or something like that.

I'm for progress, you are free to go back to the old ways of the Church. Women will eventually have a role in their church, which is why so many appreciate, even the baby steps, taken by this pope.

We will wait and see what the President has to say about the invitation to the Pope. That is what this OP is about, the attempt to undermine the Head of State of this Country in order to prevent a peaceful resolution of the issues with Iran.

[Bluenorthwest]

101. Like, I talk about the Pope's anti woman policies right in this thread, but because I'm gay you

don't read what I write, you just repeat 'who am I to judge' and ask me about Saudi Arabia which I also criticize here.
You are in favor of a right wing, bigoted head of State who speaks denigrating rhetoric against minority groups addressing Congress. But not the other right wing, bigoted head of State who speaks denigrating rhetoric about minorities.
You THINK the Pope is 'different' but he's not. I find your support for him speaking to Congress to be hypocritical in the context of this thread. Sorry if my opinions are not your opinions, learn to live with it, gay people are your equals not matter what Frankie tells you.

[sabrina 1]

104. You informed me of the Pope's possible visit. And maybe because I am

a women, you don't read what I say. I asked you if that visit was intended to undermine the President on foreign policy, which is the topic of this thread. My support for such a visit would be based on that. Since you didn't answer the question, but instead tried to read my mind, when my words were right there to read.

I will wait and see if the President takes a stand against that visit also. If he does, my reaction to a similar attempt to undermine him on FP would be the same.

I don't expect you to read my words, but they are here for anyone else to read if they wish.

[whathehell]

120. Um, again, Is the pope pushing for a war?

Nah. I didn't think so.

[BillZBubb]

117. Wow, what a weak and pathetically false comparison.

I don't support the pope talking to congress. I support separation of church and state. But to compare him speaking to Netanyahu doing so is sophomoric.

The pope speaking doesn't upset any protocol. The White House knew of the pope's visit. They have no problem with it. Whatever the pope says won't be an attempt to upset an ongoing and delicate foreign policy negotiation. It won't be an attempt to marginalize and embarrass the president. It won't be an attempt at further self-aggrandizement by a foreign windbag.

In other words, your point is baloney.

[whathehell]

121. Thank you.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

123. The Pope OWNS your head

Have you not noticed that yet? Several others have.

[benz380]

83. Do a NYPD act. Turn their backs. n/t

[JEB]

90. Will Ayatollah Ali Khamenei be speaking before or after Netanyahu?

[sabrina 1]

92. Mmm, how about Dems invite him? I wonder, what would Republicans do if they did?

And that is an excellent idea. Let the American people have both sides of the argument.

[Bluenorthwest]

99. Khamenei quotes....

"The European races are barbaric. They wear freshly pressed suits and ties, and they smell of eau de cologne, but deep down, they still have the same barbaric nature known from history. They kill with ease. They murder people without any problem. Therefore, beating women in their homes is of no consequence to the [Europeans] and Americans, whereas in an Islamic environment, it is unimaginable."

"Today in many western countries, nobody dares question the Holocaust whose nature is questionable. According to the reports I have received, in America if people decide to write something against homosexuality on the basis of psychological and sociological principles, they will be prevented from publishing their work. How is it that these people feel obligated to respect freedom of expression?"


So. Yeah.

[sabrina 1]

103. Has he had anything to say about Women? I have a feeling he has.

You are free to start an OP about all of our allies if you wish, I would be happy to participate in such a discussion. Maybe it is time to look at our allies, a lot of hypocrisy in our policies. One bigoted dictator is a 'friend and ally' while others are not.

Seems foreign policy isn't based on morals or human rights.

So yes, I would love to have a conversation about that. I will look for your thread as I have objected to the hypocrisy of our policies many times in the past but realize we have little control over who our allies are and who they are not.

The President, eg, who did do the right thing regarding Gay Rights in the end, do you think he should cut off ties with the Iranians? I

This thread is about a blatant slap in the face from Boehner and Netanyahu to President Obama.

[JEB]

160. When Bibi gives up his nukes, then perhaps

he would deserve to be heard. If the Pukes are so concerned about Iran developing nuclear capability, then it should show a "fair and balanced" concern for Israel's not so secret possession of nukes.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

163. They can't

They lost that option four years ago.

[Octafish]

98. Every member should walk out.

In addition to serving the United States of America, they'd actually be helping Israel.

More war ain't gonna do it, Bubba.

More war ain't gonna do it, Bibi.

[Bad Granny]

105. WRONG!!! NO Democratic politician of any office should even attend this mad-dog and pony show.

Unfortunately, Obama will order the party faithful to not rock the boat or insult the war criminal or the asshole who invited him.

So they all will show up.
And dutifully stand and clap whenever Yahoo open his yap.

And drive more people away from the party, permanently.

[GummyBearz]

107. Good thought...

But there aren't that many democrats in congress left

[lark]

122. I would walk out,

but I'll bet Menendez and Wasserman-Schultz and Schumer, Israeli apologists that they are, will stay with stars in their eyes.

[sabrina 1]

129. Menedez has already said he supports this and 'thinks the President is wrong'. Schultz hasn't

said anything yet, that I know of. But this could separate the Dems from the pretenders in our party.

[annabanana]

125. No one HAS to attend this charade..

Of course Dems would be more likely to boycott if it was common knowledge how right wing Bibi is seen to be by his OWN constituents.

[workinclasszero]

134. Every single democrat shold walk out or

stay away from the TRAITOR Boner and his un american, constitution hating republican party on the day they wipe their feet on the sovereignty of the United States of America!

[sabrina 1]

136. Yes, and I'm beginning to think it could happen. Just saw news that Dems are gaining courage from

the backlash to Boehner's behavior and are 'rallying around the President on this'.

So it does pay to contact all of them and let them know they have our support if they refuse to engage in the warmongering from the right.

Also, Boehner appears to be having trouble with is own party who are being contacted by J Street asking them not to support this visit at this time.

Obama is so right on this and he appears to have a lot of backing, including from the Mossad.

I have a feeling Boehner and Bibi are going to end up with a whole lot of egg on their faces before this is over.

[workinclasszero]

138. I used to just disagree with republicans

That quickly turned into disgust at their massive hypocrisy on every issue and now its outright hate and loathing!

These bastards are the scum of the earth. They are all traitors and lying scum who would sell out their own mothers for a dime and their country too of course!

[sabrina 1]

140. Absolutely agree with you. The hypocrisy is stunning, I need to do a search on where these

morons stood on Israel when Clinton was trying to get a peace agreement. I remember engaging them online and they hated Israel as much as they hated Palestinians or any other country perceived by them to be 'brown' or 'black'. And I believe they still feel that way in their hearts.

But suddenly they entire party became 'supporters' of Israel. I was always stunned by that sudden change and for a short while was sort of pleased. But then I realized it was done for all the wrong reasons.

I hope no one backs down on this. The more people are learning about it the more outraged they are so we need to keep up the pressure on Dems to let them know they do have the support of the people.

[another_liberal]

137. And they should throw their pocket change at him as they leave . . .

At least that would add a poignant note to the walk out.

[WinkyDink]

144. It's a darn good thing the United States of America has never tried such shenanigans in other

countries!

[Stephen Retired]

145. Oh yeah!

BIG TIME

[humbled_opinion]

146. LOL and lose the

Jewish Voting bloc forever? Democrats would never win another national election.

[sabrina 1]

149. And what makes you think that Democratic Jews support this? Apparently they don't.

J Street is far more representative of Jews in this country than AIPAC.

See what they have to say about this in the link in the OP.

Not to mention, even Mossad agrees with the President on this.

No, it looks like Bibi and Boehner are going to be on their own with this.

[yellowwoodII]

151. Sometimes--

leaders should do what's right, regardless of the vote.

[humbled_opinion]

162. Yes I agree

but that would take a set of nuts and that breed of politician is extinct.

[I hate liars]

147. Any partisan who uses a foreign power for political gain should be vilified

This is a classic case of IOKIYAAR.

[yellowwoodII]

150. I know it seems futile

But we must call and email our Congressmen on this one. If Netanyahu convinces them to increase and not lesson sanctions on Iran, it may very well lead to war. It surely won't help the situation.
A war with Iran would destroy any progress that we've made.

[sabrina 1]

153. I did think it was futile at first, but if you read the link in the Update in the OP, it seems Dems

are finding the courage to 'rally around the President' on this due to the backlash.

So I agree with you, it is important to call and let them know the people support the President's handling of Iran and do NOT want some leader coming to Congress to try to interfere with that. WE are who Congress should be listening to, and we are now letting them know 'no War with Iran, you need to support President Obama on this'.

[gopiscrap]

156. I totally agree! WALK OUT!!!

We need to be calling our D reps!

[hollowdweller]

161. I say just stop defending Israel at the UN

Half the rest of the world is anti Semitic and hates Israel.

Really the US is the only one keeping the rest of the world from declaring a Palestinian state and coming down hard on Israel for some of their more extreme reactions to Palestinian terrorisim.

US just needs to stand by the next time this stuff comes up.

I mean Israel is now the country of the republican party. If they are going to try to hurt a standing US president why should any democrat help them??

Foreign aid is a populist issue. Most people hate us giving it. Next time budget comes up maybe we should just cut it all 20% including Israel.