Bibi Watch: I Never Intended 'To Show Any Disrespect To President Obama'
Source: TPM
-snip-
Speaking at an American Israel Public Affairs Committee conference in Washington, Netanyahu talked about the elephant in the room: his acceptance of an invitation from House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) to address Congress just days before the Israeli elections and amid a heated debate over Iran sanctions. Boehner had made the invitation without consulting the White House or State Department.
"My speech is not intended to show any disrespect to President Obama or the esteemed office that he holds. I have great respect for both," Netanyahu said.
"My speech is also not intended to inject Israel into the American partisan debate," he added. "An important reason why our alliance has grown stronger, decade after decade, is that it has been championed by both parties and so it must remain."
Netanyahu said he regretted that some people "misperceived" his visit to Washington as partisan. The prime minister has come under fire from House and Senate Democrats -- including Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), who said Sunday that Netanyahu doesn't "speak for all Jews" -- for accepting Boehner's invitation.
-snip-
Read more: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/netanyahu-aipac-no-disrespect-obama
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)I wish the Israeli voters would dump him.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Bringing his Gloom and Doom election campaign to America...where his party is shutting down national security even as Bibi bemoans lack of national security...it is not irony, it is something worse...bald faced hypocrisy.
Note to media: Bibi is in an election campaign to keep his job, vote is two weeks away...look it up.
LeftishBrit
(41,205 posts)'"My speech is also not intended to inject Israel into the American partisan debate," he added.'
What the hell does he think the whole purpose of Boehner's invitation was?!
RKP5637
(67,108 posts)he gets invited behind the back of another countries president, just what doesn't he understand that this protocol is bizarre and wrong! And, I would say the same if the tables were reversed and a democrat had done it behind a republican president's back. It is bizarre and wrong.
olegramps
(8,200 posts)Bandit
(21,475 posts)I doubt it..
juajen
(8,515 posts)Enrique
(27,461 posts)he knows all about American politics, and is clearly on one side, and knew exactly what he was doing.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)here who only see bibi as a nefarious right winger bent on crapping on the President but the timing of the speech to Congress was likely timed to coincide with his speech to AIPAC - their conference started yesterday - so he wouldn't have to travel here twice. I detest bibi but the AIPAC dates have been public for quite some time. My personal opinion is that Boehner is the one who is trying to take advantage of the ridiculous notion that Pres Obama is anti-Israel.
atreides1
(16,079 posts)Yes the AIPAC speech was already scheduled...but what possible reason would Netanyahu have for accepting the invitation from Boehner? And then failed to inform the White House of his speech before Congress?
You give Boehner too much credit...the man is anything but a planner! We are talking about the man who walked onto the floor of the House handing out checks from the tobacco companies!
Netanyahu was given information on how the talks were going with Iran and didn't like what he was hearing...and saw this as an opportunity...Boehner wants to use this to convince pro-Israel Americans that the president is anti-Israel...this was a combined effort on the parts of Netanyahu and Boehner!
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)has gone UP with both Reps and Dems:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/netanyahu-favorability-speech
olegramps
(8,200 posts)leftynyc
(26,060 posts)would the Prime Minister from ANY of our allies refuse an invitation from the Speaker of the House?
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Carrying water for that war criminal Netanyahu must get tiresome.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)I've made my feelings for bibi very clear numerous times so right off the bat, you're stupidly attributing motives that do not exist. Again, I'll ask the same question since you're loathe to answer it. Which leader of an ally would turn down the Speaker of the House? Name names or go bother someone else with your bullshit accusations.
olegramps
(8,200 posts)It is not "bullshit" that our Constitution makes the President responsible for foreign policy. For the head of any country to accept an invitation from a political party to actually challenge the head of government and their foreign policy is dead wrong. So Bibi has been given the right to set the United States foreign policy? It was underhanded move by Boehner to discredit the president because of his vehement hatred of Obama and determination to oppose him on every measure. The Republicans are willing to actually jeopardize the wellbeing of our citizens in their insane campaign of hatred. In regard to Bibi, he is just as underhanded as Boehner and his ilk and demonstrated that he is no statesman when he would insult the president of an ally who has made it possible for his nation to even continue to exist. As a last thought, what about Israel's nuclear capability that was carried out secretly. If they were threatened and feared they may lose some of the territory that they have seized would the open up a nuclear holocaust? They have refused to sign the non-proliferation agreement. So some could ask why can they have nuclear weapons and others in the Middle East can not? Would they be willing to give up their weapons as part of a deal to prevent the possibility of a nuclear war?
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)That was painful to read. I kept looking for an answer to my question and it took me 5 minutes and a headache to see you didn't answer it either.
olegramps
(8,200 posts)In order not to confuse you, I will gladly separate each sentence into a separate paragraph.
I suspect that the root cause of your pain was your inability to find a least one typo.
If you could have, it would have saved you from looking for some other excuse to discount the response.
It is my unfortunate experience that the most critical people usually have a very misguided appraisal of their superiority in all matters small or large.
Please provide a list of heads of state that have addressed congress without either an invitation or approval by the president.
In conjunction with the above paragraph, since when has a foreign head of state been appointed by congress to determine foreign policy.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but it is my meager grasp of the United States Constitution that dictates that the president has sole responsibility for determination of foreign policy.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)when the whining ends. There is nothing wrong with my reading comprehension and how fucking egotistical of to think your post is anything but drivel and nonsense since you seem to think a speech in front of Congress means a change in foreign policy. I'm not interested in calming down a hysteric. Now don't forget to whine to the moderators and alert.
olegramps
(8,200 posts)leftynyc
(26,060 posts)Exactly what I expected.
olegramps
(8,200 posts)Your parents called you Sunny because they had to put a bushel basket over you so the sun could come out.
karynnj
(59,503 posts)only after there was an uproar. Not to mention, he COULD have simply given a speech to AIPAC - and not created a command performance with the background of Congress.
The fact is this entire farce was a Dermer idea. Not to mention, there is NO urgency (as far as Iran goes) for him to speak before there is even a framework. That his spokesperson says that he will tell Congress things they don't know -- even though Kerry and others have argued that leaking cherry picked details likely with distortions could hurt the chances of getting an agreement. Not to mention anything he was told was in confidence -- and only last week Israel was whining that we weren't keeping them informed. (Interesting question - how do they know the US position if they weren't informed?)
This is the absolutely wrong time and the wrong place for the messianic, deluded Netanyahu to speak on Iran.
Not to mention, I do not think that a US President, whether I voted for him or not always speaks for me --- I certainly do not think that the Prime Minister of Israel, a country where I have no vote, speaks for me in any way just because I am Jewish. I am Jewish - not Israeli - and he is not a religious figure.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)he was invited by Boehner and he claims he was under the impression it was a bipartisan invite. So he's not only throwing Boehner under the bus, he's throwing Dermer also. I also will never say Bibi speaks for me as a Jew. He's contemptible.
karynnj
(59,503 posts)He seems to consider that if a lie works better for what he considers the correct end -- he will lie.
It is impossible for me to believe that Dermer proposed this without knowledge of Netanyahu and that he then accepted not knowing that the administration did not know. As to Dermer, he met for 2 hours with Kerry - on the effort Kerry and the State department made calling over 50 leaders of countries in an effort to get support for Israel -- and he didn't tell Kerry about it.
Not to mention the more significant problem, the negotiations are ongoing and the possible deal is not known -- and Netanyahu, per a Moussad leader could throw a hand grenade at it if he gets Congress to follow him.
I see absolutely no reason to believe a word that comes out of Netanyahu's mouth -- and would not blame Obama if he also trusted him so little.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)He's simply not truthworthy and has been a horrendous leader for Israel. But I really do think this was Boehner's idea. He knows the republicans need a "win" badly and he thought by driving to divide Democrats, he'd get one.
MADem
(135,425 posts)he DID, in fact, intend that which he is decrying.
He should be ashamed of himself--he never makes things better, he always makes them worse.
C_U_L8R
(45,002 posts)This is such bullshit.
I hope smart Israelis kick the self-absorbed bum out.
karynnj
(59,503 posts)Israel has complained that the US was holding out from giving them as much information as they wanted on the talks. However, this was because they have been mischaracterizing the pieces they knew.
Yesterday, Haaretz reported that a Netanyahu aide said he wanted to give Congress information they did not have. However, note that this specially means giving information Netanyahu got in confidence to a PUBLIC forum. If the goal was just to give out the information, I suspect that they could have found ways to get the info just to Congress.
Today, there was an article where Kerry spoke of the danger of leaking details in the still under construction deal.
Netanyahu's speech is the most blatantly POLITICAL action I have ever seen. As there is no framework yet, there is no American or world wide action that is imminent. The timing is 100% because of Netanyahu's election and his wanting the graphic of him getting standing ovations.
It is very hard to argue that just because an agreement covers "just 10 years" that it is better to not have it at all. Netanyahu has yet to answer what his alternative is -- nor have any of his apologists. (The idea that Netanyahu has some brilliance at diplomacy and is credible in arguing that anything would get a better deal - ie tougher sanctions (that are not even possible at an international level) is laughable.)
MBS
(9,688 posts)And, yeah, the concept of Netanyahu as "diplomat" is indeed laughable. (except that the consequences of his latest antics are not laughable at all).
tridim
(45,358 posts)Helen Borg
(3,963 posts)Botany
(70,504 posts)Diplomacy and Foreign Policy are powers of the Office of The President of the
United States expressly granted by the US Constitution. This is a slap in the
face to President Obama by republicans that have refuse to accept the fact
he won two elections and by Bibi too.
Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)but LIAR will do!
Botany
(70,504 posts)example Bibi Netanyahu he is a big fat O'Reilly.
Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)But Bill'O might be better. Or "O'Lielly". Certainly there's some decent folks named O'Reilly in the world. They wouldn't deserve to end up in the same dustpan as Bill.
Botany
(70,504 posts).... call lying as a verb .... or is it an adverb? botany =
Man, Cheney was Bill O'ing on "Meet the Press."
Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)KansDem
(28,498 posts)He knew it would be disrespectful.
I knew it would be disrespectful and I'm not some world-leader power broker.
procon
(15,805 posts)libodem
(19,288 posts)SoapBox
(18,791 posts)progressoid
(49,990 posts)Baitball Blogger
(46,709 posts)samsingh
(17,598 posts)rocktivity
(44,576 posts)that maybe the Boner DID? Which means that HE has disrespected YOU?
rocktivity
Lifelong Protester
(8,421 posts)You either did not pay attention to the ramifications of your speech/visit, or you were a willing pawn of John Boehner. Neither shows you in a good light.
diabeticman
(3,121 posts)Biggest pile of it I have seen in a long while.
onyourleft
(726 posts)...should have never accepted the invitation from the Speaker. It is, as I said yesterday elsewhere, one of the most disrespectful things that has occurred during this President's term.
gregcrawford
(2,382 posts)... your insufferable arrogance has finally gone too far, and it's finally coming home to bite your ample posterior. Time to update that resume, 'cause you're gonna be out of a job pretty soon, don't you think?
McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)and Obama is the "nit" of a Muslim "louse"---at least in the eyes of those who believe that Muslims are lice.
madokie
(51,076 posts)he'd scrap this whole idea. hell if he had any sense to begin with he wouldn't have ever agreed to it in the first place. fuck him and the war he rides in on.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)AMY GOODMAN: Well, Noam, lets start with Netanyahus visit. He is set to make this unprecedented joint address to Congress, unprecedented because of the kind of rift it has demonstrated between the Republicans and the Democratic president, President Obama. Can you talk about its significance?
NOAM CHOMSKY: For both presidentPrime Minister Netanyahu and the hawks in Congress, mostly Republican, the primary goal is to undermine any potential negotiation that might settle whatever issue there is with Iran. They have a common interest in ensuring that there is no regional force that can serve as any kind of deterrent to Israeli and U.S. violence, the major violence in the region. And it isif we believe U.S. intelligencedont see any reason not totheir analysis is that if Iran is developing nuclear weapons, which they dont know, it would be part of their deterrent strategy. Now, their general strategic posture is one of deterrence. They have low military expenditures. According to U.S. intelligence, their strategic doctrine is to try to prevent an attack, up to the point where diplomacy can set in. I dont think anyone with a grey cell functioning thinks that they would ever conceivably use a nuclear weapon, or even try to. The country would be obliterated in 15 seconds. But they might provide a deterrent of sorts. And the U.S. and Israel certainly dont want to tolerate that. They are the forces that carry out regular violence and aggression in the region and dont want any impediment to that.
And for the Republicans in Congress, theres another interestnamely, to undermine anything that Obama, you know, the entity Christ, might try to do. So thats a separate issue there. The Republicans stopped being an ordinary parliamentary party some years ago. They were described, I think accurately, by Norman Ornstein, the very respected conservative political analyst, American Enterprise Institute; he said the party has become a radical insurgency which has abandoned any commitment to parliamentary democracy. And their goal for the last years has simply been to undermine anything that Obama might do, in an effort to regain power and serve their primary constituency, which is the very wealthy and the corporate sector. They try to conceal this with all sorts of other means. In doing so, theyve had toyou cant get votes that way, so theyve had to mobilize sectors of the population which have always been there but were never mobilized into an organized political force: evangelical Christians, extreme nationalists, terrified people who have to carry guns into Starbucks because somebody might be after them, and so on and so forth. Thats a big force. And inspiring fear is not very difficult in the United States. Its a long history, back to colonial times, ofas an extremely frightened society, which is an interesting story in itself. And mobilizing people in fear of them, whoever "them" happens to be, is an effective technique used over and over again. And right now, the Republicans havetheir nonpolicy has succeeded in putting them back in a position of at least congressional power. So, the attack onthis is a personal attack on Obama, and intended that way, is simply part of that general effort. But there is a common strategic concern underlying it, I think, and that is pretty much what U.S. intelligence analyzes: preventing any deterrent in the region to U.S. and Israeli actions.
in full:http://www.democracynow.org/2015/3/2/noam_chomsky_opposing_iran_nuclear_deal
City Lights
(25,171 posts)Whatever you say...
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)MiniMe
(21,716 posts)bullshit *cough**cough*
Aristus
(66,369 posts)Marthe48
(16,959 posts)what a lying liar
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)Can we now stop funding this warmongering asshole who never saw an enemy he didn't want us to attack?
dembotoz
(16,804 posts)the billo and bibi bullshit bonanza