Obama won’t meet Netanyahu during Washington visit

[azurnoir]

US President Barack Obama will not meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu when he travels to Washington in early March.

Netanyahu will be in Washington in part for a March 3 address to a joint session of Congress. House Speaker John Boehner invited Netanyahu to speak to Congress without consulting the Obama administration.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi, leader of the House Democrats, said that Boehner blundered when he invited Netanyahu to address the Congress amid sensitive negotiations about Iran’s nuclear program and in the shadow of Israel’s elections.

“If that’s the purpose of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s visit two weeks before his own election, right in the midst of our negotiations, I just don’t think it’s appropriate and helpful,” Pelosi told reporters Thursday at her weekly news conference. The speech, Pelosi suggested, could give Netanyahu a political boost in elections a few weeks later and inflame international talks aimed at stopping Iran’s nuclear program.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/in-snub-obama-wont-meet-netanyahu-during-us-visit/#ixzz3PZmnA8eK

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

1. Or...

Bibi can make another blunder. I wonder how many politicians he can embarrass or push out of the way while he is squatting in Washington?

[Jake Stern]

2. I'm sure Obama will take heat, including from some

Dems, for not meeting with Nut and Yahoo.

[elfin]

3. Good

Bebe must be desperate to irritate the leader of the U.S. in order to gain some sort of support in Israel. Terrible move by Congress as well. To destroy diplomacy with Iran in favor of provocation is a huge mistake IMO.

[PoliticAverse]

4. Maybe Mitt, who he supported in the last election, will meet with him. n/t

[bemildred]

5. How about a beer summit?

Obama and Netanyahu can sit around and chat over a beer and patch things up.


I never thought I would see the day when a sitting Israeli PM went out of his way to offend a sitting US President, and get himself so thoroughly involved in US domestic politics, but Bibi positively makes a habit of it.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

28. It will come to bite Bibi baby-killer in the ass sooner or later.

[Historic NY]

6. Good, Bohner is taking a big step on his own....

---- in trying to undermine WH policy and interfering in the election cycle in Israel.

[Ferd Berfel]

7. Dems Should Boycott Netanyahu in congress

Netanyahu = Tea bagger anyway

They cannot be seen as dissing Israel so they all sign an official letter to Netanyahu stating that they support Israel but what Netanyahu and Boner are doing here is probably illegal (Logan Act) and Unconstitutional, and therefore they CANNOT participate

[branford]

10. Are you serious?

First, you need to study the history and intent of the Logan Act. Simply, neither Boehner nor any other elected official, Democrat or Republican, is the least bit concerned.

Not only will there be no boycott of Bibi, and with both previous times he spoke before a joint session of Congress, he will be warmly welcomed and will probably receive more enthusiastic bipartisan standing ovations than our president during his State of the Union address.

Even the small number of Democrats that might want to provide some political cover to the White House will still not make any waves because the Iran sanctions legislation has such strong bipartisan congressional and public support. Congressman worry about themselves before the White House, particularly since Obama cannot run again.

If anything, the White House and a tiny number of congressional Democrats are concerned that Bibi's speech and related pr push will generate sufficient congressional support to be able to override a presidential veto of the Iran sanctions.

[azurnoir]

12. actually Boehner could be in violation of the Logan act have you read it?

If he has any dealings with Bibi vis a vis Iran he is in violation

Passed under the administration of President John Adams, during tension between the U.S. and France, it was informally named for Dr. George Logan of Pennsylvania, a state legislator (and later US Senator) and pacifist who in 1798 engaged in semi-negotiations with France during the Quasi-War.

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

[branford]

13. I'm well aware of the Logan Act,

and more importantly, it's lack of use and possible legal inapplicability to members of Congress.

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

In any event, the only discussion of the Logan Act will be from fringe anti-Israel protesters. We can have a more detailed discussion if, and when, it's raised by anyone from the White House or State Department.

[azurnoir]

16. It was named for a Congressman who attempted to an end run around the then POTUS and negotiate

with a foreign power on his own

[branford]

17. Read the wiki link and indicate anyone from the WH or State Dept who's actually mentioned it.

A legal and political analysis should consist of more than who the act was named after.

[azurnoir]

18. Fact no analysis needed

doesn't matter whether or not he's charged

[branford]

19. Forget charged, no one in government has actually even made an implied threat of prosecution.

The Logan Act thus far has just been the venting of anti-Israel partisans.

Simply, it's not uncommon for political notables, often retired, but sometimes still in office, and from both parties, from violating the express terms of the act. To try to enforce it, besides the political infeasability, would result in serious selective prosecution issues, and with respect to Boehner and other congressman and senators, more difficult separation of powers and immunity concerns.

[azurnoir]

20. It would not be Bibi in violation it would indeed be Boehner

and the law was instated because of the actions of a sitting Congressman

[branford]

21. I know in the abstract why some have raised the law,

but that's not the real issue. As a matter of historical precedent, political feasibility, and other serious constitutional and other legal concerns, discussing, no less threatening, the Logan Act amounts to little more than partisan whining. I think you know this, and if the president or congressional Democrats really wanted to dissuade or prevent Bibi from visiting or speaking, there are more than ample less complicated or problematic measures they could employ, both publicly and privately.

I'm actually more interested in who the White House intends to send to the 2015 AIPAC Policy Conference, and what they intend to say about the Iran negotiations. My guess as of now is Sec. of Defense Hagel, since he has military bona fides and is already on his way out. I will also ironically note that you will see a near identical congressional audience at the conference as the speech before the joint session of Congress.

Lastly, you are indeed correct about who would be liable under the act, and I originally meant to type Boehner. The act would be enforced against Americans, not Bibi, and I corrected the post.

[sabbat hunter]

25. how is it illegal or unconstitutional

Boehner is not a private citizen but a member of congress, Congress does play a role in our foreign policy.

I do not like bibi doing what he is doing, but I do not find it illegal or unconstitutional for Boehner to have invited him.

A definite breach of protocol though.

[Jefferson23]

8. AIPAC conference is March 1 through the 3rd. Obama is sitting that out too

or just refusing a WH meeting with him, I wonder.

[2naSalit]

9. Good.

[azurnoir]

11. SoS John Kerry will not meet with Netanyahu either

http://www.wibc.com/news/national/state-dept-kerry-not-meeting-netanyahu

[branford]

14. Of course no, for basically the same reasons claimed by the White House.

Ironically, the lack of executive branch meetings will allow the Republicans to reap the greater public relations benefit from the visit than most congressional Democrats, who will no doubt give Bibi as many standing ovations as their Republican colleagues.

[geek tragedy]

22. Bibi is just so dreamy, isn't he?

This is like reading a tween swooning over Justin Bieber.

[branford]

23. You do realize that I agreed with the president's and Kerry's decision NOT to meet with Bibi?

The decisions not to meet were entirely unsurprising and expected in light of the admitted snub, and would look bad so close to the Israeli elections. Similarly, I acknowledge that the Republican move was politically well-calculated, and put the president in a no win situation.

As with all his prior visits, and despite your objections or revulsion, Bibi will be warmly welcomed by multitudes of members of both parties, yet the Republicans will manage to gain the most political benefit because of individuals like yourself. I would additionally note that if the Israelis elect a more liberal prime ministers, they too would be similarly welcomed in the USA.

[geek tragedy]

24. Israel's government is an extension of the republican party now.

They didn't talk to any Congressional Democrats while pulling this stunt.

Nancy Pelosi appears to have a bit of an epiphany--why be on the government of Israel's side when they are aligned against us?

[juxtaposed]

27. ditto

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

30. It takes a snub for her to see that Bibi is a jackass?

Really?

What world does she live in?

[geek tragedy]

31. a jackass, she's always known that. one explicitly hostile towards the Democratic

party and trying to drag us into war is another question.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

32. King Bibi's intentions have been known for a while

but I'm happy that the Dems are waking up to that.

[geek tragedy]

34. derp.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jan/23/democrats-obama-boehner-netanyahu-congress-visit

you must be terribly disappointed to see Democrats acting like Democrats and Americans.

[Fred Sanders]

26. More dreamy than Obama....

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

29. Have you seen Bibi the baby killer with his shirt off? So dreamy.

[Jefferson23]

15. Fascinating. n/t

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

33. Kerry should go to Israel while Bibi is here

and meet with Abbas to discuss recognizing Palestine.

Yeah, it won't happen, but it would be sauce for the goose.