Kerry Contradicts Rice: Netanyahu 'Welcome' to Speak to Congress

[JasperL]

Oh, so now it's the amount of TIME...

But the White House and Kerry are saying they "went around' the White House......

So f they didn't give the White House time enough to prepare, what the **** have they been doing the last month we've been arguing this crap?

The WH found out about the formal invite a few minutes before it was made public. Here's how the WEEKLY STANDARD headlined it on the day of the invite:

Boehner Jabs Obama By Inviting Bibi to Address Joint Session of Congress

House speaker John Boehner has invited Israel prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address a joint session of Congress on February 11. The invitation is meant to be a repudiation of President Obama's Iran policy, according to a draft Boehner's prepared remarks this morning to the House Republican conference.

OK, so that's how a friendly supporter of the hard line Israeli position reported it on the say of the announcement, at 9:30am.

Here's a ME outlet: Congress blindsides Obama, inviting Netanyahu to speak - Al-Monitor: the Pulse of the Middle East

Congress blindsides Obama, inviting Netanyahu to speak

That's the next day. Read some of the quotes. If they didn't intend to embarrass the WH with this move, they are idiots, and no one believes any of the parties are idiots.

But now that this little stunt has blown up a bit on Netanyanhu, they're trying to walk it all back. Sorry, but only right wing lemmings buy that crap. The parties knew they were sending a "f you" message to Obama and Kerry at that time. Which is fine - they can do what they want and this is an important issue. But don't insult the rest of the rational WORLD and ask us to believe something else.

What other reason has anyone ever had in NOT allowing someone to speak? Obama does not want Netty heard nor seen speaking to a joint session of "his congress"....

No one is alleging anyone isn't "allowed" to speak anywhere. It's a nice strawman.

 

[US Conservative]

The WH found out about the formal invite a few minutes before it was made public. Here's how the WEEKLY STANDARD headlined it on the day of the invite:



OK, so that's how a friendly supporter of the hard line Israeli position reported it on the say of the announcement, at 9:30am.

Here's a ME outlet: Congress blindsides Obama, inviting Netanyahu to speak - Al-Monitor: the Pulse of the Middle East



That's the next day. Read some of the quotes. If they didn't intend to embarrass the WH with this move, they are idiots, and no one believes any of the parties are idiots.

But now that this little stunt has blown up a bit on Netanyanhu, they're trying to walk it all back. Sorry, but only right wing lemmings buy that crap. The parties knew they were sending a "f you" message to Obama and Kerry at that time. Which is fine - they can do what they want and this is an important issue. But don't insult the rest of the rational WORLD and ask us to believe something else.



No one is alleging anyone isn't "allowed" to speak anywhere. It's a nice strawman.

Jabs and blindsides oh my!

 

[matchlight]

I dont think anyone is behind the wheel at the whitehouse. They can't even get on the same page. And yes, she's quite destructive.

Ms. Rice is also a G--damned liar, just like the America-hating commie of a president she serves. She is the one who went on all the talk shows to peddle the lie that someone's video was responsible for the September 11 attack in Benghazi in which the U.S. ambassador was murdered.

Now it's Kerry's turn to show he is a G--damned liar, too--if there were any doubt. Everyone in the U.S. who has followed the story knows very well that this administration does not welcome Mr. Netanyahu here.

 

[US Conservative]

Ms. Rice is also a G--damned liar, just like the America-hating commie of a president she serves. She is the one who went on all the talk shows to peddle the lie that someone's video was responsible for the September 11 attack in Benghazi in which the U.S. ambassador was murdered.

Now it's Kerry's turn to show he is a G--damned liar, too--if there were any doubt. Everyone in the U.S. who has followed the story knows very well that this administration does not welcome Mr. Netanyahu here.

You and I and any objective and unbiased observer knows this. But to the left it makes no difference-they believe in lies if it advances an agenda.

 

[matchlight]

You and I and any objective and unbiased observer knows this. But to the left it makes no difference-they believe in lies if it advances an agenda.

Being a bald-faced liar has been part of being a good commie ever since Lenin's day. For them, the end justifies the means, and that is why they are not to be trusted. Comrade B. Hussein Obama, one of the most skilled, habitual liars this country has ever seen, is their ideal.

 

[Kobie]

You and I and any objective and unbiased observer knows this. But to the left it makes no difference-they believe in lies if it advances an agenda.

You're not an objective or unbiased observer.

 

[JasperL]

Jabs and blindsides oh my!

Those were not my words. Take it up with the Bibi friendly writer at Weekly Standard...

 

[JasperL]

Ms. Rice is also a G--damned liar, just like the America-hating commie of a president she serves. She is the one who went on all the talk shows to peddle the lie that someone's video was responsible for the September 11 attack in Benghazi in which the U.S. ambassador was murdered.

Now it's Kerry's turn to show he is a G--damned liar, too--if there were any doubt. Everyone in the U.S. who has followed the story knows very well that this administration does not welcome Mr. Netanyahu here.

The thing is Boehner invite was intended for guys like you - red meat for the Obama haters, and red meat for the supporters of Netanyahu back home. We all know this, so why pretend that it wasn't the intent all along, to send the f you message to Obama and Kerry that you support being sent?

 

[US Conservative]

Being a bald-faced liar has been part of being a good commie ever since Lenin's day. For them, the end justifies the means, and that is why they are not to be trusted. Comrade B. Hussein Obama, one of the most skilled, habitual liars this country has ever seen, is their ideal.

In another thread right now I have a liberal who wont answer a simple and direct question-if he is okay with his leaders lying to him.

Hes dancing around it by asking what it matters. :doh

 

[US Conservative]

You're not an objective or unbiased observer.

I am clearly a conservative. But Susan Rice's lies are demonstrable lies. I are you suggesting otherwise?
I know that being a liberal means the truth is subjective but I thought Id ask anyway.

 

[US Conservative]

Those were not my words. Take it up with the Bibi friendly writer at Weekly Standard...

Those are the words of a journalist. :lol:

 

[leoborn]

In another thread right now I have a liberal who wont answer a simple and direct question-if he is okay with his leaders lying to him.

Hes dancing around it by asking what it matters. :doh

Maybe some kind person will explain the facts of life to him, since he needs help understanding that most people do not like to be lied to.

 

[US Conservative]

Maybe some kind person will explain the facts of life to him, since he needs help understanding that most people do not like to be lied to.

Its lefty logic. Explaining facts has nothing to do with it.

 

[Kobie]

I am clearly a conservative. But Susan Rice's lies are demonstrable lies. I are you suggesting otherwise?
I know that being a liberal means the truth is subjective but I thought Id ask anyway.

That's not what "being a liberal" means. Try again, only less hackish.

 

[matchlight]

The thing is Boehner invite was intended for guys like you - red meat for the Obama haters, and red meat for the supporters of Netanyahu back home. We all know this, so why pretend that it wasn't the intent all along, to send the f you message to Obama and Kerry that you support being sent?

"Guys like you?" I have some thoughts about what guys like you are like, too, but I will keep them to myself.

I would very much like to deliver that message right to B. Hussein Obama's face--the full words. To hell with the disloyal SOB and the other damned liars his administration is so well stocked with.

 

[JasperL]

"Guys like you?" I have some thoughts about what guys like you are like, too, but I will keep them to myself.

I would very much like to deliver that message right to B. Hussein Obama's face--the full words. To hell with the disloyal SOB and the other damned liars his administration is so well stocked with.

I wasn't making a character judgment - you're just very proudly and vocally an Obama hater - the "America-hating commie of a president " and "disloyal SOB." Not much doubt where you stand, or that Boehner was sending a deliberate message to the "America-hating commie disloyal SOB." Why not cheer him for the message instead of pretend that's not what Boehner was doing?

 

[US Conservative]

That's not what "being a liberal" means. Try again, only less hackish.

It is Kobie. It is.

 

[matchlight]

I wasn't making a character judgment - you're just very proudly and vocally an Obama hater - the "America-hating commie of a president " and "disloyal SOB." Not much doubt where you stand, or that Boehner was sending a deliberate message to the "America-hating commie disloyal SOB." Why not cheer him for the message instead of pretend that's not what Boehner was doing?

I don't give a damn about John Boehner or what he was trying to do. We have an adversarial system, and I assume he is trying to undermine Obama whenever he can, just as Obama is trying to damage Republicans whenever he can. That interaction does not interest me.

What is important about all this is that Mr. Netanyahu is going to address Congress--and the world. The course of appeasement Obama has followed with Iran has made the world far more dangerous, and it is vital that someone with Netanyahu's stature and credibility stand up and call the attention of the free world to that danger. If Obama lacks the resolve to lead the free world--and he could hardly have made more clear that he does--then someone else has to take on the job.

 

[JasperL]

I don't give a damn about John Boehner or what he was trying to do. We have an adversarial system, and I assume he is trying to undermine Obama whenever he can, just as Obama is trying to damage Republicans whenever he can. That interaction does not interest me.

Nor me - not in the least. The only (potentially HUGE) problem is Boehner is weaponizing what has been a bipartisan issue. That's a dangerous development if you support Israel - to turn support for them into a "If Obama/GOP is for it, I'm against it" issue like so many others are these days.

What is important about all this is that Mr. Netanyahu is going to address Congress--and the world. The course of appeasement Obama has followed with Iran has made the world far more dangerous, and it is vital that someone with Netanyahu's stature and credibility stand up and call the attention of the free world to that danger. If Obama lacks the resolve to lead the free world--and he could hardly have made more clear that he does--then someone else has to take on the job.

But of course what Netanyahu is doing is attempting to go over Obama's head and appeal to Congress to pass additional sanctions intended to undermine the negotiations. So Bibi is saying to Obama, in very clear diplomatic terms, "F You Obama and Kerry. My purpose here is to torpedo your talks."

Again, that's Netanyahu's prerogative and especially so if he believes, as he appears to, that any deal with Iran will put Israel in the crosshairs and pose an existential threat to Israel. What I don't get is the pretend that this isn't the message the way the invitation was handled and his speech to Congress was INTENDED to convey. It's just obviously what's happening. The only reason they've got their allies out there trying to walk this message back is that he's also perhaps unintentionally alienated enough otherwise loyal democrats that he can't count on them to support him - he's asking them to make a public choice between Israel OR their party and their POTUS. And the public just isn't all that fired up on this issue, especially if the end game is ANOTHER war in the ME. Potentially a region wide conflict, which some of us see as the risk if talks fail.

 

[Kobie]

It is Kobie. It is.

Your dictionary is broken.

 

[matchlight]

he's also perhaps unintentionally alienated enough otherwise loyal democrats that he can't count on them to support him - he's asking them to make a public choice between Israel OR their party and their POTUS. And the public just isn't all that fired up on this issue, especially if the end game is ANOTHER war in the ME. Potentially a region wide conflict, which some of us see as the risk if talks fail.

If I were Mr. Netanyahu, I would not care what Democrats in the U.S. liked. To the extent they support this anti-Semitic leftist of a president, they are against Israel and halfway sympathetic to Islamists anyway. I believe that for the first time in this country's history, it has a president who does not like much about America and does not have its best interests at heart. Certainly none of the dozen or so presidents that dealt with Israel before Obama ever showed anything like the hostility toward it--or the sympathy toward the Muslim jihadists who want to destroy it--that he has shown. That is hardly surprising for someone whose minister of twenty years is close friends with the Black Muslim and notorious anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan, and who himself was close friends in Chicago with Rashid Khalidi, a great admirer of Yasser Arafat and a former propagandist for the PLO.

What you say about these talks is fantastic. It reminds me of someone saying, in 1938, that there was a risk of war unless the talks between Chamberlain's Britain and Hitler's Germany succeeded. It is the very fact the U.S. is talking to the jihadist regime in Tehran at all that is the danger. It is an open display of weakness. Obama could not have shown any more clearly that he lacks the will ever to use force against that regime, no matter what it does. No U.S. administration should ever even have thought of letting the Jew-hating Khomeinists in Tehran get atom bombs, any more than President Kennedy should ever have considered letting the Soviet Union keep nuclear weapons in Cuba in 1962. The surest way to bring on the war you are talking about is to do exactly what this sorry excuse for a president has been doing.

 

[JasperL]

If I were Mr. Netanyahu, I would not care what Democrats in the U.S. liked. To the extent they support this anti-Semitic leftist of a president, they are against Israel and halfway sympathetic to Islamists anyway. I believe that for the first time in this country's history, it has a president who does not like much about America and does not have its best interests at heart. Certainly none of the dozen or so presidents that dealt with Israel before Obama ever showed anything like the hostility toward it--or the sympathy toward the Muslim jihadists who want to destroy it--that he has shown. That is hardly surprising for someone whose minister of twenty years is close friends with the Black Muslim and notorious anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan, and who himself was close friends in Chicago with Rashid Khalidi, a great admirer of Yasser Arafat and a former propagandist for the PLO.

You're being irrational, so it's a bit difficult to have any reasonable debate. Netanyahu MUST care about the opinions of Democrats and Obama. If he wants to go over Obama's head, the next option is Congress, and he can't get a sanctions bill through Congress without democratic support, and if it passes, a most likely POTUS veto. So unless he's an idiot, he's deeply concerned about many democrats in Congress, and Bibi isn't an idiot. He needs them.

What you say about these talks is fantastic. It reminds me of someone saying, in 1938, that there was a risk of war unless the talks between Chamberlain's Britain and Hitler's Germany succeeded. It is the very fact the U.S. is talking to the jihadist regime in Tehran at all that is the danger. It is an open display of weakness. Obama could not have shown any more clearly that he lacks the will ever to use force against that regime, no matter what it does. No U.S. administration should ever even have thought of letting the Jew-hating Khomeinists in Tehran get atom bombs, any more than President Kennedy should ever have considered letting the Soviet Union keep nuclear weapons in Cuba in 1962. The surest way to bring on the war you are talking about is to do exactly what this sorry excuse for a president has been doing.

OK, so if diplomacy is off the table, then you want another war. Most Americans don't, and from what I've heard from my friends in the military, when they gamed out a military strike back in the Bush years, the outcomes included a high probability of a region wide conflict. Whatever the results, there's a good reason Bush didn't hit Iran, and similarly good reasons by Obama doesn't just call in the bombers to TRY and TEMPORARILY take out their nuclear sites.

If you've got any links to a serious discussion about how a military strike and the risk of all out war with Iran WORKS for the U.S. and our allies, then cite it, and we can discuss the part where it talks about the long term commitment, likelihood of high U.S. casualties, immense cost, etc. Otherwise, "Bomb, bomb, Iran" is just pointless war mongering with no thought as to its effectiveness or potentially catastrophic consequences.

 

[matchlight]

OK, so if diplomacy is off the table, then you want another war.

Oh, I see. And anyone who thought it was foolish of Neville Chamberlain ever to meet with Hitler and discuss a German takeover of Czechoslovakia wanted another war. Well, another view is that if the talks accomplished anything, it was to make war certain. And it came the very next year.

Most Americans don't,

Neither do those of us who think this president's six years of kowtowing to the jihadists in Tehran has created a very dangerous situation.

and from what I've heard from my friends in the military, when they gamed out a military strike back in the Bush years, the outcomes included a high probability of a region wide conflict.

Without more information about just who made that prediction and what it was based on, I have no idea how to evaluate your claim.

there's a good reason Bush didn't hit Iran

You are assuming that. I don't know if there was a good reason he didn't hit Iran. I wonder if you are as ready to assume there was a good reason President Bush did hit Iraq.

and similarly good reasons by Obama doesn't just call in the bombers to TRY and TEMPORARILY take out their nuclear sites.

Again, you are assuming that. I wonder what makes you think it's dubious that the U.S. military could destroy all those sites. Do you also think that in 1962, the U.S. military could have done no more than just TRY to TEMPORARILY take out the nuclear sites in Cuba?

If you've got any links to a serious discussion about how a military strike and the risk of all out war with Iran

Just what would Iran do in an "all out war" with the U.S.? Does it have some fleet of bombers we haven't heard about, maybe, that can fly halfway around the world, defeat the puny U.S. air defense system, and bomb our cities? Maybe it has some hitherto-unknown intercontinental missiles that could hit the U.S. with TNT. Could the mighty Iranian navy send its PT boats to blockade our coasts so powerfully that our puny navy would be helplessly bottled up in its ports? Or maybe the formidable Iranian armies could all be sent over on oil tankers or freighters to stage an invasion of the U.S. that we could do nothing to prevent.

the long term commitment

You mean that U.S. bombers carry such small loads that even destroying a few targets would take years and require a long-term national commitment?

likelihood of high U.S. casualties

Just what weapons would inflict those casualties? Do you really imagine that a military which almost twenty-five years ago completely stripped away Iraq's air defenses in a matter of days, even without B-2's, could not quickly destroy the weaker air defense network Iran has, so that within a few days it would have little or nothing that could shoot at U.S. bombers?

immense cost, etc.

"Immense cost?" I don't think bombs are quite that expensive.

Otherwise, "bomb, bomb, Iran" is just pointless war mongering with no thought as to its effectiveness or potentially catastrophic ?consequences.

I see. I'm not just irrational. Like everyone else who believes President Limpwrist's attempts to appease this country's enemies have threatened peace by encouraging aggression by them, I must also be a "warmonger." Not having your preternatural wisdom and keenly rational world view, we just fail to understand that appeasing the jihadist regime in Tehran is our best chance for peace. Surely we should appease the jihadists in Syria, too, and appease Russia by letting it invade Ukraine while we're at it. We irrational warmongers just don't appreciate that the world is full of nice people just like us, and if only we are friendly and sensitive to their needs, they will feel empowered and validated, and be nice to us in return. And

 

[JasperL]

Oh, I see. And anyone who thought it was foolish of Neville Chamberlain ever to meet with Hitler and discuss a German takeover of Czechoslovakia wanted another war. Well, another view is that if the talks accomplished anything, it was to make war certain. And it came the very next year.

Iran =/= Nazi Germany.

Without more information about just who made that prediction and what it was based on, I have no idea how to evaluate your claim.

There have been many public stories about the risks of attacking Iran. My contact would never tell me anything that isn't public knowledge, although he had then extensive access to highly classified Pentagon planning documents - it was part of his job to participate in the planning. Here's one story. It's consistent, but not as dire, as what my contact told me are the possible consequences. Bottom line is there were large uncertainties that bombing will take out their facilities, and huge risks that successful or not, those bombing raids could case a region wide conflict that we couldn't sit out.

You are assuming that. I don't know if there was a good reason he didn't hit Iran. I wonder if you are as ready to assume there was a good reason President Bush did hit Iraq.

I'm not assuming anything - we didn't hit Iran's nuclear facilities. We'd have done so if there were no significant risks to doing it.

Again, you are assuming that. I wonder what makes you think it's dubious that the U.S. military could destroy all those sites. Do you also think that in 1962, the U.S. military could have done no more than just TRY to TEMPORARILY take out the nuclear sites in Cuba?

Cuba is quite a bit different than Iran. 11 million versus 77 million, 636k sq miles versus 42k, etc.

Just what would Iran do in an "all out war" with the U.S.? Does it have some fleet of bombers we haven't heard about, maybe, that can fly halfway around the world, defeat the puny U.S. air defense system, and bomb our cities? Maybe it has some hitherto-unknown intercontinental missiles that could hit the U.S. with TNT. Could the mighty Iranian navy send its PT boats to blockade our coasts so powerfully that our puny navy would be helplessly bottled up in its ports? Or maybe the formidable Iranian armies could all be sent over on oil tankers or freighters to stage an invasion of the U.S. that we could do nothing to prevent.

We've all lived through the Iraq war, and it took years, and Iraq had nowhere near the military capabilities of current day Iran. If you're going to dismiss the huge costs, loss of life, etc. with any ground war with Iran, you're not interested in being serious.

You mean that U.S. bombers carry such small loads that even destroying a few targets would take years and require a long-term national commitment?

I'll quit here, but what do you think Iran's response is to a few week bombing campaign against them? They sit around and do NOTHING? What does Russia do? Etc............ It's why I asked about a serious discussion of the risks of war with Iran - there are dozens of MAJOR considerations like that.

 

[US Conservative]

The speech was excellent...