If Netanyahus speech is a success, Obamas foreign policy will be indefensible.
Feb 21, 2015 14:11:03 #
If Netanyahus speech is a success, Obamas foreign policy will be indefensible.
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Column-one-Netanyahus-true-e*******l-rival-391626
CarolineGlick, Jerusalem Post
02.21.2015 | 2 Adar, 5775
Officially, the e******n on March 17 is among Israelis. Depending on how we v**e, either Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu will remain in office and form the next government led by his Likud party, or Isaac Herzog and Tzipi Livni will form a government.
But unofficially, a far greater e*******l drama is unfolding. The choice is not between Netanyahu and Herzog/Livni. It is between Netanyahu and US President Barack Obama.
As the White House sees it, if Herzog/Livni form the next government, then Jerusalem will dance to Obamas tune. If Netanyahu is reelected, then the entire edifice of Obamas Middle East policy may topple and fall.
Secretary of State John Kerry made clear the administrations desire to topple Netanyahu last spring during his remarks before the Trilateral Commission. It was during that memorable speech that Kerry libeled Israel, claiming that we would automatically and naturally become an apartheid state if we didnt give Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria to the PLO, Jew free, as quickly as possible.
Despite Israels venality, Kerry held out hope. In his words, if there is a change of government [in Israel], or a change of heart, something will happen.
Shortly after Kerry gave his Israel apartheid speech, his Middle East mediator Martin Indyk attacked Israel and the character of the Israeli people in an astounding interview to Yediot Aharonot.
Among other things, Indyk hinted that to force Israel to make concessions demanded by the PLO, the Palestinians may need to launch another terror war.
Indyk also threatened that the Palestinians will get their state whether Israel agrees to their terms of not. In his words, They will get their state in the end whether through violence or by turning to international organizations.
Indyk made his statements as an unnamed US official. When his identity was exposed, he was forced to resign his position.
Following his departure from government service he returned to his previous position as vice president of the Brookings Institution and the director of its foreign policy program. Last September, The New York Times reported that the Brookings Institute received a $14.8 million, four-year donation from Qatar, the chief financier of Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.
This week, Indyk was back in Israel to speak at the annual conference of the Institute for National Security Studies. There he provided us with a picture of what we can expect from the Obama administration in its remaining two years in office if Netanyahu forms the next government.
On the Palestinian front, Indyk warned that Israel shouldnt be worried about the Palestinians getting an anti-Israel resolution passed in the UN Security Council. Rather, it can expect that the US will join with the other permanent members of the UN Security Council to pass a resolution against Israels will that will lay out the principle of a two-state solution.
As Indyk intimated, Israel can avoid this fate if it elects a Herzog/Livni government. Such a government, he indicated, will preemptively give in to all of the Palestinians demands and so avoid a confrontation with the US and its colleagues at the Security Council.
Indyk explained, If there is a government in Israel after these e******ns that decides to pursue a two-state solution, then there is a way forward. It begins with coordinating an initiative with the United States. And then, together with the US, looking to Egypt and Jordan and the resurrection of the Arab Peace Initiative.
As for Iran, Indyk shrugged at Israels concerns over the agreement that Obama is now seeking to conclude with the Iranian regime regarding its nuclear weapons program. That agreement will leave Iran as a threshold nuclear state. Indyk suggested that the US could assuage Israels concerns by signing a bilateral treaty with Israel that would commit the US to do something if Iran passes some nuclear threshold.
There are only three problems with such a deal.
First, as former ambassador to the US Itamar Rabinovich noted, such a treaty would likely render Israel unable to take independent action against Iranian nuclear sites.
Second, the US has a perfect track record of missing every major nuclear advance by every country. US intelligence agencies were taken by surprise when India, Pakistan and North Korea joined the nuclear club. They have always underestimated Iranian nuclear activities and were taken by surprise, repeatedly, by Syrias nuclear proliferation activities. In other words, it would be insane for Israel to trust that the US would act in a timely manner to prevent Iran from crossing the nuclear threshold.
Third of course is the demonstrated lack of US will particularly under the Obama administration to take any action that could prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. So Israel has no reason whatsoever to believe that the US would honor its commitment.
But then, since the Obama administration believes that Herzog and Livni will be compliant with its policies, the White House may expect the two will agree to forgo Israels right to self-defense and place Israels national security in relation to Iran in Obamas hands.
And this brings us to the real contest unfolding in the lead-up to March 17.
When Speaker of the House of Representatives John Boehner announced last month that he had invited Netanyahu to address the joint houses of Congress on the threat emanating from Irans nuclear program and from radical Islam, he unintentionally t***sformed the Israeli e******ns from a local affair to a contest between Obama and Netanyahu.
Obamas response to Netanyahus speech has been astounding. His ad hominem attacks against Netanyahu, his open moves to coerce Democratic lawmakers to boycott Netanyahus speech, and the administrations aggressive attempts to damage Israels reputation in the US have been without precedent. More than anything, they expose a deep-seated fear that Netanyahu will be successful in exposing the grave danger that Obamas policies toward Iran and toward the Islamic world in general pose to the global security.
Those fears are reasonable for two reasons.
First due to a significant degree to the administrations unhinged response to the news of Netanyahus speech, Boehners invitation to Netanyahu sparked a long-belated public debate in the US regarding Obamas strategy of appeasing the Iranian regime. Generally consistent Obama supporters like The Washington Post editorial board have published stinging indictments of this policy in recent weeks.
These analyses have noted for the first time that in pursuing Iran, Obama is alienating and weakening Americas allies, enabling Iran to expand its nuclear program, and empowering Iran regionally as the US does nothing to prevent Irans takeover of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen.
Second, it is possible that in his remarks about Iran and radical Islam, Netanyahu will manage to discredit Obamas approach to both issues. This is possible because Obamas approach is difficult to understand.
Last week, following the decapitation of 21 Egyptian Coptic Christians by Islamic State, the Obama administration stood alone in its refusal to note that the victims were murdered because they were Christians. When Egypt retaliated for the massacre with air strikes against Islamic State training camps and other facilities in Libya, the Obama administration refused to support it ally. Instead it criticized Egypt for acting on its own and called for a political solution in Libya, which is now governed by two rival governments and has become a breeding ground for Islamic State terrorists who t***sit Libya to Sinai.
Following Islamic States massacre of the Christians, the groups leaders threatened to invade neighboring Italy. Italys Prime Minister Matteo Renzi promised a strong response, and then called on the UN Security Council to do something. The Obama administration responded with coolness to a similar Egyptian call last week.
Hamas (which is supposedly much more moderate than Islamic State despite its intense cooperation with Libya-trained Islamic State forces in Sinai) warned Italy not to attack Islamic State in Libya, lest it be viewed in the words of Salah Bardawil as beginning a new crusade against Arab and Muslim countries.
While all of this has been going on, Obama presided over his much-touted international conference on Confronting Violent Extremism. Reportedly attended by representatives from 60 countries, and featuring many leaders of Muslim Brotherhood- linked groups like the Council on American- Islamic Relations, Obamas conferences apparent goal was to deemphasize and deny the link between terrorism and radical Islam.
In his remarks on Wednesday, Obama gave a lengthy defense of his refusal to acknowledge the link between Islam and Islamic State, al-Qaida and other Islamic terrorist groups. He insisted that these groups have perverted Islam.
Obama indirectly argued that the West is to blame for their behavior because of its supposed historical mistreatment of Muslims. In his words, the reality... is that theres a strain of thought that doesnt embrace ISILs tactics, doesnt embrace violence, but does buy into the notion that the Muslim world has suffered historic grievances, sometimes thats accurate.
Obamas insistence that Islamic State and its ilk attack because of perceived Western misbehavior is completely at odds with observed reality. As The Atlantics Graeme Wood demonstrated this week in his in-depth report on Islamic States ideology and goals, Islam is central to the group. Islamic State is an apocalyptic movement rooted entirely in Islam.
Most of the coverage of Netanyahus scheduled speech before Congress has centered on his opposition to the deal Obama seeks to conclude with Iran. But it may be that the second half of his speech which will be dev**ed to the threat posed by radical Islam will be no less devastating to Obama. Obamas stubborn refusal to acknowledge the fact that the greatest looming threats to global security today, including US national security, stem from radical Islam indicates that he is unable to contend with any evidence that jihadist Islam constitutes a unique threat unlike the threat posed by Western chauvinism and r****m.
It is hard to understand either Israels e******n or Obamas hysterical response to Netanyahus scheduled speech without recognizing that Obama clearly feels threatened by the message he will deliver. Surrounded by sycophantic aides and advisers, and until recently insulated from criticism by a supportive media, while free to ignore Congress due to his veto power, Obama has never had to seriously explain his policies regarding Iran and Islamic terrorists more generally. He has never endured a direct challenge to those policies.
Today Obama believes that he is in a to-the-death struggle with Netanyahu. If Netanyahus speech is a success, Obamas foreign policy will be indefensible. If Obama is able to delegitimize Netanyahu ahead of his arrival, and bring about his e*******l defeat, then with a compliant Israeli government, he will face no obstacles to his plan to appease Iran and blame Islamic terrorism on the West for the remainder of his tenure in office.
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Column-one-Netanyahus-true-e*******l-rival-391626
CarolineGlick, Jerusalem Post
02.21.2015 | 2 Adar, 5775
Officially, the e******n on March 17 is among Israelis. Depending on how we v**e, either Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu will remain in office and form the next government led by his Likud party, or Isaac Herzog and Tzipi Livni will form a government.
But unofficially, a far greater e*******l drama is unfolding. The choice is not between Netanyahu and Herzog/Livni. It is between Netanyahu and US President Barack Obama.
As the White House sees it, if Herzog/Livni form the next government, then Jerusalem will dance to Obamas tune. If Netanyahu is reelected, then the entire edifice of Obamas Middle East policy may topple and fall.
Secretary of State John Kerry made clear the administrations desire to topple Netanyahu last spring during his remarks before the Trilateral Commission. It was during that memorable speech that Kerry libeled Israel, claiming that we would automatically and naturally become an apartheid state if we didnt give Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria to the PLO, Jew free, as quickly as possible.
Despite Israels venality, Kerry held out hope. In his words, if there is a change of government [in Israel], or a change of heart, something will happen.
Shortly after Kerry gave his Israel apartheid speech, his Middle East mediator Martin Indyk attacked Israel and the character of the Israeli people in an astounding interview to Yediot Aharonot.
Among other things, Indyk hinted that to force Israel to make concessions demanded by the PLO, the Palestinians may need to launch another terror war.
Indyk also threatened that the Palestinians will get their state whether Israel agrees to their terms of not. In his words, They will get their state in the end whether through violence or by turning to international organizations.
Indyk made his statements as an unnamed US official. When his identity was exposed, he was forced to resign his position.
Following his departure from government service he returned to his previous position as vice president of the Brookings Institution and the director of its foreign policy program. Last September, The New York Times reported that the Brookings Institute received a $14.8 million, four-year donation from Qatar, the chief financier of Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.
This week, Indyk was back in Israel to speak at the annual conference of the Institute for National Security Studies. There he provided us with a picture of what we can expect from the Obama administration in its remaining two years in office if Netanyahu forms the next government.
On the Palestinian front, Indyk warned that Israel shouldnt be worried about the Palestinians getting an anti-Israel resolution passed in the UN Security Council. Rather, it can expect that the US will join with the other permanent members of the UN Security Council to pass a resolution against Israels will that will lay out the principle of a two-state solution.
As Indyk intimated, Israel can avoid this fate if it elects a Herzog/Livni government. Such a government, he indicated, will preemptively give in to all of the Palestinians demands and so avoid a confrontation with the US and its colleagues at the Security Council.
Indyk explained, If there is a government in Israel after these e******ns that decides to pursue a two-state solution, then there is a way forward. It begins with coordinating an initiative with the United States. And then, together with the US, looking to Egypt and Jordan and the resurrection of the Arab Peace Initiative.
As for Iran, Indyk shrugged at Israels concerns over the agreement that Obama is now seeking to conclude with the Iranian regime regarding its nuclear weapons program. That agreement will leave Iran as a threshold nuclear state. Indyk suggested that the US could assuage Israels concerns by signing a bilateral treaty with Israel that would commit the US to do something if Iran passes some nuclear threshold.
There are only three problems with such a deal.
First, as former ambassador to the US Itamar Rabinovich noted, such a treaty would likely render Israel unable to take independent action against Iranian nuclear sites.
Second, the US has a perfect track record of missing every major nuclear advance by every country. US intelligence agencies were taken by surprise when India, Pakistan and North Korea joined the nuclear club. They have always underestimated Iranian nuclear activities and were taken by surprise, repeatedly, by Syrias nuclear proliferation activities. In other words, it would be insane for Israel to trust that the US would act in a timely manner to prevent Iran from crossing the nuclear threshold.
Third of course is the demonstrated lack of US will particularly under the Obama administration to take any action that could prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. So Israel has no reason whatsoever to believe that the US would honor its commitment.
But then, since the Obama administration believes that Herzog and Livni will be compliant with its policies, the White House may expect the two will agree to forgo Israels right to self-defense and place Israels national security in relation to Iran in Obamas hands.
And this brings us to the real contest unfolding in the lead-up to March 17.
When Speaker of the House of Representatives John Boehner announced last month that he had invited Netanyahu to address the joint houses of Congress on the threat emanating from Irans nuclear program and from radical Islam, he unintentionally t***sformed the Israeli e******ns from a local affair to a contest between Obama and Netanyahu.
Obamas response to Netanyahus speech has been astounding. His ad hominem attacks against Netanyahu, his open moves to coerce Democratic lawmakers to boycott Netanyahus speech, and the administrations aggressive attempts to damage Israels reputation in the US have been without precedent. More than anything, they expose a deep-seated fear that Netanyahu will be successful in exposing the grave danger that Obamas policies toward Iran and toward the Islamic world in general pose to the global security.
Those fears are reasonable for two reasons.
First due to a significant degree to the administrations unhinged response to the news of Netanyahus speech, Boehners invitation to Netanyahu sparked a long-belated public debate in the US regarding Obamas strategy of appeasing the Iranian regime. Generally consistent Obama supporters like The Washington Post editorial board have published stinging indictments of this policy in recent weeks.
These analyses have noted for the first time that in pursuing Iran, Obama is alienating and weakening Americas allies, enabling Iran to expand its nuclear program, and empowering Iran regionally as the US does nothing to prevent Irans takeover of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen.
Second, it is possible that in his remarks about Iran and radical Islam, Netanyahu will manage to discredit Obamas approach to both issues. This is possible because Obamas approach is difficult to understand.
Last week, following the decapitation of 21 Egyptian Coptic Christians by Islamic State, the Obama administration stood alone in its refusal to note that the victims were murdered because they were Christians. When Egypt retaliated for the massacre with air strikes against Islamic State training camps and other facilities in Libya, the Obama administration refused to support it ally. Instead it criticized Egypt for acting on its own and called for a political solution in Libya, which is now governed by two rival governments and has become a breeding ground for Islamic State terrorists who t***sit Libya to Sinai.
Following Islamic States massacre of the Christians, the groups leaders threatened to invade neighboring Italy. Italys Prime Minister Matteo Renzi promised a strong response, and then called on the UN Security Council to do something. The Obama administration responded with coolness to a similar Egyptian call last week.
Hamas (which is supposedly much more moderate than Islamic State despite its intense cooperation with Libya-trained Islamic State forces in Sinai) warned Italy not to attack Islamic State in Libya, lest it be viewed in the words of Salah Bardawil as beginning a new crusade against Arab and Muslim countries.
While all of this has been going on, Obama presided over his much-touted international conference on Confronting Violent Extremism. Reportedly attended by representatives from 60 countries, and featuring many leaders of Muslim Brotherhood- linked groups like the Council on American- Islamic Relations, Obamas conferences apparent goal was to deemphasize and deny the link between terrorism and radical Islam.
In his remarks on Wednesday, Obama gave a lengthy defense of his refusal to acknowledge the link between Islam and Islamic State, al-Qaida and other Islamic terrorist groups. He insisted that these groups have perverted Islam.
Obama indirectly argued that the West is to blame for their behavior because of its supposed historical mistreatment of Muslims. In his words, the reality... is that theres a strain of thought that doesnt embrace ISILs tactics, doesnt embrace violence, but does buy into the notion that the Muslim world has suffered historic grievances, sometimes thats accurate.
Obamas insistence that Islamic State and its ilk attack because of perceived Western misbehavior is completely at odds with observed reality. As The Atlantics Graeme Wood demonstrated this week in his in-depth report on Islamic States ideology and goals, Islam is central to the group. Islamic State is an apocalyptic movement rooted entirely in Islam.
Most of the coverage of Netanyahus scheduled speech before Congress has centered on his opposition to the deal Obama seeks to conclude with Iran. But it may be that the second half of his speech which will be dev**ed to the threat posed by radical Islam will be no less devastating to Obama. Obamas stubborn refusal to acknowledge the fact that the greatest looming threats to global security today, including US national security, stem from radical Islam indicates that he is unable to contend with any evidence that jihadist Islam constitutes a unique threat unlike the threat posed by Western chauvinism and r****m.
It is hard to understand either Israels e******n or Obamas hysterical response to Netanyahus scheduled speech without recognizing that Obama clearly feels threatened by the message he will deliver. Surrounded by sycophantic aides and advisers, and until recently insulated from criticism by a supportive media, while free to ignore Congress due to his veto power, Obama has never had to seriously explain his policies regarding Iran and Islamic terrorists more generally. He has never endured a direct challenge to those policies.
Today Obama believes that he is in a to-the-death struggle with Netanyahu. If Netanyahus speech is a success, Obamas foreign policy will be indefensible. If Obama is able to delegitimize Netanyahu ahead of his arrival, and bring about his e*******l defeat, then with a compliant Israeli government, he will face no obstacles to his plan to appease Iran and blame Islamic terrorism on the West for the remainder of his tenure in office.
Feb 21, 2015 14:32:27 #
Zemirah wrote:
b If Netanyahus speech is a success, Obamas for... (show quote)
Sums it up pretty well.
And these histrionics from Obama were no where to be found in 2011 when Boehner invited Netanyahu to speak before the joint session of Congress. Both times Obama was notified beforehand, both times he failed to respond to Boehner. The difference? In 2011 he was facing re-e******n, in 2015 Obama hopes he can make anti-Israeli political gains by being outraged. More deceit and corruption from Obama
Feb 21, 2015 14:34:45 #
robmull
Loc: florida
Zemirah wrote:
b If Netanyahus speech is a success, Obamas for... (show quote)
Liberal progressive c*******ts have merged with Islam to defeat free-market, Western culture, Zemirah, and if the Jews of this world don't support Israel [little Satan] in this conflict, Israel will be pushed into the sea; shortly before America [GREAT SATAN] is again physically attacked by radical Islam.
"Barry," [or wh**ever (his) name really is] is on the side of Islam, and has been since [his] "devout" Muslim Arab upbringing in Indonesia. Just the fact that OUR secret military plans are ALWAYS divulged to our ENEMY must alert our patriotic, conservative military "Brass" to further mutiny in defense of our homeland!!!
Feb 21, 2015 15:59:07 #
Ricktloml wrote:
Sums it up pretty well.
And these histrionics from Obama were no where to be found in 2011 when Boehner invited Netanyahu to speak before the joint session of Congress. Both times Obama was notified beforehand, both times he failed to respond to Boehner. The difference? In 2011, he was facing re-e******n, in 2015 Obama hopes he can make anti-Israeli political gains by being outraged. More deceit and corruption from Obama
And these histrionics from Obama were no where to be found in 2011 when Boehner invited Netanyahu to speak before the joint session of Congress. Both times Obama was notified beforehand, both times he failed to respond to Boehner. The difference? In 2011, he was facing re-e******n, in 2015 Obama hopes he can make anti-Israeli political gains by being outraged. More deceit and corruption from Obama
Very true. :thumbup:
Feb 22, 2015 07:33:01 #
The last time we listened to Netanyahu: "If you take out Saddam's regime, I guarantee you will have enormous positive reverberations on the region." Spoken to congress in 2002. How did that work out our military?
I understand some members of Congress are forcing members of their staff to attend this speech in order to obtain standing ovations for this gentlemen. I would like to hear both sides of the situation. If that can't be arranged, then I feel my country is being used to benefit Netanyahu's political career. By making it appear he controls the U.S. he is threatening his neighbors.
I do not want this man to be allowed to disrespect the Commander In Chief of the American Military. He should be addressing the many problems in his own country.
I understand some members of Congress are forcing members of their staff to attend this speech in order to obtain standing ovations for this gentlemen. I would like to hear both sides of the situation. If that can't be arranged, then I feel my country is being used to benefit Netanyahu's political career. By making it appear he controls the U.S. he is threatening his neighbors.
I do not want this man to be allowed to disrespect the Commander In Chief of the American Military. He should be addressing the many problems in his own country.
Feb 22, 2015 09:05:49 #
jer48
Loc: perris ca
commander in chief of our military where have you been the last 6 years while he has dismantled it? he's a joke
Feb 22, 2015 09:09:09 #
She Wolf wrote:
br br I understand some members of Congress are ... (show quote)
Threatening his neighbors? What astroid do you live on? Are you really so indoctrinated that you are unable to process the thought that it is Israel that is threatened by its neighbors?
Hear both sides of the situation? Where have you been for the past umpteen years? Israel is our only true friend in the region and the ONLY Democracy.
You don't want Netanyahu to disrespect our so-called Commander in Chief? I've got news for you. We DON'T HAVE a Commander in Chief. We have a narcissistic little egomaniac playing marbles on the oval office floor when he is not out on the golf links clowning. Our International standing is in the pits thanks to his arrogance toward our Allies and his constant bad mouthing of our country. Obama is a t*****r to this country and everything this country has stood for. He is trying his very best to turn us into a Muslim Oriented C*******t State under his dictatorship. You had better hope and pray Netanyahu is reelected in Israel. He is the only LEADER present and accounted for.
Feb 22, 2015 11:03:54 #
Mollypitcher1 wrote:
Threatening his neighbors? What astroid do you liv... (show quote)
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
Feb 22, 2015 14:06:54 #
robmull
Loc: florida
She Wolf wrote:
The last time we listened to Netanyahu: "If ... (show quote)
Iraq worked out just fine until your hero, the usurper-in-chief withdrew all the American troops and watched as ISIS grew and grew and finally took back all that our Military had gained. If you, She Wolf, are a true anti-Semitic, BiBi Netanyahu is the last person in the world you want to see by-pass "Barry," [or wh**ever (his) name really is] and talk directly to our new conservative Congress and patriotic America; and THAT seems exactly the case!!!
Feb 22, 2015 14:42:23 #
robmull wrote:
Iraq worked out just fine until your hero, the usurper-in-chief withdrew all the American troops and watched as ISIS grew and grew and finally took back all that our Military had gained. If you, She Wolf, are a true anti-Semitic, BiBi Netanyahu is the last person in the world you want to see by-pass "Barry," [or wh**ever (his) name really is] and talk directly to our new conservative Congress and patriotic America; and THAT seems exactly the case!!!
This is so tiresome. Netanyahu was invited in 2011 to speak before the joint houses of Congress. Boehner notified Obama-Obama did not respond. This is the same thing that happened THIS time, but now it's as outrage. All this is manufactured by Obama and the Democrats to deflect from their support and defense of Islamic terrorism, and their underhanded, backstabbing, double dealings with Iran. Obama really doesn't want the public to know what he has been giving away to Iran. And of course the collaborative media is spewing the Obama propaganda word for word. The world's problem isn't Netanyahu pointing out the t***h-the world's problem is the deceitful Obama administration undermining freedom in favor of one totalitarian ideal after another
Feb 23, 2015 05:04:40 #
Ricktloml wrote:
This is so tiresome. Netanyahu was invited in 2011... (show quote)
The United States Congress is a co-equal branch with the Executive. They don't need Obama's permission or approval to invite any speaker they wish.
Susan Rice and Valerie Jarrett are Co-Commanders-In-Chief of our military at present, and they are co-equal in their ignorance of what the military entails.
Obama's self-image is that of World Ruler. He has a hissy fit whenever a world leader doesn't indulge his every whim, thus he h**es Netanyahu.
Growing up, initially, with a muslim-observant head-of-household, he cannot possibly have ever been taught anything positive or even objective about Judaism or Israel.
Unfortunately, he has displayed nothing but a completely closed mind in his world outlook, and a stubborn refusal or even inability to either grow or change.
He is trapped inside his own willfully inept lack of understanding, and for two more years, the United States will continue to be held hostage to
his narrow, h**e filled views of the U.S., Israel and any nation willing to support our well being.
To him, we and those nations are the enemy.
Feb 23, 2015 10:52:38 #
Ricktloml wrote:
This is so tiresome. Netanyahu was invited in 2011... (show quote)
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
Feb 23, 2015 10:53:30 #
Zemirah wrote:
The United States Congress is a co-equal branch wi... (show quote)
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
Feb 23, 2015 12:17:35 #
Feb 24, 2015 09:24:25 #
robmull wrote:
Iraq worked out just fine until your hero, the usurper-in-chief withdrew all the American troops and watched as ISIS grew and grew and finally took back all that our Military had gained. If you, She Wolf, are a true anti-Semitic, BiBi Netanyahu is the last person in the world you want to see by-pass "Barry," [or wh**ever (his) name really is] and talk directly to our new conservative Congress and patriotic America; and THAT seems exactly the case!!!
I think the families of the fallen men and women might disagree with your opinion "Iraq worked out just fine", as would the average citizen of Iraq.
I suppose all the people in Israel who disagree with Netanyahu are also anti-Semitic. I did not v**e for either crook in the last P**********l e******n. However, I can accept the fact that weather I like it or not President Obama is the president and therefore the Commander In Chief of the military.
By disrespecting the President the speaker of the House has made our country appear weak. It is never a good thing to appear divided. Think what you will of the man in the highest office in this country, he is still the President of the United States.
If Netanyahu is re-elected to the office of Prime Minister of Israel , then come and speak to the Congress. This time come through the front door. For thinking people; Timing is truly everything.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.