Posted on Jan 27, 2015
Isreali Prime Minister attempting to undermine U.S. President?
11.2K
45
52
4
4
0
Apparently Speaker of the House John Boehner (without informing the White House) has extended an invitation to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address a joint session of Congress in order to support the case for sanctions against Iran...in direct conflict with the POTUS's decision to put off further sanctions in an attempt to negotiate with Iran on their nuclear policy.
Personally I get very upset when a non-U.S. national tries to directly influence U.S. politics...I was upset when certain English citizens were pouring money and public influence into Democratic presidential campaigns, and I'm equally upset about this. What makes it worse is that now we have a U.S. political party that is actively working with a foreign power to undermine the elected U.S. President. I don't care if you support the guy or not, this is a serious issue.
What are everyone else's thoughts on this?
http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/23/politics/netanyahu-obama-snub-sours-relations/index.html
http://www.vox.com/2015/1/21/7866089/netanyahu-boehner-congress
Personally I get very upset when a non-U.S. national tries to directly influence U.S. politics...I was upset when certain English citizens were pouring money and public influence into Democratic presidential campaigns, and I'm equally upset about this. What makes it worse is that now we have a U.S. political party that is actively working with a foreign power to undermine the elected U.S. President. I don't care if you support the guy or not, this is a serious issue.
What are everyone else's thoughts on this?
http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/23/politics/netanyahu-obama-snub-sours-relations/index.html
http://www.vox.com/2015/1/21/7866089/netanyahu-boehner-congress
Politics
Foreign Policy
Foreign Affairs
Israel
Iran
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 17
10
10
0
Although I think it probably should not have been done, the President reaps what he sows. His contempt for Congress is evident and has clearly demonstrated that he plans to do whatever he wants to, regardless of what the will of Congress or the people want.
He has clearly stepped over the line of separation of powers and, in doing so, has violated the Constitution of the United States. He has demonstrated that he does not agree with the separation of powers so, now, why should he be upset if Congress displays the same disregard?
The big difference, as I see it, is that President Obama violated the Constitution. John Boehner violated established protocol.
I agree with everyone who have pointed out that all of this is childish and needs to stop.
He has clearly stepped over the line of separation of powers and, in doing so, has violated the Constitution of the United States. He has demonstrated that he does not agree with the separation of powers so, now, why should he be upset if Congress displays the same disregard?
The big difference, as I see it, is that President Obama violated the Constitution. John Boehner violated established protocol.
I agree with everyone who have pointed out that all of this is childish and needs to stop.
(10)
(0)
COL Jean (John) F. B.
COL Ted Mc
OK ... We agree about that. :-),. However, at least Bush was a patriot and loved his country and its values and traditions. Obama... Not so much. In fact, it is pretty plain that he detests the United States and is doing all he can to "fundamentally transform" it (as he promised).
OK ... We agree about that. :-),. However, at least Bush was a patriot and loved his country and its values and traditions. Obama... Not so much. In fact, it is pretty plain that he detests the United States and is doing all he can to "fundamentally transform" it (as he promised).
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
COL Jean (John) F. B. Colonel; I will give you that Mr. Bush (GW that is) believed that he was a patriot, loved his country, and what he thought were its CURRENT values and traditions.
Mr. Obama, on the other hand appears to believe that he is a patriot, loves his country, and what he thinks its UNDERLYING values and traditions are.
Mr. Bush saw a country where the economy was as it should be, the wealth of the nation flowed into the proper hands, and it was 100% permissible to use armed force to compel other countries to do whatever the government of the United States of America told them to do.
Mr. Obama sees a country where the economy is in crappy shape, the wealth of the nation flows into the hands of an elite few while the mass of the populace faces an ever declining chance of getting a better life style than their parents had, and it is only permissible to use armed force in actual defence of the nation or against an actual threat.
Obviously getting from Mr. Bush's vision of America to Mr. Obama's vision of America requires a fundamental transformation of the country.
To OVER generalize, Mr. Bush's "Vision of America" is more akin to the bullying, officious, cop who is in the pocket of the mob while Mr. Obama's "Vision of America" is more akin to the kindly policeman who helps little old ladies across the street and actually works to prevent crime and make sure that the criminals are punished.
I know which version of America I would prefer BUT I also don't expect America to become either one of them (totally).
Mr. Obama, on the other hand appears to believe that he is a patriot, loves his country, and what he thinks its UNDERLYING values and traditions are.
Mr. Bush saw a country where the economy was as it should be, the wealth of the nation flowed into the proper hands, and it was 100% permissible to use armed force to compel other countries to do whatever the government of the United States of America told them to do.
Mr. Obama sees a country where the economy is in crappy shape, the wealth of the nation flows into the hands of an elite few while the mass of the populace faces an ever declining chance of getting a better life style than their parents had, and it is only permissible to use armed force in actual defence of the nation or against an actual threat.
Obviously getting from Mr. Bush's vision of America to Mr. Obama's vision of America requires a fundamental transformation of the country.
To OVER generalize, Mr. Bush's "Vision of America" is more akin to the bullying, officious, cop who is in the pocket of the mob while Mr. Obama's "Vision of America" is more akin to the kindly policeman who helps little old ladies across the street and actually works to prevent crime and make sure that the criminals are punished.
I know which version of America I would prefer BUT I also don't expect America to become either one of them (totally).
(0)
(0)
COL Jean (John) F. B.
COL Ted Mc
OK ... So we now finally agree. Bush is a capitalist and Obama is a socialist/Marxist.
I am glad we have finally resolved our differences of opinion.
OK ... So we now finally agree. Bush is a capitalist and Obama is a socialist/Marxist.
I am glad we have finally resolved our differences of opinion.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
Actually we don't.
Mr. Bush is a really crappy capitalist (not a single one of his business enterprises worked) who is content to take corporate largess and work for the benefit of the wealthy (including shoveling out billions in "Welfare for the Rich") while stressing that the poor simply have it coming to them because they aren't rich.
Mr. Obama is a really crappy "socialist" [which is NOT the same thing as being a "Marxist"] because he is content to take corporate largess and work for the benefit of the wealthy - although less so than Mr. Bush was - (including shoveling out billions in "Welfare for the Rich").
As you might have noticed, the difference between the two is that Mr. Obama does not blame the poor for being poor.
Given the power/financing structures of BOTH the Republicans and the Democrats there is absolutely no way that anyone who comes even close to being "left-wing" ON THE GLOBAL SCALE stands a chance of winning significant national office.
If you divide the whole political spectrum into seven "Far Left", "Left", "Moderate Left", "Center", "Moderate Right", "Right", and "Far Right" and then split those divisions into three "+", "0", and "-" you end up with 21 categories running from "Far Left +" = 1 to "Far Right -" = 21. The Democrats probably scale in at 14 and the Republicans at 16. (The T.E.A. Party is likely to be a 17.)
The reason why I dislike talking "political labels" is that they all mean completely different things in the US than they do in the rest of the world - or in relation to any rational study of political theory.
Remember, the Founding Fathers were "liberals" (and "left-wing liberals" at that) according to the way the term is defined in the United States of America today. This, of course, means that the "Loyalists" were the "conservatives".
And, of course, 90% of the progress on the "civil rights" front was produced by "Activist Judges" who were not content to sit back and allow the legislators to make up whatever rules the legislators felt like making so as to ensure that the legislators had total control of the country.
Mr. Bush is a really crappy capitalist (not a single one of his business enterprises worked) who is content to take corporate largess and work for the benefit of the wealthy (including shoveling out billions in "Welfare for the Rich") while stressing that the poor simply have it coming to them because they aren't rich.
Mr. Obama is a really crappy "socialist" [which is NOT the same thing as being a "Marxist"] because he is content to take corporate largess and work for the benefit of the wealthy - although less so than Mr. Bush was - (including shoveling out billions in "Welfare for the Rich").
As you might have noticed, the difference between the two is that Mr. Obama does not blame the poor for being poor.
Given the power/financing structures of BOTH the Republicans and the Democrats there is absolutely no way that anyone who comes even close to being "left-wing" ON THE GLOBAL SCALE stands a chance of winning significant national office.
If you divide the whole political spectrum into seven "Far Left", "Left", "Moderate Left", "Center", "Moderate Right", "Right", and "Far Right" and then split those divisions into three "+", "0", and "-" you end up with 21 categories running from "Far Left +" = 1 to "Far Right -" = 21. The Democrats probably scale in at 14 and the Republicans at 16. (The T.E.A. Party is likely to be a 17.)
The reason why I dislike talking "political labels" is that they all mean completely different things in the US than they do in the rest of the world - or in relation to any rational study of political theory.
Remember, the Founding Fathers were "liberals" (and "left-wing liberals" at that) according to the way the term is defined in the United States of America today. This, of course, means that the "Loyalists" were the "conservatives".
And, of course, 90% of the progress on the "civil rights" front was produced by "Activist Judges" who were not content to sit back and allow the legislators to make up whatever rules the legislators felt like making so as to ensure that the legislators had total control of the country.
(1)
(0)
4
4
0
I think extending the invitation as a jab at the President was a childish move, then again "I won both of them...yeah" on national TV is fairly childish too.
Can we please get some adult leaders in Washington?
As for the Israeli Prime minister addressing Congress, I do not see the reason for him being here if not to take a jab at the President. Is it to talk about imposing more sanctions on Iran? If that is the case, we know that our President has stated that sanctions do not work (in respect to Cuba) but has proposed more sanctions for Russia...
Oh crap, adult leaders please?
Can we please get some adult leaders in Washington?
As for the Israeli Prime minister addressing Congress, I do not see the reason for him being here if not to take a jab at the President. Is it to talk about imposing more sanctions on Iran? If that is the case, we know that our President has stated that sanctions do not work (in respect to Cuba) but has proposed more sanctions for Russia...
Oh crap, adult leaders please?
(4)
(0)
CPT Zachary Brooks
MAJ (Join to see) this just feels so high school. I think it is more about the fact that President Obama does not like Netanyahu and the Republicans are attempting to show that they have some manner of courage or authority. I do not see this as another country coming in to undermine our processes or procedures, but just some childish jabs to get the low information voters on both sides inflamed and continuing to fight. This makes me think that another ACA level bill (possibly the "free college") is going to squeak through while this has the masses enraged.
(0)
(0)
CPT Zachary Brooks
SFC James Sczymanski
Can we make me the Czar of Asswhoopin's? I promise I would abuse my powers of office to keep Congress and the Cabinet in line. I would abuse that power so hard.
Can we make me the Czar of Asswhoopin's? I promise I would abuse my powers of office to keep Congress and the Cabinet in line. I would abuse that power so hard.
(4)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
We might need to start a petition for that, CPT Zachary Brooks. Goodness knows we need /someone/ to keep them in line!
(1)
(0)
SPC Charles Griffith
NO F'EN WAY I ASKED FOR THAT JOB YEARS AGO ! ! ! ! But really Sir you give me hope go ahead and keep the change :) LOL
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
So from what I'm reading here none of you have ever had that officer or SNCO that you had to work "around" to get what needed to be done done. This POTUS has demonstrated time and time again that he isn't will one to work with Congress or our allies. He has pushed all of our allies so far away that we're basically on our own at this point. Whatever it takes to rebuild those relationships with our allies. If that means keeping the empty chair POTUS out of the loop, then so be it.
Ideally I'd love to have leadership that acted like adults and less like middle school clicks.
Ideally I'd love to have leadership that acted like adults and less like middle school clicks.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google