And as the Commander in Chief, the President is the one who decides what US foreign policy will be. End of fucking story.
When a foreign leader (and yes he is a real leader) has to come here bitch slap and put the obama in his place
........one other U.S. President named Bush II. Netanyahu, aka chicken shit, would like to draw the U.S. into another Middle East war but the Obama administration is telling him no mas. Israeli Intelligence are of the view that Iran is many years away from acquiring a Nuclear weapon. A former head of Mossad, Israeli intelligence, said the same in a 60 minutes interview last year. Netanyahu is trying to blow smoke up all our asses but most Americans are having none of it. If he wants to start a war with Iran attack, he can do it on his own.
-- Modified on 3/3/2015 8:23:18 PM
That Netanyahu! Him and BUSH! They just want war! WAR WAR WAR! Good thing you're too smart for them! Why, if more people were smart as you, everyone in the world would come together and hold hands and sing in harmony. And there would be no more Islamic caliphates!
You are on to something and you are absolutely correct in saying "if more people were smart as you, everyone in the world would come together and hold hands and sing in harmony”. Indeed, it world really would. Liberals don’t go around starting wars, kill innocent people, destroy countries and leave.
Now who are these Islamic Caliphates? Former Military of Saddam. Who created them? George W and the neocons. Who is in Iraq fighting against ISIS and helping Iraq? IRAN, see the irony
Problem is he's not as smart as you and 0bama.
Now who are these Islamic Caliphates? Former Military of Saddam. Who created them? George W and the neocons. Who is in Iraq fighting against ISIS and helping Iraq? IRAN, see the irony.
Even if he disagrees with Bibi, which obviously he does, he should give him the respect of the head of state, especially one that is a close ally whose people were being exterminated simply because of their "Jewishness" just 70 years ago.
Incredible...
Bibi didn't show him the common courtesy and protocol due to our president, so why should he show Bibi respect? Plus, perhaps you don't know, but I rather suspect you've ignored the Obama's policy on meeting with heads of state close to their nation's elections.
250 congressional Dems attended the speech in person. So your point is that all of them aren't showing "courtesy" to King...er...I mean President Obama? LOL
Oh...and one last point. It would be nice if Barry didn't "ignore" his own policies a bout meeting with heads of states close to their elections.
But what do you expect from a guy who crosses his own line in the sand.
Oops. 
Answer: It depends whether we like you.
Obama visited Merkel just 3 months before her last election.
And then of course there's this, only a couple of weeks ago in Germany, both Biden and Kerry met with Isaac Herzog, Netanyahu’s opponent. Brief meeting or not, Herzog has been playing it up that he's the real friend of America.
Should I even mention that former Obama campaign gurus, led by Jeremy Bird, have been in Israel working to defeat Netanyahu?
http://www.haaretz.com/news/israel-election-2015/.premium-1.63915
Fatgirl and Co. weren't offended when O'bama had PM Cameron call members of the Senate directly to lobby on behalf of Iran. Guess that didn't count.
The guy who is trying to provide nukes to the fanatical Jihadists who have pledged to wipe Netanyahu and his people off the face of the Earth gets far, far more courtesy than he deserves.
Netanyahu has a history of lying about WMD's and Republicans/Neo Cons and a few war hawk Democrats keep swallowing his BS hook line and sinker. In 2002 Netanyahu convinced the U.S. to invade Iraq because he believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Sound familiar? Yeah, more deliberately distorted intelligence and rumor mongering and building a media case based on bread crumbs. So, what did that get us? 3000 dead Americans, $1 trillion in U.S. Tax payer funds wasted and the creation of Al Quaeda in Iraq and its baby ISIS.
“There is no question whatsoever that Saddam was seeking nuclear weapons,” Netanyahu said, misleading Congress in 2002. He claimed Iraq had Centrifuges “the size of washing machines” to produce the A-bomb. And as Cole wrote, “He said that Israeli intelligence reported to him that Russian scientists and North Korea were on site and actively aiding this phantom nuclear weapons program.”
-- Modified on 3/3/2015 10:29:16 PM
Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rice, Rumsfeld, Rove, Tony Blair, Netanyanhu, Neo Conservatives, CIA etc.
Thank you for clearing that up for me. lol
From your post "In 2002 Netanyahu convinced the U.S. to invade Iraq because he believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction." Sounds like it was no Bush's idea (or Cheney's for that matter
Kills brain cells.
Yahu is peddling BS. The reality is if there is no agreement, sanctions will fail because EU, China and Russia will not go along with any sanctions. Yahu and Israel has no sympathy in EU, China or Russia. But this is way above your head.
Watch more Faux news and keep on killing whatever brain cells you have left
Our president represents us as a nation, not Boner, nor Bibbi!
As much as I disliked GW for his taking us into war with Iraq, I'd be furious with Pelosi and Bibbi if they did the same thing to him that Boner and Bibbi are doing to Obama. When you rejoice in having a foreign leader, in your words, bitch slap our own president, your partisanship, in my book has gone way too far.
Maybe she didn't get the memo from the King? Or was she just too tired to bow to him again? 
...and Netanyahoo says that Netanyahoo has caused Israel the most strategic damage when it comes to the Iranian issue.
Dagan said: "We shouldn't be gnawing away at our relations with our most important ally, certainly not in public and certainly not by getting involved in American domestic politics. This is not the kind of behavior one expects from a prime minister."
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4631634,00.html
Danny Yatom, another former head of Mossad said Netanyahoo would be cynically speaking to people in Israel, not Congress:
"Netanyahoo is ready to sacrifice the special relations between Israel and the United States to gain a few more votes before elections in Israel."
Anyone who describes the President as being "bitch slapped" and taking pleasure in seeing it is not "For God and Country." He is a traitor.
Implied, or suggested that I took pleasure in it.
But I am not surprised that a LYING BACKSTABBER would twist and distort it that way .
You're Welcome
2016 = GOP WH, Senate and House
...Shin Bet (FBI) and Israel Police were opposed to Netanyahu's speaking to Congress:
...top brass, regardless of political affiliation. It's the equivalent of over 2,000 American generals and security chiefs speaking out against an American president. Would you dismiss what they all said based upon their political affiliation?
By asking the political make up of the 180, you're admitting that what Netanyahoo did was also politically motivated. See what I did there Jack? That's exactly how you twist the words of every post you respond to. It's easy to play that game - it's a lot harder to tell the truth and debate logically.
...who is goading the U.S. into going to war with Iran, same as he did with Iraq. Thank you for clearing that up.
Colin Powell criticized George Bush. Is Colin Powell a liberal?
Jonathan Alter just came back from two weeks in Israel and said the 180 are hawks on Iran who are in the "anybody but Bibi" camp for the upcoming election. So what do you base your belief upon that they are liberal? Twisting other posters words?
Meir Dagan was head of Mossad under Netanyahoo. Meir Dagan feels a debt of gratitude towards Benjamin Netanyahoo. When he got sick and he needed a liver transplant, Netanyahoo stepped in to help him. He has no personal grudge against him; to the contrary. But Dagan says that Netanyahoo has caused Israel the most strategic damage when it comes to the Iranian issue.
Dagan said: "We shouldn't be gnawing away at our relations with our most important ally, certainly not in public and certainly not by getting involved in American domestic politics. This is not the kind of behavior one expects from a prime minister."
Yet you, Jack, would automatically assume Meir Dagan is a liberal because you are a simpleton.
-- Modified on 3/3/2015 11:48:01 PM
He is just as clueless as the clowns in the GOP animal house.
Also no major networks carried the speech and the Washington Post destroyed the speech.
The GOP clowns can't wait to loose power again in 2016. Lol
...that the Boner could be so disrespectful of the Office of the Presidency that he would invite a foreign leader to speak to Congress for the sole purpose of trying to undermine our national security strategy.
Meanwhile, this is the same bonehead who can't even get his ducks in a row to fund fucking HOMELAND SECURITY.
What's next for this guy? Walking over to the National Archives and taking a shit on the Constitution?
It's only a matter of time before he is put out to pasture by his Tea party compatriots in the House. All this bluster about Iranian WMD is simply a diversionary tactic by Netanyahu to distract Israelis from the terrible economy. I hope Israelis are smart enough to see through his BS and vote him out of office for good.
Meanwhile, this is the same bonehead who can't even get his ducks in a row to fund fucking HOMELAND SECURITY.
What's next for this guy? Walking over to the National Archives and taking a shit on the Constitution?
Obama is not King Willy. No, I am serious, he really isn't a king. LOL.
Congress invited Bibi, as they are allowed to do and Bibi accepted, as he is allowed to do. Most Democrats showed up and most cheered Bibi on wildly numerous times.
Tell me. Were all those Dems "undermining our national security strategy" too? If we had a fkin strategy and a real leader, Congress wouldn't have to invite him...OBAMA would have.
This is the same fkin guy that can't utter the words "radical Islam" but has no problem snubbing the leader of possibly our closest ally as its enemy gets closer to possessing the weapon they crave to carry out a mission they state, every chance they get, i.e. to wipe Israel off the map.
Obama is all butt hurt and couldn't even watch it on TV! Imagine how pissed he must have been seeing members of his own party leaping to their feet to applaud Bibi. What a pussy Obama is. He thought if he took the ball away there wouldn't be a game. But the R's are onto him. And they are going around him. Because they have no respect for him. And why should they? When Obama stops having racists advise him on race relations and stops blaming police in cases before he knows the facts, maybe then he can then talk about "respect."
Oh...and by the way...Boehner can't take a dump on the constitution because Bams already set it on fire ages ago!
And as the Commander in Chief, the President is the one who decides what US foreign policy will be. End of fucking story.
You would trust any one man to have unilateral power to decide the foreign policy of this country???
I suppose you felt this way when Bush was CIC???
Foreign policy is a shared responsibility between the Administration and Congress. Even the use of the military is shared.
But where Willy is right is that Boner's unilateral invitation to Bibi was really unprecedented and was an inappropriate intrusion of Congress into the US/Israeli relationship as well as the negotiations with Iran. Congress' appropriate role is to approve whatever deal is negotiated, not to try to affect the outcome beforehand.
Obama has repeatedly said that if Congress won't act, he will do so for them. That opened the door for this end run around him. I am just amazed that Boehner has the stones to do it. He's been pretty gutless about everything else since he's been in charge.
What amazed me was how powerful the speech was, and even though I am not a huge Israel supporter. I am not an Israel basher, but I am hardly in lockstep with those who blindly support Israel. That said, I found the speech and his position compelling, even though Obama's inaction on this issue, and his weakness in dealing with Iran eventually has to be good for oil prices, only a moron would trust Obama or Iran to come to any kind of a "deal" that gives us even the slightest assurance that Iran won't get nukes.
Obama really looked like a bit player after that speech yesterday, but he got his revenge as the GOP folded today in regards to the DHS funding. Boehner lost all the points he gained yesterday, so I would say the week was a draw politically.
He had no alternative plan to propose. So what would he do instead? He's not saying. The military option? It's not likely to succeed and even less so if Israel goes it alone.
And unless Bibi has a wire running up Kerry's ass (always a possibility) he doesn't know all the details of a potential deal.
But I don't know what Willy's stressing about. He's on record as hating Israel as well as the A-rabs, so why should he care if they turn the Middle East into a glass parking lot?
Just saying NO is a much better policy than coddling Iran while they pretend to negotiate.
Once it turns out that Iran has ICBM's and that they can launch a nuclear payload all the way to our shores I suppose we will be singing a different tune. In the meantime Nero, err I mean Obama fiddles while Iran gets closer and closer to nuclear capability.
and if there were a way to turn the entire ME into a glass parking lot without poisoning the rest of the world, I think it might be a viable option. I wouldn't mind shipping over a few million idiot fundamentalist Christians over there to balance the scales before we do it to boot.
The Senate was not able to overcome Obama's veto of the Keystone pipeline. Good new for you, right?!?
Besides looking out for my own selfish interests, I have reconsidered my position on Keystone. The only real winners with the Keystone Pipeline are the Canuks, Big Oil, and the relatively small number of people hired on to build it.
On the down side, we incur the ecological risk of spills, it hurts domestic producers as it stresses refining and storage capacity, both in short supply. The oil itself is crap, and won't be burned in this country, so I say let the Canuks build their own fucking pipeline in their own fucking country, pipe the oil to Vancouver and ship it to the fucking chinks who don't give a fuck how dirty and nasty it is.
See, we do agree on something. lol
Note, I can still hate Obama, without hating EVERYTHING that he does.
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
************
President Obama can agree to whatever he wants regarding a "deal" with Iran, but until his "deal" is ratified by 2/3rds of the Senate that "deal" is not binding to any succeeding executive administrations.
other forms of international agreements which are binding on the United States without 2/3 senate ratification.
For example, “sole executive agreements” may be made by the President with a foreign state without Senate ratification and are fully binding on the United States regardless of the administration.
Now guess how the “deal” with Iran is being structured. While congressional approval will be needed to lift some specific sanctions, the bulk of the agreement reportedly will be made by Mr. Obama using his ...drum roll....executive powers. This sole executive agreement will be enforceable without Senate vote. This is why Mr. Obama is pissed but not overly concerned by Benji's inflammatory speech yesterday.
So while Willy obviously overstated his point, he was not entirely wrong
You know. The part about being binding on the next person that will hold those executive powers.
Now, if Obama can get the existing Congress to go along with some lessor legislation then it too will be binding but only goes to demonstrate the lack of sole powers of the CIC.
-- Modified on 3/5/2015 1:24:18 AM
-- Modified on 3/4/2015 6:49:50 PM
Make the obama salad tossers pee-pee in their pamties