I think I just heard the President

» Site Navigation
Home Page The Villages Maps The Villages Activities The Villages Clubs The Villages Book Healthcare Rentals Real Estate Section Classified Section The Villages Directory Home Improvement Site Guidelines Advertising Info Register Now Video Tutorials Frequently Asked Questions
» Newsletter Signup
» Premium Tower
» Advertisements
» Trending News
» Tower Sponsors




















» Premium Sponsors
» Banner Sponsors
» Advertisements
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 02-09-2015, 12:49 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default I think I just heard the President

say that the problem with Netanyahu speaking to congress and not being invited to the White House was our not wanting to get involved in Israeli politics.

Well...

"Is the Obama Administration interfering in Israels upcoming elections? Recent statements and moves by Americas leaders sure would seem to suggest so.

Last week, both Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State John Kerry announced they would not be in attendance when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addresses a joint session of the US Senate dedicated to the threat of a nuclear Iran.

The White House has been furious with Netanyahu over the planned appearance, which Obama officials insist had breached protocol by being organized without their approval and involvement.

Just days after letting everyone know they wouldnt be on hand to greet and listen to Netanyahu, both Biden and Kerry met with Israeli opposition leader Isaac Herzog on the sidelines of a security conference in Munich, Germany on Saturday. And this just a month before Israels March 17 elections.


Biden, Kerry Boycott Netanyahu, Meet Israeli Opposition Leader - Israel Today | Israel News

And this administration wonders why people raise their eyebrows when this man speaks about ANYTHING,
  #2  
Old 02-09-2015, 12:51 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

By the way, this is not that big of a deal, but sometimes I think the WH thinks nobody in this country can read or understand.

Just another example of GAMESMANSHIP instead of STATESMANSHIP, and I am quick to add....on BOTH sides of the aisle.
  #3  
Old 02-09-2015, 04:27 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Netanyahu Reportedly Considering Canceling Speech To Congress


Reuters is reporting that Prime Minister Netanyahu is reportedly considering canceling his speech to both houses of congress. This announcement comes as many members of congress, including VP Joe Biden, declined to attend.
  #4  
Old 02-09-2015, 04:36 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
Netanyahu Reportedly Considering Canceling Speech To Congress


Reuters is reporting that Prime Minister Netanyahu is reportedly considering canceling his speech to both houses of congress. This announcement comes as many members of congress, including VP Joe Biden, declined to attend.
I know the headline said CANCELLING, but if you read the article in its entirety...

"As a result, Israeli officials are considering whether Netanyahu should speak to a closed-door session of Congress, rather than in a prime-time TV address, so as to drain some of the intensity from the event, a source said.
Another option is for the prime minister to make his speech at the annual meeting of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in Washington the same week, rather than in Congress.
The issue has been under discussion for a week, said a source close to the prime ministers office. (Netanyahu) is discussing it with Likud people. Some say he should give up on the speech, others that he should go through with it.
But Netanyahu told voters from the Russian speaking community on Monday evening that he was determined to discuss Israels objections in Washington to an emerging deal withIran but he did not say if that meant a public speech in Congress.
I am determined to go to Washington to present Israels position to the members of Congress and the American people, Netanyahu said, repeating that nuclear weapons in Irans hands would constitute an existential threat to Israel.


So we shall see. I think it important that our President and congress (as the ultimate decision makers) hear from Israel on this issue. They are the ones with the most to lose.

Hope the President was honest when he said they talk frequently.
  #5  
Old 02-09-2015, 08:47 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I simply wonder what Iran feels is "FAIR"

"(Reuters) - Iran's supreme leader said on Sunday he could accept a compromise in nuclear talks and gave his strongest defense yet of President Hassan Rouhani's decision to negotiate with the West, a policy opposed by powerful hardliners at home.

As his foreign minister met counterparties in the talks at a conference in Munich, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said he "firmly" backed a fair nuclear deal.

"I would go along with any agreement that could be made. Of course, if it is not a bad deal. No agreement is better than an agreement which runs contrary to our nation's interests," Ayatollah Ali Khamenei told Iranian air force personnel, according to official news agencies.

In a speech that still underlined his suspicions about Western nations that he characterized as "bullies", Khamenei backed Rouhani's negotiations with them and said any workable deal would mean both sides easing their demands.

"As the president said, negotiations mean reaching a common point. Therefore, the other party ... should not expect its illogical expectations to be materialized. This means that one side would not end up getting all it wants."

"I am for reaching a good settlement and the Iranian nation too will certainly not oppose any deal to uphold its dignity and integrity," Khamenei said, an apparent warning to hardliners that they might have to accept a deal with powers including the United States, commonly known in Iran as "the Great Satan".

Negotiators have set a June 30 final deadline for an accord, and Western officials have said they aim to agree on the substance of such a deal by March.


Iran's Khamenei says could accept fair nuclear compromise | Reuters
  #6  
Old 02-09-2015, 08:49 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

And again the RW noise machine gets its panties in a wad over nothing.

Here is the description of the encounter from the Jerusalem Post and clearly reports that both Herzog and the Likud party representative to the conference got the same treatment from Biden. He said hello in the hallway. That is a far cry from making a speech in the Knesset.

Quote:
Vice President Joe Biden and US Secretary of State John Kerry spoke briefly on Saturday in the hallway of the Munich Security Conference with Zionist Union Party head Isaac Herzog, who is Netanyahu’s chief political rival in the March 17 elections.

An aide to the vice president told the Post that Herzog and Strategic Affairs Minister Yuval Steinitz [Likud] separately greeted Biden "in passing" at the conference, but that "no meetings, formal or informal, were held with either official."
  #7  
Old 02-09-2015, 11:55 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

[QUOTE=Guest;1009655]And again the RW noise machine gets its panties in a wad over nothing.

Here is the description of the encounter from the Jerusalem Post and clearly reports that both Herzog and the Likud party representative to the conference got the same treatment from Biden. He said hello in the hallway. That is a far cry from making a speech in the Knesset.[/QUOTE]


Nothing? I feel our Jewish friends have been badly treated.
  #8  
Old 02-09-2015, 11:57 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

[QUOTE=Guest;1009655]And again the RW noise machine gets its panties in a wad over nothing.

Here is the description of the encounter from the Jerusalem Post and clearly reports that both Herzog and the Likud party representative to the conference got the same treatment from Biden. He said hello in the hallway. That is a far cry from making a speech in the Knesset.[/QUOTE]

Hardly NOTHING
Snubbing of Netanyahu is very evident to me.
  #9  
Old 02-10-2015, 09:38 AM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Hardly NOTHING
Snubbing of Netanyahu is very evident to me.
Are you more concerned about Bibi's feelings being hurt or about the GOP inviting a foreign leader to address a joint session of Congress without even running that by the White House? You do know that international policy has always been run by the Executive branch. It used to be said that politics stopped at the shoreline. Does anyone in Congress not now what Bibi's position might be on Iran? Is this really so some dimwitted legislator can glean new information from him about what he thinks the US government should be doing? No it was entirely a political stunt designed to

1. Help Bibi get re-elected which is desired by those who believe in not talking with your enemies just starving and bombing them

2. Snubbing of our President as the WH's reaction was 100% predictable.

I am more concerned about those issues than whether Bibi got his feelings hurt. Since when has he ever changed a single one of his policies at the request of our leaders? Has he stopped building new houses on occupied territory? Did he ask for our guidance for any of his wars? Has he cooperated in any international investigations of Israeli potential war crimes?

Has Bibi ever hesitated to make his dislike of Obama hidden? He is not the senator from Tel Aviv and there is a vigorous anti-Bibi part of the Israeli population so make it out that those who oppose Bibi's policies are anti-Jewish nor anti-Israeli.
  #10  
Old 02-10-2015, 09:44 AM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Bibi should remember it is the president who controls the military, not John Boehner. Think about that the next time he needs military assistance.
  #11  
Old 02-10-2015, 10:16 AM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
Bibi should remember it is the president who controls the military, not John Boehner. Think about that the next time he needs military assistance.
I could be wrong but the visit and the talk was about pending legislation in the House. Same legislation that the WH allowed the Prime Minister of England prowl the halls of congress to do his lobbying.

NOT MILITARY BUT CONGRESSIONAL ACTION
  #12  
Old 02-10-2015, 10:40 AM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
I know the headline said CANCELLING, but if you read the article in its entirety...

"As a result, Israeli officials are considering whether Netanyahu should speak to a closed-door session of Congress, rather than in a prime-time TV address, so as to drain some of the intensity from the event, a source said.
Another option is for the prime minister to make his speech at the annual meeting of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in Washington the same week, rather than in Congress.
The issue has been under discussion for a week, said a source close to the prime ministers office. (Netanyahu) is discussing it with Likud people. Some say he should give up on the speech, others that he should go through with it.
But Netanyahu told voters from the Russian speaking community on Monday evening that he was determined to discuss Israels objections in Washington to an emerging deal withIran but he did not say if that meant a public speech in Congress.
I am determined to go to Washington to present Israels position to the members of Congress and the American people, Netanyahu said, repeating that nuclear weapons in Irans hands would constitute an existential threat to Israel.


So we shall see. I think it important that our President and congress (as the ultimate decision makers) hear from Israel on this issue. They are the ones with the most to lose.

Hope the President was honest when he said they talk frequently.
What I am concerned about on a regular basis is there are so many law trained people in the running of our government one has to remember they were trained to either use, abuse or hide behind the letter of the law. Whichever made their case/agenda.

A good example? (After a party when many became ill)The following statement was made:
"The food that was served at the party was all government inspected."

What was not stated was that it all was rejected.

The above is a made up case to highlight a point. Listen to their words then sort out the ambiguity. The out and out lies take a little longer.
  #13  
Old 02-10-2015, 06:55 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I have no idea of what is going on in private with Iran. I, personally have zero trust in Iran, but just to set the table.

The debate between President Obama, Congress and Netanyahu seem to based on Obama not wanting Congress to pass legislation to increase sanctions on Iran....Congress want to pass legislation to do that BUT not now but in the future (in other words in our negotiators back pocket) Netanyahu is concerned about his country and if they will survive should these negotiations fall apart.

Today.....from the DEMOCRATIC side of this...

"A day after he reportedly traded sharp words with President Obama, Sen. Bob Menendez said on Friday that he was still convinced Congress should impose tougher economic sanctions on Iran that would take effect in July if nuclear negotiations do not result in an agreement.

I have a fundamental disagreement with the president, Menendez told reporters at a news conference in Monmouth County. I believe in negotiating out of strength.

Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron said at a joint news conference at the White House that new sanctions could disrupt negotiations. Cameron said he had even called some senators about the issue.

The likelihood of the entire negotiations collapsing is very high, Obama said, noting that a military showdown could follow.


Sen. Menendez stands firm over dispute with President Obama on Iran - News - NorthJersey.com

Also part of this link and important..

"Menendez refused to comment on what he thought was a private discussion, but he told reporters that the sanctions bill he supports would not take effect until a month after Obama has said negotiations should be concluded. The bill also gives Obama the power to waive new sanctions.

So it is counterintuitive to understand that somehow Iran will walk away because of some sanctions that would never take place if they strike a deal, and for which the president has waiver authority, Menendez said


He said that a law he sponsored with Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., which passed unanimously over the administrations objections in 2012, caused the economic disruption that brought Iran to the negotiating table."

Now Netanyahu has this to say today....

"Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced Tuesday that he has a "profound disagreement" with the United States and its negotiating partners in talks with Iran to curb the country's nuclear program, and is keeping his plans to address a joint meeting of Congress next month.

"I am going to the United States not because I seek a confrontation with the President, but because I must fulfill my obligation to speak up on a matter that affects the very survival of my country," Netanyahu said in a televised statement. "We have a profound disagreement with the United States administration and the rest of the P5+1 over the offer that was made to Iran. This offer will enable Iran to threaten Israel's survival."

Netanyahu appeared to be referencing the agreement in the works between the United States and the five other world powers negotiating with Iran. Iran must reach an initial framework agreement with the world powers by March 24.

Netanyahu pledged to address Congress before that deadline "because Congress might have a role with an important nuclear deal with Iran."


Netanyahu stands by plans to address Congress next month - CNN.com

I might add on the words being used about an election in Israel, that the Prime minister of England roamed the halls of congress lobbying on behalf of the President.

"Netanyahu insisted Tuesday that "Isarel's survival is not a partisan issue, not in Israel nor in the United States."
  #14  
Old 02-11-2015, 09:26 AM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Folks have posted poll results on here and swear by them,,,,,


"3 in 4 Israelis dont trust Obama to keep Iran from nukes"

Asked whether they trust the US president to ensure Iran not get the bomb, an overwhelming 72% do not, compared to 64% in our January 2014 survey."


3 in 4 Israelis don't trust Obama to keep Iran from nukes | The Times of Israel
  #15  
Old 02-11-2015, 09:41 AM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

the prioirty in the talks with Iran is to do whatever the Iranians allow/dictate that leads to an agreement thus allowing bows to be taken by both. Then everybody else will have to scaramble to figure out what they did to us.

Just like the Begdahl release......take the bows for the release then get out of the way.
Just like yesterday when he announced the rescue attempts made to save the latest ISIS victim.
Just pay close attention to the issues/events he participates in and the ones he does not.
 

Thread Tools

You are viewing a new design of the TOTV site. Click here to revert to the old version.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:18 AM.