Dems consider boycott Netanyahu address to Joint Congress

One word keeps coming up in these protests being posted. NEGOTIATION!!! Is allowing someone from somewhere else talk to our Congress a negotiation? Or just asking for comments from others about how they see a situation or items they wish to report on.

Time for some better ideas of what is going on before we have to make lots of political coverage rules be top argument.
 

AZ Jim said:
Well, it's clear to me you are whining because you are a Republican, that is no sin, but I have seen in just today's posts some negative comments directed at members of this forum who were supporting Democrat positions. I have yet to see you jump in to condemn that. If you were as meticulous in studying the issues discussed as you feel others should be perhaps you would have a different opinion. Now as to the issue here, if it is or isn't a violation of law is for others to decide but it is, at the minimum a breach of protocol. If you wish to play at neutrality, be neutral. I applaud your interest however.
Click to expand...

One issue is that I don't see her post as whining at all. She has a right to voice her opinions and nothing less should be afforded without put down comments.

I am not posting against the lefties at all but I am defending the right of others to speak to our Congress in conversational ways. Some seem to think that can not be done and have posted reasons why. So far they have all talked about negotiating. What if they are not negotiating at all and just telling about how they feel in this or that situation. Yes, I am defending what has been offered to the leader of the Jewish peoples government. And until it becomes obvious that he intends to violate our ability to have our Congress hear from him, let him talk. If it is really such a wrong move then the one who should be talking is Obama. Not some one sided posters here. Both sides to this situation have a right to be heard.
 
BobF said:
One issue is that I don't see her post as whining at all. She has a right to voice her opinions and nothing less should be afforded without put down comments. I am not posting against the lefties at all but I am defending the right of others to speak to our Congress in conversational ways. Some seem to think that can not be done and have posted reasons why. So far they have all talked about negotiating. What if they are not negotiating at all and just telling about how they feel in this or that situation. Yes, I am defending what has been offered to the leader of the Jewish peoples government. And until it becomes obvious that he intends to violate our ability to have our Congress hear from him, let him talk. If it is really such a wrong move then the one who should be talking is Obama. Not some one sided posters here. Both sides to this situation have a right to be heard.
Click to expand...

Ahhh so you missed her opening, huh? "I'm with you Bob, seems any chance there is to bash Republicans, it's like a bunch of ravenous wolves." Sounds like whining to me.
 

As an outsider I can only say that disrespect for any national leader should be avoided.
To use a national leader as a pawn in a domestic dispute is irresponsible and there are going to be consequences.
Both the Republican and the Democrats should think very carefully about that they are doing.
 
AZ Jim said:
Ahhh so you missed her opening, huh? "I'm with you Bob, seems any chance there is to bash Republicans, it's like a bunch of ravenous wolves." Sounds like whining to me.
Click to expand...

No, I don't think her post changes anything I have posted. Only you trying to twist what I have posted.
 
Dame Warrigal said:
As an outsider I can only say that disrespect for any national leader should be avoided.
To use a national leader as a pawn in a domestic dispute is irresponsible and there are going to be consequences.
Both the Republican and the Democrats should think very carefully about that they are doing.
Click to expand...

Well Warrigal, if you are talking about my inserting Obama's name as the one who can certainly make a definitive comment, yes or no, about the request to have Israels leader speak to our congress. That is just a truth about who really has control over our Congress. None of the posters on this forum have such control as he has. So far I have seen lots of opinions, little else, posted. Far too much we do not know about what Israel has been asked to talk to Congress about and some have jumped to the worst probable possibility.
 
BobF said:
No, I don't think her post changes anything I have posted. Only you trying to twist what I have posted.
Click to expand...
As is often the case with you you fail to comprehend what I said. Where did I make the charge that her post changed anything you posted? Rhetorical question.
 
April just posted the answer to this......read it carefully..


"There has been little judicial discussion of the constitutionality of the Logan Act.
In United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. (1936), however, Justice Sutherland wrote in the majority opinion: "[T]he President alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation. He makes treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate; but he alone negotiates. Into the field of negotiation the Senate cannot intrude, and Congress itself is powerless to invade it." Sutherland also notes in his opinion the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations report to the Senate of February 15, 1816:The President is the constitutional representative of the United States with regard to foreign nations. He manages our concerns with foreign nations, and must necessarily be most competent to determine when, how, and upon what subjects negotiation may be urged with the greatest prospect of success. For his conduct, he is responsible to the Constitution".[SUP][7]


[/SUP]
 
All I know is that when an Australian PM visits Washington we are all watching to see whether he/she is received by the President or by some lesser person. As a people we can be offended by a perceived slight. Being asked to address Congress is seen as a high honour and to have half the house boycott it would also be taken personally by the nation as a whole.

Foreign affairs is not the appropriate arena for domestic political battles. Everyone should look further than their own noses on this one.
 
Jackie22 said:
April just posted the answer to this......read it carefully..


"There has been little judicial discussion of the constitutionality of the Logan Act.
In United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. (1936), however, Justice Sutherland wrote in the majority opinion: "[T]he President alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation. He makes treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate; but he alone negotiates. Into the field of negotiation the Senate cannot intrude, and Congress itself is powerless to invade it." Sutherland also notes in his opinion the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations report to the Senate of February 15, 1816:The President is the constitutional representative of the United States with regard to foreign nations. He manages our concerns with foreign nations, and must necessarily be most competent to determine when, how, and upon what subjects negotiation may be urged with the greatest prospect of success. For his conduct, he is responsible to the Constitution".[SUP][7]


[/SUP]
Click to expand...

Yes April did post this for our reading. I read and am still responding the same as I did then. Has Israels leader been asked to come here negotiate anything at all. Or has he been invited to speak of something much more general and no negotiations. Nobody has taken on that part at all. If not negotiating, what is the problem.
 
AZ Jim said:
As is often the case with you you fail to comprehend what I said. Where did I make the charge that her post changed anything you posted? Rhetorical question.
Click to expand...

So cover my ignorance and tell me just what your post is saying. I said you twisted my post, you claim not. I guess I am missing something real subtle.
 
Dame Warrigal said:
As an outsider I can only say that disrespect for any national leader should be avoided.
To use a national leader as a pawn in a domestic dispute is irresponsible and there are going to be consequences.
Both the Republican and the Democrats should think very carefully about that they are doing.
Click to expand...

Perhaps this will explain it better. Boehner and Netanyahu deliberately ignored protocol and totally bypassed the White House in arranging this fiasco. Netanyahu has never been fond of Obama.. Boehner will miss no opportunity to humiliate and insult this President. Democrats feel as if they are being asked to choose between OUR President and a foreign leader. Boehner and Netanyahu completely misread the political scene and figured that Obama and the Dems were weakened by last November's midterms.... The complete opposite is true... the Democratic party has been energized. There is no contest in the choice Democrats are making. Let Boehner OR Netanyahu carry out their ill conceived scheme.. They can cancel it... or Netanyahu will be talking to a lot of empty chairs. I have just heard our Vice President Joe Biden will not be attending it either.
 
I do understand QS. What I'm trying to do is have everyone see the situation through the eyes of the Israelis and the Israeli watchers.
Foreign policy, including protocols etc, is fraught with danger.

Best not messed with for domestic gain.
It's Congress, both sides, that is playing with potential dynamite here.

The President is not involved as far as I can see.
It's hard to see what he can do to improve the situation other than to be a gracious host of Netanyahu while he is in the country.
It's very ungracious of Boehner to put the president in this situation.

That's the view from outside, anyhow.

We have our own domestic circus going on over here ATM and very entertaining it is too.
Apart from embarrassing the Royal Family, it's all in house so far.
If it should spill over into foreign affairs then I reckon all of us would have to pull our collective heads in.
 
Dame Warrigal said:
I do understand QS. What I'm trying to do is have everyone see the situation through the eyes of the Israelis and the Israeli watchers.
Foreign policy, including protocols etc, is fraught with danger.

Best not messed with for domestic gain.
It's Congress, both sides, that is playing with potential dynamite here.

The President is not involved as far as I can see.
It's hard to see what he can do to improve the situation other than to be a gracious host of Netanyahu while he is in the country.
It's very ungracious of Boehner to put the president in this situation.

That's the view from outside, anyhow.

We have our own domestic circus going on over here ATM and very entertaining it is too.
Apart from embarrassing the Royal Family, it's all in house so far.
If it should spill over into foreign affairs then I reckon all of us would have to pull our collective heads in.
Click to expand...

The President will not meet with Netanyahu... It is a long established policy to NOT host Foreign leaders so close to their re-election.. The Israeli eliction will follow this fiasco by just two weeks. Boehner knows of this policy.. this was all a poorly conceived scheme that backfired... It's also my understanding that the Israelis are not too happy about Netanyahu's stunt either.
 
WhatInThe said:
Good Cop Bad Cop. Obama is telling Iran do it my way or he'll cut the Republicons and Israel loose on them.
Click to expand...

Well... that would be a better explanation... however, after the last 6 years, do you really believe that any cooperation between Obama and the Republicans is feasible? I just can't see any colaboration possible..
 
QuickSilver said:
Well... that would be a better explanation... however, after the last 6 years, do you really believe that any cooperation between Obama and the Republicans is feasible? I just can't see any colaboration possible..
Click to expand...

I believe you are correct. Obama has refused to cooperate with Republicans for 6 years and I don't expect him to change. I do believe some Democrats in congress are beginning to see the light though. We might just get past some of the dictators vetos.
 
I try to stay out of your 'in-country' politics, but of course Canada can't help but hear about what goes on in the halls of power in Washington and on that basis, I only ask rkunsaw, could it not be said that the Republicans have likewise proved to be entirely reluctant to work with Obama as well? Just asking.
 
Debby said:
I try to stay out of your 'in-country' politics, but of course Canada can't help but hear about what goes on in the halls of power in Washington and on that basis, I only ask rkunsaw, could it not be said that the Republicans have likewise proved to be entirely reluctant to work with Obama as well? Just asking.
Click to expand...


lol!! ya think??

Here's how Republicans have worked with Obama..

Republicans: "Can we burn your house down?"

Obama: "no"

Republicans" "Well, then can we just burn the 2nd story??

Obama " No!"

Republicans: "Then how about just 2 or 3 rooms?"

Obama: "NO!"

Republicans: "Ok then, how about just your garage?"

Obama: "I told you... NO!"

Republicans: " You simply won't cooperate and compromise, will you!!" :cry:
 
Over recent years the Republican Congress has sent many bills to the Democrat Senate and most were just piled onto the 'hold' pile rather than being opened and looked at. Reid was the problem there and Obama apparently never asked for them to be looked into and passed or rejected. Obama was way too busy playing golf and making political speeches to get to know just how much he was spending. We must be getting pretty close to not having any money left to make payments, let alone to running the things Obama has spent money on and also keeping our government running.
 
QuickSilver said:
lol!! ya think??

Here's how Republicans have worked with Obama..

Republicans: "Can we burn your house down?"

Obama: "no"

Republicans" "Well, then can we just burn the 2nd story??

Obama " No!"

Republicans: "Then how about just 2 or 3 rooms?"

Obama: "NO!"

Republicans: "Ok then, how about just your garage?"

Obama: "I told you... NO!"

Republicans: " You simply won't cooperate and compromise, will you!!" :cry:
Click to expand...


LOL....perfect.
 
[h=1]Israeli official suggests Boehner misled Netanyahu on Congress speech[/h]Source: Reuters

(Reuters) - A senior Israeli official suggested on Friday that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had been misled into thinking an invitation to address the U.S. Congress on Iran next month was fully supported by the Democrats.

Netanyahu was invited by the Republican speaker of the house, John Boehner, to address Congress on March 3, an invitation Boehner originally described as bipartisan.

The move angered the White House, which is upset about the event coming two weeks before Israeli elections and the fact that Netanyahu, who has a testy relationship with President Obama, is expected to be critical of U.S. policy on Iran.

"It appears that the speaker of Congress made a move, in which we trusted, but which it ultimately became clear was a one sided move and not a move by both sides," Deputy Israeli Foreign Minister Tzachi Hanegbi told 102 FM Tel Aviv Radio on Friday.


Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/06/us-israel-usa-congress-iran-idUSKBN0LA1AG20150206


Looks as though he is trying to wiggle out.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top