Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s planned speech to Congress is openly designed to damage US negotiations with Iran, and is increasing tensions between Israel and the Obama Administration.
The administration is still trying to figure what to do about it, but is said to be planning potential actions designed to undercut the speech or otherwise damage Netanyahu for giving it.
Among the possibilities was having President Obama give a “rebuttal” speech following Netanyahu’s, though officials now say that idea has been discarded in favor of other alternatives.
Obama may give a high-profile interview on struggling US-Israeli relations, administration officials may pack the Sunday news circuit to discuss the problems with the speech, and perhaps most dramatically, top administration officials may boycott the AIPAC conference happening during Netanyahu’s visit.
That would be a huge snub, as AIPAC, the public face of the Israel Lobby, is usually a must-visit for US politicians with any real aspirations. For an active administration to publicly boycott the conference would underscore the damage US-Israeli relations have suffered.
I have a very simple proposal: Deny Netanyahu a visa for a visit during which he has made clear that he intends to undermine and if possible defeat a foreign policy decision by the President of the United States. Why should any foreign political leader be permitted to visit the US for the declared purpose of interfering with the internal political affairs of our nation? That this obvious action is not even being discussed shows how deeply our Government has been subverted by the government of Israel and its supporters here in our nation. In fact, Israel and AIPAC own Congress and largely control the Executive Branch. What a dismal, disgusting, traitorous state of affairs.
"That this obvious action is not even being discussed shows how deeply our Government has been subverted by the government of Israel and its supporters here in our nation."
I suspect that some idiot on Obama's staff suggested that monumentally stupid idea first thing.
And then some smarter person on Obama's staff pointed out that denying Netanyahu a visa would make it look like Obama is afraid of Netanyahu and of what he has to say.
And then the monumentally stupid idea was dismissed and forgotten about.
Boehner and the Republicans are publicly demonstrating that their loyalties lie with a foreign power rather than with the United States.
When your opponent is kicking himself in the balls in public, for God's sake, don't try to stop him.
Obama IS afraid of Netanyahoo and of what he has to say. That's the problem. He is feckless and has surrounded himself with and listens to ideological short-sighted advisers. From the very beginning of his administration he allowed them to snatch control and man the rudder. He is a coward and the history books are not going to be kind.
Yes, he's afraid. But from a political standpoint, SHOWING he's afraid is even worse than merely being afraid.
He's made no effort to hide his fear, IMO.
Too bad the Vermont Curmudgeon is right; BUT; if OB was not a coward, he could summon up all the courage he does not have, and do the following; about 1 hour before the sleaze-bag's appearance before "Israeli occupied territory"; (Patrick J.); Obama would announce an agreement with Iran to open diplomatic relations, starting with an embassy that opened it's doors 1 hour ago in Tehran. Call 911; Rep. Boner is feeling ill.
They've probably got something "deep" on him. Guiliani talking about Frank James Marshall is a warning. The way things have heated up, though, it's out of Obama's control, now. We'll see tomorrow morning on Meet the Press etc.
This upcoming fiasco of the schoolyard bully's speech will be a test of how brainwashed the US public is against it own best interests. The GOP rank and file do not realize what useful idiots they are. I thought it was a disaster when no agreement with Iran was reached before the AIPAC-controlled GOP took over the senate. The negotiators of both sides knew this day was coming. Why did they not act?
The mission of the US "negotiators" isn't to negotiate an agreement. It's to keep the lie that Iran has an active nuclear weapons program in constant play for domestic US consumption. Not only is an agreement not the goal, it is something they will act to avoid at any cost.
Thomas, maybe I'm giving Obama too much credit, but I think he really wants an agreement for his own legacy. IMO, he's being stabbed in the back by traitors, led by Kerry, who never wanted an agreement and have undermined these talks from the beginning.
Pure theatrics, for the corporate rich supply 90% of the political donations our politicians need to get elected, which is why we are an Empire with a make-believe democracy.
It may help America not being totally taken over by the Zionist "too little too late"
"…and perhaps most dramatically, top administration officials may boycott the AIPAC conference happening during Netanyahu’s visit."
Right. Don't hold your breath. "US politicians with any real aspirations" are too busy genuflecting before AIPAC to be boycotting them.
This is a slap in the face to the Executive Branch of the US Government. Obama is the President of the United States, not Israeli's lackey.
He must deny Netanyahu the right to spread the falsity of fear to the representatives of the American people. Netanyahu's purpose is not to promote peace or economic trade; he's coming to curry favor with the Congress of the United States to be Israel's proxy for war against Iran. If the Israeli prime minister wants to make a bellicose speech he is free to do so at the General Assembly of the United Nations in New York but not at a joint session of the U.S. Congress.
The president will be condemned by the Zionist congress, the media sycophants, AIPAC lobbyists, Christian evangelicals, etc. Too bad for them. Despite the failings of Obama as a war mongering socialist, he cannot allow Netanyahu access into the federal District of Columbia. His legacy will be bad enough but for him not to make a stand is unforgivable.
Did you say; "not to make a stand is unforgivable"? Tell me WHEN, WHAT, WHERE, Obama ever did make a stand. Oh; OK; mea culpa; it was before a group of supporters; on immigration "reform"; In Hollywood, of course.
Pete, I don't disagree with your reply. I'm just saying if Obama wants his presidential legacy to be remembered for anything substantial, it has to be that he stood up to the Zionist cabal of bribery and bullyism.
Many black Americans and others believed Obama's campaign promises, most of which he failed to deliver. He certainly has to think of all of America to be sure but since to date he is the only black American president in history, it would be a terrible disservice to his supporters and the nation if he allows a foreign head of state to politically usurp the Office of the President of the United States in our own country.
If Obama did not fear Netanyahu and AIPAC, he could go before the American people on television and give a rebuttal speech, written by none other than Pat Buchanan, complete with a litany of all that America has done for Israel and a history lesson going back to World War I. It will never happen, but I can dream.
My Mary's asleep by thy murmuring stream; flow gently sweet Afton; disturb not her dreams.
If the corporate rich had not given Obama $4 billion in political donations
Each new President is going to treat Iran and Israel according to the dictates of their conscience. So, if Obama was honest, he would not waste time doing things permanent, instead he would simply terminate all sanctions against Iran and tell Israel that all foreign aid to them has been terminated until they give up their nuclear and chemical weapons.
"For an active administration to publicly boycott the conference would underscore the damage US-Israeli relations have suffered."
Oh that it were so, but I doubt the officials will boycott. They're too afraid of the lobby.
The paleo right of Buchanan, the libertarian right of Paul, and what remains of the anti-war left all share a common interest opposed to Israeli control of Washington. Why not get together in a coalition against the Lobby? I suspect that, if they did so, they would have majority support from the people despite the screaming of the neo-con puppets on Fox News.
I don't think "Ehud" Barack Obama will boycott Nutty Yahoo's speech. He's afraid of Nutty Yahoo & AIPAC. He doesn't want to hurt Killary's chances to become the next president. Bonehead Boehner hopes he will boycott the speech so the winner of the Republican primary becomes the next president.