@eskimospy
I'll keep this short and simple.
Congress invited the speech. The President has no right to restrict speech before Congress.
It is not discourteous to accept an invitation to give a speech.
It's not about a right, it's about the smart thing to do. Congress fucked up by trying to insert itself in foreign affairs like this when it's not their job. The president is in charge of foreign policy.
U.S. Constitution said:The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, ...
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations...
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin...
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
Based on the above, Congress is also in charge of foreign policy.
Further, the proposed speech relates directly to Congress' foreign policy power to issue sanctions against Iran, so it is very much their job to be involved.
Based on the above, Congress is also in charge of foreign policy.
Further, the proposed speech relates directly to Congress' foreign policy power to issue sanctions against Iran, so it is very much their job to be involved.
Eskimospy already said the upcoming election think was just an excuse to snub Netanyahu. Nonetheless, like I already said, President Obama could have preserved that by stating in an apologetic manner that Netanyahu is welcome to speak before Congress but that the President won't be able to meet with him because as the figurehead of the U.S., the President has to maintain neutrality in the upcoming election.
First, mentioning that the relationship shouldn't be clouded in partisan politics after it had already become an issue of partisan politics. That's overstating the obvious and served no purpose other than to take a partisan shot.
Second, he insulted Netanyahu by contrasting him with Angela Merkel, suggesting that Netanyahu has less diplomatic tact.
-snip-
Congress is not asking him for information. It is inviting him to give a policy speech. If they just wanted information he could have just emailed it. The idea that this is for informational purposes only fools literally no one.
I mean, come on.
How on earth are sanctions not diplomacy. That's a new one.
-snip-
Jesus, no one cares if Congress has the theoretical ability to conduct foreign policy without breaking the law. It's an issue of centuries of tradition of the president presenting a single face to the world. Sometimes he can't deliver (like Wilson and the League of Nations), but you're never going to get the other side to bargain in good faith if they think they can meddle in your internal politics and play your parties against each other.
-snip-
As per the Constitution the president negotiates treaties with foreign states and the congress either approves or denies the results of these negotiations. Congress has no power to enter an international agreement without the president's ok. Netanyahu is attempting to in effect negotiate for the imposition of sanctions without involving the president. That's a big no-no.
When you think about it that's just common sense. Neither the US or any foreign nation we would deal with wants multiple US negotiating partners. That would lead to chaos for foreign nations as they wouldn't know who was actually in charge and it leads to weakness for the US as a foreign power can play our two branches off one another as is happening here.
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=20129&highlight=pelosi&page=2Oh give me a break. First of all... congressmen go talk to the leaders of other countries all the time. ALL THE TIME. Yeah, even ones we aren't friendly with. As mentioned before... there were 3 other congressmen who had been hanging out in Syria just before her, and yet they don't appear to have overstepped their boundries? The executive branch doesn't get to tell the Legislature what countries they can visit and when. We're not a monarchy quite yet.
Remember this post in the thread about Pelosi and other Dems actually trying to conduct foreign policy by visiting Syria; a country with whom we had suspended diplomatic relations with etc? They weren't even an ally.
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=20129&highlight=pelosi&page=2
Now who wrote that?
Fern
Shows you both parties are the same even though their respective bootlickers think otherwise.I think you are being too simplistic. There aren't TWO sides b/c Pelosi needs NO authorization in the execution of her Constitutional duties. She should (and did) inform the Executive branch of her intentions but they have no practical control over her.
Regardless of your personal animosity towards the Queen Bee . . . she's still the Queen Bee. The position of Speaker has historically been an extremely powerful position in the US government. You may dislike it (along with Bush Regime apologists) but you better get use to royal jelly from Grand Dame of Pacific Heights.
And how does this apply to Iran exactly? Are they coming to speak too?
Fern
Remember this post in the thread about Pelosi and other Dems actually trying to conduct foreign policy by visiting Syria; a country with whom we had suspended diplomatic relations with etc? They weren't even an ally.
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=20129&highlight=pelosi&page=2
Now who wrote that?
Fern
Oh give me a break. First of all... congressmen go talk to the leaders of other countries all the time. ALL THE TIME. Yeah, even ones we aren't friendly with. As mentioned before... there were 3 other congressmen who had been hanging out in Syria just before her, and yet they don't appear to have overstepped their boundries? The executive branch doesn't get to tell the Legislature what countries they can visit and when. We're not a monarchy quite yet.
She in no way attempted to articulate policy, and she in no way attempted to make or amend any treaty (the actual territory of the executive branch according to the constitution). So the whole "she overstepped her bounds and should be stripped of her speakership" thing (by who I wonder?) is stupid. That and why the big deal about the head scarf? It's a cultural thing in Syria. Do people go insane when Bush (or Clinton, or whoever) goes to someplace and you see them wearing some element of that nation's traditional clothing? Nope. Damn her for trying to reach out a hand of cultural mediation!! Damn her!!!
That does not mean that there are no negative aspects to her trip. It certainly is a negative if our government appears divided in its approach to a country, I agree. In general it is always best to keep your arguments internal and present a unified face to the rest of the world. I don't know what the other options are right now though. The Bush approach of sticking our fingers in our ears and going "la la la I can't hear you" for the last 6 years is so mind bogglingly stupid that it not only is ineffective, but leaves absolutely no room to maneuver for any party involved. That is yet another catastrophic mistake for Bush, and the fact that merely speaking to a country on Bush's "no talk" list is such a big deal shows you why this policy is so bad.
As long as she is not attempting to set foreign policy for the US (and no, speaking to another country is not a policy.. sorry) what she is doing is within her rights, and it might even help some. I agree that in general sending a mixed message is bad, but I just don't know what other options there are considering the administration's current policy.
You're overstating this to an extreme.
You really want to act like WE don't try to encourage our partners one-way-or-the-other when it comes to sanctions?
Oh, and there's no treaty involved. What's this, some kind of a pea-in-the-cup game; a slight of hand or diversion?
Sanctions ARE Congress's business. Where they choose to draw their information from is their business.
Netanyahu isn't "negotiating for anything. He's trying to influence. And that is his job. And, again, sanctions are Congress's job.
This is much adoo about nothing.
Is it possible to have thinner skin than Obama?
Fern
They are not 'getting information' from Netanyahu by this speech. If they wanted information from Israel about what it think about Iran they could simply ask them for a briefing book. This is a political speech. Any claims otherwise are simply more lies. What's up with that?
It's also interesting that a huge array of foreign policy experts, former ambassadors, and the public within Israel think this speech is a bad idea. Maybe you should talk to them and share your knowledge as to why it's much ado about nothing?
Bibi and Boehner are trying to derail a deal with Iran.
That is what is going on.
Everything else is just kabuki.
Yes, it's a speech. Congress can invite Bibi or Kanye to come and speak to them.Anyone ever watch cspan? It's not like this is interrupting anything else going on.
It's a speech. Those who want to listen will listen. Those who do not want to listen will not listen. Those who want to be influenced will be influenced whether the speech takes place or not. Those who do not want to be influenced will not be influenced.
Obama will get done what Obama wants done.
Bibi and Boehner are trying to derail a deal with Iran.
That is what is going on.
Everything else is just kabuki.
Dylan Williams‏@dylanotes Feb 11
Hill staff say empty Democratic seats at Netanyahu's speech will be filled by Republican staffers to ensure good visuals, standing ovations
On the conversion of a "policy" speech into a political and lobbying stunt, with emphasis added:It is both sad and ridiculous that attending this speech will be used as a litmus test for support of Israel. In short, roll will be taken, and some outside organizations have even threatened potential absentees with electoral repercussions ...On the "informational" value of the appearance:
It will become a matter of score-keeping as to who stands up and applauds and who doesn't. Having visited Israel only months after Netanyahu addressed Congress in 2011, I know how much political impact these scenes have in that country. There is pressure to join the applause even if a member does not agree with statements made.
We know what he is going to say. Netanyahu’s position on the ongoing negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program is not a secret. Like many other members, I have been visited by the Israeli ambassador and understand what they want and how that differs from what U.S. negotiators are attempting to accomplish.On interference in U.S. policy-making by a foreign leader:
The Prime Minister has plenty of other places to express his opinions. In fact he has done so many times.
Speaker Boehner invited the Prime Minister to address Congress specifically to refute President Obama’s position. I will not contribute to the impression that this body does not support the President of the United States in foreign affairs.
Congress has a broader responsibility than the security interests of Israel. While it certainly is important that we understand the Israeli perspective, the American people will hear only Netanyahu’s perspective, creating a public perception that could undermine a broadly supported resolution to the Iranian nuclear situation.