Should Netanyahu Cancel His Speech?

[JockoJohnson]

What's the "C" in CBD stand for? The only psychosis and home grown villains in this thread appear to be examples of Obama and liberals being terrified of what will happen to the world if the evil Boehner is allowed to invite the evil Netanyahu to give a speech before Congress.

Your forgot the EVIL CONGRESS...not just Congress. All I see are a bunch of whiners with their panties twisted in knots over this whole subject. The world won't stop spinning if Netanyahu visits Congress.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Your forgot the EVIL CONGRESS...not just Congress. All I see are a bunch of whiners with their panties twisted in knots over this whole subject. The world won't stop spinning if Netanyahu visits Congress.

Obama doesn't want his diplomacy efforts compromised on one hand and Congress has no confidence in his ability to strike a meaningful deal with Iran (nor expect to be consulted prior to his making a deal) on the other. Their bad relationship is not good for this country. The Netanyahu visit is just another poke in the eye in an endless stream of eye pokes between Obama and Congress...it's as if we're watching a Three Stooges routine.

 

[Moonbeam]

What's the "C" in CBD stand for? The only psychosis and home grown villains in this thread appear to be examples of Obama and liberals being terrified of what will happen to the world if the evil Boehner is allowed to invite the evil Netanyahu to give a speech before Congress.

Try to understand what it would be like for liberals to live in a world where psychotics have grabbed a nuclear warhead and are threatening to blow it up to save the world. Conservatives are dangerously defective in the way I described. Your capacity for mental blindness terrifies liberals. You are a threat to the human race. I am just telling you how it is. You can call me afraid but I long ago accepted the fact that the conservative brain defect protects itself and there is no way you can be made to see. You would rather humanity go extinct than that you re-experience the childhood pain that damaged your brains. You are already emotionally dead. The rest is just academic. You have to want to be deprogrammed. Where will that desire come from?

 

[Cozarkian]

He didn't deny anything, Congress just went around him to try and run its own foreign policy. Anyone looking at this rationally can see that's by far the worst of all available options.

Given that he has stated Netanyahu shouldn't come at all, it seems almost certain that they would have refused to invite him if Congress had asked.

It is not a question of whether or not Congress is allowed to invite him to speak,

Other people raised that question, so yes, it was in fact a question.

it is a question of whether or not that was a good idea. It was not.

I agree Congress should have asked the State Department to invite Netanyahu and coordinate the visit. That said, if the State Department refused to make the arrangements as Congress requested, it would be a good idea for Congress to inform the State Department they will proceed to make the arrangements themselves.

Congress is doing something dumb and irresponsible. I wish they would grow up.

I agree Congress did something dumb and irresponsible. Then Obama made it worse by also acting dumb and irresponsible. The damage of those dumb and stupid acts is already done. Cancelling the speech won't undo the damage, it will only cause further damage.

 

[Moonbeam]

Obama doesn't want his diplomacy efforts compromised on one hand and Congress has no confidence in his ability to strike a meaningful deal with Iran (nor expect to be consulted prior to his making a deal) on the other. Their bad relationship is not good for this country. The Netanyahu visit is just another poke in the eye in an endless stream of eye pokes between Obama and Congress...it's as if we're watching a Three Stooges routine.

What you see is the CBD poke its finger in the eye of rationality, nothing more. It's all about team and fear, the brain defective vs. sanity. This disease has taken deep root in our country, probably from the psychological trauma of the civil war and Christian fundamentalism. Losing a war and fear of the devil create enormous ego deflation and self hate that are compensated for by hubris and denial.

 

[fskimospy]

Given that he has stated Netanyahu shouldn't come at all, it seems almost certain that they would have refused to invite him if Congress had asked.

To give a major policy speech attacking our nation's foreign policy? Who would invite that?

I agree Congress should have asked the State Department to invite Netanyahu and coordinate the visit. That said, if the State Department refused to make the arrangements as Congress requested, it would be a good idea for Congress to inform the State Department they will proceed to make the arrangements themselves.

No, they shouldn't be conducting a parallel foreign policy under any circumstances whatsoever.

I agree Congress did something dumb and irresponsible. Then Obama made it worse by also acting dumb and irresponsible. The damage of those dumb and stupid acts is already done. Cancelling the speech won't undo the damage, it will only cause further damage.

I think the correct answer is for Netanyahu to choose to speak to Congress in a closed session instead. I also think that Netanyahu's goal is to derail US foreign policy towards Iran, so not granting him an audience to do that is the smart and responsible thing to do. I mean how dumb would Obama have to be to invite someone to try and blow up the Iran deal?

 

[sportage]

I wouldn't get my panties all in a bunch over this.
And what needs canceling is John Boehner's afternoon highball.
His nose is starting to look a lot like WC Fields.
I can just imagine old John waking up at 3am wondering if this was only a dream, or did he really do it?
And not knowing the answer until he reads the morning news papers.
Just imagine this guys life and what it must be like.
Crying, drinking, drunk, stooper-ed, then back to crying, drinking, drunk, etc etc.
All on a government salary.

 

[Cozarkian]

To give a major policy speech attacking our nation's foreign policy? Who would invite that?

Anyone who believes that freedom of speech and the open exchange of ideas is beneficial to society.

No, they shouldn't be conducting a parallel foreign policy under any circumstances whatsoever.

Speech should not be censored because the President doesn't like it.

I think the correct answer is for Netanyahu to choose to speak to Congress in a closed session instead. I also think that Netanyahu's goal is to derail US foreign policy towards Iran, so not granting him an audience to do that is the smart and responsible thing to do. I mean how dumb would Obama have to be to invite someone to try and blow up the Iran deal?

A closed session would look far worse, as it would create an ambiance of secrecy and collusion.

 

[Cozarkian]

You can call me afraid but I long ago accepted the fact that the conservative brain defect protects itself and there is no way you can be made to see.

If that were true, you would have long ago stopped posting about it. I, for one, will continue to hold at least a sliver of hope that some day you may obtain enough knowledge and wisdom to re-evaluate your ideas and recognize that sanity compels them to be abandoned.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

What you see is the CBD poke its finger in the eye of rationality, nothing more. It's all about team and fear, the brain defective vs. sanity. This disease has taken deep root in our country, probably from the psychological trauma of the civil war and Christian fundamentalism. Losing a war and fear of the devil create enormous ego deflation and self hate that are compensated for by hubris and denial.

...meanwhile, 10,000 centrifuges continue to spin.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I've done a little reading on current issues and the history of negotiations with Iran on U235 enrichment and have come to the conclusion that it will be a miracle of epic proportions if Obama can negotiate a deal that will prevent (or significantly delay) them from making nuclear weapons. That said, I believe that Congress should back off on discussing sanctions until the end of March to give Obama a little breathing room for his miracle.

 

[fskimospy]

Anyone who believes that freedom of speech and the open exchange of ideas is beneficial to society.

Not having a foreign head of state speak in your legislative chambers in no way impacts the freedom of speech or the open exchange of ideas. That's absurd.

This invitation clearly shows an endorsement, which is something totally separate.

Speech should not be censored because the President doesn't like it.

His speech is in no way censored. By your logic all speech but the president's and congress is censored all the time because they don't like it. That doesn't make any sense.

Attempting to frame this as an attack on Netanyahu's free speech rights is preposterous. Not only does he have no free speech right to address congress, but trying to make it about free speech is just a diversion so you don't have to talk about congress deciding to undermine its own nation's foreign policy.

I get why you don't want to talk about it as its indefensible, but it being indefensible is a reason to stop defending it, not to stop talking about it.

A closed session would look far worse, as it would create an ambiance of secrecy and collusion.

Leaders of foreign countries have spoken to congressmen behind closed doors for decades if not centuries at this point. So history says... no.

 

[JockoJohnson]

Obama doesn't want his diplomacy efforts compromised on one hand and Congress has no confidence in his ability to strike a meaningful deal with Iran (nor expect to be consulted prior to his making a deal) on the other. Their bad relationship is not good for this country. The Netanyahu visit is just another poke in the eye in an endless stream of eye pokes between Obama and Congress...it's as if we're watching a Three Stooges routine.

Ahhh, the Three Stooges. It does sum up Congress perfectly. One of Curly's famous quotes: "I'm trying to think but nothing happens."

 

[Moonbeam]

If that were true, you would have long ago stopped posting about it. I, for one, will continue to hold at least a sliver of hope that some day you may obtain enough knowledge and wisdom to re-evaluate your ideas and recognize that sanity compels them to be abandoned.

When you want the door to hear you speak to the wall. The hope you hold out is for yourself and for your damaged point of view. You may abandon all hope for me. I already did. It's what set me free.

 

[Moonbeam]

I've done a little reading on current issues and the history of negotiations with Iran on U235 enrichment and have come to the conclusion that it will be a miracle of epic proportions if Obama can negotiate a deal that will prevent (or significantly delay) them from making nuclear weapons. That said, I believe that Congress should back off on discussing sanctions until the end of March to give Obama a little breathing room for his miracle.

I agree with this. It will take nuclear weapons to stop those deeply buried centrifuges and a total belief that Iranians are completely irrational and would be willing to self destruction if they were the second country to use nukes on another country.

 

[emperus]

So what's the end goal? What do the Republicans want to accomplish? Netanyahu is here to scuttle the negotiations between the USA and IRan. If that happens what is the next step? War? For everyone that agrees with this speech, do you think going to war with Iran makes sense?

 

[Jhhnn]

I've done a little reading on current issues and the history of negotiations with Iran on U235 enrichment and have come to the conclusion that it will be a miracle of epic proportions if Obama can negotiate a deal that will prevent (or significantly delay) them from making nuclear weapons. That said, I believe that Congress should back off on discussing sanctions until the end of March to give Obama a little breathing room for his miracle.

Fearmonger often?

If Iran wanted nukes, they'd already have them. It doesn't get any simpler than that.

You offer a straw man argument.

 

[Cozarkian]

Not having a foreign head of state speak in your legislative chambers in no way impacts the freedom of speech or the open exchange of ideas. That's absurd.

Not allowing person to give a speech before Congress because it is likely to conflict with the President's opinion on foreign policy is a blatant attempt to restrict speech in order to promote a specific policy.

This invitation clearly shows an endorsement, which is something totally separate.

What's the problem? Is Congress not allowed to disagree with the President, to engage in speech that conflicts with the President, or to invite a speech in hopes that it will be informative and persuasive toward a policy not supported by the President?

His speech is in no way censored.

Not at the moment, but Obama wants to censor it 100% by preventing it from happening at all. It seems Israel is also considering changing the content of the speech to appease the democrats, also a form of censorship.

By your logic all speech but the president's and congress is censored all the time because they don't like it. That doesn't make any sense.

Agreed, that doesn't make any sense at all. I argue we should not seek to censor speech on grounds that the speech will be unpopular with the President or Congress. That in no way indicates that all speech not by the President or Congress is censored.

Attempting to frame this as an attack on Netanyahu's free speech rights is preposterous. Not only does he have no free speech right to address congress,

To be honest, I wasn't really thinking about Netanyahu's free speech rights, I was thinking about the right of all Americans to have an open exchange of ideas, even if the President doesn't like those ideas.

but trying to make it about free speech is just a diversion so you don't have to talk about congress deciding to undermine its own nation's foreign policy.

Do you mean the policy regarding upcoming elections? I'm quite happy to talk about that. As I've already stated, what should have happened is for Congress to ask the State department to extend the invite. The State department and Congress can then discuss the possibility of delaying the speech. However, in a situation like this, where the content of the speech is relevant to current events and would be less useful if delayed, a compromise should be made for the State department to extend an invitation for Netanyahu to appear before Congress while expressing its regret that the President would be unable to meet with him to preserve the U.S. official neutrality in the election.

Congress screwed up. The President then maximized, rather than minimizing the damage.

I get why you don't want to talk about it as its indefensible, but it being indefensible is a reason to stop defending it, not to stop talking about it.

Let me be clear. Congress should not ever invite a foreign leader to give a speech without first informing the President and requesting the President extend the invitation.

Leaders of foreign countries have spoken to congressmen behind closed doors for decades if not centuries at this point. So history says... no.

Oh, please. If Congress invited him to speak behind closed doors, the same people crying about his visit at all would be crying about secret deals between Congress and Israel to undermine the President. Partisan bickering between has little regard for history.

 

[fskimospy]

Not allowing person to give a speech before Congress because it is likely to conflict with the President's opinion on foreign policy is a blatant attempt to restrict speech in order to promote a specific policy.

That would only be true if he could only speak in Congress, when of course Netanyahu not only controls a country, but has numerous outlets in the US that would be more than happy to publicize his views.

What's the problem? Is Congress not allowed to disagree with the President, to engage in speech that conflicts with the President, or to invite a speech in hopes that it will be informative and persuasive toward a policy not supported by the President?

Congress should not side with a foreign leader or even give the appearance to side with a foreign leader over the president, ever. Even if Congress disagrees with the president, you take care of that in-house.

Not at the moment, but Obama wants to censor it 100% by preventing it from happening at all. It seems Israel is also considering changing the content of the speech to appease the democrats, also a form of censorship.

Agreed, that doesn't make any sense at all. I argue we should not seek to censor speech on grounds that the speech will be unpopular with the President or Congress. That in no way indicates that all speech not by the President or Congress is censored.

To be honest, I wasn't really thinking about Netanyahu's free speech rights, I was thinking about the right of all Americans to have an open exchange of ideas, even if the President doesn't like those ideas.

As said before, it's not being censored. It would be censored if Netanyahu was unable to put those ideas out to America, which is clearly not the case.

Do you mean the policy regarding upcoming elections? I'm quite happy to talk about that. As I've already stated, what should have happened is for Congress to ask the State department to extend the invite. The State department and Congress can then discuss the possibility of delaying the speech. However, in a situation like this, where the content of the speech is relevant to current events and would be less useful if delayed, a compromise should be made for the State department to extend an invitation for Netanyahu to appear before Congress while expressing its regret that the President would be unable to meet with him to preserve the U.S. official neutrality in the election.

I don't really care about the upcoming elections policy very much. It's pretty clearly an excuse for the White House to snub Netanyahu (although I'm a very big fan of them doing that, as we need to put him in his place).

Congress screwed up. The President then maximized, rather than minimizing the damage.

I don't really view it that way. I'm glad he made it known to both parties that this sort of thing is unacceptable.

Let me be clear. Congress should not ever invite a foreign leader to give a speech without first informing the President and requesting the President extend the invitation.

Oh, please. If Congress invited him to speak behind closed doors, the same people crying about his visit at all would be crying about secret deals between Congress and Israel to undermine the President. Partisan bickering between has little regard for history.

Considering that congressional leaders have met with Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders many times in the past without this happening, I don't see how you can argue that.

 

[Jhhnn]

Given that he has stated Netanyahu shouldn't come at all, it seems almost certain that they would have refused to invite him if Congress had asked.

Inaccurate. The point wasn't that he shouldn't come, but rather that he shouldn't be able to use a speech before Congress to bolster his own chances 2 weeks from the Israeli election. It gives the appearance of meddling on our part, of our Govt being a booster for Bibi.

I agree Congress should have asked the State Department to invite Netanyahu and coordinate the visit. That said, if the State Department refused to make the arrangements as Congress requested, it would be a good idea for Congress to inform the State Department they will proceed to make the arrangements themselves.

I agree Congress did something dumb and irresponsible. Then Obama made it worse by also acting dumb and irresponsible. The damage of those dumb and stupid acts is already done. Cancelling the speech won't undo the damage, it will only cause further damage.

What's dumb & irresponsible about this, *specifically*?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/02/09/obama-netanyahu-congress-invitation/23127493/

 

[Cozarkian]

That would only be true if he could only speak in Congress, when of course Netanyahu not only controls a country, but has numerous outlets in the US that would be more than happy to publicize his views.

Restrictions on the time, manner and place of speech have to be reasonable. You can't prohibit somebody, for example, from speaking at a school board meeting just because they have the ability to express their opinion by writing a letter to the editor.

Giving the speech before Congress has tangible benefits in allowing the message to reach a greater audience in a locale that is more relevant to the debate. The President's attempt to prevent that speech from occurring because of the content of the speech is precisely (one of) the type(s) of activity for which the First Amendment was written.

Congress should not side with a foreign leader or even give the appearance to side with a foreign leader over the president, ever. Even if Congress disagrees with the president, you take care of that in-house.

Nor should the President align himself against Congress when it comes to dealing with a foreign leader. Congress made the first mistake because they failed to try to deal with it in-house, but I suspect they would have found that the President was unwilling to compromise on the issue. In that situation, where both sides are unwilling to compromise, the President doesn't automatically get his way. The end result needs to be exactly what happened. (Well, the end result should be they suck it up and compromise, but barring that...)

As said before, it's not being censored. It would be censored if Netanyahu was unable to put those ideas out to America, which is clearly not the case.

You were wrong when you said it before, too. Censorhip isn't an all-or-nothing idea. Attempting to restrict the manner and place of speech to reduce its impact is still censorship.

It's pretty clearly an excuse for the White House to snub Netanyahu (although I'm a very big fan of them doing that, as we need to put him in his place).

I don't really view it that way. I'm glad he made it known to both parties that this sort of thing is unacceptable.

I guess we'll just continue to disagree as to the level of courtesy and hospitality our President should show foreign leaders who have been invited to our country.

Considering that congressional leaders have met with Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders many times in the past without this happening, I don't see how you can argue that.

Can you please name one time in history when such a meeting occurred with the express disapproval of the President. Our government is currently filled with highly partisan individuals that have openly expressed resentment for each other, if there is a way they can spin it to try to make the other side look bad, they will, and facts be damned.

 

[fskimospy]

Restrictions on the time, manner and place of speech have to be reasonable. You can't prohibit somebody, for example, from speaking at a school board meeting just because they have the ability to express their opinion by writing a letter to the editor.

Giving the speech before Congress has tangible benefits in allowing the message to reach a greater audience in a locale that is more relevant to the debate.

Congress is not a school board meeting.

You need to focus on the 'place' part of time/place/manner restrictions. Congress is under no obligation to allow any sort of free speech within the congressional chambers ever. Literally ever.

You ever notice what happens when non-members make unpopular speech in there? Thrown out immediately.

The President's attempt to prevent that speech from occurring because of the content of the speech is precisely (one of) the type(s) of activity for which the First Amendment was written.

Absolutely false.

The first amendment has literally zero to do with the ability of foreign leaders to use government property to reach larger audiences in order to oppose policies set by the US government. That this would even happen at all would likely have been viewed as ludicrous by those who wrote the first amendment.

The first amendment has zero application here whatsoever. None.

Nor should the President align himself against Congress when it comes to dealing with a foreign leader. Congress made the first mistake because they failed to try to deal with it in-house, but I suspect they would have found that the President was unwilling to compromise on the issue. In that situation, where both sides are unwilling to compromise, the President doesn't automatically get his way. The end result needs to be exactly what happened. (Well, the end result should be they suck it up and compromise, but barring that...)

The president sets foreign policy for the US as he is the head of state. While Congress can exert some influence on what agreements he makes that they will accept when it comes to non self executing treaties, that's about it.

So no, it is perfectly permissible (and normal) for the president to pay little attention to what Congress wants in terms of foreign policy. It's not their job.

You were wrong when you said it before, too. Censorhip isn't an all-or-nothing idea. Attempting to restrict the manner and place of speech to reduce its impact is still censorship.

Interesting, so Congress is censoring the speech of basically everyone in America at all times because if either one of us tried to go in there and make a speech we wouldn't be allowed.

I guess we'll just continue to disagree as to the level of courtesy and hospitality our President should show foreign leaders who have been invited to our country.

We should give as much courtesy as we are afforded. Netanyahu afforded us no courtesy, so he should expect little in return.

Can you please name one time in history when such a meeting occurred with the express disapproval of the President. Our government is currently filled with highly partisan individuals that have openly expressed resentment for each other, if there is a way they can spin it to try to make the other side look bad, they will, and facts be damned.

Obama has not issued any disapproval to them meeting privately now or in any other case that I'm aware of. So I can't, because it never happens.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Fearmonger often?

If Iran wanted nukes, they'd already have them. It doesn't get any simpler than that.

You offer a straw man argument.

Then all these negotiations are a farce! I knew it!

 

[Cozarkian]

Inaccurate. The point wasn't that he shouldn't come, but rather that he shouldn't be able to use a speech before Congress to bolster his own chances 2 weeks from the Israeli election. It gives the appearance of meddling on our part, of our Govt being a booster for Bibi.

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.

What's dumb & irresponsible about this, *specifically*?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/02/09/obama-netanyahu-congress-invitation/23127493/

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.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I agree with this. It will take nuclear weapons to stop those deeply buried centrifuges and a total belief that Iranians are completely irrational and would be willing to self destruction if they were the second country to use nukes on another country.

So I take it that you're either (1) OK with Iran having nuclear weapons or (2) you take them at their word that they have no desire to make these weapons despite evidence to the contrary. Or is there a 3rd option I'm not seeing?