Netanyahu Addresses Congress

[GVChamp]

it's politically beneficial to Boehner, who invited him to speak. and to Netanyahu, who gets a campaign ad.

Yeah, politicians do things that benefit them politically. I think it's also beneficial for the American people to know that both parties think Obama screwed the pooch on negotiations. This happens to be a case where incentives align with actually informing the public and one party's political benefit, IMHO.

Also, a little googling says Genet was raising armies in the US to fight British interests. From what I understand, Bibi did not go to a redneck bar and ask who's down to beat up some Muslims, he gave a speech to Congress. So, no, not alike, not at all.

[JAD_333]

Asty:

I question whether the Genet affair and the Netanyahu speech are the same in terms of official propriety. I agree both were indiscreet. In terms of transparency, Netanyahu wins the prize.

It's hard for me to be angry at him for taking advantage of a perfect opportunity to stick it to an administration that has rightly, IMO, limited his influence over the Iran negotiations. I say 'rightly' because the goal of the negotiations are not solely for the benefit of Israel, but for US interests in the whole region.

The deal Obama is seeking with Iran is not foolproof but it's realistic and almost as important, it's not ingenuous, given Iran's rights under the NPT and the not-so-secret fact that Israel has nukes. It would serve the twin goals of the US, to stabilize the region and protect Israel. Netanyahu essentially wants us to put Israel first on our list of interests in the ME and deal with Iran his way. Our goose is cooked if we do that. Our influence and credibility in the ME, not strong these days, would wither and die. If that sounds anti-Israel, it isn't. It's just the reality that, while Israel's security is high on our list of interests, it isn't alone on the list.

So, Netanyahu came here to try to slap us into line. We should be talking more about the substance of his arguments and less about the podiums' location. Boehner's mistake, apart from highlighting Congress' meddling in foreign affairs, was in miscalculating how much the venue the invitation itself would detract from Bibi's talking points. Of course, Bibi is hoping for a political boost back home, but he may be in for a surprise.

[Blademaster]

JAD,

then you should be angry at Boehner and the Congress for giving Bibi such an opportunity.

[zraver]

What Netanyahu has done has, as far as I know, no precedent- I can't remember a foreign leader injecting himself into another nation's domestic debate like this before, let alone that of the United States.

Churchill did it at least thrice. He wasn't the first, Lafayette addressed Congress and this tradition continued through to today. Hell foreign heads of state of have addressed one or both chambers multiple times. The Sausage Factory says 110 foreign leaders and dignitaries have addressed Congress.

[Double Edge]

I think it's also beneficial for the American people to know that both parties think Obama screwed the pooch on negotiations. This happens to be a case where incentives align with actually informing the public and one party's political benefit, IMHO.

If Bibi does not like it then what alternatives is he offering ?

Just saying don't do it when this thing has been beaten to death over the last five years.

If it pleases you any the Ayatollah can still screw this up on the Iranian side. I think that would be a very nice outcome for those opposed to this deal. it would ensure another ten years of non-action.

[JAD_333]

JAD,

then you should be angry at Boehner and the Congress for giving Bibi such an opportunity.

No. Anger serves no purpose. I am disappointed however. I don't approve of Congress trying to conduct foreign affairs. For one thing, it's not designed to do so, and for another, the separation of powers give the president the job. Of course, Congress can influence foreign policy via legislation, and does. But that falls under the principle of checks and balances.

After reading the papers today I see two main things Bibi accomplished. 1) he got Israelis worried that he may have damaged US-Israeli relations for a long time to come and 2) he forced the MSM to refocus on the subtle difference between his and the US administration's viewpoint, namely that Obama's approach would leave Iran's nuclear capability intact but under the watchful eye of the IAEA, whereas Bibi's approach would be to eliminate Iran's capability altogether.

[JAD_333]

Churchill did it at least thrice. He wasn't the first, Lafayette addressed Congress and this tradition continued through to today. Hell foreign heads of state of have addressed one or both chambers multiple times. The Sausage Factory says 110 foreign leaders and dignitaries have addressed Congress.

Good point, Z, but I think the issue here is having gone around the president. How many of the speeches you cite did that?

[astralis]

JAD,

whereas Bibi's approach would be to eliminate Iran's capability altogether.

reading through the transcript, i actually don't see this. as far as i see, he simply states that there should be no deal and that current restrictions should be kept until iran stops being aggressive, gives up terrorism, and stops threatening israel.

and that by continuing to keep up economic pressure, iran will come to SOME type of deal without any concessions, one which would "roll back" the nuclear program. in fact, there's some discussion about how Netanyahu "inched closer" to the American position by stating that maybe after all this there could be some sort of deal that "Israel and its neighbors may not like, but with which we could live".

OK, yeah, i really don't see iran agreeing to what Netanyahu has stated here, which sounds pretty much like all-but-unconditional surrender.

This tweet captures the glaring contradiction at the heart of Netanyahu's speech - Vox

"There we go: Iran is run by crazy suicidal apocalyptic mullahs who will crack under greater economic pressure.

— Matt Duss (@mattduss) March 3, 2015"

[zraver]

Good point, Z, but I think the issue here is having gone around the president. How many of the speeches you cite did that?

Dunno, I assume more than just Bibi since the Mexican President spoke to the House in 1977. However, I reject that it was going around the president. Congress has an absolute right to hear from whomever they want. This includes insights on laws (both houses) and treaties (senate) they may be called to pass, repeal or ratify. The House has had a committee on foreign affairs since at least 1975. In the previous 40 years, I don't remember any previous president arguing that Congress shouldn't hear from people and parties with an interest in the effect of laws passed by the United States, or should only hear from them with the presidents approval. Obama is being petulant as usual.

[Blademaster]

Dunno, I assume more than just Bibi since the Mexican President spoke to the House in 1977. However, I reject that it was going around the president. Congress has an absolute right to hear from whomever they want. This includes insights on laws (both houses) and treaties (senate) they may be called to pass, repeal or ratify. The House has had a committee on foreign affairs since at least 1975. In the previous 40 years, I don't remember any previous president arguing that Congress shouldn't hear from people and parties with an interest in the effect of laws passed by the United States, or should only hear from them with the presidents approval. Obama is being petulant as usual.

No Obama is not being petulant as usual. He has a legitimate grievance and so do many other Americans have against Bibi for showing Obama up in showmanship and daring the Congress to act contrary to the President's direction. Congress may have an absolute right to hear from whomever they want but with that power, they have a responsibility of ensuring that there be no division in the House, President, and Union before a foreign leader or speaker. It is the House's responsibility to ensure that before the world, not the domestic audience that the American people remain behind the President's back as a solidarity front.

If the Congress wants to question the President and hear from the other side, there are far more effective ways of doing that such as back channel talks or subcommittee talks where the foreign leader's advisors or staff can testify and give the appearance that the Congress is not doing anything behind the President's back when it comes to foreign matters. You criticize Obama for being not transparent; well, I am harshly criticizing Boehner and his cronies for not being transparent for the real intention behind the invitation to Bibi. Boehner's move just endangered any future President's dealings with foreign affairs.

Here's a quote that crystallize the meaning of my post.

[Parihaka]

There's plenty of precedent
Barack Obama 'tried to undermine George W Bush's Iraq negotiations' - Telegraph

[Officer of Engineers]

No Obama is not being petulant as usual. He has a legitimate grievance and so do many other Americans have against Bibi for showing Obama up in showmanship and daring the Congress to act contrary to the President's direction. Congress may have an absolute right to hear from whomever they want but with that power, they have a responsibility of ensuring that there be no division in the House, President, and Union before a foreign leader or speaker. It is the House's responsibility to ensure that before the world, not the domestic audience that the American people remain behind the President's back as a solidarity front.

Vietnam.

[zraver]

BM, Congress has no duty to rubber stamp the president. Going back at least as far as the Copperheads during the American Civil War, Congress or portions of it has advocated its own interpretation of events. Probably most famously it rejected WW's vision of the future and refused to ratify the League of Nations charter. Hell look at all the anti-Iraq war comments coming from the Dems before the election of King Obama I.

Lets look at the facts.

1. Congress has heard from foreign leaders and dignitaries going back to at least Lafeyette.
2. Congress (House) has its own foreign affairs committee going back to at least 1975
3. Congress (Senate) has a constitutional foreign policy role (ratifying treaties)
4. Congress not the president passes law and sanctions or sanctions relief are laws.
5. Congress has no duty implied or otherwise to support the president even during time of war.
6. Nothing in the US Constitution even hints at executive control of the legislative.

Obama would do well to remember than Congress is his equal, not his servant, Congress would do well to remember that as well. Gridlock is good.

[Blademaster]

There's plenty of precedent
Barack Obama 'tried to undermine George W Bush's Iraq negotiations' - Telegraph

Obama denied making the purported statement that was to undermine Bush's negotiation. Not a good riposte.

[Blademaster]

Vietnam.

And we learned from that.