• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Netanyahu ‘spat in our face,’ White House officials said to say[W:223]

A question on this OP
Has this occurred previously?
I see this as a dumb ass blatant political power play that will blow back in both their faces.

Boehner

First, the politics. Why on earth would anyone think it was a good idea to arrange for Netanyahu to speak to a joint session of Congress without telling Obama or anyone in his administration about the invitation?

Yes, Congress has an important role to play in international affairs. And yes, the days are long gone when disputes among officials over foreign policy ended at the water’s edge; members of Congress routinely gallivant around the globe and share their freelance views of what the United States should or should not be doing. But inviting a foreign leader to speak at the Capitol without even informing the president, let alone consulting him, is a bald-faced usurpation for which there is no recent precedent.
 
Obama is the first president since Carter that mistakenly believes that the Iranians are interested in negotiations. At least Carter can honestly say he didn't know any better.

You are correct in one sense - that since the Carter Era no U.S. president has tried to work with the Iranian government on curbing hostilities nor smoothing over anti-American rhetoric. In fact, other than President Obama only Clinton and GWB have strengthen sanctions against Iran or even attempted to do so. But one thing you neocons tend to forget is this: Prior to 1979, Iran was America's strongest ally in the Middle-East. And just as Reagan had to wait for a more moderate leader to come along in the USSR before he could work with Russia, America (Obama) had to wait for a more moderate Iranian leader before negotiations could begin to take shape in Iran.

Reagan got lucky he ended up with Gorbachev; it only took 3 successive Soviet leaders to die before he got someone who was reasonable to deal with. Of course, the neocons will say it was Reagan's toughness that won the day, but world historians tell a completely different story. Regardless, until Reagan no U.S. president was able reach negotiations with Russia on anything short of spy exchanges or nuclear weapons withdraw from Cuba. Until Reagan/Gorbachev, America could do nothing to halt the Communist threat that came out of Russia. I imagine Obama or his successor will have to find his "Gorbachev" in Iran before any real headway is made between these two nations.

Back to those Iran sanctions, you can get a glimpse of how effective they've been and which U.S. presidential Administration led the charge from the following articles here (Iran Economy | Economy Watch) and here (Middle East Brief - Brandeis Univ, Oct 2008).
 
Last edited:
President Executive Order is whining about the House taking unilateral action? No hypocrisy there!
 
President Executive Order is whining about the House taking unilateral action? No hypocrisy there!

You'd win this argument if:

a) No U.S. president other than Pres. Obama had ever used an Executive Order to get what he wanted; or,

b) Pres. Obama had issued more EO's than any other President in U.S. history. That record is held by FDR w/3,721 EOs.

Just as an FYI (because this issue has already been addressed in this thread a number of times)...

Top 5 U.S. Presidents by number of EO issues:

FDR - 3,721
Woodrow Wilson - 1,803
Coolidge - 1,203
Teddy Roosevelt - 1,081
Hoover - 968
Truman - 907

Top 5 from last 11 U.S. Presidents (Ike - Obama):

Ike - 484
Reagan - 381
Clinton - 364
Nixon - 346
LBJ - 325

Last 5 U.S. Presidents:

Reagan - 381
Clinton - 364
GWB - 291
Obama - 200
GHB - 166

For a complete list (updated since 01/20/2015), click here (U.S. President Executive Order count).
 
You'd win this argument if:

a) No U.S. president other than Pres. Obama had ever used an Executive Order to get what he wanted; or,

b) Pres. Obama had issued more EO's than any other President in U.S. history. That record is held by FDR w/3,721 EOs.

Just as an FYI (because this issue has already been addressed in this thread a number of times)...

Top 5 U.S. Presidents by number of EO issues:

FDR - 3,721
Woodrow Wilson - 1,803
Coolidge - 1,203
Teddy Roosevelt - 1,081
Hoover - 968
Truman - 907

Top 5 from last 11 U.S. Presidents (Ike - Obama):

Ike - 484
Reagan - 381
Clinton - 364
Nixon - 346
LBJ - 325

Last 5 U.S. Presidents:

Reagan - 381
Clinton - 364
GWB - 291
Obama - 200
GHB - 166

For a complete list (updated since 01/20/2015), click here (U.S. President Executive Order count).

Anyone who passed a jr high school civics class knows that the NUMBER of EOs is totally irrelevant. One President could have executed a gazillion EOs and be completely within his authority granted by the Constitution, while another President could have executed just ONE and would have committed an impeachable offense. It is time to get beyond the liberal activist meme education.
 
Anyone who passed a jr high school civics class knows that the NUMBER of EOs is totally irrelevant. One President could have executed a gazillion EOs and be completely within his authority granted by the Constitution, while another President could have executed just ONE and would have committed an impeachable offense. It is time to get beyond the liberal activist meme education.

Oh, I'm very aware that "the proof is in the pudding" as the old saying goes. Or to put things another way: Content matters. Thus, the reason I believe many people are being two-faced on this matter.

Those who are complaining the loudest today said little to nothing about the alleged "above of executive power/executive over-reach" when their guy was in office and THEY themselves gave the President of their party such broad authorities. Yet, the moment the other guy gets into office and uses the same executive power granted to his predecessor to solve problems or streamline processes where Congress won't act in a timely manner, suddenly he's called a tyrant, a king or placed along that same imaginary line as a dictator.

While I would agree that Presidents since Lincoln (if not earlier than he) have used their executive power to do things that a divided Congress could not come to terms with in a timely fashion to resolve many of the nation's problems, I find it very absurd to think that any President would continue to sit ideally by and do nothing while such a divided Congress continues to have their ideological tiffs. Moreover, if Congress doesn't like what the President has authorized via executive order, it can always undo said order by legislating. Yes, process matters but until Congress removes the privilege of executive orders from the presidency, current and future president will use them. The question we should legitimately be asking is "has the President overstepped his bounds with the EO issued?" As far as I'm concerned, if Congress doesn't impeach, his EO's are legitimate. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has already ruled on the issue of "executive privilege" long ago. So, unless something drastic happens, I seriously doubt things will change in this realm of authoritarian tug-o-war between the President and Congress any time soon.

Process, ladies and gentlemen...
 
Back
Top Bottom