• 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]

Funds to Egypt if I recall correctly were part of the Egypt -Israel Treaty. Funds guaranteed to be sent to Egypt for signing & abiding by the treaty.

So the answer to the question is....Egypt?
 
Primaries don't equate to a general election CJ.
Why so obtuse?
And why no mention of Bibi campaigning for Romney in the general election ?

Good afternoon NIMBY

I'm not being obtuse, I'm being inclusive. You may not feel that primaries are the equivalent of elections, but I do. Without ultimate success in your party's primary, you don't get on the ballot for the election. If you don't think that both Obama and Romney went to Europe and the Middle East during the primaries for political/election related reasons, I'd love to know why you think they went there.
 
The news out of this WH is looking more and more like a third rate docu-drama or a soap opera. Netanyahu spat in their faces, but they weren't going to meet with him anyhow. WTF?
 
So now you're saying you said it sarcastically.
You're on record buddy--words have meaning--you accused Obama of wanting to exterminate jews.

Good thing we have 'No Drama Obama' instead of 'shoot from the hip' Bush-43.
The entire world now realizes just how stupid 'bring it on' was .

Calm down soldier before you have a stroke. My thoughts about Obama were NOT sarcastic. Me saying he was friends with the entire nation of Iran was...obviously...how could Obama know everyone in Iran, lol. Now you're just arguing for the sake of it. Time to take your big boy pills and start fresh
 
What election are we close to? Oh, and it isn't the WH "accepting" him...He will be speaking to Congress...But, isn't it funny Pete that Obama, and his whiners in the administration don't want Israel talking to Congress about sanctions, but it was perfectly fine to have Cameron call members to lobby against sanctions...Can't have it both ways buddy.

Camerons country is part of the negotiations- completely fair to offer his insight into what newly passed sanctions would/could support the Iranian hardliners.
 
The news out of this WH is looking more and more like a third rate docu-drama or a soap opera. Netanyahu spat in their faces, but they weren't going to meet with him anyhow. WTF?

Oh, and just look at the excuses coming out of the liberals....Elections, WH meetings, etc...All red herrings...next you know, they'll say that no one in the WH said this....My God...This group should be laughed at out loud...Bunch of children.
 
Camerons country is part of the negotiations- completely fair to offer his insight into what newly passed sanctions would/could support the Iranian hardliners.

Oh, so these "negotiations", heh, funny, negotiations....I'd call them more like distractions, and diversions...But, you think that Israel has no stake here? Really?
 
This may be true, but isn't it also true that Obama made his grand tour of Europe and the Middle East while he was in the Democrat primary process and didn't Romney do the same back in 2012? Why would it be okay for those involved in an American election to visit other countries and world leaders and not have the opposite also be acceptable.

Please read post #95 and the words "long-standing practice"
 
Oh, and just look at the excuses coming out of the liberals....Elections, WH meetings, etc...All red herrings...next you know, they'll say that no one in the WH said this....My God...This group should be laughed at out loud...Bunch of children.

Certainly looks that way to the rest of the world. I can only imagine the laughter in the halls of government elsewhere.
 
Certainly looks that way to the rest of the world. I can only imagine the laughter in the halls of government elsewhere.

But it really is sad...If this bunch of clowns in the WH were only damaging their own credibility then it would be one thing, but with his re election, they can only conclude that the population is divided between the strong American culture of the past, and one where it is possible to be deemed irrelevant....The next President is going to have on hell of a mess to clean up....I don't envy them.
 
The news out of this WH is looking more and more like a third rate docu-drama or a soap opera. Netanyahu spat in their faces, but they weren't going to meet with him anyhow. WTF?
With good reason, see post 95
 
Please read post #95 and the words "long-standing practice"

I appreciate that - I simply asked why American politicians can use foreign visits to enhance their election chances while it's considered by some inappropriate for foreign politicians to use American visits to enhance their election chances? What's the difference between Obama going to Europe and Netanyahu coming to the US other than the President having his knickers in a twist because Bibi didn't kiss his ring and ask pretty please first?
 
Is Great Britain having an upcoming election?
Is Great Britain the partner of the USA in defending Israel?

Nice to see you still can't see the difference.
And that Rubio means nothing in this process.

And tat the votes are not there to override .



Who cares if Great Britain is having an election or not. BO asked Cameron to come and speak before Congress. Congress didn't ask Cameron to come and speak to them.

What does that have to do with BO peep getting desperate, and having Cameron come speak to the ALL Republican Controlled Congress, after Rubio told the press they have the Vetos to override?

One can see how BO is worried since Graham said the Legislation was going forward at the same time. Regardless if BO likes it or not.

Seems Menendez has a few other Demos signing on.
 
Please read post #95 and the words "long-standing practice"

Yeah, right....Who gives a ****? Obama, and you Media Matters types have made a joke of not only language, but what this country stands for, you should be ashamed...Obama uses phrases like "long standing practices" if they are true or not....And has NO shame if he has to lie about them to create a soundbite for the nightly news...You people harm this country, and the world.
 
A number of points:

1. I do believe the Prime Minister should have notified the White House of his coming visit as a courtesy, not to request "permission" or "approval" for his trip. Diplomatic protocol is important.

2. The Prime Minister was invited to address the Congress. He most definitely should do so.

3. The AIPAC Conference had been scheduled well before new elections were scheduled in Israel. His attendance at the Conference should not be linked to the coming Israeli election. If he feels his presence would benefit Israel's interests, as the Prime Minister of Israel, he should attend.

4. On the issue concerning Iran's nuclear activities, the U.S. and Israel hold similar, but not identical positions. Israel's margin of error is far smaller than it is for the U.S. If Iran were to develop a nuclear weapons capability, that development would have profound implications for Israel and it would represent an existential threat. The implications for the U.S. would be vastly smaller--a regional balance of power situation and security threat to strategic U.S. allies--as the U.S. would not face an existential threat.

Two deadlines for agreement have now passed without the issue having been resolved. The differing levels of risk exposure lead Israel to support stronger sanctions more quickly, even as the White House seeks additional time. That each side holds a different position on sanctions reflects the risks they face; none of their positions is irrational or aimed at deliberately undermining the other party.

5. The kind of comments and threats coming out of Washington are petty, incompatible with American interests, and reveal a willingness among some aides to put largely extraneous matters ahead of concrete interests and international relations.
 
With good reason, see post 95

I saw it Pete. I don't disagree with the principle. However, either Bibi spat in their faces or they never had any intention of meeting with him anyway. It can't be both.
 
Yeah, right....Who gives a ****? Obama, and you Media Matters types have made a joke of not only language, but what this country stands for, you should be ashamed...Obama uses phrases like "long standing practices" if they are true or not....And has NO shame if he has to lie about them to create a soundbite for the nightly news...You people harm this country, and the world.

So are you claiming that it's NOT a long-standing practice and Obama's just making it up? There are two acceptable answers to this question.
 
So now you're saying you said it sarcastically.
You're on record buddy--words have meaning--you accused Obama of wanting to exterminate jews.

Good thing we have 'No Drama Obama' instead of 'shoot from the hip' Bush-43.
The entire world now realizes just how stupid 'bring it on' was .



Well, that was until BO called ISIS the JV Team and said they weren't Islamic. Just sayin!
 
Oh, so these "negotiations", heh, funny, negotiations....I'd call them more like distractions, and diversions...But, you think that Israel has no stake here? Really?

Given the history between the 2, US- Iran, why ramp up tensions if there is a possibility of an agreement?
Bibi- well he would prefer a war.
 
A number of points:

1. I do believe the Prime Minister should have notified the White House of his coming visit as a courtesy, not to request "permission" or "approval" for his trip. Diplomatic protocol is important.

2. The Prime Minister was invited to address the Congress. He most definitely should do so.

3. The AIPAC Conference had been scheduled well before new elections were scheduled in Israel. His attendance at the Conference should not be linked to the coming Israeli election. If he feels his presence would benefit Israel's interests, as the Prime Minister of Israel, he should attend.

4. On the issue concerning Iran's nuclear activities, the U.S. and Israel hold similar, but not identical positions. Israel's margin of error is far smaller than it is for the U.S. If Iran were to develop a nuclear weapons capability, that development would have profound implications for Israel and it would represent an existential threat. The implications for the U.S. would be vastly smaller--a regional balance of power situation and security threat to strategic U.S. allies--as the U.S. would not face an existential threat.

Two deadlines for agreement have now passed without the issue having been resolved. The differing levels of risk exposure lead Israel to support stronger sanctions more quickly, even as the White House seeks additional time. That each side holds a different position on sanctions reflects the risks they face; none of their positions is irrational or aimed at deliberately undermining the other party.

5. The kind of comments and threats coming out of Washington are petty, incompatible with American interests, and reveal a willingness among some aides to put largely extraneous matters ahead of concrete interests and international relations.

Just one small point concerning #1 of your comment don....If protocol is so important, then why wasn't it important when Netanyahu was made to wait as Obama snubbed him for dinner in the residence early on in Obama's presidency? Or does protocol only go one way?
 
Yeah, I sorta wish Bibi would take the gloves off in March and say what he really means and mean what he really says.

That the WH is crying over a break in protocol - ever so precious. This WH is all about breaking rules and protocols or simply ignoring what they don't like. Now they're mad? Oh the sweet irony!
 
Who is the dog and who is the tail?
Appears the tail is wagging the dog and has done so for quite some time.
 
Given the history between the 2, US- Iran, why ramp up tensions if there is a possibility of an agreement?
Bibi- well he would prefer a war.

Because I don't believe for one second that there is any possibility of such...Iran so far has not lived up to one slow down, or confirmation of such...In fact, they are playing these to buy time....And I believe that the administration knows this, and facilitates it....And No, Bibi I am sure would love the day when his arab neighbors would just stop the nonsense and allow peace to be in place, but they won't, and now we have a president, and administration that makes no bones about whom they prefer....
 
Yeah, I sorta wish Bibi would take the gloves off in March and say what he really means and mean what he really says.

That the WH is crying over a break in protocol - ever so precious. This WH is all about breaking rules and protocols or simply ignoring what they don't like. Now they're mad? Oh the sweet irony!

Amen brother.
 
Because I don't believe for one second that there is any possibility of such...Iran so far has not lived up to one slow down, or confirmation of such...In fact, they are playing these to buy time....And I believe that the administration knows this, and facilitates it....And No, Bibi I am sure would love the day when his arab neighbors would just stop the nonsense and allow peace to be in place, but they won't, and now we have a president, and administration that makes no bones about whom they prefer....

The present end state is around June or July- no agreement by then or substantial agreement, verifiable, "Trust but Verify" then the time for negotiations is over.
 
Back
Top Bottom