The deal Mr. Obama seeks will not prevent a nuclear-armed Iran, he said, but “will all but guarantee” it.
“We must all stand together to stop Iran’s march of conquest, subjugation and terror,” Mr. Netanyahu told the lawmakers, who responded with repeated standing ovations.
March 3, 2015
"In an implicit challenge to President Obama, Mr. Netanyahu told a joint meeting of Congress that Iran’s 'tentacles of terror' were already clutching Israel..."
"... and that failing to stop Tehran from obtaining nuclear weapons 'could well threaten the survival of my country.'"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
70 comments:
In an implicit challenge to Netanyahu, President Obama said "Waaaah!"
Some of the post-speech comments from Democrats were truly embarrassing. Snide and dismissive. These are serious issues and Netanyahu presented a serious case. It's possible to disagree with him, even vehemently so, without descending to that level. One congressman literally made an analogy referring to a spoiled child who wants to go to Disneyland every day. Is that really the right level of discourse for American foreign relations?
Netanyahu did lie to Congress about one thing: he said Obama is a friend of Israel.
Don't cry for me Pelosi.
On the other hand if you want to have a three year old's tantrum (of the type when say they are told that they can't have another bowl of ice cream) well then go ahead. It says more about you than it does about Netanyahu's speech.
The optics and the frantic posturing of team Obama and all the little posterior osculating political and press remora that hang around Obama actually made Netanyahu's speech more significant.
Score another round for Team Shoot Itself In The Foot.
"Some of the post-speech comments from Democrats were truly embarrassing. Snide and dismissive."
Obama: "I read the transcript. Nothing new."
Now that's dismissive.
Imagine if Obama had made a dramatic phone call, and invited Netanyahu to the White House after the speech. Netanyahu closes his speech by announcing that he and O will be meeting "this afternoon."
Reagan and Gorbachov in Iceland come to mind.
Imagine if Obama had the balls to do anything like this.
Hard to imagine, isn't it?
"“The prime minister didn’t offer any viable alternative,” Mr. Obama said. He added: “The alternative the prime minister offers is no deal, in which case Iran will immediately begin once again to pursue a nuclear program, accelerate its nuclear program, without us having any insight into what they’re doing and without constraints.”
It is hard to pack so much nonsense onto so little space but Obama did it.
Obama actually has said "no deal" was better than a "bad deal." That was before he hit upon his moment for the ages.
"I believe it is peace for our time."
Obama is fundamentally unserious. I doubt he wants Iran to have the bomb, I think he cares more about getting an agreement than about preventing a nuclear Iran. He will get his piece of paper and the mullahs will get their bombs.
What's the big deal? Israel has the bomb and if Iran gets it, the Saudi's will want it too. Of course, then the Turks will want them. If Iran can do it Turkey sure can and in less time. There will be a regional exchange of missiles and a few tens of millions killed. No big deal.
Iran must have zero respect for Obama. They can't wait to brag about tricking him. All of WWII was fought to stop nuclear weapon armed crazy men beating us to the draw.
Obama just gave that away for free to win love from Muslims. What an insane fool.
Netanyahu is the leader of the free world. We would do well to listen. He is a better thinker than Obama and certainly a better speaker. He believes what he says.
I would be embarrassed to be a Democrat today. Other than lip service to minorities they have not one belief left of those they possessed when I was among them.
Obama wants to hinge his "deal" on future verification of adherence that cannot be currently verified. In fact, the only thing that can be verified today is that there has been no adherence to the current "agreement."
I hope one day to be able to play cards with Mr. Obama, after he has had the chance to rack up a few hundred million in speaking fees. Or to sell him something. Or buy something from him.
"“The prime minister didn’t offer any viable alternative,” Mr. Obama said. He added: “The alternative the prime minister offers is no deal, in which case Iran will immediately begin once again to pursue a nuclear program, accelerate its nuclear program, without us having any insight into what they’re doing and without constraints.”
Isn't that what Iran said to Obama's Deal? Deal or no deal? NO DEAL.
10 years to not pursue nukes. NO DEAL.
Oh well, back to the drawing board. Or is there no deal now, as per Obama. Since that was the ONLY POSSIBLE DEAL. Wait, Obama is going to come forward with another deal? Then there was the possibility of a deal other than that which obama negotiated in the first place Yes?
This is typical Obama by the way. Its a variation of his "There are those who say" false choice argument style.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/mary-kate-cary/2011/04/26/president-obamas-abuse-of-false-false-choices
Here's my counter proposal to Iran rejecting Obama's offer. Make it 20 years? No? Make it 30 years.
The truth is an obvious challenge to Obama and the Democrats.
A nuclear Iran is more a threat to Islam than to Israel.
Belmont Club gamed it out. Once you lose a city, you don't respond proportionately. You respond all out.
Obama is fundamentally serious about forging a strong Iran that controls the Arab world and north Africa. In his mind, Israel is an anomaly that will be conquered by Iran.
"What's the big deal? Israel has the bomb and if Iran gets it, the Saudi's will want it too. Of course, then the Turks will want them. If Iran can do it Turkey sure can and in less time. There will be a regional exchange of missiles and a few tens of millions killed. No big deal."
You know, thats the best case scenario.
A purely local war. Worst case is the nuclear demon is out and about and available for use by anyone (with a few millions) for any reason in any dispute.
And in the face of universal possession of nuclear weapons there is no hope of an international order, no Pax Americana, or Pax anyone else for that matter.
Was home from work sick today so I got to watch it all. The speech was great, and Obama's post-speech counter arguments seemed well thought out and statesmen-like as well.
Pelosi's hysterics and behavior were laughable.
I had to watch the address after work and was most struck by how little it resembled the scary, scary ranting Mr Obama's creatures had been going on about in the last couple of days. It's a hell of a situation to be in that Mr Obama can't stand to be reminded that he's attempting to make deal with the devil, so to speak.
Shame on Mrs 'Almost in Tears' Pelosi, and on my own MC, who couldn't bring himself to attend the House, Peter DeFazio.
In the wake of a dynamic leader voicing obvious truths our president seems timid. Not a good comparison for the many Obama apologists who are in a snit over the speech. The more they whine and attack the more attention they draw to the contrast of leadership behavior between the two and to the issue – an issue they would like to avoid.
I'm wondering just how, if I were POTUS and wanted Iran to nuke up, I would act differently than Obama. Yeah, me neither.
When the pogroms come to the US, they'll come from Obama's party.
I think Obama intends to pull all American influence - miltary and civil - out of the Middle East and guide the "Arabs" to some sort of a "balance of powers."
That will leave Israel between a rock and a hard place, but to his mind, that might be nothing new, so what?
Mr. Netananyahu, of course, does not feel quite so cavlierly about it. His country may disappear.
Netanyahu is willing to bomb Iran to set back their nuclear development. Obama and Kerry are not. That option is off the table.
Knowing that, the Iranian program is too far along for an agreement to dismantle. Why would they? That's why Susan Rice says it's not realistic.
And Nancy Pelosi is an embarrassment. With Netanyahu in the room, she looks like Mrs. H-Wiggins.
Netanyahu is willing to bomb Iran to set back their nuclear development
No doubt at all about that. Only question is if Israel will use their own nukes to stop Iran from getting a nuclear bomb or if it will be carried out with conventional weapons.
But there will be a war - no getting around that.
I am desperately trying to figure out what the Obama administration is trying to achieve with it's mideast foreign policies. I am very hesitant to ascribe the manchurian candidate theory to a sitting president of the USA, but it is getting harder not to. The best explanation I have run across so far is a strategy that plays regional powers against each other thereby keeping the US out of an insoluble situation when the shit hits the fan, but the explanation was so tangled and disregarding of unintended consequences it was hard to accept. I know I don't have all of the inner circle facts, but from this seat I have only been able to come up with two conclusions.
1. The current administration are truly bumbling idiots
2. Godammn Amerikka.
Neither of which are something I am willing to run with, Can someone please tell me what the H is going on??
Obama is officially Neville Chamberlain.
The democrats that held their little crybaby news conference afterwards, were pathetic. Nancy Pelosi turning her back on Bibi was pathetic. I have never seen so many childish "people in charge" ever. I am embarrassed for America.
Watching the speech it is plain why the Dems were is such a twist about the invite. The contrast between Netanyahu, and Obama, in demonstrating conviction, values, leadership, and committment to clear principles is stark.
It is very dangerous to have unfiltered ideas delivered directly to the American people, without the American media filter. The media is trying, even those that hate Netanyahu, have to marvel at what a true putz, Obama is by contrast.
Netanyahu is no Hitler, but the Ayatollahs have things in common with pre-war Germany, perhaps without Hitler, but with a lot of the sentiments that made the Germans follow Hitler.
Only question is if Israel will use their own nukes to stop Iran from getting a nuclear bomb or if it will be carried out with conventional weapons.
Now there's some good ol' fashioned moral equivalent fear mongering. Israel is not an aggressor, unless you consider self-defense, aggression.
Which leader tweets for an entire nations ultimate inhalation? That's right, it's Iran.
Neither Israel nor the US will or would use nuclear weapons against Iran. Neither fears the Iranian people, but instead it's Islamic regime.
What Bibi knows is a nuclear arms race amongst Arab nations would end like Reservoir Dogs. Israel would just be trapped in the room.
At least during the Cold War we knew the USSR understood mutual destruction and wanted to avoid it.
The Islamic Republic and Islamic State are running toward it.
We have been fighting a proxy-war with Iran for at least a decade. What on earth makes Obama think the Ayatollahs have any idea of sticking to any "deal" whatsoever he may negotiate with them?
They know that he may huff and puff and irritate them with dronestrikes, etc, but he will never apply real force against them. Or anyone else, for that matter.
And even if they did, 10 years is laughable; that's not even an eyeblink in history.
It's common knowledge on the right that Obama sees a brighter future for the US if it has Iran as an ally in the ME rather than Israel, and this deal with Iran is part of that -- we will gain influence with the Iranians at the expense of closeness with the Israelis.
I think that this is the kind of craziness that could only come from academia or the darker reaches of the state dept., myself.
Iran has told us over and over that they hate us, and consider us the "Big Satan". If you ask them, they will tell you this. They hate us with a passion, and look forward to the hour of our destruction.
Obama may not believe in religion, but the Ayatollahs do.
"Tentacles" are racist.
A couple of points:
Tehran delenda est. Or the Islamic Republic as an entity. It's too late for a preemptive conventional attack. Most likely a conventional (nuke sites, air, naval) attack combined with tactical nuke decapitaion strikes on IRI government and IRG assets. The Israelis are only going to have one shot at this, with cooperation from the Sunni Gulf states, and they'll need to leave a situation where the Sunnis can pick at the bones of Iran. Another generational war to keep them busy in the Persian Gulf.
Obama will order interdiction by US forces against an Israeli attack. Just out of spite, if nothing else. The U.S. military will hate this with white hot fury, though they'll carry out their orders. Our military sees Israel and the IDF as philosophical brothers-in-arms. Nothing will be so epically heartbreaking as when US pilots and aviators engage the IDFAF. Regardless, the Israelis will have planned for this. It will not be pretty.
And even if they did, 10 years is laughable; that's not even an eyeblink in history.
Not to mention that the mullahs will likely cheat, hide their real parallel program from the inspectors, restrict the access of the inspectors in various ways and kick the inspectors out should the inspectors get too close to any evidence of Iranian non-compliance. My guess is that they'll be nuked up long before the end of the 10-year timeline.
Our intelligence services will probably be no help, historically having been dead wrong in their estimates of every presently nuked up nation's nuclear progress. The CIA's record is perfect – beginning with the USSR, North Korea, Israel, Pakistan, India, etc. – they were all without exception – "surprises."
Do you remember the old story? Ben Franklin was asked, after the Constitutional Convention, what kind of government they had provided, and he said, "A republic, if you can keep it."
Netanyahu's speech was very political. He praised both Democrats and Republicans as wanting peace in the middle east. He praised US presidents from Truman to Obama as friends of Israel, and particularly described what Obama had done lately to help Israel defend itself. The audience, on both sides of the aisle, rose to their feet, time and time again, to applaud him.
If Netanyahu were addressing the legislature of a republic, his speech would be very effective. But he's not. Congress has NOTHING to do or say about the kind of deal this country makes with Iran. The President will make the deal, whatever deal he pleases. Just as the President will decide what to do with illegal immigrants. Just as the President has decided how health insurance subsidies will be passed out (you don't think a Supreme Court decision will matter, do you?).
Too bad. We lived in a republic once.
This is how much of a moron our chief executive is:
There is a country called the Islamic Republic of Iran. Hezbollah, an acknowledged arm of the Iranian government, is a terrorist group. They target and kill civilians at the bidding of the Iranian government.
Obama believes that Hezbollah does not practice Islamic terrorism, although they believe they are motivated by Islam, and have the blessings of highly placed Shi'a clerics who assure Hezbollah that they are committing murder in the name of Islam.
The Islamic Republic is a republic in name only. Its highest court is the "Guardian Council of the Constitution." This council consists of members approved of by the supreme Ayatollah. If the constitution conflicts with Islamic law, they will ensure that it is interpreted to follow Islamic law. Unlike in a real republic, the Islamic Republic of Iran can never be anything else. The people don't control the constitution, the Ayatollah does.
The Iranians have access to an incredible amount of oil and gas, yet they import almost all of their refined fuel.
Why?
The few refineries that they own are old and are falling apart.
Why?
Lack of investment. But the Iranians really, really want to refine uranium and build nuclear power plants! Every country has the right to energy independence!
And all the while they export crude oil and import refined gasoline.
Even Slate seems to find this an odd situation: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2007/11/why_is_iran_importing_gasoline.html
Jesus.
Probably the only deal Obama needs from the Iranians is the agreement that they won't bomb Israel until he is out of Office.
Obama will then be politically free to place all the blame on Israel. The Elite will back him on this.
As an ex-President Obama will make Jimmy Carter's ex-President activities look honorable.
I am Laslo.
I am Laslo.
(That was so important I signed my name twice, evidently).
I am Laslo.
Worst case is the nuclear demon is out and about and available for use by anyone (with a few millions) for any reason in any dispute
People say that like the nuclear demon isn't *currently* out of the bottle. Pakistan -- the nation which birthed the Taliban and sheltered Osama bin Laden -- has had nukes for years. So has North Korea. And Russia, of course.
Susan Rice gave away the secret at AIPAC yesterday.
"I know that some of you will be urging Congress to insist that Iran forgo its domestic uranium enrichment entirely," said Rice. There was loud applause, mixed with ovations, as she waited and tolerated. "But, as desirable as that would be, it is neither realistic nor achievable."
Apparently, they cheered at moments when she didn't expect it, like when she told them;
Rice asked the crowd not to let "an unachievable goal stand in the way of a good deal." As she explained just what was unachievable, the crowd applauded.
Good on them. Obama is fooling no one.
During the second crowd applause-retort, Rice did that tongue tic that Obama does: thrusting her tongue against her lower inside lip. I wonder if she learned that from him?
That woman is a despicable liar -- wasn't that clear from her Benghazi charade?
During their war, both Iraq and Iran took to using poison gas. Such weapons had not been used in battle in over fifty years. Iran formed the Martyr Brigades. Adolescent boys, with dreams of virgins dancing in their heads, walked across mine fields in search of paradise and explosive devices. They definitely found the explosive devices......How do you negotiate with someone who has no regard for their rational self interest?.....All the options are bad, but some bad options are worse than others......If we take military action against Iran, it's possible tens of thousands of people will die. If the mullahs get the bomb, there's the possibility they could increase that number by several orders of magnitude.......Towards the end of WWI, the French generals did not approve of offering Germany an armistice. The French generals wanted to press on and hold a victory parade on the streets of Berlin. If the French generals had gotten their way, tens of thousands of more young men would have died. Historians would have written of their instrangience and vindictiveness. And the world would have been spared WWII.
Bet Obama is shitting bricks.
Good. I'm a Texas Catholic and I stand 100 percent with Israel.
Obama as a choice between dishonor and war. He will choose dishonor, an thus there will be war (to paraphrase the great statesman Winston Churchill.)
Bet Obama is shitting bricks.
Ya think? Barry is not used to someone standing up to him in such an audacious way. He can always dismiss Boehner due to his alcoholism and orange tan.
But Bibi was in the IDF Special Forces. He went to MIT. Not easy to dismiss him.
Obama decried that Netanyahu gave 'nothing new' and no alternatives.
Actually we have many choices. B52, B1, B2, cruise missiles, etc...
Not some drones but maybe a Linebacker3 (if you have never heard of Linebacker I or II just Google it and Vietnam.)
Yes I know he was SF. Impressive.
All Obama has done is play golf.
" i will stand with the Muslims...."
The Usurper in Dreams From My Father.
@Mick, page number, please? I just did a search for that quote in my Kindle edition of DFMF. Didn't turn up. Is it possibly from "Audacity..."?
In "Audacity of Hope" he writes: "I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction." The quote comes from page 261 of the paperback edition of "The Audacity of Hope."
"Nothing will be so epically heartbreaking as when US pilots and aviators engage the IDFAF"
It's really sad that the only escape from this that I can imagine is some kind of massive, *totally* unforeseeable communications failure...("Sorry, HQ, you're breaking up..." followed by the sound of wires being pulled.)
Of course if I were writing a technothriller I would have someone in the Chinese military have a sudden attack of sanity, and end the problem for us. They don't need the Islamic Republic of Iran, after all, they just need their oil. If the ME became a nuclear wasteland, what would the Chinese do?
The DemCong response to Netanyahu's speech was akin to the whining of a gaggle of bitchy high school girls.
They certainly beclowned themselves.
" I doubt he wants Iran to have the bomb.
There's no evidence that he does, yet also little evidence that he views the prospect of its doing so as particularly alarming. No doubt Netanyahu would differ.
And there's also the tactical reality on the ground: even without a formal agreement, Iran and the USA are de-facto allies in fighting ISIS in Iraq; the USA simply avoids airstrikes in areas where Iraq forces are present.
(And perhaps it should be said: it would truly be a triumph of realpolitik if someone could engineer a war between ISIS and Iraq that would destroy or at least greatly weaken both. IF it could be kept non-nuclear, at least. Not that Pres. Obama or the U.S. State Dept. or even the CIA is smart enough to actually engineer such an outcome.)
@Sharc, are you looking at an actual copy of the paperback edition of "The Audacity of Hope"?
@Sharc: I'd like to see even more context for your 8:48 quote. It threatens the credibility of Obama supporters, especially and including those who voted for him for their pet social issue and those who later regretted not voting for him.
Or, conversely, it could threaten the credibility of Obama's opponents if his words are being misquoted or taken out of context for the propaganda purposes of his opponents.
Re Obama standing with the Muslims, I thought he said that in a speech. But I could be misremembering.
"Whatever we once were, we are no longer... a Christian nation; we are... a nation of nonbelievers."
Obama, Barack (2006-10-17). The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream (p. 341). Random House, Inc.. Kindle Edition.
("Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.")
According to Snopes, this is full quote (not quite the same wording):
"In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example, have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific reassurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.
Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/coilofrage.asp#5ZcL29GWgtRkK1sS.99"
I do not know if he said anything similar in another place or time.
What makes it easy to believe that Obama said that he sides with Muslims is his constant refusal to say 'Islamic terrorism' , even when the terrorists call themselves Muslim and say that their actions are to further Islam. Should I believe Obama's words or my lying eyes?
"Should I believe Obama's words or my lying eyes?"
First, I'd do something about my eyes (if they are "lying eyes") — get some corrective lens or take the plank out or whatever is causing the lying problem.
And then I'd try to be careful not to disseminate other people's propaganda for them.
Well, I did attribute it to Snopes. I didn't say "Here is the Truth! Believe me without thought or examination!"
You did and you deserve credit. My suggestions were aimed more toward Mick and chickelit.
Oh, thanks. I worry when I'm playing with the big dogs...
Historians would have written of their instrangience and vindictiveness. And the world would have been spared WWII.
Incorrect. You've forgotten that the USSR embarked on a campaign of conquest at the same time Germany did, and you've forgotten the Pacific theater of the war.
In a world without Nazi Germany, the likely result would have been a Soviet-Japanese alliance and a different, much tougher-to-win war.
@Revenant:
"In a world without Nazi Germany, the likely result would have been a Soviet-Japanese alliance and a different, much tougher-to-win war."
I am curious, what has drawn you to this conclusion? My understanding of Soviet-Japanese relations during the time, especially following the invasion of Manchuria, does not sound amenable to an alliance.
Meade said...
Or, conversely, it could threaten the credibility of Obama's opponents if his words are being misquoted or taken out of context for the propaganda purposes of his opponents.
Yeah, I would stipulate that. But that doesn't address the quote offered by Sharc at 8:48. Is it true or not? I'd look for it myself, but I refuse to buy any of Obama's numerous autobiographies.
@chickelit:
"...but I refuse to buy any of Obama's numerous autobiographies."
In what way is 1, "numerous?"
Post a Comment