Better not shout (Obama), better not cry (democratic party), Netanyahu is coming to DC

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

Non-issue. He's facing election. Politicos will say just about anything in that position.

you mean like Obama in 2012? yeah, i thought so.

[shanm]

Originally Posted by bigtex

LLIdiot, is this "sitting Republican President" what you were looking for?

The fact of the matter is, The (Israeli) Crybibi has a long, sordid history of strained relationships with US Presidential Administrations. It dates all the way back to the George Herbert Walker Bush Administration. In fact the GHW (Much Smarter) Bush Administration didn't exactly refuse to meet with the (Israeli) CryBibi but they did take "the unusual step of banning Netanyahu from the State Department." I would say that's awful damn close to refusing to meet with the (Israeli) CryBibi.

"Baker was so outraged by the accusation that he took the unusual step of banning Netanyahu from the State Department. “His language was unacceptable for a senior diplomat from a friendly country,” Baker later wrote in his memoirs. “I promptly banned him from the State Department." (He eventually lifted the ban after speaking with Netanyahu, a U.S. diplomat who worked under Baker during this time told TNI, but said that Baker made it a point to never meet with Netanyahu again inside Foggy Bottom)."

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/...-stomach-12342



I am left to conclude the following:

That goof-ball in the Poppy Bush White House acted like he was the Mayor of Kennebunkport.

Exactly. I've been looking for this. This is proof of the double standards these wackos deploy against obama vs those of their own beloved hack Bush. The secretary of state under Bush banned Nethanyahu from the state Department, simply for speaking his mind. What he said was something along the lines of " I don't trust the U.S foregin policy in the middle east" and somehow that warranted him being BANNED from the state department.
Fast forward 25 years, and Obama refuses to meet with the prime minister, with a perfectly valid reason, he is labeled as the anti-christ who is obviously doing it to appease his secret Muslim brotherhood. This is the same idiot whose administration (chief of staff Yaalon) called the U.S a weak nation and a senseless leader. I would say Obama has more than a valid reason to not look at Nethanyahu's ugly face ever again.

[Guest040616]

Apparently, the ungrateful (Israeli) CryBibi's temporary ban from Foggy Bottom wasn't harsh enough.

Perhaps next time they should consider forbidding the ungrateful (Israeli) CryBibi from putting his worthless feet on U.S. soil.

That would be a true MISSION ACCOMPLISHED moment!

[IIFFOFRDB]

[shanm]

^ He is a huge war-mongering idiot who uses hyperbole and biased conjecture to stir resentment and misplaced animosity, all the while trying (unsuccessfully) to get the U.S to be his bitch. Anything else? Because we knew that already

[CuteOldGuy]

Inviting a foreign leader to speak to a government entity is the purview of the State Department. Boehner overreached, and it will backfire on him. He wasted a lot of political capital on this largely symbolic gesture. He could have used it on something of substance, but that might require making a meaningful choice. He doesn't have the balls for that.

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Inviting a foreign leader to speak to a government entity is the purview of the State Department. Boehner overreached, and it will backfire on him. He wasted a lot of political capital on this largely symbolic gesture. He could have used it on something of substance, but that might require making a meaningful choice. He doesn't have the balls for that.

Changing tax law and immigration law is the purview of the congress. I guess the pot is calling the kettle black.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Changing tax law and immigration law is the purview of the congress. I guess the pot is calling the kettle black.

JDIdiot is once again guilty of "cherry picking" Presidential authority.

Is anyone surprised?

The Executive Branch has the delegated authority to issue an "Executive Order."

The Legislative Branch has no such authority! (see below).

From Wiki:

"United States Presidents issue executive orders to help officers and agencies of the executive branch manage the operations within the federal government itself. Executive orders have the full force of law when they take authority from a legislative power which grants its power directly to the Executive by the Constitution, or are made pursuant to Acts of Congress that explicitly delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power (delegated legislation)."

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by bigtex

The Executive Branch has the delegated authority to issue an "Executive Order."

Executive orders have the full force of law when they take authority from a legislative power which grants its power directly to the Executive by the Constitution, or are made pursuant to Acts of Congress that explicitly delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power (delegated legislation).[/I][/B]"

Either you don't read what you post or you don't understand what you read.

The United States Constitution does not "authorize" the President to issue "executive orders" ... The "office" of an "executive order" is to EXECUTE the legislation Congress has lawfully passed....in other words ... implement the legislative authority provided to the President by Congress.

Did you take "government" at U of H ... I knew they offered it in High School.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Can you name any sitting Republican President who refused to meet with the PM of Israel when coming to the United States?

I'm still looking for an answer to my question.

"Baker" ... was he a "sitting President"?

Some of you fly-off-the-handle Obaminable-Apologists ...

..........might want to rethink your answers.

I asked a specific question, because those are the current facts.

2016 is rapidly approaching.

[Guest040616]

Well look who showed up! Apparently, the Nursing Home attendant overslept and did not wake up LLIdiot at 3 am. To make it easy for you, there are a couple of very relevant posts that you have yet to respond to.

I have quoted them below!

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Can you name any sitting Republican President who refused to meet with the PM of Israel when coming to the United States?

This goof-ball in the White House acts like he's the Mayor of Chicago.

Originally Posted by bigtex

LLIdiot, is this "sitting Republican President" what you were looking for?

The fact of the matter is, The (Israeli) Crybibi has a long, sordid history of strained relationships with US Presidential Administrations. It dates all the way back to the George Herbert Walker Bush Administration. In fact the GHW (Much Smarter) Bush Administration didn't exactly refuse to meet with the (Israeli) CryBibi but they did take "the unusual step of banning Netanyahu from the State Department." I would say that's awful damn close to refusing to meet with the (Israeli) CryBibi.

"Baker was so outraged by the accusation that he took the unusual step of banning Netanyahu from the State Department. “His language was unacceptable for a senior diplomat from a friendly country,” Baker later wrote in his memoirs. “I promptly banned him from the State Department." (He eventually lifted the ban after speaking with Netanyahu, a U.S. diplomat who worked under Baker during this time told TNI, but said that Baker made it a point to never meet with Netanyahu again inside Foggy Bottom)."

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/...-stomach-12342



I am left to conclude the following:

That goof-ball in the Poppy Bush White House acted like he was the Mayor of Kennebunkport.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by bigtex

I have quoted them below!

You never answered my question. Which was ...

Originally Posted by LexusLover View Post
Can you name any sitting Republican President who refused to meet with the PM of Israel when coming to the United States?

You can't so you try to deflect and change the subject. What? No cut and paste?

Or did you forget the question? If so, I just "read it back to you"!!! And you call me an "idiot"?

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

You never answered my question. Which was ...



You can't so you try to deflect and change the subject. What? No cut and paste?

Or did you forget the question? If so, I just "read it back to you"!!! And you call me an "idiot"?

Be sure and include "right before a Israeli election" lexie.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Be sure and include "right before a Israeli election" lexie.

As I said ... "protocol" is a lameass excuse for not seeing a PM of any country when there is "war" going on in the region ... He's snubbed him before.... and the first day PM was in office was BEFORE an election.

If there is some idea that meeting with the PM is some implied endorsement, then a meeting with the opposition candidate can offset it, or an announcement that it is a meeting regarding the current state of affairs and not to mean any endorsement ... there are ways to conduct business without the appearance of a "snub" ....

it's like the bullshit about not going to Paris. Security? Please?

Israel is an ally and, although it has its own set of security issues and concerns we don't share, I think we should demonstrate our continued strong ties with the country, regardless of who is PM.

Admittedly, there may be communications behind the scene with many different people who cannot be publicly disclosed, and in that case it's probably better we don't know to make sure things move in a positive direction.

All these "niceties" are wonderful when things aren't turning to shit, but they have been for months, and Israel is the middle of it all .... all those countries have a common interest in stopping the animals marauding around the landscape there. The also all have an interest in Iran not developing deployable nuclear weapon systems.

[JD Barleycorn]

...or in Tampon's case, never knew; Israel has a parlimentarian form of government. There can be a "no confidence" vote at any time and the Prime Minister is faced with an election at that time. So to use the excuse that an election is coming is a completely bogus excuse and pretty lame. As for the history, go back to 2008 when Senator Barack Obama went to Kenya and interfered with their election process on purpose (he recorded radio commercials and, later, announcements). He, as we all know, is a liar and hypocrite. By the way, his cousin lost the election and in the resulting violence (encouraged by Barack) many people died.