GOP's shocking breach of protocol- partisan politics at its slimiest

[RandomGuy]

It is generally understood that foreign leaders should not take trips to the US to be seen with US politicians close to elections back home, so we don't look like we are trying to influence elections, as that tends to backfire, badly.
It is also generally understood that the speaker of the house should consult the president, before inviting a head of state to speak in front of congress.

This has been the norm of decades, under both Democratic and Republican control of either branch of government.

Both of those long held conventions went right out the window, just so that congressional Republicans can score a snub on Obama.

Bibi is up for re-election in less than a month:

Netanyahu doubles down on speech to Congress
sraeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday doubled down on his intention to speak to a joint session of Congress next month, despite criticism from Democrats who say they will boycott the event.

Netanyahu said he fully intended to make the speech and that he will use the moment to criticize negotiations the Obama administration is holding with Iran, which he argues are endangering Israel.

"A bad deal with Iran is forming in Munich that will endanger Israel's existence," Netanyahu said at an event for his Likud Party, according to The Associated Press. "Therefore, I am determined to go to Washington and present Israel's position before the members of Congress and the American people."
Netanyahu downplayed differences between the U.S. and Israel, arguing that there have "always been essential differences between Israel and the U.S." and that "relations have remained sound."

"This will be the case this time as well," he said, according to Haaretz.

"This is not a political issue or a party issue, neither here nor there. This is an existential issue, and I approach it with the fullest responsibility."

Two more Democrats on Monday said they would skip Netanyahu's address, bringing the total number to 9. Vice President Biden is also not planning on attend and has blamed a scheduling conflict.

Some of the Democrats boycotting the event argue it is meant to undercut President Obama and that it is inappropriate for Netanyahu to be delivering the address just two weeks before Israeli elections.

They have also faulted Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) for inviting Netanyahu to come, arguing it was done without the White House's knowledge and that this was a breach of protocol.

Netanyahu in a message on Twitter said he wasn't worried about protocol.

“At the time that there are people involved in protocol of politics, it’s establishing a bad agreement with Iran that will endanger the existence of Israel,” Netanyahu said on Twitter. “My duty is to do everything in order to stop it.”
------------------------------------

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/232179-netanyahu-speech-to-congress-is-still-happening

[CosmicCowboy]

Sounds like a title Boutons would have posted. You don't usually work up such hysterical spittle.

The difference is this stupid perpetually postponed 'negotiation" with Iran over their nuclear ambitions. All it does is buy them time to complete their enrichment program and build warheads for the delivery system they have already perfected. Iran is laughing their ass off at how wimpy the US under O's direction is being about this.

[RandomGuy]

Sounds like a title Boutons would have posted. You don't usually work up such hysterical spittle.

The difference is this stupid perpetually postponed 'negotiation" with Iran over their nuclear ambitions. All it does is buy them time to complete their enrichment program and build warheads for the delivery system they have already perfected. Iran is laughing their ass off at how wimpy the US under O's direction is being about this.

I was rather restrained. It is a purely partisan move that threw diplomatic and protocol norms under the bus, yes or no?

[CosmicCowboy]

I was rather restrained. It is a purely partisan move that threw diplomatic and protocol norms under the bus, yes or no?

I can't answer yes/no on what someone else's motives might be.

[CosmicCowboy]

I do know it creates a real problem for democrats having to defend Obama's disdain for Israel.

Jewish voters have historically been a dependable source of funds and votes for the Democratic party.

If in fact Pelosi and the Democrats boycott Netanyahu's visit it will certainly be interesting to see what happens.

[Winehole23]

even Abe Foxman thinks it's a bad idea.

[Winehole23]

If in fact Pelosi and the Democrats boycott Netanyahu's visit it will certainly be interesting to see what happens.Wishful thinking. Pelosi already said she wouldn't skip. Be surprised if more than a handful did.

The hopes that Jewish votes will divide over this is a GOP fantasy.

[boutons_deux]

End Timers (losers) evangelicals love Israel because that's where they are all going for the Apocalypse so Christ can take them to heaven in His rocket ship or in his comet or asteroid. They want Israel to hasten the Apocalypse by nuking Iran (global warming is too damn slow), and why not nuke all Muslim countries?

[boutons_deux]

Over 90% of Netanyahu's Campaign Contributions Come From the U.S. http://www.alternet.org/world/over-90-netanyahus-campaign-contributions-come-us-video?akid=12776.187590.6WQ0EW&rd=1&src=newsletter1031630&t=27

and probably from 1% of Jews, like Adelman.

[Aztecfan03]

Is it within protocol for the Secretary of State to meet with Nigerian presidential candidates?

[Th'Pusher]

Is it within protocol for the Secretary of State to meet with Nigerian presidential candidates?
Under the circumstances of the meeting, I'd say yes. It's not like kerry was trying to influence the election. What shitbag website told you to be mad about this?

[RandomGuy]

I can't answer yes/no on what someone else's motives might be.

(shrugs)

Ok then, don't comment on the motives.

Yes or no, it is protocol to avoid inviting foreign leaders close to elections in their home country to the US capitol?

[DarrinS]

Shocking



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnVf1ZoCJSo

[RandomGuy]

I will be happy to comment on the motives.

The GOP does not like the negotiations with Iran, because they think it might result in some give-away to Iran. Bibi is going to make the case that we not do anything like that.

I could be hugely cynical, and say they are actively attempting to sabotage something that might actually be successful, in order to not give Obama a foreign policy success.

Given what I see as rather craven partisanship on the part of the GOP in congress, and yes, Democrats do stupid shit too, I sadly can't rule out the more cynical guess at their motives. I think the GOP has gone into hysterical Obama hate mode at this point, in the run up to the 2016 elections. Everything happening in congress on both sides is going to be almost pure political theater.

Sad that when the GOP are given keys to the car, they don't see duty to country over duty to party as their priority. To be fair, I wish Democrats would do more of that, because it makes it far easier to credibly argue there is a difference between the parties to independents. Neither side is completely guiltless when it comes to this, of course, but the tea party extremists that are trying to grab the steering wheel from the establishment GOP are not going to let the GOP do that any time soon.

[RandomGuy]

Shocking

(youtube video)

Darrin S in with a youtube video, and too lazy to bother typing more than a word.

Shocking.

[CosmicCowboy]

(shrugs)

Ok then, don't comment on the motives.

Yes or no, it is protocol to avoid inviting foreign leaders close to elections in their home country to the US capitol?

I honestly don't know of any written protocol about elections and foreign visits.

Off the top of my head I remember the Prime Minister of Japan visiting last year and Japan had elections last year after that.

[boutons_deux]

I honestly don't know of any written protocol about elections and foreign visits.

Off the top of my head I remember the Prime Minister of Japan visiting last year and Japan had elections last year after that.

:lol The convention is to avoid such visits in the late stages of a campaign

[CosmicCowboy]

:lol The convention is to avoid such visits in the late stages of a campaign

Show me in writing where it says that. Otherwise, talking point "conventions" can just be pulled out of the appropriate ass when needed.

[DarrinS]

Sounds to me like the dems just don't like Bibi.

[TheSanityAnnex]

I will be happy to comment on the motives.

The GOP does not like the negotiations with Iran, because they think it might result in some give-away to Iran. Bibi is going to make the case that we not do anything like that.

I could be hugely cynical, and say they are actively attempting to sabotage something that might actually be successful, in order to not give Obama a foreign policy success.

Given what I see as rather craven partisanship on the part of the GOP in congress, and yes, Democrats do stupid shit too, I sadly can't rule out the more cynical guess at their motives. I think the GOP has gone into hysterical Obama hate mode at this point, in the run up to the 2016 elections. Everything happening in congress on both sides is going to be almost pure political theater.

Sad that when the GOP are given keys to the car, they don't see duty to country over duty to party as their priority. To be fair, I wish Democrats would do more of that, because it makes it far easier to credibly argue there is a difference between the parties to independents. Neither side is completely guiltless when it comes to this, of course, but the tea party extremists that are trying to grab the steering wheel from the establishment GOP are not going to let the GOP do that any time soon.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/02/09/obama_according_to_irans_supreme_leader_it_would_b e_contrary_to_their_faith_to_obtain_a_nuclear_weap on.html


At a joint news conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel President Obama addressed the ongoing nuclear negotiations with Iran. According to the Supreme Leader of Iran, said Obama, "it would be contrary to their faith to obtain a nuclear weapon."


PRESIDENT OBAMA: The issues now are sufficiently narrowed and sufficiently clarified where we're at a point where they need to make a decision. We are presenting to them in a unified fashion, the P5+1 supported by a coalition of countries around the world are presenting to them a deal that allows them to have peaceful nuclear power but gives us the absolute assurance that is verifiable that they are not pursuing a nuclear weapon.

And if in fact what they claim is true, which is they have no aspiration to get a nuclear weapon, that in fact, according to their Supreme Leader, it would be contrary to their faith to obtain a nuclear weapon, if that is true, there should be the possibility of getting a deal. They should be able to get to yes. But we don't know if that's going to happen.

[FromWayDowntown]

If President Obama were about to do such a thing, there's little doubt that many on the Right would be screaming about the patent threat that his actions would pose to the Constitution and the continuing vitality of the Republic.

[Aztecfan03]

Under the circumstances of the meeting, I'd say yes. It's not like kerry was trying to influence the election. What shitbag website told you to be mad about this?

None. I'm not mad about it. I'm not mad about Netanyahu either.

[boutons_deux]

Show me in writing where it says that. Otherwise, talking point "conventions" can just be pulled out of the appropriate ass when needed.

conventions aren't laws, are written, aren't FORMAL protocols, so stick that up your ass.


and WTF is Bibi's urgency to make this visit a few WEEKS before his election? Iran talks been dragging on for YEARS

[ChumpDumper]

Sounds like a title Boutons would have posted. You don't usually work up such hysterical spittle.

The difference is this stupid perpetually postponed 'negotiation" with Iran over their nuclear ambitions. All it does is buy them time to complete their enrichment program and build warheads for the delivery system they have already perfected. Iran is laughing their ass off at how wimpy the US under O's direction is being about this.What was the direction under Bush? How did it differ from Obama's pertaining to the time Iran was given?

[SnakeBoy]

If President Obama were about to do such a thing, there's little doubt that many on the Right would be screaming about the patent threat that his actions would pose to the Constitution and the continuing vitality of the Republic.

What do you RandomGuy would be saying in that scenario?

[CosmicCowboy]

What was the direction under Bush? How did it differ from Obama's pertaining to the time Iran was given?

What the fuck does BUSH have to do with anything?...:lmao

[FromWayDowntown]

What do you RandomGuy would be saying in that scenario?

I have no idea.

[ChumpDumper]

What the fuck does BUSH have to do with anything?...:lmaoI asked you directly what was the direction of Iran policy under Bush and how did it differ from Obama's pertaining to the time Iran was given.

Your strong implication is that there is something else that can be done.

What would you do differently as president so Iran wouldn't laugh at you?

[CosmicCowboy]

I asked you directly what was the direction of Iran policy under Bush and how did it differ from Obama's pertaining to the time Iran was given.

Your strong implication is that there is something else that can be done.

What would you do differently as president so Iran wouldn't laugh at you?

:lmao

Don't try to make me out as a Bush apologist Chump.

Find someone else to argue with.

If you are really interested in Bush's policy towards Iran do your own research.

[CosmicCowboy]

As for what President CC would do I would have tried to strangle them completely with sanctions which with the collapse of oil prices could be extremely effective. Complete disclosure and allow unlimited inspections and we lift the sanctions. No more lifting sanctions while we continue to keep extending the negotiations.

[ChumpDumper]

As for what President CC would do I would have tried to strangle them completely with sanctions which with the collapse of oil prices could be extremely effective. Complete disclosure and allow unlimited inspections and we lift the sanctions. No more lifting sanctions while we continue to keep extending the negotiations.And if that didn't work? What if Iran just kept enriching the uranium?

[CosmicCowboy]

And if that didn't work? What if Iran just kept enriching the uranium?

Like they are right now?

[SnakeBoy]

I have no idea.

:lol Sure you don't

[ChumpDumper]

Like they are right now?the 20% uranium? So what would you do in that case?

[CosmicCowboy]

the 20% uranium? So what would you do in that case?

I dunno. I can't verify that. Can you? Hard to verify what you can't inspect.

[CosmicCowboy]

BTW, you are getting tedious Socrachump. I see no value in working through 20 questions on "what would you do as President".

I'm not.

[FromWayDowntown]

:lol Sure you don't

Perhaps the reaction would be just the same as those who find no problem with the current situation.

I'd say that would suggest a brokenness -- and certainly a lack of principle -- in our politics; the truth is that the reaction should be the same from both sides on something like this without regard to who's guy is acting.
The fact that the reaction to this would likely change based upon the identity of the actor is pathetic.

[ChumpDumper]

I dunno. I can't verify that. Can you? Hard to verify what you can't inspect.Who said that part hadn't been inspected? Just you?


BTW, you are getting tedious Socrachump. I see no value in working through 20 questions on "what would you do as President".

I'm not.I expected you to stop right about here, Mr. President. You're one dead end after another. So maybe some more ad hominems to vent your anger.

[RandomGuy]

I honestly don't know of any written protocol about elections and foreign visits.

Off the top of my head I remember the Prime Minister of Japan visiting last year and Japan had elections last year after that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_general_election,_2014
Date of election: December 14, 2014

Date of US presidents visit to Japan:
April 24, 2014.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/04/24/joint-press-conference-president-obama-and-prime-minister-abe-japan

It won't hurt you to admit the GOP members in congress are deliberately doing something ass-hole-ish and a breach of long-standing protocol. Do you really think they are above such a thing?

[RandomGuy]

Show me in writing where it says that. Otherwise, talking point "conventions" can just be pulled out of the appropriate ass when needed.

Sorry man, not a diplomat.

Generally though, such invitations are given by the office of the president, not the speaker of the house.


White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said that usually leaders inform the White House before planning a trip to the U.S. He said the administration will decide a course of action after speaking with the Israelis about what Netanyahu will say in his address, the Associated Press reported.
The State Department also expressed displeasure, with spokesperson Jen Psaki telling reporters “traditionally” the administration would be informed by the world leader directly about a visit.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/stephaniemcneal/boehner-invites-israels-netanyahu-to-address-congress#.lrM3YD6oP

I can merely point to the people in the executive branch responsible for such things, and assume that they don't lie about what the protocol for visits generally is.

You want evidence, you have what is available.

If you want to claim they are lying about it, then the burden shifts to you. Your claim, your burden.

[Th'Pusher]

Sorry man, not a diplomat.

Generally though, such invitations are given by the office of the president, not the speaker of the house.


http://www.buzzfeed.com/stephaniemcneal/boehner-invites-israels-netanyahu-to-address-congress#.lrM3YD6oP

I can merely point to the people in the executive branch responsible for such things, and assume that they don't lie about what the protocol for visits generally is.

You want evidence, you have what is available.

If you want to claim they are lying about it, then the burden shifts to you. Your claim, your burden.

If there were historical precedence for this, you can be sure someone would have dug them up by now. The fact that none have surfaced simply affirms the convention.

[DarrinS]

Didn't Boehner do the same thing a few years ago? I don't remember the "shocking" breach of protocol back then.

[Th'Pusher]

Didn't Boehner do the same thing a few years ago? I don't remember the "shocking" breach of protocol back then.

Link? Did he do it without the knowledge of the executive branch?

[DarrinS]

Link? Did he do it without the knowledge of the executive branch?

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/01/story_that_boehner_blindsided_obama_on_netanyahu_i nvitation_was_manufactured_agitprop.html

[Th'Pusher]

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/01/story_that_boehner_blindsided_obama_on_netanyahu_i nvitation_was_manufactured_agitprop.html
So in 2011, speaker Boehner notified the WH prior to inviting Bibi? Did he notify the WH prior to the most recent invite? The article simply states Bibi accepted after the WH was notified.

And lol American Thinker.

[Th'Pusher]

So in 2011, speaker Boehner notified the WH prior to inviting Bibi? Did he notify the WH prior to the most recent invite? The article simply states Bibi accepted after the WH was notified.

And lol American Thinker.
Never mind. It's clear from the links within your link that Speaker Boehner did in fact circumvent the WH when inviting Bibi to speak. Thanks for clearing that up.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So in 2011, speaker Boehner notified the WH prior to inviting Bibi? Did he notify the WH prior to the most recent invite? The article simply states Bibi accepted after the WH was notified.

And lol American Thinker.

Darrin is pretty bad about not reading what he googles. He's pretty lazy.

[RandomGuy]

If there were historical precedence for this, you can be sure someone would have dug them up by now. The fact that none have surfaced simply affirms the convention.

Yeah, that occurred to me as well.

[RandomGuy]

Darrin is pretty bad about not reading what he googles. He's pretty lazy.

:rollin

He didn't... that *is* funny.

Classic DarrinS.

Hes just so lovably predictable. Makes you want to pinch his cheeks.

[boutons_deux]

Slimy to describe Boner and Bitch McConnell is a compliment.

[Winehole23]

Darrin is pretty bad about not reading what he googles. He's pretty lazy.Relies on links he doesn't bother to read past the lede. Classic.