Democratic Senators won't say whether they're attending
Josh Rogin and Eli Lake report that many Democratic Senators, who feel caught between their loyalty to Barack Hussein Obama and their duties to their voters, are
not saying whether they will attend Prime Minister Netanyahu's address to a joint session of Congress next Tuesday.
We spoke with almost a dozen Democratic Senators Tuesday who said
they still haven’t decided. Among them is Senate Intelligence Committee
ranking member Dianne Feinstein of California, who wrote a letter (with
Senate Minority Whip Richard Durbin of Illinois) Monday to Netanyahu
asking him to meet Democrats separately in their offices while he is
Washington.
“I won’t make a decision on that for a while,” she told us, insisting
there was no organized Democratic boycott. “But it does mean that I
would like an opportunity to sit down and talk to him rather than
listening to a speech of red lines. It isn’t a boycott, it's individuals
making up their own minds. There is no boycott.”
...
Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut, the ranking Democrat on the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee subcommittee that covers the Middle
East, told us Tuesday he also is still weighing whether to attend the
speech and he acknowledged that he is getting calls from his supporters
in Connecticut encouraging him to go.
“I haven’t decided yet. This is a breach of protocol not a breach of
policy, so I’m still trying to make sure I’m not making more of this
than it deserves to be,” he said. “A lot of us are very angry and I
think we’ve got to figure out how serious of an issue this really is.”
Democratic Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia declined to say whether he
would attend: “I think the speech should be postposed. I’m just going to
leave it there for now.”
Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey wouldn't say anything on the
matter. Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon said he was “expecting to” attend
but wasn’t 100 percent sure. Senator Chris Coons of Delaware said he
would make up his mind after meeting with the Israeli ambassador.
Nonetheless, many Democratic leaders have signaled they will attend.
The list includes House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, House Minority
Whip Steny Hoyer and, if he is physically able while recovering from
surgery, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. Senator Chuck Schumer of New
York, Senate Foreign Relations Committee ranking Democrat Robert
Menendez of New Jersey and Senate Armed Services Committee member Bill
Nelson of Florida will also be there.
It's tough having to answer to your constituents, isn't it? Here's a prediction: In the end, other than the Congressional Black Caucus and some of the more virulent J Street recipients, every last one of the Democrats will show up. They're not going to risk their seats to satisfy an unpopular President who is in the second half of his second term.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, Charles Schumer, Dianne Feinstein, Dick Durbin, Iranian nuclear threat, J Street, joint session of Congress, Nancy Pelosi, Robert Menendez
Sense or nonsense?
Trying to make sense out of the fight over Prime Minister Netanyahu's address to Congress, Mitchell Bard spouts
a lot of nonsense.
Netanyahu’s decision to speak before Congress still makes little sense. In addition to angering Obama and Democrats in Congress,
Obama was 'angry' at Israel long before Netanyahu decided to come and speak. Look at the history of this relationship. Obama's bona fides as a supporter of Israel were
being questioned long before Netanyahu became Prime Minister in 2009. Obama is angry at Israel
because it exists. Neither Binyamin Netanyahu nor anyone else in Israel did anything to bring about that anger. Netanyahu's speech has nothing to do with this. Recall that Obama
called Netanyahu chickens**t long before this speech was ever announced.
he has undermined the legislation that he was coming to support.
Netanyahu is not coming to speak in support of the sanctions legislation. It already has a veto proof majority once it is brought to the floor. Netanyahu is coming to speak out against making a
bad deal with Iran in which all
red lines are abandoned. A deal in which Iran is allowed to retain its nuclear facilities, retain its uranium enrichment plants,
keep the centrifuges spinning and - yes - still get relief from sanctions. It's a deal against which most of Washington seems to be tongue-tied.
The prime minister’s speech also has an air of desperation; he
apparently realizes that he cannot prevent Iran from getting nuclear
weapons.
It's not that Netanyahu cannot prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons - it's that Obama won't let him. So yes, there is some desperation here. Netanyahu is desperate to stop Obama from officially declaring that Iran can do whatever it pleases when it comes to nuclear weapons - to leave the door open for another President or another day. Because Iran can be stopped - just not without military action, or at least a credible threat of military action.
But Netanyahu isn't the only desperate one here. So is Obama. Obama is desperate to stop the Prime Minister he called a chickens**t from undermining what Obama believes will be his signature foreign policy achievement for his second term, if not for his entire Presidency: appeasing Iran, bringing it back into the 'family of nations' and turning it into a regional power in the Middle East which can offset Israel and force Israel to start whistling to the Arabs' tune. The fact that Obama is clearly expending far more energy on stopping Netanyahu's speech than he is on stopping Iran's drive for nuclear weapons shows that Obama is also desperate. Let's call it desperate for a legacy.
The argument here is whether Obama's Munich-like philosophy will prevail or whether Netanyahu's vision of an acknowledged Israeli right to take independent action against Iran will prevail. By stiffening opposition to the deal, both in and out of Congress, Netanyahu is increasing the (admittedly slim) likelihood that Congress will stand up to Obama and scuttle the deal. No, Netanyahu won't persuade the Schakowsky's or the Rangel's or the Durbin's, but he might give Chuck Schumer - for example - the backbone to say that he cannot in good conscience vote with the administration on this and not welch as
Schumer has done in the past. And he's also increasing the likelihood that when and if Israel decides it has no choice but to act, Obama will not have the political backing to stand in the way.
it is difficult to see what purpose the prime minister’s speech will
serve since he has been sounding the same alarm now for years. His views
are no secret to anyone and will have no greater impact if they are
presented before Congress.
That's actually not true. Most Americans could not even name the Prime Minister of Israel until this controversy started, let
alone recite his views on a deal whose details are slowly coming out in the media. Israeli opposition to the
deal is the only context in which Americans are discussing the
substantive problems with Obama's appeasement. Netanyahu's speech is already
helping to raise the profile of opposition views to the deal. And unlike in Israel, where it is being
delayed for five minutes on the bogus claim that there might be partisan thoughts, the speech is likely to be viewed live in the United States by millions.
Israel has good reason to be alarmed at the direction the nuclear talks
have taken, even though it appears unlikely Iran will except any deal.
Unless you equate Iran with the 'Palestinians,' who never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity, it seems to me that at this point a deal is highly likely. Obama has already
conceded almost everything Iran wants.
Did Netanyahu think speaking in Congress would help his reelection
campaign? Perhaps, but this shouldn’t surprise anyone. Incumbents always
blur the lines between policymaking and campaigning. When Obama ran for
reelection his speeches were meant to help his campaign regardless of
whether they were labeled as campaign events. Furthermore, the fact that
Obama reacted so angrily, as did many other Democrats, may hurt
Netanyahu’s chances if Israeli voters decide that they don’t want a
prime minister who has worsened ties with their principal ally.
No, this is not about the Israeli elections. I am sure that Netanyahu would have a much better chance of gaining votes by staying in Israel and campaigning. Ask
Buzi Herzog.
Zionist Union co-chairman Isaac Herzog said Tuesday that he had
declined AIPAC's invitation to address its conference, saying that while
American Jews are very important to him, it was clear that replacing
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was just as critical and his main
mission now.
In a press conference with foreign media, Herzog
said that Netanyahu's spin on the question of who's going to Washington
has to stop. Every Israeli and American official - including the U.S.
President - knows his stance against the Iranian nuclear program, Herzog
added.
Herzog told the reporters that when he becomes
prime minister, he will travel all over the world to preserve the
security interests of the citizens of Israel – but for now, he has to
decline the invitation to focus on that goal.
So who is the statesman and who is running an election campaign?
Netanyahu has only two options: He can surrender to the Iranian nuclear bomb, pretend that everything is nice with the White House until the next crisis, and echo White House propaganda that ISIS is the big problem. Or he can play the cards he has and work the only realistic opportunity to stunt Obama’s planned appeasement and preserve an Israeli military option against the Iranian weapon. Which would you choose if you were him?
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, Charles Schumer, Dick Durbin, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, Jan Schakowsky, Knesset elections 2015
Oh my... Netanyahu refuses to meet with Durbin and Feinstein
Prime Minister Netanyahu has
turned down a
meeting with Democratic Senators Richard Durbin (Il) and Diane Feinstein (Ca) on the sidelines of his address to a joint session of Congress next week.This is from the first link.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declined on Tuesday an invitation
to meet with U.S. Senate Democrats during his trip to Washington next
week.
"Though I greatly appreciate your kind invitation
to meet with Democratic Senators, I believe that doing so at this time
could compound the misperception of partisanship regarding my upcoming
visit," Netanyahu wrote in a letter to Senators Richard Durbin and
Dianne Feinstein obtained by Reuters.
That actually makes sense if one accepts the premise that an address to a joint session of Congress that includes both Democrats and Republicans is (or ought to be) seen as non-partisan. What Netanyahu is saying is "if I meet separately with you, I will also have to meet separately with a delegation of Republican Senators."
But as you might imagine, this has made the Democrats
go ballistic.
Susan E. Rice, President Obama’s national security adviser, sharply criticized Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel
on Tuesday over his plans to address a joint meeting of Congress next
week, saying his actions had hurt his nation’s relationship with the
United States.
Mr.
Netanyahu’s decision to travel to Washington to deliver the speech two
weeks before the Israeli elections has “injected a degree of
partisanship, which is not only unfortunate, I think it’s destructive of
the fabric of the relationship,” Ms. Rice said in an interview on the
PBS television program “Charlie Rose.”
Come on. Does anyone seriously believe that Netanyahu showing up on March 24 would see the Democrats having no objections? Meanwhile, Durbin said he's 'disappointed.'
“We offered the prime minister an opportunity to balance the politically
divisive invitation from Speaker Boehner with a private meeting with
Democrats who are committed to keeping the bipartisan support of Israel
strong,” Mr. Durbin said in a statement. “His refusal to meet is
disappointing to those of us who have stood by Israel for decades.”
At least Durbin (effectively) admits that the Israeli elections have nothing to do with this. But since when is an invitation to address a joint session of Congress a partisan event? Since when does Congress have to ask the President's permission before inviting a foreign leader to its house? Is it not a co-equal branch of government in the United States?
Well, the answer seems to be that the joint session of Congress is becoming a partisan event since the Democrats insist on making it into one. The number of Democratic Senators and Representatives who plan to boycott Netanyahu's speech (undoubtedly under pressure from the White House) is
growing.
Here is a list of the Democrats who are planning to skip the speech and those who are planning to go.
SKIPPING
House (23)
Rep. Earl Blumenauer (Ore.) — Wrote a Jan. 29 column in The Huffington Post explaining his decision, saying the Constitution “vests the responsibility for foreign affairs in the president.”
Rep. G.K. Butterfield (N.C.) — The head of the
Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) focused on Boehner undermining Obama in
a statement and emphasized he's not urging a boycott.
Rep. Andre Carson (Ind.)
Rep. James Clyburn (S.C.) — Clyburn is the highest-ranking Democratic leader to say he’ll skip the speech.
Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.): “After deliberation, I
have decided I cannot in good conscience attend the Prime Minister’s
speech. My decision not to attend is not a reflection of my support for
Israel and its continued existence as a state and home for the Jewish
people. I have always strongly supported Israel and I always will,”
said Cohen in a statement.
Rep. Diana DeGette (Colo.)
Rep. Donna Edwards (Md.)
Rep. Keith Ellison (Minn.) — He is head of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC), a member of the CBC and the first Muslim in Congress.
Rep. Raúl Grijalva (Ariz.) — Grijalva is a co-chairman of the CPC.
Rep. Luis Gutiérrez (Ill.) — A spokesman told the Chicago Sun-Times that Gutierrez has a "strong" record on Israel but called the speech "a stunt."
Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.)
Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (Texas) — "The Congresswoman has no plans to attend the speech at this time," a spokeswoman said.
Rep. Barbara Lee (Calif.) — A member of the CBC and former head of the CPC.
Rep. John Lewis (Ga.) — His office confirmed he’s not going but emphasized he's not organizing a formal boycott
Rep. Betty McCollum (Minn.): "In my view Mr.
Netanyahu’s speech before Congress is nothing more than a campaign event
hosted by Speaker Boehner and paid for by the American people,"
McCollum said in a statement."
Rep. Jim McDermott (Wash.) — “I do not intend to attend the speech of Bibi,” he said in an email to a Seattle newspaper.
Rep. Gregory Meeks (N.Y.) — A CBC member.
Rep. Beto O'Rourke (Texas)
Rep. Chellie Pingree (Maine)
Rep. Charles Rangel (N.Y.) — "I'm offended as an American," he said on MSNBC.
Rep. Cedric Richmond (La.)
Rep. Bennie Thompson (Miss.)
Rep. John Yarmuth (Ky.) — "We know what he is going to say," the Jewish lawmaker said in a statement.
Senate (3)
Sen. Patrick Leahy (Vt.) — Leahy called it a "tawdry and high-handed stunt," according to a Vermont newspaper.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) — Sanders, who caucuses with Democrats, said it’s “wrong” that Obama wasn’t consulted about the speech.
Sen. Brian Schatz (Hawaii) — “The U.S.-Israel
relationship is too important to be overshadowed by partisan politics,"
said Schatz in a statement. "I am disappointed in the Republican
leadership’s invitation of Prime Minister Netanyahu to address a joint
session of Congress with the apparent purpose of undermining President
Obama’s foreign policy prerogatives.”
Far more Democrats have said they will attend.
Read the whole thing. Most of the Representatives on the list as not attending are Congressional Black Caucus members (who are concerned about Netanyahu's lack of 'respect' for Obama - respect that Obama has done nothing to earn) and known Leftists....
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, Dianne Feinstein, Dick Durbin, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, John Boehner, joint session of Congress
A break in the Democratic boycott of Netanyahu
Two senior Democratic Senators are breaking from the Obama administration's boycott of Prime Minister Netanyahu.
Dianne Feinstein (California) and Richard Durbin (Illinois) have asked to meet with the Prime Minister. But they're still critical of the manner in which Netanyahu was invited.
Senators Richard Durbin and Dianne Feinstein
extended the invitation "to maintain Israel's dialogue with both
political parties in Congress," according to a letter to the Israeli
leader seen by Reuters.
...
"This unprecedented move threatens to
undermine the important bipartisan approach towards Israel - which as
long-standing supporters of Israel troubles us deeply," Durbin and
Feinstein wrote.
"It sacrifices
deep and well-established cooperation on Israel for short-term partisan
points - something that should never be done with Israeli security and
which we fear could have lasting repercussions," they said.
...
The two senators have not indicated publicly whether they planned to be at the Israeli leader's address, their spokesmen said.
...
Durbin is the No. 2 Democrat in the U.S.
Senate. Feinstein, who has been in the Senate since 1992, is the top
Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee and a senior member of the
Appropriations and Judiciary committees.
The letter was sent on Monday evening. The Israeli Embassy did not have an immediate response to the invitation.
Bloomberg adds (Hat Tip: Memeorandum).
“To maintain Israel’s dialogue with both political parties
in Congress, we invite you to a closed-door meeting with
Democratic senators during your upcoming visit to Washington,”
Durbin and Feinstein wrote Monday. “We believe such a venue
would be a wholly appropriate opportunity to discuss the range
of issues that face our two countries.”
Twenty-three House Democrats urged Boehner in a letter last
week to postpone the speech. They said the speaker was “using a
foreign leader as a political tool against” Obama.
The House Democrats’ letter questioned whether Boehner was
using Netanyahu’s appearance to persuade lawmakers to back new
sanctions against Iran despite a veto threat from Obama.
To listen to the House Democrats, they don't believe it would ever be appropriate for Netanyahu to weigh in on Iran. That's just plain wrong. In the overall scheme of things, Israel has much more at stake in Iran (our very existence) than the United States has. Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, Dianne Feinstein, Dick Durbin, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, John Boehner, joint session of Congress
Good grief: Durbin opens hearings on 'Muslim rights'
In response to Representative Peter King's (R-NY) hearings on the radicalization of Muslims in America, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Where else? IL) wants to hold hearings on 'Muslim rights.' Pam Geller is justifiably outraged at this
exercise in moral equivalence.
According to the Washington Times, Durbin claims that “there has been a spike in anti-Muslim bigotry in the last year that demands closer attention.”
The Times also noted that “in 2009, the latest FBI statistics available, anti-Islamic hate crimes accounted for 9.3 percent of the 1,376 religiously motivated hate crimes recorded. That’s far less than the 70.1 percent that were anti-Jewish.”
“Our Constitution protects the free exercise of religion for all Americans,” Durbin said. “During the course of our history, many religions have faced intolerance. It is important for our generation to renew our founding charter’s commitment to religious diversity and to protect the liberties guaranteed by our Bill of Rights.”
But all that is off the real point. Muslims are freer in this country than in any other country in the world, and frankly, no one gives a fig what they worship. The problem arose when thousands were slaughtered in the name of Allah and for the glory of jihad.
We are entitled to our lives, Mr. Durbin. We are entitled to our security, Mr. Durbin. We are entitled to keep our babies safe, Mr. Durbin.
That is all.
Read the whole thing.
Pam is spot-on. What is wrong with these people? Are they being bought? Are they true believers? Are they closet Muslims? I understand this kind of fawning behavior from Muslims, but I don't believe Durbin is a Muslim. By the way, that's not just the US - we have the same problem here.
Labels: Dick Durbin, Islamic terrorism, Muslim rights, Pamela Geller, Peter King, Robert Spencer
