Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • 11
    Posted by JCLanier 9 years, 2 months ago
    johnpe1:
    Yes, a fine speech.
    Where else could Israel go to be heard outside their own country? And what better place than Washington to make your statement to the world (still good for something). If this was an embarrassment to the current administration they had their chance to turn it into a more favorable event but they just damn refused- so they got what they deserved...

    I commend Netanyahu for going forward under such conflict and condescension that he encountered in D.C.
    You have to take your hat off to him- he dominated the American news scene for awhile which also got him world coverage. Smart.

    I hope that we will not see the day that there be a destruction of Israel... it will be a turning point for not only America but for mankind.

    The world still makes it an advantage not to be one- a Jew.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Exitstageright 9 years, 2 months ago
      It was refreshing to see a politician NOT use a tele-
      prompter, and Bibi is a master at the pause moments between pages to make his points. I did not get to see the speech live, but me and my crew did get to review it in a bar in Oslo, Norway. The vast majority of the planet, and I get to see, in my profession, a large part of terra firma, see's the US as divisive and insecure, without viable leadership. What I observed watching Netanyahu's speech was the reactions of the people in the bar looking at US leadership in Congress. I heard a myriad of comments (and admittedly the average age in the establishment of several hundred was under 30) about how old and toothless US leadership was. Now, at almost 60, I am no spring chicken, but looking at these slobbering fools in wheel chairs made me long for a stud like Putin. It was embarrassing for me and my American crew to hear the laughter at how inept, at not only the advanced years, but even the slack jaws and blank stares of the younger members, looked. And without exception, Reid, Pelosi, Boehner, are laughing stocks where ever I go. Who votes for these people? I find it hard to believe that welfare recipients on the take from "the Great Society' votes, so I suspect it is a combination of the uninformed and the unengaged.

      In 2014 I was on every continent on the planet, but I retire May of this year, a tad under my 60th birthday. My greatest fear is that before I can get back home the SHTF and all my work on building my Gulch will be for naught, at least for me, as I will not be able to make it home to Texas (it's a long swim). But at least my bride can enjoy the fruits of my labor. Speaking of, I have a good friend who owns a ranch next to mine. I have a green card Honduran that works the ranch when I'm gone. My friend tells me, "you know, your hand calls your wife Senora Patroness when you are home, but when you are gone, he call's her Babe."

      Which reminds me to put a top knot on my buddies noggin when I get back.

      Stay safe. Stay Sovereign.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by JCLanier 9 years, 2 months ago
        Exitstageright: I really enjoyed reading your narrative. I have lived in Italy for more than 32 years (I now go back and forth). I too have experienced the comments about the US political scene, though I think they are more cynical now than say 15 years ago and rightly deserved.

        Well now, I am curious to know what you do... When you said you might not make it back to finish your Gulch if the SHTF, I thought- military. Did I get it?
        Beware of feisty Hondurans...
        Keep in touch.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Exitstageright 9 years, 2 months ago
          No, JC, not currently military, tho I did spend some time back in 73-75 turning some lights out as an ordnance specialist in places the govt said we were never in. Today I turn lights on.
          I sold my company back in 2009, because I was tired of jumping through govt hoops for the honor of making sure I had 100 + employees working to pay Federal taxes, and getting taxed (to death) myself. Hence my Galt name.
          I spent a year after buying a section of undeveloped land in the Texas Hill country building a Gulch when 5 of my ex employees, 3 EE's, 1 ME, and 1 geologist asked me to consider going into partnerships with them. Which I did. We have a contracting firm that specializes in providing alt e all over the globe. From solar panel arrays in Tel Aviv, to geothermal in South America, to 1.5 MW Vestas V90 wind turbines in North Dakota, we provide energy in places where there is not any. And as an equal partner instead of an employer, I have a lot more freedom to produce than I did as a govt tax collector, aka, administrator of a shackled for profit business responsible for employees, at the point of a gun or prison. Apparently, what I did is growing rapidly, as for the first time in collected US history, there are more business going out of business than there are start ups. When I say business, I'm talking about conventional, brick and mortar and regulated employee firms.
          We have done well and most of my team have achieved our goals, and ready to retire. I have two young firepissers in their 30's however wanting to carry on, one Electrical, one Mechanical, engineer. They signed a multi million watt solar contract near Cape Town, South Africa. Good for them.

          Meanwhile, back at the ranch, I could care less if the grid goes down. I produce more than enough wind, solar, and NG energy than I need. And with 5 solar powered water wells, I don't worry much about going thirsty either.

          And yes, K Halling, I have been to Antartica. Tis a target rich environment for those few souls who want to live there and still have the comforts of home, energy wise ;-))
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by scojohnson 9 years, 2 months ago
      I've always admired Bibi, he's a very capable leader. His only priority is always the safety of Israel.

      It was nice that he acknowledged America's support (Iron Dome is just a Patriot Missile Battery with some source/vector launch point determining software).
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ blarman 9 years, 2 months ago
        Yes, the platform started out as that, but the Israelis re-wrote the software and made a few tweaks of their own. The original Patriots were horribly inaccurate - just look at the first Iraq War: Patriot batteries were horrible at shooting down even the fairly pathetic Scuds.

        Israel - of necessity it may be argued - is a viable weapons manufacturer in its own right. The UZI submachine gun is of Israeli design, as are several other very reliable firearms. Israel also sports its own tank designs that are every bit as good as the German or American ones. The only area they have to rely on the US for really is in aircraft - it's just too big an industry for Israel to economically support. And the Navy for the same reason.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 9 years, 2 months ago
    “My speech is not intended to show any disrespect to President Obama or the esteemed office that he holds,” Mr. Netanyahu said, according to the NY Times. “I have great respect for both.”

    With all due respect, obviously, Netanyahu is also an accomplished liar ;^)

    Israel has every right to defend itself against foreign powers.
    I only wish that there was a leader in the Dark Center who cared as much about American security against real enemies foreign AND domestic.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by khalling 9 years, 2 months ago
      what is a dark center? my frustration comes because people are focused on a sidehow and not on their own soil. IF Netanyahu is a strong leader, he will do what he must when he needs to to. Soverign nations do that. We do not rule over ISrael. and Obama is weak anyway. I predict while everyone is focused on this, you lost several freedoms quietly done by executive order on Friday night. wait for Monday
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Genez 9 years, 2 months ago
        True but seeing Obama's reaction to it all was also telling of where his loyalties lie. He will always side with his Muslim friends and never have any sympathies for Israel. While I question whether we should have anyone over there at all, it is true that Israel has been a long time ally. Meanwhile, our esteemed leader couldn't take the time to meet with Netanyahu or see his speech...
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by freedomforall 9 years, 2 months ago
        D.C. = Dark Center
        I got it from Star Wars lore. There was a planet Byss where "Emperor Palpatine's dark side energies were everywhere, corrupting not only the inhabitants, but the planet itself."
        It was described by Luke Skywalker as "If there is a Dark Center of the Universe, this is it."
        Apparently Luke had not been to Earth's Dark Center (or George Lucas was having a laugh behind the scenes.)
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by scojohnson 9 years, 2 months ago
        He did exactly the thing he needed to do. Obama is rather inept and irrelevant anyway to the security of Israel at this point. As long as Iran remains in check, and the money keeps flowing from Congress to Israeli defense aid, there isn't anything Obama can do. He's not going to challenge the Defense Bill for a couple of billion to Israel out of a $700 billion authorization... either for the waste of time it is, or the fact that it would be a very public and very bloody fight for him in the news media.

        I agree with Bibi's appraisal of Iran more than Obama's, we have no reason to trust the Persians, they have never given us an adequate cause to do so (trust them).

        I guess I'm basically fine with 'talking' to the Iranians, I don't think that the current state can go on indefinitely, but warming relations with them is ignorant to do. The people that overran our embassy and took its occupants hostage are the leaders in their government right now. We really need to wait another generation... kind of what we did in Cuba, wait them out, they die off soon enough.

        Any threat to Israel would be answered, regardless of who is in the Oval Office at the time. That is a certainty of our unique relationship, as it is with Britain and NATO.

        The only thing the Israelis really need from us is for us to just look the other way while they mop the floor with the Gaza Strip and occupied territories. Admit that there is going to be some political damage, but let them solve the problem rather than continuously playing Tiddly Winks with it. Much like they did last year, but 'finish the job'.

        I do disagree with Bibi on one point - there really isn't anyone in the Middle East that is an existential threat to Israel. Even if Iran was armed, so are the Israelis. Iran will never seriously try anything directly, as they would be flattened by the US. They know that. Their Ayatollah spits off his mouth all the time in an attempt to remain relevant in their political structure, convincing the army that the prophet commanded them to start Armageddon is very different... We're talking about the most inefficient and under-equipped army on the planet. Israel would do better to openly have a dialogue with its less-than-hostile neighbors - Jordan, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Egypt, etc. They don't "like" Israel, but offering to share intelligence on terrorism, offering trade of Israeli manufactured products, firearms, etc., in exchange for goods from those countries might help to improve their place in the middle east. Even it is regularly "no", making the offer every few months shows an interest in being a good neighbor and you can not like your neighbor, but show respect for them. In the last conflict, we actually saw a lot of Arab countries supporting Israel as it was obvious they were defending themselves and they showed reasonable restraint.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by JCLanier 9 years, 2 months ago
          Scojohnson: "..,flattened by the US". Are you sure? I am not. I do not think that the current administration would move to attack Iran on the behalf of Israel.
          They would "act out" and show their disbelief but "flatten" Iran.... not do sure.
          Maybe this would be an American wake up call!
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ Radio_Randy 9 years, 2 months ago
            I have to agree with this sentiment...the U.S. assisted, but did not stop, SCUD missile attacks on Israel. We even went out of our way to convince Israel not to counterattack.

            Imagine an nuclear warhead in one of these...I'm afraid even our Patriot system would be useless. The ONLY way to stop Iran is to stop their weapons program.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by scojohnson 9 years, 2 months ago
              The scuds were a terror weapon, not a legitimate threat. Their accuracy is like Hitler throwing this V2's across the English Channel... couldn't hit the broad side of a barn from inside the thing.

              We did start taking out mobile scud launchers after it started, I was there, we devoted a pretty significant percentage (about 40%) of sorties to mobile scud search & destroy. The attempt by Iraq was never to start a war with Israel, they were hoping to widen the war and provoke the Palestinians and Lebanese into the fight against Israel. When that didn't happen, it really only reaffirmed what I've always believed.. the Palestinians and the Persians are really the dogs of the Arab World. When it comes down to it, none of the other Arab countries care much for them, they like to take up the Islamic torch and rhetoric as a public relations piece, but they don't want Palestinian refugees in their own countries either... they are pretty happy to let Israel deal with it and just keep their mouths shut.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ Radio_Randy 9 years, 2 months ago
                If I recall, those V2 rockets did a significant amount of damage. Also, I understand that a SCUD missile could hit within 5 miles of a target, 300 miles away. In other words, a nuclear SCUD (with NO internal guidance system), launched from Seattle, could feasibly take Spokane out in a single attack.

                I would consider that a legitimate threat.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by scojohnson 9 years, 2 months ago
                  It's not a military threat, and a scud can't lift the weight of a non-miniaturized warhead. Crude early generation atomic bombs weigh around 7,000+ lbs. Iran is struggling for the Manhattan Project, we're not talking fusion era... They are a century or more from that.
                  The blast radius on something like that is about a mile, it would probably kill someone, but it would take a lot of luck to hit anything in Israel without wiping out their buddies in Hamas...

                  I think Obama is under reacting, and Bibi is 2 weeks from elections and is a wartime prime minister.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by scojohnson 9 years, 2 months ago
            Over a billion Catholics. That's all we need to say.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ Susanne 9 years, 2 months ago
              Yeah, but I don't think that there are many Torquemadas out there to get a band of fanatical mass murdering psychopaths to replay the inquisition, or instigate such things as witch burnings and confessions/conversions on pain of death. The Catholics have, at least, changed with both the times and with societal norms - I have serious misgivings that certain followers of Islam have, shall we say, not...
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by scojohnson 9 years, 2 months ago
                Point taken, but the issue is whether Iran would seriously take a crack at destroying Israel. As hostilities increased, the Pope would be involved (as he always is), and the Iranians would have to make a decision if they really want to pick a fight with a population and superpower vastly superior to anything they can dream of economically and militarily. Couple with that, the fact that the Iranian populace for the most part is very willing to embrace the west, their regime is the problem. Toppling the regime would at best result in something like Cuba is now, at worst, another Iraq, but a disorganized failed state is much less threatening than a bunch of fanatics with governmental support.

                70% of the Vaticans budget comes from donations from US parishes, and there isn't a Sunday I'm in church that they are not pushing political agenda. on core issues of faith and holy sites, it would happen. So much so that between the Catholic, Mormon, and Evangelical churches, the Dems would have no choice but to comply with the call to arms. As I said, all politicians check their philosophy at the door when it comes to votes. I even question whether many Dems believe that crap themselves or if they are towing the line to keep the gays / atheists / etc.

                If I ask myself, if the Vatican asked me to support a new holy army (basically expanding the Swiss Guard), I and everyone I know would aid the cause. Realize, there is historical precedent for that, be it the Vatican providing intelligence from behind the Iron Curtain after Ronald Reagan requested it from John Paul II, or the armies of the Pope during the Middle Ages and Renaissance, or the fact that the Swiss Guard has a rather substantial armory at the Vatican and its own secret service and intelligence apparatus, its not like the ragtag Lutheran stuff... its a sovereign nation with its own embassies and its own treaties and the financial support of a billion followers and a heck of a lot of industry (ever heard of Mercy Healthcare?). I don't see the Vatican standing by silently after the destruction of Israel. I think religious leaders would interpret it as the beginning of Revelation and would mass armies if the west did not.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by $ blarman 9 years, 2 months ago
                  Under previous Popes, maybe. Under the current one? I'm not so sure. He's pretty brazenly socialist in several aspects...
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by $ jlc 9 years, 2 months ago
                    Anti-capitalist in many respects, but he has already said that it is OK to take arms against people who are killing Christians (ISIS). Francis is the most genuine pope we have had in a while, and probably ditto for world leader. I do not agree with his religion and philosophy, but he is pretty forthright. I think he has integrity.

                    It is my opinion that he would tell Catholics to take up the sword were Israel attacked with nuclear weapons.

                    Jan
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by scojohnson 9 years, 2 months ago
                    No, would never happen under the current one, I would agree.

                    Under John Paul II, the equation obviously changes a little.

                    We're also not talking about something that happens tomorrow. I'm saying that over time, if the West doesn't act, I don't think its out of the question for the Vatican to consider it.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Technocracy 9 years, 2 months ago
          You are effectively positing a smaller MAD doctrine as being the shield keeping Israel safe. But there are two big problems with that. In order for MAD to work both sides have to believe the other one can or will destroy them. I seriously doubt that Iran seriously believes the US has Israel's back in that manner, especially given the current administration. That is problem one.

          Problem two is, that if Iran gets nuclear weapons and strikes first, Israel is a small enough target that a double handful of weapons will effectively destroy them. They might not kill everyone, but will make the place uninhabitable for those remaining. In that circumstance they will have achieved their stated goal of "destroying Israel'.

          Yes the fallout would go east from Israel, but I don't see Iran caring about that either. After all they are not adjacent. Before Iran gets any fallout, it hits Syria, Jordan, Iraq, & Saudi Arabia, depending on wind direction.

          I don't believe the US would destroy Iran in retaliation after something like that either. Not given current Washington sentiment, especially the White House.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by scojohnson 9 years, 2 months ago
            I think that's the only avenue Israel has. Although they have also proven in the past that they won't allow Iran to actually get that far, if they are not signatories to the treaty, they have every right to take out Iranian infrastructure if it gets too close.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ Mimi 9 years, 2 months ago
              Supposedly they were going to take out a reactor last year and we told them we would shoot down their planes. Mind you, I did read this story quickly a couple days ago online and didn’t have time to vett the story.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by scojohnson 9 years, 2 months ago
                I recall that we denied them fly-over for Iraq.

                We have generally better intelligence than they do, we don't give them everything. We have been watching - definitely, Iran recovered that MQ Reaper spy drone in their desert a couple of years ago. We can tell how well they are doing on nuclear refinement by testing air & soil samples.

                I'm sure we have fully infiltrated their government computer systems as well, we probably see their own testing results to know exactly where they are.

                If the Islamic world really wanted Iran to have a bomb, Pakistan would have given it to them.

                I really think Iran is all bluster and not a lot of substance, we are probably getting assurances as well that the Ayatollah is old and when he passes things will change in the regime. They have been under heavy sanction for decades, like Cuba, they are pretty much still stuck in the 80's technologically. You don't see a lot of innovation or scientific advancement coming out of the Islamic world.. the madrassas are not known for creating independent thinkers or inventors.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by scojohnson 9 years, 2 months ago
            I think you underestimate the stress the DNC would put on the administration- they would lose every election nationally for generations.

            Our support of Israel isn't only Jewish support, it's Christian / Catholic as well.

            Imagine watching someone like ISIS desecrating the holy lands like they are in ancient Assyria.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ jlc 9 years, 2 months ago
            Technocracy - Stockholm thinks that Israel has about 80 nuclear warheads; other folks think more than that. Israel doesn't admit to having any and will not sign the nuclear NPT. If warheads were launched at Israel, the Iron Dome would respond and take out as many incoming as they could, and menawhile, Israeli nuclear warheads would respond (while Iranian missiles were still en route).

            It might end up with a hang-grenades in a closet scenario, but my bet would be on Israel. Between the Iron Dome, better targeting, better defense and better infrastructure (with a war-knowledgeable population) I think that they would come through in shape that would allow them to continue to fight.

            And, whatever the politicians in the US said, a lot of the people in the US would be p!ssed.

            Jan
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by Technocracy 9 years, 2 months ago
              Yes Jan, they will fight in any way they are able. Iron Dome will protect against missiles, and if they get close enough, aircraft. Those are not the only two ways to deliver a warhead though.

              You are right, a whole lot of us in the US would be pissed if Israel is attacked.

              The big question is who strikes first, Israel or someone else. WMDs getting through to locations in Israel would set off a major conflict in the region assuming Israel is able to retaliate afterward.

              WMDs would be required by the other players in the region, Israel can hold their own in a conventional conflict. As they have demonstrated more than once already.

              Another thing to keep in mind, WMDs come in a variety of forms. Nuclear weapons are only one category, Biologicals and Chemicals could also be used. Tougher to deploy effectively of course, but still something to consider.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ jlc 9 years, 2 months ago
                What is frightening to me is that all that you indicate is possible...we may see it happen in the not distant future. America is potentially a great force for stability in the world and we might be able to keep the lid on WWIII, but the people in charge are petty, interested in self aggrandizement, and not to be trusted. The inmates are running the asylum.

                Jan

                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by freedomforall 9 years, 2 months ago
          Air superiority (including defense against cruise missles) is essential for the naval force to continue to exist. However, if Iran didn't learn from Japan's experience with Pearl Harbor and the eventual response, they will suffer for that oversight. I am certain that the US navy remembers.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by scojohnson 9 years, 2 months ago
            They (Iran) always do their drills against "1" US carrier... I don't think they realize that we have a dozen of them, plus their support groups, and fleets of destroyers, cruisers, subs, etc. They would really be facing a force at least triple in the Gulf that they do mock drills against.

            The Iranians have an ancient Air Force... air superiority would not be an issue. As a former Air Force troop, I'd also add that "having" an Air Force, and having sufficient spare parts, maintenance crews, and pilots to keep it in the air is a very different challenge.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Temlakos 9 years, 2 months ago
    Those Democrats made fools of themselves, in a way I never would have predicted.

    I would have expected some kind of wishy-washy, mealy-mouthed reply, calculated to give no offense I could put my finger on. What I got was a brazen slap in the face.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by JCLanier 9 years, 2 months ago
      Temlakos: I agree. Maybe this administration is losing its usual attempt at concealing or shadowing their objectives. They have passed to open anger and denouncement...
      Well that I would consider progress down that road of disintegration- just like in AS, when you lose control it is difficult to fake it!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ allosaur 9 years, 2 months ago
        I noticed how Obooboo wore the expression of an angry child while issuing a statement after the speech.
        I did not hear much of what he said.
        Once again, I changed the channel because I saw his lips were moving.
        I did laugh at his face, though.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ Susanne 9 years, 2 months ago
          That's kind of easy to do.

          I Don't know which made him more angry:
          (1) that he would disapprove of inviting a world leader to speak, and congress went ahead and did it anyway...
          (2) that it was the group best known as opposing the socialist designs that were there,
          (3) that he was so well received by not only those present, but by the public at large, or
          (4) that his alleged reason for not being present not only fell flat, but was pretty much proven to be a piss-poor excuse rather than a legitimate reason for snubbing a world leader.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Lucky 9 years, 2 months ago
    Well johnpe1 reads WND and IJReview.
    I, sometimes, read alArabia and Al-Jazirah

    http://english.alarabiya.net/en/views/ne...
    http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0...
    who both think that Netanyahu makes more sense than OB.

    Quotes-
    Middle Eastern countries are collapsing and that “terror organizations, mostly backed by Iran, are filling in the vacuum”

    Netanyahu managed to accurately summarize a clear and present danger, not just to Israel (which obviously is his concern), but to other U.S. allies in the region.

    Since Obama is the godfather of the prefabricated revolutions in the Arab world, and since he is the ally of political Islam, [which is] the caring mother of [all] the terrorist organizations, and since he is working to sign an agreement with Iran that will come at the expense of the U.S.'s longtime allies in the Gulf, I am very glad of Netanyahu's firm stance and [his decision] to speak against the nuclear agreement at the American Congress despite the Obama administration's anger and fury. I believe that Netanyahu's conduct will serve our interests, the people of the Gulf, much more than the foolish behavior of one of the worst American presidents.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Flootus5 9 years, 2 months ago
    Great comments. I will add that I find it absolutely chicken shit, disrespectful, and completely unprofessional for the 50 some odd House democrats to not attend the speech. This is history unfolding and to shirk ones responsibility as an elected official by petulantly refusing to be part of it all? Unbelievable. Whether one agrees with Netanyahu or not, there is diplomatic stature regardless.

    And Obama's reply? I just have no words for the disgraceful amateur.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 9 years, 2 months ago
    Obama and his acolytes give the impression that they are living in a fantasy world, where saying so will make it so. Whether they actually believe what they are saying is another issue. If they have any intelligence at all, they cannot believe their own propaganda. Why Netanyahu's statements seem so powerful is that when they are contrasted with the words of the Obama regime, they are clearly pure truth. The contrast between Bibi and Barack illustrates the disdain BHO and his people have for Americans. He is sure that they are too stupid to see the lies, so long as they are put in a storied context. Maybe we are, after all, he's still the president.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by JCLanier 9 years, 2 months ago
      Herb7734: you got that right... it's the contrast that shows just how deep a hole this administration had dug themselves into. Until you have a side-by-side comparison you forget what the truth looks like.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Bob44_ 9 years, 2 months ago
    Democrats are understandably angry at Netanyahu for telling the truth, but most of all for accepting the invitation to address the congress without first asking Obama's permission. Obama has gone out of his way to humiliate Netanyahu and offend the Jewish state so why would Netanyahu cow tow to someone who has shown such disdain for the Jewish state. I remember seeing a tape of Obama talking about his Islamic faith, but no one wants to think that bears any importance. Obama is a fraud and I wish Netanyahu was my president. At least I could be proud of him.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Stormi 9 years, 2 months ago
    I have long admired Netanyahu. But that we had such a leader. The dignity and intelligence, with a true love of his country. How sad he had to say he had respect for our leader, whom most of us cannot even respect, much less trust.
    I doubt Obama would attack Iran if they attacked our own mainland, might upset some Muslims somewhere. Valerie Jarret would not stand for that.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 9 years, 2 months ago
    Who cares about disrespecting Obama really. There are real issues that are more important than not allowing the likes of an Obama to display his arrogance. Who the hell IS he anyway?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Technocracy 9 years, 2 months ago
    This administration has been at best feckless and at worst actively hostile to all of our existing allies.

    Israel has been in a category of its own as far as being despised by this White House.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo