Boehner: 'We have a right' to invite Netanyahu to address House

[Panich52]

The Republican House seems to frequently defend doing stupid or insulting things under the banner of their right to do stupid or insulting things if they feel like it. (Cough, government shutdown, cough.) Deciding not to do the stupid or insulting thing because the rest of the nation considers it stupid or insulting doesn't seem to come up as often.

More from DailyKos:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/01/27/1360511/-Boehner-We-have-a-right-to-invite-Netanyahu-to-address-House?detail=email

[DUgosh]

1. Treason

.

[Scootaloo]

2. No, it's not.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

By this term is understood the whole body of a nation at war with another. It also signifies a citizen or subject of such a nation, as when we say an alien enemy. In a still more extended sense, the word includes any of the subjects or citizens of a state in amity with the United States, who, have commenced, or have made preparations for commencing hostilities against the United States; and also the citizens or subjects of a state in amity with the United States, who are in the service of a state at war with them.

[markpkessinger]

10. Thank you

I have often reminded those who accuse Snowdon of treason of this definition as well. Despicable though Boehner's actions certainly are, they are not treasonous under U.S. law.

[Fred Sanders]

27. Agreed. It was just a massive breach of protocol and a slap in the face to Obama and long

established separation of powers, all secretly negotiated with intent to boost the election fortunes of a foreign leader at the expense of their own President and Commander in Chief.

Agree. Totally with you.

Must not let Logan Act armchair international lawyer debates deflect from the starkly simple and starkly apparent reality.

[sabrina 1]

51. True, Bibi was hoping to boost his support in Israel's election, which btw, is AGAINST Israel's

election laws, his co-conspirator, the Israeli Ambassador to the US, Dermer, has already been investigated in Israel under that law, for using his position before, to try to help Bibi win an election. He could have received Jail time, but got off with a warning. Now they are doing it again. Hopefully Israel will take a look at both of them this time and apply the law more strongly.

But what they tried to do this time was worse, from the POV of this country.

They tried to undermine the policies of this President who is currently in negotiations for the benefit of OUR National Security, with Iran to avoid a war. The neocons DREAM of a war with Iran but have been foiled by President Obama.

So the plotters, Bibi and his buddy, Dermer, hatched a plot to get Boehner to invite him to speak to Congress to encourage them to vote AGAINST the President.

Boehner, the moron, allowed himself to be used. There were Dems on board also, Menendez eg. They claimed that this was a 'joint' invitation. However Dems have stated they knew nothing about it.

Because of the stupidity of the plotters, this time (how often has this happened before that we don't know about?) even Menendez and some Republicans, have announced they will not vote for the bill that would gone against the President's wishes, to impose more sanctions on Iran, something the WH does not want to do right now.

What they did was two fold, use their positions, against Israel's laws, to help Bibi in Israel, THAT has certaiinly backfired.

But it is what they tried to do here that should anger every American, attempt to under the policies of the US, using OUR Congress to do so.

It was an effort to start a MUTINY against this president.

It may not be against the existing laws, but when a US Congressman participates in the hatching of a plot against the POTUS with a foreign agent, maybe it should be.

[Fred Sanders]

54. That, apparently, is not the way the Village Beltway mass media sees it, all that matters, isn't it?

[sabrina 1]

57. But it is how the WH and the five nations involved in helping the President avoid a confrontation

with Iran, see it. And it shows who is controlling the Corporate media. There is a shift in the power Bibi thought he had over the American Government.

First time he has been rebuffed to my knowledge, by so many organizations, the WH, and many members of Congress who seem to have found their voices when it comes to Bibi.

Enough of a shift that back in Israel they are extremely concerned about the 'damage he has done to US/Israeli relations.

And here, many Jewish groups have slammed him, realizing themselves that he is not helping HIS country with his bullying and arrogance against a Super Power, Israel's most important ally five of the world's most powerful nations.

As one commenter said 'how many times can America ignore his brazen assaults on the POTUS and his administration?' Not any longer it appears.

He has already cancelled his date to deliver the speech to Congress putting it forward to March. The POTUS and Kerry have stated they will not meet with him.

We don't need the Corporate Media anymore. Most people, especially young people, get their news from other sources, mostly the Internet.

So they can remain silent if they wish, but that isn't going to keep this story from spreading like wildfire, especially in other countries where it is being reported, including in Israel itself.

[Iggo]

4. Much as I can't stand those fuckers, they ain't enemies of the United States.

We're like besties and shit.

[ladjf]

31. I disagree. They, the Republicans. ARE enemies of the United States. IMO

They have done everything possible to harm the American People.

[Iggo]

32. Yeah, but your opinion doesn't change the definition of treason.

[ladjf]

33. My post didn't pertain to the treason charges. I was countering the

remark that said "they aren't enemies to the U.S.".

[Iggo]

35. aH!

[GGJohn]

23. No, it's not.

Learn what constitutes treason before post such nonsense.

[yeoman6987]

29. It's certain not treason but disrespect

They never pay for their follies though. Never!

[TreasonousBastard]

3. Actually, he doesn't...

aside from treaty ratification (but NOT negotiation) and the House doesn't even do that, foreign affairs are pretty much left to the President.

http://constitution.findlaw.com/article2/annotation15.html#3http://constitution.findlaw.com/article2/annotation15.html#3

[onenote]

17. actually he does

Unless of course you think that the Congressional oversight committees on foreign relations are unconstitutional and that any action by Congress relating to foreign policy is unconstitutional. But you can't possibly believe that, because if you did, then it would have been unconstitutional for Congress, to give but one of countless possible examples, to enact sanctions on South Africa during the apartheid era.

[TreasonousBastard]

18. Not quite the same thing...

passing legislation is not the same as receiving foreign leaders.

[onenote]

30. if the foreign relations committees hold hearings on foreign policy matters

and the Congress as a whole votes sanctions whether or not the President asks for them, how exactly is it that "aside from treaty ratification (but NOT negotiation) and the House doesn't even do that, foreign affairs are pretty much left to the President"?

There are limits of course. As you correctly point out, members of Congress (or private citizens) cannot go over and negotiate a treaty and then have the Senate ratify it. And Congress couldn't pass a law barring the executive branch from communicating with particular foreign leaders or officials.

But can members of Congress communicate with foreign officials? Of course they can. They do it all the time. As candidate for President (and a member of the Senate), Barack Obama met with a number of foreign officials, including Merkel in Germany. Happens all the time and the State Department has no problem with it.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

36. Foreign leaders have always been invited to speak to Congress

Congress doesn't need permission. Of course it was a breach of protocol and meant as a slap in the face. But, assholish as it is, it's their right. They can invite (or not invite) anyone they want to.

Fact is, they don't even have to invite the President to give the SOTU address.

[BlueCaliDem]

5. Not according to the Logan Act, he doesn't. In fact, he should be prosecuted for violating it.

Fron PoliticusUSA:

The Logan Act prohibits any “Private correspondence with foreign governments” and reads; “Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.” The Supreme Court ruled that Congress cannot and should not conduct foreign affairs; that power rests in the Executive Branch exclusively.

In the 1936 Supreme Court case, United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp, the Court held that “all ability to conduct foreign policy is vested in the President. It is given implicitly and by the fact that the executive, by its very nature, is empowered to conduct foreign affairs in a way that Congress cannot and should not.” Boehner just does not, and Republicans cannot, accept that yes, “all ability to conduct foreign policy is vested in the President;” regardless of the fact he is an African American man or that Republicans’ allegiance is to a foreign power; in this case Israel.

Boehner violated the Logan Act just by “directly commencing or carrying on any correspondence with a foreign government, or agent thereof” with his admitted and explicit intent of influencing measures of the United States.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

11. What about Sen. Sanders making demands on Obama's TPP negotiations?

[BlueCaliDem]

13. I don't understand your question. Has Senator Sanders negotiated with foreign heads of State or

their agents regarding the TPP negotiations while circumventing the president's authority? I don't believe he has.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

14. If foreign policy is the strict purview of the executive then why does Sen. Sanders get a pass?

He may not be inviting foreign leaders but he's still interfering with foreign policy.

And inviting a foreign leader to speak is not the same as negotiating. The President has ZERO authority over who speaks before Congress. Congress is a co-equal branch of government. Likewise, Sen. Sanders has ZERO authority to demand Obama open up TPP negotiations. The latter issue was decided back during Washington's administration.

If Congress doesn't like the TPP the Senate can decline to ratify.

If the President doesn't want sanctions on Iran he can veto.

Each party gets on TV and barks at the other while calculating the political costs of their respective positions. That's the way it works.

I know people would rather make a criminal out of Boehner because it's easier to just shoot the opposition than run a nation where opposition is allowed but Boehner and the GOP will probably be Obama's saving grace on the President's TPP foreign policy. Yeah, sure, we may not like that but then the President's own base finds itself being the opposition we once demanded be shot. Ironic, huh?

[Rex]

19. So when was there never opposition? You are trying hard to make Sanders look bad and

failing miserably. Not even a nice try, a sad attempt that failed but did prove one thing for sure.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

25. I have no intention of making Sen. Sanders look bad. On the contrary

I think he has every right to pursue his lines of inquiry. The President has no constitutional obligation to heed the senator's demands but, again, each is free to stake their respective political claims.

Personally, I wish the President would be more open about TPP negotiations and if even half of what I hear is true I hope the TPP goes down in flames though I believe the GOP-controlled Senate will ratify it gladly.

[BlueCaliDem]

39. NO ONE's giving Senator Sanders a pass - but he's done NOTHING wrong. You're comparing apples and

oranges here. Had you followed the link I've provided, your questions would've been answered.

Here...I'll help you. From the link:

Boehner violated the Logan Act just by “directly commencing or carrying on any correspondence with a foreign government, or agent thereof” with his admitted and explicit intent of influencing measures of the United States. Boehner did say publicly that his reason for illegally corresponding with Netanyahu was to “specifically ask him (Netanyahu) to address Congress and send a clear message to the White House about our commitment to Israel.”

Senator Sanders, nor any other, has ever done this. In your zeal to defend Boehner's actions, you must've overlooked my links, but hopefully you'll see them now.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

40. "directly commencing or carrying on any correspondence with a foreign government, or agent thereof"

Then Nancy Pelosi violated the Logan Act when she visited Assad?

[BlueCaliDem]

44. Republicans *wanted* to charge her with violation of the Logan Act, but they knew it was political

suicide and outright hypocrisy since, well, Republican House Representatives had visited Assad before and after her visit, and they'd have to indict themselves as well.

Bush administration criticism of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's trip to Syria this week is "hypocritical beyond belief," San Mateo Rep. Tom Lantos said Friday as he and the speaker prepared to return home from their nine-day trip with a congressional delegation to the Mideast.

Lantos, who chairs the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said the criticism from President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and other administration officials and allies is particularly out of line because Republican House members also met Syrian President Bashar Assad in Damascus just before and after the delegation led by the Democratic speaker.

"The notion that members visiting Syria and having discussions (is) a unique Democratic strategy to undermine the Republican administration is absurd on it face," Lantos said in a telephone interview with The Chronicle from Lisbon, Portugal.

Lantos said the Middle East tour was "thoughtful, productive and intensely patriotic" in promoting American interests at every stop.
http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Lantos-lashes-out-at-critics-of-Pelosi-trip-2604546.php

So your defense of Boehner is a comparison of apples and oranges. Congress has a history and track record of visiting foreign countries in order to promote diplomacy and peace talks. Not once, ever, has the Speaker invited a head of a foreign country to speak to the entire Congress in order to influence WAR without the president knowing. You're grasping for straws here, NU.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

63. "Not once...has the Speaker invited a head of a foreign country to speak to the entire Congress"

What does that matter? The manner of meeting is immaterial; it's the intent. Obviously Boehner wants to use this as PR to gain support for a sanction regime against Iran that can overcome a presidential veto.

But Congress has the right to propose sanctions and Congress has the right to attempt to override a presidential veto. The mania to criticize Boehner relies on subverting congressional authorities to engage in those activities that are within its purview.

Worse, it relies on the idea that the Speaker of the House should be arrested. What you're demanding is that federal agents be dispatched by the President to take Boehner into custody and that he be put on trial. Well, Hell's bells, just declare the republic dissolved and get ready for civil war -- because that's what you're advocating whether you admit it or not. For one branch to impose itself on another branch ends the system of co-equal branches of government.

The presidency has ZERO say over who does or does not address Congress. Period. End of story. Similarly, Congress has ZERO say over the nature and course of foreign negotiations. The Senate can ratify treaties (or not) but that is it.

The State Department (an executive department, no less) previously concluded --

The clear intent of this provision is to prohibit unauthorized persons from intervening in disputes between the United States and foreign governments. Nothing in section 953, however, would appear to restrict members of the Congress from engaging in discussions with foreign officials in pursuance of their legislative duties under the Constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act

Even more oddly, you used the "they did it too!" defense of Pelosi. Well DUH! If THEY did it too then WE did it too! Yet, you want to selectively enforce the law which reveals YOUR motive: Criminalizing politics. If you want one-party rule by decree maybe DEMOCRATIC underground is not the proper fit for you.

[onenote]

16. Wrong.

The Logan Act has been on the books for 216 years and there has been exactly one indictment under it. One. Many scholars believe that its unconsitutional.

Beyond that, the idea of a progressive citing the Logan Act is bizarre. Yes, the right has threatened from time to time to bring Logan Act charges against, among others, George McGovern, Jesse Jackson, Nancy Pelosi, Stokely Carmichal, Jim Wright, and Jane Fonda. But they never did. Do you really think its a good idea for Democrats to be the ones that resurrect this dead letter of a law?

Finally, and most importantly, what Boehner did was obnoxious, rude, a breach of protocol. But it wasn't remotely a violation of law. Here's what the Department of State has said about the Logan Act, in connection with a visit by George McGovern and others to meet with Cuban officials in Havana in 1975:

"The clear intent of this provision is to prohibit unauthorized persons from intervening in disputes between the United States and foreign governments. Nothing in section 953, however, would appear to restrict members of the Congress from engaging in discussions with foreign officials in pursuance of their legislative duties under the Constitution."

Inviting a foreign official to give a speech is even less of an intervention in anything than going over to a foreign country and having two-sided discussions with that country's officials. While seeking the Democratic nomination, Barack Obama toured a number of foreign nations and met with foreign officials, including, for example, Merkel of Germany. They reportedly discussed US policy in Afghanistan and Iraq. Given that Obama was on record as disagreeing with US policy at that time, your overly-expansive reading of the Logan Act would have rendered Obama's meetings criminal acts, which they most decidedly were not. And if what Jackson, McGovern, Obama and numerous others have done isn't a violation of the Logan Act, what Boehner isn't either. Not even close.

Trying to out stupid the right wing isn't something we should be aspiring to do.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

26. Hear! Hear!

Do you really think its a good idea for Democrats to be the ones that resurrect this dead letter of a law?

And worse, doing it in the name of criminalizing opposition. If they succeed they will be the first ones looking-up with bewildered eyes saying, "What? You mean we can be prosecuted too?"

[Nye Bevan]

42. Should Nancy Pelosi have been prosecuted for her 2007 trip to Syria?

In a “Dear Colleague” letter released earlier today, King said Pelosi had overstepped her constitutional role as Speaker when she traveled to Syria in April.

“Taking her cue from the Iraq Study Group’s recommendation that the U.S. enter into talks with Syria to forge a new way forward in Iraq, Speaker Pelosi decided to ignore the requests of the President that she refrain from traveling to the terrorist state,” the letter said.

King told The Hill that he believed Pelosi was in violation of the Logan Act, a 1799 law signed by President John Adams that prohibits unauthorized U.S. citizens from interfering with relations between the United States and foreign governments.

“I was one of the members of Congress that was incensed the Speaker had taken it upon herself to conduct foreign policy,” he said. “It was a blatant violation of the Logan Act.”

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/12355-house-republican-wants-to-restrict-pelosis-travel

[BlueCaliDem]

46. You had to post this TWICE?? That reeks of desperation.

See my response below.

[C_U_L8R]

6. Please proceed Mr Speaker

You may (or may not) have the right but it's still a dumb self-serving move.

Go ahead, make a jackass of yourself.

[msongs]

7. so where's the outrage for the pope speaking before congress? nt

[Panich52]

9. His invite followed protocol

While, as an atheist, I oppose the pope addressing Congress, his invitation was made thru proper channels

[SickOfTheOnePct]

37. Proper channels?

He was invited to speak by Boehner, not by President Obama. President Obama can't invite anyone to speak before Congress, just like Congress can't invite anyone to speak from the White House.

[geek tragedy]

62. Heads of state visiting another country are supposed to advise the host country

of their plans, not consciously hide them from that host country. And, in the US, that means advising our department of state, which resides in the Executive branch, as well as our head of state, the President. Sandbagging the host government's diplomats and head of state is a blatant slap in the face.

Moreover, Boehner did not consult any Democrats within Congress but dishonestly extended the invitation on behalf of the "bipartisan" congressional leadership.

Article II commits diplomatic relations to the Executive Branch. To the extent the constitution contemplates any role for Congress, it is reserved to the Senate, not the House.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

67. So I guess

the House Foreign Affairs Committee is unconstitutional? Ridiculous.

Netanyahu didn't hide his plans...I think publicly accepting an invitation is pretty much the opposite of hiding his plans.

[geek tragedy]

68. It can consider legislation and spending, but it has no consular or diplomatic authority.

Netanyahu most certainly did hide his plans--he did not inform the President at all. He kept it a secret until Boehner issued a press release--which is when every Democrat in Congress as well as the administration found out about this little plot. Not once did he consult either our diplomatic offices or our head of state. It was a secret scheme between two vile, rightwing political hacks. Well, make that three when you include their despicable middleman, Ron Dermer.

Just recognize how far out on a rightwing limb you've gone by trying to justify the actions of Boehner and Bibi here. As in more of an apologist for toxic rightwing nonsense than Fox News and Peggy Noonan.

Again, yes Boehner was within his legal authority, just as Bibi was within his legal authority. Doesn't make the behavior defensible.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

69. Make all of the

"you're a rightwinger!!!" accusations you want. I support the Constitutional separation of powers, which means that the Speaker of the House can invite (or not invite) whomever he chooses to speak before Congress.

Even when I don't like the speaker and disagree with what he's saying.

To equate giving a speech with consular or diplomatic authority is laughable.

[geek tragedy]

70. Sure, he has the legal right to do that, but it's also partisan and crass

and a blatant attempt to sabotage our diplomatic efforts.

The talk of putting him in prison is silly talk, but the intent and behavior was loathsome and disloyal in intent.

[SidDithers]

34. Yeah. 'Cause that's the same thing. lol...nt

Sid

[benld74]

8. Oh yeah, shift the blame Orange man

PROTOCOL is standard in something like this.

[Cha]

12. Boner LIES for a living so.. you take anything he says as a fact.

[benz380]

15. Could be song by the 'Boner Boys'

You wake up late for voting and you don't wanna go
You ask the President, "Please?" but he still says, "No!"
You missed two filibusters and your paperwork
And the President knows the Speaker is just some kind of jerk!

We have a right!
To invite!
Netanyaaaaaaahuuuu!

[Rex]

20. How pathetic, the GOP has defenders on DU. However it is not surprising in the least bit.

PA-THETIC.

[GGJohn]

24. Ummm, no.

The Constitution has defenders on DU, which isn't surprising at all.
The only thing PA-THETIC here is your accusation.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

38. Nope, not at all

I'm not defending the GOP, I'm defending the Constitutional separation of powers. And, unlike many here, my statements would be the same if it were Nancy Pelosi inviting someone that a Republican President didn't want to be invited.

Like it or not, the legislative and executive branches are co-equals.

[BlueCaliDem]

48. Yep. At least we know who they are.

I've had the pleasure of responding to no less than two of them myself, and had to defuse their attempts to blame Democrats for dissimilar acts in the past, in their defense of Boehner's illegal act that's a clear violation of the 1799 Logan Act, 18 U.S. Code, subsection 953.

[Nye Bevan]

21. Of course he does. It may be crass, disrespectful, and a breach of protocol,

but it is not "treason", "sedition", or a violation of any law. Like it or not, Congress is one of the branches of government and it does have the ability to invite someone to speak regardless of what the president thinks.

I have a feeling that if the Democratic congress had invited someone like Nelson Mandela to speak when Bush was president, against Bush's wishes, there would not be quite as much huffing and puffing from DU.

The way to put a stop to this kind of nonsense is to elect a Democratic congress, not to indict Boehner for treason.

[tammywammy]

22. It's pretty ridiculous

The Speaker of the House is the only person that extends invitations to speak to a joint session. While this was a breach of protocol, to think that the Speaker cannot invite foreign heads is silly. Many foreign heads of state have spoken to joint sessions of Congress.

[BlueCaliDem]

41. Boehner violated Federal law, specifically the 1799 Logan Act, 18 U.S. Code, subsection 953.

When Boehner conspired with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with the help of former Republican operative and now Israeli Ambassador, Ron Dermer, behind President Obama's back to address a joint session of Congress to campaign and “send a clear message to the White House” about how Israel will set America’s foreign policy in the Middle East", he violated a 216 year old law - a law, by the way, devised and enacted by America’s Founding Fathers that Republicans claim are their exemplars.

There is NO treason, no. This act doesn't rise to that level, but what Boehner did is still a serious violation of U.S. law, and he's on record admitting to that violation.

[Nye Bevan]

43. Should Nancy Pelosi have been prosecuted for conducting foreign policy in Syria in 2007?

In a “Dear Colleague” letter released earlier today, King said Pelosi had overstepped her constitutional role as Speaker when she traveled to Syria in April.

“Taking her cue from the Iraq Study Group’s recommendation that the U.S. enter into talks with Syria to forge a new way forward in Iraq, Speaker Pelosi decided to ignore the requests of the President that she refrain from traveling to the terrorist state,” the letter said.

King told The Hill that he believed Pelosi was in violation of the Logan Act, a 1799 law signed by President John Adams that prohibits unauthorized U.S. citizens from interfering with relations between the United States and foreign governments.

“I was one of the members of Congress that was incensed the Speaker had taken it upon herself to conduct foreign policy,” he said. “It was a blatant violation of the Logan Act.”

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/12355-house-republican-wants-to-restrict-pelosis-travel

[BlueCaliDem]

45. Has Speaker Pelosi invited Assad to speak to a joint session of Congress in order to influence

foreign policy without informing President Bush? Did Republican U.S. Representatives refuse to travel to Syria before and after Speaker Pelosi had in that same time? If your answer to both of the above is no, then you'll have my answer to your question.

But you get an A for effort in your defense of Boehner's disrespect of President Obama. Kudos, Nye.

[Nye Bevan]

47. So you'd be OK with Boehner traveling to Israel to meet with Netanyahu there,

against the wishes of President Obama?

[BlueCaliDem]

49. I asked first.

[Nye Bevan]

50. Actually the first question was asked by me in post 43, which you have still not answered.

I do realize that you are in a bit of an awkward situation, arguing that Pelosi was within the law by traveling to Syria and negotiating foreign policy in defiance of Bush, but that Boehner should be prosecuted for inviting Netanyahu to make a speech against Obama's wishes. So I do understand your reluctance to answer.

[BlueCaliDem]

56. Still grasping at straws, I see. Anyway, asked and answered. Perhaps you need to reread my post

following your post (#43). By the way, I don't give a darn what Steve "I'm a proud Xenophobe" King says about a Democrat. I'm wondering why you do...I mean, being a Democrat and all on a Democratic Party site.

Both Republicans and Democrats had traveled to meet President Assad in 2007 in order to begin peace talks. Darryl Issa, no Liberal by any stretch of the imagination, was one of the Republicans to go. That's were the difference begins. NO Democrat invited Netanyahu or are supporting this blatant election-ploy by the Israeli Neo-Con prime minister. This is NOT a bi-partisan event. This is Boehner in kahoots with the Israeli Ambassador behind President Obama's back trying to influence Obama's foreign policy - and not for peace.

With me still?

Second, Speaker Pelosi had NOT invited President Assad to address a joint session of Congress in an attempt to pit Syria against Bush, which is what Boehner is doing. He's attempting to pit Israel against the president and against the United States.

Boehner said publicly that his reason for (illegally) corresponding with Netanyahu was to “specifically ask him (Netanyahu) to address Congress and send a clear message to the White House about our commitment to Israel.” Pelosi did NO such thing. In fact, Pelosi defended her visit, saying her talks with Al-Assad focused only on topics on which she and Bush agree.

"On the issues that we set before the president (of Syria)," she said, "there is no division among us or between our congressional delegation in Congress and the president of the United States."

See? In your desperate attempt to defend Boehner, Republicans, and Netanyahu, you've had to resort to comparing apples to oranges. How incredibly...strange.

Can you now stop trying to use Republican talking points in order to defend this blatant display of disrespect of our Democratic president? Still no? Then we have nothing more to discuss.

[Nye Bevan]

58. Sorry I made you twist yourself into such a pretzel (nt)

[BlueCaliDem]

59. As I've guessed from the get-go...your arguments have no leg to stand on.

But it's okay. Everybody can see that, Nye. I'm sorry to have put you through that, but I'm not sorry that it was done for others to read...and for me to finally know where YOU stand.

[Nye Bevan]

60. Apology accepted.

[BlueCaliDem]

61. Thank you. But your apology isn't.

[Demit]

53. LOL! You forgot to add nyah nyah.

I don't have a dog in this fight but it's fun to watch the back and forth.

[BlueCaliDem]

55. Well, isn't it common courtesy and an act of mature propriety to answer a question first before

asking another?

[Demit]

64. Well, I'd say a sign of maturity, if your goal is an exchange of information,

would be to politely answer the question then request that the person answer yours in return.

Being the first to extend courtesy, rather than demanding it, is an act of maturity.

[BlueCaliDem]

65. You're overlooking the fact that I HAVE answered the question, so I HAVE extended courtesy FIRST.

Perhaps reading the thread before jumping into it and making snarky responses toward one DUer would've been the wiser thing to do, Demit. Sage advise for you for the next time.

Have a nice day.

[Demit]

66. I did read the thread.

Your post stood out, which is what moved me to comment. It's a little too late to position yourself as sage. But, of course, I wish you a nice day too.

[onenote]

52. Already totally debunked -- see post 16

Sorry, but repeating yourself doesn't turn this type of conduct, which has never been prosecuted as a violation of a law (one that, by the way, most progressive law scholars consider to be unconstitutional) into a criminal act.

By the way, interesting use of quotation marks at the end of the bolded text about Israel setting America's foreign policy in the Middle East -- much more dramatic than quoting the entire statement attributed to Boehner.

[B Calm]

28. How many of our tax dollars is Boehner going to give him? Then they scream about the debt. . .