“It’s going to get worse”: Democratic backlash against Netanyahu speech continues

[Vic Tree]

Congressional Democrats continue to express indignation at Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s forthcoming address to Congress, with many saying that they may well boycott the speech, despite entreaties from top Israeli officials.

Without the Obama administration’s knowledge, House Speaker John Boehner last month invited Netanyahu to address a joint session of Congress on Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Netanyahu is scheduled to speak on March 3, two weeks before national elections in Israel and amid continuing international negotiations on the Iranian nuclear program. The White House argues that diplomacy must work its course, while the hawkish Netanyahu argues that even if diplomats reach a deal ahead of a June 30 deadline, Iran can’t be trusted to adhere to any agreement.

Even some of the most staunchly pro-Israel Democrats are undecided on whether they will attend the speech. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) said Wednesday that the speech “violates all the protocol that has always existed.” White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest isn’t saying if Vice President Joe Biden will attend the address; during speeches before joint sessions, the vice president typically sits behind the lectern, along with the speaker of the House. A spokesman for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said yesterday that Pelosi fears “casting a political apple of discord into the relationship is not the best way forward given the formidable challenges our two countries are facing together.” Still, the spokesman said, Pelosi will attend if the speech occurs.

Seeking to stave off further rebellion, Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Ron Dermer and Knesset Speaker Yuli Edelstein yesterday met with Democrats to address their concerns. But as Politico reports, a group of Jewish Democrats who met with Dermer yesterday voiced anger over the upcoming speech, and the meetings made little headway in squelching Democratic furor.

Link

BDS for Beady Eyes!

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

1. There is NO length the American Taliban wont go to try and harm the name of our President, remember

they prefer the KGB to Obama...

[Fred Sanders]

2. You should really post the entire link source and headline in the hyperlink, some folk will not hit

an anonymous link.

Thanks.

[66 dmhlt]

4. But if you just hover your cursor over it, it shows its URL & that it's from Salon

[SunSeeker]

5. That doesn't work with a smartphone.

How can I tell what the link is with a smartphone without actually clicking on it?

A lot of people access DU on their phones...like me.

[Fred Sanders]

7. Or most mobiles.

[66 dmhlt]

11. For MOST phones, all you need to do is ...

What's called a "Long Hold" - it's as close as you can probably get to a right-click

Simply put your finger over the "Link" and leave it there, shortly a window pops up w/the URL and other options

http://lifehacker.com/5879239/all-the-awesome-things-you-can-do-with-a-long-press-on-your-iphone-ipad-or-ipad-touch

[66 dmhlt]

10. For MOST phones, all you need to do is ...

What's called a "Long Hold" - it's as close as you can probably get to a right-click

Simply put your finger over the "Link" and leave it there, shortly a window pops up w/the URL and other options

http://lifehacker.com/5879239/all-the-awesome-things-you-can-do-with-a-long-press-on-your-iphone-ipad-or-ipad-touch

[SunSeeker]

12. That worked on mine, thanks. But there's still no need to rename a link.

It just makes no sense to rename a link as "link" when just pasting it directly into your OP with its full name is easier for the poster and leaves no one guessing what the link is. After all the virus attacks I have had, I will no longer click on a link I am not sure about.

[SunSeeker]

6. I agree with you Fred. Why hide what the link is? So annoying. nt

[Fred Sanders]

8. It hides something for no reason, it is common sense to be suspicious, even if proven wrong.

A low count poster raises another alarm.

[SunSeeker]

9. Exactly. nt

[Thinkingabout]

3. If Netanyahu is concerned about trusting Iran then he needs to be as equally concerned about

Himself. His RW buddies Reagan negotiating with Iran and W invading Iraq which kept Iran under some control is why Iran has gotten as far along in getting the bomb. It is trying to close the gate now that the horses are out. Netanyahu tried to interfere with US elections and now he is up for election he is trying to booster his votes by speaking to Congress.

[karynnj]

13. his position is against diplomacy per se

This comes directly from the comment that they can not be trusted to keep any agreement. The media has mostly quoted that he is against a "bad" agreement and that "Obama's" agreement is bad.

This then is followed with the view that moss ad knows more than our intelligence -again ignoring that it is the entire entire 6 countries - and more bizarrely that Netanyahu is a better negotiator than we. This in spite of his being detested by almost everyone he has dealt with.

I hope there are some honest good people in the media that ask point blank questions to make it clear that no agreement will ever be called good by Netanyahu
He has already ruled out any diplomacy.

This should lead to questions on what he thinks should be done. Permanent Sanctions are not feasible. That leaves military.

[bemildred]

14. Yep. nt

[The Stranger]

15. I don't know about you, but I'm still waiting "for it to get worse."

In my opinion, it has been mild. Lots of behind the scenes secret meetings and scowling faces.

Where are the speeches from the steps of Congress calling out piece of shit Boehner? Do you see Pelosi out there today? What about Harry Reid?

Are they speaking or proposing resolutions condemning Boehner?

No?

Oh.