Kerry appears to take swipe at Netanyahu over Iran nuclear talks

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry on Tuesday appeared to take a swipe at Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, saying critics of an emerging nuclear deal with Iran did not know what they were talking about.

Good. Netanyahu shouldn't be given a free pass to come here and spout whatever he wants, simply to enhance his re-election prospects back home.

Kerry appears to take swipe at Netanyahu over Iran nuclear talks

Of course Kerry is taking swipes at the Israeli leader. The Obama admin hates Israel. Netanyahu is calling out Obama's sellout to the Iranian mullah's. No way the Obama regime will tolerate that. From day one, Obama has been going easy on terrorism and terrorist supporting regimes and have not be able to contain their contempt for Israel and Jews in general.

Netanyahu's settlements are poison.

Obama and Kerry's appeasement and sellout is disastrous.

Of course Kerry is taking swipes at the Israeli leader. The Obama admin hates Israel.

Kid remind you that Netanyahu and Israel are not the same thing. You seem to have a great dislike of Obama, but I assume that dislike does not extend to America as a whole.

From day one, Obama has been going easy on terrorism....

Examples, please.

Obama and Kerry's appeasement and sellout is disastrous.

Ah, apparently you have returned from the future and have the text of a yet-nonexistent agreement! Did you get the gist of the article at all?

An Islamist country with access to nuclear technology is a disaster waiting to happen.

Some day a mad Mullah(madder than the current one) will come to power and decide that he needs to fast track his application for a place in heaven.

Then mushroom clouds will rule.

Netanyeeehaaa!* is letting in air:

In September 2012, the Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, told the UN general assembly that an Iranian nuclear bomb was imminent. But leaked intelligence documents obtained by al-Jazeera and the Guardian reveal that Israeli intelligence thought differently at the time

(*with apologies to Stanley Kubrik and Slim Pickens, 1964)

The Obama admin hates Israel.

Of course they do. Like they hate America, mom, apple pie, and christmas. They like to kick puppies and trip old ladies.

Netanyahu is calling out Obama's sellout to the Iranian mullah's.

"Anybody running around right now jumping in to say, 'Well we don't like the deal,' or this or that, doesn't know what the deal is. There is no deal yet,"

Never let the facts get in the way of a good chance to fling feces.

Kid remind you that Netanyahu and Israel are not the same thing.

Obama is seeking to undermine Israel in preference to Palestinians that have sought to destroy Israel since the 1940's. In this case, Israel and the attacks on Netanyahu are one and the same. The Israeli's aren't stupid, they know Obama is desperate for a deal at any cost. They are following the negotiations and see where they are headed and are alarmed.

Examples, please.

Unilateral withdrawal from engaging terrorism. Denying terrorism even exists - it's only extremism. As if they are only political nut jobs instead of intent upon slaughtering people for the purposes of establishing an Islamic caliphate.

Did you get the gist of the article at all?

I guess you are blissfully unaware that Netanyahu and many Israeli's believe that Obama and Kerry seem intent on selling out Israeli's security so Obama can salvage something he can claim as a legacy achievement from a failed foreign policy record. Obama has been hostile towards Israel and only makes excuses for Muslims whose goal is to destroy Israel and every Jew that live in the country.

Of course they do. Like they hate America, mom, apple pie, and christmas. They like to kick puppies and trip old ladies.

Obama called Bush un-American for adding $4 trillion to the debt. Well, Obama has added twice that total to the national debt. So by Obama's own standard he is un-American. As far as puppies go, Obama would never ever in a million years kick a puppy. I am absolutely certain that as a Christian he loves puppies - especially exceptional American puppies.

Obama is seeking to undermine Israel in preference to Palestinians

False.

Unilateral withdrawal from engaging terrorism.

False.

Denying terrorism even exists - it's only extremism.

Misleading... Obama "Our systematic effort to dismantle terrorist organizations must continue.", "Beyond Afghanistan, we must define our effort not as a boundless 'global war on terror,' but rather as a series of persistent, targeted efforts to dismantle specific networks of violent extremists that threaten America."

"Neither I, nor any president, can promise the total defeat of terror. We will never erase the evil that lies in the hearts of some human beings, nor stamp out every danger to our open society. But what we can do - what we must do - is dismantle networks that pose a direct danger to us, and make it less likely for new groups to gain a foothold, all the while maintaining the freedoms and ideals that we defend."

Obama has been hostile towards Israel and only makes excuses for Muslims whose goal is to destroy Israel and every Jew that live in the country.

False. https://www.njdc.org/media/entry/obama_israel_the_facts . Obama's made it clear we're not at war with Islam (the smart thing to by the way).

Obama called Bush un-American for adding $4 trillion to the debt.

False. He said it was irresponsible, it's unpatriotic.

Obama has added twice that total to the national debt.

False. http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/ezra-klein-doing-the-math-on-obamas-deficits/2012/01/31/gIQAnRs7fQ_story.html

As far as puppies go, Obama would never ever in a million years kick a puppy.

True, but you probably don't really believe that so I'll call that a fib.

Misleading... Obama "Our systematic effort to dismantle terrorist organizations must continue.

So how is Obama going to stop terrorizing whose root cause he denies even exists? Obama is doing more to undermine Netanyahu and the state of Israel than he is terrorism.

False. He said it was irresponsible, it's unpatriotic.

So Obama calling Bush unpatriotic is supposed to be prove what exactly - that Obama is a uniter and not a divider?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyLmru6no4U

False. https://www.njdc.org/media/entry/obama_israel_the_facts . Obama's made it clear we're not at war with Islam (the smart thing to by the way).

That is just flat out untrue. The West is at war with radical Islam whether Obama wants to believe it or not. To deny that is to deny reality. The brand of Islam that ISIS subscribes to is not the dominate faction within Islam but even a fraction of 1.7 billion is a lot of people. There are millions of of Muslims that are sympathetic to ISIS's belief in sharia law. Obama may not believe that the followers of ISIS are Muslim but then again as a Christian who the heck is he to tell anyone what they believe? By this logic, his denial of the religious faith of ISIS is just as legitimate as the disbelief of Obama's Christianity by a large faction of Americans. It's just plain crazy.

Obama just plain hates all that America has traditionally stood for and so he has sought to "fundamentally change America" to something else. His words, not mine. Because Israel is until recently the only democracy in the Middle East and America's closest ally in the region Obama has once again sought to fundamentally change that relationship in terms that are more favorable to Iran and terrorist groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and the PLO among others.

So how is Obama going to stop terrorizing whose root cause he denies even exists?

I think he was pretty clear. You can reread the below as many time as necessary. It's smart. It's common sense. You may think it's a smart move to declare war on Islam but, trust me, much like the Iraq debacle you thought was a good idea, it's not.

"Our systematic effort to dismantle terrorist organizations must continue.", "Beyond Afghanistan, we must define our effort not as a boundless 'global war on terror,' but rather as a series of persistent, targeted efforts to dismantle specific networks of violent extremists that threaten America."

"Neither I, nor any president, can promise the total defeat of terror. We will never erase the evil that lies in the hearts of some human beings, nor stamp out every danger to our open society. But what we can do - what we must do - is dismantle networks that pose a direct danger to us, and make it less likely for new groups to gain a foothold, all the while maintaining the freedoms and ideals that we defend."

So Obama calling Bush unpatriotic is supposed to be prove what exactly - that Obama is a uniter and not a divider?

He didn't do that either actually. Since you're so big on parsing sentences, you might want to get this so pivotal a point right.

Obama just plain hates all that America has traditionally stood for and so he has sought to "fundamentally change America" to something else. His words, not mine.

Ah the old "because Obama wants to 'transform' America he must hate it" line. It was laughably inane when it was first articulated, and it's just tired and silly now. Giuliani said the very same thing about NYC. He wanted to transform New York city when he ran for Mayor. I guess he hated all that NYC has traditionally stood for... Its FOX & Friends pr dittohead level of intelligence at best. And every other CEO I know wants to fundamentally transform their company or business, does that mean they hate ... ? I mean, just think a bit.

But if we're going to play with the "by his standard" argument, let's apply it to the topic at hand. We're all pretty clear that Netanyahu is a foreign leader, that he has snubbed the American president, that he's trying to directly meddle in US domestic politics.. I'm pretty sure by right-wing standards if this were a Republican president, you'd be calling those who support or approve the snub traitors or at the very least "unpatriotic". So, by those standards...

You may think it's a smart move to declare war on Islam but, trust me, much like the Iraq debacle you thought was a good idea, it's not.

No one is suggesting that all Muslims are the enemy. I don't believe that Netanyahu or any Americans sees it that way either. I do not understand the need for the Left to insist upon a black and white view of the issue. The "war" is against Islamic extremists. Naming this group as the enemy is smart. In fact, it is dumb to deny the obvious, like denying the Earth is round. It is obvious that the average Muslim is not a terrorist. It is equally obvious that Islamic extremists are. The insidious nature of political correctness is glaringly obvious.

Ah the old "because Obama wants to 'transform' America he must hate it" line. It was laughably inane when it was first articulated, and it's just tired and silly now.

Transforming America into something other than what it was conceived to be is in no way an inane concern. It is inane that some would think it not legitimate for vast numbers of Americans to be alarmed at the prospect. Obama makes America's friends into enemies and enemies into friends. He consistently badmouths America while giving rogue regimes the benefit of the doubt. I understand that Obama's ideological soul mates can see no wrong in the man, but millions of others see him as a threat to their right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, as well as the nations future. People take that seriously. That is why Obamacare remains unpopular. It is why the Republican House invited Netanyahu to give a speech to Congress.

Giuliani said the very same thing about NYC. He wanted to transform New York city when he ran for Mayor.

My understanding is that Giuliani just wanted New York city to be a safe place to live. He was largely successful in achieving that.

And every other CEO I know wants to fundamentally transform their company or business, does that mean they hate ... ? I mean, just think a bit.

Oh I certainly have given it a lot of thought. What you suggest is however an apples and oranges point of view. This is obvious of course because changing a company from focusing on say computer hardware to something like cloud services is not anything like changing a nation from one focused on the individual right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness to one in which the individual is subsumed to the needs of various governmentally certified group interests. It's okay for you to want to band together with other like minded people - all should have the right to free association. Just don't force all others to live as you - and Obama - believe they should through the force of government.

We're all pretty clear that Netanyahu is a foreign leader, that he has snubbed the American president, that he's trying to directly meddle in US domestic politics.

No we are not clear on that at all. He did not snub Obama. He accepted an invitation from the Speaker of the House. Congress is a co-equal branch of government. Actually it is Obama that plans to snub Netanyahu because he is peeved at Rep. Boehner for not informing him of the invite until after it was accepted. Also, Netanyahu is not meddling in US politics. He is meddling in the politics of the Middle East - the region of the world in which his country is located. Iran has repeatedly expressed it's goal to destroy his country. They have every right to keep Obama from selling them out to the Iranian mullahs.

Not going to waste my time as you rehash the usual stuff... 'Bama hates America and wants to transform into a socialist paradise..which strays from and doesn't support your original contentions, to wit:

Obama is seeking to undermine Israel in preference to Palestinians

False

Unilateral withdrawal from engaging terrorism.

Still, false. Demonstrably false.

Denying terrorism even exists - it's only extremism.

Clearly, false... demonstrably so,

As for...

No we are not clear on that at all. He did not snub Obama. He accepted an invitation from the Speaker of the House.

He certainly did. Laughable to pretend otherwise.

Clearly, Boehner snubbed the president in the first instance by inviting a foreign leader to address a joint session of Congress without consulting the White House. Unless you don't know any better or you're being disingenuous, you're not going to disagree that that's NOT how it's done and that it was clearly Boehner's intention to snub the WH.

And, likewise, with regard to Netanyahu, "typical protocol would suggest that the leader of a country would contact the leader of another country when he’s traveling there".

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2015/01/25/bibi-netanyahu-aka-the-republican-senator-from-israel-may-have-made-a-fatal-political-mistake/

It turns out, the plan to have the Israeli Prime Minister speak to Congress, without first discussing with the White House, was the brainchild of Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Ron Dermer who has, for weeks now, been endorsing the re-election of Bibi Netanyahu on American television programs despite explicit Israeli Civil Service regulations prohibiting him from doing so.

In addition to Dermer's apparent violation of Israeli law, he also revealed his penchant for duplicitous behavior by meeting with US Secretary of State John Kerry just one day before Speaker Boehner announced his invitation to Prime Minister Netanyahu, yet never once mentioned to Kerry what was about to happen.

Making it all the more offensive, the White House has explicitly gone out of its way, since the announcement of the Israeli elections, to avoid saying or doing anything that could be interpreted as support for the Herzog/Livni ticket.

Congress is a co-equal branch of government.

And so it is. But the executive branch conducts the nation's foreign policy.

James Baker "The speaker of the House has every right in the world to invite whoever he wants to speak to the House; it's a coequal branch of government. But the executive branch of government really has the primary power and responsibility and authority to conduct the nation's foreign policy. It's not in the Congress; it's in the executive branch. So our foreign policy benefits when there's cooperation and so does the issue of US-Israeli relations,"

"if Netanyahu took the initiative to be invited to speak before the Congress without coordinating with the White House, then it is a flagrant violation of the protocol."

Actually it is Obama that plans to snub Netanyahu

Nonsense. The snub is Boehner's and Netanyahu's. Why should the WH roll over? Anyway they have perfectly good and valid fig leaf... to close to the Israeli elections.

Also, Netanyahu is not meddling in US politics.

Don't be silly. Of course he is. And this isn't the first time like when he practically endorsed Mit Romney during the 2012's. And he is doing it again. Bibi is looking after number one, and number one isn't Israel, it's his own premiership in the next Israeli elections. And, also, let's be honest here this is motivated at least as much by Bibi's personal animosity with Obama and his need to stick it to him as by hope to boost his own chances in the upcoming elections by appearing before Congress to thunderous applause.

Bibi, looking after number one, himself.

http://forward.com/articles/214591/why-israel-lobby-is-biggest-casualty-of-feud-over/#ixzz3SvlXybop

"The irony," said a pro-Israel activists who asked not to be named, "Is that there was a chance of actually reaching a veto-proof majority" in favor of a sanctions bill. The activist, who called the conduct of Netanyahu and Dermer 'scary' and a 'huge error,' said AIPAC had been blindsided by the actions of the Israelis, who "thought they know better than anyone else and didn't consult with anyone."

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015/02/26/congressional-democrats-should-boycott-benjamin-netanyahu-speech/Il1CgIXxb41b9Zir1SwbFP/story.html

James Baker - As head of the State Department under president George H.W. Bush in 1990, Baker said that Netanyahu, then deputy foreign minister, was barred from the building after saying American foreign policy in the Middle East was "based on lies and distortions."

Ronald Reagan would never have put up with this.

Unpatriotic by the right's own standards? I think so.