Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Segami
Segami's Journal
Segami's Journal
March 3, 2015
Noam Chomsky, an institute professor emeritus at Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a world-renowned political commentator and philosopher, issued a stern warning against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — his strategic mission to derail the president’s plan is not for the safety and survival of Israel – but the regional dominance of war-hungry Netanyahu. Chomsky said:
The famous linguist and anarcho-syndicalist sat down for an interview with Democracy Now’s Amy Goodman and Aaron Mate and delivered a major blow to the Israeli Prime Minister and the Republicans in Congress. Here are some of the highlights from his interview:
“I don’t think anyone with a grey cell functioning thinks that they Iran would ever conceivably use a nuclear weapon, or even try to. The country would be obliterated in 15 seconds. But they might provide a deterrent of sorts. And the U.S. and Israel certainly don’t want to tolerate that. They are the forces that carry out regular violence and aggression in the region and don’t want any impediment to that.”
“Iran is under extremely close surveillance. U.S. satellite surveillance knows everything that’s going on in Iran. If Iran even began to load a missile—that is, to bring a missile near a weapon—the country would probably be wiped out. And whatever you think about the clerics, the Guardian Council and so on, there’s no indication that they’re suicidal.”
“And for the Republicans in Congress, there’s another interest—namely, to undermine anything that Obama, you know, the entity Christ, might try to do. So that’s a separate issue there. The Republicans stopped being an ordinary parliamentary party some years ago. They were described, I think accurately, by Norman Ornstein, the very respected conservative political analyst, American Enterprise Institute; he said the party has become a radical insurgency which has abandoned any commitment to parliamentary democracy. And their goal for the last years has simply been to undermine anything that Obama might do, in an effort to regain power and serve their primary constituency, which is the very wealthy and the corporate sector.”
http://www.democracynow.org/2015/3/2/noam_chomsky_opposing_iran_nuclear_deal
There seem to be a lot of contrasts between the Republicans who want to “regain power and serve their primary constituency” and Benjamin Netanyahu – all they want is power. Netanyahu is famous for his fear mongering propaganda that Iran has the intent to wipe the Jewish people off the face of the planet. Yet Iran, who is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, does not have a nuclear bomb. But guess who does have nuclear weapons and is not a signatory? Israel. Netanyahu’s hatred of the Palestinian Muslims (which he is trying to distract us from using Iran) resonates as over four million stateless Palestinians living in Israel have no vote in the active politics. Meanwhile, in big bad Iran, Jewish Iranians do have a vote, and even have Jewish representation. And here I thought Iran hated the Jews. That’s what Bibi has been telling us all long.
cont'
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/03/03/chomsky-destroys-netanyahu/
Chomsky’s WARNING: Opposing Iran Nuclear Deal, Israel’s Goal Isn’t Survival—It’s REGIONAL DOMINANCE
Noam Chomsky, an institute professor emeritus at Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a world-renowned political commentator and philosopher, issued a stern warning against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — his strategic mission to derail the president’s plan is not for the safety and survival of Israel – but the regional dominance of war-hungry Netanyahu. Chomsky said:
“For both Prime Minister Netanyahu and the hawks in Congress, mostly Republican, the primary goal is to undermine any potential negotiation that might settle whatever issue there is with Iran. They have a common interest in ensuring there is no regional force that can serve as any kind of deterrent to Israeli and U.S. violence, the major violence in the region.”
http://www.alternet.org/world/noam-chomsky-why-israels-netanyahu-so-desperate-prevent-peace-iran
http://www.alternet.org/world/noam-chomsky-why-israels-netanyahu-so-desperate-prevent-peace-iran
The famous linguist and anarcho-syndicalist sat down for an interview with Democracy Now’s Amy Goodman and Aaron Mate and delivered a major blow to the Israeli Prime Minister and the Republicans in Congress. Here are some of the highlights from his interview:
“I don’t think anyone with a grey cell functioning thinks that they Iran would ever conceivably use a nuclear weapon, or even try to. The country would be obliterated in 15 seconds. But they might provide a deterrent of sorts. And the U.S. and Israel certainly don’t want to tolerate that. They are the forces that carry out regular violence and aggression in the region and don’t want any impediment to that.”
“Iran is under extremely close surveillance. U.S. satellite surveillance knows everything that’s going on in Iran. If Iran even began to load a missile—that is, to bring a missile near a weapon—the country would probably be wiped out. And whatever you think about the clerics, the Guardian Council and so on, there’s no indication that they’re suicidal.”
“And for the Republicans in Congress, there’s another interest—namely, to undermine anything that Obama, you know, the entity Christ, might try to do. So that’s a separate issue there. The Republicans stopped being an ordinary parliamentary party some years ago. They were described, I think accurately, by Norman Ornstein, the very respected conservative political analyst, American Enterprise Institute; he said the party has become a radical insurgency which has abandoned any commitment to parliamentary democracy. And their goal for the last years has simply been to undermine anything that Obama might do, in an effort to regain power and serve their primary constituency, which is the very wealthy and the corporate sector.”
http://www.democracynow.org/2015/3/2/noam_chomsky_opposing_iran_nuclear_deal
There seem to be a lot of contrasts between the Republicans who want to “regain power and serve their primary constituency” and Benjamin Netanyahu – all they want is power. Netanyahu is famous for his fear mongering propaganda that Iran has the intent to wipe the Jewish people off the face of the planet. Yet Iran, who is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, does not have a nuclear bomb. But guess who does have nuclear weapons and is not a signatory? Israel. Netanyahu’s hatred of the Palestinian Muslims (which he is trying to distract us from using Iran) resonates as over four million stateless Palestinians living in Israel have no vote in the active politics. Meanwhile, in big bad Iran, Jewish Iranians do have a vote, and even have Jewish representation. And here I thought Iran hated the Jews. That’s what Bibi has been telling us all long.
“Israel has had nuclear weapons for probably 50 years or 40 years. They have, estimates are, maybe 100, 200 nuclear weapons. And they are an aggressive state. Israel has invaded Lebanon five times. It’s carrying out an illegal occupation that carries out brutal attacks like Gaza last summer. And they have nuclear weapons. But the main story is that if—incidentally, the Mossad analysis corresponds to U.S. intelligence analysis. They don’t know if Iran is developing nuclear weapons. But I think the crucial fact is that even if they were, what would it mean? It would be just as U.S. intelligence analyzes it: It would be part of a deterrent strategy. They couldn’t use a nuclear weapon. They couldn’t even threaten to use it. Israel, on the other hand, can; has, in fact, threatened the use of nuclear weapons a number of times.”
cont'
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/03/03/chomsky-destroys-netanyahu/
March 3, 2015
RE-WRITING HISTORY........NICE TRY BUT NO CIGAR...
'CENTRIST' Democrats Ready ATTACKS On Elizabeth Warren
RE-WRITING HISTORY........NICE TRY BUT NO CIGAR...
“There's a lot of sympathy for that view in the pragmatic-wing of the party,” he added.
Gabe Horwitz, director of Third Way’s economic program, said moderates have been arguing the case for rebranding the Democratic Party around “the middle class and middle-class prosperity.”
“In the last election, Democrats, as a party, offered a message of fairness. Voters responded, and they responded really negatively,” Horwitz said. “Democrats offered fairness, and voters wanted prosperity and growth.”
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/234224-centrist-dems-ready-strike-against-warren-wing
Gabe Horwitz, director of Third Way’s economic program, said moderates have been arguing the case for rebranding the Democratic Party around “the middle class and middle-class prosperity.”
“In the last election, Democrats, as a party, offered a message of fairness. Voters responded, and they responded really negatively,” Horwitz said. “Democrats offered fairness, and voters wanted prosperity and growth.”
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/234224-centrist-dems-ready-strike-against-warren-wing
March 3, 2015
Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) has joined eleven more Democrats in announcing that they won’t be attending Netanyahu’s speech to Congress. The total of Democrats who are not attending the speech has jumped to 53. In a statement, Sen. Franken said, “This has unfortunately become a partisan spectacle, both because of the impending Israeli election and because it was done without consulting the Administration. I’d be uncomfortable being part of an event that I don’t believe should be happening. I’m confident that, once this episode is over, we can reaffirm our strong tradition of bipartisan support for Israel.”
~snip~
There are still dozens of House and Senate Democrats who have not made up their minds about attending the speech. If your member of Congress or Senators is not on the list below there is still time to contact them and express your position. Netanyahu’s speech has become a partisan affair, as the attempt to disrespect the president has backfired on both Boehner and Netanyahu as Democrats are staying away by the dozens.
Here is the fully updated list via The Hill of those who will not be attending:(UPDATED)
SKIPPING
House (47)
Rep. Karen Bass (Calif.) — In a statement, Bass said that she would be in Los Angeles for a city council election. “My support for a strong U.S.-Israel relationship has been consistent during my entire time in elected office, and that support will only continue in the years to come. Support for Israel has traditionally been a non-partisan issue, and I want it to remain so,” she said. "Unfortunately, Speaker Boehner mishandled inviting Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak to Congress. Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech is now marred with controversy. Prime Minister Netanyahu has been provided with other options to talk with members of Congress, but he has turned them down to do the public speech. It is truly sad that Speaker Boehner and Prime Minister Netanyahu have chosen to play partisan and divisive politics.”
Rep. Earl Blumenauer (Ore.) — Wrote a Jan. 29 column in The Huffington Post explaining his decision, saying the Constitution “vests the responsibility for foreign affairs in the president.”
Rep. Corrine Brown (Fla.)
Rep. G.K. Butterfield (N.C.) — The head of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) focused on Boehner undermining Obama in a statement and emphasized he's not urging a boycott.
Rep. Lois Capps (Calif.) — Told constituent in a letter posted to Facebook that she is skipping the speech.
Rep. Andre Carson (Ind.)
Rep. Katherine Clark (Mass.)
Rep. Lacy Clay (Mo.) will skip the speech, his office confirmed Monday.
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (Mo.) will not attend, though he emphasized that he almost never attends the joint-session speeches.
Rep. James Clyburn (S.C.) — Clyburn is the highest-ranking Democratic leader to say he’ll skip the speech.
Rep. Steve Cohen (Tenn.) — “After deliberation, I have decided I cannot in good conscience attend the Prime Minister’s speech. My decision not to attend is not a reflection of my support for Israel and its continued existence as a state and home for the Jewish people. I have always strongly supported Israel and I always will,” said Cohen in a statement.
Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-N.J.) — "As a fierce supporter of Israel, I am disappointed in Speaker Boehner's efforts to drag Prime Minister Netanyahu into the GOP's endless efforts to undermine President Obama," she said in a statement.
Rep. John Conyers (Mich.)
Rep. Danny Davis (Ill.) will skip the speech, his office confirmed Monday.
Rep. Peter DeFazio (Ore.)
Rep. Diana DeGette (Colo.)
Rep. Lloyd Doggett (Texas) — "A partisan approach with our critical ally, Israel, is a grave mistake," he said in a statement.
Rep. Donna Edwards (Md.)
Rep. Keith Ellison (Minn.) — He is head of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC), a member of the CBC and the first Muslim in Congress.
Rep. Chaka Fattah (Pa.)
Rep. Marcia Fudge (Ohio)
Rep. Raúl Grijalva (Ariz.) — Grijalva is a co-chairman of the CPC.
Rep. Luis Gutiérrez (Ill.) — A spokesman told the Chicago Sun-Times that Gutierrez has a "strong" record on Israel but called the speech "a stunt."
Rep. Denny Heck (Wash.)
Rep. Ruben Hinojosa (Texas)
Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (Texas) — "The Congresswoman has no plans to attend the speech at this time," a spokeswoman said.
Rep. Marcy Kaptur (Ohio)
Rep. Rick Larsen (Wash.)
Rep. Barbara Lee (Calif.) — A member of the CBC and former head of the CPC.
Rep. John Lewis (Ga.) — His office confirmed he’s not going but emphasized he's not organizing a formal boycott
Rep. Zoe Lofgren (Calif.) — “I am disappointed Speaker Boehner chose to irresponsibly interject politics into what has long been a strong and bipartisan relationship between the United States and Israel. As President Obama has noted, it is inappropriate for a Head of State to address Congress just two weeks ahead of their election. I agree that Congress should not be used as a prop in Israeli election campaigns, so I intend to watch the speech on TV in my office.”
Rep. Betty McCollum (Minn.): "In my view Mr. Netanyahu’s speech before Congress is nothing more than a campaign event hosted by Speaker Boehner and paid for by the American people," McCollum said in a statement."
Rep. Jim McDermott (Wash.) — “I do not intend to attend the speech of Bibi,” he said in an email to a Seattle newspaper.
Reps. Jim McGovern (Mass.) — Told MassLive.com the “timing and circumstances of this speech are deeply troubling.”
Rep. Jerry McNerney (Calif.) — “Rep. McNerney is not planning to attend the speech. He’s got several previously planned commitments for that day.”
Rep. Gregory Meeks (N.Y.) — A CBC member.
Rep. Gwen Moore (Wis.)
Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.)
Rep. Beto O'Rourke (Texas)
Rep. Chellie Pingree (Maine)
Rep. David Price (N.C.) — "Speaker Boehner should never have extended the invitation, given the proximity of the speech to Israel's national elections and the fact that delicate international negotiations, which the Prime Minister wishes to upend, are hanging in the balance.”
Rep. Charles Rangel (N.Y.) — "I'm offended as an American," he said on MSNBC.
Rep. Cedric Richmond (La.)
Rep. Jan Schakowsky (Ill.): Said she won’t attend but is “anguished” that Boehner’s invitation could weaken support for Israel in Congress.
Rep. Bennie Thompson (Miss.)
Rep. Mike Thompson (Calif.)
Rep. John Yarmuth (Ky.) — "We know what he is going to say," the Jewish lawmaker said in a statement.
Senate (8)
Sen. Al Franken (Minn.) — “This has unfortunately become a partisan spectacle, both because of the impending Israeli election and because it was done without consulting the Administration,” said Sen. Franken in a statement. “I’d be uncomfortable being part of an event that I don’t believe should be happening. I’m confident that, once this episode is over, we can reaffirm our strong tradition of bipartisan support for Israel.”
Sen. Tim Kaine (Va.) — “There is no reason to schedule this speech before Israeli voters go to the polls on March 17 and choose their own leadership," Kasine said in a statement.
Sen. Patrick Leahy (Vt.) — Leahy called it a "tawdry and high-handed stunt," according to a Vermont newspaper.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) — Sanders, who caucuses with Democrats, said it’s “wrong” that Obama wasn’t consulted about the speech.
Sen. Brian Schatz (Hawaii) — “The U.S.-Israel relationship is too important to be overshadowed by partisan politics," said Schatz in a statement. "I am disappointed in the Republican leadership’s invitation of Prime Minister Netanyahu to address a joint session of Congress with the apparent purpose of undermining President Obama’s foreign policy prerogatives.”
Sen. Martin Heinrich (N.M.) — “I intend to watch his speech about Iran from my office, but I have strong objections to using the floor of the United State Congress as a stage for his election campaign — or anyone's for that matter," Heinrich said in a statement.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) — Warren is "deeply concerned" about the prospect of a nuclear Iran but said Speaker Boehner's actions "have made Tuesday’s event more political."
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.) — “I’m concerned that behind it was a mischievous effort to manipulate domestic politics in both countries, which should not be the terms of engagement between friendly allies,” he said in a statement to local station WPRI.
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/232160-whip-list-dems-skipping-netanyahu-speech
cont'
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/03/02/al-franken-joins-52-democrats-announced-skip-netanyahu-speech.html
AL FRANKEN JOINS 53 Other Democrats Who Have Announced THEY WILL SKIP Netanyahu Speech
Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) has joined eleven more Democrats in announcing that they won’t be attending Netanyahu’s speech to Congress. The total of Democrats who are not attending the speech has jumped to 53. In a statement, Sen. Franken said, “This has unfortunately become a partisan spectacle, both because of the impending Israeli election and because it was done without consulting the Administration. I’d be uncomfortable being part of an event that I don’t believe should be happening. I’m confident that, once this episode is over, we can reaffirm our strong tradition of bipartisan support for Israel.”
~snip~
There are still dozens of House and Senate Democrats who have not made up their minds about attending the speech. If your member of Congress or Senators is not on the list below there is still time to contact them and express your position. Netanyahu’s speech has become a partisan affair, as the attempt to disrespect the president has backfired on both Boehner and Netanyahu as Democrats are staying away by the dozens.
Here is the fully updated list via The Hill of those who will not be attending:(UPDATED)
SKIPPING
House (47)
Rep. Karen Bass (Calif.) — In a statement, Bass said that she would be in Los Angeles for a city council election. “My support for a strong U.S.-Israel relationship has been consistent during my entire time in elected office, and that support will only continue in the years to come. Support for Israel has traditionally been a non-partisan issue, and I want it to remain so,” she said. "Unfortunately, Speaker Boehner mishandled inviting Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak to Congress. Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech is now marred with controversy. Prime Minister Netanyahu has been provided with other options to talk with members of Congress, but he has turned them down to do the public speech. It is truly sad that Speaker Boehner and Prime Minister Netanyahu have chosen to play partisan and divisive politics.”
Rep. Earl Blumenauer (Ore.) — Wrote a Jan. 29 column in The Huffington Post explaining his decision, saying the Constitution “vests the responsibility for foreign affairs in the president.”
Rep. Corrine Brown (Fla.)
Rep. G.K. Butterfield (N.C.) — The head of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) focused on Boehner undermining Obama in a statement and emphasized he's not urging a boycott.
Rep. Lois Capps (Calif.) — Told constituent in a letter posted to Facebook that she is skipping the speech.
Rep. Andre Carson (Ind.)
Rep. Katherine Clark (Mass.)
Rep. Lacy Clay (Mo.) will skip the speech, his office confirmed Monday.
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (Mo.) will not attend, though he emphasized that he almost never attends the joint-session speeches.
Rep. James Clyburn (S.C.) — Clyburn is the highest-ranking Democratic leader to say he’ll skip the speech.
Rep. Steve Cohen (Tenn.) — “After deliberation, I have decided I cannot in good conscience attend the Prime Minister’s speech. My decision not to attend is not a reflection of my support for Israel and its continued existence as a state and home for the Jewish people. I have always strongly supported Israel and I always will,” said Cohen in a statement.
Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-N.J.) — "As a fierce supporter of Israel, I am disappointed in Speaker Boehner's efforts to drag Prime Minister Netanyahu into the GOP's endless efforts to undermine President Obama," she said in a statement.
Rep. John Conyers (Mich.)
Rep. Danny Davis (Ill.) will skip the speech, his office confirmed Monday.
Rep. Peter DeFazio (Ore.)
Rep. Diana DeGette (Colo.)
Rep. Lloyd Doggett (Texas) — "A partisan approach with our critical ally, Israel, is a grave mistake," he said in a statement.
Rep. Donna Edwards (Md.)
Rep. Keith Ellison (Minn.) — He is head of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC), a member of the CBC and the first Muslim in Congress.
Rep. Chaka Fattah (Pa.)
Rep. Marcia Fudge (Ohio)
Rep. Raúl Grijalva (Ariz.) — Grijalva is a co-chairman of the CPC.
Rep. Luis Gutiérrez (Ill.) — A spokesman told the Chicago Sun-Times that Gutierrez has a "strong" record on Israel but called the speech "a stunt."
Rep. Denny Heck (Wash.)
Rep. Ruben Hinojosa (Texas)
Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (Texas) — "The Congresswoman has no plans to attend the speech at this time," a spokeswoman said.
Rep. Marcy Kaptur (Ohio)
Rep. Rick Larsen (Wash.)
Rep. Barbara Lee (Calif.) — A member of the CBC and former head of the CPC.
Rep. John Lewis (Ga.) — His office confirmed he’s not going but emphasized he's not organizing a formal boycott
Rep. Zoe Lofgren (Calif.) — “I am disappointed Speaker Boehner chose to irresponsibly interject politics into what has long been a strong and bipartisan relationship between the United States and Israel. As President Obama has noted, it is inappropriate for a Head of State to address Congress just two weeks ahead of their election. I agree that Congress should not be used as a prop in Israeli election campaigns, so I intend to watch the speech on TV in my office.”
Rep. Betty McCollum (Minn.): "In my view Mr. Netanyahu’s speech before Congress is nothing more than a campaign event hosted by Speaker Boehner and paid for by the American people," McCollum said in a statement."
Rep. Jim McDermott (Wash.) — “I do not intend to attend the speech of Bibi,” he said in an email to a Seattle newspaper.
Reps. Jim McGovern (Mass.) — Told MassLive.com the “timing and circumstances of this speech are deeply troubling.”
Rep. Jerry McNerney (Calif.) — “Rep. McNerney is not planning to attend the speech. He’s got several previously planned commitments for that day.”
Rep. Gregory Meeks (N.Y.) — A CBC member.
Rep. Gwen Moore (Wis.)
Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.)
Rep. Beto O'Rourke (Texas)
Rep. Chellie Pingree (Maine)
Rep. David Price (N.C.) — "Speaker Boehner should never have extended the invitation, given the proximity of the speech to Israel's national elections and the fact that delicate international negotiations, which the Prime Minister wishes to upend, are hanging in the balance.”
Rep. Charles Rangel (N.Y.) — "I'm offended as an American," he said on MSNBC.
Rep. Cedric Richmond (La.)
Rep. Jan Schakowsky (Ill.): Said she won’t attend but is “anguished” that Boehner’s invitation could weaken support for Israel in Congress.
Rep. Bennie Thompson (Miss.)
Rep. Mike Thompson (Calif.)
Rep. John Yarmuth (Ky.) — "We know what he is going to say," the Jewish lawmaker said in a statement.
Senate (8)
Sen. Al Franken (Minn.) — “This has unfortunately become a partisan spectacle, both because of the impending Israeli election and because it was done without consulting the Administration,” said Sen. Franken in a statement. “I’d be uncomfortable being part of an event that I don’t believe should be happening. I’m confident that, once this episode is over, we can reaffirm our strong tradition of bipartisan support for Israel.”
Sen. Tim Kaine (Va.) — “There is no reason to schedule this speech before Israeli voters go to the polls on March 17 and choose their own leadership," Kasine said in a statement.
Sen. Patrick Leahy (Vt.) — Leahy called it a "tawdry and high-handed stunt," according to a Vermont newspaper.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) — Sanders, who caucuses with Democrats, said it’s “wrong” that Obama wasn’t consulted about the speech.
Sen. Brian Schatz (Hawaii) — “The U.S.-Israel relationship is too important to be overshadowed by partisan politics," said Schatz in a statement. "I am disappointed in the Republican leadership’s invitation of Prime Minister Netanyahu to address a joint session of Congress with the apparent purpose of undermining President Obama’s foreign policy prerogatives.”
Sen. Martin Heinrich (N.M.) — “I intend to watch his speech about Iran from my office, but I have strong objections to using the floor of the United State Congress as a stage for his election campaign — or anyone's for that matter," Heinrich said in a statement.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) — Warren is "deeply concerned" about the prospect of a nuclear Iran but said Speaker Boehner's actions "have made Tuesday’s event more political."
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.) — “I’m concerned that behind it was a mischievous effort to manipulate domestic politics in both countries, which should not be the terms of engagement between friendly allies,” he said in a statement to local station WPRI.
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/232160-whip-list-dems-skipping-netanyahu-speech
cont'
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/03/02/al-franken-joins-52-democrats-announced-skip-netanyahu-speech.html
March 3, 2015
Writers and advocates on the left have long catalogued the exaggerations, meltdowns and many stumbles of Fox’s Bill O’Reilly, to show that the guy who runs the No-Spin Zone is frequently unfair and relentlessly unbalanced. But now O’Reilly has a different sort of watchdog in CNN media reporter Brian Stelter, host of “Reliable Sources” – and Stelter is attracting more company. Oh sure, the Fox bully dismisses Stelter — along with his critics at Mother Jones, Media Matters and, for that matter, Salon — as just another left-winger out to get him. But that charge won’t stick. The bright, earnest, hardworking former New York Times reporter isn’t known for his ideological crusading; he goes after MSNBC, not just Fox. But when Stelter finds an important story, he digs in. The CNN host just spent his second straight Sunday on the O’Reilly mess, this time advancing the story about what has become the most damning and incontestable charge against the Fox host: that he lied about personally hearing the suicide of a mysterious friend of Kennedy assassin Lee Harvey Oswald, in Palm Beach, Florida, back in 1977, just as congressional investigators were closing in on the source. O’Reilly told the lie in his book “Killing Kennedy” as well as on the air at Fox. In his book, O’Reilly wrote of tracking George de Mohrenschildt, who’d lived in Minsk and became friends with Oswald and his wife, Marina, in Dallas, after they returned from a stay in the Russian city. Kennedy assassination researchers believe de Mohrenschildt was a CIA asset, and he’s implicated in a lot of theories about the real motive for Kennedy’s murder. O’Reilly doesn’t dig into that story, but he tells a dramatic tale of his search for the Oswald associate:
There’s no evidence O’Reilly was anywhere near the shooting. In fact, two years ago Jefferson Morley obtained a tape of a conversation between O’Reilly and congressional investigator Gaetan Fonzi, which proves he wasn’t there. Morley, a former Washington Post and Salon editor, posted the tape on his site JFKFacts.org, a clearinghouse for assassination news. But it wasn’t easy to hear. After Media Matters surfaced Morley’s reporting, CNN obtained a much more audible version of the taped conversation from Fonzi’s widow. It proves O’Reilly wasn’t on the scene when de Mohrenschildt died. You can hear Fonzi tell O’Reilly “he committed suicide,” as O’Reilly asks when and how (“they say he shot himself). The Dallas-based reporter wraps the conversation by saying, “I’m comin’ down there tomorrow, I’m comin’ down to Florida,” and as he discusses grabbing a flight, it’s clear he wasn’t anywhere close. “Bill O’Reilly did not hear a gunshot from 1,200 miles away,” Morley told Stelter Sunday morning. The journalist and JFK assassination investigator took his findings to Fox News two years ago, he said, but got no reply. Since Media Matters revived the Morley story, Fox has referred all questions to O’Reilly’s publisher, which is mildly interesting, since on the other charges Roger Ailes has staunchly stood behind his anchor. The Kennedy lie is different from the other charges against O’Reilly – although as the number of challenged O’Reilly claims mount, it’s possible to wonder how much more reporters have yet to uncover. Let’s take them in order.
When it comes to reporting on his exaggerations and falsehoods about his time covering the Falklands War and guerrilla uprisings in El Salvador, there is at least some confusion over the real story. Although it’s clear O’Reilly didn’t come close to combat in the Falklands as he claimed, he’s been able to produce enough conflicting accounts about the Buenos Aires riot that he did cover to at least cloud the charges against him. Likewise, he obviously, even ludicrously exaggerated the danger he saw reporting in El Salvador, but you have to sort through different versions of different war scenes to get the truth. O’Reilly’s claims that he witnessed the murder of nuns in El Salvador – “I saw nuns get shot in the back of the head,” he said more than once – were debunked by Media Matters too. But the Fox host told Mediaite, one of his go-to defenders, that he was referring to seeing photos of the murdered nuns, not the actual murders. “No one could possibly take that segment as reporting on El Salvador,” O’Reilly sputtered. Critics widely mocked him, but he seems to be getting away with that one too. Then former colleagues came forward in the Guardian to refute O’Reilly’s heroic accounts of his reporting on the 1992 Los Angeles riots. O’Reilly claimed “concrete was raining down on us” and “we were attacked by protesters,” but journalists on the scene with him say they faced no such violence, though a camera was smashed by an angry resident. Jon Swaine reported:
cont'
http://www.salon.com/2015/03/02/oreillys_trouble_deepens_a_kennedy_tall_tale_that_could_unravel_fox_news_bully/
O’Reilly’s Trouble Deepens: A KENNEDY TALL TALE That Could UNRAVEL Fox News’ Bully
His Kennedy assassination lie is proven by a recording of O'Reilly himself. Why Fox's strategy may suddenly change
Writers and advocates on the left have long catalogued the exaggerations, meltdowns and many stumbles of Fox’s Bill O’Reilly, to show that the guy who runs the No-Spin Zone is frequently unfair and relentlessly unbalanced. But now O’Reilly has a different sort of watchdog in CNN media reporter Brian Stelter, host of “Reliable Sources” – and Stelter is attracting more company. Oh sure, the Fox bully dismisses Stelter — along with his critics at Mother Jones, Media Matters and, for that matter, Salon — as just another left-winger out to get him. But that charge won’t stick. The bright, earnest, hardworking former New York Times reporter isn’t known for his ideological crusading; he goes after MSNBC, not just Fox. But when Stelter finds an important story, he digs in. The CNN host just spent his second straight Sunday on the O’Reilly mess, this time advancing the story about what has become the most damning and incontestable charge against the Fox host: that he lied about personally hearing the suicide of a mysterious friend of Kennedy assassin Lee Harvey Oswald, in Palm Beach, Florida, back in 1977, just as congressional investigators were closing in on the source. O’Reilly told the lie in his book “Killing Kennedy” as well as on the air at Fox. In his book, O’Reilly wrote of tracking George de Mohrenschildt, who’d lived in Minsk and became friends with Oswald and his wife, Marina, in Dallas, after they returned from a stay in the Russian city. Kennedy assassination researchers believe de Mohrenschildt was a CIA asset, and he’s implicated in a lot of theories about the real motive for Kennedy’s murder. O’Reilly doesn’t dig into that story, but he tells a dramatic tale of his search for the Oswald associate:
As the reporter knocked on the door of de Mohrenschildt’s daughter’s home, he heard the shotgun blast that marked the suicide of the Russian, assuring that his relationship with Lee Harvey Oswald would never be fully understood.
By the way, that reporter’s name is Bill O’Reilly.
By the way, that reporter’s name is Bill O’Reilly.
There’s no evidence O’Reilly was anywhere near the shooting. In fact, two years ago Jefferson Morley obtained a tape of a conversation between O’Reilly and congressional investigator Gaetan Fonzi, which proves he wasn’t there. Morley, a former Washington Post and Salon editor, posted the tape on his site JFKFacts.org, a clearinghouse for assassination news. But it wasn’t easy to hear. After Media Matters surfaced Morley’s reporting, CNN obtained a much more audible version of the taped conversation from Fonzi’s widow. It proves O’Reilly wasn’t on the scene when de Mohrenschildt died. You can hear Fonzi tell O’Reilly “he committed suicide,” as O’Reilly asks when and how (“they say he shot himself). The Dallas-based reporter wraps the conversation by saying, “I’m comin’ down there tomorrow, I’m comin’ down to Florida,” and as he discusses grabbing a flight, it’s clear he wasn’t anywhere close. “Bill O’Reilly did not hear a gunshot from 1,200 miles away,” Morley told Stelter Sunday morning. The journalist and JFK assassination investigator took his findings to Fox News two years ago, he said, but got no reply. Since Media Matters revived the Morley story, Fox has referred all questions to O’Reilly’s publisher, which is mildly interesting, since on the other charges Roger Ailes has staunchly stood behind his anchor. The Kennedy lie is different from the other charges against O’Reilly – although as the number of challenged O’Reilly claims mount, it’s possible to wonder how much more reporters have yet to uncover. Let’s take them in order.
When it comes to reporting on his exaggerations and falsehoods about his time covering the Falklands War and guerrilla uprisings in El Salvador, there is at least some confusion over the real story. Although it’s clear O’Reilly didn’t come close to combat in the Falklands as he claimed, he’s been able to produce enough conflicting accounts about the Buenos Aires riot that he did cover to at least cloud the charges against him. Likewise, he obviously, even ludicrously exaggerated the danger he saw reporting in El Salvador, but you have to sort through different versions of different war scenes to get the truth. O’Reilly’s claims that he witnessed the murder of nuns in El Salvador – “I saw nuns get shot in the back of the head,” he said more than once – were debunked by Media Matters too. But the Fox host told Mediaite, one of his go-to defenders, that he was referring to seeing photos of the murdered nuns, not the actual murders. “No one could possibly take that segment as reporting on El Salvador,” O’Reilly sputtered. Critics widely mocked him, but he seems to be getting away with that one too. Then former colleagues came forward in the Guardian to refute O’Reilly’s heroic accounts of his reporting on the 1992 Los Angeles riots. O’Reilly claimed “concrete was raining down on us” and “we were attacked by protesters,” but journalists on the scene with him say they faced no such violence, though a camera was smashed by an angry resident. Jon Swaine reported:
Two of the team said the man was angered specifically by O’Reilly behaving disrespectfully after arriving at the smoking remains of his neighbourhood in a limousine, whose driver at one point began polishing the vehicle. O’Reilly is said to have shouted at the man and asked him: “Don’t you know who I am?”
cont'
http://www.salon.com/2015/03/02/oreillys_trouble_deepens_a_kennedy_tall_tale_that_could_unravel_fox_news_bully/
March 2, 2015
So Bibi Netanyahu did not back down, and he’s here now in the United States, and he’s giving the speech Tuesday. In doing so, he has forced a true low point in U.S.-Israel relations. As has been often observed, he’s turning Israel into a partisan issue—up to somewhere around a quarter of congressional Democrats are refusing to attend the speech. That’s a crack, a big one. If he remains prime minister after the March 17 elections, the fissures between Netanyahu’s government and Barack Obama and the Democrats will only widen. Congressional support for Israel is due for a reconsideration. As Scott McConnell wrote last month in The American Conservative (an anti-neocon magazine), Congress “does not come close to representing the views of the American people” on Israel, either with respect to Iran or the occupation. McConnell cites all the requisite poll numbers that make the case.
Now, Congress can go a long time without representing American public opinion. On certain big-money issues like banking, that’s all Congress does. But on most issues, Congress at least has to act like it’s listening to the American people, and on foreign policy questions in particular, Congress, and for that matter the president, can’t usually go where the American people don’t want to go. Obama probably wanted to drop a smattering of bombs on Syria in 2013, but public opinion was dead set against it. And remember how the Bush administration had to work public opinion in 2002 and 2003 to make sure the lies about Saddam Husssein’s nuclear ambitions got support levels up to 60 percent or so before it launched the war. So one of these days, in two years or five or six, congressional fealty to Israel will cease being so bipartisan and reflexive—and that will be entirely an outcome of Netanyahu (and John Boehner’s and Ron Dermer’s and AIPAC’s) making. But all that is just politics. Netanyahu is creating a much bigger problem here. Ultimately, he wants war with Iran. And American neoconservatives want it, too. Few of them will say so (although some do—see below). But that’s what they want, and we need to be clear about it.
Think about it. What is the alternative to negotiating with Iran? Well, there is only one: not negotiating with Iran. And what are the possible courses of action under that option? At the end of the day, there are two. Number one, let Iran do what it wants. Number two, ultimately, be willing to start a war to block Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Knowing the neocons’ world view as I’m sure you do, how willing do you think they’d be to let Iran do what it wants? Correct. Not very. That leaves war. There is the step of tougher sanctions as a middle course, but sanctions, even crippling ones, don’t usually change a regime’s behavior. So the clear implication of the anti-negotiation position is war—with a country of 77 million people, a huge army, and formidable wealth. As a point of comparison, Iraq in 2003 had about a third of Iran’s population. As noted above, not many on the right are going to be honest enough to speak openly of war. The Republican presidential candidates, for example, don’t want the American public to think they’re crazy, so they won’t admit this—although interestingly, Rick Santorum became, I believe, the first Republican candidate to call for up to 10,000 U.S. combat troops on the ground to fight the so-called Islamic State.
With regard to Iran, the candidates hide behind the usual euphemisms. But a few war-makers are coming out of the closet. Matt Welch of Reason noted last week that on a panel at CPAC, both John Bolton and new Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton spoke openly of the desire for regime change in Iran. Bolton said U.S. policy toward Iran should be “overthrow of the ayatollahs.” Cotton added that we need regime change and “replacement with a pro-Western regime.” Where is Netanyahu on this? Every indication he’s given us is that he’s on the Bolton-Cotton team. I don’t doubt that the prime minister sincerely believes that a nuclear-armed Islamic Republic would be catastrophic for Israel, and we should not dismiss that concern. No opponent of the neoconservative approach should be foolish enough to think that we can trust Iran. Israel has good reason to be worried. (I will, however, mention here Israel’s own 100-odd nuclear warheads, just on principle, because they always go unmentioned in columns like these.) So Netanyahu wants, at the very least, a bombing campaign. But you know as well as I do that most of the leading experts say Iran’s centrifuge capacities are now too numerous and too geographically disparate for a bombing campaign of the usual scope to be very effective. That means a bombing campaign of unusual scope.
cont'
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/02/the-catastrophe-bibi-is-courting.html
The CATASTROPHE Bibi Is Courting
"...Israel’s prime minister is in Washington to build American support, bolster his re-election campaign, and (clandestinely) push for war on Iran. He should be careful what he wishes for...."
So Bibi Netanyahu did not back down, and he’s here now in the United States, and he’s giving the speech Tuesday. In doing so, he has forced a true low point in U.S.-Israel relations. As has been often observed, he’s turning Israel into a partisan issue—up to somewhere around a quarter of congressional Democrats are refusing to attend the speech. That’s a crack, a big one. If he remains prime minister after the March 17 elections, the fissures between Netanyahu’s government and Barack Obama and the Democrats will only widen. Congressional support for Israel is due for a reconsideration. As Scott McConnell wrote last month in The American Conservative (an anti-neocon magazine), Congress “does not come close to representing the views of the American people” on Israel, either with respect to Iran or the occupation. McConnell cites all the requisite poll numbers that make the case.
Now, Congress can go a long time without representing American public opinion. On certain big-money issues like banking, that’s all Congress does. But on most issues, Congress at least has to act like it’s listening to the American people, and on foreign policy questions in particular, Congress, and for that matter the president, can’t usually go where the American people don’t want to go. Obama probably wanted to drop a smattering of bombs on Syria in 2013, but public opinion was dead set against it. And remember how the Bush administration had to work public opinion in 2002 and 2003 to make sure the lies about Saddam Husssein’s nuclear ambitions got support levels up to 60 percent or so before it launched the war. So one of these days, in two years or five or six, congressional fealty to Israel will cease being so bipartisan and reflexive—and that will be entirely an outcome of Netanyahu (and John Boehner’s and Ron Dermer’s and AIPAC’s) making. But all that is just politics. Netanyahu is creating a much bigger problem here. Ultimately, he wants war with Iran. And American neoconservatives want it, too. Few of them will say so (although some do—see below). But that’s what they want, and we need to be clear about it.
Think about it. What is the alternative to negotiating with Iran? Well, there is only one: not negotiating with Iran. And what are the possible courses of action under that option? At the end of the day, there are two. Number one, let Iran do what it wants. Number two, ultimately, be willing to start a war to block Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Knowing the neocons’ world view as I’m sure you do, how willing do you think they’d be to let Iran do what it wants? Correct. Not very. That leaves war. There is the step of tougher sanctions as a middle course, but sanctions, even crippling ones, don’t usually change a regime’s behavior. So the clear implication of the anti-negotiation position is war—with a country of 77 million people, a huge army, and formidable wealth. As a point of comparison, Iraq in 2003 had about a third of Iran’s population. As noted above, not many on the right are going to be honest enough to speak openly of war. The Republican presidential candidates, for example, don’t want the American public to think they’re crazy, so they won’t admit this—although interestingly, Rick Santorum became, I believe, the first Republican candidate to call for up to 10,000 U.S. combat troops on the ground to fight the so-called Islamic State.
With regard to Iran, the candidates hide behind the usual euphemisms. But a few war-makers are coming out of the closet. Matt Welch of Reason noted last week that on a panel at CPAC, both John Bolton and new Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton spoke openly of the desire for regime change in Iran. Bolton said U.S. policy toward Iran should be “overthrow of the ayatollahs.” Cotton added that we need regime change and “replacement with a pro-Western regime.” Where is Netanyahu on this? Every indication he’s given us is that he’s on the Bolton-Cotton team. I don’t doubt that the prime minister sincerely believes that a nuclear-armed Islamic Republic would be catastrophic for Israel, and we should not dismiss that concern. No opponent of the neoconservative approach should be foolish enough to think that we can trust Iran. Israel has good reason to be worried. (I will, however, mention here Israel’s own 100-odd nuclear warheads, just on principle, because they always go unmentioned in columns like these.) So Netanyahu wants, at the very least, a bombing campaign. But you know as well as I do that most of the leading experts say Iran’s centrifuge capacities are now too numerous and too geographically disparate for a bombing campaign of the usual scope to be very effective. That means a bombing campaign of unusual scope.
cont'
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/02/the-catastrophe-bibi-is-courting.html
March 2, 2015
We're about to see a mountain of writing and hoopla this week about Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's visit to the United States and speech before Congress. A guy on twitter asked me if a comment I made was meant to be ironic. My thought was to tell him that irony simply doesn't have the muscle mass to handle what's coming down the pike this week. Only snark and absurdism can manage it. But with all this one of the most significant developments has gone all but unmentioned. We now have dramatic new evidence of Netanyahu's willingness to distort or simply falsify what his own intelligence agencies are telling him about the state of Iran's nuclear program when he speaks to the US and the world.
J.J. Goldberg goes into depth about it here in The Forward. But the gist is this: You probably remember that Netanyahu speech a couple years ago before the United Nations - the one where he used the bomb cartoon to illustrate his points about the Iranian nuclear program. In that speech Netanyahu made a series of specific claims about the status of the Iranian nuclear program. (Again, read J.J.'s piece for the details.) It turns out several of those claims were specifically contradicted by the current intelligence from the Mossad - Israel's foreign intelligence agency. We know this because of a major leak of hundreds of documents from South African intelligence. One of those is a report from the South Africans' Israeli counterparts - detailing their current evaluation of the status of the program. It's dated only a few weeks after Netanyahu's speech.
It has been an open secret for years that very, very few of Israel's top military and intelligence leaders see eye to eye with Netanyahu on the Iran question. This isn't to say that they don't view it as a major threat; they do. The questions are whether it is an existential threat and the wisdom of an Israeli military strike to thwart or retard the program. (Here's an article from this weekend on the head of Mossad from 2002 to 2010, Meir Dagan, saying Netanyahu is 'destroying the Zionist dream' with his leadership.) But these are questions of judgment and strategy - which are ultimately the province of elected leaders. The points in the UN speech are narrow questions of fact - which Netanyahu appears to have deliberately misstated.
cont'
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/pants-on-fire
Netanyahu - PANTS ON FIRE!
We're about to see a mountain of writing and hoopla this week about Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's visit to the United States and speech before Congress. A guy on twitter asked me if a comment I made was meant to be ironic. My thought was to tell him that irony simply doesn't have the muscle mass to handle what's coming down the pike this week. Only snark and absurdism can manage it. But with all this one of the most significant developments has gone all but unmentioned. We now have dramatic new evidence of Netanyahu's willingness to distort or simply falsify what his own intelligence agencies are telling him about the state of Iran's nuclear program when he speaks to the US and the world.
J.J. Goldberg goes into depth about it here in The Forward. But the gist is this: You probably remember that Netanyahu speech a couple years ago before the United Nations - the one where he used the bomb cartoon to illustrate his points about the Iranian nuclear program. In that speech Netanyahu made a series of specific claims about the status of the Iranian nuclear program. (Again, read J.J.'s piece for the details.) It turns out several of those claims were specifically contradicted by the current intelligence from the Mossad - Israel's foreign intelligence agency. We know this because of a major leak of hundreds of documents from South African intelligence. One of those is a report from the South Africans' Israeli counterparts - detailing their current evaluation of the status of the program. It's dated only a few weeks after Netanyahu's speech.
It has been an open secret for years that very, very few of Israel's top military and intelligence leaders see eye to eye with Netanyahu on the Iran question. This isn't to say that they don't view it as a major threat; they do. The questions are whether it is an existential threat and the wisdom of an Israeli military strike to thwart or retard the program. (Here's an article from this weekend on the head of Mossad from 2002 to 2010, Meir Dagan, saying Netanyahu is 'destroying the Zionist dream' with his leadership.) But these are questions of judgment and strategy - which are ultimately the province of elected leaders. The points in the UN speech are narrow questions of fact - which Netanyahu appears to have deliberately misstated.
cont'
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/pants-on-fire
March 2, 2015
"...BILL O'REILLY DID NOT HEAR A GUNSHOT FROM 1200 MILES AWAY...HE MADE THIS STORY UP!!..."..........
.
BOOM!!!- Stelter: Audio Tapes DISPROVE O'Reilly's JFK Reporting
Did Bill O'Reilly exaggerate his reporting when covering the JFK assassination?
"...BILL O'REILLY DID NOT HEAR A GUNSHOT FROM 1200 MILES AWAY...HE MADE THIS STORY UP!!..."..........
.
March 2, 2015
These type of criminal shootings are becoming the norm....when will justice prevail?.........
GRAPHIC FOOTAGE: LAPD Officer SHOOTS HOMELESS MAN After Responding To Report Of Altercation
Before watching the video below, be forewarned that it is extremely graphic and contains very loud profanity.
These type of criminal shootings are becoming the norm....when will justice prevail?.........
In extremely graphic footage uploaded to Facebook on Sunday, an LAPD police officer fired his weapon five times, killing a man who was reportedly homeless. According to the LA Times, officers were responding to a report of an altercation at a homeless encampment on a downtown street this morning.
In the video, originally uploaded by a man named Anthony Blackburn, officers can be seen wrestling with a group of homeless people, with two officers dropping their batons while tackling a woman. After one one woman picks up an officer’s dropped baton — with the officer shouting “You have my baton” — another officer can be heard yelling repeatedly, “He’s going for my gun!”
Five shots follow, with the man filming the incident repeatedly cursing before saying, “They just killed that man! Just shot that motherf*cking man like that.” According to the Times, the fallen man seen on the ground with officers standing over him was taken to a local hospital where he was pronounced dead.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/03/graphic-footage-lapd-officer-shoots-homeless-man-after-responding-to-report-of-altercation/
In the video, originally uploaded by a man named Anthony Blackburn, officers can be seen wrestling with a group of homeless people, with two officers dropping their batons while tackling a woman. After one one woman picks up an officer’s dropped baton — with the officer shouting “You have my baton” — another officer can be heard yelling repeatedly, “He’s going for my gun!”
Five shots follow, with the man filming the incident repeatedly cursing before saying, “They just killed that man! Just shot that motherf*cking man like that.” According to the Times, the fallen man seen on the ground with officers standing over him was taken to a local hospital where he was pronounced dead.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/03/graphic-footage-lapd-officer-shoots-homeless-man-after-responding-to-report-of-altercation/
March 2, 2015
Former Justice Minister MK Tzipi Livni on Sunday evening weighed in on the ad in the New York Times which accused President Barack Obama's National Security Adviser Susan Rice of ignoring genocide. The ad, which appeared in Saturday's New York Times, was taken out by well-known pro-Israel advocate Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, and was denounced by a host of Jewish organizations in the United States. In a post on her Facebook page, Livni linked between Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s upcoming Congress speech and the ad which, she claimed, was funded by people close to Netanyahu. “We cannot be indifferent. The relations with the United States are integral to Israel's security, and harming these relations hurts Israel's security,” she warned.
“The ad against national security adviser Susan Rice, published in the New York Times which was funded by her political opponents and those close to Netanyahu, is despicable, vile and crosses red lines, and especially - it reflects the murky atmosphere created in the United States thanks to Netanyahu’s ‘generosity,’” Livni continued. “Netanyahu, by politically sneaking into Congress for a speech, turned the U.S.-Israel relationship into a partisan issue that is harmful to Israel and its security. Netanyahu is selling our relations with our closest ally for a campaign speech and for his political survival,” she charged.
The ad in the New York Times appeared to be a reaction to comments Rice made in a recent interview with Charlie Rose, where she argued Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's speech before Congress could be disastrous to U.S.-Israel relations. White House spokesman Josh Earnest later backed the comments, but House Speaker John Boehner rejected Rice’s assertion, saying he “couldn't disagree more” with what she said.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/191993#.VPQwhUIwJid
___________________________________________________________
There are Lies, Damn Lies, and Ron Dermer
Two incendiary Likudist media provocations today: the first is yet another in a series of Rabbi Shmuley Boteach’s New York Times ads touting Sheldon Adelson’s anti-Muslim agenda. Previous ads in the series have attacked Iran, Hamas and the UN with equal vitriol. I’ve written about a few of them before here. But today’s ad is truly extraordinary. It essentially accuses Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the UN, and by extension Barack Obama, of being willing collaborators in a future genocide against not just Israel, but the entire Jewish people. As I’ve noted before in posts on these ads, the ad copy makes no pretence of truth or accuracy. It is shameless, hucksterism for Likudist values. In case anyone needs to read Boteach’s accusations against Rice in long-form, he’s elaborated on his diatribe here.
~snip~
Further, none of these groups attacked any of Boteach’s previous disgusting Islamophobic ads. As long as Boteach smears Muslims it’s fine with the Jewish elites. But when he smears a U.S. president and high administration official, then it goes too far. I’ve got news for them all. Boteach and Adelson are a menace to American Jewry. If they don’t take a stronger stance against them, pretty soon they’ll have bought there way into positions of even greater power and influence here in America. You think the last election cycle, when Adelson pumped over $100-million into the presidential campaign, was bad? Try $200-or even $300-million in 2016. And Adelson the gambling magnate will put it all down on one number: Israel. Adelson’s next president, if his money has any say in the matter, will turn the adminsitration into an annex of the Likud party. All administration personnel having anything to do with the Middle East will be vetted by Adelson and Bibi and their political minions.
More must be done to inoculate the American people against the hate and lies spewed by the Adelson-Boteach cabal.
http://www.richardsilverstein.com/2015/03/01/there-are-lies-damn-lies-and-ron-dermer/
Livni Blames Netanyahu for ANTI-SUSAN RICE AD
Former Justice Minister claims Rabbi Shmuley Boteach's ad reflects the atmosphere in America caused by Netanyahu speech.
Former Justice Minister MK Tzipi Livni on Sunday evening weighed in on the ad in the New York Times which accused President Barack Obama's National Security Adviser Susan Rice of ignoring genocide. The ad, which appeared in Saturday's New York Times, was taken out by well-known pro-Israel advocate Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, and was denounced by a host of Jewish organizations in the United States. In a post on her Facebook page, Livni linked between Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s upcoming Congress speech and the ad which, she claimed, was funded by people close to Netanyahu. “We cannot be indifferent. The relations with the United States are integral to Israel's security, and harming these relations hurts Israel's security,” she warned.
“The ad against national security adviser Susan Rice, published in the New York Times which was funded by her political opponents and those close to Netanyahu, is despicable, vile and crosses red lines, and especially - it reflects the murky atmosphere created in the United States thanks to Netanyahu’s ‘generosity,’” Livni continued. “Netanyahu, by politically sneaking into Congress for a speech, turned the U.S.-Israel relationship into a partisan issue that is harmful to Israel and its security. Netanyahu is selling our relations with our closest ally for a campaign speech and for his political survival,” she charged.
The ad in the New York Times appeared to be a reaction to comments Rice made in a recent interview with Charlie Rose, where she argued Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's speech before Congress could be disastrous to U.S.-Israel relations. White House spokesman Josh Earnest later backed the comments, but House Speaker John Boehner rejected Rice’s assertion, saying he “couldn't disagree more” with what she said.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/191993#.VPQwhUIwJid
___________________________________________________________
There are Lies, Damn Lies, and Ron Dermer
Two incendiary Likudist media provocations today: the first is yet another in a series of Rabbi Shmuley Boteach’s New York Times ads touting Sheldon Adelson’s anti-Muslim agenda. Previous ads in the series have attacked Iran, Hamas and the UN with equal vitriol. I’ve written about a few of them before here. But today’s ad is truly extraordinary. It essentially accuses Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the UN, and by extension Barack Obama, of being willing collaborators in a future genocide against not just Israel, but the entire Jewish people. As I’ve noted before in posts on these ads, the ad copy makes no pretence of truth or accuracy. It is shameless, hucksterism for Likudist values. In case anyone needs to read Boteach’s accusations against Rice in long-form, he’s elaborated on his diatribe here.
~snip~
Further, none of these groups attacked any of Boteach’s previous disgusting Islamophobic ads. As long as Boteach smears Muslims it’s fine with the Jewish elites. But when he smears a U.S. president and high administration official, then it goes too far. I’ve got news for them all. Boteach and Adelson are a menace to American Jewry. If they don’t take a stronger stance against them, pretty soon they’ll have bought there way into positions of even greater power and influence here in America. You think the last election cycle, when Adelson pumped over $100-million into the presidential campaign, was bad? Try $200-or even $300-million in 2016. And Adelson the gambling magnate will put it all down on one number: Israel. Adelson’s next president, if his money has any say in the matter, will turn the adminsitration into an annex of the Likud party. All administration personnel having anything to do with the Middle East will be vetted by Adelson and Bibi and their political minions.
More must be done to inoculate the American people against the hate and lies spewed by the Adelson-Boteach cabal.
http://www.richardsilverstein.com/2015/03/01/there-are-lies-damn-lies-and-ron-dermer/
March 1, 2015
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said Sunday that it was "arrogant" for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to presume to speak for all Jews on a potential nuclear deal between the United States and Iran. Netanyahu has defended his upcoming speech to Congress on Iran in part by saying that he feels like he is an "emissary of all Israelis, even those who disagree with me, of the entire Jewish people." During an appearance on CNN's "State of The Union," Feinstein, who is Jewish, dismissed the suggestion that Netanyahu spoke on her behalf.
"No, he doesn't speak for me on this," she said. "I think it's a rather arrogant statement. I think the Jewish community is like any other community, there are different points of view. I think that arrogance does not befit Israel, candidly. I think Israel is a nation that needs to be protected, that needs to stand free, that hopefully can work constructively with Palestinians to have a side-by-side state and to put an end to the bitterness that has plagued this whole area." Feinstein said that, despite her criticisms, she plans to attend Netanyahu's speech to Congress Tuesday.
"I intend to go and I'll listen respectfully, I don't intend to jump up and down," she said. Feinstein added that she hopes Netanyahu speaks about what would happen if negotiations with Iran fail to reach a deal, or reach a deal that the U.S. does not support. Slightly less than half of American voters believe that House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) was wrong to invite Netanyahu to address Congress without first notifying the White House, according to a new NBC News/ Wall Street Journal Poll. According to the poll, 30 percent back the invitation and 22 percent said that they don't know enough to decide. Two-thirds of Democrats surveyed said that the invitation shouldn't have been extended, while just 28 percent of Republicans said the same. The speech has set up a tense back-and-forth between the Obama administration, congressional Republicans and the Israeli prime minister. While the White House initially called the invitation a "breach of protocol," top officials have recently taken a somewhat harder line on the speech, calling it "destructive" to U.S.-Israel relations.
cont'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/01/dianne-feinstein-benjamin-netanyahu_n_6778748.html
Dianne Feinstein: BENJAMIN NETANYAHU 'ARROGANT' For Claiming To Speak For All Jews
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said Sunday that it was "arrogant" for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to presume to speak for all Jews on a potential nuclear deal between the United States and Iran. Netanyahu has defended his upcoming speech to Congress on Iran in part by saying that he feels like he is an "emissary of all Israelis, even those who disagree with me, of the entire Jewish people." During an appearance on CNN's "State of The Union," Feinstein, who is Jewish, dismissed the suggestion that Netanyahu spoke on her behalf.
"No, he doesn't speak for me on this," she said. "I think it's a rather arrogant statement. I think the Jewish community is like any other community, there are different points of view. I think that arrogance does not befit Israel, candidly. I think Israel is a nation that needs to be protected, that needs to stand free, that hopefully can work constructively with Palestinians to have a side-by-side state and to put an end to the bitterness that has plagued this whole area." Feinstein said that, despite her criticisms, she plans to attend Netanyahu's speech to Congress Tuesday.
"I intend to go and I'll listen respectfully, I don't intend to jump up and down," she said. Feinstein added that she hopes Netanyahu speaks about what would happen if negotiations with Iran fail to reach a deal, or reach a deal that the U.S. does not support. Slightly less than half of American voters believe that House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) was wrong to invite Netanyahu to address Congress without first notifying the White House, according to a new NBC News/ Wall Street Journal Poll. According to the poll, 30 percent back the invitation and 22 percent said that they don't know enough to decide. Two-thirds of Democrats surveyed said that the invitation shouldn't have been extended, while just 28 percent of Republicans said the same. The speech has set up a tense back-and-forth between the Obama administration, congressional Republicans and the Israeli prime minister. While the White House initially called the invitation a "breach of protocol," top officials have recently taken a somewhat harder line on the speech, calling it "destructive" to U.S.-Israel relations.
cont'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/01/dianne-feinstein-benjamin-netanyahu_n_6778748.html
Profile Information
Member since: Tue May 13, 2008, 03:07 AMNumber of posts: 14,923
