Image 01 Image 03

Obama’s not offended, he just wants Bibi out of office

Obama’s not offended, he just wants Bibi out of office

There is a breach of protocol, but not by Boehner and Bibi.

Claims by anonymous sources that the Obama administration is deeply offended by a “breach of protocol” in the planned appearance by Benjamin Netanyahu at a joint meeting of Congress are increasing.

The New York Times quotes an unnamed official as saying the anger goes beyond John Boehner and Netanyahu, to the Israeli Ambassador:

The Obama administration, after days of mounting tension, signaled on Wednesday how angry it is with Israel that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accepted Republican leaders’ invitation to address Congress on Iran without consulting the White House.

The outrage the episode has incited within President Obama’s inner circle became clear in unusually sharp criticism by a senior administration official who said that the Israeli ambassador, Ron Dermer, who helped orchestrate the invitation, had repeatedly placed Mr. Netanyahu’s political fortunes above the relationship between Israel and the United States.

William Kristol argues that Obama views Netanyahu as an impediment to appeasement of Iran, much as Churchill was viewed with regard to the rise of fascism in Germany:

It is Obama’s failures that explain his anger—his failures, and his hopes that a breakthrough with Iran could erase the memories of failure and appear to vindicate his foreign policy. Israel stands in the way, he thinks, of this breakthrough. Prime Minister Netanyahu stands in the way. And so Obama lashes out.

It’s of course unseemly. But it’s also dangerous. Neville Chamberlain and the British establishment were far angrier with Winston Churchill, and much harsher in their attempts to discredit him, in the late 1930s when the dreams of appeasement were failing, than earlier, when hope for the success of appeasement was alive. When you think your policies are going to be vindicated, you ignore or dismiss critics. It’s when you suspect and fear imminent failure that you lash out.

So we have an angry president, increasingly desperate for vindication of his failed foreign policy, accelerating both his appeasement of Iran and his attacks on Israel….”

I think that’s the point.

Obama doesn’t like Netanyahu and wants him out of office. That has been clear for years, and most recently when John Kerry and others reportedly urged the Palestinian Authority not to push it’s Security Council resolution prior to the Israeli elections so as not to help the Israeli right wing. Which means Netanyahu’s coalition.

The Obama administration attempted to interfere in the Israeli elections, and continues to do so through anonymous sources, including the person who called Netanyahu a “chickenshit.”

While I do believe Obama is thin-skinned, I think there is much more here. He has found an opening to remove an obstacle to his plan to force an Israeli withdrawal to the 1949 armistice borders and to accommodate not just the Iranian nuclear program but also Iran’s role as a regional power. That is consistent with six years of Obama policy, and Netanyahu’s alleged breach of protocol changed nothing.

Obama sees an opportunity to separate Netanyahu not just from Democrats in Congress but also from Israeli voters, where the supposed damage to relations with the U.S. may help Netanyahu’s adversaries.  It may be that Boehner and Bibi handed Obama just the excuse he needed.

This entire episode is about the Obama administration breaching protocol and interfering in Israeli elections, not the other way around.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


It’s a tiring analogy, but works here: Imagine if George Bush had done the same….

If Netanyahu is as strong as I think he is, and the Israelis are as pragmatic as I hope they are, then Bibi will find a way to turn Obama’s spite into a campaign positive.

    Israel must nurture its relationships with allies. The fact that Bibi hasn’t been able to sway this administration is not a positive.

    However they don’t like rockets being fired at them and I can’t imagine Obama’s approval rating is high.

I firmly believe that a BIG part of Barracula’s hatred of Bibi is deeply personal.

Bibi is everything as a national leader that Barracula is not. Bibi loves Israel, and has all his life. He appears to work hard every day to foster its prosperity and defend it. He never had any notion of “fundamentally transforming” his nation.

Bibi is/was a warrior. Barracula was/is a moral coward.

Bibi had a dad. Barracula was abandoned by both his parents.

I could go on, but the picture is really crystal clear. Nothing Bibi could do would make Barracula NOT hate him.

    Not A Member of Any Organized Political in reply to Ragspierre. | January 29, 2015 at 2:16 pm

    PLUS, Obama is 100% FAKE!

    LSBeene in reply to Ragspierre. | January 29, 2015 at 3:06 pm

    I think that your amateur psych job is spot on.

    Obama’s puffed up sense of self is often based on the personal politics of envy and entitlement – look at how he and Michelle have both benefitted from, successfully, playing that card(s) their whole life.

    Bibi, OTOH, is a self made man based on actual accomplishments.

    Also – BHO is incredibly pro-Muslim/Arab, both by inclination personally and ideologically.

    Bibi also doesn’t, even pro-forma, automatically show deference to BHO, and that’s something (from various examples) BHO has a very hard time with.

    Also – Bibi seems, IMO, a VERY astute and pragmatic student of history and knows history and real-politic, which is the antithesis to BHO’s near-absolute reliance on his theoretical / ideological belief systems. Those same systems have crashed headlong into reality so many times, but he can’t seem to adjust his world-view.

    The contrast between to two men is stark.

      platypus in reply to LSBeene. | January 29, 2015 at 3:48 pm

      HEY! What are ya doin’ callin’ my friend Rags an a-mah-ture? He’s a pro, and don’t you fergit it. Now git yer ugly mug outta here.


      Hepcat in reply to LSBeene. | January 29, 2015 at 6:14 pm

      Yes, I agree. Like with many on the left, there’s that anti-Israel/pro-Palestinian bias. Well … bias may be too nice a word for it.

        Hepcat in reply to Hepcat. | January 29, 2015 at 6:27 pm

        About that bias … Obama’s pal Rashid Khalidi was a spokesperson for the PLO when they were designated a terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department.

        … A special tribute came from Khalidi’s friend and frequent dinner companion, the young state Sen. Barack Obama. Speaking to the crowd, Obama reminisced about meals prepared by Khalidi’s wife, Mona, and conversations that had challenged his thinking.

        His many talks with the Khalidis, Obama said, had been “consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases. . . . It’s for that reason that I’m hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation — a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid’s dinner table,” but around “this entire world.”

2nd Ammendment Mother | January 29, 2015 at 11:54 am

It’s just my opinion, but I think the speech to Congress isn’t just about Bibi’s political fortunes. Obama has gone to great lengths to damage the US/Israel relationship. However, no matter how hard he (and his cohorts in academia) try, the majority of Americans stand in support of Israel. Bibi’s speech will be a good way to publicly back the people of Israel. Obama’s days in office are limited – our support for Israel isn’t.

Rags point is very well made – and Bibi is a great orator who gives relevant and inspiring speeches…. something else The One can’t do.

I would bet that I want bho out of office FAR MORE than bho wants Bibi out of office

Insufficiently Sensitive | January 29, 2015 at 12:17 pm

and Bibi is a great orator who gives relevant and inspiring speeches…. something else The One can’t do.

Agreed. Obama’s greatest fear is that Mr. Netanyahu, being articulate beyond O’s wildest dreams, will come before the House and deliver a message that will directly reach the American public, evading the poisonous middlemen of the White House staff and all its corrupt media poodles.

In a way, citizens can look at it as payback for Obama’s evasions of Congress in his rule by diktat.

Perhaps Mr. Netanyahu will even shine some light on the influence on the President of his backstage Colonel House, aka Valerie Jarrett, though this is small potatoes compared with the vastly larger issues of an autocratic atomic-powered Iran, and the survival of the liberal democratic State of Israel.

Monday, January 26, 2015

Foreign Funding Bankrolls Anti-Netanyahu Campaign – Flies in 5-Man Obama Team

Dr. Aaron Lerner Date: 26 January 2015

Haaretz reporter Roi Arad revealed in an article in the Hebrew edition today that the foreign funded organization, “One Voice”, is bankrolling the V-2015 campaign to defeat Binyamin Netanyahu’s national camp in the March 2015 Knesset Elections.

One indication of the generous financing is that it has now flown in a team of five American campaign experts (including Jeremy Bird, the Obama campaign’s national field director) who will run the campaign out of offices taking up the ground floor of a Tel Aviv office building.

V-2015 is careful not to support a specific party – rather “just not Bibi”. As such, the foreign funds pouring into the campaign are not subject to Israel’s campaign finance laws.

Dr. Aaron Lerner, Director IMRA

Immediately after pathological liar pResident Barack Hussein Obama publicly opines that his angst against Bibi accepting an invitation from our Congress to visit and speak is borne from his alleged reticence to ‘interfere in foreign elections’, he visits India and speaks profusely just weeks from their national elections… and then that little nugget above appears. Obviously, Barack Hussein Obama’s national field director would not go to Israel to try to defeat Netanyahu without Barack Hussein Obama’s approval and encouragement. As for “One Voice,” what do we know about that organization other than the fact that it is foreign funded? Breitbart says that “One Voice” is “reportedly funded by American donors,” but is there any assurance that Iran, for example, is not contributing to or even controlling “One Voice” to any degree?

pResident Barack Hussein Obama’s interference in Israel’s national elections, with the intent clearly being to eliminate Benjamin Netanyahu and his associates, and install supplicants to Barack Hussein Obama’s and Iran’s agenda, is certainly shocking, and colossally reprehensible. Hopefully, the good people of Israel will not sign their own ultimate death warrants by allowing Barack Hussein Obama and Iran to seize Israel by its throat with their lies, flim-flam, and filthy money.

oh man… where’d my comment disappear to?

Loathe as I am to acknowledge a Boehner success, and suspicious as I am in thinking Boehner accomplished it by accident, the fact is that Obama’s opposition to Israel is personal and does not reflect the position of Americans. Netanyahu and Israel need to know that the American people still support them. What better venue for this than the people’s chamber, the US House of Representatives?

Caption for above photo: “Mr. President I am not armed so take your hand off of me. I do have a solid right hook, though, if you can’t stop touching me with your hubris.”

Obama: “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Progressivism.”

    Not A Member of Any Organized Political in reply to jennifer a johnson. | January 29, 2015 at 2:20 pm

    Jennifer I guess you already know that Obama body language is a “power play” used by “controllers.” Odd thing is “controllers” usually have bottom of the barrel self-esteem. So they fake everything – even their “self-esteem.”

Didn’t General Douglas MacArthur address Congress (“Old soldiers never die…”) after Truman recalled him, in effect firing him, during the Korean War? Surely Truman didn’t, or couldn’t, sign off on that.

    platypus in reply to cbenoistd. | January 29, 2015 at 4:08 pm

    I bet you won’t find that fact in a CommieCore history textbook.

    Carol Herman in reply to cbenoistd. | January 30, 2015 at 6:04 pm

    The GOP erred in 1948. They put up a candidate against Truman’s first run, that had run against the sick FDR in 1944, and failed to win. (That was the election where Truman was named “VEEP.” An FDR surprise to his own party.)

    The GOP, after losing in 1948 to Truman then knew it had to go to General Douglas MacArthur to ask him to run as their candidate in 1952.

    That’s why Truman fired MacArthur. He didn’t want to give the GOP a chance of tapping him in 1952.

    In 1952 BOTH PARTIES approached Eisenhower! Eisenhower chose the GOP because he thought he’d spent enough time with politicians who shoved their gloved hand up his behind! And, he knew if he had run as a democrat he would not have had any independence, as president, at all.

    The dems have nothing to be ashamed of. They chose Adlai Stevenson to run in both 1952 and 1956. He lost both times because Americans don’t look at “egg heads” (intellectuals) as all that competent at running our presidency.

    Eisenhower’s two elections were BLOW OUTS!

    In 1960, on the other hand, John F. Kennedy only squeaked in. Or as a famous telegram from his dad read: “I won’t pay for a landslide.”

Another Voice | January 29, 2015 at 2:13 pm

Obama’s conniption about Congress inviting Israel Prime Minister “BiBi” Netanyahu to speak before the joint house is ludicrous if it were not for the hypocrisy. Was it not just a few weeks ago Obama had England’s Prime Minister David Cameron speak from Obama’s dais about placing phone calls and his lobbying efforts to contact key congressional representatives to oppose new sanctions on Iran and to support Obama and Kerry in their Iran policy (or lack thereof). Obama and his crew’s outrage on Netanyahu speaking in Congress is a bit too much in light of that. As it is, Obama is utilizing his political fund raising and backing a lobbying group 270 Strategies, and it’s director Jeremy Bird , Obama’s former campaign adviser to work in Israel and assist alongside V15, an “anti-BiBi” and anti-Semitic political action group, in their try to replace Israel’s democratic government and replace Netanyahu’s in his upcoming run for reelection. The sheer arrogance of Obama and his syncopates is insulting.

It may be personal. Obama stands behind strong men and women. Netanyahu is a strong man who stands in front.

The entire executive branch is a “breach of protocol”.

“Breach of protocol”?

Well, I’d like to hear what that chick who wears green lipstick and eats cereal from her bathtub has to say about that.

I’m not an expert on breaches of protocol, but I think treating an ally like an enemy might fall under that category.

Maybe it would be within the White House’s concept of protocol for Boehner to say,

“We won.” (The midterm elections. And we can invite whomever we choose to speak.)

    platypus in reply to LukeHandCool. | January 29, 2015 at 4:13 pm

    She doesn’t merely eat cereal from her bathtub. She eats cereal from her bathtub while she’s IN it.

    Us old farts call that above and beyond. WAY above and beyond.

    Carol Herman in reply to LukeHandCool. | January 30, 2015 at 6:08 pm

    Once seen, who can forget GloZell? Let alone the scene where she’s pouring gallons of milk into her bathtub. Wow, the sight of that whale eating fruit loops!

I know. Gross.

That calls for a Bleach of Protocol.

*** Breaking ***

Obama administration backtracks on “Breach of Protocol” charge.

Now says this is NOT a “Breach of Protocol.”

Of the Elders of Zion, that is.

Doug Wright Old Grouchy | January 29, 2015 at 7:24 pm

A recent article lamented that we do not have someone like Churchill today to provide that critical leadership in the face of the pending world crisis.

Bibi is not today’s Churchill yet do believe that he provides critical leadership for our mixed up world today. And, Bibi will be a great companion to a strong American leader should we be fortunate enough to gain one.

Failing that Yank leadership, because, God Help US, there’s still a chance that Liawatha or Hillary or a Moonbeam might gain the White House, Bibi faces that daunting task of striving onward alone, God Bless’em.

Bibi’s up to that task, in or out of office.

Bibi Netanyahu, in December, knew that Obama was going to use the White House to throw the book at Israel. So, pro-actively, he “tossed for new elections.” He’s gonna get re-elected. And, this way he also gets to pick new ministers for the portfolios that got vacated.

You think Livni gets to come back as a minister? Well, I don’t think so. I also think Vapid Lapid sees losses. And, his team goes from 15. The seats they had. To 9.

Dentists pull teeth for a living. Bibi, who knows a thing or two about politics, SURPRISED the fools in the White House with this “new election thing.”

Obama really doesn’t have anything EXCEPT his anger at Bibi. In March? He’ll play a lot of golf. But Bibi gets to talk to a joint session of the US Congress. Want to know what the topic is? Try “Iran.” And, “Nukes.” (For a $1000, Alex.)

What makes you think Obama will successfully court Iran? Even if he can do Foreign Policy from his position as Executive, he still know the real stinking bomb of fallout … is what happens when American get really, really angry.

Think of this another way, as well. Obama wants “LEGACY” that will writ his reputation large. Give the man, instead, a peanut. Jimmy Carter and Obama will vie for the “worst president evah,” title.