Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Bi-Partisan Warning to Obama on Israel and UN

Bi-Partisan Warning to Obama on Israel and UN

Don’t use the United Nations to push terms.

At this point, it should be obvious to most people that Obama doesn’t have Israel’s best interests in mind. Even Democratic members of the Senate are coming around.

The Times of Israel:

Senators warn Obama against rescinding UN veto

As reports proliferate that US leadership is considering stripping Israel of the protective diplomatic umbrella with which it has historically provided the Jewish state in the international arena — including its previously guaranteed vetoing of UN resolutions damaging to Jerusalem — a bipartisan group of US senators urged President Barack Obama in a letter Monday to avoid threatening Israel with such punitive measures and to reassert Washington’s support for the state.

The letter obtained by the Times of Israel was signed by two Democrats and two Republicans who did not directly criticize the president’s policies, but did warn that “using the United Nations to push Israel and the Palestinians to accept terms defined by others will only ensure that the parties themselves are not committed to observing these provisions.”…

The senators reminded the president that America’s “longstanding commitment to Israel transcends any one leader or government” — a not particularly veiled reference to the personal acrimony between Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

A little further down, the article claims Jewish House Democrats have had it:

“We’ve made our point,” a White House official told Politico on Sunday. “The message has clearly been received. The next move is theirs, presumably after the new government has been formed.”

But the administration has been under increased pressure to moderate its stance. The same Politico article reported that a dozen Jewish Democrats in the House of Representatives — including some stalwart Obama allies — had told Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes that Obama needed to tone down his rhetoric regarding Israel.

I’m pretty sure this is the Politico article being referenced:

White House to Netanyahu: Your move

A dozen Jewish House Democrats laid it out for deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes during a meeting in the Longworth House Office Building last week: Enough. They’re just as upset about what Benjamin Netanyahu said ruling out a two-state solution, but President Barack Obama didn’t need to keep reminding them and everyone else.

Congress has one thing going for it: the public trusts them more than Obama, at least when it comes to Iran.

Allahpundit of Hot Air:

Pew poll: Heavy majority thinks Congress, not Obama, should have final authority to approve Iran deal

A heavy majority, but maybe not heavy enough. If McConnell can’t muster more than 62 votes in the Senate to override an Obama veto of whatever Congress chooses passes. we’ll be stuck with this Iran sh*tburger until January 2017 at the earliest. And probably much longer than that, if we’re being honest.

Nice to see President Overreach get a rebuke in the polls, though. Which is different from expecting any sort of meaningful public backlash if he makes a deal over Congress’s objections.

Do you ever get a sense that you could do a better job with America’s foreign policy than the Obama administration?

You’re not alone.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

“At this point, it should be obvious to most people that Obama doesn’t have Israel’s best interests in mind.”

Wow, at what time should a United States President EVER have another country’s “best interests” in mind, as opposed to the best interests of the US?

    Vancomycin in reply to anoNY. | March 31, 2015 at 9:06 am

    “”Wow, at what time should a United States President EVER have another country’s “best interests” in mind, as opposed to the best interests of the US?””

    Well, I’m pretty sure the lawless jackass in the whitehouse doesn’t have the best interests of the US in mind either.

    I’m pretty sure he’s looking out for *Iran’s* best interests.

    Ragspierre in reply to anoNY. | March 31, 2015 at 9:13 am

    Wow, there’s NEVER…at any point…any downside to a president knowing and having the best interests of an ally in mind.

    He/she would have no business putting those interests ABOVE ours, of course, ya moron. But it would be GOOD if he/she knew them.

      anoNY in reply to Ragspierre. | March 31, 2015 at 11:38 am

      When someone uses the phrase “keep [their] best interests in mind”, what they mean is to act in someone else’s best interests, not merely to know the interests.

      President Obama should act in the best interests of the US, which (I’m sorry” are not always going to be those of Israel…

        Ragspierre in reply to anoNY. | March 31, 2015 at 11:54 am

        When someone uses words inappositely…as in STUPIDLY…so that they DON’T say what they MEANT to say, THAT’s on them.

        Ya moron.

    gasper in reply to anoNY. | March 31, 2015 at 10:09 am

    Your idiotic thought process is the reason this country is in such danger. There are too many like you who blindly follow this Pied Piper as he leads this country off the cliff. This unbelievable ignorance that you and so many others exhibit is dangerous beyond belief. Please enlighten me with your knowledge on why punishing Israel will help the United States and supporting Iran to build a bomb is in our best interests. I’ll be waiting. If your tendency is to respond that they are not building a bomb, stop right there. You are not only ignorant, you are stupid.

    Valerie in reply to anoNY. | March 31, 2015 at 11:13 am

    Only a damn fool could read this document, and think that the Palestinians are going to abide by any kind of peace agreement.

    http://middleeast.about.com/od/palestinepalestinians/a/me080106b.htm

    According to the founding document of the Hamas (the elected government of the West Bank), NO entity, elected or otherwise, has the power to enter into a genuine peace agreement with Israel. Further their goal is not to have their own land, or some “two-state solution.” Their stated goals are genocide and world conquest.

    This document must be repealed or rejected FIRST. Then, there might be a real possibility of peace.

    Obama looks like a fool, when he blames Israel for the lack of progress toward peace.

“At this point, it should be obvious to most people that Obama doesn’t have Israel’s best interests in mind.”

OK… THAT’s my nominee for “Understatement O’ The Year” 2015, at least so far.

At this point, it should be obvious to most people that Obama seeks to invert our alignments in the ME, if not the world.

Iran militia chief: Erasing Israel off the map is non-negotiable.
http://weaselzippers.us/219115-iran-militia-chief-erasing-israel-off-the-map-is-nonnegotiable/

Midwest Rhino | March 31, 2015 at 10:22 am

A treaty not backed by congress is just an executive agreement, afaik. Iran has a friend in the White House till 2017 no matter what deal they make. Obama surrendered our interests when he refused to keep 15K troops in Iraq and attain the SOFA, while apparently surrendering Egypt and Libya as well, and maybe Poland.

At this point, Europe is going to make the most profit from undoing all sanctions, so let THEM deal with the nuclear threat. The missiles will reach them first. They love to have the USA providing their defense for free, but maybe they’ll be more serious with Obama’s military on strike.

Hopefully we are building new missile defense systems. Iron Dome is just a start. There are economic strains in China and Russia, and the world is rebalancing as Obama wants. Tensions keep rising.

The last Jack Ryan movie was “Shadow Recruit” where he thwarts a Russian plan to crash the US dollar and sink us into depression. Indeed the burning of our currencies as a way of dealing with global debts might be the biggest battle, but getting elected depends on giving away free stuff, while lying about $100+ Trillion in unfunded liabilities.

What difference, at this point, does it make, if Obama signs some legacy agreement? Only if several Democrats decide impeachment is necessary will anything change before 2017, except for the influence on the next election.

    Gremlin1974 in reply to Midwest Rhino. | March 31, 2015 at 5:38 pm

    “The missiles will reach them first.”

    Actually if you think about it, this is the least likely thing to happen. While Iran may be full of religious crazies, that doesn’t equate with stupid or strategically inept.

    They know that if they did have a nuke and any missile capable of carrying that payload launched from Iran that Israel would not wait to see the trajectory they would turn a significant portion of Iran into a rather large sheet of radioactive glass and ask questions later.

    One of the problems with these “negotiations” is that the people they are negotiating with aren’t the people who actually lead the country, they are negotiating with the “government” of Iran, who is nothing more than a puppet for the Supreme Leader and the Religious leaders. The Ayatollah is who will have control of any nukes and they will not use then in a way that actually endangers themselves. So it is doubtful that these weapons would be delivered by missile. Remember most of their Nuclear Technology comes from Russia or the old soviet states and they are the ones who invented the “briefcase nuke”.

    Oh, there will be great grandstanding and video of the nuke be fitted to a missile and while everyone is wetting their pants about that one guy with a backpack will walk across the Rio Grande and just head north.

    The nuclear threat from Iran has never been a “ballistic” threat, besides no missile would ever reach Europe intact. The threat is one guy with a small nuke and the heartfelt belief that his death matters.

      Barry in reply to Gremlin1974. | March 31, 2015 at 8:23 pm

      Let me see if I can gently explain why I think you are wrong. 🙂

      First, no confirmation I know of that the Soviets actually had a “working” suitcase nuke. The Iranians are unlikely to have such a device. It’s not an easy fabrication.

      Second, Israel will not care if they can prove the nuke, however delivered, came from Iran. They will exercise the Sampson option, period, and Iran along with the rest of the ME will become a hot glass field.

      Third, per your own definition (correct) the Ayatollah will have control of the nuke(s). Perhaps you might want to consider what he will do as he suffers from a terminal illness, and having no care for the people of Iran, will have no care in the greater outcome.

        Gremlin1974 in reply to Barry. | April 1, 2015 at 5:27 pm

        Actually, I agree with your points. My knowledge of the Suitcase Nuke is from my Army EOD/Explosives Training from the early 90’s, so some of it was “worst case”. The other 2 points are very valid.

        I just love people who say; “Israel would never go that far.” I just remind them that the movie “Munich” is base on actual events and invite them to watch it again.

The ones now ‘warning’ Obie are the very ones who bashed and trashed Netanyahu for daring to speak to congress.
Guess their constituents are not amused and they need their donations to get re-elected. When are the voters going to wake up and smell the LIES.

Obama clearly has Iran’s best interests in mind.

The only concession left for this crew to make is to offer the US up as a vassal state. Then the Mullahs can control five capitals; Tehran, Baghdad, Damascus, Sanaa, and Washington DC.

It will also resolve this whole nuclear issue. Iran won’t need to develop nuclear weapons. They can have the keys to our arsenal.

Allahpundit is as ignorant as ever.

The Senate gets to ratify treaties, but only those submitted. The bill he speaks of is a law, which must be passed by the House as well to have the force of law. And as such, the House must also find 2/3 to override a veto.

Because of course vetoes are sustained unless overridden by BOTH House and Senate. You’d think a well-known pundit like AP would know that.

Libelous and slanderous media reports on the “four traitors” to begin in 5… 4… 3….

Tyrant Obama the Liar’s agreement with Iran is so bad that he knows that the Senate would never ratify it. That’s why he is attempting to bypass them. He wants to rule the country like Saddam Hussein or Hitler.

The Senate should vote to reject this treaty even if the Tyrant doesn’t submit it to them. The first promises presidential candidates make should be to cancel this agreement. Tyrant Obama the Liar is enabling Iranian Nuclear bombs to go on top of their ICBMs. He is giving them the tools of Israels destruction and ours.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend