Remember When Obama Felt Netanyahu

[Kathianne]

Shouldn't 'interfere' in US-Iran deal?

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/02/politics/netanyahu-speech-iran-obama-congress/


..."We have been told that no deal is better than a bad deal. Well this is a bad deal. It is a very bad deal. We are better off without it," Netanyahu said, building a case that Iran was not just bent on developing nuclear weapons but was determined to "gobble" up defenseless countries in a wider play for dominance in the Middle East.

"We are being told that the only alternative to this bad deal is war. That is just not true. The alternative to this bad deal is a much better deal," Netanyahu said to deafening cheers in the House of Representatives chamber, while issuing a firm warning that Israel would stand alone if necessary to defend the existence of the Jewish people...


...Speaking to reporters shortly after Netanyahu finished his remarks, Obama said there was "nothing new" in Netanyahu's address.

"But on the core issue, which is how do we prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, which would make it far more dangerous and would give it scope for even greater action in the region, the prime minister didn't offer any viable alternatives," Obama told reporters before meeting with Defense Secretary Ash Carter...

But now in UK:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/04/22/monstrous-interference-uk-pols-furious-at-obamas-plan-to-intervene-in-eu-debate.html?intcmp=hpbt1


...President Obama looks set to wade into the contentious debate in the United Kingdom over whether or not the nation should remain a member of the European Union – and some Brits are angry at the president’s intrusion into a delicate UK issue ahead of a major vote.

Obama will arrive in London late Thursday for a three-day trip. On Friday he will meet Prime Minister David Cameron -- who is reportedly keen to get Obama’s backing ahead of the June 23 referendum, in which Britons will choose to remain or leave the European Union.

The White House has said Obama is willing to offer his opinion and may announce that he favors Cameron's position – that Britain should remain in the European Union.

"If he's asked his view as a friend, he will offer it," U.S. Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes said. "As the president has said, we support a strong United Kingdom in the European Union."

Those calling for Britain to leave the European Union are not happy at that news, with U.K. Independence Party leader Nigel Farage saying Obama should stay home.

‘A monstrous interference,” Farage told Fox News Thursday. “I’d rather he stayed in Washington, frankly, if that’s what he’s going to do.”

“You wouldn’t expect the British Prime Minister to intervene in your presidential election, you wouldn’t expect the Prime Minister to endorse one candidate or another. Perhaps he’s another one of those people who doesn’t understand what [the EU] is,” Farage said...

[darin]

I'd not shed a tear of the entire EU went away.

[Kathianne]

He did it:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-obama-idUSKCN0XH2U6


World| Fri Apr 22, 2016 3:44am EDTRelated: WORLD (http://www.reuters.com/news/world)
Obama calls on British people not to vote to leave the EU

LONDON| BY ROBERTA RAMPTON (http://www.reuters.com/journalists/roberta-rampton) AND SARAH YOUNG (http://www.reuters.com/journalists/sarah-young)

U.S. President Barack Obama made an impassioned appeal on Friday for Britain to remain in the European Union, saying membership had magnified Britain's place in the world and made the bloc stronger and more outward looking.

Fearful that a British exit could weaken the West, Obama arrived in London to applaud Britain's EU membership which he said had helped make the world freer, richer and better able to tackle everything from Russian aggression to terrorism.

Praising Britain's "outsized" influence in the world, Obama invoked the interlinked history of the two countries and the tens of thousands of Americans lying in European war graves as his reason for speaking as "a friend" on the June 23 referendum.

...

Campaigners for Britain's EU membership, including Cameron, who is leading the "In" campaign, will welcome Obama's intervention, which led news broadcasts on British television.

But the president's comments drew scorn from opponents of Britain's EU membership.

New York-born London Mayor Boris Johnson, who heads the "Out" campaign, said that he did not want to be lectured by Americans about EU membership and that the United States would never countenance such a transfer of sovereignty.

"For the United States to tell us in the UK that we must surrender control of so much of our democracy -- it is a breathtaking example of the principle of do-as-I-say-but-not-as-I-do," Johnson wrote in the Sun newspaper.

"It is incoherent. It is inconsistent, and yes it is downright hypocritical," Johnson said.


...

[darin]

He did it:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-obama-idUSKCN0XH2U6

God that makes me sad. :(

[Drummond]

We have a Referendum due in June this year as to whether the UK will remain a member of the EU, or whether the UK public will vote to pull us out of the EU.

Obama has decided to interfere.

His view that we should remain locked within EU diktats, rather than seek our own independence and enhanced sovereignty, was already known. NOW ... he's gone a stage further. Now, in line with the 'Keep the UK within the EU' side, he's taken to adopting scare tactics. His particular brand of it is to blackmail us into being too afraid of losing American trade to want to pull out.

See ....

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/663665/Barack-Obama-Britain-back-queue-Brexit


The US President warned the UK would be “at the back of the queue” for a trade deal with America if it quit Brussels.

<section class="text-description">But his threat provoked outrage and scorn from pro-Brexit campaigners, who dismissed it as yet another scaremongering ploy from the pro-EU lobby.

Mr Obama, who will no longer be in office when decisions on a trade deal are made, delivered a lecture to the British people on why he thinks it is in the UK’s, America’s and the world’s best interests for Britain to vote to stay in the EU on June 23.

He weighed into the debate despite being warned by a host of anti-EU campaigners to “butt out” of our referendum battle.

He said there could be a US-UK trade agreement “down the line” but warned: “It’s not going to happen any time soon, because our focus is on negotiating with a big bloc, the EU. The UK is going to be in the back of the queue.”

The claim, made during a joint news conference with David Cameron, angered Leave campaigners.

Tory Justice Minister Dominic Raab said Mr Obama had made “a pretty cynical intervention”.

He added: “We’ve got a lame duck president doing an old friend a favour for purely political reasons – and taking a few unnecessary risks, being a bit irresponsible with the special relationship between our two countries.

“You can’t say on the one hand that the relationship is essential and always will be, then say that if you don’t take my advice you’ll be at the back of the queue for a free trade deal. I don’t think the British people will be blackmailed by anyone .....

One of the biggest scare tactics being employed in this whole debate is the question of who we'd need to open new trade deals with, on the back of an EU exit (the inference being, UNPROVEN, that we'd lose a massive amount with Europe if we pulled out of the EU). Obama's feeding into those manufactured fears by saying that America would be no alternative for us.

THIS IS BESIDE THE FACT THAT OBAMA WOULD HAVE NO POWER TO DETERMINE ANY OF THIS BY THE TIME IT BECAME A SERIOUS ISSUE FOR US.

I think that what we have here is a Socialist bully who wants to force us into obeying a Globalist agenda .. and our own self-determination, our own right to rule OURSELVES, be damned ....
</section>

[Noir]

The whole "debate" has just been scare tactics and contradictory statements, overall a very poor showing.

[Drummond]

The whole "debate" has just been scare tactics and contradictory statements, overall a very poor showing.

.. from the 'keep the UK a member of the EU' side, certainly.

But we will never be free of European dominance in our affairs until we quit the EU. Neither will we have a chance of even properly controlling our borders !!

Obama's attempted blackmail of us should finally make people aware of what Obama's truly worth.

[Elessar]

.. from the 'keep the UK a member of the EU' side, certainly.

But we will never be free of European dominance in our affairs until we quit the EU. Neither will we have a chance of even properly controlling our borders !!

Obama's attempted blackmail of us should finally make people aware of what Obama's truly worth.

He would f*** up a one-car funeral. He could not even
get Chicago in order as a 'community organizer' yet was
made a Post Turtle of state senator, U.S. Senator, and President.

The joke[edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Post_turtle&action=edit&section=1)]An old rancher is talking about politics with a young man from the city. He compares a politician to a "post turtle". The young man doesn't understand and asks him what a post turtle is.
The old man says, "When you're driving down a country road and you see a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that's a post turtle. You know he didn't get up there by himself. He doesn't belong there; he can't get anything done while he's up there; and you just want to help the poor, dumb thing down.

[DLT]

Shouldn't 'interfere' in US-Iran deal?

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/02/politics/netanyahu-speech-iran-obama-congress/





But now in UK:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/04/22/monstrous-interference-uk-pols-furious-at-obamas-plan-to-intervene-in-eu-debate.html?intcmp=hpbt1

In typical Janus-style, Barry talks out of both sides of his piehole. While enabling Iran to nuke up, he pretends to want to stop them from nuking up. God, will this nightmare ever end? No, I'm afraid it will only get worse. This year is especially going to be a VERY bumpy ride. Might want to stock up on popcorn and bullets. Just a question of which we'll feel the need to use first.

Satire alert...

http://www.usapoliticstoday.com/hillary-tells-obama-to-call-off-fbi-or-she-will-reveal-his-kenyan-birth-certificate/

[Atticus Finch]

I'd not shed a tear of the entire EU went away.That would wreck the narrative of many a modern day prophet.

[NightTrain]

God, he's such an embarrassment. Not satisfied with the wrecking of this side of the pond and Middle East and resurrecting the Russian empire, he's now meddling in British affairs. My apologies, Drummond and Noir... the clown will be gone soon.

@Elessar (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=3442) : I was reaching for the quote button to ask when I saw you explained the Post Turtle thing... lol! Perfect. :thumb:

[Drummond]

God, he's such an embarrassment. Not satisfied with the wrecking of this side of the pond and Middle East and resurrecting the Russian empire, he's now meddling in British affairs. My apologies, Drummond and Noir... the clown will be gone soon.

@Elessar (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=3442) : I was reaching for the quote button to ask when I saw you explained the Post Turtle thing... lol! Perfect. :thumb:

Thanks for the apology ... not your fault, though !!

I think Obama's trying to be a globalist ... to smash individual Nation States AS such, to create ever-bigger, more powerful political entities. What could be the point of a single currency, if not to work towards such a goal ? The EU has that !

I see this as more than mere meddling ... I see it as Obama saying that he has scant regard for our right to see the UK run its own affairs, to actually be ITSELF. That is highly offensive ... !! It's like our PM saying that the UK won't trade with America, unless you enter into much fuller outright political union with Mexico and Canada, subsuming your rights and your very identity to an unelected body of politicians (as is true of the EU) .... who'll run things FOR you ....

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I'd not shed a tear of the entire EU went away.

EU and the damn rotten UN.

[Kathianne]

I find the EU Europe's problem. Now the UN? That is one organization I'd like to see history.

[Kathianne]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/23/why-should-we-take-advice-from-a-president-who-has-surrendered-t/



Why should we take advice from a president who has surrendered the world to chaos?



[*=left]JANET DALEY (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/authors/janet-daley/)




<time itemprop="datePublished" datetime="2016-04-24T10:05+0100" class="article-date-published" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 1.4rem; line-height: 2rem; font-family: 'Telesans Text Regular', Arial, sans-serif; text-transform: uppercase; color: rgb(136, 136, 136);">24 APRIL 2016 • 10:05AM

</time>I wonder who in Downing Street briefed Barack Obama’s team on the wording of his friendly warning to the British. Somebody obviously pointed out that the population of this country retained a quaint obsession with the Second World War, and would therefore treat any reference to the glorious dead as irreproachable. So the President invoked the European graves of those American servicemen who died to protect – well, what exactly?

I thought it was the democratic values and reverence for national independence that Britain shared with the US. Did Mr Obama have any sense at all that what he was now urging the British electorate to accept (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/22/barack-obama-arrives-in-britain-to-tell-voters-to-remain-in-the/)was precisely the surrender of those sacred principles of democratically accountable government and self-determination for which the combined American and British forces had made their ultimate sacrifice?


Could this bizarre intervention have been more cynical or wilfully misinformed? In the end, it seemed to come down to trade advantages – to what might once, back in the day, have been called the global interests of US corporate capitalism. Mr Obama even made specific reference in his article in Friday’s Daily Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/21/as-your-friend-let-me-tell-you-that-the-eu-makes-britain-even-gr/) to the importance of current negotiations on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), which would reduce barriers to US business interests in the European Union.

On the same day, 38 Degrees – a front group for the more proactive elements in the public sector unions – took out full-page newspaper adverts campaigning against the adoption of TTIP (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11173369/This-trade-deal-with-America-would-have-Churchill-beaming.html) (“…no trade deal should give corporations more power than people”). If the Labour Left were not in such disingenuous disarray, they could be making a meal of this. In any event, unnamed US trade officials were being ominously quoted as saying that, in the event of Brexit, the UK would come very low on America’s list of priorities for new trade agreements.

Then Mr Obama himself abandoned such subtlety in his joint press conference with the Prime Minister. Should the UK go its own way, he said, there would be no trade agreement with the US any time soon. Maybe some time down the line, as he put it, we could work something out. But the UK would be “in the back of the queue” because the US would be dealing with the big boys. So this isn’t a warning: it’s a threat. Stay in the EU and make way for American competitors, or else.

The iron fist of a message inside that velvet glove of carefully recited claptrap about the special relationship is that Obama’s America wants us to stay in the conveniently monolithic, homogeneous trading bloc with which it can most easily do business. In other words, the tentative US economic recovery needs us to sacrifice our country’s judicial independence and the primacy of our parliamentary system, just as the US once sacrificed so many of its young military officers for our survival. That’s the deal.

But there is no indication, either in Mr Obama’s words or his actual foreign policy, that America would now be prepared to make another such sacrifice for its allies. The withdrawal of the US from world leadership (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/donald-trump/12154670/How-seven-years-of-Obama-created-Trump.html) – from being what Mr Obama’s people refer to disparagingly as “the world’s policeman” – has been one of the most dramatic developments on the international stage of the past eight years.

Into the vacuum left by that withdrawal has stepped (or strode) Vladimir Putin, who can’t believe his luck. At just the moment when Russian national pride desperately needed a renaissance after the mortifying collapse of the Soviet Union and the infuriating rise of all those Lilliputian upstarts in the old Eastern Bloc, along comes a US president who announces in no uncertain terms that America wants to pull out of the global power game. Make no mistake, this began long before the funk over removing Assad in Syria (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/11900206/Vladimir-Putin-and-the-end-of-American-influence-in-the-Middle-East.html) – which Mr Obama has outrageously blamed on David Cameron’s failure to win a parliamentary vote – or the “leading from behind” fiasco in Libya (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10121588/Barack-Obama-is-leading-from-behind-in-Syria-and-cant-see-where-he-is-going.html), which Mr Obama also blames on Mr Cameron for having the audacity to think that the US might have been prepared to lead from the front. No, the Obama isolationist doctrine was there from the start: deliberate and consciously chosen.

It began in his first term as president when he visited Eastern Europe and gave a series of speeches to make the point: the countries that had once required America’s protection from a Soviet superpower were now emerging democracies and fledgling free-market success stories. They could take care of themselves militarily in future. The interceptor missiles that had been scheduled to arrive in Poland, courtesy of the US, would not be delivered. Although they had never been intended as any sort of threat against Moscow, Obama still allowed this move to be seen as part of his “reset” of relations with post-Soviet Russia (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/11830488/Barack-Obamas-diplomatic-reset-has-let-Vladimir-Putin-get-away-with-murder.html).

At home, this was presented as a refusal to pay forever for the protection of a Europe that was no longer threatened by aggressive Communism. The disproportionate share of the Nato budget that the US had been stumping up could be better spent on the kind of welfare and health provision that Europeans took for granted.

All this suited Putin’s self-image as a global strongman perfectly. America and the West had definitively won the Cold War, and were now apparently unconcerned that they might lose the peace. Putin saw clearly that no one would stand in his way when he launched his irredentist assault on eastern Ukraine. Not only did he annex Crimea but the forces he had unleashed shot a civilian airliner out of the sky (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/vladimir-putin/10980643/MH17-By-defying-the-West-bully-boy-Vladimir-Putin-could-lead-Russia-to-ruin.html)– which might have been seen as a contemporary sinking of the Lusitania. He went from triumph to triumph, playing hard-faced poker against Washington’s half-hearted attempt at chess. In the Middle East, Obama’s White House scarcely shows any interest now that it is no longer dependent on the region for oil. It can only be roused to do what is minimally required to keep Americans safe from Isil terrorism.

But permitting Russia’s proxy, Assad, to remain in place in Syria, as American inaction does, drives every dissident in the region into the arms of anti-Western extremism, and puts American (and European) security at the mercy of a Russia-Syria alliance. Not to mention the salient fact that Assad’s genocidal tyranny fuelled the migrant rush to the European borders. Was Mr Obama aware of that great success story of EU collaboration, in which an emergency was turned into an international tragedy by bureaucratic incompetence and a complete collapse of cooperative goodwill? The abandonment of border checks inside the EU, combined with the unilateral decision by Germany to encourage mass entry, created a living hell in which organised people-trafficking on an industrial scale (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11770294/Mapped-How-the-world-is-tackling-human-trafficking.html) became a fixture of life.

When this referendum began, what seems an eternity ago, I was unsure how I would vote. Membership of the EU on a day-to-day basis is pretty much all gain for me, because I am an affluent professional who benefits from the supply of inexpensive domestic help, willing tradesmen and convenient travel that the EU provides. Unlike those whose wages are being undercut by cheap imported labour, or who cannot afford to buy their own homes because of the pressure on housing from unlimited immigration, I have lost nothing.

But I believe in democratic legitimacy, which means paying attention to people who do not have my advantages. So should I go for self-interest, or for political principle? Watching this campaign, with its unscrupulous attempts to bully and terrorise a brave and conscientious electorate, has made up my mind. I shall be voting for Leave.

[Noir]

.. from the 'keep the UK a member of the EU' side, certainly.

But we will never be free of European dominance in our affairs until we quit the EU. Neither will we have a chance of even properly controlling our borders !!

Obama's attempted blackmail of us should finally make people aware of what Obama's truly worth.

If you genuinely believe that only one side of this EU "debate" is scare-mongering then you've surrendered all sense of perspective in the discussion.

[Drummond]

If you genuinely believe that only one side of this EU "debate" is scare-mongering then you've surrendered all sense of perspective in the discussion.

Indeed ? So you dismiss as mere 'scaremongering' the TRUTH that we cannot hope to exercise comprehensive control over our borders, until we get shot of being tied to the EU 'right of movement across all Member States' principle ?

Do you dismiss as mere 'scaremongering' the existence of the European Parliament, and their ability to interfere in our affairs ?

The 'We should leave the EU' side has been dealing in known FACT. That isn't scaremongering. By complete contrast, the 'We Must Remain In' side is full of presumptions foretelling doom and gloom if we leave the EU.

If you follow our news, you must know this is true.

[Noir]

Congrats Drummond, you are the symmetric double of what you critique from the 'other side' of the "debate".

[Drummond]

Congrats Drummond, you are the symmetric double of what you critique from the 'other side' of the "debate".:laugh::laugh::lame2:

Decidedly lame, Noir ... I take it that this is the most 'effective' attempt you can make to invalidate any of what I'm saying ? No counter-arguments, 'proving' me wrong ?

[Noir]

:laugh::laugh::lame2: Decidedly lame, Noir ... I take it that this is the most 'effective' attempt you can make to invalidate any of what I'm saying ? No counter-arguments, 'proving' me wrong ?

No you're welcome to believe that only the opposition are scare-mongering etc, your side are 100% perf best (:

[Drummond]

No you're welcome to believe that only the opposition are scare-mongering etc, your side are 100% perf best (:

I've already made my case on this. You, by contrast, are coming up with nothing substantive to counter my position.

I understand.:rolleyes:

[Drummond]

Reported in depth also by our own news outlets here in the UK ....

http://www.teaparty.org/london-mayor-rages-ridiculous-weird-obama-160174/


Boris Johnson has launched an astonishing attack on Barack Obama’s ‘ridiculous and weird’ arguments for Britain to stay in the EU.

In an outspoken assault last night, the London Mayor mocked the US President’s controversial claim that Anglo-US trade would be hit by Brexit.

And he stepped up his war of words with Obama over Winston Churchill, claiming that the wartime leader and the US both stood for democracy – and that the EU didn’t. Brexit cheerleader Johnson spoke out as infighting broke out among senior figures in the ‘Leave’ campaign after Obama’s devastating intervention.

Some privately admitted they fear they are heading for defeat in the referendum on June 23.

Prominent pro-’Leave’ Tory MP Peter Bone said: ‘Our message is being drowned out by the Government.’ And one ‘Leave’ official said: ‘We had no idea Boris was going to attack Obama so provocatively. It was a misjudgment. He must stop going off-piste.’

Obama’s intervention is seen as a potential game-changer in the referendum campaign, with some ‘Remain’ supporters predicting a decisive 60-40 victory.

Respected poll expert Professor John Curtice said yesterday that the ‘Remain’ camp made ‘significant progress’ last week but the race was ‘far from over’.

Johnson had riled Obama almost before he arrived in the UK, saying the ‘part-Kenyan’ President had removed a Churchill bust from the Oval Office because of his ‘ancestral dislike of the British Empire’.

Obama responded by demolishing Johnson’s claim that Britain could quickly cut its own trade deals with the US. And he said he ‘loved’ Churchill – and still saw his bust every day in the White House.

Mr Johnson told The Mail on Sunday last night: ‘Barack Obama is entitled to his view… but it is ridiculous to warn that the UK will be at the back of the queue for a free trade deal.’

And he pointed out the only reason the UK hadn’t already got a trade deal with America, was because we were in the EU, which hampered negotiations.

And in a direct challenge to Obama he said: ‘It is very weird that the US should be telling the UK to do something they would not dream of doing themselves.’

In a separate interview yesterday, Mr Johnson was asked if he should apologise for his comments about Obama.

In reply, he suggested criticism was an attempt to sabotage him by David Cameron’s ‘Remain’ supporters.

He scoffed: ‘Oh come on. This is all a complete distraction – an attempt by the Remain campaign to throw dust in people’s eyes.’

And he raised the stakes, repeating his charge of ‘hypocrisy’ against Obama, saying it was ‘inconsistent, perverse and yes, hypocritical’ to tell the EU to give up its sovereignty when the US would do no such thing.

‘Leave’ campaigners claimed the President’s comment that the UK would be at ‘the back of the queue’ for negotiating a trade deal with the US was part of a ‘stunt’ orchestrated by Mr Cameron in return for helping Obama obtain a prominent role in the Queen’s 90th birthday celebrations.

Tory MP Sir Nicholas Soames, Churchill’s grandson, called Mr Johnson’s remarks ‘appalling’.

And Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell tweeted that Boris’s ‘part-Kenyan’ comment was ‘dog-whistle racism’.

[Drummond]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=8819&stc=1