Anyone suppose this article is true? If it is, it’s truly insane. I’ll give it that.
Presenting, the lion of Judah. Benjamin Netanyahu to Congress.
21:59 for start of speech.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Presenting, the lion of Judah. Benjamin Netanyahu to Congress.
21:59 for start of speech.[/quote]
It was a good speech and should be considered non-partisan and would have been considered non-partisan 7 years ago.
I am not sure why the current crop of Democrats feel that my country should risk a real threat of annihilation, nor why they cooked up this fake outrage at the speech.
Dr. Jewbacca’s belief is Obama wants a nuclear Iran to act as a counterbalance to Israel, which he perceives as a bad country for some reason.
I personally disagree, or at least hope she is wrong. I think Obama is so confident in his powers and correctness that he can’t stand being contracted. Basically, he’s a 4th Grader, who takes any kind of disagreement personally.
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Presenting, the lion of Judah. Benjamin Netanyahu to Congress.
21:59 for start of speech.[/quote]
It was a good speech and should be considered non-partisan and would have been considered non-partisan 7 years ago.
I am not sure why the current crop of Democrats feel that my country should risk a real threat of annihilation, nor why they cooked up this fake outrage at the speech.
Dr. Jewbacca’s belief is Obama wants a nuclear Iran to act as a counterbalance to Israel, which he perceives as a bad country for some reason.
I personally disagree, or at least hope she is wrong. I think Obama is so confident in his powers and correctness that he can’t stand being contracted. Basically, he’s a 4th Grader, who takes any kind of disagreement personally.[/quote]
He started out by saying Obama is a great friend and blah, blah, blah. But the fact is he wouldn’t have to get up and tell Congress that this deal Obama has worked out with Iran is suicidal if Obama was any friend of Israel. And the boycott thing just shows how alienated Obama is from Netanyahu and Israel. I just think Obama doesn’t like America or Israel. The reasons why are really secondary.
I don’t like the way President Obama has handled the country’s relationship with Israel. I don’t think his mistakes are borne of hatred for America more than they are borne of ignorance/naivety on the issue. Iran has been funding every other Johnny Jihad in the Middle East, and until the actual rhetoric toward Israel is at least tuned way down, there’s simply no reason to give Iran the benefit of the doubt at all on this issue.
That being said, I am 100% against Netanyahu’s speech. Partisanship seems to be the word of the day lately, but this isn’t about partisanship. In the face of a President who has used previous precedent to infer an amazing amount of inappropriate executive powers, it is imperative to maintain stricter adherence to the Constitution. There’s another thread about a Constitutional Convention, which I’m not sure is necessary as much as it is to simply return to the original intent and the original meaning of the document.
Unfortunately, in this case that means actually strengthening the executive branch. The fact is that the responsibility for conducting foreign diplomacy falls squarely within the purview of the executive branch and NOT that of the legislative branch. By bringing in Netanyahu to publicly oppose the direction of the executive branch’s powers, Congress has essentially done the same thing that they have rightly criticized the President for doing.
It isn’t much different from the President using pubic appearances to cajole and harangue Congress for not ignoring the wishes of their constituents and hopping to his tune. The whole concept of using one-sided public appeals to essentially usurp power from one branch to another is one whose implementation has become quite ugly recently. President Obama is certainly more guilty of this than anyone currently in power in Washington, but this move by Congress is another step in the wrong direction. It’s simply a different entity misstepping in a different, albeit wrong, direction.
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Presenting, the lion of Judah. Benjamin Netanyahu to Congress.
21:59 for start of speech.[/quote]
It was a good speech and should be considered non-partisan and would have been considered non-partisan 7 years ago.
I am not sure why the current crop of Democrats feel that my country should risk a real threat of annihilation, nor why they cooked up this fake outrage at the speech.
Dr. Jewbacca’s belief is Obama wants a nuclear Iran to act as a counterbalance to Israel, which he perceives as a bad country for some reason.
I personally disagree, or at least hope she is wrong. I think Obama is so confident in his powers and correctness that he can’t stand being contracted. Basically, he’s a 4th Grader, who takes any kind of disagreement personally.[/quote]
I would certainly agree with your last paragraph.
There’s another aspect to this whole thing that doesn’t quite sit right with me, though. We don’t really know the details of the negotiations with Iran and I wonder not only how this appearance will sway the negotiations, but also how this will affect the whole intelligence aspect of the issue.
It just seems to me that any aspect of these deals which requires coordination with intelligence sources, agents, or anything else along those lines would be best served if the whole world were less informed on the opinions of the major players involved. I can’t imagine that people whose identities must be kept secret due to the nature of their involvement in these negotiations are going to be as willing to engage in subterfuge if both the U.S. and Israel seem to be so flippant about publicizing certain aspects of the whole process.
It simply reminds me of the scene in The Godfather when Sonny speaks out of turn in front of Sollozzo and Vito has to remind later to never let anyone outside of the family know what he’s thinking.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
I don’t like the way President Obama has handled the country’s relationship with Israel. I don’t think his mistakes are borne of hatred for America more than they are borne of ignorance/naivety on the issue. Iran has been funding every other Johnny Jihad in the Middle East, and until the actual rhetoric toward Israel is at least tuned way down, there’s simply no reason to give Iran the benefit of the doubt at all on this issue.
That being said, I am 100% against Netanyahu’s speech. Partisanship seems to be the word of the day lately, but this isn’t about partisanship. In the face of a President who has used previous precedent to infer an amazing amount of inappropriate executive powers, it is imperative to maintain stricter adherence to the Constitution. There’s another thread about a Constitutional Convention, which I’m not sure is necessary as much as it is to simply return to the original intent and the original meaning of the document.
Unfortunately, in this case that means actually strengthening the executive branch. The fact is that the responsibility for conducting foreign diplomacy falls squarely within the purview of the executive branch and NOT that of the legislative branch. By bringing in Netanyahu to publicly oppose the direction of the executive branch’s powers, Congress has essentially done the same thing that they have rightly criticized the President for doing.
It isn’t much different from the President using pubic appearances to cajole and harangue Congress for not ignoring the wishes of their constituents and hopping to his tune. The whole concept of using one-sided public appeals to essentially usurp power from one branch to another is one whose implementation has become quite ugly recently. President Obama is certainly more guilty of this than anyone currently in power in Washington, but this move by Congress is another step in the wrong direction. It’s simply a different entity misstepping in a different, albeit wrong, direction.[/quote]
I can agree with this.
How’s your kid man?
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
I don’t like the way President Obama has handled the country’s relationship with Israel. I don’t think his mistakes are borne of hatred for America more than they are borne of ignorance/naivety on the issue. Iran has been funding every other Johnny Jihad in the Middle East, and until the actual rhetoric toward Israel is at least tuned way down, there’s simply no reason to give Iran the benefit of the doubt at all on this issue.
That being said, I am 100% against Netanyahu’s speech. Partisanship seems to be the word of the day lately, but this isn’t about partisanship. In the face of a President who has used previous precedent to infer an amazing amount of inappropriate executive powers, it is imperative to maintain stricter adherence to the Constitution. There’s another thread about a Constitutional Convention, which I’m not sure is necessary as much as it is to simply return to the original intent and the original meaning of the document.
Unfortunately, in this case that means actually strengthening the executive branch. The fact is that the responsibility for conducting foreign diplomacy falls squarely within the purview of the executive branch and NOT that of the legislative branch. By bringing in Netanyahu to publicly oppose the direction of the executive branch’s powers, Congress has essentially done the same thing that they have rightly criticized the President for doing.
It isn’t much different from the President using pubic appearances to cajole and harangue Congress for not ignoring the wishes of their constituents and hopping to his tune. The whole concept of using one-sided public appeals to essentially usurp power from one branch to another is one whose implementation has become quite ugly recently. President Obama is certainly more guilty of this than anyone currently in power in Washington, but this move by Congress is another step in the wrong direction. It’s simply a different entity misstepping in a different, albeit wrong, direction.[/quote]
Good post. I can dig that. I disagree with your position on Netanyahu’s speech in Congress, but I can see where you’re coming from. Everything else I’m pretty much in agreement 100% on, except the following: why do you say the Executive Branch needs to be strengthened even more??
It’s already far past the level of power ever intended by the Founders. I think it needs to move in the opposite direction for a bunch of reasons. And, if for no other reason, it should be so because people put entirely too much hope/expectation on ONE MAN (the POTUS, any POTUS) to fix ALL OUR PROBLEMS…when they should be putting much much more attention on who we all elect to represent our districts and states in legislation.
It smacks entirely too much of hoping for and electing a ‘benevolent ruler’ to fix our problems. Caesar was originally First Citizen, elected in times of emergency and expected to step down when the crisis had passed. Didn’t stay that way though, did it?
Or maybe that’s just the cynic in me showing up today more than normal.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
I personally disagree, or at least hope she is wrong. I think Obama is so confident in his powers and correctness that he can’t stand being contracted. Basically, he’s a 4th Grader, who takes any kind of disagreement personally.[/quote]
I would certainly agree with your last paragraph.
There’s another aspect to this whole thing that doesn’t quite sit right with me, though. We don’t really know the details of the negotiations with Iran and I wonder not only how this appearance will sway the negotiations, but also how this will affect the whole intelligence aspect of the issue.
It just seems to me that any aspect of these deals which requires coordination with intelligence sources, agents, or anything else along those lines would be best served if the whole world were less informed on the opinions of the major players involved. I can’t imagine that people whose identities must be kept secret due to the nature of their involvement in these negotiations are going to be as willing to engage in subterfuge if both the U.S. and Israel seem to be so flippant about publicizing certain aspects of the whole process.
It simply reminds me of the scene in The Godfather when Sonny speaks out of turn in front of Sollozzo and Vito has to remind later to never let anyone outside of the family know what he’s thinking.[/quote]
This I can definitely agree with in principle. Obscurity is necessary for certain aspects of foreign policy and diplomatic deal making. In reality on the other hand, Israel faces an existential threat and can’t be expected to see this in the same light. Particularly given handling of the issue which we all have problems with. Israel has many more chips on the table and much more in the pot to lose than anybody else.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
I don’t like the way President Obama has handled the country’s relationship with Israel. I don’t think his mistakes are borne of hatred for America more than they are borne of ignorance/naivety on the issue. Iran has been funding every other Johnny Jihad in the Middle East, and until the actual rhetoric toward Israel is at least tuned way down, there’s simply no reason to give Iran the benefit of the doubt at all on this issue.
That being said, I am 100% against Netanyahu’s speech. Partisanship seems to be the word of the day lately, but this isn’t about partisanship. In the face of a President who has used previous precedent to infer an amazing amount of inappropriate executive powers, it is imperative to maintain stricter adherence to the Constitution. There’s another thread about a Constitutional Convention, which I’m not sure is necessary as much as it is to simply return to the original intent and the original meaning of the document.
Unfortunately, in this case that means actually strengthening the executive branch. The fact is that the responsibility for conducting foreign diplomacy falls squarely within the purview of the executive branch and NOT that of the legislative branch. By bringing in Netanyahu to publicly oppose the direction of the executive branch’s powers, Congress has essentially done the same thing that they have rightly criticized the President for doing.
It isn’t much different from the President using pubic appearances to cajole and harangue Congress for not ignoring the wishes of their constituents and hopping to his tune. The whole concept of using one-sided public appeals to essentially usurp power from one branch to another is one whose implementation has become quite ugly recently. President Obama is certainly more guilty of this than anyone currently in power in Washington, but this move by Congress is another step in the wrong direction. It’s simply a different entity misstepping in a different, albeit wrong, direction.[/quote]
Good post. I can dig that. I disagree with your position on Netanyahu’s speech in Congress, but I can see where you’re coming from. Everything else I’m pretty much in agreement 100% on, except the following: why do you say the Executive Branch needs to be strengthened even more??
It’s already far past the level of power ever intended by the Founders. I think it needs to move in the opposite direction for a bunch of reasons. And, if for no other reason, it should be so because people put entirely too much hope/expectation on ONE MAN (the POTUS, any POTUS) to fix ALL OUR PROBLEMS…when they should be putting much much more attention on who we all elect to represent our districts and states in legislation.
It smacks entirely too much of hoping for and electing a ‘benevolent ruler’ to fix our problems. Caesar was originally First Citizen, elected in times of emergency and expected to step down when the crisis had passed. Didn’t stay that way though, did it?
Or maybe that’s just the cynic in me showing up today more than normal.[/quote]
I think I misspoke when I said the executive branch needs to be strengthened. In this particular case, the powers reside solely within the executive branch, so the move by Congress is essentially a weakening of the executive powers. The executive branch doesn’t necessarily need to be strengthened; it’s clearly enumerated powers simply need to be maintained and not weakened by another branch.
There is a way for the legislature to check the executive powers on this matter, and it is also clearly enumerated in the Constitution. The legislative branch has the power to ratify any treaty that the President or the State Dep’t may develop. Madison knew from historical precedent that a strict separation of the powers was only a temporary reprieve from the cycle of malignant gov’t and that an overlapping of the separated powers would guard against this eventuality. But that only works if both parties respect the language and construction of the Constitution. I do not think that yesterday’s actions in any way show respect to that.
The same party that has criticized the President for not loving his country, whatever that means, has apparently turned right around and completely forgotten one of the most fundamental aspects of the country’s history and, furthermore, what actually makes it exceptional.
Don’t forget: American exceptionalism refers to the nature of our country’s founding, not necessarily the current state of it. This is the first nation founded upon the principles of individual rights, and with a document designed specifically to create a form of gov’t capable of protecting those rights without degenerating into tyranny. The same party that has criticized President Obama’s lack of respect for American exceptionalism has then gone on to disregard a basic aspect of that exceptionalism by placing the head of a foreign nation behind the podium of a joint session of Congress that, up until yesterday, has been reserved for the executive branch of this country.
What really irks me about this is that I generally tend to agree with Netanyahu’s message. This unilateral move by Congress detracts from that. On top of that, the precedent set is fucking ugly.
Can you imagine if the Democrats get back into power in Congress and Jeb Bush is the President? They’ll haul the fucking Ayatollah up there to harass Bush or whatever Republican may get in. And they’ll say that the Republicans did it first. And then it’s a real shit show.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
I personally disagree, or at least hope she is wrong. I think Obama is so confident in his powers and correctness that he can’t stand being contracted. Basically, he’s a 4th Grader, who takes any kind of disagreement personally.[/quote]
I would certainly agree with your last paragraph.
There’s another aspect to this whole thing that doesn’t quite sit right with me, though. We don’t really know the details of the negotiations with Iran and I wonder not only how this appearance will sway the negotiations, but also how this will affect the whole intelligence aspect of the issue.
It just seems to me that any aspect of these deals which requires coordination with intelligence sources, agents, or anything else along those lines would be best served if the whole world were less informed on the opinions of the major players involved. I can’t imagine that people whose identities must be kept secret due to the nature of their involvement in these negotiations are going to be as willing to engage in subterfuge if both the U.S. and Israel seem to be so flippant about publicizing certain aspects of the whole process.
It simply reminds me of the scene in The Godfather when Sonny speaks out of turn in front of Sollozzo and Vito has to remind later to never let anyone outside of the family know what he’s thinking.[/quote]
This I can definitely agree with in principle. Obscurity is necessary for certain aspects of foreign policy and diplomatic deal making. In reality on the other hand, Israel faces an existential threat and can’t be expected to see this in the same light. Particularly given handling of the issue which we all have problems with. Israel has many more chips on the table and much more in the pot to lose than anybody else.
[/quote]
You’re right, Israel does not have the luxury of such focus upon founding principles. But this nation does, and it is those founding principles that make this country what it is. A fundamental aspect of those principles and our founding history is contained with the separated and overlapped powers defined in the Constitution.
So while Israel’s actions cannot be expected to reflect such sagacity in these times, ours can and I expect to do so.
I’ve been reading more of these James Jesus Angleton biographies lately and I’m also starting to wonder if the whole thing is some massively coordinated deception designed to lull the Iranians into a false sense of security at the outward sign of serious rifts in our relationship with Israel.
The key to deception is two-fold: knowing what the other side wants to hear, and having the capability of tailoring that false image to the desired form. The U.S., and this is highly unlikely given our myriad past intelligence failures over the last 50-60 years, may be creating some sort of scenario in which Iran, who wants to see serious discord in our relationship with Israel, now has reason to believe that this is the case.
For the deception to work, we need someone on the inside who can provide feedback to us regarding how exactly the Revolutionary Guard is responding to this action from Netanyahu. This way we can tailor our actions to fit into the picture the Iranians want to see. At the same time, we have other sources that can continue to feed disinformation (whether knowingly or not) to Iran to further supplement the deception’s credibility.
At this point, the CIA and Mossad would have a two-line probe into Iran. One line provides disinformation and the other receives the Iranian response to it. We may already have such a two-line system in place and this speech by Netanyahu is somehow the response that the feedback from Iran mandates.
Of course, I’m much smarter than any of these fuckers in the State Dep’t, so I doubt they’re approaching these negotiations on such a level.
They probably have some rudimentary sources on the thinking of the Iranian negotiation team and a satellite or three sitting overhead at all times. But that is useless, since Iran is also capable of pulling such deception and may be providing the talking points to the negotiators that their own intelligence is calling for, meaning that they are feeding false information to their negotiators knowing that it will fall into CIA/Mossad hands under the assumption that it is legit info. We would just be stealing their false info from them.
As I’ve said before, Obama is more radical than the Saudis, Egyptians and Jordanians:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Presenting, the lion of Judah. Benjamin Netanyahu to Congress.
21:59 for start of speech.[/quote]
“Netanyahu enters never-never land”
An imperfect deal is far better than no deal at all.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Presenting, the lion of Judah. Benjamin Netanyahu to Congress.
21:59 for start of speech.[/quote]
“Netanyahu enters never-never land”
An imperfect deal is far better than no deal at all. [/quote]
I would disagree with that statement. A deal is nothing more than an agreement to make a commitment. Entering into a deal in which you are now committed to an imperfection is not preferential to being free of such an obligation.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Presenting, the lion of Judah. Benjamin Netanyahu to Congress.
21:59 for start of speech.[/quote]
“Netanyahu enters never-never land”
An imperfect deal is far better than no deal at all. [/quote]
Fa(guttural sound)reed from the Washington (com)Post Huh? I just thought it was interesting that Obama has never received that kind of applause has he? It went on for three and a half minutes. Even the Democrats were besides themselves. A number who said they were going to boycott decided to go. You see they recognise a leader when they see one.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Presenting, the lion of Judah. Benjamin Netanyahu to Congress.
21:59 for start of speech.[/quote]
“Netanyahu enters never-never land”
An imperfect deal is far better than no deal at all. [/quote]
I would disagree with that statement. A deal is nothing more than an agreement to make a commitment. Entering into a deal in which you are now committed to an imperfection is preferential to being free of such an obligation. [/quote]
Bingo. Not to mention, I don’t trust them to actually follow through on their deal anyways, and that DOES leave Israel in a shit position.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
I personally disagree, or at least hope she is wrong. I think Obama is so confident in his powers and correctness that he can’t stand being contracted. Basically, he’s a 4th Grader, who takes any kind of disagreement personally.[/quote]
I would certainly agree with your last paragraph.
There’s another aspect to this whole thing that doesn’t quite sit right with me, though. We don’t really know the details of the negotiations with Iran and I wonder not only how this appearance will sway the negotiations, but also how this will affect the whole intelligence aspect of the issue.
It just seems to me that any aspect of these deals which requires coordination with intelligence sources, agents, or anything else along those lines would be best served if the whole world were less informed on the opinions of the major players involved. I can’t imagine that people whose identities must be kept secret due to the nature of their involvement in these negotiations are going to be as willing to engage in subterfuge if both the U.S. and Israel seem to be so flippant about publicizing certain aspects of the whole process.
It simply reminds me of the scene in The Godfather when Sonny speaks out of turn in front of Sollozzo and Vito has to remind later to never let anyone outside of the family know what he’s thinking.[/quote]
This I can definitely agree with in principle. Obscurity is necessary for certain aspects of foreign policy and diplomatic deal making. In reality on the other hand, Israel faces an existential threat and can’t be expected to see this in the same light. Particularly given handling of the issue which we all have problems with. Israel has many more chips on the table and much more in the pot to lose than anybody else.
[/quote]
You’re right, Israel does not have the luxury of such focus upon founding principles. But this nation does, and it is those founding principles that make this country what it is. A fundamental aspect of those principles and our founding history is contained with the separated and overlapped powers defined in the Constitution.
So while Israel’s actions cannot be expected to reflect such sagacity in these times, ours can and I expect to do so.
I’ve been reading more of these James Jesus Angleton biographies lately and I’m also starting to wonder if the whole thing is some massively coordinated deception designed to lull the Iranians into a false sense of security at the outward sign of serious rifts in our relationship with Israel.
The key to deception is two-fold: knowing what the other side wants to hear, and having the capability of tailoring that false image to the desired form. The U.S., and this is highly unlikely given our myriad past intelligence failures over the last 50-60 years, may be creating some sort of scenario in which Iran, who wants to see serious discord in our relationship with Israel, now has reason to believe that this is the case.
For the deception to work, we need someone on the inside who can provide feedback to us regarding how exactly the Revolutionary Guard is responding to this action from Netanyahu. This way we can tailor our actions to fit into the picture the Iranians want to see. At the same time, we have other sources that can continue to feed disinformation (whether knowingly or not) to Iran to further supplement the deception’s credibility.
At this point, the CIA and Mossad would have a two-line probe into Iran. One line provides disinformation and the other receives the Iranian response to it. We may already have such a two-line system in place and this speech by Netanyahu is somehow the response that the feedback from Iran mandates.
Of course, I’m much smarter than any of these fuckers in the State Dep’t, so I doubt they’re approaching these negotiations on such a level.
They probably have some rudimentary sources on the thinking of the Iranian negotiation team and a satellite or three sitting overhead at all times. But that is useless, since Iran is also capable of pulling such deception and may be providing the talking points to the negotiators that their own intelligence is calling for, meaning that they are feeding false information to their negotiators knowing that it will fall into CIA/Mossad hands under the assumption that it is legit info. We would just be stealing their false info from them.[/quote]
Not much to disagree with here. Good response to my other post as well. I don’t think our actions are anywhere close to that coordinated unfortunately, not with Obama the 4th grader with an ego in charge. There’s a difference between despising someone’s politics (and obviously I do not like Obama’s political stances AT ALL) and simultaneously respecting them as a Statesman or leader of competence and cool headedness. As has already been mentioned in this thread, Obama really does not look like someone for which that is true. Unfortunately, when the leader is petulant and egotistical, the downstream chain of command suffers in coordination and direction.
The only thing I disagree with is what you said about Netanyahu being a first–there have been over 100 foreign dignitaries and leaders addresses to joint sessions of Congress. You must know this. An address isn’t unprecedented even if the circumstances are highly partisan and shady.
Incidentally, SexMachine, I find it interesting that you refer to Bibi as “the Lion of Judah”.
You must be aware that this is the epithet used by John of Patmos to refer to the returned Jesus in the Book of Revelation.
Surely you can’t be implying that Netanyahu is the Messiah?
Varg, how are you so sure John of Patmos was talking about Jesus? He very well could have been talking about Netanyahu all along and the Christians got it wrong.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
I personally disagree, or at least hope she is wrong. I think Obama is so confident in his powers and correctness that he can’t stand being contracted. Basically, he’s a 4th Grader, who takes any kind of disagreement personally.[/quote]
I would certainly agree with your last paragraph.
There’s another aspect to this whole thing that doesn’t quite sit right with me, though. We don’t really know the details of the negotiations with Iran and I wonder not only how this appearance will sway the negotiations, but also how this will affect the whole intelligence aspect of the issue.
It just seems to me that any aspect of these deals which requires coordination with intelligence sources, agents, or anything else along those lines would be best served if the whole world were less informed on the opinions of the major players involved. I can’t imagine that people whose identities must be kept secret due to the nature of their involvement in these negotiations are going to be as willing to engage in subterfuge if both the U.S. and Israel seem to be so flippant about publicizing certain aspects of the whole process.
It simply reminds me of the scene in The Godfather when Sonny speaks out of turn in front of Sollozzo and Vito has to remind later to never let anyone outside of the family know what he’s thinking.[/quote]
This I can definitely agree with in principle. Obscurity is necessary for certain aspects of foreign policy and diplomatic deal making. In reality on the other hand, Israel faces an existential threat and can’t be expected to see this in the same light. Particularly given handling of the issue which we all have problems with. Israel has many more chips on the table and much more in the pot to lose than anybody else.
[/quote]
You’re right, Israel does not have the luxury of such focus upon founding principles. But this nation does, and it is those founding principles that make this country what it is. A fundamental aspect of those principles and our founding history is contained with the separated and overlapped powers defined in the Constitution.
So while Israel’s actions cannot be expected to reflect such sagacity in these times, ours can and I expect to do so.
I’ve been reading more of these James Jesus Angleton biographies lately and I’m also starting to wonder if the whole thing is some massively coordinated deception designed to lull the Iranians into a false sense of security at the outward sign of serious rifts in our relationship with Israel.
The key to deception is two-fold: knowing what the other side wants to hear, and having the capability of tailoring that false image to the desired form. The U.S., and this is highly unlikely given our myriad past intelligence failures over the last 50-60 years, may be creating some sort of scenario in which Iran, who wants to see serious discord in our relationship with Israel, now has reason to believe that this is the case.
For the deception to work, we need someone on the inside who can provide feedback to us regarding how exactly the Revolutionary Guard is responding to this action from Netanyahu. This way we can tailor our actions to fit into the picture the Iranians want to see. At the same time, we have other sources that can continue to feed disinformation (whether knowingly or not) to Iran to further supplement the deception’s credibility.
At this point, the CIA and Mossad would have a two-line probe into Iran. One line provides disinformation and the other receives the Iranian response to it. We may already have such a two-line system in place and this speech by Netanyahu is somehow the response that the feedback from Iran mandates.
Of course, I’m much smarter than any of these fuckers in the State Dep’t, so I doubt they’re approaching these negotiations on such a level.
They probably have some rudimentary sources on the thinking of the Iranian negotiation team and a satellite or three sitting overhead at all times. But that is useless, since Iran is also capable of pulling such deception and may be providing the talking points to the negotiators that their own intelligence is calling for, meaning that they are feeding false information to their negotiators knowing that it will fall into CIA/Mossad hands under the assumption that it is legit info. We would just be stealing their false info from them.[/quote]
Not much to disagree with here. Good response to my other post as well. I don’t think our actions are anywhere close to that coordinated unfortunately, not with Obama the 4th grader with an ego in charge. There’s a difference between despising someone’s politics (and obviously I do not like Obama’s political stances AT ALL) and simultaneously respecting them as a Statesman or leader of competence and cool headedness. As has already been mentioned in this thread, Obama really does not look like someone for which that is true. Unfortunately, when the leader is petulant and egotistical, the downstream chain of command suffers in coordination and direction.
The only thing I disagree with is what you said about Netanyahu being a first–there have been over 100 foreign dignitaries and leaders addresses to joint sessions of Congress. You must know this. An address isn’t unprecedented even if the circumstances are highly partisan and shady.[/quote]
Netanyahu is the first to be invited to speak specifically to criticize the President’s policies. Every other time has been a bipartisan invitation to speak on a subject for which there is much less partisan divide than this one. And I’ve got to think that this is the first time it’s been boycotted en masse by one one party.
The CIA and the intelligence community in general works with a large degree of separation from the top of the executive branch, and for good reason. It’s the only reason we don’t talk of President Reagan in the same terms with which we speak of President Nixon.
The fact is that President Obama himself, nor any other President, would have much say at all over how anything related to the intelligence side of this would operate.