[Pyuvjzwf]

The most powerful Democrat in Congress, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), on Monday night publicly rejected President Barack Obama’s decision to use a recent speech to lay out aspects of a potential peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians.

“The place where negotiating will happen must be at the negotiating table – and nowhere else,” Reid declared in a speech to an annual gathering in Washington of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). “Those negotiations … will not happen – and their terms will not be set – through speeches, or in the streets, or in the media.” Harry Reid rebukes Barack Obama's Israel speech - Josh Gerstein - POLITICO.com

Time to jump ship--LOL. I guess Harry figured out--that yes--there is a large voting block of Jewish in this country. And the main stream media is out there in a furry--trying to defend Obama--and calling all critics like Netanyahu rude for "treating Barack like a school boy."

[bitymnmictada]

Reid is just towing the GOP line and clinging to the faux right-wing rage...

Reid did avoid mentioning Obama or 1967 so this may not really qualify as throwing Obama under the bus.

At AIPAC Speech, Sen Reid Leaves Out “Obama” and “1967″ - Kenneth Rapoza - BRIC Breaker - Forbes

[MatueHarton]

Our Republican friends always forget that the Democratic party has the largest tent in the country, and in that tent are a multitude of views with shades of gray all throughout and despite my objections, the Democrats seem content with letting all of their leaders weigh in on things with their own words and thoughts, whereas Republicans are much more controlled and organized and will parrot each other incessantly the minute a new soundbite is given them, like "Death Panels" or "Gov't is the problem". And all Republicans italicize the "is" in that latter one, just as an example of how unified they are on the little details.

Harry Reid is one of the most conservative Democrats, he's from an older generation, and therefore it makes sense that he sees Obama's speech as perhaps too idealistic, despite the fact that if you look back at two speeches from John McCain and George W. Bush, they all repeated the same things.

Disingenuous Republicans with nothing to do need to throw whatever they can throw at Obama no matter what he says, so yet another thread that reflects conservative wishful-thinking is not surprising.

Reid remarks hardly qualify as throwing the President under the bus.

[Pyuvjzwf]

Reid is just towing the GOP line and clinging to the When the Senate leader added, “No one should set premature parameters about borders, about building, or about anything else,” the lights quickly came up on the vast audience and most in the crowd at the Washington Convention Center rose to their feet and applauded.

Among the thousands attending the AIPAC event, controversy is still swirling over Obama’s public suggestion last Thursday that Israel’s pre-1967 borders be the starting point for negotiations with the Palestinians. In his speech last week addressing the democracy movements roiling the Middle East and North Africa, Obama also suggested that Israel withdraw from Palestinian territory in phases, that Israel eventually withdraw all troops from the West Bank, and that the issues of Jerusalem and the right of return claimed by Palestinians be deferred until border and security issues are resolved


Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories...z1NFJJaG13faux right-wing rage...

Reid did avoid mentioning Obama or 1967 so this may not really qualify as throwing Obama under the bus.

At AIPAC Speech, Sen Reid Leaves Out “Obama” and “1967″ - Kenneth Rapoza - BRIC Breaker - Forbes

The title--"Harry Reid REBUKES Obama's speech" doesn't give you a clue as to what Reid was saying?---

or this?

When the Senate leader added, “No one should set premature parameters about borders, about building, or about anything else,” the lights quickly came up on the vast audience and most in the crowd at the Washington Convention Center rose to their feet and applauded.

Among the thousands attending the AIPAC event, controversy is still swirling over Obama’s public suggestion last Thursday that Israel’s pre-1967 borders be the starting point for negotiations with the Palestinians. In his speech last week addressing the democracy movements roiling the Middle East and North Africa, Obama also suggested that Israel withdraw from Palestinian territory in phases, that Israel eventually withdraw all troops from the West Bank, and that the issues of Jerusalem and the right of return claimed by Palestinians be deferred until border and security issues are resolved http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55560.html

[bitymnmictada]

The title--"Harry Reid REBUKES Obama's speech" doesn't give you a clue as to what Reid was saying?---

What about the title "At AIPAC Speech, Sen Reid Leaves Out “Obama” and “1967″ "indicates to you he was throwing Obama under the bus?

Followup on this story will reveal more.

[Adimonnna]

Our Republican friends always forget that the Democratic party has the largest tent in the country, and in that tent are a multitude of views with shades of gray all throughout and despite my objections, the Democrats seem content with letting all of their leaders weigh in on things with their own words and thoughts, whereas Republicans are much more controlled and organized and will parrot each other incessantly the minute a new soundbite is given them, like "Death Panels" or "Gov't is the problem". And all Republicans italicize the "is" in that latter one, just as an example of how unified they are on the little details.

Harry Reid is one of the most conservative Democrats, he's from an older generation, and therefore it makes sense that he sees Obama's speech as perhaps too idealistic, despite the fact that if you look back at two speeches from John McCain and George W. Bush, they all repeated the same things.

Disingenuous Republicans with nothing to do need to throw whatever they can throw at Obama no matter what he says, so yet another thread that reflects conservative wishful-thinking is not surprising.

Reid remarks hardly qualify as throwing the President under the bus.

And yet you complain when Boehner can't have the Republicans marching in lockstep.

[Almolfuncomma]

Harry Reid rebukes Barack Obama's Israel speech - Josh Gerstein - POLITICO.com

Time to jump ship--LOL. I guess Harry figured out--that yes--there is a large voting block of Jewish in this country. And the main stream media is out there in a furry--trying to defend Obama--and calling all critics like Netanyahu rude for "treating Barack like a school boy."

This is where you nailed it, all the press and critics of the Right are touting look at Netanyahu lecturing Obama, no one lectures an American president.

Well in my opinion other presidents don't make controversial statements requiring a lecture from other countries that are friends of ours. Obama slammed Israel and Israel shot a cannon across the face of Obama.

And last was it not, that Obama and all his charm, charisma, and loving speeches supposed to bring the world together. Here he has failed miserably.

[Doctor-CTAC]

And last was it not, that Obama and all his charm, charisma, and loving speeches supposed to bring the world together. Here he has failed miserably.

That's comical.

Like you really give a shit about "bringing the world together".

When the world was criticizing President Bush I'd bet dollars to donuts that you were in the "who gives a shit what the world thinks - we're AMERICA motherfuckers!!!" camp.



All I see is, once again, President Obama taking the hard right over the easy wrong.

He did it in Libya and then he did it again with UBL in Pakistan.

Now he's doing it again with Israel.

[KimLinbert]

All I see is, once again, President Obama taking the hard right over the easy wrong.

He did it in Libya and then he did it again with UBL in Pakistan.

Now he's doing it again with Israel.

I've yet to see any reason why any POTUS has sought to get in the middle of negotiations but I don't see this as being a right decision at all. I don't really see it as much of a right vs. wrong thing as it is a the borders are what they are type thing.

[enactolaelant]

ahoy all,

though 'tis not surprisin' that Senator Reid said such things whilst speakin' to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, i continue to be baffled 'bout what all the outrage be about.

folks here on USPO, on both the right 'n the left hath stated that what the President stated as US policy regardin' Israel/Palestine be nothin' new, aye? 'tis just a repeat 'o what all our past administration's hath uttered.

- MeadHallPirate

[KimLinbert]

ahoy all,

though 'tis not surprisin' that Senator Reid said such things whilst speakin' to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, i continue to be baffled 'bout what all the outrage be about.

folks here on USPO, on both the right 'n the left hath stated that what the President stated as US policy regardin' Israel/Palestine be nothin' new, aye? 'tis just a repeat 'o what all our past administration's hath uttered.

- MeadHallPirate

It's mostly just partisan nitpicking but I don't see any real diplomatic advantage to publicly stating what has always been said in private but since Israel isn't budging an inch on this issue it probably doesn't make any difference in the world.

I don't really care if there ever is real, sustained peace and I doubt there ever will be but at this point the borders are the borders and no peace agreement will work unless all sides are willing to recognize that. It just is what it is.

[Repwailia]

This really is much ado about nothing. What is more interesting are the attempts to spin this deal to show Obama in the negetive. But in order to do that, you have to be disingenius, which is nothing new in politics, I reckon. I find it dispicable, but I find the gov't in general to be so. Just more of the same old shit, National Enquirer grade in substance. ENTERTAINMENT, in areas that should be completely serious.

[Almolfuncomma]

That's comical.

Like you really give a shit about "bringing the world together".
When the world was criticizing President Bush I'd bet dollars to donuts that you were in the "who gives a shit what the world thinks - we're AMERICA motherfuckers!!!" camp.



All I see is, once again, President Obama taking the hard right over the easy wrong.

He did it in Libya and then he did it again with UBL in Pakistan.

Now he's doing it again with Israel.

It makes no difference if I give a shit, it's what Obama sold to the American people, bringing the world together with his BS. The way I see it. Iran and N Korea is still building nukes, Russia tells us what to do, the Chinese could give a shit what Obama says and in fact told him to fuck off, he pissed Israel off the other day with his stupid 67 border line, he says Qaddafi has to go and yet he is still there, Syria is killing it's own people, AQ still wants to wipe us out, Oil is at $100 barrel. Christ I could go on and on. And so what has Obama been able to accomplish with his F*** BS.

[Almolfuncomma]

ahoy all,

though 'tis not surprisin' that Senator Reid said such things whilst speakin' to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, i continue to be baffled 'bout what all the outrage be about.

folks here on USPO, on both the right 'n the left hath stated that what the President stated as US policy regardin' Israel/Palestine be nothin' new, aye? 'tis just a repeat 'o what all our past administration's hath uttered.

- MeadHallPirate

Can you produce a quote from all the previous presidents that Israel's border is to be that of 67.

[KimLinbert]

Can you produce a quote from all the previous presidents that Israel's border is to be that of 67.

I don't know that there's a specific sound bite but it seems to be pretty much the de facto standard all recent POTUS have used in brokering peace. The only real difference is Pres. Obama said it publicly.

[Wymdqcvb]

I've yet to see any reason why any POTUS has sought to get in the middle of negotiations but I don't see this as being a right decision at all. I don't really see it as much of a right vs. wrong thing as it is a the borders are what they are type thing.

POTUS isn't in the middle of negotiations because there aren't any negotiations. POTUS conducts the foreign policy of the USA and it is in the interest of the USA to have negotiations start and lead to a successful two-state resolution. The USA is, after all, footing the bill as well as paying a heavy price in other parts of the world by being seen as handcuffed to militaristic Israel bent on territorial expansion despite the condemnation of the world.

[Almolfuncomma]

I don't know that there's a specific sound bite but it seems to be pretty much the de facto standard all recent POTUS have used in brokering peace. The only real difference is Pres. Obama said it publicly.

There you go, that's an assumption on your part. In reality you have no idea what was actually said in any of those meetings. Obama did say the 67 border was the starting point. Not so from Israel's point of view, not in the least. I will say past presidents knew that, thus never took Israel back to the 67 border, like Obama did. Huge difference, and that is what prompted the PM of Israel to give Obama a lecture on the subject, publicly.

[KimLinbert]

There you go, that's an assumption on your part. In reality you have no idea what was actually said in any of those meetings. Obama did say the 67 border was the starting point. Not so from Israel's point of view, not in the least. I will say past presidents knew that, thus never took Israel back to the 67 border, like Obama did. Huge difference, and that is what prompted the PM of Israel to give Obama a lecture on the subject, publicly.

It's all an assumption.

My idea of what was said is based on reputable sources who were there and covered it, just as yours are. I suppose it's just as possible that the New York Times, et al. are all part of a grand conspiracy to promote the idea that the 1967 border has been an issue since it changed in 1967 as it is the media completely faked Pres. Obama's speech and is part of a grand conspiracy to push that.

[KimLinbert]

POTUS isn't in the middle of negotiations because there aren't any negotiations. POTUS conducts the foreign policy of the USA and it is in the interest of the USA to have negotiations start and lead to a successful two-state resolution. The USA is, after all, footing the bill as well as paying a heavy price in other parts of the world by being seen as handcuffed to militaristic Israel bent on territorial expansion despite the condemnation of the world.

I don't have a clue what the heck you're talking about but there have been numerous peace negotiations between Israel and Palestine where the United States has played a large role, particularly the POTUS.

[Almolfuncomma]

It's all an assumption.

My idea of what was said is based on reputable sources who were there and covered it, just as yours are. I suppose it's just as possible that the New York Times, et al. are all part of a grand conspiracy to promote the idea that the 1967 border has been an issue since it changed in 1967 as it is the media completely faked Pres. Obama's speech and is part of a grand conspiracy to push that.

Good you agree it's all an assumption. Except for Obama it is not an assumption thus the lecture by the PM. Now it is clear to Obama and the rest of the world the 67 border is not in play.