Nancy Pelosi Slams Netanyahu’s “Insult” to the US

An “insult to the intelligence of the United States”
Politics • Views: 31,860

Rep. Nancy Pelosi made it very clear how she felt about Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech today.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) hammered Benjamin Netanyahu Tuesday, saying the Israeli prime minister’s speech to Congress was an “insult” to the country.

“The unbreakable bonds between the United States and Israel are rooted in our shared values, our common ideals and mutual interests,” Pelosi said in a statement just after the speech.

“That is why, as one who values the U.S. — Israel relationship, and loves Israel, I was near tears throughout the Prime Minister’s speech — saddened by the insult to the intelligence of the United States as part of the P5 +1 nations, and saddened by the condescension toward our knowledge of the threat posed by Iran and our broader commitment to preventing nuclear proliferation.”

Jump to bottom

52 comments
1 HappyWarrior  Mar 3, 2015 11:22:33am

I agree with every word of what she has to say and I will go on to say that I hope Bibi gets his ass kicked at the polls in large because of this stunt.

2 klys (maker of Silmarils)  Mar 3, 2015 11:22:43am

Well, now we know why Republicans like Bibi so much: he talks at a level they can understand.

3 Targetpractice  Mar 3, 2015 11:26:42am

I think this was the perfect sentiment to Bibi’s campaign speech:

4 Charles Johnson  Mar 3, 2015 11:28:10am
5 HappyWarrior  Mar 3, 2015 11:28:32am

re: #4 Charles Johnson

[Embedded content]

Assholes.

6 Charles Johnson  Mar 3, 2015 11:28:35am
7 The Mother Of All Pies  Mar 3, 2015 11:28:51am

I really, really, really hate it when liberals use this “Genocide” label.
It’s not fucking “Genocide.” Stop this shit.

8 The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge  Mar 3, 2015 11:29:44am

re: #4 Charles Johnson

[Embedded content]

Media headlines on Nancy Pelosi reek of sexism - all focusing on her “near tears” comment.

They’re gearing up for Hillary’s campaign.

9 Nyet  Mar 3, 2015 11:30:30am

re: #2 klys (maker of Silmarils)

Well, now we know why Republicans like Bibi so much: he talks at a level they can understand.

At least he didn’t bring the ACME bomb graphic with him this time.

10 iossarian  Mar 3, 2015 11:30:34am

How to be a serious leader:

- Start wars all the time
- Never admit you’re wrong about anything
- Start wars all the time

11 HappyWarrior  Mar 3, 2015 11:30:40am

re: #8 The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge

They’re gearing up for Hillary’s campaign.

Yep, this is the ideology that brought us the term feminazi after all. I am not a huge fan of Hillary’s but I will gladly defend her against any sexist attack.

12 lawhawk  Mar 3, 2015 11:30:57am

But Pelosi met with Assad once.

And Rumsfeld met with Saddam Hussein.

And Reagan met with the proto-Taliban.

Yeah, we can play this game all day. The problem isn’t the meeting, it’s that the content of Netanyahu’s speech was missing anything other than criticism of the current plan while offering up no alternatives at all. Saying you can negotiate a better deal isn’t the same as negotiating a better deal.

Netanyahu hasn’t been able to negotiate a better housing deal for Israelis or maintain a coalition government through negotiations. It’s either his way or the high way, and that’s a whole lot like the GOP plans these days. It’s no wonder he feels kinship with the GOP - especially the House GOP that does everything imaginable to undermine the POTUS (both the person and the office), which would be unthinkable if the President was someone other than Obama or Netanyahu was some other foreign leader.

Netanyahu gives good speeches - that’s why he’s been as successful as he has. He knows how to work a crowd. He’s far less successful at negotiations and working out deals.

13 jaunte  Mar 3, 2015 11:31:54am
14 nines09  Mar 3, 2015 11:31:55am

All Bibi did was inject himself into the fold of the do nothing GOP, tell the POTUS he was stupid, damage the bonds of our nations, show that he wants war, any war, to further his ideals, and give all the anti Semites and terrorist groups ammo to spare. Busy day. Nice work. Thanks John and the rest of you fucking assholes.

15 wrenchwench  Mar 3, 2015 11:34:30am

re: #7 The Mother Of All Pies

I really, really, really hate it when liberals use this “Genocide” label.
It’s not fucking “Genocide.” Stop this shit.

[Embedded content]

Did you say that to him? @eclecticbrotha is otherwise a nice guy.

16 Higgs Boson's Mate  Mar 3, 2015 11:35:39am

re: #6 Charles Johnson

Now I’m looking for a MIL-SPEC irony chip. My old heavy duty one just blew out.

17 jaunte  Mar 3, 2015 11:35:58am

Paul Waldman:

“…Netanyahu argues that if the U.S. walked away, Iran would eventually capitulate on everything; the “better deal” he imagined is one in which Iran does everything short of dismantling its government. He had nothing to say about why this might happen if we weren’t negotiating, other than that we should “keep up the pressure.” That’s his alternative: Do nothing, and instead of just going ahead and developing nuclear weapons, Iran will see the light and completely reverse everything it’s been doing.

To call that position “absurd” is too kind
.”
washingtonpost.com

18 Tigger2  Mar 3, 2015 11:36:10am

re: #6 Charles Johnson

[Embedded content]

Maybe he has missed all the times Boehner had tears running down his face.

19 HappyWarrior  Mar 3, 2015 11:37:06am

What I hate is whenever a deal with a state like Iran is done, someone inevitably brings up Munich and likens the person making the deal to Chamberlain and the other party to Hitler. It gets fucking old.

20 lawhawk  Mar 3, 2015 11:37:34am
21 Nyet  Mar 3, 2015 11:37:51am

“Genocide” doesn’t mean “a mass killing for whatever reasons”. Of course, people misuse the word all the time, including in reference to real historic events.

22 nines09  Mar 3, 2015 11:38:09am

re: #19 HappyWarrior

What I hate is whenever a deal with a state like Iran is done, someone inevitably brings up Munich and likens the person making the deal to Chamberlain and the other party to Hitler. It gets fucking old.

And yet those very voices never learn from history. It’s all jingoistic bullshit. Rah rah.

23 nines09  Mar 3, 2015 11:39:12am

re: #20 lawhawk

My shocked face. Where did I put it? Got to make a few phone calls.

24 HappyWarrior  Mar 3, 2015 11:39:39am

re: #21 Prof. Backpfeifengesicht, PhD

“Genocide” doesn’t mean “a mass killing for whatever reasons”. Of course, people misuse the word all the time, including in reference to real historic events.

It’s one of those words like “communist”, “fascist,”, “capitalist”, etc that are abused but yes there is a difference between something like genocide and
democide.

25 Higgs Boson's Mate  Mar 3, 2015 11:40:27am

re: #17 jaunte

…but it did put before the American public a forceful statement of the Likud/Republican position on the negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program.

Emphasis added to highlight the next GOP re-branding.

26 Jack Burton  Mar 3, 2015 11:40:44am

re: #19 HappyWarrior

What I hate is whenever a deal with a state like Iran is done, someone inevitably brings up Munich and likens the person making the deal to Chamberlain and the other party to Hitler. It gets fucking old.

I’m pretty sure any deal with Iran wont including giving them a big chunk of another country with no input from the people living there.

Comparisons to the Munich Agreement are asinine and Godwining.

27 HappyWarrior  Mar 3, 2015 11:42:43am

re: #26 Jack Burton

I’m pretty sure any deal with Iran wont including giving them a big chunk of another country with no input from the people living there.

Comparisons to the Munich Agreement are asinine and Godwining.

Yeah people who bring up Munich don’t know what the fuck it actually did. It effectively gave the Nazis the entire nation of Czechoslovakia.

28 Eventual Carrion  Mar 3, 2015 11:53:52am

re: #6 Charles Johnson

[Embedded content]

Hey CCJ, tell it to Johnny Boner.

29 SteveMcGaziBolaGate  Mar 3, 2015 11:58:02am

re: #27 HappyWarrior

Yeah people who bring up Munich don’t know what the fuck it actually did. It effectively gave the Nazis the entire nation of Czechoslovakia.

I know it’s a dead thread but Munich bought time for the Western Europe Allies. England and France were in no way ready to go to war in 1938, and they couldn’t have intervened in Czechoslovakia anyway. Public opinion in 1938 was very much against war (WWI was still a gaping wound on everybody’s mind). There was the likelihood that they could have had a war and nobody came.

30 wrenchwench  Mar 3, 2015 12:03:22pm
31 HappyWarrior  Mar 3, 2015 12:14:32pm

re: #29 SteveMcGaziBolaGate

I know it’s a dead thread but Munich bought time for the Western Europe Allies. England and France were in no way ready to go to war in 1938, and they couldn’t have intervened in Czechoslovakia anyway. Public opinion in 1938 was very much against war (WWI was still a gaping wound on everybody’s mind). There was the likelihood that they could have had a war and nobody came.

It’s an exercise in hindsight bias certainly and I say that as someone who had family directly effected by the Nazi invasion of Czechoslovakia.

32 djcelts  Mar 3, 2015 12:27:31pm

If this is such a great deal then why can’t we know whats in it and why can’t he send it through Congress for passage? She cried? Give me break Nancy and tell us whats in the deal.

33 klys (maker of Silmarils)  Mar 3, 2015 12:49:20pm

re: #32 djcelts

Apostrophes don’t bite, you know.

34 Backwoods_Sleuth  Mar 3, 2015 3:25:55pm

re: #33 klys (maker of Silmarils)

Apostrophes don’t bite, you know.

Reason and logic apparently do, however.

35 team_fukit  Mar 3, 2015 3:34:57pm

re: #32 djcelts

Because foreign policy is generally the domain of the executive branch and foreign relations often times require secrecy to make sure somebody else (like Netanyahu) doesn’t shit in the pool

36 lostlakehiker  Mar 3, 2015 3:59:17pm

re: #1 HappyWarrior

I agree with every word of what she has to say and I will go on to say that I hope Bibi gets his ass kicked at the polls in large because of this stunt.

And for my part, I agree with every part of what Netanyahu had to say and I hope Nancy sees the light.

The key point: the deal toward which the administration is working is a deal that ensures that within a decade plus change, if not sooner, Iran will have a nuclear arsenal.

We have watched this before. One administration after another vowed that the US would not accept a nuclear North Korea. But it came to pass. And why? Because we judged at each step that the cost of actually stopping them was greater than the cost of accepting that step in their road to an arsenal. Perhaps we fondly imagined that they just would never be able to bring it off. Well, that was wrong. And Iran shapes up as more capable, richer, better connected to sources of help with the project, than North Korea was. They can bring it off if nobody stops them.

Concrete measures must be taken to block the realization of the stepping stones to a nuclear arsenal, if it is to be headed off at all.

And there can be no serious doubt but that Iran’s government means to have that arsenal. One does not build long-range ballistic missiles to deliver conventional warheads. Gas, while it has a certain terror value, cannot be delivered by such means in the quantities that would be needed to largely depopulate a city. The cost of the weapon is out of all proportion to the damage it can do, except if it’s carrying a nuclear payload. Then, it’s the other way around.

Iran is not a hermit kingdom. The purpose the government has for this arsenal-in-the-making is hard to know, but if we go by what they say, the purpose is to destroy Israel and deter the United States. If we go by calculating what we’d do in their shoes and with their motivations and world view, maybe the purpose is to intimidate everybody and get Israel to agree that the Jews of Israel should just leave and go somewhere, anywhere. Or consent to live as under-citizens in another arrangement. How can that policy not result in nuclear war, whether or not Iran’s government pursues it in the belief that it won’t?

Would we be deterred from stepping in? Of course it would be a factor in our thinking. We cannot know how some future administration would act in a situation where backing down would lose us all credibility and make a nullity of NATO overnight, and would by no means permanently lift the threat that would then hang over us, but fighting would immediately cost us several cities.

The door is being opened to a monstrous tragedy. Two great peoples, the Iranians and the Jews, are at risk. And if it did come to war in the region, that war would open the door to further and yet greater tragedies. Whatever the result of the war, the mere fact of it having happened would smooth the path for the next nuclear war.

Winston Churchill said of Chamberlain that he didn’t want to condemn the man too harshly; that he had meant well and had not seen where his errors would lead. And I am not charging that Obama, nor the readers of this blog, see this future and embrace it and will it to come to pass. But a free people cannot absolve itself from the responsibility to choose wisely. No wiser heads will make our decisions for us. We either get this right, or suffer both the consequences and the moral liability for having not thought the matter through while there was yet time to understand and then take right action.

This is a life and death decision, and, gentlemen, you are not even thinking about the right questions. As if—-whether Netanyahu shall be reelected next week? That is entirely beside the point.

37 lostlakehiker  Mar 3, 2015 4:03:03pm

re: #19 HappyWarrior

What I hate is whenever a deal with a state like Iran is done, someone inevitably brings up Munich and likens the person making the deal to Chamberlain and the other party to Hitler. It gets fucking old.

The shoe fits. This is a deal that, if it works, at best brings peace for a spell and then brings greater risk of war, and a more dangerous war at that.

38 klys (maker of Silmarils)  Mar 3, 2015 4:03:07pm

re: #36 lostlakehiker

So what’s your plan?

No, really, what’s your alternative?

Are you willing to enlist and go fight Iran? It’s not clear to me how else you intend to stop them from obtaining nuclear weapons. Bomb them into submission repeatedly?

You disagree with what is being done, lay out an alternative.

Bibi didn’t lay one out.

39 Backwoods_Sleuth  Mar 3, 2015 4:05:09pm

re: #37 lostlakehiker

The shoe fits. This is a deal that, if it works, at best brings peace for a spell and then brings greater risk of war, and a more dangerous war at that.

What deal? Bibi just did his usual warmongering and didn’t present any deal other than the USA needs to bomb Iran, oh, and give Israel even more money.
What “peace deal” did he present?

Here’s a clue: HE DIDN’T.

40 Backwoods_Sleuth  Mar 3, 2015 4:06:07pm

lordie…I had no idea that the Bibi speech drinking game rules were still in effect…

41 lostlakehiker  Mar 3, 2015 5:33:18pm

re: #38 klys (maker of Silmarils)

So what’s your plan?

No, really, what’s your alternative?

Are you willing to enlist and go fight Iran? It’s not clear to me how else you intend to stop them from obtaining nuclear weapons. Bomb them into submission repeatedly?

You disagree with what is being done, lay out an alternative.

Bibi didn’t lay one out.

Your plan is that Iran should have the bomb. Thanks for clearing that up.

My plan is more sanctions. But I don’t have to have a plan, really. I just have to prove that the current plan is really, really unpalatable and call for some honest effort to come up with something else.

Posing false dichotomies is a favorite tactic of those who want “A”. “Oh, the alternative is “Z”. As if there weren’t any other letters in the alphabet.

42 klys (maker of Silmarils)  Mar 3, 2015 5:37:02pm

re: #41 lostlakehiker

Your plan is that Iran should have the bomb. Thanks for clearing that up.

My plan is more sanctions. But I don’t have to have a plan, really. I just have to prove that the current plan is really, really unpalatable and call for some honest effort to come up with something else.

Posing false dichotomies is a favorite tactic of those who want “A”. “Oh, the alternative is “Z”. As if there weren’t any other letters in the alphabet.

Man, it’s so hard to answer questions, isn’t it.

You seem to assume that the current plan results in them having a bomb. Why? What difference do you think additional sanctions are going to make? Why are you opposed to a situation where they agree to allow monitoring of their nuclear activities?

I asked what your plan was because you were whining about how horrible the current one is, not because my plan is to “let Iran have the bomb.” And you whine about dichotomies.

43 palomino  Mar 3, 2015 6:23:35pm

re: #41 lostlakehiker

Your plan is that Iran should have the bomb. Thanks for clearing that up.

My plan is more sanctions. But I don’t have to have a plan, really. I just have to prove that the current plan is really, really unpalatable and call for some honest effort to come up with something else.

Posing false dichotomies is a favorite tactic of those who want “A”. “Oh, the alternative is “Z”. As if there weren’t any other letters in the alphabet.

What a disingenuous chickenshit accusation. You should be ashamed at such demagoguery and distortion.

Klys said nothing of the sort in pointing out that Netanyahu doesn’t really have an alternative plan, just more of the status quo.

44 Varek Raith  Mar 3, 2015 6:43:57pm

re: #41 lostlakehiker

Just come out and say you want war.
This is what Bibi wants.
This is what the GOP wants.

This is tiresome.

45 lostlakehiker  Mar 3, 2015 9:38:08pm

re: #42 klys (maker of Silmarils)

Man, it’s so hard to answer questions, isn’t it.

You seem to assume that the current plan results in them having a bomb. Why? What difference do you think additional sanctions are going to make? Why are you opposed to a situation where they agree to allow monitoring of their nuclear activities?

I asked what your plan was because you were whining about how horrible the current one is, not because my plan is to “let Iran have the bomb.” And you whine about dichotomies.

You ask “why”, as though I hadn’t already explained why. In case you missed it, the reasons were that

(A) North Korea has followed the same path Iran is now on, and NK got nukes.
(B) Iran is if anything more capable than North Korea. It has a higher population base, it’s richer (and would be far richer if not for sanctions), and its people are at home with mathematics and science and engineering.
(C) Iran is working toward a bomb. And her world posture is aggressive and not all that risk-averse.
(D) Mere monitoring is not going to do the job. Netanyahu explained why. But in case you missed it, it will be because Iran will cheat, because it wants the bomb, and because when caught, once sanctions fray, it will be just about impossible to reinstate them. Too many parties will have too much money at stake. It will also be because the monitoring, even if not cheated on, will not avail. They will, under the likely terms of the agreement, be able without cheating to have far more centrifuges than they have now. So many, in fact, that their breakout from where they’d be ten years from now would be just a matter of weeks.

What it is proposed we accept is that Iran shall be able to walk, unimpeded, right up to the brink of having nukes and the means to deliver them all over the place. Without consequences, not even commercial consequences much less military ones. And then, it is imagined, from this position, they will not take that one last step. They will not be able to hide it? They have hidden much from us already. They just wouldn’t?

The lot of you have to have a sneaking suspicion that they jolly well would. That they will. How can you not see the risks in this? It is not a sure thing that they’ll take that road, but it’s a very real possibility. It’s not a 1 in a 100 proposition. In fact, it’s more likely than not that with the policy now proposed, or any mild variant of it, Iran will have a nuclear arsenal 12 years from now. And from there, I hate to think it but given how they’re talking and acting, it’s 1 in 4 or higher that they’ll somehow paint themselves into a corner with military adventures and gestures that they find they can’t bring themselves to back down from, and there will be a nuclear war.

And everybody is all about how this speech is some sort of insult to Obama. Maybe it is, in this sense—-Obama has formed an opinion about what is likely to happen, and he has misjudged matters badly, and the risks are terrible. But in another sense, when you tell a friend that they’re about to make some big mistake, it’s not an insult. It’s a plea.

What we have here is no bed of roses. Every possible path forward has its dangers. I don’t need to be told that any more robust policy than acquiescence masked by soothing words of “monitoring” carries its dangers. Yes, and those dangers are more likely to unfold sooner. But they are less dire.

46 klys (maker of Silmarils)  Mar 3, 2015 9:43:17pm

re: #45 lostlakehiker

So.

The Iranians are so set on having the bomb that they are willing to cheat inspections, etc., etc., etc.

(And I’m going to ignore your comments on the North Koreans, who you apparently think are completely bereft of skills in science, mathematics, and engineering.)

Why do you think sanctions are going to stop them?

47 The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge  Mar 3, 2015 9:57:22pm

re: #45 lostlakehiker

North Korea has followed the same path Iran is now on, and NK got nukes.

And from there, I hate to think it but given how they’re talking and acting, it’s 1 in 4 or higher that they’ll somehow paint themselves into a corner with military adventures and gestures that they find they can’t bring themselves to back down from, and there will be a nuclear war.

You’re an idiot. North Korea did not “got nukes”. They’ve had three tests. The first was totally consistent with absolutely nothing happening—i.e., only the high explosive going off. The second was a sub-kiloton fizzle. The third was at best half the yield of India’s Smiling Buddha test in 1974, which was so disappointing that they gave up for 25 years.

As for the second point, I would say exactly the same thing with much more justification about Israel. How would you like to be stuck in the same region with a nuclear-armed Likudnik power?

48 the silent one  Mar 4, 2015 3:14:58am

History repeating itself again

Video

49 djcelts  Mar 4, 2015 6:18:45am

re: #42 klys (maker of Silmarils)

This isn’t hard at all.
First of all, what is the deal? Can any of you actually say whats in the deal? No, then how do you know its any good? Seriously, if its such a great deal then why not shout it to the world?

Secondly, Bibi’s point is that there is no good reason why you HAVE to have a deal right now. There is no timeline here that needs to be met. So why all the rush to get an agreement in place? Why settle for something ok when you could simply ratchet up the sanctions (which were working and making them respond) and get them to agree to exactly what you want?

Thirdly, it doesn’t matter whats in this, Iran has no intention of abiding by it. They are going to get rid of the sanctions with this and go right back to what they were doing before. What they done up to this point with inspectors? They’ve lied, hidden things, kept them from doing their inspections and made a mockery of the process.

You people are mistaken that the alternative is war. The alternative is to not enter into a bad agreement and give them more sanctions (not less) and force their hand into an actual good deal. Why is that so hard to understand?

And I blame autofill for the lack of apostrophes……

50 The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge  Mar 4, 2015 6:31:58am

Name one single other diplomatic deal that was “shouted to the world” while it was still being negotiated. Oh, you can’t? Gee, I wonder why the diplomacy of this particular administration should be required to be conducted in public, when no other administration has ever been held to such a requirement? It’s a puzzler, for sure….

Imbecilic cretin.

51 The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge  Mar 4, 2015 6:42:50am

Furthermore, I wouldn’t be so sure which party is the untrustworthy one here. The Clinton administration had a perfectly good agreement with North Korea—basically, we’ll allow in enough food and fuel to keep you from starving and freezing, and you’ll keep your research reactor shut down.

Bush the Lesser came in, immediately reneged on the deal, and North Korea produced enough plutonium (probably “cooked” too long) for the three failed tests that have the RWNJs in a pants-pissing frenzy. Depending on the United States to stand by any agreement made by one administration once the other party takes over has always been an extremely unsafe course.

52 klys (maker of Silmarils)  Mar 4, 2015 9:48:05am

re: #49 djcelts

If you can’t say what’s in the deal, how do you know it’s bad?


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Why Did More Than 1,000 People Die After Police Subdued Them With Force That Isn’t Meant to Kill? An investigation led by The Associated Press has found that, over a decade, more than 1,000 people died after police subdued them through physical holds, stun guns, body blows and other force not intended to be lethal. More: Why ...
Cheechako
Yesterday
Views: 43 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
A Closer Look at the Eastman State Bar DecisionTaking a few minutes away from work things to read through the Eastman decision. As I'm sure many of you know, Eastman was my law school con law professor. I knew him pretty well because I was also running in ...
KGxvi
Yesterday
Views: 98 • Comments: 1 • Rating: 1