Netanyahu offers 'no concrete action plan' on Iran: senior U.S. official

If Dennis thinks that nuking them both is the best option, then that is the most cogent thing he's ever said.

 

Thanks for the analysis. Speaking of pariahs.....

 

I'd tried to straighten him out, but there's only so much you can do for a person who thinks Auschwitz is a brand of beer.”
― David Sedaris

“You can't discuss the ocean with a well frog - he's limited by the space he lives in. You can't discuss ice with a summer insect - he's bound to a single season.”
― Zhuangzi, The Complete Works of Chuang Tzu

 

I did, Yetzerhara. Not only was it an excellent speech, it was a refreshingly candid break from the evasive nonsense that the Obama administration has been prattling ad nauseum.

Evidently, Bill Whittle listened to it, too:

[video=youtube;JOtzWwmaGfM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOtzWwmaGfM[/video]

 

Talon I will be honest with you. I agree with the speech 100% I just thought it should have been done elsewhere for two reasons.1-I believe that due to the on-going election in Israel, the use of Congress was blatantly partisan in the sense it gives Netanyahu an advantage at home during the election. That said the speech itself is not partisan for Israelis.The vast majority from all parties agree with what Netanyahu said. Its not the speech but choice of venue.

2. I repeat it again only in the sense that as much as Obama has ridiculed Netanyahu tine and time again in public, and demonstrated a blatant disrespect to his office, Netanyahu should have taken the high road and given the speech outside Congress. It would gave detracted from those anti Israeli Democrats who side with Obama.

That said the speech was dead on and that is why it rattles Obama.

He has spent 8 years lying to Americans. He came into office with a blatant lie about Israel and has demonstrated since his election he is completely against Israel.

He has shown blatant ineptitude over relations with Syria, Ukraine,Libya, Yemen, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Germany, France, Britain, China, Canada Russia
and North Korea.

This is the worst President in US history in regards to foreign policy. His legacy will be to have created a vacuum leading to world chaos by pulling the US off the world stage as its police officer.

He has undermined his best allies, Canada, Germany, Britain, France, Israel, Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

He befriended the blatantly anti-Semitic anti Christian Erdogan and Morsi. He welcomed Muslim Brotherhood supporters into the White House as advisers. He resurrected the failed foreign policies of Zbigniew Brezinski and welcomed him into the adviser to run his foreign policy and his disastrous mistakes in Ukraine, Syria and now with Iran, all the blue book of Brezinski and Carter.

What does he have to show? This is a man who now arrogantly presumes to talk down to Netanyahu as some step and fetch it thinking he can lecture Netanyahu on what is good for Israel by allowing Iran free reign to build a massive arsenal of nuclear weapons.

This is the same Obama who told the world he knows Muslims wink wink nudge nudge. Oh never mind his father and step father are Muslim Brotherhood.Never mind his half brothr is the man responsible for funding Sudan's Muslim Brotherhood government and genocide of Christians in the South. Never mind he is aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood in Jordan threatening to kill King Adullah.


He knows. Wink wink nudge nudge he knows. He knows the Muslim Brotherhood. Egypt is wrong. Saudi Arabia, wrong.Jordan, wrong. Israel, wrong.

He knows. Just like he and John Kerry lectured Israel to recognize Hamas, unilaterally withdraw to 1967 borders, and now trust him over Iran.

Right. This is a man who asked the world to trust him.The British, French and Canada in Libya, they were all wrong.No air war. No no no. Send in ISIL, his trained personally picked Sunni Muslims. I mean come on they were good Muslims. They were Muslim Brotherhood.

Say now who would think they would turn on Barry Obama their friend. I mean who saw that coming, the sodomizing of his US Ambassador in public. I mean come on not Barry. He sent his blonde haired reincarnation of Lawrence of Arabia into the streets with no body guards. This openly gay, blonde haired, blue eyed Barry Obama buddy could walk the streets. I mean they all loved him because after all Barry knows Muslims. Barry knows. Barry knows Muslims. He knows them.

I mean who saw that sodomy coming, his allies taking this man and ramming a pole up his ass while he lived and pulled out his bowels and heart and threw his organs to the crowd in a frenzy? Where was Bary? Sitting in his office with Hilary watching on satellite. Ooopsy.

What Morsi calling for Coptic Christians to be massacered. Hey no worries, Barry understands him. Erdogan calling Israel a terrorist state in need of being attacked? Hey come on now, he's Barry's friend. He's a fellow Muslim Brotherhood member. Why not.Its just words. Means nothing. I mean why not get into bed with Erdogan and create ISIL.

Hey you know what, Barry knows. How smart he was. See he had it all planned. There was Al Quaeda and ISIL who would fight for him against Assad? Know why? Because he knows. He knows Muslims. There his friends. Yes sir, get rid of Moe Ghaddafi then on to Assad and hey you know what?Screw Saudi Arabia, screw Egypt, Jordan, Israel, the UAE Kuwait, who needs them. After all Barry knows. He's in with the new Muslims of the Sunni world-in tight you see.

Hey in tight so much they would go fight for him and Erdogan while their fellow Sunnis would be massacered by a Shiite President of Iraq hand picked by Barry. No problem. The Iranians?No problem. They will be happy. I mean Barry knows. Who would have thought ISIL would turn on their fellow Sunni Al Quaeda. I mean who saw Iran invading Iraq and assisting the genocide of Sunnis in Iraq.

Barry? Hey come on now. This is the same Barry who supported Erdogan's massacre of Kurds and support of Iran against Kurds. Its all swell.

Ooopsy what happened Barry. Syria? Oh no problem, let's dither on supporting non extremist Muslims in Syria. Know why? Full of Christians, those damn Assyrians. Worse still, Druze, Berbers too. No no no. His Muslim Brotherhood buddies said, don't help them. Let Assad wipe them out first.

Now what Barry? Al Nusra the Al Quaeda arm in Syria, how's it doing Barry? You know the same Al Qaeda that has declared war on the US? Hey now Barry how about ISIL? Oops who saw that coming? Hamas? Hey John Kerry said they should be trusted. He told Abbas right in front of them Abbas must listen to them or face an intifada. Hey there's a way to win over your buddy Mr.Abbas. Even he who thought Barry supported him was betrayed in favour of Hamas. That's the consistent thing with Barry. He pisses off everyone equally. He never fails to insult his allies whether it be Abbas, Israel, anyone. How about Cameron? Remember him?No problem Barry blamed Britain for the civil war in Iraq. He claimed they did not know how to fight properly. But wait, you know France?Barry chastised them for fighting Al Quaeda in Mali-not the way to do it he said.Yes the same Barry who refused to walk with other leaders in Paris after the terrorist attacks.Not Barry. Who him criticize Muslim extremists. He won't even acknowledge they exist.

Now?No problem. Here's Bam Bam Obama telling us all he is in tight with Iran. He will get a deal.Any deal is better then no deal he says. Yes he'snot only Neville Chamberlain but while Neville Chamberlain settled for a piece of scribbled paper, Bam Bam has signalled the world. he'll settle for anything.

Talk about telling the world you enjoy taking it up the buttox and them some.

Yep this is someone I trust. Someone so stupid as to say in public any deal is better than no deal. Someone so stupid as to tell both Abbas and Netanyahu in a room trying to settle a Hamas started war, that they both better behave and give in to Hamas or face an intifada.

Yep that's Barry. The man of superior diplomacy. A man who sends John Kerry into hot spots to lecture people they are all wrong and only Barry hs it straight.

This is the same Kerry who told Hamas to reject a peace deal with Abbas and Israel causing that war to go on an additional 3 weeks until Hamas accepted the very deal Kerry told them not to take.

John Kerry now there is a genius. He sure told Putin a thing or two. He can't even travel overseas now. No one will allow him to visit he's such a blithering embarrassment.Chancellor Merkel won't even be in the same room as him.

But hey Barry will save the world. Yes sir. Barry Obama. He knows.

 

And what did that Times of Israel article say?:

And you interpret those criticisms as meaning that Dagan believes that Bibi told the truth? Really? Oy vey!!!

Am I really the only one who interprets the criticism as an accusation of lying? Apparently not, because so does Associated Press: "Former Mossad Chief: Netanyahu Lied to Congress" - http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/former-mossad-chief-netanyahu-lied-to-congress So does The Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/03/netanyahu-speech-congress-fact-check_n_6792054.html
"Did Benjamin Netanyahu Lie To Congress? 5 Fact-Checked Claims From The Speech" Wow - 5!!! Why did Mondoweiss call Bibi's claims lies, if I am a lone voice in the wilderness in this regard? Why was it repeated by the NYT? Why literally dozens of such repetitions of Bibi lying, versus the lonely defence by Commentary Magazine, a defence that did NOT resort to claiming that the Mossad cable leak was a fraud? Further regarding the Mossad, is it untrue that it uses women to entrap targets, as referred to in another leaked communication?

Of course, Iran was VERY quick to spot the Bibi lies - http://news.yahoo.com/iran-denounces-netanyahu-lie-spreading-us-speech-205325586.html
"Iran denounces Netanyahu 'lie-spreading' in US speech"

Before you discount Iran and the rest, consider these:
Why did the SSA not leap to its feet and deny the leak? http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...s-to-deal-with-fallout-from-leaked-spy-cables especially when that very question is currently inder investigation in the South African parliament. Why were 4 South African, revealed to be emplaced in African countrie,s brought home so suddenly by the authorities after the leak? Why did RSA intelligence sources tell City Press that "the leak was believed to have come from inside the SSA", if their contents were rubbish? Do you claim that the SSA was never asked for information on Greenpeace? Why do many of the cables contain information previously revealed, if the leaks are falsified. Or are all of the above true, but only the Mossad cable is false? Seriously?

Now, back to your claim that the Snowden files, Wiki leaks and especially the recent South African security service leak are unsubstantiated - just for starters (never mind that witch-hunts that went on in various countries as a result) why did the Guardian, after having been selected by Al Jazeera to authenticate the documents, put its name behind them when you claim that they are so obviously false - the latter based solely on your anecdotal speculations? Do you have inside information that the names of the 78 foreign spies working in Pretoria, along with their photographs, addresses and mobile phone numbers, are all false? If so, why did a number of them respond? Your view means that the NIA threat assessment analysis was also a fraud? The 2007 break-in at the Pelindaba nuclear research centre was fictitious? The assassination plot on Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma was a hoax? Saudi Arabia never planned targeting of Yemeni rebels with air strikes? http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/24/africa-el-dorado-espionage-leaked-intelligence-files Oh, I think I undertand. All of these are valid; only the Mossad cable refuting Bibi is false. Is that it?
Regarding your poo-pooing Wikileaks - Why did lawyers representing the British government make it clear that it was also worried about upsetting the US if it confirmed that the leaked cables were genuine? What on earth was the point of that? http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/apr/15/uk-us-embassy-cables-wikileaks
Why were the Chagos documents barred from use in the British courts because the breached diplomatic privilege, and not because their content was questionable? http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/apr/18/chagos-islanders-court-rejects-wikileaks-cable Oh, and yes, I know about the UFO content.
In Charlie Becketts book, why did he report that conversations within Wikileaks revolved around the difficulty of verifying leaked documents and the need for honestly in analysis, if they were all false?

To answer your question .... of course I want to play with you. When all you have are subjective anecdotes to support your view, and you are stacked up against Al Jazeera, Associated Press, The Guardian, The New York Times, the Huffington Post and Mondoweiss, why should I NOT want to play? When your subjective views on Wikileaks are not supported by the British courts, and Wikileaks itself displays great openness about the need for honesty in analysis, why should I get into the ring with you against them? No way, José.

 

Read Ralf Nader's latest article... He blows right thru all the ridiculous lies......

 

I agree with most of your post, but the piece I quote above is not fully valid. Most democrats either stayed away, or refused to stand and applaud Bibi.
Those who praised Bibi, who swallowed his hasbara with closed eyes, were republicans almost exclusively. Why would republicans be more gullible? I do not believe that they are any more gullible than democrats. They simply believe that they have the right to destroy anything and anyone whom, in their view, is "them" rather than "us". It is typical Wilsonian dogma from a century ago.

It is this attitude that there are carefully crafted laws, conventions and agreements that are to be nurtured to prevent horrors like the holocaust, and MUST be observed by all countries, except the United States, who has 'carte blanch' to violate them if a few senior individuals feel like it. Dubya personified this attitude. And it continues, as we see today, irrespective that it made the US either the laughing stock of informed 'gente del mundo', or the most hated nation in more reactionary sectors. The the 'good ole boys' have yet to realise that this attitude makes them look like the arrogant pompous uninformed pathetic self-agrandisers that they are. They don't realise how utterly lame or completely despicable the informed world found the Tonkin lies to be, the Mai Lai atrocity, the US veto of the UN resolution for a ceasefire in Lebanon in 1982, the Granada invasion, the crippling of four central American states (who have yet to recover after 40 years), the connivance with murderous Latin American dictators, the support for South Africa's Apartheid regime, the lies and hilarious backpedalling about the Iraqi WMDs, the utter unacceptability of the deaths of over a million Iraqi children under US-promoted UN sanctions, the death of 500 thousand Indonesians under the US support for Sukarno/Suharto, the .... is that enough or do we need to go further, such as the truly disgusting annihilation of hundreds of thousands of Japanese (with two WMDs against express US public and military advice)?

So the current crop who stand and applaud Bibi are simply following a well-demonstrated lack of humanity amongst the supposed flag-carriers of democracy, human rights, and law-and-order.

But not all of them ..... just the red necks from the 'Grand Old Party'.

 

Kilp Klap you are as usual wrong.

Here is the actual article word for word. The word "bull(*)(*)(*)(*)" look at it long and careful. Go find the alleged sentence it was uttered in. You won't find it. The paper is editorializing or adding their emphasis to how they interpreted what Dagan said.

He never used the word bull(*)(*)(*)(*). What he stated is quoted in the article.


"Former Mossad chief Meir Dagan lambasted Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in a Channel 2 interview previewed Thursday, calling his speech before Congress “bull(*)(*)(*)(*),” and charging that his policy vis-a-vis the Palestinians endangered the Zionist dream.

The reality being championed by Netanyahu and [Jewish Home party leader Naftali] Bennett will result in a bi-national state. I think that’s a catastrophe,” Dagan said.

“In the Palestinian arena, [Netanyahu’s] policy will lead … to apartheid,” he told Channel 2 Thursday, adding that such an outcome will “end the Zionist dream.”
The former spymaster, who spent eight years at the helm of Israel’s shadowy intelligence agency, will lead a Tel Aviv rally Saturday night to advocate a change of government.

He has been an outspoken critic of Netanyahu in the past, calling Netanyahu’s judgment on Iran into question.

In a snippet from Dagan’s reaction to Netanyahu’s speech to the US Congress on Tuesday — which he watched alongside a Channel 2 reporter — Dagan can be seen muttering at the screen “bull(*)(*)(*)(*)” after Netanyahu makes a point on Iran’s progress in its nuclear program.

The full interview was to be aired Friday night.

“For 45 years I have served this country — all of them dedicated to safeguarding its security as a Jewish and Zionist state. I don’t want that dream to disappear,” Dagan said.

In response, Netanyahu’s Likud party issued a statement accusing Dagan of deceiving the public and noted that the prime minister has worked tirelessly in his efforts to ensure Israel’s continued security.

“Meir Dagan is wrong and misleading,” the statement read.

Now Klip you want to play games-go to the interview which is on public record and find the sentence you claim has the word bull(*)(*)(*)(*) in it. Go on. Finish what you started. It does not exist and never did.

If you can't tell the difference between an actual quote and paraphrasing smarten up and try find out the difference before you come on this board and mistate a paraphrasing or editorial comment with an actual quote.

 

Many thanks, Margot. This is what she meant:

And there is more: http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/03/09/netanyahu-the-other-israelis-and-bobby-burns/

Yetzerhara, please add Ralph Nader to the list of those calling Bibi out. I feel just SOOOO unalone.

 

It is absolutely fair to say not all Israelis or Zionist Jews or Jews, or Americans agree with Netanyahu on Iran. Absolutely fair. The quotes Klip provided are fair debate.

All I am saying is it is absolute bullcrap however to attribute false quotes to Dagan. His actual criticism of Netanyahu is far more coherent than uttering "bulls..t". I could have been clearer.

Some people come on this board, read a headline and stop. Then they become experts on Iran. We have to push further. Dagan is far more eloquent than just swearing when attacking Netanyahu positons. Fair is fair.

Dagan's opinion is just that and its stated as follows for example:

http://jpupdates.com/2015/01/29/meir-dagan-critical-netanyahus-decision-speak-front-congress/


or

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/27/mossad-binyamin-netanyahu-meir-dagan-israel

which quotes him stating:

“An Israeli prime minister who clashes with the US administration has to ask himself what the risks are. On the matter of settlements, there is no difference between the two [US] parties. And even so, they provide us with a veto umbrella. In a situation of a confrontation, this umbrella is liable to vanish, and within a short time, Israel could find itself facing international sanctions.

“The risks of such a clash are intolerable. We are already today paying a high price. Some of them I know and cannot elaborate.

“I would not have confronted the United States and its president. Netanyahu may get applause in Congress, but all the power is in the White House. What will Netanyahu gain by addressing Congress? I just don’t understand it. Is his goal to get a standing ovation? This trip to Washington is doomed to failure.”

Dagan’s intervention follows that of fellow former Mossad head Shabtai Shavit and the former head of the elite Sayeret Matkal commando unit who are among scores of former commanders involved in a video published on Facebook calling for Israel to replace Netanyahu. "


Israel is in the middle of an election. Dagan and other former security officials no longer in the government are now politically involved supporting Kadima and Labour, two parties I actually am sympathetic too.

His opinon represents a view that even though Israel disagrees with the US over Iran,t hey should have kept it secret and not let it out in public.

Dagan says a lot of things:

http://www.timesofisrael.com/former-mossad-chief-we-dont-need-jordan-valley/

However if someone takes the time to actually follow all of what Dagan says the story becomes quite different.

Yes I get it. People against Netanyahu trot out someone they find criticizing him and claim it must be true because the criticizer is an ex Mossad Chief. There you go end it there. Find someone who disagrees and bingo stop.

Uh no.

The problem is there is more than meets the eye with Dagan's comments. Dagan is in a public war not justw ith Netanyahu but Mr. Barak for firing him. He was fired for intelligence assessment mistakes including a hit on a Hamas official in Dubai.

Dagan is opposed to an air strike on Iran. Interestingly when he was in charge of intelligence he was in charge of covert activities whose purpose was to slow or stop progress toward an Iranian bomb.

Dagan has always been in favour of covert activities not military air strikes against Iran. That is a legitimate arguement.

He has also argued it makes more sense to assist take down the current regime through covert support of the opposition as opposed to a direct war.

Keep in mind Ehud Barak is not Likud. Far from it. He is far from a Netanyahu supporter but he was in his Coalition cabinet as Defence Secretary.

Barak is a former Primer Minister and Leader of the Labour Party. He is as opposite to Netanyahu as they get. The two do not agree on a thing. They have been opposition opponents since the 1990's yet they are both in agreement over Iran and that is because Mr. Dagan does not represent Labour, Kadima or Likud the three major parties in power.

If you did a poll, Dagan is considered a bitter failure in Israel. This is someone who stated publically the Muslim Brotherhood would never take over Egypt.

The disagreement over how to deal with Iran in Israel between Israelis is in the open and not thatdifferent than between Democrats and Republicans in the US and is being debated behind closed doors between the many US intelligence agencies, the Western intelligence agencies, not just Israeli intelligence.


To understand the debate it will take more than removing a few Dagan comments. The debate in the US, Europe and in Israel about how to deal with Iran is very much about tactics and timing.

Absolutely Meir Dagan expresses an opinion that is legitimate and must be considered but to present it in an inaccurate context is not helpful to the debate as to whether an approach other than Netanyahu's is preferable.

I totally disagree with Dagan that Israel should not speak openly about its disagreement with Obama over Iran.

Netanyahu's criticism was well done. It was brilliantly done. It was eloquent, complementary of Obama and made it clear its an honest disagreement and good for him.

In my personal opinion he should not have done it in Congress.

Netanyahu should have given his speech outside Congress. Then Obama could not present himself as having been victimized.

As well, I believe no matter how nasty the President of the day is, you still show respect for the office itself and follow protocol and even in situations where in the past Obama has not and violated protocol over and over again to insult Netanyahu which he did. Two wrongs do not make a right.

 

Here is the most recent analysis on what may be behind Netanyahu's posturing:

http://en.terra.com/news/news/analysis_could_domestic_flak_shoot_down_netanyahu_over_iran/act476135


I agree with it myself.

Here is a highlight of it:

"Netanyahu aides say those negotiations can succeed only if the world thinks he is poised to attack, despite all the risks, and that this impression is dented by naysayers who can claim knowledge of Israel's secret capabilities and debates.

"If you are against Israel taking military action, the worst thing you can do is undermine the credibility of that option," one senior official said, suggesting that eroding the diplomatic pressure on Tehran risked making war Israel's only resort.

We are already seeing signs of capitulation" to Iran in the talks due to resume in Baghdad on May 23, the official said.

Such disclosures suggest that Israel's war footing may have been as much bluff as true intent. As Diskin put it, "barking dogs don't bite".

Indeed, during his accrued six years in top office, Netanyahu has not embarked on major military offensives - leading some critics to describe him as gun-shy.

Then again, Netanyahu would be loath to see Iran go nuclear on his watch, and has differed with military experts in the past. He warned against unilateral withdrawals from occupied Lebanese and Palestinian territories and appeared to have been vindicated when those evacuations hardened Islamist hostility to Israel."

For all anyone knows Netanyahu is playing bad cop to Obama's good cop to try make it clear to Iran they have to deal with Israel not just the US.

 

Netanyahu has addressed the US Congress 6 times in six years.. and repeatedly threatened to take Iran out himself.

Meanwhile, I began following Dagan's remarks a couple of years ago..

 

I am well aware of all of the incidents on our list and could probably add a few. Unfortunately though, it is not just he GOP. Both red and blue do not give a sh%t about you. Both support the oligopolies that run the show and the continued move towards a form of indentured slavery in the home of the no longer free and no longer brave.

 

Right Margot.

Lol. I spoke with him last week. He did confirm he intends to do it by himself. I offered to help but he said no.