I absolutely agree with you.

http://history.house.gov/Institution/Foreign-Leaders/Joint-Sessions/

one every year and a half (on average) is "frequent". Nor is it "rare".

"Periodically" might be the better word - though in this case it should be "unprecedented", since Boehner did an end-run around the Constitution.

He's free to invite whomever he chooses to address Congress, no permission from the President (or anyone else) needed.

Boehner's an arrogant ass that did this to slap the President in the face, no doubt about it. But like it or not, he's allowed to do that, and no, it isn't in violation of the Constitution.

several different Constitutional scholars disagree with you - but believe what you like. Here is one; a quick search will find others.

http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2015/03/constitution-check-did-the-house-act-illegally-in-inviting-netanyahu/

or see U.S. v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corporation (1936)

the Constitutional scholar says that it's not a violation of the Constitution.

Like it or not, Boehner can invite (or not invite) whomever he chooses. If he wanted to be a complete dick, he could decline to invite President Obama to give the State of the Union address.

Much ado about nothing, IMO.

I read it differently.

“U.S. congressional leaders probably should have given this invitation more thought. Although not a violation of the letter of the Constitution, it certainly seems to violate the idea that the nation speaks with one voice on foreign policy and that foreign leaders cannot choose whether they prefer to deal with Congress or the president.”

Huge leap, IMO, to go from a leader giving a speech to saying that he's dealing with Congress in foreign policy.

Last edited Thu Mar 5, 2015, 01:15 AM - Edit history (1)

to do something incredibly inappropriate on the national stage.

I'm pretty sure it isn't against the law to shave your dog on the carpet of a foreign leader, but that doesn't make it appropriate to do so. It's probably not illegal to slather yourself with mustard and jump into a pool, either, but hey, it's okay because it was legal.

My response was to the notion that Boehner somehow violated the Constitution, which would be breaking the law. Sure he's an asshole that did an assholish thing. I just don't agree that what he did is unconstitutional.

we agree to join Boehner is an asshole and so is Bibi club. I'm pretty sure we will have more than a few members

helped hatch the plot with Bibi to get Boehner, the puppet, to invite him, when Kerry visited the Embassy. He sat there and remained quiet about their little plot to undermine the POTUS on FP.

It was SHAMEFUL, and it should lead to a law being passed that the WH and State Dept be informed when any foreign leader is invited to speak to our Congress.

They have been operating on a system of trust. Apparently they cannot be trusted. So now we need a law.

Bibi seems to think he was elected to a position higher than the President in this country.

Too bad all the Dems didn't have the spine to do what the French President did when Bibi insulted THAT nation, stand up and walk out with his entire entourage.

Bibi is turning Israel into a pariah. Let's hope the people there realize the harm he is doing to that country and finally rid themselves of him and send him back to the maids quarters which he claimed was his residence.

to pass a law taking away their own rights.

And if you're talking a law to inform, no problem. If you talking a law to ask permission, I would oppose that.

a system that currently operates on 'trust'. The 'honor system'.

in order to denounce Presidential policies and to insert themselves into sensitive foreign negotiations.

But personally, I'm rightfully pissed off about Boehner setting these shenanigans in motion.

it's a scumbag move orchestrated and delivered by assholes that specialize in scumbag moves but going hyperbolic and calling it treason is ridiculous.

he could have just bought a page in the New York Post.

there's a fine line between scorn and hysterics

Well said.

It's not illegal, but a scumbag move as you stated.

I am not even going to argue the legalities - it was shitty thing to do by a head of state of a supposed "ally".

We are their ally, but they aren't ours at this point.

What is not common is that the invitation is not negotiated with the White House.

other positions you disagree with.

Has the media even asked her view on this?

They will eventually, and you will get an answer.

These straw man arguments against Hillary do nothing to further the legitimate points you are making in the OP.

Same thing goes for your comment about silent Democrats. Have they been questioned by the media? Feinstein said Feinstein calls Netanyahu 'arrogant'.

Perhaps we can at least wait until the dust settles a little bit before assuming this Democratic silence.

This is an issue with the current administration that she is no longer part of.
I see absolutely no reason at all for her to comment at this point.
Why would she have to? Its not her fight.
Whatever comment she may make when she is asked about it, will be met with criticism from the same people we always hear from.

She has no dog in this fight.
This is a GOP stunt towards Pres Obama.
What would they like her to say?
Would anything suit her critics?

President she should comment. She wrote a book and described her misgivings regarding the IWR, and some other things, and she didn't need to do that.

I agree with you that the Hillary haters here will use any excuse to dump on her, and my point was that is a distraction from the legitimate issues they may have with her. Her book actually was an answer to those issues.

Strategically, it does not serve her interest until she declares officially, however, it would not be wise if and when she declares if she avoids such issues. She has to have an opinion about a foreign leader going before Congress trying to derail ongoing negotiations between the US and Iran, and I suspect at a minimum she would say they were counterproductive.

Counterproductive.

Madeleine Albright: Netanyahu Should Deal With Problems 'In His Neighborhood' Instead Of Speaking To Congress

Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said she thinks Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu should not travel to the United States to give a speech to a joint session of Congress next month.

"He is interfering in our internal affairs, and I don't want to interfere in Israeli internal affairs, but it strikes me that there's an awful lot going on in his neighborhood in the Middle East, and that's where he should be," Albright told MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell on Wednesday.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/11/madeleine-albright-netanyahu_n_6662130.html

And its her choice to speak up or not also. Just like Hillary Clinton.

to clearly state her opinion on a critical foreign policy matter. Particularly since her surrogates are always telling us that foreign policy is her forte.

I think she is counting for financial support on some of the very same moneybags who were behind the Boner/Nitwityahoo stunt and she is keeping mum to avoid offending them.

Does she support the Obama/Kerry efforts to create an agreement with Iran? I do and I want to be certain that our next president does as well. And I have to interpret Ms Clinton's silence as opposition.

they're doing it on the other side too, saying everyone who doesn't show up at the speech is guilty of that crime.

I think that it's interesting to note that after all is said and done, he was treated like a hero (that he is not) and given the opportunity to speak and humiliate the president. Not only that, but all cable network news (incl. msnbc) had it live with follow-up "analyses" that were literally glowing - see Andrea Mitchell as one example. I found it real interesting to read in the NYT this morning that this speech turned into the "hottest ticket in town" with everyone who's anyone breaking their necks to get a seat in the gallery. Somehow we all must be out of sinc with the "American People."

Achsa.

Actually his military service would be considered heroic by some:

Netanyahu joined the Israel Defense Forces during the Six-Day War in 1967 and became a team leader in the Sayeret Matkal special forces unit. He took part in many missions, including Operation Inferno (1968), Operation Gift (1968) and Operation Isotope (1972), during which he was shot in the shoulder. He fought on the front lines in the War of Attrition and the Yom Kippur War in 1973, taking part in special forces raids along the Suez Canal, and then leading a commando assault deep into Syrian territory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Netanyahu

I hadn't seen that.

Speaking to the issue now.

Someone there also brought up the big money donors.

Getting pretty sick of those on my side of the aisle making this ridiculous accusation. Treason has a very specific definition which you can find in the constitution. It's aiding and abetting an enemy of the US. Whether you like it or not, Israel is not an enemy of the US. It's crass, opportunistic, some would argue unpatriotic but IT'S NOT TREASON.

right now, obama is trying to make a deal with iran...this would not only normalize relations with Iran, which would ease tension on us, but also get them to focus on their more immediate threat, isis, i.e. to quote one of Hillary's friends, henry Kissinger, we get the people we do not like to attack each other instead of us. When Bibi came here, he was undermining us, so that our nation wiull keep shovel;ing young soliders into the same furnaces that he recommended last time, namely Iraq and Syria.

Peace is good for our nation, and while Israel may not be an enemy, Bibi is acting like one.

Netanyahu is acting like a jackass, but not an enemy. After you look up "treason" kindly look up "enemy" next.

and when all these congress critters cheer Bibi knowing he has come to derail a deal that, in addition to makign peace, could be a major boost against isis, yes, that is treason. Bibi may act like a friend, but he is really trying to turn us into obedient servants.

Legislation to cut off funding for Vietnam War.
Legislation to override Reagan veto of sanctions on South Africa.

Those two actions were good things. And they weren't treason.

Bibi's speech and the legislation requiring submission of any deal with Iran to Congress and barring lifting of sanctions are bad things. And they aren't treason.

and an entirely appropriate comparison. Why are people here being so fucking stubborn in their ignorance of what the word means? They can scream treason all they want - it still doesn't make it treason.

You don't have to commit treason to commit a folly that sets back international relationships for a decade.

Fucking up doesn't have to be illegal, it can in some instances just be irresponsible and stupid, which this entire episode was both on Netanyahu and Boehner for their idiotic part.

This was a colossal fuck up - as irresponsible and stupid as you say. Why can't that be enough? Why do people have to accuse them of a death penalty offense?

No. Wildly inappropriate? Yes.

And crass, opportunistic and unpatriotic.

So no, it's not treason, but it was, let me repeat - crass and opportunistic, but not treason, since you seem to need a fig leaf.

There. It wasn't treason. Your fig leaf is in place.

Just an insult? Well, that tells me all I need to know.

speaking before Congress without an invitation agreed upon by both the White House and Congress was an egregious violation of protocol.

Shade it however you like, but it was a slap in the face to our President, and I would say that if it happened under Bush (much as I'd be loathe to agree with outrage on his behalf).

This is timed precisely when the presdient is tryiong to negotate a peace with Iran that actually might be Isis worst nightmare. Isis and Iran hates each other, why do we need to treat them with the same method, answer, because Bibi, and those that think like Bibi, think the only method is to to either have the US decimate the Mid east, or, better yet have US do it, while we cut sopcial prgrams to afford the cost.

or as this brother to Bibi puts it:

"Was it illegal, was it treason? No! We win!"

No it wasn't illegal and it wasn't treason, but it was the height of fucking stupidity, had bad optics and harmed relations between our countries. But hey, it wasn't treason or illegal.

Woo hoo, Netanyahu and Boehner, you were just stupid as fuck while not committing crimes. There is a big bonus for your records!

suddenly became dormant because it wasn't about treason, it was about stupidity on Boehner and Netanyahu's part.

I can't, they have had her on lock down the last couple of years.

Why is this about Hillary?

Oh wait, it has nothing to do with Hillary. It's a deflection from the Boehner-Netanyahu fuck up.

Which I assure you will not be forgotten anytime soon.

He gains a few seats in Congress. The OP asked why Hillary hadn't chimed in, I'm simply stating she doesn't comment on any subject right now, she's in neutral mode.

but given the attitudes of people around me, the entire situation has nothing to do with Hillary Clinton, and everything to do with Israel attempting to usurp our President's leadership with Netanyahu's speech that was arranged against protocol with Boehner.

We can drag clowns, jugglers and astounding feats of distraction into this whole situation, but it doesn't change the problem at the fundamental element.

We might not all like him as our President, but President Obama is our President, and some other head of state isn't welcome to come into our country and kick him.

Fuck that. We elected him. We didn't choose some asshole that wants to drag our country, our citizens and our people into a war because Israel wants to be the bantam rooster ruling the yard. Sorry, chicken, we aren't sending our American men and women to die just because Israel screams:

"Hey, Let's you and him fight".

Fuck that.

LOL again.

It does fall squarely under the definition of "sedition", however, and it could possibly be argued that the speech constituted an act of war.

we have been in, at the very least, a cold war with Iran, and this is a blatant attempt to throw a monkley wrench into the peace process so that we can continue to shovel our children into wars which benefit Bibi and his faction. Granted, we can make an argument that Bibi is doing Israel no favors by trying to drag the US congress into his re-election campaign, but frankly, some will not see that.