Bernie Sanders is Skipping Netanyahu's Speech to Congress

[sabrina 1]

Sen. Sanders was giving a speech at the Brookings Institute when he responded to a question regarding Bibi's speech to Congress. He stated he would be skipping Bibi's speech.

I thought by now that speech would have been cancelled. But apparently not.

Bernie Sanders is Skipping Netanyahu's Speech to Congress

In a Q&A at the Brookings Institution, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders said that he would skip Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's speech to a joint session of Congress. Last week, Vice President Joe Biden's office had announced a scheduling conflict that would keep him away from the speech. Sanders had no such conflict: He was insulted by the end-run Republicans had done around the White House.

"I'm not thinking about it," said Sanders. "I'm not going. I may watch it on TV."

He might watch it on TV, he says, so I guess Bibi is still planning on coming.

Sanders is the first U.S. senator, and the first potential Democratic presidential candidate, to stake a position against the Netanyahu speech. He's definitely the first Netanyahu-boycotter to have spent time working on a kibbutz in Israel. Sanders, who has defended the Jewish state in the past, was making a move that would have been unthinkable just a few months ago.

......

Tellingly, the question did not come from the assembled press. It came from an audience member, after Sanders snarked about how many media questions were focusing on whether Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren would also run for president.

"This is kind of what media does," said Sanders, rebuffing a question about some recent progressive endorsements for Warren. "It likes to speculate. If you'll forgive me, I'm not into speculation."

As de Blasio said after winning by an overwhelming majority in NYC, 'Dems have to have a spine' to fight for this country, Bernie appears to have what it takes to be a leader.

He was asked about running for president in the article:

At Brookings, as he'd done at primary state speeches, Sanders talked openly about a 2016 presidential bid and what it would cost. "If you had 2 million people putting in $100, that's $200 million," he suggested. "Is that enough? I don't know. Maybe the game is over."

More reports on Sen. Sanders decision to boycott Netanyahu's speech:

Senator Bernie Sanders will Boycott Netanyahu Speech

He has a lot more to say about the Warmongers in Congress in the article also.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, the independent senator from Vermont who is flirting with a 2016 presidential bid, today became the first U.S. senator to officially announce he will skip Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech before Congress next month.

Sanders, the longest-serving Independent in Congress, said it was wrong that the president wasn't consulted about the prime minister's visit. His statement came during a Q&A session after a speech at the Brookings Institution.

Three House Democrats have said they will boycott Netanyahu's speech, according to the Associated Press, and some Senate Democrats said they are considering it, including the number two Democrat in the Senate Dick Durbin, R-Illinois. Vice President Joe Biden also will not attend the speech because he will be traveling abroad.

Only 3 Democrats! Oh well, it was nice to think for a while that they would stand up against Netanyahu's shameful insult to the President. But as someone else said, 'don't count on it'!



So thank you once again Sen. Sanders for doing what is right for our country!

[bravenak]

1. Good.nt

[sabrina 1]

10. It is good, bravenak. He is standing up for the President's, and the five nations working with him,

policies to try to avoid war. I hope others of our party will join him and the three who have already said they will not attend.

[bravenak]

11. Me too. I don't think ANY of our represenatives should show up.

He is only coming to undermine the president on the Iran deal. This is a rightwing plot and Bibi is just like Cheney, I keep saying it. The man does not want peace, ever. He want us to kill and die for his ego. Just like Cheney. Even people who usually disagree with the President on policy, can see that a treaty is better than a war. Even Fox News had to admit that Bibi is wrong.

[sabrina 1]

16. Yes, he always reminds me of Cheney and I'm sure he misses Cheney's willingness to go to war

We can only hope the people of Israel see how damaging he is to their country also in the upcoming election.

He doesn't want peace, nothing could be more obvious.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

2. Bravo! K&R

[hrmjustin]

3. Good!

Every democrat should boycott the speech.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

9. True dat. Nutnyahoo is dangerous, and with the Rethugs help, is likely to start WWIII.

[PartoftheFirstParty]

4. Senator Bernie Sanders for Pres.!!!!

[sabrina 1]

6. Welcome to DU! He says he only needs 2 million people to donate $100. I think we could do that!

[daleanime]

14. Bernie's one of the few.....

that I would scrap up some $$$'s for.

[PartoftheFirstParty]

18. thank you, Sabrina

Will have to seriously consider sending Bernie 100.00 (maybe even 111.10).

(though it seems that the best way to get money out of politics might be to simply have a free party that runs on ideas, not money... ...united citizens relegating the stupid and corrupt "Citizens United" paradigm to the "dust bin of history&quot

[sabrina 1]

19. You're welcome! I would be happy to send him $100. I agree we should have no money in politics

but the way it is now, he would be up against massive amounts of Corporate money so wouldn't have a chance without our help.

It will take time to change things, but a good start would be electing people like Bernie, hundreds of them if we can find them. Once they have the power, they can change the laws.

I have a feeling that he would get quite a lot of money just from this forum alone. I think it could be done if he decides to run. The internet would be the best way, as I doubt the Corporate Media would be helping him much.

[Chathamization]

29. Good point. If just a small fraction of the Americans who view socialism positively got active

politically, we'd see a sea change in our government. Here's hoping.

[iandhr]

5. From one jewish New Yorker to another.

Good job Senator

[aspirant]

15. I am so happy

to read that these goes beyond religion!

[gratuitous]

7. I keep waiting for this trick cigar to blow up in Boehner's face

But if the past is any indication, I fear that for all the negatives Boehner and Netanyahu reap from this little stunt, neither man will pay a price for it. Both men are pandering to the most primitive segments of their constituency, and they know that those nitwits will yammer and bray against either of them being penalized.

[sabrina 1]

8. I know. It's not a difficult problem. Two foreign politicians plotted to undermine the Foreign

policy efforts, which relate to the National Security of this country, of President Obama and five other nations. Their efforts are to try to resolve an issue with Iraq PEACEFULLY.

In any other actual Democracy, both would thrown out on their rear ends. Boehner, who was their puppet, easily used it seems for his own personal reasons, would be censured and probably lose his Speaker position. Even Fox News anchors admitted that this was out of bounds. That is how bad it was.

Yet, Dems are most likely going to go listen to this speech, and jump up and down applauding him, as they always do.

I don't get it. Do Dems not respect their own President either? That is what it seem like if the go to that speech.

[libtodeath]

12. Senator Sanders is a true american patriot!

[aspirant]

13. When does this become insulting.

First Jamie Dimon comes into the people's house with his whip and chains. Then Netanyahu arrives carrying his button panel for Israel's nuclear bombs. Who's next, maybe the Chinese premiere hustling Peking Ducks at bargain prices.

When does the leader of Iceland and/or the new Greek Leader get their chances in the people's house?

[sabrina 1]

17. Money and power. Wall St and War. And so many criminal profiteers willing to keep on

gambling with the people's money and using it for their for-profit wars.

They never go away, it seems. Even when they're out of office, they are still working behind the scenes. Don't know how they can ever be stopped.

[Enthusiast]

20. Come on, Senator Sanders. How will we ever get a world war started unless you cooperate?

[JonLP24]

21. Thing is, depending on Obama's exit polls

the more mainstream candidates will ramp up on the Obama bashing which Bernie doesn't too often. He doesn't focus or speak like pretty much every other nationally elected official does (though I haven't seen a Vermont campaign ad either).

If he were to enter the race, the debates & basically the whole opportunity to speak will be very interesting. When it comes to certain individuals such as Obama, he often mentions respect first & what he has on plate. Basically blames "corporate influence" rather than individuals or certain votes, basically says it has corrupted both of them but you notice he advocates for things he genuinely believes is the way to go. I remember he was still advocating for traditional Democratic reforms to social security (lifting the cap) when mainstream Democrats were advocating for a third year in a row a payroll tax cut. He is just about the only politician I can trust that won't become a "moderate Republican" once in office. Plus, the policies enacted won't depend nearly as much as helping win his next election.

Bernie Sanders probably would have a better chance running an anti-Hillary campaign or running Hillary Clinton attack ads but that isn't who he is. Only one that appears (over a political career) of advocating & fighting for policies that are helpful & he has more of a legitimate record of that which every Presidential candidate will try to appear good for "main street" & speak, hold campaign rallies with promises to fight for the middle class but how many held a historic filibuster over corporate greed? He would make his campaign focus on policies, middle class families & not on his opponents. Depending on the circumstances, he'd also probably defend Obama more than his mainstream counterparts.

[sabrina 1]

23. I can't imagine him personally attacking anyone. He seems to be able to get his own

message across without doing that, yet people understand what he is saying. He attacks the system. And that is the problem. Could even someone like him, once in office, do the things necessary to change it?

First, Congress would have to be with him, at least the Dems.

The system is so rotten and apparently there are people, unelected people, who have an awful lot of power they should not have, constantly working to push their own agendas.

[JonLP24]

27. First thing about Bernie Sanders that I have less of a worry than I do with anyone else

is he wouldn't suddenly become a "moderate Republican".

I knew where Obama stood when it came to schools & his position was more similar to the Republicans so it wasn't like "I wasn't paying attention".

I don't know if he was pretending or something changed once he got there but it seems there is something Obama that wants to do right but ends up being compromised or one reason or another start pushing "moderate Republican" policies and even adopt their arguments. In economics, in the context of collective bargaining I learned about true bargaining power & estimated bargaining power (its been awhile so I'm not quite sure the exact terms used as bargaining power has a specific meaning in economics -- a measure of true bargaining power but it applies both to how much power you think you have and how much power you think the other has. I think he gives too much too early, moving the 50-50 line but it is like he is a politician in the wrong era.

What I mean is Obama has arguments & reach compromises in much the same way books on arguing tell you too. One will say, "arguments aren't about winning but about finding common ground." He'd make the perfect spouse, I can't imagine Obama draws an unreasonable or unfair land in the sand in arguments that may come up with Michelle Obama. He also is able to give soothing downplaying answers to uncomfortable questions by reporters so it is hard to tell if positions he take on policies that he happens to take an about face on are manipulative (clearly the "evolving" positions on gay & lesbian rights went from "full support" to "less concerned", "civil unions", "god is in the mix", back to the full support thing).

Still something about me says he could have been so much more if he continued down the path he appeared to be one. Take a look at this Day 1 Memo

The Freedom of Information Act should be administered with a clear presumption: In the face of doubt, openness prevails. The Government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears. Nondisclosure should never be based on an effort to protect the personal interests of Government officials at the expense of those they are supposed to serve. In responding to requests under the FOIA, executive branch agencies (agencies) should act promptly and in a spirit of cooperation, recognizing that such agencies are servants of the public.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Freedom_of_Information_Act/

A year later his justice department uses "subjective fears" in arguments to block the torture photos which involved the same photos & same theory the Bush administration failed to block it earlier but Gibbs speaking on behalf of Obama claimed they believe the argument is different, new, something as to why they feel it will work where the Bush administration failed.

That same Gibbs press conference was a week after the torture memos were released for which Obama took a lot of heat from the media (who knows who else). I think some claimed they would excite the terrorists (meaning likely use it in their recruiting propaganda). Apparently it did because he still uses it in 2009.

Basically, my long winded way of saying I agree its certainly about the system. Obama just appears to be functioning as the role that was created for him regarding foreign policy & basically things every President agreed to have the same allies, enemies, & which countries to flex your muscles for and which countries to ignore. Freightening precedents were set by the Bush administration which scares me since there is no going back & it was really that way before him but under the Bush administration they took giant leaps.

The most frustrating thing is when Bush enacted these policies I thought they were absolutely terrible and he was a very terrible President but having a guy from the other party that was a 180 on rhetoric regarding these specific issues not only continue but expand (they can say torture isn't allowed but several years after migrant abuse by private contractors were known. Obama signed a new law aimed at outlawing a lot of the bait & switch but basically it comes with mandatory questions regarding the terms of their recruitment. Many still claimed recruiters are being used & they basically have to invest in this recruiter only to show up & realize they basically have to make a year's salary $8,000 more or less to work back the money paid to the recruiter (whose promises were far different from reality) and already dealing with things like having their passport taken as soon as they arrive. If they answer "yes" to paying a fee they're discarded. Since many need the contracts now that they're there they take them & contractors are only interested if you answer no on the question. How much of that does Obama know? It is clearly being done far away from him at levels far lower and if I can find media reporting on that.

Like you said its the system & it is ruled by greed & corruption.

“Victims of Complacency” also highlights how the government contracting process opens the door to corruption and waste of U.S. tax-payer’s dollars by U.S. military contractors. For example, the bipartisan Commission on Wartime Contracting noted in its 2011 report that contractors bill for TCNs at an average rate of $67,600 to perform food services and other menial tasks. Yet, TCN salaries often range between $150-$500 a month, or $1800-$6000 per year. Since TCNs are often charged for their recruitment and transportation into Iraq and Afghanistan, it is unclear what causes such a large discrepancy between contractor billings and TCN salaries.

Despite media and government reports on TCN trafficking and abuse and contractor malfeasance, in the past ten years not a single military contractor has been prosecuted by the government. Nor is there evidence that military contracts are ever terminated due to contractor trafficking violations. However, as the ACLU-Yale report notes, the United States government can address future trafficking, abuse, and corruption in government contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan by taking small, but important steps to improve the oversight of the contracting process and more effectively enforce existing laws and policies, including U.S. anti-trafficking laws. “Victims of Complacency” makes a number of concrete recommendations on how greater oversight may be introduced and how U.S. laws may be employed to counter trafficking and abuse of TCNs in the future.

The U.S. government has repeatedly and forcefully stressed its zero-tolerance policy on trafficking; criminal prosecutions and administrative penalties for non-compliant companies should be at the forefront of its enforcement strategy against U.S. contractors that violate U.S. anti-trafficking laws.

As some companies operating in Iraq and Afghanistan have demonstrated, the adoption of stricter hiring and employment standards, aimed at preventing trafficking and abuse of TCNs, are not a pipe dream. “Victims of Complacency” highlights that FSI Worldwide, a British contractor, has hired workers from Nepal, India, and Kenya for positions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the UAE. FSI “transfer[s] the cost of recruitment from the TCN to the contracting company, eliminat[es] recruiting agents and us[es] only trusted senior personnel to conduct recruitment, and ask[s] recruits to sign non-payment declarations and to report any attempts by staff to extort money.”

https://www.aclu.org/blog/human-rights-national-security/victims-complacency-trafficking-and-abuse-migrant-workers-us

Creating a law that basically requires a checklist in the process but everyone just basically allows this to go on.

[sabrina 1]

28. So much to respond to in your excellent post. First, I agree with you regarding Sanders changing

his positions once in the WH. His record on Social Issues is very long so if he were to suddenly change his views, that really would raise a red flag and a huge question 'Why'?

Regarding Obama's changes, my support for him over Hillary was based on a few of the areas where they differed. Mandated Ins was one. Offshore Drilling and his contention, in response to Hillary stating she would 'form' Committees to review important issues.

He stated clearly that he would not need committees which he viewed as an 'end run around the Constitution'.

But then formed the The Bi-Partisan Commission on the Deficit, nominating some of the worst anti-Social Programs advocates to be found in this country.

I read a speech he gave in 2002 regarding the Iraq War. He outright attacked, by name, some of the neocons who were pushing for war.

He knew even then they were liars. He predicted how horrible it would be, how long it could last. How many people would die. He called it a 'stupid war'.

War crimes were committed there, he was RIGHT back then. Yet when it came to holding such liars accountable, torturers, when he actually had the power to do so, he did not.

That has raised concerns for many voters. What we hear in Campaign speeches and will hear over the next two years, can we believe any of it?

Wrt to Sanders, I think we can.. However, what is the reality they face once in the WH? That we do not know.

Another question, can anyone who is deemed not likely to protect the status quo on some major issues, who actually has a record of meaning what they say, even get close to the WH?

So is it that no one can turn things around in important areas, such as the Big Banks, and/or our Foreign Policies and anyone who shows signs of being unwilling to submit to the Status Quo, simply will not ever reach the WH, unless they lie, in the opposite direction?

Great post, with a lot to think about. I would seriously worry about anyone, Bernie, Warren eg, if they manage to get to the WH. Because the power brokers are pretty ruthless imo.

[99Forever]

22. This man should be our next President.

Period.

[MineralMan]

24. So is Betty McCollum, the house member from my district.

She's not running for President, though. She's just following her progressive ideals. That's why we keep electing her. We'll re-elect her in 2016, too.

You go, Betty!

[sabrina 1]

25. That's good to know. Hope she does hold her seat in 2016, because taking a stand like this

means the Right will be out to take her seat.

[MineralMan]

30. I can guarantee that she will hold her seat.

This district loves her, and will elect her until she decides not to run. It's a progressive district that votes for progressive candidates.

[ann---]

26. Good for him!