After being called “chickensh*t”, who can blame Netanyahu for snubbing this White House?
Via Times of Israel:
The White House’s outrage over Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s plan to speak before Congress in March — a move he failed to coordinate with the administration — began to seep through the diplomatic cracks on Friday, with officials telling Haaretz the Israeli leader had “spat” in President Barack Obama’s face.
“We thought we’ve seen everything,” the newspaper quoted an unnamed senior US official as saying. “But Bibi managed to surprise even us.”
“There are things you simply don’t do. He spat in our face publicly and that’s no way to behave. Netanyahu ought to remember that President Obama has a year and a half left to his presidency, and that there will be a price,” he said.
Ace has been characterizing the WH’s reaction to the snub a “snit-fit,” comparing Team Obama to a bunch of middle school “mean girls.”
I’m afraid it’s much worse than that and the reminder that Obama still has “a year and a half” (really almost two years) left to his presidency is horrifyingly ominous. I have no doubt that Israel will pay a “price.”
In fact, if he thought he could get away with it, I think Obama would have Netanyahu assassinated.
Did you ever think you would live in a country that would threaten our longtime ally while cozying up to our enemies? Did you ever think you would hear a leading Democrat say about a Democrat White House that their talking points sound like they’re coming from the capital of Iran?
We’ve got a president who is so ideological- so hard-left, he is recklessly setting free dangerous, unreformed terrorists, even as Islamic jihad increases throughout the world.
Andrew McCarthy is right. The only way to stop this president is to impeach him. And there is no way to impeach him unless the American people are on board.
The Framers wrote impeachment into the Constitution because they saw it as a serious, credible, and necessary antidote to the abuse of presidential power. They adopted a trigger for impeachment that includes (a) treason, which the Constitution defines as, among other things, adhering to or aiding the enemy (Art. 3, sec. 3); and (b) “high crimes and misdemeanors,” a term of art that refers not to ordinary criminal violations but profound maladministration, dereliction of duty, and breach of the public trust.
It was inconceivable to the Framers that the nation would go to war without being serious about it. They would thus have assumed that a president who abetted the enemy — who replenished the enemy’s forces while the enemy was still targeting Americans for mass-murder attacks — would have negligible political support. If he’d committed such an inexcusable abuse of power once, out of naïveté, they would have assumed that the people’s representatives would at least threaten impeachment to discourage his doing it again. If he persisted in the abuse of power out of ideological conviction, they would have assumed that Congress would impeach and remove him from power.
The point is not whether we like or dislike the notion of impeaching a president. Every sensible person dislikes it. The point is that, the way our system is designed, impeachment is the only remedy for certain abuses of executive power.
Unfortunately most of them have been too anesthetized by a depraved and/or nonsensical pop culture to even notice a problem.
Hat tip: Weasel Zippers