Netanyahu's speech sinks Obama's empty rhetoric about Iran

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's speech before a joint session of Congress today sank President Barak Obama's empty rhetoric about how to keep nuclear weapons out of Iran's hands. Netanyahu torpedoed every one of Obama's arguments that supposedly support how his "delicate negotiations" will prevent the Iranians from becoming a rogue state violating international agreements by becoming a nuclear-armed state.

Judge for yourself: (speech starts about 22:15)

Aside from questions of protocol and political one-upmanship, you'll see that the speech more than went over well with the bipartisan group of lawmakers. It was more than warmly received. It lit up the audience. The big losers are Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Rep. Jan Schakowsky and other partisans who refused to listen to a reasonable and insightful analysis of why the deal that the Obama administration and Sec. of State John Kerry are promoting is a bad deal, worse than no deal at all.

One reason, according to Netanyahu, is that it gives Iran a clear and unstoppable path to nuclear armament after ten years. It would be kind to call this deal merely lunacy.

I imagine that Schakowsky's reaction when she heard the speech was, "Oh, crap. I wish I hadn't written that Tribune op-ed" that appeared today explaining why "after careful consideration" she decided not to attend the speech. It'll be fun to watch  as she tries to  explain to her Jewish constituency why she wrote such foolishness.

For information on my award-winning historical novel, "Madness: The War of 1812," visit:


Leave a comment
  • I guess that takes care of that problem. Next we'll invite Netanyahu to tell us who he wants to be our next president.

  • I listened to the speech, but I didn't hear an alternative to negotiations. I got the impression that Netanyahu would prefer for the U.S. to go to war with Iran. He did offer to fight beside us, however, although I'm sure he would expect the operation to be under his command.

  • Israel does not need the US to fight a war with Iran. That was made clear. As far as Netanyahu telling us who are next president will be...really?

    I think even the most progressive among us can recognize the madness of what Iran wants to do.

  • fb_avatar

    I don't think Jan Schakowski has much to worry about. Not every American Jewish voter has the love affair with Bibi and the Israeli right that the American Christian right does. And of course the American Christian right is busy trying to get the Middle East ready for Jesus' return and the ensuing wholesale conversion of the Israelis to Christianity. Really a healthy well thought out alliance.

  • In reply to Harry Towns:

    Geeze, so true. I see the Southern Baptists and Methodists and Catholics, all corning Jew and Muslim alike, every time I go to the Middle East, to try to get them to say the Lord's Prayer or have their heads lopped off.

    Many American Jews are of the Progressive Religion first, descended from their secular collectivist roots in this country with their bi-polar belief in socialist ideals and capitalistic accumulation.

  • Here's the given response by the Left to the speech from Americans for Peace Now President and CEO Debra DeLee: "Iran negotiations have already demonstrated that diplomacy can deliver results. Now, with negotiations entering their final stretch, diplomacy must be given every possible chance to produce a deal that verifiably curbs Iran's nuclear program."

    What results?

  • How did that go again with North Korea?

    "The Agreed Framework between the United States of America and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea was signed on October 21, 1994 between North Korea (DPRK) and the United States. The objective of the agreement was the freezing and replacement of North Korea's indigenous nuclear power plant program with more nuclear proliferation resistant light water reactor power plants, and the step-by-step normalization of relations between the U.S. and the DPRK. Implementation of the agreement was troubled from the start, but its key elements were being implemented until it effectively broke down in 2003."

Leave a comment

  • Advertisement:
  • Advertisement:
  • ChicagoNow is full of win

    Welcome to ChicagoNow.

    Meet our bloggers,
    post comments, or
    pitch your blog idea.

  • Visit my new website

    I'm a freelance writer, editor and author. I can help you with a wide variety of projects. Check out my new website at

  • Subscribe to The Barbershop

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

  • Dennis Byrne’s Facebook Fan Page

  • Like me on Facebook

  • Our National Debt

  • Twitter

  • Tags

  • Recent Comments

    • fb_avatar
      The mainstream press got some things wrong. So did Fox News. Neither is good about critiquing itself.
      Read the story | Reply to this comment
    • fb_avatar
      Here's the legal definition of obstruction to help us decide whether Trump engaged in any prohibited activities:…
      Read the story | Reply to this comment
    • fb_avatar
      Dennis mentions the perjury charge in the Clinton impeachment, but Clinton was also charged with obstruction. Suppose the same standard…
      Read the story | Reply to this comment
    • In reply to Aquinas wired:
      You've got him pegged here. The lying struck me when I read Bob Woodward's "Fear" at the end of last…
      Read the story | Reply to this comment
    • Media columnist Margaret? Spare my blushes and let me know her last name, please!
      Read the story | Reply to this comment
  • /Users/dennisby/Desktop/trailer.mp4
  • Latest on ChicagoNow

  • Advertisement: