Skip to comments.Feinstein: 'We Cannot Let Israel Determine When and Where the United States Goes to War'
Posted on 01/15/2014 5:28:17 PM PST by Nachum
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) triggered controversy with a fiery floor speech in the Senate on Tuesday night, accusing supporters of the bipartisan Kirk-Menendez bill on Iran sanctions of wanting "regime change" and declaring that "we cannot let Israel determine when and where the United States goes to war." The bill includes a provision offering support to Israel in the event of an Israeli pre-emptive strike on Iran.
Feinstein, who chairs the Select Committee on Intelligence and is considered pro-Israel, but her remarks, which echo those of anti-Israel critics, have provoked outrage. The Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) called on her to apologize, noting that the bill includes a proviso that: "Nothing in this Act or the amendments made by this Act shall be construed as a declaration of war or an authorization of the use of force against Iran."
Adding that the Kirk-Menendez's bill's language on Israel is the same as that in another bill that Feinstein co-sponsored, RJC Executive Director Matt Brooks blasted Feinstein: "We are deeply troubled to see Senator Feinstein making such incendiary and inaccurate remarks on the Senate floor. We call on her to retract this reckless and false charge and apologize to her colleagues and to the millions of Americans who support a comprehensive, robust strategy to prevent the Tehran regime from obtaining a nuclear weapons capability."
In her speech, Feinstein said that "a vote for this legislation will cause negotiations to collapse," arguing that the six-month deal reached in Geneva and finalized on Sunday represented "the best opportunity in more than 30 years to make a major change in Iranian behavior." The deal provides some sanctions relief in return for suspending parts of Iran's uranium enrichment program and allowing limited international inspections.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
The list, Ping
Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list
Self-loathing Jews is funny.
FrankenFeinstein “ I can’t see anywhere in this Bill where I can direct obscene profits to my husbands company, so I am against it!”
Cal. has some real federal Senator problems. I stand with Iseral.
And it won’t... cool off Diane.
She’s suffering from bovine spongiform encephalopathy.
You are correct Dark! She is a Mad Cow!
“We cannot let Israel determine when and where the United States goes to war.”
Is someone advocating that we should?
Clearly, an anti-Semite.
We leave that up to the Islamofascists, huh Diane.
I’m good with Bibi determining it. Better him than Pelosi/Obama/Clinton. At least Israel doesn’t hate America.
Kapos. Nothing changes but the time.
Watch out, Israel, this devil is a big whig in the Bilderberger group and has been the bearer of orders for Hillary and little barry bastard boy just before the super Tuesday primary voting. Feinswein is preparing the sheeple of Amerika for the war her bosses are about to start. The planet must have reached economic reset time by the globalist oligarchs’ reckoning.
Feinstein (D-CA) triggered controversy with a fiery floor speech in the Senate on Tuesday night, accusing supporters of the bipartisan Kirk-Menendez bill on Iran sanctions of wanting "regime change" and declaring that "we cannot let Israel determine when and where the United States goes to war." ...her remarks, which echo those of anti-Israel critics, have provoked outrage... the Kirk-Menendez's bill's language on Israel is the same as that in another bill that Feinstein co-sponsored... In her speech, Feinstein said that "a vote for this legislation will cause negotiations to collapse,"Thanks Nachum.
That dumb broad has been in too long ! She belongs out of office !
Sounds like Feinstein has joined the “Council of Conservative Citizens.”
The Nazi whore Feinstein would be more comfortable sitting in the lap of Hitler than defending Israel.
Yeah! That's what Syria and Libya are for!
What a traitor.
It isn’t about Israel telling us to go to war.
It is about stopping Iran from getting the bomb.
But like everything else in the political universe, she, and every other politician hopes to foist that burden on the next generation.
They think, no, that is not the correct word. they feel, no that is not right either. Hope? No, hope is a feeling of optimism. They WANT. Yup thats it. That is all they have. They want it to not be so bad if Iran gets the bomb. They want to pretend that we can contain them.
Maybe if they have one bomb it would be possible. But that want only can apply to someone with a timescale not extending beyond the next news cycle.
No one is ever allowed to ask, what about in 5 years when they have 20? What about in 10 years when they have 100? What about 20 years when they have 500? Ten years is way out of any modern political time scale. Twenty years might as well be a thousand. After all, she is old and will probably be dead by then anyway. My son will have to go to war, but she doesn’t give a shit about anyone but herself and any thing except her political party.
When will American Jews WAKE UP and realize that Democrats hate their people??????
She’s probably ticked off at the plastic surgeon that bungled up her facelift surgery.
All she needs next is a bell around her neck.
as a ca. native,,, all i can say is
did ya all hear our fire season started in JANUARY ?
,, GOD bless Israel .. and have mercy on my state.
What a filthy connotation. Dear Diane , please recall that the Iranian islamonazis are repeatedly sworn to destroying America as their number one objective. We are their Great Satan. And they even gave us the courtesy of telling us which American cities are at the top of their nuke bombing priority list. San Francisco and Los Angeles being two of their first five targets. Diane lives in one and represents them both. At least she’s supposed to represent them. So, Diane, instead of confusing the issue and stirring up all sorts of anti- semitism where there’s no cause, what specifically are you going to do to get rid of the threat to your constituents ?
Those DAMM JEWS.... I’m ONE OF THEM.....
Almost all of us stand with Israel... the citizens of this country are good people. I don’t understand elite liberals or where they’re coming from... it just doesn’t make sense.
Who do they think they are? The Saudis?
I think she’s referring to this provision that I have read is supposed to be in the bill:
“ if the Government of Israel is compelled to take military action in legitimate self-defense against Irans nuclear weapon program, the United States Government should stand with Israel and provide, in accordance with the law of the United States and the constitutional responsibility of Congress to authorize the use of military force, diplomatic, military, and economic support to the Government of Israel in its defense of its territory, people, and existence ”
Question. There are a lot of qualifiers and weasel words in that passage, but notwithstanding: Does this provision cede to the prime minister of another country the authority to send US troops into war? If so, is that even constitutional?
And even if so, Why would Feinstein have a problem with that? It’s not like she has draft-age kids. Maybe grandkids?
Also, I don’t remember the Constitution being a big concern for Feinstein before, so this is a little out of character.
It does not cede any such authority to any other country. It is just political language for a political purpose, basically, and any decision to go to war remains in Wash DC (unfortunately it remains with Obama since Congress has declared its total impotency in all matters of governance)
(We are already bound sixteen times over in alliance to help defend Israel if ever needed, but Obama would never honor that commitment anyway, and as stuck as he is with our longstanding friendship and alliance with Jerusalem, Obama’s been trying his best to subvert Israel’s ability to even defend herself....just look at Kerry’s recent “proposals” to Jerusalem, for goodness’s sakes...!!!!!.. so nothing to fear on that score, either.)
(Meanwhile, Obama keeps mis-using the USAF to defend the Iranian IslamoNazi nuclear missile factories as they crank out as many bombs and ICBMs as they can produce.
And recall please that Obama actually came out and threatened war against any nation that might try to take out this threat. That upset our “Arab friends” even more than Israel!! Because, they know that Iran will take over the gulf oil fields first, even before trying to attack America, Israel, or anyone else. And it worried the Russians, who while they’ve supported Iran for their strategic purposes.. they always figured they could, if necessary, take out any Iranian military threat that might turn back against Mother Russia.... and now they have this new USA threat of war if they ever do it...).
Obama has so “transformed” world defenses ....that every nation (including some of our best long-term allies) is left reeling how to protect itself. Nobody wants to be destabilized or bombed like Obama did (unprovoked, even) to Libya, Egypt, and Syria- still- in- progress, Somalia, Central Africa, etc and etc. Our allies and decent nations everywhere are left to scramble to defend themselves as America has been redirected to, basically and fairly consistently, promote world Islamic terrorism and the expansion of the most radical elements in the Muslim world. (And many Muslims really do not want the most radical Islamicist elements to take over, or be forced into power by America,... in their countries, either, as we saw when the Egyptians somehow managed to toss Obama’s Muslim Brotherhood comrades out of control last year....)
Note also how Obama keeps trying to release Islamic terrorists, whether from Guantanamo, or in Egypt, or in Afghanistan, or in Iraq, or forcing Israel to let some go too, and now in Egypt where he’s been trying to squeeze his Muslim Bros friends back into power again...
the best Islamic terrorist is a free one, free to bomb again and again and again.... it seems....
Some good people have difficulty even assimilating all the damage that’s being done through this radical “transformation of America” on the world stage.
I know I do.
Pray for America (and all the rest of Rock Three, too)...
we have 3 more years of this
Spoken like a “true Jew!”
"should" is not the same as will or must.
“When will American Jews WAKE UP and realize that Democrats hate their people??????”
Who do you think is “staffing the Obama Administration?” Most of those who are testifying in Congress for the misdeeds of Obama’s “crew” are either black or Jewish! I’d say that “The Secular Progressive Jews” are already awake and are trying to destroy this country along with Israel. Talk about a bunch of Judas Goats! The decent Jews should be speaking up, but most won’t.
well and good, but that smells like a military pact which needs ratification by the Senate if we are to be obligated by treaty.
not there aren’t reasons to act against Iran, but the executive can’t just obligate us by itself in such a way with such a precedent.
after all it could well be Nicaragua next time an i wouldn’t want to be sending our sons and treasure fighting for the sandinistas.
This is an unusual commitment, or pledge or whatever it is. The Congress seems to be promising, in advance, to commit American military forces in support of an ally, should that ally choose to launch an attack on an adversary. Ordinarily, mutual military treaties commit one party or both to come to the defense of the other, if the other party is attacked by an adversary.
The language here seems vague, but it could reasonably be interpreted as pledging - in advance - that US troops will be deployed on behalf of another country, if that country decides to go to war. So the decision to send US troops into war - under this interpretation - is vested in the leaders of another country.
Is this really a promise that should be embraced with no debate? Nearly every Republican member of the Senate has signed off, without any discussion of the implications that I have heard. Is this truly responsible - and truly consistent with their sworn duty to uphold the Constitution?
In short - and I’ll stop here - isn’t this a question of American sovereignty? I know there are a lot politicians - Republicans included - who don’t like nationalism, borders, and sovereignty. Ceding our war-making authority to other countries would be consistent with that perspective.
Defense against threatened nuclear annihilation may necessarily include
Hitting the enemy’s missile and/ or nuclear Bomb factories. There being no opportunity to protect yourself after the threatened nukes hit your cities. The problem isn’t this legislative bill one way or another. The problem is that Obama keeps protecting the Iranian nuke and missile arms buildup. All the while. Five years and running. And despite (many say because) USA is their announced number one target.
The problem isnt this legislative bill one way or another.
Except the article that we’re posting about, is about this legislative bill. And this legislative bill has provisions that - while vague - can be interpreted as ceding America’s sovereignty over its military decision-making. That’s an important question that needs to be discussed, as long as the bill is being taken seriously by members of Congress.
Not IMHO. It is a question of an irresponsible statement by a politician who thinks they can get away with anything. Not one thought on the damage or repercussions of her words.
Israel has a duty to protect its citizens and we have the responsibility to protect ours. No one disputes our sovereignty, but these words are more likely to start a war and foment more violence against Israel than if she had been more careful. The nasty bombast that has come out of the mouths of the DemocRATs for the years I have followed them has grown to Soviet dimensions.
If there is a war to come, it is because these idiots laid the groundwork for it with their hubris.
There’s no declaration of war, just “should stand with Israel”, a phrase which is always a problem for Judeophobes and other Nazis and skinheads.
I agree with you. I don’t know what Feinstein’s motive was or even what she was saying, but by focusing on Israel she wasn’t making my point - that America has to make its own decisions on peace or war, and not delegate them to the leaders of any other country. The problem with the sanctions bill as currently written is that it has language that could be interpreted as such a delegation. Feinstein has zero concern about constitutionalism or sovereignty, witness her support for illegal immigration, so it’s not surprising she didn’t articulate a principled point in this case.
Apparently, they fell out of the guard tower...
Theres no declaration of war
No, but there’s what reads like a promise to provide military support if another country declares war. Same difference? It’s at least worth more discussion than it’s getting, because war is serious business.
No, they fell into the ovens trying to push extra bodies in. Kapos (Funktionshäftling or Lagerpolizist), just like George Soros.
The surrender document Lurch finalized with Iran guarantees war — that’s what needs the discussion, and the sanction bill is what is getting discussed, thanks to Feinstein, Buchanan, and the other Obama shills.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.