Skip to main content

Visual source: Newseum

Paul Krugman compares government spending, not just federal, but also state and local, during the Obama recovery and the Reagan recovery:

Why did government spending rise so much under Reagan, with his small-government rhetoric, while shrinking under the president so many Republicans insist is a secret socialist? In Reagan’s case, it’s partly about the arms race, but mainly about state and local governments doing what they are supposed to do: educate a growing population of children, invest in infrastructure for a growing economy.

Under President Obama, however, the dire fiscal condition of state and local governments — the result of a sustained slump, which in turn was caused largely by that private debt explosion before 2008 — has led to forced spending cuts.

The New York Times:
Two byproducts of the automobile bailout were the carmakers’ acceptance of sharply improved fuel economy and a new commitment to building cars that can meet those standards. The new rules are expected to cut consumption by 2.2 million barrels a day — more than America now produces in the gulf. These and other measures are not nearly as catchy as “drill, baby, drill.” But they have a far better shot, long term, of lessening this country’s dependence on oil imports and keeping gas prices under control.
What a surprise. Ken Blackwell adds his voice to malignant chorus calling for bombing Iran's nuclear facilities. Let Israel be Israel, he writes.

"New Historian" Avi Shlaim argues that President Obama should stand up to Benjamin Netanyahu over Iran:

The challenge for Obama is to reign in his reckless junior ally and to reorder American priorities in the Middle East. The main threat to regional stability is not Iran but the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories. And the main source of hostility towards America throughout the Arab and Muslim lands is Israel's oppression of the Palestinian people and America's complicity in this oppression. If Obama cannot stand up to Bibi Netanyahu in defence of vital American interests, who will he stand up to? His own credibility as the leader of the free world is on the line.
Robert Dreyfuss argues that any attack on Iran by the Obama administration is extremely unlikely and that an attack by Israel would not be very effective.

E. J. Dionne says Rick Santorum's efforts in Ohio are pushing Mitt Romney to focus more on hot button social issues than on "kitchen-table" issues that matter most to practically minded voters. More evidence that the longer Santorum remains in the race, the better it is for Barack Obama:

There is, first, the Republican presidential primary fight. Rick Santorum has to win Ohio to keep his candidacy alive. A Mitt Romney triumph would, at last, turn him into the “inevitable” Republican nominee. The second narrative involves the struggle for a state that Republicans must take in November to have any chance of defeating President Obama.

The problem for Republicans is that the two story lines are not coming together.

Steven Pearlstein:
If all you did was to listen to Republican presidential candidates (a cruel and unusual punishment, I realize), you would surely be under the impression that the country was teetering on the brink of bankruptcy, businesses were barely getting by under the weight of excessive taxation and regulation, and most of the middle class was standing in bread lines. Their relentless demagoguery has undermined the recovery as much as the gridlock politics practiced by their Republican counterparts in Congress. When forced to confront the facts about the economy and the financial markets, the best response these jeremiads can come up with is that it could have been better.

There are some on the left who also cling to the view that the economy is stuck in a depression — lest it undermine their critique about the woeful inadequacy of fiscal stimulus and the desperate need for more.

Roger Simon makes a common mistake, assuming that the religious right is not that powerful in the Republican Party because it has failed to get its favored presidential candidate elected for decades.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  "Let Israel be Israel" (7+ / 0-)

    Oy Vey

    Response: If you "got it" you wouldn't be a republican

    by JML9999 on Mon Mar 05, 2012 at 04:34:31 AM PST

  •  Obama will NEVER attack Iran before the (5+ / 0-)

    election.  I can say that with 100% certain.  The only way that Obama attacks Iran is if all diplomacy has been exhausted and we definitely are not there yet.  It would be the ultimate very last resort it at all.

    Israel attacking Iran would be a disaster for they just don't have the type of bombs needed to do the job and it would inflame the world.  Only the United States has the type of bombs to do the job.

    President Obama, January 9, 2012: "Change is hard, but it is possible. I've Seen it. I've Lived it."

    by Drdemocrat on Mon Mar 05, 2012 at 04:34:45 AM PST

    •  I honestly don't think the IDF... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      annieli, mdmslle capable of inflicting "sufficient" damage to Iranian nuclear assets, and that they would rather not expose that inadequacy for all the world to acknowledge.

      Whether they can convince their current civilian leadership of that is another matter.

      When you are right you cannot be too radical; when you are wrong, you cannot be too conservative. --Martin Luther King Jr.

      by Egalitare on Mon Mar 05, 2012 at 05:15:24 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  blowing up Gazan smuggler tunnels is quite (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        different from blowing up hardened military facilities.  Iraq, with a severely degraded and demoralized military gave us a run for our money in asymmetrical warfare.  How would we fare against Iran with a far larger population and area?  Also, Iraq was isolated while Iran still has friends and could exact a toll far from the Strait of Hormuz  

        •  The key: population and area (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          The asymmetrical model of warfare does not easily segue into the symmetrical. Having to stand and defend is not exactly the same as slithering under the cover of darkness to plant IEDs. That being said, from everything I have read on the subject, the ratio of defenders to attackers needs to be no more than 1 to 3. Lastly, no one has ever been bombed into submission. In short, a recipe for disaster no matter what tact is taken. Of course there is that 800 pound gorilla sitting in the corner - Nukes.

          A man in love is incomplete until he is married. Then he is finished. - Eva Gabor

          by nomorerepukes on Mon Mar 05, 2012 at 05:51:27 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  one more statistic (0+ / 0-)

            assuming a 3:1 ratio of combat troops, in the days before Haliburton, it took 4 noncombat troops to support a single combat trooper.  That ups the ante to 12:1 if you try for a traditional invasion force.  The insurgent lives off the land and is a sometimes target while our guys have to be supplied and re-supplied and are a 24/7 target.  We keep on forgetting the civilian population is the sea in which the insurgent swims

            •  Good point (0+ / 0-)

              which only serves to reinforce how formidable a task an invasion would be.

              A man in love is incomplete until he is married. Then he is finished. - Eva Gabor

              by nomorerepukes on Mon Mar 05, 2012 at 06:32:31 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  for perspective, invasion of Okinawa (0+ / 0-)

                had some 200,000 US troops vs 77,000 Japanese troops (though the Japanese forces were pretty degraded and the island is only about 1200 square KM so the lack of space is very important here) In addition the US forces enjoyed significant naval and aerial superiority
                Despite this. there were some 65,000 US casualties vs 100,000 Japanese casualties.  Add in to this the mass suicide by many Japanese soldiers and their suicidal banzai attacks.

                Compare that to the insurgent who frequently looks for passive kills such as IEDs and who is more interested in killing his enemy than in dying himself and it seems it would take maybe an investment of 1M American troops (based upon US estimates of the invasion force that would have been required to conquer Japan with a conventional force)

                Estimates had been 250K troops for Iraq but Rummy and Cheney shot down those estimates saying 75K were more than adequate.  We see the results of undermanning a mission now    

      •  more targeted assassinations might happen tho' /nt (0+ / 0-)

        slutty voter for a "dangerous president"; Präsidentenelf-maßschach; Warning-Some Snark Above"Nous sommes un groupuscule" (-9.50; -7.03) "Sciant terra viam monstrare."

        by annieli on Mon Mar 05, 2012 at 05:42:05 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  You are probably wrong (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Lefty Ladig, mdmslle, charliehall2

      Obama's shown no shyness about using force when warranted. The real question is whether Iran engages in deliberately provocative actions to try to goad a limited military exchange, either for internal political consumption or to try to gain some advantage in the international sphere by playing the victim. I can't believe it would be in Iran's interest, certainly not in the United States', but war logic is an oxymoron.

      Similarly, the effectiveness of monkeying with US elections -- witness the Osama bin Laden tape "leak" in October 2004, which arguably tipped the election to Bush -- may be a temptation for some factions who want a reactionary President. They may be misunderstanding the ability of the US public to unite behind a President in time of crisis, of course, but the ability of small players to try to ignite larger consequences is the modus operandus of contemporary international agitation (terrorism, small state hostage-taking over things like nuclear programs, etc.)

      And finally, I doubt the President is going to time a military response or calibrate it with the election. That's a cynical view of Obama, and everything he's done on foreign policy has indicated thus far he pretty much does what's needed (or what he thinks is needed) without the semi-treasonous idea of attacking a place because it's good politics.

      Some people are intolerant, and I CAN'T STAND people like that. -- Tom Lehrer

      by TheCrank on Mon Mar 05, 2012 at 05:21:47 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I do agree he will exhaust diploomacy first (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        ...but whether we have the means to use a limited military strike to remove Iran's nuclear program elements is not clear. We're not talking about a giant target in the middle of a desert that says "Nukes here!" The Iran nuclear program is distributed and likely buried deep underground; there are no doubt many red herring installations. The quality of the intelligence on them is unknown, as least to you and me, so assessing the ability to bust and bomb out the program is unclear.

        Iran's income stream is its weak point. It's far too dependent on oil revenues, and it's a long game to squeeze them in phases, but it's probably the most effective.

        Some people are intolerant, and I CAN'T STAND people like that. -- Tom Lehrer

        by TheCrank on Mon Mar 05, 2012 at 05:25:46 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  bottom line is a country has never been (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Heart of the Rockies

      conquered by air power alone.  So far interference in the region has only strengthened Iran and weakened Iranian opposition.  
      We saw the disaster of allowing people whose main combat experience was video games to direct a war.  Overaged chickenhawks who had missed their war, got to strut around and beat their chests, getting to go to war in their old age with their guts and someone else's blood.

      $500/bbl oil would break the back of any US recovery.  If GWB had not gone to war, we would still have a surplus and have had money to fuel a recovery and provide single payer HCR.  How many more wars can we afford to win?

  •  Eat me, Pearlstein (4+ / 0-)

    "...a misguided assumption that it’s possible to put the nation on a sustainable growth path without making the painful but necessary structural adjustments required to an economy left badly out of balance by the Bubble Economy."

    You squirelly ambiguous snot.  What precisely does painful and necessary structural adjustments do you mean?

    Cutting the DOD budget in half is the most glaring whopping maladjustment I could ever see, look at that fucking iceberg.  But you don't say, do you?  Why do I think he means social security and medicare cuts?

    I don't think technically we're in depression, not as we understand it from the 30's, but this horrendous unemployment on a terrible sustained scale is not a recession. Fuck you and that ludicrous measurement device of rate, it just lies to you and all of us.

    For this we get "necessary adjustments." Somewhere.  Tell you what, you needledick pencilkneck DC journalist, when you can think and write like an adult I'll take you seriously, otherwise shut up with your confusing, obfuscating blather.

  •  Sandra Fluke is a witch (8+ / 0-)

    Free Image Hosting at

    Here we are now Entertain us I feel stupid and contagious

    by Scarce on Mon Mar 05, 2012 at 04:51:53 AM PST

  •  Rush Limbaugh is a prostitute (8+ / 0-)

    Free Image Hosting at

    Free Image Hosting at

    Here we are now Entertain us I feel stupid and contagious

    by Scarce on Mon Mar 05, 2012 at 04:57:20 AM PST

  •  Obama policy is based on Security Council (0+ / 0-)

    I think this is what most people miss.  If you want to understand the Obama administration's foreign policy, read its various security policy reviews and look carefully at when it uses force.

    The factor that predicts the administration's use of force with 100 percent accuracy -- from Libya to Somalia -- and lack of use of force -- Syria -- is whether the Security Council authorizes the use of force.

    The Security Council requires near international unanimity, and especially that Russia and China agree.  That's a huge reality check.

    Russia and China are never going to approve an attack on Iran.  Never.

    Therefore the Obama administration is never going to attack Iran.

  •  . (3+ / 0-)

    Be sure and sign the petition to get him off Armed Forces Radio


    Be the change you want to see in the world. -Gandhi

    by DRo on Mon Mar 05, 2012 at 05:05:41 AM PST

  •  Pearlstein's drivel (0+ / 0-)

    Why you chose to highlight it is bot clear to me.

    It is wrong on so many particulars and more.

    What's up with that MB?

  •  Chickenhawks ignore military realities (2+ / 0-)

    The drumbeat to bomb as a means of forwarding US policy, as ever, ignores the military and tactical realities as well as the diplomatic and strategic ones. Notably, a bomb strike isn't necessarily going to accomplish wiping out Iran's nuclear program. Iran has very likely distributed components of its nuclear program, and encased other portions deep underground where no bunker buster can penetrate.

    The only effective way to use military force to remove research and development programs is to get boots on the ground, over a wide area. Does this sound familiar? It should.

    There's an element in this country that's sooo in love with the remote control war concept they're ignoring the fact it just doesn't work in many circumstances. They've fallen in love with an idea that's mostly a video game fantasy.

    Even totally ignoring the cascade of unintended (but not unpredictable) consequences that would come out of engaging in outright hostilities with Iran, the bottom line is there's no guarantee of success. Pols using their judgement, outside the due deliberations of military planning, is the worst form of hubris. It's ignorant.

    Some people are intolerant, and I CAN'T STAND people like that. -- Tom Lehrer

    by TheCrank on Mon Mar 05, 2012 at 05:15:22 AM PST

    •  Israel will never attack Iran simply because (0+ / 0-)

      there is no air corridor.  Iraq and Turkey would not allow such a fly over while the Saudis would be too concerned about pay back to allow such a fly over.  Even with refueling and even with IAF outclassing the Iranian AF, there would still be significant degradation of Israeli capabilities, say as much as 20-30% losses due to weather, pilot error and mechanical failure.  
      This does not take into account the psychological effect of captured Israeli pilots paraded through Tehran and then tried as war criminals.  IAF will not take such a chance

      •  Don't be so sure of that (0+ / 0-)

        Most of the rest of the Middle East hates the Mullahs and would love to see them put in their place. They would love to have Israel do their dirty work for them.

        •  most of the dictatorships and monarchies (0+ / 0-)

          are focused on retaining power themselves.  The last thing they want right now is a Muslim religious war until they get their populations back under control.  It is not by accident that their militaries all face inward

  •  Netanyahu is Obama's "junior" ally? (0+ / 0-)


    "New Historian" Avi Shlaim argues that President Obama should stand up to Benjamin Netanyahu over Iran:
    The challenge for Obama is to reign in his reckless junior ally and to reorder American priorities in the Middle East.
    One could argue, if anyone is a junior, it would be the one who went to APAC to kiss some ass this weekend.

    But seriously, in a relationship such as this, calling either partner "junior" takes the credibility away from anything else you write.

    •  I think what he might be referring to (0+ / 0-)

      is that as President of the United States, Barack Obama is leader of the free world, while Benjamin Netanyahu is Prime Minister of a small middle eastern country.  I'm not making a judgment as to the correctness of his views, I'm just sayin.

      "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." - John F. Kennedy

      by helpImdrowning on Mon Mar 05, 2012 at 11:46:38 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Nit Pick. (4+ / 0-)

    "New Historian" Avi Shlaim argues:

    The challenge for Obama is to reign in his reckless junior ally and to reorder American priorities in the Middle East.
    The phrase is "rein in," not "reign in."  This kind of stuff drives me nuts.  I expect it in blog commentary, but not by supposedly literate writers.

    "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H. L. Mencken

    by SueDe on Mon Mar 05, 2012 at 05:18:23 AM PST

    •  Ha, rofl! (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SueDe, tb mare

      I agree, but there are some that are more difficult than others.  My eyes roll when I see they're/their/there (even though when typing quickly I often make that mistake myself).

      But some of them are so quirky that a writer really has to stop and think, and even worse, they're/their/there so quirky that they don't even trigger the mental double check.


      •  The worst for me is its/it's (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        tb mare, HamdenRice

        How hard is it to remember the simple rule: if you don't mean the word as a contraction for "it is," don't use the apostrophe.  I can't help but nitpick crap like that.

        We now return to our regularly scheduled commentary.

        "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H. L. Mencken

        by SueDe on Mon Mar 05, 2012 at 07:08:54 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  It has become increasingly common, too. (0+ / 0-)

      I suppose it's because few people ride horses nowadays.

      For the record:

      To rein [something] in --- like a horse!

      Put [someone] on a loose rein --- like a horse!

      Help us to save free conscience from the paw Of hireling wolves whose gospel is their maw. ~John Donne

      by ohiolibrarian on Mon Mar 05, 2012 at 12:12:43 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Pearlstein demands sacrifices to the debt gods! (3+ / 0-)
    It is true, for example, that with additional borrowing and spending, we could rehire laid-off teachers and police officers. That would certainly boost employment in the short term, reduce class sizes and make us all feel safer. But the reality is that, even if the economy were to improve as a result, it would be many years before tax revenues return to where they were at the height of the bubble. At some point, spending by state and local governments will have to be brought down to match the level of taxes that their voters are willing to pay. The notion that once unemployment falls below 6 percent everyone will join hands and finally put the fiscal house in order — well, that’s nothing more than political fantasy.

    Tax revenues, however, aren’t the only thing that are unlikely to return to pre-crisis levels.

    Problem with that analysis is that if Congress does nothing - which is not unusual for them - then the expiring tax cuts and sequestration would bring our deficits down to manageable levels anyhow.
    •  short term stimulus has very little to do (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SueDe, Tommy Allen

      with our long term deficit problem (if there ends up being one at the end of the year).  Especially since borrowing costs are in negative territory.  With borrowing costs so low for the U.S. government this is exactly the time to do short term stimulus.

  •  Ok, Avi Schlaim is officially Smartest Dude Around (0+ / 0-)

    When someone speaks truth to power so starkly, it makes the words simply jump off the screen.  

    I'm going to have to look for some more of his writing.  

    "To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well." Justice Robert Jackson, Chief Prosecutor, Nuremberg.

    by Wayward Son on Mon Mar 05, 2012 at 05:57:17 AM PST

    •  Schlaim is marginal at best (0+ / 0-)

      and his blaming the "occupation" is ridiculous. Gaza isn't occupied any more and has the most anti-Israel regime anywhere in Hamas. Lebanon isn't occupied any more but the strongest single political force is Hezbollah, which is even worse. The West Bank has actually been experiencing peace and economic growth under Fayyad, with a significant improvement in the lives of Palestinians.

  •  BREAKING: Roger Simon makes a mistake! (0+ / 0-)

    And Water is Wet!
    Palin is Stupid!
    Santorum is Nuts!
    My suits keep shrinking!

    What we call god is merely a living creature with superior technology & understanding. If their fragile egos demand prayer, they lose that superiority.

    by agnostic on Mon Mar 05, 2012 at 06:40:15 AM PST

  •  ridiculous hot air (0+ / 0-)

    - President Obama should stand up to Benjamin Netanyahu -

    hahaha - the pundits are in fine form today.

    There is no political pressure on Mr. Obama to listen to the left. The only political reason for him to listen to the left, to tack to the left, would be if he fears that he will lose your vote.
    Why "should" he listen to you? He already has your vote, yes? It's automatic, yes?
    What would it take for Mr. Obama to lose your vote?
    Another war? I doubt it, even then.

    The only political pressure on Mr. Obama is from the right, which is so wrong. He has to genuflect in front of AIPAC, he has to defend against Rethuglican attacks about him being 'weak'.

    Any words about what Mr. Obama "should" do, are nothing but hot air. He will continue to do what he has already done, and that is to follow the only dance that is allowed at the Democratic Party.
    Take a step to the right, then take another step to the right...
    And if someone mentions gay rights, then I say that he will throw a few breadcrumbs out. His limited support of gay rights affects what, 5% of the people?
    Another war will affect 100% of the people, and more than that, since our future generations, our children, will get shafted.

    Show me the pressure on Mr. Obama from the left.
    "should" is not pressure, it is wishful thinking.

  •  listening to Netanyahu and Obama right now (0+ / 0-)

    it feels like you listen to some poker players. What they have in their hands is a matter of perfect deceptive joker hiding their cards, both of them.

    I mean flip-flopping is an art anybody could engage in, Obama too. So, I don't take anything they say for what they mean it to say.

  •  Obama and Netanyahu playing poker (0+ / 0-)
    Obama: Well, I want to welcome Prime Minister Netanyahu and the entire Israeli delegation back to the White House, back to the Oval Office.

    This visit obviously comes at a critical time.

    We are seeing incredible changes that are taking place in the Middle East and in North Africa. We have seen the terrible bloodshed that's going on in Syria, the democratic transition that's taking place in Egypt.

    And in the midst of this, we have an island of democracy and one of our greatest allies in Israel.

    As I've said repeatedly, the bond between our two countries is unbreakable. My personal commitment, a commitment that is consistent with the history of other occupants of this Oval Office, our commitment to the security of Israel is rock solid.

    And as I've said to the prime minister in every single one of our meetings, the United States will always have Israel's back when it comes to Israel's security. This is a bond that is based not only on our mutual security interests and economic interests, but is also based on common values and the incredible people-to-people contacts that we have between our two countries.

    During the course of this meeting we'll talk about the regional issues that are taking place. And I look forward to the prime minister sharing with me his ideas about how we can increase the prospects of peace and security in the region.

    We will discuss the issues that continue to be a focus of not only our foreign policy, but also the prime minister's; how we can potentially bring about a calmer set of discussions between the Israelis and the Palestinians and arrive at a peaceful resolution to that longstanding conflict.

    Obama: It is a very difficult thing to do in light of the context right now, but I know that the prime minister remains committed to trying to achieve that.

    And obviously, a large topic of conversation will be Iran, which I devoted a lot of time to in my speech to AIPAC yesterday and I know that the prime minister has been focused on for a long period of time. Let me just reiterate a couple of points on that.

    Number one, we all know that it's unacceptable from Israel's perspective to have a country with a nuclear weapon that has called for the destruction of Israel. But as I emphasized yesterday, it is profoundly in the United States' interest as well to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

    We do not want to see a nuclear arms race in one of the most volatile regions in the world. We do not want the possibility of a nuclear weapon falling into the hands of terrorists. And we do not want a regime that has been a state sponsor of terrorism being able to feel that it can act even more aggressively or with impunity as a consequence of its nuclear power.

    That's why we have worked so diligently to set up the most crippling sanctions ever, with respect to Iran.

    We do believe that there is still a window that allows for a diplomatic resolution to this issue. But ultimately, the Iranian regime has to make a decision to move in that direction, a decision that they have not made thus far.

    And as I emphasized, even as we will continue on the diplomatic front, we will continue to tighten pressure when it comes to sanctions, I reserve all options. And my policy here is not going to be one of containment. My policy is prevention of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons.

    And as I indicated yesterday in my speech when I say all options are on the table, I mean it.

    Obama: Having said that, I know that both the prime minister and I prefer to resolve this diplomatically. We understand the costs of any military action.

    And I want to assure both the American people and the Israeli people that we are in constant and close consultation. I think the levels of coordination and consultation between our militaries and our intelligence, not just on this issue but on a broad range of issues, has been unprecedented. And I intend to make sure that that continues during what would be a series of difficult months, I suspect, in 2012.

    So, Prime Minister, we -- we welcome you, and we appreciate very much the friendship with the Israeli people. You can count on that friendship always being reciprocated from the United States.

    Netanyahu: Thank you.

    Obama: Thank you.

    Netanyahu: Thank you.

    Well, Mr. President thank you for those kind words. And thank you too for that strong speech yesterday. And I want to thank you also for the warm hospitality that you've shown me and my delegation.

    The alliance between our two countries is deeply appreciated by me and by everyone in Israel. And I think that, as you said, when Americans look around the Middle East today, they see one reliable, stable, faithful ally of the United States, and that's the democracy of Israel.

    Americans know that Israel and the United States share common values, that we defend common interests, that we face common enemies. Iran's leaders know that too. You know, for them, you're the Great Satan, we're the Little Satan.

    Netanyahu: For them, we are you and you are us.

    And you know something, Mr. President? At least on this last point I think they're right: We are you and you are us; we're together.

    So if there's one thing that stands out clearly in the Middle East today, it's that Israel and America stand together.

    I think that above and beyond that are two principles -- longstanding principles of American policy that you reiterated yesterday in your speech: that Israel must have the ability always to defend itself, by itself, against any threat; and that when it comes to Israel's security, Israel has the right -- a sovereign right to make its own decisions.

    I believe that's why you appreciate, Mr. President, that Israel must reserve the right to defend itself. And after all, that's -- that's the very purpose of the Jewish state: to restore to the Jewish people control over our destiny.

    And that's why my supreme responsibility as prime minister of Israel is to ensure that Israel remains the master of its fate.

    So I think you very much, Mr. President, for your friendship, and I look forward to our discussions. Thank you, Mr. President.

    Obama: Thank you very much.

    Thank you, everybody. Thank you, guys. Thank you very much.

    OBAMA: Thank you. Thank you, guys.

  •  look what the Democrats have done (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Celtic Merlin

    - A bill passed Monday in the US House of Representatives and Thursday in the Senate would make it a felony—a serious criminal offense punishable by lengthy terms of incarceration—to participate in many forms of protest associated with the Occupy Wall Street protests of last year. -
    H.R. 347

    Every Democratic Senator voted for this egregious bill.

    Every Democratic Representative voted for this bill.

    Every Democratic in both Houses voted for this bill.

    Tell me again what the difference is between the two corporate parties?

    •  a slight retraction (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Celtic Merlin

      HR 347 passed in the Senate by unanimous consent.
      HR 347 passed in the House 388-3.

      NO Democrat voted against this bill.

      Sorry for any confusion. I am soooo upset that I mis-posted.

      The only dance allowed at the Democratic Party is --
      take a step to the right and another step to the right.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site