Andrea Mitchell: White House 'Furious' Netanyahu Speaking to Congress; 'A Really Bad Idea'

On her Thursday MSNBC show, host Andrea Mitchell was aghast at Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu agreeing to speak before a joint session of Congress during an upcoming U.S. visit without consulting the Obama administration: "The White House is furious, furious at Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu and also a little bit angry at Speaker Boehner for inviting Netanyahu to speak before Congress, to a joint meeting of Congress without even consulting the administration – protocol would dictate that."

Mitchell continued: "House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi even called Netanyahu to pass him the message that this is a really bad idea." A soundbite followed of Pelosi fretting over such an invitation: "That it should...be extended two weeks before an election in a country without collaboration of the leaders of Congress and without collaboration with the White House is not appropriate."

Mitchell brought on former ambassador to NATO Nicholas Burns and worried: "Nick, this is really unusual. You and I have been around a long time watching diplomacy but you don't invite a foreign leader to speak to Congress without even checking with the State Department or the White House."

Burns joined Mitchell in blasting Netanyahu:

I think it's ill-considered on all sides. Look at it from Netanyahu's perspective – by accepting the invitation, he strengthened the labor party in Israel before an election because they oppose this. He's divided his own country and he's caused a major riff with the White House. So I think the best decision that Prime Minister Netanyahu could make now would be to gracefully withdraw because he doesn't want a – he doesn't want Israel to be the subject of partisan bickering in the United States...

Burns never actually presented any evidence of Netanyahu being politically damaged by the issue.

Mitchell suggested that Netanyahu was "single-focused on Iran" and trying to get Congress to impose new sanctions on the regime "which the administration believes and most diplomats involved in the process believe would blow up those nuclear talks that have been twice extended."

Burns continued to condemn the speaking engagement: "For us to invite him, for the United States to invite him, Congress, two weeks before an Israeli election really is our interfering, in a way, with that Israeli election. How do you think the labor party, Tzipi Livni, feels about this?"

Neither Mitchell nor Burns denounced former Obama campaign field director Jeremy Bird trying to influence the Israeli election [1] by helping anti-Netanyahu political groups.

Here is a transcript of Mitchell's January 29 exchange with Burns:

12:15 PM ET

ANDREA MITCHELL: The White House is furious, furious at Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu and also a little bit angry at Speaker Boehner for inviting Netanyahu to speak before Congress, to a joint meeting of Congress without even consulting the administration – protocol would dictate that. House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi even called Netanyahu to pass him the message that this is a really bad idea.

NANCY PELOSI: It's a serious big honor that we extend. That it should extend – be extended two weeks before an election in a country without collaboration of the leaders of Congress and without collaboration with the White House is not appropriate.

MITCHELL: And that's what she told Netanyahu. I'm joined by Nicholas Burns, former U.S. ambassador to NATO and now at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. Nick, this is really unusual. You and I have been around a long time watching diplomacy but you don't invite a foreign leader to speak to Congress without even checking with the State Department or the White House.

NICHOLAS BURNS: Right, Andrea. I think it's ill-considered on all sides. Look at it from Netanyahu's perspective – by accepting the invitation, he strengthened the labor party in Israel before an election because they oppose this. He's divided his own country and he's caused a major riff with the White House. So I think the best decision that Prime Minister Netanyahu could make now would be to gracefully withdraw because he doesn't want a – he doesn't want Israel to be the subject of partisan bickering in the United States and he wants to strengthen – he should want to strengthen Israel's position with the White House and with the current American president who has two years left on his term.

MITCHELL: Well, I think the calculus must have been that he is so concerned, single-focused on Iran and believes that he could create a bipartisan coalition, and he's got a lot of support among the Democrats, to try to impose new sanctions on Iran, which the administration believes and most diplomats involved in the process believe would blow up those nuclear talks that have been twice extended.

BURNS: Right, and I think he also has to consider this, Andrea. Obviously he's got to worry about his relationship with President Obama and Secretary Kerry. He needs to work with them. So I see this from two perspectives, two more reasons why I think it's ill-considered. For us to invite him, for the United States to invite him, Congress, two weeks before an Israeli election really is our interfering, in a way, with that Israeli election. How do you think the labor party, Tzipi Livni, feels about this?

And also, I think at a critical time in our national debate which way to go with Iran as Iran talks reach their climactic point, it's also interference in our politics. So all around, bad decision.

I haven't seen anything like it in decades of observing life in Washington between Congress and the executive branch. It's always difficult to balance, Andrea, as you well know, where does Congress's role fit with the executive's in foreign policy? But clearly you cannot have 535 members of Congress in effect trying to negotiate on Iran. You've got to entrust our president. And as someone who worked in the Bush administration on the Iran issue, I think the President's policy is quite close to where President Bush was in his second term. I think we ought to be trying to accentuate bipartisanship and not try to divide us on a partisan basis.

(...)