Democrats blast Maliki on Israel statements (cancel his talk?)

[uppityperson]

This sounds to me like they are saying Iraq must do whatever the USA says since the USA has spent all this money and lives in Iraq. Do what we say or else you can't come talk to us? Reuters is the only place I find this info so far, wondering wtf is up, what democrats?

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=newsOne&storyID=2006-07-25T151913Z_01_N25297455_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAQ-MALIKI-CONGRESS.xml

Congressional Democrats voiced alarm on Tuesday over Iraq's denunciation of Israel in the Mideast conflict, and some said Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's upcoming address to Congress should be canceled unless he apologizes.

A group of House of Representatives Democrats was circulating a letter to House Speaker Dennis Hastert urging the Illinois Republican to secure an apology from Maliki or cancel the address on Wednesday to a joint meeting of Congress. Ron Bonjean, Hastert's spokesman, said there was no intention to cancel Maliki's speech, and accused Democrats of "political gamesmanship during an election year."

Iraq's U.S.-backed government on Saturday denounced Israel's "criminal" raids on Lebanon and Gaza and warned that violence could escalate across the Middle East. Senate Democrats in a letter to Maliki said his failure to condemn Hizbollah's "aggression and recognize Israel's right to defend itself raise serious questions about whether Iraq under your leadership can play a constructive role in resolving the current crisis and bringing stability to the Middle East."

With more than 2,500 U.S. service members killed in the Iraq conflict, more than 18,000 wounded and more than $300 billion in U.S. tax dollars spent, the Senate Democrats said, "Americans deserve to know whether Iraq in an ally in these fights."

Edited to add link to other DU thread to clarify what was said in letter: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1726549

[frankieT]

1. it's US version of democracy

aka puppet regime

[alcibiades_mystery]

2. Craven politicizing by the Dems

And will be recognized as such, I expect.

Pretty despicable.

[ShortnFiery]

4. Dumbass Congressional Democrats need to catch "a clue" eom

[mom cat]

67. Their advisors told them to look tough. Instead they look like

stupid colluders in an illegal war. A recent poll shows that 49% of Americans think that Isreal went "too far". The Beltway Dems are out of touch.

[warrens]

3. It's just a way to kick the Repukes in the balls

Make it appear to supporters of Israel that the Repukes think Israel is criminal. Hastert is right, but so what? These assholes pull this shit 30 or 40 times before they even get out of bed in the morning.

[uppityperson]

6. On this one I agree with Hastert, which is odd.

[Norquist Nemesis]

5. "Senate Democrats said"

Gee, let's see some names! I'm guessing it was all of the nodding heads standing behind Lantos during the Resolution "debate".

[liberalpragmatist]

7. Dumb. Dumb. Dumb.

It's no wonder people lose faith in Democrats when they resort to this kind of blatant positioning. And I know the Republicans have been far worse. That still doesn't excuse this. Those who are doing this are idiots for trying to get an Arab nation to support Israel?! They'd better damn well be doing this with the intention of failure because a success would only delegimitize the Iraqi government further and make our troops even more in danger.

[sandnsea]

9. Egypt, Jordan & Saudi Arabia condemn Hezbollah

That's what they're primarily asking for, a condemnation of terrorist groups. See post below.

[liberalpragmatist]

15. Good for them

But if Iraq is a sovereign nation, they have a right to ally themselves with whoever they want. And given public opinion Iraq, you can hardly expect them to ally themselves with Israel. Keep in mind that even in Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia the public opposes the government's position. And in Iraq, the situation is a lot more precarious.

Any Iraqi government that embraced Israel would immediately lose what little authority it had over the population. This is a HUGE issue for people there, rightly or wrongly.

And even so, condemning Hezbollah doesn't mean condoning Israel's actions. Even most Lebanese by most accounts are upset with Hezbollah, but furious - and rightly so, IMO - with Israel's response.

[Zhade]

31. Good analysis.

NT!

[tedzbear]

65. "most Lebanese?" Where do you get your statistic?

Probably from the Wall Street Journal. Don't forget the 1.5 million Shiites in S. Lebanon who are being ethnically cleansed right now thanks to Israel's shock and Awe campaign.

[tedzbear]

64. Ha! All three are either dictatorships or ruthless monarchies.

Hezbollah is a grass roots, people supported defense organization developed during Israel's previous occupation of Shiite Lebanon.

[bunyip]

70. Shhh!

[sandnsea]

8. requesting a condemnation of Hezbollah

That's what they're doing, here's a snip from Kerry's letter on the subject:

"This is in notable contrast to comments from other key regional powers, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan, which criticized Hezbollah for “unexpected, inappropriate and irresponsible acts.” Given that it is essential to send a clear message that terrorism is never acceptable, and that ending support for terrorist organizations like Hezbollah by countries including Iran is key to winning the war on terror, Prime Minister Maliki should clarify that he condemns Hezbollah for its attack on Israel, and that he believes that Iran should not continue to provide weapons to Hezbollah."

[uppityperson]

13. thank you for that, clarifies somewhat

original article made me wonder what the whole story was since it just seemed really odd, which is why I posted here to ask. This makes more sense. Thank you.

[frankieT]

16. Come on !

Kerry is 100% pro-Israel, that's all. The comments made by the client corrupt regimes of SA, Egypt & Jordan are pointless.
He just assumed that now US conquered Iraq, it's prime minister should speak according to US-Israel goals.

[sandnsea]

17. Better to be 100% anti-Israel I suppose

Not too long ago Egypt and Israel were at war. Certainly we pay Egypt to play nice, but it beats the hell out of what's happening in Lebanon, don't you think? That's the reality. Iraq can do whatever it wants, but if it wants long term peace, then denouncing ALL terrorist groups is the only logical thing to do.

[Zhade]

32. How about an even-handed approach?

I know, I know, AIPAC and those it funds really soured on Dean for daring to suggest fairness, but it's still a great idea.

Condemn Hezbollah, condemn Israel. Done.

[sandnsea]

41. That's what the Dems asked for

Condemn both, which Iraq didn't do. So what's your point?

[Violet_Crumble]

58. Maybe they should practice what they preach...

Bunch of hypocrites. Wasn't it only last week in a congress resolution that they refused to utter a word of criticism of Israel and roundly condemned Hezbollah? And now they have the nerve to demand that someone not be heard coz they see his words as too one-sided?

[IA_Seth]

19. What does the one have to do with the other?

So they are condemning Israel, so what?

I, and plenty of other Democrats, condemn Israel *for what it is doing in Lebanon*. I can bet you that the vast majority of Iraqis REALLY condemn Israel, and isn't that who Maliki is supposed to be representing?

Do we want a democracy in Iraq, or would we rather have a puppet regime that represents what we TELL them to represent?

Sure, he should condemn Hezbollah, but he should also be able to condemn Israel, right?

[sandnsea]

20. "sure, he should condemn Hezbollah"

But he didn't. That's the point.

[IA_Seth]

26. But he is catching flack....

for condemning Israel, THAT is the point. He is being asked for an apology for what he did say, not for what he DIDNT say. He is being ask for an apology that shouldn't be necessary.

Israel deserves to be scorned in the public eye for its actions and Lebanon, and he owes no apologies for saying so....not any more than the USA should apologize for sanctioning Israel's bullshit.

[sandnsea]

27. No

He's catching flack for using terminology like "criminal" connected to Israel and saying absolutely nothing about Hezbollah terrorists. He could have called for a cease fire or a number of things that other countries have done, along with denouncing terrorism, and had no problem at all. He didn't do that which is the source of his problem.

Having said that, I watched Chuck Shumer on CSpan earlier and he was quite nauseating and reaked of opportunism, but I've never liked him anyway.

[IA_Seth]

28. I see your point.

I can see your point that a cease-fire could/should have been called for, but as far as using "criminal" in reference to Israel's actions in Lebanon, I believe it fits...even better if prefaced by "war". There is a vast difference between reaction and defending yourself and the things that are going on now.

I also agree with Chuck Schumer....he seems to me to be the epitome of the car-salesman-type politician.

[sandnsea]

29. It's the absence of the rest

That's been my personal point since the whole thing started. It's the absence of genuine criticism of Hezbollah, real acknowledgement of what has happened in northern Israel these last few years, where the real criminal acts start from. It isn't right to fling words like "criminal" at Israel in the absence of almost any comment about Hezbollah at all. I see that at DU far too often and when it's confronted, people say "yeah Hezbollah is bad" BUT and then let off with paragraphs long tirades about Israel. That is quite disproportionate too. The fact is, Hezbollah (and Hamas) is the enemy of peace in the ME; not Israel. The sooner all the ME countries denounce these terrorist groups and sit down to real negotiations with the Palestinians, the sooner we can end this madness once and for all. You don't have to sign on to the Bush PNAC regional occupation plan to denounce these terrorist groups for the benefit of all the innocent victims in the ME.

[Zhade]

35. That's not a fact; it's your opinion.

Mine is that they are AN enemy of peace, as much as the Israeli government's past actions have shown it to be an enemy of peace.

You don't steal land and water and kill innocent civilians (like the terrorist groups you oppose) if you're dedicated to peace.

One cannot be aware of things like "A Clean Break; A Strategy For Securing The Realm" and honestly suggest that the Israeli government doesn't have expansionist aims, which tend to block peace.

[Zhade]

34. Chuck "I don't like primaries" Schemer?

Easy to see why!

[Zhade]

33. The vast majority of the world condemns Israel's response.

Rightfully so, too. Rest assured, we're in the right on this one.

[sandnsea]

40. They condemn Hizbollah too

Iraq didn't. That's the point.

[proud2BlibKansan]

10. So this just confirms that our govt is allies with Israel

even the Dems.

That stinks.

[brentspeak]

12. I don't see the problem.

What's the problem?

[uppityperson]

14. Iraq now owes USA, must do what USA says "or else"

because USA used all this money, had all these deaths, Iraq now must do what USA admin says or else can't come talk to congress.

[The Stranger]

22. Keep looking.

Maybe you'll see it.

[Zhade]

36. You don't see problems with condoning indiscriminate bombing of civilians?

Or do you only see them when it's Israeli civilians being killed?

[proud2BlibKansan]

46. Several

First of all, we need to be NEUTRAL in the middle east conflict. Stop giving weapons to Israel. Stop promoting them and endorsing the violence they are heaping on Lebanon. Neutral.

Secondly, we have no right to dictate to Iraq.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kagemusha]

11. Shorter version: "You owe us."

Utterly disgusting, as I see it. Even if I can understand the sentiment, hello, we're trying to not have this guy seen as a sock puppet?

[Zodiak]

21. I do not support this Democratic action

It sickens me how one-sided prominent Democrats are on this issue, especially the DLC and the "centrists". Makes me wonder how much AIPAC money is tied up in the undisclosed donor list for the DLC.

I've seen so many excuses for civilian deaths over the last couple of days on DU I have forgotten that this used to be a progressive site. Of course, much of that excusing has come from DLC advocates whom I never considered progressives in the first place.

This whole battle is a rehash of the Netanyahoo (sp?) plan from what I hear. It is PNAC, and MANY Democrats are cheering it on. Have we learned ANYTHING in the last five years? Apparently not when it has a "D" attached to it.

This country is so screwed up even a great proportion of the left will abandon basic principles in favor of war.

Rest assured, the warmongering enemy in this country KNOWS that Israel acting as a surrogate combatant will split the left between the base and their representatives. I weep for anyone who thinks their goals can be achieved through blood, even the blood of their enemies.

[Zhade]

37. Netanyahu's plan, drawn up by PNACers Perle, Feith, and Wurmser...

...was called "A Clean Break: A Strategy For Securing The Realm". It's very enlightening to see PNAC's connection to the Israeli government's expansionist goals.

Also enlightening to see how fast progressive ideals can fall when some liberals are so easily blinded by lies and fear. As if Israel were in ANY danger of being "pushed into the sea". Not with their military and intelligence capability!

[Zodiak]

43. I agree completely

Not that it matters to those that have a vote in our government.

I find it tremendously disturbing that there is more argument about the validity of this war in Israel than in the United States. I should not find it surprising, though. Neoconservatives owe part of their ideology to neoliberalism. Neoliberalism is also the main thrust of centrist Democrats, from liberal economic policy of deregulation to the liberal policy of exercise of military force to mould to world in the image of the aggressor (as goodly as the aggressor arrogantly sees itself).

3/4 of our representation in Congress vote the neoliberal agenda more often than not. It is on issues like this that this ratio becomes dreadfully apparent. I suspect many others vote neoliberal for fear of being excoriated and not in the mainstream.

I suspect that many DUers, a majority even, are the exact opposite of neoliberal in most respects. However, I should supply the caveat that I am no expert in ideology nor am I a swami to know what other DUers think. Just a general impression of this site and the results of looking into the neoconservative black hole for far too long.

[54anickel]

23. Thanks for editing the OP to include the link to the letter. Quite a bit

different than the articles take on it.

[VegasWolf]

24. WTG Democrats! No leadership, just cheap pandering stunts! nt

[KoKo]

25. It's just our Dems trying to raise their "Strong on Terror" numbers...they

still lag behind Bush on "who is strongest on terrorism." I think they are going about this the wrong way...but then what else is new. :eyes:

[lumpy]

30. 20 Democrats have called for cancelling

Malikis address. Anyone know who they are?

[IA_Seth]

38. Seconded!

I've been unable to find the list either. I would be curious to see it.

[lumpy]

39. Joseph Crowley, Nita Lowey (reps D.NY)

All I found who have called for cancelling address.

[oberliner]

42. List of House Dems requesting cancellation of address

Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.), Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), Jan Schakowsky (D-Il.), Gary Ackerman (D-NY), Steven Rothman (D-NJ), Michael McNulty (D-NY), John Lewis (D-Ga.), Frank Pallone (D-NJ), Nita Lowey (D-NY), Joseph Crowley (D-NY), William Delahunt (D-Mass.), C.B. Maloney (D-NY), Barney Frank (D-Mass.), John Olver (D-Mass.), Sander Levin (D-Mich.), George Miller (D-Calif.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Tim Bishop (D-NY), Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.) and Artur Davis (D-Ala.)

[itzamirakul]

44. In a way, I am glad that this has happened...

because it just seals the case of the entire Democratic leadership being totally owned by the "vast right-wing cabal" that Hillary Clinton spoke of so long ago.

They are owned by lobbyists, by corporations, by foreign nations, by religious fanatics.

I will continue to vote, of course, but now I understand that it really doesn't matter FOR WHOM I pull the lever.
Either party...it's all the same...now we know for sure.

[ShortnFiery]

59. Sadly, I fear you are correct. Pandering Democrats = Pathetic :( eom

[pokercat999]

60. You are correct in my opinion. It's time for an actual

progressive party.

[oberliner]

45. Look at what the Speaker of the Iraqi parliament said:

“Some people say 'we saw you beheading, kidnapping and killing…These acts are not the work of Iraqis. I am sure that he who does this is a Jew and the son of a Jew. I can tell you about these Jewish, Israelis and Zionists who are using Iraqi money and oil to frustrate the Islamic movement in Iraq.”

More info here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1729283&mesg_id=1729283

[leesa]

47. Never insult the terrorists that pay your bills, eh John Kerry?

[norml]

48. Iraq PM’s comments under fire: "stop the Israeli aggression."

Iraq PM’s comments under fire

By Josephine Hearn

Several Democrats are planning to boycott Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s address to Congress today unless he apologizes for anti-Israel comments he and other Iraqi officials have made in recent weeks.

Calling the remarks “shocking,” “abhorrent” and “offensive in the extreme,” 20 House Democrats yesterday asked House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) to call off today’s 11 a.m. address to a joint session of Congress until al-Maliki expresses regret.

“It is clear that foreign policy goals are at odds with those of the United States. The Speaker’s podium reflects our nation’s values,” the Democrats wrote Hastert. Although Democrats had no organized effort to boycott the speech, several, including Reps. Nita Lowey (N.Y.) and Rosa DeLauro (Conn.), vowed not to attend the event unless al-Maliki backs away from the statements.

snip

Al-Maliki last week denounced Israel’s retaliation against Hezbollah in Lebanon, calling on Arab countries to “take quick action to stop the Israeli aggression.”

The Iraqi parliament called Israel’s actions “criminal aggression” and voted unanimously to condemn them. Iraqi parliament Speaker Mahmoud al-Mashhadani said July 7 that “a Jew and the son of a Jew” were those responsible for acts of violence in Iraq.


snip


http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/072606/news3.html

[Erika]

49. Just posted.

[norml]

50. I thought I'd see if it was LBN worthy.

On a quick search I didn't see this already mentioned here.

[rodeodance]

51. umm.... I do not know how Ifeel about this yet (Dems talking a stand on

this issue).

[rodeodance]

52. or maybe it is the fact that Dems want the speech called off.

[IndianaGreen]

53. There is an election coming up, so the same people that voted

a resolution giving 100-percent support to Israel's war on Lebanon, while failing to call for a ceasefire or to criticize Bush for being AWOL on the Middle East for almost 6 years, want to do this symbolic but meaningless gesture of boycotting Iraq's PM.

What did they expect a Shia to do? Endorse Israel's bombing of his fellow Shias in Lebanon?

America chose to topple a Sunni thug and replaced him with a Shia Islamic republic aligned with Iran. We made that bed in Iraq, now we must lay on it.

[rodeodance]

54. Reid, Durbin and Schumer signed. (Pelosi did not sign).

......“The American people have given so much in the name of fighting global terror and helping build a better future for the people of Iraq. ... Americans deserve to know whether Iraq is an ally in these fights,” wrote Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) and Sens. Dick Durbin (Ill.) and Charles Schumer (N.Y.).

Schumer said he had “grave doubts” about attending the address before al-Maliki changed his stance, but Reid said he felt it was his duty as Democratic leader to be there.

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) did not sign the House Democrats’ letter asking Hastert to cancel the address but did criticize the appearance.

“At the White House this morning, Mr. Maliki did not retreat from his comments on Israel and once again failed to criticize Hamas and Hezbollah’s terrorist activities. Unless Mr. Maliki disavows his critical comments of Israel and condemns terrorism, it is inappropriate to honor him with a joint meeting of Congress,” she said yesterday in a statement.

[rodeodance]

56. ABC news just reported on this possible boycott by Dems.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[brentspeak]

66. How many Democrats are now on ShortnFiery's "Don't vote for them!" list?

Anyone still left? When you run out of Democrats to be faux-outraged against, does your contract with the Heritage Foundation expire?

[Laughing Mirror]

55. Well it is an agression. What's so shocking or abhorrent or offensive ...

in the extreme to come out and state the obvious? Yes Israel's bombing and destroying Lebanon is a criminal agression and to say otherwise is a big fat fucking lie of mammoth proportions.

[smacky44]

61. Welcome to "democracy" American style. Is this any different than

the way we who oppose the Iraqi invasion are treated right here at home?

[rodeodance]

62. Does anyone have an update on this?

[radwriter0555]

63. "Condemn Hezbollah or we'l bomb the shit out of the GREEN ZONE...."

that's the unofficial statement made by don rumsfeld.

[Psephos]

68. Sounds focus-group tested at an asylum to me.

Reality check: Al-Maliki would be tossed from office or worse if he came out in support of Israel, or against Hezbollah. Didn't anyone at party HQ notice that all of Baghdad is hiding from Islamic Crips and Bloods shooting each other? Dissing Hezbollah would be dumping a tanker of gasoline on that fire.

Talk about politically deaf numbskulls.

We need a third party.

Peace.

[diamidue]

69. Is there a ProgressiveUnderground

or a LiberalUnderground? Because it is getting really hard to relate to the Democrats in office now.

Howard Dean:
"We don't need to spend $200 and $300 and $500 billion bringing democracy to Iraq to turn it over to people who believe that Israel doesn't have a right to defend itself and who refuse to condemn Hezbollah."

Bringing democracy to Iraq on the condition that Iraqis recognize Israel has a right to defend itself??? Complete and utter b.s.

[norml]

71. Evangelicals unite for Israel

Evangelicals unite for Israel
7/26/2006 9:00:00 PM GMT


While the Lebanese are fighting for survival amidst relentless deadly attacks by Israel, the Jewish State is receiving strong encouragement and support from an unusual source; Evangelical Christians.

Thousands of evangelical Christians converged on Washington last week to urge lawmakers back Israel, currently engaged in an unjustified offensive that’s killed scores of civilians in Lebanon and Palestine, and declaring their unwavering support for the Jewish State.

More than 3,000 Christians flocked to Washington and are staying at their own expense to ask Bush’s admin "not to restrain Israel in any way in the pursuit of Hamas and Hezbollah", as part of the first annual summit of Christians United for Israel, the founder of the group said.

(C.U.F.I.) Christians United for Israel, which seeks to become the Christian equivalent of the influential Jewish lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, aims at providing a national association through which every pro-Israel church; Para-church organization; ministry or individual in America can speak and act with one voice in support of Israel.

Delegates from all 50 states attended a banquet on Tuesday and heard speakers including Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.); Israel’s ambassador to the United States, Daniel Ayalon; Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.); and Ken Mehlman, chairman of the Republican National Committee.


snip


http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=11760