Schumer, Pelosi, Emanuel asked to rescind Al-Maliki's address to Congress

[katinmn]

Going overboard in their support of Israel? I think the Dem leaders are off-track here.

http://www.comcast.net/news/index.jsp?cat=GENERAL&fn=/2006/07/26/442077.html

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said he doubted he would attend al-Maliki's address, and House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi hinted she too would boycott the speech. "Unless Mr. Maliki disavows his critical comments of Israel and condemns terrorism, it is inappropriate to honor him with a joint meeting of Congress," said Pelosi, D-Calif.

Another 20 Democrats, including Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, sent a letter to GOP House leadership asking to rescind al-Maliki's invitation to address Congress.

"We are unaware of any prior instance where a world leader who worked against the interests of the United States was afforded such an honor," the Democrats wrote.

GOP members said they too were concerned about the direction of the Iraq government, but they wanted to retain a dialogue with al-Maliki and other top leaders.

[Skip Intro]

1. Its politics

They're putting the repukes in a position of being, or appearing, less supportive of Israel than they.

Not sure I like it, but its clearly a political ploy.

Or maybe I've just become too cynical.

[katinmn]

4. We need leaders, not this crap.

:puke:

[snappyturtle]

2. I agree with you......

problems don't get solved when opposing factions distance themselves from each other. I believe that even if they disagree with Mr. Maliki they should attend the joint session and listen to him and THEN speak out if they need to. Non-attendance=BIG mistake

[Zynx]

3. I fully support this effort.

Granted, it is irrational to expect the leader(puppet though he is) of a majority Shia Arab nation to condemn Hezbollah, but this simultaneously shows what a mistake pushing for democracy in the Middle East is and also outflanks the Republicans on the WoT.

It's a brilliant political move.

[babylonsister]

5. I've been thinking about this, and perhaps the Dems

are really looking at the bigger issue of Iraq. An Iraqi leader who won't condemn terrorism, while our soldiers are dying in his country due to insurgents/terrorists, might need to feel our ire.

:shrug:

Or I could be totally blowing smoke, but otherwise, I don't get the Dems' stance.

[katinmn]

7. That's possible. I would just like honesty and fairness for once

from someone. We do have Dennis Kucinich asking for a cease-fire. The others are out of touch and too busy campaigning to grasp the significance of an all-out Middle East war.

[karynnj]

10. I seriously doubt ANY Democratic Senator

is unable to grasp the significance of an all out Middle eastern war.

[katinmn]

15. We each have our own opinions. Peace!

[karynnj]

20. Sorry, I wasn't meaning to attack - though my post sounds like it

when I reread it. I have heard at other times very thoughtful inteligent comments on the difficulty of the middle eastern problem by several Democrats. I assume that many are trying to avoid actions - like condemning Israel that they may feel the US does not have the moral ground to make and which could cause Bush and Israel to harden their positions. (Both Bush and various Israeli leaders have responded that way in the past.)

I am not saying - they may be working on the problem privately. I'm not sure what any of these people can do on a personal level - even if they had suggestions on how to resolve this nightmare. I'm not sure how free they are to speak to foreign leaders - not to mention they wouldn't have the leverage of being the President. I know they can not negotiate on the behalf of the US with a foreign country, but especially those on the SFRC do have the role of meeting with foreign leaders and are supposed to advise the President. It might be all they have is access to various Israeli and Lebanese diplomats, their knowledge,intelligence, persuasiveness and possibly whatever credibility they have earned in the past. (Clinton and Carter are special cases as ex-Presidents. But even they would be operating as private citizens.)

[Rose Siding]

6. I don't see how Maliki ever got any US backing. Laura Rozen writes-

Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki and his Dawa party have deeper ties to the Hezbollah leadership than has surfaced in recent reporting on his visit to the White House, emails Mark Perry. "Maliki went to school with the Hezbollah leadership ... Hezbollah in mid 1980s worked to free 'the Dawa 17' -- arrested by Kuwait for a suicide bomb that killed three Americans in the US embassy in Kuwait. Now Dawa is the ruling party in Iraq and allied to the US and their leader visits the White House." According to news reports, Maliki headed the Dawa party's Jihad office in Damascus in the 1980s.

Some history on the connections between Dawa and Hezbollah here. "Following Hezbollah's 1983 strikes against the U.S. Embassy and the Marine barracks in Beirut, a closely related Shiite organization in Kuwait carried out a series of attacks -- including a truck bombing targeting the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait City. Kuwaiti authorities later arrested and convicted 17 Shia for involvement in that plot. This group became known as the 'Kuwaiti 17' or the 'Dawa 17.' Among its members was Mustafa Youssef Badreddin, a cousin and brother-in-law of senior Hezbollah operative Imad Mugniyah, who has been described alternately as the head of Hezbollah's security apparatus, as the group's chief of intelligence and as its chief of special operations. .... Demands for the freedom of the Dawa 17 became standard in Hezbollah's hijackings and other activities. "

This 1991 State Department presser with Richard Boucher on the Dawa 17 allegedly escaping to Lebanon during the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait is also interesting.

links embedded in text detail history
http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/004648.html

[karynnj]

8. Not attending an address by the leader of a country

where we have 13,000+ soldiers - out of protest- is stuped. I think he should be pushed to disavow terrorism, but he has every right to criticize Israel or any other country. (If he like the Iranian leader were calling for the destruction of Israel, it would be different.)

[Bluerthanblue]

14. its stupid and childish, and I'd like to know

why they bother to attend the addresses * makes- since he speaks far more destructivly and offensivly against the best intrests of America.

I am starting to really think all politicians should be chucked, and we start fresh- what a bunch of .....'politicians'..!!!!

[katinmn]

9. We need less posturing. More problem-solving. Iraq is a big

killing zone because of the entire US Government.

Solve the problem.
Stop playing politics.
F-O-C-U-S.
Lives are at stake.
Theirs, ours, yours.

[karynnj]

21. I agree - but the President is the one who

controls foreign policy for the most part.

[katinmn]

22. He is the "decider."

[leesa]

11. I think this is disgusting. Israel needs to be condemned for their

behavior, but let's just keep pretending it's the Muslims because we're bigots and we intend to stay that way. So Israel has murdered over 400 people for the deaths of soldiers who may or may nopt have been on Lebanese soil...they're just Lebanese folks. Who cares? Just like in Iraq....doesn't one American life = 100 Iraqis, at least?

[Totally Committed]

12. It's mis-guided, tone-deaf, cynical, and stupid...

to support Israel across-the-board and unconditionally in light of the carnage they are raining down on so many civilians in the region. Have they all lost their minds???? I wish someone would stand up as a leader and just say how wrong this is.

I have too many friends in Israel and Lebanon who are suffering badly right now, and it is breaking my heart.

TC

[Bluerthanblue]

13. this is SO discouraging.... I'd expect if of the repubs... but

what hyprocricy.

If creating 'democracy' means that all countries who call themselves 'democratic' must walk in LOCK-STEP with the US policies, then we are a sick nation.

as for the bogus statement:

"We are unaware of any prior instance where a world leader who worked against the interests of the United States was afforded such an honor," the Democrats wrote.

Sorry but fuck that- many times bush has addressed congress, and if he hasn't proven that what he has done has been AGAINST the intreat of the United States- then I'm a unicorn.

I'm losing confidence in any 'political party' having any true integrety anymore.

Where are the voices of those of us, who do not support the actions being taken by Israel represented??
Terrorism comes in many guises- state sponsored terrorism, is STILL terrorism.

Are our "elected officials" not supposed to represent the people who empower them?????

this experement called America, is not working very well.....

[oberliner]

16. odd to see so many DUers siding with the Repups on this one

Most Republicans said Democrats were making unrealistic demands, and said Congress should support the struggling leader as Iraq faces mounting sectarian violence.

"For him to take a strong stance that's perceived as pro-Israel where he's from is very difficult," Kansas Republican Sen. Sam Brownback said.

Senate Republican Whip Mitch McConnell of Kentucky called the Democrats' statements "an insult to a duly-elected leader."


Excerpted from: http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyID=2006-07-25T221452Z_01_N25297455_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAQ-MALIKI-CONGRESS.xml&pageNumber=1&imageid=&cap=&sz=13&WTModLoc=NewsArt-C1-ArticlePage1

[Totally Committed]

18. I see it, rather, as siding with THE TRUTH, and the Lebanese and

Palestinian and Israeli civilians who are now or will be suffering because of Israel's, Hezbollah's, and Hamas's actions. The cycle of violence has GOT to be broken, and we can't do that until we start talking to and listening to each other.

The Democrats are just as wrong in this instance as Condi was in going over to the region and refusing to talk to and listen to anyone but those she considered allies.

It's S T U P I D and it's W R O N G .

TC

[katinmn]

19. Not siding with Repubs. Siding with Peace and Fairness.

Al-Maliki, puppet though he may have been, is speaking for a broad cross-section of Iraqis in this case. Things are so bad even Iragi religious leaders are calling for unity and an end to sectarian violence. Israel's attack on Lebanon and its population of Christians, Muslims and Shiites, Shias and yes, Huzbullah, further fans ethnic and religious divisions.

Dems, too, voted for this mess. They owe it to the Iraqis to listen and to do so respectfully.

We need artful diplomacy, not political manuevering as some have suggested this stance may be.

[Norquist Nemesis]

17. Someone please explain to me

How is his "critical comments of Israel" and 'not to condemn terrorism' (which I presume specifically must mean Hezbollah) is against the interest of the United States? Has he not condemned the insurgents in Iraq as terrorists? Has he not spoken out about fighting against terror and joining the 'global war on terror'?

Geez! ANYONE says a peep about Israel's actions and they immediate are on a list of sworn enemies.