Some Democrats say will shun Maliki speech

[SlowwHand]

Ann, in Texas we just say what we think without the bull****. If that's so different, you may have hit on the democrat's problem.

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Let me understand. To appease voters who oppose them, they'll take a position that will alienate the voters that put them in office?

Oh that's a good plan.

The anti-Israeli people will be less pissed than the pro-Israelis will be happy. I mean, what are the pacifists going to do... vote Republican?

I'm opposed to Israel's current action, but I don't plan on voting in the US in November anyway.

[SlowwHand]

How can you oppose? They said, give them back, cease and desist. When it didn't happen, they did what all knew they would.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Those who oppose Israel are rare in the US, and rarely democrats. Look third party instead.

Heck, look at some of our resident democrats:
MTG: definitely on Israel's side
Sava: definitely on Israel's side
I don't remember the stance of any other Apolyton democrat on the current (blatant mischarecterization snuck into a post on another topic snipped) .

Besides, I can think of only one American who has strongly criticized Israel on 'Poly, and that's Chegitz. Che doesn't vote for democrats.

Im a Democrat, and you know my stand. But GePap and Ramo, take different stands, and AFAIK they are both Dems. For more Dems who dont agree with me and MtG, take a look at Democratsunderground, Daily Kos, etc.


If I was a Democrat in NY, esp like Nita Lowey representing a heavily Jewish district, and was getting embarrased by the campaign of the left to unseat Joe Lieberman, and saw how popular Bushs stance on Israels attack on terrorism was, I could see feeling compelled to take advantage of something like this.

However I note that only 20 dems out of about 200 signed on. This would be a bad precedent.


I also suspect that some Dems dont want to hear what Maliki has to say - since hes likely to deny that Iraq is doomed, and hes likely to ask that the US continue to support his govt.

[Imran Siddiqui]

If Maliki does denounce Isreal in Congress, that would probably be the best thing for Iraq, because I don't think anyone would be able to paint him as a US puppet after he did that and it may help bring Iraq together and perhaps delay a civil war.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
How can you oppose? They said, give them back, cease and desist. When it didn't happen, they did what all knew they would.

That's besides the point. Ask the question in the relevant thread if you wish, where it has already been answered countless times, but I'm sure someone will answer anyways. Let's not threadjack this one.

If anything, our debates on 'Poly should be indicative that there's a strong correlation between one's country and one's opinion on the current war. Among our European posters, there are only a few supporters of Israel. Among our American posters, there is barely any opponent of Israel.

You can expect that Israel will find even fewer supporters among the Arab population (or, for the matter of this thread, in the Iraqi population) than among the Euros. Would an Arab leader say something that so clearly fits an American domestic speech (ie the "right of Israel to defend itself"), he would immediately be called a collaborator and a puppet.

Imagine one second that Kerry had won the elections in 2004. And imagine that, in order to please some Iraqi PMs, he'd apologized for calling Hezbollah a terrorist organization (in some obscure gathering, half a world away from DC). You can bet your ass off that it would be reported immediately, and that it would create a major political backlash in the US. The right-wingers already suspected Kerry of being weak, and sometimes even a terrorist sympathizers, and now Kerry would have proven he is actually a traitor.
If you can imagine that, you have a picture of the kind of political backlash Maliki would be facing at home if he apologized to congress because of Dem pressure. Only it would be 100 times worse.

Especially in a time where Iraq is on the brink of civil war, and where the remnants of central authority are pretty much the only hope to see the bloodbath avoided.

[Vince278]

A shunning? That's so Amish.

[SlowwHand]

No ****, Spiffor? It depends on where you're standing on anything. What a profound revelation.
Yet, it does matter to the point. Democrats, only used as a source to differentiate, whine here every day about how Bush and Company conduct business. NOW, democrats are acting all outraged, a little late, on the proper subject.

[Thorn]

Slow..... haven't you gotten that both parties are the same thing yet with minor differences?

[SlowwHand]

Did you read the post, Thorn? I have always said I'm independant. Parties mean zip to me. I'm talking about the "here", in general. Read the post, ok?

[The Emperor Fabulous]

In the House, about 20 Democrats signed the letter to Hastert saying Maliki's speech should be canceled unless he apologizes, citing mounting evidence "that the Iraqi leadership's goals are not in the best interest of the United States, nor the Middle East."

20 Democrats. Out of 202 in the HoR. That's like saying the Fundie minority speaks for the Republican party.

[SlowwHand]

Bush, Maliki agree on more US troops for Baghdad

By Steve Holland
Tue Jul 25, 6:22 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -
President George W. Bush and
Iraq's prime minister agreed on Tuesday that more U.S. and Iraqi troops will go to Baghdad to try to curb sectarian violence that has raised fears the country is sliding into full-scale civil war.

"God willing, there will be no civil war in Iraq," Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said.

The new security plan was an acknowledgment that Maliki's attempt to pacify Baghdad had failed, with hundreds of people killed in sectarian violence every week.

A senior U.S. defense official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the plan involves sending thousands of additional U.S. and Iraq troops into the Baghdad area, but did not say how many Americans would be involved.

Pentagon spokesman Eric Ruff said that "no final decision has been made" on how many additional forces will be sent.

Bush, at a news conference with Maliki that lacked much warmth, said troops going to Baghdad in coming weeks would be pulled from areas in Iraq deemed relatively free of violence.

It was unclear how the new plan would affect Pentagon hopes of reducing U.S. troops in Iraq by year's end. Republicans had hoped a troop reduction would help them deflect voter anger over Iraq in November elections when they are fighting to keep control of the U.S. Congress.

There are now 127,000 American troops in Iraq.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, after meeting the visiting Iraqi leader at the Pentagon, said the increase in forces in the Baghdad area will be "more than hundreds," but was no more precise.

Rumsfeld also said Maliki requested additional equipment for Iraqi security forces, now being trained by about 4,000 U.S. troops in Iraq.

A U.S. defense official said 400 soldiers, from an Army brigade held in reserve in Kuwait, will be sent into Iraq in the coming days to help free up other troops to go to Baghdad.

In addition, another defense official said roughly 420 U.S. military police serving elsewhere in Iraq could be moved to Baghdad.

BUSH PLEDGE

Bush said troop decisions will be made by U.S. commanders on the ground and he assured Maliki that, "America will not abandon the Iraqi people."

"No question it's tough in Baghdad. And no question it's tough in other parts of Iraq. But there are also places where progress is being made," Bush said.

Bush's national security adviser,
Stephen Hadley, said the beefed-up American presence would be aimed at "giving some reassurance to the population there that in a way the sheriff has arrived."

The two leaders also had what Bush called a "frank exchange" -- diplomatic parlance for a disagreement -- over the conflict between
Israel and Hizbollah in southern Lebanon.

Maliki told the news conference he stressed the importance of an immediate ceasefire, a position Bush refused to embrace, saying he wanted a "lasting peace, not a temporary peace."

Bush has resisted multiple calls from Arab leaders for him to urge an immediate ceasefire, saying Hizbollah attacks on Israelis must be addressed.

Statements by Maliki before the visit denouncing Israel while refusing to condemn Hizbollah angered Democrats.

A group of House of Representatives Democrats circulated a letter to Speaker
Dennis Hastert urging the Illinois Republican to get an apology from Maliki or cancel his 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."

Asked at the White House his position in Hizbollah, Maliki demurred, saying "we are not in the process of reviewing one issue or another, or any government position."

(Additional reporting by Vicki Allen, Patricia Wilson, Will Dunham and Caren Bohan)

[SlowwHand]

Don't miss this part. It's a big deal.

"Bush said troop decisions will be made by U.S. commanders on the ground".

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
How can you oppose? They said, give them back, cease and desist. When it didn't happen, they did what all knew they would.

So if someone punches you in the face, do you pull out a gun and empty the whole clip into them... oh wait, you're Texan Israel has killed hundreds of innocent people in an attempt to recover two of their own.

If Maliki does denounce Isreal in Congress, that would probably be the best thing for Iraq, because I don't think anyone would be able to paint him as a US puppet after he did that and it may help bring Iraq together and perhaps delay a civil war.

Yes, and if some Congressmen boycott him, it will be even better in Iraq because it will increase the perception that he's actually telling the Americans something they don't want to hear.

[MRT144]

sloww, you know the democrats are doing the right thing.