About a dozen Democratic lawmakers from the House and Senate boycotted [al-Maliki's] speech, citing al-Maliki's refusal to condemn the terror group that is currently fighting Israel in southern Lebanon.I like Ackerman's unintentionally self-revealing line -- "he wouldn't say the things we needed him to say." That is very much the point, isn't it?"We understand that the prime minister has to say political things, but the long-term here is that if you mollycoddle terrorists, you give them license to continue," said Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y. "Hezbollah's function is to destroy and eliminate the state of Israel. They and their ilk would then have as their goal the destruction of all secular society throughout the region. And that is not the hand he should be strengthening long-term."
Sens. Charles Schumer of New York and Barbara Boxer of California also did not attend....
...Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., speaking after the address, said he asked al-Maliki directly if he believes Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, and the prime minister wouldn't respond....
"We kept pressing and he kept sidestepping," Ackerman said of [a conversation with al-Maliki]. "He refused to say the things we needed him to say."
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi also said she was not satisfied with al-Maliki's response to questions about his support for Hezbollah.
"During his address, Prime Minister Maliki spoke with conviction about 'the terrorists who are falsely claiming to be speaking for Islam and Muslims.' He missed an opportunity to single out groups fitting that description, such as Hamas and Hezbollah, and condemn their activities. If defeating terrorism is indeed the duty of all of us, as the prime minister proclaimed, the road to victory starts with identifying the enemy," Pelosi, D-Calif., said in a statement.
I'm starting to wonder whether the October Surprise hasn't just happened. And the Democrats, of course, have landed a right hook, and a left uppercut, and judo kicks with both legs, deep into the Tar Baby's sticky innards.
Query: Why is Fox News so happy to trumpet the utterances of Pelosi, and Dean, and God help us Ackerman on this subject?
Comments (4)
Being a fanatical supporter of the Israeli government only makes sense on the coasts. Here in flyover land, it just makes you look like a nut. Hence the broad coverage by FAUX News.
Posted by AlanSmithee | July 27, 2006 1:06 PM
Posted on July 27, 2006 13:06
alan S :
brings up a good point
outside of the northeast METRO RIBBON and
maybe a coastal spot
here and there
in Cal
who gives
a friday
beer nite piss
about fort zion anyway
Posted by JS PAINE | July 27, 2006 1:45 PM
Posted on July 27, 2006 13:45
I'm not sure I agree. Fox is one of the last redoubts of the neocon agenda. Why should they reject such lunacy just because it comes out of the mouths of Democrats and not, for instance, Bill Kristol?
Posted by Peter | July 27, 2006 4:59 PM
Posted on July 27, 2006 16:59
Murdoch and his FAUX News minions are certainly in lockstep with the neocon agenda (so long as it benefits the bottom line.) Their public support for Israel jibes well with the fundie christian's apocalyptic hopes and dreams, but honestly, the rest of Flyoverland really could care less. Since there's no chance that democrat protestations of support will in any way garner fundie votes for dems, Neocon propaganda outlets like FAUX News have no problem making dems look like idiots by broadcasting their feverish screeches of support for Israeli gov't atrocities.
Posted by AlanSmithee | July 28, 2006 9:36 AM
Posted on July 28, 2006 09:36