Democratic Senators won't say whether they're attending
Josh Rogin and Eli Lake report that many Democratic Senators, who feel caught between their loyalty to Barack Hussein Obama and their duties to their voters, are
not saying whether they will attend Prime Minister Netanyahu's address to a joint session of Congress next Tuesday.
We spoke with almost a dozen Democratic Senators Tuesday who said
they still haven’t decided. Among them is Senate Intelligence Committee
ranking member Dianne Feinstein of California, who wrote a letter (with
Senate Minority Whip Richard Durbin of Illinois) Monday to Netanyahu
asking him to meet Democrats separately in their offices while he is
Washington.
“I won’t make a decision on that for a while,” she told us, insisting
there was no organized Democratic boycott. “But it does mean that I
would like an opportunity to sit down and talk to him rather than
listening to a speech of red lines. It isn’t a boycott, it's individuals
making up their own minds. There is no boycott.”
...
Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut, the ranking Democrat on the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee subcommittee that covers the Middle
East, told us Tuesday he also is still weighing whether to attend the
speech and he acknowledged that he is getting calls from his supporters
in Connecticut encouraging him to go.
“I haven’t decided yet. This is a breach of protocol not a breach of
policy, so I’m still trying to make sure I’m not making more of this
than it deserves to be,” he said. “A lot of us are very angry and I
think we’ve got to figure out how serious of an issue this really is.”
Democratic Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia declined to say whether he
would attend: “I think the speech should be postposed. I’m just going to
leave it there for now.”
Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey wouldn't say anything on the
matter. Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon said he was “expecting to” attend
but wasn’t 100 percent sure. Senator Chris Coons of Delaware said he
would make up his mind after meeting with the Israeli ambassador.
Nonetheless, many Democratic leaders have signaled they will attend.
The list includes House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, House Minority
Whip Steny Hoyer and, if he is physically able while recovering from
surgery, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. Senator Chuck Schumer of New
York, Senate Foreign Relations Committee ranking Democrat Robert
Menendez of New Jersey and Senate Armed Services Committee member Bill
Nelson of Florida will also be there.
It's tough having to answer to your constituents, isn't it? Here's a prediction: In the end, other than the Congressional Black Caucus and some of the more virulent J Street recipients, every last one of the Democrats will show up. They're not going to risk their seats to satisfy an unpopular President who is in the second half of his second term.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, Charles Schumer, Dianne Feinstein, Dick Durbin, Iranian nuclear threat, J Street, joint session of Congress, Nancy Pelosi, Robert Menendez
Oh my... Netanyahu refuses to meet with Durbin and Feinstein
Prime Minister Netanyahu has
turned down a
meeting with Democratic Senators Richard Durbin (Il) and Diane Feinstein (Ca) on the sidelines of his address to a joint session of Congress next week.This is from the first link.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declined on Tuesday an invitation
to meet with U.S. Senate Democrats during his trip to Washington next
week.
"Though I greatly appreciate your kind invitation
to meet with Democratic Senators, I believe that doing so at this time
could compound the misperception of partisanship regarding my upcoming
visit," Netanyahu wrote in a letter to Senators Richard Durbin and
Dianne Feinstein obtained by Reuters.
That actually makes sense if one accepts the premise that an address to a joint session of Congress that includes both Democrats and Republicans is (or ought to be) seen as non-partisan. What Netanyahu is saying is "if I meet separately with you, I will also have to meet separately with a delegation of Republican Senators."
But as you might imagine, this has made the Democrats
go ballistic.
Susan E. Rice, President Obama’s national security adviser, sharply criticized Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel
on Tuesday over his plans to address a joint meeting of Congress next
week, saying his actions had hurt his nation’s relationship with the
United States.
Mr.
Netanyahu’s decision to travel to Washington to deliver the speech two
weeks before the Israeli elections has “injected a degree of
partisanship, which is not only unfortunate, I think it’s destructive of
the fabric of the relationship,” Ms. Rice said in an interview on the
PBS television program “Charlie Rose.”
Come on. Does anyone seriously believe that Netanyahu showing up on March 24 would see the Democrats having no objections? Meanwhile, Durbin said he's 'disappointed.'
“We offered the prime minister an opportunity to balance the politically
divisive invitation from Speaker Boehner with a private meeting with
Democrats who are committed to keeping the bipartisan support of Israel
strong,” Mr. Durbin said in a statement. “His refusal to meet is
disappointing to those of us who have stood by Israel for decades.”
At least Durbin (effectively) admits that the Israeli elections have nothing to do with this. But since when is an invitation to address a joint session of Congress a partisan event? Since when does Congress have to ask the President's permission before inviting a foreign leader to its house? Is it not a co-equal branch of government in the United States?
Well, the answer seems to be that the joint session of Congress is becoming a partisan event since the Democrats insist on making it into one. The number of Democratic Senators and Representatives who plan to boycott Netanyahu's speech (undoubtedly under pressure from the White House) is
growing.
Here is a list of the Democrats who are planning to skip the speech and those who are planning to go.
SKIPPING
House (23)
Rep. Earl Blumenauer (Ore.) — Wrote a Jan. 29 column in The Huffington Post explaining his decision, saying the Constitution “vests the responsibility for foreign affairs in the president.”
Rep. G.K. Butterfield (N.C.) — The head of the
Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) focused on Boehner undermining Obama in
a statement and emphasized he's not urging a boycott.
Rep. Andre Carson (Ind.)
Rep. James Clyburn (S.C.) — Clyburn is the highest-ranking Democratic leader to say he’ll skip the speech.
Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.): “After deliberation, I
have decided I cannot in good conscience attend the Prime Minister’s
speech. My decision not to attend is not a reflection of my support for
Israel and its continued existence as a state and home for the Jewish
people. I have always strongly supported Israel and I always will,”
said Cohen in a statement.
Rep. Diana DeGette (Colo.)
Rep. Donna Edwards (Md.)
Rep. Keith Ellison (Minn.) — He is head of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC), a member of the CBC and the first Muslim in Congress.
Rep. Raúl Grijalva (Ariz.) — Grijalva is a co-chairman of the CPC.
Rep. Luis Gutiérrez (Ill.) — A spokesman told the Chicago Sun-Times that Gutierrez has a "strong" record on Israel but called the speech "a stunt."
Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.)
Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (Texas) — "The Congresswoman has no plans to attend the speech at this time," a spokeswoman said.
Rep. Barbara Lee (Calif.) — A member of the CBC and former head of the CPC.
Rep. John Lewis (Ga.) — His office confirmed he’s not going but emphasized he's not organizing a formal boycott
Rep. Betty McCollum (Minn.): "In my view Mr.
Netanyahu’s speech before Congress is nothing more than a campaign event
hosted by Speaker Boehner and paid for by the American people,"
McCollum said in a statement."
Rep. Jim McDermott (Wash.) — “I do not intend to attend the speech of Bibi,” he said in an email to a Seattle newspaper.
Rep. Gregory Meeks (N.Y.) — A CBC member.
Rep. Beto O'Rourke (Texas)
Rep. Chellie Pingree (Maine)
Rep. Charles Rangel (N.Y.) — "I'm offended as an American," he said on MSNBC.
Rep. Cedric Richmond (La.)
Rep. Bennie Thompson (Miss.)
Rep. John Yarmuth (Ky.) — "We know what he is going to say," the Jewish lawmaker said in a statement.
Senate (3)
Sen. Patrick Leahy (Vt.) — Leahy called it a "tawdry and high-handed stunt," according to a Vermont newspaper.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) — Sanders, who caucuses with Democrats, said it’s “wrong” that Obama wasn’t consulted about the speech.
Sen. Brian Schatz (Hawaii) — “The U.S.-Israel
relationship is too important to be overshadowed by partisan politics,"
said Schatz in a statement. "I am disappointed in the Republican
leadership’s invitation of Prime Minister Netanyahu to address a joint
session of Congress with the apparent purpose of undermining President
Obama’s foreign policy prerogatives.”
Far more Democrats have said they will attend.
Read the whole thing. Most of the Representatives on the list as not attending are Congressional Black Caucus members (who are concerned about Netanyahu's lack of 'respect' for Obama - respect that Obama has done nothing to earn) and known Leftists....
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, Dianne Feinstein, Dick Durbin, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, John Boehner, joint session of Congress
A break in the Democratic boycott of Netanyahu
Two senior Democratic Senators are breaking from the Obama administration's boycott of Prime Minister Netanyahu.
Dianne Feinstein (California) and Richard Durbin (Illinois) have asked to meet with the Prime Minister. But they're still critical of the manner in which Netanyahu was invited.
Senators Richard Durbin and Dianne Feinstein
extended the invitation "to maintain Israel's dialogue with both
political parties in Congress," according to a letter to the Israeli
leader seen by Reuters.
...
"This unprecedented move threatens to
undermine the important bipartisan approach towards Israel - which as
long-standing supporters of Israel troubles us deeply," Durbin and
Feinstein wrote.
"It sacrifices
deep and well-established cooperation on Israel for short-term partisan
points - something that should never be done with Israeli security and
which we fear could have lasting repercussions," they said.
...
The two senators have not indicated publicly whether they planned to be at the Israeli leader's address, their spokesmen said.
...
Durbin is the No. 2 Democrat in the U.S.
Senate. Feinstein, who has been in the Senate since 1992, is the top
Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee and a senior member of the
Appropriations and Judiciary committees.
The letter was sent on Monday evening. The Israeli Embassy did not have an immediate response to the invitation.
Bloomberg adds (Hat Tip: Memeorandum).
“To maintain Israel’s dialogue with both political parties
in Congress, we invite you to a closed-door meeting with
Democratic senators during your upcoming visit to Washington,”
Durbin and Feinstein wrote Monday. “We believe such a venue
would be a wholly appropriate opportunity to discuss the range
of issues that face our two countries.”
Twenty-three House Democrats urged Boehner in a letter last
week to postpone the speech. They said the speaker was “using a
foreign leader as a political tool against” Obama.
The House Democrats’ letter questioned whether Boehner was
using Netanyahu’s appearance to persuade lawmakers to back new
sanctions against Iran despite a veto threat from Obama.
To listen to the House Democrats, they don't believe it would ever be appropriate for Netanyahu to weigh in on Iran. That's just plain wrong. In the overall scheme of things, Israel has much more at stake in Iran (our very existence) than the United States has. Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, Dianne Feinstein, Dick Durbin, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, John Boehner, joint session of Congress
'I was against Pollard's release before I was for it'
In 1999, 60 US Senators sent a letter to then-President Bill Clinton urging him not to free hostage Jonathan Pollard. One of those Senators was the current Secretary of State,
John FN Kerry.
In January 1999, a bipartisan group of senators sent a strongly worded
letter to President Bill Clinton urging him not to commute the prison
sentence of Jonathan Pollard, who was then in the 12th year of a life
sentence for spying for Israel. Freeing Pollard, the lawmakers said,
would "imply a condonation of spying against the United States by an
ally," would overlook the "enormity" of Pollard's offenses and the
damage he had caused to national security, and would undermine the
United States' ability to share secrets with foreign governments. Among
the 60 signatories of the letter was John Kerry, then a senator from
Massachusetts. Fifteen years later, Kerry is singing a very different
tune.
...
Kerry wasn't alone in opposing Pollard's release in 1999, when the issue
was similarly under consideration as a possible sweetener for Israel
during its on-again, off-again talks with the Palestinians. Kerry's
allies at the time included then-Sen. Chuck Hagel, now the secretary of
defense, as well as Dianne Feinstein, the current chair of the Senate
Intelligence Committee; Mitch McConnell, the current Senate minority
leader; John McCain, a former Republican nominee for president; and
Patrick Leahy, now the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Kerry and Hagel in particular now find themselves in the awkward
position of serving in an administration that is considering letting
Pollard go, exactly the outcome they once railed against. A spokesperson
for Hagel said, "The secretary will keep private his counsel for the
president." A spokesperson for Kerry wouldn't discuss details of any
negotiations. Neither Hagel's nor Kerry's spokesperson addressed the
positions they'd taken in 1999. White House spokesperson Jay Carney said
Tuesday that Obama, who has the sole authority to commute Pollard's
sentence or grant him a pardon, "has not made a decision" on the
question.
The signatories largely had strong pro-Israel voting records, but their
contempt for Pollard crossed party lines and was striking in its
ferocity. "Any grant of clemency would now be viewed as an acquiescence
to external political pressures and a vindication of Pollard's specious
claims of unfairness and victimization.... This would send the wrong
signal to employees within the Intelligence Community. It is an
inviolable principle that those entrusted with America's secrets must
protect them, without exception, irrespective of their own personal
views or sympathies."
Hmmm.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Chuck Hagel, Dianne Feinstein, John Kerry, John McCain, Jonathan Pollard
Report: Pollard willing to be released but Congress opposed
Contrary to a
report I cited on Tuesday, the head of a campaign to free Jonathan Pollard says that Pollard would be
willing to go free in exchange for 'Palestinian' terrorists.
Aaron Troodler, a spokesman for the campaign to free Pollard, told
The Daily Beast Tuesday, "Jonathan Pollard would not reject the
commutation of his sentence. The deal that is currently being discussed
is by no means a quid pro quo, rather it’s a gesture being made by the
United States to Israel. The fact is this is not a tit for tat. It’s
part of a larger agreement."
But that is not how other prominent Jewish groups that have supported
freeing Pollard, a former civilian intelligence analyst who was
sentenced to life in prison for spying on the United States on behalf of
Israel, see it.
But some members of Congress are opposed to giving up
American's hostage.
Pollard’s potential release faces stiff opposition on Capitol Hill, where both Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein
and ranking Republican Saxby Chambliss told The Daily Beast Tuesday
that releasing Pollard at this stage was a bad idea and they would
oppose it.
Feinstein said releasing Pollard simply in exchange for a
continuation of negotiations was not appropriate, given his crimes and
the lack of a real deal between the two parties.
“This was a major betrayal and I’ve followed it over the years. It’s
one thing if there’s an agreement. It’s another thing totally if there
isn’t,” she said.
In other words, Feinstein admits that Pollard is being held hostage, but the price being offered for him isn't high enough.
And Chambliss?
Chambliss is opposed to releasing Pollard altogether. “I think he’s done
a lot of harm to America and I just don’t think he should be released,”
the two-term Georgia Republican told The Daily Beast.
At least he's consistent.... Apparently someone forgot to tell Chambliss that Pollard is now a hostage.
At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what the Senate or the House think of releasing Pollard - now or ever. The President has the exclusive power to pardon anyone - including Pollard. And Pollard's sentence is scheduled to end late in 2015 either way.
Two other Senators came out in favor of releasing Pollard on the merits of the case: Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and John McCain (R-Az). Note especially what McCain says.
Sen. Chuck Schumer told The Daily Beast Tuesday that he supported Pollard's release, based simply on the merits of the case.
“I think he did a very bad thing. He deserved to serve some time in
jail. The amount of time he served in jail is disproportionate,” the New
York Democrat said.
As for whether Pollard’s release should be linked to the peace
process or Israel’s release of Palestinian prisoners, Schumer said,
“That I’m not going to get into.”
Sen. John McCain said Tuesday that he supports releaing Pollard on
the merits of the case but the administration must not link the release
to the ongoing peace process.
"It's disgusting," he said. "I favor his release, I think he's served
long enough, but to be used in this fashion, it's disgraceful."
Yes, it is.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Charles Schumer, Dianne Feinstein, John Kerry, John McCain, Jonathan Pollard, Palestinian terrorists
Diane Feinstein: 'We can't let the Joooz control America'
In a Tuesday night debate over the Kirk-Menendez bill to add sanctions against Iran and its nuclear program, Senator Diane Feinstein (D-Ca) sparked controversy when she announced that "
we cannot let Israel determine when and where the United States goes to war." The bill includes a provision that would support Israel in the event that it carries out a preemptive strike against Iran.
Feinstein chairs the Select Committee on Intelligence and is
considered pro-Israel, but her remarks, which echo those of anti-Israel
critics, have provoked outrage. The Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC)
called on her to apologize, noting that the bill includes a proviso
that: "Nothing in this Act or the amendments made by this Act shall be
construed as a declaration of war or an authorization of the use of
force against Iran."
Adding that the Kirk-Menendez bill's language on Israel is the same as that in another bill that Feinstein co-sponsored,
RJC Executive Director Matt Brooks blasted Feinstein: "We are deeply
troubled to see Senator Feinstein making such incendiary and inaccurate
remarks on the Senate floor. We call on her to retract this reckless and
false charge and apologize to her colleagues and to the millions of
Americans who support a comprehensive, robust strategy to prevent the
Tehran regime from obtaining a nuclear weapons capability."
In her speech, Feinstein said that "a vote for this legislation will
cause negotiations to collapse," arguing that the six-month deal reached
in Geneva and finalized on Sunday represented "the best opportunity in
more than 30 years to make a major change in Iranian behavior." The deal
provides some sanctions relief in return for suspending parts of Iran's
uranium enrichment program and allowing limited international
inspections.
The Kirk-Menendez bill provides for tighter sanctions in the event
that Iran fails to comply with the Geneva agreement. Yet the Obama
administration has vowed to veto the bill regardless, believing that it
sends a message of confrontation. Supporters of the legislation,
including former Bush and Obama administration Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, believe that it will actually strengthen Obama's hand in negotiations.
The legislation currently has 59 co-sponsors in the Senate, eight shy
of the two-thirds majority needed to override a presidential veto.
Almost every Republican Senator supports the bill, while only a minority
of Senate Democrats are co-sponsors. Some Democrats, including
Democratic National Committee chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, have been
caught both opposing and supporting the legislation to different audiences.
Feinstein warned that hard-liners in Iran would use the bill to
"argue that the United States is not interested in nuclear diplomacy--we
are interested in regime change." That, however, is what they argue
already. Scholar Kenneth Pollack, who is opposed to war in Iran and
favors negotiations and "containment," says in his new book on Iran that the Obama administration's failure to pursue regime change in 2009 was "reprehensible."
Democrats who wish to support the Obama administration's line are
praising Feinstein's speech, and it will likely provide political cover
to those who wish to oppose the bill but wish to do so without
appearing to oppose Israel. Her incendiary remarks about Israel are not
likely to be forgotten by Republicans, either.
I don't see how anyone who is pro-Israel can oppose this bill. All it does is lay out what the next steps against Iran will be in the event that it continues its nuclear program. Oh wait... the Geneva agreement allows them to keep upgrading their centrifuges anyway....
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Dianne Feinstein, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, Mark Kirk, Robert Menendez
Oh my... 10 Senate Committee Chairs come out against Iran sanctions
Let's keep this in perspective: They're all Democrats and most of them are known as Obama allies. Still, this is a bit unusual.
Ten Senate Committee Chairs have written a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid
urging against further sanctions against Iran at this time. And Reid will undoubtedly use the letter as a weapon to try to keep a vote on new sanctions from reaching the Senate floor.
“At this time, as negotiations are ongoing, we believe that new
sanctions would play into the hands of those in Iran who are most eager
to see the negotiations fail,” the ten Senate committee chairs wrote, in a letter to Reid that
was signed by Senate Banking Committee Chairman Tim Johnson (D-South
Dakota), Armed Services Committee chair Carl Levin (D-Michigan),
Intelligence Committee Chair Dianne Feinstein (D-California), Senate
Judiciary Committee Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), Appropriations Committee
Chair Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland), Environment and Public Works
Committee Chair Barbara Boxer (D-California), Commerce Committee Chair
John Rockefeller (West Virginia), Homeland Security Committee chair Tom
Carper, Energy Committee Chair Ron Wyden (D-Oregon), and Health,
Education and Labor Committee chair Tom Harkin of Iowa.
Several veteran Hill hands expressed amazement at what one called the
“unprecedented” letter by the ten Senate committee chairs, several of
whom are Jewish, for publicly countering a fellow Senate committee chair
Menendez and AIPAC, which has been pressing members of Congress to back
the measure.
The fact that 'several of whom are Jewish' is totally irrelevant. We have seen time and time again that protecting the State of Israel is not a driving factor, and support for the State of Israel is too often not a high priority, in how Jews vote. Whether they're right or wrong, the reality is that these committee chairs signed that letter out of support for and loyalty to President Obama, and not out of the conclusion that refraining from introducing new sanctions is in the best interest of the State of Israel.
In fact, the closest arbiter of what is in the best interest of the State of Israel - Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu - is probably biting his lip tonight to avoid coming out for Menendez's bill.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, Harry Reid, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, P 5+1, Patrick Leahy
Caught between a rock and a hard place
On the morning after the liquidation of al-Qaeda chief Osama Bin Laden, Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari is likely not a very happy man. The chickens are coming home to roost.
Israel Radio reported on Tuesday morning that
the United States has closed its embassy in Islamabad and its three consulates in Lahore, Karachi and Peshawar. All four are closed 'indefinitely' ostensibly out of fear of an al-Qaeda revenge attack, but one cannot help but wonder if they will ever reopen.
The Pakistanis find themselves in the position of
having to deny both that they helped the United States to kill Bin Laden, and that they knew that Bin Laden was hiding out in Pakistan. The first denial strains credibility nearly as much as the second one, for it is nearly impossible that Bin Laden was present in a Pakistani city near their military's headquarters without the knowledge of higher ups. And despite the euphoria over suddenly having killed Bin Laden, some US lawmakers are furious.
The revelation bin Laden had been holed up in a compound in the military garrison town of Abbottabad, possibly for years, has threatened to worsen U.S. ties with nuclear-armed Pakistan.
"He was not anywhere we had anticipated he would be, but now he is gone," Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari wrote in an opinion piece in the Washington Post, without offering further defense against accusations his security services should have known where bin Laden was hiding.
"Although the events of Sunday were not a joint operation, a decade of cooperation and partnership between the United States and Pakistan led up to the elimination of Osama bin Laden as a continuing threat to the civilized world."
It was the first public comment by any Pakistani civilian or military leader on the raid by a secret U.S. assault team on bin Laden's compound on Sunday night.
Irate U.S. lawmakers wondered how it was possible for bin Laden to live in a populated area near a military training academy without anyone of authority knowing about it or sanctioning his presence.
They said it was time to review the billions in aid the United States provides Pakistan.
"Our government is in fiscal distress. To make contributions to a country that isn't going to be fully supportive is a problem for many," said Senate Intelligence Committee chair Dianne Feinstein.
You have to wonder when, if ever, the embassy and consulates will reopen.
Labels: Abbottabad, al-Qaeda, Asif Ali Zardari, Barack Obama, Dianne Feinstein, Osama Bin Laden
