HYPOCRITES

The Democrats have completely lost it.

Their antics since Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki came to Washington have been inexcusable.

Their political grandstanding, bereft of principle, has reached new heights. Their behavior is entirely inconsistent. Their selective outrage is an embarrassment.

The excuse the Dems' are using for their collective hissy fit stems from Maliki's condemnation of Israel's military operations, but his hesistance to specifically condemn Hezbollah.

Read the "Welcome to America" letter sent to Maliki from Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, and Chuck Schumer.

Dear Mr. Prime Minister:

Recent press accounts indicate that you forcefully denounced Israel's actions in Lebanon, saying, "I condemn these aggressions...(and) call on the world to take quick stands to stop the Israeli aggression." These same reports also indicate that you failed to denounce Hezbollah's role in precipitating the current crisis by undertaking acts of terror against Israeli troops and citizens, as it has against Americans in the past.

Your statements are very troubling. Your failure to condemn Hezbollah'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.

In advance of your scheduled appearance before a Joint Session of Congress on Wednesday, we believe it is essential that you clarify your position with respect to Hezbollah and its provocative incursions into Israel. Specifically, it is imperative that the U.S. Congress and the world know immediately whether you support or condemn Hezbollah's acts of terrorism.

As you know, 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. In that effort, over 2,500 Americans have lost their lives in Iraq, over 18,000 have been wounded, and over $300 billion in taxpayer funds have been expended. Americans deserve to know whether Iraq is an ally in these fights.

Have Harry, Dick, and Chuck sent a letter to Kofi Annan for failing to name Hezbollah as a terrorist organization?

Have Harry, Dick, and Chuck sent a letter to the EU for failing to recognize Hezbollah as a terrorist organization?

Have Harry, Dick, and Chuck complained that the UN is pushing for an immediate ceasefire, in effect preventing Israel from defending itself?

Why do they reserve their hostility for Maliki while completely letting Kofi Annan, the UN, and the EU off the hook for taking the same stand?

Their political motivation is so transparent.

And then we have Howard Dean coming out and calling Maliki an anti-Semite.

Extreme?

That's Dean. That's the current state of the Democratic Party.

US Democratic Party chairman Howard Dean called Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki an "anti-Semite" on Wednesday for failing to denounce Hizbullah for its attacks against Israel.

"The Iraqi prime minister is an anti-Semite," the Democratic leader told a gathering of business leaders in Florida. "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 Hizbullah."

Dean is crazy.

The Chairman of the Democratic Party isn't exactly a uniter, is he?

This is just another idiotic remark from Dean, but it's worse than many of his comments because the situation in the Middle East is so explosive.

Dean doesn't worry about that though. He only wants to inflict pain on the Bush administration. He sees no need to exercise any restraint or responsibility to keep from exacerbating the crisis.

Disgusting.

An AP report in The New York Sun provides a comprehensive account of the "bitter protests" that greeted the Iraqi Prime Minister on Wednesday.

Prime Minister al-Maliki of Iraq appealed to Congress yesterday to press the war in Iraq with money and troops, portraying his country as crucial to America as a front line in the war on terror and comparing violence there to the attacks of September 11, 2001.

Addressing a joint meeting of Congress, Mr. Maliki said, "Do not imagine that this problem is solely an Iraqi problem because the terrorist front represents a threat to all free countries and free people of the world."

Lawmakers in the House chamber gave him a warm welcome, but a number of Democrats stayed away, upset by Mr. Maliki's stance on another Middle East crisis: He has refused to criticize Hezbollah for its attacks on Israel.

...Democrats sharply criticized the prime minister for painting what they said was a "rosy" picture of Iraq and not condemning Hezbollah.

Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the no. 2 House Democrat, said not naming Hezbollah as a terrorist organization "adds ambivalence to his comments." Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, a Democrat of Florida, called Mr. Maliki's speech "disingenuous" because it did not acknowledge the violence in Iraq.

...Lawmakers who shunned the speech included Reps. Nita Lowey, a Democrat of New York, and Rosa DeLauro, a Democrat of Connecticut, and Senators Schumer, a Democrat of New York, and Boxer, a Democrat of California.

What a childish display!

These same people worship the terrorist-appeasing UN.

"I didn't attend because I feel strongly the U.S. Congress should not provide a platform for supporters of Hezbollah," Ms. Lowey said."If al-Maliki was wise, he might have requested a meeting with us."

That's no excuse to keep Maliki from addressing the Congress. The U.S. Congress provides a platform for supporters of terrorism all the time, such as whenever the Dem appeasers take the floor.

"I'd like to ask Maliki, when it comes to terrorism, which side is he on?" said Mr. Schumer, who had already criticized new Iraqi government over the suggestion that some insurgents who fired on American troops could ultimately be granted amnesty.

I'd like to ask Schumer, when it comes to terrorisim, which side is he on?

"If he can't denounce Hezbollah, which is a group that even the Saudis, Egyptians, and Jordanians don't like ... what kind of ally is this? I'm very upset about where Maliki is,"Mr. Schumer said.

I can relate to that. I'm very upset about where Schumer is.

Rep. Eliot Engel, a Democrat of New York, did attend the speech, but made a point of refusing to stand or applaud because the prime minister did not condemn Hezbollah's rocket attacks on Israel. "According to him, terrorism against Iraq was unacceptable and terrorism against Israel is fine," he said.

Do you think in addition to refusing to stand or applaud Engel had a scowl on his face, too? Did Engel hold his breath?

Again, very childish.

These Dems could use a time-out.

..."It makes me question what are we fighting for over there. Is it going to be enlightened leadership of Arab moderates, or the same old nonsense, replacing Saddam Hussein with some other unhelpful government?" Mr. Engel said.

Reps. Jerrold Nadler, a Democrat of Manhattan, Anthony Weiner, a Democrat of Queens, and Gary Ackerman, a Democrat of Queens, also stayed away.

"But the long-term here is that if you mollycoddle terrorists, you give them license to continue," Mr. Ackerman said. "A terrorist is a terrorist."

Suddenly, the Dems are concerned about Maliki mollycoddling terrorists.

What a joke!

They have spent years mollycoddling terrorists. Whether it's by attacking classified counterterrorism programs or whining about Gitmo, one of the Dems' main concerns has been the comfort of terrorists and undermining the Commander in Chief in the War on Terror.

It's extremely hypocritical to point fingers at Maliki when they engage in the same behavior.

And there was another bump in the road on the diplomatic front on Wednesday.

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) -- The U.N. Security Council failed to agree on a statement late on Wednesday condemning a deadly Israeli attack on a U.N. observer post in Lebanon after the United States blocked language that appeared critical of Israel.

During a daylong debate, council members made numerous changes to a text put forward by China, which lost one of the four officers killed in the attack.

Their patience ran out when Washington demanded the deletion of language condemning "any deliberate attack against U.N. personnel."

...China's initial draft called for an immediate end to the fighting in Lebanon and referred to the "apparently deliberate targeting" of the U.N. troops by Israel.

U.S. Ambassador John Bolton said there was no evidence the attack was deliberate, and Wang agreed to take out the two phrases at a very early stage.

Hours later, U.S. envoy Molly Phee said the United States wanted language deleted expressing the council's condemnation of "any deliberate attack against U.N. personnel."

I would hope that the U.S. would not sign on to a Security Council statement charging that Israel deliberately targeted UN personnel when there is no evidence to suggest that was the case.

Have Harry, Dick, and Chuck sent a letter to the UN expressing their disgust at the Security Council's baseless claim that Israel intentionally attacked a UN post?

Have Harry, Dick, and Chuck sent a letter insisting that the UN condemn Hezbollah's practice of using UN personnel as human shields?

No, because they're hypocrites.