What can the Middle East Subcommittee members, eager to be informed by the real experts, expect to hear from Pipes? His Middle East Foundation is closely linked to the AEI and the same stable of characters who brought you the war in Iraq, are beating the drums for a war with Iran, and have stubbornly sought to block any efforts at resuming Israeli-Arab peace making.

So in other words, he floats comfortably in the channel of the bipartisan US Congressional mainstream. No wonder they invited him.

By now everyone should know what a lying demagogue Daniel Pipes is.  His only enemy in the "Great War on Terror" is his liberal bogeyman.

New York Post, Sept 3, 2003, Pipes wrote.

It was primarily conservatives in the European Parliament who pushed for a parliamentary committee of inquiry into the possible misuse of the European Union's monthly 10-million stipend to the Palestinian Authority for support of terrorism.

Unless Pipes genuinely believes that conservatives lead the French Socialist Party, the Belgian Liberal Party, and the German United Left Party (Ilka Schroeder actually quit the Greens before his writing), then Pipes is certainly lying, because, it was in fact....

"...European Parliamentarians led by Francois Zimeray (Socialist Party, France), Ilka Schroeder (Green Party, Germany), and Willy de Clercq (Liberal Party, Belgium) who are spearheading the effort to stop the misuse of EU grants to the Palestinians."

Pipes goes on to reject unilateralism, territorial compromise, peace through economic rehabilitation, peace through democracy, and even transfer (!) as all being insufficiently conclusive Israeli victories for his liking.

If Pipes thinks that expulsion would be "insufficiently conclusive", what would satisfy him? Genocide?

Thanks, Daniel. I guess Ackerman never heard of Ziad Asali and the American Task Force on Palestine or Jim Zogby at the ADC or Shibley Telhami at the University of Maryland or the author Clayton (not Clanton) Swisher, any of whom could provide balace. Or you. Or me. Or Lara Friedman and Debra DeLee at APN.
This is a kangaroo court (no slight to Australian Indyk).

I'm no expert in these matters but if madison1776 and Mark Weinberg's statements of fact and criticisms are accurate, it rather looks as if Daniel Levy's gentlemanly outrage is even less sufficient to the task of exposing the intentions of those holding the hearings than it might, on a surface reading, appear to be.

Were I AIPAC I'd be pleased. Cover from useful idiots, especially from those who give the appearance of being critical, is always a gift horse whose mouth is not to be too closely inspected.

How could the Middle East Subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee hold an open hearing on “next steps in the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process" with only Jews on the panel? The deck is stacked against the Palestinians before the hearing convenes.

Man, believe people this stuff. Not many. 67% of Americans want out and we're getting out.
But how many of our soldiers have to die first?
Question. Does anyone know if Bush ever visits the wounded?
Does he see the results of this monstrous war, the war that accomplished nothing except to make Iran the regional hegemon.

The Washington Times put it best in an editorial this morning:

“[T]here is no serious way to square ‘support for the troops’ with a vote for a resolution that expresses contempt for what the troops are attempting to achieve in Iraq. Any such resolution is step one of a multi-step process aimed at ensuring that U.S. troops are withdrawn from Iraq in failure.”

The Democrat Congress is fully invested in America's failure. Imagine how bad they will look if the troops succeed in their mission.

Oddly, there is still no announcement of this hearing on the site of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and the page of the Middle East Subcommittee also says there are no hearings scheduled. How can that be, when other hearings are scheduled, and with a lot more advanced notice? I thought this was an open meeting, so it seems it ought to be noted ahead of time on the site, especially since the memo that MJ posted in the other thread was dated February 9; there's been plenty of time since then to notice it.

Is the press aware of this meeting?

And MJ, although the idea of House Resolution 143 (urging the President to appoint a Special Envoy for Middle East Peace) is appealing in theory, isn't it entirely possible - likely even - that the person Bush would appoint would be as bad as Pipes himself? I mean, it's unlikely to be President Carter after all, and Bush doesn't exactly have a record of making wise appointments. Isn't there a danger in lurking in Resolution 143? 

Politics is the art of preventing people from taking part in affairs which properly concern them. --Paul Valery

Hmmm...but what do you think of the topic of this thread, which is the composition of the panel that's been selected to speak at the House Foreign Affairs, Middle East Subcommittee hearing about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

Just for clarity, although I disagree with the premises of your post, I downrated it not because of that, but because it is completely OT in this thread.

Politics is the art of preventing people from taking part in affairs which properly concern them. --Paul Valery

Mission Accomplished.

Mr. Kiwi von Huber (hee):

You talk so tough. Very impressive. Good at jibing (Democrat Party and all). You've got the whole anti-dem thing going dude. You're down with that.

Now, at TPM we joust and all but we try once and awhile to make points. And your point Mr. Kiwi von Huber (hee)? Kindly explain how we attain victory in Iraq. You and those with whom you march in step have spoken of victory for close to four years now. And while you're at it, tell us about what "victory" looks like in Iraq Mr. Kiwi von Huber (hee). I just keep seeing more dead American boys and girls. And I keep seeing people like you speak about "victory" as if it need not be defined, and need not be attained (as long as you say you're for it, and all us Democrats (correct there) are allegedly against it or something).

Yes, Mr. Kiwi von Huber (hee), you write well. Lots of people write well. And our brave sons and daughters perish as you write and as you mock those of us who want to move on and address real issues at home and abroad.

Keep chiding Mr. Kiwi von Huber (no hee). Write away. The Democrats and Republicans who stormed the beaches at Normandy assured that you, sir, could keep writing.

...the Democrat Congress....

Unoriginal Bushevik automaton.

Amen

One of the most effective tools of trolls is thread kidnapping.  We all need to develop resistance to biting on the lure, no matter how attractive it looks. 

aMike

They do support themselves, in the context mentioned here, although there have been cases where they were not supported in other ways. I'm in regular contact with soldiers now there, and coming and going. On a private mailing list, no one objects to people criticizing the policies that put troops in Iraq, as long as those criticisms are substantive rather than emotional.

One thing we have learned from Vietnam is when to criticize the uniformed executors of policy, and the civilian makers of policy (a paraphrase of Harry Summers).

The areas where they have not been supported is in policies that put them into no-win situations, and, to some extent, not getting the tools they needed to protect themselves and to operate in the particular environment -- the latter includes things as simple as lots and lots of skin moisturizer. That isn't a luxury when not using it lets your skin crack and bleed.

Unfortunately, the armor (both personal and vehicle) problem was ignored long enough by DoD that when it broke, it got MSM oversimplification. Very experienced soldiers make mission-specific decision if the protection of armor is more important than lighter weight, and the consequent greater agility and resistance to heat exhaustion.

I will say that as long as we are preparing Iraqi security forces, especially that will work jointly, basic respect means that they get comparable protection and tools. I remember seeing one vehicle-borne joint patrol going out, with the US troops in Bradley fighting vehicles and the Iraqis in buses and pickup trucks. For some reason, the Iraqis are in love with pink pickups, which doesn't help concealment. Still, people that will swallow being second-class as far as protection, and still go out, deserve respect.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

I have something worse.

1. Quietly and calmly open up your laptop case.
2. Remove your laptop.
3. Turn it on.
4. Make sure the guy who won't leave you alone can see the screen.
5. Open this email.
6. Close your eyes and tilt your head up to the sky.
7. Then hit this ">http://www.thecleverest.com/countdown.swf>link

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

A friend told me he knew a fellow that wanted to hunt from his hilltop Missouri home, so he acquired a Barrett .50. When he tried it out he didn't want to upset the neighbors (a mile away) so he set up inside the house, shooting through the open window.

As you would likely guess, some windows didn't survive the shockwave.

At the end of WWII, my uncle was a radio operator in a unit scheduled for the invasion of Japan. They were on live-fire maneuvers, and were getting "friendly fire" on the command post.

When Uncle Bill couldn't reach the aircraft on radio, his bright idea was to fire a 2.36" bazooka in the general direction of the plane. For those who have never seen one, it's an antitank, mostly, rocket launcher, maybe 5 feet long, fired from the shoulder. When fired, smoke and flame shoots from the back of the launcher tube. Standard rule: never stand behind one being fired.

The rocket blast, as he aimed the tube more or less straight up, bounced off the ground. While I think it's more probable the plane saw the smoke cloud, Bill always claimed it was when they saw his flaming trousers sail by.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Doubtless not original with me, but maybe we should start calling them the Publican Party -- as in Sinners, Publicans, and Tax Collectors.  Mark 2:13-16

Chairman Lantos is a senile old geezer who is a human rights advocate except when the human rights violators are Israelis. An utter and complete hypocrite.

My favorite Lantos story.

Published on Friday, May 5, 2000 in the Boston Globe
Profile In Arrogance:
Congressman Tom Lantos Vs
Injured 13-Year Old Boy
by Susan Milligan

WASHINGTON - The wheels of government were turning slowly, as ever, on Wednesday when one of them rolled right over 13-year-old Owen Sanderson's left foot.

Sanderson and his eighth-grade classmates from the Florence Sawyer School in Bolton, Mass., were crossing the plaza in front of the US Capitol when a California congressman drove over the boy's foot, then left the scene without leaving his car to see whether the boy was hurt, witnesses said yesterday.

Representative Tom Lantos was driving slowly and caught the youth's foot under his right front tire, sending the boy to the pavement screaming in pain, the boy and his teachers said in interviews.

But while several horrified teachers and the principal shouted at Lantos to stop, the California Democrat from San Mateo sat rigidly, staring straight ahead and refusing to get out of his white Ford Taurus, which carried US Congress plates, the witnesses said.

''The first thing I heard was Owen screaming,'' said Ken Tucker, principal of the Worcester-area school. ''Owen's foot was pinned under the car.''

Lantos, 72, finally reversed slightly, freeing Owen's foot and ankle, and drove off without checking on Owen's condition, said Tucker and several teachers.

Lantos paid a $25 fine after being issued a ticket for ''failure to pay full time and attention,'' said Lieutenant Dan Nichols, spokesman for the Capitol Police, adding that the investigation is closed.

Lantos said he had no idea the boy had been hurt.

''I was driving to my office. ... There was a typical spring mob of tourists and kids and so on,'' Lantos said yesterday in an interview. ''One of the kids, horsing around, not looking or something, jumped in front of the car, stumbled, then got up and walked away.''

Lantos said he was then ushered forward by a Capitol Police officer, and he drove off - thinking nothing had happened. Learning yesterday that the boy had been injured, Lantos said he would invite Owen's parents to Washington for lunch.

The boy is now in a cast and using a wheelchair. Owen's X-rays show no broken bones, but there is a danger that his growth plate - the part of the bone involved in the growth of his leg - could have been damaged, said the school nurse, Darlene Perkins, who is on the trip.

Doctors at Children's Hospital in Washington said Owen must undergo new X-rays in seven to 10 days to determine if serious damage was done. The boy, who ski races and plays soccer, could be in an air cast - a type of plastic brace - for four to six weeks, said art teacher Joyce Malin, who accompanied Owen to the hospital.

Owen said he was walking across the crosswalk toward the Capitol steps about 9 a.m. Wednesday, when ''I remember a car creeping slowly toward me, and then I fell down.

''I felt a grab on my ankle and my left leg, and I just fell,'' Owen said, sitting at the food court in Union Station, where the class was dining yesterday after a morning visit to the Washington Monument and Museum of American History.

''I was trying to push the car off me and it wouldn't move. It hurt really bad when it was under the wheel,'' Owen said.

The boy, slender and red-haired with a shy smile, said he does not harbor bad feelings toward Lantos or his wife Annette, who was a passenger in the car.

''I'm not really mad at them,'' Owen said. But ''it's disappointing that they didn't get out and say, `Are you OK?' I just feel bad he didn't call to apologize.''

Owen's teachers and principal, however, are dismayed at what they see as insensitivity and arrogance by a government official.

''If he had stopped and spoken to us, we would have had a much different response to this,'' said Malin, the art teacher. ''It's called human decency.''

''With kids, there's this sense of fairness,'' said Steven Grant, a math and science teacher. ''We try to teach them about accountability.''

Youngsters ''learn too often in life that if you have money and power, you're above the law,'' said Perkins, the school nurse. ''That's not the way it's supposed to be.''

Reached in Bolton, Owen's mother, Dee Sanderson, declined to comment on the episode other than to say she was pleased with the response of the teachers and principal.

The students were on their way to hear their local representative, Martin Meehan, a Lowell Democrat, give an informal chat about government on the House steps.

Meehan said he did not witness the event. ''I heard a commotion, so I went over,'' he said. Then Meehan realized Owen was part of the class he was supposed to address.

''Owen's a great kid, very courageous,'' Meehan said, declining to comment on his colleague, Lantos.

The teachers, Tucker, and the tour guide disputed Lantos's assertion that he did not know Owen was hurt. Lantos ''was asked several times to get out of the car by myself and the teachers,'' Tucker said. ''He was told, `You hit a kid and you need to stop.'

''He was trying to drive through a crowd of kids, was what he was doing. Why or how, I don't know,'' Tucker said. ''He didn't roll down his window. He made no offer to get out of the car.''

Laura Friend, an English teacher who was among those chaperoning the 68 students, said she raced toward the Taurus and screamed at Lantos through a half-open window.

''I was saying, `Stop, stop, stop! Back up, back up, back up!' He didn't look at me. He didn't even take his hands off the wheel or anything,'' Friend said.

Tour guide Bob McManus said, ''I don't think he even turned his head. It's appalling. You couldn't believe your eyes.''

When it appeared Lantos might not stop, Tucker said, he stepped in front of the car. A Capitol Police officer twice told the principal to move out of the way or he would be arrested, Tucker and several teachers recounted.

''The officer said, `Look at his license plates. He's a congressman. If we need to get in touch with him, we can find him if need be,''' Friend recalled.

Nichols, of the Capitol Police, said there was a ''misunderstanding'' between Lantos and the officer. Lantos thought he was being waved on to continue to his office, but the officer was only urging him to come forward out of the crowd, where he could stop more safely, Nichols said.

Owen, along with his schoolmates and teachers, gave extensive reports to the Capitol Police. But the youth said he is more concerned with ''getting this cast off'' than getting into a dispute with Lantos. ''I know it was an accident,'' Owen said. ''Maybe next time he should apologize. It would be a nice thing.''

Kiwi von Huber,

If it is true that our Armed Forces "have not been allowed to conduct the war to the fullest of our capability," then why is the plan to increase troop levels only to where they once were?  And if "victory" really depends on sacrifice and the price of peace is so high, then why isn't our Commander in Chief demanding anything more from us than to do more shopping and "leave the driving to us" (namely, the GOP)?  Sorry, but your argument sounds as genuinely urgent as an old "Rambo" script.

I admire your son's service, and I would tell him that directly or in writing any day of the week. God bless him and I hope he and his comrades return home safely.

Now, on the other hand, I do not admire your son's Dad's penchant for questioning the patriotism of his fellow Americans. I don't admire that at all. Loathe it in fact. And I would say that "to your face" (your choice of words), just as I have done so in my plain, articulate and unambiguous prose.

My son was graduated from the Naval Academy, received his PhD and Masters from University of California, San Diego (SIO), was a nationally ranked swimmer and now commands over 100 special ops forces.

You don't need to "explain" to his face about people like you who benefit from America but do everything in their power to embolden the enemy and secure our troops' defeat.

He fully understands you and your efforts to subvert his mission.

If we are unable to prosecute a war conocomitant with discussion in Congress, tough. That's our system. We don't shut down politics for the sake of preserving the illusions of a random sergeant.

Special Ops guys would be very unlikely to to give a damn about politics at home, my guess. I'd be pleased to debate the question with the referenced son-in-arms.