Why are our Democrats not irate about civilian casualties? Puzzling.

[madfloridian]

I know they have to be careful in how they speak right now, they have to be very cautious. But talking about the civilians being killed and left without food and water and home would hardly be controversial. Why aren't they doing this? Are they afraid to do so? It worries me.

So far I see Pelosi has.

http://mydd.com/story/2006/7/23/185910/246

"House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi this past Wednesday pulled her co-sponsorship of a bipartisan resolution on the fighting between Israel and Hezbollah, because Republican House leaders refused to include language in the statement calling on all sides to minimize civilian casualties."

Good for her.

I see Dean mentioned civilian casualties in his latest statement to the JTA. I like the press release yesterday better as it blasted Bush for not negotiating with all parties. This one sounds different.

http://jta.org/page_view_breaking_story.asp?intid=3754

"Dean welcomed the news that President Bush is sending Condoleezza Rice, his secretary of state, to the region to address the crisis, but he called for “sustained diplomacy,” saying that Bush “has failed to substantively engage in the very difficult arena of Middle East peacemaking over the past six years.”

He also called “on all sides to do all they can to protect innocent civilian life.”

The rest of his statement sound just about like Kennedy's...that Hezbollah can not be allowed to continue in Southern Lebanon. Disappointed that all of them are not speaking out. I wonder why.

[Kagemusha]

1. Seriously? Because the dead in Lebanon are minute numbers

compared to the civilians that have died at the hands of US forces in Iraq over the last three years. Where's the moral high ground to go chewing out Israel for behaving like the US but on a much smaller scale?

[TomInTib]

3. Exactly. Chickenshit motherfucking Dems.

They would have to lift their collective skirt and show their panties that are stained with their votes.

No offense to women, here.

[joemurphy]

2. For fear of saying something and being proved wrong later,

they're saying nothing, and are morally wrong in the here and now.

[ladjf]

4. For the most part, Democrats aren't acting like a party that

opposes the Bush foreign policies as they relate to the current I/P/L crises.

[DELUSIONAL]

5. They are acting like a subset of the GOP

about some topics they will make a fuss -- but mostly they just fall in line.

I don't see a real healthy two party system in the US.

Any dissension is bashed down into passive yelps.

[madfloridian]

6. Here are some more statements. Puzzling about the civilians though.

I think the most likely explanation is that they are not sure enough of what is going on there in the way of casualties. The UN has spoken out pretty clearly though.

http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/Display_news.asp?section=World_News&subsection=Americas&month=July2006&file=World_News2006072395814.xml

"“The fact remains that the Bush administration has failed to substantially engage in the very difficult arena of Middle East peacemaking over the past six years,” Dean said. He urged the Republican administration to keep channels open with all regional players — despite its refusal to deal with either Syria or Iran — which it views as state sponsors of terror.

“Refusing to engage while talking tough and ignoring international problems is not a foreign policy. We must have a foreign policy that is both tough and smart,” said Dean.

He called for “direct negotiations with all the people of the Middle East.”

But two other top Democrats urged Bush on Friday to appoint a special Middle East envoy “of stature”— like he does with North Korea — because Rice’s trip would be short and include a minimal number of stops in the region.

“Given the high stakes involved, we are surprised to learn that Secretary Rice will stop only briefly in the region next week,” Senators Harry Reid and Joseph Biden wrote in an open letter to Bush.

“The United States needs someone of stature, who can speak on your behalf, who can begin to put the pieces of a political settlement together and who can dedicate the time on the ground in the region to achieve results,” the letter said."

[Sparkly]

9. Dean is right about multi-national engagement

Clark and Kucinich have said the same.

My *hunch* is (it's just a hunch, but a long-time hunch) that the administration wants Israel to provoke and then attack Iran.

Some time ago (a year or so?) Cheney made some statement about Iran's nukes, along the lines of: "If Israel were to feel threatened by Iran, why then, they'd have a perfect right to attack them and there's nothing we could do to stop it." (I'm paraphrasing.)

That set off alarms in my mind -- they WANT Israel to instigate a war with Iran.

Hezbollah is supported and controlled by Iran and Syria.

Here we go... I think this may be the start of the World War these asshats WANT.

[Reckon]

7. I guess you have to figure out

who is the puppet and who is the puppeteer.

[Sparkly]

8. I think it's about not wanting to be on the hook for those casualties...

Dean, per your link:

“The international community can no longer allow Hezbollah to terrorize Israelis as well as the people of Lebanon,” the chairman of the Democratic National Committee said in a statement on Friday. “Any resolution that leaves terrorists in place is unacceptable.”

It's hard to know what's going on, what's being targeted and why (or how/why Israel struck a convoy of Lebanese citizens as they fled)... But my guess is there's reluctance around civilian casualties because, apparently, Hezbollah has positioned their targets in civilian communities, even in homes... So nobody wants to be responsible for those.

"We weren't attacking civilians, just targets" but in attacking targets, they attacked civilians.

I don't know, just a guess why they're avoiding the issue...?

[madfloridian]

10. It is hard to know, I guess.

I just feel the pain of those civilians so deeply. I feel pain like that so much since we had the 3 hurricane eyes go right over us. I saw the helplessness, we had a neighbor die in his home most likely from fear and stress and heat with no power for days. I saw the grocery stores with no food, restaurants closed with food rotting.

I cry every time I think about them heading out with no food no water and nowhere to go.

It could happen anywhere.

No one is taking up for the civilians. They should.

[Sparkly]

12. There is a huge humanitarian crisis in this...

Apparently Israel has opened some chanels for aid to get through, but it's not enough...

The longer the fighting continues, the worse the consequences for civilians. And apparently it's getting very bad, very quickly.

[unkachuck]

11. puzzling....

....these were innocent women and children a few weeks ago, not harming anyone, trying to survive, now they're wasted....for what?

....where is the moral fortitude of our political leadship?...why no outrage at innocent civilian death with our weapons and concern for the dislocated?....why must they always be a rubber-stamp for israeli/repug policy?