Whatever. Here’s how seriously you should take her alleged outrage over Netanyahu’s “Bibi knows best” attitude. Back in 2007, while George W. Bush was warning people that Bashar Assad might not be the cuddly would-be “reformer” that Democrats like Hillary Clinton were convinced he was, one prominent liberal flew all the way to Damascus to sit down with Assad and pose for photos. Bush wanted to isolate him; the Democrat in question, convinced that she and her party knew best, had other ideas. Guess who.
I also like the idea here that when U.S. intelligence tells you something, you can go ahead and take it to the bank. This is coming from someone who became Speaker by exploiting voter frustration with the Iraq war.
“The unbreakable bonds between the United States and Israel are rooted in our shared values, our common ideals and mutual interests. Ours is a deep and abiding friendship that will always reach beyond party. Americans stand shoulder to shoulder with the Israeli people. The state of Israel stands as the greatest political achievement of the 20th century, and the United States will always have an unshakable commitment to Israel’s security.
“That is why, as one who values the U.S. – Israel relationship, and loves Israel, I was near tears throughout the Prime Minister’s speech – saddened by the insult to the intelligence of the United States as part of the P5 +1 nations, and saddened by the condescension toward our knowledge of the threat posed by Iran and our broader commitment to preventing nuclear proliferation.
“Today, Prime Minister Netanyahu reiterated something we all agree upon: a nuclear armed Iran is unacceptable to both our countries. We have all said that a bad deal is worse than no deal, and stopping the spread of nuclear weapons is the bedrock of our foreign policy and national security. As President Obama has said consistently, all options are on the table for preventing a nuclear-armed Iran.”
And yet, she went to Netanyahu’s speech today. How come? She had a tough call: Pander to liberals by boycotting Bibi and risk alienating the rest of America or pander to most of America by showing up and risk alienating liberals? She’s no ordinary member of Congress; as a former Speaker and current caucus leader, her decision would be noted. In the end she settled on a compromise — she’d attend the speech but act like an A-hole ostentatiously, in full view of the cameras, so that lefty idiots watching at home would know she was there essentially against her will. The Free Beacon has a nice post rounding up amazed reaction on Twitter at how petulantly Pelosi behaved. A taste:
Nancy Pelosi looks ENRAGED on the House floor. She shook her head and covered her eyes at one point.
— Jake Sherman (@JakeSherman) March 3, 2015
[email protected] has appeared distressed in body language and facial expressions for extended time during this speech.
— Kelly O'Donnell (@KellyO) March 3, 2015
“She also kept commenting to her seat-mate, House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), using forceful gestures,” noted The Hill. She’s been in Congress for nearly 30 years and served her first two years as Speaker alongside the left’s bete noire, the Bushitler, somehow without resorting to rage-driven “forceful gestures” during a major speech. This was a performance for lefties by an abject hypocrite on the idea of Congress undercutting the commander-in-chief’s hegemony over foreign policy. Don’t forget it as the crocodile tears keep “nearly” flowing.
To the extent there’s any honest impulse here, it’s this: Netanyahu showing up and telling the world that Obama’s deal stinks makes it impossible for Democrats to treat Republican opposition in the Senate as mindless wingnut obstructionism. That was always going to be a hard argument to make with Bibi knocking the deal from Tel Aviv. Knocking it in Washington, in front of Congress from the same lectern that Obama uses during the State of the Union, on national television, makes it a nonstarter.