Democrat Lantos Blocks Lebanon Aid
Sometimes even I am rendered speechless. You have to read the piece.
Lantos: No US aid to Lebanon unless UNIFIL patrols Syrian border
Hilary Leila Krieger, THE JERUSALEM POST Aug. 28, 2006
American aid to Lebanon should be held up until the country agrees to allow international forces to patrol its border with Syria, US Representative Tom Lantos of California said Sunday in Jerusalem.
Lantos, a Holocaust survivor on his 68th visit to Israel, also said he planned to file bipartisan legislation for Israel to receive reconstruction aid.
"It would be singularly unfair and inequitable in the wake of this disaster to have aid flow to one party, which basically allowed the provocation, but not to the other victims," he said. "Lebanon will get help from Europe, the Arab world and the United States. And unless the United States provides some aid to Israel, Israel will not receive aid."
Lantos, the ranking Democrat on the House International Relations Committee, wouldn't specify how much money would be under consideration.
He stressed that he would seek to prevent any funds going to Lebanon until it allowed for an expanded UNIFIL presence on the border.
"The international community must use all our available means to stiffen Lebanon's spine and convince the government of Lebanon to have the new UNIFIL troops deployed on the Syrian border in adequate numbers," he said. "To provide aid while allowing a porous Lebanon-Syria border will only invite the repetition of a Hizbullah attack in the future. Hizbullah must not be allowed to rearm."
US President George W. Bush has slated $230 million to be sent to Lebanon to help with rebuilding efforts.
Lantos was in Lebanon Saturday, where he met with the country's leaders.
He stressed that his aim was not to punish Lebanon, and called his hold on the legislation, which he can impose as the ranking Democrat on the International Relations Committee, "a friendly hold."
"No one wants to see that hold removed more than I do," he said. "But I am convinced that the government of Lebanon must take the necessary steps to make Lebanon a fully sovereign country."
Lantos noted that in 2001 he pressed for the US not to give aid to Lebanon as long as Hizbullah wasn't disarmed. He blasted the Bush administration for not implementing that policy, endorsed by both houses of Congress.
"At that time, the administration chose to sweep the problem under the carpet, and now the disaster has happened," he said. "I am convinced that, had my legislation been implemented, the tragedy of recent weeks could have been prevented, would have been prevented, and moreover, a thousand precious Lebanese and Israeli lives would have been saved."
Also this:
By Adam Entous
Sun Aug 27, 5:36 AM ET
A key U.S. legislator said in Israel on Sunday he would block aid President
George W. Bush promised Lebanon and free the funds only when Beirut agreed
to the deployment of international troops on the border with Syria.
"The international community must use all our available means to stiffen
Lebanon's spine and to convince the government of Lebanon to have the new
UNIFIL troops on the Syrian border in adequate numbers," said Tom Lantos,
the ranking Democrat on the U.S. House of Representatives' International
Relations Committee.
Lantos said he was putting a legislative hold on Bush's proposal to provide
$230 million in aid for Lebanon in the aftermath of the 34-day war between
Israel and Lebanese Hizbollah guerrillas.
As the top Democrat on the International Relations Committee, Lantos has
the power to hold up legislation.
"It is very much my hope that I will be able to lift the hold when the reasons will no longer be present," he said at Israel's Foreign Ministry,
where he met Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni after talks with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.
"My purpose is not to withhold aid from Lebanon, my purpose ... is to persuade the government of Lebanon that the closing of the Lebanon-Syria border to arms smuggling from Iran and Syria is in the prime national interest of Lebanon and the Lebanese people."
Syria has threatened to shut its border with Lebanon if U.N. troops deploy there. Israel says it will not lift a sea and air blockade of Lebanon unless a U.N. force helps ensure that no new weapons reach Hizbollah in the south.
In response to the dispute between Israel and Syria over the deployment,Lebanon undertook on Thursday to prevent smuggling.
The United Nations has approved an expanded force of up to 15,000 troops to beef up the 2,000-strong UNIFIL contingent that has been in south Lebanon since 1978.
The Lebanese government has estimated that the damage from the war will cost $3.6 billion to repair and Bush administration officials have
expressed concern that Hizbollah was gaining an early advantage in rebuilding shattered south Lebanon.
Lantos, from California, said he would introduce bipartisan legislation to provide more aid to Israel, which already receives more than $2 billion annually in assistance from the United States.
"Lebanon will get help from both Europe, the Arab world and the United States. Unless the United States provides some aid to Israel, Israel receives no aid," Lantos said.
He did not provide any estimate of how much money he would seek for Israel.
.
August 28, 2006 7:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
The beatings will continue until morale improves.
There's a guy that knows how to make friends (that he already has) and enemies (that he doesn't need).
August 28, 2006 8:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
They hate us for our freedoms. Our actions have nothing to do with it. Anyone who says otherwise is a lying, terrorist appeasing traitor.
Isreal first last and always.
August 28, 2006 8:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lantos is a fucking putz - always has been, always will be. He's only listed as a Democrat because in his district (part of San Francisco and down the Peninsula) he could never, ever, ever get elected as the Republican he obviously is. Same with DiFi.
August 28, 2006 9:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tom Lantos is a perfect example of the kind of American friend of Israel that she can no longer afford. Neither can we.
Here's a Lebanese response:
"It is out of the question to deploy UNIFIL along our borders with Syria," an aid for Siniora told The Daily Star.
"Lantos can say and do whatever he wants and Cabinet will only agree to deploy the troops if it sees there is a need to do so," he added.
Hizbullah politburo member Ahmad Malli said his party welcomes Lantos' position and said his party does not accept donations from the US.
"The US sponsored the Israeli aggression against Leb-anon. The children and the women were bombed and killed by American-made weapons. So we don't want any money from this criminal administration," Malli told The Daily Star.
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=2&article_id=75066
August 28, 2006 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Please welcome Tom Lantos, true friend of Iran and determined foe of the US.
The astute Tom Lantos saw right away that US aid to Lebanon was not meant to aid Lebanon but to aid the United States. After all, Hezbollah is getting all the credit for reconstruction and if the US stepped in it might end up with a share of the credit.
Ah, that's when Tom Lantos, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's true friend, steps in to STOP that nonsense.
Any move that might help the United States, Tom Lantos will kill!
Ok, the Likud may have AIPAC. Big deal! Mahmoud has some Tom Lantos!!!
August 28, 2006 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
One hopes for irony but finds what appears to be simple-mindedness.
August 28, 2006 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
ROTFL. Losing the war on terrorism, one corpse at a time.
August 28, 2006 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lantos was one of the schmucks making the argument -from the beginning- that Iraqis should be forced to pay for our invasion of their country.
August 28, 2006 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is surprising why?
August 28, 2006 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
With-holding aid is a milder manifestation of Olmert's and W's original rationale
for Isreal's assault on Lebanon:punishing an innocent party can force it to act against a guilty one.
While certainly not precisely identical , this verges uncomfortably on the collective punishment broadly condemned by "Just War" theoreticians ,at least when employed by those of whom we disapprove on other grounds (Nazis etc.). But of course actually a constant in history from Sparta to Dresden.
That ubiquitousness signals that like most principles it comes down to cases .
Some cases.
For me Isreal's attack on Hezbo launching sites was legitimate.Including attacks that , sadly ,created massive civilian casualties.
Its attacks on infrastructure were less defensible ( recall Rabbi Lerner's criticism of its attack on the Gaza Power station ) but provided they did not create direct casualties I put them into the pile of bad things that happen in wars .
Its attack on south Beirut was indefensible: the civilian casualties were disproportionate to the legitimate aim of damaging the Hezbo headquarters there .
On that scale , Lantos's proposal to blockade Lebanon into doing Isreal's work
is mean spirited but not even in the same ball park as our delay in supporting a peace resolution at the UN. And I do make
allowances for the fact that he is not only jewish but a Holocaust survivor.
August 28, 2006 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
On August 28, 2006 - 12:24pm just dave said:
"Lantos is a fucking putz - always has been, always will be"
This is what I like to see: an unvarnished Jew-hater--or maybe a Jewish self-hater-- free of cant and disingenuousness.
I sleep better knowing that fucking putz's like Tom Lantos will do their utmost to prevent another Holocaust that just dave in his malice--or ignorance--won't lose a moment's sleep over.
August 28, 2006 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
ROTFL. Oh this is rich. Explain to me how screwing Lebanon over on aid and handing the ball game over to Hezbollah, Syria and Lebanon is going to prevent another Holocaust?
I'm not getting it here. Y'figure that imposing a condition on Lebanon that neither the Lebanese nor Syrians will accept, and which was not part of the UN ceasefire, is going to advance America's interests.
And y'figure that witholding aid from innocent civilians, widows, orphans, people who have lost home and jobs, is going to advance Israel's interests.
Seems to me that given the chintzy amount of aid that the U.S. was willing to contribute. And given the tendency of American aid to find its way into Halliburton's pockets... you guys got no leverage at all.
You just hand the game over to Iran. Iran rebuilds Lebanon, Hezbollah and company are even deeper into Iran's pockets. The American flag is nowhere to be found. And the Democratic peoples of Lebanon offer up the big middle finger to America in their next election.
Oh yeah, it don't get better than this.
All of this for a 'principle' that wouldn't even make a dent in the problem, since smuggling in that part of the world is an art form. Why the tribemen who couldn't smuggle a Katyusha missile concealed cunningly under a camel's testicles across one of the thousands of unguarded goat trails on the border would get be forced to turn in his velcro prayer matt!
Yep, Senator Lando has spent too much time in the cloud city, he no longer knows up from down.
August 28, 2006 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I almost like this move because it makes the hawks look so desperate and contemptible.
After getting the crap pounded out of them for a few weeks by Israeli military forces, fully aided and abetted by a United States government running diplomatic interference and rushing the Israelis weapons, the Lebanese finally managed to get a cease-fire resolution that, strangely enough, gives the actual Lebanese government the final say over the deployment of forces on their own territory.
Now Lantos and friends are pulling their hair out over the fact that the Lebanese apparently have no intention of treating that resolution as a set of instructions for fulfilling all the fondest US and Israeli hopes in Lebanon, or for turning themselves into a proxy force for the destroyers of their own country and the butchers of their own people.
I fully expect Lantos to propose next a Lebanese Accountability Act, imposing sanctions on Lebanon until they manage to change their government back from an evil fledgling democracy into a reponsibly authoritarian US stoogeship.
Or even better: let us have the Lebanon War Reparations Act, demanding that the Lebanese pay for their own shellacking, and reimburse the US treasury for the costs of the many US munitions dropped upon their country in the recent hostilities, and for massive purchases of cotton balls - the ones that were stuffed in the ears of US diplomats for a month, so that they wouldn't be troubled or confused by the sounds of exploding bombs, collapsing buildings and Lebanese tears.
August 28, 2006 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the annals of posturing this deserves but a footnote.
I would not that 230 million dollars that would include some unspecified amount of American surpluss commodities was not such a princely sum anyway, and as we are at it, why not make Lebanon completely dependent on Syria for her trade and on Iran for financial aid?
Mind you, the notion of "legislative hold" in the House is utterly ridiculous, House is run like a dictatorship of a narrow group of Republican leaders. Were they so inclined, they would overrule Lantos in less time than we need to look up the first name of the worthy Congressman on Google. And was W so inclined, he would make it so.
It makes me wonder, however. Both the blockade, and the paltry aid that W does not insist on looked kind of peevish.
Sage: This is what I like to see: an unvarnished Jew-hater--or maybe a Jewish self-hater-- free of cant and disingenuousness.
I sleep better knowing that fucking putz's like Tom Lantos will do their utmost to prevent another Holocaust that just dave in his malice--or ignorance--won't lose a moment's sleep over.
Sage, can you explain the chain of cause and effect between the heroic hold that brave Lantos imposed on non-resisting Republicans and averting a Holocaust?
I am thinking about a new chapter in my book
How to Binge Drink Responsibly
and other sage advise
For People from All Walks of Life
38. Saving humanity through peevish posturing
August 28, 2006 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now now.
Tom is too making new friends. In Libya. So is Arlen Specter:
8/24/06
"The Director of the Americas Department at the Libyan general people`s committee for external relations and the chargé d`affaires of the US Embassy in Libya took part in this meeting during which both sides also reviewed the means to consolidate relations between the Libyan CGP Secretariat and the US Senate.
It is also indicated that the vice-president of the US Congress foreign affairs committee, Tom Lantos, arrived Tuesday in Tripoli for a visit whose duration was not immediately specified."
http://www.angolapress-angop.ao/noticia-e.asp?ID=466023
8/27/06:
"In a separate development, Gaddafi received separately two visiting American lawmakers, Republican Arlen Specter, chairman of the Legal Committee of the Congress, and Democrat Tom Lantos, vice-chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Libya sources said Specter commended Gaddafi's insight on international affairs, while Lantos, also praised his initiatives on world peace, security and stability.
The two Congressmen expressed their country's desire to strengthen relations with Libya.
The Secretary for External Affairs at the Libyan General People's Congress, Souleiman Chehaoumi attended the meetings."
http://northafrica.andnetwork.com/index?service=direct/1/Home/top.titleStory&sp=l50837
...........
Nice to know our elected represenatives are advising a former terrorist
on how best to negotiate their respective territories on the Hill.
SOS
August 29, 2006 12:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll agree that the Israeli attacks on the Hezbollah weapons and their sites was a legitimate defensive move. While Israel is taking a lot of heat over the extent of the attack on Lebanon in general, their main stated goal was to eliminate the arms the Hezbollah was using on Northern Isreal.
Lantos' hold on the funds cannot be effective unless the Republican leadership makes it work, but his statement certainly focuses attention on the willingness of Syria to let Iranian weapons through their country and across that Syrian - Lebonese border to rearm Hezbollah. All he is doing is highlighting that weakness in the Ceasefire. Since I thought one of the goals of the cease fire was to keep Hezbollah from rearming and to have the Lebonese military to disarm Hezbollah, all that Tom Lantos was doing was exposing a major weakness in the cease-fire.
It's one small part of the cease-fire, but failure to stop the weapons from crossing that Syrian - Lebanonese border and resupplying the Hezbollah will be the major source of the next big battle in Southern Lebanon. Lantos is merely exposing that weakness in the ceasefire.
Other than that and the fact that his statement is not a Rah - Rah - Sis Boom Bah cheerleader support of no more shooting right now, what's wrong with what Lantos said?
August 29, 2006 4:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
10) Because it makes Americans look like a pack of nickle and diming dickwads? Which apparently they are.
9) Because it would be absolutely ineffective? Which it is.
8) Because it would drive Lebanon further into Iran/Syria/Hezbollah? Which its doing.
7) Because its holding innocent victims who need help, hostage to knee jerk politics? Which is what it is, and is atrociously.
6) Because this sort of petty jerking gives America an even bigger black eye among Muslims? Which is merely true.
5) Because this sort of stunt is nothing more or less than shitting into the mouth of the community of Lebanese-Americans? Which is also true.
4) Y'know, try to imagine the US holding Disaster Relief aid hostage after the Tsunami until Indonesia opens up diplomatic relations with Israel.
3) Better yet, try to imagine Arab countries emergency foreign aid to America (remember New Orleans? I bet you do, America was a major recipient of tons of foreign aid, including from Arab states) being made contingent on releasing everyone in Guanatanamo Bay.
2) Is there anywhere a notion so obviously stupid and bankrupt that at least a few self-appointed 'progressive-Americans' won't support it? I'm getting curious.
1) Some things are so simply and obviously stupid, it amazes me that we are discussing this at all. Its offensive.
So just pick one. Hell, pick as many as you want. Pick em all.
August 29, 2006 6:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
I pick them all.
But also think the response to Lantos is a bit over the top. He didn't suggest machine gunning shiite children , he suggested withholding the already inadequate aid we promised but probably never really intended to deliver.( Like Saki's aunt who never actually took the children anywhere but when they misbehaved told them that now they couldn't go to circus to which she'd been intending to take them .)
August 29, 2006 6:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't Rep. Tom Lantos the congressman who had the Kuwaiti ambassador's daughter pretend to be a Kuwaiti hospital worker in 1990? She testified before his Congressional committee that she saw Iraqi soldiers toss Kuwaiti babies out of incubators which was an abject and total lie.
Rep. Lantos is a liar who used dead babies to drum up support for the first Iraq war. He knew who the Kuwaiti ambassador' daughter was when she testified. Then again, so did everyone else in Washington DC in 1990 including then President George W. Bush and Secretary of State James A. Baker III.
August 29, 2006 7:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Matt said
"Bush's new plan to control federal spending -- delay federal payments 'till October when they'll count as part of a different fiscal year. Amateurish and insulting.
-- Matthew Yglesias"
over at the mothersite.
Any connection?
August 29, 2006 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's a good assesment of Hezbollah's gains and potential losses here:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3572
What's wrong with Lantos' insulting orders and empty threats to Lebanon can be illustrated by this comment from the article cited above:
"What’s more, Lebanon’s pro-Western elite feels abandoned by the United States and will struggle to maintain a pro-Western line"
Lantos shoving yet another stupidly vicious bit of collective punishment through congress will only further weaken the position of the Lebanese "pro-Western elites" . If that's your goal, then by all means, cheer him on.
Speaking of posturing, Olmert's reaction to Nassrallah's recent comments has got to be one of the funniest examples of faux macho yet:
"I wasn't impressed by him when he mocked us, and not by his regret speech ," said the prime minister.
"The fact is that I'm walking around in Kiryat Shmona, Safed, and Rosh Hahutzot, and Nasrallah is hiding in the bunker. He's not coming out and he knows nothing is waiting for him outside of the bunker. Two weeks after the war, I'm the one who is approving takeoffs and landings in Beirut, and this shows you that something happened here," said Olmert.
"This arrogant leader stooped in front of the whole world and said that he wouldn't have started the war in hindsight. You can't call that a victory speech," the prime minister said."
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3297149,00.html
I'm sure Bush would be happy to lend his flightsuit tailor to Olmert. A well-designed suit with a suggestion of epaulets might make his strutting and crowing more credible.
One Israeli wag is suggesting (in Haaretz) that Israel elect Nasrallah as their new PM.
August 29, 2006 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink