Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) held a meeting with senior members of Congress on Wednesday evening to try to come to a consensus on how to respond to criticism of one of the most freshmen members of her caucus, Politico reported.
Torn, Pelosi is reportedly concerned that if she is too hard on Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) over comments that have been criticized as anti-Semitic she will risk dividing the caucus. If she’s too soft on Omar, she’ll anger Jewish lawmakers and outside allies who are bothered by Omar’s claims that pro-Israel advocates have an “allegiance to a foreign country.”
The meeting on Wednesday ended with no set decision on what to do about a resolution condemning anti-Semitism that was originally set for vote Wednesday and got postponed to Thursday.
Here’s an appropriate and strategic response to being offended. Then move on; life is really too short.
Well, Nancy, this is why we pay you the big bucks.
But seriously, is there a pro-Britain caucus? A pro-France caucus? Why the hell should there be a pro-Israel caucus?
Oh yeah, religion; but then there is that church-state separation thing, isn’t there?
Just drop it–Nancy and TPM alike. Let it die on the vine. Trump just tore up Reagan’s nuclear arms treaty with Russia in order to let Russia build weapons to threaten Europe. The country is going bankrupt. Babies are in cages. We have a national emergency that is itself a national emergency. Nothing is being done by Congress about climate change–nothing. Nobody will give a crap about this story in a week, nor should they. Dems need to stop wringing their hands, use the news torrent to their advantage, and move on. There is no fallout here.
Is there a pro-Britain caucus? Maybe not, but the Special Relationship obviates the need for one. The US and France have been allies for more than two centuries, except for a couple of years in the 1790s. And when Britain and France were threatened, we came to their aid (eventually). Not to mention the help in rebuilding after WWII.
There is a pro-Israel caucus (actually, I don’'t think there is one, formally), because Israel is threatened, and has been for more than 70 years. Not just by threats to nibble at its borders (although being such a small nation, it could hardly survive much nibbling), but to its every existence. Hamas and Hezbollah, Iran and al Qaeda all deny the right of Israel to be. And they show now sign of being squeamish about what happens to any Israeli who begs to differ.
I hold no brief for Israeli policy toward Palestinians over the past 20 years (although Israel did withdraw unconditionally from Gaza, only to be faced with a deadly enemy there), but disagreeing with policy is consistent with defending Israel’s right to exist.
The comments weren’t anti-Semitic, so if reality is a factor she should lay off.