So, US Democrats are outraged at Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's opposition to the Israeli bombing of Lebanon, asking "which side is he on in the war on terror?" The answer is his peoples'; al-Maliki is accurately representing the views of his electorate, who like the Lebanese have firsthand experience of what it is like to be pulverised by American-made bombs and artillery shells and collectively punished by an occupying army for the actions of a few among them (see Fallujah). Those US Senators are responding to their electorates too, but the stakes are rather higher for al-Maliki. If Harry Reid or Dick Durbin annoy their voters, then given the benefits of incumbency in the US political system, the worst they'll have to do is raise some more cash to buy some more attack spots whenever they're next up for re-election. Wheras al-Maliki could literally find himself strung up as a collaborator.
Of course, the US didn't spend billions of dollars and 2,500 American lives to have an Iraqi leader who represents his electorate - and one of the Senators is even explicit about it:
"Part of the reason that America was sold on Iraq was to have a staunch ally in the region -- a democratic ally that would back our policies," Schumer said.
Well, it looks like the Iraqis don't want to be the US's clients and faithfully spout the party line whenever America wants them to. So what is the US going to do about it? Bomb them?