Pelosi Diplomacy: Legitimizing Terrorism
When Democrat Presidential candidates Clinton, Obama and Edwards dropped out of the Congressional Black Caucus Institute debate that was going to be co-sponsored by Fox News, many liberals crowed over the decision. It is their contention that Fox News is an "illegitimate" news source (or a "propaganda machine," or not even a news outlet at all. Someone should tell Nielsen), and that if these candidates had answered the questions provided by the CBCI in a televised debate on Fox News, it would "legitimize" the network.
Their central argument seems to be that if these Democrat candidates appeared on Fox, that their very presence would legitimize the news network. Using that same logic, what then, should they make of this?Pelosi has already been hammered for undermining U.S. foreign policy and possibly committing a felony when she visited Syrian President Bashir Assad, leader of a Baathist dictatorship that serves as a conduit for weapons bound for terror groups Hezbollah and Hamas, and is a regime that is implicated in the assassination of Lebanon's former prime minister. Not content with botching her last and possibly illegal attempt to create her own foreign policy separate from that of the official position of the United States, Pelosi seems open to the idea of visiting Iran, a brutal mullacracy that provides munitions and training to terrorist groups, whose officials will be indicted for murder, a regime that has conclusively shipped a significant quantity of weapons into Iraq that have killed American soldiers. Apparently, the double standard is this: Liberals are solidly behind the idea of boycotting a news network to avoid giving them legitimacy, but they are in favor of defying their own government's foreign policy to lend legitimacy to yet another terrorist state that has sponsored attacks on our allies and are actively engaged in trying to kill U.S. soldiers.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Tom Lantos, D-San Mateo, just back from a trip to Syria that sparked sharp criticism from Republicans and the Bush administration, suggested Tuesday that they may be interested in taking another diplomatic trip - to open a dialogue with Iran. The Democratic speaker from San Francisco and Lantos, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, were asked at a press conference in San Francisco Tuesday whether on the heels of their recent trip to the Middle East they would be interested in extending their diplomacy in the troubled region with a visit to Iran. "Speaking just for myself, I would be ready to get on a plane tomorrow morning, because however objectionable, unfair and inaccurate many of (Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's) statements are, it is important that we have a dialogue with him,'' Lantos said. "Speaking for myself, I'm ready to go -- and knowing the speaker, I think that she might be.'' Pelosi did not dispute that statement, and noted that Lantos -- a Hungarian-born survivor of the Holocaust -- brought "great experience, knowledge and judgment" to the recent bipartisan congressional delegation trip to Israel, the Palestinian territories, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia in addition to Syria.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:03 AM
Comments
1
Correct me if I'm wrong. Current policy is NOT to negotiate with terrorist entities in the event of a hostage situation? If so I encourage her to go.
Posted by: Boss429 at April 11, 2007 09:31 AM (a+Mxg)
2
For the record, I'm a liberal and I think all those candidates should go on Fox. Otherwise they're just gutless punks, much like a certain Commander in Chief and his manufactured town meetings.
I also think we should talk to our enemies, just as the Iraq Study Group suggested. Otherwise you have the Paris Hilton/Nicole Richie foreign policy that is working out so well for this administration.
More to the point, this is all last week's outrage. We've moved on to Don Imus' gaffe - this morning on MSNBC and Anna Nicole's baby's daddy - this morning on Fox. I don't know what was on CNN but I'm going to guess it was something equally vacuous.
I also think we should talk to our enemies, just as the Iraq Study Group suggested. Otherwise you have the Paris Hilton/Nicole Richie foreign policy that is working out so well for this administration.
More to the point, this is all last week's outrage. We've moved on to Don Imus' gaffe - this morning on MSNBC and Anna Nicole's baby's daddy - this morning on Fox. I don't know what was on CNN but I'm going to guess it was something equally vacuous.
Posted by: David Terrenoire at April 11, 2007 09:36 AM (kxecL)
3
The reason Dems shouldn't go on FOX is not because it might legitamize FOX as a news organization (they're politicians, not miracle workers), it's because it's a waste of their time.
If they wanted to go into a hostile environment, they could just go to Iraq.
BTW, nice job on that Iraq War. Now the whole world knows if you mess with America, we'll send our military over to lose a war to your teenagers.
If they wanted to go into a hostile environment, they could just go to Iraq.
BTW, nice job on that Iraq War. Now the whole world knows if you mess with America, we'll send our military over to lose a war to your teenagers.
Posted by: Robert at April 11, 2007 12:35 PM (VTtVl)
4
If Ms Pelosi did indeed commit a felony stop carping about it and CHARGE her. Apparently Mr Bush did not have any prior knowledge of her trip or did he?
Personally I would love to see the results of a Logan Act charge against the House speaker, so go ahead we dare you do it.
As to a dialog, with our enemies we know only wusses like the Brits talk first and shoot later or not at all.
Fox nooz is as any good Republic will tell the word of God spoken though Bill O'Reilly and God really does want to see Iran enveloped by a mushroom cloud ask Bill himself, the voices tell him it is so
Personally I would love to see the results of a Logan Act charge against the House speaker, so go ahead we dare you do it.
As to a dialog, with our enemies we know only wusses like the Brits talk first and shoot later or not at all.
Fox nooz is as any good Republic will tell the word of God spoken though Bill O'Reilly and God really does want to see Iran enveloped by a mushroom cloud ask Bill himself, the voices tell him it is so
Posted by: patx77 at April 11, 2007 12:57 PM (2kVOV)
5
first off...fox is not a news network by any definition.
second...you right wingers sure are torqued off that the adults are actually interested in pursueing an effective foreign policy. i know... big changes can be scary. karl has y'all so scared to death of the middle-eastern boogeymen that you can't even think straight.
second...you right wingers sure are torqued off that the adults are actually interested in pursueing an effective foreign policy. i know... big changes can be scary. karl has y'all so scared to death of the middle-eastern boogeymen that you can't even think straight.
Posted by: jay k. at April 11, 2007 01:16 PM (yu9pS)
6
Are you saying that Bashir Assad isn't the legitimate ruler of Syria?
Or are you saying that because Syria has a foreign policy that isn't in line with our own, Bashir Assad shouldn't be "legitimized"?
Either way, your thinking is convoluted and illogical.
Or are you saying that because Syria has a foreign policy that isn't in line with our own, Bashir Assad shouldn't be "legitimized"?
Either way, your thinking is convoluted and illogical.
Posted by: ME at April 11, 2007 01:24 PM (HsdZl)
7
Yeah, charge Pelosi with a felony...right after you charge the Republican congressmen who went BEFORE, DURING and AFTER Pelosi's trip.
But apparently, the double standard is this: Conservatives are solidly behind the idea of hypocritically attacking any Dem they can, but they are in favor of letting Bush ruin the worldwide goodwill we had from 9/11, forgetting that he still hasn't captured Bin Laden, and sitting idly by while he loses a war for us.
Nice work!
But apparently, the double standard is this: Conservatives are solidly behind the idea of hypocritically attacking any Dem they can, but they are in favor of letting Bush ruin the worldwide goodwill we had from 9/11, forgetting that he still hasn't captured Bin Laden, and sitting idly by while he loses a war for us.
Nice work!
Posted by: MattM at April 11, 2007 01:46 PM (NZ/aJ)
8
NOTE: As if you couldn't tell by the off-topic, disjointed, and otherwise "reality-based" comments dropped by the last few commentors, this post was linked by Salon.com.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at April 11, 2007 02:06 PM (9y6qg)
9
NOTE: You can put all the quotation remarks around the words "reality-based" you want, but it doesn't change the fact that it is the Bush administration and it's zombie cheerleaders like yourself that are living in la-la land.
Posted by: Super90 at April 11, 2007 02:26 PM (j8Wg4)
10
Christ. It's a virtual moron convention around here.
"...sitting idly by while he loses a war for us."
As opposed to cheering on a loss like moral cretins like you. Do you losers realize that we're going to face intractable foreign enemies long after Bush is out of office. Do you really believe that nation states don't act on their own volition without provocation from the US? Are you that invested in hating Bush that you really think all of the world's and our problems will magically float away once he's gone. Are you that imbecilic? Do you really think it's a winning political strategy to coddle our enemies? What part of "death to America" is so hard for you retards to understand?
"...sitting idly by while he loses a war for us."
As opposed to cheering on a loss like moral cretins like you. Do you losers realize that we're going to face intractable foreign enemies long after Bush is out of office. Do you really believe that nation states don't act on their own volition without provocation from the US? Are you that invested in hating Bush that you really think all of the world's and our problems will magically float away once he's gone. Are you that imbecilic? Do you really think it's a winning political strategy to coddle our enemies? What part of "death to America" is so hard for you retards to understand?
Posted by: kelly at April 11, 2007 03:12 PM (5pSKg)
11
First off, Leatherfac Pelosi's visit isn't what was illegal, it was her trying to implement her own foreign policy over that of a standing presidnent (who has ultimate authority on foreign policy that made it illegal...and Jay K...you're a moron...I'd like to see what definition your talking about that defines Fox News as NOT a news organization (wikapedia doesn't count here) I'm sure by whatever definition you're "definging" fox news would also define other news sources (NPR, CNN NBC) as not news sources. MattM...you're another moron...the visit itself...although fround upon...is not the reason for the potential felony. You're just another glaring example of how emotionally driven liberal thinking is. I mean really, what else can you say about politicians who don't have enough courage to stand up to a news organization but are willing to suck the nuts of murderous dictators. It also says alot of what they think of certain Americans. So...I guess "all animals are equal bus some are more equal than others" can apply here.
Posted by: marco at April 11, 2007 03:27 PM (ZmIE8)
12
Kelly, I'd love you to show me where I said I was "cheering on a loss" or where I said our problems will "magically float away". Maybe you could point me to where I wrote that "a winning political strategy is to coddle our enemies"?
No really. I'll wait.
No? Can't find where I said that? Maybe you were just too busy calling me childish names and making up fantasies about what I said.
Maybe when you're through, you can explain to me how it's a winning strategy to keep killing more and more of our soldiers without ever changing strategy despite Iraq's continuing downward spiral.
Maybe you can explain how it's a winning political strategy to get thousands upon thousands of Iraqis (who were supposed to greet us as liberators, remember?) to flood the streets and demand we stop occupying their country?
Perhaps you can help me understand how ignoring almost every single recommendation of the Iraq Study Group is a smart move.
No really. I'll wait.
Can't do that either? Then I guess name calling and lying is all you have left. Which fits - because that's all your dumb-ass president has left, too.
No really. I'll wait.
No? Can't find where I said that? Maybe you were just too busy calling me childish names and making up fantasies about what I said.
Maybe when you're through, you can explain to me how it's a winning strategy to keep killing more and more of our soldiers without ever changing strategy despite Iraq's continuing downward spiral.
Maybe you can explain how it's a winning political strategy to get thousands upon thousands of Iraqis (who were supposed to greet us as liberators, remember?) to flood the streets and demand we stop occupying their country?
Perhaps you can help me understand how ignoring almost every single recommendation of the Iraq Study Group is a smart move.
No really. I'll wait.
Can't do that either? Then I guess name calling and lying is all you have left. Which fits - because that's all your dumb-ass president has left, too.
Posted by: MattM at April 11, 2007 04:08 PM (NZ/aJ)
13
"I mean really, what else can you say about politicians who don't have enough courage to stand up to a news organization but are willing to suck the nuts of murderous dictators."
Marco, you're absolutely right. I can't believe Bush wouldn't conduct a single televised Town Hall meeting without handpicking his audience, and now has the nerve to talk with Kim Jong Il, and use rendition to deliver foreign captives who haven't been convicted of anything to be tortured in other countries with murderous dictators!
The hypocracy is stunning.
Marco, you're absolutely right. I can't believe Bush wouldn't conduct a single televised Town Hall meeting without handpicking his audience, and now has the nerve to talk with Kim Jong Il, and use rendition to deliver foreign captives who haven't been convicted of anything to be tortured in other countries with murderous dictators!
The hypocracy is stunning.
Posted by: MattM at April 11, 2007 04:14 PM (NZ/aJ)
14
Salon, huh? Dang, dude, the last time that happened to me it took days to sweep out the troll-sh!t.
I excerpted and linked at 2007.04.08 Islamism Delenda Est // Dem Perfidy Roundup
NOTE: 9/12 is my reality.
Salon, huh? Dang, dude, the last time that happened to me it took days to sweep out the troll-sh!t.
I excerpted and linked at 2007.04.08 Islamism Delenda Est // Dem Perfidy Roundup
NOTE: 9/12 is my reality.
Posted by: Bill Faith at April 11, 2007 04:15 PM (n7SaI)
15
Well, gee, Matt, noting the bile you disgorge over Bush and jumping to unproven (at the least) claims that whatever the strategy we're doing in Iraq, it's not working, I'd say you're pretty well invested in your hatred of all things Bush.
Your concern with our soldiers is touching though. Why don't you let them finish the job? Do you read any milblogs? Do you know anyone in the military?
You think it's that hard to get five thousand idle Iraqis to join up for an anti-American march?
Your gullibility isn't as touching.
The Iraqi Study Group? Did you read it? Did you find any reference to...winning? Me neither. Why not call it by its real name: the Iraqi Surrender Group.
As for your sneering back at me, I will admit my comment was a bit intemperate with name-calling. FTR, it wasn't directed at you personally beyond lifting your quote. And further FTR, I'll criticize any pol who thinks she can rewrite the Constitution.
Your concern with our soldiers is touching though. Why don't you let them finish the job? Do you read any milblogs? Do you know anyone in the military?
You think it's that hard to get five thousand idle Iraqis to join up for an anti-American march?
Your gullibility isn't as touching.
The Iraqi Study Group? Did you read it? Did you find any reference to...winning? Me neither. Why not call it by its real name: the Iraqi Surrender Group.
As for your sneering back at me, I will admit my comment was a bit intemperate with name-calling. FTR, it wasn't directed at you personally beyond lifting your quote. And further FTR, I'll criticize any pol who thinks she can rewrite the Constitution.
Posted by: kelly at April 11, 2007 04:47 PM (5a01y)
16
In a couple of years, a new president is going to have to begin the process of repairing the damage that Bush has done to America's reputation and national power, rebuilding the wounded military and mending fences with a variety of countries. Pelosi is just getting a head start on this project by establishing lines of communications to the people that we'll eventually have to do business with. In any case, her meetings with Assad and other were utterly unremarkable granted the practice of legislators over the last several decades. State department officials accompanied her at every meeting, and the whole thing had been vetted in advance.
Smearing Pelosi is probably good business from a cynical point of view, though these days you have to be pretty much a mindless tool to still find the umpteenth rendition of the swift-boat tactic credible. Ah, but you'll tell me that there is no shortage of mindless tools to exploit; and, of course, you're right.
Smearing Pelosi is probably good business from a cynical point of view, though these days you have to be pretty much a mindless tool to still find the umpteenth rendition of the swift-boat tactic credible. Ah, but you'll tell me that there is no shortage of mindless tools to exploit; and, of course, you're right.
Posted by: Jim Harrison at April 11, 2007 04:57 PM (YecKR)
17
Kelly,
Conservatives couldn't give 2 shi*s about our soldiers.
It's all about their vanity. "If we leave Iraq we'll look weak", is their mantra.
The soldiers are a prop for conservatives.
They don't want our enemies to know we're weak. Instead they want our enemies to know we're stupid.
BTW, the War is over. We lost. Denial will get us nowhere (other than more dead US soldiers--which, as we know, is no big deal to Conservatives).
Conservatives couldn't give 2 shi*s about our soldiers.
It's all about their vanity. "If we leave Iraq we'll look weak", is their mantra.
The soldiers are a prop for conservatives.
They don't want our enemies to know we're weak. Instead they want our enemies to know we're stupid.
BTW, the War is over. We lost. Denial will get us nowhere (other than more dead US soldiers--which, as we know, is no big deal to Conservatives).
Posted by: Robert at April 11, 2007 04:57 PM (VTtVl)
18
Let them finish WHAT job? Would that be trying to find WMDs? Maybe toppling Saddam? Oh wait, it's to bring Democracy to Iraq. What's that you say? All that stuff is done? Crap, what do we do now?
Kelly, the question is, which Milblogs do you read?
Maybe you should try:
Veterans against Iraq War: http://www.vaiw.org/vet/index.php
or maybe this:
http://www.traveling-soldier.org/9.06.majority.php
How about:
http://www.ivaw.org/
Or maybe this site:
www.appealforredress.org
Kelly, the question is, which Milblogs do you read?
Maybe you should try:
Veterans against Iraq War: http://www.vaiw.org/vet/index.php
or maybe this:
http://www.traveling-soldier.org/9.06.majority.php
How about:
http://www.ivaw.org/
Or maybe this site:
www.appealforredress.org
Posted by: MattM at April 11, 2007 05:20 PM (NZ/aJ)
19
Robert,
How old are you, twelve? The left loathes the military and aren't too shy about it. cf William Jefferson Clinton. Guess what? If the war is lost, it won't be just one political party in the US to reap the consequences. Just a friendly tip.
Jim,
Tell me how many countries were involved with Oil For Food? Huh? Who was prez during that time? Mindless ignorance of facts doesn't forward your case.
How old are you, twelve? The left loathes the military and aren't too shy about it. cf William Jefferson Clinton. Guess what? If the war is lost, it won't be just one political party in the US to reap the consequences. Just a friendly tip.
Jim,
Tell me how many countries were involved with Oil For Food? Huh? Who was prez during that time? Mindless ignorance of facts doesn't forward your case.
Posted by: kelly at April 11, 2007 05:23 PM (5a01y)
20
You folks won't be happy until we're paying the Jizya. It's WW3, clowns, and no amount of denial and appeasing by you Quislings is going to change that fact. They've got us by the balls, all right: a martyr cult enabled by the propagandists of our own Fifth Column. The hell with you, you totalitarian America-haters. Wittingly or not, you and vile and villainous Pelosi and Lantos are trying to get us killed -- or at least offer us all up as hostages. You wield your ever-shifting standards (of feminism, greenism, communism, multiculturalism) like an upraised cudgel. You are not anyone's betters. You have abandoned all moral authority in favor of a sliding moral scale. You befoul the memories of those who have died, have been maimed or grievously scarred in this crusade (for, like it or not, that's what it is, my dhimmi fellow travelers). You afflict this country and are merely trying to assuage your own blinkered consciences until you pass into (you'd better hope) your atheistic oblivion. You are, to put it mildly, verminous.
Posted by: Alex at April 11, 2007 05:26 PM (kenTX)
21
Well, Matt, tell me, what would be your plan for Iraq? You seem to have all the answers.
Posted by: kelly at April 11, 2007 05:27 PM (5a01y)
22
Come on.
a) Please show one thing that Pelosi said or did which contracted the White House in *any way*.
b) Please show one thing that Pelosi said or did which the White House wasn't told BY PELOSI she would do before she left.
c) Please show how Pelosi's visit is substantively different than Republican congressmen's visit before, during and after her own.
If you can't show these, then please move on.
a) Please show one thing that Pelosi said or did which contracted the White House in *any way*.
b) Please show one thing that Pelosi said or did which the White House wasn't told BY PELOSI she would do before she left.
c) Please show how Pelosi's visit is substantively different than Republican congressmen's visit before, during and after her own.
If you can't show these, then please move on.
Posted by: jim at April 11, 2007 05:35 PM (QAh+h)
23
Kelly, my plan for Iraq?
How about something different from the last 4 years?
And I'm not being coy. Bush f***ed it up in the beginning by not sending enough troops and then disbanding the Iraqi army. And now we're at a point where even sending another 100,000 troops wouldn't make any difference - other than to up our military body count.
So why not try a deadline and see if the Iraqi government finally holds up its end of the deal?
Or try diplomacy with neighboring countries.
Or break the country up into three parts for the Sunnis, the Shiites and the Kurds.
There's no shortage of smart people with potential ideas. The problem is, good old commander in chief is too stubborn to even listen to any of them, let alone try them.
How about something different from the last 4 years?
And I'm not being coy. Bush f***ed it up in the beginning by not sending enough troops and then disbanding the Iraqi army. And now we're at a point where even sending another 100,000 troops wouldn't make any difference - other than to up our military body count.
So why not try a deadline and see if the Iraqi government finally holds up its end of the deal?
Or try diplomacy with neighboring countries.
Or break the country up into three parts for the Sunnis, the Shiites and the Kurds.
There's no shortage of smart people with potential ideas. The problem is, good old commander in chief is too stubborn to even listen to any of them, let alone try them.
Posted by: MattM at April 11, 2007 05:45 PM (NZ/aJ)
24
Ahem...in above post, I meant to type "contradicted the White House in *any way*".
Posted by: jim at April 11, 2007 05:48 PM (QAh+h)
25
So she told the White House that she was going to set her own foreign policy? From http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8OB9KC80&show_article=1
Our message was President Bush’s message,” Pelosi said in a phone interview with The Associated Press from Portugal, where she stopped briefly en route back to the United States.
...
It became clear to President Assad that even though we have our differences in the United States, there is no division between the president and the Congress and the Democrats on the message we wanted him to receive."
She told the white house that her message was the same one President Bush would have delivered would he have gone to Syria? Is that what you're saying Jim? I just told you how it was different moron! That you have an ostrich atitude is not my fault. Even the WaPo thinks Pelosi was an idiot. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/04/AR2007040402306_pf.html. Not enough? What about the statement she made pretty much claiming that Isreal was ready to resume peace talks...yeah that was also not true. She was is and will always be a power hungry leather face. So JHimmie, move along kid nothing but reality, which doesn't interest you, here.
Our message was President Bush’s message,” Pelosi said in a phone interview with The Associated Press from Portugal, where she stopped briefly en route back to the United States.
...
It became clear to President Assad that even though we have our differences in the United States, there is no division between the president and the Congress and the Democrats on the message we wanted him to receive."
She told the white house that her message was the same one President Bush would have delivered would he have gone to Syria? Is that what you're saying Jim? I just told you how it was different moron! That you have an ostrich atitude is not my fault. Even the WaPo thinks Pelosi was an idiot. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/04/AR2007040402306_pf.html. Not enough? What about the statement she made pretty much claiming that Isreal was ready to resume peace talks...yeah that was also not true. She was is and will always be a power hungry leather face. So JHimmie, move along kid nothing but reality, which doesn't interest you, here.
Posted by: Marco at April 11, 2007 05:51 PM (ZmIE8)
26
Because "stay the course" has been working sooooo well for Bush, huh Marco? I mean, "stay the course" has made Iraq so safe that McCain can walk through a market in Baghdad without body armor.
Yeah...that's all sarcasm.
Yeah...that's all sarcasm.
Posted by: MattM at April 11, 2007 06:00 PM (NZ/aJ)
27
Matt M, so your plan will be "something different"? Brilliant! What a great plan! Why didn't you say anything before you military strategy maverick!? (Note: this is sarcasm).
Posted by: marco at April 11, 2007 06:02 PM (ZmIE8)
28
Marco: see my above comment.
Posted by: MattM at April 11, 2007 06:09 PM (NZ/aJ)
29
Marco: of my 3 points, you only appear to respond to the first -
"a) Please show one thing that Pelosi said or did which contracted the White House in *any way*."
Your response is: "http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/04/AR2007040402306_pf.html. ...What about the statement she made pretty much claiming that Isreal was ready to resume peace talks...yeah that was also not true."
Here are some facts for you.
http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?p=215
"Speaker Pelosi accurately relayed a message given to her by Israeli Prime Minister Olmert to Syrian President Assad.
The tough and serious message the Speaker relayed was that, in order for Israel to engage in talks with Syria, the Syrian government must eliminate its links with extremist elements, including Hamas and Hezbollah.
Furthermore, the Speaker told Assad that his government must also take steps to block militants seeking to cross the Syrian border into Iraq and that it must cease its ongoing efforts to destabilize Lebanon and to block the international community’s expressed desire for an international tribunal to investigate the assassination of former Lebanese premier Rafik Hariri....
The Post’s editorial misinterprets a statement issued by the Israeli Prime Minister’s Office...The Speaker neither said nor implied that this message was a change in Israel’s position.
Most troubling, the editorial contradicts the ****Post’s own reporting**** [emphasis mine]...From the Post’s reporting by Elizabeth Williamson today: “Foreign policy experts generally agree that Pelosi’s dealings with Middle East leaders have not strayed far, if at all, from those typical for a congressional trip.”
"...In fact, as The New York Times reported, ****Pelosi herself stated that she supports the President’s policy goals in Syria**** [emphasis mine]."
"a) Please show one thing that Pelosi said or did which contracted the White House in *any way*."
Your response is: "http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/04/AR2007040402306_pf.html. ...What about the statement she made pretty much claiming that Isreal was ready to resume peace talks...yeah that was also not true."
Here are some facts for you.
http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?p=215
"Speaker Pelosi accurately relayed a message given to her by Israeli Prime Minister Olmert to Syrian President Assad.
The tough and serious message the Speaker relayed was that, in order for Israel to engage in talks with Syria, the Syrian government must eliminate its links with extremist elements, including Hamas and Hezbollah.
Furthermore, the Speaker told Assad that his government must also take steps to block militants seeking to cross the Syrian border into Iraq and that it must cease its ongoing efforts to destabilize Lebanon and to block the international community’s expressed desire for an international tribunal to investigate the assassination of former Lebanese premier Rafik Hariri....
The Post’s editorial misinterprets a statement issued by the Israeli Prime Minister’s Office...The Speaker neither said nor implied that this message was a change in Israel’s position.
Most troubling, the editorial contradicts the ****Post’s own reporting**** [emphasis mine]...From the Post’s reporting by Elizabeth Williamson today: “Foreign policy experts generally agree that Pelosi’s dealings with Middle East leaders have not strayed far, if at all, from those typical for a congressional trip.”
"...In fact, as The New York Times reported, ****Pelosi herself stated that she supports the President’s policy goals in Syria**** [emphasis mine]."
Posted by: jim at April 11, 2007 06:38 PM (QAh+h)
30
I find it amusing how well the ignorance and immaturity is spread throughout the internet. It does show that some of the trolls are atleast exposed to truth. Those of you who think what Pelosi did was ok and legal must have skipped 8th Grade, never taken a course in U.S. Government or Polical Science. Your knowledge of the constitution is extemely limited. It is interesting how the lefts limited intellect reflects on blogs. The stupidity expressed here is just like that express at atleast one other blog. Only the names have changes, or have they?
Posted by: Zelsdorf Ragshaft III at April 11, 2007 06:58 PM (Jfbhw)
31
So if what Pelosi did was illegal, then CHARGE HER WITH A CRIME.
Come on. Please. Pretty please. I'm begging you to do it. Seriously. Otherwise, shut up.
Come on. Please. Pretty please. I'm begging you to do it. Seriously. Otherwise, shut up.
Posted by: MattM at April 11, 2007 07:15 PM (TqZrA)
32
I counted at least five already debunked lies in this post. Ya'll need to talk Drudge and Hindraker to at least make an attempt to respin things that have already been unspun.
Fox is not a legitimate news source. It is a blatantly dishonest right wing propaganda organ. Comparing a sanctioned (and in the current leadership vacuum necessary) diplomatic visit with enabling home grown fascism is just silly.
Fox is not a legitimate news source. It is a blatantly dishonest right wing propaganda organ. Comparing a sanctioned (and in the current leadership vacuum necessary) diplomatic visit with enabling home grown fascism is just silly.
Posted by: John Gillnitz at April 11, 2007 07:20 PM (jhc0N)
33
I'm still waiting for any of the right-wingers here to explain why Pelosi's visit was illegal, but the visit by Issa and other Republicans was not.
Posted by: WilliamH at April 11, 2007 08:16 PM (np4rB)
34
William, one was authorized by the State Dept one wasn't.
Matt, we would love to charge her, but she has our Justice Dept all in a tizzy over 8 Attorneys.
Maybe they will use it for payback?
Have either of you read any of the links in the above article? Because you really do sound silly.
Matt, we would love to charge her, but she has our Justice Dept all in a tizzy over 8 Attorneys.
Maybe they will use it for payback?
Have either of you read any of the links in the above article? Because you really do sound silly.
Posted by: JoeH at April 11, 2007 08:57 PM (VrTMT)
35
I did read the story. I've also read several other articles that state that officials from the State Department were with her during the course of the entire trip and attended every meeting she had.
The bizarro world logic on display regarding this entire "incident" is getting tiresome. Several Republican politicos meet with the same people and nothing is said; Pelosi meets with them and she's a traitor.
The bizarro world logic on display regarding this entire "incident" is getting tiresome. Several Republican politicos meet with the same people and nothing is said; Pelosi meets with them and she's a traitor.
Posted by: WilliamH at April 11, 2007 09:24 PM (np4rB)
36
There is no REAL support for either Bush or the debacle in Iraq. West Point grads are NOT staying in the Army, they are leaving at the first opportunity in higher numbers than at any time in the last 35 years. The Army National Guard now accpts people who score as low as 16th percentile in the AFQT.
Posted by: John Ryan at April 12, 2007 01:52 PM (TcoRJ)
37
Well I should also say that only in 34 states will the Army National guard accept people in the 16th percentile. I am not sure but here is my guess: in those 34 states more than 1/2 are "red states". I would like to see an accurate figure on this even if it proves my guess incorrect
Posted by: John Ryan at April 14, 2007 03:32 PM (TcoRJ)
Processing 0.01, elapsed 0.0119 seconds.
18 queries taking 0.0059 seconds, 45 records returned.
Page size 32 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.