Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditAs Glenn Greenwald rightly points out in a recent post from his Unclaimed Territory blog, media coverage of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's recent trip to Syria can fairly be labeled "hysteria-driven."
Taking its cues from those who should be totally discredited, and set out to pasture for misleading us into this disastrous war, major media outlets like Meet the Press, (April 8) CNN and The Washington Post ("Pratfall in Damascus," April 5) have lambasted Pelosi for her "irresponsible" trip and for her "incompetence"--instead of suggesting that maybe we have a sane political leader who, at long last, understands that we need to maintain dialogue even with those we see as our enemies or "foes."
It's to be expected that the rightwing Noise Machine would snap into action--its chieftains Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh baying, scraping and bowing to give a platform to the discredited Vice-President--who had the staggering chutzpah to chide Pelosi for her "bad behavior" in making the trip. (Don't ignore the sexism in that remark--or in much of the media coverage.) Those who would listen to a man who condoned torture accusing Speaker Pelosi of bad behavior are disgraceful mouthpieces for the Bush Administration's vilification campaigns.
But what's perhaps more discouraging and dangerous is to witness what we mistakenly call the mainstream media working overtime to discredit Pelosi--depicting her as a failure, something of a joke, and out of touch with the proverbial "mainstream" which this media wrongly claims to speak for.
Where were the clear reports that Pelosi was simply following up on the Iraq Study Group report's recommendations that the US open a diplomatic initiative towards Syria? The Bushies have refused to heed the report. Instead the Administration continues, destructively, with its foreign policy of name-calling, bellligerence and scorn for diplomacy. The Speaker--along with her bipartisan group--is to be commended for exploring alternatives to this Administration's disastrous approach to US policy in the Middle East.
What's staggering, as Greenwald points out in his post--and as The Nation week to week, and other sane media watchdogs keep telling us--is just how out of touch and trivial our mainstream media is when it comes to reporting on the substantive scandals and abuses of our time.
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
To some extent, I think Katrina may be right here. It's definitely true that many media outlets have gone overboard in the way they have described Pelosi's trip.
That being said, however, I think the core of much of their criticism is absolutely correct. Though Congress certainly has a role to play in determining the direction of foreign policy, when it comes to the United States' direct relationships, the voice of the country is communicated by the executive. Period. The President and the Cabinet are the connection that the United States has to other countries, in large part because it is imperative for other countries to have a unified perception of what the United States' policy outlook is. Certainly, Congressmen have no right to meet with foreign leaders and undercut the message coming from the executive, even if they strongly disagree with that message. This, of course, applies to Congressmen of any party. Though Congress may certainly have an advice and consent role to play, it certainly does not have the diplomatic veto power that these kinds of visits, if they mean anything, entail.
Posted by Thrawn at 04/08/2007 @ 9:45pm
It is indeed baffling that the "MSM" often behaves almost as if it were, in conglomeration, a poorly informed and immature teenager carping about subjects on which it knows little.
For one thing, I wonder how today's "MSM" compares with many past eras in the eyes of media historians. My impression is that we're at a low point in the recent past at least.
More importantly, the progressive community needs to focus significant efforts on creating the tools to help shape a more thoughtful, incisive, and fairminded "MSM". There is not much doubt that the media is one of the most critical organs in a democratic society. Ours just happens to be on dialysis.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 04/08/2007 @ 9:53pm
HEY VAN DUMB EVIL,
YOU NOTICED HOW EVERYONE SEEMS TO BE OUT OF TOUCH WITH REALITY EXCEPT YOU TRAITOROUS LIBZ???? HOW IS THAT RICH GIRL????
I SUGGEST GOING ON THAT COMMIE CRUISE OF YOURS AND NEVER COMING BACK YOU DETESTABLE STALINIST NITWIT
Posted by looneylefties at 04/08/2007 @ 10:00pm
PELOSI SHOULD BE CHARGED WITH TREASON FOR VIOLATION OF THE LOGAN ACT....STRETCH PELOSI SHOULD GO BACK TO DOING WHAT SHE DOES BEST....GETTING FACE LIFTS....HOW MANY NOW 9 SO FAR????WITH THEM BULGING EYES OF HERS
Posted by looneylefties at 04/08/2007 @ 10:04pm
Thrawn,
You might have part of a point if the current circumstances were anything close to "normal".
We've yet to see any transcripts of what exactly has been said by Pelosi, but it's a reasonable assumption she isn't exactly forging foreign policy decisions. The point is to make an appearance and conduct some small talk to essentially show that we're not quite the nutcase nation that Bush and Cheney make us out to be.
I think that's fair enough. Our media pretend that Bush and the gang still have some credibility. Quite an amazing self-delusion in the name of keeping up appearances, and being careful not to even hint that the emperor's last fig leaf blew away about the time Katrina blew through.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 04/08/2007 @ 10:10pm
Speaking of ill-informed, immature teenagers...........
Posted by b_kool_66 at 04/08/2007 @ 10:12pm
First...The Jerusalem Post (I'm sure Ms vanden Heuvel considers them the MSM)
The Prime Minister's Office issued a rare "clarification" Wednesday that, in gentle diplomatic terms, contradicted US Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's statement in Damascus that she had brought a message from Israel about a willingness to engage in peace talks.
According to the statement, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert emphasized in his meeting with Pelosi on Sunday that "although Israel is interested in peace with Syria, that country continues to be part of the Axis of Evil and a force that encourages terror in the entire Middle East."
Olmert, the statement clarified, told Pelosi that Syria's sincerity about a genuine peace with Israel would be judged by its willingness to "cease its support of terror, cease its sponsoring of the Hamas and Islamic Jihad organizations, refrain from providing weapons to Hizbullah and bringing about the destabilizing of Lebanon, cease its support of terror in Iraq, and relinquish the strategic ties it is building with the extremist regime in Iran."
The statement said Olmert had not communicated to Pelosi any change in Israeli policy on Damascus.
Pelosi, who met in Damascus with Syrian President Bashar Assad over the objections of US President George W. Bush, said she brought a message to Assad from Olmert saying that Israel was ready for peace talks.
"We were very pleased with the reassurances we received from the president [Assad] that he was ready to resume the peace process. He was ready to engage in negotiations for peace with Israel," Pelosi said after meeting Assad.
She said the meeting with the Syrian leader "enabled us to communicate a message from Prime Minister Olmert that Israel was ready to engage in peace talks as well."
According to officials in the Prime Minister's Office, however, this was not what transpired during her meeting with Olmert.
The officials said Olmert had told Pelosi that he thought her trip to Damascus was a mistake, and that when she asked - nevertheless -whether he had a message for Assad, Olmert said Syria should first stop supporting terrorism and "act like a normal country," and only then would Israel be willing to hold discussions.
As noted before, Ms vanden Heuvel, Speaker Pelosi was within her rights as a CITIZEN to travel to Israel and Syria. And to speak with whomever she chose to.
She was NOT empowered as an official of the US Government or diplomatic corps, nor does she hold CONSTITUTIONAL power to engage in such activities. She can as leader of Congress LEAD Congress (back home) in doing many things...declaring war, regulating commerce, assuring definition and punishment for "laws of nations", etc.
She also does NOT have the right to deliver official "messages" as an emissary or intermediary...especially when the message has been ALTERED from the original meaning.
Bush and his foreign policy may be a failure. But Pelosi didn't succeed much better...and it's not the Mainstream Media's fault (as it rarely is, when a politician OR an ideological writer/commentator BLAME the MSM).
Posted by Mask at 04/08/2007 @ 10:48pm
What is also incredibly irresponsible is that most reports of Pelosi's trip seem to omit reference to visits by about four other GOP(!!!) congressman, as if she's a loose cannon Rep. that is running around the world hamming it up with the axis of evil. I'm not usually the first to turn to the "sexism" card, but I bet if Pelosi had a penis, these stories wouldn't be running quite as much.
When the executive as no credibility on any issues, it probably isn't such a bad thing having folks dispatch the planet to assure our friends and enemies alike, that we haven't all fallen off the wagon. BKOOL said it well, "The point is to make an appearance and conduct some small talk to essentially show that we're not quite the nutcase nation that Bush and Cheney make us out to be."
Posted by BlueTexan at 04/08/2007 @ 11:16pm
Posted by RIO BRAVO 04/08/2007 @ 11:23pm
Rio, you and your fellow neo-conmen will do anything to help your failed king divert attention away from his complete failures in every action he has taken in the last 6 years (with this complete NON-story about Pelosi). Everyone in here already knows you are a certified nutjob, but if you would renounce your failed king and have some dignity, you'd probably gain a hair of repect around here. But I don't want to speak for everyone.
Posted by BlueTexan at 04/08/2007 @ 11:31pm
Posted by RIO BRAVO 04/08/2007 @ 11:41pm
You wouldn't know the Constitution if it bit you in the ass. Same goes for your king too.
Why do you care about what the Constitution says? You held your failed kings garments while he and his goons stoned it to death.
Oh and by the way, nothing in the Constitution says that a member of the House can't make visits to foreign heads of state. Sorry, but your weak, cut and paste isn't worth the time you spent trying to find it.
Posted by BlueTexan at 04/08/2007 @ 11:57pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 04/09/2007 @ 12:06am
Abso-freakin-lutely.
As a progressive, I've had a love / hate relationship with the 2nd Amendment, but now I'm back in love with it. We'll need a few caps to hold off the robo-cons when they try to put us in a prison camp. But no worries, they cower in fear at the thought of someone within 100 yards of them with a gun. That's why they are all still here rather than Iraq laying down their lives for their king.
Posted by BlueTexan at 04/09/2007 @ 12:15am
Posted by RIO BRAVO 04/09/2007 @ 12:20am
You are making stuff up, you silly neo-turd.
Praise the Lord of lords that the Constiution limits the president to two terms. Of course, since you hate everything else in the Constitution, you'll be one of those morons signing petitions to let failed king george become ruler for life.
Good night.
Posted by BlueTexan at 04/09/2007 @ 12:29am
Posted by RIO BRAVO 04/09/2007 @ 12:26am
The way you throw the word "hate" around is so comical. You think by invoking that word that it makes your failed king seem like a reasoned individual. Like he doesn't deserve the things that are said about him. Do yourself a favor and stop using it, it makes you look like a bigger idiot. Then again, nevermind, keep using it. It's funny.
I don't "aim" to practice "armed hate" against anyone. The pen is mightier than the sword. But in the event a hord of neo-conmen come to put the freedom-loving amongst us in prison camps, I'll put the pen away for another day. Don't worry, we'll let you hide inside with the women and children while the real freedom fighters take care of biz. I know you are allergic to actually fighting for your own rights.
Posted by BlueTexan at 04/09/2007 @ 12:41am
Pelosi to Tell Syria: Renounce Terror, Stop War Preparation
By Julie Stahl
CNSNews.com Jerusalem Bureau Chief
April 02, 2007
Jerusalem (CNSNews.com) - House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is carrying a message to Damascus from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert: stop war preparations and renounce terrorism if it wants negotiations with Israel, an Israeli official said.
Pelosi, who is heading a bi-partisan Congressional delegation on a Middle East fact-finding mission, met with Olmert in Jerusalem and addressed the Israeli Knesset on Sunday. She is due to meet Syrian President Bashar Assad later this week.
. . Olmert told Pelosi that he didn't think Syrian President Bashar Assad deserves all the attention he is getting, Olmert spokeswoman Miri Eisen said on Monday by telephone.
Nevertheless, when Pelosi offered to convey a message to Assad, Olmert said that the message was "don't prepare for war and renounce terrorism" and maybe there can be negotiations, Eisen said. . . In her speech to the Knesset, Pelosi said she would also bring up the case of the two Israeli soldiers who were abducted by Hizballah last summer, as well as that of executed Israeli spy Eli Cohen -- whose family wants his body brought back to Israel and buried here -- when she meets with Assad.
Pelosi also addressed the topics of Hizballah's continued violations of the United Nations resolution that ended the 34-day conflict last summer, saying that Hizballah "must be disarmed."
Posted by Lillian at 04/09/2007 @ 02:54am
Pelosi to take message from Jerusalem to Syria
Israel says it will agree to peace talks if Damascus renounces terror
Matthew Kalman, Chronicle Foreign Service
Monday, April 2, 2007
(04-02) 04:00 PDT Jerusalem -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi agreed Sunday to deliver a message from Israel to Syrian leaders that Israel will agree to peace talks only if Damascus renounces terrorism.
The announcement, made after Pelosi met with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, came despite renewed criticism from the White House of Pelosi's decision to lead a congressional delegation to Syria, a country accused by the Bush administration of sponsoring terrorism and destabilizing the region.
"Pelosi is conveying that Israel is willing to talk if they (Syria) would openly take steps to stop supporting terrorism," said Olmert's spokeswoman, Miri Eisin. "But at this point the Syrian government, by openly backing terror all around the Middle East, is not a partner for negotiations."
Pelosi also announced during a dinner given in her honor at the Knesset, Israel's parliament, that she would ask Syrian leaders about the status of the Israeli soldiers whose abduction by Hezbollah militants in July 2006 trig-gered last summer's war between Israel and Lebanon.
"We must never rest until they are all safely at home," said Pelosi, displaying identification tags of the soldiers that she said were normally kept on prominent display in her office on Capitol Hill. "And yes, I will mention this to the president of Syria."
Posted by Lillian at 04/09/2007 @ 02:55am
So, after Pelosi met with Omert, but before she traveled from Israel to Syria, apparently, it was all over the news EXACTLY what Pelosi was GOING to say...and it included all the stuff about the message from Isreal to Assad being that Israel would only negotiate if Syria renounced terror...
...but after she delivered the message, Olmert's office is trying to discredit her, claiming that she somehow forgot the message.
I suppose it's 'just a coincidence' that Bush and Olmert are tight...and Bush was criticizing her at the exact same time, huh?
Posted by Lillian at 04/09/2007 @ 03:03am
So, I think there's been some fairly interesting discussion here, but I feel like the heart of the issue hasn't been discussed nearly as much as it should be.
The debate basically seems to be operating on two levels: practical and Constitutional.
First and foremost, there's the Constitutional analysis. If those who criticize Pelosi (and other Representatives of either party whose goal was the same) on Constitutional grounds are correct, none of the practical analysis matters. This is why all of the stuff about "showing the world Bush/Cheney don't represent us" only matters if the Constitutional arguments fail. They haven't failed, however; the only response they've gotten is "Congress gets to check the executive on foreign policy." This is true only to a limited extent, in terms of vetoing treaties and stuff like that. It certainly isn't true when it comes to diplomatic negotiations with other powers.
Some have tried to claim that Pelosi was doing nothing of the sort, which is bizarre on two levels. First, in order for the "reassuring the world" line of argument to mean anything, it necessarily follows that she was engaging leaders on a diplomatic level and not just stopping by for tea. Second, the facts clearly bear out that she was engaging in diplomacy, since she was trying to influence the policy of other nations by speaking on the US' behalf. This kind of action is clearly off-limits constitutionally, no matter what party you're from. Myself and others have made that last caveat clear, so that it's evident that we're not just criticizing Pelosi individually.
But what if there's no Constitutional violation? Well, then it gets a little trickier. If there's no Constitutional problem, the arguments about Bush have to be weighed, and probably command a pretty decent amount of weight. However, I still think that the action of the Congressional delegation is problematic even if there was no explicit Constitutional violation. The danger of "independent diplomacy," one which has never been adequately dealt with, is that it presents a fractured United States position to the rest of the world. Some of the analysis we've already heard is very telling in this regard; when people say "don't worry, change is coming," they offer countries false hope in that the outcome of elections is something that no individual representative can magically predict. More importantly, though, I think this kind of thing sets a terrible precedent, in that it invites representatives to not merely second-guess the President's policy agenda (which they should do), but take those opinions from second-guessing and communicate them as official diplomatic advice to other countries. The fact that such division has also been exploited by other powers in the past should also be a warning against it.
Posted by Thrawn at 04/09/2007 @ 03:17am
Thanks Katrina for some sane commentary on the state of our media. Kudos to Pelosi for letting the world know America has not completley driven off the cliff!
Mike
Posted by mikesd at 04/09/2007 @ 04:03am
Pelosi was lied to by Olmert about his alleged "peace" offer. The only "peace" Israel wants is: a piece of Jordan; a piece of Syria; a piece of Saudi Arabia; a piece of Iraq and a piece of Lebanon. How can the most vicious, war mongering nation on the earth--Israel--truly know anything about peace?
Israel doesn't want peace By Gideon Levy
The moment of truth has arrived, and it has to be said: Israel does not want peace. The arsenal of excuses has run out, and the chorus of Israeli rejection already rings hollow. Until recently, it was still possible to accept the Israeli refrain that "there is no partner" for peace and that "the time isn't right" to deal with our enemies. Today, the new reality before our eyes leaves no room for doubt and the tired refrain that "Israel supports peace" has been left shattered.
It's hard to determine when the breaking point occurred. Was it the absolute dismissal of the Saudi initiative? The refusal to acknowledge the Syrian initiative? Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's annual Passover interviews? The revulsion at the statements made by Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, in Damascus, alleging that Israel was ready to renew peace talks with Syria?
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/846420.html
Posted by Greg Bacon at 04/09/2007 @ 04:51am
The aggregation of the spouters of "conventional wisdom" we call the "mainstream media," or MSM, are endemically prejudiced and preternaturally patriarchal because authoritative powers relieve the myopic of the existential obligation of exercising true freedom, which requires choosing to act, or not, upon decisions which themselves are dependent upon thinking. And Edison's Menlo Park, New Jersey plaque then applies, unfortunately, and I paraphrase: "there's no expedient to which a person/people will not go/attend to avoid the real work/effort of THINKING" (my emphasis).
There's a concept known as "transgenerational," inter- and intrapersonal "emotional reactivity" (Bowen Family Systems Theory) which identifies our vestigial predilection for instinctive (non-rational) "fight or flight" behavior. Without calm and patient deliberation AND recognition one "can't leave spontaneity to chance" (ha,ha), social Darwinism predominates and socio-culturally our reporters merely fulfill the role of the "first on the scene," the ones who press for an answer to the imbecilic and ill-timed ardent query: "did anyone get the number of that truck?" (which just squashed the comparatively small light of "Reason" under the irrational wheels of unremitting passion).
Next!
The MSM merely reflects the victory of "form" over "substance," which has occurred as our "conspicuously consumptive" corporate "consumer" consciousness has virtually eliminated needed tolerances for delay, ambiguity, and the nuanced thought necessary to see and understand our general toadying submission to whatever voice/action grants us real or illusory "instant gratification."
Next!
Posted by lewwelge at 04/09/2007 @ 05:14am
"That being said, however, I think the core of much of their criticism is absolutely correct. Though Congress certainly has a role to play in determining the direction of foreign policy, when it comes to the United States' direct relationships, the voice of the country is communicated by the executive. Period."
The person who placed this initial post on the Pelosi trip to the middle east needs to recognize one small detail. The voice of the country is almost never communicated by the executive. When and only when public opinion molds government policy will that statement be true. 70% of Americans want a change of course in Iraq. The Bush response, send more troops. In two separate presidential elections the country was divided almost down the middle. How can anyone say that the current executive is the only voice and speaks for the country. He certainly does not speak for me.
Posted by buzolibre at 04/09/2007 @ 06:00am
MASK
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/013508.php
Peace
Posted by drhammer at 04/09/2007 @ 06:54am
...but after she delivered the message, Olmert's office is trying to discredit her, claiming that she somehow forgot the message.
I suppose it's 'just a coincidence' that Bush and Olmert are tight...and Bush was criticizing her at the exact same time, huh?
Posted by LILLIAN 04/09/2007 @ 03:03am
So Olmert gave Nancy a message to take to the Syrians and then when she delivered it (as Olmert said it), they contradicted her and lied about what they themselves had said to embaress poor Nancy???
I .....see......hmmm?
No...uh...chance Pelosi screwed up or forgot parts?....all part of the Israelis Master Plan, huh?
Posted by Mask at 04/09/2007 @ 07:02am
LIL
Same link.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/013508.php
Posted by drhammer at 04/09/2007 @ 07:54am
Posted by RIO BRAVO 04/09/2007 @ 01:19am
I take after my Founding Fathers. If it were up to you, we'd still be kissing the ring of the queen of England.
Posted by BlueTexan at 04/09/2007 @ 07:54am
While I am no Pelosi fan, I think her attempt at diplomacy was a good thing. The Syrians afforded her alot more respect than her GOP-AIPAC detractors here at home and in Israel. Why would anyone take Olmert at his word on this issue points is pretty scary, unless of course you are trying to hide an alternative agenda in the guise of constitutional arguments and statements from Israeli politicians who have zero credibility at home and are under fire from both the left and the right.
I believe it totally plausible that GWB & Co. instructed Olmert to discredit Pelosi for political reasons. The arrogance of that SOB & Israeli hawks after Pelosi didn't put up a fight to restrict the cowboys ability to attack Iran is again just fricking disgusting. I truly resent my tax dollars being spent to prop up these war mongers.
Bush and Israel hawks have the same diplomacy MO. Make no concessions and unconditional surrender of your adversary, no matter what the cost. This is not diplomacy, this a war fighting posture. Kudos to Pelosi for taking taking the iniative. We don't have the luxury of giving this lame-duck the constitutional license to continue to destroy this country and alienate us from the rest of the world.
Posted by OneVote at 04/09/2007 @ 08:33am
Lets see, five GOP congressmen went to Syria. Where they there to check on the torture chambers Chimpy ordered?
Where was this outrage when Chimpy sent people to Syria to be tortured? then the RIOS of the world were all in favor of dealing with Syria.
This seems to be just like when Newt went around undermining Clinton. right?
Posted by crabwalk at 04/09/2007 @ 08:33am
Okay....Occam's Razor time....EITHER
A. Nancy Pelosi, a Congresswoman who just RECENTLY was elevated to the leadership of one house of the US legislature, and who has little diplomatic experience, made a MISTAKE consciously or unconsciously and projected a misleading, if maybe even false message from one country in the MidEast to another. And the "sender" country issued a correction of that false message, because it was not their position in relation to the "receiver" country. And this embaressed the Congresswoman, both at home and abroad, but was merely indictative of her inexperience, maybe ineptness in the world of international affairs.
or
B. It was a pre-planned and masterfully executed (given the reaction of 90% of Media) CONSPIRACY to discredit her by the US and Israel, because they live in such DREAD of a woman who AT BEST was able to buy a few votes for a weak, anemic "pull out of Iraq in a YEAR" piece of legislation that somehow threatens both countries' hard right-wing agenda, even though it's EVEN NOW being overshadowed by a stronger piece of legislation coming out of the US Senate?
So...."Nancy is a clumsy diplomat" or.....buying the "E" Ticket to the RESE/PLUNGER It's A Small World-Wide Conspiracy Ride?
Posted by Mask at 04/09/2007 @ 09:10am
KVH says that all Pelosi is doing is implementing what Iraq study group recommended----It is not Pelosi's job to implement Iraq Study groups recommendations. The President may choose what he wants to implement and what he does not. The problem is that many on the left are asking their representatives to offer an alternative foreign policy to that of the President. They may offer such suggestions to the President ---they may not offer an alternative foreign policy to the leaders of other nations. The left may get their chance to be the leaders of American Foreign policy soon enough---but that day has not come yet,and until then they should be very consious of the damage that can be done when a unified front is not presented.
Posted by Len Mosse at 04/09/2007 @ 09:12am
Len,
In a way you're right. What Pelosi SHOULD do is first impeach bothe Bush and Cheeney then as President conduct the foreign policy. Perhaps she offered this to Bush as an option and he went with the option of her doing her thing without his PUBLIC approval!
Posted by freedomplease at 04/09/2007 @ 09:27am
'they should be very consious of the damage that can be done when a unified front is not presented.'
Posted by LEN MOSSE 04/09/2007 @ 09:12am | ignore this person
Ya think the world doesn't know that the majority of the American people are being held hostage by these war-mongers? Get real. Nobody with any brains is buying this "united front" crap as a negotiating posture.
Posted by OneVote at 04/09/2007 @ 09:31am
Kinda reminds me of the way Teddy boy Kennedy tried to undermine the Reagan administration during tough negotiations with Russia during the cold war!
Posted by RIO BRAVO 04/08/2007 @ 11:23pm
Kinda reminds me of the way Hastert and all the other criminal traitor repugs tried to conduct their own foreign policy when Clinton was President (duly elected, mind you, not SELECTED like your little monkey)
"Brave" river, thy name is hypocrite.
Posted by Dr Decibels at 04/09/2007 @ 09:35am
Oh, I see so now the constitution has no relevance for you as it reguards congress and the speaker of the house?
Posted by RIO BRAVO 04/08/2007 @ 11:41pm
"I don't give a goddamn," Bush retorted. "I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way."
"Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution."
"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"
Brave river, you are a moron supporting a moron.
Don't you ever get tired of looking/acting stupid?
Posted by Dr Decibels at 04/09/2007 @ 09:43am
Posted by RIO BRAVO 04/09/2007 @ 12:26am
You really are just a psycho hillbilly aren't you?
Posted by Dr Decibels at 04/09/2007 @ 09:44am
I think that Cheney issuing his edict against Pelosi FROM HIS SPIDER HOLE is just another absurdity, insult and abuse of the American public. The fact that Pelosi conducts herself as an adult with dignity IS INCOMPREHENSIBLE TO BUSH, CHENEY AND THEIR MINIONS.
Posted by predator at 04/09/2007 @ 09:51am
I see that the right wing is still claiming that they were with Pelosi and know specifics about her discussions and are forgetting about the Republicans who went.The "rule of law"thing has lost it's meaning through over use and misuse and is nothing more than meaningless rhetoric.
Posted by i'm nobody at 04/09/2007 @ 09:52am
"So...."Nancy is a clumsy diplomat" or.....buying the "E" Ticket to the RESE/PLUNGER It's A Small World-Wide Conspiracy Ride?"
Posted by MASK 04/09/2007 @ 09:10am
Thanks for your insightful presentation of the only two possible explanations for what transpired.
Here's my take on it. Pelosi et al go to Syria carrying Olmert's preemptive assurance that Israel does not intend to attack Syria in concert with a US attack on Iran. A handful of articles, editorials, and op-eds blow the meet all out of proportion, and assert that Nancy told (or was preparing to tell) each party that the other was ready to talk peace. Olmert, (quite possibly at the "recommendation" of the WH), goes back to shave the hair off that beast, knowing what a hard-on it would give the chickenhawks, who are not well served by a report that Israel would talk peace with Syria.
There is more to be learned here, and I'm gonna wait to see what bubbles to the surface after the froth dissipates.
You've hit this so hard and so fast that it's beginning to look you've got a dog in it somewhere...
Posted by drhammer at 04/09/2007 @ 10:03am
HEY RB, FUCCK YOU, GO TO HELL.
"Spoken like all the true anarchists and terrorists you admire"
- A Typical Republican
Fucck you Republicans, YOU support the terrorists, YOU supported Osama Bin Laden in the 80s, YOU supported Saddam Hussein in the 80s, and you still say "he was OUR ally". Thats right, they were YOUR allies - not ours.
And George Bush has killed more Americans than ANY terrorist ever has - not just civillians, but those who are supposedly our "best, bravest, best-equipped, best-trained".
So go to hell Republicans, fucck you, you are always saying "Liberal, Liberal, Liberal", and "Liberals support Terrorists". FUCCK YOU REPUBLICANS. GO TO HELL REPUBLICANS.
Posted by conshame at 04/09/2007 @ 10:09am
"America will soon have a President who will respect soverign nations and will not be afraid to talk to her adversaries about ways to bridge the gap and end the cycle of violence that has gripped the world for so long...
(Really? The Arab radicals will stop terrorising the whole world and their own people? Really Frank? Because of Pelosi?)
George Bush may still occupy the WH but he is a serious lame duck and actually quite irrelevant. America's nightmare is almost over and I hope that Nancy Pelosi signaled that Syria and other nations in the region will soon be listened to again. Hopefully Syria recieved that message. "
If she did say this, then she is undermining the Exec branch and it should be a treasonous act. This is the very thing any responsible member of congress should never do, especially number 3 in line, who would in that case, be an unelected official....
However, if on the other hand, she took one of her intelligence chairman picks over there to..
1. Show him where the ME is and where Syria and the route they used to invade Israel and the the routes (opposite of a road to Damascas epiphany, so to speak) the Syrians use to supply assasins to Lebannon and Hellboola support, then ..OK.
2. To help explain the difference to said official between Shia and Sunni...ok.
But anything other than that, say,( a wink and a nod), with.."don't worry, we feel the same about Bush as you and we are doing the best we can do to undermind him and the war, just hang in there, as we know you want peace with Israel.." and he yes ," we do,wink and nod" ...well this would be a explantion of her trip more than anything to date...IMO...and BTW, will confirm to all the Arab capitals, within 3 minutes of Pelosis plane lifting off...that America is indeed a weak paper tiger and the future the US will be easy to handle...we can always set up Pelosi..
Her trip would be better off as labeled a vacation...especially after the Israelis asked publicly what the hell she was doing...what an embarassinf failure for her first time out on her own...08 is looking better for anyone but the group of clowns in Congress.
Posted by john maasch at 04/09/2007 @ 10:10am
"but after she delivered the message, Olmert's office is trying to discredit her, claiming that she somehow forgot the message.
I suppose it's 'just a coincidence' that Bush and Olmert are tight...and Bush was criticizing her at the exact same time, huh?
Posted by LILLIAN 04/09/2007
Maybe Omert remembered Syrias supporting of Helloboolah and the the Golan Heights invasion route..and doesn't trust pelosi as one to back Israel?.....and saw how easily she was set up and used? By both Syria and Israel? Do you think Pelosi actually brought back some new message from Assad the dictator or did she bring one TO him..from the Progressive wing of the US Dems..?
Posted by john maasch at 04/09/2007 @ 10:16am
Posted by DRHAMMER 04/09/2007 @ 10:03am
No, just think an alternative to the "poor, poor Nancy trying to bring peace to the Middle East and she's being 'set up' by Sinister Forces and a Mainstream Media out to get her" paradigm should be considered...
like...she screwed up.
"Pelosi et al go to Syria carrying Olmert's preemptive assurance that Israel does not intend to attack Syria in concert with a US attack on Iran. A handful of articles, editorials, and op-eds blow the meet all out of proportion, and assert that Nancy told (or was preparing to tell) each party that the other was ready to talk peace."
One problem with your theory, Doc....what did Pelosi SAY that Olmert told her to say? This is Reuters (sadly, only source is the evil Pelosi-hating MSM...but there you have it)--
"'(Our) meeting with the president enabled us to communicate a message from prime minister Olmert that Israel was ready to engage in peace talks as well,' Pelosi told reporters after talks with Assad."
NOT "Israel doesn't intend to attack you with the USA"...but "Israel IS READY to engage in peace talks as well". Slightly different.
Now, again...two possibilities-
1-A The Israelis fed her a false story, so they could contradict it later, to embaress Pelosi or 1-B Olmert WAS ready engage in peace but is willing to throw out his own view because Bush needed to embaress Pelosi......but, again, WHY?
She's shown she had to BUY votes for her supplemental spending bill and that at best it called for a pull-out by Fall 2008. Not much to fear for the Right in the US or Israel.
2. Pelosi, a novice and inexperienced "diplomat", screwed up. And the MSM is not at fault, nor is a "conspiracy" of Bush and Olmert.
Occam's Razor....the simplest explanation is best. And the simplest is....Pelosi "mis-identified" what Olmert was saying that he wanted to convey to Assad, either consciously or by mistake.
No "sinister forces" needed.
Or put it this way if you like...as far as US foreign policy goes, we've got the "evil and inept" in Bush & Co.....and the "good but still inept" in Pelosi.
Posted by Mask at 04/09/2007 @ 10:19am
"Here's my take on it. Pelosi et al go to Syria carrying Olmert's preemptive assurance that Israel does not intend to attack Syria in concert with a US attack on Iran. "
If we are planning to invade Iran, then Nancy actions ARE treason by informing an "enemy state" of our military plans to invadae one of Syrias supporting partners in Hellsboola and as well as a receiver of Irans offer of aid...
"There is more to be learned here, and I'm gonna wait to see what bubbles to the surface after the froth dissipates. "
And that may turn out to be a huge turd lil' Nanc laid in the ME...
Posted by john maasch at 04/09/2007 @ 10:27am
Mask-Are you really wondering why Bush/Olmert might want to make Pelosi look bad or just looking for an argument?
Posted by i'm nobody at 04/09/2007 @ 10:29am
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 04/09/2007 @ 10:27am
Your sooo cute when you're angry.
Stupid beyond belief, but cute.
And that may turn out to be a huge turd lil' Bush laid in the ME...
Posted by Dr Decibels at 04/09/2007 @ 10:38am
I agree with Katrina that the major media has drifted out of the mainstream of public opinion and perception. Describing the media as "MSM" is clearly incorrect now. It IS the major media, and it has a persistent yellow tinge. We still need it, but it no longer commands significant respect from the public, imho.
So, I think of it as the Major Yellow Media, or MYM.
Posted by pointpetre at 04/09/2007 @ 10:38am
Mask, the sinister force is you, Rio Bravo, and your kind.
Posted by conshame at 04/09/2007 @ 10:39am
Maaaasch - which state do you live in?
I'd like to know so that in my travels I can avoid the backwater hillbilly inbred wasteland of a flyover state you live in.
That stupidfuck disease you "people" suffer from might just be contagious.
Posted by Dr Decibels at 04/09/2007 @ 10:39am
Republicans visited Syria just a few days before, so fucck you Republicans, go to Hell.
You Republicans are nothing a bunch of liars.
The people you are calling "supporters of terrorists", didnt terrorize anyone. We told the truth, we were right about the disaster in Iraq. Some of you are starting to agree with us geniuses.
So then, Republicans go to Syria and a few days later Democrats go to Syria - a very intelligent thing to do. Republicans can talk to Syrians but Democrats cant. Fucck you, Republicans.
Its always the same, the same old shhit, the same old BS LIES that has gotten America into this hell in Iraq.
Republicans are ALL despicable, dirty, lying, corrupt, pathetic, craven, dis-honest people.
Posted by conshame at 04/09/2007 @ 10:44am
Confused,
"So then, Republicans go to Syria ..
What did the repubs say to Syria..? Any reports?
Posted by john maasch at 04/09/2007 @ 10:53am
Maasch-Reports are that the Republicans said the same things that Pelosi said.
Posted by i'm nobody at 04/09/2007 @ 10:58am
From "Conservatives for the Constitution":
Posted by MASK 04/06/2007 @ 11:46am
From this blog:
"Republicans are ALL despicable, dirty, lying, corrupt, pathetic, craven, dis-honest people."
Posted by CONSHAME 04/09/2007 @ 10:44am
OK, Mask. You may be onto something here.
Posted by drhammer at 04/09/2007 @ 10:58am
The fact that Republicans visited Syria just a few days before Pelosi says all that needs to be said, about just plain more of the same old Bullshhit from Republicans.
What can be said to horrible people who just keep coming back with the same old tired bullshhit over and over and over again.
Over and over again, the same kind of lies, saying that Al Gore was dishonest, saying that John Kerry was a coward, and you notice how the things they say really describe themselves. George Bush has killed more Americans than any muslim ever has. No Liberal has killed 3500 of our supposedly "best" Americans.
Posted by conshame at 04/09/2007 @ 10:59am
Israelis kill their own - Prime Minister Rabin - KILLED.
Posted by conshame at 04/09/2007 @ 11:00am
What did the repubs say to Syria..? Any reports?
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 04/09/2007 @ 10:53am
Read the news. They went the week BEFORE Pelosi, you fucking hypocrite.
And the Repug who went WITH her.
But that doesn't matter to you, does it, you fucking hypocrite?
Posted by Dr Decibels at 04/09/2007 @ 11:00am
The reason the right wing is desperately trying to make a big deal about this is because they need to divert attention away from their scandals and wars they're losing.
Posted by i'm nobody at 04/09/2007 @ 11:01am
"The fact that Republicans visited Syria just a few days before Pelosi says all that needs to be said..."
Oh, in that case,...OK then.
Posted by john maasch at 04/09/2007 @ 11:07am
"saying that Al Gore was dishonest,"
1.He is dishonest..got any Carbon Indulgences for sale?
2. ..saying that John Kerry was a coward,..." any questions as to how one spends 3 month in VN only and has more woulds than a Massh Hospital and no scars?" Just curious as some of those who where there ans asked the same questions..
3. No Liberal has killed 3500 of our supposedly "best" Americans...
WW2 and FDR?
You are confused.
Posted by john maasch at 04/09/2007 @ 11:10am
Don't admit to the hypocrisy of your position there maaaaschy boy.
We wouldn't want any intellectual honesty creeping into your posts.
Posted by Dr Decibels at 04/09/2007 @ 11:11am
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 04/09/2007 @ 11:10am
as far as Kerry goes, you coward, his shipmates confirm his heroism.
None of bushes buddies will even say he was THERE.
Posted by Dr Decibels at 04/09/2007 @ 11:12am
would...should read ..wounds
A little Monday morning wake up call...I should hire a typist..union, of course..
Posted by john maasch at 04/09/2007 @ 11:13am
2. ..saying that John Kerry was a coward,..." any questions as to how one spends 3 month in VN only and has more woulds than a Massh Hospital and no scars?" Just curious as some of those who where there ans asked the same questions.. Posted by JOHN MAASCH
Say whatever you like about Kerry (and Gore). The fact is that they did go to Vietnman--which is a hell of lot more than Georgie Jr did. And you, you old lying coward, did not even serve state side, so please do not attempt to impugn the war record of a man that did go to Vietnam and expose his body to harm.
Posted by mtspence05 at 04/09/2007 @ 11:14am
Why don't you bring back some of that Third World labor to type for you?
Posted by mtspence05 at 04/09/2007 @ 11:16am
$10,000 reward, and NO ONE will back up Bushes story.
ALL Kerry's shipmates agree that he was a hero.
Now, please, shove that tired crap up your ass.
Posted by Dr Decibels at 04/09/2007 @ 11:17am
Better yet, why don't you hire someone to "think" for you?
Posted by mtspence05 at 04/09/2007 @ 11:17am
When have YOU ever charged the ambush, maaaasch?
That's what Kerry did - straight at them, all guns blazing.
Fuck you for an old fool.
Posted by Dr Decibels at 04/09/2007 @ 11:27am
Oh, I'm sorry, you were in the Cheney camp of "other priorities" while Kerry was serving under fire, eh?
Coward.
Posted by Dr Decibels at 04/09/2007 @ 11:29am
"Nowhere in your response do you mention that the president of ALL the people ...He is.
and Nancy Pelosi is representative of ALL the people....no, she isn't..she is representative of the people of her SF district...her job is to run the HOUSE..
Posted by john maasch at 04/09/2007 @ 11:37am
"I hope she has more trips planned, and soon."
Me, too...back to SF for good.
Posted by john maasch at 04/09/2007 @ 11:38am
Maasch-Your Roosevelt statement shows that you need to take a seventh grade history course.
Posted by i'm nobody at 04/09/2007 @ 11:51am
Posted by FRANKGRITS 04/09/2007 @ 12:08pm
I think that is EXACTLY what happened.
Posted by Dr Decibels at 04/09/2007 @ 12:09pm
Posted by I'M NOBODY 04/09/2007 @ 10:29am
No, "I'm really wondering" ....why the possibility that Nancy Pelosi is an inept "diplomat" is so far-fetched but...
"Bush and Olmert set her up to embaress her and all the Mainstream Media are in on it"...is the "conventional wisdom" of the Left.
Posted by Mask at 04/09/2007 @ 12:13pm
Posted by DRHAMMER 04/09/2007 @ 10:58am
CONSHAME is the "mirror image" of RIO BRAVO...period. Religious nut who demonizes (or in RB's case "Demoncrats") anybody who disagrees with him, while holding up ANYBODY on the Left as some secular saint. (Check out his post on the Don Imus story....he defends SHARPTON!?!?!?)
He's a religious nutjob, same as the RB types on the Right, just on the "progressive" side.
Posted by Mask at 04/09/2007 @ 12:15pm
Mask-You simply want to argue and spew right wing propaganda.
Posted by i'm nobody at 04/09/2007 @ 12:16pm
...... Do you think that Nancy Pelosi is a stupid woman?
Posted by FRANKGRITS 04/09/2007 @ 12:10pm
No, not at all. I think she made a huge gaff and a mistake, which has damaged herself..and produces all the nut theorys espoused on this blog alone.
She has a right to visit for sure...but unless sent by a President to deliver a message from the UNITED...UNITED STATES, from the UNITED STATES...if not,then she doesn't represent the UNITED STATES in foreign policy discussions..and if she wasn't sent by the President(any President and any Speaker), then she represents herself and perhaps her party in congress, which in this case, is exactly what she has done..to her detriment and ours..IMO
Posted by john maasch at 04/09/2007 @ 12:18pm
d if she wasn't sent by the President(any President and any Speaker), then she represents herself and perhaps her party in congress, which in this case, is exactly what she has done..to her detriment and ours..IMO Posted by JOHN MAASCH 04/09/2007 @ 12:18pm
Then let's hear you criticize Gingrich and Hastert.
Unless and until then, shut the fuck up you crybaby sonofabitch.
Posted by Dr Decibels at 04/09/2007 @ 12:22pm
How about this scenario Mask. Olmert is talking out of both sides of his mouth? On the one hand, he wants to start the "peace process" and on the other, he is not ready to start the "peace process."
Maybe Olmert is lying? Could that be? Lying to save his political career and legacy? Do politicians do that? How about pandering to both sides on the issue?
By Joshua Brilliant Mar 30, 2007, 10:53 GMT
HERZLIYA, Israel (UPI) -- A cartoon the Palestinian Ma`an news agency published Thursday encapsulated its view of the renewed Arab peace initiative -- and Israel`s reaction to it.
A mustached Arab in a white kefiyah headdress is all ready for peace. Doves are perched on his head, shoulders and back. An olive branch is in his mouth, another in a pigeon`s beak, and a bunch of similar branches are under his arm.
He seems to be looking with amazement at an Israeli in a military uniform wearing dark glasses -- indicating he sees nothing -- who is standing arms folded with his back to the offer.
'Last chance for peace, stubborn man,' the caption says.
The initiative repeats an offer the Saudi Crown Prince and now King Abdullah had made and that the Arab leaders adopted, with some modifications, at their summit meeting n Beirut in 2002: It called upon Israel to withdraw from all the territories it occupied since 1967, reach an agreed just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem and accept the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip with East Jerusalem as its capital.
If that happens, in the initiative`s words 'consequently,' the Arab states would consider the conflict 'ended.' They would 'enter into a peace agreement with Israel' and establish normal relations with it.
The Arab leaders ratified the decision at this week`s summit meeting in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
A statement they issued talked of a 'just and comprehensive peace as a strategic option for the Arab nation.'
They did not change even one letter in the 2002 resolution. Professor Yitzhak Reiter of the Hebrew University`s department of Islamic and Middle Eastern studies told United Press International the text has been the product of past negotiations with Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinians and 'the maximum they could have reached.'
It was the lowest common denominator, said Jafar Farah, director of the Israeli-Arab Mossawa Center.
An Israeli government analyst said the positive element in the summit`s resolutions was its 'anti-Iranian tone.'
The concluding statement talked of 'the dangerous conditions' whereby 'Arab identity and culture is threatened.'
With God`s help the Arab nation can 'achieve the security, dignity and prosperity it deserves when it unifies its ranks and strengthens its joint actions,' the statement added.
Iran is Muslim, not Arab, and the analyst told UPI he believed the Arabs were signaling to Tehran, 'This is an Arab area, don`t try to enter.' Their concern over Iran suggested they would be interested in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian dispute because solving that problem would strengthen their unity.
The Israelis were mainly apprehensive about the Arab demand to resolve the refugee problem 'in accordance with U.N. Resolution 194.' That resolution says, 'Refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so.'
For Israel, an influx of Palestinian refugees means it would no longer be a Jewish state. That is why it says the refugees should be settled in the future Palestinian state or in other countries such as those where they have been for almost 60 years.
The initiative`s supporters note, however, that the Arab plan says the solution must be 'agreed upon,' meaning it should be a subject for negotiations.
Israel is concerned also over the demand for a total withdrawal to the pre-1967 war lines. That would mean, for example, a withdrawal from Jerusalem`s Old City and the most revered Jewish holy sites located there.
The Ma`an cartoon exaggerated the Israeli reaction. Israel has not turned its back on the offer.
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert`s media adviser, Miri Eisin, told UPI they were studying the initiative 'in depth ... checking if there is anything new and will give a more detailed response soon.'
The Foreign Ministry issued a statement proposing talks. 'Israel is sincerely interested in pursuing a dialogue with those Arab states that desire peace ... to promote a process of normalization and cooperation.'
In a clear reference to the refugee issue, without using the word 'refugee,' Israel noted the idea was to have two nation-states, 'with each state addressing the national aspirations of its own people -- Israel for the Jewish people and Palestine for the Palestinian people.'
Reiter said Israel`s diplomatic culture has always demonstrated an 'inherent fear' of entering a political framework on the basis of texts such as the Arab peace initiative. It feared the talks might fail, but then, 'Every text ... commits the Israeli position' for the following rounds.
Anyway, Olmert`s government is considered too weak to begin talks and face criticism by the hawkish Likud that opposes the initiative.
Olmert`s coalition is broad, but the situation is unstable as everybody is waiting for the outcome of the Winograd Committee`s examination of last year`s Second Lebanon War. The committee promised 'conclusions' about Olmert and Defense Minister Amir Peretz. Its findings might lead to new elections.
Reiter therefore suggested waiting a few weeks to see how events develop. If the Winograd Committee`s recommendations do not require dramatic changes, the peace initiative might be an incentive for Olmert, suggested Reiter. At the moment, however, 'internal political considerations prevent him from moving ahead,' he said.
Copyright 2007 by United Press International
Posted by OneVote at 04/09/2007 @ 12:24pm
Posted by I'M NOBODY 04/09/2007 @ 12:16pm
I'M, you simply want to argue and spew out LEFT-wing propaganda.
Now, let's see.....Go to a post on the Iraq war, abortion rights, gay rights, etc. ODDLY, I'm on the same side as you and the progressives!?!?!? That's weird, why, if all I want to do is argue and spew right-wing propaganda...do I disagree with the Right?!?!?! Maybe I just "like to argue"...but the rest of your statement appears false.
Now look at you....you differ from the Left on NO issues and have a consistantly left-wing bent to every post you make and argue with the Right posters (or those you THINK are "right").
So....broken down....HALF your statement (Posted by I'M NOBODY 04/09/2007 @ 12:16pm) about me MAY be right "I simply want to argue"...but the other half is false.
While MY post here....appears to be 100% correct.
hehe
Posted by Mask at 04/09/2007 @ 12:31pm
Hey, the far right new con repubs really need to start taking some alzhiemer's meds or maybe even some 2DG. (Although what they really may need is just privacy.)
The hsuB/heney's admin has told more fibs than beelzebub and yet these disordered repubs eat up hsuB/heney fabrications like they're 't-bone' turds. But hey-- they're used to it and have developed a selective taste for that sort of thing. There is no way to deter them from getting to it and from thinking what they're then spewing back at everyone within reach is anything close to sense. They project that sense is what's coming out of their mouths, but it's just the turds making another exit in search of another entry.
But hey, what they do in the privacy of their own safe space is fine, but come-on-- doing that sort of thing in public is just plain wrong. Like get a room already.
Posted by hsuBfools at 04/09/2007 @ 12:33pm
Mask-I'm not speculating on what happened between the two and never have.My view all along has been that I wasn't there,but have thrown that out since you and the others insist that Olmert was telling the truth.I have stated in the past that I would be considered a liberal based on the definition of the term,but have stated that I'm not motivated by politics,but motivated by my Spiritual beliefs.That's why I don't comment on many issues since those aren't related to my Spiritual beliefs.
Posted by i'm nobody at 04/09/2007 @ 12:40pm
Posted by ONEVOTE 04/09/2007 @ 12:24pm |
Okay, let's run with the theory that Olmert FOOLED Nancy Pelosi.
Shouldn't she have read (or gotten her aides) to read that story from UPI you just posted???
Or more generally, why if all the left-wing posters here "know" (and knew...from their bit of hindsigh) how much of a liar Olmert is (or how he and Bush are in cahoots to ruin poor Nancy's reputation)....why didn't SHE know that and watch herself?
Besides Olmert....does Pelosi fall for ANY line given to her by some foreign leader?
See, either way...Pelosi's not that bright when it comes to foreign policy and international relations....
A. She mistakenly relayed a false or inaccurate message from the Israelis to the Syrians, and the Israelis corrected the message, embaressing her.
B. She was TRICKED by the Israelis into embaressing herself after visiting the Syrians, when they contradicted what she said Olmert had told her.
"No, no...she just made a mistake trusting those dang Israelis and Olmert"......oh...okay. So she's NAIVE.
and again, if "everybody knew" Olmert and the Israelis couldn't be trusted and would pull a "stunt" like this on poor Nancy...
why didn't she?!?!?
Posted by Mask at 04/09/2007 @ 12:41pm
"The POTUS doesn't have the right to send the Speaker of the House anywhere ?''
The right to send? who is talking about a presidential right? It is nowhere in any of the posts here or in the discussion anywhere..
Jesus , Frank, try to follow along...
All any President has to do is ask any speaker to go on a trip to represent a unified US position to any foreign govt and I would think he/she would jump at the chance to do so..if nothing else but to elevate the status of their office...no one is talkng about a right to make he/she go...
Posted by john maasch at 04/09/2007 @ 12:42pm
Posted by I'M NOBODY 04/09/2007 @ 12:40pm
I'M....an incompentent President once said "You're either with us or against us".
Apparently, if I disagree with you on a few things (even a majority of things)...you follow the same advice and decide to pidgeon-hole me as a "right-winger". If RIO BRAVO and WOODYEE say "Coke is the best"....and you and MTSPENCE and HSUB say "Pepsi is best"....and I pick RC Cola....where do I fall on the ideological spectrum???
Posted by Mask at 04/09/2007 @ 12:45pm
And any other trip by the Speaker is on their own since they can not make foreign policy...so she is acting as her party leader, in this case...the opposition to Bush and repubs, and as such it safe to assume she speaking against Bush, The President and his policys, abroad with foreign leaders, which is ...what, Frank?
Posted by john maasch at 04/09/2007 @ 12:45pm
"...and I pick RC Cola....where do I fall on the ideological spectrum???"
You become the third party and all sides blame you for screwing up their deals..
Posted by john maasch at 04/09/2007 @ 12:46pm
The Foreign Ministry issued a statement proposing talks. 'Israel is sincerely interested in pursuing a dialogue with those Arab states that desire peace ... to promote a process of normalization and cooperation.'
Anyway, Olmert`s government is considered too weak to begin talks and face criticism by the hawkish Likud that opposes the initiative.
Reiter therefore suggested waiting a few weeks to see how events develop. If the Winograd Committee`s recommendations do not require dramatic changes, the peace initiative might be an incentive for Olmert, suggested Reiter. At the moment, however, 'internal political considerations prevent him from moving ahead,' he said.
Copyright 2007 by United Press International
Seems to me there is a little double talking going on here. And if Pelosi is such a person of such non-consequence why did Olmert talk with her and make statements expected to be conveyed in the first place?
What a crock of crap coming out of Israel and the GOP.
Posted by OneVote at 04/09/2007 @ 12:46pm
Posted by MASK 04/09/2007 @ 12:31pm
Mask (tm) is a moderate omnivore, he'll eat a side of t-bone turd with a side of fruit salad and veggies.
Posted by hsuBfools at 04/09/2007 @ 12:48pm
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 04/09/2007 @ 12:18pm | ignore this person
So then since Bush visited the terrorist nation of Colombia - where terrorism if directly financed by the US - then you're fine with the visit and the terror. Don't be such a woodenhead, MAASCH. I know you're fine with terror in Latin America, but you have to think before you lick off such ingenuous posts...
Posted by chimichenga at 04/09/2007 @ 12:49pm
Mask-I'm not the only one on here who believes you are doing a subtle version of right wing propaganda.
Posted by i'm nobody at 04/09/2007 @ 12:49pm
Posted by MASK 04/09/2007 @ 12:41pm
Isn't that like blaming the person that was raped?
Posted by hsuBfools at 04/09/2007 @ 12:51pm
and again, if "everybody knew" Olmert and the Israelis couldn't be trusted and would pull a "stunt" like this on poor Nancy...
why didn't she?!?!?
Posted by MASK 04/09/2007 @ 12:41pm | ignore this person
Ah...Mask...the idea here is that Israel is supposed to be interested in the peace process and very interested in getting our economic and military aid as a reward, and always...always....hides behind the skirts of US.
Lets do this. Lets cut off all aid to Israel and let them negotiate there own damn peace process okay? I agree....Israel can't be trusted. Lets stop the charade.
Posted by OneVote at 04/09/2007 @ 12:54pm
Israel can't be trusted. Lets stop the charade.
Posted by ONEVOTE 04/09/2007 @ 12:54pm
Google USS Liberty - the Isrealis machine gunned US Sailors on the high seas.
Claimed it was a rescue operation. They have some fucking nerve.
Until they apologize for the Liberty, accepting FULL RESPONSIBILITY for the unprovoked attack, Isreal can kiss my ass.
Posted by Dr Decibels at 04/09/2007 @ 12:56pm
No, "I'm really wondering" ....why the possibility that Nancy Pelosi is an inept "diplomat" is so far-fetched but...
"Bush and Olmert set her up to embaress her and all the Mainstream Media are in on it"...is the "conventional wisdom" of the Left.
Posted by MASK 04/09/2007 @ 12:13pm | ignore this person
This just gets funnier and funnier. Here we have a cabal of politicians led by Karl Rove…proven to employ vial and dirty tricks, over and over, without hesitation, the way most might routinely pay the bridge toll on their way to work. They had virtually no problem depicting war heroes like John Kerry as some kind of coward. They morphed Max Cleland's face into Osama's. But oh no…they would NEVER conspire to embarrass Nancy…no way…such a think is completely outside the realm of possibility.
Equally funny is the notion that Pelosi is some kind of political novice, incapable of operating on the international stage. Never mind that, as her bio on www.hourse.gov states…
As a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence for 10 years (the longest continuous period of service in the committee's history) including two years as the Ranking Democrat, Pelosi worked to ensure that policymakers and military commanders are provided with the timely and accurate intelligence necessary to guide diplomatic initiatives, succeed in combat, and protect U.S. military forces.
In meetings around the world with U.S. and foreign intelligence leaders, Pelosi has urged for greater attention to the threats to international security posed by the proliferation of technologies associated with the weapons of mass destruction and global terrorism.
In the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks, Pelosi led congressional reviews of the U.S. intelligence and security agencies and authored legislation to create an independent national commission to assess the overall performance of the federal government before, during, and after the attacks.
Pelosi has long been an advocate for human rights around the world. She has fought to improve China's human rights record, attempting to tie trade to increased human rights standards. She has also been a leader on efforts to free the people of Tibet.
A leader on the environment at home and abroad, Pelosi secured passage of a provision in the International Development and Finance Act of 1989 which requires the World Bank and all the regional multilateral development banks to review the potential environmental impacts of development projects for which they provide funding and to make these environmental assessments publicly available. Known as the "Pelosi Amendment," it has become a significant tool for indigenous, nongovernmental organizations around the world.
Yes yes, as Mask is inferring, it makes so much more sense that Pelosi, politician on the national and international stage for past 20 years, somehow messed up delivering a rather simple but important message that was thoroughly discussed, laid out, and documented just days before. (/sarcasm off.)
Posted by Lillian at 04/09/2007 @ 12:58pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 04/09/2007 @ 12:51pm
No....it's like blaming a supposedly intelligent woman for not knowing what APPARENTLY everybody here (on the Left) seems to know about Ehud Olmert and the Israelis...that they "can't be trusted"...and she went ahead and trusted them.
Or theorizing that she screwed up (which apparently is nigh IMPOSSIBLE...isn't it?).
Posted by Mask at 04/09/2007 @ 12:58pm
"'but unless sent by a President'
Didn't you write that?
Posted by FRANKGRITS 04/09/2007 @ 12:54pm
Yes, meaning, the President and the Speaker are on the same page message wise....doesn't mean "ordered"...perhaps my wording was confusing, and I apologise for that, but he jist of my post regarding a trip by the speaker and the the president is that they are representing a unified position on US policy..which is run by the exec branch.
Posted by john maasch at 04/09/2007 @ 12:59pm
Posted by ONEVOTE 04/09/2007 @ 12:54pm
Again, OV....why do YOU (and many others here) seem to "know" more about the evil scheming of Ehud Olmert and the Israelis....
than Nancy Pelosi?!?!?
Posted by Mask at 04/09/2007 @ 12:59pm
Posted by LILLIAN 04/09/2007 @ 12:58pm
Well, LILLIAN, in MOST cases, even LEGISLATORS who "urge for greater attention", "lead Congressional reviews", and "secure environment impact provisions"....are capable of being wrong or mistaken.
But...of course we're talking about Speaker Nancy. Nigh unto a demi-goddess, and incapable of mistakes or mis-steps on foreign policy.
SO....it MUST be a conspiracy of Olmert and Bush.
But (as noted above)...you'd figure one of the smartest women in the United States, even the world....wouldn't have gotten FOOLED by such evil, yet more incompetent MEN!?!?!?
Hmmm...it is a puzzler.
Posted by Mask at 04/09/2007 @ 1:07pm
"Why the hell would you assume that?"
Are believing she didn't?
1. I assume she did ...since thats all she has talked about since before winning the Speakership and the House..against all things Bush..
2. I assume this... after seeing the bills she got through the House reagarding funding and the pork, and tax increases.
What should Assad think in this view of who is coming to visit him when the actual leader of the US says he has nothing to say to Assad and Syria unless they denounce terrorism and Hellsboola support?
..what do you think she was saying?
Posted by john maasch at 04/09/2007 @ 1:07pm
Frank,
"President/Executive is only one of three equal but seperate branches of government. When you do that, all the rest will make sense to you."
You shouldn't attempt to speak "down" to someone when if fact you have to look up to do so..
Posted by john maasch at 04/09/2007 @ 1:11pm
Posted by ONEVOTE 04/09/2007 @ 12:54pm
Again, OV....why do YOU (and many others here) seem to "know" more about the evil scheming of Ehud Olmert and the Israelis....
than Nancy Pelosi?!?!?
Posted by MASK 04/09/2007 @ 12:59pm | ignore this person
That is my personal opinion as to what happened, with a generous helping of George Bush.
May I turn your argument around on you and ask you why you feel that Pelosi incompetently handled this matter if he was directly lied to by Olmert....as if she was supposed to know? Why do you feel she is wrong to attempt to initiate diplomacy? You think Bush is going to push Likud to do anything? How much incompetence are you willing to tolerate? Do you think we can afford two more years of Mr. No Diplomacy?
BTW, I am not the only one who thinks Olmert is evil and scheming. His approval rating is even lower than Bush's.
Posted by OneVote at 04/09/2007 @ 1:11pm
Concerning the potential for, or likelihood of "evil scheming" by Ehud Olmert and/or the Bush White House, here's an excerpt from an article by Ron Kampeas of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency:
"The White House had no comment on the allegations by Lantos that it pressured Olmert to offer a clarification.
Such backdoor statecraft between the White House and Olmert would not be unprecedented.
Last year, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice talked Olmert into a 48-hour cease-fire during the war with Hezbollah to allow humanitarian relief, but within hours Israeli planes were bombing again, to Rice's surprise and anger. Olmert had received a call, apparently from Cheney's office, telling him to ignore Rice."
(Excerpted on the site Talking Points Memo, with a link to the full article.)
Posted by drhammer at 04/09/2007 @ 1:15pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 04/09/2007 @ 1:13pm
Sigh..have a good day Frank.
Posted by john maasch at 04/09/2007 @ 1:15pm
The fundamental problem that the critics of Pelosi ignore and that the mainstream media tends to trivialize, is the ongoing moral and human disaster that is exacerbated by the continued US presence in Iraq.
There is the occasional dash of cold water to the public's face in reporting such as Newsweek's "Voices of the Fallen" special issue of April 2nd. When you read, for example, of a US Army 2nd Lt. ready to lob a tank shell through the 2nd-story window of an Iraqi house, at what is likely a boy flashing the US tank crew with a mirror, you're reading of a war crime in the making. Oh, but it was an Iraqi life, not worth investigating or reporting upon further, you intimate by your criticism of KVH and Pelosi! If it happened and we don't know for sure, then it was a crime against humanity and the surviving perpetrators should be punished as such.
One irony of the present situation is that the entire Iraqi populace could have been flown over for an extended vacation in the US for less than one year's cost of the war, at the current rate of burn of $5+ billion a month. You would invite an Iraqi into your home, wouldn't you? I can see it now, a tent city on the east lawn of the white house, Lady Liberty not having to roll over in her grave. There are solutions to the impasse in Iraq, but they won't be coming from the Warren G. Harding-Wannabe & Co. in charge of the executive branch now.
Posted by wonderworld at 04/09/2007 @ 1:15pm
Mask -
I agree that the Simplest explanation is probably the most likely, but you have had enough time to see how this administration operates. Why is it so difficult to accept that the simplest explanation is that the White House is simply trying to make Pelosi look bad, with Olmert's help? Given that Republicans visited Syria as well, and that Pelosi's message seems to have been previewed by Olmert, I'd say the less plausible scenario is that Pelosi either got it wrong or purposely went off the script.
Posted by Hman23 at 04/09/2007 @ 1:18pm
BTW, LILLIAN....do you think Ehud Olmert was "in on it" or was he too FOOLED by his staff?
Posted by Mask at 04/09/2007 @ 1:20pm
"We have no intention to attack the Syrians," Olmert said, "we prefer to make peace with the Syrians"
So, Mask, what did Pelosi get wrong exactly?
Posted by Hman23 at 04/09/2007 @ 1:22pm
No....it's like blaming a supposedly intelligent woman for not knowing what APPARENTLY everybody here (on the Left) seems to know about Ehud Olmert and the Israelis...that they "can't be trusted"...and she went ahead and trusted them.
Or theorizing that she screwed up (which apparently is nigh IMPOSSIBLE...isn't it?).
Posted by MASK 04/09/2007 @ 12:58bm |
I posted this like 3-4 times yet you do not read... it's about hope and crushing it:
Pelosi says has hope, no illusions over Syria trip
Mon Apr 2, 2007 5:19PM EDT
By Nadim Ladki
BEIRUT (Reuters) - U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said on Monday she had "no illusions but great hope" for her talks with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad this week which she said would focus on the fight against terrorism.
"When we go there we'll be talking about the overarching issue of the fight against terrorism and the role that Syria can play to help or to hinder ...," Pelosi told reporters after talks with Lebanese majority leader Saad al-Hariri.
Pelosi said she would also discuss Syria's role in Iraq and its support of militant groups like the Palestinian Hamas movement and Lebanon's Hezbollah group.
"We know that for some of those problems, the road leads to Damascus," Pelosi said. She strongly backed the establishment of a U.N.-sponsored tribunal to try suspects in the 2005 killing of ex-prime minister Rafik al-Hariri and said she would take it up with Assad, whom she will meet on Wednesday.
A handful of Republican and Democratic politicians visited Damascus and met Assad in December after the bipartisan Iraq Study Group recommended a stepped-up diplomatic effort involving Syria and Iran to help calm the violence in Iraq.
The Bush administration has resisted that recommendation.
And so why go after Pelosi?
Diageo/Hotline Poll conducted by Financial Dynamics. March 29-April 1, 2007. N=800 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.5.
"Do you approve or disapprove of the way Nancy Pelosi is handling her job as speaker of the House of Representatives?"
Date__________Approve__Disapprove__Unsure
3/29 - 4/1/07_____44________31________25
And.
A problem/issue never before on the horizon-- emerges:
Diageo/Hotline Poll conducted by Financial Dynamics. March 29-April 1, 2007. N=800 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.5.
"Now I'm going to read to you a list of issues that the U.S. Congress may address. Which one of the following issues do you think should be the top priority for the U.S. Congress to address: [see below]?" If "All": "If you absolutely had to choose, which one issue would you say should be the top priority?"
War in Iraq________________________26
Health care____________________________13
Immigration____________________________9
Economy/Jobs/Unemployment_____________9
Social Security/Medicare__________________8
Terrorism/Homeland security______________8
Education______________________________6
Gas prices_____________________________4
The actions of the President___________3
The environment________________________1
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
CBS News/New York Times Poll. March 7-11, 2007. N=1,362 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
"What do you think is the most important problem facing this country today?" Open-ended
War in Iraq ______________________29
Economy/Jobs_________________________8
Health care____________________________8
Immigration___________________________5
Education_____________________________5
Terrorism (general)_____________________4
President Bush_____________________3
Foreign policy__________________________3
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 04/06/2007 @ 5:51pm | ignore this person
Posted by hsuBfools at 04/09/2007 @ 1:23pm
Posted by ONEVOTE 04/09/2007 @ 1:11pm
Posted by HMAN23 04/09/2007 @ 1:18pm
The reason I buy into the "Nancy screwed up" idea rather than the "Bush and Olmert had a cunning plan, Baldrick!" idea is...
Bush (or Rove, if you like) has proven himself inept...so why is he NOW capable of "tricking" poor ol' Nancy (via Olmert), where he couldn't trick her back in November 2006?!??!
Also, despite that long list of "international affairs experience" that LILLIAN offered, Nancy Pelosi isn't a diplomat. She's more likely to think, due to her politician's ego, that she's "brokering peace between the Israelis and Syrians"...and more likely to either consciously or unconsciously take the MORE advantageous "version" of what Olmert said and try to run with it.
Posted by Mask at 04/09/2007 @ 1:25pm
And where were all the quotes from Olmert's office about Pelosi's trip "being a mistake," in advance of her trip?
Posted by Hman23 at 04/09/2007 @ 1:25pm
Such backdoor statecraft between the White House and Olmert would not be unprecedented.
Posted by DRHAMMER 04/09/2007 @ 1:15pm | ignore this person
Yep!
Posted by OneVote at 04/09/2007 @ 1:29pm
Additionally, the State Department and the WH both have transcripts of everything Pelosi said to Assad.
Yet the WH, which has been hyper-critical of Rep. Pelosi's visit on its face, has said nothing about the content or wording of her actual message, and has been challenged by Rep. Pelosi to prove that she passed on anything other than the message she was given by Olmert.
(By the way, Mask, if the Reuters Pelosi quote you cited turns out to be accurate, it would represent an eff-up by Pelosi. I'm just not yet comfortable with its accuracy.)
Posted by drhammer at 04/09/2007 @ 1:30pm
Mask -
You are taking my point to an extreme I am not making. You are trying to make it sound like a dark conspiracy. I do not think this was a scheme hatched by the White House and Olmert in advance of Pelosi's trip. I think the "simplest explanation" is that after Pelosi's trip, the White House leaned on Olmert to back away from Pelosi. Perhaps Olmert got some pressure from the hard-liners in Israel as well.
Posted by Hman23 at 04/09/2007 @ 1:30pm
Posted by MASK 04/09/2007 @ 1:25pm | ignore this person
Mask...I think they are opportunists more than cunning.
No, Pelosi doesn't have the skilled credentials of an international negotiator...but the idea was to try to bring parties together to talk and to try to advance talking points. Its their peace process right?
I think that to bring the process out into the open is good. If peace is a political process, then it could use a little sunshine. Did we ever here from the Congressional Republicans what they were ostensibly in Syria for and what were the results of their visit?
Posted by OneVote at 04/09/2007 @ 1:35pm
"We have no intention to attack the Syrians," Olmert said, "we prefer to make peace with the Syrians"
So, Mask, what did Pelosi get wrong exactly?
Posted by HMAN23 04/09/2007 @ 1:22pm
From the Reuters story----"'(Our) meeting with the president enabled us to communicate a message from prime minister Olmert that Israel was ready to engage in peace talks as well,' Pelosi told reporters after talks with Assad."
Let's try this....MASK--"I don't want to beat HMAN up, I'd prefer to work out our problems. But he has to stop running over my yard in his car and throwing rocks at my dog first."
Pelosi to HMAN "Good news, HMAN. MASK wants to negotiate a settlement!"
Now...SOMETHING was lost in that transmission of data, wasn't it?
Take it further...
Now as LILLIAN, MTSPENCE, and HSUBFOOLS will tell you BEFORE she delivers that message "You can't trust MASK, he twists words and will trick you!".
But Nancy...poor, sweet, gullible Nancy doesn't listen...and runs off to HMAN with the news of my desire for peace. Never realizing that it's all an evil plan by me and Karl Rove to embaress her. And that after she has her press confrence, I'm going to come out and relay my REAL message to HMAN....Muh-hahahahahaha!
But wait....she's so smart...how am I fooling her?!?!?!?
hehe
Posted by Mask at 04/09/2007 @ 1:35pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 04/09/2007 @ 1:24pm
Hey, now, I posted somewhat of a response....
Posted by Dr Decibels at 04/09/2007 @ 1:36pm
As Pelosi's poll numbers move up and hsuB/heney's stay in the 30's and possibly dip into the 20's as scandals congressionally oversighted are publisized, is it even considered speculation that a lot of swift boating is going to be the top order coming out of the hsuB/heney admin.
Posted by hsuBfools at 04/09/2007 @ 1:36pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 04/09/2007 @ 1:33pm
Sorry, FRANK....can't play the "gender" card and try to paint any criticism of Pelosi as "sexism"....
unless you want the same card played against YOU and those who criticize "the first African-American WOMAN Secretary of State".
Hmmm?
Posted by Mask at 04/09/2007 @ 1:37pm
No, Pelosi doesn't have the skilled credentials of an international negotiator...but the idea was to try to bring parties together to talk and to try to advance talking points. Its their peace process right?
Posted by ONEVOTE 04/09/2007 @ 1:35pm
"doesn't have the skilled credentials of an international negotiator"?!??!?!....ONEVOTE, you got some PROBLEM with strong women in positions of leadership?!?!?!?...hehe
And I'd think it was great if Pelosi had "advanced the talking points"...but apparently she wasn't advancing the CORRECT talking points. And it's not likely she'd "get the parties together"...if ONE of those parties says she's misrepresenting their view.
Posted by Mask at 04/09/2007 @ 1:39pm
MASK--"I don't want to beat HMAN up, I'd prefer to work out our problems. But he has to stop running over my yard in his car and throwing rocks at my dog first."
Sounds a lot like wanting to negotiate a settlement to me. You want to work out our problems (reach a settlement). As a condition to settling, I have to first stop running over your yard, etc.
Posted by Hman23 at 04/09/2007 @ 1:40pm
By the way, Mask, if the Reuters Pelosi quote you cited turns out to be accurate, it would represent an eff-up by Pelosi. I'm just not yet comfortable with its accuracy.)
Posted by DRHAMMER 04/09/2007 @ 1:30pm
Happy to be proven wrong, Doc. And I'm sure many here are trying to do that as we speak. We'll wait and see their results.
Posted by Mask at 04/09/2007 @ 1:41pm
Posted by HMAN23 04/09/2007 @ 1:40pm
Yes, but NUANCED, HMAN. One (my version) is full of caveats and hesitation. The other (Pelosi's version) is a positive or encouraging push for negotiations with the lack of caveats indicating a starting point for negotiations, not prerequisites.
That's the story of diplomacy. And if you can't do that right, and Pelosi didn't obviously, then you shouldn't be trying to do it and possibly cause more damage.
Posted by Mask at 04/09/2007 @ 1:43pm
Also, despite that long list of "international affairs experience" that LILLIAN offered, Nancy Pelosi isn't a diplomat. She's more likely to think, due to her politician's ego, that she's "brokering peace between the Israelis and Syrians"...and more likely to either consciously or unconsciously take the MORE advantageous "version" of what Olmert said and try to run with it.
Posted by MASK 04/09/2007 @ 1:25pm | ignore this person
We agree that Pelosi is not qualified here...but again....this was to try to bring the parties together to initiate the process not to try to get a peace resolution overnight.
Posted by OneVote at 04/09/2007 @ 1:44pm
Oh, and I believe the tab in Iraq is upwards of 11 billion a month.
Posted by FRANKGRITS 04/09/2007 @ 1:23pm
I was guessing at the current cost, of course; thinking it was somewhere around $5B a month. Let's see - the KBR truck drivers, lowest on the KBR pay schedule were drawing $150K per year in 2003. What must KBR have to pay now to move supplies? That always struck me as the height of folly of the CPA policy, to allow privitization with foreign-to-Iraq elements to be paid such amounts, while the average Iraqi, if he or she had work, was earning $50 to $100 a month.
Dave Nelson, Seattle
Posted by wonderworld at 04/09/2007 @ 1:45pm
David Wurmser is director of Middle East studies at AEI.
Hey, luvvy, FUCK the AEI, and all their supposed "experts".
It's idiots like that who put us in Iraq.
Posted by Dr Decibels at 04/09/2007 @ 1:45pm
Posted by MASK 04/09/2007 @ 1:35bm
Mask (tm) has won an all expence free coupon to dine on-- a swiftboat, er: main course: omnivore t-bone turds.
Posted by hsuBfools at 04/09/2007 @ 1:46pm
I don't question Condi's intelligence
Well, I DO. Intelligent people don't let morons make them look like fools.
At least not more than once.
Posted by Dr Decibels at 04/09/2007 @ 1:47pm
But (as noted above)...you'd figure one of the smartest women in the United States, even the world....wouldn't have gotten FOOLED by such evil, yet more incompetent MEN!?!?!? Hmmm...it is a puzzler. Posted by MASK 04/09/2007 @ 1:07pm | ignore this person Mask, stop the ‘freshly dug worm' routine (twisting and turning to try to find some ‘fault' in Nancy) and apply a bit of objective reasoning for once.
I know this doesn't fit neatly into your ‘has to be either black or white' mentality, but there just might be more possibilities here that ‘Pelosi is a political novice who messed it up' or ‘Pelosi was so stupid she got suckered by those superior RNC men'.
For instance, she just mighty have understood that delivering the message, accurately and directly, was more important that protecting her own ass from political flame throwers on the right (oh, and from people like you who claim they aren't actually ON the right…but somehow always seem to be helping to carry their water.) .) Once she got over there, heard the message from Olmert, saw it fully documented in the news, then went to Assad…what?...what was she supposed to do then Mask?...say ‘Oh my gosh, they're going to find some way to discredit my attempt to deliver this message so I better cover my ass…and not deliver it at all.'
Mask, somehow, you have chosen, once again, to buy into, COMPLETELY and WITHOUT rational analysis, the wingnut version of current events. Many of the rest of us, having seen the lies and deceit of which the current crop of neocons is capable, are able to envision the possibility that Pelosi delivered the message to Assad and did so in spite of the knowledge that wingnuts everywhere would try their best to discredit her efforts.
Posted by Lillian at 04/09/2007 @ 1:50pm
And I'd think it was great if Pelosi had "advanced the talking points"...but apparently she wasn't advancing the CORRECT talking points. And it's not likely she'd "get the parties together"...if ONE of those parties says she's misrepresenting their view.
Posted by MASK 04/09/2007 @ 1:39pm | ignore this person
You know my views on Nancy. Hate to say it, but her propensity to lie may even exceed Olmert's......eh gads...did I say that? No gender bias intended...sorry all you womanfolk out there.
Okay...lets see how the story develops. I'll be happy to eat some crow too. Right now...we need more information.
Posted by OneVote at 04/09/2007 @ 1:50pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 04/09/2007 @ 1:45pm
FRANK....why can't I have the same doubts about Pelosi....and it not be a matter of her gender?
BTW, Pelosi does NOT represent "ALL of the people". She's the elected leader of the Party which controls the House of Representatives and also represents her district in northern California.
As for her "inherently" doing whats best for the people. I think pushig for an IMMEDIATE pull-out of Iraq is what's best....but she's not listening to me...is she listening to you?
Posted by Mask at 04/09/2007 @ 1:51pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 04/09/2007 @ 1:35pm
Thank you, Frank. I can be as salty as the next person, sometimes more so.
I just like to mix up my fucking expletives once in a while.
Posted by drhammer at 04/09/2007 @ 1:52pm
Posted by HMAN23 04/09/2007 @ 1:30pm
I think you make a very reasonable point.
Posted by drhammer at 04/09/2007 @ 1:54pm
I noticed the high-temp posts by loonielefties and other righties and can only conclude that they must really be proud of the GOP, given its track record of greed, deception and corruption and (in one case) an enamorment with same-sex teenagers.
Bush and his neo-con righties continually amaze me - even when telling the truth would be harmless, they prefer to lie.
Go figure.
Posted by topsnoop at 04/09/2007 @ 1:55pm
For instance, she just mighty have understood that delivering the message, accurately and directly, was more important that protecting her own ass from political flame throwers on the right (oh, and from people like you who claim they aren't actually ON the right…but somehow always seem to be helping to carry their water.) .) Once she got over there, heard the message from Olmert, saw it fully documented in the news, then went to Assad…what?...what was she supposed to do then Mask?...say ‘Oh my gosh, they're going to find some way to discredit my attempt to deliver this message so I better cover my ass…and not deliver it at all.'
Posted by LILLIAN 04/09/2007 @ 1:50pm
What WAS that "accurate and direct" message that she heard from Olmert, LILLIAN?
What she said he told her....or what his office said?
Posted by Mask at 04/09/2007 @ 1:55pm
Until they apologize for the Liberty, accepting FULL RESPONSIBILITY for the unprovoked attack, Isreal can kiss my ass.
Posted by DR DECIBELS 04/09/2007 @ 12:56pm | ignore this person
I agree good DR. An unimaginable parasite sucking the life blood out of America.
Posted by OneVote at 04/09/2007 @ 1:59pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/09/2007 @ 1:44pm
It's bad enough that you've turned to such voluminous cutting & pasting, but David Wurmser?
Bloggers around the globe are peeing themselves in laughter.
Posted by drhammer at 04/09/2007 @ 2:00pm
What WAS that "accurate and direct" message that she heard from Olmert, LILLIAN?
What she said he told her....or what his office said?
Posted by MASK 04/09/2007 @ 1:55pm | ignore this person
The one that she fully detailed to the media and to the Knesset on April 2nd...after she met with Olmert and before she went Syria.
The message that got fully published in all of the media on the 2nd which included ALL of the details Olmert gave her...including the details that about Olmerts preconditions for discussions...
...the details that you believe Pelosi somehow 'forgot'...apparently because you believe she's either sooooo incompetent or just plain too stupid to remember.
Posted by Lillian at 04/09/2007 @ 2:09pm
I don't do "shame" and I stick with one moniker. Please don't "should" me/us.
Posted by lewwelge at 04/09/2007 @ 2:27pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 04/09/2007 @ 2:12pm
OK, Frank, I'll bite.
Link me up.
Posted by drhammer at 04/09/2007 @ 2:29pm
If you were born in a Muslim country and raised to worship their God, would you still be a good Christian?
Posted by FRANKGRITS 04/09/2007 @ 1:59pm
Being very technical, I would have to say no, but I still might be a good man - and perhaps, a good Christian anyway.
Posted by Hman23 at 04/09/2007 @ 2:33pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 04/09/2007 @ 2:12pm
?
Posted by hsuBfools at 04/09/2007 @ 2:33pm
So I guess my answer is "maybe"
Posted by Hman23 at 04/09/2007 @ 2:34pm
If you were born in a Muslim country and raised to worship their God, would you still be a good Christian?
Posted by FRANKGRITS 04/09/2007 @ 1:59pm
Being very technical, I would have to say no, but I still might be a good man - and perhaps, a good Christian anyway.
Posted by HMAN23 04/09/2007 @ 2:33pm
I thought the 'one' god was the same, just like the jewish god, just differring messiahs?
Posted by hsuBfools at 04/09/2007 @ 2:41pm
Thus if you follow the same god's law, you're a good jew, christian, muslim...
Posted by hsuBfools at 04/09/2007 @ 2:43pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 04/09/2007 @ 2:41pm
I don't know Fools. I think religions have different interpretations of what that "law" is. My answer assumes that if I was raised a Muslim, I would not be following the exact teachings of Christianity. That's all. But, I still might get (lucky?) and happen to qualify as a good Christian, whatever that means. Change Franks "would" to "could" and I say "yes" not just maybe.
Posted by Hman23 at 04/09/2007 @ 2:52pm
Is that what you were calling people cowards over? I think that's a tad hyperbolic.
I am an atheist. The notion that people would kill or even exclude others in the name of a deity is an anathema to me. I can appreciate and respect the fact that most of the world's citizens derive comfort from practicing some sort of faith, but once you indulge in the "my god can beat up your god" kind of outlook, you demean the very faith you've subscribed to.
Whatever it is.
Posted by drhammer at 04/09/2007 @ 3:01pm
This exhaustive exchange of howling and snarling is truly enough to make one sick. That diplomacy, no matter who engages in it nor what format it follows, is being criticized is yet another brick in the wall of the insane asylum where the Jolly Roger has sprouted from the ashes of Old Glory. It is no surprise that this little event has spawned the normal folderol from the likes of MASK and MAASCH, not to mention the inane contributions by that baboon LL and his usual recipes for swill, cloyed with that rank ingredient he calls patriotism that only those who think with their spinal chord can enjoy. Your country is nothing but a corporate enterprise that sees no value in peace and all the value in the world in war and the dollars it yields. And there is nothing, no matter how sacred or cherished, that will not be sacrificed on the altar of "freedom" in order to keep the company running - whether it be Jesus Christ, truth, history, the citizenry, logic, international law, alliances, ect. It is a racket and the world knows it - all but the multitude of cornpone dumbskies that populate much of the Heartland (Trashcanistahn) and pockets of other nameless places where reality is nothing that doesn't appear on television.
The USA is a nation run by humbuggers, wirepullers, towncriers, talking heads, flag-wavers, scoundrels, criminals, hit men and miscellaneous villains, knaves, robber barons, god squaders and raparees. As a result, the populace is for the most part a herd of prunes, curs, blockheads, rubes, imbeciles, puppets, and other static, bovine small fries more concerned with the line at the drive-thru, Happy Hour, the price of ammo at WalMart or the misplaced TV guide that leaves them adrift like the Santa Maria without a sextant. What is so baldly obvious from reading this blog on a somewhat regular basis is the distortion of the national discourse and the jerkwater concerns that the chattering class is so adept at fitting perfectly into the holes left where reason and logic fail to show their evasive heads. So while I cannot fail to give a slap on the back to the few thinkers here who see the world without the red, white and blue blinders issued to all americanos upon entrance to the US of Eden, I cannot deny the urge to clout the lot of you on the chin for your unsparing nescience and pusillanimous desires to follow the beaten path - some of you probably to your death - just because some talebearer, corrupted Babbitt or politico said it is just, right and in the interest of the country, a country that your children and grandchildren will discover to be even more corrupt, reviled, distrusted, misguided and morally, spiritually, ecomically and culturally decayed than it is now.
It is hard to believe that the majority of your paisanos are even dumber than the LLs, RIOs, PONTIs and CPTs here. But I guess this is why 29% of the people still support Bush, and almost half of the land still thinks the war in Iraq can be won. But enough of my American Idyll...
Posted by chimichenga at 04/09/2007 @ 3:02pm
(By the way, Frank, thanks for the implication that I might be capable of deep thought.)
Posted by drhammer at 04/09/2007 @ 3:03pm
LvLiberty-So you are saying that it's primarily the accident of birth that decides what beliefs one will have and not because of anything you did.Why would your god create such an ignorant system?That's rather cruel.Truth doesn't have to be told to you by someone else as you claim.Truth exists within all people and must be sought out by the individual through effort and not by accepting what others tell you.
Posted by i'm nobody at 04/09/2007 @ 3:15pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 04/09/2007 @ 2:03pm
FRANK, the House of Representatives as a BODY represents the majority of Congressional House districts. The Speaker has NO power (except by Line of Succession after the Veep) and often doesn't even VOTE on matters (as DARLADOON explained in her past apologia of Ms Pelosi's "cat-herding" ability on the supplemental bill). She is NOT the "representative of ALL the people" as you contend. If so, find that in the Constitution and quote it.
Posted by FRANKGRITS 04/09/2007 @ 2:05pm
Do we (as LILLIAN has) assume that Nancy can do no wrong...just because Bush and the Administration are screw-ups?
Posted by FRANKGRITS 04/09/2007 @ 2:06pm
If she "doesn't have the votes"...then she's not that important politically is? I mean, does she "have the votes" to use the Congressional powers in foreign affairs, to effect the Syrian/Israeli dispute? If she can't end the war in Iraq....is she going to be able to offer some "aid package" to Assad and/or Olmert to get them to the peace table?
She's powerless to stop an VERY UNPOPULAR war in the US....but she can broker peace in the Middle East?!?!?
Posted by Mask at 04/09/2007 @ 3:15pm
The Qur'an says in 19:21 about Jesus as a revelation for mankind and a mercy from God, and it is a thing ordained.
The Bible says in 1Timothy 2:5 that there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.
The Qur'an also says very clearly that Jesus, son of Mary, illustrious in the world and the Hereafter, and one of those brought near unto God (Qur'an 3:45). So we may keep our duty to God and obey Jesus (Qur'an 3:50; 43:61).
http://www.exorthodoxforchrist.com/islam_and_jesus_christ.htm
Posted by hsuBfools at 04/09/2007 @ 3:16pm
Posted by LILLIAN 04/09/2007 @ 2:09pm
LILLIAN, you're so good with QUOTES....let's have some from Pelosi and Olmert on that "accurate and direct" message...???
Posted by Mask at 04/09/2007 @ 3:16pm
"Yeah but DR, you have to understand that for Frank, deep thought is Bill Clinton using WIFI at McDonalds to view his favorite porn sites."
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/09/2007 @ 3:06pm
Good job! You've managed to impugn 3 people with one 25-word sentence.
I am squarely behind your new-found economy of verbage, and encourage you to refine it even further.
Posted by drhammer at 04/09/2007 @ 3:17pm
Unless someone came along and presented you with the Good News in Jesus Christ, No. You would still be a Muslim and still dead in sin.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/09/2007 @ 3:02pm
LVLIB...If so, what happened (after death) to all those people's souls who died BEFORE the Christian evangelists got out into the world?
Posted by Mask at 04/09/2007 @ 3:18pm
The USA is a nation run by humbuggers, wirepullers, towncriers, talking heads, flag-wavers, scoundrels, criminals, hit men and miscellaneous villains, knaves, robber barons, god squaders and raparees. As a result, the populace is for the most part a herd of prunes, curs, blockheads, rubes, imbeciles, puppets, and other static, bovine small fries more concerned with the line at the drive-thru, Happy Hour, the price of ammo at WalMart or the misplaced TV guide that leaves them adrift like the Santa Maria without a sextant.
Posted by CHIMICHENGA 04/09/2007 @ 3:02pm
Dang CHIMI...never realized it was so bad here. You know what, I ought to pack up the family and move some place NICE and SAFE....
But now, I don't want to move to someplace that's like the "worst human rights violator in the Southern Hemisphere", where it's only safe if you "stay in the cities" or "don't ride the bus at night" by accident....
so where are you, and I'll move to THAT Paradise!
Posted by Mask at 04/09/2007 @ 3:21pm
I think the questions Frank raises are actually very interesting, though I would of course greatly disagree with him on the direction that his inquiry leads.
First of all, I strongly disagree with the claim that someone's beliefs are somehow an accident of birth. Yes, it is true that where you are born will greatly influence what you are raised to believe, but I think that's a far cry from saying that such a person is bound to hold that belief for the remainder of their life. Many people are raised in a certain religiou tradition, but then choose to leave it either for another tradition or for none at all.
Second, I reject the degree of exclusivist paradigm that Liberty sets up. Presumably, under his framework, if someone is not converted to Christianity, they automatically go to hell. There are a few serious problems with this kind of perception. First, it calls God's goodness into question; how can it be justified to punish for eternity someone who didn't hear a particular message solely because no one thought to tell them and they had no basis to believe that there was such a message to be sought out?
Second, I don't think this conception works theologically. Take Moses for example. He died before Jesus lived, and thus he obviously never heard anything of Jesus' message. Given Liberty's position, this means that one of two things must be true. One possibility is that Jesus came to him while he was in some-land-of-the-dead and offered him salvation, in which case this would presumably also happen with anyone who either never heard of Christianity or never felt they had enough reason to believe it. The other one, which I think we can agree is pretty absurd, is that Moses was simply consigned to spend eternity in hell.
Here's another problem, though. I'm not sure there's actually any place where belief in Jesus as the Son of God is actually listed as a necessary condition for salvation. Here's the most common source for that claim:
"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
-John 14:6
However, this doesn't say what people claim it does. It says that Jesus himself (in other words, Jesus' actions, perhaps?) is necessay in order for people to access heaven. It distinctly does not say that belief in him is. In fact, for any who take Genesis as literally as Liberty does, they have a real problem with verses like this:
"For just as in Adam all die, so too in Christ shall all be brought to life."
1 Corinthians 15:22
In this passage, the meaning of the word "all" has to be identical in both parts of the sentence. This seems pretty clear. Since it is theologically understood by Liberty and others that all humanity suffered for the actions of this Adam, it necessarily follows that all humanity is redeemed by the actions of Christ. To beat this argument, Liberty has to prove either that the word "all" changes meanings or that original sin is categorical, and I don't think he's going to be able to do that.
Posted by Thrawn at 04/09/2007 @ 3:34pm
Unless someone came along and presented you with the Good News in Jesus Christ, No. You would still be a Muslim and still dead in sin.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/09/2007 @ 3:02pm
Wow. That is one cruel God you have, Liberty.
Posted by Hman23 at 04/09/2007 @ 3:38pm
I'd love to get an answer to this question from some of the evangelical and fundamentalist types who frequent this site. The QUESTION: If you were born in another country and raised to believe in another religion or God, would your God be the real God or would the Christian God be the real God.
You see, if more people considered this question like DRHAMMER did, probably years ago, we would hve a lot less violence in the name of religion in the world because we would all realize just how inane organized religion really is. We are indoctrinated, programmed if you will, as impressionable youngsters that the real God is the one we are being programmed to believe in. Then we follow along like good little sheep and do the same ting to our kids and it goes on and infinitum.
Recently the remains of Jesus, Mary, Mary Magdalan, Josea and James were all found in the family tomb of Jesus, son of Joseph. I believe the odds of that happening were something like 38,000,000,000 to one. Pretty conclusive to me. The bones were in individual ossuwaries and inscribed plainly and desciphered conclusively. This sends Christianity on it's head.
So again, if we are taught something else in our formative years, isn't that what we usually end up believing into adulthood because of, fear of the fires of hell maybe? Shouldn't we all learn to think a little deeper?
Posted by FRANKGRITS 04/09/2007 @ 3:25pm
So, a couple of things are really important here. First of all, I would argue that there is in fact one God. What different monotheisitc traditions are really arguing about is what kind of God that is and what particular actions that God has taken in history. That's a matter on which there can be and indeed has been very legitimate, very intelligent debate throughout history. Regrettably, it has also been a cause for wars at various points, something that should absolutely not happen.
Second, you present the "Jesus tomb" findings as far more definitive than they actually are. There's still an incredible amount of controversy as to whether those tombs are authentic, and even if they were, it's not clear that it would totally undermine Christian doctrine.
Third, your point about disincentives to change religions is actually an interesting one. For one thing, if both the religion you're in and the religion you're considering both threaten hell for being wrong, it's not clear that the incentive to stay is as powerful as you suggest, particularly if you've had some experience (intellectual or personal) that convinces you that one is right and the other isn't. Moreover, I think this claim actually works against you. We know for a fact that a number of Jews chose to follow Jesus and accept him as the Son of God. All of the disincentives you're talking about operate in spades here, such that one has to wonder what, outside of actual compelling experience, could have prompted them to abandon many of the rituals and beliefs of Judaism that were treated as absolutely essential.
Posted by Thrawn at 04/09/2007 @ 3:54pm
Thrawn-Very good post.I don't think anyone was saying,however, that one was bound to the beliefs we were born into,but that since most people do stay in the comfort zone of the belief system they were born into that it wouldn't make sense for God to come up with one belief system that everyone had to believe in to have a nice afterlife,which you mentioned.Again,good post.
Posted by i'm nobody at 04/09/2007 @ 3:54pm
Thrawn-The very good post was the one before this last one.This one was OK,too.
Posted by i'm nobody at 04/09/2007 @ 3:59pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/09/2007 @ 3:05pm | ignore this person
No, Mr. Comstock, I did cut it there and got my kicks, but then said, "I'm outta here like Vladimir," and set my sights beyond the horizon. But in reality, you know damn well it takes plenty to get on overseas. For one there's the language, in my case Spanish, which is a tongue that varies greatly country to country. You supposedly married a Guanaca (Salvadoran) yet you don't speak a lick of español. Yeah, you know that a tortilla in Spain isn't the same as a tortilla in Guatemala. Well, a campesino in Quetzaltenango knows the difference between Coke and Pepsi, which is just as useless a piece of knowledge as your tortilla-distinguishing abilities.
Then there's the ability to blend in as best you can in a place where you'll never blend in. Knowing what not to wear in certain parts of these countries, on certain busses, at certain times can mean the difference between getting mugged or going about your business. Knowing the customs, traditions, proper usages of colloquialisms, ect., is yet another skill you must understand. Everything from taking a taxi to buying a meal to spending a Sunday with the family of a strapping young debutante requires a different frame of mind than it does in your native land. Bottom line is, even the most mundane tasks take on a novel and sometimes completely distinct nature than what you know from home. And being a foreigner you can be sure that you are a constant source of attention and incessantly scrutinized. Both your antics and exploits are magnified immensely. You live on a stage, and this requires more than just shambling around spitting Bible verses in your pajamas like you do here.
BTW, it is American folklore that the US was built by the best of every other stock of blood on the planet. In reality, the bulk of your ancestors (mine included) were those who were starving back in Europe, being persecuted, working inconsistently, if at all, unable to make ends meet, ruined by economic ruin or war and thus spent their few dollars on a boat trip across the ocean. I know people like to think that only the Joyces, Hollenhozerns, Rothchilds, Medicis and others from Europe represent the real stock of men who founded the USA, but you are mistaken, though I don't doubt you'll continue to delude yourself with this myth just as you do with myriad others….
Posted by chimichenga at 04/09/2007 @ 4:05pm
FrankGrits-I agree with many of your views on religion,but I believe that we should keep the teachings of ancient Masters such as Jesus,Lao Tzu,Buddha,Hindu Masters and some shamans and ignore the religions that grew up around their teachings.I have found them to be a good source of where to look inside yourself to find truth.
Posted by i'm nobody at 04/09/2007 @ 4:17pm
(back to the topic)
Mask -
You seem to be ignoring the fact that there were three REPUBLICANS with Pelosi, none of whom were exactly heaping praise on the President. Wouldn't trying to brush under the rug the fact that Bush is having trouble keeping the GOP in line, be the simplest explanation for the focused attack on Pelosi?
Posted by Hman23 at 04/09/2007 @ 4:17pm
(back to the topic)
Mask -
You seem to be ignoring the fact that there were three REPUBLICANS with Pelosi, none of whom were exactly heaping praise on the President. Wouldn't trying to brush under the rug the fact that Bush is having trouble keeping the GOP in line, be the simplest explanation for the focused attack on only Pelosi?
Posted by Hman23 at 04/09/2007 @ 4:18pm
"For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through Him might be saved."
John 3:17
Pastor Liv does likes to quote scripture out of context to make his point don't you know.
Posted by OneVote at 04/09/2007 @ 4:22pm
Posted by HMAN23 04/09/2007 @ 4:18pm | ignore this person
Attack is the important thing here, because debate is nothing but attack and assault in the US anymore. When not barking and roaring at one another about the most inane issues, they'll all stand around at a "debate" and avoid the real issues, instead harping on who's hurting the nation and who isn't, who's with the shaitans and who is not, who drives an SUV and who drives a hybrid, or who criticized Ann Coulter and Rosie O'Donnell. You know, the important things the people are clamoring for the next POTUS to take care of...
Posted by chimichenga at 04/09/2007 @ 4:25pm
Katrina is absolutely on target in her umbrage against the MSM. The Speaker of the House is third in line for the Presidency. Do people really think she has no business in making a formal visit to the President of Syria. Come on, guys...Get a life! Such hypocrisy is not to be believed. You would think that Americans would have outgrown their fears of powerful women and cartooned foreigners. But I guess not.
I found her visit refreshing and insightful. And I am sure the Syrians were tired of feeling like pariahs, villified by the current administration and the MSM that gratefully licks up the morsels they are given. Speaker Pelosi was the object of criticism because Bush and Cheney are frightened of her intelligence and forward-looking spirit, as well as her respect for other cultures and her willingness to meet with their leaders.
She is a person I respect, and I think the way her good name is bandied about by the know-nothing talk shows and the press show hosts and all the other so-called "pundits," just shows how mired this country is in misinformation and smear-campaigns. Just her appearance on TV with Pres. Assad gave an indication of how diplomacy should really be carried out, politely and diplomatically. It does no good to demonize other leaders--that's what got us into Iraq, and will eventually bring us to a confrontation with Iran, if the American public doesn't wake up soon.
Posted by Striver at 04/09/2007 @ 4:35pm
BTW, it is American folklore that the US was built by the best of every other stock of blood on the planet.
Posted by CHIMICHENGA 04/09/2007 @ 4:05pm | ignore this person
The average American may not know who his grandfather was. But the American was, however, one degree better off than the average Frenchman who, as a rule, was in considerable doubt as to who his father was.
- quoted in "Stories of Mark Twain," C. D. Williard, Pacific Outlook, 4/30/1910
Posted by OneVote at 04/09/2007 @ 4:41pm
Debate is too controlled in the US, too scripted and people too distracted by Brittany's Uncle Fester hairdo or what race Angelina's next adopted child will be. But hey, you can better control people with pleasure than with pain, right? In the end the rabble has to wake up before any real change can occur...
Posted by chimichenga at 04/09/2007 @ 4:43pm
Posted by ONEVOTE 04/09/2007 @ 4:41pm | ignore this person
Perhaps, but at least the unfathered Frenchman wasn't orphaned of his pappie's culture...
Posted by chimichenga at 04/09/2007 @ 4:44pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/09/2007 @ 4:50pm | ignore this person
Yeah, I know, the LL line stretches back 6000 years to the dawn of time on this ignoble globe. It only seems like yesterday when I was yawning as you described how your relatives were among the rats, er, I mean crewmembers of the Mayflower, Bibles in hand and verses flying from their sharp tongues. They then went on to bigger and brighter expressions of thier noble faith in that new-found land of freedom, which involved burning witches and wigwams. I can only imagine what the LL lineage was doing back in the days before the plague. Probably cheering on the suffering and termination of the non-believers and non-conformists...
Posted by chimichenga at 04/09/2007 @ 5:01pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/09/2007 @ 5:06pm | ignore this person
I do. One half from Ukraine, the other from Bavaria and Limerick, Ireland. Big surprise my great-grandfather was a communist who decided to return to Russia in his old age after 20 years cleaning a bank in NYC...
Posted by chimichenga at 04/09/2007 @ 5:11pm
Mask -
Now we do not have a transcript of what Pelosi said exactly, but you should read the following:
Was Pelosi in Syria unfairly accused? [tinyurl.com]
Pelosi's spokesman, Brendan Daly . . . : "We never said the (Israeli's) position changed."
Instead, he said, Pelosi accurately conveyed Israel's position: should the Syrians end their support for Hezbollah and Hamas, then the Israelis would be willing to talk.
Daly pointed out that Pelosi was briefed by State Department officials before her meetings with the foreign leaders and that State Department officials also attended her meetings.
So if Pelosi really committed foreign policy flubs of the first order, the State Department is in a position to confirm as much.
The White House certainly received a read-out of what exactly Pelosi and the foreign leaders said in their meetings. Significantly, the White House has not openly accused Pelosi of the foreign-policy missteps the Post had accused her of.
In an e-mail follow-up, Daly wrote: "WH has not said that because in fact the Speaker did not get the message wrong -- she included the necessary caveats and did not say or imply that this was a change in Israel's position."
. . .
Rep. David Hobson of Ohio, the only Republican on the trip, confirmed to a Dayton Daily News reporter that Pelosi et al have presented a united front as far as U.S. policy towards Syria.
Posted by Hman23 at 04/09/2007 @ 5:36pm
genealogy doesn't really matter in the long run.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/09/2007 @ 5:45pm
Unless, of course, you were born into a family that practices Islam.
Posted by Hman23 at 04/09/2007 @ 5:51pm
Science trumps rumor and gossip at every turn in my view. At the time of Jesus there was no CNN or MSM. There was only word of mouth. Stories were told and drugged up nomads bought it hook, line, and sinker. How do we know that Jesus didn't survive his crucifixion and his buddies cut him down and healed his wounds then made up the whole resurrection thing to cover their tracks. Makes sense to me. So we're to believe stories from thousands of years ago that have been written and rewritten and then were supposed to ignore modern science and discoveries. How do we know that the group of people who followed Jesus around weren't a political party with a slanted viewpoint like Faux News?
I think everyone would be better off if they just ignored all the teachings from ancient days regarding this God or that one and look to their own sould for the truth. Spirituality is a very personal thing for everyone. In my view, God, (a word), dwells within our souls and provides us with a conscience and thats what seperates us from the rest of the animal kingdom, that and the ability to think. We should gather up all of the organized religions and refer them to the dustbin of history. Then we should all live our lives under the rule of civilized law and live the best lives we can.
Posted by FRANKGRITS 04/09/2007 @ 4:02pm
I think that there are a number of issues with this kind of framework.
First of all, the claim about people's credulity at the time of Jesus is very interesting. For one thing, if "word of mouth" can't be a credible source, that makes it difficult to accept any historical accounts from the time period either.
In addition, the structure of your point is extremely telling. You've rested your entire point on Jesus' followers being deliberate deceivers, which of course has a number of HUGE issues. One, it's unclear what their incentive could possibly be, since they wouldn't be all that popular either with the Jewish leadership or with the Romans. Two, there's no positive evidence that any of the Christian leaders actually were malicious in any way. Three, this fails utterly to account for people like Paul who persecuted the church and had every reason to disbelieve everything that it said.
Also, the idea that Jesus could have survived the crucifixion is independently problematic. One, he wasn't terribly far from death when he was crucified. More importantly, though, he TOOK A SPEAR TO THE HEART. You just don't get up from that. Even more importantly, such a wounded figure could never be perceived either by his own disciples or by those they tried to convert as the Lord of Life who triumphed over the grave. That's critical because it means that your account has absolutely no ability to explain the existence of Christian ideas in spite of the fact that Jesus had unambiguously died from perhaps the worst and most humiliating punishment the Romans could conceive of.
Posted by Thrawn at 04/09/2007 @ 5:59pm
After reading this entire blog and seeing all the F---you's and people calling each names that would probably instigate a good swing if they were close enough--I propose that we just settle it all ====July 4th ==high noon---Lafayette park in front of the White House---THE Nations bloggers meet and duke it out once and for all--won't be hiding behind computer screens. If you say terrible things you will have to do it to someone's face---and you may have to suffer consequences. Myself, I try very hard not to fall into personal insults on this board==sometimes I fall short---usually I am disappointed in myself afterwards. However, people on here are just going to far--I recommend that they just settle it---show up face to face and see if they decide to buy each other a cold beer or do they throw down. Would be interesting to see. No weapons--as John Wayne said in The Quiet Man "Marques of Queensberry Rules"---I plan on being in D.C. that day anyway.==July 4th Lafayette Park---high noon
Posted by Len Mosse at 04/09/2007 @ 6:00pm
As a sidenote, it's unclear what modern science has to contribute that wouldn't already be known. The fact that dead people didn't spontaneously come back to life was something that people knew back then as well. Therefore, the idea that Jesus' resurrection was contrary to the normal course of nature was already known; people already knew that it would have to be a divine miracle in order to take place.
Posted by Thrawn at 04/09/2007 @ 6:01pm
Posted by ONEVOTE 04/09/2007 @ 4:22pm
A debate on hermaneutics? Anytime
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/09/2007 @ 4:48pm | ignore this person
Okay Pastor Liv...you start on John 3:17 and how this is consistent with your postulation that everyone who doesn't seek salvation in Christ is guilty of immortal sin.
BTW...you need to check you spelling. I think "hermeneutics" is what you meant. Good spelling is rudimentary before we can elevate our discussion to interpretation of quotation of scripture out of context.
Posted by OneVote at 04/09/2007 @ 6:15pm
Posted by ONEVOTE 04/09/2007 @ 4:41pm | ignore this person
Perhaps, but at least the unfathered Frenchman wasn't orphaned of his pappie's culture...
Posted by CHIMICHENGA 04/09/2007 @ 4:44pm | ignore this person
Chim...I see McDonald's in France. Now who opened the floodgate to this threat to French culture? Do you believe in the melting pot? Perhaps cultural assimilation is why we don't all kill each other off in America. Now you are bright enough to know about America's history over the last 300 years or so. Lots of immigrant blocks and enclaves fighting it out for their piece of American turf...lots of violence. Now take a look at whats happening in cities such as LA. Lots of gang violence from South and Central American gangs who draw the line on membership and turf ethnocentrically. Is this preservation of culture? Is this cultural assimilation? Is this different from the early days of European immigration?
If you are so certain of the depravity of American culture, why don't you renounce your USA citizenship?
Posted by OneVote at 04/09/2007 @ 6:30pm
Wow Chime(for a)change! Your eloquence surmounts the cynicism I detect and suspect resulted from some past pain, as for all. Pero serioso, muchas gracias por su escribiendo!
Posted by lewwelge at 04/09/2007 @ 9:21pm
Speaking of science and rumor/religion, are there other where they connect:
Buddhist atomists had two major movements. During the first phase, Buddhist atomism had a very qualitative, Aristotelian-style atomic theory in ancient India. According to this ancient Buddhist atomism, which began developing before the 4th century BC, there are four kinds of atoms, corresponding to the standard elements. Each of these elements has a specific property, such as solidity or motion, and performs a specific function in mixtures, such as providing support or causing growth. Like the Hindus and Jains, the Buddhists were able to integrate a theory of atomism with their theological presuppositions.
With the second phase of Buddhist atomism, it underwent a very rich period during the time of Dharmakirti (7th century), and which was literally very different to the first phase. Indian Buddhist philosophers in this second phase, including Dharmakirti and Dign?ga, considered atoms to be point-sized, durationless, and made of energy. In discussing Buddhist atomism, Stcherbatsky writes:
"...The Buddhists denied the existence of substantial matter altogether. Movement consists for them of moments, it is a staccato movement, momentary flashes of a stream of energy... "Everything is evanescent",... says the Buddhist, because there is no stuff... Both systems [S?nkhya, and later Indian Buddhism] share in common a tendency to push the analysis of Existence up to its minutest, last elements which are imagined as absolute qualities, or things possessing only one unique quality. They are called "qualities" (guna-dharma) in both systems in the sense of absolute qualities, a kind of atomic, or intra-atomic, energies of which the empirical things are composed. Both systems, therefore, agree in denying the objective reality of the categories of Substance and Quality,… and of the relation of Inference uniting them. There is in S?nkhya philosophy no separate existence of qualities. What we call quality is but a particular manifestation of a subtle entity. To every new unit of quality corresponds a subtle quantum of matter which is called guna "quality", but represents a subtle substantive entity. The same applies to early Buddhism where all qualities are substantive… or, more precisely, dynamic entities, although they are also called dharmas ('qualities')." (Stcherbatsky 1962 (1930). Vol. 1. P. 19).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_atomism
Posted by hsuBfools at 04/09/2007 @ 9:29pm
er, should read: are ther other 'areas' where they connect:
(it musta momentarily ebbed out of reality...)
Posted by hsuBfools at 04/09/2007 @ 9:36pm
there
Posted by hsuBfools at 04/09/2007 @ 9:36pm
Thank you for your excellent editorial. Please ignore your detractors.
Posted by Desdichado at 04/09/2007 @ 10:02pm
A couple of things here.
First, yes, evolution is correct. Young-earth creationism, correspondingly, is incorrect.
Second, if the thing about the Library of Congress classification is right, one of two things is true. It may simply be that they have to classify it either as fiction or as nonfiction, in which case either one would involve an ideological choice. In that case, the placement as one or the other doesn't mean much. If that isn't true, then the Library of Congress is simply making an ideological assertion. Also, the Library of Congress' allocation is hardly a decisive measure of whether a religious work communicates truth, seeing as how the government is probably not in the business of deciding which religious doctrines are true.
Posted by Thrawn at 04/10/2007 @ 01:02am