Did Pelosi Committ a felony?

[darin]

Interesting...Any libs care do defend this Pelosi Idiot??





Media Mostly Ignore Whether Pelosi’s Syria Trip Violated The Logan Act
Posted by Noel Sheppard on April 6, 2007 - 10:16.

Imagine if you will that in September 1996, just days after America launched a missile strike on Baghdad to expand the “no fly zone,” Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich met with Saddam Hussein to discuss foreign policy matters without the permission of President Clinton.

Would the media have vociferously discussed the possibility that Gingrich had violated federal law in doing so?

If the answer is a resounding “Yes,” then why have extremely few press outlets broached this issue as it pertains to current Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s (D-California) recent potentially law-breaking trip to Syria?

To best understand the issue, a little history is necessary. The Logan Act was created in 1799, and reads as follows:

§ 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

The Act was named after George Logan, who in 1798, went to France without President John Adams’ permission to try and settle the Quasi-War.


On April 6, the Wall Street Journal’s Robert F. Turner wrote a piece entitled “Illegal Diplomacy” (subscription required):

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may well have committed a felony in traveling to Damascus this week, against the wishes of the president, to communicate on foreign-policy issues with Syrian President Bashar Assad. The administration isn't going to want to touch this political hot potato, nor should it become a partisan issue. Maybe special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, whose aggressive prosecution of Lewis Libby establishes his independence from White House influence, should be called back.

The "Logan Act" makes it a felony and provides for a prison sentence of up to three years for any American, "without authority of the United States," ...

Read more:
http://newsbusters.org/node/11873

[Yurt]

Acting in her capacity as senator, she is probably entitled to absolute immunity.

[typomaniac]

Going after her would mean having to go after several Republican congressmen who took fact-finding trips to Syria.

"Newsbusters.org?"

[theHawk]

Going after her would mean having to go after several Republican congressmen who took fact-finding trips to Syria.

"Newsbusters.org?"


They had permission by the President, Pelosi didn't. What part of "without authority of the United States" do you not understand? Or is English your second language?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/without
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/authority

[Mr. P]

Going after her would mean having to go after several Republican congressmen who took fact-finding trips to Syria.

"Newsbusters.org?"

Fact-finding is one thing, delivering messages from other Counties and circumventing your own State depart are quite different. She's guilty.

[CockySOB]

Acting in her capacity as senator, she is probably entitled to absolute immunity.

No. Congress has some privileges regarding minor offenses, but I don't think a felony charge can be ignored.

And in this case, I expect that we'll hear all measure of "nuance" as to what Pelosi's trip entailed. She may well have acted outside of her authority while on her trip to the Middle East, and in doing so finds herself in jeopardy of felony charges.

Interesting. But in my estimation it will be used as political capital rather than end up in court.

[typomaniac]

They had permission by the President, Pelosi didn't. What part of "without authority of the United States" do you not understand? Or is English your second language?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/without
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/authorityAs much as I'm sure this pains you, George W. Bush is not the United States.

Incidentally, do you think that presidents even bother to "give permission" for fact-finding missions? Do you think Clinton gave Dennis Hastert "permission" to go to Colombia?

The dictionary won't tell you much about reality, Mr. Hawk.

[CockySOB]

Going after her would mean having to go after several Republican congressmen who took fact-finding trips to Syria.

"Newsbusters.org?"

Your first point would be valid for any Republicans who did not have proper authorization, just as Pelosi did not have proper authorization.

While I'm not a reader of Newsbusters.org myself, they did cite the proper references to the Logan Act (18 USC 953) and seemed to apply it properly. Feel free to use the Chapter-Section notation to look up the law on any of your favorite law school websites (I use Cornell).

[theHawk]

As much as I'm sure this pains you, George W. Bush is not the United States.

Incidentally, do you think that presidents even bother to "give permission" for fact-finding missions? Do you think Clinton gave Dennis Hastert "permission" to go to Colombia?

The dictionary won't tell you much about reality, Mr. Hawk.


Correct, "George W. Bush" isn't. But if you've ever bothered to read something called the U.S. Constitution you'd see what powers are given to the Executive Branch and which are given to Congress. You can also stop with the "fact finding" crap, Pelosi was not doing any "fact finding", she was there to present an alternative foreign policy on behave of the United States.

[KarlMarx]

As much as I'm sure this pains you, George W. Bush is not the United States.

Incidentally, do you think that presidents even bother to "give permission" for fact-finding missions? Do you think Clinton gave Dennis Hastert "permission" to go to Colombia?

The dictionary won't tell you much about reality, Mr. Hawk.

As much as this pains you

From Section 2 of Article II of the United States Constitution ("Executive Powers")

"He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties..."

Section 3 of Article II of the United States Constitution ("Executive Powers")

"...he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers ...."

George W Bush and the Executive Branch have the authority to meet with Assad of Syria, and start peace talks between Israel and Syria.. NOT Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi..

We live in a CONSTITUTIONAL Republic. And after all of the hyperventilating that you libs have been doing the past several years about the Constitution, I'd think you would see that Pelosi is clearly out of line.

She committed an impeachable offense, she should be thrown out of office and tried, and I hope, convicted, sent to a pound me in the ass prison.... but it will never happen, because GWB is a wuss and because the Congress is controlled by the Democrats

[typomaniac]

As much as this pains you

From Section 2 of Article II of the United States Constitution ("Executive Powers")

"He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties..."

Section 3 of Article II of the United States Constitution ("Executive Powers")

"...he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers ...."Doesn't pain me at all, Karl; in fact, I think it's very nice. :salute:

Of course, the Speaker wasn't making treaties, nor was she receiving anybody on her overseas junket. They were receiving her.


You can also stop with the "fact finding" crap, Pelosi was not doing any "fact finding", she was there to present an alternative foreign policy on behave of the United States.Your opinion. Which I won't even bother to address further unless you substantiate it with evidence.

[CockySOB]

Correct, "George W. Bush" isn't. But if you've ever bothered to read something called the U.S. Constitution you'd see what powers are given to the Executive Branch and which are given to Congress. You can also stop with the "fact finding" crap, Pelosi was not doing any "fact finding", she was there to present an alternative foreign policy on behave of herself and the Democrats who are pining away for a chance in 2008

She did NOT go on behalf of the United States of America, Hawk. In order to do that, she would have had to have been AUTHORIZED by the Executive Branch.

[CockySOB]

Of course, the Speaker wasn't making treaties, nor was she receiving anybody on her overseas junket. They were receiving her.

Your opinion. Which I won't even bother to address further unless you substantiate it with evidence.

You should go back and read the Logan Act again then (18 USC 953) because if she participated in ANY negotiations with Syria while on her trip WITHOUT Executive approval, then she committed a felony offense and should rightly be tried for it. If the Syrians approached her with any negotiations or proposals, she is bound by law to defer to the Executive Branch.

What is also interesting is that the Logan Act can also lead to a charge of treason although I don't see either GWB going after her for it, nor the Congress as a whole supporting the idea.

[typomaniac]

You should go back and read the Logan Act again then (18 USC 953) because if she participated in ANY negotiations with Syria while on her trip WITHOUT Executive approval, then she committed a felony offense and should rightly be tried for it. If the Syrians approached her with any negotiations or proposals, she is bound by law to defer to the Executive Branch.What makes you think she didn't?

[CockySOB]

What makes you think she didn't?

She didn't... what?

[typomaniac]

She didn't... what?...didn't defer official proposals to the executive branch? Assuming, of course, that any such proposals were ever made.

[KarlMarx]

Doesn't pain me at all, Karl; in fact, I think it's very nice. :salute:

Of course, the Speaker wasn't making treaties, nor was she receiving anybody on her overseas junket. They were receiving her.

Your opinion. Which I won't even bother to address further unless you substantiate it with evidence.

The evidence is already plain enough.

1. Speaker Pelosi met with the Syrian President and with the head of Israel and attempted to barter a peace proposal.
2. The Constitution, as I already pointed out, and furthermore, showed you, clearly gives that authority to the Executive Branch and not the Speaker of the House.

I've heard libs going on ad infinitum about how Bush is shredding the Constitution whether it was over NSA wiretaps of foreign agents, treating enemy combatants as defendents in criminal cases or revealing the identity of that desk jockey, Valerie Plame.

Now, a member of your side goes off an does something that is clearly in violation of the US Constitution and what do you do? You defend her. Not only that, but you play word games to boot.

The problem is that you're trying to defend the indefensible. Why don't you just admit that Nancy Pelosi broke the law and should face the consequences?

[typomaniac]

The evidence is already plain enough.

1. Speaker Pelosi met with the Syrian President and with the head of Israel and attempted to barter a peace proposal.Your ideology breaks down right there, Mr. Marx. :laugh2:

All parties have indicated a willingness for peace talks (only the first step to a peace proposal, you understand) for years. Discussing options for such talks is not the same as "bartering a peace proposal." And it sure as sh!t isn't the same as making a treaty.

Now, a member of your side goes off an does something that is clearly in violation of the US Constitution and what do you do? You defend her. Not only that, but you play word games to boot.What kind of "word games?"
The problem is that you're trying to defend the indefensible. Why don't you just admit that Nancy Pelosi broke the law and should face the consequences?Because I believe in the whole concept of innocence until proven guilty. No one has yet proved that Speaker Pelosi is actually guilty of anything, and it's unlikely that anyone will.

[KarlMarx]

Your ideology breaks down right there, Mr. Marx. :laugh2:

All parties have indicated a willingness for peace talks (only the first step to a peace proposal, you understand) for years. Discussing options for such talks is not the same as "bartering a peace proposal." And it sure as sh!t isn't the same as making a treaty.
What kind of "word games?"Because I believe in the whole concept of innocence until proven guilty. No one has yet proved that Speaker Pelosi is actually guilty of anything, and it's unlikely that anyone will.

typo--- it is hard to see the light when you have your head stuck so far up your ass.... try not to fart, you might blow out what little brains you have left.

[Yurt]

Karl said it well enough:


The evidence is already plain enough.

1. Speaker Pelosi met with the Syrian President and with the head of Israel and attempted to barter a peace proposal.
2. The Constitution, as I already pointed out, and furthermore, showed you, clearly gives that authority to the Executive Branch and not the Speaker of the House.

I've heard libs going on ad infinitum about how Bush is shredding the Constitution whether it was over NSA wiretaps of foreign agents, treating enemy combatants as defendents in criminal cases or revealing the identity of that desk jockey, Valerie Plame.

Now, a member of your side goes off an does something that is clearly in violation of the US Constitution and what do you do? You defend her. Not only that, but you play word games to boot.

The problem is that you're trying to defend the indefensible. Why don't you just admit that Nancy Pelosi broke the law and should face the consequences?

You however fail.




=typomaniac;35124]Your ideology breaks down right there, Mr. Marx. :laugh2:

All parties have indicated a willingness for peace talks (only the first step to a peace proposal, you understand) for years. Discussing options for such talks is not the same as "bartering a peace proposal." And it sure as sh!t isn't the same as making a treaty.

You miss the point so blatently it is laughable. She has NO authority.



What kind of "word games?"Because I believe in the whole concept of innocence until proven guilty. No one has yet proved that Speaker Pelosi is actually guilty of anything, and it's unlikely that anyone will.

The only games being played are by you. And, you are not very good at it. Congress does not set foreign policy. Do you agree?

Yes or no

[typomaniac]

Karl said it well enough:

You however fail.
You miss the point so blatently it is laughable. She has NO authority.When have I ever said that she has authority to do anything overseas that a private American citizen can't do?
The only games being played are by you. And, you are not very good at it. Congress does not set foreign policy. Do you agree?

Yes or noOf course I agree. The Speaker was not setting foreign policy on her trip, nor was she trying to.

Don't you think Mr. Assad has aides who know perfectly well what the limits of her authority are? (He does, in case you were wondering.)

[Yurt]

typomaniac;35153]When have I ever said that she has authority to do anything overseas that a private American citizen can't do?

You try to answer this with the next sentence, but it fails. She is NOT "private" citizen. But you knew that, right....




Of course I agree. The Speaker was not setting foreign policy on her trip, nor was she trying to.

Don't lie. Her objective was to open up TALKS between syria and the us. She admitted it. Nice try.




Don't you think Mr. Assad has aides who know perfectly well what the limits of her authority are? (He does, in case you were wondering.)

This is beyond comprehension. Are you well?

[typomaniac]

You try to answer this with the next sentence, but it fails. She is NOT "private" citizen. But you knew that, right....Talk about missing the point. I said that when she's overseas she can't do anything that a private citizen overseas can't do.
Don't lie. Her objective was to open up TALKS between syria and the us. She admitted it. Nice try.Why do you and your rah-rah buddies keep insisting that talking to foreigners is equivalent to setting foreign policy? For the third or fourth time now, it isn't.
This is beyond comprehension. Are you well?I would ask "are you able to read English," but I have more class than that. :finger3:

[Abbey Marie]

Talk about missing the point. I said that when she's overseas she can't do anything that a private citizen overseas can't do.Why do you and your rah-rah buddies keep insisting that talking to foreigners is equivalent to setting foreign policy? For the third or fourth time now, it isn't.I would ask "are you able to read English," but I have more class than that. :finger3:

She is attempting to undermine the President's foreign policy, which is in itself an attempt to set policy. Why can't you admit it? She has.

[Roomy]

Hasn't everyone, without exception, committed a felony in the USA? Ignorance or not being caught is no defence.

[CockySOB]

Hasn't everyone, without exception, committed a felony in the USA? Ignorance or not being caught is no defence.

I doubt the first part of your statement, but damned if I don't agree with the second part (except for the mis-spelling, of course).

[typomaniac]

She is attempting to undermine the President's foreign policy, which is in itself an attempt to set policy. Why can't you admit it? She has.She claimed to have been attempting to undermine foreign policy? Where? :link:

[KarlMarx]

I doubt the first part of your statement, but damned if I don't agree with the second part (except for the mis-spelling, of course).
actually, the British spelling of the word "defense" differs from our own (as do the spellings of other words, e.g. "color/colour").

[Roomy]

I doubt the first part of your statement, but damned if I don't agree with the second part (except for the mis-spelling, of course).


Misspelling? I think real 'English' sticks in your craw, use the bastardised version if you must, and you must, I make exceptions for you.:laugh2:

[Roomy]

Thanks Mr Marx.I bet he feels like a fool now, or at least he should.:laugh2:

[typomaniac]

Hasn't everyone, without exception, committed a felony in the USA? Ignorance or not being caught is no defence.A felony? Unlikely. A misdemeanor and/or a felony? Probably. (Or is it "misdemeanour" in the UK? :laugh2: Haven't been back in a while.)

[Mr. P]

Misspelling? I think real 'English' sticks in your craw, use the bastardised version if you must, and you must, I make exceptions for you.:laugh2:

The queens revenge is what we called all the manuals written in “ENGLISH” and such with Hawker Sidly aircraft. :laugh2:

[Nukeman]

Typo here is a little insight into what Washington is thinkg on the whole Pelosi issue. I personnaly think she is over stepping her athourity. She did not have permission to approach the Leader of Syria and no the common person or private citizen of the US does not have the ability to seek an audiance with another head of state.

here is a quote from an article discussing this very thing.

for the whole article please follow the link
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55067

Turner says that while Pelosi certainly is not the first member of Congress to engage in this sort of behavior, "her position as a national leader, the wartime circumstances, the opposition to the trip from the White House and the character of the regime she has chosen to approach make her behavior particularly inappropriate."

A purely fact-finding trip by a congressional delegation is not a problem, Turner says, nor is formal negotiation with foreign representatives if authorized by the president.
"Ms. Pelosi's trip was not authorized, and Syria is one of the world's leading sponsors of international terrorism," Turner says. "It has almost certainly been involved in numerous attacks that have claimed the lives of American military personnel from Beirut to Baghdad."

Turner concludes: "The U.S. is in the midst of two wars authorized by Congress. For Ms. Pelosi to [flout] the Constitution in these circumstances is not only shortsighted; it may well be a felony, as the Logan Act has been part of our criminal law for more than two centuries. Perhaps it is time to enforce the law."

[Kathianne]

The queens revenge is what we called all the manuals written in “ENGLISH” and such with Hawker Sidly aircraft. :laugh2:

Do you know what they call erasures in England? One of my friends did an internship there. She nearly fell over when a 9 year old boy said he needed another rubber. :laugh:

[typomaniac]

Typo here is a little insight into what Washington is thinkg on the whole Pelosi issue. I personnaly think she is over stepping her athourity. She did not have permission to approach the Leader of Syria and no the common person or private citizen of the US does not have the ability to seek an audiance with another head of state.

here is a quote from an article discussing this very thing.

for the whole article please follow the link
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55067

Turner says that while Pelosi certainly is not the first member of Congress to engage in this sort of behavior, "her position as a national leader, the wartime circumstances, the opposition to the trip from the White House and the character of the regime she has chosen to approach make her behavior particularly inappropriate."

A purely fact-finding trip by a congressional delegation is not a problem, Turner says, nor is formal negotiation with foreign representatives if authorized by the president.
"Ms. Pelosi's trip was not authorized, and Syria is one of the world's leading sponsors of international terrorism," Turner says. "It has almost certainly been involved in numerous attacks that have claimed the lives of American military personnel from Beirut to Baghdad."

Turner concludes: "The U.S. is in the midst of two wars authorized by Congress. For Ms. Pelosi to [flout] the Constitution in these circumstances is not only shortsighted; it may well be a felony, as the Logan Act has been part of our criminal law for more than two centuries. Perhaps it is time to enforce the law." Nukeman, your own source says that fact-finding activities (not necessarily authorized by the president) are not a problem.

So why would Mr. Turner be trying to whip his readers into such a frenzy? It couldn't possibly be to distract them from his party's failings, could it?

[Nukeman]

Nukeman, your own source says that fact-finding activities (not necessarily authorized by the president) are not a problem.

So why would Mr. Turner be trying to whip his readers into such a frenzy? It couldn't possibly be to distract them from his party's failings, could it?
I think you misread they must be approved by the executive branch!!

here is the quote...
A purely fact-finding trip by a congressional delegation is not a problem, Turner says, nor is formal negotiation with foreign representatives if authorized by the president

[typomaniac]

I think you misread they must be approved by the executive branch!!

here is the quote...
A purely fact-finding trip by a congressional delegation is not a problem, Turner says, nor is formal negotiation with foreign representatives if authorized by the presidentWell, if Mr. Turner really meant that fact-finding missions also had to be authorized by the president, his wording was totally wrong. (shrug)

[Nukeman]

Well, if Mr. Turner really meant that fact-finding missions also had to be authorized by the president, his wording was totally wrong. (shrug)

Do you feel Pelosi had the proper authority to approach another head of state on behalf of the US????

[typomaniac]

Do you feel Pelosi had the proper authority to approach another head of state on behalf of the US????IMO, she had every right to approach him as an American citizen, but not in any other special capacity.

[Nukeman]

IMO, she had every right to approach him as an American citizen, but not in any other special capacity.
I agree but is that what you feel she did???

[Nukeman]

Do remember that she flew in an official congressional jet, with a full press corps available. If she truely was a private citizen, as you state, then she should have payed for her own ticket and flown commercial

She went on the dime of the US tax payer that takes the private citizen aspect out of the equation all together.. That also puts her in the realm of a representative of the US congress

[typomaniac]

Do remember that she flew in an official congressional jet, with a full press corps available. If she truely was a private citizen, as you state, then she should have payed for her own ticket and flown commercialNot sure if that would have been possible. There might well be some rule that demands she have Secret Service protection, for instance.
She went on the dime of the US tax payer that takes the private citizen aspect out of the equation all together..Mr. Cheney goes on vacation on the taxpayer's dime, too. It does not follow that everything he does while on vacation is done in his official capacity.

[Kathianne]

Not sure if that would have been possible. There might well be some rule that demands she have Secret Service protection, for instance.Mr. Cheney goes on vacation on the taxpayer's dime, too. It does not follow that everything he does while on vacation is done in his official capacity.
Not true. Neither Cheney, Bush or Pelosi go on 'vacation' on our dimes. Red herring of the nth degree.

[Nukeman]

.Mr. Cheney goes on vacation on the taxpayer's dime, too. It does not follow that everything he does while on vacation is done in his official capacity.


Your compairing apples and oranges. Going on vacation and visiting heads of state are completely different.

[typomaniac]

Not true. Neither Cheney, Bush or Pelosi go on 'vacation' on our dimes. Red herring of the nth degree.But they do get from point A to point B on our dimes, which is what I meant. I apologize for the clumsy wording.

[typomaniac]

Your compairing apples and oranges. Going on vacation and visiting heads of state are completely different.Depends on whether the heads of state offer you beer and take you golfing with them. :D

[Kathianne]

But they do get from point A to point B on our dimes, which is what I meant. I apologize for the clumsy wording.

She either went on 'official Congressional business' or she paid for it. Which do you think? If we paid for it, she's not speaking as an 'average American.'

[Mr. P]

But they do get from point A to point B on our dimes, which is what I meant. I apologize for the clumsy wording.

Didn't you mean misleading wording? :laugh2:

[typomaniac]

Didn't you mean misleading wording? :laugh2:Not at all: as far as the choice of words in that post, the only thing I'll say about it is that "mistakes were made."
:slap:

[Gaffer]

The libs can defend her all they want, but she still screwed the pooch in the long run. And I'm sure Bush will remind her of the posibility of charges every time she tries to do something stupid again.

He really has something to step on her with now.

[Abbey Marie]

She claimed to have been attempting to undermine foreign policy? Where? :link:

Yes, by admitting to trying to broker a peace agreement betwen two countries/states. But that has already been stated in this thread and in the news. Tell us why do you still refuse to admit it?

[CockySOB]

Misspelling? I think real 'English' sticks in your craw, use the bastardised version if you must, and you must, I make exceptions for you.:laugh2:

My apologies. I've got an automatic spell checker in my browser and it flagged the word as misspelled. Please, carry on! :coffee:

[typomaniac]

Yes, by admitting to trying to broker a peace agreement betwen two countries/states. But that has already been stated in this thread and in the news. Tell us why do you still refuse to admit it?All I've seen so far are empty assertions. No credible news site has accused the speaker of trying to negotiate any kind of treaty.

Prove me wrong with a real news source, if you can, or don't expect me to "admit" to anything.

[Abbey Marie]

All I've seen so far are empty assertions. No credible news site has accused the speaker of trying to negotiate any kind of treaty.

Prove me wrong with a real news source, if you can, or don't expect me to "admit" to anything.

You seriously want to assert that she didn't do that? It's all over the news.

Here's just two:


By LAURIE COPANS, Associated Press Writer
Sun Apr 1, 8:43 PM ET

JERUSALEM - House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record) will tell Syrian leaders when she visits Damascus this week on a trip criticized by the Bush administration that Israel will only engage in peace talks if Syria stops supporting Palestinian militants, Israel said Sunday.

The message came during Pelosi's meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert during the Israel part of her Mideast tour.

"Pelosi is conveying that Israel is willing to talk if they (Syria) would openly take steps to stop supporting terrorism," Olmert's spokeswoman Miri Eisin said. "But at this point the Syrian government, by openly backing terror all around the Middle East, is not a partner for negotiations."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070402/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_pelosi

And here's a source I added because I'll bet you libs think it is more credible than Fox:


Pelosi: Israel and Syria want talks
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 04, 2007
15:58 MECCA TIME, 12:58 GMT

The White House condemned the meeting
between Pelosi and the Syrian president [AFP]

The speaker of the US House of Representatives has said that Israel and Syria want peace talks.
Nancy Pelosi met Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian president on Wednesday and conveyed a message from Ehud Olmert, the Israeli premier, that Israel was ready for peace talks.

She said al-Assad responded that he was ready to restart peace talks too.

"[Our] meeting with the president enabled us to communicate a message from Prime Minister Olmert that Israel was ready to engage in peace talks," Pelosi said.

She added that al-Assad "was ready to engage in negotiations [for] peace with Israel".
...

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/56BAC1B2-08B7-4823-A515-1DD386216FCA.htm

[Yurt]

typo, you got owned, now take a deep breath and admit what she did was wrong. :salute:

[Yurt]

On Monday, Pelosi shrugged off White House criticism of her coming trip to Damascus, saying she had great hope for reviving relations with Syria and changing its behavior.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/845016.html

[typomaniac]

typo, you got owned, now take a deep breath and admit what she did was wrong. :salute:I'll deal with those articles in due course.

Until you explain why you accused me - out of the blue - of religious bigotry, I have absolutely nothing more to say to you.

[Yurt]

I'll deal with those articles in due course.

Until you explain why you accused me - out of the blue - of religious bigotry, I have absolutely nothing more to say to you.

Nothing more to say to me, aaah...:boohoo:

[typomaniac]

You seriously want to assert that she didn't do that? It's all over the news.

Here's just two:



And here's a source I added because I'll bet you libs think it is more credible than Fox:I'll give you points for trying, but neither article proves that the speaker was trying to negotiate a treaty.

Both of them quote Israeli sources, who I guarantee were not present at the meetings between the speaker and President Assad. So at most they're reports based on hearsay - not to mention with the Israeli government's own spin included.

[Abbey Marie]

I'll give you points for trying, but neither article proves that the speaker was trying to negotiate a treaty.

Both of them quote Israeli sources, who I guarantee were not present at the meetings between the speaker and President Assad. So at most they're reports based on hearsay - not to mention with the Israeli government's own spin included.

And I'll give you points for trying. I on the other hand, succeeded. The second article is from al-jazeera, not exactly an Israeli bastion, and it quotes Pelosi directly.

But you know what, like just about every lib I've ever met, on a MB or off, you have just continued to deny the truth even when it is crystal clear, and buttressed by multiple sources. I guess we will await your next attempt to deny the obvious here.

To recap, and as seen from the accounts of multiple news sources, Granny P is trying to effect foreign policy, in an attempt to undermine GWB and the Republican party, and thinks it will help her party win in 2008. She has gone way over the line for political gain, and she is despicable for doing so.
Someone should start an Internet petition for her removal from Congress.

[Yurt]

I'll give you points for trying, but neither article proves that the speaker was trying to negotiate a treaty.

Both of them quote Israeli sources, who I guarantee were not present at the meetings between the speaker and President Assad. So at most they're reports based on hearsay - not to mention with the Israeli government's own spin included.

Treaty or not, she was there to influence foreign policy, period. What do you not understand about her OWN statements? You said you would reply to her statements, but have not.


Scared?

[Birdzeye]

Treaty or not, she was there to influence foreign policy, period. What do you not understand about her OWN statements? You said you would reply to her statements, but have not.


Scared?

And what about the Republicans who traveled with her? Is your outrage that selective?

[Gaffer]

And what about the Republicans who traveled with her? Is your outrage that selective?

There were no republicans with her, just dem reps. like herself.

[Birdzeye]

Bush administration criticism of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's trip to Syria this week is "hypocritical beyond belief,'' San Mateo Rep. Tom Lantos said Friday as he and the speaker prepared to return home from their nine-day trip with a congressional delegation to the Mideast.

Lantos, who chairs the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said the criticism from President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and other administration officials and allies is particularly out of line because Republican House members also met Syrian President Bashar Assad in Damascus just before and after the delegation led by the Democratic speaker.

"The notion that members visiting Syria and having discussions (is) a unique Democratic strategy to undermine the Republican administration is absurd on it face,'' Lantos said in a telephone interview with The Chronicle from Lisbon, Portugal.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2007/04/07/MNGTTP4OGB1.DTL&type=politics

Like I said, selective outrage.

[manu1959]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2007/04/07/MNGTTP4OGB1.DTL&type=politics

Like I said, selective outrage.

the republicans were sent pelosi was told not to go....

[Gaffer]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2007/04/07/MNGTTP4OGB1.DTL&type=politics

Like I said, selective outrage.

Here's what lampos said when they first went to syria.

"We have an alternative Democratic foreign policy. I view my job as beginning with restoring overseas credibility and respect for the United States."

That's says it all. They wanted to try to impliment their own foriegn policy. THAT is a felony. lantos is gonna swing right along with granny on this one.

assad also snubbed her after the photo op. Instead of meeting with her to discuss her plans for peace with Israel he went off to a soccor game with a buddy from Turkey, imagine that. Israel and Lebannon ream her a new one and assad snubs her. iraq, egypt and saudi arabia are all pissed at her. She couldn't have done a better job of screwing herself if Carl Rove had orchestrated the whole trip.

This is gonna get good.

[lily]

the republicans were sent pelosi was told not to go....


um.........no.......but nice try.

[lily]

Well....if what all you are saying is true......and it can only be true...look how many threads there are about this topic here. If there are any prosecuters left in DC, that haven't been fired, I suggest they get a Grand Jury together and get this show on the road......otherwise you don't have a leg to stand on. Oh, you can cry and moan, but that and a buck will get you a cup of coffee.

[manu1959]

um.........no.......but nice try.

um....ya....but nice try

[manu1959]

Well....if what all you are saying is true......and it can only be true...look how many threads there are about this topic here. If there are any prosecuters left in DC, that haven't been fired, I suggest they get a Grand Jury together and get this show on the road......otherwise you don't have a leg to stand on. Oh, you can cry and moan, but that and a buck will get you a cup of coffee.

clinton didn't get prosecuted for sexual harrasment and sodomy...why would pelosi be prosecuted....hell ted kedney killed a woman and he is senator for life

[loosecannon]

The libs can defend her all they want, but she still screwed the pooch in the long run. And I'm sure Bush will remind her of the posibility of charges every time she tries to do something stupid again.

He really has something to step on her with now.

Oh Dear, somebody has been eating conservachow....

Pelosi is the third in line to the presidency, and in this climate where impeachment of #1 and #2 is so likely Pelosi is well advised to meet and greet with heads of state.

She broke no laws by any means, she did no harm, she couldn't possibly have fucked up Bush's foreign affairs morasse.

Ya'll are just pissy cuz the Bush administration is collapsing and you are desperately scratching for any excuse to "hate you some libruls" so you feel safe again.

[manu1959]

Oh Dear, somebody has been eating conservachow....

Pelosi is the third in line to the presidency, and in this climate where impeachment of #1 and #2 is so likely Pelosi is well advised to meet and greet with heads of state.

She broke no laws by any means, she did no harm, she couldn't possibly have fucked up Bush's foreign affairs morasse.

Ya'll are just pissy cuz the Bush administration is collapsing and you are desperately scratching for any excuse to "hate you some libruls" so you feel safe again.

what are bush and chenny going to be impeaceached for? ...... so the speaker of the house is authorized by the executive branch and the consitution to meet foriegn heads of state...for what purpose?

[loosecannon]

what are bush and chenny going to be impeaceached for? ...... so the speaker of the house is authorized by the executive branch and the consitution to meet foriegn heads of state...for what purpose?

Save the impeachment for another thread, this thread is about Pelosi's rightfull acceptance of an invitation to meet Syria's president.

Apparently Israeli and Syrian leadership welcome or even prefer Pelosi's dimplomacy to Bush's team. Go figure.

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7006978546

U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she believes her trip to Syria helped President Bush. Pelosi said the trip showed the world that the U.S. is unified against terrorism.

Pelosi also delivered a message from Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that Israel was ready for peace talks with Syria. Pelosi said Assad indicated he was ready for talks.

[manu1959]

Save the impeachment for another thread, this thread is about Pelosi's rightfull acceptance of an invitation to meet Syria's president.

Apparently Israeli and Syrian leadership welcome or even prefer Pelosi's dimplomacy to Bush's team. Go figure.

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7006978546

U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she believes her trip to Syria helped President Bush. Pelosi said the trip showed the world that the U.S. is unified against terrorism.

Pelosi also delivered a message from Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that Israel was ready for peace talks with Syria. Pelosi said Assad indicated he was ready for talks.

she violated the Logan act....what she believes is of no consequence....syria prefers pelosis form of diplomacy?!....thought she was just visiting as a citizen....not negotiating foiegn policy....what did nancy promise them?

lastly, tell me, which terrorist group was housed, sponsored and funded by the Assad dictatorship that killed us citizens ?

[loosecannon]

she violated the Logan act....what she believes is of no consequence....syria prefers pelosis form of diplomacy?!....thought she was just visiting as a citizen....not negotiating foiegn policy....what did nancy promise them?

lastly, tell me, which terrorist group was housed, sponsored and funded by the Assad dictatorship that killed us citizens ?

Which nation had the full support of the reagan admin even tho

>they were using chemical weapons on their own and other nations citizens

>were a state sponsor of terrorists

>were working on a nuclear weapons program

1)Iraq under Saddam?
or
2) Iraq under Saddam?

Pelosi didn't violate the Logan act, she made no deals, she articulated Israel's messages, met and greeted, and exchanged face time.

LOTS of congress critters do this ALL the time from both parties.

Look Manu, if you just can't live without self inflicted panty bunching fine.

Don't expect anybody on earth to believe your drivvel logic. We will just point at you and laugh.

[manu1959]

Which nation had the full support of the reagan admin even tho

>they were using chemical weapons on their own and other nations citizens

>were a state sponsor of terrorists

>were working on a nuclear weapons program

1)Iraq under Saddam?
or
2) Iraq under Saddam?

Pelosi didn't violate the Logan act, she made no deals, she articulated Israel's messages, met and greeted, and exchanged face time.

LOTS of congress critters do this ALL the time from both parties.

Look Manu, if you just can't live without self inflicted panty bunching fine.

Don't expect anybody on earth to believe your drivvel logic. We will just point at you and laugh.

so are you saying pelosi is as brilliant as reagan or as evil as reagan?

the logan act does not require someone to make "deals" the simple act of meetings with foriegn heads of state not authorized by the executive branch makes one chargeable....the clear intent of the logan act is to prohibit unauthorized persons from intervening in disputes between the United States and foreign governments.

so what was it about pelosi's diplomacy did mr assad prefer....did she forgive him and his father for killing marines?

[loosecannon]

so what was it about pelosi's diplomacy did mr assad prefer

that she isn't a lame duck headed for impeachment? And she came with a message from Olbert that the Israelis wanted to talk peace? Or that she was the new House majority leader and he wanted to meet her.

You are jumping to wild assed and crazy assumptions to believe that pelosi negotiated anything at all.

But maybe you forgot about the reagan team negotiating with Iran to hold the US hostages and release them an hour after Reagan's innaugeration? Is that the real violation of the Logan Act you wanna discuss Manu the lost and reaching?

[loosecannon]

Just to demonstrate how batshit insane this accusation of the Logan Act violation is.....

The Logan Act is an obscure 1799 act that has NEVER been used to prosecute anybody not even unsuccesfully.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act

The Logan Act is a United States federal law that forbids unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments. It was passed in 1799 and last amended in 1994. Violation of the Logan Act is a felony, punishable under federal law with imprisonment of up to three years.

The text of the Act is broad and is addressed at any attempt of a US citizen to conduct foreign relations without authority. However, there is no record of any prosecutions or convictions under the Logan Act

How low the ragged Bushbot must stoop to find dirt on a Libruls soles.

[Birdzeye]

Just to demonstrate how batshit insane this accusation of the Logan Act violation is.....

The Logan Act is an obscure 1799 act that has NEVER been used to prosecute anybody not even unsuccesfully.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act

The Logan Act is a United States federal law that forbids unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments. It was passed in 1799 and last amended in 1994. Violation of the Logan Act is a felony, punishable under federal law with imprisonment of up to three years.

The text of the Act is broad and is addressed at any attempt of a US citizen to conduct foreign relations without authority. However, there is no record of any prosecutions or convictions under the Logan Act

How low the ragged Bushbot must stoop to find dirt on a Libruls soles.

Indeed. From the moment Pelosi became Speaker, the Bush apologists have been manufacturing one bogus "scandal" after another about her. This is just their latest pathetic attempt, made even more so by their attempts to pin a felony charge on her while rationalizing the same behavior by Republican congressmen.

I wonder what the next bogus "scandal" will be; I'm sure we won't have to wait long to find out.

[CockySOB]

Save the impeachment for another thread, this thread is about Pelosi's rightfull acceptance of an invitation to meet Syria's president.

Apparently Israeli and Syrian leadership welcome or even prefer Pelosi's dimplomacy to Bush's team. Go figure.

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7006978546

U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she believes her trip to Syria helped President Bush. Pelosi said the trip showed the world that the U.S. is unified against terrorism.

Pelosi also delivered a message from Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that Israel was ready for peace talks with Syria. Pelosi said Assad indicated he was ready for talks.

Bull-shit! Haven't you read the comments from Ehud Olmert about Pelosi's statements? From the Jerusalem Post (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1173879247562&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull)
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.
and further
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.

The first part of that message, the officials said, was lost in what was reported from Damascus on Wednesday.

Of course, why not go to the horse's mouth rather that news agencies....

http://www.pmo.gov.il/PMOEng/Communication/Spokesman/2007/04/spokebur040407.htm

Following quotes attributed to U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, during her visit to Damascus, the Prime Minister’s Bureau wishes to clarify the following:

During Mrs. Pelosi’s meeting with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, before her visit to Syria, the Prime Minister said that a number of Senate and House members who recently visited Damascus received the impression that despite the declarations of Bashar Assad, there is no change in the position of his country regarding a possible peace process with Israel.

The Prime Minister emphasized 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.

In order to conduct serious and genuine peace negotiations, Syria must cease its support of terror, cease its sponsoring of the Hamas and Islamic Jihad organizations, refrain from providing weapons to Hizbollah 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 Prime Minister clarified that by these measures it would be determined whether Syria is sincere about attaining a genuine peace with Israel.

What was communicated to the U.S. House speaker does not contain any change in the policies of Israel, as was communicated to other foreign leaders.

Doesn't look like Israel cares for Pelosi's statements (and mis-statements) very much, now does it?

[CockySOB]

BTW, the misrepresentation of Israel's position could be considered injurious to the USA foreign policy, and as such, yes, 18 USC 953 (Logan Act) might be applicable. However, this would require a Bush Administration willing to prosecute such an action, and I don't think it has the gonads to try. Notwithstanding that, the fact that no one has been indicted or convicted under that legislation does not automatically invalidate its applicability.

[loosecannon]

Doesn't look like Israel cares for Pelosi's statements (and mis-statements) very much, now does it?

It looks like they flip flopped after the event.

[loosecannon]

BTW, the misrepresentation of Israel's position...


...is a fiction/fantasy manufactured by desperate hatelords of the Bushcult



and as such, yes, 18 USC 953 (Logan Act) might be applicable

in yer dreams Bushbot. Reagan conspired with Iran, who was holding our citizens hostages, to sell them arms so that they would hold off until the hour after his innauguration before they release those hostages.



Notwithstanding that, the fact that no one has been indicted or convicted under that legislation does not automatically invalidate its applicability.

But it does invalidate it being applicable in this case.

It is a law that has NEVER been enforced in 209 years.

Dragging it now for political purposes sounds sooo Alberto Gonzales.

Don't you fools ever learn?

[No1tovote4]

Indeed. From the moment Pelosi became Speaker, the Bush apologists have been manufacturing one bogus "scandal" after another about her. This is just their latest pathetic attempt, made even more so by their attempts to pin a felony charge on her while rationalizing the same behavior by Republican congressmen.

I wonder what the next bogus "scandal" will be; I'm sure we won't have to wait long to find out.
It isn't a felony to usurp Constitutional powers of another branch of government, it is just ill-advised and plain stupid. I thought better of this person than this. Re-read article II of the Constitution and tell me where it says that the Congress has any power other than voting on Treaties in this arena. I'd love your input.

[Birdzeye]

It isn't a felony to usurp Constitutional powers of another branch of government, it is just ill-advised and plain stupid. I thought better of this person than this. Re-read article II of the Constitution and tell me where it says that the Congress has any power other than voting on Treaties in this arena. I'd love your input.

I'm not a lawyer, so I can't answer the question definitively. My point is that if it's a "felony" or "stupid," that label applies to the Republican congressmen who also traveled to the ME and met with national leaders there.

The Bush apologists want to have it both ways: they want it to be a "felony" or "stupid" ONLY for Pelosi but not the Republicans.

It will be interesting to see what bogus "scandal" the right wingers manufacture for Madam Speaker.

[loosecannon]

It will be interesting to see what bogus "scandal" the right wingers manufacture for Madam Speaker.

Forcing Bush to veto support for the troops?

[Birdzeye]

FLASHBACK: Gingrich Thrust Himself Into Mideast Questions As Speaker, Bashed White House Policy

One politician who's been getting some airtime as a critic of Nancy Pelosi's trip to Syria is former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. A few days ago he hammered Pelosi for going abroad in defiance of the White House's wishes, saying that such defiance of the White House by Congressional leaders was "very dangerous."

But as Speaker himself in May of 1998, Gingrich aggressively inserted himself into American foreign policymaking abroad when he took a high-powered Congressional delegation to Israel. He openly denounced the White House's Middle East policies and made public comments in direct defiance of the White House. Right before his trip he even described then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright as an "agent for the Palestinians."

In other words, despite the fact that the White House opposed her trip to Syria, Pelosi -- who claims she delivered the White House's message, unlike Gingrich -- has in many ways been more respectful of the White House than Gingrich was on his trip abroad. Yet CNN somehow can still ask without any irony whether Pelosi is on her way to becoming the "most controversial House Speaker yet."

http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/apr/06/flashback_gingrich_visited_israel_as_speaker_blast ed_presidents_foreign_policy

IOW, it's OK as long as a Republican does it. [/sarcasm]

[CockySOB]

It looks like they flip flopped after the event.

Where's your evidence of this? Pelosi's statement is NOT evidence of anything that Israel (via the PMO) ever said. What other evidence do you have that this is Israel flip-flopping rather than Pelosi misrepresenting her personal statements as foreign policy?

BTW, you might be able to call some people a Bush-bot, but I am certainly not among their number. You on the other hand, are a prime example of BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) as evidenced by your total lack of reason and prolific use of the term "Bush-bots." Do grow up, won't you?

[CockySOB]

http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/apr/06/flashback_gingrich_visited_israel_as_speaker_blast ed_presidents_foreign_policy

IOW, it's OK as long as a Republican does it.

Good catch. Further deflates the possibility that the current administration will do anything about Pelosi's statements, etc. Especially since Newt is still a viable power among the conservative voting base.

[loosecannon]

It is kinda sad Birdz because the American people have grown tired of the attack and blame politics of the GOP.

If the GOP loved America or even gave a shit about the majority they would get over the smear and swiftboat mentality that they have been hocking since the early 90's and just try to work constructively and cooperatively in building our nations future.

Any fair and balanced comparison of the two parties favors the dems on all the moral issues and favors the GOP on political savvy.

But if the ONLY thing a party is any good at is politicizing EVERYTHING from the DOJ to hurricane relief and treatment of veterans then who needs them?

[loosecannon]

Where's your evidence of this? Pelosi's statement is NOT evidence of anything that Israel (via the PMO) ever said.

OK, fine. But news reports you post are also NOT evidence of anything that Israel ever sed.

Duh

[stephanie]

It is kinda sad Birdz because the American people have grown tired of the attack and blame politics of the GOP.

If the GOP loved America or even gave a shit about the majority they would get over the smear and swiftboat mentality that they have been hocking since the early 90's and just try to work constructively and cooperatively in building our nations future.

Any fair and balanced comparison of the two parties favors the dems on all the moral issues and favors the GOP on political savvy.

But if the ONLY thing a party is any good at is politicizing EVERYTHING from the DOJ to hurricane relief and treatment of veterans then who needs them?

:rolleyes:

[CockySOB]

OK, fine. But news reports you post are also NOT evidence of anything that Israel ever sed.

Duh

R-E-A-D my post you fucking moron! I cited a direct link to the Israeli Prime Ministers website where they flat-out say that Pelosi mis-represented what Ehud Olmert had said to her.

As I said, you're rife with BDS and seem incapable of rational thought or logical debate.

ADDED: to save you the trouble of tryign to figure out how to go to the previous page and actually READ my post, I've copied the link location here for you. HAve fun with your education.
http://www.pmo.gov.il/PMOEng/Communication/Spokesman/2007/04/spokebur040407.htm

[typomaniac]

BTW, you might be able to call some people a Bush-bot, but I am certainly not among their number. You on the other hand, are a prime example of BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) as evidenced by your total lack of reason and prolific use of the term "Bush-bots." Do grow up, won't you?For what it's worth, I use the term "bushbot" frequently, to distinguish the blind supporters of Bush (no matter what he does) from Republicans who actually give a shit about what the party is supposed to stand for. It is no less immature than the constant use of the term "liberal" that "loyal Bushies" use to describe anyone who disagrees with them, regardless of what liberalism actually MEANS.

At the end of the day, the word "busbot" is a convenient shorthand that, sadly, describes a lot of people very accurately.

[lily]

um....ya....but nice try

Wow manu.......that's deep. I'm going to have to contemplate that for a while, so if I don't reply to any more of your posts, please understand that it's not you, I'm still trying to understand the deep thoughts put into your reply. In the mean time, let me just off the top of my head give you a reply to this post, while I think on it more.

I know you are but what am I:lame2:

[Gaffer]

Which nation had the full support of the reagan admin even tho

>they were using chemical weapons on their own and other nations citizens

>were a state sponsor of terrorists

>were working on a nuclear weapons program

1)Iraq under Saddam?
or
2) Iraq under Saddam?

Pelosi didn't violate the Logan act, she made no deals, she articulated Israel's messages, met and greeted, and exchanged face time.

LOTS of congress critters do this ALL the time from both parties.

Look Manu, if you just can't live without self inflicted panty bunching fine.

Don't expect anybody on earth to believe your drivvel logic. We will just point at you and laugh.

pelosi went to syria against the will of the Bush administration. She told syria a falsehood about Israel that Israel refured publicly. She got her face time for photo ops but when it was time for talks with the syrian leader he went off with a buddy from turkey to catch a soccer match. She got snubbed by assad. Lebannon is also highly pissed at her as it gives assad legitimacy just as the un is accusing him of having the Lebannon former president assassinated. All the other countries in the region say it sends a mixed message to everyone.

Even her buddy lantos who accompanied her had said the dems were going to present their own foriegn policy during these meetings. Something he quickly back peddled on once the heat got turned up. There is every reason to impeach her. But I have a feeling she won't be, but she will step down from the speakership in the next few months. And it will be forced on her by the dems.

[Gaffer]

Indeed. From the moment Pelosi became Speaker, the Bush apologists have been manufacturing one bogus "scandal" after another about her. This is just their latest pathetic attempt, made even more so by their attempts to pin a felony charge on her while rationalizing the same behavior by Republican congressmen.

I wonder what the next bogus "scandal" will be; I'm sure we won't have to wait long to find out.

And this has never been done to Bush by the libs right? Never a bad word said about him.

[lily]

Bull-shit! Haven't you read the comments from Ehud Olmert about Pelosi's statements? From the Jerusalem Post (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1173879247562&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull)
and further

Of course, why not go to the horse's mouth rather that news agencies....

http://www.pmo.gov.il/PMOEng/Communication/Spokesman/2007/04/spokebur040407.htm


Doesn't look like Israel cares for Pelosi's statements (and mis-statements) very much, now does it?

Cocky.........I admitted that Pelosi screwed the pooch on this one. Whether she did it intentionally or made a stupid Bushism, I don't know.....but to pull out something so stupid as the Logan Act and say she broke it (not you but most of the others on this forum, I don't know you might have, I haven't read all the posts.) is grasping at straws.

My nickels worth on this. It's taking the eye off of what is important Iraq and giving the right some imaginary ammunition to use when Easter Break is over and it's time for the war bill to be discussed......and to show you I'm fair, maybe it was done on purpose, so the Democrats can have an "out" on the date set for withdrawl and put in what Americans might be willing to settle for, benchmarks (not to be confused with time tables, because as we know those are baaaad) for the Iraqi government to get their act together and if they don't the next step is we're out!

.......but to get back to your articles......why is it that none of the Republicans, that made sure they got there a day before Pelosi are having article written about them........and the right screams about liberal press.

[loosecannon]

I cited a direct link to the Israeli Prime Ministers website where they flat-out say that Pelosi mis-represented what Ehud Olmert had said to her.

[

So did Olmert go directly to Pelosi's website to find out exactly what Pelosi said? Or did he go to the Syrian Pres site to see what that siote said, Pelosi said?

Like any head of state anywhere in the world would tell you exactly what they said in private meetings.

You are a chump to believe any of the chatter.

[loosecannon]

pelosi went to syria against the will of the Bush administration. She told syria a falsehood about Israel that Israel refured publicly.

There is every reason to impeach her. But I have a feeling she won't be, but she will step down from the speakership in the next few months. And it will be forced on her by the dems.

Like anybody gives a shit about "the will of the Bush administration...Shheeeeesh.

You are posting really drunk right? Pelosi impeached, forced to step down, where do you get these far side of mars ideas anyway? You write this shit your self or just close your eyes and type?

I really wish I had the chance to make a face to face bet concerning both of these "predictions". If your money is anywhere near as loose as your imagination you would be a walking cash cow.

[loosecannon]

And this has never been done to Bush by the libs right? Never a bad word said about him.


There is a BIG difference Gaffner. Bush is the PRESIDENT who claims himself to be the DECIDER.

And as a DECIDER he has fucked up everything he has ever touched in his entire adult life.

And Bush's party is neck deep in twelve kinds of criminal activity. No respect for law.

The Bush cabal is to the presidency what Child molesting Priests are to the Catholic church.

So the Scandals are REAL!!

[lily]

:rolleyes:

:lame2:

[CockySOB]

Like anybody gives a shit about "the will of the Bush administration...Shheeeeesh.

You are posting really drunk right? Pelosi impeached, forced to step down, where do you get these far side of mars ideas anyway? You write this shit your self or just close your eyes and type?

I really wish I had the chance to make a face to face bet concerning both of these "predictions". If your money is anywhere near as loose as your imagination you would be a walking cash cow.

The only "chump" around here is you, loosecanon. And excuse me, but please cite EXACTLY where I said Pelosi should be impeached. Oh yeah, can't do it, 'cause I never said it. Damn you're a fucking idiot, and a stubborn one to boot! What was my prediction exactly? Oh yeah, I said that the GWB administration wouldn't try to prosecute 1) because it has no stomach to press such issues, and 2) despite the fact that what Pelosi did may run counter to 18 USC 953 (Logan Act), recent events (thanks Birdzeye) surrounding Newt Gingrich and WJC make it highly unlikely that any prosecution could succeed anyway.

Loose, you try to talk like I'm drunk, yet you're the one who cannot even keep the facts straight in a single thread. Why don't you check yourself into the local rehab facility and dry out before trying to run with the big dogs, m'kay pumpkin? Good.

[Birdzeye]

And this has never been done to Bush by the libs right? Never a bad word said about him.


Whya should you worry? If Bush got caught molesting a boy in the restroom, you rightwingers would swear the photo was photoshopped and the witnesses paid off.

If, OTOH, Pelosi got caught in similar circumstances, you'd believe it, no questions asked.

[CockySOB]

Cocky.........I admitted that Pelosi screwed the pooch on this one. Whether she did it intentionally or made a stupid Bushism, I don't know.....but to pull out something so stupid as the Logan Act and say she broke it (not you but most of the others on this forum, I don't know you might have, I haven't read all the posts.) is grasping at straws.It's always a possibility, but as more and more information comes out, it is highly unlikely that there'll be any indictments let alone convictions coming of this. I expect it may cost her a bit of political capital, but it should shore up her core support. I think I already said that if any Republicans went there against the wishes of POTUS and without due Executive authorization, they should be punished exactly the same as Pelosi.


My nickels worth on this. It's taking the eye off of what is important Iraq and giving the right some imaginary ammunition to use when Easter Break is over and it's time for the war bill to be discussed......and to show you I'm fair, maybe it was done on purpose, so the Democrats can have an "out" on the date set for withdrawl and put in what Americans might be willing to settle for, benchmarks (not to be confused with time tables, because as we know those are baaaad) for the Iraqi government to get their act together and if they don't the next step is we're out!You might be right, although I expect our reasonings for coming to the same conclusion differ. It's all politics, y'know. And both of the major parties (Deomcrats and Republicans) are in the game playing for power, and making their chess moves at every opportunity. Not to mention the media is wanting something to focus on while Congress is in recess, so why not agitate the situation for better ratings? After all, the media are in it for a buck these days, too. I kinda miss the old days where journalists were objective and just reported the news, rather than trying to become "news personalities." But that's another rant.


.......but to get back to your articles......why is it that none of the Republicans, that made sure they got there a day before Pelosi are having article written about them........and the right screams about liberal press.You and me agreed on this (positive rep thing, remember?) - that anyone not authorized by POTUS to act in a foreign relations capacity should be properly punished for overstepping their Constitutional bounds - regardless of party affiliation. But if a group WAS so authorized by POTUS (as the authority of the Executive Branch), then they were operating within proper authority.

[CockySOB]

Whya should you worry? If Bush got caught molesting a boy in the restroom, you rightwingers would swear the photo was photoshopped and the witnesses paid off.

If, OTOH, Pelosi got caught in similar circumstances, you'd believe it, no questions asked.

Um, "fake but true" is the mantra of hte left, isn't it. I seem to recall some memos....

[lily]

Not to mention the media is wanting something to focus on while Congress is in recess, so why not agitate the situation for better ratings?

Well, they could always dig up Shiavo and see if she's still brain dead.:laugh:


After all, the media are in it for a buck these days, too. I kinda miss the old days where journalists were objective and just reported the news, rather than trying to become "news personalities." But that's another rant.

I blame the 24 hour news shows.....but yeas that is another rant.


You and me agreed on this (positive rep thing, remember?)

Dammmmmmitttt.........now everyone knows!

[loosecannon]

And excuse me, but please cite EXACTLY where I said Pelosi should be impeached.

CSB, Your mistake, that post was clearly a response to Gaffner. In fact it quotes him.

Try again mate, you really aren't holding up to the rigors of message board complexity.

[CockySOB]

CSB, Your mistake, that post was clearly a response to Gaffner. In fact it quotes him.

Try again mate, you really aren't holding up to the rigors of message board complexity.

My apologies, you are correct. My aging eyes must have played a trick on me. Time for glasses I guess....

[loosecannon]

Um, "fake but true" is the mantra of hte left, isn't it. I seem to recall some memos....

great, do you recall that two posts in a row you imagined that somebody was talking to you when IN FACT they were responding to Gaffe?

You prob don't really recall that memo, it probably "state and blue" And you remembered it as "fake but true". It's called selective memory.

[CockySOB]

great, do you recall that two posts in a row you imagined that somebody was talking to you when IN FACT they were responding to Gaffe?

You prob don't really recall that memo, it probably "state and blue" And you remembered it as "fake but true". It's called selective memory.

That would have been Birdzeye's post, correct? Any reason I shouldn't have posted a comment on Bird's comment? (Rhetorical question as this IS a message board.)

Now, I apologized for jumping over you for a post you made to Gaffer, but don't think that it goes any further than that. And I won't go erase the post because I believe in standing by my posts, even when they are in error. If'n you don't like it, get bent.

[loosecannon]

That would have been Birdzeye's post, correct? Any reason I shouldn't have posted a comment on Bird's comment? (Rhetorical question as this IS a message board.)

Now, I apologized for jumping over you for a post you made to Gaffer, but don't think that it goes any further than that. And I won't go erase the post because I believe in standing by my posts, even when they are in error. If'n you don't like it, get bent.

No getting bent on your orders ain't happnin Hillybilly.

You seemed to be lost and imagining that every post was responding to you.

But truthfully red state goober, I posted that while you were responding to my earlier post. The one in which you clearly were lost and imagining things.

Typical Bushbot, can't tell his ass from a hole in his butt.

[CockySOB]

No getting bent on your orders ain't happnin Hillybilly.

You seemed to be lost and imagining that every post was responding to you.

But truthfully red state goober, I posted that while you were responding to my earlier post. The one in which you clearly were lost and imagining things.

Typical Bushbot, can't tell his ass from a hole in his butt.

And you, the typical troll, is afraid to engage in intelligent discussion or factual debate, preferring instead to simply find entertainment calling others "Bush-bots." Pretty sad existence for you IMO, but then I would guess that a petty child like yourself really doesn't care to do anything which isn't self-gratifying. Which makes your commentary on GWB pretty hypocritical.

Got anything substantial, or are you going to admit to the rest of the board what you admitted to me earlier? That all you're here for is childish name-calling and nothing more?

[loosecannon]

And you, the typical troll, is afraid to engage in intelligent discussion or factual debate, preferring instead to simply find entertainment calling others "Bush-bots." Pretty sad existence for you IMO, but then I would guess that a petty child like yourself really doesn't care to do anything which isn't self-gratifying. Which makes your commentary on GWB pretty hypocritical.

Got anything substantial, or are you going to admit to the rest of the board what you admitted to me earlier? That all you're here for is childish name-calling and nothing more?

You appear to still be hallucinating Inbred, name calling isn't my gig.

Calling a spade a spade is more in the genre of pointing out tools.

If and when you grow a spine and drop some balls, pick a thread and we'll brawl.

Meanwhile you are becoming a drag and an anchor from this particular thread which incidentally is not about you.

[CockySOB]

You appear to still be hallucinating Inbred, name calling isn't my gig.

Calling a spade a spade is more in the genre of pointing out tools.

If and when you grow a spine and drop some balls, pick a thread and we'll brawl.

Meanwhile you are becoming a drag and an anchor from this particular thread which incidentally is not about you.

So when you said "goodbye" you really didn't mean it, did you? Or was it yet another of your infantile attempts to get the last word in without of course, saying anything meaningful. Take a good lesson from some of the other liberals around here who despise GWB as much as anyone can, yet they somehow manage not to come of as juvenile trailer-trash when they post. Actually, I guess that's something you could aspire to become, eh? So perhaps that's a good aim for you, ya little guttersnipe - to evolve into something with more intelligence than belly-button lint or toe-jam.

Tired of playing already? Talk about a three-second wonder! Got your ass handed to you here, and now you wanna run away and lick your wounds (or nads) like the little yip-dog you are. Figures.

[Abbey Marie]

The statement said Olmert had not communicated to Pelosi any change in Israeli policy on Damascus.
and further
Quote:
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.


This truly does say it all re: her trip to the M.E. Frankly, I can't believe anyone would even try to argue in favor of Granny P. after reading these quotes from Olmert. This is direct evidence, that Granny is (a) trying to negotiate foreign policy, (b) is out of her league, and (c)isn't even honest about it. Any rational person arguing in her favor would have to admit defeat.

[loosecannon]

So when you said "goodbye" you really didn't mean it, did you? Or was it yet another of your infantile attempts to get the last word in without of course, saying anything meaningful. Take a good lesson from some of the other liberals around here who despise GWB as much as anyone can, yet they somehow manage not to come of as juvenile trailer-trash when they post. Actually, I guess that's something you could aspire to become, eh? So perhaps that's a good aim for you, ya little guttersnipe - to evolve into something with more intelligence than belly-button lint or toe-jam.

Tired of playing already? Talk about a three-second wonder! Got your ass handed to you here, and now you wanna run away and lick your wounds (or nads) like the little yip-dog you are. Figures.

Son of a Bitch, listen you don't know how to hand anybody their ass, you are still a pup.

But seriously, why don't you stop trying to turn the thread into an interpersonal grudge match WHILE avoiding the CONTENT of the topic.

The thread is not about you.

[loosecannon]

This is direct evidence, that Granny is (a) trying to negotiate foreign policy, (b) is out of her league, and (c)isn't even honest about it. Any rational person arguing in her favor would have to admit defeat.

Sorry, lame and BS. The fact that Olmert is contradicting Pelosi after the fact means nothing. Zero, Zilch.

Besides Olmert will never tell you, Joe public, what he does and does not discuss behind closed doors unless it just happens to be politically convenient.

The fact that you actually believe he would is evidence of your naivety.

This is another nothing story cooked up by the smear teams of the GOP who are pissy because they are crumbling under the weight of real crimes and real scandals.

[typomaniac]

This truly does say it all re: her trip to the M.E. Frankly, I can't believe anyone would even try to argue in favor of Granny P. after reading these quotes from Olmert. This is direct evidence, that Granny is (a) trying to negotiate foreign policy, (b) is out of her league, and (c)isn't even honest about it. Any rational person arguing in her favor would have to admit defeat.Except that no rational person would treat the "testimony" of unnamed officicals as gospel.

[Abbey Marie]

Except that no rational person would treat the "testimony" of unnamed officicals as gospel.

Oh, yes, far better to dismiss all of numerous quotes and news sources you all have seen in this thread, and hang on to the invisible partisan smidgen of hope that Granny was innocent in all of this. :rolleyes:

[Abbey Marie]

Sorry, lame and BS. The fact that Olmert is contradicting Pelosi after the fact means nothing. Zero, Zilch.

Besides Olmert will never tell you, Joe public, what he does and does not discuss behind closed doors unless it just happens to be politically convenient.

The fact that you actually believe he would is evidence of your naivety.

This is another nothing story cooked up by the smear teams of the GOP who are pissy because they are crumbling under the weight of real crimes and real scandals.

If you can not or will not face reality, I'm afraid no one can help you. Sorry about that; it must be a weird way to live.

[typomaniac]

Oh, yes, far better to dismiss all of numerous quotes and news sources you all have seen in this thread, and hang on to the invisible partisan smidgen of hope that Granny was innocent in all of this.That's how American justice is supposed to work. Remember "innocent until proven guilty?"

:salute:

[Abbey Marie]

That's how American justice is supposed to work. Remember "innocent until proven guilty?"

:salute:

That's fine. But some people won't admit to evidence, if it doesn't fit their politics to do so.

[Gaffer]

Like anybody gives a shit about "the will of the Bush administration...Shheeeeesh.

You are posting really drunk right? Pelosi impeached, forced to step down, where do you get these far side of mars ideas anyway? You write this shit your self or just close your eyes and type?

I really wish I had the chance to make a face to face bet concerning both of these "predictions". If your money is anywhere near as loose as your imagination you would be a walking cash cow.

Let see did I say something you didn't like to hear? Your granny comrade pelosi might get forced out by the real dems. I never said it was fact, its just my opinion.
I have no desire to place a bet on anything political.

Here's to your face to face :finger3: comrade.

[loosecannon]

hang on to the invisible partisan smidgen of hope that Granny was innocent in all of this. :rolleyes:

LOL!!!

Pelosi is innocent, Ya'll are reaching for any far fetched, manufactured excuse to pin blame on a Dem cuz you can't face your own Dear Leaders shortcomings.

[CockySOB]

Son of a Bitch, listen you don't know how to hand anybody their ass, you are still a pup.

But seriously, why don't you stop trying to turn the thread into an interpersonal grudge match WHILE avoiding the CONTENT of the topic.

The thread is not about you.

And I apologized appropriately for the mistake. You then chose to press the issue regarding a comment I made about Bird's response to another post. You just couldn't let an apology stand without trying to make more of it than was warranted. As such, you deserve every bit of derision I choose to send your direction. Don't like it, boy-o? Put me on ignore and bugger off. But I'm not going to ignore you or your posts. And considering your stated intent to simply troll for "Bush-bots" I consider you as materially insignificant as the likes of gabby, but mildly more entertaining. You wanted to find your entertainment coming here and doing your little name-calling shtick, so be it. If you can't take what you want to try to dish out, you might want to go elsewhere. Again, putting me on ignore would be your easiest method of dealing with me. But that's entirely up to you.

[SassyLady]

IMO, she had every right to approach him as an American citizen, but not in any other special capacity.

If this is the case, then she should have traveled on her own dime and not as the Speaker of the House.

Also, how many American citizens would have been given an audience.

What she did was unethical.

[Gunny]

LOL!!!

Pelosi is innocent, Ya'll are reaching for any far fetched, manufactured excuse to pin blame on a Dem cuz you can't face your own Dear Leaders shortcomings.

Well, since YOU say so ......:lame2:

[loosecannon]

And I apologized appropriately for the mistake. You then chose to press the issue regarding a comment I made about Bird's response to another post. You just couldn't let an apology stand without trying to make more of it than was warranted. As such, you deserve every bit of derision I choose to send your direction. Don't like it, boy-o? Put me on ignore and bugger off. But I'm not going to ignore you or your posts. And considering your stated intent to simply troll for "Bush-bots" I consider you as materially insignificant as the likes of gabby, but mildly more entertaining. You wanted to find your entertainment coming here and doing your little name-calling shtick, so be it. If you can't take what you want to try to dish out, you might want to go elsewhere. Again, putting me on ignore would be your easiest method of dealing with me. But that's entirely up to you.

Yawn, scroll......

[loosecannon]

If this is the case, then she should have traveled on her own dime and not as the Speaker of the House.

as if this was even possible being that she IS speaker of the house and travels via congressional air carriers everywhere......(dumb)




What she did was unethical.

Not in any way shape or form. There is no issue with Pelosi's trip.

The Rightwingbat hatemongers who badgered Bill C with $50 million worth of investigations only to discover he got a blow job are back in business.

By the way dumbshits.....that 2 years and $50 million did nothing but earn Bill C an increase in his job performance rating. Can you say "backfired"?

Your futile attempts to paint the dems as being unethical will back fire as well, cuz there are no legs on your concocted fantasies of crime and scandal.

[Gunny]

as if this was even possible being that she IS speaker of the house and travels via congressional air carriers everywhere......(dumb)





Not in any way shape or form. There is no issue with Pelosi's trip.

The Rightwingbat hatemongers who badgered Bill C with $50 million worth of investigations only to discover he got a blow job are back in business.

By the way dumbshits.....that 2 years and $50 million did nothing but earn Bill C an increase in his job performance rating. Can you say "backfired"?

Your futile attempts to paint the dems as being unethical will back fire as well, cuz there are no legs on your concocted fantasies of crime and scandal.

You would be incorrect. Her trip directly undermined the foreign policy of the current administration. That is unethical.

And i don't know what you call a woman who supposedly represents American ideals and values wearing a hajib on display. Seems to me it represents the exact opposite of American ideals and values.

Oh, and you're about one rude, sorry piece of trash.

[OCA]

as if this was even possible being that she IS speaker of the house and travels via congressional air carriers everywhere......(dumb)





Not in any way shape or form. There is no issue with Pelosi's trip.

The Rightwingbat hatemongers who badgered Bill C with $50 million worth of investigations only to discover he got a blow job are back in business.

By the way dumbshits.....that 2 years and $50 million did nothing but earn Bill C an increase in his job performance rating. Can you say "backfired"?

Your futile attempts to paint the dems as being unethical will back fire as well, cuz there are no legs on your concocted fantasies of crime and scandal.


Bubba Clinton....only 2nd sitting president ever impeached by the HOR in American history, is that nothing? Sure its something, its his LEGACY. lol

[Yurt]

Bubba Clinton....only 2nd sitting president ever impeached by the HOR in American history, is that nothing? Sure its something, its his LEGACY. lol

loosy obviously doesn't care that his demo political leader billy was a lying man whore either...

[typomaniac]

And i don't know what you call a woman who supposedly represents American ideals and values wearing a hajib on display. Seems to me it represents the exact opposite of American ideals and values.Are you gonna make me post those photos of Laura Bush and Condi Rice wearing the hijab in public? :lol:

[SassyLady]

IMO, she had every right to approach him as an American citizen, but not in any other special capacity.


as if this was even possible being that she IS speaker of the house and travels via congressional air carriers everywhere......(dumb)





Not in any way shape or form. There is no issue with Pelosi's trip.

The Rightwingbat hatemongers who badgered Bill C with $50 million worth of investigations only to discover he got a blow job are back in business.

By the way dumbshits.....that 2 years and $50 million did nothing but earn Bill C an increase in his job performance rating. Can you say "backfired"?

Your futile attempts to paint the dems as being unethical will back fire as well, cuz there are no legs on your concocted fantasies of crime and scandal.


Loose.......are you calling me a dumbshit simply because I pointed out that Ms. Pelosi can NEVER be or do what a "normal" American citizen can? I believe it was pointed out that she only did what a "normal" citizen would do while traveling abroad and therefore did not break any laws. I don't know if she broke any laws, but my personal opinion is that she was unethical.

[loosecannon]

Her trip directly undermined the foreign policy of the current administration. That is unethical.



The prob is Gunny that this never happened, you imagined it to happen after being prompted by your trainers and handlers.

They say "jump", you jump, they say "think white is black", you think white is black.

If you believe it, it probably isn't true.

[loosecannon]

Bubba Clinton....only 2nd sitting president ever impeached by the HOR in American history, is that nothing? Sure its something, its his LEGACY. lol


OCA, HERE is his legacy:

"In general, do you approve or disapprove of the job Bill Clinton is doing as president?"
Approve 66%
Disapprove 31%

Clinton was more than twice as loved, respected and trusted as president by the American people as was Bush.

Sucks to be Bush, sucks to be Bushbots. Sucks to be you. And so consistently wrong.

http://www.pollingreport.com/clinton-.htm

[loosecannon]

loosy obviously doesn't care that his demo political leader billy was a lying man whore either...

Sure I care, just not very much.

Like you could hardly give a rats ass that a lying male prostitute was the frequent guest of the Bush WH and was given BA admittance into the WH press corp without any credentials.

Or the fact that most GOP politicians are criminals, philanderers, sex offenders and general scum.

You can't even look at the truth it is so ugly toward your party.

[loosecannon]

Loose.......are you calling me a dumbshit simply because I pointed out that Ms. Pelosi can NEVER be or do what a "normal" American citizen can? I believe it was pointed out that she only did what a "normal" citizen would do while traveling abroad and therefore did not break any laws. I don't know if she broke any laws, but my personal opinion is that she was unethical.

No, I am saying that it is dumb for you to energetically pump hot air to erect your fantasy about Pelosi's ethics.

You have read news reports. Eeewwwwww, wow. IOW you don't have the first clue in the world what any of these heads of state actually said or did.

Neither do I. Which is why I consider your irrational conclusions to be dumb and why I don't make any myself.

Is that better?

[typomaniac]

Are you gonna make me post those photos of Laura Bush and Condi Rice wearing the hijab in public? :lol:By popular demand, I am posting photos of two "treasonous, self-loathing Islamophiles."

Enjoy.

http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/1237/laura4.jpg
http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/1237/condi_sm.jpg

[Gunny]

The prob is Gunny that this never happened, you imagined it to happen after being prompted by your trainers and handlers.

They say "jump", you jump, they say "think white is black", you think white is black.

If you believe it, it probably isn't true.

Of course it didn't. Everyone is just imagining that Pelosi went to Syria, hardly what anyone would call a US ally by any stretch of the imagination, against the expressed wishes of the President.

Typical left-wingnut bullshit .... don't believe what you see ... believe what I tell you.

[Gunny]

No, I am saying that it is dumb for you to energetically pump hot air to erect your fantasy about Pelosi's ethics.

You have read news reports. Eeewwwwww, wow. IOW you don't have the first clue in the world what any of these heads of state actually said or did.

Neither do I. Which is why I consider your irrational conclusions to be dumb and why I don't make any myself.

Is that better?

Her conclusions are rather sound and dovetail with the facts while yours are telling us to ignore what is in plain sight.

If this lameass kind of shit is all you got, you'd better go try and bash "bushbots" like glockmail who couldn't argue his way out an exit.

[Gunny]

By popular demand, I am posting photos of two "treasonous, self-loathing Islamophiles."

Enjoy.

http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/1237/laura4.jpg
http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/1237/condi_sm.jpg


They shouldn't have worn them either. Your point?

[typomaniac]

They shouldn't have worn them either. Your point?This was a respons to someone else's criticism that Pelosi wore a headscarf at one point on her visit.

Personally, I don't care much either way; as I said, someone (on the right, no less) asked me to post these.

[Gunny]

This was a respons to someone else's criticism that Pelosi wore a headscarf at one point on her visit.

Personally, I don't care much either way; as I said, someone (on the right, no less) asked me to post these.

Okay ... so my question would be ...

In what context did Barbara Bush and Condoleeza Rice wear the khimār, versus what context Pelosi wore it?

Whether or not it was optional in each case will suffice.

[loosecannon]

Of course it didn't. Everyone is just imagining that Pelosi went to Syria, hardly what anyone would call a US ally by any stretch of the imagination, against the expressed wishes of the President.



Don't worry Gunny, we are here to help, walk you thru this.

In this case there simply is no problem with Pelosi going to Syria, it matters not whose ally they are and Bush has nothing to say about it.

See, that is pretty easy. But I won't give you treats and pat your head just because you get it right.

You instead "win" by being right for once.

[loosecannon]

Okay ... so my question would be ...

In what context did Barbara Bush and Condoleeza Rice wear the khimār, versus what context Pelosi wore it?

Whether or not it was optional in each case will suffice.

Oh it is always optional. What you think somebody threatened Condi with beheading if she didn't scarf up?

[Gunny]

Don't worry Gunny, we are here to help, walk you thru this.

In this case there simply is no problem with Pelosi going to Syria, it matters not whose ally they are and Bush has nothing to say about it.

See, that is pretty easy. But I won't give you treats and pat your head just because you get it right.

You instead "win" by being right for once.

Sure. And the moon is made of green cheese. I think the President DOES have a say in the foreign policy of this Nation, but you keep on lying to yourself to support your fallacious agenda.

Likewise, it does matter if a member of the US government goes to a Nation considered hostile to the interests of the US.

Your conclusions are devoid of any rational thought, common sense and/or logic.

[Birdzeye]

Sure. And the moon is made of green cheese. I think the President DOES have a say in the foreign policy of this Nation, but you keep on lying to yourself to support your fallacious agenda.

Likewise, it does matter if a member of the US government goes to a Nation considered hostile to the interests of the US.

Your conclusions are devoid of any rational thought, common sense and/or logic.

You keep forgetting that Republicans also made the same trip that Pelosi did, and that Speaker Gingrich did similar things, without a peep of protest from all the people who are now calling for Pelosi's head on a platter.

[loosecannon]

I think the President DOES have a say in the foreign policy of this Nation

OK, but he still has no right to tell Pelosi she can't go there. Pelosi was doing her job as speaker, Bush should tend to his jopb as pres and butt out when it isn't his business.



Likewise, it does matter if a member of the US government goes to a Nation considered hostile to the interests of the US.

You mean like Newt Gingrich did?

Just because Bush decides that another nation is "hostile to US interests" doesn't make it so. Cuba never did anything to US, nor did North Korea, or Iraq. See how that works?

Pelosi did nothing wrong.

Reagan on the other hand commited treason while he bargained with the Iranians as a private citizen. He conspired with an active enemy who was holding American hostages, nearly an act of war.

Iran really was our enemy. Just like Saudi Arabia really is our enemy today.

Israel really did attack and almost sink the USS Liberty, but lotsa folks talk to Israel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident

The USS Liberty incident was an attack on a U.S. Navy intelligence ship, USS Liberty, in international waters about 12.5 nautical miles (23 km) from the coast of the Sinai Peninsula, north of El Arish, by Israeli fighter planes and torpedo boats on June 8, 1967.

It occurred during the Six-Day War, a conflict between Israel and the Arab states of Egypt, Jordan and Syria. The Israeli attack killed 34 U.S. servicemen and wounded at least 173. The attack was the second-deadliest against a U.S. warship since the end of World War II, surpassed only by the Iraqi Exocet missile attack on the USS Stark on May 17, 1987, and marked the single greatest loss of life by the U.S. intelligence community.

[Abbey Marie]

Wow. I knew kids weren't getting much in the way of civics education, but I really didn't think it was this bad.

[Abbey Marie]

Oh it is always optional. What you think somebody threatened Condi with beheading if she didn't scarf up?

Condoleeza Rice was photographed wearing a head scarf in a Mosque, where it is undoubtedly mandatory.

[typomaniac]

Okay ... so my question would be ...

In what context did Barbara Bush and Condoleeza Rice wear the khimār, versus what context Pelosi wore it?

Whether or not it was optional in each case will suffice.The answer to your question is very simple: I neither know nor care. Sir. :salute:

Again, the post was for the benefit of one of the partisan hacks around here, not for yours.

[Gunny]

You keep forgetting that Republicans also made the same trip that Pelosi did, and that Speaker Gingrich did similar things, without a peep of protest from all the people who are now calling for Pelosi's head on a platter.

I didn't call for anyone's head on a platter. I said IMO her trip was unethical. If Repulican representatives did it against the President's wishes, and in contradiction to current foreign policy, then the same applies to them with one exception:

She's the brand name, and she's the leader. With greater power comes greater responsibility.

[typomaniac]

I didn't call for anyone's head on a platter. I said IMO her trip was unethical. If Repulican representatives did it against the President's wishes, and in contradiction to current foreign policy, then the same applies to them with one exception:

She's the brand name, and she's the leader. With greater power comes greater responsibility.It's a shame that nobody at 1600 PA Ave. seems to have figured that out. :(

[Gunny]

OK, but he still has no right to tell Pelosi she can't go there. Pelosi was doing her job as speaker, Bush should tend to his jopb as pres and butt out when it isn't his business.

Her job is Speaker of the House of Representatives, not Secretary of State.



You mean like Newt Gingrich did?

He'd been gone so long I don't remember anything he did, so if you're making a specific point, spell it out.

Just because Bush decides that another nation is "hostile to US interests" doesn't make it so. Cuba never did anything to US, nor did North Korea, or Iraq. See how that works?

You obviously don't see how it works. Cuba was the USSR's surrogate in our back yard, and almost became a nuclear launching pad for them.

We are STILL at war with North Korea. Only a cease-fire keeps the guns quiet. There has been no peace treaty.

Iraq threatened our interests, and our allies, and invaded one of them. That one's a no-brainer.

Obviously you need to do a little historical research.

Pelosi did nothing wrong.

Reagan on the other hand commited treason while he bargained with the Iranians as a private citizen. He conspired with an active enemy who was holding American hostages, nearly an act of war.

This pretty much sums up your entire MO. Ignore Pelosi's indiscretion while continually pointing fingers at every Republicanand history you can think of and laying some lame-ass accusation on them.

Iran really was our enemy. Just like Saudi Arabia really is our enemy today.

Israel really did attack and almost sink the USS Liberty, but lotsa folks talk to Israel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident

The USS Liberty incident was an attack on a U.S. Navy intelligence ship, USS Liberty, in international waters about 12.5 nautical miles (23 km) from the coast of the Sinai Peninsula, north of El Arish, by Israeli fighter planes and torpedo boats on June 8, 1967.

It occurred during the Six-Day War, a conflict between Israel and the Arab states of Egypt, Jordan and Syria. The Israeli attack killed 34 U.S. servicemen and wounded at least 173. The attack was the second-deadliest against a U.S. warship since the end of World War II, surpassed only by the Iraqi Exocet missile attack on the USS Stark on May 17, 1987, and marked the single greatest loss of life by the U.S. intelligence community.

I don't disagree that Iran is and has been our enemy and no one disagrees that Israel attacked one of our ships during a time of war. Shit happens. They apologized.

When you discover an inexpensive alternative fuel source, be sure and let the government know so we don't have to deal with the Saudis anymore.

[Gunny]

The answer to your question is very simple: I neither know nor care. Sir. :salute:

Again, the post was for the benefit of one of the partisan hacks around here, not for yours.

Well, thanks for complying with the request of one of the partisan hacks around here.:smoke:

[Gunny]

It's a shame that nobody at 1600 PA Ave. seems to have figured that out. :(

It's a shame that ahem some partisan hacks make statements such as this knowing the opposite is true.

[typomaniac]

It's a shame that ahem some partisan hacks make statements such as this knowing the opposite is true.Please tell me you're not one of those who thinks the electorate is made up exclusively of hard-core Bush-worshipers and far left Democrats, with no relatively sane voting blocs to be found. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[CockySOB]

They shouldn't have worn them either. Your point?

Actually, I figure it is appropriate. The hijab is a cultural affect only. Yes, it has roots in Islam, but the hijab is literally a cover whereas teh khimar(sp?) is the actual veil. It's no more offensive than the tradition among a number of Christian denominations which insist women wear skirts or dresses rather than jeans.

IMO, when traveling it is proper to observe the basic customs of your host country, just as you would observe your host's rules when in their house. It's a matter of courtesy. Now if you're not comfortable with your host's customs, you should discuss it beforehand, and decide whether you want to visit or not (if your host insists you adhere to their traditions).

So I don't have a problem with Condi Rice, Laura Bush or Nancy Pelosi for wearing the hijab while visiting in the Middle East.

(I still think that Pelosi stepped over her authority while on her trip, but that's a different aspect which should be discussed separately.)

[loosecannon]

I don't disagree that Iran is and has been our enemy and no one disagrees that Israel attacked one of our ships during a time of war. Shit happens. They apologized.

Iran WAS our enemy 27 years ago.

Pelosi's trip is pale in comparison to many, many other GOPers and Dems alike who actually did interfere in our foreign affairs.

Singling out Pelosi while ignoring dramatically more blatant offenses, like the Iran contra afair is crap.

And Cuba's revolution including Castro were our ALLIES until we abandoned Castor's revolution in mid sentence.


When you discover an inexpensive alternative fuel source, be sure and let the government know so we don't have to deal with the Saudis anymore.

Kewl, so when our enemies with oil attack us directly, on our soil, we make up and hold hands with them...

But when freinds with oil don't attack us we invade their nations and occupy them into complete destruction.

Very logical, reasonable, and natural.

I am surprised I never really understood our methodology until now

[Dilloduck]

Iran WAS our enemy 27 years ago.

Pelosi's trip is pale in comparison to many, many other GOPers and Dems alike who actually did interfere in our foreign affairs.

Singling out Pelosi while ignoring dramatically more blatant offenses, like the Iran contra afair is crap.

And Cuba's revolution including Castro were our ALLIES until we abandoned Castor's revolution in mid sentence.



Kewl, so when our enemies with oil attack us directly, on our soil, we make up and hold hands with them...

But when freinds with oil don't attack us we invade their nations and occupy them into complete destruction.

Very logical, reasonable, and natural.

I am surprised I never really understood our methodology until now

Using the nationalities of some hijackers to attempt to portray 9/11 as a Saudi attack on America is bullshit.

[manu1959]

Iran WAS our enemy 27 years ago.

Pelosi's trip is pale in comparison to many, many other GOPers and Dems alike who actually did interfere in our foreign affairs.

Singling out Pelosi while ignoring dramatically more blatant offenses, like the Iran contra afair is crap.

And Cuba's revolution including Castro were our ALLIES until we abandoned Castor's revolution in mid sentence.

Kewl, so when our enemies with oil attack us directly, on our soil, we make up and hold hands with them...

But when freinds with oil don't attack us we invade their nations and occupy them into complete destruction.

Very logical, reasonable, and natural.

I am surprised I never really understood our methodology until now


ah the dirty hands argument ..... since you are scum we can be scum too ....

what happend to dems being on the high moral ground?

[manu1959]

Using the nationalities of some hijackers to attempt to portray 9/11 as a Saudi attack on America is bullshit.

uh...that would be racisim wouldn't it?

[Kathianne]

uh...that would be racisim wouldn't it?

Certainly discrimination. Are all Saudis terrorists? Do they not bleed when pricked? Laugh when tickled?

[loosecannon]

Using the nationalities of some hijackers to attempt to portray 9/11 as a Saudi attack on America is bullshit.

Yeah, I mean Saudi Arabia only financially supports Bin Laden to some degree and directly supported the actual suicide bombers while they trained in the US.

And they continue to allow the Madrassas to pump out American hating fundamentalists that so many fear as Islamofascists.

That is merely every reason to hold Saudi Arabia responsible.

It is called "state sponsor of terrorism". And Bush holds it hands in a gesture of sincere effection.

[loosecannon]

uh...that would be racisim wouldn't it?

No but thanks for the dumb question.

It is called being "against them because they aren't with us". Or it could be called calling them what they are "a state sponsor of terrorism". Or "axis of evil nation".

Or in Condi speak we could say that "some nations have chosen to be destabalizers".

Normally when somebody attacks you you call them enemies.

[loosecannon]

Certainly discrimination. Are all Saudis terrorists?

Are all Iraqis Saddam Hussein?

Are all Cubans Castro?

Are all Iraqi children developing WMD?

Did everybody in Hiroshima attack Pearl Harbor?

Are all Palestinians refusing to recognize Israel?

what was your question again?

[Kathianne]

Are all Iraqis Saddam Hussein?

Are all Cubans Castro?

Are all Iraqi children developing WMD?

Did everybody in Hiroshima attack Pearl Harbor?

Are all Palestinians refusing to recognize Israel?

what was your question again?

So the Saudi nationalists that attacked on 9/11 were Saudi leaders, ie royalty?

Excuse me, but I'm no backer of the Sauds, just do a search. But your 'arguments' are more than lame.

[Gunny]

Please tell me you're not one of those who thinks the electorate is made up exclusively of hard-core Bush-worshipers and far left Democrats, with no relatively sane voting blocs to be found. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

This question has what to do with my response to your statement?

You attempted to use what I said concerning Pelosi in the leadership role to take a shot at the President. I merely responded, using your own insulting language.

If you think for a second that the President of the United States doesn't feel the weight of the responsibility of his job whether or not you agree with that President's politics and/or decisions, I would say you are quite mistaken.

To answer your question in this post, no I am not one who believes the electorate is made up only of the extremes.

Do you?

[Gunny]

Actually, I figure it is appropriate. The hijab is a cultural affect only. Yes, it has roots in Islam, but the hijab is literally a cover whereas teh khimar(sp?) is the actual veil. It's no more offensive than the tradition among a number of Christian denominations which insist women wear skirts or dresses rather than jeans.

IMO, when traveling it is proper to observe the basic customs of your host country, just as you would observe your host's rules when in their house. It's a matter of courtesy. Now if you're not comfortable with your host's customs, you should discuss it beforehand, and decide whether you want to visit or not (if your host insists you adhere to their traditions).

So I don't have a problem with Condi Rice, Laura Bush or Nancy Pelosi for wearing the hijab while visiting in the Middle East.

(I still think that Pelosi stepped over her authority while on her trip, but that's a different aspect which should be discussed separately.)

I don't agree when that respect is being shown toward a backwards-assed religion.

[Gunny]

Iran WAS our enemy 27 years ago.

Pelosi's trip is pale in comparison to many, many other GOPers and Dems alike who actually did interfere in our foreign affairs.

Singling out Pelosi while ignoring dramatically more blatant offenses, like the Iran contra afair is crap.

And Cuba's revolution including Castro were our ALLIES until we abandoned Castor's revolution in mid sentence.



Kewl, so when our enemies with oil attack us directly, on our soil, we make up and hold hands with them...

Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda have oil? News to me.

But when freinds with oil don't attack us we invade their nations and occupy them into complete destruction.

I assume you are referring to Iraq. Saddam Hussein and his regime were enemies of the US at least since 1990.
Very logical, reasonable, and natural.

I am surprised I never really understood our methodology until now

It isn't logical, reasonable nor natural using your fallacious parameters.

[Gunny]

So the Saudi nationalists that attacked on 9/11 were Saudi leaders, ie royalty?

Excuse me, but I'm no backer of the Sauds, just do a search. But your 'arguments' are more than lame.

The entire premise of his argument is retarded.

[grunt]

The entire premise of his argument is retarded.


Actually...you're both wrong...


loosecannon is just retarded...period. :poke:

[Dilloduck]

Actually...you're both wrong...


loosecannon is just retarded...period. :poke:

So is Pelosi--I just watched that silly woman defend her trip to Syria by saying that the message she gave to Assad was completely in line with the president which might be fine if she hadn't said previously that the Bush policy was an absolute failure. Sorta makes one wonder why she felt the need to repeat "failed policy". :laugh2: :laugh2:

[grunt]

So is Pelosi--I just watched that silly woman defend her trip to Syria by saying that the message she gave to Assad was completely in line with the president which might be fine if she hadn't said previously that the Bush policy was an absolute failure. Sorta makes one wonder why she felt the need to repeat "failed policy". :laugh2: :laugh2:

Did she really say that?

[manu1959]

No but thanks for the dumb question.

It is called being "against them because they aren't with us". Or it could be called calling them what they are "a state sponsor of terrorism". Or "axis of evil nation".

Or in Condi speak we could say that "some nations have chosen to be destabalizers".

Normally when somebody attacks you you call them enemies.

so you want to invade saudi arabia now?

oh and you insulted me again so i dinged you again...a promise is a promise

[manu1959]

Did she really say that?

yep just heard her on the local radio...she said she left her differences behind?

not sure how the logic works though .... bush won't negotiate with syria until they close their borders....i guess nancy flew there and negotiated with them to do just that? closer their borders?...hey wait, that would be negotiating against the wishes of the president which is a violation of the logan act....and would make her a potential felon....or maybe she is secretly working with bush....

[loosecannon]

So the Saudi nationalists that attacked on 9/11 were Saudi leaders, ie royalty?

Excuse me, but I'm no backer of the Sauds, just do a search. But your 'arguments' are more than lame.

No my analogies were spot on. WWI was begun because a single individual assasinated an arch Duke.

The US has punished nations many times because a small group of leaders were our chosen assholes.

And the Saudi leadership not only was involved in supporting the AQ org thru financial assistance but they allow the madrassas to exist WITH their blessing.

Saudi Arabia is our enemy since 9/11. That's a fact Jack.

Iraq, no, not at all.

Afghanistan YES, the world agreed, but only inso far as it was harboring Bin Laden.

[Gunny]

So is Pelosi--I just watched that silly woman defend her trip to Syria by saying that the message she gave to Assad was completely in line with the president which might be fine if she hadn't said previously that the Bush policy was an absolute failure. Sorta makes one wonder why she felt the need to repeat "failed policy". :laugh2: :laugh2:

Got to love the logic.:lol:

[Gunny]

yep just heard her on the local radio...she said she left her differences behind?

not sure how the logic works though .... bush won't negotiate with syria until they close their borders....i guess nancy flew there and negotiated with them to do just that? closer their borders?...hey wait, that would be negotiating against the wishes of the president which is a violation of the logan act....and would make her a potential felon....or maybe she is secretly working with bush....

Should we seek out RWA's advice on whether this is a bona fide conspiracy or not?

[Kathianne]

No my analogies were spot on. WWI was begun because a single individual assasinated an arch Duke. actually it was a terrorist group, 'the Black Hand'

The US has punished nations many times because a small group of leaders were our chosen assholes. Huh?

And the Saudi leadership not only was involved in supporting the AQ org thru financial assistance but they allow the madrassas to exist WITH their blessing. well we agree here. I think the government should shut down all Saudi funded Islamic schools.

Saudi Arabia is our enemy since 9/11. That's a fact Jack. I'm not disagreeing, far from it. Through Pakistan in it too.

Iraq, no, not at all.

Afghanistan YES, the world agreed, but only inso far as it was harboring Bin Laden.

So we agree and disagree.

[Gunny]

No my analogies were spot on. WWI was begun because a single individual assasinated an arch Duke.

The US has punished nations many times because a small group of leaders were our chosen assholes.

And the Saudi leadership not only was involved in supporting the AQ org thru financial assistance but they allow the madrassas to exist WITH their blessing.

Let's see some factual evidence. No more op-eds from magazines, please.

Saudi Arabia is our enemy since 9/11. That's a fact Jack.

The Government of Saudi Arabia denounced the terrorist attack on 9/11. No sale.

Iraq, no, not at all.

Iraq had been our enemy since August, 1990.

Afghanistan YES, the world agreed, but only inso far as it was harboring Bin Laden.

The Taliban was the government of Afghanistan, and the Taliban was harboring bin Laden. The response was just.

[loosecannon]

so you want to invade saudi arabia now?

oh and you insulted me again so i dinged you again...a promise is a promise


Manu you half brained MUT. (insult)

No I didn't say I wanted to invade SA. You can't actually read can you? Or is it the long words that trip you up? (2 insults)

(that's 4)

[loosecannon]

It isn't logical, reasonable nor natural using your fallacious parameters.

OK, my parameters were exaggerated. So is the singling out of Pelosi when Reagan and Gingrich both commited much more serious violation after the same theme.

Pelosi so far has been shown to have done absolutely nothing wrong.

But Reagan committed felonies and treason.

[Dilloduck]

OK, my parameters were exaggerated. So is the singling out of Pelosi when Reagan and Gingrich both commited much more serious violation after the same theme.


Pelosi so far has been shown to have done absolutely nothing wrong.

But Reagan committed felonies and treason.

You mean other than looking stupid as shit?

[loosecannon]

Actually...you're both wrong...


loosecannon is just retarded...period. :poke:

Yeah, I am hung like Einstein and smart as a horse.

You aren't as smart as a horse.

[Gunny]

OK, my parameters were exaggerated. So is the singling out of Pelosi when Reagan and Gingrich both commited much more serious violation after the same theme.

Pelosi so far has been shown to have done absolutely nothing wrong.

But Reagan committed felonies and treason.

Pelosi's behavior was unethical.

Got any real facts to back up the accusation against Reagan? No, you don't, or you'd have a conviction on hand to post.

Quit trying to use unsubstantiated allegations against Republicans to excuse Pelosi's behavior. I mean, how many have you named now? Four of five? They and whatever BS you wish to accuse them of are irrelevant to Pelosi and her actions.

[loosecannon]

So is Pelosi--I just watched that silly woman defend her trip to Syria by saying that the message she gave to Assad was completely in line with the president which might be fine if she hadn't said previously that the Bush policy was an absolute failure. Sorta makes one wonder why she felt the need to repeat "failed policy". :laugh2: :laugh2:

See this is where sub zero intellects like the duck shouldn't try to understand the world.

The Bush policies are a failure. Duh.

Pelosi wasn't there to counter, reinforce, or even discuss Bush's agenda. By saying her was in line with the pres all she said was that she didn't contradict his policies.

So what's the beef from ducks who don't have the first clue in the world what she said and never will?

[Dilloduck]

Yeah, I mean Saudi Arabia only financially supports Bin Laden to some degree and directly supported the actual suicide bombers while they trained in the US.

And they continue to allow the Madrassas to pump out American hating fundamentalists that so many fear as Islamofascists.

That is merely every reason to hold Saudi Arabia responsible.

It is called "state sponsor of terrorism". And Bush holds it hands in a gesture of sincere effection.

They bribe radicals to stay the hell out of thier country. They risk overthrow all the time. They are as dependent on the US for protection as the US is dependent on them for oil.

[loosecannon]

So we agree and disagree.

The US has punished nations many times because a small group of leaders were our chosen assholes.


Huh?


We attacked the entire nations of Iraq and Afghanistan because of a handful or an individual with whom we chose to have disagreements.

Saddam told the truth about his lack of WMD. Then we allowed him to be hung.

Our only beef with the Taliban and Afghanistan was AQ. We were supporting the Taliban for years before hand with foreign aid.

[Dilloduck]

See this is where sub zero intellects like the duck shouldn't try to understand the world.

The Bush policies are a failure. Duh.

Pelosi wasn't there to counter, reinforce, or even discuss Bush's agenda. By saying her was in line with the pres all she said was that she didn't contradict his policies.

So what's the beef from ducks who don't have the first clue in the world what she said and never will?

Ask her---she's the one who claimed that everything she did was completely in line with current policy. If that ain't reinforcing a policy that she calls a failure I don't know what is.

[Dilloduck]

The US has punished nations many times because a small group of leaders were our chosen assholes.


Huh?


We attacked the entire nations of Iraq and Afghanistan because of a handful or an individual with whom we chose to have disagreements.

Saddam told the truth about his lack of WMD. Then we allowed him to be hung.

Our only beef with the Taliban and Afghanistan was AQ. We were supporting the Taliban for years before hand with foreign aid.

To prevent Russian expansion---DOH. Things change--try to keep up.

[Kathianne]

The US has punished nations many times because a small group of leaders were our chosen assholes.


Huh?


We attacked the entire nations of Iraq and Afghanistan because of a handful or an individual with whom we chose to have disagreements.

Saddam told the truth about his lack of WMD. Then we allowed him to be hung.

Our only beef with the Taliban and Afghanistan was AQ. We were supporting the Taliban for years before hand with foreign aid.

You seem to have problems responding in a cogent manner.

[loosecannon]

Pelosi's behavior was unethical.

You have zero real reasons to believe that. GOP hatemongering is responsible for fabricating that lie.


Got any real facts to back up the accusation against Reagan?

Of Course, that is as easy as pie:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Contra_scandal

The Iran-Contra Affair was the largest political scandal in the United States during the 1980s.[1] Large volumes of documents relating to the scandal were destroyed or withheld from investigators by Reagan Administration officials.[2] The affair is still shrouded with secrecy and it is very hard to discover the facts. It involved several members of the Reagan Administration who in 1986 helped to illegally sell arms to Iran, an avowed enemy, and used the proceeds to fund, also illegally, the Contras, a right-wing guerrilla organization in Nicaragua. [3]

After the arms sales were revealed in November 1986, President Ronald Reagan appeared on national television and denied that they had occurred.[4] However, a week later, on November 13, he returned to the airwaves to affirm that weapons were indeed transferred to Iran. He denied that they were part of an exchange for hostages.

Tower Commission
On November 25, 1986, President Reagan, faced with mounting pressure from Congressional Democrats and the media, announced the creation of a Special Review Board looking into the matter and the next day assigned former Senator John Tower, former Secretary of State Edmund Muskie, and former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft to serve as members; this Presidential Commission would take effect on December 1 and became known as the Tower Commission. The commission was the first presidential commission to review and evaluate the National Security Council. The objectives of the Tower Commission were to inquire into "the circumstances surrounding the Iran-Contra matter, other case studies that might reveal strengths and weaknesses in the operation of the National Security Council system under stress, and the manner in which that system has served eight different Presidents since its inception in 1947." [24]

President Reagan appeared before the Tower Commission on December 2, 1986, to answer questions. His answers were not entirely consistent, and he was (allegedly) plagued with poor memory, because the questions were regarding details that occurred months and years prior. [13]

The report published by the Tower Commission, known as the Tower Commission Report, was delivered to the President on February 26, 1987. It criticized the actions of Oliver North, John Poindexter, Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger and others. It did not determine that the President had knowledge of the extent of the program, although it argued that the President ought to have had better control of the National Security Council staff. The wording of the report surprised some since it was expected to have been weak in its criticism of the President. Instead, it heavily criticized President Reagan for not properly supervising his subordinates or being aware of their actions. The U.S. Congress issued its own report on November 18, 1987, indicating that "If the president did not know what his national security advisers were doing, he should have." [2]" The congressional report stated that the President bore "ultimate responsibility" for wrongdoing by his aides, and his Administration exhibited "secrecy, deception and disdain for the law." A major result of the Tower Commission was the consensus that Reagan should have listened to his National Security Advisor more, thereby placing more power in the hands of that chair. The National Security Advisor was to be seen as an "honest broker" and not someone who would use the position to further his or her political agenda.

Some doubted the intentions of the Tower Commission and believed that it was a political stunt.[citation needed] The commission had limited its criticism of Vice President George Bush[citation needed]. Subsequently, the head of the commission, John Tower, was nominated to the position of Secretary of Defense by Bush when he became President. He was not confirmed by the Senate. Some Democrats used the nomination to retaliate against President George H.W. Bush for what they viewed as 'negative' (though successful) campaign tactics against their nominee, Michael Dukakis. Others, including the conservative organizer Paul Weyrich, accused Tower (accurately, the evidence suggests) of having been involved in extramarital affairs and heavy drinking. One of Tower's leading critics was Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sam Nunn, a Georgia Democrat. Brent Scowcroft was named National Security Advisor. [25]


[edit] Aftermath
Oliver North and John Poindexter were indicted on multiple charges on March 16, 1988.[26] North, indicted on 16 counts, was found guilty by a jury of three minor counts. The convictions were vacated on appeal on the grounds that North's Fifth Amendment rights may have been violated by the indirect use of his testimony to Congress which had been given under a grant of immunity. In 1990, Poindexter was convicted on several felony counts of lying to Congress, obstruction of justice, conspiracy, and altering and destroying documents pertinent to the investigation. His convictions were also overturned on appeal on similar grounds. The Independent Counsel, Lawrence E. Walsh, chose not to re-try North or Poindexter. Weinberger was indicted for lying to the Independent Counsel but was later pardoned by President George H.W. Bush.

Faced with undeniable evidence of his involvement in the scandal, Reagan expressed regret regarding the situation at a nationally televised White House press conference on Ash Wednesday, March 4, 1987. Responding to questions, Reagan stated that his previous assertions that the U.S. did not trade arms for hostages were incorrect. He also stated that the Vice President knew of the plan.

[loosecannon]

You seem to have problems responding in a cogent manner.

You seem to be fleeing a serious discussion while attempting to erect a veil of superiority.

Get in, get wet, and go home soaked, or don't pretend to be swimming.

[Dilloduck]

You have zero real reasons to believe that. GOP hatemongering is responsible for fabricating that lie.



Of Course, that is as easy as pie:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Contra_scandal

The Iran-Contra Affair was the largest political scandal in the United States during the 1980s.[1] Large volumes of documents relating to the scandal were destroyed or withheld from investigators by Reagan Administration officials.[2] The affair is still shrouded with secrecy and it is very hard to discover the facts. It involved several members of the Reagan Administration who in 1986 helped to illegally sell arms to Iran, an avowed enemy, and used the proceeds to fund, also illegally, the Contras, a right-wing guerrilla organization in Nicaragua. [3]

After the arms sales were revealed in November 1986, President Ronald Reagan appeared on national television and denied that they had occurred.[4] However, a week later, on November 13, he returned to the airwaves to affirm that weapons were indeed transferred to Iran. He denied that they were part of an exchange for hostages.

Tower Commission
On November 25, 1986, President Reagan, faced with mounting pressure from Congressional Democrats and the media, announced the creation of a Special Review Board looking into the matter and the next day assigned former Senator John Tower, former Secretary of State Edmund Muskie, and former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft to serve as members; this Presidential Commission would take effect on December 1 and became known as the Tower Commission. The commission was the first presidential commission to review and evaluate the National Security Council. The objectives of the Tower Commission were to inquire into "the circumstances surrounding the Iran-Contra matter, other case studies that might reveal strengths and weaknesses in the operation of the National Security Council system under stress, and the manner in which that system has served eight different Presidents since its inception in 1947." [24]

President Reagan appeared before the Tower Commission on December 2, 1986, to answer questions. His answers were not entirely consistent, and he was (allegedly) plagued with poor memory, because the questions were regarding details that occurred months and years prior. [13]

The report published by the Tower Commission, known as the Tower Commission Report, was delivered to the President on February 26, 1987. It criticized the actions of Oliver North, John Poindexter, Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger and others. It did not determine that the President had knowledge of the extent of the program, although it argued that the President ought to have had better control of the National Security Council staff. The wording of the report surprised some since it was expected to have been weak in its criticism of the President. Instead, it heavily criticized President Reagan for not properly supervising his subordinates or being aware of their actions. The U.S. Congress issued its own report on November 18, 1987, indicating that "If the president did not know what his national security advisers were doing, he should have." [2]" The congressional report stated that the President bore "ultimate responsibility" for wrongdoing by his aides, and his Administration exhibited "secrecy, deception and disdain for the law." A major result of the Tower Commission was the consensus that Reagan should have listened to his National Security Advisor more, thereby placing more power in the hands of that chair. The National Security Advisor was to be seen as an "honest broker" and not someone who would use the position to further his or her political agenda.

Some doubted the intentions of the Tower Commission and believed that it was a political stunt.[citation needed] The commission had limited its criticism of Vice President George Bush[citation needed]. Subsequently, the head of the commission, John Tower, was nominated to the position of Secretary of Defense by Bush when he became President. He was not confirmed by the Senate. Some Democrats used the nomination to retaliate against President George H.W. Bush for what they viewed as 'negative' (though successful) campaign tactics against their nominee, Michael Dukakis. Others, including the conservative organizer Paul Weyrich, accused Tower (accurately, the evidence suggests) of having been involved in extramarital affairs and heavy drinking. One of Tower's leading critics was Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sam Nunn, a Georgia Democrat. Brent Scowcroft was named National Security Advisor. [25]


[edit] Aftermath
Oliver North and John Poindexter were indicted on multiple charges on March 16, 1988.[26] North, indicted on 16 counts, was found guilty by a jury of three minor counts. The convictions were vacated on appeal on the grounds that North's Fifth Amendment rights may have been violated by the indirect use of his testimony to Congress which had been given under a grant of immunity. In 1990, Poindexter was convicted on several felony counts of lying to Congress, obstruction of justice, conspiracy, and altering and destroying documents pertinent to the investigation. His convictions were also overturned on appeal on similar grounds. The Independent Counsel, Lawrence E. Walsh, chose not to re-try North or Poindexter. Weinberger was indicted for lying to the Independent Counsel but was later pardoned by President George H.W. Bush.

Faced with undeniable evidence of his involvement in the scandal, Reagan expressed regret regarding the situation at a nationally televised White House press conference on Ash Wednesday, March 4, 1987. Responding to questions, Reagan stated that his previous assertions that the U.S. did not trade arms for hostages were incorrect. He also stated that the Vice President knew of the plan.

ya---at least Clinton openly supported Bin Ladens bunch in the Balkans. :laugh2:

[loosecannon]

They bribe radicals to stay the hell out of thier country. They risk overthrow all the time. They are as dependent on the US for protection as the US is dependent on them for oil.

yes, all true


They bribe radicals to stay the hell out of thier country.

The radicals they bribed to stay out of their country BOMBED THE WTC and the PENTAGON, and were trained and groomed in the Madrassa schools in SA.

The Bribes financed the attack against our nation.

Iraq didn't do a damned thing to us.

[loosecannon]

To prevent Russian expansion---DOH. Things change--try to keep up.

Uh years after the Soviet union collapsed, try to catch up Duck.

[loosecannon]

ya---at least Clinton openly supported Bin Ladens bunch in the Balkans. :laugh2:


You miss the point DUCK, Reagan commited treason and a felony while negotiating with our enemies to trade arms for hostages as a ploy to get himself elected to the presidency

That is 100,000 times as aggregious an offense as anything Pelosi may have done.

So cut the crap and admit this isn't a story and it is still 10,000 times too insignificant to even get mentioned...

Compared to what the GOP heroes have done in the same vein.

[Gaffer]

We attacked the entire nations of Iraq and Afghanistan because of a handful or an individual with whom we chose to have disagreements.

You are a jihadist aren't you? You really hate America. Didn't they teach you anything in tha communist school?

We went into afganhistan because the taliban who ruled it, were harboring bin laden and al queda. al queda also controled most of the government.

What do you mean we "chose to have disagreements"? We attacked afgan because they supported and supplied the al queda members that attacked the WTC on 9/11. Not for a "disagreement". what kinda alternate reality do you live in?

Saddam told the truth about his lack of WMD. Then we allowed him to be hung.

saddam was a lying piece of shit that got way more than he deserved. You know it and I know it. For you to defend him says a lot about you. what part of the middle east are you from?

Our only beef with the Taliban and Afghanistan was AQ. We were supporting the Taliban for years before hand with foreign aid.

We NEVER supported the taliban. read your history. The only suppport the afgans ever got was missliles to knock don't soviet aircraft. And those afgans were not taliban. The taliban came much later. You really need to read something besides left wing propaganda.

[Dilloduck]

You miss the point DUCK, Reagan commited treason and a felony while negotiating with our enemies to trade arms for hostages as a ploy to get himself elected to the presidency

That is 100,000 times as aggregious an offense as anything Pelosi may have done.

So cut the crap and admit this isn't a story and it is still 10,000 times too insignificant to even get mentioned...

Compared to what the GOP heroes have done in the same vein.

10,000 times too insignificant ?? I demand a recount ! :laugh2:

Convict Reagan posthumously if you wish but unfortunately we still have a stupid House Majority leader. Really stupid.

[Dilloduck]

The funny thing is, I think we may have even had a more powerful impact with our message because of the attention that was called to our trip," she said. "It became clear to President Assad that even though we have our differences in the United States, there is no division between the President and the Congress and the Democrats on the message we wanted him to receive."

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1608036,00.html

Again---this is the same woman who says Bushs' foreign policy is a total failure ????

WHICH IS IT NANCY ??????? :poke:

[Gunny]

You miss the point DUCK, Reagan commited treason and a felony while negotiating with our enemies to trade arms for hostages as a ploy to get himself elected to the presidency

That is 100,000 times as aggregious an offense as anything Pelosi may have done.

So cut the crap and admit this isn't a story and it is still 10,000 times too insignificant to even get mentioned...

Compared to what the GOP heroes have done in the same vein.

Horseshit.

You're tactic is juvenile and transparent. What's worse, you can't even come up with a substantiated allegation to try and deflect with.

This is about what Pelosi did. It isn't about what Reagan, Bush, Gingrich, my grandma nor anyone else did that you consider worse as an sorry-ass attempt to downplay what she has done.

[loosecannon]

We NEVER supported the taliban.


You really do live in a cave don't you?

The US supported the taliban up until the month before we invaded Afghanistan, even giving them funds to build a soccer stadium.

You seriously need to clean the GOP out of your ears and digest some reality.

Gaffe, you are walking blind and dumb. Lost, without a clue about anything.

[loosecannon]

Horseshit.

You're tactic is juvenile and transparent.

Neither juvenile or transparent. Pelosi did absolutely nothing wrong. The leading man of modern republicanism committed felonies in a similar situation.

So lets attack the innocent misdemeanor and ignore the serial murderer in GOP garb.

Yeah that's deflectin Gunny republican style.

If you were born this morning you would be smarter by now.

[loosecannon]

Convict Reagan posthumously if you wish but unfortunately we still have a stupid House Majority leader. Really stupid.

No we have a stupid Duck. You still don't have a single clue as to what she said and to whom.

You have ZERO info about what really occured except that she met with the Syrian pres.

You know NOTHING more.

(course you never do know anything)

[manu1959]

No we have a stupid Duck. You still don't have a single clue as to what she said and to whom.

You have ZERO info about what really occured except that she met with the Syrian pres.

You know NOTHING more.

(course you never do know anything)

so tell us...what did she say?

[loosecannon]

Peon sed: What do you mean we "chose to have disagreements"? We attacked afgan because they supported and supplied the al queda members that attacked the WTC on 9/11. Not for a "disagreement". what kinda alternate reality do you live in?

Peon, So why didn't we attack Saudi Arabia? I mean 15 of `9 suicide bombers were saudis, as was Osama BL.

And Saudi Arabians financed the attackers (state sponsors of terrorism), and they still harbor terrorist training camps called madrassas.

Why didn't we attack them who attacked Us instead of the taliban who were supported by our foreign aid?

You don't have an answer, you never will, because an honest answer would require you to say "Gaffe was wrong and Loosecannon was right".

You are much less than a commie gaffe. you are supporting our enemies by supporting Traitor Bush.

Bush supports the insurgents who are killing US servicemen.

He is against America and so are you.

[Gaffer]

Peon, So why didn't we attack Saudi Arabia? I mean 15 of `9 suicide bombers were saudis, as was Osama BL.

And Saudi Arabians financed the attackers (state sponsors of terrorism), and they still harbor terrorist training camps called madrassas.

Why didn't we attack them who attacked Us instead of the taliban who were supported by our foreign aid?

You don't have an answer, you never will, because an honest answer would require you to say "Gaffe was wrong and Loosecannon was right".

You are much less than a commie gaffe. you are supporting our enemies by supporting Traitor Bush.

Bush supports the insurgents who are killing US servicemen.

He is against America and so are you.

Somehow i feel like I'm talking to sycoblue here. You tell lies and don't back them up with any thing. You are an ignorant person. I see no sense in carrying on further conversations with you loosecomrade. you need more training in how to disrupt American messages board with propaganda. Go back to iran until you learn to do it better.

[loosecannon]

Somehow i feel like I'm talking to sycoblue here. You tell lies and don't back them up with any thing.

No I back up what I say better than anybody on this board.

YOU tell lies and never back them up. In fact all you do is lie without backup.

You are an ignorant person

OK, but still much smarter than you.


I see no sense in carrying on further conversations with you loosecomrade. you need more training in how to disrupt American messages board with propaganda. Go back to iran until you learn to do it better.

I know you see no sense, that was obvious. Aside from that I bear no responsibility for your hallucinations.

Now repeat 200 times: Pelosi committed no crimes.

Pelosi did nothing at all that could even begin to compete with the crimes of RR.

Pelosi is a relative saint compared to GOPers.

I think your recovery is almost complete. Don't take any medications.

Just check back in if you start chanting "Hiel Bush" again.

[manu1959]

ok...local sf news pelosi says....she was delivering a consistent message....same as that as the bush administration...

so she was negotiating and she agrees with bush?....every 28 days ....every 28 days
...

[Gaffer]

How many times will her story change before she finally decides on which one to stick with?

[typomaniac]

If you think for a second that the President of the United States doesn't feel the weight of the responsibility of his job whether or not you agree with that President's politics and/or decisions, I would say you are quite mistaken.Why is that? Are you a close personal colleague?

(No, that wasn't a rhetorical question. I'd really like to know what makes you think as you do, when even conservative publications I read are claiming that the White House has had "no adult supervision" for the last 6 years.)

[SassyLady]

No, I am saying that it is dumb for you to energetically pump hot air to erect your fantasy about Pelosi's ethics.

You have read news reports. Eeewwwwww, wow. IOW you don't have the first clue in the world what any of these heads of state actually said or did.

Neither do I. Which is why I consider your irrational conclusions to be dumb and why I don't make any myself.

Is that better?

Nope - you are still rude.

How I feel about her unethical behavior has nothing to do with any news stories other than watching her own press releases with her own explanation of why she went and what she said.

And, regardless of whether I sat in the same room with Pelosi and the heads of state and heard exactly what was said, the fact remains that Pelosi is NOT our Secretary of State and has no business meeting with foreign heads of state without prior approval and direction.

She keeps stating that she was delivering the same message that has always been delivered to these heads of state by our administration. If that is the case, why did she feel the need to go herself.........other than in a vain attempt to elevate her status? It has been a long standing policy that the heads of state have one main contact to discuss US foreign policy - our Secretary of State, NOT the Speaker.

It was blatant self-aggrandization on Pelosi's part and it's backfiring.

And, I won't call you dumb, irrational, full of hot air or clueless for your opinion. I would request the same from you.

[Gunny]

Neither juvenile or transparent. Pelosi did absolutely nothing wrong. The leading man of modern republicanism committed felonies in a similar situation.

So lets attack the innocent misdemeanor and ignore the serial murderer in GOP garb.

Yeah that's deflectin Gunny republican style.

If you were born this morning you would be smarter by now.

Let's instead ignore Pelos's unethical conduct to rehash your unsubstantiated allegations against a deceased person.:lame2:

Doesn't matter when I was born ... I'm still light years ahead of your simplistic bullshit.

btw ... I'm not a Republican. Never have been.

[Gunny]

Why is that? Are you a close personal colleague?

(No, that wasn't a rhetorical question. I'd really like to know what makes you think as you do, when even conservative publications I read are claiming that the White House has had "no adult supervision" for the last 6 years.)

Nope. I'm speaking from the position of someone who has had all eyeballs clicked on him for the answer when the shit hits the fan. It's a REAL lonely place, and there will always be those who disagree with your decision. I'm defending the position, not the man.

I defend the man where loosecannon's completely BS, grasped-from-left-field, illogical conclusions are concerned. Was it not you who asked me if I thought the electorate was made up of extremes? It appears I have been relegated to the other extreme by you simply for calling bullshit.

I'm quite sure you can find conservative publications critical of Bush. I'm critical of Bush. I'm critical of anyone who sits in that chair. I vote. It's my right.

I don't agree with Bush's leadership style in many instances. But look at my avatar .... I seriously doubt you would agree with mine.

[loosecannon]

the fact remains that Pelosi is NOT our Secretary of State and has no business meeting with foreign heads of state without prior approval and direction.


OK, this is your opinion. You are entitled to believe anything you want. Even stuff that is borderline paranoid, imagined, or just concocted to serve your party.

Let not fact deter you from your pre determined course.

Let not the winds of reason enter into your cardboard castle tearing asunder the elaborate fantasy with which ye protect hard earned illusions.

Let freedom to believe anything remain a sacred liberty in this land.

Amen

[loosecannon]

Let's instead ignore Pelos's unethical conduct

When Pelosi does something unethical we can do that.

In the current climate of American politics when a democrat gets a blow job in the ocval office that is an impeachable offense.

But when a republican organized criminal cartel commits thousands of times more, and much more aggregious crimes that is not considered impeachable.

This is the context in which YOU, Gunny, seek to dwell on the tiniest possible spec of ethical conflict while you vehemently ignore many and much more aggregious offenses.

You sure act like a Bushbot/neocon/neorepublican.

[Dilloduck]

When Pelosi does something unethical we can do that.

In the current climate of American politics when a democrat gets a blow job in the ocval office that is an impeachable offense.

But when a republican organized criminal cartel commits thousands of times more, and much more aggregious crimes that is not considered impeachable.

This is the context in which YOU, Gunny, seek to dwell on the tiniest possible spec of ethical conflict while you vehemently ignore many and much more aggregious offenses.

You sure act like a Bushbot/neocon/neorepublican.

Reagan is dead-----clinton was impeached for lying, not getting a BJ. Get your facts straight

[Gunny]

When Pelosi does something unethical we can do that.

In the current climate of American politics when a democrat gets a blow job in the ocval office that is an impeachable offense.

But when a republican organized criminal cartel commits thousands of times more, and much more aggregious crimes that is not considered impeachable.

This is the context in which YOU, Gunny, seek to dwell on the tiniest possible spec of ethical conflict while you vehemently ignore many and much more aggregious offenses.

You sure act like a Bushbot/neocon/neorepublican.

When the standing order from the President, who is the one charged with foreign policy, is that Syria will not be negotiated with until it closes its borders. it's QUITE unethical for a subordinate member of government to go directly against it.

I'm dwelling on nothing. I'm holding you to the context of the thread, while you have tapdanced in just about every direction trying to deflect from that anyone could possibly imagine.

[loosecannon]

Reagan is dead-----clinton was impeached for lying, not getting a BJ. Get your facts straight


Clinton was impeached after $50 million was spent investigating every pore of his life. The charge was obstruction and lying to congress...

about a blow job.

So what if Reagan is dead? His crimes in interfering with our foreign affairs are easily 1000 times the proportion of anything Pelosi might have done.

If you don't care about crimes commited by GOPers then stfu.

If you only care about the petty misdemeanors of dems, stfu.

[Birdzeye]

What exactly has Pelosi "negotiated?"

And what exactly has she done that former Speaker Gingrich didn't do before her?

[typomaniac]

Nope. I'm speaking from the position of someone who has had all eyeballs clicked on him for the answer when the shit hits the fan. It's a REAL lonely place, and there will always be those who disagree with your decision. I'm defending the position, not the man.

I defend the man where loosecannon's completely BS, grasped-from-left-field, illogical conclusions are concerned. Was it not you who asked me if I thought the electorate was made up of extremes? It appears I have been relegated to the other extreme by you simply for calling bullshit.I haven't relegated you anywhere. I don't pigeonhole people because, as you probably guessed, I don't have a militaristic mindset.

More to the point, how is it a defense of the office when you deny (you are denying it, aren't you?) that the man occupying it has no sense of responsibility?

[loosecannon]

When the standing order from the President, who is the one charged with foreign policy, is that Syria will not be negotiated with until it closes its borders. it's QUITE unethical for a subordinate member of government to go directly against it.

But Pelosi DIDN"T negotiate with Syria. She MET with Syria's pres, which is perfectly legal, ethical and none of Bush's damned business.

Meanwhile when GOPers commit the very crime you are dwelling on, you don't care.

[Gunny]

What exactly has Pelosi "negotiated?"

And what exactly has she done that former Speaker Gingrich didn't do before her?

Again, what does Gingrich have to do with this? He's been gone so long I don't remember that he did much of anything.

She opened an official dialogue with the Syrian head of state. Think they were discussing the upcomming episode of the Sopranos?

[Gunny]

I haven't relegated you anywhere. I don't pigeonhole people because, as you probably guessed, I don't have a militaristic mindset.

More to the point, how is it a defense of the office when you deny (you are denying it, aren't you?) that the man occupying it has no sense of responsibility?

I deny that he has no sense of responsibility since it obviously is not true. His priorities not being yours does not negate it.

[Birdzeye]

Gingrich has everything to do with this. As Speaker, he also took official trips and spoke with foreign leaders, the way Pelosi has recently. The only difference between the two is that conservatives never criticized Gingrich even though they go as far as to try to pin the "treason" label on Pelosi (I guess they haven't read the law or case history about treason).

It's all about double standards.

[Gunny]

Gingrich has everything to do with this. As Speaker, he also took official trips and spoke with foreign leaders, the way Pelosi has recently. The only difference between the two is that conservatives never criticized Gingrich even though they go as far as to try to pin the "treason" label on Pelosi (I guess they haven't read the law or case history about treason).

It's all about double standards.

Gingrich has nothing to do with Pelosi taking a trip to Syria last week.

I haven't commented on Pelosi taking a trip and meeting with foreign leaders. I have commented on the context and under the premise in which she did.

I haven't tried to pin "treason" on her, so please accuse me of only what I have done.

[typomaniac]

I deny that he has no sense of responsibility since it obviously is not true. His priorities not being yours does not negate it.I'd say it obviously IS true. Gambling with US lives in a war of aggression just so your closest buds can make a few more million dollars is a sure sign that you have zero understanding of personal responsibility.

What an :ahole: he is.

[Birdzeye]

Gingrich has nothing to do with Pelosi taking a trip to Syria last week.

Since Pelosi is being pilloried for doing the same thing Gingrich did when he was Speaker, it's perfectly fair to bring that up.




Au contraire. This is one nugget you said:

[QUOTE]She opened an official dialogue with the Syrian head of state. Think they were discussing the upcomming episode of the Sopranos?

[manu1959]

Gingrich has everything to do with this. As Speaker, he also took official trips and spoke with foreign leaders, the way Pelosi has recently. The only difference between the two is that conservatives never criticized Gingrich even though they go as far as to try to pin the "treason" label on Pelosi (I guess they haven't read the law or case history about treason).

It's all about double standards.

actually it isn't.....pelosi and them dems say that bush and co are lying cheatin bastards and that woudl never do what the right does....hell their last two presidential campaigns have their foundations rooted in...we do not do what the right does....then to claim that what she did is ok because it is not different than what the lying cheatin right does makes her exactly what she claims not to be....then she comes out last night and says that when she was meeting with the syrians the message she delivered on her "fact finding mission" was no different than bush and co......and that she had left her differneces with bush behind....

yes newt was wrong .... but so is she and to say that she was not wrong because newt was wrong is .... well .... wrong

[loosecannon]

She opened an official dialogue with the Syrian head of state. Think they were discussing the upcomming episode of the Sopranos?

Official dialogue? wtf does that mean?

You don't have a clue in the world what dialogue she opened and you never will.

You just assume that the dialogue was unethical.

On no basis at all except your own fantasies.

[Gunny]

I'd say it obviously IS true. Gambling with US lives in a war of aggression just so your closest buds can make a few more million dollars is a sure sign that you have zero understanding of personal responsibility.

What an :ahole: he is.

The problem with your allegation is it is entirely unsupported by any factual evidence that has not been contrived.

I understand personal responsibility quite well. I understand the rules of evidence and making accusations without anything substantial just as well.

[glockmail]

But Pelosi DIDN"T negotiate with Syria. She MET with Syria's pres, which is perfectly legal, ethical and none of Bush's damned business.

.... She met with the expressed purpose to forward her view of US foreign policy, which she has no Constitutional authority, and in direct defiance of Administrative policy. This gives aid and comfort to our enemy: she commited treason.

[Gunny]

Since Pelosi is being pilloried for doing the same thing Gingrich did when he was Speaker, it's perfectly fair to bring that up.

[QUOTEI haven't commented on Pelosi taking a trip and meeting with foreign leaders. I have commented on the context and under the premise in which she did.

Au contraire. This is one nugget you said:[/QUOTE]

Again, since what Gingrich did was over a decade ago, and he hasn't held political office since then, no it isn't. That was then, this is now.

If I could remember every excuse libs have given over the years as to how what Bill Clinton did then was irrelevant to what Bush does now, I'd throw one up in your face just for grins and giggles.

You missed the point. The context and premise under which Pelosi met with Assad is that she defied current foreign policy in doing so, and played herself off as representing the US government; which, she clearly did not if it was against the President's wishes and HE sets foreign policy.

What a retired-in-disgrace politician did or did not do umpteen years ago is irrelevant to THAT.

[KitchenKitten99]

while it doesn't surprise me that we haven't (at least not me anyway) heard anything about this on the national level, I would think one of the bigger talk shows would have mentioned it somewhere...

[Gunny]

Official dialogue? wtf does that mean?

You don't have a clue in the world what dialogue she opened and you never will.

You just assume that the dialogue was unethical.

On no basis at all except your own fantasies.

Really? An elected official of the House of Representatives, and Speaker of the House, using official government transportation meets with a foreign head of state, presenting herself as representing the US Government. That's about as "official dialogue" as it gets.

And pay cloer attention please. I have never stated whether or not I consider the dialogue itself unethical since I don't know what was said. That would be you reading something that isn't there. THAT would be the fantasy here.

[loosecannon]

>She met with the expressed purpose to forward her view of US foreign policy,

>which she has no Constitutional authority, and in direct defiance of Administrative policy.

>This gives aid and comfort to our enemy:

>she commited treason.

Actually you are wrong in each case.

>You have no clue at all what her intentions were. You are promoting baseless acusations.

>She has every constitutional right to meet with anyone

>There was nothoing criminal, unethical, or even impolite about Pelosi's meetings.

You just can;t deal with Bush's presidential penis going limp and a woman being elected to the speaker position.

You are suffering from power envy.

Too bad.

[Gunny]

while it doesn't surprise me that we haven't (at least not me anyway) heard anything about this on the national level, I would think one of the bigger talk shows would have mentioned it somewhere...

They await instructions from their fearless leaders; who, await the direction of the political wind on this one to see what kind of damage control or feigned indignation is required.

[loosecannon]

Really? An elected official of the House of Representatives, and Speaker of the House, using official government transportation meets with a foreign head of state, presenting herself as representing the US Government. That's about as "official dialogue" as it gets.



SHe DOES represent the US House speaker position which is exactly what she represented.

And by extension she represents the congress to some degree. And the Congress is a co equal branch of our government.

She didn't represent the president, or the official position of the US.

[loosecannon]

while it doesn't surprise me that we haven't (at least not me anyway) heard anything about this on the national level, I would think one of the bigger talk shows would have mentioned it somewhere...

It is a non story, a non event, a fabricated "crime". It has no merit except within the rich fantasy environment of RW circle jerks.

[Birdzeye]

Again, since what Gingrich did was over a decade ago, and he hasn't held political office since then, no it isn't. That was then, this is now.


Right wingers aren't shy about dredging up the past when it suits their purposes. Comparing right wing reaction to Pelosi's trip with their reaction (much more favorable) to Gingrich's trip is quite relevant, as it betrays the double standard of those who are trying to smear Pelosi with these latest bogus allegations.

[Gunny]

Actually you are wrong in each case.

>You have no clue at all what her intentions were. You are promoting baseless acusations.

>She has every constitutional right to meet with anyone

>There was nothoing criminal, unethical, or even impolite about Pelosi's meetings.

You just can;t deal with Bush's presidential penis going limp and a woman being elected to the speaker position.

You are suffering from power envy.

Too bad.

Her trip was unethical, period. "Why" has been posted ad nauseum. Obviously you choose to intentionally blind yourself to facts in favor partisan lockstep.

And one can only marvel at the fact you think ANYONE would envy an unethical, shrewish bitch who would have been forced out by her own party if she was a Republican for all of her chicanery.

[Gunny]

Right wingers aren't shy about dredging up the past when it suits their purposes. Comparing right wing reaction to Pelosi's trip with their reaction (much more favorable) to Gingrich's trip is quite relevant, as it betrays the double standard of those who are trying to smear Pelosi with these latest bogus allegations.

As Manu pointed out, are you attempting to justify your actions for what you accuse right-wingers of doing while calling it dishonest, lying, etc?

There is no double standard. You're just dreaming that up. I have no idea why Gingrich made whatever trips he made, nor for what reasons, and you have yet to provide any evidence that supports them being under the same circumstances as Pelosi's.

If he met with the head of state of a nation the then President said would not be negotiated with until they met a certain condition, then he was just as wrong then as Pelosi is now.

Let's kick him out of office, okay?

[Birdzeye]

Her trip was unethical, period. "Why" has been posted ad nauseum. Obviously you choose to intentionally blind yourself to facts in favor partisan lockstep.

And one can only marvel at the fact you think ANYONE would envy an unethical, shrewish bitch who would have been forced out by her own party if she was a Republican for all of her chicanery.

Yes, vague allegations with few if any specifics have been posted ad nauseum. :rolleyes:

And what chicanery has she done, outside of the vivid imaginations of rightwingers? :laugh2:

[Birdzeye]

As Manu pointed out, are you attempting to justify your actions for what you accuse right-wingers of doing while calling it dishonest, lying, etc?

There is no double standard. You're just dreaming that up. I have no idea why Gingrich made whatever trips he made, nor for what reasons, and you have yet to provide any evidence that supports them being under the same circumstances as Pelosi's.

If he met with the head of state of a nation the then President said would not be negotiated with until they met a certain condition, then he was just as wrong then as Pelosi is now.

Let's kick him out of office, okay?

No double standard eh?


Fox Calls Out Gingrich Hypocrisy on Pelosi Trip to Syria

Today on Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace asked former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) about his views on the Pelosi-led delegation to Syria. Gingrich criticized Pelosi, saying, “I think it’s very important not to have two foreign policies, and I think it’s very dangerous for America to do what Speaker Pelosi did.”

Wallace confronted Gingrich with public comments he made as Speaker that clashed with Clinton administration policy before and during his travels abroad to China and Israel in the 1990’s. (Glenn Greenwald first documented those statements HERE.) Gingrich said at the time:

We will defend Taiwan, period. [3/31/97]

I think it’s wrong for the American Secretary of State to become the agent for the Palestinians [3/12/98]

Gingrich responded to the Taiwan comment stating, “What I said in China was U.S. policy.” But Wallace quickly refuted him: “Not according to the Clinton administration.” Gingrich then attempted to defend his statements criticizing Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and said, “I think at the time she was taking steps that were very, very pro-Palestinian.” Watch it:


Throughout the segment, Gingrich followed the White House line, attacking Speaker Pelosi but conveniently failing to mention that at least five Republicans also traveled to Syria last week, including Rep. David Hobson (R-OH), who accompanied Pelosi.

Contrary to Gingrich’s statements criticizing Clinton’s foreign policy, Pelosi’s delegation did not attempt to undermine President Bush. Hobson said, “We reinforced the administration’s positions and at the same time we were trying to understand and maybe getting some voice to some things people wanted to say that maybe they were not comfortable saying to the administration.”

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/08/fox-confronts-gingrich-pelosi/

[glockmail]

Actually you are wrong in each case.

>You have no clue at all what her intentions were. You are promoting baseless acusations.

>She has every constitutional right to meet with anyone

>There was nothoing criminal, unethical, or even impolite about Pelosi's meetings.

You just can;t deal with Bush's presidential penis going limp and a woman being elected to the speaker position.

....

1. Her intentions were clearly stated by her.
2. She has no authority to negotiate on foreign policy matters, especially related to war.
3. My penis would go limp too looking at te current crop of female Democrats. :laugh2: But why not keep the conversation elevated, on the up and up? (Oops.) :lol:

[Gunny]

No double standard eh?



http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/08/fox-confronts-gingrich-pelosi/

Some comparison. Gingrich echoed stated, factual US foreign policy to which the Clinton Administration backpeddaled on after the fact?

Surely you can do better than comparing apples and oranges?

[typomaniac]

1. Her intentions were clearly stated by her.
2. She has no authority to negotiate on foreign policy matters, especially related to war.
3. My penis would go limp too looking at te current crop of female Democrats. :laugh2: But why not keep the conversation elevated, on the up and up? (Oops.) :lol:1. Which makes me wonder why you're so obsessed with keeping the hype alive.
2. She wasn't.
3. So stick with underage boys.