Reply With Quote
Jesus. She might be uglier than Hillary.
Representative from San Francisco....Defender of feminism....Highest ranking elected woman in the world's most powerful country....Goes to Syria, a country on the list of terrorist-sponsoring nations. ...Conforms to the subservient dress standards....
Where is Jimmy Carter when you need him...
Jesus. She might be uglier than Hillary.
It's courtesy, a common trait used in diplomacy. She is visiting their country and is being respectful of their customs. Does anyone really expect her to burn a bra at a Mosque while visiting their?
First Lady Laura Bush also extended a similar courtesy.
Think of this as the same as an atheist bowing their head in silence when they join a family member to attend church on a holiday. They don't beleive but out of courtesy and respect, they bow their head in silence.
Oh, that's Secretary of State Condaleeza Rice wearing a scarf as well. I don't think Pelosi, Mrs. Bush or Secretary Rice have embraced Islam either.
Mountains out of a molehill, a right wing trademark since forever......
Silly liberals. Of course it's not the same. When a right-winger wears the hijab, it reflects the deep right-wing understanding of and respect for foreign cultures. This is reflected in the obvious forethought of Iraqi culture and history that has gone into the reconstruction of Iraq. What Laura Bush and Condi Rice are communicating is, "We accept you as full partners in our strong, wise policy agenda."
When a liberal wears the hijab, it is a sign of submission and surrender. What Nancy Pelosi is saying is, "I am ready for dhimmitude; please don't hurt me." It is also an expression of subversion against President Bush, maybe even treason. In any event, Pelosi has made it clear she is on the side of terrorists and against America.
I guess I just expected more backbone from our current Democratic leadership....Why not just re elect Jimmy Carter...
I've got no issue with her wearing that . I'm just saying she looks like something out of a horror movie.
Duly noted, I'll let the Dems know at the next secret meeting with Soros that we should replace her with the World Car commercial spokes woman.
Yes, we would like to see more hot candidates, thanks.
Brilliant, just brilliant!
I like the way this thread is progressing, frankly. I mean, if the lot of 'em is gonna be self-interested, corrupt, bought and paid for shills anyway, they might as well be easy on the eyes!
Here's a whole list of potential candidates:
Now THAT's a political party
Guess you are right SC, Carter supports Pelosi all the way.
Big surprise, right?
Well Bush's approach has been working wonders.. except for that unecessary war..
Pelosi should have shown respect by going all the way and covering her whole face. Or at least as a favor to me.
Oh my goodness. You mean Pelosi can be wrong. She really
doesn't know what she is doing.
The Jerusalem Post Internet Edition
PMO denies peace message to Assad
Herb Keinon, THE JERUSALEM POST Apr. 5, 2007
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."
Also on JPost.com:
# Alan Dershowitz on the right of return
# Q&A with Shimon Peres
# Pelosi tells Assad: Israel ready to talk
Olmert, the statement clarified, told Pelosi that Syria's sincerity about a genuine peace with Israel would be judged by its willingness to "cease its support of terror, cease its sponsoring of the Hamas and Islamic Jihad organizations, refrain from providing weapons to Hizbullah and bringing about the destabilizing of Lebanon, cease its support of terror in Iraq, and relinquish the strategic ties it is building with the extremist regime in Iran."
The statement said Olmert had not communicated to Pelosi any change in Israeli policy on Damascus.
Pelosi, who met in Damascus with Syrian President Bashar Assad over the objections of US President George W. Bush, said she brought a message to Assad from Olmert saying that Israel was ready for peace talks.
"We were very pleased with the reassurances we received from the president [Assad] that he was ready to resume the peace process. He was ready to engage in negotiations for peace with Israel," Pelosi said after meeting Assad.
She said the meeting with the Syrian leader "enabled us to communicate a message from Prime Minister Olmert that Israel was ready to engage in peace talks as well."
According to officials in the Prime Minister's Office, however, this was not what transpired during her meeting with Olmert.
The officials said Olmert had told Pelosi that he thought her trip to Damascus was a mistake, and that when she asked - nevertheless - whether he had a message for Assad, Olmert said Syria should first stop supporting terrorism and "act like a normal country," and only then would Israel be willing to hold discussions.
The first part of that message, the officials said, was lost in what was reported from Damascus on Wednesday.
Pelosi said the congressional delegation she led raised the issue of kidnapped IDF soldiers Gilad Schalit, Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev and conveyed "the importance of Syria's role in promoting peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis." She also said she had pressed Assad on Syrian support for Hamas and Hizbullah.
In a related development, Bahrain's Foreign Minister Sheikh Khalid Bin Ahmed al-Khalifa told the Bahrain daily Al-Ayam on Tuesday that the Riyadh Arab League summit set up "panels to communicate with all influential parties, including Israel, to activate the Arab Peace Initiative."
According to the Bahrain News Agency, Khalifa said the Arab League has formed "working teams to communicate with all parties, including Israel, the United Nations, the US, China and the European Union."
He said the team would make contacts with Israel "within a month," and that contacts with Israel would be made by countries "that have ties" with it, while the other Arab nations would contact the US and the EU member states.
A source in the Prime Minister's Office denied knowledge of any working groups that would be calling Jerusalem.
"We still haven't accepted the full initiative," the source said, adding that there would be no formal reply until after the Prime Minister's Office returned from the weeklong Pessah holiday. "But we've never said no to contact."
The Pelosi-Assad meeting, meanwhile, was widely viewed as an attempt to push the Bush administration to open a direct dialogue with Syria, a step that the White House has rejected. Congressional Democrats insist the US attempts to isolate Syria have failed to force the Assad government to change its policies.
Rep. Tom Lantos, the head of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, who was a member of Pelosi's delegation, said the meeting "reinforced very strongly" the potential benefits of talking to Syria.
"This is only the beginning of our constructive dialogue with Syria and we hope to build on this visit," he told reporters.
On Tuesday, Bush denounced Pelosi's visit to Syria, saying it sent mixed signals to Assad's government.
"Sending delegations doesn't work. It's simply been counterproductive," Bush said.
Last year, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group recommended Washington open talks with Iran and Syria to try to resolve the war in Iraq and other regional crises. Bush rejected the recommendations, insisting dialogue would not bring results. But in February, the US joined a gathering of regional diplomats in Baghdad that included Iran and Syria for talks on Iraq.
"We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace," Pelosi said. She said she and her delegation "expressed [their] concern about Syria's connections to Hizbullah and Hamas," and discussed the issue of terrorists slipping across the Syrian border into Iraq.
"These are important issues not only in the fight against terrorism, but priorities for us for peace in the Middle East," she said.
"These people in the United States who are opposing dialogue, I tell them one thing: Dialogue is... the only method to close the gap existing between two countries," Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem told reporters after Wednesday's Assad-Pelosi meeting.
"Everyone knows there are different points of view between Syria and the United States," he said. "We are happy that Mrs. Pelosi and her delegation had the courage and determination to bridge these differences."
AP contributed to this report. •
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...cle%2FShowFull
Copyright 1995-2007 The Jerusalem Post - http://www.jpost.com/
Does this mean that Pelosi isn't the President of the U.S. Mrs.
Bill Clinton will be glad to know that.
Pickey, Pickey, PickeyWell Bush's approach has been working wonders.. except for that unecessary war..
Pelosi who?
What a bunch of morons.
It's Ya hoo ^^^^^
Whatch expect, CNN/ Nancy Grace,
Details, Details, Details
Did she violate the Logan Act. Should we ask for her
resignation now?
The WSJ is full of crap....
Illegal Diplomacy
By Robert F. Turner
Word Count: 854
WSJSpeaker 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," ...
Had the WSJ done their job of a properly researching their facts before licking WH anus and destroying any shred of credibility they have left, they would know that Pelosi didn't violate the Logan Act, aka Jesse Jackson with the Cubans because Pelosi is an elected official and not just a citizen..
Nancy Pelosi is the 2nd only to Cheney in the line of sucession to the presidency. Travelling to Damascus over the wishes of George W. Bush isn't a crime. Bush and Cheney can have their usual tantrums and out all the CIA agents in the world to get even with Speaker Pelosi, but they can't stop her from doing her job.§ 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 le 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.
George W. Bush is not the United States government and neither is Cheney. Both men are elected officers in the executive branch. They have no authority over Nancy Pelosi because she serves in the U.S. House of Representatives whose members do indeed give Nancy Pelosi the governmental authority to engage in fact finding missions in foreign nations.
Pelosi told Syria that Israel was ready to talk peace, Syria naturally asked for the Golan Heights back. Prim Minister Ehud Olmert turned around and throw a pie in Pelosi's face by Pelosi didn't speak for them. As long as Syria will not recognize Israel's right to survive, there will be no talks.
I heard the negative aspect of Pelosi's trip was a bigger story in the UK than their 15 soldiers returning home!
There is a telling article of Pelosi's foolishness led Pratfall in Damascus
Nancy Pelosi's foolish shuttle diplomacy. The story is buried on page A16 of course because it is a negative story against a democrat. Wouldn't this be front page news if a Bush administration official did such a blunder? Anyway, the text of the story:
HOUSE SPEAKER Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) offered an excellent demonstration yesterday of why members of Congress should not attempt to supplant the secretary of state when traveling abroad. After a meeting with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad in Damascus, Ms. Pelosi announced that she had delivered a message from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that "Israel was ready to engage in peace talks" with Syria. What's more, she added, Mr. Assad was ready to "resume the peace process" as well. Having announced this seeming diplomatic breakthrough, Ms. Pelosi suggested that her Kissingerian shuttle diplomacy was just getting started. "We expressed our interest in using our good offices in promoting peace between Israel and Syria," she said.
Only one problem: The Israeli prime minister entrusted Ms. Pelosi with no such message. "What was communicated to the U.S. House Speaker does not contain any change in the policies of Israel," said a statement quickly issued by the prime minister's office. In fact, Mr. Olmert told Ms. Pelosi 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." In other words, Ms. Pelosi not only misrepresented Israel's position but was virtually alone in failing to discern that Mr. Assad's words were mere propaganda.
Ms. Pelosi was criticized by President Bush for visiting Damascus at a time when the administration -- rightly or wrongly -- has frozen high-level contacts with Syria. Mr. Bush said that thanks to the speaker's freelancing Mr. Assad was getting mixed messages from the United States. Ms. Pelosi responded by pointing out that Republican congressmen had visited Syria without drawing presidential censure. That's true enough -- but those other congressmen didn't try to introduce a new U.S. diplomatic initiative in the Middle East. "We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace," Ms. Pelosi grandly declared.
Never mind that that statement is ludicrous: As any diplomat with knowledge of the region could have told Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Assad is a corrupt thug whose overriding priority at the moment is not peace with Israel but heading off U.N. charges that he orchestrated the murder of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq al-Hariri. The really striking development here is the attempt by a Democratic congressional leader to subs ute her own foreign policy for that of a sitting Republican president. Two weeks ago Ms. Pelosi rammed legislation through the House of Representatives that would strip Mr. Bush of his authority as commander in chief to manage troop movements in Iraq. Now she is attempting to introduce a new Middle East policy that directly conflicts with that of the president. We have found much to criticize in Mr. Bush's military strategy and regional diplomacy. But Ms. Pelosi's attempt to establish a shadow presidency is not only counterproductive, it is foolish.
Very little said about Pelosi's trip about the harm she did except on the Fox News channel. Are the other stations covering for her, or just slow? Maybe they are incompetent to report the news, or is it bias?
Good article...
The Democrats are under the impression that America wants to lose this war...they'll find out how wrong they were, again, in 08.
Cutting funding for the troops in Iraq is going to make the 04 election look like the FDR years comparitively when 08 comes...
"The Democrats are under the impression that America wants to lose this war."
What ing bull .
Nobody WANTS to lose the Iraq war, but after 4 years of so-called "kicking ass", the US military remains totally incapable of enforcing public security.
The surge is supposed to have Iraqis leading the clampdown in Bagdad, but the US military is taking a lot more casualties in the surge than the Iraqis, because in reality the US is still the main force, and the Iraqis are a distant second.
The surge is nothing but more of the same we've had for 4 years, which has gotten us absolutely nowhere.
The Repugs losing Iraq will be a horrible disaster when the US pulls out, but the Repugs don't have clue how "win" in Iraq, even where "win" has been downgraded from a stable, self-sustaining democracy and the Iraqis standing up, to the US just trying to stop the sectarian slaughter, which they are still failing to do.
With Iraq lost, the Repugs surge bull is simply stalling for time to keep the US blood flowing wastefully until 20 Jan 09, when the Repugs' campaign to pin the loss of Iraq on everybody else will be in full swing. Repug slime jobbing and buck passing that everybody else, the media, the Dems, the US citizens, etc, etc, prevented the almighty, all-competent Repugs from winning in Iraq.
The WH has lost all credibility with vast majority of the US that it can win in Iraq. If we can't win, then why stay? There is no reason to stay
What a ridiculous statement.
The true problem is that Bush wants to force a democracy onto a people who are unwilling and incapable of sustaining a democracy. We have been there long enough for the Iraqis to be able to have a military and take control of their own country. This of course, has not happened since once an Iraqi unit is trained, they drop their weapons and run at the 1st sign of a firefight, leaving the US soldiers to do all of the fighting and dying.
If the neocons love the Iraqi people so much, they should all volunteer and go continue to fight for them, while at the same time being betrayed by the very people they are trying to help.
Bottom line: If a country wants democracy, it's own citizens need to fight for it. Of course, this will never happen as the Iraqis don't view themselves as Iraqis, but instead view themselves as either Sunni or Shi‘ite. That is a whole other slew of problems as the two groups have no interest in getting along. Yep, Ol' Georgie has our men and women in uniform in the middle of a giant cluster .
I'm glad someone communicates to the rest of the world that not all of the US citizens are Bushies. There are many folks who do not support the 'war-as-a-first-resort' foreign policy and the world needs to understand that.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
