We sure love them terrorist

[imported_Shivetya]

Ms. Pelosi not only misrepresented Israel's position but was virtually alone in failing to discern that Mr. Assad's words were mere propaganda.


Pelosi looks like a foold for not understanding the difference the truth and propoganda.



They ain't such bad guys now are they?

I understand going to Israel and seeing them as well as the Palestinians. Yet to go to Syria? I mean, c'mon now, these guys are basically doing nothing to promote peace in the region, in fact they seem to want to keep Lebanon in check, as in under their thumb.

visiting Iraq and Afghanistan was well within her rights and I think it was good she went, but whats next? Maybe she will try to go to Iran too.

 

[Rainsford]

Well gee, if a country isn't doing what they need to be doing, going there and TALKING with them seems like the way to go. After all, it's got to be better than the nothing at all that everyone else is doing to get Syria to play nice. I know you righties hate diplomacy, but sometimes it does in fact work.

 

[Jhhnn]

Yeh, right, Shivetya... I seem to recall Olmert rejecting repeated Syrian offers to talk with no preconditions at all, and that the Syrians did pull their troops out of Lebanon... giving the Israelis a more open avenue of attack. That was the whole point of demanding their withdrawal, near as I can tell...

The Bush Admin could head off Pelosi, actually engage in some talking themselves. Probably not, ehh? It'd interfere with the posturing...

 

[Aimster]

U.S gave chemical weapons to a terrorist state.
What has Syria done?

It would be perfect if she went out and said "The Republicans should keep their opinions to themselves because after all it was them who supplied chemical weapons to a terrorist state and them who campaigned the hardest to start a war that was found to be based off of lies"

 

[Harvey]

Bitch, bitch, bitch, bitch, bitch. Are you implying it would be better to shoot first, or even to wait until that becomes necessary because no one was willing to talk with them? If the worst that could happen is that they yank her chain and say nothing useful, at least, she tried.

Do you ever post anything other than Bull, Shivetya? :roll:

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Shivetya
They ain't such bad guys now are they?

I understand going to Israel and seeing them as well as the Palestinians. Yet to go to Syria? I mean, c'mon now, these guys are basically doing nothing to promote peace in the region, in fact they seem to want to keep Lebanon in check, as in under their thumb.

visiting Iraq and Afghanistan was well within her rights and I think it was good she went, but whats next? Maybe she will try to go to Iran too.

And we're promoting peace in the region how again? By invading and occupying one country after another? How's that workin' out?

 

[conehead433]

Having talks with countries we don't necessarily consider our friends is a far better strategy than the current Bush policy of simply calling them part of an 'axis of evil' and having no diplomatic relations with them. If we had at least some sort of relationship with Iran we would have people on the ground there and quite possibly be able to determine where they have their underground nuclear enrichment facilities. As it is we don't have a clue so if it came to having to deal with Iran's nuclear ambitions at some point we would only be able to knock out their communications infrastructure, select military targets, etc., and they would still be able to continue with their uranium enrichment.

 

[Lemon law]

OK OK---lets assume for the sake of argument that Syria is 100% rotten to the core. But none the less we actually do talk to Syria and try to discover some common interests.
And after the talks, Syria is only 95% rotten to the core. In my book, its still progress with huge potential for further progress.

 

[DealMonkey]

I wanted to point out that Condi has put together a meeting that included the Syrians and Iranians. Not sure if the meeting happened yet, or what the outcome was...

U.S. Will Join Talks With Iran And Syria
Rice Announces Policy Shift as Iraq Plans Conferences

Wednesday, February 28, 2007; Page A01

The United States agreed yesterday to join high-level talks with Iran and Syria on the future of Iraq, an abrupt shift in policy that opens the door to diplomatic dealings the White House had shunned in recent months despite mounting criticism.

The move was announced by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in testimony on Capitol Hill, after Iraq said it had invited neighboring states, the United States and other nations to a pair of regional conferences.

"I would note that the Iraqi government has invited all of its neighbors, including Syria and Iran, to attend both of these regional meetings," Rice told the Senate Appropriations Committee. "We hope that all governments will seize this opportunity to improve the relations with Iraq and to work for peace and stability in the region."

Link

 

[imported_Tango]

Originally posted by: Shivetya
They ain't such bad guys now are they?

I understand going to Israel and seeing them as well as the Palestinians. Yet to go to Syria? I mean, c'mon now, these guys are basically doing nothing to promote peace in the region, in fact they seem to want to keep Lebanon in check, as in under their thumb.

visiting Iraq and Afghanistan was well within her rights and I think it was good she went, but whats next? Maybe she will try to go to Iran too.

How is talking to them possibly be bad? You can achieve a lot by diplomacy.

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: Shivetya
They ain't such bad guys now are they?

I understand going to Israel and seeing them as well as the Palestinians. Yet to go to Syria? I mean, c'mon now, these guys are basically doing nothing to promote peace in the region, in fact they seem to want to keep Lebanon in check, as in under their thumb.

visiting Iraq and Afghanistan was well within her rights and I think it was good she went, but whats next? Maybe she will try to go to Iran too.

Shut up, please. Sucking Israel's dick isn't what America exists for. Our REPRESENTATIVE government is there to promote AMERICAN interests, and that means talking to your friends as well as our enemies.



You are on a fast track out of here. Take the next month to decide if you want to remain a member here.
AnandTech Moderator

 

[ProfJohn]

Pelosi has every right to go. But as a member of congress she has no official ability to do anything than say "hi, how are you? Nice weather today huh?" etc.

BTW how come none of you are complaining about congress trying to expand their power via this visit?

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: Shivetya
They ain't such bad guys now are they?

I understand going to Israel and seeing them as well as the Palestinians. Yet to go to Syria? I mean, c'mon now, these guys are basically doing nothing to promote peace in the region, in fact they seem to want to keep Lebanon in check, as in under their thumb.

visiting Iraq and Afghanistan was well within her rights and I think it was good she went, but whats next? Maybe she will try to go to Iran too.

Shut up, please. Sucking Israel's dick isn't what America exists for. Our REPRESENTATIVE government is there to promote AMERICAN interests, and that means talking to your friends as well as our enemies.

Dude, that is just a little bit out of line even for P&N.

Do us a favor, if you can't at least try to act like a mature adult then go some place else to post your comments.

 

[conehead433]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Pelosi has every right to go. But as a member of congress she has no official ability to do anything than say "hi, how are you? Nice weather today huh?" etc.

BTW how come none of you are complaining about congress trying to expand their power via this visit?

Excuse me, but how is Congress trying to expand it's power by this visit? Members of Congress travel to various worldwide locations at their disgression. It doesn't mean anything.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: conehead433

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Pelosi has every right to go. But as a member of congress she has no official ability to do anything than say "hi, how are you? Nice weather today huh?" etc.

BTW how come none of you are complaining about congress trying to expand their power via this visit?

Excuse me, but how is Congress trying to expand it's power by this visit? Members of Congress travel to various worldwide locations at their disgression. It doesn't mean anything.

As I said she can visit all she wants. But it would essentially be a sight seeing tour with maybe some talks. But she has no authority to negotiate anything.

However, maybe she can achieve something that the Bush admin can't since they might be more open in their talks with her, we shall see.

My ?expand the power of congress? comment is aimed at the people who freak out and accuse Bush of trying to expand the power of the Presidency for threatening the veto the war funding act. Something that is entirely within his right as President.
The executive branch conducts foreign policy, not the legislative.

 

[conehead433]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: conehead433

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Pelosi has every right to go. But as a member of congress she has no official ability to do anything than say "hi, how are you? Nice weather today huh?" etc.

BTW how come none of you are complaining about congress trying to expand their power via this visit?

Excuse me, but how is Congress trying to expand it's power by this visit? Members of Congress travel to various worldwide locations at their disgression. It doesn't mean anything.

As I said she can visit all she wants. But it would essentially be a sight seeing tour with maybe some talks. But she has no authority to negotiate anything.

However, maybe she can achieve something that the Bush admin can't since they might be more open in their talks with her, we shall see.

My ?expand the power of congress? comment is aimed at the people who freak out and accuse Bush of trying to expand the power of the Presidency for threatening the veto the war funding act. Something that is entirely within his right as President.
The executive branch conducts foreign policy, not the legislative.

This President has expanded his powers by using signing statements to effectively diminish the laws he has signed into law. Based on his past history he can sign the bill into law and use signing statements to effectively ignore the bill he just signed. He should be impeached.

 

[johnnobts]

Pelosi going to Syria is a slap at the face of the American people. The President doesn't want her to go, the Executive branch doesn't want her to go, the Secretary of State doesn't want her to go. It makes our nation look bad when we can't maintain a united front when it comes to foreign affairs. This is not within her purview to go overseas and speak on behalf of the nation, she is not our sec of state, not our ambassador. If she was a private citizen, like Michael Moore or some other loser, I wouldn't have a problem, but this is just nauseating. Incidentally, don't expect her trip to sit well with Jewish groups here in America.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: conehead433
This President has expanded his powers by using signing statements to effectively diminish the laws he has signed into law. Based on his past history he can sign the bill into law and use signing statements to effectively ignore the bill he just signed. He should be impeached.

Other President has used signing statements blah blah blah...

On him signing it and the ignoring it. Doing such would essentially create a constitutional crisis with both sides claiming that they are doing what is within their power.
Congress funds the military, the President commands the military.
The question then becomes 'can congress fund and command the military?' Or are they overstepping their power by doing so.
This question would most likely be put before the Supreme Court first via some court case, or the Democrats could head right for impeachment, but I doubt they get far with impeachment. By time this happens we will be way to close to the election and it will to risky politically to try and impeach him.

On a side note: You have to think about the future beyond Iraq and Bush when you think about topics like this. Five years down the road the President decides that we need to send troops to county X. Do we then want congress to say ?Ok you can send troops, here is the money, but you have to do X, Y and Z or else bring them home within this time frame.?
That is not how we have run things for 200 years in this country. I don?t think we go and change things that drastic because half of congress disagrees with the President.
Last thing we need is members of congress trying to micromanage any war based on the politics of their home districts.

 

[SViscusi]

arch 30 (Bloomberg) -- A White House spokeswoman denounced a plan by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to visit officials in Syria as part of a trip to the Middle East.

Pelosi's outreach to a state sponsor of terrorism is a ``really bad idea,'' White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said at a briefing in Washington. ``Someone should take a step back and think about the message that it sends and the message that it sends to our allies.''

Perino's remarks come as a group of Republican lawmakers has embarked on their own trip to Syria. Michael Lowry, a spokesman for Representative Robert Aderholt, said that the Alabama lawmaker will visit Syria as part of a Republican delegation led by Representative Frank Wolf, a Virginia Republican. Wolf is the top Republican on the House appropriations subcommittee that funds the State Department.

Link

Why do republicans hate America?

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: johnnobts
It makes our nation look bad when we can't maintain a united front when it comes to foreign affairs.

About time the powers that be represent what the people want not just a few wingnuts who think they have free reign to make an ass out of us in front of the world like a bunch of drunk cowboys, if bush and friends just went and hid in cheneys undisclosed location for next year or two the country would be far better off for it, noone cares what they think but a few dead ender partisans.

The whole conservative mindset and bush doctrine has been nothing but a huge failure, he has no credibility left.

The lame duck can stew in his own juices for awhile: He's cooked.

 

[blackangst1]

huh

wonder where my post went.

 

[International Machine Consortium]

Originally posted by: Shivetya
They ain't such bad guys now are they?

I understand going to Israel and seeing them as well as the Palestinians. Yet to go to Syria? I mean, c'mon now, these guys are basically doing nothing to promote peace in the region, in fact they seem to want to keep Lebanon in check, as in under their thumb.

visiting Iraq and Afghanistan was well within her rights and I think it was good she went, but whats next? Maybe she will try to go to Iran too.

Somebody has to practice DIPLOMACY.
Bush is a miserable failure at it. The U.S. needs to engage, even with problem players. ESPECIALLY problem players.
Kneejerk "let's just blow everything up" thinking has gotten us no where.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: johnnobts
Pelosi going to Syria is a slap at the face of the American people. The President doesn't want her to go, the Executive branch doesn't want her to go, the Secretary of State doesn't want her to go. It makes our nation look bad when we can't maintain a united front when it comes to foreign affairs. This is not within her purview to go overseas and speak on behalf of the nation, she is not our sec of state, not our ambassador. If she was a private citizen, like Michael Moore or some other loser, I wouldn't have a problem, but this is just nauseating. Incidentally, don't expect her trip to sit well with Jewish groups here in America.

She is doing what this administration has never done and that is trying to use diplomacy to create bridges rather then burning them down. The only ones who have slapped my fellow Americans in the face is this administration with all it's lies, manipulations, denials, bungling and flat out corruption. This administration is a failure at creating peace but they sure know how to create more angst and hostility in the region.

 

[Jhhnn]

Surprised that the wingnuts aren't comparing this to Billy Carter in Libya...

Oh, wait, the Libyans are now the Bush Admin's poster children for cooperation...

Maybe that's because somebody actually talked to 'em...

What isn't commonly recognized is that Neocon policy demands enemies, and that they'll be created as required...

Reference Leo Strauss, the philosophical grandfather of the Neocons...

 

[SamurAchzar]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
and that the Syrians did pull their troops out of Lebanon... giving the Israelis a more open avenue of attack. That was the whole point of demanding their withdrawal, near as I can tell...

Oh, you've proven again and again that you can't tell anything.
The Syrians withdrew from Lebanon after Lebanese and international pressure following their assassinations of former Lebanese PM Hariri.
That was long before Israel's attack.

The more valid question is, in fact, whether Syria encouraged Hizbullah to attack Israel, dragging it to retaliation and destroying Lebanon chances of prosperity and true independence from Syria.

Being that Hizbullah gets weapons from Syria, and that Nassarallah wouldn't dare doing anything without prior approval from Assad, that scenario might be valid.