Pelosi Going to Syria Despite Objections

The House speaker also said she conveyed an Israeli message to Assad that the Jewish state was ready to resume peace talks. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert quickly issued a denial, however, stating Israel's policy toward Syria has not changed.

Well, that sounds just like the Speaker of the House was "interpreting" the message that Israel was sending.

Does anyone really think that Pelosi is doing this with any conviction that it will make a difference? Political posturing prior to an election has reached biblical proportions in the United States. In a perfect world, we'd all have enough sense to actually think for ourselves. We wouldn't have to worry about MSM editorialization of the news, or political parties who would sell this country, and it's people, to the Devil himself for the chance to keep their party in power. At the levels of power discussed here, the entire logic of the players is virtually impossible to understand in the light of how it effects the population.

For those that think Bush has done a poor job, or that he lied about WMDs in Iraq, I say this. The Democrats aren't being kept in a Hot House. They have their own intelligence sources, and access to 99% of the documents, if not openly, then through leaks developed over the years. They agreed with the President, even with their own agenda being compromised.

The Democrats have done exactly nothing but exhort a cut and run policy since "taking power". Their actions have been 100% political, and have offered no insights to a future beyond vague maunderings about "opening talks" with various factions. They may as well be French.

These are the people who brought us the 1968 GCA, modified the 1986 McClure-Volkmer Act, and handed over the 1994 AWB. They involved us in the Balkans, in Somalia, and a group of UN Peacekeeper Missions. They reduced the military in size and capability via budget cuts. They did nothing about Military salaries, housing, and medical care. They did nothing about the U.S. dependence on oil, the gathering Muslim Fudamentalist power, attacks on US embassies and ships, or attacks on the soil of the United States. Everything that you expect the current President to have fixed, or avoided, existed prior to his reaching office. That includes Iraq, which would have been easily controlled during the Clinton Adminstration, before Hussein could build up his forces via the Oil for Food Program.

Existing administrations always accept the accolades, or the blame, for economic conditions during their tenure. In fact, it is the actions of previous administrations that result in the economy. It takes years for the repercussions, good and bad, to filter through our economy.

These aren't just my ideas. A little research on this Board will find these ideas repeated by many of the same posters who lambast the Bush Adminstration today. They seem to be relegated to the increasing group who "if they don't learn from history, are doomed to repeat it."

If you think that we have it bad now, put the Democ-rats in office on '08. Just don't complain afterwards.
 
Well, that sounds just like the Speaker of the House was "interpreting" the message that Israel was sending.
Probably not far from the truth at all.

Does anyone really think that Pelosi is doing this with any conviction that it will make a difference? Political posturing prior to an election has reached biblical proportions in the United States. In a perfect world, we'd all have enough sense to actually think for ourselves. We wouldn't have to worry about MSM editorialization of the news, or political parties who would sell this country, and it's people, to the Devil himself for the chance to keep their party in power. At the levels of power discussed here, the entire logic of the players is virtually impossible to understand in the light of how it effects the population.

Political posturing before an election? By your logic, there's like a 15 minute window where someone can do something that doesn't fit that criterion. Let's see, elections were in Nov, new members were sworn in Jan, and as far as I can tell, they hit the ground running. You also seem to forget that this "posturing" was only decried by the administration AFTER they had provided this envoy a plane and they were en route. Exactly half the story is missing from your rant.

For those that think Bush has done a poor job, or that he lied about WMDs in Iraq, I say this. The Democrats aren't being kept in a Hot House. They have their own intelligence sources, and access to 99% of the documents, if not openly, then through leaks developed over the years. They agreed with the President, even with their own agenda being compromised.
Wait, what? If your argument is that the Dems have finally "over the years" gotten the same knowledge that Bush had, how can you complain that when they do get the knowledge they want to act on it?


The Democrats have done exactly nothing but exhort a cut and run policy since "taking power". Their actions have been 100% political, and have offered no insights to a future beyond vague maunderings about "opening talks" with various factions. They may as well be French.

Sure beats Bush's "We will continue to pour money and lives into this ill-conceived war until we achieve victory or forever, whichever comes first"

These are the people who brought us the 1968 GCA, modified the 1986 McClure-Volkmer Act, and handed over the 1994 AWB. They involved us in the Balkans, in Somalia, and a group of UN Peacekeeper Missions. They reduced the military in size and capability via budget cuts. They did nothing about Military salaries, housing, and medical care. They did nothing about the U.S. dependence on oil, the gathering Muslim Fudamentalist power, attacks on US embassies and ships, or attacks on the soil of the United States. Everything that you expect the current President to have fixed, or avoided, existed prior to his reaching office. That includes Iraq, which would have been easily controlled during the Clinton Adminstration, before Hussein could build up his forces via the Oil for Food Program.

uh huh, and the current outsiders are the ones that promoted segregation. Who exactly are you blaming in this paragraph, because it looks like you are missing an entire party that shares the blame for these points. Really REALLY interesting that you mention Somalia as it was Bush I that got us in (in Dec as a lame duck even). It's almost like you are using a machine gun instead of a sniper rifle and bullets are flying everywhere.

They did nothing about the U.S. dependence on oil,
Nobody has. Well, except for scientists... but lots of them believe in evolution and global warming, so their solution will be crap. Stupid Einstein.

the gathering Muslim Fudamentalist power,
that has ACCELERATED under the current political agenda. The actions of Bush in going into Iraq as a result of 9/11 couldn't have made Osama Bin Laden happier beyond his wildest dreams.

attacks on US embassies and ships,
Yeah, the attacks haven't stopped in the last 6 years. Can't see any response to them, either. Like this recent attack in Greece.

or attacks on the soil of the United States.
Except that the perpetrators were found, tried and are still sitting in prison or have been executed. This may be news to you.

Existing administrations always accept the accolades, or the blame, for economic conditions during their tenure. In fact, it is the actions of previous administrations that result in the economy. It takes years for the repercussions, good and bad, to filter through our economy.

That is true to some degree. We really should wait 20 years before we give Bush the trophy for worst president ever.

These aren't just my ideas. A little research on this Board will find these ideas repeated by many of the same posters who lambast the Bush Adminstration today. They seem to be relegated to the increasing group who "if they don't learn from history, are doomed to repeat it."
If you think that we have it bad now, put the Democ-rats in office on '08. Just don't complain afterwards.
What exactly are you referring to? The broad brush stroke that "democrats are bad"?
 
Last edited:
Political posturing before an election? By your logic, there's like a 15 minute window where someone can do something that doesn't fit that criterion. Let's see, elections were in Nov, new members were sworn in Jan, and as far as I can tell, they hit the ground running. You also seem to forget that this "posturing" was only decried by the administration AFTER they had provided this envoy a plane and they were en route. Exactly half the story is missing from your rant.

Only to you. The Speaker is due an aircraft, a big one, according to her. What idiot would think that political posturing isn't a great deal of what all politicians do. It just accelerates as the election draws near. Had the administration not provided an aircraft, and something happened to the pols aboard, we'd never hear the end of it.

Wait, what? If your argument is that the Dems have finally "over the years" gotten the same knowledge that Bush had, how can you complain that when they do get the knowledge they want to act on it?

Cute attempt to twist words. You knew what I meant. The Democrats on the various military, and security committees had access to everything that the president did. Heck, many of the reports were leaked to the press. If it took years for them to assimilate these reports, that is their own stupidity, and gives no permission to do anything.

Sure beats Bush's "We will continue to pour money and lives into this ill-conceived war until we achieve victory or forever, whichever comes first"

Opinion, and not even well thought out. I can't believe that a reasonable person truly believes that leaving Saddam in power in Iraq wouldn't have caused an even greater crisis by now. As for the crap about polarizing the Arab world, how could they have hated us more? We ignored their provocations up until 9/11, and they killed thousands.

uh huh, and the current outsiders are the ones that promoted segregation. Who exactly are you blaming in this paragraph, because it looks like you are missing an entire party that shares the blame for these points. Really REALLY interesting that you mention Somalia as it was Bush I that got us in (in Dec as a lame duck even). It's almost like you are using a machine gun instead of a sniper rifle and bullets are flying everywhere.

Sorry, I thought that you had read my previous posts. My mistake on expecting you to be conversant on the subject. I do blame ALL parties. I have said this repeatedly. My example in the post in question was meant to point out, after all of the blatant inaccuracies involving Bush et al, that the Democrats are AS GUILTY as anyone else.

Nobody has. Well, except for scientists... but lots of them believe in evolution and global warming, so their solution will be crap. Stupid Einstein.

Meaning exactly what? That Republicans are Creationinsts? Even you're not that ignorant, are you?

that has ACCELERATED under the current political agenda. The actions of Bush in going into Iraq as a result of 9/11 couldn't have made Osama Bin Laden happier beyond his wildest dreams.

Are you suggesting that, to gain sympathy in the Arab world, we should have just absorbed the 9/11 attacks without response? Ignored the violations of international law that Hussein was perpetrating while rearming? I believe that the course of action you choose was tried with a poor, small, country in Europe by the Britisher, Neville Chamberlain. After all, just how far could a small country like Germany get, anyway? All you know is what NOT to do, much like the current Democratic leadership.

Yeah, the attacks haven't stopped in the last 6 years. Can't see any response to them, either. Like this recent attack in Greece.

At least the government hasn't blown up an aspirin plant in the Sudan as a "response".

Except that the perpetrators were found, tried and are still sitting in prison or have been executed. This may be news to you.

Really? You mean like those who planned the 9/11 attack. Only this time we headed out for the REAL planners, not the street-level thugs. We have seized bank accounts, and turned the "business as usual" communications of the major organizations into a terror for them. Maybe you missed that, while you're so busy blaming the administration?

That is true to some degree. We really should wait 20 years before we give Bush the trophy for worst president ever.

It's obvious that it's true to too much of a degree for you to actually let that happen.

What exactly are you referring to? The broad brush stroke that "democrats are bad"?

Hardly, but you obviously glossed over my earlier posts. What I refer to are the past posts that make many of the same quotes about the former administration. I find that BOTH parties are incapable of rising above partisan politics to help the country. I've pointed out how and why.

As for the jibe about segregation. It took a concerted effort by BOTH parties to make that happen. The idea that the Democrats rode in on their white charger and saved the day is dishonest, corrupt, and plainly ignorant. I would have expected less misplaced racism on your part.
 
This is funny...

Bush won his second term so I'd say they were doing their jobs pretty well.

This is funny, did we forget that our voting system is rigged by the use of an electoral college? We blindly place our vote in hopes that a secret group of individuals will vote as the nation votes, however it has happened many times before that the popular vote was opposite of the electoral college vote. Besides I don't understand what's the big deal with this visit to Syria, I mean the CIA performs renditions by taking people to Syria and other third party countries where torture is okay. Either way, regardless of what the two faced mono-party of America says, U.S. foreign policy has always been rather terrible, we could do a better job. As for those who say this visit will make us look weak world-wide, that was kinda already determined when we decided this administration can stay in power for another 4 years.


Epyon
 
Had the administration not provided an aircraft, and something happened to the pols aboard, we'd never hear the end of it.

That would have been the time to voice the objections. They have Tony Snow out there (well Dana for now) talking to the press everyday. You don't wait until they are en route before making this such a bad thing you begin talking to the press. They didn't even mention this as a "bad thing" to the republican in the group. this is a lot of fuss about exactly nothing.

Cute attempt to twist words. You knew what I meant. The Democrats on the various military, and security committees had access to everything that the president did. Heck, many of the reports were leaked to the press. If it took years for them to assimilate these reports, that is their own stupidity, and gives no permission to do anything.

True I was messing with your words, but the fact is on many things the dems had exactly no power to do anything about it. They were not allowed to bring a bill to a vote let alone have enough votes to pass anything. Voting for the Iraq was was a huge mistake that they are reversing their stance on.

Opinion, and not even well thought out. I can't believe that a reasonable person truly believes that leaving Saddam in power in Iraq wouldn't have caused an even greater crisis by now. As for the crap about polarizing the Arab world, how could they have hated us more? We ignored their provocations up until 9/11, and they killed thousands.

It is in no way opinion. Bush said we would not stand down until we have achieved victory. You do listen to what he has to say instead of getting your marching orders directly from Wolfowitz, right?

What crisis? The pentagon on Thursday released documents that once again says the administration cherry picked information and AT THE TIME, there was no connection between Iraq and Al Quaeda. Iraq was not a threat to anyone, and was a secular state. How could they hate us more? Well, for one thing we are bonding a fractious area together. When our "allies" in Saudi Arabia are publicly denouncing us as occupiers, and Iraq has become no longer secular. As for 9/11, how exactly has our presence in Iraq helped prevent another one? The "we'll fight em over there so we don't fight em over here" rhetoric is tired and wrong. Of the 100,000 insurgents currently in Iraq, 2,000 are al quaeda, the rest are Iraqis created by our occupation there.

Our presence is actively creating terrorists every day.

I do blame ALL parties. I have said this repeatedly. My example in the post in question was meant to point out, after all of the blatant inaccuracies involving Bush et al, that the Democrats are AS GUILTY as anyone else.

No, your post was clearly attacking one side, implying that Bush was doing a great job with what has landed in his lap. Fact is, he hasn't. He has been wrong every step of the way in regard to length of the war, cost of the war, response on the ground to the war, need for the war, and how to end the war. This doesn't absolve the Dem for helping vote us into it.

Meaning exactly what? That Republicans are Creationinsts? Even you're not that ignorant, are you
Meaning that a solution to dependence on oil will have to come from science, not politics. The tongue in cheek icon is as broken as your sense of humor.

Are you suggesting that, to gain sympathy in the Arab world, we should have just absorbed the 9/11 attacks without response? Ignored the violations of international law that Hussein was perpetrating while rearming? I believe that the course of action you choose was tried with a poor, small, country in Europe by the Britisher, Neville Chamberlain. After all, just how far could a small country like Germany get, anyway? All you know is what NOT to do, much like the current Democratic leadership.

Your lame neville dig notwithstanding, you once again seem to forget that Iraq had exactly nothing to do with 9/11. We also seem to forget that went into Afghanistan as a response. We have failed in talks with Musharraf so we can't track bin laden into Pakistan.

We have overcommitted and overextended our troops in Iraq. That is the most unhealthy part of this war. The current Dem leadership is proposing action, with specifics on an exit strategy that ALSO maintains a presence that trains, rebuilds, and helps police. You are a lemming for not realizing that.

At least the government hasn't blown up an aspirin plant in the Sudan as a "response".

No the aspirin plant in this case were the mobile labs "clearly seen in this picture" and that "we know where the WMDs are"

Really? You mean like those who planned the 9/11 attack. Only this time we headed out for the REAL planners, not the street-level thugs. We have seized bank accounts, and turned the "business as usual" communications of the major organizations into a terror for them. Maybe you missed that, while you're so busy blaming the administration?

Please show me any documents showing that terrorism has gone done (number of bombings, number of people killed, etc) at all since 2003. Your point is absolutely devoid of any contact with reality.
 
That would have been the time to voice the objections. They have Tony Snow out there (well Dana for now) talking to the press everyday. You don't wait until they are en route before making this such a bad thing you begin talking to the press. They didn't even mention this as a "bad thing" to the republican in the group. this is a lot of fuss about exactly nothing.

Now, THAT I can agree with. In fact, I believe that I called it a "Tempest in a Tea-Pot" a while ago.

True I was messing with your words, but the fact is on many things the dems had exactly no power to do anything about it. They were not allowed to bring a bill to a vote let alone have enough votes to pass anything. Voting for the Iraq was was a huge mistake that they are reversing their stance on.

That has no bearing on their original vote. They supported the war effort until it became possible to make political gain from it.

It is in no way opinion. Bush said we would not stand down until we have achieved victory. You do listen to what he has to say instead of getting your marching orders directly from Wolfowitz, right?

What crisis? The pentagon on Thursday released documents that once again says the administration cherry picked information and AT THE TIME, there was no connection between Iraq and Al Quaeda. Iraq was not a threat to anyone, and was a secular state. How could they hate us more? Well, for one thing we are bonding a fractious area together. When our "allies" in Saudi Arabia are publicly denouncing us as occupiers, and Iraq has become no longer secular. As for 9/11, how exactly has our presence in Iraq helped prevent another one? The "we'll fight em over there so we don't fight em over here" rhetoric is tired and wrong. Of the 100,000 insurgents currently in Iraq, 2,000 are al quaeda, the rest are Iraqis created by our occupation there.
Our presence is actively creating terrorists every day.

Facts please, especially about the 100,000 and the total number of foreign insurgents. Read my statement without attempting to spin it. I had said nothing about a current crisis, only that Hussein would have presented us with another crisis by now, had he been left in power. Uhhh, I don't remember anything about any rhetoric about where we'll fight, could that have been yet another sad attempt at "messing with my words"?

No, your post was clearly attacking one side, implying that Bush was doing a great job with what has landed in his lap. Fact is, he hasn't. He has been wrong every step of the way in regard to length of the war, cost of the war, response on the ground to the war, need for the war, and how to end the war. This doesn't absolve the Dem for helping vote us into it.

IF you took the time to acquaint yourself with posts 35, 39, 43, 48, 57, and 64, you'd note the fact that I blamed BOTH parties for the issues. The last post, in which I pointed out that the Dems aren't exactly friends of ours, was in response to your continual bashing of the current administration. Should you be able to show us, at any point, where you have actually apportioned any of the blame to another party, now would be a good time to do so. Failing that, at least read what I write, not what you think I should write.

Meaning that a solution to dependence on oil will have to come from science, not politics. The tongue in cheek icon is as broken as your sense of humor.

Not even worthy of a reply.

No the aspirin plant in this case were the mobile labs "clearly seen in this picture" and that "we know where the WMDs are"

Ah, no doubt a simple-minded attempt at humor? That one, as devised by the Democrats, surely gained the United States a HUGE following in the Arab World. Pelosi should tour the Sudan, pointing out that this was our handiwork, and basking in the adulation resulting from it.

Your lame neville dig notwithstanding, you once again seem to forget that Iraq had exactly nothing to do with 9/11. We also seem to forget that went into Afghanistan [sic] as a response. We have failed in talks with Musharraf so we can't track bin laden into Pakistan.

We have overcommitted and overextended our troops in Iraq. That is the most unhealthy part of this war. The current Dem leadership is proposing action, with specifics on an exit strategy that ALSO maintains a presence that trains, rebuilds, and helps police. You are a lemming for not realizing that.

You seem, once again, to ignore the simple fact that a state of hostilities existed between Iraq and the Coalition under International Law. ALL, as in both parties, have failed in dealing with Musharraf, who really wants the United States to provide advanced military equipment to him, upsetting the regional balance of power. If the world were as simple as you, maybe it would work, but it isn't.

We are overextended in our military due as much to peacekeeping missions and other treaty assignments as we are due to Iraq. That the eight years previous to this administration caused a stand-down of ready units due to budget constraints has, of course, no effect on current military ops, right? The destruction of ready stores of weapons?

Exit strategies worked quite well in Vietnam, for the NVA. A presence that trains, rebuilds, and helps police, yet is able to defend itself is how large? The democratic response is, so far, largely a "we'll get to the specifics later" response.

As for being a lemming, that's an opinion that I'll choose to regard with the same level of intensity that I reserve for faith in the MSM, thank you.

Please show me any documents showing that terrorism has gone done [sic] (number of bombings, number of people killed, etc) at all since 2003. Your point is absolutely devoid of any contact with reality.

I'm not sure what that represents. However, how many aircraft have been crashed into buildings here since 2001? How many bombs have been delivered into America, and blown up? The death toll amongst Americans in Iraq is still, after four years, less than that in cities like Detroit, Washington D.C., and Los Angeles. Should the democrats also have an exit strategy for those cities, as well?
 
They supported the war effort until it became possible to make political gain from it.
Boy, I go away to vegas for a week and I miss a ton of posts. I will never get a chance to read all of them. I hope I did not miss anything important.

I just want to weigh in on this statement and say that I disagree. I see it two possible ways.

1. Some people actually believed the crap that the Administration fed them and supported the war until time showed how wrong they were, or....

2. They never supported the war and only pretended to when they felt that not supporting it would hurt their political careers and now that they see that the tide has turned against the war they feel they can freely express their true opinions.

The first is not so bad (except in how niave they were or how easily duped) but the second is just as bad your original statement.
 
Can't seem to find the source for my numbers, but there is the BBC and the Military Times showing some numbers that are interesting in regards to insurgents and foreign insurgents.

You seem, once again, to ignore the simple fact that a state of hostilities existed between Iraq and the Coalition under International Law.

There was never a reason to tie it in with the GWOT. It was a separate issue. Cheney is STILL trying to make the tie, and it just isn't true.

ALL, as in both parties, have failed in dealing with Musharraf, who really wants the United States to provide advanced military equipment to him, upsetting the regional balance of power. If the world were as simple as you, maybe it would work, but it isn't.

Only since bin laden is suspected to be there has it been so important. So Pelosi does have the authority to negotiate with other countries? Cool. Guess the point of this thread is resolved.

However, how many aircraft have been crashed into buildings here since 2001? How many bombs have been delivered into America, and blown up? The death toll amongst Americans in Iraq is still, after four years, less than that in cities like Detroit, Washington D.C., and Los Angeles. Should the democrats also have an exit strategy for those cities, as well?

That's quite a yardstick you measure with. Notice how if I keep rubbing my belly it keeps the polar bears away. See? No polar bears, it must be working!

I'm overjoyed that there hasn't been any bombings here. There was a bombing in London, though, which is kind of important. They've turned even more into a police state with a HUGE number of cameras per capita, and I don't want us to follow that path.

As for planes crashing into buildings, it has much more to do with reinforcing cockpit doors than sending troops to Iraq.
 
Only since bin laden is suspected to be there has it been so important. So Pelosi does have the authority to negotiate with other countries? Cool. Guess the point of this thread is resolved.

Where did that come from? I'm guessing the "rub your belly, and make a wish, mode". I'm not hearing anything about Pelosi in any of my threads beyond the fact that she's as much a loser as the Penguin feels, along with you, that Bush is.

I'm overjoyed that there hasn't been any bombings here. There was a bombing in London, though, which is kind of important. They've turned even more into a police state with a HUGE number of cameras per capita, and I don't want us to follow that path.

So you think that the "huge number of cameras per capita" is a result of the last bombing? Better try again, as they were in place even before 9/11. I'm sure that, having been accepted prior to the bombing as an acceptable security measure, the bombings spurred the government to greater efforts. The outlawing of firearms was also in place before 9/11, as was the official opinion that self-defense using anything as a weapon was wrong. I'm surprised that you didn't add them to the list, as well.
 
Where did that come from?

As I said, it is since 2001 that dealings with Musharraf took on higher importance. Between 2001 and the 2006 elections, dems had exactly zero authority to work with him.

Thus, if you think they did then, then obviously now you definitely think Pelosi does. Which is the point of the thread, which has trailed off topic.

See, it isn't that hard.


So you think that the "huge number of cameras per capita" is a result of the last bombing? Better try again, as they were in place even before 9/11. I'm sure that, having been accepted prior to the bombing as an acceptable security measure, the bombings spurred the government to greater efforts.
I'm aware of the timeline. And we agree on the acceleration in recent years. This is something we need to be aware of. FBI NSL abuses should be reviewed and CHANGED.
 
As I said, it is since 2001 that dealings with Musharraf took on higher importance. Between 2001 and the 2006 elections, dems had exactly zero authority to work with him.
Thus, if you think they did then, then obviously now you definitely think Pelosi does. Which is the point of the thread, which has trailed off topic.
See, it isn't that hard.

That is patently untrue. We have had dealings with the Pakistani government starting back when the Russians invaded Afghanistan. Through multiple administrations of both stripes. Thus, I believe that BOTH parties had a chance to foster better relations with the government of Pakistan. Whichever one was in power having the authority to negotiate as they saw fit. Other countries don't live in a vacuum, forgetting past dealings with each other. This results in the way that they perceive those who come to them.

I don't believe that Pelosi has the power to negotiate for souveniers, much less the authority to formulate national policy. Besides, I believe that Pelosi has her traveling circus in Syria, not Pakistan. If she were actually serious about Bin Laden's capture, it would have set it's tents up in Pakistan.

See, it must be that hard for you to follow. Sorry, but I expect rational discourse.
 
Back
Top