Pelosi Lies and Her Trip Is A Dud

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
San Fran Nan is now back from her trip from the Middle East

What a comedy show it was.

Pelosi wants to feel important, wants to be vice president, wants to call ALL the shots and by taking this little trip she thinks she will get her very own Presidential plane!
Of course making mistakes and lying are her everyday duties. After all she got the big D by her name!



By BENNY AVNI
Staff Reporter of the Sun
April 5, 2007

UNITED NATIONS — As the speaker of the House, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, helped Syria to escape diplomatic isolation yesterday by saying she conveyed to Syria's President Al-Assad a "message" from Jerusalem about Israel's readiness for peace negotiations, Prime Minister Olmert denied he had given her any such message.

The confusion seemed to add weight to Ms. Pelosi's critics, including President Bush who had said a day earlier that her trip to Syria only "sends mixed signals," and a presidential hopeful, Governor Romney, who also said yesterday that the trip sent "the wrong signal to the people of Syria and to the people of the Middle East."




Pelosi wants to feel important , wants to be vice president , wants to call ALL the shots and by taking this little trip she thinks she will get her very own Presidential plane!-
Of course making mistakes and lying are her everyday duties. After all she got the big D by her name!
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
Libs usually ignore laws they do not agree with - after all liberalsim is abll about feeling good about yourself



Illegal Diplomacy
By Robert F. Turner
Word Count: 854
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," ...

http://users1.wsj.com/lmda/do/check...0980561775.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
 

Rosotar

Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2007
Messages
422
Reaction score
45
Points
16
Location
New Mexico
Libs usually ignore laws they do not agree with - after all liberalsim is abll about feeling good about yourself



Illegal Diplomacy
By Robert F. Turner
Word Count: 854
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," ...

http://users1.wsj.com/lmda/do/check...0980561775.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
HOGWASH!


http://www.antiwar.com/reese/?articleid=10781
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
Illegal Diplomacy?
Did Nancy Pelosi commit a felony when she went to Syria?
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 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," to communicate with a foreign government in an effort to influence that government's behavior on any "disputes or controversies with the United States." Some background on this statute helps to understand why Ms. Pelosi may be in serious
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1813324/posts
 

Rosotar

Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2007
Messages
422
Reaction score
45
Points
16
Location
New Mexico
Illegal Diplomacy?
Did Nancy Pelosi commit a felony when she went to Syria?
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 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," to communicate with a foreign government in an effort to influence that government's behavior on any "disputes or controversies with the United States." Some background on this statute helps to understand why Ms. Pelosi may be in serious
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1813324/posts
Here's a newsflash for ya RSR....the Logan Act doesn't apply to members of Congress. They are sworn representatives of our government with the highest security clearances and it is perfectly legal for them to travel abroad and gather vital information that relates to our national security.
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
Here's a newsflash for ya RSR....the Logan Act doesn't apply to members of Congress. They are sworn representatives of our government with the highest security clearances and it is perfectly legal for them to travel abroad and gather vital information that relates to our national security.
The Supreme Court has spoken clearly on this aspect of the separation of powers. In Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall used the president's authority over the Department of State as an illustration of those "important political powers" that, "being entrusted to the executive, the decision of the executive is conclusive." And in the landmark 1936 Curtiss-Wright case, the Supreme Court reaffirmed: "Into the field of negotiation the Senate cannot intrude, and Congress itself is powerless to invade it."
Ms. Pelosi and her Congressional entourage spoke to President Assad on various issues, among other things saying, "We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace." She is certainly not the first member of Congress--of either party--to engage in this sort of behavior, but 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.

Of course, not all congressional travel to, or communications with representatives of, foreign nations is unlawful. A purely fact-finding trip that involves looking around, visiting American military bases or talking with U.S. diplomats is not a problem. Nor is formal negotiation with foreign representatives if authorized by the president. (FDR appointed Sens. Tom Connally and Arthur Vandenberg to the U.S. delegation that negotiated the U.N. Charter.) Ms. Pelosi's trip was not authorized, and Syria is one of the world's leading sponsors of international terrorism. It has almost certainly been involved in numerous attacks that have claimed the lives of American military personnel from Beirut to Baghdad.

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.

Mr. Turner was acting assistant secretary of state for legislative affairs in 1984-85 and is a former chairman of the ABA standing committee on law and national security

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009908
 

boedicca

Uppity Water Nymph
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
55,660
Reaction score
17,741
Points
2,250
Location
The Land of Funk
Nancy and Lantos have used appalling judgement regarding this Burka Junket. Declaring that the Dems have their own separate foreign policy is a violation of the separations of power - and borderline treason during a time of war. Considering that in most elections, this one included, the majority is only a percentage point or so higher than the minority, there is not national will to lose the war on purpose. This may play well in the blue state metro areas (although even in SF, there is a great deal of criticism of Pelosi) - but it is not going to helpt the Dems win the red ones.
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
Pelosi's Trip To Syria Conducted In Blissful Ignorance Of The Realities Of ME
Topics: Political News and commentaries

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's embarrassingly amateurish (for all Americans) kumbaya with terrorist supporter and facilitator of the killing of U.S. troops Syrian President Bashar al-Assad continues to draw fire from mainstream media, bloggers, and rational commentators alike, with only the far left defending her shameful, disgraceful, naive exercise in blissful naiveness, and that of the Democrats, to attempt to establish an alternative foreign policy in opposition to the official policy of the United States as directed by the president. As News By Us put its, "this latest Democrat action speaks loudly and surely of another infamous appeaser - Neville Chamberlain."

Think about it, the week before Easter, a senior Christian female politician goes to a terrorist-supporting Muslim country wearing a symbol of female submission to Islamic authority (some are surprised she didn't wear a full burka - although she did don the black abaya robe ), and embarrasses the president of the United States, herself, and our country in front of the whole world, while giving our radical Islamic enemy propaganda photo-ops to recruit more terrorists to murder more people that disagree with them.

Whatever Pelosi's intentions were in meeting with Bashar al-Assad and humiliating herself and our country before the Muslim world with her symbolism of submission and her giving the enemy the appearance of a divided U.S. that can be manipulated through one of its political parties, surely Pelosi had no idea that she would end up having to defend her possibly felonious acts from so many attacks, many of whom she could otherwise count on to defend her and her "defeat at any cost" party (Highly telling is the fact that former President Jimmy Carter praises her): Take for example:

The Savanah Morning News sums it up nicely:
HOUSE SPEAKER Nancy Pelosi did Congress and the country a grave disservice this week by traveling to Damascus and meeting with Syrian President Bashar Assad.

The Bush administration, and rightly so, has rejected direct talks with Syria. That nation has a long, bloody history of supporting terrorist organizations, including Hamas and Hezbollah.

Until Mr. Assad renounces these groups and takes steps to cut all ties with them, U.S. diplomats shouldn't step into Syria.

But Ms. Pelosi apparently couldn't care less about forcing a state sponsor of terrorism to change its ways.

Instead, this self-appointed foreign minister is taking the "Pelosi Doctrine" on the road. This doctrine calls for undercutting U.S. foreign policy and the Bush administration whenever possible.

First, she and House Democrats approve legislation that handcuffs U.S. commanders by setting a pullout date for American troops in Iraq. Then she leaves the country and meets with a key ally of ruthless car-bombers, killers and other extremists who use violence to score political points.

Talk about giving aid and comfort to one of the civilized world's enemies.

This in-your-face snub of Mr. Bush and the executive branch is deplorable politics. Her visit to Syria is just another way for Ms. Pelosi and her cohorts on Capital Hill to make a lot of noise over their opposition to the administration's foreign policy, without taking a real stand to back up their empty words.

There's no question that Syria must close its leaking sieve of a border with Iraq and stop the flow of terrorists who threaten Iraqi citizens and U.S. troops. But it's responsibility of President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice - not House Speaker Pelosi - to conduct foreign policy and represent America abroad.


Agoravox - France:
Nancy Pelosi's recent bumbling foray into foreign policy with Syria shows why diplomacy should be left to that branch of government - the executive branch - that actually has the authority to conduct it. Pelosi conveyed a 'peace message' from Ehud Olmert to Bashar Assad that - woops! - the Israeli government says it never gave to Pelosi. Apparently Nuancy not only missed the shades of gray there, she missed the black and white as well.
Amateurish and embarassing, yes, but is it illegal also? There is a law called the Logan Act that forbids U.S. citizens from conducting diplomacy without approval from the government. The act, as amended in 2004, reads as follows:

Wall Street Journal (subscription): Democrats at War
Democrats took Congress last fall in part by opposing the war in Iraq, but it is becoming clear that they view their election as a mandate for something far more ambitious -- to wit, promoting and executing their own foreign policy, albeit without the detail of a Presidential election.

Their intentions were made plain this week with two remarkable acts by their House and Senate leaders. Majority Leader Harry Reid endorsed Senator Russ Feingold's proposal to withdraw from Iraq immediately, cutting off funds entirely within a year.

USA Today: Bush's no-talk policy is flawed, but speaker's tactics are no solution. ... House Speaker Nancy Pelosi crossed a line this week by visiting Syria. ... She violated a long-held understanding that the United States should speak with one official voice abroad -- even if the country is deeply divided on foreign policy back home. ... No matter that she claimed to have stuck closely to administration positions in her conversations with Assad, smiling photos of Pelosi and the Syrian president convey the unspoken message that while the U.S. president is unwilling to talk with Syria, another wing of the government is. Assad made good use of the moment.

Houston Chronicle: ... her actions are tantamount to aiding and abetting the enemy in a time of war. ... While Pelosi may feel her actions were appropriate, they were obviously motivated by political purposes. ... By her taking this trip during this time, she undermines the credibility of the United States and its policies. ... She and fellow Democrats pledged collegiality and bipartisan resolutions to the problems created by terrorists. ... I see now that their collegiality is with the terrorists, themselves -- not with the majority of peace-loving Americans.

Baltimore Sun:

As nation faces a grave threat, Pelosi assumes presidential power.

... Congressman Tom Lantos, who is a member of the delegation that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi led to Syria, put the mission clearly when he said: "We have an alternative, Democratic foreign policy." Democrats can have any foreign policy they want - if and when they are elected to the White House.

... Until Ms. Pelosi came along, it was understood by all that we had only one president at a time and - like him or not - he alone had the constitutional authority to speak for this country to foreign nations, especially in wartime.

All that Ms. Pelosi's trip can accomplish is to advertise American disunity to a terrorist-sponsoring nation in the Middle East while we are in a war there. That in turn can only embolden the Syrians to exploit the lack of unified resolve in Washington by stepping up their efforts to destabilize Iraq and the Middle East in general.

So what can we actually expect from Pelosi's hug-a-terrorist moment with al-Assad? Butkus!

Like Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch says (listen here), "when it comes to negotiating with terrorist-harboring Islamic regimes, Pelosi and other Democrats simply do not get it. I think it's just another species of the appeasement that the Democratic Party is trying to pursue. They still believe that if they give the right combination of concessions to various Islamic states and majority Muslim countries, they will find there will be peace -- and I think they're going to be unpleasantly surprised.

Related: Lantos lashes out at critics of Pelosi trip (no surprise here - naive liberal appeaser of terrorists defends naive liberal appeaser of terrorists.)


http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2007/04/_the_savanah_mo.php
 

wiggles

Active Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2006
Messages
581
Reaction score
134
Points
28
Nancy and Lantos have used appalling judgement regarding this Burka Junket. Declaring that the Dems have their own separate foreign policy is a violation of the separations of power - and borderline treason during a time of war.
It's not a violation of anything. It's always been pretty damn clear that Pubs and Dems have different foreign policy ideals. As far as "borderline treason" there's no such thing, You either commit treason (like lying your ass off to send the country into an unnecessary war) or you don't.
Considering that in most elections, this one included, the majority is only a percentage point or so higher than the minority, there is not national will to lose the war on purpose. This may play well in the blue state metro areas (although even in SF, there is a great deal of criticism of Pelosi) - but it is not going to helpt the Dems win the red ones.
Quit being ridiculous. No one's trying to "lose the war on purpose." :cuckoo: That's just some stupid Rovian talking point you fell for.
 

Bullypulpit

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2004
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
382
Points
48
Location
Columbus, OH
San Fran Nan is now back from her trip from the Middle East

What a comedy show it was.

Pelosi wants to feel important, wants to be vice president, wants to call ALL the shots and by taking this little trip she thinks she will get her very own Presidential plane!
Of course making mistakes and lying are her everyday duties. After all she got the big D by her name!



By BENNY AVNI
Staff Reporter of the Sun
April 5, 2007

UNITED NATIONS — As the speaker of the House, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, helped Syria to escape diplomatic isolation yesterday by saying she conveyed to Syria's President Al-Assad a "message" from Jerusalem about Israel's readiness for peace negotiations, Prime Minister Olmert denied he had given her any such message.

The confusion seemed to add weight to Ms. Pelosi's critics, including President Bush who had said a day earlier that her trip to Syria only "sends mixed signals," and a presidential hopeful, Governor Romney, who also said yesterday that the trip sent "the wrong signal to the people of Syria and to the people of the Middle East."




Pelosi wants to feel important , wants to be vice president , wants to call ALL the shots and by taking this little trip she thinks she will get her very own Presidential plane!-
Of course making mistakes and lying are her everyday duties. After all she got the big D by her name!
I notice your cut-and-paste didn't mention the three Republicans who ACCOMPANIED Speaker Pelosi.

Illegal diplomacy? Not likely. Since the Bush administration has no discernable foreign policy, beyond not talking to people and bombing the shit out of anyone who disagrees with him, it seems that someone needs to take up the task. Might as well be Pelosi since the Bush administration has abdicated this responsibility. And, if you remember your history, you would find another speaker named Hastert who led a diplomatic mission to Columbia during the administration of a president named Clinton, telling the Columbians that they could ignore the administration and negotiate directly with Congress. Bet ya hate history since it proves you so wrong so often.

As for sending mixed messages, what message has the Bush administration sent the Middle East, in particular, and the world in general beyond "We do it my way or no way..."?
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
So President BP, how do you talk to people whose number one goal is to kill you?

Or do you agree with with most libs that terrorism needs to be treated like a crime and not an act of war?

Clinton did that after 5 attacks in 8years and we got 9-11 for his efforts
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
Pelosi's Proposition: Bush is the Problem
By Michael Barone

"We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace," Speaker Nancy Pelosi declared after her visit to Syria and her meeting with its hereditary dictator Bashir Assad last week. "We expressed our interest in using our good offices in promoting peace between Israel and Syria."

The woman second in line for the presidency (after Vice President Dick Cheney) seemed to believe she was on a Henry Kissinger-like shuttle diplomacy mission from Jerusalem to Damascus.

But Henry Kissinger she ain't. Pelosi said she was delivering a message from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that "Israel was ready to engage in peace talks" with Syria. A seeming breakthrough. Not so, said a statement speedily issued by Olmert's office. It said that Olmert had not made "any change in the policies of Israel."

Pelosi said Assad indicated he was ready to "resume the peace process." That wasn't the impression other members of Congress took away from their meeting with him a few days earlier. Syria under Assad pere et fils has steadfastly refused to make peace with Israel, despite diplomatic efforts considerably more assiduous than Pelosi is in a position to undertake. Bill Clinton's first secretary of state, Warren Christopher, traveled the road to Damascus to meet with the elder Assad 22 times. End product: nada.

The Washington Post, not a backer of all Bush policies, called Pelosi's road-to-Damascus statement "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 charges that he orchestrated the murder of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq al-Hariri." The Post concluded, "Ms. Pelosi's attempt to establish a shadow presidency is not only counterproductive, it is foolish."

House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Tom Lantos, who accompanied Pelosi, has defended her without addressing the Post's conclusion about her claims to have set Israel and Syria on "a road to peace." In USA Today, he noted that she "publicly declared that she supports the administration's goals regarding Syria." He said he and she are "convinced that direct communication with Syria's leader cannot worsen Syrian behavior. Rather, over time, it may just lead to improvement."

That's dubious. Coming in "friendship" to Damascus may make Assad more confident he has a free hand in Lebanon, and "may just" doesn't sound very promising. But the bigger issue here is the thinking that gave Pelosi confidence she could produce progress toward peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

At the heart of that thinking is this proposition: We're the problem. America, or rather George W. Bush, is the problem. We're not doing enough to get the Israelis and Syrians together; we're not doing enough to address the grievances of the Palestinian people (than whom "nobody is suffering more," according to Barack Obama); we're not doing enough to mollify the dictators who are working against us.

Akin to this is the feeling shared by most Democrats and, it seems, by most American voters, that if we can just get our troops out of Iraq all will be well in the world.

I recall reading a few weeks ago an article on Democratic fund raising that quoted a woman as saying that "we were very safe under the Clinton administration." No, we weren't "very safe" -- we just thought we were. Bill Clinton knew we weren't "very safe," and he took some steps -- unfortunately, not enough -- to make us safer.

You can say the same of George W. Bush during first eight months in office. There are evil leaders out there -- the mullahs of Iran, Assad and his thugs, Kim Jong Il, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and his pal Fidel Castro -- who hate the United States and want to do us as much damage as they can.

They don't hate us just because the Republican Congress didn't raise the minimum wage or because George W. Bush has a stubborn streak and speaks with a West Texas accent. They hate us because of our freedoms and because we have worked to export those freedoms around the world.

Friendship, hope and a determination to be on the road to peace are not enough to protect us in this world. A speedy exit from Iraq might make many Americans less unsettled while watching cable news -- for a while. But it wouldn't make us safer. It will just leave us more likely to face the kind of surprise we had on Sept. 11, 2001.

Copyright 2007 Creators Syndicate Inc.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/04/pelosis_proposition_bush_is_th.html
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
It's not a violation of anything. It's always been pretty damn clear that Pubs and Dems have different foreign policy ideals. As far as "borderline treason" there's no such thing, You either commit treason (like lying your ass off to send the country into an unnecessary war) or you don't.

Quit being ridiculous. No one's trying to "lose the war on purpose." :cuckoo: That's just some stupid Rovian talking point you fell for.
Nancy Pelosi Wins British Sailors their Freedom AND Peace in the Middle East
"Your emminence," Nancy purred with a slight genuflect. "I bring word from Prime Minister Olmert that Israel is ready to --"

"Die?" exclaimed Assad, his long, llama-like neck undulating with excitement. "Committ mass suicide and burn in hell like the Jewish pig dogs they are? Nancy, you red hot monkey woman, you!! I KNEW you could do it!"

"Actually," the saucy Speaker continued, "I was going to say that they are ready to talk peace."

"Oh," he sighed. "That's good, too...I guess. So will this "peace" you speak of result in more dead Jews?"

"Doesn't it always?" Nancy replied with a wink.

"Right-o!" The President chirped. "And you actually got Olmert to sign on to this peace thing?"

"It was his idea," Nancy answered. "But he'd like something in return. Perhaps a gesture to the West that the road to Damascus truly is paved with - "

"Dead jews?" Assad interrupted, his tiny, tick-like head suddenly poking through the dark clouds of gloom.

Nancy smiled diminutively. "I was going to say 'peace' again, Señor Presidente."

"Say no more, snookums!" Assad sprang out of bed and grabbed his special hotline to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. "Moo Moo, Baby! It's me, Bashar! I got Nancy over here and - yes, she still likes to hog all the blankets! Anyway, about those guests of yours..."

Hours later, the 15 British guests of the Iranian People bid a fond adieu to their gracious hosts - no worse for the wear, but perhaps a little fatter, a tad bit tanner, and greatly indebted to the diplomacy skills of our very own Nancy Pelosi.

http://blamebush.typepad.com/
 

boedicca

Uppity Water Nymph
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
55,660
Reaction score
17,741
Points
2,250
Location
The Land of Funk
It's not a violation of anything. It's always been pretty damn clear that Pubs and Dems have different foreign policy ideals. As far as "borderline treason" there's no such thing, You either commit treason (like lying your ass off to send the country into an unnecessary war) or you don't.
Wrong. Having a difference of opinion doesn't give the opposition the right to conduct a separate course of diplomacy. The Executive Branch manages diplomatic missions - not Congress.

Quit being ridiculous. No one's trying to "lose the war on purpose." :cuckoo: That's just some stupid Rovian talking point you fell for.
You are wrong on this point. Quite a few Dems have based their hopes for 2008 on the U.S. losing in Iraq - and their policy advocacy supports this. Playing games with funding and setting arbitrary deadlines only give aid and comfort to the enemy. You have just falling for the DNC talking point.
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,852
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
So President BP, how do you talk to people whose number one goal is to kill you?

Or do you agree with with most libs that terrorism needs to be treated like a crime and not an act of war?

Clinton did that after 5 attacks in 8years and we got 9-11 for his efforts
Y'know, I have a real issue with Pelosi's conduct. I think her judgement sucks, as I do in most cases, and I think she purposefully set about to undermine the current administration's foreign policy.

And wearing a hajib in public ... the icon of Sharia Law and second-class citizenship for women worldwide hardly seems in keeping with an American woman and our ideals as a Nation.

Having said that, your math sucks. 9-11 was going to happen. It wasn't Bush's fault, and it wasn't Clinton's fault. You can't blame it on any one person, but if you want to take it back to root cause, Saddam's invasion of Kuwait in '90 started the ball rolling. OBL had his little hissy fit because foreign troops stepped foot on Arab soil, at the request of the Arab nations to remove Saddam from Kuwait.

As long as people like OBL ... and you ... exist that can see only one thing one way and view the world through a coffee stir and hate any and everything that doesn't think and act in accordance with your beliefs, there will always be 9/11's.
 

T-Bor

Active Member
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
752
Reaction score
101
Points
28
Im just curious why you are always all over the dems asses but never on the republicans. You are upset about Pelosi lies but not one bit upset at ONE thing that Bush has ever done. With each post you make your credibility drops lower and lower.



San Fran Nan is now back from her trip from the Middle East

What a comedy show it was.

Pelosi wants to feel important, wants to be vice president, wants to call ALL the shots and by taking this little trip she thinks she will get her very own Presidential plane!
Of course making mistakes and lying are her everyday duties. After all she got the big D by her name!



By BENNY AVNI
Staff Reporter of the Sun
April 5, 2007

UNITED NATIONS — As the speaker of the House, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, helped Syria to escape diplomatic isolation yesterday by saying she conveyed to Syria's President Al-Assad a "message" from Jerusalem about Israel's readiness for peace negotiations, Prime Minister Olmert denied he had given her any such message.

The confusion seemed to add weight to Ms. Pelosi's critics, including President Bush who had said a day earlier that her trip to Syria only "sends mixed signals," and a presidential hopeful, Governor Romney, who also said yesterday that the trip sent "the wrong signal to the people of Syria and to the people of the Middle East."




Pelosi wants to feel important , wants to be vice president , wants to call ALL the shots and by taking this little trip she thinks she will get her very own Presidential plane!-
Of course making mistakes and lying are her everyday duties. After all she got the big D by her name!
 

T-Bor

Active Member
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
752
Reaction score
101
Points
28
It's amazing isnt it. I thought I was stupid and somewhat biased...But man oh man this guy makes me look like Albert Einstein.


you break the stupidity law here daily red states, maybe it's time to have you sent to the front lines.

:eusa_clap: :eusa_clap: :eusa_clap: :eusa_clap:
 

Bullypulpit

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2004
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
382
Points
48
Location
Columbus, OH
So President BP, how do you talk to people whose number one goal is to kill you?
Well, I ain't anyone's president, but unless you're privy to some super-duper, ultra top secret intel the rest of the world doesn't have access to, Syria hasn't tried to kill me or any other Americans that I can tell.

Or do you agree with with most libs that terrorism needs to be treated like a crime and not an act of war?
War is an act engaged in by nation states with standing armies. Terrorism is an inherently criminal act, which international police and intelligence agencies are best equipped to deal with. The role of the military is limited to actions by spec-ops units in rolling up the operations targeted by said law enforcement and intelligence agencies.

Clinton did that after 5 attacks in 8years and we got 9-11 for his efforts
Still trying to blame Goat-boy for Chimpy's mess, eh? Can't hide that "<b><font color= red>L</font></b>" on your forehead, can ya.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top