All things Pelosi

Pelosi praises King Abdullah for Arab peace initiative link

0 Replies

In the meantime, in a little noted Sy Hersh article with three non-visited threads, I mentioned that the Saudi's were --- according to that article, (title something about Redirection) mainly about our eyebrow wiggling at Iran - working to loosen Assad from his job, with the backing of the US, at the least monetarily ---wait for it, in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood.

If you approve the US doing that, that's your perogative. I'm not entirely a Pelosi fan, at least one giant boo boo so far, but probably more a fan than not.

Working to get rid of a mid east government (see Hersh article) and shunting it to such a group as the Muslim Brotherhood - what the f does any of that have to do with democracy, should democracy ever have been a goal, and who understands the word? An action to get Assad is a primo mockery of what I supposed we stood for, back in my childhood.

The news is, I'm not a radical person. Well, maybe in the US, but normally not. I think I am in the middle on a lot of this.

The US in my later life seems all about power and oil. Way lost it's way, not a surprise, given its directors.

0 Replies

She is a woman; those arab scumbags are laughing behind her back.

She messed up the message from Olmert, who was probably also laughing behind her back.

She is smart, as I said before, and chosen to lead a divided party along a narrow fence. I bet she learned from this. I am sure that her optomistic to come will not represent her true feelings about this trip. Otherwise I have misjudged her, and she is no brighter than Barbara Boxer or Lynne Woolsey, who really do not look past the choir. Northern California is a dangerous place for free thinkers, of whom Pelosi is not one, but could be, I think.

0 Replies

Oh, whip us, you detesters of northern california...

You take us as all of a piece on whatever side?

0 Replies

Quote:

source

0 Replies

GOP Rep. meets Syria's Assad
Comes day after Pelosi criticized by White House for similar meeting. link

0 Replies

Either Pelosi or Issa meeting Assad is better than the US trying to get rid of him in conjunction with the Saudis.

0 Replies

What this is all about is pure partisan politics as always. Just as with any health care legislation, each party is so afraid the other party will be successful that it is to their benefit to do whatever it takes to ensure they are discredited and the initiative fails. They each are aghast at the idea one party will receive credit for the breakthrough and benefit from it come election time. They all need to be recalled, fired, or sent to their rooms for not overcoming their petty power games for the good of the country.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

That would be relevant had I said; "If Hastert is wrong; so too is Pelosi... but I didn't.

It doesn't matter what you said, and my remarks are not bound by the limitations you apparently wish to impose on your own judgment. My point is and remains that there is no reason to assume that Peolosi has done anything wrong, but that Hastert accepting bribes from the representatives of a foreign government, and then taking action as Speaker of the House which lead to results desired by that foreign government is definitely wrong.

Just because you wish to claim that Pelosi is wrong does not mean that she is, nor that my remarks be conditioned by a false assumption on your part. For my part, i am stating that if Hastert took bribes from the representatitves of a foreign government, that was wrong, and the silence from the right on this topic is defeaning.

Quote:

Based on your info alone; you have merely fortified what I did say (If Pelosi is wrong, than so too was Hastert) and strengthened the argument, considerably, at that.

You're really not very good at this sort of thing, O'Bill. I provided no evidence that Pelosi has done anything wrong. I did provide evidence that allegations were made against Hastert, which, if true, definitely put him in the wrong. It was your confused choice to attempt to claim that Pelosi has done wrong--and, once again, i am not bound by the ludicrous and confused position you are attempting to take on a comparison of the actions of these two Speakers of the House.

0 Replies

ehBeth wrote:

this is supposed to be your evidence?

OCCOM BILL wrote:
And WTF would be Pelosi be doing in Syria if not to discuss U.S. Policy?

O'Bill, you need to get much better at this (emphasis added)

Word . . .

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

You're really not very good at this sort of thing, O'Bill. I provided no evidence that Pelosi has done anything wrong. I did provide evidence that allegations were made against Hastert, which, if true, definitely put him in the wrong. It was your confused choice to attempt to claim that Pelosi has done wrong--and, once again, i am not bound by the ludicrous and confused position you are attempting to take on a comparison of the actions of these two Speakers of the House.

As usual, you'd prefer to pretend to be right and offer petty insults, than admit your error. If Pelosi is guilty, then Hastert is too.

This is what I said, and it remains true. As much as you'd prefer that I said it the other way around; I didn't. Grow up already.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Setanta wrote:
I suspect that would be a case of whose ox had been gored.
As is typical, that's precisely the misunderstanding here on A2K. If Pelosi is wrong, than so too was Hastert (both seem pretty obvious to me). As far as legality is concerned; it's bigger than Hastert, Pelosi, Bush or Clinton.

To anyone not predisposed to inventing reasons to insult anyone not leaning left; the above clearly means it would be foolish to try and exonerate Hastert while accusing Pelosi. Setanta, your predisposition is beyond obvious because this idiotic question cannot be reasonably hinged to anything I said above:

Setanta wrote:

I see--what evidence do you have that Pelosi has taken bribes from the Syrians?

You obviously misunderstood and are either too ignorant or too arrogant to admit it.

That's really cute how you made your post coincide with your girlfriend's. Too bad you either took her out of context, or she's wrong too. :wink:

0 Replies

osso, 95470 zip here, where are you?

0 Replies

Occom Bill, I honestly can't see how you can't see a difference into what Hastert might have done and the trip which Pelosi took. According to the article which Setanta (going by memory so may get some facts wrong) posted, Hastert took bribes from someone in Turkey. That is the key fact, not that he went to Turkey. If he only went to Turkey it would have been no big deal. Just like Pelosi going to Syria was no big deal.

The State department expressed their desire that she and others who were going not go because Syria uses these trips to shore up political points (at least that is the state departments and the WH's claim). But they knew they were going and they didn't forbid them to go, just expressed a desire for them not to go.

Information has come to light that Pelosi did flub a message from Olmert to Syria, but that hardly rises to all this dust up.

Also to almost exclusively single out Pelosi when others have gone including republicans just proves this whole dust up is partisan politics as usual.
(Left links to all this on the other thread about Pelosi)

0 Replies

revel wrote:

Occom Bill, I honestly can't see how you can't see a difference into what Hastert might have done and the trip which Pelosi took. According to the article which Setanta (going by memory so may get some facts wrong) posted, Hastert took bribes from someone in Turkey. That is the key fact, not that he went to Turkey. If he only went to Turkey it would have been no big deal. Just like Pelosi going to Syria was no big deal.

I never said I couldn't see a difference. If Hastert took bribes in Turkey, or told anyone to ignore the sitting President; his behavior was 20 times worse than Pelosi's. That is the key (alleged) fact in Set's and apparently your opinion... but it has nothing to do with my original comments. The only place my comments even reflected a degree of wrongness between their respective actions; was when I stated:

I had previously written wrote:

That would be relevant had I said; "If Hastert is wrong; so too is Pelosi... but I didn't. Based on your info alone; you have merely fortified what I did say (If Pelosi is wrong, than so too was Hastert) and strengthened the argument, considerably, at that.

The above reads: If Hastert interfered worse than Pelosi, than it would be even more ridiculous to pretend he wasn't wrong if she was.

This was nothing more than a misunderstood side point. It could hardly be the "key fact", as you refer to it; since my comments came before that information was even posted.

revel wrote:

The State department expressed their desire that she and others who were going not go because Syria uses these trips to shore up political points (at least that is the state departments and the WH's claim). But they knew they were going and they didn't forbid them to go, just expressed a desire for them not to go.

It doesn't take much imagination to view Pelosi's (or Hastert's) trip as outside of the President's strategy. That's why it was wrong.

revel wrote:

Information has come to light that Pelosi did flub a message from Olmert to Syria, but that hardly rises to all this dust up.

I think Paul posted that almost as the discussion began but I haven't commented on it because I consider the details largely unimportant to my point that "Pelosi has no business being there". The President is in charge of Foreign Policy. If he condones the trip; we can assume it is in line with his strategy. If he doesn't; we can assume that it is counter to his strategy. Read the arguments above and you'll see that the opposing opinions are simultaneously attempting to say Pelosi should interfere because his policy is wrong, and in the same breath deny that the trip could really serve no other purpose. (Delivering messages from Olmert is hardly a touristy thing to do.)

revel wrote:

Also to almost exclusively single out Pelosi when others have gone including republicans just proves this whole dust up is partisan politics as usual.
(Left links to all this on the other thread about Pelosi)

This thread is about Nancy Pelosi so yes, she's been singled out. Bringing up Republicans going, under a Republican President is NOT partisan politics as usual. This was no doubt the Right's position when Hastert went and it was just as wrong then. A political Ally of Bill Clinton's can be expected to follow the principles of his policy. Unfortunately, a political opponent of Bill Clinton's can not be expected to follow the principles of his policy SO THIS IS NOT THE SAME THING.

You don't send a Pro-Life Advocate in on behalf of Women's right to choose. Should a Pro-Life Advocate decide to go in anyway; pointing out Pro-Choice Advocate went in as well is utterly meaningless. The same thing holds true here.

Justifying her behavior with "Bush is wrong" doesn't change the fact that she's subverting the system by ignoring the fact that Foreign Policy isn't her business. When a real crisis develops; the last thing we need is 100 Senators trying to set policy their way. Justifying Pelosi's behavior by pointing out Bush is an idiot, who is doing it wrong, is foolishly short sighted. The system was designed the way it was because there will always be Senators from the opposition that think our Foreign Policy is wrong. Disregarding this obvious fact because you happen to agree with this Speaker or that, is equally foolish in this regard.

Nancy Pelosi had no business going to Syria.

0 Replies

She has the right to do so as a private citizen, she wasn't acting as a representative of the US gov't, she certainly wasn't discussing US policy. The State Dept. had people there as well. Thus there is no real basis to say that

Quote:

Nancy Pelosi had no business going to Syria.

... becuase it is not you who decides what her business is, but herself. At best you should add 'in my opinion.'

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

She has the right to do so as a private citizen, she wasn't acting as a representative of the US gov't, she certainly wasn't discussing US policy. The State Dept. had people there as well. Thus there is no real basis to say that

Quote:
Nancy Pelosi had no business going to Syria.

... becuase it is not you who decides what her business is, but herself. At best you should add 'in my opinion.'

Cycloptichorn

Repetition of this nonsense will not make it true. Private Citizens aren't invited to Syria to discuss the ME peace plan and don't deliver messages from Olmert or anyone else. Think it through Cyclops: You like the end, and are trying to justify the means.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
She has the right to do so as a private citizen, she wasn't acting as a representative of the US gov't, she certainly wasn't discussing US policy. The State Dept. had people there as well. Thus there is no real basis to say that

Quote:
Nancy Pelosi had no business going to Syria.

... becuase it is not you who decides what her business is, but herself. At best you should add 'in my opinion.'

Cycloptichorn
Repetition of this nonsense will not make it true. Private Citizens aren't invited to Syria to discuss the ME peace plan and don't deliver messages from Olmert or anyone else. Think it through Cyclops: You like the end, and are trying to justify the means.

I don't see what's wrong with the means!

Your second sentence has two assertions in it. Not a strong argument.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

A member of congress and, especially, a Speaker, has a right, and almost an obligation, to visit other countries to glean facts and contacts needed in his or her legislative duties. I haven't seen where Pelosi has abused this right, and give her credit for visiting such an important country relative to our problems in the Middle East.

0 Replies

In the end does not justify the means, what does? (I think Plato said that in the republic but he called it "The Noble Lie"
btw, I never liked Plato nor John Galt either. However, I do really like Kurt Vonnegut's character of the engineer Paul Proteus in "Player Piano" .

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

revel wrote:
Occom Bill, I honestly can't see how you can't see a difference into what Hastert might have done and the trip which Pelosi took. According to the article which Setanta (going by memory so may get some facts wrong) posted, Hastert took bribes from someone in Turkey. That is the key fact, not that he went to Turkey. If he only went to Turkey it would have been no big deal. Just like Pelosi going to Syria was no big deal.
I never said I couldn't see a difference. If Hastert took bribes in Turkey, or told anyone to ignore the sitting President; his behavior was 20 times worse than Pelosi's. That is the key (alleged) fact in Set's and apparently your opinion... but it has nothing to do with my original comments. The only place my comments even reflected a degree of wrongness between their respective actions; was when I stated:

I had previously written wrote:
That would be relevant had I said; "If Hastert is wrong; so too is Pelosi... but I didn't. Based on your info alone; you have merely fortified what I did say (If Pelosi is wrong, than so too was Hastert) and strengthened the argument, considerably, at that.
The above reads: If Hastert interfered worse than Pelosi, than it would be even more ridiculous to pretend he wasn't wrong if she was.

This was nothing more than a misunderstood side point. It could hardly be the "key fact", as you refer to it; since my comments came before that information was even posted.

revel wrote:
The State department expressed their desire that she and others who were going not go because Syria uses these trips to shore up political points (at least that is the state departments and the WH's claim). But they knew they were going and they didn't forbid them to go, just expressed a desire for them not to go.
It doesn't take much imagination to view Pelosi's (or Hastert's) trip as outside of the President's strategy. That's why it was wrong.

revel wrote:
Information has come to light that Pelosi did flub a message from Olmert to Syria, but that hardly rises to all this dust up.
I think Paul posted that almost as the discussion began but I haven't commented on it because I consider the details largely unimportant to my point that "Pelosi has no business being there". The President is in charge of Foreign Policy. If he condones the trip; we can assume it is in line with his strategy. If he doesn't; we can assume that it is counter to his strategy. Read the arguments above and you'll see that the opposing opinions are simultaneously attempting to say Pelosi should interfere because his policy is wrong, and in the same breath deny that the trip could really serve no other purpose. (Delivering messages from Olmert is hardly a touristy thing to do.)

revel wrote:
Also to almost exclusively single out Pelosi when others have gone including republicans just proves this whole dust up is partisan politics as usual.
(Left links to all this on the other thread about Pelosi)
This thread is about Nancy Pelosi so yes, she's been singled out. Bringing up Republicans going, under a Republican President is NOT partisan politics as usual. This was no doubt the Right's position when Hastert went and it was just as wrong then. A political Ally of Bill Clinton's can be expected to follow the principles of his policy. Unfortunately, a political opponent of Bill Clinton's can not be expected to follow the principles of his policy SO THIS IS NOT THE SAME THING.

You don't send a Pro-Life Advocate in on behalf of Women's right to choose. Should a Pro-Life Advocate decide to go in anyway; pointing out Pro-Choice Advocate went in as well is utterly meaningless. The same thing holds true here.

Justifying her behavior with "Bush is wrong" doesn't change the fact that she's subverting the system by ignoring the fact that Foreign Policy isn't her business. When a real crisis develops; the last thing we need is 100 Senators trying to set policy their way. Justifying Pelosi's behavior by pointing out Bush is an idiot, who is doing it wrong, is foolishly short sighted. The system was designed the way it was because there will always be Senators from the opposition that think our Foreign Policy is wrong. Disregarding this obvious fact because you happen to agree with this Speaker or that, is equally foolish in this regard.

Nancy Pelosi had no business going to Syria.

Hastert wasn't more wrong than Pelosi. He was wrong if the alleged facts are correct which Setanta brought up. Pelosi wasn't wrong at all in going.

0 Replies

All things Pelosi

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know