All things Pelosi

You're the one who seems more anguished about being right. As i've already pointed out, i don't accept that Pelosi is guilty of anything, and your insistence upon it is meaningless unless and until you have provided evidence to that effect. When you attempted this silliness the first time, i ignored your attempt to suggest that Hastert's "guilt" be compared to Pelosi's "guilt," because it is not demonstrable that Pelosi is guilty of anything. I had provided evidence that Hastert is alleged to have taken bribes from foreign officials, so, rather than dance to feeble tune you were attempting to call, i asked you if you have any evidence that Pelosi has taken bribes from officials of foreign governments.

Until such time as you do, there is so far no evidence that Pelosi is guilty of anything, and there is a substantive allegation that Hastert is guilty of malfesance. So i don't care how you frame the comparison, i'm framing it in terms of no substantive allegations of guilt of anything on the part of Pelosi, and a substantive allegation of guilt on the part of Hastert when he occupied the same office.

You can maunder on about Pelosi's "guilt" to your heart's content, but that nonsense deserves to be treated as nonsense unless and until you can back it up.



I was at home, and eBeth was at work when those posts went up, so there was no collusion--and it definitely was coincidence, purely chance. I did not take her out of context, and i did find it amusing that she, too, sees just how bad you are at this.

Personally one of the thing i most resent is the rights attempts at assuming the lefts motives for the stands or statements they make.

The reason I object to all this calamity over Pelosi's visit to Syria is because it was nothing out of the ordinary and congressmen and women have been making trips to other countries and sometimes even without approval or authority from the president notwithstanding the Logan act which hasn't been implemented in 200 years. I see the whole objection as just partisan at its core. (Not claming everyone is partisan who objects, but the by and large objection being heard over the media from the usual right talking heads is partisan.)

Furthermore, I fail to see where Olmert has denied he sent a message to Syria through Pelosi. What he denied was a change in policy.



source

In any event, this news event has grown a bit stale.

Set, eh, okay.

Revel, Pelosi pretended she had delivered some message about Israel being ready for talks. Upon hearing this revelation; Olmert immediately issued a statement that she was in error and the Israeli position hadn't changed. That Israel is willing to talk to Syria IF they stop supporting terrorism is hardly news. It is quite clear Pelosi attempted to add substance to their discussion that didn't exist.
What is to see? Are you under the assumption that Olmert sent along the important message: "Nothing has changed"?

Why is Blatham the only lefty that can see the obvious purpose for the visit? Outside of "look at me; I can do whatever I want" what purpose other than that outlined by Blatham exists?

Make as many snide comments as you like, O'Bill, it won't change a central fact. In response to no one's post, but simply as information on the topic, i had pointed out that Hastert has been alleged to have taken bribes from the Turks, and it is a matter of public record that he has twice blocked resolutions in the House of Representatives to condemn Turkey for the Armenian genocide. My only reference to you in that post was to your reference to the Shrub as commander in chief. My comment about Hastert had no reference to anything you had posted.

But you're so fired up to jump all over me for anything i post that it has lead you into a huge absurdity. You keep ranting that if Pelosi is guilty, than so is Hastert. You have, however, failed to demonstrate that Pelosi is guilty of anything, and i'm not at all obliged to accept terms which you attempt to force upon the discussion. I don't allege that Hastert is "guilty" for having visited Turkey. I have pointed out both that he twice blocked House resolutions criticizing Turkey, and it is alleged that he took bribes from Turkish officials. For that, he can be considered guilty of malfeasance, if the allegations are true. Not guilty simply for visiting Turkey, but for taking bribes. Therefore, if, in response to my post, you wish to allege that Pelosi and Hastert are equally guilty, you need to demonstrate that there is a plausible allegation that Pelosi has taken bribes--not simply that she is vaguely guilty for having visited Syria, and just because you say so.

Once again, therefore, i'd like to point out that you aren't very good at this sort of thing. Making snotty remarks about eBeth isn't going to change that.

Are you an idiot, or are you just pretending not to understand the word IF?

One might assume that you are an idiot, since you continue to fail to see that your assumption of guilt on the part of Pelosi for simply going to Syria has absolutely nothing to do with an allegation that Hastert accepted bribes. Your "if" is meaningless, because i wasn't discussing an idiotic claim that Pelosi is guilty of anything simply for having gone to Syria.

I'm not surprised, though, that you continue to fail to see that you are comparing apples to oranges, and haven't even yet demonstrated that apples are apples.

I've not claimed that Hastert was guilty simply for going to Turkey. I don't accept a witless contention that Pelosi is guilty simply for going to Syria. I am suggesting that Hastert may well be guilty of malfeasance if in fact he took bribes. That you cannot understand that i'm not talking about your idiotic argument, and am not obliged to do so, is sad, but understandable. You continue to demonstrate more and more clearly that you cannot follow a coherent train of thought in an argument.

To return to the point i was making before O'Bill decided to hog-tie himself in an attempt to argue something which i was not disucssing:

The conservatives who are howling about Pelosi simply visiting Syria were, apparently, quite content that Hastert would visit Turkey, subsequently twice block House resolutions to condemn Turkey, and haven't make a peep about the allegations of a former FBI employee that the FBI had wiretap evidence that Hastert took bribes from the Turks. A clear cut case of whose ox was gored. A sterling example of your basic willful partisan blindness.

So, we can not discuss Pelosi without having some side discussion about what others have done?

Kind of like the right always saying "Clinton did it too!" isn't it?

Who gives a crap what Hastert did and when and what. Let's discuss what Pelosi did and why.

Why do we need a State Department if Senators are going to go around talking to foreign leaders?

Of course, if it is acceptable that the right always mentions Clinton, it were equally acceptable to mention Hastert's behavior when discussing Pelosi--and more especially when there is an allegation that Hastert accepted bribes, while no such allegation has been made against Pelosi. To use one of your favorite phrases, McWhitey--where's the outrage?

So far, in this discussion of what Pelosi did, no one has advanced a plausible allegation that she has done anything illegal.

Finally, Pelosi is not a Senator--but if a Senator did visit and confer with a foreign leader, that would only be reasonable, given that the Senate is to advise and consent to treaties which are proposed by the President. It would be completely reasonable for a member of the Senate to wish to inform him- or herself on matters of foreign policy.

Why you want to bring the Senate and Senators into a discussion of the actions of the Speaker of the House of Representatives is somewhat mystifying--but i'm game for that.

Any idea why a couple of US states have representative offices ("embassies") in various European countries?

For the money, Walter . . . sheesh . . .

Were the only reason the other republicans took the visit was for a "hey, look at me..." reason? I assume they all went for the reasons they stated. In any event, the reasons don't matter.

If Olmert didn't send a message through Pelosi, he would have just simply said, "I never sent a message..." but he didn't. What he said was basically, Pelosi flubbed up the message. However, he was in error, or rather those in media asking him questions about Pelosi visit was in error, because Pelosi didn't flub up the message, the media just didn't quote everything she said to the Syria president. She did express Israel objection to Syria's support of Hamas and Hezbollah contrary to what the previous reports from CNN and the like of so called "liberal media."

As I said before because of the republican right wing zeal to drum up a story to discredit Pelosi, they have created a mass confusion all the way around.

What message Revel? I think you're missing some context here. If there is nothing new about Israel's position, that is hardly a "message"... let alone one worthy of bragging about.

Whose been bragging? Mostly Pelosi has just been defending. As for the message here it is

For the record, I don't agree with Pelosi's position that Olmert is a man of peace after that whole Lebanon thing last year. I know, you will come at it from the end of the view. Lets not go there, huh?

By bragging I mean: Telling a group of reporters that she brought a message of peace from Israel... as if she had accomplished something.
The fact that Israel denied it at the earliest opportunity, and made it abundantly clear nothing had changed overrides Pelosi's claim that something did. She stepped in where she doesn't belong, imagined a step towards peace that doesn't exist and is now in effect calling an ally a liar.
Pelosi's position on Olmert is wholly irrelevant anyway, so don't worry, I won't.

To try and bring foreign trade to their respective states.
BUT,those offices are not representing the US govt,nor do they try to.
They represent their respective states,nothing more.

Why have the Reps made an issue of Pelosi's visit to Syria. It is because it is a continuation of the big and little lies, including the defaming, by the Reps. See the following.



^4/9/07: Sweet Little Lies

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Four years into a war fought to eliminate a nonexistent threat, we all
have renewed appreciation for the power of the Big Lie: people tend to
believe false official claims about big issues, because they can't
picture their leaders being dishonest about such things.

But there's another political lesson I don't think has sunk in: the
power of the Little Lie -- the small accusation invented out of thin air,
followed by another, and another, and another. Little Lies aren't meant
to have staying power. Instead, they create a sort of background hum, a
sense that the person facing all these accusations must have done
something wrong.

For a long time, basically from 9/11 until the last remnants of
President Bush's credibility drowned in New Orleans, the Bush
administration was able to go big on its deceptions. Most people found
it inconceivable that an American president would, for example, assert
without evidence that Saddam and Al Qaeda were allies. Mr. Bush won the
2004 election because a quorum of voters still couldn't believe he would
grossly mislead them on matters of national security.

Before 9/11, however, the right-wing noise machine mainly relied on
little lies. And now it has returned to its roots.

The Clinton years were a parade of fake scandals: Whitewater,
Troopergate, Travelgate, Filegate, Christmas-card-gate. At the end,
there were false claims that Clinton staff members trashed the White
House on their way out.

Each pseudoscandal got headlines, air time and finger-wagging from the
talking heads. The eventual discovery in each case that there was no
there there, if reported at all, received far less attention. The effect
was to make an administration that was, in fact, pretty honest and well
run -- especially compared with its successor -- seem mired in scandal.

Even in the post-9/11 environment, little lies never went away. In
particular, promoting little lies seems to have been one of the main
things U.S. attorneys, as loyal Bushies, were expected to do. For
example, David Iglesias, the U.S. Attorney in New Mexico, appears to
have been fired because he wouldn't bring unwarranted charges of voter
fraud.

There's a lot of talk now about a case in Wisconsin, where the
Bush-appointed U.S. attorney prosecuted the state's purchasing
supervisor over charges that a court recently dismissed after just 26
minutes of oral testimony, with one judge calling the evidence "beyond
thin." But by then the accusations had done their job: the unjustly
accused official had served almost four months in prison, and the case
figured prominently in attack ads alleging corruption in the Democratic
governor's administration.

This is the context in which you need to see the wild swings Republicans
have been taking at Nancy Pelosi.

First, there were claims that the speaker of the House had demanded a
lavish plane for her trips back to California. One Republican leader
denounced her "arrogance of extravagance" -- then, when it became clear
that the whole story was bogus, admitted that he had never had any
evidence.

Now there's Ms. Pelosi's fact-finding trip to Syria, which Dick Cheney
denounced as "bad behavior" -- unlike the visit to Syria by three
Republican congressmen a few days earlier, or Newt Gingrich's trip to
China when he was speaker.

Ms. Pelosi has responded coolly, dismissing the administration's
reaction as a "tantrum." But it's more than that: the hysterical
reaction to her trip is part of a political strategy, aided and abetted
by news organizations that give little lies their time in the sun.

Fox News, which is a partisan operation in all but name, plays a crucial
role in the Little Lie strategy -- which is why there is growing pressure
on Democratic politicians not to do anything, like participating in
Fox-hosted debates, that helps Fox impersonate a legitimate news
organization.

But Fox has had plenty of help. Even Time's Joe Klein, a media insider
if anyone is, wrote of the Pelosi trip that "the media coverage of this
on CNN and elsewhere has been abysmal." For example, CNN ran a segment
about Ms. Pelosi's trip titled "Talking to Terrorists."

The G.O.P.'s reversion to the Little Lie technique is a symptom of
political weakness, of a party reduced to trivial smears because it has
nothing else to offer. But the technique will remain effective -- and the
U.S. political scene will remain ugly -- as long as many people in the
news media keep playing along.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

I still wanna know who paid for the trip.

I'm sure we did since she claims she was doing job related research.