Divide and Conquer Here!
This one’s so good it deserves a mini-moronocy roundup all its own. Matt Stoller at MyDD:
Pelosi is acting as a real Secretary of State or President would in foreign affairs. She is negotiating and representing an America that offers itself as a trusted partner for peace and collective security.
Sure, if you think it’s presidential to veer way out of your lane to cater to people who are actively involved in the murder of our troops and those they are trying to protect. It’s cool to give terrorist regimes photo ops!
Much of what America did in international affairs prior to the Bush Presidency was to act as sort of buoy, or a neutral third party in negotiations, a bulwark that other nations could broadly trust.
Not sure which alternate universe this guy has been dwelling in. The United States fought hard battles with communism (evil) in Korea and Vietnam, fought more battles through proxies in Central America and Afghanistan and maintained massively expensive, explicitly non-neutral garrisons in Europe and Asia. The bobbing around like a neutral buoy was mainly done by people like Jimmy Carter (vs. Iran) and Bill Clinton (vs. al-Qaeda). Nations trusted us because they knew where we stood, which was between them and the people who would enslave all of us. Our enemies feared us, even after our failures showed them our weak points. Reaction to the surge strategy shows this continues to be true, although a serious mistake was just made in dealings with Iran, which was allowed to toy with our ally.
Talking with one’s enemies can be useful, when conditions have been set for fruitful discussions, when the party representing the United States actually represents the United States and not a marginalized faction angling for political gain. Providing aid and comfort to the enemy by pointlessly providing them with leverage and propaganda coups is another issue. The message the United States sends to dictators whose support for terrorism is killing our people and threatens our interests should not be muddied by the political manuevering of people who lack the electoral mandate to actually accomplish their agenda at home. That’s not presidential. That’s a triumph of moronocy.
Speaking of morons, here’s a shocker: Carter backs Pelosi’s trip.
WaPo to Pelosi: Stop being a moron!
Nico to WaPo: Behaving moronically does not a moron make.
Riehl: What kind of moron can’t even report out her own meeting straight? One that’s being played.
Topics: moronocy
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 9:20 am on Thursday, April 5, 2007
38 Responses to “Divide and Conquer Here!”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
April 5th, 2007 at 9:27 am
“The United States fought hard battles with communism (evil) in Korea and Vietnam”
Yes, and the grown-up presidents negotiated with their leaders and gave them photo ops, even though they were involved in the murder of our troops.
April 5th, 2007 at 10:07 am
Yes, and the grown-up presidents negotiated with their leaders and gave them photo ops, even though they were involved in the murder of our troops.
You must refer to the Paris Peace Talks, lead by Henry Kissinger, for Vietnam. Korea is a tad different, since we are technically still at war with North Korea….no peace treaty has ever been signed there, only a truce of sorts.
If so, do you mean the fact that conditions were set for fruitful discussions by the party representing the United States, who in fact represented the United States, and was not a marginalized faction angling for political gain?
If so, you just endorsed Julian’s point, corndog. If not, you need to clarify your point
Pelosi’s current stunt reminds me of John Kerry’s stunt during the Paris Peace Talks. It’s true, the Dhimmicrats never learn from their mistakes.
Will Pelosi run for President in 2008? She seems to be setting the stage for it. If so, it’s too bad she’s too old for military service, especially as the Navy recently deployed river boats to Iraq.
April 5th, 2007 at 10:16 am
Pratfall in Damascus
Nancy Pelosi’s foolish shuttle diplomacy
Damn and it no less then the http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/04/AR2007040402306.html that says so.
Way to go Nancy babe. Why next you’ll insist that the Soviets “tear down this wall”.
April 5th, 2007 at 10:40 am
“no peace treaty has ever been signed there, only a truce of sorts.”
And this refutes my point… how?
“was not a marginalized faction angling for political gain?”
Hate to break it to you, but someone’s got to: the Democrats are now the majority of the House and the Senate and the president is impotent.
Jules’ point that I was addressing, though, was that no one should talk to people who are actively involved in the murder of our troops. He has no facts, of course, to show that Syria is actively involved in the murder of our troops. But even if he did, my point is that grown-ups negotiate even with brutal enemies such as North Vietnam if it means a chance at bringing the troops home.
April 5th, 2007 at 11:14 am
Really? Two brigades in and three more on the way. The President has vast powers that the Congress envies but will have a very hard time touching. One power is spelled V. E. T. O. Another is C in C. This President’s power, should he choose to exercise it, is limited by a date in early 2009, not by Congress.
April 5th, 2007 at 11:26 am
Web Reconnaissance for 04/05/2007
A short recon of whats out there that might draw your attention.
April 5th, 2007 at 11:35 am
gvanderleun,
The president is despised by the American people, so afraid of Americans that he can’t even go out to throw the first opening pitch. He has broken faith with the James Baker wing of the Republican party, and is the most isolated president Robert Novak has ever seen, even more isolated than Nixon. What he has left is to call press conference like the one the other day, where all he can say is, “You better, you better or, or, or… 9/11!”
The president is not only weak. He’s a weakling.
April 5th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
The president is despised by the American people…
Right, but Congress is so much more popular. Novak is full of crap too, but at least this time we’re not left to wonder what his sources are.
April 5th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
“You better, you better or, or, or… 9/11!”
Direct quote, is it?
Careful people, you just may anger something that sits on a stick, is covered in batter, (No, no alluding to the first pitch…sorry) is fried and very popular at carnivals and fairs.
April 5th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
Nancy Pelosi has just tipped the balance of power in Lebanon towards tyranny, towards Syria and Iran. She is an utter moron. Nothing can save her. Lebanese lives will be lost because of her stupidity. The left has blood on their hands, no denying it. But they “move on” without a care.
The most knowledgeable western source on Lebanon and Syria is the editor of the Lebanon Daily Star, Michael Young. He has written an article today that spells out the disastrous results of her intrusion. The article is titled “When a dilettante takes on Hizbullah” and covers a vast swath of Lebanon’s recent history to make its case.
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=5&article_id=81211#
In the past Michael Young has shredded Seymour Hirsh, darling of the left, for his inaccuracies and misrepresentations regarding Lebanon.
“A muckraker on the wane?”
Does the New Yorker actually edit Seymour Hersh?
http://www.reason.com/news/show/118922.html
April 5th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
Hate to break it to you, but someone’s got to: the Democrats are now the majority of the House and the Senate and the president is impotent.
Wow, rewriting the Constitution, are we? Must be that “living document” schtick I keep on hearing. Keep it up……you’ll be able to appoint yourself President-For-Life soon enough. Then you can really smack down Dubya Shrub.
As for “impotent”…..well, I suppose he could have order Pelosi arrested before she decided to play shadow president overseas. I expect that the State Department could have whipped up some sort of regulation against it, and detained her in the interests of national security. That’s true enough. The part about national security interests, I mean.
And this refutes my point… how?
I didn’t refute your point. Poorly made as it was, I couldn’t tell if you supported Jules point or not. That’s why I said “you need to clarify your point”. Which you did:
Jules’ point that I was addressing, though, was that no one should talk to people who are actively involved in the murder of our troops. He has no facts, of course, to show that Syria is actively involved in the murder of our troops. But even if he did, my point is that grown-ups negotiate even with brutal enemies such as North Vietnam if it means a chance at bringing the troops home.
No facts, eh? I suppose there are no terrorist camps in Syria….including the ones along the Iraqi border. There’s a reason why we had extensive combat operations against terrorists in that area, back in 2005…who operated out of Syria. And the fact that Syria is another Ba’athist state (like Iraq used to be, y’know) is merely inconvenient for you, hmmmmm?
Why, even Pelosi is talking to Assad about not supporting terrorism. You do know that Hamas operates openly in Syria, yes? And that there is evidence that Hamas is inside Iraq? Oh, and Hamas works with Iran as well.
What does this sound like? Ummmmm…..oh, yeah! “An Inconvenient Truth”.
Heh!
April 5th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
“Wow, rewriting the Constitution, are we? Must be that “living document” schtick I keep on hearing. Keep it up……you’ll be able to appoint yourself President-For-Life soon enough. Then you can really smack down Dubya Shrub.”
Um, having the majority of the House and Senate is unconstitutional and means the Democrats are a “marginalized faction”? Ok, then, bright boy.
“As for “impotent”…..well, I suppose he could have order Pelosi arrested before she decided to play shadow president overseas.”
Oh, now I’m starting to see why they call Bush supporters fascists.
“I suppose there are no terrorist camps in Syria….including the ones along the Iraqi border.”
The question is whether they are under the control of the Syrian government. There are terrorist camps in Iraq. Does that mean the Iraqi government supports terrorists? Actually, best not to answer that question.
“Why, even Pelosi is talking to Assad about not supporting terrorism. You do know that Hamas operates openly in Syria, yes? And that there is evidence that Hamas is inside Iraq?”
Dude, you’re refuting your own point. Ok, Pelosi is talking to Assad about not supporting terrorism. And if he agrees, that’s a bad thing?
Also, you’re ignoring the fact that Hamas is Israel’s problem, not ours. Hamas doesn’t attack the U.S. And, again, you’re pointing out that Hamas is in Iraq. Does that mean we should attack Iraq? Oh, never mind. We already did, and look how well that worked out.
April 5th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
Um, having the majority of the House and Senate is unconstitutional and means the Democrats are a “marginalized faction”? Ok, then, bright boy.
Congress is the legislative branch, not the executive branch. They don’t treat or negotiate with foreign powers, especially ones that are on our official shit list. Talking is tolerable….if they have support from the White House. This includes those Republican clowns who visited Syria earlier, by the way.
I guess you never read the US Constitution, huh? Might I suggest http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html?
Oh, now I’m starting to see why they call Bush supporters fascists.
Nice cherry picking. You’re pretty good at it, y’know? Keep it up….your credibility is hardly at stake. Oh, I should have used the sarcasm tags, but I guess I credited you too much.
Dude, you’re refuting your own point. Ok, Pelosi is talking to Assad about not supporting terrorism. And if he agrees, that’s a bad thing?
Except that’s not her position in government (see, “US Constitution”, above). Not that this worries the Dhimmicrats, them being in the (very slim) majority and all. Why, look at how they passed the latest anti-Iraq war bill! They had to bribe their own party members with pork galore to vote for it. And after Bush vetos it, they’ll override the veto, of course, given the WIDE margin of approval for that bill. Right, corndog?
Yes, Congress is in control, isn’t it? :-D
Oh, and Pelosi is dorking up the mission as well, as she completely misrepresented what the Israeli prime minister said. Or is this an example of that good old Dhimmicratic majority in action?
Also, you’re ignoring the fact that Hamas is Israel’s problem, not ours
Not if they are inside Iraq, eh? Y’know…….acting as terrorists? Killing our troops, which was a point that you made earlier. What was that? Oh, yeah:
“He has no facts, of course, to show that Syria is actively involved in the murder of our troops.”
And as Hamas is being supported by Iran as well, why, then, it’s an INTERNATIONAL problem to boot.
What a conumdrum all this must be for you……who to blame first, Bush or Bush?
Still, so long as you can live in your little fantasy world, where Congress having a majority makes Bush impotent, you are happy little camper.
So do enjoy yourself, while the adults take care of business.
April 5th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
corndog:
Pelosi is a fool who can not even manage a simple message.
And no, the Democrats do not run everything. There is a constitution and it requires a twp thirds majority to over ride, which they do not have. It also makes it plain, as does the Supreme Court in later rulings that the Executive sits foreign policy, not the Congress.
As for what people think of whom. They do not think Bush is a weakling and however they might feel about him…they think more of him right now than they do the Congress. Pelosi is not a widely known person in the US, but that might change. She will become the rich Democrat from San Francisco who was kissing Assad’s ass.
BTW, the majority of Americans do not support cutting off funds to the troops either.
Tell you what, if Nancy thinks she can be president, then let her run…if by some tragic turn of events she wins, she can run foreign policy without making a mockery out of the Constitution in the process.
April 5th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
And btw corndog, even the Clinton administration put Hamas on the list of international terrorist groups we do not deal with. Now maybe you think killing Jews is cool and want to suck up the folks who do it. After all, you are not a Jew so what do you care. But that kind of attitude will not be popular with the American people who by and large have no use for Hamas, however harmless you may think they are.
April 5th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
Dhimmicratic leadership — Take 3/”Take Nancy. Please.” — Nancy Pelosi, Peacemaker or Klutz?
See previous: Dhimmicratic leadership — Take 2Peloopsi As Pelosi Syriasly Bungles MissionBy Ian Bishop, Post Correspondent (H/T: R J Del Vecchio) April 5, 2007 — WASHINGTON - House Speaker Nancy Pelosi yesterday met with Syrian dictator and terror sp…
April 5th, 2007 at 4:35 pm
Real Jeffy,
Congress is the legislative branch, not the executive branch. They don’t treat or negotiate with foreign powers, especially ones that are on our official shit list.
Jeffy, the point was that the Democrats are hardly a marginalized faction, remember? And I said they have a majority in the House and the Senate, so they’re hardly what you’d call a marginalized faction, remember? Attention deficit doesn’t serve you well when you’re having an argument.
“Nice cherry picking. You’re pretty good at it, y’know?”
Um, Jeffy, you, an expert on the Constitution, suggested having the State Department make up some “regulation” and then placing the Speaker of the House under arrest. One thing about Bush and his supporters - they always like to overcompensate. I wonder why.
“:Except that’s not her position in government (see, “US Constitution”, above). ”
Ok, now think about your answer very carefully: are you saying only the executive branch, or those authorized by the executive branch, ever talks to or negotiates with foreign governments?
“Oh, and Pelosi is dorking up the mission as well, as she completely misrepresented what the Israeli prime minister said. ”
Show me what Pelosi misrepresented. Show me her quotes.
“Still, so long as you can live in your little fantasy world, where Congress having a majority makes Bush impotent, you are happy little camper.”
Yes, this makes me happy, and I am enjoying myself. Hee hee.
April 5th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
Terrye,
I never said Hamas was not a terrorist group. I said Hamas does not commit acts of terrorism against the U.S. That was my only point. You are not winning any argument by arguing vehemently that Hamas is bad and kills people.
And yes, Terrye, the vast majority of the American people support bringing the troops home.
April 5th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
Oh, and CavMedic? Nancy Pelosi has 50% approval ratings, according to the latest ABC/Wash Post poll, and 46% approval ratings according to Gallup.
Back in the day, Bush had to stuff something in his flightsuit to get his ratings up that high.
April 5th, 2007 at 5:58 pm
Pelosi is popular?
Well, I guess we’ll just have to try to get the MSM to pay more attention to stories like this one then.
He said, to the sound of crickets chirping.
April 5th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
Wow, out comes the “fascist” card for replying. Favorite tactic of those who truly are. Now, the “flight suit” (two words). I sense an irrational hate here. It’s alphie, on a stick. Quick dip it in some mustard or catsup/ketchup. Heinz would be the preferred brand, I surely do believe.
Oh…HOUSE SPEAKER Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) offered an excellent demonstration yesterday of why members of Congress should not attempt to supplant the secretary of state when traveling abroad. After a meeting with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad in Damascus, Ms. Pelosi announced that she had delivered a message from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that “Israel was ready to engage in peace talks” with Syria. What’s more, she added, Mr. Assad was ready to “resume the peace process” as well. Having announced this seeming diplomatic breakthrough, Ms. Pelosi suggested that her Kissingerian shuttle diplomacy was just getting started. “We expressed our interest in using our good offices in promoting peace between Israel and Syria,” she said.
Only one problem: The Israeli prime minister entrusted Ms. Pelosi with no such message. “What was communicated to the U.S. House Speaker does not contain any change in the policies of Israel,” said a statement quickly issued by the prime minister’s office. In fact, Mr. Olmert told Ms. Pelosi that “a number of Senate and House members who recently visited Damascus received the impression that despite the declarations of Bashar Assad, there is no change in the position of his country regarding a possible peace process with Israel.” In other words, Ms. Pelosi not only misrepresented Israel’s position but was virtually alone in failing to discern that Mr. Assad’s words were mere propaganda.
Of course, now you will say…WELL ‘they’ said that ’she’ didn’t, you “fascist” you….LOL.
April 5th, 2007 at 6:00 pm
OH…look for the Pelosi link yourself. Hint, it’s real close.
April 5th, 2007 at 6:12 pm
El Cid,
I was not using the fascist card on you, unless you also think the State Department should make up a regulation and then slap Nancy Pelosi in jail. If that’s the case, then, here, have a card.
As to your rendition of the Pelosi-Israel story, are you saying that Israel’s position is that it is not ready to engage in the peace process? How is Olmert’s statement at odds with Pelosi’s?
Please not that I am not wasting space making up stupid, humorless jokes about your name.
April 5th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
I think we have someone called “The Secretary of State”…which is nominated by the President and Confirmed by the Senate….we also have people called “Ambasadors”…which again are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate.
We should also remember that Madame Pelosi sat on the the House Intelligience Committee for 10 years.
“Pelosi worked to ensure that policymakers and military commanders are provided with the timely and accurate intelligence necessary to guide diplomatic initiatives”
Ooops….she didn’t do so well on insuring Policy makers had “timely and accurate” intelligience now did she?
April 5th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
Wow, out comes the “fascist” card for replying.
El Cid, corndog is just being obtuse and cherry picking. He’s referring to this comment of mine:
As for “impotent”…..well, I suppose he could have order Pelosi arrested before she decided to play shadow president overseas. I expect that the State Department could have whipped up some sort of regulation against it, and detained her in the interests of national security. That’s true enough. The part about national security interests, I mean.
corndog is cherry picking because he refuses to take the statement in context*, and obtuse because he keeps on moving the goal posts. Pay him no nevermind; corndog really doesn’t understand what is going on.
=================
*: Memo to self: be sure to use “/sarcasm” whenever being sarcastic with corndog
April 5th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
Dude, my goalposts are erect, tall, and in one place. My points are:
1. Pelosi is hardly in a marginalized faction, since she is, in fact, a leader of the majority of Congress.
2. Negotations are a good thing, and grownups negotiate.
3. It is perfectly legal for Nancy Pelosi to meet with the prime minister of Syria and Bush is impotent to stop her.
4. Someone who thinks Nancy Pelosi ought to be arrested on trumped-up charges is leaning in der richtung des faschismus.
RealJeff - is there a single one of these points that you can refute? Do it. Otherwise, move on.
April 5th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
1. Pelosi is hardly in a marginalized faction, since she is, in fact, a leader of the majority of Congress.
Hardly marginalized. That goes to you, but that majority is slim enough that they need to cajole Republicans to replace the Blue Dogs who don’t toe the party line. Else why did Pelosi stuff so much pork into the anti-war bill that it begs to be vetoed, for that alone? Even Obama is admitting that much.
2. Negotations are a good thing, and grownups negotiate.
Negotations in good faith are a good thing. Syria has yet to do so. And it’s not just grown ups who negotiate, but grown ups authorized to act on behalf of the United States, by the President. Which Pelosi clearly is not. Remember our discussion, regarding the Constitution? The Speaker of the House leads a part of the legistlative branch, and the President leads the executive branch.
The executive branch is charged with negotiations. The primary say that Congress has in foreign affairs regards treaty approval by the Senate, and funding such treaties. Not in negotiating them. The President may ask Congressional leaders to represent him…..but that’s not the case here. Bush does not have to listen to Pelosi, and Assad knows this, but it costs him nothing to offer hospitality, and let Pelosi play the fool.
So Pelosi is merely wasting time, screwing things up, and in general being an idiot. Value gained: zero, except for those that want to screw with the current Administration, no matter what the cost.
This one goes to me. Unless you care to share the space-time coordinates of your little planet, so I can drop by for a snort or two of what you’re having. Whereupon you get the point.
3. It is perfectly legal for Nancy Pelosi to meet with the prime minister of Syria and Bush is impotent to stop her.
Legal, yes. That goes to you. Smart, no. Ethical, no. But then, we aren’t discussing Pelosi’s intelligence or ethics, are we? Pity. That would be interesting.
4. Someone who thinks Nancy Pelosi ought to be arrested on trumped-up charges is leaning in der richtung des faschismus
Heh! Take my original comment as you will, corndog. You will anyhow. There’s enough qualifiers in it to make it a question, not a demand but, hey, if you want to see facism behind every light pole, be my guest.
FWIW, I don’t want Pelois arrested. She’s acting so stupid as to make the Dhimmicratic party look like the crowd of clueless clucks that they are.
Taken together, your first three points (#4 is merely a bone of contention between us) make it sound that what Pelosi doing is reasonable. It’s not. It’s irresponsible, and flies in the face of the Constitution, which you are gleefully ignoring in your desire to best Bush. It’s not the best for the country…it’s what is best for the Dhimmicrats that drives this.
Therefore, your attempt to justify Pelosi’s actions is purely pathetic. Individually, you do fine with your points, but your logic isn’t even tenous (try “gaseous”), and it all falls apart.
(BTW, I feel the same way about those idiot Republicans. Or Congresscritter McDermott of Washington state (a worse basketcase than Pelosi), when he visited Baghdad just before the invasion. Or John Kerry when he visited the Vietnamese delegation in Paris. )
April 5th, 2007 at 9:32 pm
Jeffy,
We’re not talking about treaties here. No one is saying anything about negotiating a treaty between the U.S. and Syria, and you’d be hard-pressed to find the section of the Constiution that doesn’t allow a Speaker to talk to a foreign leader. And I’d love to hear how you think it would be unethical. A few months ago, that foreign relations genius George Bush suggested that someone should tell Kofi Annan he should pick up the phone and tell Syria to cut the s–t. So clearly he thinks there must be some value in talking to Syria, just not him. Pelosi’s irresponsible? How responsible is it not to talk at all?
April 5th, 2007 at 9:39 pm
The level of ignorance on the most fundamental principles ruling the government of this country is appalling. The level of ignorance on fundamental principles of any kind is equally
appalling. This ignorance is the only thing that makes the kind of statements seen here possible. While ignorance is usually a placeholder for knowledge, I have a feeling that the rational faculty of some has been so twisted and stunted that it is no longer capable of proper functioning, and the poor creatures so maimed exist in a vast wasteland where all that is left of what was once their humanity is a terror that blinds them to their own best interest. This leaves them clinging in helplessness to the evil they fear, and possessed of a craven hatred of the good for being good.
The principle governing a dialog with evil is this: The good has nothing to gain from congress with evil–only evil gains, and it does so by the good being compromised.
By attempting to address the non-essential, concrete-bound issues pretending to importance, you bring yourself down to the level of their childishness. I know for a fact that you guys are capable of better. The whole point of not feeding a troll is based on the principle of not attempting to make sense out of nonsense. I know it’s hard; I’ve been guilty myself of succumbing to the temptation.
April 5th, 2007 at 9:44 pm
corny…..Ummm, please stop “wasting space making up stupid, humorless jokes about” A “name”. “(Jeffy???)”
My hypocrite, too…but then the left usually makes a habit of that. (hypocrisy) Oh my “habit”, Catholic wear I believe…and corny, is probably an atheist. Opiate of the people, you know. Gosh, another fascist remark coming.
April 5th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
OOOOPPPPPSSSS. Sorry saltydog…:).
April 5th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
I’ll take my twenty lashes…saltydog.
April 5th, 2007 at 11:18 pm
We’re not talking about treaties here.
Right. My point was that the most Congress has to do with foreign policy is approving treaties (Senate) or funding them (both houses).
No one is saying anything about negotiating a treaty between the U.S. and Syria…
So, just what is Pelosi doing in Syria? Checking out the latest fashion in hijabs? Negotiating an “agreement” with a foreign leader? Discussing a topic? You said “negotiate” in your first post….are you withdrawing that?
… and you’d be hard-pressed to find the section of the Constiution that doesn’t allow a Speaker to talk to a foreign leader.
Again, so? As I noted earlier, if the Speaker was asked by the President, no problem. He didn’t ask, and in fact disapproves. Therefore, Pelosi is out of line.
And I’d love to hear how you think it would be unethical.
Gee, disregarding the basic laws of our country (i.e., the Constitution) is ethical? Who woulda thunkit?
A few months ago, that foreign relations genius George Bush suggested that someone should tell Kofi Annan he should pick up the phone and tell Syria to cut the s–t. So clearly he thinks there must be some value in talking to Syria, just not him.
As I recall, Kofi was bitching about no one talking to each other during the latest Israeli-Lebanonese war. Kofi, being the Secretary-General (of the United Nations, you know, that funny looking building in New York?) at that time, had the perogative of calling Assad himself, and didn’t need to tell someone to do it. Bush pointed that out, since Kofi apparently forgot that minor detail.
Pelosi’s irresponsible? How responsible is it not to talk at all?
Irresponsible because she is misrepresenting herself. By the Constitution, she does not represent the United States to foreign powers, unless acting at the request of the President. Something that I keep on pointing out to you, corndog. I guess you didn’t read the Constitution, as I suggested.
And it’s irresponsible to talk if all parties do not speak in good faith. Syria has demonstrated none so far. So Pelosi is irresponsible on two counts. As saltydog put it:
“The principle governing a dialog with evil is this: The good has nothing to gain from congress with evil–only evil gains, and it does so by the good being compromised.”
That works for me. But clearly not for Pelosi.
corndog, it’s apparent that you are fixated on Pelosi talking with Assad. Fine, she’s talking with Assad. Fine, Bush can’t stop her. Not so fine, she will make absolutely no difference, because Assad doesn’t care, and Bush knows this. All Pelosi is doing is twitting Bush……at the expense of national security. If that’s all right with you, then you are a gullible fool. Go forth and do what ever it is you do; certainly you do no good on this topic.
April 5th, 2007 at 11:24 pm
saltydog, I agree with you, but corndog is an articulate alphie (is that an oxymoron?), capable of offering a plausible sounding (but invalid) argument by being obtuse and disingenious. This time, I felt it necessary to engage corndog, much as I once engaged alphie on this blog. SInce then, I’ve largely ignored alphie, and I plan to do the same with corndog hereafer. My neurons and synapses have more important things to do.
April 6th, 2007 at 12:48 am
I understand, Jeff. He spouted what seemed, on the surface, a plausible argument (as I once said of Alf, I don’t know if it’s an oxymoron or not, but it’s some kind of moron). But look at how long it took him to get from the usual script to something coherent. Once he did, his “argument” showed itself for the nonsense it is.
It is the thoughtlessness that gets to me. They are discussing life and death with all the careless thoughtlessness of naive children, but without the excuse of being children. And they are causing great harm.
And Cid, I could never bring myself to beat you. Offer you a brandy and cigar, maybe, but never lashes. ;^)
April 6th, 2007 at 12:57 am
Thoughtlessness is the best way to describe this behavior, saltydog. corndog was more interested in twitting Bush than he was in having Pelosi do something meaningful. If you don’t have good faith, why bother talking?
Meh, I think I’ll pay some bills……that’s certainly more worthy of my time than corndog.
April 6th, 2007 at 7:29 am
I said Hamas does not commit acts of terrorism against the U.S.
Hamas has killed Americans, just like the PLO before them killed Americans.
April 6th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
Pelosi steps out of bounds on ill-conceived trip to Syria
Bush’s no-talk policy is flawed, but speaker’s tactics are no solution.
Like it or not (and we do not), President Bush’s policy has been to refuse to negotiate with Syria until it changes its behavior. That behavior is malignant. Syria has long meddled destructively in neighboring Lebanon and is widely seen as the bloody hand behind the 2005 assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri. Syria has aligned itself with Iran and supports the violently anti-Israel groups Hezbollah and Hamas. It foments violence in Iraq by allowing suicide bombers and jihadists to cross the Syria-Iraq border.
Pelosi surely knew that as speaker — third in the succession line to the presidency — her high-profile presence in Damascus would be read as a contradiction of Bush’s no-talkpolicy. 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.
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20070406/edit06.art.htm