quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo no answers from you again?

seriously, that's a pretty harsh remark from someone who continually posts foundationless propaganda, gets shot down and then resorts to namecalling.

i just think it's quaint how the neo-cons now start to cry foul based on the definition of duties of a branch of government. Besides, doesn't the middle east deserve to speak with someone who represents more than 30% of American voters.

Last edited by ResonantDrag on Apr-06-2007 at 21:22

Same topic x-posted from here

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Seriously. Priceless.

Gawd, this Pelosi bashing is becoming repetitive and predictable. I think it really shows just how desperate the GOP is becoming when they try that "Democrats are in disarray" line ad nauseum, despite the fact of how many bills Pelosi's Dems have successfully passed TOGETHER. To be certain, I think my favorite one prior to the Iraq funding bill was seeing Kristol, Faux News, and other Right Wing Noise Machiners display to the public how the Dems are falling apart........

....and then the strangest thing occurred - Pelosi pulled them together and passed the fucking bill, essentially ordering Bush to do what the public and the world wants and bring home the troops with a timeline and benchmarks. And all of the sudden, the crickets were chirping on Faux News for that one. Of course with the public's short-term memory, they whistfully moved on to another topic to bash her. Such is life on Faux and their "conservative" watchers.

So now there's a big "surge" by the Noise Machine going after Pelosi's trip to Syria, because it "aides the terrorists" and "undermines Bush's credibility," sayeth Slanthead and the Coulter Crazies. The reality of it all, which of course completely escapes the Bush supporters, is Bush has successfully undermined himself on pretty much every damn thing he touches. You can knock Pelosi for doing what she thinks is the right avenue towards Middle East policy, but then you'll unfortunately have to knock the Republican Congressmen for taking the exact fucking same trip out to Syria with her. That would include Republican Reps. Aderholt and Wolf, both whom actually took a trip out to Syria just a few days BEFORE Pelosi went there. Or how about Rep. Joe Pitts? And then there's Rep. Hobson who's accompanying Pelosi.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?...2Z10&refer=home

Funny, how come we hear nothing from the White House about these "traitorous" Republicans?

Or how about this:

quote:

Earlier this month, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Ellen Sauerbrey held talks with a senior Syrian diplomat on how Damascus was coping with a flood of Iraqi refugees, the first such talks in the Syrian capital for more than two years." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...7033001430.html

Was Sauerbrey branded a traitor?

And that little trip of Republicans I made earlier, please don't tell me the White House actually gave them the nod to go:

quote:

[T]hough Bush administration officials have been criticizing Pelosi, it’s not clear what role the White House and the U.S. Department of State played when U.S. Rep. Joe Pitts and two other Republican congressmen met with Syrian President Bassar Assad. Pitts is a Chester County Republican who represents Lancaster County. Gabe Neville, Pitts’ chief of staff, said Monday the conference between Assad and the three Republicans was intended to be “low profile.” “It was done in cooperation with the administration,” he said. http://local.lancasteronline.com/4/202433

Anyone seeing a cute little pattern here developing? The "it's okay if you're a Republican" bullshit? In fact, that's exactly what YOUR fucking House Minority Leader Boerner is saying. When we found out that yet ANOTHER FUCKING REPUBLICAN WENT TO SYRIA, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), your hypocritical ass leader of the House said this:

quote:

Boehner declined to criticize [fellow Republican Rep. David Hobson] for joining Pelosi, saying her stature gave the visit an imprimatur it didn’t deserve. “It’s one thing for other members to go,” Boehner said, “but you have to ask yourself, ‘Why is Pelosi going?’ She’s going for one reason and that is to embarrass the president. She is the speaker of the House. She’s giving (the Syrian) government more credit than they deserve. They sponsor terrorism. They have not been at all helpful. I wish she wasn’t there.” http://www.columbusdispatch.com/dis...A1_QU69U7R.html

Do as I say, not as I do. Got that?

But is it being reported by the Wingnutters what those Republicans travelling with Pelosi are saying about this Administration or the criticisms of Pelosi? Things like this?:

quote:

Hobson: "(Pelosi)did not engage in any bashing of Bush in any meeting I was in and she did not in any meeting I was in bash the policies as it relates to Syria." http://www.columbusdispatch.com/dis...A1_QU69U7R.html

What about Republican Congressmen Pitts?:

quote:

Pitts and U.S. Reps. Frank Wolfe of Virginia and Robert Aderholt of Alabama met with Assad Sunday to talk about issues in the Middle East three days before Pelosi's delegation arrived there on a similar mission. "Dialogue is not a sign of weakness," Pitts said after returning home Wednesday. "It's a sign of strength." Pitts said the congressional Republicans' meeting with Assad did not undermine Bush because they emphasized the same policies the president advocates. "The first thing we said was...to appeal to the Syrian government to stop the flow of foreign fighters into Iraq with (explosives) and killing our soldiers in Iraq," Pitts said... Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill said the Speaker's seven-member delegation — six Democrats and one Republican — delivered a similar message Wednesday. http://local.lancasteronline.com/4/202534

And from Republican Congressman Issa:

quote:

“President Bush, is the head of state, but he hasn’t encouraged dialogue. That’s an important message to realize: we have tensions, but we have two functioning embassies.” http://news.monstersandcritics.com/...scus_with_Assad

And as for Pelosi supposedly sending the wrong message from Israel, that's a complete straw man set out again by your fucked up Noise Machine. It was patently clear from the beginning that she said exactly what Olmert had said:

quote:

(04-02) 04:00 PDT Jerusalem -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi agreed Sunday to deliver a message from Israel to Syrian leaders that Israel will agree to peace talks only if Damascus renounces terrorism. The announcement, made after Pelosi met with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, came despite renewed criticism from the White House of Pelosi's decision to lead a congressional delegation to Syria, a country accused by the Bush administration of sponsoring terrorism and destabilizing the region. "Pelosi is conveying that Israel is willing to talk if they (Syria) would openly take steps to stop supporting terrorism," said Olmert's spokeswoman, Miri Eisin. "But at this point the Syrian government, by openly backing terror all around the Middle East, is not a partner for negotiations." http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c...L&type=politics

Do you see any fucking contradictions with what Olmert's spokesman has said and what Pelosi was saying with her Republicans alongside? If so, point it out directly. In fact, Pelosi has challenged Bush to do exactly that:

quote:

[Pelosi spokesman Brendan] Daly pointed out that Pelosi was briefed by State Department officials before her meetings with the foreign leaders and that State Department officials also attended her meetings. So if Pelosi really committed foreign policy flubs of the first order, the State Department is in a position to confirm as much. The White House certainly received a read-out of what exactly Pelosi and the foreign leaders said in their meetings. Significantly, the White House has not openly accused Pelosi of the foreign-policy missteps the Post had accused her of. In an e-mail follow-up, Daly wrote: “WH has not said that because in fact the Speaker did not get the message wrong — she included the necessary caveats and did not say or imply that this was a change in Israel’s position.” http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com...elosi_unfa.html

In fact, State Dept. spokesman said in that above article:

quote:

“I don’t think [the trip] necessarily complicates anything that we’re doing.”

Any more relevant questions regarding this trip?

And lastly, lest we not forget our dear Republicans making trips abroad that seemingly underminded their Democratic President (Clinton). Cast your mind back to this trip by Hastert in 1997:

quote:

…a congressional delegation led by Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) which met with Colombian military officials, promising to “remove conditions on assistance” and complaining about “leftist-dominated” U.S. congresses of years past that “used human rights as an excuse to aid the left in other countries.” Hastert said he would to correct this situation and expedite aid to countries allied in the war on drugs and also encouraged Colombian military officials to “bypass the U.S. executive branch and communicate directly with Congress.” http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAE...BB69/part3.html

That was when Hastert encouraged Columbian military officials to "bypass" Clinton and "communicate directly with Congress". Of course after this trip, U.S. Ambassador to Colombia Myles Frechette sent a message to Hastert and Clinton's Administration that Hastert's trip had undermined Frechett's leverage with the Columbian military leadership.

In fact, there were times when Hastert actually directed congressional members to unilaterally reach deals with Columbian officials:

quote:

House Foreign Affairs Committee staff, at the direction of the Hastert group, would fly to Colombia, meet with the nation’s anti-narcotics police and negotiate the levels and terms of assistance, the scope of the program and the kinds of equipment that would be needed. Rarely were the U.S. diplomatic personnel in our embassy in Bogata consulted about the “U.S.” position in these negotiations, and in a number of instances they were excluded from or not even made aware of the meetings. http://www.americanprogress.org/iss...6/b1739137.html

Oh but it doesn't stop there. Cast your mind back to the same year, 1997, with House Speaker Newt Gingrich taking this lovely trip to China one week after Gore took the same trip:

quote:

Speaking with startling bluntness on an issue so delicate that diplomats have tiptoed around it for years, Newt Gingrich said today that he had warned China's top leaders that the United States would intervene militarily if Taiwan was attacked. As he left for Tokyo after a three-day trip to China, Mr. Gingrich said he had made it absolutely clear how the United States would respond if such a military conflict arose. Referring to his meetings with China's leaders, Mr. Gingrich said: ''I said firmly, 'We want you to understand, we will defend Taiwan. Period.'" He also said, ''I think that they are more aware now that we would defend Taiwan if it were militarily attacked.'' Mr. Gingrich, the Speaker of the House, delivered his message, among the most forceful ever given about Taiwan by a visiting United States official, to Wang Daohan, China's chief representative in talks with Taiwan. Mr. Gingrich said he had given the same message to President Jiang Zemin and Prime Minister Li Peng in Beijing last week. Chinese leaders offered no public response to Mr. Gingrich today. But on Friday, Mr. Jiang urged him to treat the Taiwan issue with care. . . . Asked about Mr. Gingrich's statements, a Clinton Administration official in Washington said Mr. Gingrich had received briefings about American policy toward China, but that Mr. Gingrich ''was speaking for himself'' in his conversations with Chinese leaders. The White House issued a statement saying that the policy of the United States was to ''meet its obligation under the Taiwan Relations Act, including the maintenance of an adequate self-defense for Taiwan,'' and that the Administration would maintain its ''one-China policy, the fundamental bedrock of which is that both parties peacefully address the Taiwan issue. . . ." In an interview on Friday, Mr. Gingrich said he had spoken with Mr. Clinton, and with Mr. Gore on several occasions, to make sure that their messages to Beijing dovetailed. At the time, he did not mention his message on Taiwan. http://select.nytimes.com/search/re...DAA0894DF494D81

Which of course did wonders for our tense negotiations with China and Taiwan at the time:

quote:

China admonished the United States today to speak with one voice on foreign policy and accused Newt Gingrich of making ''improper'' statements on Washington's commitment to defend Taiwan from any military attack by the mainland. The criticism was made by the Foreign Ministry spokesman, Shen Guofang, who earlier this week had expressed basic satisfaction with remarks made by Mr. Gingrich, the Speaker of the House, during a three-day visit to China. The visit followed Vice President Al Gore's first trip to Beijing. Both men spoke on issues of contention between Washington and Beijing, but Mr. Gingrich's remarks were noteworthy for their directness and for exceeding the normal State Department formulations on American commitments to Taiwan. China's decision to criticize Mr. Gingrich came after he traveled to Taiwan on Wednesday and met with President Lee Teng-hui. http://select.nytimes.com/search/re...DAD0894DF494D81

Of course again, since the GOP does it, it's perfectly okay to "undermine" the President because:

1. They are the GOP
2. The President at that time was a Democrat

Such lovely, wonderful moments of contradiction brought to you by your modern day GOP.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo again, if what works exactly?

Ahh yes, Fred Hiatt on the ever-so "librul" WaPost editorial board. Jesus, when it comes to Bush's foreign policy shit, Hiatt just refuses to admit when he's been wrong. The guy's a fucking hack. Or I guess if that's interpreted in neocon-speak, he's Bush's best friend.

The problem with this op-ed by Hiatt, as if often the problem with the guy, is that he refuses to read his own fucking paper, which has this darn habit of directly contradicting his own thoughts on the given topic:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200703270001

http://www.cjr.org/issues/2004/2/mooney-war.asp

And Rep. David Obey had a terrific response to Hiatt after they published their hit piece on the Democratic/majority public plan to get out of Iraq via timeline and benchmarks:

quote:

Let me submit to you the problem we have today is not that we didn't listen enough to people like The Washington Post. It's that we listened too much. They endorsed going to war in the first place. They helped drive the drumbeat that drove almost two-thirds of the people in this chamber to vote for that misbegotten, stupid, ill-advised war that has destroyed our influence over a third of the world. So I make no apology if the moral sensibilities of some people on this floor, or the editorial writers of The Washington Post, are offended because they don't like the specific language contained in our benchmarks or in our timelines. What matters in the end is not what the specific language is. What matters is whether or not we produce a product today that puts pressure on this Administration and sends a message to Iraq, to the Iraqi politicians that we're going to end the permanent long-term dead end babysitting service. That's what we're trying to do. And if The Washington Post is offended about the way we do it, that's just too bad. http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/ho...rep_obey_ri.php

Of course Hiatt won't reverse gears no matter how much folks point out his inaccuracies.

But back to his latest hit on Pelosi, he submits that Pelosi is attempting to "establish a shadow presidency" with her bipartisan trip to Syria. The silly of sillies about his claim is, once again, it's fucking CONTRADICTED BY HIS OWN PAPER:

quote:

“Foreign policy experts generally agree that Pelosi’s dealings with Middle East leaders have not strayed far, if at all, from those typical for a congressional trip.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...d=moreheadlines

As Pelosi herself acknowledged about the Republican envoy that went to Syria before her:

quote:

(Pelosi) described the trip as little different than the visit paid to Syria the same week led by Rep. Frank R. Wolf (R-VA) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...d=moreheadlines

You'll also notice that WaPost article cited several other instances of other Congressional members meeting with foreign leaders over the past 3 decades. And as I noted in my previous post, those trips were created to DIRECTLY UNDERMINE Clinton, whereas Pelosi's trip with Republicans carried the messages of this Administration as noted by the Republicans with her.

And again, the message she sent was the message Israel conveyed to Syria. Specifically, pressing the Syrian President "over Syria’s support for militant groups and insist[ed] that his government block militants seeking to cross into Iraq and join insurgents there."

http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/artic...1005/SPORTS0106

And that Israel will not negotiate until Syria denounce Hezbollah and Hamas. Both of these messages were carried in full by Pelosi AND her Republican counterparts, period.

But don't expect Hiatt to issue an apology or a correction.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by ResonantDrag now we start to define lines between the legislative/executive?

Checks and Balances

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Checks and Balances

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!


stop making me laugh. it hurts.




and yet part of me thinks you don't detect the irony of your statements

Last edited by ResonantDrag on Apr-07-2007 at 01:13

quote:

Originally posted by ResonantDrag seriously, that's a pretty harsh remark from someone who continually posts foundationless propaganda, gets shot down and then resorts to namecalling.

what?

quote:

i just think it's quaint how the neo-cons now start to cry foul based on the definition of duties of a branch of government.

do you even respect the differences between branches of my government, much more, the government itself? don't pretend.

do you think it's characterstic of conservatives to at least criticize what could be seen as breaches of said differences?

quote:

Besides, doesn't the middle east deserve to speak with someone who represents more than 30% of American voters.

you obviously haven't seen the latest polling of the legislative branch of my government. as if you cared anyway right?

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo do you even respect the differences between branches of my government, much more, the government itself? don't pretend. do you think it's characterstic of conservatives to at least criticize what could be seen as breaches of said differences?

1. yes, as a matter of fact i do... herein lies the humor. it seems that you neo-cons are now just realizing the differences now that it is convenient to your cause. remember your president bypassing the judicial branch (yes, it too is in fact a branch of government) with his illegal wire tapping program?

stop insulting your intelligence with this blind support. in sports, if my team loses, i accept the loss. it takes a real fanatic to claim victory after getting skunked. the people have spoken. accept it.

2. and yes, i think it's characteristic of conservatives to criticize.

oh yeah,

you may want to unblock opus, cause he's addressed this issue in much better detail than myself. whereas i can call you blind and jaded, he's managed to prove it.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo what?

that's a fun idea for a thread starter. the official: "post your favorite Q5echo gets tongue tied and starts name-calling" thread.

quote:

Originally posted by ResonantDrag 1. yes, as a matter of fact i do.

that remains to be seen.

you just refered to a program that the Executive enjoys under protections as defined by the Constitution and upheld by the Branch you claim to know and under Intel committee oversight of the other branch you admitedly know even less about.

the Democrats are as much under a mandate as you grasp the workings of my government.

i don't have Opus on block. i don't care if he attacks the author. i wasn't married to the article as much as he made himself to it.





>Edit. when i said Senate Intel Committee oversight, i don't mean the kind of oversight normally understood under the powers of Congress.

Last edited by Q5echo on Apr-07-2007 at 04:18

i just farted

quote:

Originally posted by ResonantDrag that's a fun idea for a thread starter. the official: "post your favorite Q5echo gets tongue tied and starts name-calling" thread.

knock yourself out.

quote:

oh yeah, you may want to unblock opus, cause he's addressed this issue in much better detail than myself. whereas i can call you blind and jaded, he's managed to prove it.

do you normally refer to others to fight your battles for you? we have a word for that.