Piling into Pelosi

Michael Young | April 7, 2007

Here was Nancy Pelosi pretending to be Gertrude Bell, but now, it seems, she can hardly make it to the bell. The criticisms of her trip to Damascus earlier this week, but also of what is being seen as the Democrats' effort to hijack U.S. foreign policy, are piling up so high that all I can really offer here is a selected, annotated index of abuse.

The Los Angeles Times wonders if we really need a General Pelosi. The Washington Post confirms that we do not. USA Today says it's not the speaker's role to unfreeze relations with Syria's dictator, Bashar Assad. And the Wall Street Journal mentions a major foreign stake involved, namely that Syria saw the Pelosi visit as a means of wriggling out of the investigation into the murder of the late Lebanese prime minister, Rafiq Hariri, which Syria's leadership almost certainly masterminded.

After failing to mention the trip for several days, the New York Times editorial board, which supports engagement with Syria, finally took a position on the Damascus visit, and hedged. The editors repeated the canard that engaging Syria might break it away from Iran (a position the Syrians have scoffed at), but nevertheless managed to agree that Pelosi's "job is to spur the Bush administration to pursue active diplomacy, not to attempt to conduct that diplomacy herself."

Writing in the Philadelphia Inquirer, Claudia Rosett observed that Pelosi was "nuts" to visit Damascus. In the National Review, the editors thought the speaker raised "the white flag all over the Middle East." In the Weekly Standard, Fred Barnes got a few good licks in. Here is my own contribution in the Daily Star, which Little Green Footballs was kind enough to link to. The comments section makes it interesting. In another post, LGF pointed to Pelosi's growing fan club in the Middle East. 

Among the first bloggers to savage Pelosi, in several successive posts from his pen in Bayside, was Tony Badran, who hosts the Across the Bay blog. Lee Smith, writing in Across the Bay, spills his bile all over Tom Lantos, who accompanied Pelosi and, almost magically, seemed to forget how openly critical he had been of the Syrian regime in the past. On his blog, Syrian dissident Ammar Abdulhamid explained what was at stake in Pelosi's trip with respect to human rights in Syria, and he linked to this commentary published in the Daily Star on Pelosi's silence on human rights issues while she toured Assad's domain. IraqPundit described Pelosi as "blundering" around Damascus, in a visit that is "a dream come true for the desperate Assad regime; she might as well be reading from a script provided by Assad's public relations people."

The saga will continue, and you can follow all the blogs here. No need for Pelosi to search for eggs in her back yard this Easter weekend; they're mostly dripping from her face.

Comments

Doc|4.7.07 @ 6:19AM|#

Other than 'she's not a republican' what's crawled up all these people's asses?

Grotius|4.7.07 @ 6:44AM|#

I'm curious what folks would like to replace the Assad regime with? Further, how would you go about getting rid of Assad's regime?

|4.7.07 @ 7:06AM|#

And U.S. foreign policy was going so well, until this very moment.

Federal Dog|4.7.07 @ 7:58AM|#

What exactly did people expect from someone like Nancy Pelosi? This is the woman who declared about the Kelo Court: "It's almost as if God has spoken."

Mona|4.7.07 @ 8:23AM|#

" In the Weekly Standard, Fred Barnes got a few good licks in. Here is my own contribution in the Daily Star, which Little Green Footballs was kind enough to link to. The comments section makes it interesting. In another post, LGF pointed to Pelosi's growing fan club in the Middle East.

Mr Young: Should it ever happen that LGF would approvingly link to one word that I wrote, I would seek psychiatric help based on evidence that I had had a personality disintegration and was trending toward xenophoboic authoritarianism, if not genocidal proto-fascism.

Were it also the case that I approvingly cited Fred "Rebel in Chief" Barnes, it would constitute evidence I ought to be committed, or at least that my critical faculties had shriveled to the point where I found merit in neoconservative hagiographers.

Yes, this entire comment is ad hominem -- I no longer attempt to reason with those who are anything but repulsed by LGF, considering you beyond hope. And quite the odd "libertarian."

edna|4.7.07 @ 8:30AM|#

so a libertarian is supposed to quietly approve of middle eastern dictatorships and rain venom on anything approaching liberalism and free markets there? suuuuuuure... (smiles, nods, backs away slowly)

Mona|4.7.07 @ 8:45AM|#

Edna, libertarians vehemently disapproved of Joseph Stalin but were not Dr. Strangeloves. If you, like Young, embrace both LGF and its comments section, you both are either ignorant, or depraved. Those are the only two options. You either don't know what goes on there, or do, and endorse it enough to approvingly cite, link and be grateful for their reciprocity.

Mona|4.7.07 @ 9:06AM|#

Let me add, LGF had a total effing hissy fit over Nancy Pelosi's headscarf worn at a mosque in Syria -- which meltdown I indirectly addressed and showed to be insanity here and here.(I will not link to LGF in my own posts because that usually generates an invasion of vile Little Green Fascists, as happened to a blogger I cite in my first post, causing her to have to close her comments.)

For the best discussion of the MSM lunacy (Pelosi Derangement Syndrome) regarding Pelosi's trip to Syria, go here, and learn of Newt's equally "heinous" behavior as Speaker here. (Salon pieces, so brief as click through.)

Snippet from first Pelosi/Syria link:

This cheap, artificial, mindless Charles Krauthammer/Bill Kristol/Ann Coulter/Dick Cheney chest-beating faux-warrior-against-the-world mentality is now really a distinctly fringe American phenomenon....And yet the crux of our American media is beholden to that group, takes its cues from it, and treats it like it defines the mainstream. Hence, Nancy Pelosi's belief in engaging the Syrians in dialogue -- a belief endorsed by, among others: (a) the uber-establishment Baker-Hamilton Commission, (b) the Israeli government, and (c) the vast majority of American people ("By 64% to 28%, respondents favored the group's recommendation to open direct talks with Iran and Syria") -- is, in American Media Land, depicted as some sort of radical and fringe idea, something which threatens to make Nancy Pelosi, two months after she took office, "the most controversial House Speaker yet."

|4.7.07 @ 9:13AM|#

I've never been to LGF but I want to thank them for saving me the time of ever reading a mona comment again.

edna|4.7.07 @ 9:28AM|#

If you, like Young, embrace both LGF and its comments section

res ipsa loquitur.

i embrace reason. i suppose that means i embrace mona and juanita. whoo-hoo! baby doll pajamas and pillow fights!

Grotius|4.7.07 @ 9:31AM|#

More news from the middle east:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - U.S. warplanes attacked suspected militiamen wielding shoulder-fired rockets Saturday in the second day of fierce fighting between U.S. and Iraqi forces and Shiite gunmen south of Baghdad, U.S. and Iraqi officials and witnesses said.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17978388/

|4.7.07 @ 9:41AM|#

It does not bother me when people travel to foreign lands and talk to foreigners. The only Americans upset by this are some bloggers and MSM. They don't represent me, or most Americans. If they thought there would be a groundswell of anti-Pelosi emotion, they were wrong.

|4.7.07 @ 9:53AM|#

I like this piece from the Wall Street Journal:
http://opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009908
It made me laugh.

|4.7.07 @ 10:02AM|#

The only Americans upset by this are some bloggers and MSM.

Welcome to that magical land "inside the beltway," where the MSM and the blogosphere count for "the public," and National Review and the Weekly Standard speak the flawless reproduced opinions of half of the US population.

|4.7.07 @ 10:14AM|#

Look who is on the front page of the American Israel Affairs lobby website:

http://www.aipac.org

Since Pelosi speaks there every year, and receives a substantial portion of her campaign funding from the Pro-Israel lobby, I'm pretty sure she knows which side her bread is buttered on.

I don't expect she will be cutting off Israel's yearly billions in US Taxpayer funding or their ability to deploy American soldiers in the mid-east any time soon.

|4.7.07 @ 10:18AM|#

If our foreign policy can be unraveled by a brief chat, then it says quite a bit more about Bush's initiatives than it does about Pelosi.

Ron Hardin|4.7.07 @ 10:23AM|#

Let a thousand foreign policies bloom.

db|4.7.07 @ 10:36AM|#

While I cringe at the implication that I, as a U.S. Citizen, would be perceived as being represented by Nancy Pelosi anywhere in the world, I don't see a problem here. Why should the Executive Branch have a monopoly on foreign policy?

Like spaceflight, foreign policy should be a distributed activity in which not only multiple branches of government, but more importantly, groups of individual citizens and corporations should be involved in.

Why should we stand by while any administration that we disagree with claims the exclusive right to speak to the world for us?

|4.7.07 @ 10:47AM|#

db, the article linked by Rhinobird discusses some of the law on that issue. I think it is doubtful that Pelosi could ever be charged under the Logan Act, but most of the other stuff is right. US Constitutional law makes it very clear that the President of the United States and assorted designated underlings (Sec State, ambassadors, etc.) are the only ones who speak for the US abroad. The executive is the "sole organ of foreign policy." This isn't to say that the Congress can have no say at all, but that Congress can only, to a limited degree, tell the President what to do.

Mona|4.7.07 @ 10:50AM|#

I don't see a problem here. Why should the Executive Branch have a monopoly on foreign policy?

In some ways it does, but not in any manner Nancy Pelosi breached. All if this mouth-breathing Pelosi Derangement hysterics seems oblivious to the fact that there exists the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Ayn Randian|4.7.07 @ 10:56AM|#

or their [Israel's] ability to deploy American soldiers in the mid-east any time soon.

Wow, it never ends, does it? Damn those Jews and their secret control of our military! Why, just the other day my Jewish overlords whispered in my ear about their next nefarious plot...
/sarcasm

eb|4.7.07 @ 10:58AM|#

Mr Young: Should it ever happen that LGF would approvingly link to one word that I wrote, I would seek psychiatric help based on evidence that I had had a personality disintegration and was trending toward xenophoboic authoritarianism, if not genocidal proto-fascism.

Were it also the case that I approvingly cited Fred "Rebel in Chief" Barnes, it would constitute evidence I ought to be committed, or at least that my critical faculties had shriveled to the point where I found merit in neoconservative hagiographers.

Yes, this entire comment is ad hominem -- I no longer attempt to reason with those who are anything but repulsed by LGF, considering you beyond hope. And quite the odd "libertarian."

Very convincing argument, "if you disagree with me, you must be insane". Try to whittle that down to bumper sticker size.

|4.7.07 @ 10:58AM|#

As Mr. Young clearly has thought about this issue deeply, may I ask what he believes distinguishes this event from the Republican delegation that met with Assad on April 1st? If that meeting was okay, I assume it is not actually the fact that she met with Syria (as others have recently). Instead it must be over some concern that she personally might say something at that would jeopardize White House foreign policy.

I understand this fear, given the Republican's track record of doing exactly this during the Clinton years (Google Gingrich's China trip). Had she done this, then the outrage would have been justified. However, there is no evidence that she did this, as noted by Washington Post's Eugene Robinson. And that is certainly not what is addressed in any of the posts you link to.

Sometimes I believe this magazine is ironically titled.

db|4.7.07 @ 10:59AM|#

Not sure where it says in here that the prez. is the "sole organ of foreign policy." I see language about treaties, and warmaking, but nothing appears to reserve such authority to the presidency exclusively.

ARTICLE II.
Sec. 1. The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice-President, chosen for the same term, be elected as follows.

Each State shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of Electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress; but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves. And they shall make a list of all the persons voted for, and of the number of votes for each; which list they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted. The person having the greatest number of votes shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such majority, and have an equal number of votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately choose by ballot one of them for President; and if no person have a majority, then from the five highest on the list the said House shall in like manner choose a President. But in choosing the President the votes shall be taken by States, the representation from each State having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two thirds of the States, and a majority of all the States shall be necessary to a choice. In every case, after the choice of the President, the person having the greatest number of votes of the Electors, shall be the Vice-President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal votes, the Senate shall choose from them by ballot the Vice-President.

The Congress may determine the time of choosing the Electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.

No person, except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office, who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.

In case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said office, the same shall devolve on the Vice-President; and the Congress may by law provide for the case of removal, death, resignation, or inability, both of the President and Vice-President, declaring what officer shall then act as President, and such officer shall act accordingly, until the disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.

The President shall, at stated times, receive for his services a compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that period any other emolument from the United States, or any of them.

Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States; and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend, the Constitution of the United States."

Sect. 2. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the army and navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers, and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other offices of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law. But the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers as they think proper in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions, which shall expire at the end of their next session.

Sect. 3. He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the Union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.

Sect. 4. The President, Vice-President, and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office, on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

patent|4.7.07 @ 10:59AM|#

thank you veryy veryy much nice wan clor spedyy veryy veryy nıce much...

Pawel|4.7.07 @ 10:59AM|#

Mona

In your rigid economic determinism and doctrinaire contempt for any idea that deviates from your orthodoxy, you libertarians are more like Stalin than you're probably bright enough to realize.

|4.7.07 @ 11:03AM|#

This nonsense has absolutely nothing to do with Syria. Like so much of US "foreign policy," it's all about domestic politics. The White House never said a word about repeated trips to Damascus by Republicans; one wonders what the reaction would be if opposition leaders from the Ukraine were bullied by their government for visiting the US.

The WH is no doubt well pleased with the domestic political effect. From a foreign policy standpoint, however, they have successfully created the impression that there is, in fact, a huge difference on foreign policy between the two parties and that the US is on the verge of a crackup. True or not, it's really not smart to project that image.

Put the blame on Pelosi if you want, but there's nothing unusual about a major politician going abroad to meet with foreign leaders. Alexander Cockburn once wrote that you could always tell when the US was up to something in a foreign land by the number of Congressional "fact-finding" missions descending on the unfortunate locals. Since Ms Pelosi is presumably responsible for crafting her party's policy towards the ME, it's hardly batshit crazy to go there and see things for herself.

A sensible administration would have scheduled a briefing in advance of the trip, told her of the players she would be meeting, official opinion of them, current problems and proposals on the table, and politely asked that she not contradict their negotiating positions, assuming they actually have any. But that would require a modicum of professionalism from a White House that has behaved like dingbat amateurs from the day it took office. All of Mr Young's bile at Syria is now directed at Pelosi but, simply put, Syria is a country we have to deal with, like it or not. Pelosi is one of the people charged with dealing with them, like it or not. She decided to go and meet the man we have to deal with there, which would be common sense in a nation that had any.

|4.7.07 @ 11:04AM|#

db,

Why should we stand by while any administration that we disagree with claims the exclusive right to speak to the world for us?

What makes you think Michael Young disagrees with the Bush administration?

db|4.7.07 @ 11:06AM|#

Nothing. I was not referring to Michael Young. I was making a general statement about some of the undesireable side effects of "representative" government when some of the governed feel unrepresented.

While not a Kerry voter myself, I'm sure there are a few out there who don't feel adequately represented by the current Administration (myself included).

|4.7.07 @ 11:10AM|#

Well db, executive power means he executes the law. Congress can't do anything but write laws, and the Supreme Court can't do anything but tell you what those laws mean.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?friend=nytimes&court=us&vol=299&invol=304

db|4.7.07 @ 11:12AM|#

Wouldn't that mean that Congress sets foreign policy through law and the Executive merely executes it?

|4.7.07 @ 11:14AM|#

he linked to this commentary published in the Daily Star on Pelosi's silence on human rights issues while she toured Assad's domain.

Yeah, why didn't she bring up Maher Arar when she was over there?

|4.7.07 @ 11:16AM|#

Sadly Mr. Young's post made no bold predictions based on what the Arab world 'really' feels. I often find these predictions by Young very useful, as the complete opposite of what he predicts almost always happens.
Gotta love Ayn Randian's tired two-step that criticism of Israel or implication they have influence on our foriegn policy automatically = anti-Semitism. Never mind that most Jews in the US, for example, disagree with the current Israeli government on many major points.

Mona|4.7.07 @ 11:18AM|#

Very convincing argument, "if you disagree with me, you must be insane". Try to whittle that down to bumper sticker size.

No, if you link to and like being approvingly linked to in turn by, a proto-fascist site, and you commend that site's comments section that is renowned for genocidal, eliminationist, grossly bigoted rhetoric, then you are either ignorant of these characteristics, or you share the depravity you are linking to and commending.

Pavel: this is neither the time nor place for a discussion of my supposed "economic determinism." Please stay on point.

Thank you.

violent_k|4.7.07 @ 11:19AM|#

Sometimes I believe this magazine is ironically titled.

Can we get a ref down here?
Drink? Yes?

Off Topic: The Indians home opener was called because of snow. That's right, futher muckin snow. Jeez.

|4.7.07 @ 11:24AM|#

Sometimes I believe this magazine is ironically titled.

It is not the magazine, it is Mr. Young. His brain cells stop working the minute someone somewhere mention Syria.

VM|4.7.07 @ 11:24AM|#

hey violent_k!

think of how the waterbugs in the old mistake on the lake would have responded to the snow!

:)

Sigh:
"Welcome to that magical land "inside the beltway,""

nice!

|4.7.07 @ 11:30AM|#

I didn't say that Congress had no say, I said that the President is the sole organ of foreign policy. The only one who can speak. But, given the extremely limited number of foreign affairs powers afforded to the Congress (only those delegated by the Constitution), the President (all the Executive power of the United States), then anything that is executive that is not merely the carrying out of laws, the President has foreign affairs authority over. The President makes treaties (with the advice and consent of the Senate), the President is the Commander and Chief, and the President is given the power to decide which other governments to recognize. The President (executive) is the only one who can speak with legal authority of the United States outside of the United States. He is the only elected by the entire country, so this makes sense. If there is any foreign policy that does not require a law, then that is solely the domain of the President in both its creation and execution. There must exist such an area given that the Congress is invested with specific powers, but a state recognized under international law has a greater number of powers. Since Congress's authority is limited but the President's is only limited within the United States, the President must be the one to have that power.

Mona|4.7.07 @ 11:30AM|#

A sensible administration would have scheduled a briefing in advance of the trip,

They did. Which is all the more reason why all this pearl-clutching is absurd. The WH had Pelosi briefed in advance of her trip, and she didn't stray from message.

|4.7.07 @ 11:32AM|#

It's not scientific, like Altemeyer's work, but I know most of you "Libertarians" can get behind something simple like this:

LittleGreenFootballs? or Late German Fascists? (Quiz)

http://www.drmenlo.com/lgfquiz/

It's like a Nolan test on steroids so half of you should be able to complete at least half of it.

|4.7.07 @ 11:43AM|#

As Mr. Young clearly has thought about this issue deeply, may I ask what he believes distinguishes this event from the Republican delegation that met with Assad on April 1st?

I really would like to hear Michael Young's response to this.

Mona|4.7.07 @ 11:48AM|#

Do take the "quiz" LWM links to (I'll embed it here); it is most instructive as to the mentality Michael Young aligns himself with by openly affiliating with LGF and its foul comments section.

Jim Bob|4.7.07 @ 11:57AM|#

Mona,

I hear if you periodically unclench your sphincter, people who disagree with you start looking less like monsters and more like muppets.

Guy Montag|4.7.07 @ 12:04PM|#

Michael Young, I am amazed that your post made it past Reason's editorial board.

Hopefully, a federal judge wherever Ms. Pelosi (and the congresscritters who traveled with her) will issue a warrant for the arrest of them all to investigate misappropriations of federal funds for the trip. Yes, and I include any Republicans who went on an unauthorized foreign policy boondoggle.

Perhaps the Executive Branch could exercise its police powers in this affair too.

Mona|4.7.07 @ 12:05PM|#

I hear if you periodically unclench your sphincter, people who disagree with you start looking less like monsters and more like muppets.

It would be pathological to regard LGF -- and especially its comments section -- as "muppets."

Guy Montag|4.7.07 @ 12:05PM|#

Hopefully, a federal judge wherever Ms. Pelosi resides while in the DC area

|4.7.07 @ 12:15PM|#

Guy Montag,

You bring up a good point. What do the other Reason people make of Michael Young? I don't subscribe to Reason (so I can't cancel anything!), but I read it a lot, and don't really remember any of their antiwar writers ever challenging Young on this stuff. To misquote him, "It would make the comments section interesting."

|4.7.07 @ 12:42PM|#

Doesn't anyone read or understand the constitution? If you want the speaker of the house to be Sec of State change the constitution. This is nothing but a power grab from the dems. They only won one branch of government not three. Until they win the Presidential election they should stop this unlawful unconstitutional power grab.

|4.7.07 @ 12:48PM|#

Does Mr. Young get another paycheck from the Pentagon, DoD, DIA, CIA, one of them, I wonder? Maybe he takes his marching orders from Cheney himself. A look at his bio tells me he has been approached, if not hired, and his keen analysis of the Hezbollah victory and IDF defeat last year tells me he's definiitely wired in and not just a mere propagandist, although that's what he is doing here.

|4.7.07 @ 12:54PM|#

Power grab?

Bwahaha.

That's what you do with power. You use it to grab more. Nothing in the constitution prohibits this. No one has ever been prosecuted under the Logan act. And they never will.

It's a quaint law from a bygone era, like the Constitution and the Geneva Convention.
Perhaps it would behoove you to remain unheard as well as unseen.

Ayn Randian|4.7.07 @ 12:55PM|#

Gotta love Ayn Randian's tired two-step that criticism of Israel or implication they have influence on our foriegn policy automatically = anti-Semitism.

Ken, let me know when your birthday is so I can buy you a dictionary and some reading skillz.

It wasn't an "Implication" on Tommy Jefferson's part when he said this:

I don't expect she will be cutting off ...their ability to deploy American soldiers in the mid-east any time soon.

That's not an implication, genius. That's out-and-out saying "Israel controls our military" That's the kind of 'criticism' that usually gets followed by some Mel Gibson-esque "And 'Israel' controls Hollywood...and 'Israel' controls all the money" The implication (do I need to define that for you?) is clearly that Israel is code for "teh Jews"

|4.7.07 @ 1:07PM|#

I am too lazy too read everything.
Has someone mentioned the 3 republicans that were there and met with the syrians the day before Pelosi?

|4.7.07 @ 1:11PM|#

I am tired of people like Mona and Edna who find it impossible to put forth any argument without demeaning all who disagree with them. Such attacks, in some cases personal, highlight the fragility of their arguments and, I suspect, the at the very minimum, the latent doubts these advocates have in their own "reasoning" and the arguments they put forth.

Oh, and about Gingrich's 1997 transgression: yes, it was wrong and violated the Logan Act. The Clinton administration should probably have made more of it than they did. But to use this example to defend Pelosi's conduct is reminiscent of the arguments made by the child caught filching cookies from the cookie jar (Newt did it and got away with it...).

Pelosi is no friend to libertarians and I seriously question her judgment and understanding of the current world condition. I really find it offensive that she outright lied to Assad about what she was told by Olmert concerning Israel's position re peace negotiations and wonder what, if anything, she could have been thinking. Condescending Grandma Pelosi, who talks down to many who far surpass her intellectually, is doing enough damage to libertarian positions domestically. I will thank her to limit her actions to harming us at home.

|4.7.07 @ 1:26PM|#

"Has someone mentioned the 3 republicans that were there and met with the syrians the day before Pelosi?"

They were:Frank Wolf, Joe Pitts, and Robert Aderholt. They met with President Assad On sunday.
Isn't Mr. Bush outraged at this powerbrab also?

|4.7.07 @ 1:29PM|#

Great article. I think Pelosi just put the last nail in the coffin of the Democratic party. (thank god) except she has done much damage to many countries through this ARROGANT exercise of hers. She has not only damaged the UNITED STATES, she has caused considerable damage to LEBANON, ISRAEL and IRAQ not to mention human rights in Syria and other muslim countries who are trying to get rid of these regimes. This woman needs to be tried under the Logan Act or Better yet for TREASON!!!! She is the biggest DUMB ASS to ever get elected!

|4.7.07 @ 1:34PM|#

brotherben,

the repubs that went were not getting the publicity because they are not the Speaker of the House, and I am not sure yet why they went. IF they were there to do the same thing as pelosi (sending the wrong message and against President Bush's wishes) then they too should suffer the consequenses! She however needs to suffer more. Her stupidity generated more harm than those repubs or Howard Dean or any other idiot that went to see Assad. All of them were ignored by the media because those people don't have any clout... but Pelosi, BIG BIG MISTAKE to go there. she should have known better!

|4.7.07 @ 1:34PM|#

From the articles I've seen cited from Ha'aretz and the Jerusalem Post, if anyone's guilty of prevarication here it's probably Prime Minister Olmert. My guess is that he was hoping to use Pelosi to transmit an informal message from Israel to Syria, then was forced to backpeddle when the newspapers got wind of it. Given that Olmert's political position is extremely shaky right now after the Lebanon excursion last year, the resignation of the Chief of Staff and the criminal investigation of the President, he probably didn't have much choice.

For those blog and editorial writers fulminating about the potential damage Ms Pelosi could have done to US Middle Eastern policy, I have a question: how could she have made things much worse then they are now? If the US had a strong, effective SecState and clearly effective programs in place, there would probably be a lot less opportunity for Congresspeople to engage in this form of "grandstanding."

|4.7.07 @ 1:38PM|#

Did Pelosi bring a signed treaty home with her? I must have missed that part.

|4.7.07 @ 1:41PM|#

Pelosi is not "suffering" and has not put any nails in any coffins, except to those who hated her before she went to Syria. And those people hate her becasue she's a she, she comes from SAN FRANCISCO, and her party thumped the Repubs in Novemeber. I like her because she is a foxy Grandma.

|4.7.07 @ 2:05PM|#

Piling into Pelosi, or mashin' on Michael? If you're reading these responses, Mike, I'm sorry, but an awful lot of Americans have lost faith in the Bush foreign policy. I read your trenchant analysis of the situation in Lebanon, and, frankly, you didn't convince me of a thing. To bring a "new order to the Middle East," as Condi Rice so naively proposed, would require an occupation force of not 100,000 soldiers, but 1 million, at least. We would have kids throwing rocks at us for the next century. I'm sorry, but secular humanism is not going to come to the Middle East on American bayonets. You're going to have to figure out how to do it on your own.

Mona|4.7.07 @ 2:12PM|#

I am tired of people like Mona and Edna who find it impossible to put forth any argument without demeaning all who disagree with them.

MMMM-kay. And I would similarly "demean" someone who was proud of links to and from Stormfront and who liked the comments section there. One does not engage persons happily (that is, approvingly) citing either Stormfront or LGF -- and its notoriously rabid comments section -- in discourse, one ridicules and exposes them for the depravity they either share, or find acceptable.

|4.7.07 @ 2:35PM|#

Doc, what has folks like the Washington Post and others upset is the Speaker of the House of Representatives trying to to make Foreign Policy.
As per the US Constitution, that's way, way outside the job description.

|4.7.07 @ 2:38PM|#

I am tired of people like Mona and Edna who find it impossible to put forth any argument without demeaning all who disagree with them.

I'm rather tired of people who misrepresent what other people say. Mona's defending herself dandily, but I'll just simply add that she's not demeaning or attacking "all who disagree" with her. She's demeaning and attacking the bigots and totalitarians on LGF and anyone ignorant enough to link to them.

It's quite easy (and, I think, reasonable) to loathe what Nancy Pelosi stands for (i.e. The Democratic Party Platform) and feel like the criticisms leveled at her for her trip are merely shallow, hypocritical, opportunistic politics as usual.

|4.7.07 @ 2:51PM|#

People can read any sites they wish and form their own opinions. I don't see where it's necessary (or welcome) for folks to tell them what to think about other points of view.

Self-righteous attempts to shut down freedom of speech and the open exchange of ideas make the censors look pretty bad. It's very counterproductive - and immature.

Al Fin|4.7.07 @ 2:56PM|#

Nancy Pelosi is just as flakey as we always thought she was. Nothing new there. If there are any other possible ways she could make a total bloody fool of herself, she will find them.

She posts here under a pseudonym, which you can probably guess.
;-)

|4.7.07 @ 2:59PM|#

What a bunch of Idiotarians.

Anti-Idiotarian, noun


Idiot.


"That Eric Raymond is quite an anti-idiotarian."

Nothing makes an Idiotarian look smarter than a Randian.

easter bunny|4.7.07 @ 3:02PM|#

What's wrong with LGF? I kinda like it. Actually I read it almost everyday. So far I didn't become a murderous madman, but it might happen any day.
Anyway, some comments there might be outrageous (as in every blog), but the text in itself is not racist or fascist at all, fascism is something completely different. (I could provide links, but I won't.)
Anyway, Merry Easter to all!

Chris Christner|4.7.07 @ 3:08PM|#

Mona write:

And I would similarly "demean" someone who was proud of links to and from Stormfront and who liked the comments section there

Personally, I'm a conservative who's offended by the fools posting the vicious comments on LGF, it detracts from an otherwise invaluable site. So I'm curious Mona, if you also condemn similarly extremist comments from the Left that can be found on sites like Democratic Underground, Huffington Post, and Daily Kos?

When people post joyful comments about Tony Snow's cancer returning, or VP Cheney's heart condition, or the myriad examples that show how evil people can be when they hide behind anonymity (that cretin who posted hateful messages to Cathy Siepp's website as she lay dying comes to mind), are you equally outraged?

Mona|4.7.07 @ 3:16PM|#

Les | April 7, 2007, 2:38pm | #

Thank you. Yes, I'm not exactly chair of the local Nancy Pelosi Fan Club. But if and when I criticize the woman it will be for substantive reasons, and not by joining the neocon/right-wing herd having the [pretend] vapors over a totally contrived scandal du jour.

|4.7.07 @ 3:24PM|#

"And I would similarly "demean" someone who was proud of links to and from Stormfront and who liked the comments section there"

Hey folks, nothing to see here. No logical fallacies at all.

"She's demeaning and attacking the bigots and totalitarians on LGF and anyone ignorant enough to link to them."

I don't even read the comment sections of LGF. I stick to the invaluable main site. I guess if you agree with things posted by Charles Johnson you must be a "neocon" (which he isn't) or "fascist" (which he certainly isn't). I find it quite ironic that many commenters on Reason are just as unreasonable as people on the Left/Right partisan blogs (another example being a commenter a few months ago calling that Patterico fellow's blog a "piece of shit").

"Hezbollah victory and IDF defeat"

I have a feeling you don't know what the word "victory" means.

|4.7.07 @ 3:25PM|#

I want to thank all of you for contributing your intellectual insights to this particular subject. I don't pay a whole lot of attention to these personal points of view unless I need a fix. That is to say whenever I need to see myself in a positive light. A time when I can truly declare myself as a part of intelligent life on Earth, especially as it relates to the DULL (Democratic Ultra Liberal Leftists)ones on this circuit, or is that "circus?"

Rather than fall into the same pit that many of you are wallowing in right now, let me just say that Mona is a prime example of how one loves to hear themselves talk. Only problem is is that she's hell bent on trying to impress everyone on this forum with her artistic vocabulary. Fine and dandy if you are speaking at Harvard, Princeton, or Yale. Perhaps there she can find an audience. Then again, she might find herself intimidated by those who possess the same literary skills that she utilizes.

So what do my comments have to do with Nancy Baloney? Absolutely nothing!

Have a nice day everyone!

Mona|4.7.07 @ 3:32PM|#

Chris Christner | April 7, 2007, 3:08pm | #

I used to be a semi-regular at LGF -- up until about 36 months ago. After reading for the sixteen millionth time that Islam was a false religion and "cult," and that nuking all the cultists would be a great idea & etc... I finally stopped -- I couldn't take it anymore, and this was when I was still a Bush supporter.

I have not seen any significant left-wing sites in which the comments section could be accurately characterized as chronically vile. That is, where the purpose and focus of the posts are designed to elicit genocidal, bigoted filth, they do, and it is the rule not an exception of any sort.

Further, I am unaware of any well-trafficked left-wing sites at which the sorts of commentary you site abut Tony Snow or Dick Cheney are commonplace. Short of strict moderation, every political site of significant traffic is going to have an episode or even a thread that is disgusting. (And I've almost never read DU, so for all I know they fit that, but I really would not know.)

In any event, none of that is the point. I am appalled that a Reason writer approvingly links to LGF and commends the filth at the comments section there. It's a disturbing thing, and does not credit the magazine.

(But no, I'm not canceling my subscription for this who are aware of that humiliating saga in my history here.)

Ashish George|4.7.07 @ 3:32PM|#

Carol--
I'm told if you CLOSE YOUR EYES, clutch a copy of Anarchy, State, and Utopia to your breast, and say "SAN FRANCISCO LIBERAL" as loud as you can, George W. Bush's America will suddenly become the libertarianest Libertaria ever. Really. With FREE MINDS AND FREE MARKETS for all. By the way, CAPS LOCK IS AWESOME!!!

Anyway, Matt Yglesias notes: "The other thing about the Pelosi story is that I don't even understand which Syria policy Pelosi is supposed to have violated. We have diplomatic relations with Syria. Bush has not sought to change that fact. Nor has he sought new sanctions against Syria. He ordered our ambassador to come home, he ordered the State Department to cease contacts with Syria's ambassador in the US, and proclaimed there would be no high-level executive branch contacts. This policy has accomplished nothing in terms of Syrian behavior vis-a-vis Iraq, nothing in terms of Syrian behavior vis-a-vis Lebanon, and nothing in terms of Syrian behavior vis-a-vis Iran. It's a stupid, pointless policy.

But that's the policy. If Bush wants to institute a new policy wherein members of congress or members of the press can't go to Syria -- or can go, but can't speak to officials of the Syrian government -- he needs to ask congress to pass such a law, since the president isn't a God-King who gets to just arbitarily decide where people can go or who they can talk to."

http://www.matthewyglesias.com/archives/2007/04/what_syria_policy/

violent_k|4.7.07 @ 3:47PM|#

I hear if you periodically unclench your sphincter, people who disagree with you start looking less like monsters and more like muppets.

Some muppets are monsters. Not sure this helps the debate.

Monster Muppets

|4.7.07 @ 3:51PM|#

Chris Christner:

That was pitifully transparent. I'm embarrassed for you. Don't give up your day job. You've got no future as a liar.

|4.7.07 @ 4:01PM|#

Since the President had specifically requested Pelosi NOT go on her MidEast tour, then she is by that fact alon in violation of the Logan act. The Republicans, Democrats (Rockefeller in 2003) or anyone else that went there without Presidential comment were there on the Presidents approval if not tacitly, then implicently.

Mona:
Since you've now done everything you said you would seek therapy for, please go get your therapy.

P.S. You are either a liar or you never visit any significant liberal website. I have and the vile that is pumped out there in a daily basis dwarfs a years worth of LGF. Therefor I do not believe you've been a regular at LGF either. Figgures. Stuck on the L's. Liberal Lefty Liar Loon.

Mona|4.7.07 @ 4:26PM|#

Most Casual of Observers | April 7, 2007, 4:01pm | #

Nancy Pelosi is not in violation of the Logan Act, which has never been invoked to prosecute anyone, and likely exempts congresspersons anyway. I know Rush and the deranged right-o-sphere are pushing this silly meme and you are regurgitating it, but I have looked into the history and actual text of the Logan Act (as a result of participating at a cerebral "left-wing" blog with many lawyers, acdemics and merely smart folks who, you know, actually know something about such things), and the whole trope is absurd. I'll get you some links -- take the time to do it -- if you promise you would read them.

Nor am I a liar. I voted for Bush in '04, as regulars here are well aware, and I left this site in a snit at all the anti-Bush, anti-war commentary. Most of my reading was at pro-Bush sites back then, including LGF.

I now read many "left" sites (considered that by dint of their being Bush/neocon opponents). And Charles Johnson is a neocon, just as the socially liberal Joseph Lieberman is. Ask Max Boot. It's the foreign policy, national security positions, baby.

|4.7.07 @ 4:27PM|#

Dear Mona,
Can you please provide documented proof that Nancy Pelosi is NOT the biological mother of Jennifer "The bug-eyed bride" Willbanks?

Thank You,
Chadi

PS- Give my kind regards to the earth's core.

|4.7.07 @ 4:46PM|#

Mona,
Sorry, no sale on your "I'm really just an honest conservative". I went to your blog, read your posts. You are something else for sure, but a conservative? Not by a leab and a bound. Therefore, your assertions of having been a Bush supporter begs the minor questions, when and why, but the major question of degree is clear, not much of any.
Feel free to dig up whatever links tickel you pink (a color I'm sure will look good on you) and I will give the the usuall Casual perusal. But it shouldn't take to much cogitaion for even the most novice of web creepers to come to the conclusion that there are equal links to argue counter to nearly anything you can imagine. Basing one's views on political links is something that the lefts "really smart people who know stuff" rely on their minions doing. Saves all those calories expended on doing the thinking for oneself. Even better if you can just put it on a bumper sticker.

Because the President told Pelosi not to go, she violated the executive privilage of the office of the president. It really is just that simple. If you have procreated and have a child who wants to go down to the courthouse and discuss your molestation charges with the DA and you tell them NOT to, that right there, is a violation of your parental authority.

Sorry that I can't provide you with reams of links to support such anargument. You'll just have to work it out yourself.

Ken McCracken|4.7.07 @ 5:08PM|#

"Nancy Pelosi is not in violation of the Logan Act, which has never been invoked to prosecute anyone, and likely exempts congresspersons anyway."

The fact that no one has ever been prosecuted under a law does not render that law inoperable. Nor is there any language in the Logan Act that in any way immunizes Congress members.

"I have not seen any significant left-wing sites in which the comments section could be accurately characterized as chronically vile."

True. The Huffington Post comments sections are actually far worse.

Fluffy|4.7.07 @ 5:24PM|#

Anyone who talks about or writes about the Pelosi visit to Syria without acknowledging that a Republican congressional delegation also went to Syria is disingenuous at best and a fucking liar at worst.

That's the bottom line. Every time the President or his representatives said a single word about Pelosi without similarly criticizing the members of their own party who went to Syria, they demonstrated once again that they are reprehensible douchebags who aren't really interested in the foreign policy they have constitutional responsibility for, except to the extent that they can employ it for domestic political purposes.

And by the way - Pawel, I don't think "economic determinism" means what you think it means.

Fluffy|4.7.07 @ 5:26PM|#

By the way, the constitution does not grant the federal government any power to limit the foreign travel of any of its citizens in any way, so the Logan Act can go fuck itself right along with the Boland Amendment.

Richard G. Combs|4.7.07 @ 5:33PM|#

The "quiz" that Mona recommended is an old and long-discredited smear job, equating, for instance, the use of "these vermin" to refer to all Jews, gypsies, etc., with the use of "these vermin" to refer to specific individuals who murdered children.

In any case, LGF's comments are unmoderated, and there are literally millions. You could probably "prove" almost anything by cherry-picking them. These ranting LGF critics like Mona never cite anything Charles Johnson has written -- even with their penchant for snatching things out of context, it's nearly impossible for them to find anything remotely offensive by Johnson himself.

Anyone who's actually spent much time reading both LGF and major lefty blogs like HuffPo and DailyKos knows that Mona must be either deliberately lying or completely delusional.

|4.7.07 @ 5:39PM|#

Fluffy,
An appropriate name.

If your neighbor wants to go to the court house, that is their business. If they want to go there to meet with your ex's lawyers and make suggestions or offer advice or a scolding for the resolution of your divorce ON THE BEHALF OF YOUR ESTATE and you've told them NOT to, then it is NOT their free right to do so.
The President has the authority to endorse, endure, or prevent any US citizen from meeting with the leaders of other countries when they are doing so for the purpose of discussions about policy or relations. It is the perogitive of the office of the POS to decide who may and who may not speak for the US and it's views.
If Pelosi just wanted advice on the best place to get really bitchin humus or the latest in head scarves, she would be in her rights. But as soon as the President says, no to an official visit or discussons about politics,,, She is in violation of the Consitutional authorities given to the Executive.

You know, the constitution, the thing your ilk likes to extend to our enemies who have never been in the US and want only to destroy it, but somehow you believe Democrats are expempt from.

|4.7.07 @ 5:39PM|#

Foriegn policy for domestic political advantage is the Democrat's middle name. The funny part is, when they screw it all up, they're fucked too.

|4.7.07 @ 5:46PM|#

Oh Look! Reason.com is the home of hate filled facist racist demented haters!

"All purple people should be burned at the stake and their ashes force fed worms. They just aren't human!"

Oh wait. SNAP! I just put the comment here myself so I could support my accusation!

Just like the LGF haters do.

Is my name Mona or Fluffy

VM|4.7.07 @ 5:49PM|#

"The funny part is, when they screw it all up, they're fucked too."

:)

and interestingly enough, they have a well-established record of fucking us through failures of leadership, ideas, and strategy; as well as mismanagement of any plays for taking advantage of domestic agenda using FP.

(full disclosure: don't have an opinion on her in Damascus. Just have a strong opinion of her, generally. And she worries me...)

oh - for all those going after Mona, you can always cancel your subscription...

[runs off]

|4.7.07 @ 5:57PM|#

"You know, the constitution, the thing your ilk likes to extend to our enemies who have never been in the US and want only to destroy it, but somehow you believe Democrats are expempt from."

Oh, waiter!

|4.7.07 @ 5:57PM|#

"oh - for all those going after Mona, you can always cancel your subscription..."

Your solution is pointed to the wrong group of people. Running away is a liberal Democrat trait.

Mona|4.7.07 @ 5:58PM|#

Sorry, no sale on your "I'm really just an honest conservative".

I was not selling that: I am not now, and in adulthood have never been, a conservative. I am, and have always been, a libertarian. If you are familiar with F.A. Hayek, and his essay "Why I Am Not A Conservative," that would speak for me as well. Yet, he was a brilliant economist and political philosopher (among a few other impressive things) who throughly debunked socialism and centralized planning, and for that he was/is not much loved be many actual leftists.

The thing I am is anti-authoritarian. LGFers and neocons most definitely are not. And as Bush's (and the GOP's) grotesque lawlessness, penchant for war, and authoritarianism became impossible to ignore, I drifted away until I had left them. I'm not alone, as many libertarians are ending their historical "fusion" with the GOP, for essentially the same reasons I have.

|4.7.07 @ 5:59PM|#

VM, I pray they mismanage their FP election victory by failing to pass the minimum wage, the union secret ballot bill, and, of course, the tax increase.

VM|4.7.07 @ 6:00PM|#

MCoO:

it's a running joke here... (she's threatened that to us before)

I'll take your word it's a liberal Democrat trait. Probably taint cheese is a trait of their's as well! And running away probably jiggles away the bigger pieces used as icing on smug pie!

In the meantime, I'll explore the space with my COWBELL!

Ayn Randian|4.7.07 @ 6:01PM|#

Oh man, who let all looney-tunes from the left and right-o universe in here?

VM|4.7.07 @ 6:04PM|#

James Ard:

you said it! they have lots of initiatives that are fail worthy!

(I got to snicker at someone who is worried about "civil liberties" now, but was happy post oklahoma city that the gov't was "doing something" about the terrible militias! ARGH! She didn't get it. of course. But we did read from the leather-bound edition of "Heather Has Two Mommies" (but not the sweaty pillow fight scene on page 69). We then agreed that I'm the root cause of all evil, as a straight, flesh-eating male...)

Hi Randian! Welcome home!

Dunno where they came from, but it's certainly amusing!

|4.7.07 @ 6:12PM|#

VM;
Thanks for the clarification, I was late to orientation, didn't get the org chart.

Mona:
I've been a Libertarian since before they took their trip around to the dark side of the moon. The "hands off" concept might seem to be contrary to all authority roles, except it doesn't rationally apply to leadership against threats to the US from external enemies. Anyone who would think it does needs to take the time to review the results the Mongol's enjoyed when meeting a technologically superior vastly wealthier, yet not coordinated western world. In matters of conflict there MUST be a powerful central leader,,, well,,, unless you'd just prefer to lose everything.

Ayn Randian|4.7.07 @ 6:12PM|#

Thanks VM for the greetings! I am not actually home yet (unless you call this tiny trailer in Baghdad home) but I'll call H&R my home right now...it's one of my favorite links to the U.S.

Running away is a liberal Democrat trait.

Tee-hee! Yeah, not like famous Republicans Harry Truman and Woodrow Wilson. Those tough-guy Republicans sure didn't cut and run.

Oh wait...

Actually, cutting and running is a great President Bush trait...he cut and ran from Social Security reform...he cut and ran from economic conservatism for political points and power...he's cut and run from fiscal responsibility...yeah, tough guy President Bush alright.

|4.7.07 @ 6:13PM|#

Does anybody have a link to the text of the treaty Pelosi signed with the Syrians? Or the official transcripts of her discussions with Olmert and Assad?

My admiration for Nancy Pelosi would fit up a flea's hind end and cause not the slightest discomfort to the flea. But...

If the White House had any credibility whatsoever with regard to their policies and plans in the Mideast, Congressional delegations might settle for a briefing without feeling the need to go see for themselves, and speak directly with the principal actors.

|4.7.07 @ 6:16PM|#

Mona | April 7, 2007, 3:32pm | #

I used to be a semi-regular at LGF -- up until about 36 months ago. After reading for the sixteen millionth time that Islam was a false religion and "cult," and that nuking all the cultists would be a great idea & etc... I finally stopped -- I couldn't take it anymore, and this was when I was still a Bush supporter.

I'm not sure I believe you when you say that you were a "semi-regular at LGF." You might have been, but I'm suspicious. (1)What was/is your nic at LGF?

I think you are mischaracterizeing the LGF comments. To prove your point that their comments section is worse than Ebola, (2)can you link to a comment thread (any one of the 10,000 or so threads) that is representatively awful (in your estimation)? (3)What percentage of the comments in that thread do you consider nuke-em-all-false-religion-etc??

If you could answer those questions, Mona, I'd really like to see you PROVE that the LGF comments section is as bad as you say.

Ayn Randian|4.7.07 @ 6:21PM|#

If you could answer those questions, Mona, I'd really like to see you PROVE that the LGF comments section is as bad as you say.

Yes, Mona, and after that, could you please prove other matters of taste as well? Like why are lemons sour? And why don't I like the color orange?

Could you please tell me why "Iggy Or" thinks matters of opinion are provable? Is it because he's a stone-cold dumbass or could it be that he just doesn't know any better?

Grotius|4.7.07 @ 6:22PM|#

FinFangFoom,

You are discussing one particular theory of the President's powers. That theory has generally been contested since it was first put forward by the I think Marshall court.

The President makes treaties (with the advice and consent of the Senate)...

The President and the Senate make treaties. Which is why SALT II never came into being.

...the President is the Commander and Chief...

Which is a post concerning the day to day activities of the U.S. military, which are regulated by acts of the Congress.

...and the President is given the power to decide which other governments to recognize.

Hmm, that power has been jointly exercised by both the Congress and the President if I recall correctly.

The President (executive) is the only one who can speak with legal authority of the United States outside of the United States.

Yeah, that's your claim. You have as yet to demonstrate such.

Since Congress's authority is limited but the President's is only limited within the United States...

Only limited within the U.S.? Ahh, the fact that the President cannot make treaties by himself is demonstration enough that this claim makes little sense.

___________________________

It is probably far more accurate to say that foreign policy powers of the Congress are fairly significant and the foreign policy powers of the U.S. government are divided between to the President and the Congress.

Grotius|4.7.07 @ 6:26PM|#

FinFangFoom,

For your edification: http://www.fas.org/sgp/eprint/fisher.pdf

|4.7.07 @ 6:28PM|#

AR,
I wish I could dissagree with you about Truman or Wilson, but try and find ANYONE in the CURRENT Democratic party remotely like FDR,,, Those of 100 years ago are not the indicators of todays political landscape.

As for Bush retreating on SS or Economic Consrvativism, well I didn's see it that way at all. In fact in his address to the Senate/House he specifically complained of the Democrats derailing of the SS reform and they cheered the complaint! Losing a fight is not the same as retreating.

Grotius|4.7.07 @ 6:30PM|#

FinFangFoom,

In other words, you gotta ask whether claims made by the court in Curtiss-Wright (or the claims made about that case) are indeed correct.

|4.7.07 @ 6:35PM|#

Ayn Randian wrote:

"Yes, Mona, and after that, could you please prove other matters of taste as well? Like why are lemons sour? And why don't I like the color orange?

Could you please tell me why "Iggy Or" thinks matters of opinion are provable? Is it because he's a stone-cold dumbass or could it be that he just doesn't know any better?"

All that verbiage.

All you had to say was, "We're talking out our asses and can't back up what we say with facts."

I'll offer you the same challenge as Mona. (1)Link to a LGF thread you consider to have a lot of vile comments. (2)Tell me the percentage of those comments fall into the "vile" category.

I doubt Mona will take the challenge. I'm sure you won't.

|4.7.07 @ 6:40PM|#

Ayn Randian | April 7, 2007, 6:21pm | #
Yes, Mona, and after that, could you please prove other matters of taste as well? Like why are lemons sour? And why don't I like the color orange?

Could you please tell me why "Iggy Or" thinks matters of opinion are provable? Is it because he's a stone-cold dumbass or could it be that he just doesn't know any better?

Wow, and for a second their I thought Ayn might be a rational intelligent person. You sure made quick work of that misstaken impression.
Opinions about taste or color are just that, opinions. "Why" Lemons are sour however is a provable fact, because of acid content. But the preference for Orange is opinion and only a irrational person would make statments about the appeal of the color orange as a matter of fact instead of opinion. Mona didn't say "I think LGF is,,," Mona said "LGF is". Using the diffinitive means one stands ready to PROVE.

Between you and Iggy Or, who is the stone cold dumbass obviously is already evident.

VM|4.7.07 @ 6:41PM|#

Ayn Randian!

Well this moose wishes you a speedy, safe trip home after a successful tour! Keep on doing all of us proud!

cheers!

Most Casual: grin! We'll have Bill Lumburgh get you a copy of the memo!

|4.7.07 @ 6:44PM|#

Ayn,
P.S.
I also wish you safety and success on your deployment. I also thank you and respect you for your service.

Wouldn't want verbal sparring over politics to confuse that fact.

Fluffy|4.7.07 @ 6:46PM|#

By the way, here is the actual sequence of events:

1. Republican Congresspersons went to Syria. No one at the White House noticed or cared. [Anyone claiming they want with the imprimatur of the President is delusional.]

2. Pelosi went to Syria.

3. Political operatives in the White House saw an opportunity to make political points, and denounced Pelosi for her visit.

4. Observers pointed out that Republicans had also gone to Syria. The White House had simply demonstrated their usual complete incompetence and not bothered to check this simple fact before starting their cheap campaign.

5. Douchebags like Casual Observer started carrying water for the White House by pushing the ex post facto rationalization that the Republican visit was OK but the Pelosi visit wasn't, based on specious nonsense you've have to be retarded to believe.

6. LGF jumped on the bandwagon, because like all members of the Nationalist Evangelical party they're morons and a-holes.

And if you don't see that Bush has retreated on economic conservatism, you're blind or so devoted to kissing the feet of your Dear Leader that you just can't see it. How about the Medicare prescription drug benefit? How about No Child Left Behind? Hell, even signing McCain-Feingold is an infringement on economic liberty, since as fascists on the left are fond of pointing out it's not only about speech, it's about money too.

edna|4.7.07 @ 6:49PM|#

hey, mona made me famous, so how can i complain? first time i've gotten my nick on the front page of lgf. the elders will be proud.

Grotius|4.7.07 @ 6:55PM|#

edna,

so a libertarian is supposed to quietly approve of middle eastern dictatorships and rain venom on anything approaching liberalism and free markets there?

I think folks should be fairly skeptical of the idea of military force as a unmitigated force for positive change. I'm also deeply skeptical - maybe almost Burkean - of grand projects of change via government initiative.

Grotius|4.7.07 @ 6:57PM|#

edna,

Then again, I ain't much of a libertarian anymore these days.

Ayn Randian|4.7.07 @ 6:57PM|#

I also thank you and respect you for your service.

MCoO...while I appreciate the sentiment behind what you're saying, (and I am grateful),I don't need yellow ribbons, or fruit baskets or words...what I need is for true conservatives to stand up and say "this was a war of choice; we didn't have to do this and we don't have to continue it. It's against our own country's self-interest and it needs to stop."

I come home and we don't put American troops on anything other than actual self-defense ever again. That's the thanks I want.

And MCoO, Bush abandoned all conservatism except for social conservatism. Any other rationalization or explanation flies in the face of facts. He had a Republican Congress that spent, and spent, and spent...he passed a giant agriculutural subsidy bill...well, Fluffy said it all. Just admit your boy let down the fiscal convserative team.

|4.7.07 @ 7:04PM|#

Fluffy has a hemaroid and calls it a brain!

1)Unless Fluffy is on the distribution list between the WH and the visiting Republicans, Fluffy really has NO IDEA (no surprise!) as to whether there was or was not approval for the visit. There clearly was one thing missing, a public presidential request NOT to go.

2)Pelosi went shopping, on the public dime, as a US official, despite the public request NOT to do so by the POTUS. Perhaps undoing or countering the purpose of the previous trip by the Republicans. Again, Fluffy isn't on the distribution list, and so, they do not know. No, neither do I, but I do no that Pres Bush made his displeasure clear.

3) Now Fluffy not only knows the content of comunications between the POTUS and the folks who went to Syria, but Fluffy knows the internal thinking of the minds of those in the WH and the WH staff!

4)LEFTY observers presume to complain that the WH may have favored one messenger over another. As if that wouldn't be a choice for the POTUS to make.

5) I get special mention by someone calling themelf Fluffy. Aw ain't that special. Fluffy claims that anyone who can understand what Fluffy doesn't, is a retard. Yes, that's right, if you have a greater acumen, you are a retard. Fluffly knows lots and lots of retards. Possibly everyone Fluffy knows is a retard.

6) Fluffy demonstraights a complet lack of understanding of time space continuems. I.E LGF posted a review of this article well in advance of my appearance,,, because that's how I got here. As any retard (*someone smarter than Fluffy*) would have already surmised.

Ayn Randian|4.7.07 @ 7:04PM|#

I doubt Mona will take the challenge. I'm sure you won't.

And what are you going to do if I DO take you up on that, Iggy? Are you actually going to shut up, change your mind about LGF and admit you were wrong?

I think not...my Kreskin impression tells me you'll just say "but X comment here wasn't vile...and how can you say that THIS is vile?" and you'll say "Try again. That thread wasn't vile enough for my satisfaction."

To which I will say "Hell no, and I am not arguing this inane point any longer"

And you can run back to your little freshman buddies and tell them how you "took down some dude on teh intertubes".

Lucky fuckin' you.

|4.7.07 @ 7:07PM|#

Mona: Why wait? You can go right ahead and see psychiatric help right now, without waiting for someone you hate to approve of your writing.

-jcr

Grotius|4.7.07 @ 7:17PM|#

One of the things that wars do is to push factions within a republic into positions which they wouldn't take in peace time. The war (the tail) wags the dog (the faction).

|4.7.07 @ 7:18PM|#

I just wonder why Michael Young assumes readers here are as dimwitted as those who peruse DrudgeReport and FOX news exclusively. mediamatters is just a click away...

|4.7.07 @ 7:19PM|#

Ayn:
To bad you've lost perspective on the mission in Iraq. Since you are in the military, perhaps you should review some military history. If not, then at least consider this. The baby (Iraq) is already born. It's too late for an abortion now and one way or another the child (Iraq) is going to grow up and know that what/who they become is directly due to the US and the decision to go there and take Saddam down. You can name the child (Iraq) Sue as in the old Johnny Cash song, turn your back and walk away leaving them (Iraq name Sue) to the fates, in the hope that
they will some how apprecieate it later, even if after some bar fight, but these days, it will more likely end with a shotgun blast to the head and no one will be friends.

The time to debate the whys and hows that got us in is not the same debate on what to do now. The newborn doesn't care if the condom broke, or daddy or mommy lied about the pills or the vesectomy or pulling out in time. At the time fully 90% fo our government and the vast majority of the world vis-vi the UN percieved Saddam as a grave threat to not just the US but the world. The baby is here, we have an obligation to make it viable, legally according to the rules of war, and morally according to our own standards, and rationally, to prevent our children from having to deal with what we leave unfinished.

|4.7.07 @ 7:25PM|#

And what are you going to do if I DO take you up on that, Iggy? Are you actually going to shut up, change your mind about LGF and admit you were wrong?

Guess I was right...you won't take the simple challenge of finding a single thread (out of over 10,000) that has the level of vitriol you claim is always there. You can't find EVEN ONE THREAD?

If LGF comments are as you say they are, it should be trivial for you to say, "Lookee here at this thread, you LGF freshman cultist. See comment # 2 that calls for nuking Mecca, which is agreed to by commments #3,4,6,7,9, and 12? Out of 80 quotes, I count 50 that call for nuking Mecca, or refering to Islam as a cult. I've provided a specific thread and specific quotes instead of talking out of my ass. Now go toss Bush's salad you rethuglican."

You could say something like that. How hard is it to find even one thread? That should take 2 minutes.

Grotius|4.7.07 @ 7:26PM|#

MCO,

Since you are in the military, perhaps you should review some military history.

Yeah, Iraq right now looks like Napoleon's "Spanish Ulcer."

|4.7.07 @ 7:26PM|#

Most Casual of Observers says:

At the time fully 90% fo our government and the vast majority of the world vis-vi the UN percieved Saddam as a grave threat to not just the US but the world.

because they were lied to on a level no one in government had been lied to before, by their commander in chief and his handpicked administration. Never again can the POTUS be trusted as it had been before Iraq. GWB did more damage to the integrity of the Executive branch than that cum stain on Monica Lewinsky's dress ever could (if it even did).

edna|4.7.07 @ 7:30PM|#

grotius, i still am and don't see the incompatibility between libertarianism and believing in the importance of a strong defense. see "barry goldwater."

nation-building is for the birds and numbers among the stupider republican projects, but the reality is that we do have interests extending past our nominal borders. avoiding foreign entanglements was a fine idea when the oceans presented a significant barrier. those days are, sadly, long gone. one can criticize the bush approach (and i sure do), but legitimizing a thug like assad for the purpose of cheap political points is... cheap. i can now feel even more justified in holding the dems and reps in separate-but-equal contempt.

|4.7.07 @ 7:35PM|#

chris joseph | April 7, 2007, 7:26pm | #
because they were lied to on a level no one in government had been lied to before, by their commander in chief and his handpicked administration. Never again can the POTUS be trusted as it had been before Iraq. GWB did more damage to the integrity of the Executive branch than that cum stain on Monica Lewinsky's dress ever could (if it even did).

That tired meme? What a complet mouth full of hourse sh1t. So the Whole worlds intelligence agencies were lied to. Bush somehow managed to lie to the Democrats even when Clinton was in office. The Democrats who had not only access to the intelligence briefings, but also the RESPONSIBILITY to review the very same intelligence were "lied to"!?!
And then, post invasion, when Iraqi Generals and other staff were interviewed, they all expressed belief that there WERE WMD that were going to be used to turn the tide. And a litinay of prohibited weapons, weapon systems and supporting infastructure SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITED by UN sanctions WERE IN FACT FOUND.

But it's all because evil Bush lied.
,
,
,

No wonder you hate Bush so bad. He probably is the real reason for those blisters and that nasty dischard you got,, just like your dogs too.

|4.7.07 @ 7:42PM|#

Mr. Young,

The fact that the mainstream media and your withering faction of lunatics disapprove of Pelosi's trip isn't egg dripping from her face. It's a badge of honor.

Next month, Nancy Pelosi will still be one of our country's most popular national political figures, and you will still be a discredited neoconservative shill.

Jim Treacher|4.7.07 @ 7:44PM|#

Here's a recent LGF comment:

#155 jwm 4/07/2007 2:32:40 pm PDT

What Mona is saying is that we must recogitate intrinsically postretrodynamic societal paradigms in order to achive the bias-neutral objectification of all ontologically heterodyne perspectives. That being said, it's obvious to any thinking individual that the lizardoid community errs when it considers polycultural memes refrated through the lens of neo trans modern theory to be the equivalent of monolithic cultural fragmentation of existential dialectic.

But you all knew that anyway.

JWM.

I guess I can see why she doesn't like them!

|4.7.07 @ 7:50PM|#

Bush has crashed one too many of cars, and the grown-ups are taking the keys away.

Did you really thing the public was going to put up with 22 more months of this nonsense, after the 2006 elections?

I can't wait to see self-designated defenders of Israel trying to sabotage the Israeli-Syrian negotiations that will come out of this.

|4.7.07 @ 7:51PM|#

"you won't take the simple challenge of finding a single thread (out of over 10,000) that has the level of vitriol you claim is always there."

God forbid that I am on Ayn Randian's side on any issue... but the challenge should be...

Find one thread of over 10,000 lacking the level of vitriol claimed. I had never been to LGF before today. A random selection of clicks led me to believe that Mona et al had characterized the place pretty fairly.

But I bet you won't take up that challenge.

Find me a thread lacking ... just one.

|4.7.07 @ 7:52PM|#

Jim Treacher:
I think Mona is actually a guy. Click on Mona's name and it leads to a website run by a guy.

|4.7.07 @ 7:52PM|#

I'm sorry, I just can't help it.

Gee, Mr. Young, National Review AND the Weekly Standard?

And LGF, too?

Wow, you really got her there. Such respected voices, such brilliant minds.

Really putting the Hans Blix treatment on her, huh?

|4.7.07 @ 7:55PM|#

Mona, all you really needed to say was:
"Yes, this entire comment is ad hominem -- I no longer attempt to reason."

It's direct, it's concise, and best of all, it's accurate.

|4.7.07 @ 7:56PM|#

From LGT...

"The hatred from most of 'Reason' magazine should be understandable -- though not justifiable. They're a bunch of drug addled rightwing hippies, afterall. Also, the love of perversion that the Libertarian party has; e.g., pedophilia, homosexuality, rational bestiality; etc., perfectly mirrors the Ernst Rhoem Nazis who brought Hitler to power.

With the ironic exception of Michael Young (maybe because he's stuck in that area), their Middle East commentary is garbage. In America, Reason's Ekatarina Jung (Cathy Young) and their Hit and Run section practically run inteference for the Islamic terrorists. A lot of the people in Reason's Hit and Run who defend Islam and push for the destruction of Israel (Jews should all quite the country) are athiests. This anamoly of atheists being cheerleaders for Islamic terrorism was explained by Debbie Schlussel when she said if you don't believe in anything, you'll fall for virtual nothings. Reason did do a friendly interview Hizbollah two years back. No evil is too great for them.

"There's no need to fear; Underzog is here!"

|4.7.07 @ 8:01PM|#

Can one of the people shouting "ad homenim! no reason!" at Mona please take a look at Mr. Young's blog entry - the one that beings with "Here was Nancy Pelosi pretending to be Gertrude Bell, but now, it seems, she can hardly make it to the bell," and ends with "No need for Pelosi to search for eggs in her back yard this Easter weekend; they're mostly dripping from her face," and point out for me the reasoned argument? Or the parts that don't include personal attacks on the Speaker?

|4.7.07 @ 8:01PM|#

neu mejican, try this one.

|4.7.07 @ 8:03PM|#

So it's come down to this:

* Pelosi goes to Syria: Bad.

* GOP congressmen go to Syria: SHHHHHHH! Don't you know it's politically incorrect to acknowledge this reality? Much less, pointing out that some of those Republicans actually made their trek at Pelosi's side.

* Bush refuses to talk to Syria: Whoopee! Combative, sabre-rattling, no-nothing foreign "policy" wins again.

Too bad that politics abhors a vacuum. Bush is sucking more life out of US foreign policy and our international relations with each succeeding day. Fact is, Pelosi, her fellow Democrats and an increasing coterie of Republican legislators have figured out that the bipartisan (you remember James Baker, dontcha?) Iraq Study Group was right and that Bush is wrong.

True, dubya's nominally the decider, but not to decide is to decide. If you believe in the First Amendment, the loyal opposition and even the skeptics in his own party have a firm right -- arguably even an obligation -- to express their own views on the matter, and to exchange those views with anyone who matters.

Just before Richard Nixon ran for president in '67, he toured the world, meeting with foreign leaders, some considered "enemies" of the US. He was a private citizen at the time. Was he some kind of traitor? Nope, apparently Dick's wanderings were okay, because he was a 'Publican. Ah, you say, but a former vice president has that prerogative. Why, in that case, did Bush recently break this tradition, ordering President Carter not to make his own journey to Syria?

'Publicans, you see, play by their own rules. What's right for them isn't right for the other side. It is evident -- self-evident! -- that they are the sole voices of reason, strength and virtue; no one else need apply. So don't call us; we'll call you. And, oh, by the way: Bring 'em on.

|4.7.07 @ 8:12PM|#

So, Mr. Young, do you think that Nancy Pelosi's political position is stronger, or weaker, than that of Hezbollah in 2005?

See, in 2005, after Hezbollah organized the largest demonstration in Lebanese history, Michael Yound wrote a post declaring that they were no longer a major force in Lebanese politics.

Anyways, how's that Middle East democratic revolution that was going to prove all the war opponents wrong coming?

Shouldn't there come a point where you realize that you don't know what the hell you're talking about?

|4.7.07 @ 8:13PM|#

Pablo,

That's the one I took a quote from above.

Pretty mild. I didn't see anyone calling for the nuking of Reason, but then again the topic is blog turf.

The characterization of those that disagree, however, is hardly lacking in stereotyping and xenophobia.

|4.7.07 @ 8:18PM|#

Find one thread of over 10,000 lacking the level of vitriol claimed. I had never been to LGF before today. A random selection of clicks led me to believe that Mona et al had characterized the place pretty fairly.

But I bet you won't take up that challenge.

Find me a thread lacking ... just one.

Sure. Just go to the thread at the top of the LGF page right now -- "Catmeat Sheikh Gets the Axe." As of right now it has 52 comments. I don't see a single comment calling for Mecca to be nuked. The comment that is most condemning of anything Muslim as a collective is comment #11 by pegcity that says:

"This is so stupid, all islamic charities donate money to terrorists be they the palestnian variety, Iraqi.

Islamic charity means doing infidels the favor of killing them."

And there have been quite a few Muslim charities busted aiding terrorists. I can't remember any charities of any other denomination in the U.S. that has ever aided terrorists, other than Muslim charities. So, that's probably the harshest comment on the latest thread. Not so harsh, eh??

Down at comment #23, Ayatollah Ghilmeini even mentions that kos is going to have a kid. Here's his comment:

"KOS is going to be a daddy!

Since we always aim to take the high road (despite banning my alt for "political" reasons) everyone should wish the child and mother good health; it is never a bad thing when another potential Republican comes into being."

Such vitriol. Such hate. Look at him wishing kos' family well. Can you imagine the same happening at kos if Charles were to become a father? The comments at kos would be dripping in true hatred.

So, there's your thread. Can you find a comment in the first 52 that you find "harsher" than the one I did? Did you think even that one was full of hatred?

Since I answered your challenge, why not encourage Mona and Ayn to do the same.

(And, Mona, what's your LGF nic??)

|4.7.07 @ 8:22PM|#

Oh, and one more thing:

Awwwww, look honey! The Republicans are pushing a "Pelosi and the Democrats are in Trouble" story again!

Yup, she'd better stop challenging George Bush on foreign policy. She'd better stop speaking out against the Iraq War. She's better start trying to blur the difference between the two parties on military and security issues, because everyone knows the public trust the Republicans more on those.

Or, boy, are the voters going to punish the Democrats in the mid-terms!

|4.7.07 @ 8:25PM|#

By the way, among the many other 'Publicans who have presumably, like Pelosi, undercut their president: Newt Gingrich, who, as (ahem) House Speaker visited Israel and other countries. However, unlike Pelosi, whose bipartisan delegation presented a united front in the fight against terrorism, Gingrich used his trips to attack President Clinton's policies quite vocally.

But, you persist, as in the earlier case with Richard Nixon, that foreign visit was different. He's...well, he's Newt. OF COURSE he's going to say crazy things.

If Bush had any humility whatsoever, he'd be red-faced that, even while he attacks House Speaker Pelosi as some kind of traitor, she's over there, backing him up to the extent of her rhetorical abiilties. This is what is called turning the other cheek, but all we get from our preznet is a big fat mooning.

Minaret Moose|4.7.07 @ 8:26PM|#

minaret of freedom

hier

Mission Statement of
the Minaret of Freedom Institute
"Those who, of their own free will and without any compulsion,
act according to the Qur'an and the Sunnah wear the turban of freedom."
-- Khwaaja-i-Jahaan Mahmuud Gawaan.

The Minaret of Freedom Institute was founded in 1993 with a dual mission for educating both Muslims and non-Muslims. For non-Muslims our mission is:

* to counter distortions and misconceptions about Islamic beliefs and practice
* to demonstrate the Islamic origins of modern values like the rule of law and sciences like market economics
* to advance the status of Muslim peoples maligned by a hostile environment in the West and oppressed by repressive political regimes in the East

For Muslims, in fulfillment of the obligations laid upon them by the Qur'an and the Sunnah, our mission is:

* to discover and publish the politico-economic policy implications of Islamic law (shari`ah) and their consequences on the economic well-being of the community,
* to expose both American and Islamic-world Muslims to free market thought
* to educate Islamic religious and community leaders in economics and in the fact that liberty is a necessary, though not sufficient, condition for the achievement of a good society,
* to promote the establishment of free trade and justice (an essential common interest of Islam and the West)

To build upon the words of Thomas Jefferson, in fulfilling these goals we are pledged to wage unending holy struggle (jihâd) against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.

We shall implement these goals through:

* independent scholarly research (ijtihâd) into policy issues of concern to Muslim countries and/or to Muslims in America; publication of scholarly and popular expositions of such research;
* translation of appropriate works on the free market into the languages of the Muslim world with introductions and commentaries by Muslim scholars;
* and the operation of a scholars exchange program both to allow institute associates to make presentations to academics and policy makers in Muslim countries and to permit libertarian Muslims from abroad to spend time in contact with market-oriented Muslim scholars in America and to have access to resources not available in their home countries.

The Minaret of Freedom Institute is classified as a tax-exempt entity under § 501(c)(3) of the United States Internal Revenue Code. It relies upon voluntary contributions from private corporations, foundations, and individuals to continue its work.

|4.7.07 @ 8:28PM|#

Update: The thread is now at 66 comments and the harshest comment is #53 by whiterata:

"If I had a pet pig, I'd name it mohammed....(snort, snort)."

Is that really such an awful thing to say about a man who was (according to Muslim holy books the Qu'ran and Hadiths) (1)a slave owner, (2)a conquerer, (3)a child molestor, and (4)a racist?

So, there's one quote about naming a pig Muhammed and one quote about Muslim charities being related to terrorists. Out of 66 quotes. Nary a "nuke Mecca" yet, though there was one wishing kos's wife and child good health.

Mona|4.7.07 @ 8:29PM|#

I'm not sure I believe you when you say that you were a "semi-regular at LGF." You might have been, but I'm suspicious. (1)What was/is your nic at LGF?

With one relatively brief exception, my handle is always the same -- my actual first name, and that is what it is here, and what it was at LGF. I only commented there perhaps a dozen times, and vividly recall the day I stopped (a tale I've told in several venues, including privately to a conservative, Bush-supporting Muslim acquaintance): the usual refrain of Islam being a "cult" and "false" religion was going on at LGF, and I, with my undergrad degree in religious studies am in a position to set people straight on that, and began a lengthy, academic-sounding rebuttal.

And then stopped, didn't post it, and never went back except when following a link. It hit me that given the mindset there what I proposed to write was an absolutely futile waste of my time -- like trying to argue against the sub-humanity of Jews with the Aryan Brotherhood.

|4.7.07 @ 8:32PM|#

neu mejican,

The characterization of those that disagree, however, is hardly lacking in stereotyping and xenophobia.

Have you read this thread? Of the two, there's more hysterical sterotyping here.

Ayn Randian|4.7.07 @ 8:50PM|#

Update: The thread is now at 66 comments and the harshest comment is #53 by whiterata:

DING DING DING DING! My Kreskin impression wins again!

Just how did I KNOW that Iggy wasn't really looking for proof? He was looking for an argument. I have never seen anybody actually want to argue the minutiae of a thread. I could throw a million of them at you Iggy, and you wouldn't change your mind 'cause it's already made up.

MCoO:

To bad you've lost perspective on the mission in Iraq. Since you are in the military, perhaps you should review some military history.

Maybe you should write a post about military history instead of some weird-ass analogy to a Johnny Cash song. And it is pretty fuckin' BOLD to claim a military officer has lost sight of the mission in Iraq...tell me again, what does victory look like? What are the clear, objective, definable goals of this 'conflict'? Or can we admit it's not a "war" at all and is a "police action"; wherein "police actions", according to this Objectivst, are not the proper role for militaries to undertake?

If I've "lost sight" of the mission, I guess so have 60% or so of American Soldiers; as has the American Public. I know, I know, we'rea bunch of dummies compared to you, but that's what happens when it doesn't "feel" like there's a mission at all.

|4.7.07 @ 8:53PM|#

Here's an awfully interesting bit, on an LGF thread entitled, ironically enough They Smile In Your Face:

"Based on the few weeks I've been here, I do not assess LGF as a "right-wing" blog. (And I've briefly perused some of the archives.) Ditto for Instapundit. Glenn Reynolds is, like me, more of a libertarian.

As near as I have been able to observe, this site takes the same foreign policy positions I do, namely, it understands the threat of jihadist Islam and broadly supports Bush's foreign policy. On many domestic issues I disagree with Bush, and from what I've seen, many LGFers would not fall in line with him on all those questions, either.

My view is that foreign policy has become the paramount issue of this election. For that reason, I am strongly supporting Bush. If being hawkish on Islamic terrorism renders me "right-wing," something has gone wrong with political nomenclature.

Finally, I haven't seen anyone savoring rape fantasies (except in paordy of left-wing accusations of same) or promoting racial hatred. A blog promoting such things would be offensive to me, and I would not be here."

Anyone care to guess who wrote that?

What's gotten into you, Mona? Is it just Greenwald, or is there something else?

Yomo|4.7.07 @ 8:57PM|#

As an Independent, I don't care what party Pelosi is from, but I'll never forget the fact that she supported Creepy Condit after he became the prime suspect in a kidnapping/murder of a young intern; Chandra Levy.

I haven't trusted Pelosi since 2001. Neither should any American concerned with the well-being of children.

Never forget...
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/12/18/MN112275.DTL
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/elder111402.asp

|4.7.07 @ 8:58PM|#

I would like to announce that I will be entering rehab on Monday, April 9th, for an addiction to vodka, oxycontin, and vitamin KKK.


HO HO HO

I'm sleepy........maybe a little nappy now

Fluffy|4.7.07 @ 9:02PM|#

Casual Observer, here's my answer to your stupid baby analogy:

If the baby goes up to be a failed state and a haven for Al Qaeda, bomb it and annihilate it.

How's that? Just so you don't think I'm some sort of softy here.

I would vastly prefer that course of action - which could be conducted at a relative minor cost in American lives and funds - to spending a trillion dollars and losing thousands of lives and having exactly dick to show for it. If you were willing to spend a trillion dollars to eliminate the "threat" that was Saddam, why not just offer him a 500 billion dollar bribe to am-scray? Wouldn't that have been a better return on our defense spending investment?

The simple fact of the matter is that you and the rest of your neocon trash ilk are absolutely unable to envision the value of a strategic retreat, because you're barbarian scum. What are the hallmarks of the barbarian at war? Atrocity and a foolish pride that interferes with your overall strategy. That's you dopes in a nutshell. The Islamists want your ground troops in Iraq because that's the only way they can hurt us. If we stand off at a distance and bomb the rubble, how does the US lose? It can't. But you can't make that leap because that would require a withdrawal, and you can't abide a withdrawal because 'Merika doesn't retreat, and these colors don't run, and all of that crap.

And as for your "lefty" nonsense, always remember that I am the right, not you. You're just some evangelical or neocon [read: retard] who doesn't really understand the political spectrum and as a result walks around thinking they're the right.

And my interpretation of the Pelosi matter matches the available facts much more than yours. It's not necessary for me to be privy to every last one of the phone calls made by the incompetent Liberty University graduates staffing this administration to know that.

|4.7.07 @ 9:06PM|#

DING DING DING DING! My Kreskin impression wins again!

Just how did I KNOW that Iggy wasn't really looking for proof? He was looking for an argument. I have never seen anybody actually want to argue the minutiae of a thread. I could throw a million of them at you Iggy, and you wouldn't change your mind 'cause it's already made up.

I AM trying to "argue the minutiae of a thread" because that's how we can establish who's right here. We ARE debating here, huh? I've answered your challenge which you said I wouldn't. Why don't you do the same for me, especially considering that you "could throw a million of them" at me???

How hard is it to find one single thread that exhibits what you claim??

You're not into debate and facts, you're into making graniose claims that you refuse to butress with facts or links to support your case.

|4.7.07 @ 9:09PM|#

graniose = grandiose
butress = buttress

Mona|4.7.07 @ 9:13PM|#

Anyone care to guess who wrote that?

What's gotten into you, Mona?

Yes, thank you Pablo. Now those who claimed I'm a liar are set straight.

About what I said then, I'll tell you the same thing I said at Inactivist, QandO and other sites in the last two years: after 9/11 almost everybody experienced fear- and rage-based thinking. But as time passed, I began to see that my reason had been clouded by those emotions; I was ahead of some, and behind many, in snapping out of it. My psyche is very anti-authoritarian, and especially post-elction-04, the rank authoritarianism of Bush and the modern GOP came into high relief, and I was and am having none of that, not to mention all the great new wars they want us to have.

Most certainly, I began to see comments at LGF that made my skin crawl, and as I described above, I stopped commenting there as a result -- at a time when I was still a Bush supporter, btw. That's just the truth y'all are going to have to accept.

|4.7.07 @ 9:17PM|#

Everbody makes jokes when I try to distellectualize things. I reckon I am't the brightest knife in the deck. But ther are 1 things you cant unrepute no matter what your educational extremities might be.

I still have the best selling kool-aid in america. You dont have to be a nucular physiologist to see that.

|4.7.07 @ 9:18PM|#

A question for Ayn, Mona, et al.:

The thread at LGF that I've talked about as not having the level of hate comments ya'll claim are omnipresent there is an interesting one.

That thread links to a story about the Mufti of Australia who has previously compared women to "meat" and said that they deserve, IIRC, being raped if they dress improperly. These odious views are of the MUFTI OF AUSTRALIA who wasn't sacked by the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils after those awful comments.

Now he's been caught sending money to terrorists and they want to get rid of him.

Considering that he was an Australian Muslim leader, can we assume that his views on women reflect the Australian Muslim majority's views?

|4.7.07 @ 9:36PM|#

LWM writes:

It's a quaint law from a bygone era, like the Constitution and the Geneva Convention.


Hmm a quaint law?

You mean the document that limits our government's rights and power? The same document that grants you all the rights not given to the government? The very same document that spells out point by point what exactly the branches of the government can and can not do? The document that ensures your freedom? If not for this "quaint" document (it is not a law) then you would have no rights but those that the government gives to you.

|4.7.07 @ 9:39PM|#

And here's a truth you're going to have to accept, Mona:
If being hawkish on Islamic terrorism renders me "right-wing," something has gone wrong with political nomenclature.

Is that fear and rage based thinking? It seems to me that the majority of the fear and rage I'm seeing in the blogosphere, often in your more recent writing and that of your hero Greenwald, is fear of and rage at George Bush, mainly for the very same things you claimed to agree with him about not so long ago.

Were you completely out of your mind then? Now? It's got to be one or the other. That wasn't 9/12/01, that was 9/26/04. It's closer to now than it was to 9/11.

|4.7.07 @ 9:41PM|#

Mona,

BTW, being a "semi-regular" at LGF would constitute posting more than "perhaps a dozen times."

Regulars over there have thousands of posts. Semi-regulars have hundreds of posts.

You, on the other hand, are in the "posted a handful of times a few years ago" category.

|4.7.07 @ 9:50PM|#

Ayn Randian:

So your an officer in Iraq now.

Uh huh.

Mybe I should just drop in and buy you a cool drink while we chat about a clearer understanding of the current mission so you can fix a better picture of what victory looks like. I would really like to get a look at your polling method to support your 60% figgure so I can have my classmate from the academy get on that. Bob will sure be upset to hear that his folks aren't doing their job. He's pretty determined to prove he deserves to replace that bird with a star.

I do have to hand it to you, having so much time and energy to get in a pissing match on a political blog at 3am Iraq time. When I had soldiers depending on me, I was too damn busy when working and way too freaking tired when not working to engage in such trivial dialog with pukes back in the world.

Bagdad huh. Your site says your 23, but I figgure you haven't up dated that since 2004, so your probably 25 or 26. So a 1stLt Ayn Randian should be easy enough to find.

|4.7.07 @ 10:18PM|#

Iggy,

It's been a pretty long time, but I seem to recall that there were cases of IRA agents collecting money in the USA ostensibly for catholic charities in Ireland.

-jcr

|4.7.07 @ 10:20PM|#

"So a 1stLt Ayn Randian should be easy enough to find."

Oh no he didn't.

Mona|4.7.07 @ 10:28PM|#

Were you completely out of your mind then? Now? It's got to be one or the other.

Not at all, I'm still "hawkish" on Islamic terrorism, but tempered by reason and a sense of proportion due to (a) the passage of time, and (b) the evidence of what the Bush Administration and the neocons are fully about. I like to analogize it to the pissing matches I've had with lefties when I insist they and many liberal Democrats of yesteryear simply were wrong to dismiss the threat of domestic Communists and the reality of Stalinist spies. History has proven them wrong.

What it has not done, however, is proven Jospeh Mccarthy, and most of what HUAC did -- much less the John Birch Society-level of anti-Communism -- right.

I'm still anti-jihadist. But unlike the LGFers, I'm not a deranged, war-mongering Bircher about it. The pace and catalysts of my evolution on these matters closely parallels John Cole's.

|4.7.07 @ 10:36PM|#

Yes Joe I did.

If younge Lt Ayn is still in Bagdad I'll be more then happy to by him his favorite beverage and casually converse over the topic of personal liberty vs the responsibility of those in leadership to support the mission in public forums.

You got a problem with that?

Mona|4.7.07 @ 10:39PM|#

BTW, being a "semi-regular" at LGF would constitute posting more than "perhaps a dozen times."

You are mistaken. My claim was to have been a semi-regular reader, which was true. When challenged about my handle as if my claim were a lie, I informed my challengers that I only commented about a dozen times -- but that I did so proves that I was, indeed, a semi-regular reader for a certain window of time. (Most site visitors read much more than they actually comment about, if they even comment at all.)

And I was. I quit when the putrid bile got to me, and that was before I abandoned Bush and the GOP. So, I'm not a liar, I was a semi-regular at LGF, and I really did leave it because after a while I saw a good deal of vile commentary.

|4.7.07 @ 10:40PM|#

Mr. Young, just to add my two cents, this is a pretty stupid fucking post. If you have something to say about the underlying issue, fine. But we don't need you to survey right-wingers to find out they're attacking Democrats. Big fucking deal.

This is all manufactured Republican rage anyhow - even the inept Pelosi can't ruin Bush's disastrous middle east policy. But of course, it must be bad for the Democrats because... (repeat Republican talking point here).

|4.7.07 @ 10:41PM|#

Me thinks ms.ann randian is not really a soldier in Baghdad...

I can see by the threads that some of these so-called libertarians are really liberaltarians.

And how come the liberals in this thread just get nasty and ugly. If you have some valid information or something valid to say, then say it. but why the ugly hateful spewing? I thought liberals were supposed to be the tolerent ones. They just sound like they need rabies shots or something.

|4.7.07 @ 10:49PM|#

It's been a pretty long time, but I seem to recall that there were cases of IRA agents collecting money in the USA ostensibly for catholic charities in Ireland.

John, I hadn't remembered that and you're right that the support of many Irish-Americans for the IRA was disgraceful. I don't know how much of the support of the IRA was tied into bogus "charities," but that is an example I had not remembered.

I think that there are some big differences between those Irish-Americans who supported the IRA and those Muslim-Americans who support Muslim terror groups:

(1) the IRA wasn't trying to kill Americans.
(2) there have been quite a few Islamic "charities" busted...seems to be a much larger problem that any IRA "charities" was in the 70's or 80's

|4.7.07 @ 10:57PM|#

You are mistaken. My claim was to have been a semi-regular reader, which was true. When challenged about my handle as if my claim were a lie, I informed my challengers that I only commented about a dozen times -- but that I did so proves that I was, indeed, a semi-regular reader for a certain window of time. (Most site visitors read much more than they actually comment about, if they even comment at all.)

Movable goalposts, eh??

Claming to have been a semi-regular there implied participation, namely in commenting.

You never took up my challenge of earlier to link to a thread at LGF that exhibits the hated you say is so easy to find there. Then tell me the percentage of the comments in the thread you chose that are beyond the pale.

I'll let you have the last word, but I'll note that you haven't produced ONE SINGLE LGF THREAD that exhibits "a good deal of vile commentary."

How hard is it to link to ONE SINGLE THREAD to prove your point??

Adios.

|4.7.07 @ 11:02PM|#

Mona | April 7, 2007, 3:32pm | #

I used to be a semi-regular at LGF

becomes....

Mona | April 7, 2007, 10:39pm | #

My claim was to have been a semi-regular reader

Your words are right there on this thread, contradicting your claims. Jeeez.

|4.7.07 @ 11:05PM|#

Mona, wasn't it you who just said:
But unlike the LGFers, I'm not a deranged, war-mongering Bircher about it.

And are we to assume that such is also like Jeff Goldstein, or his guest poster Bravo Romeo Delta, both warmongering neocon thugs who you recently spoke of thusly:

I do not undertake exchanges with persons who "think" at that level and thus risk legitimatising their fevered and obnoxious premises; what I do do is highlight how the modern GOP/right-wing has destroyed civil discourse in the body politic by foisting repugnant memes, themes and narratives on the public, and I intend to hold examples of same up for the ridicule and exposure they merit, so as to "unmainstream" them.

Wasn't it also you who just said "I no longer attempt to reason with those who are anything but repulsed by LGF, considering you beyond hope." Birch would LOVE that, if you'd said it about communists. And Greenwald, like yourself, thrives on that whole "Enemies of the Constitution" meme, like a good Bircher should, except that GiGi does it from Brazil. Old John B would have himself a woody borne of envy and glee reading rhetoric like that.

You're a self parodying cartoon, Mona.

|4.7.07 @ 11:13PM|#

"Is it Just Me or,,,"

No, it's not just you.
I'm pretty sure I wont be spending too much at the Officers Club on drinks in B town.
If you click on his screen name it takes you to his blog where you'll find:
Ayn_Randian
Age: 23
Gender: Male
Astrological Sign: Libra
Zodiac Year: Boar
Industry: Military
Location: Columbus : Ohio : United States

Guy Montag|4.8.07 @ 12:02AM|#

brotherben,

I am too lazy too read everything.
Has someone mentioned the 3 republicans that were there and met with the syrians the day before Pelosi?

Yes, I did and I said they should be jailed along with the Speaker.

|4.8.07 @ 12:04AM|#

Wow that's some pretty hefty empirical evidence right there. Especially since the last post on said blog is from 6 months ago.

|4.8.07 @ 12:24AM|#

Guy Montag:
I would agree with you about jailing the 3 Republicans with one clarification for my part. *IF* the president so orders it.

The President can allow or dissallow visit to state heads for the purpose of diplomacy according to his perogative. Diplomacy is his house and he can allow or bar what he wishes unless Congress as a whole over rides him, not some plastic faced self appointed shadow leader.

Richard Silverstein|4.8.07 @ 12:25AM|#

Here now I had the impression that Michael Young was an intelligent observer of the Middle East. Now you've spoiled it for me. Just look at the references he links to: Fred Barnes, WSJ, National Review, LGF, Claudia Rosett, etc. Almost w/o fail neocons or neocon wannabes (except for the NYT reference--& btw saying the editorial "hedged" is inaccurate).

Not a single reference to anyone who praised the trip or analyzed the base motives of those who attacked her. Well, I've provided a link here to my own blog. There are other sources as well. As w. almost all the criticism in the media, Young's attack is unfair, unbalanced & politically tendentious.

|4.8.07 @ 1:26AM|#

Mr. Silverstein,

neocon, shmeocon...

Why bother to reference anyone who would praise Ms. Pelosi's Trip to Damascus? It was just plain stupid. She should have never done this in the first place. She has absolutely no experience in foreign diplomacy and just proved it to the world. She should have never gone over there against the wishes of the President when he publicly stated he didn't want her to go. She took it upon herself to do so and now has proven WHY she shouldn't have gone over there. As of yet, I haven't heard of a single paper that has praised this. In fact, most of the liberal papers... Even the LA times has blasted her for this. It was a mistake. A Big one. It will be used against her and the Democrats in future elections. You cannot make nice with the enemy. and now we have Denny Hoyer meeting with the Muslim Brotherhood.

I can hear the last throes of the hammer hitting the last nail.... thump thump... The Democrats are dead-in-the water come 2008.

2006 was not a mandate. It was a bunch of Republicans staying home instead of voting because they were pissed off at the current republican leadership. not because they thought the Dems could do a better job. I can guarantee you that they won't make that mistake again. Better to have a few gutless republicans than the Democrats in control again! This just proved that point.

|4.8.07 @ 1:26AM|#

"Everybody says..." What a NeoCon Maroon! Oops, I'm being reduntant.

Grotius|4.8.07 @ 1:28AM|#

edna,

See, the thing is, a strong defense wasn't what I was arguing against, was it?

highnumber|4.8.07 @ 2:02AM|#

Mona,

You made my blog!

Grotius|4.8.07 @ 2:26AM|#

Most Casual of Observers,

Diplomacy is his house...

No, diplomacy is a power that the President shares with the Congress. Indeed given the depth and breadth of the "investigation power" of the U.S. Congress for the President to try to disallow a visit to a foreign locale, etc. would seem to try to strike at the heart at one of the core areas of the Congress' power.

Grotius|4.8.07 @ 2:38AM|#

As for LGF, I don't know enough about that blog to comment.

|4.8.07 @ 2:42AM|#

Diplomacy a shared power!?! ROFL

Well there goes any chance at reasonable discourse.

Gee we should just disband the State Dept and save some coin while we turn Senators and Congressmen loose on the world to negotiate deals and suggest to them how they should deal with the POTUS.

So just how would that work, what with the POTUS not having any control of diseminating information to allies or enemies or the ability to insure continuity of message either way?

Shouldn't you really be at the Anarcist site?

way way way in the back row|4.8.07 @ 2:46AM|#

Dude, drop the handle. I am way more casual of an observer than you.

|4.8.07 @ 2:54AM|#

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.

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 trouble.

President John Adams requested the statute after a Pennsylvania pacifist named George Logan traveled to France in 1798 to assure the French government that the American people favored peace in the undeclared "Quasi War" being fought on the high seas between the two countries. In proposing the law, Rep. Roger Griswold of Connecticut explained that the object was, as recorded in the Annals of Congress, "to punish a crime which goes to the destruction of the executive power of the government. He meant that description of crime which arises from an interference of individual citizens in the negotiations of our executive with foreign governments."

The debate on this bill ran nearly 150 pages in the Annals. On Jan. 16, 1799, Rep. Isaac Parker of Massachusetts explained, "the people of the United States have given to the executive department the power to negotiate with foreign governments, and to carry on all foreign relations, and that it is therefore an usurpation of that power for an individual to undertake to correspond with any foreign power on any dispute between the two governments, or for any state government, or any other department of the general government, to do it."

Griswold and Parker were Federalists who believed in strong executive power. But consider this statement by Albert Gallatin, the future Secretary of the Treasury under President Thomas Jefferson, who was wary of centralized government: "it would be extremely improper for a member of this House to enter into any correspondence with the French Republic . . . As we are not at war with France, an offence of this kind would not be high treason, yet it would be as criminal an act, as if we were at war." Indeed, the offense is greater when the usurpation of the president's constitutional authority is done by a member of the legislature--all the more so by a Speaker of the House--because it violates not just statutory law but constitutes a usurpation of the powers of a separate branch and a breach of the oath of office Ms. Pelosi took to support the Constitution.


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.

|4.8.07 @ 2:54AM|#

Iggy Or,

A few comments further down...

"We're getting to the point where we need to put together a special package of legislation to nip this Jihadist bullshit in the bud. Something like an anti-Jihad NATO with rules that lock out unvetted immigration from the middle east, clean out the Mosques of Saudi influence..."


Wouldn't want those unvetted immigrants around now would we...

|4.8.07 @ 3:02AM|#

way way way in the back row | April 8, 2007, 2:46am | #
Dude, drop the handle. I am way more casual of an observer than you. Sorry, no matter how far back you sit I'll keep the moniker. It's from a professor at the Academy who would say as a preamble to revealing a solution, "And the answer is readily apparent to even the Most Casual of Observers." and he would look at me as he said that. Apparently I had a manner of appearing only remotely interested in his lectures, but I always got the highest marks of all his students.

|4.8.07 @ 3:03AM|#

Try this little LGF tidbit

"The left and islamists have one thing in common: they both want Jews and Christians dead.
It does not surprise me that democrat leaders visit terror leaders. This is the beginning of the unholy alliance between the left and islamists.

I put my trust in Jesus Christ, for these things must come to past before His coming.

Daniel 11:32 (New King James Version)
32 Those who do wickedly against the covenant he shall corrupt with flattery; but the people who know their God shall be strong, and carry out great exploits.

What a time we live in!
"

|4.8.07 @ 3:20AM|#

This is really one of the simplest issues ever discussed on "Hit & Run". If you agree with Michael Young that Pelosi is the one who comes out of this looking bad, you are a complete idiot (and anti-Israel). It really is that simple.

|4.8.07 @ 3:38AM|#

but I'll never forget the fact that she supported Creepy Condit after he became the prime suspect in a kidnapping/murder of a young intern; Chandra Levy.

Wow, refusing to tar and feather a guy who turned out to have been almost certainly not guilty of murdering some girl. What a bitch.

Just for the record, though, Condit was only ever "prime suspect" in the news media. The DC police repeatedly said that he was *not* one.

Ayn Randian|4.8.07 @ 6:22AM|#

Well MCoO; seeing as how:

A) we already established I haven't updated my blog (seeing as how blogs are disallowed in theatre), that would explain why the location hasn't changed.

B) Veiled threats about full-bird colonels don't scare me. If you want to sic your attack hounds on me, knock yourself out. Just don't be surprised I am not going to help you do it. And I highly doubt that your buddy "Bob the colonel" is going to make his star eating up young officers with opinions...if it were that easy we'd have generals everywhere.

C) Iraq is an alcohol-free country, so no, drinks at the (non-existent, btw!) O Club would be kind of tough.

D)Where'd I get the 60% of troops: Why from "The Military Times"...you know, those newspapers that they sell all around AAFES PXs and BXs all around the world (so it's not like I am saying something treasonous here):

From Military Times, 12/29/2006: "Only 35 percent of the military members polled this year said they approve of the way President Bush is handling the war...Just as telling, in this year's poll only 41 percent of the military said the U.S. should have gone to war in Iraq in the first place, down from 65 percent in 2003. That closely reflects the beliefs of the general population today - 45 percent agreed in a recent USA Today/Gallup poll."

So you stop thinking you're scoring points by looking at my outdated blog, you can click my name for the link.

edna|4.8.07 @ 7:31AM|#

grotius(1:28), and i never said that the "idea of military force (was) a unmitigated force for positive change," so we're even, eh?

|4.8.07 @ 7:57AM|#

If you agree with Michael Young that Pelosi is the one who comes out of this looking bad, you are a complete idiot (and anti-Israel). It really is that simple.

Vanya, while I wouldn't recommend a Mensa application to Ehud Olmert, I don't think you can credibly call him an anti-Israel idiot:

The Prime Minister's Office was quick to issue a denial, stating that "what was discussed with the House speaker did not include any change in Israel's policy, as it has been presented to international parties involved in the matter."

In a special statement of clarification, the bureau stressed that Olmert had told Pelosi that Israel continued to regard Syria as "part of the axis of evil and a party encouraging terrorism in the entire Middle East."

According to sources at the Prime Minister's Office,"Pelosi took part of the things that were said in the meeting, and used what suited her."

In fact, I think you'd have to be an idiot to believe that. It really is that simple.

|4.8.07 @ 8:06AM|#

"Where'd I get the 60% of troops: Why from "The Military Times"...you know, those newspapers that they sell all around AAFES PXs and BXs all around the world (so it's not like I am saying something treasonous here):"

You've GOT to be kidding. This poll?

The survey, conducted by mail Nov. 13 through Dec. 22, is the fourth annual gauge of active-duty military subscribers to the Military Times newspapers. The results are not representative of the military as a whole. The survey's respondents, 945 this year, are on average older, more experienced, more likely to be officers and more career-oriented than the overall military population.

The poll's margin of error is plus or minus three percentage points.

A three point margin of error in a self-selecting sample group that does not represent the military as whole means what, exactly?

Guy Montag|4.8.07 @ 8:28AM|#

Pablo,

Wasn't it also you who just said "I no longer attempt to reason with those who are anything but repulsed by LGF, considering you beyond hope." Birch would LOVE that, if you'd said it about communists. And Greenwald, like yourself, thrives on that whole "Enemies of the Constitution" meme, like a good Bircher should, except that GiGi does it from Brazil. Old John B would have himself a woody borne of envy and glee reading rhetoric like that.

Are you talking about the late Captain John Birch or do you relly mean Robert Welch?

Fluffy|4.8.07 @ 8:32AM|#

Hey, I just wanted to say that I was kind of a dick in this thread last night, and I apologize, even to Casual Observer.

I've been very frustrated with the development of the Republican party philosophically and demographically since 1988 and when I'm in a pissy mood that frustration can boil over.

But if I can carry on perfectly reasonable conversations with extremists of all stripes, up to and including open Stalinists, I should be expected to remain reasonable with members of my former party.

My bad.

Mona|4.8.07 @ 9:20AM|#

My final summary comment

Any reasonable person following this thread will have observed that it is, indeed, impossible to reason with the LGFers and their allies. That a Reason writer would commend LGF and its comments section remains very disturbing to me, and I would hope Mr. Young would reconsider what that says about him. It took me only a few months of participating at LGF and reading the vicious bilge in the comments section to grasp that Charles Johnson feeds these bloodthirsty authoritarians a steady diet of anti-Muslim read meat, and they obligingly spit out some of the filthiest, eliminationist sentiments to be found anywhere on the Internet. I am ashamed I participated there even as briefly as I did, but through personal experience I am now positioned to know how grotesque that site is.

Further, please note Pablo's (gratuitous) reference to Glenn Greenwald as "GiGi." Greenwald -- a Salon blogger who has a book about the Bush presidency (and the type of people like LGFers who support it) coming out in June published by Random House-Crown -- is openly gay, and his right-wing detractors often engage in the offensive practice of calling him by an effete, female French name. Not that they are bigots or anything. Greenwald has nothing to do with this discussion, but some of these people will contrive any excuse to attack him with their homophobic or other bile simply because Greenwald has emerged as a highly successful critic of Bush and his Movement. This they find intolerable.

Finally, I seldom engage these dwindling numbers of Bush supporters/neocons any longer because through experience and education I have concluded doing so is pointless. They are, most of them, psychologically incapable of understanding the authoritarian mindset in which they dwell and how actually antithetical it is to American values. Paul Rosenberg, drawing on the work of psychologist Bob Altemeyer puts it well in Pt 3 of his series Rightwing Authoritarianism and Conservative Identity Politics:

Mona|4.8.07 @ 9:23AM|#

(Final Comment contd. in Part 2)

[high Right Wing Authoritarians*] are more likely to:

Make many incorrect inferences from evidence.

Hold contradictory ideas leading them to `speak out of both sides of their mouths.'

Uncritically accept that many problems are `our most serious problem.'

Uncritically accept insufficient evidence that supports their beliefs.

Uncritically trust people who tell them what they want to hear.

Use many double standards in their thinking and judgements.

I strongly recommend reading Rosenberg's entire analysis, as well as Altemeyer's original online book, to which Rosenberg links. It all explains a great deal about these dead-ender Bush supporters, a thesis which I found compelling in part because it made sense of my own experiences in trying to reason with them back when I seriously and very politely attempted to do so. It also explains why I no longer spend significant time engaging them in reasoned discourse -- it is useless.

*A "high Right Wing Authoritarian" is a universal category not particular to ephemeral notions of what right-wing means in America in 2007; the criteria would also capture the dedicated Stalinists in the former Soviet Union.

finis

|4.8.07 @ 9:42AM|#

Yep, Pablo, just do the Denial Dance and plug your ears. There's no dissatisfaction in the ranks. There's nothing wrong. We've always been at war with Oceania!

I wonder about people who "support the troops" except when the troops are saying something you don't want to hear.

The Lady|4.8.07 @ 9:43AM|#

She made a fool of herself and proved she is inept in foreign affairs.

Fluffy|4.8.07 @ 10:08AM|#

One other thing I'd like to comment on:

A lot of the criticism of Pelosi's visit is based on very anal and bureaucratic view of foreign affairs that comes from the pettiness of career State Department types worried about symbolism instead of substance.

"Oh noes, we can't have someone visit Syria, because that implies that we accept them, and we can't allow that implication until they change behavior X," is the kind of diplomatic thinking that turns 2-year disputes into 50-year disputes.

Nothing implies that we accept Syria. Period. The implication is only in the mind of the observer and can be safely ignored as irrelevant. We can have whatever visits, talks, "cultural exchanges", "bi-lateral consultations", etc. we want and none of it means that we accept anything.

The intricate dance of diplomatic inside baseball is probably very compelling to the people involved in it, but when you demand that the rest of us regard it as important I'm going to ignore you. Reagan accomplished more with ten minutes of honest conversation at Reykjavik than a legion of bureaucratic thinkers had accomplished in two decades.

If peace comes to the Middle East, I would hazard that it will be the result of someone who just takes a chance and puts up a trial balloon that cuts the Gordian knot all at once. It won't be achieved through incremental diplomatic hyperanalysis of "smybols". I base my hypothesis on the pathetic failure of that latter approach to date.

eb|4.8.07 @ 10:24AM|#

"Finally, I seldom engage these dwindling numbers of Bush supporters/neocons any longer because through experience and education I have concluded doing so is pointless. They are, most of them, psychologically incapable of understanding the authoritarian mindset in which they dwell and how actually antithetical it is to American values."

What are you, a freshman experiencing your first year out of the house? First you claim that those that disagree with you are insane and now you assert that they are...I guess the above means "stupid". I'm sure this kind of pronouncement comes across as assertive at the dorm but frankly it is idiotic in the world of grownups.

|4.8.07 @ 11:18AM|#

i think doc's initial post better refers to mona...

what's crawled up [her] ass[]?

|4.8.07 @ 11:56AM|#

Pelosi is nothing more than a traitor.

What was her purpose going there anyway?


She holds no power, she just makes the enemy feel better about what they are doing.


Libtards are destroying the country, just to further their witch hunt on Bush Jr.

|4.8.07 @ 12:25PM|#

Mona. You do live in a fools paradise.

Pelosi made a treasonous move by impressing foreign policy (Israel told her to tell Syria what?)

Those foolish Repubs that went with her will be remembered for what they did (fact finding, tourism, whatever, it was a destructive move)

Pelosi, however, went under the guise of Foreign Diplomat, discussing policy with the enemy- and she should be punished severely.

Mona, you are a dupe and a fool.

highnumber|4.8.07 @ 12:29PM|#

Does "fool's paradise" mean they aren't really virgins?

|4.8.07 @ 12:34PM|#

Correction Pelosi-al Prada. Not "Libtards" but "LIBTURDS" (also known as "Dhimmicrats"). Obviously Mona is one of the "turds."


Althor :)

|4.8.07 @ 12:41PM|#

Moana sez: "...xenophoboic authoritarianism, if not genocidal proto-fascism.
....neoconservative hagiographers."

Hey Moana, say that three times and see if there's spittle on your screen. You're a regular AK-47 of the Thesaurus. Try reason sometime.

Percopius|4.8.07 @ 12:46PM|#

Mona, you sound like a bigot. You demonize a web site and then say everyone you belongs to it is evil. You state your opinons as fact, and bide no argument. You appear to think that a consensus of arguments are fact.

LGF posts news, with a short comment by C. We then discuss. LGF does not have writers who post articles. We just read the news.

Personaly I belive you are displacing your anger on the closest athority figure (Bush).

You remind me of this joke:

It's a pitch black night and you can't see anything but a single lampost casting a pool of light below it, as you walk to you car. As you get closer to pool of light, you see a drunk on his hands and knees, searching. "What are you looking for?" you ask. "I lost my house keys, will you help me find them?". "OK", so you search in the light pool for the keys. After a while without finding the keys, you ask,"Where exactly did you lose your keys?". The drunks answers,"Back over there." pointing down the pitch black street. You reply "Well, why aren't we looking there?". The drunk replies, "Because the lights better here".

|4.8.07 @ 12:55PM|#

Mona, pull your head out. The John Birchers are _against_ the war.

|4.8.07 @ 1:01PM|#

Ayn,
You are no officer serving in Iraq.

There are over 400 milbloggers actively posting from theater.

An officer in Iraq would not be so ignorant as to quote a poll from a left leaning rag, and seeing as that rag has such a small distribution, the only people I know who knew of it were state side. And all your posting activities coencide with Eastern US time. Not Iraq time.

Fraud.

|4.8.07 @ 1:02PM|#

I believe that "Mona" is just another Glenn Greenwald sock puppet. How many is that now? 5 or 6?

Fluffy|4.8.07 @ 1:03PM|#

Twaddle -

I missed the part where the Congress declared war on Syria.

In the absence of such a declaration, I think it's safe to disregard your designation of Syria as "the enemy" out of hand.

One cannot commit treason without giving aid and comfort to an enemy - and you can't do that if the state in question isn't actually our enemy, as opposed to being the rhetorical punching bag of an ex-drunk who can barely speak without making an ass of himself.

Fluffy|4.8.07 @ 1:05PM|#

Casual Observer, have you returned to regale us with your evidence that Bush is an economic conservative?

|4.8.07 @ 1:13PM|#

I must say this is support of LFG:

I know Mona's arguments are asinine and utterly maddening, but Don't lose your cool guys and keep struggling for reason to prevail.

Don't worry LFG. If Germany was able to outlast Joseph Goebbels, and Russia Vyacheslav Molotov, I am sure LFG can outlast Mona.

By the way who is it that pays for her work at the "People's Far-Left Democrat Underground Ministry of Propaganda and Misinformation"? Georgie Soros?


Althor :)

|4.8.07 @ 1:15PM|#

Fluffy | April 8, 2007, 1:05pm | #
Casual Observer, have you returned to regale us with your evidence that Bush is an economic conservative?

Just because I jump out of airplanes to play tag with bad guys on their home turf, doesn't really mean I'm an idiot. Bush uses money to try and curry political favor worse than most politicians. But that is because he still believes he can somehow convince/prove to his detractors that he isn't evil.

If Bush showed up at someone's house after it burned down and he built them a new mansion on the very same spot the very next day, he will be accused of burning down the house hust so he could fake generosity.

He should have realized this by now.
I don't consider him as evil, angel, brilliant or idiot. He does have good morals and he is ethical, and that I know first hand. So when he is attacked I will accept he was stupid, clumsy, inept, or missguided. I will not accept he was coniving or decietful.

is it just me or|4.8.07 @ 1:16PM|#

Mona,

go and actually READ LGF. The comments there pale in comparison to DailyKOS, Wonkette and even YOUR own blog. You guys are viscous. LGF is extremely tame. Mostly the comment sections in the liberal blogs are so vitriolic you can't stomach them. I think the more conservative blogs actually DISCUSS issues. They really don't spew the hatred of their more liberal counterparts.

|4.8.07 @ 1:17PM|#

Fluffy,

Haha. Good one.

I'll remember from now on that the scumbag who broke in and sexually assaulted my neighbor isn't really my enemy, just an "rhetorical punching bag".

Thanks for clearing that up.

somaking|4.8.07 @ 1:19PM|#

Fluffy,

Congress never declared war on the Soviet Union. Yet they were our enemy for over 50 years.

Syria supports Hezbollah, who has declared us their enemey. That's all you need to be somebody's enemy.

Don't you know this? If somebody dislikes you, do you pretend they don't? If they strike you, do you not defend yourself?

|4.8.07 @ 1:23PM|#

Fluffy | April 8, 2007, 1:03pm | #
Twaddle -

I missed the part where the Congress declared war on Syria.

In the absence of such a declaration, I think it's safe to disregard your designation of Syria as "the enemy" out of hand.

One cannot commit treason without giving aid and comfort to an enemy - and you can't do that if the state in question isn't actually our enemy, as opposed to being the rhetorical punching bag of an ex-drunk who can barely speak without making an ass of himself.


Griswold and Parker were Federalists who believed in strong executive power. But consider this statement by Albert Gallatin, the future Secretary of the Treasury under President Thomas Jefferson, who was wary of centralized government: "it would be extremely improper for a member of this House to enter into any correspondence with the French Republic . . . As we are not at war with France, an offence of this kind would not be high treason, yet it would be as criminal an act, as if we were at war." Indeed, the offense is greater when the usurpation of the president's constitutional authority is done by a member of the legislature--all the more so by a Speaker of the House--because it violates not just statutory law but constitutes a usurpation of the powers of a separate branch and a breach of the oath of office Ms. Pelosi took to support the Constitution.

And as for the POTUS being a former drunk, it is far better than being hate filled and narrow minded in the present day. We differ on who is making the ass of themself.

|4.8.07 @ 1:24PM|#

The Junket Yard Dog
(to the tune of Oh Susanna)

No ! San Fran Granny
You don't speak for me
You come from California
Where everyone is " wacky"

You took a trip to the Middle East
Your intentions were "SO PURE"
However every word from your mouth
Was nothing more than MANURE

No ! San Fran Granny
You don't speak for me
You come from California
Where everyone is " wacky"

Your multi-country visits
Really didn't go so great
Haven't you ever wondered
Why you weren't made Head of State

No ! San Fran Granny
You don't speak for me
You come from California
Where everyone is " wacky"

Your well documented visit
With Bashar Assad
Has only made our fight for Peace
More difficult..... you "tard"

No ! San Fran Granny
You don't speak for me
You come from California
Where everyone is " wacky"

Some may think you are weird
Or like a really "odd" Aunt
I have another opinion
You are nothing but a "Dilettante"

No ! San Fran Granny
You don't speak for me
You come from California
Where everyone is " wacky"

You may think you're crafty
A politician sly as a fox
The leader of a Shadow Government
Disguised with BOTOX

No ! San Fran Granny
You don't speak for me
You come from California
Where everyone is a " LEFTY "

Fluffy|4.8.07 @ 1:25PM|#

Syria and Hezbollah have not struck us.

They've struck a sometime ally of ours, but they can work that out among themselves, as far as I am concerned.

I don't consider the Palestinians our enemy, either.

And as for the Soviet Union, had an American citizen during the Cold War gone to the Soviet embassy and had themselves a grand old time, it would not have been consorting with the enemy, sorry. The Rosenbergs deserved death, but for espionage, not treason.

Mr. Spock|4.8.07 @ 1:25PM|#

The "quiz" that Mona recommended is an old and long-discredited smear job, equating, for instance, the use of "these vermin" to refer to all Jews, gypsies, etc., with the use of "these vermin" to refer to specific individuals who murdered children.

-----------

As the creator of this quiz, I must disagree with you here. To my knowledge, it has never been "discredited" (how can satire be "discredited"?) and it was certainly not intended as a "smear job."

The purpose of the quiz is simply to pose a series of questions about political rhetoric. I noticed the prevalence of eliminationist rhetoric on LGF - rhetoric which characterizes certain ethnic and religious minorities as insects, parasites, subhumans, etc., and calls for them to sterilized, exterminated, etc - and noticed that it was very similar to the stance that certain authoritarian groups have in the past adopted towards Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals etc.

Now, some people - LGF commenters, for example - seem to imagine that genocidal fascism is a dead threat, or at least an illness to which they themselves are immune.

In their view, unless it wears a funny little mustache and specifically targets the groups they favor, then it isn't fascism.

Now, is that actually the case? Is it it really true that the Nazis were a one-time only phenomenon - and that if groups of technologically sophisticated people from the industrialized west get together online in 2007 to vilify and dehumanize certain outsider groups and call for their detention and/or slaughter, that is only so much good, clean fun and not a trend we should worry about, because (after all) Hitler is dead?

I really don't know the answer to that question. So the quiz poses a sort of larger rhetorical question really.

By way of analogy - the days of lynching and Jim Crow are over. Your average white no longer has the power to pull their car over and brutalize any random black person they run across, simply because social conditions have changed so much over the course of the last 50 years.

So, does that change the status of anti-black groups like Stormfront (a site, which is in many ways, LGF's mirror image)? How about Jewwatch,org, or similar sites?

As long as people are "just talking" - and hey, maybe they even see themselves as sophisticated "former liberals" and hip computer guys and gals to boot - then is there anything wrong with setting up online communities designed to foment and inflame ethnic and religious chauvinism?

LGF is, specifically, an anti-muslim site - and as the LGFers often point out, "Islam isn't a race" - so, for example, it isn't racist to ask why the subhuman "Paleosimians" put diapers on their heads.

One would imagine that some could likewise disparage the distinctive dress and customs of other well-known religious and ethnic groups (i.e., Jews, Hindus, etc.) without having to face charges of "racism" - but, for some reason, that doesn't seem to be the case. So does that mean that David Duke is a "victim of the intolerant left" in the same way that the LGFers often claims to be? Like the LGFers, Duke can and has argued that he is not prejudiced against African Americans at all, but is simply engaged in the honest examination of certain taboo questions that liberals are too cowardly to tackle, etc.

There are many, many fascinating (and unresolved) questions that come out of such comparisons.

somaking|4.8.07 @ 1:26PM|#

Mona,

You might enjoy the comments about you at LGF. It's quite a good laugh at your expense!

It might help you lighten up a little. But I doubt you can really stomach it.

Fluffy|4.8.07 @ 1:31PM|#

Well Casual, since you've backed off your absurd claim that Bush is an economic conservative, you're making less of an ass of your own self than you were yesterday, so I suppose it would be appropriate for me to dial back the rhetoric somewhat on my part too.

With regard to your comment above, I really don't find Bush deceitful, per se. Not in the way that the "Bush lied, people died," people do. I tend to think that the most surprised people in the world when no WMD were found in Iraq all work in the White House. By all rights WMD should have been there - if I was Saddam, I would have feigned compliance and hidden them, too.

My beef with Bush is that he has made it impossible for me to remain a Republican. As you now appear to concede, he's obviously not an economic conservative. I come from the now-extinct secular wing of the Republican party, and the whole "party as mouthpiece of the evangelical movement" simply isn't something I can get behind. And he apparently has no capacity to make a cost-benefit analysis when it comes to foreign policy. All of the "bad public speaker / kind of creepy / always hit the wrong note" stuff is superfluous to my reasons for not liking Bush and the people who continue to ride his ship down to the bottom.

|4.8.07 @ 1:32PM|#

Wow MCoO, you are the internet tuff guy (trademarked by dhex).

Believe what you like, assclown, you're a nobody to me.

An officer in Iraq would not be so ignorant as to quote a poll from a left leaning rag, and seeing as that rag has such a small distribution, the only people I know who knew of it were state side.

So, because the only people who know you of were stateside when the poll came out, that makes me a fraud? You're a laughable joke. And never have I heard the "Military Times" be called a left-leaning rag. You're like a poor, ignorant animal, you lash out with idiocy when cornered.

Like I said, believe what you like about my service...I am proud of it regardless of what you say...even if I (and a shit-ton of other Soldiers) don't know what we're doing over here in the first place.

|4.8.07 @ 1:39PM|#

Actually, a member of the government who independently travels to another country and seeks favors from the head of government is a violation of the Logan act. Has been for over a hundred years. It is recognized as more than half way to treason.

Earl g|4.8.07 @ 1:40PM|#

I'm somewhat taken by what Ammar Abdulhamid of The Heretic's Blog reports of 'Anti-war, Pro-Tyrant, Dictator, Despot & Commissar of Very Strange Foreign Policy', Heir Highness, Rep. Pelosi's trip:

"We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace."

Friendship? Hope? For whom exactly? My dissident colleagues, that is, the few who were granted an audience with her Congressional Highness, felt completely snubbed by her, their entire encounter did not last but for a few icy minutes, I am told. Mrs. Pelosi's friendship and hope seem reserved to the corrupt and oppressive bunch responsible for letting jihadi elements cross freely into Iraq, except, that is, when they need a headline in the proliferating journals out there willing to celebrate their anti-Bush stances, the criminal nature of their various enterprises notwithstanding.

Something quite under-reported. A pity.

|4.8.07 @ 1:40PM|#

Ayn,

Not only are you not an officer in Iraq, you are aso incapable of following a single train of thought.
You claim no senior officer would care about what you post here, under your full name, claiming full relationship to the military and making broad assertions about the status of the military, YET that same unconcerned senior officer has banned you from keeping your blog current?!? BS
I've made some inquiries, and so far you are coming up as a nobody. Big surprise.

Nice hours you got there in Iraq. Plenty of time to be on line in US east coast time.

Fake.

|4.8.07 @ 1:48PM|#

It appears Madamn Pelosi has brought 'peace in our time' and we all know very well how that worked out the last time such tactic was used.

I do hope that for the purposes of attaining Pelosi's peace we will not have to submit to any laws which orders us to stone our females for showing some skin or hang homosexuals for just being them.

Fluffy|4.8.07 @ 1:48PM|#

Well Casual, unless you post your name and address we have no way of knowing if you actually "jump out of airplanes to fight evildoers" or whatever.

The whole "prove who you are" thing on the internet is very tiresome. It doesn't matter anyway unless we're going to fall for the argument from authority fallacy.

|4.8.07 @ 1:54PM|#

MCoO; you can continue to make a jackass out of yourself. You're just amusing me so with how patently wrong you are and you don't even know it.

No matter.

The question of a lack of a mission stands: what are the clear, definable, achievable goals in this conflict? I await someone's answer.

Fluffy|4.8.07 @ 1:57PM|#

"I do hope that for the purposes of attaining Pelosi's peace we will not have to submit to any laws which orders us to stone our females for showing some skin or hang homosexuals for just being them."

Wow, Pelosi went to Saudi Arabia too? I did not know that.

Grotius|4.8.07 @ 1:57PM|#

MCO,

For Ms. Pelosi to flout the Constitution in these circumstances is not only shortsighted...

That is an undemonstrated claim.

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 trouble.

So a member of Congress is not imbued with authority of the United States?

As to arresting Pelosi, etc., here's a suggestion: let Bush try it. See how far he gets. The Congress is not limp instrument, it is the primary governing instution created by the Constitution. Bush will be impeached and lose in the Senate and he will go down in flames as deposed tyrant.

President John Adams requested the statute after a Pennsylvania pacifist named George Logan...

Was Logan a member of Congress?

The debate on this bill ran nearly 150 pages in the Annals.

One looks to the plain language of the Act not to the statements of individual members of Congress.

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."

Yes, that was in reference to the Supreme Court's power. From that phrase arises the "political question" doctrine.

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."

Curtiss-Wright was in part based on a flawed reading of a decision of the Marshall court.

Fluffy|4.8.07 @ 2:00PM|#

By the way, if we took the Logan Act text you guys keep quoting as valid, everyone who ever wrote a letter for Amnesty International should be in jail.

I wrote lots of letters demanding Sakharov be released. I guess I should be sent to jail.

|4.8.07 @ 2:05PM|#

Fluffy:
I don't know where or why you came to believe I would defend Bush as an economic conservative. I've reviewed my comments and I don't see where I misspoke onthat subject.

I share your dislike for his poor speaking abilities. There are SO MANY times when he had the right position and solid precident and logical strength of his planned course of action, and utterly failed to communicate it. The whole WMD debacle is a great example. The invasion was NOT only about WMD stockpiles, not ONLY. That's like you going to buy a new truck and among the things you list that you are looking for you mention fuel economy being better than your old truck. So you get the new truck but it only gets about 1 mile a gallon more. Of course ignoring the increased payload the better reliability, the towing capacity, would make the 1 mile per gal incredibly wasteful compared to the cost. And that is just what Bush did. He made it seem like it was a single motive by over selling what was a hot button idea, because the whole of the matter was to complicated for him to communicate.
That results in pretenders like Ayn claiming they don't know what victory looks like or what the mission is and it striking a harmonic chord in others.
Even the ground pounding privates know what their mission is and they have a clear idea of what victory looks like. The mission is to find and kill those who are trying to undermine the Iraq government, while training up the Iraq police and military. Victory looks like sitting on base playing cards ready to back up the Iraq police and military but not being called because they got it under control and then packing your shit and going home knowing that there is a new democracy in the Middleeast and every middle eastern person looking for freedome and prosperity will have somewhere they can go for a bus ticket, instead of coming here to escape. It makes keeping pretenders out of the US unmeasurably easier.

Grotius|4.8.07 @ 2:10PM|#

Anyway, the Bush administration clearly isn't going to be arresting any member of Congress for visiting Syria. The political position of the administration is so weak these days they dare not try it.

|4.8.07 @ 2:10PM|#

Fluffy:
Seriously, you didn't know Pelosi went to Saudi A?

And I would be glad to post up my name rank ect, except, well, I really can't, not if I'm going to go back in. Get the book, "No Room For Error" and read about my football coach who talked me into my present line of activities.

Grotius|4.8.07 @ 2:12PM|#

Fluffy,

The Congress passed a number of laws under the first Adams administration which if enforced today would be considered attacks on what we consider basic aspects of human liberty.

|4.8.07 @ 2:14PM|#

Grotius:
What the POTUS is or isn't going to enforce doesn't change the criminality of an act.

He isn't enforcing immigration laws, nor did he enforce the appropriate laws against Berger for the stolen destroyed documents, nor doe Fienstien seem to be getting prosecuted for her inside trading and steering projects to her husbands company nor,,,,

doesn't change the fact that it is wrong, illegal, and Pelosi should be called out and stripped of the Speaker position for it.

|4.8.07 @ 2:15PM|#

LGF is not an anti-Muslim site, it's against extreme fundamentalist Islamism hijacking Islam in order to impose a worldwide sharia-based Islamist order over freedom, democracy, common values and human rights. Islam is not nor ever been a race and anyone who think it is needed to get his/her brain checked for any malfunction.

LGF is also against extreme left-wing/progressive politics practiced and promoted by its followers that are contradictory to real democratic, libertarian and conservative values. The left hate the entire U.S. Constitution more than ever and Pelosi (along with few RINO politicians that went with her to Syria) is the prime example of that. There are some on the right who disdained or disagreed with some portions of the U.S. Constitution but none wish to see any end to it or at least circumventing it in order to gain partisan powers (otherwise, they would be seen or casted as "traitors" ought to be hung for treason).

Yet, the American left and the far-left shown utter contempt and loathing to the U.S. Constitution, preferring a global-wide constitution that would entirely be based on the constitution of the Soviet Union, a valid concerning point made out by one longtime LGF poster few weeks ago.

The leftist-Islamist political convergence is particularly worrisome as they would seek to roll back everything that made America great and powerful and to roll back traditional, libertarian and humane values for the sake of saving the planet and promoting Islam(ism) and that mean depopulating 95% of the world's populations, including Christians, Hindus, Jews and peoples of other faiths.

Progressive politics is REGRESSIVE, bear that in mind.

Fluffy|4.8.07 @ 2:19PM|#

Casual, you said:

"As for Bush retreating on SS or Economic Consrvativism, well I didn's see it that way at all."

You also disputed that Mona could be a conservative, and based this solely [as far as I can tell] on the fact that she doesn't like Bush - but Bush is one of the least economically conservative Presidents since 1929.

|4.8.07 @ 2:21PM|#

Even the ground pounding privates know what their mission is and they have a clear idea of what victory looks like.

Really? They do? Now who's making unfounded generalizations about the military? I love when mouth-breathers fire up their Kreskin impressions.

So democracy in Iraq is the goal? Don't we have a democratically-elected government with a standing army, police force, defined borders and free elections.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

And that wasn't my main point (although your laughable assertion that all Soldiers know what victory looks like was pretty amusing); my main point is that militaries are morally used to defend, not to engage in giant social-welfare programs like buliding a democracy fromt the ground up.

Fluffy|4.8.07 @ 2:24PM|#

"LGF is not an anti-Muslim site, it's against extreme fundamentalist Islamism hijacking Islam in order to impose a worldwide sharia-based Islamist order over freedom, democracy, common values and human rights."

The reason the people at LGF are delusional loons is because they view this as a possibility.

Look, no matter who hard you try, you wil not be able to dress up militant Islam to make it stand in for world communism. It's just too stupid. World communism was a legitimate threat and there was a realistic series of events one could imagine that could have led to a worldwide Soviet strategic victory. But there is so little chance of "the imposition of a worldwide Sharia-based order" that it boggles my mind that there are people out there who view it as a serious possibility.

I mean, come on. Put the crack pipe down.

And any Bush supporter who has the stones to talk about anybody else having contempt for the Constitution really should seek professional help. Seriously.

Charles Johnson|4.8.07 @ 2:25PM|#

"Mr. Spock" writes:

As the creator of this quiz, I must disagree with you here. To my knowledge, it has never been "discredited" (how can satire be "discredited"?) and it was certainly not intended as a "smear job."

This is a lie, and a blatant one. When this anyonymous coward (who lacks the courage to use his real name for these smears) first posted his libelous "quiz," he included the image on the following page:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=10583_Except_I_Never_Wear_Polka_Dots&only

Yes, that is a picture of my head on Eva Braun's body. He later removed the image from his site so he could make exactly the kind of dishonest claims he is making here.

This person is nothing more than an internet stalker.

Vince P|4.8.07 @ 2:31PM|#

Fluffy vomited: "The reason the people at LGF are delusional loons is because they view this as a possibility"

The "problem" in the world isn't whether or not the Jihadis have the ability to implement their dream of global sharia.

The problem is that THEY BELIEVE they can.

And part of their plan (which you can find on the internet.. this isn't a secret conspiracy) depends upon dangerously ignorant fools like you to undermine the resolve of Western nations to stand up to them.

They rely upon the Leftists to create so much discord in their home countries as to cause an eventual collapse of the West.. Once that happens they (the Jihadis) will know they can begin more direct actions to get Sharia everywhere.

|4.8.07 @ 2:31PM|#

Quote: "LGF is, specifically, an anti-muslim site - and as the LGFers often point out, "Islam isn't a race" - so, for example, it isn't racist to ask why the subhuman "Paleosimians" put diapers on their heads." Mr. Spock


Mr. Spock, Islam is not a race in the same manner that Nazism is not German ethnicity.

Islam from its inception is a barbaric socio-political and religious world view which does not recognize differences between government and religion. In Islam all laws come from the Koran and all civil authority from the prophet Mohammed, and it's very name means to submit - to follow blindly in subservience. Were it not for its historicity of hundreds of years, by today's standards it would be considered more of a cult than a formal religion.

Because of its spread "by the sword" throughout the world across many boundaries and ethnic groups, Islam presently transcends all national frontiers, ethnicity, and races.

Islamofacists (and yes the term is very apt and correct - look for the origins of the present Jihad in the Arab / Muslim Fundamentalist "Nationalist" movement of the early 20th century, and the close ties and links the Grand Mufti and it had with Hitler and the Nazis, Mussolini and the Facists) are enjoined by a barbarous, fanatical, and twisted ideology of hatred and intolerance that has patently no regard for the sanctity of life whatsoever - as amply shown by the endless parade of suicide bombings, their heinous weapon of choice!

So, no. Calling rabid Palestinian terrorists that will but all too enthusiastically blow themselves just to kill even the likes of such "Dhimmi" apologists of them as you, does not constitute "racism" on the part of LFG.

Besides, it is true that they are indeed "Paleosimians with soiled diapers on their heads." Or would you have the audacity of defining as "Homo Sapiens" such infra-human barbarous animals capable of so much gratuitous carnage and heinous bloodshed on a daily basis?!?! Not the most ravenous animals
in the wild, nor the most aggresive of the great apes would do as they do even if cornered and enraged. They are even less anthropomorphic than these of our distant relatives!

They are but vermin not worthy of having suckled at their mother's breasts (the loving mothers that encourage and send them to blow themselves up to kill innocent strangers?) so that we be not forced to even call them "mammals" - a classification too high in the ladder of life for such as them!

And no, I am not referring to all Muslims. Some people were born, opened their eyes and saw the crib, saw their mother, their father, and the Mullah, and they didn't have a heck of a lot of a say in the matter. I am referring to those Islamofacists that shield themselves behind their false religion (proven false by its fruits - not interested in discussing its non-existent theological merits: enslavement, intolerance, barbarity, mass murder, and barbarous death) to engage in that orgy of blood and gore we witness daily that they call "Jihad"!

Althor

Vince P|4.8.07 @ 2:35PM|#

This is my usual intro to Jihad for new audiences :)

The root causes of terrorism.. JIhad

JIhad, I have two items. The first is a description of how the Muslims moved into Persia.. notice the similarities to the crime they commit in Europe today.. Then after that , I show how Islam in its core teaching obligates the Muslim to do this. It's a religious obligation and an eschatological requirement. Oh and let me already state what the responses are going to be.. 1 - Taking it out of context 2 - Using a bad translation 3 - English doesnt have the same meaning as Arabic 4 - (My favorite) Billy did it too!!! (Comparing to other religions... this tactic is designed to prevent Islam from being discussed)

1 - Persian Conquest Example
"More Moslems came, and soon a small mosque was built, which attracted yet others. As long as Zoroastrians remained in the majority, their lives were tolerable; but once the Moslems became the more numerous, a petty but pervasive harassment was apt to develop. This was partly verbal, with taunts about fire-worship, and comments on how few Zoroastrians there were in the world, and how many Moslems, who must therefore posses the truth; and also on how many material advantages lay with Islam. The harassment was often also physical; boys fought, and gangs of youth waylaid and bullied individual Zoroastrians. They also diverted themselves by climbing into the local tower of silence and desecrating it, and they might even break into the fire-temple and seek to pollute or extinguish the sacred flame. Those with criminal leanings found too that a religious minority provided tempting opportunities for theft, pilfering from the open fields, and sometimes rape and arson. Those Zoroastrians who resisted all these pressures often preferred therefore in the end to sell out and move to some other place where their co-religionists were still relatively numerous, and they could live at peace; and so another village was lot to the old faith."

Boyce, A Persian Stronghold of Zoroastrianism, pp. 7-8;


2 - Islam 101

Shortly before Muhammad fled the hostility of Mecca, a new batch of Muslim converts pledged their loyalty to him on a hill outside Mecca called Aqaba. That Muhammad's nascent religion underwent a significant change at this point is plain. The scholarly Ishaq clearly intends to impress on his (Muslim) readers that, while in its early years, Islam was a relatively tolerant creed that would "endure insult and forgive the ignorant," Allah soon required Muslims "to war against all and sundry for God and his Apostle." The Islamic calendar testifies to the paramouncy of the Hijra by setting year one from the date of its occurrence. The year of the Hijra, 622 AD, is considered more significant than the year of Muhammad's birth or death or that of the first Quranic revelation because Islam is first and foremost a political-military enterprise. It was only when Muhammad left Mecca with his paramilitary band that Islam achieved its proper political-military articulation. The years of the Islamic calendar (which employs lunar months) are designated in English "AH" or "After Hijra."


Muhammad's greatest victory came in 632 AD, ten years after he and his followers had been forced to flee to Medina. In that year, he assembled a force of some ten thousand Muslims and allied tribes and descended on Mecca. "The Apostle had instructed his commanders when they entered Mecca only to fight those who resisted them, except a small number who were to be killed even if they were found beneath the curtains of the Kaba." (Sira, p550)

Volume 3, Book 29, Number 72;
Narrated Anas bin Malik: Allah's Apostle entered Mecca in the year of its Conquest wearing an Arabian helmet on his head and when the Prophet took it off, a person came and said, "Ibn Khatal is holding the covering of the Kaba (taking refuge in the Kaba)." The Prophet said, "Kill him."

Following the conquest of Mecca, Muhammad outlined the future of his religion.

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177;
Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour {of the Last Judgment} will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."

Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24;
Narrated Ibn Umar: Allah's Apostle said: "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform that, then they save their lives and property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah."

It is from such warlike pronouncements as these that Islamic scholarship divides the world into dar al-Islam (the House of Islam, i.e., those nations who have submitted to Allah) and dar al-harb (the House of War, i.e., those who have not). It is this dispensation that the world lived under in Muhammad's time and that it lives under today. Then as now, Islam's message to the unbelieving world is the same: submit or be conquered.

Grotius|4.8.07 @ 2:47PM|#

MCO,

What the POTUS is or isn't going to enforce doesn't change the criminality of an act.

You've as yet to establish that the act was indeed criminal in nature.

He isn't enforcing immigration laws...

Well, no administration really can, given their anti-capitalist nature. When the government takes an anti-capitalist approach to markets (labor or otherwise) the government is going to invariably fail.

Grotius|4.8.07 @ 2:54PM|#

Ayn Randian,

I'll admit it right now: I am not a conservative. Or a liberal. Or a libertarian. I am pretty enamored with some of the thoughts of Leo Strauss these days though. That might make me in part a Straussian.

nextmike|4.8.07 @ 2:59PM|#

Just a note, I'm not a "right-wing authoritarian" but am a regular reader and fan of both LGF and H&R.

Hmm, could it be that I view the rising tide of Islamic radicalism and permissive multiculturalism as one of the greatest threats to the western world and my libertarian values?

You betcha!

Grotius|4.8.07 @ 3:06PM|#

nextmike,

What is "permissive multiculturalism" exactly?

As to Islamic radicalism, couldn't it be argued that it is part of a more general rise of religious fundamentalism spanning more than one religion?

|4.8.07 @ 3:20PM|#

"As to Islamic radicalism, couldn't it be argued that it is part of a more general rise of religious fundamentalism spanning more than one religion?"

Not really. there is no evidence of a global wave of Christian, Jewsih, Buddist, Hindu, or other religious violence. By contrast, Muslims kill hundreds if not thousands of people a year in terrorist attacks around the world, striking many different countries on many different continents.

Grotius|4.8.07 @ 3:23PM|#

The Mongoose,

Say I agree with that for the sake of argument. Is violence the only measure by which to answer that question? I don't think that it is.

|4.8.07 @ 3:24PM|#

Grotius:

As to Islamic radicalism, couldn't it be argued that it is part of a more general rise of religious fundamentalism spanning more than one religion?

Leftists and Regressives make that silly arguement, however, ONLY Islam is daily preaching wonton murder of non co-religionists, and only those calls are being acted out on the streets.

Only Islam. Jihad = War. Get it?

I hope you see that clearly.

|4.8.07 @ 3:26PM|#

Grotius:

Is violence the only measure by which to answer that question? I don't think that it is.

Yes. That IS the ONLY measure. Period.

Quilly Mammoth|4.8.07 @ 3:27PM|#

So a member of Congress is not imbued with authority of the United States?

Got it in one!

By the Constitution the Executive conducts foreign policy. The people it appoints and the treaties it signs are approved by the Senate. As individuals no member of Congress has any authority. It is only as a body that it has authority...and that limited in many of the duties given to the Executive by the Constitution.

This sort of half truth is rampant in this thread. Argument is made from "proper thinking" rather than facts. Take this absurd debate on eliminationist rhetoric.

The entire concept of eliminationist rhetoric has been lost in the PC maelstrom. When Brown Shirt Annie says that liberals should be hit with baseball bats it's "eliminationist rhetoric" yet when Bill Maher says that the world would be a better place if Dick Cheyney were assassinated it's "free speech".

Hunh?

And neither instance is really eliminationist rhetoric. What eliminationist rhetoric really is, is nothing more than "The only good X is a dead X" said in a fancy way and mean it; despite what Dave Neiwert says. It is the actual intent that needs to be look at.

Actions, not words, is how things should be judged. If it were only what we said that mattered instead of what we did, the world would be full of hero's and everyone would be eating cake.

The catch phrase "eliminationist rhetoric" has now become the new means of using moral equivalence. It avoids the question of who is actually doing evil things. Some commenters on LGF might indeed wish to see all people of middle eastern descent dead. As would some on Dkos like to Wingnuts etc done in. But as of yet none of them has actually begun to do so!

It is a canard, that actions equal words, designed to control speech "we" might disagree with. The ACLU, in fact, has made exactly that argument quite compellingly when it argued for the Nazi in Skokie. Anything else is mind policing.

Finally when we go to Mona's blog we see a picture of a nun used to equivocate Speaker Pelosi's donning the hajib. Here's the difference: long gone are the days when a woman would be attacked for not covering her head in church while the same cannot be said for a woman who fails to cover here's before entering many mosques.

It's appalling to me that Modern Liberals are more concerned about what commenters on a blog say rather than the very real actions of members of various misogynistic death cults. I'm more concerned about people who are actually hacking the hands off of thieves, stoning women for showing ankle and hanging people that are LGBT than I am about the commenters who use hyperbole.

And if I said "The only good Kluxer is a dead Kluxer" I'd bet that in the heart of many a "liberal" who has posted here it would ring true.

Grotius|4.8.07 @ 3:33PM|#

Twaddle,

I see. So if tomorrow X religious group outlawed the citizenship status of Y group due to X religious views but did not do anything else to Y that would not count under your system?

Or to put things more concretely, a year or two ago some religious groups protested an IMAX movie which discussed evolution. As I recall the movie was not shown in some locales due to these protests. Now in the marketplace of ideas and in a liberal society that is perfectly acceptable from one POV, but nevertheless it does say something about the general rise of religious fundamentalism.

|4.8.07 @ 3:33PM|#

Fluffy

I don't think non-jihadists living in Indonesia or in Sudan, or Ethiopia or Malaysia or Iran or Afghanistan or Egypt etc, etc, etc would agree with your assessment of world events.

As a matter of fact I know they don't.

Grotius|4.8.07 @ 3:34PM|#

Quilly Mammoth,

I've already stated my views on these issues above.

|4.8.07 @ 3:36PM|#

Quote: "Say I agree with that for the sake of argument. Is violence the only measure by which to answer that question? I don't think that it is." Grotius

No Grotius, defending ourselves against the present assault of radical Islam by force is not the only choice. There is also
"appeasement" and "Dhimmitude" (the current Democratic approach) and ultimately
"submission." Then there is also death...

Althor

|4.8.07 @ 3:37PM|#

Grotius:

Now in the marketplace of ideas and in a liberal society that is perfectly acceptable from one POV, but nevertheless it does say something about the general rise of religious fundamentalism.

Nobody was murdered, maimed, hacked, or burned to death. And they never would be.

Your point is pathetic.

Grotius|4.8.07 @ 3:38PM|#

The general point is that religious fundamentalism is a potential problem for any society no matter what religion is involved, though each religion presents its own specific issues.

Grotius|4.8.07 @ 3:42PM|#

Althor,

No Grotius, defending ourselves against the present assault of radical Islam by force is not the only choice.

You know, this doesn't seem to be an answer to the question that I asked.


Twaddle,

It may in fact be pathetic, which is why you should demonstrate why it is. I am always eager to learn why I am wrong.

|4.8.07 @ 3:42PM|#

Fluffy | April 8, 2007, 2:19pm | #
Casual, you said:

"As for Bush retreating on SS or Economic Consrvativism, well I didn's see it that way at all."

Ah, I see your confusion. I did not complete the thought well enough. On SS Bush was pressing for change and was defeated, he did not retreat he lost. On Economic conservatisim I don't believe he ever pressed the concept beyond tax control, and as much never held a position under that flag to retreat from. Better?

You also disputed that Mona could be a conservative, and based this solely [as far as I can tell] on the fact that she doesn't like Bush - but Bush is one of the least economically conservative Presidents since 1929.

My reason for doubting Mona being a conservative had far less to do with what her numbingly closed minded comments about a whole spectrum of people she admitts to having no contact with for about 3 years, though it is a pretty strong indicator. My assertion that she isn't and never really was a conservative comes from her comments on her Blog. It isn't that she attacks Bush, it's why and even HOW she attacks him. I've not made an effort to enumerate the reasons as in truth, I found the number too daunting. then I looked to see just what traits I could recognise as strong conservative markers. Didn't find any of note.
Have you?

|4.8.07 @ 3:43PM|#

Grotius:

The general point is that religious fundamentalism is a potential problem for any society no matter what religion is involved

Wow. Thanks for that enlightenment. When you have the Jihadi's blade scraping against your neck, be sure to recite that mantra for comfort ...

Grotius|4.8.07 @ 3:46PM|#

Twaddle,

I'll simply repeat what I wrote above:

It may in fact be pathetic, which is why you should demonstrate why it is. I am always eager to learn why I am wrong.

|4.8.07 @ 3:47PM|#

Charles, I hope you're still reading this thread, because your comment board is closed to new members:

LGF is not a racist or fascist site, and is an invaluable resource for tracking the rise of Islamist extremism, which is itself a kind of religious fascism. HOWEVER, you deserve a great deal of responsibility for the hateful comments that often crop up on your blog, for they are provoked by the intensity of your rhetoric, and just as key, your failure to condemn such comments on your front page. Obviously you cannot control what hundreds of anonymous commentators write, but as the blog's owner, you set the tone of the conversation, and make it clear what kind of language is tolerated, and which isn't. Any scabrous or angry comment you make on the front page is magnified 5, 10x over by your community-- that is the consistent dynamic of Internet community. Call Sean Penn an unpatriotic traitor for visiting Iran (as opposed to just being a naive boob), and lo and behold, you'll find people on your boards openly hoping he gets murdered by the regime while he's there. You have to take ownership of this.

I've also read most of LGF since 9/11. In the beginning, Charles was an angry liberal who wanted a firm response to Al Qaeda and its supporters, and condemned the virulent anti-Semitism provoked by intifada two. But a liberal all the same, who criticized Bush and the religious right. What happened to him?

|4.8.07 @ 3:47PM|#

Grotius:

It may in fact be pathetic, which is why you should demonstrate why it is. I am always eager to learn why I am wrong.

You are wrong because you go out of your way to equivocate religious-wacko's with religious-MURDERERS.

Are you sleepy?

|4.8.07 @ 3:49PM|#

Grotius:
The general point is that religious fundamentalism is a potential problem for any society no matter what religion is involved

In general as a stand alone statment I agree with you. Hey, it's a start!

However!
In the same way acne may be a problem, it is dealt with differently than say gangreen. no?

One annoys and is treatable, the other will kill you unless you take severe measures.

Surely you don't suggest we can simply tell the Jihadist to keep 100ft back when picketing but we should launch sergical strikes against the Southern Baptist of Hicksville Alabama?

Grotius|4.8.07 @ 3:50PM|#

Twaddle,

Equivocate?

I think you mean "equate."

Anyway, I'm not trying to equate the two. I am arguing that Islamic fundamentalism is a more extreme example of the general rise of religious fundamentalism in the post-WWI era. Something can be part of a general trend while also being different in its specific aspects re: that trend.

Grotius|4.8.07 @ 3:52PM|#

Er, post-WWII era.

|4.8.07 @ 3:53PM|#

WJA:

But a liberal all the same, who criticized Bush and the religious right. What happened to him?

Like many of us Liberal-minded Americans, he WOKE UP, put the disgust of the current administrations domestic or foreign policies aside, and actively supported all agressive efforts of Bush to go after the ENEMY of a ALL liberal societies.

RADICAL ISLAM.

And it isn't anywhere near being over.

Grotius|4.8.07 @ 3:55PM|#

MCO,

Well, it comes down to an issue of assessment, correct? Just how dire of a threat is Islamic fundamentalism? There seems to be (to me at least) much room for honest disagreement on that question.

Quilly Mammoth|4.8.07 @ 3:56PM|#

Yeah, Grotius, I read your points about diplomacy and they are still wrong.

..and the President is given the power to decide which other governments to recognize.

Hmm, that power has been jointly exercised by both the Congress and the President if I recall correctly.

You don't. Your contention that the Executive shares power with Congress in this regard is not correct. The Senate ratifies treaties because they have the force of law (legislation) and Congress approves officers, judges and ambassadors and so on because those people are appointed by law (legislation).

Like I say, half-truths that sound good are not necessarily fact.

|4.8.07 @ 3:57PM|#

Grotius:

Equivocate?

I think you mean "equate."

Equivocate:

1:to use equivocal language especially with intent to deceive
2: to avoid committing oneself in what one says

Grotius|4.8.07 @ 3:59PM|#

Quilly Mammoth,

The Senate not only ratifies treaties, it also discusses their merits and has on a number of occassions made ratification contingent upon the President going back to the table and getting language added to the treaty.

Grotius|4.8.07 @ 4:03PM|#

Twaddle,

How do you know that my "intent" was to deceive?

Or how was I avoiding commitment?

Grotius|4.8.07 @ 4:07PM|#

Quilly Mammoth,

Here's a question: what do you think of the Byrd-Hagel Resolution?

|4.8.07 @ 4:09PM|#

Grotius:

How do you know that my "intent" was to deceive?
Or how was I avoiding commitment?

I blatently judged your character from your responses.

/how dare I

Grotius|4.8.07 @ 4:10PM|#

For those at home, the Byrd-Hagel Resolution was basically stated (prior to the Kyoto Protoxxol becoming finalized) that the Senate was opposed to the Protocol minus some language that the majority of the Senate felt should be included. Keep in mind that the Senate was discussing as a body the language of an agreement with foreign parties before that agreement was even finalized.

Grotius|4.8.07 @ 4:14PM|#

Twaddle,

I could write something meanspirited but I won't. Have a good one.

|4.8.07 @ 4:16PM|#

Mona
April 8, 2007, 9:20am

Any reasonable person following this thread will have observed that it is, indeed, impossible to reason with the LGFers and their allies.

A nice demagogue tactic.... "and anyone who agrees with you" "ve vill do za propa de programming for zu"

That a Reason writer would commend LGF and its comments section remains very disturbing to me, and I would hope Mr. Young would reconsider what that says about him.

ANOTHER WORDS: Mr. Young you are not entitled to have a fair or favorable opinoin about LGFs its analysis and newsworthiness or else "ve vill paint you as a baddy, fascist, nazi and za like...so smarten up and be like us, or else!!

.....Charles Johnson feeds these bloodthirsty authoritarians a steady diet of anti-Muslim read meat, and they obligingly spit out some of the filthiest, eliminationist sentiments to be found anywhere on the Internet.

I think she's confused with the posts at Daiy Kos or the comments section at Huffington Post????

as briefly as I did, but through personal experience I am now positioned to know how grotesque that site is.

Wow, she is a self appointed expert and AUTHORITARIAN.... so Mr. Young would bes be advised to straighten and smarten up OR ELSE!!

and his right-wing detractors often engage in the offensive practice of calling him by an effete, female French name.

This expert realllly knows her stuff? In her "brief" time there she became a 1rst rate Inspector Cleussseau...

with their homophobic or other bile simply because Greenwald has emerged as a highly successful critic of Bush and his Movement. This they find intolerable.

THIS IDIOTIC HYOCRICY IS SOOOO RICH....

a) their homophobic... notice the broad demagoguic grouping there
b) Johnson has been mocked and painted as a homo by the vile left wing bloggers you support
c) Now Bush is a "movement"..... or another words anyone that holds ANY opinion slightly different from MONNNNA is part of a "movement" like Mr. Young, who better watch it now!!
d)She finishes with how supposedly "intolerable" these right wingers" she created in her mind are....

Ummmmmmmmm it's called projectionism" honey... look it up!! and then apologize to Mr. Young afterwards...

Finally, I seldom engage these dwindling numbers of Bush supporters/neocons any longer because through experience and education I have concluded doing so is pointless.

This woman may be the smartest dumbest person all at the same time... I'm mean at least in her mind that is.......

They are, most of them, psychologically incapable of understanding the authoritarian mindset in which they dwell and how actually antithetical it is to American values.

WOW SHE IS A GENIUS... AND MR. YOUNG YOU HAD BETTER GRASP THIS AND GET THE MESSAGE OR ELSE!!! NOW MR. YOUNG DO YOU UNDERSTAND AMERICAN VALUES AS MONA HAS LAID THEM OUT TO YOU...DO YOU.... WE CAN REPROGRAM ZU, VE HAV WAYS!!!!! DON'T MAKE US CALL ZU A NAZI!!!!

MONA DESCRIBING HERSELF THROUGH PROJECTIONISM

Make many incorrect inferences from evidence.

Hold contradictory ideas leading them to `speak out of both sides of their mouths.'

Uncritically accept that many problems are `our most serious problem.'

Uncritically accept insufficient evidence that supports their beliefs. (ahemmmmmmmmm lol!!)

Use many double standards in their thinking and judgements.

Federal Dog|4.8.07 @ 4:26PM|#

"I, with my undergrad degree in religious studies am in a position to set people straight on that, and began a lengthy, academic-sounding rebuttal."


Hoo-boy. God save us from "academic-sounding" posters with only a BA setting out to correct the world.

Grotius|4.8.07 @ 4:27PM|#

As to my 'character,' these days I try to include in it an effort not to insult people I barely know. :)

|4.8.07 @ 4:28PM|#

Grotius | April 8, 2007, 3:55pm | #
Well, it comes down to an issue of assessment, correct? Just how dire of a threat is Islamic fundamentalism? There seems to be (to me at least) much room for honest disagreement on that question.
I don't agree. One needs to be well informed od exactly what it is that we are up against and what is being done, or in many cases, undone, to thwart the enemy. The sharing and discussions on that topic is exactly the horrid crime against humanity that Mona attacks LGF for. How dare he show the gaps in our medias reporting, the political ploys and the out right horror of radical Islam. Doesn't he know how important it is to protect, nay, to FOSTER the honest dissagreement you mention.

Just tell me this. How honest exactly is it to disagree when one has made no effort to be fully informed in the first place? Is that honest or ignorant disagreement?

You seem to be willing to debate without the usual screeds of labels and lies. Why don't you pop over to LGF and catch a registration period. They are becomeing more common as Charles updates the site. you should be on line and educating the uninformed in no time.

|4.8.07 @ 4:37PM|#

"It is not the magazine, it is Mr. Young. His brain cells stop working the minute someone somewhere mention Syria."

That's about the best sum up I've heard.

And citing Little Green Football's appreciatively......... Sheesh. Time for Reason to get a new Mideast correspondent.

Fluffy|4.8.07 @ 4:39PM|#

Twaddle - in the sentence under consideration, the word you should have used was "equate".

You may be asserting that Grotius' overall desire was to equivocate, but the method he would be using to equivocate [if you were right] would be equating radical Islamists with Christian fundamentalists.

Your sentence makes no sense at all grammatically with the word "equivocate" in it.

Grotius|4.8.07 @ 4:39PM|#

MCO,

Many apologies, but I cut up some of your statements so I can address them in order my thoughts.

I don't agree. One needs to be well informed od exactly what it is that we are up against and what is being done, or in many cases, undone, to thwart the enemy.

How is that an argument against my claim that one can honestly disagree about the nature of the threat? Or did you mean to write that you don't "disagree?"

You seem to be willing to debate without the usual screeds of labels and lies. Why don't you pop over to LGF and catch a registration period.

Well, thanks. Anyway, I blog too much as it is.

The sharing and discussions on that topic is exactly the horrid crime against humanity that Mona attacks LGF for. How dare he show the gaps in our medias reporting, the political ploys and the out right horror of radical Islam. Doesn't he know how important it is to protect, nay, to FOSTER the honest dissagreement you mention.

Just tell me this. How honest exactly is it to disagree when one has made no effort to be fully informed in the first place? Is that honest or ignorant disagreement?

I'm interested in ideas.

Grotius|4.8.07 @ 4:50PM|#

Why exactly would a blog have a "registration period?"

nextmike|4.8.07 @ 4:54PM|#

Grotius,

"Permissive multiculturalism" is my reference to "moral equivalence". For example, the growing trend of institutional tolerance for sharia law within the West.

|4.8.07 @ 5:02PM|#

Grotius | April 8, 2007, 4:50pm | #
Why exactly would a blog have a "registration period?"

While it is not my place to say, I will offer that on other conservative or even just Non Liberal/left sites, when one acchieves some visibility there are swarms of trolls and flamers who show up and ruin the ability to have ANY conversations. By limiting the ability to get an account to post from, people are forced to be more responsible, or to quickly lose their voice.

But that is just *my* opinion of one possible reason.

Re my comment about "honestly disagreement". If one makes an honest effort to be informed, there really is little room to have an honest disagreement about the severity of the threat. They want to kill, submit, or convert us (non-jihadist), and are willing to die in their effort. This is a global ambition.
As long as we are on the same globe, with no other alternative, I just don't see where you find the room to disagree *and* be honest. Even they would agree with my assesment. They say as much in all their communications.

jest thinkin\'|4.8.07 @ 5:05PM|#

"the growing trend of institutional tolerance for sharia law within the West."

e.g., laws dictating and governing sexual mores, for example. (legislate morality, for example. faith based governing. evangelical rhetoric)

minaret.org

Grotius|4.8.07 @ 5:07PM|#

nextmike,

Well, whatever Sharia is (and that seems like a pretty contested issue in Muslim circles) I don't see much (or any) of an institutional tolerance for it in the West. Indeed, even in nations where there was some tolerance for Muslim customs which I consider beyond the pale there has been a reaction against such.

Anyway, since I'm of the opinion (like the Sophists that I love so much) that relativism is one of the primary aspects of any liberal society I'm a fairly permissive sort of fellow. How that locks into my Burkean sensibilities re: societal change some might question. I myself would differentiate between private orderings and government fiat. Then again, I could be wrong.

lurch3249|4.8.07 @ 5:09PM|#

"LGF is not a racist or fascist site, and is an invaluable resource for tracking the rise of Islamist extremism, which is itself a kind of religious fascism."

To label "LGF" as a resource is absurd - all it does is manufacture outrage towards the usual conservative targets and further religious and racial stereotypes. I mean come on, how is going after people for wearing the Kaffiyeh (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=24881_Marketing_Killers_to_the_Clueless&only)

"tracking Islamic extremism"? Its not, it is manufactured outrage, aka "yellow journalism", updated for "blogs" instead of newspapers.

|4.8.07 @ 5:10PM|#

The crimes of Muslims pale in comparison to the numerous war crimes of Western Christian nations over the past century. This is obvious to any well-informed and unbiased observer.

When Western attacks kill thousands of Muslims, including numerous innocent women and children, this is at best unfortunate, and does not lead the authoritarian personality to question his side or cause in the least. He (or she) has a thousand excuses for the killing done by his side.

When Muslim terrorists kill thousands of Westerners, this is proof that Muslims in general deserve to die, and reason for killing still more Muslims. The authoritarian will wish to engage in such violence and killing even if it demonstrably and obviously weakens his side -- as the invasion of Iraq weakened the United States and made it more vulnerable to Al Qaeda.

This double standard is clasically what fuels cycles of violence. Some fanatical authoritarian types want to fuel this cycle of violence at all costs, even the weakening or destruction of their own civilization. The fanatics who want to expand our disastrous Middle Eastern war, are a greater danger to this country than Al Qaeda is.

|4.8.07 @ 5:21PM|#

And also, it is a sad thing to see supposed "libertarians" angry because a free American citizen went to a foreign country and spoke freely there. (And in a case where there is clearly not even any law against doing so! Not that such laws are legitimate from a libertarian perspective anyway).

This just shows the longing for a dictatorship on the part of so many Bush dead-enders. They would jettison their own country's hard-won freedoms from their own weird, twisted, psychological needs for an authoritarian leader. The most interesting psychological case study in this thread is Most Casual of Observers (if this man is a military officer, then I'm Dick Cheney). Above he says:

"Because the President told Pelosi not to go, she violated the executive privilage of the office of the president. It really is just that simple. If you have procreated and have a child who wants to go down to the courthouse and discuss your molestation charges with the DA and you tell them NOT to, that right there, is a violation of your parental authority."

In other words, President Bush is Big Daddy, who stands in a parental role of authority over all Americans, who do not even have the right to queston Him if there are "molestation charges" (where did child molesting come from...this man has some weird psychosexual issues). You can compare this kind of authoritarian need to submit to a father figure to Communism or Naziism, but here it almost seems on the primitve level of Idi Amin, or one of the African dictators who are a Big Daddy to their tribe.

|4.8.07 @ 5:23PM|#

MQ:

What a complete and utterly contemptable lie.

No Western power has sanctioned or carried out the wanton intentional slaughter of complete unsuspecting people without warning or provocation.

And of all Muslim people who have ben slaughtered, it has been at the hands of their fellow Muslims, not western interest.

You are disgusting in your lies and distortions.

|4.8.07 @ 5:27PM|#

Well you are right aout one thing. I'm not a military officer. Not anymore. Didn't say I was. Said my classmate was.

But details are certainly something you do not have a mind for. not when you are blind to the greater truths.

The analogy of molestation comes for the disgust I hold for your ilk. Only a child molester give me the same gag reflex I get from reading you insane drivel.

nolimit|4.8.07 @ 5:31PM|#

MQ - You are a true blue "American hater."

Well informed/unbiased? Who the hell are you trying to kid?

|4.8.07 @ 5:33PM|#

Bush isn't big daddy, he is the Captain of the ship of state. As such he has the role and resaponsibility to monitor and mitigate relations with other government interest. It is his perogitive to allow or prevent such comminications. That is what the office of President is there for. To provide the face of diplomacy for the rest of us. It's why we bother with elections to put someone in that role. Otherwise we could all just run out own little state departments from home.

From the timing of your post, I guess its sunrise there now right?

How nice to have the voice of AQ visiting us.

michael edelman|4.8.07 @ 6:08PM|#

"Look, no matter who hard you try, you wil not be able to dress up militant Islam to make it stand in for world communism. It's just too stupid."

As I recall, the Soviets never brought down any buildings in New York, killing thousands. And the Soviets found the threat of mutual destruction to be a strong deterrent- unlike militant Islam, which glorifies martyrdom.

Perhaps you haven't been following the papers, but Islamic militants are attacking and slaughtering non-believers all over the globe- not just in Iraq and Afghanistan and Israel, but in Thailand, Indonesia, India, and more.

|4.8.07 @ 6:10PM|#

Oh I get it now. Mona is just link-whoring by posting all this tripe. Surely she can't believe this garbage. No one with a functioning brain cell could. Mona knows just as well as the rest of us that Pelosi went to Syria, had a conversation with it's scumbag dictator, misrepresented the leader of another country, indicated her submissiveness as due her stature as a lowly woman, and she did it for the purpose of making Bush look bad, and scoring political points for herself. As for Mona, methinks she is just trying to justify her approval of Pelosi's actions, as treasonous as they are. To get herself into the limelight, she pulls into the discussion a rabid, frothing smear job of a web site that, among other topics, points out the facts of instances of Islamic violence and hate. She calls them haters because they point out the truth. Go figure. It takes a special kind of moron to make that connection.

But hey ... look at that traffic spike!

So, Mona, we are all still waiting for you to specifically point out (with a link) to just one single instance of bigotry, racism or religious intolerance from Charles Johnson.

Just one.

I bet you can't do it .. you're just another deranged, delusional liar.

|4.8.07 @ 6:26PM|#

Oh, noes! The Democrats are toast in 2008! Nancy Pelosi - scary, scary! We hates the Pelosi we does!

I know, because the LGFers told me.

Granted, they said exactly the same thing about 2006...

illeagle|4.8.07 @ 6:49PM|#

joe...

We didn't say that in 2006. We stayed home and didn't vote for the repubs because they made us mad. we also know that if you give the dhimmicraps enough rope... they always end up hanging themselves.

|4.8.07 @ 6:51PM|#

Joe, LFG told us that Dan Rather's infamous "Rathergate" documents were forgeries, and they have been amply proven right in that assertion; even to the detriment of Mr. Rather and his lefty harpy producer.

As far as their record is concerned LFG has proven to be more professional,truthful, and reliable than most of the left-wing biased mainstream media; certainly infinitely more so than Mona and all those others working for the "People's Underground Democrat Ministry of Propaganda and Misrepresentation" on the net, so shove it!

As for 2006, the apathy and the fickleness of the "America Idol" stupefied silent majority is what empowered the traitorous Democrat scandalous minority to win, and they only achieved victory by selectively winning local elections, many of them by margins of only a few hundreds or a few thousands. It was not, by any stretch of the imagination, the MANDATE that in your leftist mental diarrhea, you guys delude yourselves of having won!

Althor

Grotius|4.8.07 @ 7:14PM|#

MCO,

No Western power has sanctioned or carried out the wanton intentional slaughter of complete unsuspecting people without warning or provocation.

Ever? Or just not recently?

|4.8.07 @ 7:24PM|#

i would post a more detailed comment about mr. spocks spew of filth error, but i don't find him worth the time. suffice it to say that he is a liar, and since he's outed himself so efficiently, i can thus assume that anything else he has to say is unworthy of my attention. if his goal has been to discuss things factually and logically to gain support for his views, he has failed magnificently, and i congratulate him for his dedication to self destruction.

|4.8.07 @ 7:36PM|#

"We didn't say that in 2006." Oh, no? The right wing media, like LGF and National Review, didn't spend 2006 demonizing Pelosi and assuring the country that open opposition to the President's policies in the Middle East was going to destroy the Democrats politically? You sure about that?

"we also know that if you give the dhimmicraps enough rope... they always end up hanging themselves."

Uh huh. Like the withdrawal debate, the one that's breaking 70-30 among the public in favor of the Democratic Party's position. Wasn't that the last time the Democrats were going to hang themselves?

Althor,

Just keep telling yourself that. You're right, public opinion is exactly where it was in 2002. Exactly.

Let's coordinate here for the 2008 elections: you stand on a street corner holding a sign that reads "The Democrats want to undo everything Bush has done in the Middle East!" and I'll stand on a corner holding a sign that reads "The Democrats want to undo everything Bush has done in the Middle East!" and we'll see how the elections turn out. Whaddya say?

Mr. Spock|4.8.07 @ 7:56PM|#

This is a lie, and a blatant one. When this anyonymous coward (who lacks the courage to use his real name for these smears) first posted his libelous "quiz," he included the image on the following page:

----------

Mr. Johnson, you are a priveleged white computer geek who - safe from his laptop in Santa Cruz - runs and administers a site whose whole purpose - at least from the POV of any unbiased outside observer - is to collect news articles (often dishonestly spun) which portray certain ethnic and religious groups in a bad light, add a few lines of snarky commentary, and then site back while hundreds of commenters blather on and on about:

-"vermin"
-"diaperheads"
-"parasites"
-"koranimals"
- "subhumans"

...etc.

This stew of racial and religious epithets is then seasoned with calls for "sterilization," "nuking" "round'em up and put'em in camps" etc.

You seem quite happy doing this and I do not begrudge you your chosen life's mission. I'm sure its fun and even occasionally funny, and I can easily imagine you having the same sorts of chuckles as a Don Black or a Tom Metzger might similarly have over the antics of your commentariat - from whose words you invariably distance yourself whenever these cause friction with respectable media outlets or even *gasp* advertisers.

But c'mon, Mr. Johnson. You are a grown man, well into middle-age, and like anyone who observes you must be keenly aware of the very strange line you are walking here.

|4.8.07 @ 8:07PM|#

Quote: "Althor, let's coordinate here for the 2008 elections: you stand on a street corner holding a sign that reads "The Democrats want to undo everything Bush has done in the Middle East!" and I'll stand on a corner holding a sign that reads "The Democrats want to undo everything Bush has done in the Middle East!" and we'll see how the elections turn out. Whaddya say?" Joe

Whether wittingly or unwittingly all that Democrats want to undo.... is America! And if the rest of us do not stop the madness and the treason, the Islamofacists will be all but too happy to oblige them!

Althor

|4.8.07 @ 8:08PM|#

Grotius | April 8, 2007, 7:14pm | #

Ever? Or just not recently?
I prefer to keep debates about politics in the CURRENT times, and not attempt to rehash the wars of ancestors dead for a millinea.

But even allowing one to dig up the long dead, the Crusades being the worst to come by, still do not constitute the level of of out right murder and oppression done the Muslim world compared to what it has done to itself or any numerous other groups. And as is typical of history, it is easily twisted by omissions of fact or reletivity to the times they occured in. The Crusaides were to a great deal in respons to expansions and encroachments by the Muslim world.

So yes, now and then as well, so ever.

|4.8.07 @ 8:14PM|#

Joe: Uh huh. Like the withdrawal debate, the one that's breaking 70-30 among the public in favor of the Democratic Party's position. Wasn't that the last time the Democrats were going to hang themselves?

Not that reality or honesty interest you in any way, but your numbers appear to come from a poll which asked if the respondent was happy with the current state of afairs in Iraq. Such a question is NOT indacitive of a desire to abandon or run as even I would have to say "no" to such a question. I would far rather we doubled down and put a real big boot print on anyone who wants to challenge our efforts there.
But like I said, it's not like honesty or accuracy are the sorts of things you would let interfere with your politics.

|4.8.07 @ 8:38PM|#

"Whether wittingly or unwittingly all that Democrats want to undo.... is America! And if the rest of us do not stop the madness and the treason, the Islamofacists will be all but too happy to oblige them!"

Yawn.

Keep it up, tough guy. The American public finds that line of argumentation so convincing in 2007. Gee, I hope the Republicans don't make those arguments in 2008! Also, I sure hope you don't throw me into a briar patch.

Most Obsessed of Commenters,

Actually, 70-30 or something close keeps coming up consistently, regardless of the question asked. For example, "Was it a good idea to invade Iraq?" or "Should the United States withdraw its troops from Iraq regardless of what happens, or stay until the job is done?" also yield results close to 70-30.

Face it, you were just as certain that opposing the war was going to kill the Democrats in 2006 as you are today, and you're going to be just as certain in 2008.

You sound like Walter Mondale. "No, no, the polls don't really mean what they say. The American people don't really believe that."

I saw this thinking ruin my party in the 1980s, and I am thrilled to be watching the Republicans doing the same thing.

Grotius|4.8.07 @ 8:42PM|#

MCO,

I prefer to keep debates about politics in the CURRENT times, and not attempt to rehash the wars of ancestors dead for a millinea.

That's fine.

But even allowing one to dig up the long dead, the Crusades being the worst to come by...

Oh, I can think of far worse incidents in Western civilization. For example, Germany is part of the "West" (even under the most conservative version of that term) and how many people were killed as a result of its actions in WWII?

Anyway, I generaly agree with Machiavelli when he writes that violence is integral to the founding of any polity; so violence was simply part of the creation of the empires and colonial outposts of the West, as they were of non-Western empires, etc.

Grotius|4.8.07 @ 8:57PM|#

You know, Syria has some really cool archaeological sites I'd love to visit.

|4.8.07 @ 8:58PM|#

Rowwwrrrr!

Grrrrr!



your eggs are broken

no easter bunny for you

I dine on omelettes

|4.8.07 @ 9:19PM|#

Hi, I'm a foreign observer of all this. My observations are as follows:-
LGF is a snide site; "Charles" is too clever by half to allow himself to be caught out.
Muslims don't really have to worry about LGFers. Their real hatred is reserved for europeans. Examples---British sailors party on Iranian T.V........628 comments Col. Jack Jackobs"Brit sailors disgraceful.." 623 comments. Catmeat Sheikh not axed...46 comments. Clueless elected official watch ...61 comments.
There is no "far left" in America. There isn't any "far left" anywhere any more. N.B. Chomsky doesn't count.
P.S. Can anyone work out how "Charles" went from jazz guitarist to expert on Islam in , oh , about twenty minutes after 9/11?

|4.8.07 @ 9:20PM|#

"No Western power has sanctioned or carried out the wanton intentional slaughter of complete unsuspecting people without warning or provocation."

There are a few million American Indians who would disagree with that. And more than a few Cambodians. And many many Priests and Nuns as well as women and children who were murdered by Contras in Nicaragua that were funded and supported by us. Ands all those thousands of Kurds who were murdered by the Republican Guard for a few decades before Americans decided it was a bad thing, and even after when the CIA declined to support their uprising, allowing American-supplied helicopters to mow down women and children. And those are just the incidents that spring to mind that involve us. If you include Russia in the west, a fair choice to my mind, you have all the millions who were killed by Communism. The west isn't the bastion of mercy and kindness that you make it out to be; it's position is built on the blood and bones of millions of people in the last century alone. Pretending otherwise just makes you look like a hack, and trust me my friend, you don't need the help.

|4.8.07 @ 10:05PM|#

"Why should we stand by while any administration that we disagree with claims the exclusive right to speak to the world for us?"

Um, oh, I dunno...maybe because that's how the constitution says it works? That constitution even has a built-in way to fix things to your liking. Just get your boy/girl the most electoral college votes in the next election. Should be simple, if things are as clear-cut as the BDS support groups claim.

|4.8.07 @ 10:13PM|#

Shem,
You are in no position to be raising the lable of hack.
Fist start with the word sanction, and then apply it to a Western power.
The accusation from MQ was in context of how western society has attacked Muslims *and* was confined to the last century.
When Western attacks kill thousands of Muslims, including numerous innocent women and children,,,,
When Muslim terrorists kill thousands of Westerners,,,,

The native American tribes,,, Not attacked or slaughtered whole sale in the last century, nor members of the Muslim community.
No, communist Russia does NOT count. Did not attack the Muslim community for being Muslim, and not member of western society while under soviet rule.
The vast majority of Cambodians who were slaughtered, were slaughtered y Cambodians specifically BECASUE of the departure of Western influence. Also no relationship to the Muslim Western world conflict.
The Contras fought against communist oppression, something I'm sure you abored, but again not germain to the Muslim vs Western world discussion.
The Kurds were indeed killed by Republican guards, and true to form, you will try to lay Saddams crimes on the feet of the West. PS Iraq did not get it's weapons from the US they got them from the USSR and the French.
And no the Soviets do not count as being part of the West as they were directly opposed to the West for more than half of the last centry. Though like Iraq they did enjoy a friendly relationship with the West during WWII, and unlike Iraq the recieved extensive arms and supplies,,, yet they were in the end our enemies.

It must be hard hateing everything you stand for Shem. You are after all nothing but a product of the West.

Maybe you should change your screen name to Sham.

Grotius|4.8.07 @ 10:20PM|#

Dan,

Um, oh, I dunno...maybe because that's how the constitution says it works?

The Constitution also includes a free speech clause. One of the clear reasons it includes such language is to protect those minorities who didn't vote for the particular politicians in office. It doesn't make any distinctions about whether that speech concerns foreign or domestic issues.

Grotius|4.8.07 @ 10:30PM|#

MCO,

The three main suppliers of Iraq prior to 1991 was the USSR, the PRC and France in that order. The Iraqis did get some weaponry from the UK and the US. The Reagan administration had no problem with France supplying the Iraqis because of the geopolitical significance of Iraq as a counter-weight against Iran.

|4.8.07 @ 10:31PM|#

To my knowledge, it has never been "discredited" (how can satire be "discredited"?)

Satire, by its very intention, is not to be taken in any serious vein. It is a farcical and demeaning look at a viewpoint or belief in the attempt to ridicule it. It establishes nothing of credit. Therefore, you are correct in that you can never discredit that which does not have credit to begin with.

Grotius|4.8.07 @ 10:32PM|#

Dan,

Indeed, the free speech clause is particularly important to me because I really what Spinoza calls "the freedom to philosophize."

|4.8.07 @ 10:36PM|#

"There are a few million American Indians who would disagree with that."

Ah, yes, the Indians. Because the current government (and the governments of the last 100 years, give or take) had SO much to do with that. In my state there was an Indian tribe that one year in the late 90s gave over $100,000 to every man, woman and child in the tribe. From their gambling winnings. You know, the monopoly they were granted by us evil American thugs who killed their women and raped their buffalo.

"And more than a few Cambodians."

Here I think you have conflated us with Pol Pot. Probably an easy mistake given your apparent world view, but still...

"And many many Priests and Nuns as well as women and children who were murdered by Contras in Nicaragua that were funded and supported by us."

I recently (sometime in the last year, that was) asked my brother-in-law, who hails from El Salvador (moved here in the early 80s), what his opinion was of American involvement in Central America in the 80s. He said very directly: "America in general and Ronald Reagan in particular saved us, all of us, from annihilation". This man's cousin, now also an American, was shot and nearly killed by guerillas down there. I hope you won't be offended if I take their view as more authoritative than yours on matters Central American.

"Ands all those thousands of Kurds who were murdered by the Republican Guard for a few decades before Americans decided it was a bad thing, and even after when the CIA declined to support their uprising, allowing American-supplied helicopters to mow down women and children."

Don't forget the Shia, same story. Thing is, the way I remember it, The US pushed it as far as they could before leaving off. The media, the Arab world and Leftists of every stripe screamed bloody murder about the "Highway of Death". Look at what has been done to Dubya since he tried to rectify the mistake. The Iraq war is a blindingly clear warning to any future president of what will be done to him if he tries to do the right thing and remove a dictator the way the Left constantly harps that we didn't do in the past. Something to consider, don't you think?

"And those are just the incidents that spring to mind that involve us."

You forgot to imply that they were all exclusively BECAUSE of us, solely and without help from anybody else. How can you expect us to ooh and ah at this otherwise respectable rant without that?

"If you include Russia in the west, a fair choice to my mind,"

Wow. I guess you made up for the last shortcoming. Now you get to say that the deadliest enemy we ever had is now us too, and so assign to us responsibility for the most heinous of their crimes (which were the main reason we hated them). But nobody would be so deliberately obtuse as to do that, would they? Surely not.

"you have all the millions who were killed by Communism."

I guess they would. My bad. But then you forgot to find a way to make the Holocaust the fault of America, too. After all, we let it happen, right? That makes us all antisemitic and even more immoral into the bargain.

"The west isn't the bastion of mercy and kindness that you make it out to be; it's position is built on the blood and bones of millions of people in the last century alone."

The West is NOT a "bastion of mercy and kindness"...unless you're speaking in relative terms. The West's job first and foremost is to define what it really is and protect itself from threats. I would argue that secondary to those is a self-imposed responsibility to "encourage" the spread of ideologies and forms of government that are, if not similar to us, at least compatible with us to the extent that we can live on the same planet and not destroy it while trying to get at each other. Sometimes there is an element of kindness or mercy in that, and I love those times. Other times, not so much. Sometimes you have to break stuff and hurt people. Then it's a matter of which stuff you choose to break and which people you choose to hurt. In my mind, those--plus the motivations for those--are what defines the collective character of a nation. You can scream about the US stealing Iraqi oil all you want, but it doesn't mean anything to me until you show me where there's oil missing and show me that there's a reasonable chance that we took it. My best guess is that the main motivations for the Iraq war (besides the clearly stated reasons in the Senate resolution) were to SECURE (versus "steal") a large portion of the world's oil supply, to put a permanent military presence near it to use in case of future trouble and to complete our encirclement of Iran, also in case of future trouble.

"Pretending otherwise just makes you look like a hack, and trust me my friend, you don't need the help."

Whatever.

|4.8.07 @ 10:38PM|#

Wherein speach has a purpose the application of ones speach may be abridged. If in the course of exersicing your free speach you contract a hit man to kill your wife, guess what, that free speach is NOT protected.

As the "free speach" Ms Pelosi was engaging in was specificly in contridiction of the presidential will, it is in violation of the Logan act and of the Constitutions assignment of the role of deplomacy to the POTUS.

She can send public messages all day, but the second she engages in one on one exchanges to which the POTUS is not privy and/or he has directed her not to engage in, it is then a problem.

The real mistake the POTUS has thus far made is that he didn't specifically order her not to go. By only expressing his desire that she not go he has left the door open for a legal escape where if he believed it to be unlawful, he should have acted in that tone from the onset and prohibited the visit.
I imagine that Bush did not specifically because he had not attempted to prevent the Republican visit nor had he specifically endorsed or been engaged in the visit. Though if he did support the Republican visit, then he may have been in a cunundrum about revealing that engagment in the face of publically taking the position that there could be no relations until the Syrian position towards Lebenon and Isreal changed.
And that is probably the real damage done by Pelosi. If Bush was trying to establish low level talks without offending our allies by using proxies in the Republican party, he's just been undone by her bumbling in and revealing him by virtue of his inability to stop her.

Any way you cut it, she ventured in where she did not belong.

|4.8.07 @ 10:49PM|#

believers flock here

fanatical conviction

spelling optional



wheeeeee! rrrrrrff!

|4.8.07 @ 10:53PM|#

"The Constitution also includes a free speech clause. One of the clear reasons it includes such language is to protect those minorities who didn't vote for the particular politicians in office. It doesn't make any distinctions about whether that speech concerns foreign or domestic issues."

Actually, the first amendment includes that clause, and it's a good one. It does not, however, give a member of the House the right to engage in making foreign policy for the US. It can be argued that Pelosi wasn't making OFFICIAL foreign policy...but what is she doing there if not officially representing the US in her capacity as speaker of the house?

Further, the purpose of the free speech clause of the First amendment wasn't to allow people to engage in making foreign policy contradictory to the publicly stated Executive branch policy. It was to allow people to speak their own mind, or the mind of a group that they officially represent (such as the NAACP, the American Taxpayers' union or whatever). It was to ensure that people could contradict the Powers That Be--within limits--without getting thrown in jail.

I'm not a first amendment lawyer, but I DO hold a bachelor's degree in Mass Communications and the first amendment was at the center of our curriculum, so while I'm not an authoritative expert I do have some training in this. Pelosi's situation is not covered there.

|4.8.07 @ 10:54PM|#

Most Casual of Observers,

In the vein of your helpful screen name suggestion to Shem, may I suggest that you call yourself Most Crapical of Spellers (or Spellurs, if you prefer). You write like a damn third grader. Come to think of it, you broad-brush paint people like a third grader too. Isn't it past your bed time?

|4.8.07 @ 11:00PM|#

"I imagine that Bush did not specifically because he had not attempted to prevent the Republican visit nor had he specifically endorsed or been engaged in the visit. Though if he did support the Republican visit, then he may have been in a cunundrum about revealing that engagment in the face of publically taking the position that there could be no relations until the Syrian position towards Lebenon and Isreal changed."

From my admittedly incomplete knowledge of the recent events, it still looks to me like the Repub visit was more of a "fact-finding" mission, with a much lower profile. Pelosi barged in with all bells clanging and an entourage fully in train, and did everything she could to give her visit an air of authority and official sanction (including passing on a message--incorrectly if the source of the message is to be believed--from one power to another). The media briefly hyped it as the type of "shuttle diplomacy" that they had wished Bush had been doing all along. Left unsaid was why the speaker of the house should be doing any diplomacy at all.

"And that is probably the real damage done by Pelosi. If Bush was trying to establish low level talks without offending our allies by using proxies in the Republican party, he's just been undone by her bumbling in and revealing him by virtue of his inability to stop her."

Amen, brother.

|4.8.07 @ 11:16PM|#

Concerned;
Thanks for noticing. I was just laughing about it myself. Seems I just can't type and spell at the same time, and once letter are on the screen I just don't see the mistakes untill after wards. My hen thinks it is due to the head truama but I don't think so(I just can't see the font in the comment field very clearly and I never really did spell that well to begin with) I would hope that the scars on my hands would soften a bit more it would get better (not concentrating on hitting just one key at a time), but the looming authritus from the all the fractures isn't likely to allow that. So I just concentrate on banging out the thought as quickly as I can and fix what I can see. See the whole getting on the web and typing out my thoughts is supposed to help the process. You lot really are just therapy for my left right brain and hand eye coordination.

I'm just not used to typing out so many words. That's what clerks are for.

As for the rest of your childish commentary. Well I take