Piling into Pelosi
Michael Young | April 7, 2007, 5:04am
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.
Most Casual of Observers | April 7, 2007, 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.
Strange Brew | April 7, 2007, 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.
Iggy Or | April 7, 2007, 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??)
Most Casual of Observers | April 8, 2007, 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.
PAul M. | April 8, 2007, 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 "
Mr. Spock | April 8, 2007, 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.
Althor | April 8, 2007, 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 | April 8, 2007, 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.
Quilly Mammoth | April 8, 2007, 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.
Most Casual of Observers | April 8, 2007, 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.
Dan | April 8, 2007, 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.
Grotius | April 9, 2007, 1:17am | #
MCO,
Wherein speach [sic] 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 [sic] is NOT protected.
Verbal, written, etc. opposition to the policies of this administration - or any other branch of government - seems to be at the core of what the First Amendment's speech clause is about. It is nothing like hiring a contract killer.
As the "free speach" [sic] 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.
Is the Logan Act constitutional? Does it apply to members of Congress? Clearly the role of was never given to the President alone. How that power is distributed is open for debate.
I would note that the Logan Act was passed about the same time that the constitutionally suspect Alien and Sedition Acts were. It is at best tainted with the liberty hating stain of those latter two acts.
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.
According to you.
I imagine that Bush did not specifically because he had not attempted to prevent the Republican visit...
I suspect the Bush administration didn't do so because it can't.
Dan,
Actually, the first amendment includes that clause, and it's a good one.
I'm glad you think so.
It does not, however, give a member of the House the right to engage in making foreign policy for the US.
No, the foreign policy powers of the Congress are in part found in Art. I, sec. 8. In order to exercise those powers Congress has the robust power to investigate, which would presumably sending members of the Congress to foreign locales in order to figure out what the Congress needs to do (if anything) re: those locales.
Anyway, if I recall correctly the statement that I responded to didn't mention the Congress. Indeed, it seemed to be directed to the role of any citizen when it comes to foreign affairs.
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.
How is openly disagreeing this administration's foreign policy not engaging in foreign policy? After all, at the very least foreign governments can read what citizens write in newspapers, what we blog, etc. At best your distinction seems to mean very little when it comes to its real world implications.
As to speech limits re: statements re: the government, what are they exactly?
Topper | April 9, 2007, 1:22am | #
db | April 7, 2007, 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.
It doesn't say that there pinhead, read the Logan Act...
§ 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments.
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.
1 Stat. 613, January 30, 1799, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 953 (2004).
Sec. 923. False statements influencing foreign government-- Whoever, in relation to any dispute or controversy between a foreign government and the United States, knowingly makes any untrue statement, either orally or in writing, under oath before any person authorized and empowered to administer oaths, which the affiant has knowledge or reason to believe will, or may be used to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government, or of any officer or agent of any foreign government, to the injury of the United States, or with a view or intent to influence any measure of or action by the United States or any department or agency thereof, to the injury of the United States, shall be imprisoned not more than ten years.
So there you go, want to lock her up now???
strange brew | April 9, 2007, 11:17am | #
So much heat and light and so little common sense.
> 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
That's bullshit at worst and a non-sequitur at best. Aside from the fact that Republicans do what Pelosi did all the time without comment, there is this, from a 1975 US State Department finding:
"The clear intent of this provision [Logan Act] is to prohibit unauthorized persons from intervening in disputes between the United States and foreign governments. Nothing in section 953 [Logan Act], however, would appear to restrict members of the Congress from engaging in discussions with foreign officials in pursuance of their legislative duties under the Constitution."
> She should have never gone over there against the wishes of the President when he publicly stated he didn't want her to go.
Except that before he said he was against it, he tacitly approved. Rep. Nick Rahall (D-WV), who traveled with Speaker Pelosi as part of her delegation to the Middle East, said this morning on C-Span that Pelosi told Bush of the trip to Syria a day before they left, and Bush did not object.
Rahall said, “The Speaker had met with President Bush in the halls of the U.S. Capitol just the day before we left and mentioned to him that we were going to Syria. No response at all from the President.”
Further, Rahall said: The State Department was certainly aware of our traveling to Syria and our full itinerary. And there were State Department officials in every meeting that we had on this codel. So that is all hogwash as far as I’m concerned."
Duoh!
Althor | April 10, 2007, 11:06am | #
Quote: Finally, I've never used a bong although YOU seem familiar with the contraption. [How does that sort of ad hominem attack sound when it's reflected back in your direction, huh?] SB (SOB?)
It slids down my back. Morons like you sit here impeaching the President for taking the steps necessary to protect us against Islamofacist thugs (your "Freedom Fighters? They are certainly on your side) like the ones that brought 9/11 upon us, while our troops fight alone, betrayed by half of their countrymen, left to fend for themselves, for no greater reason than gratifying the petty political hatred of such Bush-haters as you.
Certainly the President has made many blunders - we are fighting an unconventional war against an enemy that transcends national boundaries, race, ethnicity, and other traditional parameters. But to compare him to Hitler, to say that he planned 9/11 to justify us taking us into war, and that he lied to the American people about Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction when our own intelligence agencies, as well as the concensus of all the other intelligence agencies of our allies, from Putin's to the Israeli Mossad, had come to the same conclusion that Saddam indeed had them (and were most likely spirited to Syria while the United Nations pussyfooted with Saddam days prior the US invasion), is not only irresponsible and contemptible, but outright treasonous in this time of war.
But the poetic justice will come if you and your fellow rabid Dhimmis succeed, when the American Taliban shoves all your Ad Hominen bullshit, and all your secularist, ideologue crap, shoves it up your ass in the enforcement of their intolerance, which you so defend!
Now, keep spewing your asinine venom, vermin.
Althor
Strange Brew | April 10, 2007, 3:27pm | #
Althor and Highnumber evidently can't come up with a more cogent debating strategy than to call the loyal opposition vermin (shades of fascist Germany!) and traitors. A bit more sophistication in a complex and decidedly grey geopolitick is advisable, but we aren't likely to get it from these characters. who seem to think that simply disagreeing with the president makes you an enemy of the state. And that ought to amuse the hell out of any thoughtful person who watched multidivorcee Gingrich and his ilk go nuclear on Clinton over a blow job.
Also, Althor advises we ignore Bush's "many blunders." No one else could possibly have done better, Althor implies. Because. apparently: Bush may be a dundering S.O.B., but he's OUR dundering S.O.B.. So let him dunder away our security, our environment, our military, our budget surplus and our international respect.
Well, I have precisely one word for these all-or-nothing, "my country, right or wrong" guys: VIETNAM. Been there, done that, and, I pointedly note, with a Democratic president whose departure from office was largely the work of activist Democrats, not Republicans. And when LBJ left and Nixon persisted, we went after Nixon, too. Because unlike Althor and company, we don't slavishly kowtow to the ideological rhetoric of one party when patriotism is called for.
At least with respect to Vietnam, dubya had an exit strategy. His current plan apparently is to leave the biggest mess possible for his likely Democratic Party successor. Scorched earth and all that.
Beyond the above, what exactly *is* Althor smoking? Whatever it is, his neocon dealers have dealt him some bad, bad intellectual weed. Seems to have affected his powers of reason and judgement. Althor, you see, actually thinks the weapons of mass destruction existed and that somehow they all got packed up and shipped to Syria, without Rumsfeld and company being any the wiser. Neat trick! But this explanation by the necon chicken hawks really is only about coming up with the additional rationale to invade and/or bomb the hell out of that country, too, once, that is, we're done laying waste to Iran.
Bush is certainly not the only politiciaan who could've responded to terrorist attacks, he's just been among the least thoughtful and least effective. To take one example: Afghanistan is quickly reverting to Taliban control, and you can hang that mistake not on Speaker Pelosi or Bush's other detractors, but on his own decision to remove our troops there and divert them to Iraq in a mindless pursuit of minor or nonexistent threats. Nevertheless, Bush seems capable of further widening the war, as the Pentagon demands that National Guardsmen pack up for second or third tours and that injured soldiers head back out into harm's way. Amazing.
These guys really are clueless; they have so sense at all of cause and effect, of the damage we've done at great expense and many innocent lives not only to our own security, but worldwide peace. Bush is one of the least popular presidents in history, and one of the least admired world leaders ever. That's not the result of propaganda, because most of the lies have come from the Bush camp and its well-funded media noise machine. No, the disaffection comes from a citizenry that has awakened after a drunken political bachanalia to realize they have one huge frickin' Bush of a hangover.
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
