Nancy Pelosi Dons the Hijab


#1

Here we go!

chinadaily.com.cn/world/2007 … 843088.htm

So she’s visiting known terrorists, including one of their mosques…and wearing a hijab. The article doesn’t tell us if she cried “Allahu akbar!” but I’m betting she did.


#2

Yeah, what was she thinking?


#3

Well, I for one know that her visit is a BAD idea. How do I know? Look who supports it. Remember the peace in our time deal in 1994 with North Korea? and the many other “deals” that Mr. Carter signed over the years? Well, his “winning streak” continues…

[quote]WASHINGTON (CNN) – Former President Jimmy Carter expressed his support for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s trip to Syria, rejecting White House criticism of the visit.

“I was glad that she went,” Carter said Wednesday. “When there is a crisis, the best way to help resolve the crisis is to deal with the people who are instrumental in the problem.”[/quote]

and more…

[quote]Pelosi arrived in Syria on Tuesday, in an attempt to open direct dialogue with Syria’s leader, something President Bush opposes. Pelosi also discussed with President Bashar Al-Assad concerns about Syria’s support for militant groups. (Full story)

Bush on Tuesday called the trip “counterproductive” and said it would send mixed signals.

“Photo opportunities and/or meetings with President Assad lead the Assad government to believe they’re part of the mainstream of the international community, when, in fact, they’re a state sponsor of terror,” he said at a news conference in the White House’s Rose Garden.

Carter, however, said there was “no threat” that the Democratic speaker’s visit would dilute the United States’ ability to speak to Syria with one voice.[/quote]

haha and this is the BEST part…

Ah… where is that little crazed rabbit when you need it!

cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/04/ … index.html


#4

You mean, just like Laura and Condi did?

dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/4/4/115721/7509
Daily Kos: Laura Bush is a traitor

But I’m sure that’s different because…because… because it just is, dammit.


#5

You mean the one that actually kept the North Koreans from making nukes out of their plutonium supplies, until Bush came along and screwed the whole thing up?

Carter/Clinton vs Kim Jong-Il : 0 nukes
Decider vs. Dear Leader: 2-6 nukes for the bad guys.

Gotta give you points for chutzpah, Fred, even after the total incompetency of the Bushistas on North Korea has been so prominently displayed over the last couple of months


#6

Fred’s ideological stance against anything Carter clouds his judgment and renders any of his posts regarding Carter suspect at best, pathetic and deridable at worst.


#7

[quote]You mean the one that actually kept the North Koreans from making nukes out of their plutonium supplies, until Bush came along and screwed the whole thing up?

Carter/Clinton vs Kim Jong-Il : 0 nukes
Decider vs. Dear Leader: 2-6 nukes for the bad guys.

Gotta give you points for chutzpah, Fred, even after the total incompetency of the Bushistas on North Korea has been so prominently displayed over the last couple of months[/quote]

For both you and Jack… haha. Anyway, can you share with us just how long the North Koreans stopped their atomic and nuclear efforts? I mean I would imagine that they completely froze such programs but only started them again when Bush was elected and inaugurated in January 2001. Is that your story? and is that your position on this discussion? And it was the Bush’s hostility to its regime that caused it to go into full production, right? But up to that time, it had been completely in compliance with its treaty commitments? This should be good, but hey, here’s some rope. You know what to do with it…

Yes, I despise Carter. He is the perfect role model to the would-be well-intentioned Left… The problem is well, the problem is as always the results and they speak for themselves far more than any posturing postures eh? Unfortunately?


#8

It’s all about having a rather peaceful :braveheart: and respectful approach from the democrats, or having a arrogant killing approach from the republicans of the middle east issue.

Fred you chose the arrogant and more destructive way, we are just more pacific and believe that respecting people and other culture is the path to victory.

Fred’s solution to this issue “Just nuke them all” :smiling_imp:


#9

[quote=“MikeN”]You mean, just like Laura and Condi did?

dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/4/4/115721/7509
Daily Kos: Laura Bush is a traitor

But I’m sure that’s different because…because… because it just is, dammit.[/quote]

Not to me it isn’t. I don’t have a problem with women wearing headcovers…if it is their choice. It is illegal in some Muslim countries for women not to wear one (and cover their bodies in way men never have to). When our female ambassadors wear them for the benefit of our Middle Eastern “allies”, it gives legitimacy to those laws forcing women to wear hijabs.


#10

Peaceful and respectful to a despotic regime with a long history of supporting terrorism? Say it ain’t so, Mr. Chamberlain.

So you respect the oppression of women? You agree women should be forced to wear headscarves?

You might want to read fred’s posts every now and then. He’s a pompous old conceited windbag, but not a mass murderer.


#11

[quote=“gao_bo_han”]
You might want to read fred’s posts every now and then. He’s a pompous old conceited windbag, but not a mass murderer.[/quote]

That is true. However, given half a chance he would be in order to compensate for being the stunted offspring of a long line of demented in-bred Prussian goat-herders. (no winky).

Women in Syria don’t have to wear a headscarf. There are lots of hookers in downtown Damascus who don’t wear headscarves. If not talking to countries that oppress women is an issue then the U.S. should break off ties with Saudi Arabia instead of constantly vilifying Iran where women are free to work, vote and drive cars (though this is probably not wise). Take a flight out of Tehran, wait 30 minutes and it is a babe-fest as they all change into tight dresses a couple of sizes too small. Yabba. Personally, I like the white headscarves worn in Malaysia, especially when that is all they are wearing. Very sexy.

BroonAllenstein

(looking forward to the PC outrage)


#12

Really?

Goats in East Prussia? Actually, I think it was mostly dairy cattle and pigs. Take your pick of those two. Oh yes, and the occasional duck or goose.

So Iran is being vilified because of the US and its actions? hahah

Let us know how things go when you “score” on one of those hot to trot mammas.

Personally, I like watching Elvis listen to his new Victrola…

FredvonInsterburgzuNeuhausen

(looking forward to the PC outrage)


#13

[quote=“fred smith”]Let us know how things go when you “score” on one of those hot to trot mammas.

[/quote]

No luck yet but flight EKsomething was one of the few flights where I ripped open the bag containing the blanket.

BroonAisleSeat


#14

So you can satisfy yourself with a blanket? Isn’t that kind of infantile? Was it blue?


#15

It was for modesty. Can’t remember what colour it was…the seat was reclined, head tilted back and eyes were closed, thinking about the totty in 37D.

BroonArmrest


#16

[quote=“gao_bo_han”][quote=“MikeN”]You mean, just like Laura and Condi did?

dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/4/4/115721/7509
Daily Kos: Laura Bush is a traitor

But I’m sure that’s different because…because… because it just is, dammit.[/quote]

Not to me it isn’t. I don’t have a problem with women wearing headcovers…if it is their choice. It is illegal in some Muslim countries for women not to wear one (and cover their bodies in way men never have to). When our female ambassadors wear them for the benefit of our Middle Eastern “allies”, it gives legitimacy to those laws forcing women to wear hijabs.[/quote]

Uh, hello?..She wore the headscarf while she was visiting a mosque (the tomb of John the Baptist, actually). Islamic custom requires a woman to cover her hair in church, just like the Catholic Church did until 1983; just like the Bible orders ( 1 Corinthians 11), just like most Eastern Orthodox churches do; just like Orthodox Jewish women do.

She did not wear it while meeting with Assad, as the photos clearly show.

If you’re the type of dork who wanders into St Peter’s Basilica wearing your shorts, flip-flops and “I’m With Stoopid” T-shirt, I suppose you could get upset about this.


#17

Is that bad?


#18

Allahu Akbar = God is Great. if this woman believes in God, ain’t no shame in showing it :laughing:


#19

This whole episode suggests the following image in my mind’s eye:

Nancy Pelosi is kneeling down gingerly petting a dog labeled “Syria” which is wagging its tail and arching its back with pleasure. Meanwhile, Dick Cheney, in flap-eared hunting hat, is behind her wildly waving a shotgun with flecks of saliva flying off his lips as he cries out: “Good God, woman, stand back! That’s a mad, rabid dog which needs to be shot before it bites someone else!”


#20

spook - Stay away from the poppies.

More on Pelosi:

[quote]Pratfall in Damascus
Nancy Pelosi’s foolish shuttle diplomacy

Thursday, April 5, 2007; Page A16

HOUSE SPEAKER Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) offered an excellent demonstration yesterday of why members of Congress should not attempt to supplant the secretary of state when traveling abroad. After a meeting with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad in Damascus, Ms. Pelosi announced that she had delivered a message from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that “Israel was ready to engage in peace talks” with Syria. What’s more, she added, Mr. Assad was ready to “resume the peace process” as well. Having announced this seeming diplomatic breakthrough, Ms. Pelosi suggested that her Kissingerian shuttle diplomacy was just getting started. “We expressed our interest in using our good offices in promoting peace between Israel and Syria,” she said.

Only one problem: The Israeli prime minister entrusted Ms. Pelosi with no such message. “What was communicated to the U.S. House Speaker does not contain any change in the policies of Israel,” said a statement quickly issued by the prime minister’s office. In fact, Mr. Olmert told Ms. Pelosi that “a number of Senate and House members who recently visited Damascus received the impression that despite the declarations of Bashar Assad, there is no change in the position of his country regarding a possible peace process with Israel.” In other words, Ms. Pelosi not only misrepresented Israel’s position but was virtually alone in failing to discern that Mr. Assad’s words were mere propaganda.

Ms. Pelosi was criticized by President Bush for visiting Damascus at a time when the administration – rightly or wrongly – has frozen high-level contacts with Syria. Mr. Bush said that thanks to the speaker’s freelancing Mr. Assad was getting mixed messages from the United States. Ms. Pelosi responded by pointing out that Republican congressmen had visited Syria without drawing presidential censure. That’s true enough – but those other congressmen didn’t try to introduce a new U.S. diplomatic initiative in the Middle East. “We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace,” Ms. Pelosi grandly declared.

Never mind that that statement is ludicrous: As any diplomat with knowledge of the region could have told Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Assad is a corrupt thug whose overriding priority at the moment is not peace with Israel but heading off U.N. charges that he orchestrated the murder of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq al-Hariri. The really striking development here is the attempt by a Democratic congressional leader to substitute her own foreign policy for that of a sitting Republican president. Two weeks ago Ms. Pelosi rammed legislation through the House of Representatives that would strip Mr. Bush of his authority as commander in chief to manage troop movements in Iraq. Now she is attempting to introduce a new Middle East policy that directly conflicts with that of the president. We have found much to criticize in Mr. Bush’s military strategy and regional diplomacy. But Ms. Pelosi’s attempt to establish a shadow presidency is not only counterproductive, it is foolish.
The Washington Post(!)[/quote]
But Jimmy Carter gave it 2 snaps and a thumbs-up!