Nancy Pelosi Dons the Hijab


#21

Gao bo han are you feeling OK?

So peacfull acting is bad for you and widespread killing is ok? The USA killed more civilians in 3 years of Iraq war then terorism in the last 100 years !!! but sorry, because as we all know EVERY single Iraqi are terrorists and every american are good people !!!

In Christianity women are also oppressed, maybe no more like before but not so long ago women had to stay in the kitchen and shut their mouth and men had all the rights. You memory is fish short or your knowledge inexistant.

I never say he is a mass murder you idiot :loco: This is a forum not a court !!! I respect every person on this forum as well as Fred even thought if I don’t agree his point of view.

But what about you? Any short term solution to the middle east issue smart ass?


#22

Illegal Diplomacy[/url]
By Robert F. Turner
“House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may well have committed a felony in traveling to Damascus this week, against the wishes of the president, to communicate on foreign-policy issues with Syrian President Bashar Assad. The administration isn’t going to want to touch this political hot potato, nor should it become a partisan issue. Maybe special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, whose aggressive prosecution of Lewis Libby establishes his independence from White House influence, should be called back.”

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,” …
WSJ
And there’s this also…
Pelosi steps out of bounds

For my money, George Soros is probably involved in this in some way…but thats just my guess.


#23

[quote=“TainanCowboy”]

For my money, George Soros is probably involved in this in some way…but thats just my guess.[/quote]

:laughing: Maybe Soros and Carter got together and bought her that fetching Hijab.

However I think that the WH is just playing the game here as both bush and condi have said they wouldn’t deal with Syria (except when sending falsely accused Canadians for torture). The 3 republicans and the Pelosi delegation were briefed by the WH before they left.

Also they will “listen to what she has to say” when she returns.

So I guess she didn’t have “authority” but she was briefed and then “urged” not to go. About par for this administration.


#24

It is any Senator or Congress critters SOP to be ‘briefed’ about the areas they travel to if they request it. Its very helpful since quite a few of them really have no idea what they might run into while on their ‘media-junkets’ to foreign lands.
And when she returns she will be ‘de-briefed.’ As in finding out things that she may have no knowledge of knowing through effective questioning by trained individuals.
Its time you got over the silly “this administration” crap and realized that there is a war going on and what “you”(“you” as in those who use this as a tool to denigrate the current US admin) say has direct consequences to how the opposition forces play the world media. These actions are used by the terrorists to increase dissent and dis-unity among the populace of the countries involved in the Coalition Forces.
It is quite clearly stated in the Logan Act what can and cannot be legally done in making contact with foreign actors. Are you of the opinion that these laws do not apply to Sen. Pelosi? If so, why?

And you do understand that not everything that goes on is told to the media…don’t you?
Although it may peeve some folks…some actions during a time of war, such as we currently have, are not for immediate public debate.


#25

[quote]And you do understand that not everything that goes on is told to the media…don’t you?
Although it may peeve some folks…some actions during a time of war, such as we currently have, are not for immediate public debate.[/quote]

True enough, as a result we don’t know the exact details of Pelosi’s visit nor do we know why the bush admin poo-poo’d her visit while not saying anything about the 3 republican congressmen that went to talk to President Bassar Assad. Perhaps the speaker of the house has less pull or less finesse on a world stage then the Lancaster country congressman Joe Pitts. Doesn’t matter bush didn’t want Pelosi going but was ok dokey with the congressmen or was he?

The media doesn’t seem to care they have only fixated on Pelosi’s bunch. Again no surprise.

As far as the Logan act goes. This act is so broad in it’s language it truly is more of a threat than anything else. It wasn’t until 1994 that the act carried any jail time. Interestingly tho the only time the act had an indictment was in 1803 when a farmer wrote a letter to a newspaper advocating a separation of the western states from the U.S. and allying themselves with France. He didn’t talk with a foreign government but merely suggested the idea, free speech and all that. He was indicted but never charged. A threat.

Speaking of seditious acts tho I do remember a Dennis Hastert back in '97 usurping the Clinton admin by telling the Colombians not to deal with the president but to deal with congress directly when it came to procuring arms for the war on drugs.

This however is probably not a violation of the Logan act because we all know that republicans are better with the army and arms sales than the democrats. Or is that a media myth?


#26

[quote=“Blackrobe”] This however is probably not a violation of the Logan act because we all know that republicans are better with the army and arms sales than the democrats. Or is that a media myth?[/quote]Uhh…


#27

:laughing: great picture.

I am simply referring to the fact that most of the armies contractors and all of the arms producers in the U.S. are heavily biased towards republicans. When it comes to money vrs. the rule of law well its a bit of a toss up.


#28

[quote=“TainanCowboy”]Illegal Diplomacy[/url]
By Robert F. Turner
“House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may well have committed a felony in traveling to Damascus this week, against the wishes of the president, to communicate on foreign-policy issues with Syrian President Bashar Assad. The administration isn’t going to want to touch this political hot potato, nor should it become a partisan issue. Maybe special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, whose aggressive prosecution of Lewis Libby establishes his independence from White House influence, should be called back.”

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,” …
WSJ
And there’s this also…
Pelosi steps out of bounds

For my money, George Soros is probably involved in this in some way…but thats just my guess.[/quote]

Yep, Jews are like that.

As for the Logan Act, it was passed in 1799 as part of the hysteria that resulted in the Alien and Seditions Act , and only been invoked once, in 1803.

But, using “Pelosi Rules” Newt Gingrich was certainly guilty for his messages to China and Israel, Denny Hastert was for specifically telling the government of Colombia to ignore the Clinton Administration on human rights and deal directly with Congress to get the money for death squads, and Tom Delay was for aiding and abetting Miloscevic’s genocide. But, hey, IOKIYAR.


#29

I had forgotten about Delay…quick round them all up and throw the Logan act at them.

That will learn them good.

:laughing:


#30

It is not wrong to talk with your adversaries.

History has shown that engagement, rather than ideological repudiation, with one’s opponents has yielded positive results. Had the staunchly anti-communist Richard Nixon refused to engage in dialogue with the PRC during the early 70’s, US-China relations would never have gotten off the ground.

Bush has a problem of ignoring people or nations he doesn’t like for his own rhetorical reasons. With that kind of attitude, you can never achieve results. The usual, seeing things in black or white attitude of “If you’re not with me, then you’re my enemy.” Or if a government is non-democratic, then it must be a bad government. This kind of mentality is counterproductive.

Don’t forget that a Congressional delegation of Republicans defied Bush’s wishes by also visiting Syria recently.


#31

I thought Assad was a dentist. One learns something new every day.

Incidentally, Syria was an ally in the earlier “Gulf War” (the Kuwait one) as we all know and I happen to think that if they had offered assistance this time round to the pathetically tiny “coalition”, the U.S., desperate for legitimacy in the eyes of the Arab world, would most likely have agreed; conveniently putting the issue of state-sponsored terrorism (whatever that is) on the back burner. The U.S.'s indignation at Syria is a political manifestation of the the Great American Sulk; that characteristic that comes to the fore when the U.S. doesn’t get what it wants/loses/is ignored/is impugned/gets caught with pants down by ankles (delete as applicable).

The U.S. didn’t have any problems with Iran’s significant role in aiding the Northern Alliance in ousting the Taleban and as I mentioned, in hailing Syria as an ally during GWI even though what Syria does for fun wasn’t markedly different then as it is now.

I don’t see a problem in Pelosi going to Syria; the United States isn’t “at war” with Syria. If any good comes from it, excellent. If not, no harm in trying. The White House’s issue is having its foreign policy (the laughably simplistic but easy for thicko George to understand, “if they ain’t with us they are against us” doctrine) undermined or usurped by someone else.

No one really takes the Bullshit Administration seriously anymore.

Perhaps it is time for Combofluffy Rice to visit the dentist.

BroonAleppo


#32

[quote=“TainanCowboy”]Illegal Diplomacy[/url]
By Robert F. Turner
“House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may well have committed a felony in traveling to Damascus this week, against the wishes of the president, to communicate on foreign-policy issues with Syrian President Bashar Assad. The administration isn’t going to want to touch this political hot potato, nor should it become a partisan issue. Maybe special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, whose aggressive prosecution of Lewis Libby establishes his independence from White House influence, should be called back.”

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,” …
WSJ
And there’s this also…
Pelosi steps out of bounds

For my money, George Soros is probably involved in this in some way…but thats just my guess.[/quote]

Drat! Foiled again!

"Republicans part with Bush on Syria

Apr 05, 2007 12:25 AM EST

WASHINGTON (AP) - Three Republican congressmen who parted with President Bush by meeting with Syrian leaders said Wednesday it is important to maintain a dialogue with a country the White House says sponsors terrorism.

“I don’t care what the administration says on this. You’ve got to do what you think is in the best interest of your country,” said Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va. “I want us to be successful in Iraq. I want us to clamp down on Hezbollah.”


#33

[quote=“MikeN”][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.[/quote]

Actually, it’s Islamic custom for women to wear veils EVERYWHERE, not just in mosques (well, they don’t have to wear veils around other women only or close male relatives). And in some countries, like Saudi Arabia, NOT wearing a veil is punishable by fines or corporal punishment. Wearing the hijab legitimizing this practice, in my opinion.


#34

Yes I’m fine. Thanks for asking.

Your comparison is weak. The United States is a superpower with a professional military. It’s obvious that the collateral damage it inflicts in a major conflict is going to be greater than what isolated terrorists cause. If you want to make irrelevant comparisons, we could say that the United States killed more civilians in WWII than there had been murders for the previous 200 years. Does that mean the United States is more morally culpable for fighting the Axis powers than all the world’s murderers put together over two centuries? Also, isn’t the number of people Hussein killed greater than the collateral damage in Iraq? Should we include those killed in the Iran-Iraq war? The Kurds? The Shi’as in the uprising of '91? Fred has asked these questions many times and I never see direct answers. Just answer this:

If the number of Iraqi civilians killed by the Americans is less than those killed by Hussein, was the invasion and continued occupation of Iraq morally justifiable?

So? We’re talking about Islamic oppression here. If you want to talk about Christian oppression, start another thread and I’ll join you. Or do you seriously believe that Christian oppression justifies Islamic oppression?

Now now little one, don’t go name calling or I’ll put you in timeout again. And you said fred wants to nuke the Middle East, or in other words that he wants to be a mass murderer, which he doesn’t. Actually, fred likes the Middle East and apparently really believes the Americans’ presence in Iraq will have a civilizing effect on the country and region in general. And we’re hear for discussion and debate. If you don’t want your petty arguments deconstructed and debunked then go back to the swing set. I’ll give you a push.

It doesn’t involve appeasing dictators, like our friend Pelosi seems to believe. I originally thought we should just pull out of Iraq and let the Iraqis kill each other if they so please. But fred civilize-the-savages smith has convinced me that that may not be the wisest option. Civil war is sure to follow, which might even become a broader regional conflict. The loss of life would be catastrophic, and may end up with an Iraq-Iran-Lebanon-Syria Shi’a-dominated nexus emerging as the dominant regional power. That would be bad for Israel, bad for the region, and bad for the Western world. If we stay in Iraq, the loss of American troops will be low (compared to our total forces and historical losses in other wars), but likely steady. However, at least we can prevent a dramatic shift of power in the Islamists’ favor.


#35

How unbelievably sad.

The problem here is that we westerners are over-analyzing the whole (undoubtedly complicated) situation. Perhaps the easiest solution is to cut the Gordian knot instead of attemting to untie it in our pompous superior/holier-than-thou way. If the U.S. (and Britain) were to withdraw from the middle east, there may well be a period of re-adjustment amonst those states in the region and this may very well result in some bloodshed but not, in my opinion, of the scale predicted by those with a vested interest in fear-mongering. Again, in my opinion, a withdrawal could very well result in a respectful detente and after a breather, the possibility to engage in such a way that doesn’t send the message that we think we are always superior, that doesn’t attempt to impose our values on people who simply aren’t interested in them, that doesn’t regard Islam as some ‘evil’ doctrine. Take away the troops and the associated arrogance of the politicians that sent the hapless sods over there and the middle east will sort itself out. It won’t necessarily be pretty or particularly quick but it will happen. Clearly intervention by the west has done nothing to bring peace, just the opposite. Why not try non-intervention, non-engagement for a change?

And yes, Freda Smug does like the middle east as do I. I don’t necessarily believe that he believes in everything he posts though. Except the nuke 'em all bit but that is just a characteristic of his that sustains him due to not having a sufficiently large collection of porn.

You should go to Iran and have a look. It might surprise you.

BroonAzadi


#36

BroonAle likes hijab babes. He thinks of them as mystery packages just waiting to be unwrapped.


#37

True. :banana:

Being followed by two of them in Esfahan was very stimulating.

BroonAppreciates


#38

[quote=“gao_bo_han”] . . . Also, isn’t the number of people Hussein killed greater than the collateral damage in Iraq? Should we include those killed in the Iran-Iraq war? The Kurds? The Shi’as in the uprising of '91? Fred has asked these questions many times and I never see direct answers. Just answer this:

If the number of Iraqi civilians killed by the Americans is less than those killed by Hussein, was the invasion and continued occupation of Iraq morally justifiable? . . . [/quote]

Why not ask Sledgehammer Man:

“On April 9, 2003, the day Baghdad fell to invading U.S. troops, Khadim al-Jubouri took a sledgehammer to a statue of Saddam Hussein. “It achieved nothing,” Jubouri says now.”

“We got rid of a tyrant and tyranny. But we were surprised that after one thief had left, another 40 replaced him,” said Jubouri, who is a Shiite Muslim. “Now, we regret that Saddam Hussein is gone, no matter how much we hated him.”

His faith in the United States has also vanished, he said. . . . His country today is politically fractured and struggling to find direction. He has seen four Iraqi governments since the fall of Hussein. Tens of thousands of Iraqis have died. At least 3,260 U.S. soldiers have been killed.

But the numbers that most directly affect Jubouri are these: Seven of his relatives and friends have been killed, kidnapped or driven from their homes. He gets four hours of electricity a day, if he’s lucky. The cost of cooking gas and fuel have soared, but his income is a quarter of what he used to earn. . . ."


#39

Iraq was worse under Saddam. Iraq is not yet stable. Iraq’s neighbors do not want to stop interfering with Iraq’s domestic affairs. The more the parties involved sense that the US commitment will not be for the long term, the less likely they are to cooperate now. Witness the ethnic cleansing efforts to create facts on the ground. We are in for this kind of trouble for another three to five years. Afterward, we may achieve some stability with very problematic conditions. This happened to some degree in Kurdistan. Unfortunately, we are going to have to go through this in Iraq. We will be staying and I am confident that we will be there in equally strong numbers under any Democrat administration. In fact, at this point, it may be good to have a Democrat as president so that there can be no more lies about this war being the result of the actions or interests of one political party. Bring it on.


#40

I’d like to see you tell that to Sledgehammer Man’s face.

I have to say though in your defense, Fred, that it takes a true optimist to see the bright side of a quagmire.