Wednesday, April 11, 2007

Pelosi seeks to 'talk' with Ahmedinejad (aka Dinnerjacket)

That's right, Nancy Pelosi is open to meeting with Ahmedinejad, aka Dinnerjacket the Holocaust denier, who is seeking nukes and said he wants the end of Israel.
Words really fail me. This is a new low. We know that Nancy previously was in Syria with a shmata on her head, meeting with Assad, telling them the US seeks peace. (it should be noted there were prominent Repubs there as well, including Jihad Darrell, who was on Bill Maher's show a month back, saying that "Palestine" was a land of peace prior to Israel's creation)

This is like some sort of bizarro dream. They really are laughing at us. Iran is to make a movie and book about the British soldiers. I am sure this will be a real "explosion" at the box office, aren't you?

This is the world we live in, folks. The Speaker of the House travels to Syria with a shmata on her head, and then announces she wants to go to Iran. This is our reality.

Astonishing.

26 comments:

Kevin said...

If she goes to Iran, she'll be taken hostage by the dinner jacket.

I do believe that America should engage with Iran directly, but the window for direct talks is fast coming to a close.
It's a bit iffy that Bush ordered more US warships into the Gulf recently.
The only options open to the US are:
1. Allow Iran to gain nuclear weapons. Dire outcome - The Saudi's and Egyptains will want nuclear weapons as well.
2. Attack Iranian nuclear and military sites. Another dire outcome, as it would probably plunge Iraq into even more chaos and signal the start of Iranian funded terrorism in the West.

Any attacks will probably be limited in scope but targetted to cause the most panic and economic damage possible.

Chris said...

It should also be noted that this world - where representatives travel to foreign countries with shmatas on their heads - is one we've been living in for a while.

And perhaps a little bit of history would help too, along with reviewing the recommendation of Bush's own Defense Secretary, James Baker...

"The Iraq Study Group headed by former Democratic congressman Lee Hamilton and former secretary of state James Baker recommended, as a potential means for stabilizing Iraq, that the administration engage in dialogue with both Iran and Syria."

Red Tulips said...

Chris, am I supposed to care that Baker, a well known antisemite, who famously said "fuck the Jews," headed an Iraq Study Group and gave his opinion that Iran should be engaged and Israel should be sold down the river?

Is that supposed to mean something to me?

Michael said...

I agree that Iran should be engaged directly; however, America's negotiator should be Mr. MIRV.

Kevin:
Your two options are about the only ones left. Option number one is not a choice; it will set a fire that could consume the world.

Option number two is better. There is already chaos in Iraq, so what differnce would it make?

Chris said...

Chris, am I supposed to care that Baker, a well known antisemite, who famously said "fuck the Jews," headed an Iraq Study Group and gave his opinion that Iran should be engaged and Israel should be sold down the river?

Is that supposed to mean something to me?"



LOL, sold down the river? Why? Because diplomacy was advocated with Iran and Syria?

I don't think he said anything about cutting off all our funding and armament supply to Israel. It's entirely myopic and wholly ignorant to think that we're selling Israel down the river if we don't adhere strictly to their feelings towards the Muslim world and act accordingly. We're providing plenty of protection for them, and will continue to do so in the future, but we've got bigger fish to fry than the general disdain for Israeli presence in the region.

It's blatantly hypocritical and wrong to declare any action that is not 100% in Israel's own best interest as antisemitic, and to suggest that we're selling them down the river by not acting 100% in their interest only serves to hamstring our ability to resolve conflict and engages us in the same fight they've been having for centuries.

It's understandable that Baker's supposed comments are upsetting, but that does not render the recommendations of a group he was involved in as, themselves, antisemitic.

But to answer your other question... Yes, in the context of Nancy Pelosi's trip, it is supposed to mean something to you. Especially since "Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is scheduled to participate in a meeting this month in Turkey with her Iranian and Syrian counterparts. Bush may not want to admit it, but he too has begun tip toeing in the direction of Baker's traditional deal-making statecraft."

Red Tulips said...

Chris,

In fact the Baker report did sell Israel down the river, as documented very clearly by its recommendation that Israel return to the 1967 borders, including handing the Golan back to Syria. (and getting little in return) (source)

I don't care if the Baker report said Iran should be engaged. The Iraq Study Group's report was just nonsense, and merely an OPINION, nothing more.

As far as Condi goes - I wouldn't support that trip, either. And yet Condi is the Secretary of State, and she is in charge of foreign policy, unlike Pelosi. Sending Pelosi AND Condi sends mixed signals.

Chris said...

"Chris, a hallmark of liberals ignorance of the facts, and you here are guilty. Baker was in the administration of Bush 41 as Secretary of State.

So guys, keep voting for Democrats and this is what you get!! It may be trendy in your circles to be a Bush-hater, but the alternative are America-Haters."



Yes, you are correct, I did confuse Baker with Robert Gates when I identified him as the Secretary of Defense. Baker was merely a counsel to the 2nd Bush. But I fail to see how that little mistake is relevant to the point.

Furthermore, I also find it completely childish to reduce a discussions to either-or dichotomies that don't really capture the complexity of the issue. But if it makes you feel better to jump to conclusions about someone being a "bush-hater", by all means, continue to limit yourself.

Red Tulips said...

Chris,

I have deleted Smarty's comment, because he always reduces things into childish nonsense. It's always "evil" Democrats and "noble" Repubs.

I have no use for this.

Chris said...

"Chris,

In fact the Baker report did sell Israel down the river, as documented very clearly by its recommendation that Israel return to the 1967 borders, including handing the Golan back to Syria. (and getting little in return) (source)

I don't care if the Baker report said Iran should be engaged. The Iraq Study Group's report was just nonsense, and merely an OPINION, nothing more.

As far as Condi goes - I wouldn't support that trip, either. And yet Condi is the Secretary of State, and she is in charge of foreign policy, unlike Pelosi. Sending Pelosi AND Condi sends mixed signals."


So moving the borders is selling them down the river? and you call a US border security force and a minimized threat from their enemies "little in return"???

Sorry, I didn't realize that this was just too much to ask of Israel. Also I didn't realize that this automatically deemed all the other ISG recommendations as insufficient and wrong.

It may be OPINION, but it's not like they pulled it out of thin air. The current strategy and subsequent "alternative" proposals seem to be working so well though, ignoring the recommendations is probably best in this case.

And as for Condi and Pelosi goes, their trips are undoubtedly for two different, if somewhat related, purposes. They are both part of coequal branches of our government, and each is playing their role. Pelosi was not their to broker a deal (Condi's likely purpose) as much as she was to better inform the decisions she makes as part of a check and balance on the powers of the executive branch. The trip itself, being a mere signal that we are looking for diplomatic resolutions and willing to at least have a conversation with them, is not out of line with Condi's (or the administration's) apparent goal. So the mixed message argument is hard to make unless you have some sort of evidence that Pelosi undermined the administration in what she said to the Syrians.

Red Tulips said...

Chris,

No, the legislative branch is NOT coequal with the executive branch when it comes to making foreign policy. It is clear that the executive branch AND ONLY the executive branch speaks for foreign policy. So you are flat out wrong.

And it's nice that you so blithely call giving up Judea and Samaria, as well as the Golan Heights, to be "changing borders." Sorry, it is much more than that. It is about the very security of the State of Israel. Giving up land and getting little to nothing in return is a recipe for suicide.

Chris said...

It is coequal when it comes to exercising power. The responsibility of actually making foreign policy does fall more within the executive branch, but the responsibility for appropriating funds to support that foreign policy, or granting war power to mete out certain policies, fall within the legislative. These are two aspects that make the branches equal when it comes to the whole process of development and execution of our foreign policy, and knowledge/familiarity with the situation and the people we are dealing with can only serve in helping someone like Pelosi do the legislative branch's job more precisely and accurately. I never said that Pelosi was explicitly speaking for our foreign policy, merely speculating on what kind of signal her trip might have sent.

And like I said, I didn't realize that doing that was asking too much of Israel, and I wasn't being sarcastic when I said it. I didn't mean to come off that way.

I do, however, think you are wrong to say that they are getting little to nothing in return. It may pale in comparison to what you think they are giving up, but the proposed protection and diminished threat is certainly very significant.

Red Tulips said...

Chris,

Appropriating funds for foreign policy usually does not mean going to Syria and Iran, and saying the US wants peace, totally ignoring what the executive branch is saying. This sends mixed messages as to what the foreign policy of the US is, and it is NOT okay.

When Condi goes abroad, it is clear she is speaking for the president. Who is Pelosi speaking for? (note: I realize Jihad Darrell and other Repubs of his ilk also went to Syria - I do not think that is okay, either, and said as much)

And Chris, the Golan Heights and Judea and Samaria are of strategic importance to Israel. It is not merely giving up land to this nation. What exactly does Syria offer in return? (nothing of consequence) And why exactly should ISRAEL be tied to IRAQ policy?

Mr. Smarterthanyou said...

Yes, Delete me for pointing out that the harm that liberal politicians do amounts to self-inflicted damage on the part of those who vote for them or for their party.

Red Tulips said...

Smarty,

Notice how I have made largely the same points you made, and yet did so without having to resort to your histrionics.

Become a human being, and you will not have your posts deleted.

Mr. Smarterthanyou said...

But Red, you voted for democrats in the last election, yes?

SO you know that you are hurting yourself, yet you just did it a few months ago, and will probably do it again in '08?

Red Tulips said...

I already wrote this elsewhere. Smarty, if you bring it up again, I will continue to delete your posts, something I hate doing.

-----------

I have very tepidly supported Dems in the past, and even have shown support for Repubs.

I even said that I personally voted Libertarian. But no, you see Smarty has to just issue invectives, shouting like a red faced buffoon, without reason, just resorting to hate...because he is a hater.

Even if I voted for Dems, that hardly would mean supporting all of their policies.

None of this matters. It's all hate, all the time.

Chris said...

Chris,

Appropriating funds for foreign policy usually does not mean going to Syria and Iran, and saying the US wants peace, totally ignoring what the executive branch is saying. This sends mixed messages as to what the foreign policy of the US is, and it is NOT okay.

When Condi goes abroad, it is clear she is speaking for the president. Who is Pelosi speaking for? (note: I realize Jihad Darrell and other Repubs of his ilk also went to Syria - I do not think that is okay, either, and said as much)

And Chris, the Golan Heights and Judea and Samaria are of strategic importance to Israel. It is not merely giving up land to this nation. What exactly does Syria offer in return? (nothing of consequence) And why exactly should ISRAEL be tied to IRAQ policy?


The US has always wanted peace, according to the president's words, so I still don't see how Pelosi repeating any such thing can be construed as sending mixed signals. Unless we are working under the assumption that everyone over there is a complete idiot and doesn't know the difference between a visit from Pelosi and a visit from Condi, an assumption I refuse to make.

Who did Pelosi say she was speaking for anyway? Are we to assume that since she went to visit Syria and initiate a dialogue, that she was propping herself up as the sole representative for the nation, effectively undermining the administration? I don't think so.

And you can't possibly be suggesting that you can treat every country over there as secluded sovereign entity when developing foreign policy. Israel, damn the luck, is involved because of location. Oh and that whole conflict with the Muslims thing. And eventually some sect of Islam will gain control over Iraq, and it's subsequent relations with Syria and Iran will be tantamount to the stability of the entire region.


Note to Smartie: I don't think the US can survive if it continues to put its self interest at the forefront of every single thing we do. Once we became the only superpower, many of those interests began having innumerable effects that conflict greatly with each other (terrorism is a perfect example), and if you think supporting a policy that recognizes this is somehow harmful to America, then so be it. But don't sit there and pretend that you can create a He-man/Skeletor matchup with every single aspect of our governance and come out unscathed when good defeats evil by whatever means necessary. Save it for the 6 year old watching Saturday morning cartoons. The grownups have more pressing issues to worry about.

Red Tulips said...

Chris,

But the message Pelosi gave was one of "road to peace," ignoring WHY there are problems with Syria - such as its very likely assassination of the Lebanese prime minister, Rafik Harriri, backing of Hezbollah, and general backing of Islamic terror.

You do not go to such a power in a conciliatory way, thinking this will even BRING ABOUT peace. And yes, doing so means you do not speak for the prez. It means two different messages given to a hostile nation.

As far as the general notion of doing what is in American interests - I would think this SHOULD BE the goal of American foreign policy. We should act in our interests, and not act when it's not in our interests.

Makes sense, no?

Chris said...

Did she expressly ignore why there are problems with Syria? Or are you inferring that merely from the fact that she made the trip? And how is a "road to peace" different from what the administration is pushing? How is what she did any more conciliatory than Condi's meeting? I still have yet to see anyone plainly lay out the two different, disparate, and diverging messages.

Given the actions of past congressmen, I think Pelosi is being rather respectful of the president and his agenda in the region.

And as far as our self interests are concerned, it's still not that simple. Just a quick example (one of many)... we are against terrorism in all its forms... supposedly.... fighting it everywhere to the ends of the earth. But oh wait, what about Pakistan and their sanctioned terrorist actions against India? Why aren't they part of the childish "axis of evil"? Why don't we require that they stop supporting the terrorism in Kashmir? We let them slide because we needed Pakistan's airspace. In our own self interest we let that terrorism continue, and we let Pakistan off the hook. But if you want a true war on terror, we have to sacrifice that self interest in the interest of American and global security, which is supposedly the top priority that tough-on-everything conservatives have been preaching for so long. According to your model we should act in our interest by taking the airspace offered by Pakistan and let the terrorism slide. But what happens when that hypocrisy comes back to bite us in the ass, because our purported, and much postured, interest is in the security of the world against terrorism. Gee, how could working in our own self interest all the time possibly make things worse?

I could go on about economic self interests that rob other countries of the chance to create viable economies that would help bring them out of the poverty that contributes to the root causes of terrorism, but that's another discussion entirely. This one is about Pelosi.

Red Tulips said...

Chris:

Pelosi did not pass on the message that Israel asked her to pass on to Syria, and she said "the road to Damascus is the road to peace," implying Assad is a peaceful regime. I fail to see how this is in line with what the executive branch is advocating. The Washington Post wrote a great editorial about this right here.

Re: Hastert - inexcusable. I don't excuse him nor support what he did in Colombia. But two wrongs do not make a right, and in this case, Syria is a far bigger threat than Colombia ever was.

Re: the support for Pakistan...if I ever suggested it was a good idea that the US support Pakistan, I apologize. I am a very vocal supporter of India and have written extensively about India on this blog. That said, Musharaff is better than the Islamists who would otherwise be in charge, and thus from that perspective, it makes sense to back Musharaff's regime. That said, it doesn't mean the US should be cool with Pakistan's attitude towards Kashmir. However, the Indian policy towards Kashmir is itself deplorable. India has reneged on its obligation towards protecting Kashmir, as far as I can see.

Chris said...

Informative.

I had not, until now, seen that take on Pelosi's trip.

While I still think it's easily recognizable that she wasn't speaking for our foreign policy, it's certainly understandable how some might have a problem with it. However, I still think the degree of criticism that she has received from the administration for the trip, perhaps bloated by the MSM, is unwarranted. And the criticism for wearing the head scarf is downright retarded.

As far as the Pakistan thing... I don't think our choice was simply between, use Pakistan's airspace or otherwise allow the Islamist Taliban to remain in charge, as you allude to. I think we could have found ways around it if we were truly interested in ending terrorism, and, in the process, refrained from compromising in such a hypocritical way in the very beginning of this supposed "war on terror." But there are a number of aspects that play into that whole mess, including the timing of the decision to invade Iraq.

Red Tulips said...

Chris:

Personally, I was conflicted about the US support of Pakistan from day one (literally), and see both sides on that one.

Mr. Smarterthanyou said...

Regarding Pakistan, I am certain that they were told point blank "co-operate or be destroyed with them".

We actually had decent relations with them until Carter? decided to change it because Pakistan went nuclear.

For the speaker to go to a foreign country and tell leaders in effect "If we win the next election,we will not be as hard on you as Bush", which for damn sure she said, is treason. If she said "we in the legislature will not let Bush take action against you", that is treason too. If she said "if you do this or that, we can make sure that Bush doesn't do anything to you", that is treason. You have to believe that she said at least one of those things, I think all of them. It wouldn't be the first time that Democrats have tried to get enemy or aggressive nations to alter their foreign policy to help in US elections, Carter and Kennedy did it with the USSR to try to keep Reagan out in 1980 and to get him out in 1984. Kerry didn't see a problem going to N.Vietnam to provide aid and comfort to the enemy shortly before winning his seat.

As far as me being a "hater" goes, that is a really immature way to deal with opinions that you don't like, just call the person a hater. Kinda 3rd grade, but it is the argument du jour in liberal circles these days.

Mad Zionist said...

Tulips, I miss hearing from you. How have you been?

Red Tulips said...

Smarty, you are third grader. You completely ignore the various things Repubs have done over the years, and totally and senselessly demonize one side, because you are a hater. That is the bottom line. It is all you know. I kept this post of your's as it had a semblance of reasoning, but know you are treading on thin ground.

MZ,

Sorry, I am here! Glad you like this post!

shlemazl said...

Is "Smarterthanyou" for real? Could it be a hoax or a parody? On balance I think he is for real, but the name combined with his unbelievalbe lack of knowledge of simple facts makes me wonder.