Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (57240)	4/4/2007 3:41:34 AM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

Syriana Cox & Forkum coxandforkum.com Cartoon By Michael Ramirez Investor's Business Daily

To: Sully- who wrote (57240)	4/4/2007 10:07:22 AM
From: longnshort	Respond to of 90947

To: Sully- who wrote (57240)	4/5/2007 9:29:08 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 90947

Pelosi commits a serious foreign policy blunder. Will there be any price to pay for it? Don't hold your breath. **** Ms. Pelosi not only misrepresented Israel's position but was virtually alone in failing to discern that Mr. Assad's words were mere propaganda. Pratfall in Damascus Nancy Pelosi's foolish shuttle diplomacy Washington Post Editorial 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. washingtonpost.com

To: Sully- who wrote (57240)	4/11/2007 1:16:41 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 90947

Where Do Nancy Pelosi's Loyalties Lie? By Kim Priestap on Nancy Pelosi Wizbang She just returned from a trip during which she took time to sit down and talk with Bashar Al-Assad, one of the biggest sponsors of terrorism world wide. Now she says she's open to talks with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian megalomaniac leader who just announced that he's now enriching uranium at an industrial level and wants to wipe Israel off the face of the map: <<< The Democratic speaker from San Francisco and Lantos, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, were asked at a news conference in San Francisco on Tuesday whether on the heels of their recent trip to the Middle East they would be interested in extending their diplomacy in the troubled region with a visit to Iran. "Speaking just for myself, I would be ready to get on a plane tomorrow morning, because however objectionable, unfair and inaccurate many of (Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's) statements are, it is important that we have a dialogue with him,'' Lantos said. "Speaking for myself, I'm ready to go -- and knowing the speaker, I think that she might be.'' Pelosi did not dispute that statement, and noted that Lantos -- a Hungarian-born survivor of the Holocaust -- brought "great experience, knowledge and judgment" to the recent bipartisan congressional delegation trip to Israel, the Palestinian territories, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia in addition to Syria. >>> After insisting that she needs to keep an open dialog with leaders of rogue terrorist nations, she refuses to sit down and talk to President Bush about funding for the Global War on Terror in Iraq and Afghanistan: <<< Just in case their previous statement was too ambiguous, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) joined with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to reject a meeting with President Bush next week if he insists on preconditions in their negotiations over a spending bill to fund the war in Iraq. "What the president invited us to do was come to his office so that we could accept, without any discussion, the bill that he wants," Pelosi said at an afternoon news conference in San Francisco to discuss her trip to the Middle East last week. "That's not worthy of the concerns of the American people. And I join with Senator Reid in rejecting an invitation of that kind." >>> So to which country is she loyal? She won't talk with President Bush about funding our troops, but she's set and ready to talk to a despot leader who pushes "Death to America." Update: Jon Roth at GOP Bloggers writes of the bigger picture, and he's spot on: [Pelosi's] behavior actually weakens America by advertising to our enemies that we can be divided and conquered and that if Bush won't appease them then the Democrats will. Thugs do not change their ways just because you talked to them; they only change course when presented with a credible threat. Pelosi's antics nearly ensure that any threats we might make will not be seen as credible and that only following through on those threats can restore our credibility. In that sense, the Democratic sycophantic tour of mideast dictators will lead to exactly the opposite of what they hope to achieve. Update II: Rob at Say Anything comments on the liberals' victim mentality: I love how the liberals never fail to use the language of victimhood in everything they do. Lantos is a victim, therefore he is an absolute moral authority on the wisdom of engaging Iran in unilateral diplomacy. Just like like only Jesse "Hymie Town" Jackson has the moral authority to forgive Imus for his offensive comments. http://feeds.wizbangblog.com/~r/WizbangFullFeed/~3/108273203/where-do-nancy-pelosis-loyalties-lie.php sfgate.com humanevents.com politico.com freerepublic.com gopbloggers.org http://http//sayanythingblog.com/entry/because_pelosis_trip_to_syria_went_so_well/

To: Sully- who wrote (57240)	4/12/2007 2:15:54 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 90947

Pelosi's Syriana By Debra J. Saunders Townhall.com Columnists Thursday, April 12, 2007 House Speaker Nancy Pelosi apparently is willing to meet with Syrian President Bashar Assad -- even though Syria has supported terrorist organizations Hamas and Hezbollah and allowed terrorists to cross the Syrian border with Iraq to attack U.S. troops -- but until late Wednesday, she would not accept an invitation from the president of the United States to discuss legislation to continue funding for the Iraq war. At a hometown press conference Tuesday, Pelosi explained: "What the president invited us to do is to come to his office so that we could accept, without any discussion, the bill that he wants. That's not worthy of the concerns of the American people. And I join with Sen. (Harry) Reid (D-Nev.) in rejecting an invitation of that kind." If Pelosi's Tuesday logic -- meet with Assad, but not Bush -- doesn't work for you, consider her spin on her recent trek to the Middle East. Rep. Tom Lantos, D-Calif., chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, joined Pelosi at her press conference, where he crowed, "It was on a scale of 10, a 10, and the United States foreign policy was dramatically advanced by the speaker's mission." Funny, when in Syria, Pelosi said, "There is no division on policy between us and President Bush -- be it on Israel, Palestine or Syria." Sooooooo: The Pelosi mission was a 10 out of 10 -- because Pelosi and company advanced Bush's foreign policy? It helps if you forget that while in Israel, Lantos announced, "We have an alternative Democratic foreign policy." And forget that the Bush policy is to not call on Assad. I don't understand why Pelosi can't be honest about the fact that she was deliberately undercutting Bush. Maybe the speaker was shaken by editorials that took her to task for overstepping her powers as she moonlights as a general and a diplomat. The Washington Post chided Pelosi for her "foolish shuttle diplomacy," most notably her "ludicrous" assertion that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had asked her to deliver the message to Assad that "Israel was ready to engage in peace talks" with Syria. The Olmert government promptly issued a statement correcting Pelosi -- and the record. The Post harrumphed over the speaker's misstep -- and her equally wrong-headed claim that Assad was ready to "resume the peace process" -- thus: "Ms. Pelosi not only misrepresented Israel's position but was virtually alone in failing to discern that Mr. Assad's words were propaganda." While the Los Angeles Times editorial page opined that the Bushies' criticism of the Pelosi trip was "off-base," the Times, as well as the Post, has editorialized against the House bill that would tie war funding to a troop-withdrawal timetable. Under the headline, "Gen. Pelosi?" the Times criticized the Democratic House for trying to micromanage the war and tie the military's hands. Before November 2006, the Dems could take unlimited potshots at Bush. But as Pelosi is discovering, now that she is speaker, there are consequences to her rhetoric. This is why the lame lament repeated by Lantos -- that Republicans, including Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., also have gone to Syria -- falls flat. Everyone knows that a speaker's words carry more weight than those uttered by rank-and-file members. More to the point, inside the Beltway, it is bad form for the other party to undercut a sitting president outside American borders. Sure, some of the criticism from the right has been cheap and low. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney was wrong to fault Pelosi, who has excellent manners, for wearing a head scarf. But the speaker's words bring into question whether she has the courage of her convictions. Pelosi won't be honest about undermining Bush abroad. After bashing Repubs for overspending, Team Pelosi larded the $124 billion supplemental war spending bill with $20 billion in pork. Tuesday, Pelosi lauded Lantos for his longstanding attempts to meet with the Holocaust-denying Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- but then she didn't want to sit down with Bush. Later, she changed her mind. On "60 Minutes" Sunday night, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said, "I'd rather lose a campaign than lose a war." Does anyone believe the same of Nancy Pelosi? townhall.com

To: Sully- who wrote (57240)	4/12/2007 2:26:29 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

It used to be said that politics ends at the water's edge- -that is, that both parties stood in solidarity against foreign foes. Many of today's Democrats have precisely inverted the meaning of that adage. They stand against Republicans, even if that means standing in solidarity with America's enemies. Enmity Begins at Home Best of the Web Today BY JAMES TARANTO Wednesday, April 11, 2007 Democrats invert the old adage "Politics ends at the water's edge." After the smashing success of their Syrian jaunt, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Tom Lantos are considering another trip--"to open a dialogue with Iran," the San Francisco Chronicle reports: <<< "Speaking just for myself, I would be ready to get on a plane tomorrow morning, because however objectionable, unfair and inaccurate many of (Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's) statements are, it is important that we have a dialogue with him,'' Lantos said. "Speaking for myself, I'm ready to go--and knowing the speaker, I think that she might be.'' >>> Still, the Democrats have their limits. The Chronicle reports that there is one world leader with whom congressional Democrats are unwilling to hold an unconditional dialogue: <<< President Bush, raising the political stakes in his fight with Congress over the war in Iraq, made Democratic leaders an offer they could and did refuse--come to the White House to accept his demand for continued, unfettered funding of the war. "We can discuss the way forward on a bill that is a clean bill: a bill that funds our troops without artificial timetables for withdrawal, and without handcuffing our generals on the ground," the president said of the fight over the emergency war spending legislation. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, speaking Tuesday at a news conference in San Francisco, forcefully rejected Bush's invitation--as had Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada several hours earlier at a Capitol appearance. "What the president invited us to do is to come to his office so that we could accept, without any discussion, the bill that he wants," Pelosi said. "That's not worthy of the concerns of the American people. And I join with Sen. Reid in rejecting an invitation of that kind. . . ." >>> *Meanwhile at the Puffington Host, John Kerry defends Pelosi's junket to Syria:** <<< We Democrats should've been unapologetic last week defending Speaker Pelosi because the truth was on our side: She had a right to go. And she was right to go. The coordinated attack on her trip to Syria was as inappropriate as it was irresponsible. And when that happens to one of our leaders, we should all damn well stand up and be counted in our support, or else we hand partisan operatives on the other side a dangerous victory. >>> The telling phrase here is "the other side." Which side is Kerry on? The Democrats' against the Republicans', it would seem, not America's against its enemies. It used to be said that politics ends at the water's edge--that is, that both parties stood in solidarity against foreign foes. Many of today's Democrats have precisely inverted the meaning of that adage. They stand against Republicans, even if that means standing in solidarity with America's enemies. opinionjournal.com sfgate.com sfgate.com huffingtonpost.com