• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Terrorists endorse Pelosi's 'good policy of dialogue'

SgtRock said:
"Those who Do learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it"
Click to expand...

Sorry I made a type O

"Those who do not learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it"
 
Kandahar said:
Really? Since when were we at war with Syria? And since when did Assad become Hitler? That comparison loses its meaning when it is thrown at every tinpot dictator in the world...Bashar Assad isn't even a very competent dictator.
Click to expand...

Asad is a terrorist heading a terrorist state.

The War against Terror, and those that support or harbor terrorist. Syria is in the top 5 terroriat nations according to American intell. Also according to the
U.K. , Germany, Canada, Australia, etc. etc. etc.

Face it Benidict Arnold Pelosi thinks she is president.
 
Last edited:
SgtRock said:
Face it Benidict Arnold Pelosi thinks she is president.
Click to expand...
Yeah...right! I realize that anyone who is Bush butt licker has no concept of diplomacy and your posts underline and prove that point dramatically.

I find people like Bush who lied to the world (that includes you too) to start a war a whole lot more evil than anyone in the Democratic party that's lived in my 51 years.

History will record George W. Bush as the most evil American President in our history. The fact that we are now the most hated nation in the world after always being the most beloved and respected country is all the proof anyone needs to show how Bush has corrupted our government.

Pre-Bush there were plenty of people who hated Americans but they were a relatively small minority. Today, in 2007 America has become the 21st century Soviet Union in terms of world standing, hated, despised and not respected in all corners of the world and it's all due to George W. Bush.
 
aquapub said:
Laura Bush was doing that to respect their culture
Click to expand...
aquapub said:
Democrat enthusiastically dresses up like the enemy
Click to expand...
Now I don't care who you are, that there is funny...:2rofll: ...Git 'er done.

The comedic relief here beats the funny pages any day.:2funny:

Please, take a, :2bow: , that started off my day with a smile..:lol:
 
Kandahar said:
Really? Since when were we at war with Syria? And since when did Assad become Hitler? That comparison loses its meaning when it is thrown at every tinpot dictator in the world...Bashar Assad isn't even a very competent dictator.
Click to expand...

Hmmm so far the Washington Post has condemned her trip

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.

So did the WSJ

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.

And even USA Today

Democrats in Congress have been busy flexing their foreign policy muscles almost from the moment they took power in January, for the most part responsibly. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record) crossed a line this week by visiting Syria, where she met with President Bashar Assad. She violated a long-held understanding that the United States should speak with one official voice abroad - even if the country is deeply divided on foreign policy back home......Also along was House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Tom Lantos (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., who said the meeting was "only the beginning of our constructive dialogue with Syria, and we hope to build on this visit." That suggested Democrats are going beyond unobjectionable fact-finding and getting-to-know-you conversation into something closer to negotiations, undermining U.S. diplomacy..........

Pelosi's office defended her trip by noting that the "administration's cold-shoulder approach has yielded nothing but more Syrian intransigence." As true as that is, the place for Pelosi to make the case is not in Damascus. It's not up to the speaker to unfreeze relations with Assad.
I don't thing the defenses of her trip are getting much support out there.

She should be censured upon her return and replaced as Speaker of the House so she no longer carriers that authority when she goes around making a fool out of herself.
 
Stinger said:
Hmmm so far the Washington Post has condemned her trip

So did the WSJ

And even USA Today
Click to expand...

Well good for them.

Stinger said:
She should be censured upon her return and replaced as Speaker of the House so she no longer carriers that authority when she goes around making a fool out of herself.
Click to expand...

She didn't do anything wrong. She has every right to meet with Assad, for a good reason, for a bad reason, or for no reason at all. She can go to Syria just to have a beer with him, if she wants to. You or I could do exactly the same, if we could get into see him.
 
Kandahar said:
She didn't do anything wrong.
Click to expand...

Yes, she did.

She has every right to meet with Assad, for a good reason, for a bad reason, or for no reason at all. She can go to Syria just to have a beer with him, if she wants to. You or I could do exactly the same, if we could get into see him.
Click to expand...

Absolutely right.

But neither you nor I are the head of one of the two major political parties in the US. Neither you nor I carry the imprimatur of the leader of the majority party of the US Congress. Neither you nor I, nor she, were elected to set or manage US foreign policy independently of the President. And therein lies the rub.
 
oldreliable67 said:
Yes, she did.



Absolutely right.

But neither you nor I are the head of one of the two major political parties in the US. Neither you nor I carry the imprimatur of the leader of the majority party of the US Congress. Neither you nor I, nor she, were elected to set or manage US foreign policy independently of the President. And therein lies the rub.
Click to expand...

Unless she and/or Assad is under the incorrect belief that she has the authority to negotiate or offer anything on behalf of the US government, what's the problem? To my knowledge, she didn't make any kind of deal with Assad; she just talked to him. If Bush doesn't like it when Americans talk to world leaders without his permission, that's his problem.
 
Kandahar said:
Unless she and/or Assad is under the incorrect belief that she has the authority to negotiate or offer anything on behalf of the US government, what's the problem? To my knowledge, she didn't make any kind of deal with Assad; she just talked to him. If Bush doesn't like it when Americans talk to world leaders without his permission, that's his problem.
Click to expand...

It is very important that the government of any country present a united front, not only to our friends and allies, but especially to those with whom we have a contentitious relationship. To speak to them with one voice, as it were. Pelosi impedes that process, potentiallly in a harmful manner, not only thru what she may or may not have said on this visit, but with the extremely bad precedent that it sets.

Assad is no dummy. He well knows that as the leader of the majority party in the US Congress, Pelosi has the ability to further the Syrian position with the US Congress if she so desires, regardless of whether or not that position is in concert with the President's foreign policy -- which exceeds the bounds of her elected office by orders of magnitude.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:


Thanks Nancy Chamberlin, atleast you have the terrorists on your side you traitorous ****ing whore. And remember all that joking about her wearing a Hajib? Well it's not a joke anymore:

e885fc868c0bb2904189521e1015115c.jpg
Click to expand...

Terrorists also endorse worshipping God.
Are we gonna call religious folks whores and terrorist lovers too?
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Terrorists also endorse worshipping God.
Are we gonna call religious folks whores and terrorist lovers too?
Click to expand...

It matters more that Pelosi did this not only because Democrats are so notorious for aiding the enemy, but also because she is 3rd in line for the presidency.

Like I said, acting like there's some kind of double standard to this is like complaining that only pedophiles get scrutinized for hanging out with kids.
 
Stinger said:
And bad for you.




A minority opinion it appears.

Even her supporters are reaming her on this one.
Click to expand...

And as we all know, the validity of an opinion is defined by how many people support it (unless the public disagrees with Stinger). :roll:

"Wikiality," so to speak. Except what Stephen Colbert parodies, you try to argue with a straight face. :mrgreen:
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:


Thanks Nancy Chamberlin, atleast you have the terrorists on your side you traitorous ****ing whore. And remember all that joking about her wearing a Hajib? Well it's not a joke anymore:

e885fc868c0bb2904189521e1015115c.jpg
Click to expand...


What's wrong with that? It's not a freaking burqa for Christ's sake, it's just a scarf. It's hardly oppressive to women. When you go to a different country, sometimes you might wear the clothes of that country...to fit in, or to experience the culture, or just out of respect to your host.
 
Benidict A Pelosi Asad is part of the enemy within. Mark my words, she is a tratior to her nation. Time to Dust off the Logan Act (1799). I hope they find her guilty and remove her asss from office. I can't stand that bug eyed bioch!
 
Kandahar said:
What's wrong with that? It's not a freaking burqa for Christ's sake, it's just a scarf. It's hardly oppressive to women. When you go to a different country, sometimes you might wear the clothes of that country...to fit in, or to experience the culture, or just out of respect to your host.
Click to expand...
RRRAARR! SHE'S APPEASING THE DURKAS!!! SHE'S A FREEDOM-HATER! RRRAARR!
 
Kandahar said:
Well good for them.



She didn't do anything wrong. She has every right to meet with Assad, for a good reason, for a bad reason, or for no reason at all. She can go to Syria just to have a beer with him, if she wants to. You or I could do exactly the same, if we could get into see him.
Click to expand...

She has the right to usurp the executives roll and set her own secondary foreign policy and violate years of standard U.S. policy by negotiating with a state sponsor of terrorism, not to mention, making official statements on behalf of the Israelis that they wanted to hold peace talks when they never made such a statement nor gave her the authorization to deliver that message to Assad?
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
She has the right to usurp the executives roll and set her own secondary foreign policy and violate years of standard U.S. policy by negotiating with a state sponsor of terrorism, not to mention, making official statements on behalf of the Israelis that they wanted to hold peace talks when they never made such a statement nor gave her the authorization to deliver that message to Assad?
Click to expand...

The nerve of that woman. She has got to go. I think she should resign now before the axe falls. ~ Sgt Rock
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
She has the right to usurp the executives roll and set her own secondary foreign policy
Click to expand...

She has the right to say whatever she wants. She doesn't have the POWER to set her own foreign policy, so it doesn't really matter.

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
and violate years of standard U.S. policy by negotiating with a state sponsor of terrorism,
Click to expand...

First of all, she didn't negotiate. What did she offer the Syrians, and what did she want in exchange?

Second of all, we have an ambassador in Syria. Is Bush a terrorist-loving Chamberlain since he didn't recall the ambassador the day he took office?

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
not to mention, making official statements on behalf of the Israelis that they wanted to hold peace talks when they never made such a statement nor gave her the authorization to deliver that message to Assad?
Click to expand...

What are you babbling about?
 
Kandahar said:
And as we all know, the validity of an opinion is defined by how many people support it (unless the public disagrees with Stinger). :roll:
Click to expand...

Just as we know when it suits you simply dismiss out of hand.............

When even her supporters condemn her I think the validity of that opinion increases, not a very good dodge on your part. And when they do present specific points then try to rebut them instead of dismissing them.
 
Stinger said:
Just as we know when it suits you simply dismiss out of hand.............

When even her supporters condemn her I think the validity of that opinion increases, not a very good dodge on your part.
Click to expand...

By the same logic, maybe the fact that the vast majority of Americans (including many Republicans) are against the catatastrophuck Bush has caused in Iraq shows that their opinion is valid and yours is wrong.

Stinger said:
And when they do present specific points then try to rebut them instead of dismissing them.
Click to expand...

I have rebutted them. Try reading my posts.
 
Kandahar said:
She has the right to say whatever she wants. She doesn't have the POWER to set her own foreign policy, so it doesn't really matter.
Click to expand...

You are desperately avoiding the question. The members of her group were clear, they were engaging in an alternate foreign policy in their OFFICAL capacities and with the power that brings to them.

Should the opposition party use thier elective power to engage in an official alternate foreign policy?

She and the congressmen that accompanied her did not go over as private citizens as you keep pretending they did.



First of all, she didn't negotiate. What did she offer the Syrians, and what did she want in exchange?
Click to expand...

Moot point.
Second of all, we have an ambassador in Syria.
Click to expand...

All the more reason she should not do what she is doing.

Is Bush a terrorist-loving Chamberlain since he didn't recall the ambassador the day he took office?
Click to expand...

Another phony question, it's not WHETHER we have an ambassador, it's what we do with him and the policy has been to have very little to do with them until they agree to stop the things they are doing. And we don't need a Speaker of the House subverting our foreign policy not other congressmen. She she be censured and removed from the post.

Then we need to hold hearings and see exactly what they were trying to do and if they discussed subvert the policy of the Bush administration. Time for some email to be released.
 
Kandahar said:
She has the right to say whatever she wants. She doesn't have the POWER to set her own foreign policy, so it doesn't really matter.
Click to expand...

The purpose of her delegation was to set a secondary foreign policy as is made evident by a member of the delegation named Tom Lantos:

“We have an alternative Democratic foreign policy.”



First of all, she didn't negotiate. What did she offer the Syrians, and what did she want in exchange?

Second of all, we have an ambassador in Syria. Is Bush a terrorist-loving Chamberlain since he didn't recall the ambassador the day he took office?
Click to expand...

That ambassador is there as an appointee of the executive in accordance with Article II of the Constitution and Pelosi is there against the wishes of the executive in order to establish a secondary foreign policy.

What are you babbling about?
Click to expand...

You are out of the loop:

Pratfall in Damascus - washingtonpost.com
 
Stinger said:
You are desperately avoiding the question. The members of her group were clear, they were engaging in an alternate foreign policy in their OFFICAL capacities and with the power that brings to them.

Should the opposition party use thier elective power to engage in an official alternate foreign policy?

She and the congressmen that accompanied her did not go over as private citizens as you keep pretending they did.
Click to expand...

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
The purpose of her delegation was to set a secondary foreign policy as is made evident by a member of the delegation named Tom Lantos:

“We have an alternative Democratic foreign policy.”
Click to expand...

You guys are missing the point. She doesn't have any POWER to set an alternative foreign policy, so it doesn't really matter what her intentions are. It would be like *me* going to Syria and trying to set my own foreign policy.

Stinger said:
Moot point.
Click to expand...

Only because you can't answer it.

Stinger said:
Another phony question, it's not WHETHER we have an ambassador, it's what we do with him and the policy has been to have very little to do with them until they agree to stop the things they are doing.
Click to expand...

Somehow I doubt the ambassador just gets paid to sit in a Damascus hotel and pretend the government doesn't exist.

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
You are out of the loop:

Pratfall in Damascus - washingtonpost.com
Click to expand...

This is an op-ed piece. I stopped reading after the first sentence. Find some credible news source if you want this to be taken seriously.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom