Much is being made of a photograph of Pelosi wearing a scarf on her head -- "Pelosi in Hijab" -- as she goes to visit a mosque that houses the head of the beheaded saint, John the Baptist. Is she bowing to Muslim oppression? She's wearing the scarf folded and tied under the chin in a style long used by American women. The mosque is the one Pope John Paul II visited. And it's a Christian tradition for women to cover their heads. In the words of St. Paul:
I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions just as I handed them on to you. But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the husband is the head of his wife, and God is the head of Christ. Any man who prays or prophesies with something on his head disgraces his head, but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled disgraces her head—it is one and the same thing as having her head shaved. For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or to be shaved, she should wear a veil. For a man ought not to have his head veiled, since he is the image and reflection of God; but woman is the reflection of man. Indeed, man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for the sake of woman, but woman for the sake of man. For this reason a woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man or man independent of woman. For just as woman came from man, so man comes through woman; but all things come from God. Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head unveiled? Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair, it is degrading to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. But if anyone is disposed to be contentious— we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God. (1 Corinthians 11:2-16)You may not like that. I don't. But, clearly, headcovering is not just a Muslim thing. But even if it were, showing respect for the traditions of a place of worship you want to enter is completely appropriate. It's not as if she were asked to denounce Christianity to enter the mosque. The mosque was open to her as a place to worship a Christian relic, and she made the sign of the cross in there.
ADDED: Pelosi also wore an abaya. Not a Christian tradition. She also shook hands with the women inside and "watch[ed]" the men.
YET MORE: Here's Amanda Marcotte's summary of this post: "Ann Althouse wants Pelosi to be a little bit more of a sexbot." Whaa? Marcotte seems to be pulling in signals from outer space. Just flat out nutty, Amanda. Or did you even read this post? (Loser.)
AND: Amanda tries to cover up her blundering and I respond to that here.
पोस्ट्स
२०८ टिप्पण्या:
208 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»Ann, didn't you get the fax of the Right Wing Talking Points yet? I'll send you my copy.
;->
She also wore an abaya.
Other women in her delegation were wearing normal western clothes, as do most Syrians.
Sorry, I don't buy it that she was being respectful. The #3 person in the succession of power in the U.S. isn't supposed to kow tow. If a substantial chunk of the world's Catholic population declared war on the U.S. and Bush (a non-Catholic) had a papal audience and made a show of fingering rosary beads and kissing the Pope's ring, I'd be equally perturbed.
I have mixed feelings about Pelosi's visit there. Her history of nasty rhetoric against Pres. Bush implies that her visit to Syria is part of this nasty rhetoric. Thus, I get a feeling of anti-americanism from the whole scene and that the purpose of her trip is to undermine the policies of the President and ferment more partisanship and discontent in the world.
Regarding the head scarf, I don't see a problem with us adopting their customs when we visit or live in their countries. It is the polite thing to do. However, I wish they would do the same here. I am tired of walking around Minneapolis seeing people dressed up like it is Halloween. If they want to live in America and live off the fruits of the society that the people here worked hard to create and are working to continue, they should at least have the decency to try and behave like Americans when they are outside their homes. Wearing muslim or bedoin garb is not American.
Sloan: Do the Amish and the Hassidim bother you too? Should they get with the program? I thought the program here was freedom, especially religious freedom.
Joe. Yeah, but she only accomplishes that if you let what she's doing bug you.
The bottom line in my book is that she bowed down in dhimmitude to ugliness. What would Armani do?
The most telling fact, in my view, is that Republican members of Congress have gone to Syria too.
This doesn't mean it's not unhelpful. It just means that the Dem's don't have a monopoly on circular firing squads.
Althouse, while the Amish Pilgrim garb is old fashion, it is still in American tradition. The muslim dress is not.
Yes people have religious freedom, but much of the garb they wear is not related to religion, it's related to culture.
Well this puts Brittany's headshaving in an entirely new light. But seriously folks...
Don't you think that there is a little more here than meets the eye? As much as Washington and particularly Bush's diplomacy or lack thereof seems random and completely without focus, Nancy turning up, something spur of the moment and Bush's proforma "ohhh no no no".
Actually it isn't a bad ploy if you think about it.
There is another picture of Pelosi with The Syrian dictator. She is not wearing a head dress.
As much as I despise Pelosi and her snake tounge and socialist ideas, the picture makes me proud to be an American - to see a woman standing next to a dictator who we all know has no respect for her. Everyone knows who is more powerful... I have to laugh, I hope the women of the middle east are also laughing (in silence of course).
Rep. Pelosi looked like any number of Catholic Women I will see in church this Sunday. I think she looks much older when her hair is covered.
Republicans want to harp on Pelosi because they have nothing substantive to offer the American people.
House, of all the conspiracy theories you have floated, the idea that Nancy Pelosi is actually working on behalf of the Administration in her visit to Assad, is perhaps the most far-fetched. To get to that point, you would have to assume that Pelosi is willing to put partisan politics in the back seat, cooperate with her sworn political rival, betray her political base, and do so all the while espousing a public position of hating and disrespecting Bush. This is on a par with the theories that every time a Democratic politician does something nuts, that Karl Rove must have ordered it. To reach your conclusion, one must rely on a series of increasingly implausible assumptions, the only evidence of which is that there is no evidence - a lack of evidence being one hallmark of clandestine activities. In other words, 'because you deny that there is a conspiracy, you have given me definitive proof that there is one, since denying the existence of a conspiracy is consistent with the behavior of a conspirator.'
Or, in bad Hollywood cliche terms, this is the kind of theory, "that is so crazy, it just might work."
I agree with David about the Amish. An addition, the muslim garb shows disrespect for American culture, whereas the Amish garb has long been accepted and we all know that the Amish are not trying to disrespect us by wearing it. The jury is still out on the muslim immigrants. They should show some respect by not complaining about or demanding that we accomodate their religion or culture. They are free to practice their religion on their own. However when they demand special working enviornments or special privleges in the name of their religion, it is not polite.
Farid Ghadry, Reform Syria Party: Reckless is the best way to describe Nancy Pelosi's latest in-your-face attempt at upstaging George W. Bush foreign policy. Assad is viewing her trip as a green light to take over Lebanon the way Saddam viewed Glapsie's lack of interference as a green light to invade Kuwait.
http://yalibnan.com/site/archives/2007/04/assad_ready_for.php
"Congressman Tom Lantos, who is a member of the delegation that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is leading to Syria, put the mission clearly when he said: We have an alternative Democratic foreign policy.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/04/democrats_playing_with_fire.html
Pelosi's office: As recommended by the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan delegation led by Speaker Pelosi intends to discuss a wide range of security issues affecting the United States and the Middle East with representatives of governments in the region, including Syria.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/03312007/news/nationalnews/miss_syria_nationalnews_ian_bishop.htm
Perhaps she'll return declaring Peace in Our Time.
While I can appreciate the reality here, it is the look that is really important. Personally, not being Catholic and thus not being used to seeing women with their heads covered (except sometimes by hats) in church, I didn't realize the difference between a Christain way of doing it and a Moslem way.
So, we will probably be seeing this picture more as time goes on and the next election nears. It appears like she is practicing multiculteralism with the dictator whose country is on our list of states supporting terrorism. Never mind that she was more likely practicing her own religion.
"House, of all the conspiracy theories you have floated, the idea that Nancy Pelosi is actually working on behalf of the Administration in her visit to Assad, is perhaps the most far-fetched."
Interestingly enough, this is a theory that didn't cross my mind until I read the comments!
I am not a Nancy Pelosi fan. But she is Catholic. And she is my age (67). Catholic female people of my vintage customarily cover their heads when in Church.
I think it uncharitable to presume that the scarfwearing is anything more than a traditional symbol of resepect.
Tying things together a bit, what is she doing in Syria in the first place? Does she really think that she can make a difference in the Middle East? Does she really think that the Iraqi people want Syria and Iran involved in determining the fate of their country?
As I see it, Syria is really just acting like a spoiler here. It isn't really providing troops to oppose the Iraqi government, but rather just letting the Saudis, etc. filter through in order to join al Qaeda. The money and people are almost all coming from other countries.
The place where Syria is playing an active role is in Lebannon, in effectively occupying the country for a period time, in murdering Lebanese politicians, and in giving some support ot Hizb'Allah. But that is far more relevant to Israel than to Iraq right now.
Besides, even if she could get an agreement from Syria, so what? Why should we trust them? We have had agreements with them before, and when convenient, they have violated them.
It is not just that Syria is a listed terrorist supporting state. But also, that the only thing that Pelosi has to offer them is making Bush look bad - which undermines the war in Iraq.
Al Mavia - Like it or not - and you probably don't - Pelosi is a patriot first. All the other crap you metion about her is what you would "like to think" and not what is.
There has never been a time in the history of this nation INCLUDING both world wars and countless other conflicts when wise heads didn't establish back channels, messengers, etc. and it is against all reason to believe that this administration, inept as it is, would pass up a chance to have a message carried into that neck of the woods.
Please stop being so blinded by your hatred of what Bush has caused to overlook diplomacy 101.
Does she really think that she can make a difference in the Middle East?
I have no idea. I don't know if she knows. Paraphrasing the Great One, though, you do miss every shot you never take. (Which partly explains why I support the Surge, for now).
In French neighborhoods, non-Muslim women have learned to similarly to show "respect" by donning a head scarf, or be subject to taunts and harassment.
This is a bigger issue than a brief show of respect. Maybe Pelosi was showing respect, although why a dictator funding war against the US deserves respect is unclear, but she was also showing her subservience at the same time, whether intended or not.
If the Democrat peace plan wins, she can get used to wearing the head scarf full time. You know, to show respect.
and it is against all reason to believe that this administration, inept as it is, would pass up a chance to have a message carried into that neck of the woods.
FWIW, State says they briefed Pelosi on Syrian but did not endorse her mission or send her along with foreign policy initiatives.
three comments:
1. Fen beat me to it. I was troubled by the Lantos statement. In the long run we're in trouble if our parties undertake overseas foreign policy actions independent of the Executive.
"Congressman Tom Lantos, who is a member of the delegation that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is leading to Syria, put the mission clearly when he said: We have an alternative Democratic foreign policy.
2. WRT Sloan.. and Muslim immigrants. I have no issue with legal immigrants willing to assimilate. I have a problem with colonists.
3. Pelosi as a patriot? OK, according to her view I'll accept that. Then I remember that great Cheney line:
I'm not questioning her patriotism, I'm questioning her judgement
Nothing but a show of respect? As I noted before, she's wearing the Abaya as well.
It would have been really super duper respectful of other people' cultures if she'd worn the niqab, or the burka. We'd still be cool with that?
BTW, all the talk about Catholic head coverings... I actually go to church and few Catholic women do wear a head covering or veil, mostly older women, or women who are traditionalists, i.e. adherents to the traditional latin / tridentine right services. I think most secular journalists would classify them as 'ultraconservative,' as opposed to the characterization of 'moderate' Catholics who support gay marriage and abortion rights. (We practicing Catholics, veiled and unveiled, refer to them, quite fondly, as 'heretics' or sometimes 'protestants').
Yeah, whatever House.
Just you believin' it, don't make it so.
I'm actually more disturbed about Lantos. Although his politics are generally way more liberal than mine, I've always generally agreed with him on human rights issues. Now he and Nancy the SuperPatriot are cuddling up to the regime that flattened a city with artillery, killing ~10,000 people, in order to send a message that their political dissent would not be tolerated.
Syria is also the point of transit for most of the foreign AQ fighters entering Iraq to kill U.S. soldiers, and many of the weapons. Cuddlling up to that regime, in contravention of U.S. policy, is a hell of a funny way to support the troops...
Never mind that she was more likely practicing her own religion.
I started out to protest that Pelosi wasn't following Catholic precepts, because to my knowledge, Vatican II had dropped the requirement for women to wear head-coverings. But then I realized that I didn't know the actual history, and a quick search led me to this historical discussion. So it appears that Pelosi was following Catholic doctrine after all.
The questions I have, though: is that just a coincidence? Does Pelosi wear a veil at Mass at home? (Can she even participate in a Mass in Syria?)
Regardless of all that, I find it completely inappropriate for the Democrats to be promulgating their own foreign policy like this. I equally condemn any Republican who has seen fit to travel to Syria or anywhere else outside of the directions of the administration.
What Al Maviva said. Thrice.
Sheesh, any of you people ever been to a Jewish wedding? Did you get all bent out of shape because you were asked to put on a yarmulke?
does Assad's wife wear a bikini to the beach when they visit the West?
I wouldn't be surprised if she did. Now that we have deposed Saddam, Syria is the most secular country left in the middle east (besides Israel). Remember, the Baathists are secular Arab nationalists and socialists who hate Islamic fundamentalism. That is why Al Qaeda and Saddam, as much as they both despised the U.S., could never quite see eye to eye. OBL considered Saddam an apostate.
Riddle me this: why is a christian relic in a mosque? Why couldn't it be inside of a church or a cathedral?
Wow, Ann, your right wing friends started off their morning with a good cup of Starbucks. Barely do they even discuss the fact that a Republican delegation is visiting Syria at the same time or that many any American including this lady have worn a scarf while visiting a Muslim country. Trumped up outrage is a very funny thing.
"... she is my age (67). Catholic female people of my vintage customarily cover their heads when in Church. "
Must be a European and US thing. My mom and grandmother are older than that, and I've never seen them cover their head in Church.
Re: "Trumped up outrage"
Pelosi went over to Syria with "an alternative Democratic foreign policy". The Republicans did not.
It borders on treason.
And the head scarf?
As I said, she'd better get used to wearing it. In France, England, and Spain. Maybe here, if the Democrats prevail.
Must be a European and US thing. My mom and grandmother are older than that, and I've never seen them cover their head in Church
The only women I see covering thier head in Church when I go appear to be born during the Great Depression and even then, I can count on one hand the number I see who do.
In any event, I could care less if she wore a headscarf or a burqa. I am a firm believer of the phrase when in Rome...
I think what has a lot of people in a twist over this is that we bend over backwards to 'respect other cultures' when overseas yet seem to bend over backwards to do the same in our own country such as having to make concessions to immigrants when our customs or tradtions conflict with thiers, Muslim or otherwise.
Invisible Man said...
Wow, Ann, your right wing friends started off their morning with a good cup of Starbucks.
I think the point is that the Syrians and not very nice people who are working hard to kill Americans and destabilize Iraq and to kill Israelis and destabilize Lebanon.
They are on the DoS Terrorist State list, and we want to alter their behavior not condone it.
freelance diplomatic efforts send the wrong signals
I think there is a difference between any old Representative and the Speaker of the House. Pelosi is third in line to be President in terms of succession. While a Representative going may be a minor annoyance, having such a high-ranking official go gives it the imprimatur of official American foreign policy-making. And since the Founders passed a statute barring anyone but an administration from setting the foreign policy of the country and that statute is still on the books, the question is what is Pelosi doing other than annoying the administration? Though her station implies otherwise, she cannot make any deals or promises because that would be illegal.
When did Republicans become such adolescents? Speaking to a another country, even one that is our enemy, doesn't imply that you are somehow submitting to their will. This country has throughout its history spoken to all manor of enemies and somehow we still don't speak Russian or with a British accent. This implied notion that Pelosi is going over their to kneel at Ahmadinejad's feet and accept him as our king is what I'm feeling out of these silly posts. Again Reagan had state dinners with a country with Nuclear Weapons pointed at us, who supplied weapons to terrorists to kill Americans and openly had conversations about wiping us off the face of the earth. That's called diplomacy not surrender.
However, by his irresponsible, cavalier, plain ignorant conduct of foreign policy Bush forfeited this right.
Um. No. Pelosi would be in violation of the law -- a specific statute -- if she "conducted foreign policy" with Syria. There is no forfeiture of the President's foreign affairs power here and the concept of forfeiture in this context really makes no sense.
Mark: However, by his irresponsible, cavalier, plain ignorant conduct of foreign policy Bush forfeited this right
Well thats disappointing. I guess if I believe a President Hillary's foreign policy is irresponsible & ignorant, I can violate the Logan Act. Hell, John Kerry got away with it, why can't I? Maybe I can trade away NYC for 2 more years of "peace".
Re: "Do you know anything about wearing headscarves in Europe?"
Read about it, start with Mark Steyn.
Yes, France is trying to abolish head scarves. Their little problem with "youths" rioting continues, however, most recently in the area by the Eiffel tower.
They are doomed.
Treason is what it is, by the way, when any elected official but the President tries to practice foriegn policy overseas in opposition to the administration. You can call it whatever you like, but it's against our Constitution.
This country has throughout its history spoken to all manor of enemies and somehow we still don't speak Russian or with a British accent.
Bush's position is that we have already exhausted diplomatic efforts with Syria, and that US/EU officials should ostracize Syria until they are willing to change their ways. Congress-critters [of any stripe] sitting down to reopen negoitiations with Syria is no better than letting a spoiled child play his Mother against his Father.
ahhhh now Pogo ups the ante to "boardline treason". Oh brother. you Johnny-one-notes are a hoot.
and as to your blatant hypocracy:
Sunday, April 1, 2007; 7:03 PM
DAMASCUS, Syria -- U.S. House members meeting with President Bashar Assad Sunday said they believed there was an opportunity for dialogue with the Syrian leadership.
The U.S. House members, who included Virginia Republican Frank Wolf, Pennsylvania Republican Joe Pitts and Alabama Republican Robert Aderholt, also said they had raised with Syrian officials the issue of stopping the alleged flow of foreign fighters from Syria to Iraq.
and the beat goes on....and the beat goes on...
Read about it, start with Mark Steyn
Bush's position is...
Now we just need John Bolton to complete this little wingnut mutant trifecta circle-jerk. No wonder you guys are always so miserable at the world you see.
Re: "There is noone more ignorant and more wrong ...than Mark Steyn."
You're a bigger fool than I would have first posited.
"Nice to note that you admit that France banned headscarves...."
And you missed my point. While they fiddle with stupid anti-Muslim regs, women who actually live in Muslim dominated neighborhoods have taken to wearing head scarves just to avoid persecution by local "youths".
And those Muslim "youths" are still rioting and burning cars in France.
France is lost to Islam. I give it less than 10 years.
And any insult from naked lunch I consider evidence of my being right.
Democrats' politicization of the war on terror
Stop! I can't laugh this much in one day!
Hey, whatever happened to the Terror Color Alert? You know, the scale that changed everytime Bush had a bad day in the press.
I'm born well after WWII, and I've worn a scarf in church many times. I didn't like it, and it played a role in questioning my faith over time, but it is certainly a common practice in the fundamentalist church I attended, as well as in the Catholic churches that dominate here in New Orleans. I often see women, young women included, wrapping a scarf as they enter the church.
However, I no longer practice that custom. That's my choice.
Possibly she can be excused because she was in a place of worship. But how do we excuse the female reporters this morning in the Amanutjob conference who were wearing scarves. Is this news conference a place of worship or can we at least admit that they are caving into a repressive regime and enabling future repression by caving in.
I would think that this would offend you as much as the bloggers and feminists who pervert their feminist agenda to kneel at the feet of Clinton. We give a little here on principles and a little bit there and soon we have no principles to stand on. Oh....wait....nevermind. Pelosi=Democrat=no principles anyway.
Eliz....right on. I was just thinking about that the other day...where is my orange alert button?...i think the last time was after the dem. convention when kerry spiked.
guess we are safe afterall.
hey you republicans who think that Pelosi is commiting treason.... you musta missed this .. posted earlier.....
Sunday, April 1, 2007; 7:03 PM
DAMASCUS, Syria -- U.S. House members meeting with President Bashar Assad Sunday said they believed there was an opportunity for dialogue with the Syrian leadership.
The U.S. House members, who included Virginia Republican Frank Wolf, Pennsylvania Republican Joe Pitts and Alabama Republican Robert Aderholt, also said they had raised with Syrian officials the issue of stopping the alleged flow of foreign fighters from Syria to Iraq......
you guys are sooo easy.
Bush's position is that we have already exhausted diplomatic efforts with Syria . . .
Bush throws up his hands and declares diplomacy a waste of time faster than any president this country has ever known. The only thing surprising about his tack toward Syria is that he hasn't called in a full-scale invasion yet.
Seriously, why is it that you people automatically lodge accusations of "cuddling up" the minute that anyone dares engage in some sort of communication with a foreign head of state? It just makes me chuckle whenever I hear one of you guys insist that "all options remain on the table" -- all options except actual diplomacy, of course. We should still consider starting a full-scale war and blasting the other country to smithereens, but diplomacy, heavens no, that would be horrible!
I will then visit the French Riviera and sunbathe topless on the beach with other French ladies and send the picture to you and Ann.
Is that a promise? Because in 10 years, such a venture will result in you being stoned to death.
Dust Bunny: The reason the reporters were wearing headscarves is b/c Iranian law requires it and they could be arrested for not wearing hijab. "According to the law, a woman who does not cover her hair and body in public can be fined or imprisoned for up to two months."
I know this. This doesn't make it right to compromise your principles. It used to be illegal for blacks to sit in the front of the bus or drink out of the same water fountain as whites.
As representatives of their news companies or even more as representatives of our government I would expect that the women of USA would show themselves to be better than female equivilants of "Uncle Toms". If they don't have at least that motivation, how about some self respect.
"Riddle me this: why is a christian relic in a mosque? Why couldn't it be inside of a church or a cathedral?"
I think John the Baptist's head is in quite a few places, but this is the one that Muslims think is the one. But significantly, Pope John Paul II paid his respects to this one.
I think "unhelpful" is a fair description of Pelosi's activities. That Republicans have also visited Syria isn't really a defense, since they weren't high-profile figures like Pelosi is. For better or worse, Pelosi is a government leader of a branch that is not supposed to be conducting foreign policy -- that power rests with the executive so that the country may speak with one voice when dealing with foreign powers.
However, I do not think the harm done by her is very significant (the world already knows our government is divided), and the harsher rhetoric from some pundits is uncalled for.
I would, however, say that I am highly amused that so many of the people who screamed and pitched a fit over the Executive allegedly horning in on Legislative powers see nothing wrong with the reverse happening.
Ahhh....so you're saying Western female reporters should not wear headscarves, get arrested, get sent home, and then not be able to report from Iran?
Yes!!
I certainly agree that civil disobedience is a good way to change laws, but I don't see how they could continue to do their jobs in Iran if they started not wearing headscarves and wore shorts when it was hot. For example, reporters in the South during the civil rights movement probably sympathized with protesters, but they didn't jump in front of the water cannons or chain themselves with protesters in solidarity; instead they reported on what was happening.
This is exactly the issue. The reporters and especially the female reporters, whom I hold to a higher standard, are NOT reporting what is happening to women in these countries. They are not reporting the spread of Sharia law in Europe and in the United States. They are not crying out about the injustice to women, children and even to homosexuals. Instead the reporting is partisan and agenda filtered in many cases.
Inaction in the face of tryany and injustice is what brought us the last World War.
I could still retain my self-respect and wear a head-scarf if I were visiting Iran.
I couldn't.
Hey, whatever happened to the Terror Color Alert? You know, the scale that changed everytime Bush had a bad day in the press.
I agree. We are getting complacent in our own safety. I was wondering the other day why we haven't been attacked here in America since 9-11. It's been 5 1/2 years and not even a car bomb.
Obviously it has nothing to do with anything Bush has done.. i.e, the wars in the middle east, the patriot act, the water boarding, the wiretapping, the financial tracing.... etc... etc...????
Maybe we will find out under President Obama...when he puts in an end to all of these terrible programs that defile our rights and make us unpopular in the world.
Re: "Try reading someone, you know, less ignorant."
How about "Infidel" by Ayaan Hirsi Ali?
She says virtually the same thing.
France and Spain will be part of the Caliphate. You can't fight the demographics. French people simply aren't reproducing. The birth wards are all-Muslim these days. Wonder how that'll affect the head scarf laws in a few years?
Good for you Ann:
"showing respect for the traditions of a place of worship you want to enter is completely appropriate"
I agree! And I don't understand why the tightie righties demand our leaders show disrespect toward Islam.
Laura Bush sure didn't when she wore the head scarf.
I was wondering the other day why we haven't been attacked here in America since 9-11.
I was wondering why you always forget the anthrax attacks.
Ann: I think the issue is that the are not concentric but simply linked parts of one larger set of buildings...started as this, addition added in 13th century etc., not so much bulding over the top of. for instance the colonades that you see in most of the pictures were actually party of a roman temple of jupiter.
Pogo,
While Ms. Ali is a pretty impressive woman, she gives about as biased a view on Muslims in the west as you can find. Is there a problem with integrating Muslims in the West? Yes. Will France and Spain start forcing women to wear head scarves and change the Constitution to include Sharia in the next 20 years? Not a chance in hell. Hyperbole like this doesn't really help.
MadisonMan, much as the anthrax attacks occurred just a week after the September 11, 2001 attack on the Twin Towers, most put them together as one of a series of attacks. But the others didn't happen as planned.
So yes, we were attacked within 7 days after 9-11. Not since then, however. A pretty good record.
Now that England has capitulated aqnd aplogized for Iran's terror kidnappings, they can expect many more of the same.
"Not a chance in hell."
I hope you're right.
I'm betting you're wrong.
Hyperbole?
Every damn week I read about terror attacks in some part of the globe, all done by guys named Mohammed. What a strange coincidence.
But ask yourself, if you are so convinced of the Islamic desire to live peaceably among us, are you willing to make a life-size chocolate Mohammed and his chocolate child bride?
I doubt it.
And why do I need any other proof than what the Islamofascists say themselves? As Hasan Nasrallah, leader of Hizbollah, famously advised the West: "We don't want anything from you. We just want to eliminate you."
Why shouldn't I believe him?
"a pretty impressive woman"??
Gee, that's swell of you. But you know better than a woman who lived under the thumb of Islam ....why exactly?
I was wondering why you always forget the anthrax attacks.
Yes okay I will amend my prior statement. How come we have not been attacked since 9-11 and the Anthrax attacks 5 1/2 years ago. Come on... not even another measly anthrax attack!
The U.S. House members, who included Virginia Republican Frank Wolf, Pennsylvania Republican Joe Pitts and Alabama Republican Robert Aderholt
Again, none of those representatives are Speaker of the House. The Speaker of the House is the third in line of succession to be President. She is a high-ranking member of government and has a greater obligation to the public than a mere representative.
Nor did any of those mere representatives pass messages from one government to another, in essence "conducting foreign policy" on behalf of the nation with the imprimatur of legitimacy even though it is in plain violation of the law.
Pelosi may be more than "unhelpful" and bordering on "counterproductive". The Syrians are not really in a position to give her (or really anyone) much of anything in Iraq. They are mostly just turning a blind eye to the Sunni money and terrorists flowing through their country into Iraq.
So, yes, they could work more diligently to stem the flow, but what would we have to give in trade? More of a say in Iraq? At best, that would require giving the Sunni Arabs there more of a say than is justified by their 15% or so of the population, not something that we really can or should do with a democracy in Iraq.
Now Iran is a different story. They are apparently not just funneling money and arms into Iraq, but it also appears that some of their special forces type troops are involved there (and have been caught there).
But this is again part of the confusion that seems to muddy the perceptions of many of those, like Pelosi, on the left, of what is going on in Iraq. While both Iran and Syria are both on our list of states supporting terrorism, and both are at least minimally involved in Iraq, their involvement is quite different.
And their involvement is going to continue to be different. Syria cannot afford to take the activist role in Iraq that Iran has. They likely are very worried that if we do discover Syrian arms, or worse, troops, in Iraq, we are likely to implement regime change there, with extreme prejudice. Something that we can't realistically do for any number of reasons with Iran.
Good Lord,
If Ms. Ali is biased, it's the bias of proximity and being predisposed to staying alive.
If she surrendered her obsession with the latter perhaps this would all go away. Just ask Theo.
And why do I need any other proof than what the Islamofascists say themselves? As Hasan Nasrallah, leader of Hizbollah, famously advised the West: "We don't want anything from you. We just want to eliminate you."
on a little point of levity, didn't the Alien in Independence Day say pretty much the same lines?:
President Thomas Whitmore: What do you want us to do?
Captured Alien: Die. Die.
The French and Spanish are doing that today by refusing to breed.
Come on... not even another measly anthrax attack!
I vaguely recall reading that the mastermind (alleged) behind anthrax died in the plane crash in Nov 2001. I think it was on a conspiracy website somewhere, though. A true statement you can make is that there have been no (successful) attacks on US soil since the invasion of Iraq.
Pogo, I will read Ayaan Hirsi Ali's book (21 copies available in the Madison Library, so I'm still down on the reserve list) with the same jaundiced eye that I give other a disaster is coming books. You don't believe Global Warming alarmist books. Apparently you do believe Islamofascism alarmist books.
Re: "You don't believe Global Warming alarmist books. Apparently you do believe Islamofascism alarmist books."
I believe my own lying damn eyes.
I have no faith in Al Gore. None at all.
And why you are not an alarmist when every single week there is an act of violence by Islam against the West is passing strange. If I wait for you guys to get "alarmed", we'll be dead.
My advice? Bear arms.
heh heh. Joe said "tool." heh heh
Joe: Elections have consequences. The Democratic Party is convinced that the American Public wants out of Iraq -- and I've not seen many polls lately that suggest otherwise. What do you think encourages the enemy more: A meaningless resolution, as you call it, or the demonstrated incompetence of the people who got us into this war? It's true that Rumsfeld is (FINALLY) gone -- but the damage his reign wrought will take forever to undo, if undoing it is even possible.
Ahhh....so you're saying Western female reporters should not wear headscarves, get arrested, get sent home, and then not be able to report from Iran?
Yes.
I think Joe has a good point. Elizabeth obviously could not respond. Joe 1. Elizabeth 0.
I guess Revenant is saying that in 1940, he would have had reporters and all State department officals/wives in Germany start wearing yellow armbands.
injustice is injustice and we should not accept it just to get along
I agree.
I vaguely recall reading that the mastermind (alleged) behind anthrax died in the plane crash in Nov 2001.
I don't recall Al Qaeda or any terrorist group ever claiming that they committed the anthrax attacks. I don't think KSM even listed it with his giant laundry list of planned attacks. Most people believe it was a home grown kook, someone more akin to the Unibomber than Al Qaeda.
Maybe it was an Al Qaeda attack. One that turned out to be so ineffective compared to 9-11 that they were embarrassed to admit it (not to disparage those who were killed in the attack of course).
Pogo says: "every single week there is an act of violence by Islam against the West..."
Uh, yeah...and 99% of them are in...Iraq.
Maybe if we were to LEAVE IRAQ...oh, wait, I forgot...George says they'll follow us home. (Canoes? Rafts? Flotsam?)
Sorry, my bad.
Joe, maybe the public would have bought into the war a little less grudgingly if it hadn't been sold under false pretenses, or if the Commander in Chief had done a better job of communicating why it's important to fight. Especially the latter. REALLY especially the latter. Because now after years of mismanagement and bungling, well I find it hard to believe that he has any idea of what to do. So I sit and see a surge and cross my fingers, but I realize that the surge can't last forever, and its success can only be judged after it ends.
Re: "and 99% of them are in...Iraq."
Yeah, just keep telling yourself that. And all those raids in France and England and Germany, jihad in Malaysia, mudered Danes, Canadian conspirators, Minneapolis flying imams, all those mad mullahs calling for (and getting) their demands met worldwide, you just go on and ignore them.
Don't let it bother you at all. Sleep the deep and restful sleep of, say, England, just before the Blitz.
Maybe if we were to LEAVE IRAQ...oh, wait, I forgot...George says they'll follow us home. (Canoes? Rafts? Flotsam?)
You doofus, they are already here. I recall that most of the 9-11 hijackers had been in the country for quite some time before their attack on the World Trade Towers. If you don't think that there are groups embedded in our communities waiting to do mischief, you are sadly mistaken. In addition to the known affiliates we also have millions of illegal and unaccounted for aliens in the US. Most are here for the $$$$ but some are here to committ crimes and terrorist activities. Sleeper cells.
Let's not ignore the radical muslims who are gaining converts in our prison systems. If you think you are safe.....well I guess you have your head where the sun doesn't shine. You may not be so "lucky" as you think you are.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0810/p02s01-ussc.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0810/p02s01-ussc.html
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/toronto-bomb-plot/index.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/06/08/terror/main700284.shtml
Sometimes I think the best (and the worst) thing would be to have terrorists blow up some high profile target in the US. Maybe that would wake up the useful idiots on the left. Naaaah... probably not.
If you are a man and ever visit a conservative or orthodox Jewish synagogue, you will be given a yarmulke (skull cap) before you can enter the sanctuary, even if you are a (non-Jewish) visitor.
I have no problem with her doing this inside the mosque. I'd have a problem if she were wearing a burquah on the street or something, but she is not.
My English, Roman Catholic grandmother wore a scarf almost identical to that every time she went to church, until she died at the age of 87 in 1992. This Drudge-fueled story is pure Islamophobia.
Between Pogo and DustBunny I don't which one sounds more like little Georgie, throwing out the same ol', same ol' Republican talking points.
Pogo: All these raids..."France and England and Germany, jihad in Malaysia, mudered Danes, Canadian conspirators, Minneapolis flying imams..."
When was the last attack in any of these areas of the world? (Minneapolis flying imams???) And what exactly do any of them have to do with Iraq?? Are you actually saying the terrorists won't come here...before we leave there??
DustBunny: I certainly realize that there are probably "cells" here already, but again...what does that have to do with Iraq? Are you saying they're just waiting for our soldiers to come home before attacking us HERE?
Right. You'd certainly want as much of the American military HERE...before you take action...you know...so we'd have a real fighting chance.
DUH.
ASX,
You got that right. This is just another crock...brought to us by the right wing nutcase machine.
Sometimes I think the best (and the worst) thing would be to have terrorists blow up some high profile target in the US. Maybe that would wake up the useful idiots on the left. Naaaah... probably not.
Interesting theory, but you know what the Left would say about that. Now after we have had no attacks, they claim that we cannot prove that Bush's policies are working to prevent the attacks. I am still not exactly sure what their argument is for the lack of attacks. I would like to hear it. In my opinion, the burden is now (after 5 1/2 years) on the Left and the MEDIA to report and prove to us why there haven't been any attacks rather than trying to prove that Bush's policies are not working.
Anyway, if there was an attack they would say "see... those policies were not working."
You can't win. It took 50 years for the Left to realize that South Korea is better off with us there than under Communism (but they still won't admit it).
It is Bush who hypocritically complains that troops will not have funds when it is HE who promises to veto the very bill that gives them the money.
Your arguments are so juvenile, why do you bother to post? If you actually believe the stuff you say then I hope you enjoy your time in your own personal hell, nit wit.
Sloan, you guys are the ones who don't appear to have your story straight. Pogo proudly stated that we hadn't been attacked since 9/11, and blew off the anthrax attacks as apparently not counting.
But just a minute ago he turned right around and rattled off all these "attacks" that have occurred in America (and other places in the West).
So which is it? Have there been attacks, or haven't there? Has the Iraq war kept the Islamonazifascistjihadists at bay or hasn't it?
Mark,
Anybody who's still in Bush's corner, regarding Iraq...is long gone.
But...I'll still challenge anybody on this board to list the "good" things Bush has done for America...and I'll start out by listing what I consider the "bad" things:
1. Skewing intelligence before the Iraqi invasion
2. No plan of action for the aftermath of the invasion
3. Not enough soldiers on the ground, disbanding the Iraqi military, allowing the munitions to be looted, etc.
4. Katrina ("heck of a job, Brownie")
5. Illegal wiretapping of Americans
(rent admissions via Miller at the FBI)
6. Condoning torture (Rummy's orders)
7. Gitmo, ignoring habeus corpus (ongoing to this day)
8. Walter Reed (disgusting)
9. Firing U.S. attorney's for political reasons (still waiting to hear from Mr. Gonzales)
Now...let's see YOUR list...and please, no more of the standard: "we haven't been attacked on Amrerican soil since 9/11...because we weren't attacked for the 8 years before that either, with President Clinton in charge.
Okay..."Bring It On"
Re: "Are you actually saying the terrorists won't come here...before we leave there??"
The terrorists are already here, have been here for some time.
1993 and 2001, if you recall.
What's it got to do with Iraq? They are all fronts in WW4. And they are right next to you.
At the Green Lane Mosque in Birmingham, England (which receives theological guidance from Saudi Arabia), imam Abu Usamah tells his followers: "You have to live like a state within a state, until you take over. The pinnacle, the crest, the summit of Islam - is Jihad. No one loves the kuffaar. No one loves the kuffaar! Not a single person here from the Muslims, love the kuffaar. Whether those kuffaar are from the UK, or from the US - We love the peope of Islam, and we hate the people of kufr. We hate the kuffaar. Muslims shouldn't be satisfied with living in other than the total Islamic state. ...And the Muslims are going to be in a position of being uppermost in strength. And when that happens, people won't get killed -- unjustly."
Just keep napping, though. Nothing to see here.
Re: "But just a minute ago he turned right around and rattled off all these "attacks" that have occurred in America (and other places in the West)."
Don't be an ass. I said no such thing. I didn't "blow off" the anthrax attack, but said since it occurred one week after 9/11, it was likely temporally related, and there have been no attacks in the US since then.
As for the other attacks (Malaysia, India). Not US attacks, as I said. Foiled attacks in England and France. Also, not the US.
What don't you get, besides everything?
Sloanasaurus said...
"Your arguments are so juvenile, why do you bother to post? If you actually believe the stuff you say then I hope you enjoy your time in your own personal hell, nit wit."
What the hell are you talking about...and what's with the "personal hell" insanity?? They're going to hell because they don't agree with you...or Bush?
And what do you mean when you say the "left" just doesn't understand?
(The left finally realized South Korea should be with US?? Huh??)
Are you low on meds?
Pogo, I asked this before and will ask it again: What do the attacks you mention have to do with IRAQ??
Are you really saying that if we leave Iraq...the terrorists will literally "follow us here"...as little Georgie says whenever he gets a chance?
Pogo says: "They are all fronts in WW4. And they are right next to you."
Well, that pretty much says it all.
According to Pogo, we've evidently already waged World War III (damn, and I missed it, too...anybody got it on Tivo?)...and World War IV is right around the corner...because "they are right next to you."
Do you have any of what you're taking...for sale?
My English, Roman Catholic grandmother wore a scarf almost identical to that every time she went to church, until she died at the age of 87 in 1992. This Drudge-fueled story is pure Islamophobia.
As a Roman Catholic woman I also wore a hat or scarf to church, so I have no problem with Nancy Pelosi wearing one in a religious shrine. That was the way I was raised, and probably Nancy Pelosi was as well.
What I do have a problem with is this creeping acceptance that we,(the women of the supposedly free West) should cave in and wear scarves so we won't be harassed, raped and/or jailed as is considered normal in Iran, Afghanistan and other places.
If we were to move permanently to another country, then...yes, we should adhere or respect the cultural norms there and wear a burka or whatever. That is part of the social contract. However, when Muslims move to the US, France etc. they don't accept our cultural norms. They want us, the residents, of these countries to conform to their rules and not the other way around.
I see the wearing of these items as mark of subjugation and the acquiescence by Western women as throwing away decades of progress in the fight for feminine equality.
If you went to Germany in the pre WW2 era, would you feel obligated to wear a yellow star and step off of the sidewalk when a "superior" citizen were to approach? If you were in the deep south during the Jim Crow era, would you consider it alright to denigrate men and women of color? If you were black would you just accept that you can't use the bathroom, get a drink of water or eat at a lunch counter?
If you would do all of these things, then I suppose you have no problem with the subjugation and repression of women and girls in Iran and other Muslim cultures. You probably think it is alright that a judge in Germany found it was acceptable for a man to beat his wife and refused to grant a divorce, because that is what Sharia Law says. Not German law, but Sharia law. When Sharia law trumps our own laws we are most certainly lost.
Don't try to catch a cab in Minnesota if you have been to Napa California and have a souvenier bottle of wine. Muslim law and customs trump your own.
Re: "According to Pogo, we've evidently already waged World War III "
Apparently, you slept through the Cold War, sometimes called World War 3. Your ignorance of this fact speaks volumes. Keep sleeping, son.
Re: "What do the attacks you mention have to do with IRAQ??"
And I'll answer again: They are all fronts in WW4.
Three Yale Students Arrested for Burning a Flag
April 4, 2007
Three Yale University students were arrested early Tuesday morning for burning an American flag on a pole attached to a house in New Haven, the Yale Daily News reported today.
The three men, all of foreign origin, were charged with offenses ranging from reckless endangerment to arson and were held in jail Tuesday night after a judge refused to release them without bail.
According to the newspaper, the New Haven police said the men — two freshmen and a senior — first attracted police attention at about 3 a.m. Tuesday when they asked two offcers for directions back to their residence. They were identified as Said Hyder Akbar, 23, Nikolaos Angelopoulos, 19, and Farhad Anklesaria, also 19.
Nothing to see here.
Just keep sleeping.
I am still not exactly sure what their argument is for the lack of attacks.
There was around an 8 year pause between the '93 and 9/11. Are you willing to give Clinton credit for thrwarting all attempted attacks between '93 and Jan 2001? Perhaps the whole Lewinski affair was really a ruse to keep Osama entertained. Yeah, thats it! He didn't attack because it would have taken that story off the front page.
If the righties didn't run around patting themselves on the back because "there has been no attach on American soil for the last 5 1/2 years" they wouldn't set themselves up for criticism when the next attack does occur (The next attack is inevitable as any expert on the issue will attest).
Anybody who's still in Bush's corner, regarding Iraq...is long gone.
One can feel, as I do, that Bush has done a lousy job of managing the war and still be revolted by the physical and moral cowardice of the anti-war crowd.
Nancy Pelosi going to Syria bad; republicans going not so bad.
Nancy Pelosi wearing headscarf bad; Laura Bush wearing headscarf not so bad.
Pogo says: "every single week there is an act of violence by Islam against the West..."
Uh, yeah...and 99% of them are in...Iraq.
Link, please?
Maybe if we were to LEAVE IRAQ...oh, wait, I forgot...George says they'll follow us home. (Canoes? Rafts? Flotsam?)
Yep, them camel-ridin' ragheads jest don't know how to use a plane. Nosiree. That's how we know 9/11 was an inside job -- no Muslim woulda known how to board a plane, let alone fly one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act
There is no doubt Nancy Pelosi broke the law.
Nancy Pelosi going to Syria bad; republicans going not so bad.
Nancy Pelosi wearing headscarf bad; Laura Bush wearing headscarf not so bad.
Take the following sentence:
"I think we should nuke Iran if it doesn't stop causing trouble for us".
Would it, or would it not, be worse for President Bush to say that then it would be for Representative David Loebsack (D-Iowa) to say it?
In case the underlying idea behind that question is too confusing for you, I'll spell it out: the more power you have, the greater your responsibility to act appropriately in public.
I wonder if Pelosi will participate in the stoning of a few homosexuals, out of respect for Islam of course.
Maybe if we were to LEAVE IRAQ...oh, wait, I forgot...George says they'll follow us home. (Canoes? Rafts? Flotsam?)
Yemeneese freighter with unregistered cargo. One nuke coming soon to a port city near you. Enjoy.
because we weren't attacked for the 8 years before that either, with President Clinton in charge.
Wasn't Clinton President in 1993 when they first tried to bring down the towers?
I wonder if Sloan, Cedarford and Fen are all the same person. Certainly God didn't make three identical nitwits.
Stop spouting. Stop spraying. Try some facts rather than starting every sentence with "I think" as it is clear you do not.
1. Skewing intelligence before the Iraqi invasion
Then, everyone was doing it, the Brits, French, Russians, Clinton, etc.
2. No plan of action for the aftermath of the invasion
First, everyone, esp. those on the left, expected it to be a lot bloodier before Iraq fell. They were unprepared. Secondly, we didn't have the time to wait. Sorry, but sanctions were breaking down, and would soon be lifted, thanks to massive bribery through the Oil for Food program.
3. Not enough soldiers on the ground, disbanding the Iraqi military, allowing the munitions to be looted, etc.
If the army had not been disbanded, it would still have been run by the Sunni Arabs. And as such, it would not be representative of the Iraqi people. It had been used for decades to impose Sunni Arab rule over the Shia and Kurds, and that had to go if there was any chance at a democracy.
As to munitions, I don't know what you expect us to have done. There were huge munitition dumps all over the country, and we didn't know where most of them were, and wouldn't know until we got there. It is plain silly to suggest that anything else could have been done.
As to the number of troops on the ground, there just aren't enough of them available. Sorry, but since Clinton cut half the active Army divisions, etc. cashing the Peace Dividend, we haven't had enough troops. Sure we could have put more on the ground initially, but then a year later, they wouldn't have been there to rotate in to relieve the troops being rotated home.
4. Katrina ("heck of a job, Brownie")
Silly me. I thought that it was the LA gov. who wouldn't let other guard units in, and the mayor who refused to evacuate the city, and then didn't let all those school buses go underwater instead of being used to evacuate NOLA residents.
5. Illegal wiretapping of Americans
(rent admissions via Miller at the FBI)
Of course, that presupposes that it was illegal, which it isn't or wasn't. Or didn't you know that the TSP program had been approved of a couple of months ago by the FISC?
6. Condoning torture (Rummy's orders)
Depends on your defintion of torture. But again, a silly liberal talking point with minimal factual support.
7. Gitmo, ignoring habeus corpus (ongoing to this day)
Well, that presupposes that Gitmo detainees are entitled to habeus corpus, which is why they were housed there, instead of here, in the first place. SCOTUS said that they were entitled to statutory (but not Constitutional) habeus corpus, but that was subsequently stripped by Congress. And that has been approved so far by the courts. SCOTUS may reverse that - but until that happens, this just looks like another silly liberal talking point.
You may not like that illegal combatants, many captured on the battle field aren't entitled to habeus corpus, but that is currently the law. Sorry.
8. Walter Reed (disgusting)
And everything that is done by any of the millions of federal employees is somehow Bush's fault. I am just surprised that you didn't mention Abu Ghraib.
9. Firing U.S. attorney's for political reasons (still waiting to hear from Mr. Gonzales)
Again, an liberal talking point with barely enough accuracy to avoid being laughed at.
For the most part, the U.S. Attys. were fired for performance problems. Some were borderline and were fired because they weren't following the AG's and President's priorities. You may not like that, but the position is political and always has been. The President and his AG are legally, Constitutionally, and morally entitled to set the priorities of the U.S. Attorneys, and if they don't comply with those priorities, they should not be surprised if they are fired.
cedarford's connection with yale...(don't call me, i'll call you) is probably having bush ghost write papers for him...seriously folks...take my brain. please.
get those tin cans and string out first thing cedarford. give yale a call. I'm sure they are just sitting up now, nervously awaiting your call. hahahahahah.
When Hillary and Chelsea Clinton went to Pakistan they adopted more modest clothing and covered their head. Right wingers were upset. But their goodwill trip, and their sensitivity to custom endeared them to the locals and in their press there was NOTHING refferring to them as arrogant Americans.
Nancy showed good political sense in covering her head and dressing more conservative. She wanted to get things done, not have the press and the politicos there get hung up in the "arrogant American" bit. She also seems to have wanted to plant a bit of good will there too. Isn't that some of what she was there to do?
I will always remember the statement from a Saudi feminist in Saudi Arabia about the problems she had with western feminists - it was their complete absence of understanding of their accomplishments and how these accomplishments are taken in steps. . . she asked "What's more important; that a women has to always cover her head or that girls get an education? One step at a time, our time."
Admittedly “Muslim time” is not “western time.” American Muslims will even concede this, some with hope that Muslim time can become more like western time.
Most Muslim women who do not wear a head covering in their daily life cover when they enter a mosque. Muslims, even those who are progressive, also get a little irritated when a westerner defines what head covering means according to Christianity and NOT according to Islam. And then apply that definition to them and to Muslim countries.
an interesting post if authentic
http://www.reformsyria.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=282&Itemid=66
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was seen roaming the streets of Damascus flaunting a Hijab. The Hijab worn by women across the Muslim world has come to symbolize either one of three things: 1) a symbol that men control women by forcing piety, or 2) a return to religiosity because of oppressive rulers, or 3) a fashion statement. If you ask any expert on the Middle East, you would get any one of three answers. The ones who usually claim it is a fashion statement are the political rulers who usually oppress people in general. A Hijab is NOT a confirmation of the rights of women in the Middle East but rather a symbol of their suppression.
As a Muslim, I fully understand respect of our religion by visiting US officials and I applaud that respect. Had Speaker Pelosi worn the Hijab inside a Mosque, this would have indicated respect but for Pelosi to wear it on the streets of Damascus all the while she is sitting with the self-imposed Baschar al-Assad who has come to symbolize oppression and one of the reasons why women are forced to wear the Hijab as they turn to religion to express their freedom is a statement of submittal not only to oppression but also to lack of women's rights in the Middle East. Pelosi just reversed the work of the Syrian civil society and those who aspire for women's freedom in the Muslim countries many years back with her visual statement. Her lack of experience of the Middle East is showing.
Assad could not have been happier because Syrian women, seeing a US official confirming what their husbands, the Imams in the Mosques tell them, and the society at large imposes on them through peer pressure will see in her wearing a Hijab as a confirmation of the societal pressures they are constantly under. No one will ever know how many women took the Hijab on after seeing Pelosi wearing it. The damage Speaker Pelosi is causing with her visit to Syria will be felt for many years to come.
those weren't my words. they were from that site that claims to be Syrian opposition
naw Joe...your head is still up your ass. Do rank generalizations bother you at all? no? ok.
and by the way from 93-2001 during clinton we weren't hit here either...when it gest to 2009..same amount of time, and no attack then call me back. until then, take you head out of your ass.
Excellent Post Bruce. First I will respond to this comment.
we haven't been attacked on Amrerican soil since 9/11...because we weren't attacked for the 8 years before that either, with President Clinton in charge.
A fair point, except that as of 2001, Osama was at the height of his power. He had trained over 10,000 terrorists in his camps between 1998-2001. So comparing the terrorists ability of 2001 to 1993 is not a valid comparison.
Regarding the "good things" that Bush has done, here are some of my favorties:
1. Bush Invaded Iraq and rid the world of the most dangerous fanatical regime.
2. Bush destroyed the operational capacity of Al Qaeda and liberated most of Afghanistan.
3. Bush Disarmed the Libyan state.
4. Bush instituted the framework to fight the war on terror, which is an offensive framework rather than a defensive. So far no attacks in 5 1/2 years.
4. Bush saved the economy and millions of jobs from the nasty stock market bubble recession by massively cutting capital gains, dividends and income taxes at the right time.
5. Bush prevented the human cloning advocates from getting the federal government to approve the morality of cloning which was masked as embroyonic stem cell research.
6. Bush prevented the global warming socialists from attempting to regulate CO2 via the executive branch (so far).
7. Bush appinted two judges to the Supreme Court who follow the law rather than make the law.
8. Bush has presided over a society whose yearly productivity has increased over $3 trillion since he took office despite inheriting a recession.
and by the way from 93-2001 during clinton we weren't hit here either...when it gest to 2009..
except Khobar towers and the USS Cole, and 2 Embassies, and a plot against Bush 41...
I wander if Laura Bush participated in a few stonings of homosexuals while she wore the headscarf in the middle east?
I wonder if the republicans that were in Syria before Nancy participated in a few stonings of homosexuals while there were they.
I wonder if Fen would like to participate in a few homosexual stonings. Me thinky yes, fen like homosexual stonings-fen feel like big man for homosexual stonings, fen feel repressed homosexual thoughts gone after homosexual stonings.
fen feel much better.
Lest I forget, the 1993 WTC bomb attack I.
What the Yale story makes it abundantly clear is that we don't need anything as stupid as a flag desecration amendment cluttering up the Constitution.
All three of them were arrested for arson and various other crimes.
In other words, on those rare, rare occasions when a flag is actually burned (sometimes not at all in a whole year) there are adequate local laws and regulations (i.e. did they get a permit to emit greenhouse gases?) to cover it.
OK, let me get this straight.
Bush has kept the country safe since 9/11 because there haven't been any attacks on our soil; all the actual attacks have been in other countries.
But Clinton did a horrible job defending the U.S. from terrorism because attacks occurred in . . . Tanzania, Kenya, and Saudi Arabia.
And apparently 9/11 can't be blamed on Bush, since that occurred only eight months into his first term and is of course Clinton's fault.
But the '93 World Trade Center bombing, which occurred only 37 days into Clinton's first term, is . . . also Clinton's fault.
Seriously, aren't you guys worn out tying yourself into all these knots?
When Hillary and Chelsea Clinton went to Pakistan they adopted more modest clothing and covered their head. Right wingers were upset. But their goodwill trip, and their sensitivity to custom endeared them to the locals and in their press there was NOTHING refferring to them as arrogant Americans.
During the Clinton Administration, the government of Pakistan funded and established the Taliban, sheltered Al Qaeda terrorists, and sold nuclear weapons technology to North Korea.
But thankfully they didn't do anything REALLY bad, like accuse Hillary of being an arrogant American. All that ass-kissing really paid off!
boston70: I wonder if Fen would like to participate in a few homosexual stonings
You miss the point Boston - Pelosi is the one honoring islamic law, not me.
The damage Speaker Pelosi is causing with her visit to Syria will be felt for many years to come.
As well as Israel. Pelosi so totally screwed up Israel's statements that they had to come out and clarify them. Nice work Pelosi, maybe you can pull a Glapsie before you go.
Congressman Tom Lantos: We have an alternative Democratic foreign policy.
When John Quincy Adams was presented to Queen Victoria as US minister, he shocked England by wearing good ol' American trousers and not those gay knee breeches that were 'respectful.'
The incident with Pelosi is not exactly parallel but close enough.
She should not have worn the scarf, she probably should not have visited a mosque anyhow and she should damn sure get a clue.
Otherwise, what David said about respect going both ways.
I think Joe has a good point.
Yeah, you would, Sloan. But I'm not going to reply day after day to the usual idiotic, fear-mongering hysteria of people who think they're fighting terrorism by sitting at a keyboard and labeling their fellow citizens as the enemy, and screeching about BDS.
Elizabeth...in reference to sloan and fen and dave and cedarford who i am sure are all the same person....
they are sociopathic and the more you go after him not them for his not their lunacy the happier he not they seems to be.
Ohh by the way Elizabeth...I looked at Joe's profile. Seems he is a prosecutor. Can you believe? Talk about the Peter principle.
Fen, al mav, sloan...have any of you ever been out of your the US ever?
I'll bet not. Your xenophobic comments are hilarious yet pathetic.
I've travelled throughout the Middle East frequently on business and, as a woman, when invited into a house of worship by my hosts I wear a headscarf. Neither they nor I consider this as submissive.
Courteous people consider this plain old good manners.....just as Laura Bush clearly does when she visits an Islamic country. Bush holds hands with King Abdullah when the king visits the US. I haven't seen you post any comments about either of them being ass kissers of Islamic law and culture.
Get a grip. You're showing some pretty ugly stripes.
hmm, laura bush wears a headscarf while in a mosque, and its ok. nancy pelosi wears a headscarf, and she is "surrendering to OBL, omg!!!"
pogo, fen, et al, you are truly the weakest links.
fen,
before you lose your few remaining marbles over this "Congressman Tom Lantos: We have an alternative Democratic foreign policy" statement, i have just one question:
where were you during the nineties? where were you when dick armey referred to clinton as "your president"?? where were you when the GOP undermined our military and gave comfort to the enemy by loudly braying that clinton's strikes against OBL were "wagging the dog"?? oh, of course, it only counts when democrats do it.
Sloanasaurus said...
I have mixed feelings about Pelosi's visit there. Her history of nasty rhetoric against Pres. Bush implies that her visit to Syria is part of this nasty rhetoric. Thus, I get a feeling of anti-americanism from the whole scene and that the purpose of her trip is to undermine the policies of the President and ferment more partisanship and discontent in the world.
classic right wing hackitude. anti-bush means anti-american. dude, bush commands 30% of the electorate at the moment, get a grip. you are in the fringe.
moreover, it was bush and his disgusting anti-democratic minions who perverted our electoral process by claiming that a vote for their political opponents was a vote for "the enemy." to a hack like yourself, this reprehensible, irresponsible and reckless rhetoric is not "nasty" though, eh?
Sloanasaurus said...
Sometimes I think the best (and the worst) thing would be to have terrorists blow up some high profile target in the US. Maybe that would wake up the useful idiots on the left. Naaaah... probably not.
Interesting theory, but you know what the Left would say about that. Now after we have had no attacks, they claim that we cannot prove that Bush's policies are working to prevent the attacks. I am still not exactly sure what their argument is for the lack of attacks. I would like to hear it. In my opinion, the burden is now (after 5 1/2 years) on the Left and the MEDIA to report and prove to us why there haven't been any attacks rather than trying to prove that Bush's policies are not working.
hmmm, how perceptive. my policy for crossing the street is to chew gum, put on a hat, and look both ways. can you "prove" that my hat didn't help me avoid getting run over? well, can you???
the Exalted:
don't waste your time with logic. it, like hope, are abandoned here.
serious, i think Fen, Al, Cedarford, Joe and perhaps one more of the creepy-crawlies are one in the same.
Oh, since 9-11 I've been writing out Homeland Security folks about the elephants that used to congregate in my backyard every morning...particularly during the Clinton era....anyway, they must have gotten right on it as I haven't seen an elephant back there in almost 6 years. I was so suprised I quit drinking.
Re: "I was so suprised I quit drinking."
The effect was negligible.
Exalted said: "it only counts when democrats do it"
That's a fair complaint. I was a pro-Clintonite at the time, and remember the charges of wag the dog. I am certain some complainants are now embarrassed they did so. But you are forgetting how 9/11 changed the equation remarkably. Few, but not yet including Clinton or Armey, had connected the dots until 2001.
Both parties are guilty of such partisan memory. It's not a laudable behavior.
As for Mrs. Bush and Pelosi wearing the head scarves, another fair complaint about unequal treatment. I'd be inclined to give the mosque-church scarf-wearing a pass. But not outside, where Pelosi did some damage to the rights of oppressed women in Syria. And Pelosi was there explicitly to undermine the Administration, which violates the Logan Act.
But Democrats seem to ignore that law. Kerry has such a track record.
There you go POGO when you sprayed: "And Pelosi was there explicitly to undermine the Administration, which violates the Logan Act.
But Democrats seem to ignore that law. Kerry has such a track record."
You are such a mindless partisan putz.
1. No Pelosi wasn't undermining the administration unless you are saying that the 4 GOP congressmen who were there 3 days ago were undermining.
2. Logan Act: That is so stupid as to suprise anyone. Read: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33265.pdf
Read the part about McGovern and Cuba. Try and think instead of just spouting like you had even a fool's idea of what you are talking about.
3. No again. Democrats don't ignore that law. There was a briefing. Pelosi made it clear that she was not representing the United States diplomatically and had no standing to effect an agreement etc. in perfect accordance to the Logan Act.
4. kerry again? why don't you bring up clinton. Not that he did anything in this regard but you usually argue "but clinton did...".
Or how about Ollie North? Throw that bumshit in jail please.
You are such a mindless stooge. How can you live with yourself.
I thought you quit drinking. Stick to mouthwash; Sterno will blind you.
"unless you are saying that the 4 GOP congressmen "
But they weren't pushing "an alternative Democratic foreign policy" like Pelosi.
And thanks for the pdf. I feel even more strongly now that Pelosi violated the Logan act. The part at the end is a hoot. "Senator Edward Kennedy proposed in the 95th Congress to delete the Logan Act from the bill to amend the United States criminal code..."
Heh. Not surprisngly, Ted himself violated the Logan Act by conspiring with the Soviet Union during the Reagan Administration. ("On 9-10 May of this year, Senator Edward Kennedy’s close friend and trusted confidant J. Tunney was in Moscow. The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Center Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov.")
Like Kerry's "negotiations" with Viet Nam: ""I have been to Paris," Kerry said. "I have talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government and of all eight of Madam Binh's points..."
The Logan Act may not be prosecuted, but I see Pelosi as a traitor if she was in fact presenting "an alternative Democratic foreign policy".
Hdhouse said a bunch of things....
Seems that right wing paper the WaPo is now channeling Cheney as well: "I'm not questioning her patriotism, I'm questioning her judgement "
WaPo about Pelosi 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. 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.
...
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.
Moreover, Mr. Assad is a corrupt thug who murdered former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq al-Hariri and is actively funding attacks against our soldiers in Iraq.
hdhouse, you yourself have bitched about photos of Rumsfeld shaking hands with with Saddam Hussein in 1983. How can you now countenance photos of Pelosi with a similar totalitarian dictator?
I left out this great one liner as well:
"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. "
smack!
My that has got to leave a mark...
How can you now countenance photos of Pelosi with a similar totalitarian dictator?
Totalitarian dictator? Why, Saddam was our best friend back then! Reagan took Iraq off the list of state sponsors of terrorism in '82 so that we could start giving them money and selling them weapons.
As long as Pelosi isn't selling helicopters to Bashar Assad, I think I can "countenance" it just fine, thanks.
Re: "As long as Pelosi isn't selling helicopters to Bashar Assad, I think I can "countenance" it just fine, thanks."
As I thought. No principles involved, just politics. No core beliefs or higher moral precepts about dealing with dictators, just power, and whose ox got gored.
Same old bullshit. Thanks for being candid about it, doug. Your honesty is refreshing, although depressing all the same.
Althouse, Re. Marcotte: Consider the source. Is it any surprise that the woman who turned the virgin birth into pornography is so obsessed with matters genital that she turns your post into a sexbot fiasco?
Nope, not at all.
Trey
Pogo, all I'm saying is that I consider conveying a message to a Middle Eastern dictator from Israel to be a somewhat less egregious offense than selling him weapons. If you don't understand this, sorry, but it's your problem, not mine.
David, do you seriously not see just how badly simplistic thinking like "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" has screwed up the world? In the mid-eighties, the enemy of Russia was the Afghani mujahideen; we armed them, a decade and a half later they're helping people fly planes into our buildings. The enemy of Iran was Saddam; we armed them, a decade and a half later he's suddenly the most dangerous person who ever lived and someone we have to spend billions of dollars and thousands of lives to depose.
Here's an idea: Let's just stop arming repressive Middle Eastern regimes, period. Sound good to anybody? Or would that just be a buzzkill because it'd lessen our opportunities for getting into a nice big fun war later on?
Doug: Totalitarian dictator? Why, Saddam was our best friend back then! Reagan took Iraq off the list of state sponsors of terrorism in '82 so that we could start giving them money and selling them weapons
Doug, why did we ally with Stalin? Are you really that clueless?
Let's just stop arming repressive Middle Eastern regimes, period. Sound good to anybody? Or would that just be a buzzkill because it'd lessen our opportunities for getting into a nice big fun war later on?
Brilliant idea. We'll just let France and Russia and China arm our ME enemies instead. Because the world really is so simplistic.
I see absolutely no problem with Ms. Pelosi wearing a head covering in a mosque (or any church for that matter)--an indication of respect and what, I hope most normal folks would do.
Neither do I. Although I don't see why see felt it necessary to wear it on the streets outside.
Pelosi made it clear that she was not representing the United States diplomatically and had no standing to effect an agreement etc.
"We have an alternative Democratic foreign policy"
Sure thing.
Doug,
re: "I consider conveying a message ...a somewhat less egregious offense than selling him weapons."
It depends on the message being conveyed. Her message was that, contra our Constitution and the Logan Act, she has "an alternative Democratic foreign policy."
That is in fact worse than the acting President choosing sides, playing Iraq against Iran.
If you think the US is free to avoid such entanglements where we only play nice with nations that wil always play nice with us, you understand nothing useful about international politics.
revenant,
You say: you're "revolted by the physical and moral cowardice of the anti-war crowd."
I have absolutely NO idea what that means...other than what Rush, Sean, Michael, Bill, Ann, Cheney, Bush, and the other neocons say: "If you're not with us, you're against us." or "If you don't agree with us you're un-American or traitorous."
Well, not only is that really getting old...it's also downright insulting.
We live in a democracy (republic) and have the right via the constitution to disagree with the President (or "King" in your case) and to articulate our opinions, suggestions and remedies.
This is the same crap we heard during the Vietnam War and we ALL know how that one ended up.
Lies from the first day to the last...just like Iraq.
Re: "it's also downright insulting"
Deservedly so.
sloan:
You say:
1. Bush Invaded Iraq and rid the world of the most dangerous fanatical regime. (We spent 5 Billion Dollars over the period from the Persian Gulf War until 2003, bottling up Saddam so well he couldn't take a crap without us knowing about it...and he had NO WMD, chemicals or "mushroom cloud" capabilities. NOW we spend 2 Billion a WEEK...refereeing a Civil War.)
2. Bush destroyed the operational capacity of Al Qaeda and liberated most of Afghanistan. (Afghanistan's poppy crop is UP 65% in the last two years, the Taliban is alive and well, running the show.)
3. Bush Disarmed the Libyan state. (Libya disarmed itself...because of trade and commerce concessions via President Bush...and what exactly did they have in the first place? When was the last time you heard of Libya being involved in ANYTHING?)
4. Bush instituted the framework to fight the war on terror, which is an offensive framework rather than a defensive. So far no attacks in 5 1/2 years. (GET REAL...we weren't attacked on American soil for 8 years previous to Bush...and he slept through the months leading up to 9/11.)
4. Bush saved the economy and millions of jobs from the nasty stock market bubble recession by massively cutting capital gains, dividends and income taxes at the right time. (The economy wasn't depressed. Bush has done nothing more than make the rich even more wealthy. 1,000's of jobs are gone forever, pay is less than it was 5 years ago and gas costs $260-3.50 a gallon - it was $150 when he came into office)
5. Bush prevented the human cloning advocates from getting the federal government to approve the morality of cloning which was masked as embroyonic stem cell research. (This is nothing more than a Christina right argument that is
going to cost American untold lives and suffering for decades to come. As soon as he's gone...we'll have it.)
6. Bush prevented the global warming socialists from attempting to regulate CO2 via the executive branch (so far). (Thanks, Rush...but I think I'll stick with the actual "scientists)
7. Bush appinted two judges to the Supreme Court who follow the law rather than make the law. (DUH.)
8. Bush has presided over a society whose yearly productivity has increased over $3 trillion since he took office despite inheriting a recession. Say what?? We're growing at about 2.5 per quarter, which is less than projected by the administration.)
By the way...do YOU READ ANYTHING...or just pump out the same bullshit we can hear on Fox News every day of the week?
You might want to think about giving it a shot.
Pogo:
When and where did YOU serve. And why aren't you in Iraq right now?
*And you did read the part about America being a democracy (republic)...right?
'I see absolutely no problem with Ms. Pelosi wearing a head covering in a mosque (or any church for that matter)--an indication of respect and what, I hope most normal folks would do.'
Fen said;
Neither do I. Although I don't see why Laura (she) felt it necessary to wear it on the streets outside.'
There, fixed it for you.
Re: "When and where did YOU serve."
Effin' FDR. Damn cripple. What's he doin' telling the military what to do! Abraham Lincoln? Wussy. Shoulda stfu about the South.
P.S. Yes, you can criticize. And I can criticize you for doing so, including calling you anti-American.
Pogo:
I'm still waiting to hear when and where YOU served and why you're not in Iraq right now.
Talk is cheap.
Pogo,
Calling people names is the way of cowards...and easy to do from a keyboard...especially when they themselves haven't served.
Gutless.
Pogo,
You never served.
FDR, why did you not serve?
Lincoln, why did you not serve?
Bill and Hillary Clinton, why did you not serve?
Barack Obama, why did you not serve?
Howard Dean, why did you not serve?
Luckyoldson, why are you arguing that only military people can discuss the military?
Because if you are doing so, the majority of the current soldiers favor winning this war and not retreat (the Democrat's plan). So go away before I taunt you a second time. Pusillanimous pedant.
Ashamedly, I did not get selected when applied for ROTC in college. Too ugly, was my guess.
And re: "Calling people names is the way of cowards...
Gutless. "
Ah, I see.
Leading by example.
Good one.
Fen, we allied with Stalin because he was fighting a nation that had explicitly declared war on us.
Go crack a history book sometime, kid. You should really know this stuff already without me having to explain it to you.
Pogo,
I have NO problem with people discussing and debating anything they want, military experience or not.
My problem with YOU and others who constantly jump all over people who are against the Iraqi fiasco and G.W. Bush's handling of our country as being somehow un-American or traitorous...yet you yourself have never served a day.
If YOU feel the Iraqi invasion was the right thing to do, I think you should enlist and serve. (What does ROTC have to do with serving??)
Calling those who disagree un-American is nothing more than the same ol' chickenhawk
bullshit we get from Sean, Rush, Bush and their ilk.
*Also: Why not list the CURRENT Bush administration people who wholeheartedly support this war...who have served in the military...listing people from past administrations, etc. is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Doug,
Get real.
Fen already knows everything she WANTS to know.
Luckyoldson....
Keep jumping on Pogo. He is a lying shitweasel who can't take it.
I think you got his goat.
Pogo,
your post was fairly conciliatory. i'll tip my hat.
Want a system where the franchise is limited to Veterans?
I'm up for that :)
I don't think the Democratic party would enjoy the experience much though? My wife, the Colonel, might still give them her vote, but frankly she's over there near Joe Lieberman anyway and already pretty fed up with Nancy and her antics.
I bet the Congress would support the troops then :)
Exalted,
I can be fairly conciliatory, when I'm not just being a lying shitweasel.
"What does ROTC have to do with serving??"
Since I was going to medical school, that was one way to pay for it. If I recall correctly, ROTC has some connection to the military. Some of my classmates got in, and then served in GW1.
But I'd be glad to follow your dictum, Luckyoldson, and limit the debate to military experience, as this deletes Obama, Clinton, Pelosi, and Dean from the discussion.
Luckyoldson needs to demonstrate that he is not the return of a banished commenter. He is showing all the signs and faces deletion of all future posts. I'm not going through this again. Perhaps you're innocent, but I've been jerked around repeatedly and at this point, mere resemblance is forbidden. Sorry if you're innocent and if you think you've done nothing, but I must protect this forum from the abuse that will inevitably unfold if you are that person.
Pogo:
You forgot G.W.
Especially since no one can remember where the hell he was during his supposed service.
Ann,
I have no idea who you're referring to, but if you're saying that because I disagree with you or others here...you're going to ban me...that's your prerogative.
But if you do ban me, it merely illustrates my basic point: Agree with "US" or get lost...we're not interested in discussion, debate or especially disagreement...we're interested in everybody being on the same page.
David,
We supply Iraq and Russia supplies Iran. That was then, this is now.
Er, no, that wasn't "then". Wikipedia has a good article on the subject here, based on the Swedish government's SIPRI data from a few years back. Long story short, the United States supplied none of Iraq's weapons prior to 1983. We supplied 0.8% of their weaponry between 1983 (when we started trying to woo them) and 1988 (when we stopped). About two-thirds of their weaponry came from the Soviet bloc, with most of the remaining third coming from France and China.
Iran had been our ally in the area prior to the theocratic takeover. Afterwards Carter and Reagan tried overtures to the Iraqis, but they never achieved much success and never amounted to much. Iraq was a Soviet client that was struggling to cut the apron strings, much like France did with the NATO bloc in the 1960s.
I wrote:
One can feel, as I do, that Bush has done a lousy job of managing the war and still be revolted by the physical and moral cowardice of the anti-war crowd.
luckyoldson replied,
I have absolutely NO idea what that means...other than what Rush, Sean, Michael, Bill, Ann, Cheney, Bush, and the other neocons say: "If you're not with us, you're against us."
A person would have to be pretty fucking stupid to interpret my statement that way.
Let me spell it out for you in small words: I think people like you are the scum of the Earth, but I don't like Bush either. In other words, I am neither with Bush nor as against him as you barking moonbats are.
This is the same crap we heard during the Vietnam War and we ALL know how that one ended up.
Yeah -- the "anti-war" folks got millions of innocent civilians killed, forced tens of millions more to live under Communist dictatorship, and condemned hundredsd of thousands more to concentration camps and refugee status.
Nice move. And you want to repeat it WHY? What, one set of killing fields wasn't good enough for you?
Revenant,
Good post, that one.
Revenant,
Like I said, if I want to hear the same bullshit Bush talking points I can listen to Sean, Bill, Rush, Michael, Beck or Ann.
As for Vietnam, anybody who's ever read a book relating to the history of the war and it's execution knows that the "anti-war" crowd didn't get anybody killed. The entire affair was a disaster and people who read know it.
I suggest, instead of blathering on about how people who don't agee with YOU are "the scum of the earth" or are somehow un-American and do some reading.
I realize backing a loser like G.W. (and I don't believe you for a second when you say you "don't like" Bush) can be trying, but whining about it makes you look very small.
Pogo,
Oh, please...nobody likes a suck-up.
Re: "Oh, please...nobody likes a suck-up."
Of course they do.
People love suck ups so much they hire them, marry them and give them money.
You don't understand humans very well if you believe otherwise. Offices, military, families. All suck-up, all the time. Machiavelli knew it. Pfeffer and Sutton (business management gurus) know it. Stanley Bing knows it. Hollywood stars live for them. Politicos can't go a day without being stroked.
Why don't you know this already?
It does make your judgement on other items rather suspect.
Pogo,
Well, then you just keep on suckin', dude.
But you might also look up the word "sycophant."
"sycophant"
What's funny is that Revenant hates me only slightly less than he hates you. I don't believe he can be sucked up to.
But you'll find that out if you stick around. Anyway, I'm glad we're in agreement about excluding non-soldiers from offering opinions on matters military. Who will be able to speak for the Democrats now, though?
As for Vietnam, anybody who's ever read a book relating to the history of the war and it's execution knows that the "anti-war" crowd didn't get anybody killed.
People who have read *a* book on Vietnam might "know" that, if the book in question was written by Noam Chomsky.
It is, however, a historical fact that by the time of the American withdraw the communist insurgency had been crushed and the North Vietnamese army was in bad shape. South Vietnam did an excellent job of defending itself -- until anti-war Americans got its funding cut, leaving it facing a Soviet-backed enemy all by itself. The aforementioned deaths of millions and enslavement of tens of millions more inevitably followed, as it typically had in the past.
What's funny is that Revenant hates me only slightly less than he hates you.
I do not "hate" you, Pogo, I just vehemently disagree with several of your viewpoints.
But certainly the notion that you're a sycophant of mine is good for a belly-laugh or two.
revenant,
You are something else!!
When you say, "South Vietnam did an excellent job of defending itself -- until anti-war Americans got its funding cut"...exactly how long did you feel we should stay, how much should we have spent...how many American lives should we have lost??
I mean, hell, we were only there from 1954 UNTIL 1975. (And by the way...there are ALL kinds of books that have been written about Vietnam, from every imaginable vantage point...good, bad and ugly.)
But, I suppose you're one of those gungho dudes who is still convinced that if we had just stuck around for another decade or so...we would have won...we really, really would have...really.
* And by the way, I've been to Ho Chi Min City on business many times and whenever I find myself in conversation (with people who were right there in the middle of the entire disgusting affair)...one question always comes up: what made us think American could step in and solve Vietnam's problems??
Well, I always tell them it's called imperialism...and it ain't pretty...for anybody involved.
* Oh, and by the way, if you want to read an insightful book about our new and not the least bit improved imperialistic venture, read "Fiasco."
Pogo,
When I referred to you as a sycophant, I meant it in relation to Bush and his neocon buddies.
As for revenant, he's merely an unpaid voice of right wing lunacy.
*I know...he says he doesn't like Bush, but that's a crock.
When I referred to you as a sycophant, I meant it in relation to Bush and his neocon buddies.
Wow, deja vu.
I think what Lucky means, Pogo, is that if you suck up to me you'll wind up stuck in Iraq -- just ask President Bush.
Unfortunately, he botched the joke. :)
revenant,
"I think what Lucky means, Pogo, is that if you suck up to me you'll wind up stuck in Iraq -- just ask President Bush."
Unfortunately, he botched the joke. :)
Again, I have NO idea what sucking up to you or Bush has to do with being "stuck in Iraq"...say what?
I think you should consider working on those communication skills.
Then again, maybe you just don't know what sycophant means.
I mean, hell, we were only there from 1954 UNTIL 1975.
Our troops were withdrawn from South Vietnam in early 1973. Your allegedly copious knowledge of American involvement in the war would be a little more impressive if you actually knew when it had happened.
I'd also like to point out that a whopping 641 Americans died in Vietnam in 1972, the last full year of our military involvement. At the time of our abandonment of the South Vietnamese the American death rate had been dropping like a rock for four years, from its peak of 16,592 recorded deaths in 1968. During that entire time we routinely killed an order of magnitude more invading troops than we lost of our own, which is why the death toll for the war stands at 1.1 million for the NVA/VC and less than 60,000 for the USA. During that time the North Vietnamese made no inroads into conquering South Vietnam. They won only after we (a) left and (b) cut off all aid to the South Vietnamese military.
And by the way, I've been to Ho Chi Min City on business many times and whenever I find myself in conversation (with people who were right there in the middle of the entire disgusting affair)
Congrats on toadying up to the victors in the conflict. The people I know who were "right there in the middle of the entire disgusting affair" are Vietnamese living here in America -- because their relatives were killed or forced into camps by the same people whose cocks you flew halfway around the world to suck.
what made us think American could step in and solve Vietnam's problems??
We weren't trying to solve "Vietnam's problems". We were trying to solve one specific problem of the country of South Vietnam, which is that it was being invaded by the Soviet-backed nation to the north. What made us think that we could solve that problem is that we had solved the exact same kind of problem many times in the recent past.
That problem having been solved, South Vietnam would undoubtedly have faced many other problems on its own, just as South Korea did. But those problems would have been much smaller ones, with much smaller consequences to both America and to the South Vietnamese.
Again, I have NO idea what sucking up to you or Bush has to do with being "stuck in Iraq"...say what?
Try googling the words in the joke and see if you can figure it out. Hint: it centers around covering up for a dumb remark by pretending you meant something completely different.
lucky: you may use the term "imperialism," but I dont believe you understand it.
Luckyoldson
Try Kerry botched joke stuck in Iraq.
Or just keep typing.
Same thing.
Revenant,
Be careful with Pogo: "FDA: Now pet chews could contain salmonella."
Revenant said...
As for Vietnam, anybody who's ever read a book relating to the history of the war and it's execution knows that the "anti-war" crowd didn't get anybody killed.
People who have read *a* book on Vietnam might "know" that, if the book in question was written by Noam Chomsky.
noted extremist lefty pacifist robert mcnamara concluded that the vietnam war was a colossal mistake and was more or less lost from the get go.
South Vietnam did an excellent job of defending itself -- until anti-war Americans got its funding cut, leaving it facing a Soviet-backed enemy all by itself.
thats rich -- the north vietnamese weren't defeated when we maintained troop levels of 500,000 and bombed north vietnam into oblivion, but a few hundred million dollars in 1975 lost the war? get real.
During that entire time we routinely killed an order of magnitude more invading troops than we lost of our own, which is why the death toll for the war stands at 1.1 million for the NVA/VC and less than 60,000 for the USA.
to not point out the 1 million + south vietnamese losses in this context makes you a hack.
revenant,
You REALLY need to get yourself an education. Your perspective on Vietnam is so out of touch with the reality of what we now know it's laughable. (Have you ever actually READ anything about the Vietnam War??)
Oh, and by the way:
1. Almost all U.S. military personnel departed after the Paris Peace Accords of 1973. The last American troops left the country on April 30, 1975.
2. "Congrats on toadying up to the victors in the conflict. The people I know who were "right there in the middle of the entire disgusting affair" are Vietnamese living here in America..."
*Total bullshit, as usual...unless of course, you actually think everybody in South Vietnam moved to America......and that it was the SOUTH VIETNAMESE wo we were fighting. (Do you know the difference between North and South?? - DUH.)
3. "the same people whose cocks you flew halfway around the world to suck."
*Soooooo, the South Vietnamese are our enemies, huh? (My God...YOU ARE that dumb.)
4."We weren't trying to solve "Vietnam's problems. We were trying to solve one specific problem of the country of South Vietnam, which is that it was being invaded by the Soviet-backed nation to the north."
*No, it was actually based on the inane and thoroughly ridiculous, "Domino Theory."
A suggestion: Read more...talk less. (Maybe you can buy your little buddy Pogo a coloring book, too.)
The "Domino Theory" referred precisely to Soviet-backed communist expansion, lucky.
The refugees to the US came primarily from So. Vietnam, as well as from other victims of the Communists, including the Hmong and Cambodians.
revenant:
How does this stack up to your inane Vietnam conclusions:
From Kissenger and Nixon: Partners In Power,
Using language that has a painfully contemporary echo, Kissinger and Nixon very quickly came to private conclusions about Vietnam that they never revealed publicly and denied entertaining. "In Saigon the tendency is to fight the war to victory," Nixon told Kissinger, according to the transcript of a 1969 phone conversation.
"But you and I know it won't happen—it is impossible."
Even so, according to Haldeman's unpublished diaries, Nixon later urged that Democratic critics making this same point should be labeled..."the party of surrender."
When someone told Kissinger that Nixon could not be re-elected, because of Vietnam, he disputed it and added, according to a memo of a conversation, that "anytime we want to get out of Vietnam we can," and that "we will get out of Vietnam before the [1972] election."
Nixon wanted to plan the removal of all U.S. troops by the end of 1971, but Kissinger cautioned that, if North Vietnam then de-stabilized Saigon during the following year, events could have an adverse effect on the president's campaign. According to Haldeman's diaries, Kissinger advocated a pullout in the fall of 1972..."so that if any bad results follow they will be too late to affect the election."
He apparently had nothing to say about the American lives that would be lost by deliberately prolonging the war. Just before a peace treaty was signed, Kissinger in a phone conversation advised Nixon against stating that this was a "lasting peace or guaranteed peace because this thing is almost certain to blow up sooner or later."
Pogo,
I know all about the Vietnam refugees, but I guarantee you that, regardless of what your guru, revenant says...they ALL didn't come to America. (I would guess the number would be somewhere in the vicinity of 1,000,000...with about 84,000,000 still living in Vietnam.)
And if you were to read a few history books, you'd know that the Domino Theory was proven to be a crock.
"the Domino Theory was proven to be a crock."
After the U.S. left Vietnam, the Communists of the North conquered the South, and the Communist government remains in power today.
The communist rule of Cambodia by the Khmer Rouge from 1975 to 1979 further supports the theory.
Communism did not take hold in Thailand or Indonesia, but during the 1970s there was a global expansion of communism in Benin, Ethiopia, Guinea-Bissau, Madagascar, Cape Verde, Mozambique, Angola, Afghanistan, Grenada, and Nicaragua. The majority were backed by the Soviets and Cuba.
Not a crock. Arguable whether or not regionally supporting Vietnam would have been successful. No way to know now, since we left 3 million to be murdered because we chickened out.
And don't be such a prick; it's hardly necessary. We're just bitching on a blog for chrissakes.
Pogo said...
"the Domino Theory was proven to be a crock."
After the U.S. left Vietnam, the Communists of the North conquered the South, and the Communist government remains in power today.
The communist rule of Cambodia by the Khmer Rouge from 1975 to 1979 further supports the theory.
Communism did not take hold in Thailand or Indonesia, but during the 1970s there was a global expansion of communism in Benin, Ethiopia, Guinea-Bissau, Madagascar, Cape Verde, Mozambique, Angola, Afghanistan, Grenada, and Nicaragua. The majority were backed by the Soviets and Cuba.
the domino theory concerned southeast asia, your other examples are totally irrelevant.
and we could care less if cambodia turned communist, the real angst generated from the domino theory was malaysia, indonesia and india falling into communism. obviously, that didn't happen. i suggest reading mcnamara's memoirs.
Pogo says: "And don't be such a prick; it's hardly necessary. We're just bitching on a blog for chrissakes."
Ohhhh, really?
But when you say: "And I can criticize you for doing so, including calling you anti-American."
You don't consider calling someone un-American...being a "prick?"
Glass houses and all that...
roger,
What exactly is it you think I don't understand about "imperialism"...especially in regards to Vietnam and Iraq?
imperialism: "the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas; broadly : the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence."
Seems fairly clear.
Re: You don't consider calling someone un-American...being a "prick?"
No, not if they are being anti-American. What should I call anti-american behavior?
But repeatedly impugning someone's education is just juvenile., i.e., being a prick.
Exalted, again, that's not an unfair assessment. However, some people view the Domino threory as exclusively regional, others see it globally.
By the former, it was partially right, by the latter, quite correct. But whether losing Vietnam would have secured us anywhere else is a valid point.
Pogo,
Show me where I have ever been "anti-American."
Also, when you say "But repeatedly impugning someone's education is just juvenile., i.e., being a prick."
Well, I'm basing those comments on the fact that your postings illustrate either a lack of education or experience.
Anybody who's still blathering on about the Domino Theory or referring to those who disagree with administration policies and the situation in Iraq as being "anti-America" is out of touch with reality...unless of course you feel the other 65% of America who also disapprove of Bush's performance as President, the 65% who disapprove of his handling of Iraq or the 59% that approve of a troop withdrawal by 2008...also "anti-American."
Re: "Anybody who's still blathering on about the Domino Theory..."
Jayzuz Christ on roller skates, lucky, you brought that up yourself.
Your entire exposition is un-american, not by lacking support for the current administration, but by failing to demonstrate any support for the US in any way. Every point you make is how the US gets it wrong. You can call that whatever you want, but absent some declaration of whose side you're actually on, I cannot distinguish your material from Chomsky's.
And fine, hate America. Just don't get torqued when I point it out.
And again, blow the "I'm smarter than you" blather out your ass, please; such pedantry is a colossal bore.
Pogo,
"by failing to demonstrate any support for the US in any way..."
I support the US, it's the Bush administration's performance I do not support.
As in: Skewing intelligence, not planning for the aftermath of the invasion, there not being WMD, chemical wagons, links to 9/11, links to Osama, Halliburton's war profiteering, the missing 8 billion dollars, torture, suspension of habeus corpus, Katrina, Walter Reed, etc.
Exactly what is it about this administration that you feel warrants my support???
And what is it YOU apparently think is so good??
Pogo,
By the way...you haven't provided any relevant posting where I show a lack of support for America.
Re: "you haven't provided any relevant posting where I show a lack of support for America."
After reviewing your posts again, I'll let it stand. If that represents your kind of 'support', I'll just hope you don't make buildings, bras, or human pyramids. About as useful as 'support' from France or Jane Fonda.
Pogo:
You compare me to Jane Fonda and France...and wonder why I think you're mentally deficient?
*Oh, and speaking of "supporting America," why not crack open a history book and read about France and our Revolutionary War.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा