Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

April 4, 2007
By: Kevin Drum

PELOSI IN DAMASCUS....Via Greg Djerejian, it appears that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert wants to send a message to Bashar Assad that Israel has no intention of launching an attack on Syria. His messenger? Nancy Pelosi:

Israel's political and military leadership has been preparing in recent weeks for the possibility of a Syrian attack on the Golan Heights that will start as a result of a "miscalculation" on the part of the Syrians, who may assume that Israel intends to attack them.

Israel, however, has delivered a calming message, and has no plans to attack its northern neighbor.

....The speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, is scheduled to meet with Syrian President Bashar Assad in Damascus today, and will deliver a message of calm from Israel.

"We hope the message will be understood," political sources in Israel said yesterday. "The question is whether Assad is looking for an excuse ... so that he can carry out an attack against Israel in the summer, or whether this is a mistaken assessment."

Launching an attack on the Golan Heights sounds like a bit of suicidal insanity that even Assad couldn't be seriously contemplating, but I guess you never know. Luckily for Israel, there was an adult in the neighborhood to help them out.

Kevin Drum 2:57 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (102)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

It must be nice to be visited by an American who can see past theology.

Posted by: JPS on April 4, 2007 at 3:18 AM | PERMALINK

If Bush & Cheney were impeached, Pelosi would be POTUS.

Posted by: Carl Nyberg on April 4, 2007 at 3:26 AM | PERMALINK

So she is doing the Secretary of State job too? And successfully, to boot?

Good on ya, Nancy!

President Pelosi 2007!

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on April 4, 2007 at 3:28 AM | PERMALINK

If Bush & Cheney were impeached, Pelosi would be POTUS.

Posted by: Carl Nyberg on April 4, 2007 at 3:26 AM | PERMALINK

Yes. And it would be an improvement, no?

Anyway, more seriously, Bush these last few days has been such a devicive liar: Pelosi meeting Asad bad, no mention of 3 Republican senators visiting before; Oh, horrors, no money for the military if the bill isn't passed right now and all those earmarks (Which I don't agree with), but never havng vetoed or called any other Repub earmark, and the last Iraq military supplemental passed in June '06! This guy lies, lies, LIES!

Posted by: notthere on April 4, 2007 at 3:36 AM | PERMALINK

She has a great style and presentation.
Aren't you all just so finished with the republican administration's machismo and aptly named "cowboy diplomacy."
Irony abounds that the right wing noise machine was not able to successfully swift boat her.
But sometimes the 24/7 coverage of the 2008 presidential candidates tends to over-shadow Nancy Pelosi's accomplishments.

Posted by: consider wisely on April 4, 2007 at 3:44 AM | PERMALINK

devicive!!?? Where did that come from?

maybe divisive?

Posted by: notthere on April 4, 2007 at 3:47 AM | PERMALINK

Hey, lay off Condiliar, she is too busy worrying about the shoe stuff. Our Sec State goes to sleep at 9:30 so there is no time for diplomacy.

Posted by: bob on April 4, 2007 at 3:54 AM | PERMALINK

Ah...Condi's shoes. It was amazing how detached, remote and removed the administration was as New Orleans drowned. Dubya on vacation at the ranch, Condi in Manhattan buying shoes, Cheney out fishing in the west, Michael Brown eating at restaurants safe from the flood zone and emailing his buddies about his wardrobe choices.. McCain and Bush sharing birthday cake in Arizona that fateful week, and Dubya playing guitar--like the fiddle that was played as Rome burned.

Posted by: consider wisely on April 4, 2007 at 4:08 AM | PERMALINK

What were the words Bush used to describe his former friend who changed his mind about him when his son was going to be deployed? A goddamn quitter who will never make daddy proud?

Posted by: JPS on April 4, 2007 at 4:27 AM | PERMALINK

Oh, I'm sorry, it was, "obviously intensified because his son is deployable."

Posted by: JPS on April 4, 2007 at 4:32 AM | PERMALINK

Nancy also has a message for Geo

"Eventually, the truth will emerge. And when it does, this house of cards, built of deceit, will fall." - Robert C. Byrd

Posted by: daCascadian on April 4, 2007 at 4:32 AM | PERMALINK

So Pelosi is being used by Israel to con Syria into believing that they don't want to attack them?

I hear that Olmert even gave Pelosi a bucket of water to take to Assad....

Posted by: Disputo on April 4, 2007 at 4:34 AM | PERMALINK

Bush was dismissive about his former friend and his apologist spokespersons immediately got out the talking points that Matt Dowd was merely engulfed by personal sadness that his son was being deployed, his daughter had died, and he was in the middle of a divorce. Look the other way, they implied--nothing here to see.

Posted by: consider wisely on April 4, 2007 at 4:40 AM | PERMALINK

I took a slightly different meaning from the winged monkeys re: Dowd, CW. Namely that he's just whining because now his son is going to Iraq. These are definitely people you don't want to play dodge ball with. Just when you aren't looking, they not only throw the ball at you, but then kick you in the nuts afterwards just to rub it in.

As for Nancy... You mean she went over there to promote peace in the middle east? THAT'S WHY Bush was so pissed off!

Mr. M

Comments From Left Field

Posted by: Mr. M on April 4, 2007 at 5:11 AM | PERMALINK

Seems Israel could have delivered that message to Syria by themselves if they wanted. Wonder what the advantage to them is of playing along with Pelosi's photo op....

Posted by: luci on April 4, 2007 at 5:15 AM | PERMALINK

I agree with you. Mr. M--they tried to say he is now a detractor of the administration because his son has to go to Iraq, as if just that personal issue was the reason he came out against the administration. They never addressed his numerous criticisms of their policies and practices whatsoever--blew past, them, hoping the American 'sheepal' would too.

Posted by: consider wisely on April 4, 2007 at 5:20 AM | PERMALINK

As Pelosi is unduly criticized on Fox News by Bill Kristol...here is some unbiased reporting--

From mediamattersforamerica.org Sun, Apr 1, 2007 2:55pm EST

Send to a friend Print Version:

"Echoing White House, Kristol attacked Pelosi for trip to Syria, which GOP-led delegation also visited:

On the April 1 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, Weekly Standard editor and Fox News contributor Bill Kristol repeated an attack by the White House on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) for planning to go to Syria while her bipartisan delegation is traveling in the Middle East this week. But, as the weblog Think Progress reported on March 30, a Republican-led congressional delegation is also visiting Syria, a trip that the White House has apparently not criticized similarly. Kristol did not mention the reported Republican-led trip to Syria, much less the inconsistency in the White House's criticism of Pelosi's trip and its silence on the Republican-led trip.

On April 1, the Associated Press reported that a delegation of House members including Reps. Frank Wolf (R-VA), Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA), and Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-AL) had met with Syrian President Bashar Assad, two days before Pelosi's planned meeting..."


Posted by: consider wisely on April 4, 2007 at 5:29 AM | PERMALINK

Yesterday I caught a CNN news report that North Korea had asked specifically for NM Gov. and presidential candidate Bill Richardson to come talk with them.

Glenn Kessler writes in today's, Apr. 4 edition of WaPo that Bush backs Richardson's trip to North Korea in which Bill will co-head a delegation with Anthony J. Principi, Bush's former secretary of veterans affairs, that will include Natl. Security Council's Victor Cha, former deputy asst. sec. of defense James McDougal, and an expert on personnel recovery since the return trip will make a stop in Seoul to bring home the remains of soldiers MIA from the Korean War.

A Repub consultant, Ed Rogers, said, "he was puzzled about why President Bush would complain yesterday about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) visiting Syria while praising Richardson for going to North Korea." Uh-huh.

And Bill Clinton's former press secretary, Joe Lockhart, sums it up: "It says a lot that a president who for seven years wouldn't take advice from anyone, even his own dad, is now asking for help from someone who wants to take his job." Zing!

Madam Speaker Pelosi... bad.

Dem prez contender Richardson with single-digits in the polls... good.

Interesting Bushie politics.

Regardless, Dems are in the spotlight on foreign affair diplomacy.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on April 4, 2007 at 5:30 AM | PERMALINK

Madam Speaker Pelosi... bad.

Of course, I personally think this is good but I bet (besides Bush) Elliott Abrams doesn't like Pelosi in Syria. Tsk, tsk.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on April 4, 2007 at 5:45 AM | PERMALINK

Previously, from craigslist.org----


"...Several members of Congress, including Sens. Arlen Specter (R-PA) and John Kerry (D-MA), have visited Syria in recent months over Bush objections. During his visit, Specter “stressed the importance of reactivating the dialogue between the United States and Syria to achieve security and stability in the Middle East.”

UPDATE II: Pelosi’s office releases a statement: “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.”


Posted by: consider wisely on April 4, 2007 at 5:58 AM | PERMALINK

Actually, Apollo 13 just said something VERY important, and that being Dems are out in front on foreign policy.

And like a switch it all makes sense. This has got to be the single scariest thing to the GOP in general. The ONE area in which they miraculously have stayed strong on is foreign policy/national defense. Everything Domestic is pretty much Democrat's ball.

But Dem's start looking strong when they go abroad... That spells a big fat UH-OH for the Republicans.

Mr. M

Comments From Left Field

Posted by: Mr. M on April 4, 2007 at 6:03 AM | PERMALINK

pfft... Come on CW! Don't you know we're supposed to be ignoring the study group?

Posted by: Mr. M on April 4, 2007 at 6:04 AM | PERMALINK

Mr. M,
Thanks. Perhaps I can pick up where Blue Girl left off on html code for hyperlinks since I'm finding that your links are broken. Are you trying to link to...

http://commentsfromleftfield.com/

If so, here's how the code should look with these nuances...
Substitute the "less than" symbol for [
Substitute the "greater than" symbol for ]

[a href="http://commentsfromleftfield.com/"]Comments From Left Field[/a]

Give that a try. Just remember what's between the quotes (".....") is the URL, the "http://........." part, the complete website address.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on April 4, 2007 at 6:34 AM | PERMALINK

I figured it was worth posting the concept that the reason for the trip was a follow-up to the Iraq Study Group...lest her detractors think Pelosi is simply grandiose...
Doing my part as citizen journalist!!
But Condeleeza will forever be associated with failing to address the intelligence warning "Bin ladin ready to attack the US with planes,"--the one that Dubya reportedly told the carrier
of the message--you covered your rear end, now get out of here. And for failing to address critical information from Richard Clarke...and for pushing the 'mushroom cloud' fear-mongering tactic while conspiring to take this country into war into perpetuity. Historians will not treat her well.


Posted by: consider wisely on April 4, 2007 at 6:37 AM | PERMALINK

Thank god for a process involving enough delegates that scope canbe determined precisely.


Damn those conflating scope and talking about the "message they send".

Posted by: bago on April 4, 2007 at 7:02 AM | PERMALINK

CW always: I figured it was worth posting the concept that the reason for the trip was a follow-up to the Iraq Study Group...

CNN talked about Pelosi's statement. According to Jill Dougherty, CNN International U.S. Affairs Editor from last night's Paula Zahn broadcast:

The speaker says she's just following recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, which calls for constructive engagement with Syria to build an international consensus for stability in Iraq.
And then Paula Zahn repeated it: "...we just heard Nancy Pelosi defend her trip, saying she was following the guidelines of the Iraq Study Group, among other things."

BTW, I'm not necessarily a huge fan of CNN (Glenn Beck--Barf!) but I'm in Atlanta and I watch how media spin stories. I am, however, a big fan of Media Matters for most of the news and opinion I can't follow on my own.

OK, check y'all later. Got some work to do.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on April 4, 2007 at 7:11 AM | PERMALINK

Damn, now Cheney is going to have to ring up the Mossad and tell them all about that Syrian agent we've captured with secret war plans for the summer against Israel.

Posted by: steve duncan on April 4, 2007 at 8:42 AM | PERMALINK

Ah, Kevin.

I'm not surprised you support this overreach of the Congress and it's negative impliclations for our beloved Constitution.

It is the EXECUTIVE, as HEAD OF THE ARMED FORCES, who is in charge of delegations to other nations. How can we have a consistant foriegn policy when we have the speaker of the house negotiating with known terrorists?

What next? Michal Moore taking a bath with Achmadinajad?

Posted by: egbert (means business) on April 4, 2007 at 8:58 AM | PERMALINK

But Kevin! Pelosi wrapped her scarf over her head before she went into a mosque! Surely that PROVES that she went to Syria to hand our country to the brown-skinned heretics!

Posted by: nutcase on April 4, 2007 at 9:04 AM | PERMALINK

Perhaps I can best illustrate my point with a story.

Back in 2003 I headed up Republican campaign efforts in my town. THis one volunteer would always show up to the phonebanks with a back pack, which was totally unprofessional. I told him to knock it off, and he went over my head to my boss to complain. How can you have a consistent policy if you can expect to get different policies from whom you ask?

Next time I saw him, I told the guy to leave and never come back. He started getting violent, so I called the police. I had to send a message.

Posted by: egbert (means business) on April 4, 2007 at 9:04 AM | PERMALINK

Thanks, Normie, er eggie, for your fascinating Aunty-Dote - Please keep us informed with more Old Wives Tales.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on April 4, 2007 at 9:15 AM | PERMALINK

egbert (a menacing bowl of Jell-O): "It is the EXECUTIVE, as HEAD OF THE ARMED FORCES, who is in charge of delegations to other nations."

Last I heard, egbert, Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead -- just like he was during Saturday Night Live's running joke 32 years ago.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on April 4, 2007 at 9:16 AM | PERMALINK

Yes, egfart, we try to separate diplomacy from war in this country--or did until your clowns came to town.

Posted by: Kenji on April 4, 2007 at 9:25 AM | PERMALINK

Yes, indeedee, Franco is still very much dead and the Rioja and newer Spanish wines are a Whole Lot Better.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on April 4, 2007 at 9:27 AM | PERMALINK

egbert (sounding just like Grandma): "Perhaps I can best illustrate my point with a story. ... THis one volunteer would always show up to the phonebanks with a back pack, which was totally unprofessional. ... Next time I saw him, I told the guy to leave and never come back. He started getting violent, so I called the police. I had to send a message."

Wow! You dick!!

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on April 4, 2007 at 9:36 AM | PERMALINK

Martin Van Creveld wrote an op-ed in the Forward recently called War Clouds Gather over the Golan . He gives a little background on the state of tension. Interestingly Vladimir Putin forgave Damascus three quarters of its debt which has allowed them to rebuild their military.

Posted by: bellumregio on April 4, 2007 at 9:44 AM | PERMALINK

thethirdpaul: "... and the Rioja and newer Spanish wines are a Whole Lot Better."

I take it that you didn't much care for "Sangria in a Drum".

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on April 4, 2007 at 9:47 AM | PERMALINK

Seems like Pelosi is not just pushing back the stone wall erected by Dick Cheney's team and Bush's incompetent staffers but against the hardliners in Israel. I guess if you can have a rogue Vice President and an executive that rejects the powers of Congress you can have a Speaker that takes the diplomatic initiative.

Posted by: bellumregio on April 4, 2007 at 9:58 AM | PERMALINK

So in other words, not only is pelosi a pawn of the Syrians, but she is a pawn of the Israelis as well.

The President is absolutely right to condemn her childish forrays into the adult world of international relations.

Posted by: Al on April 4, 2007 at 10:00 AM | PERMALINK

Back in 2003 I headed up Republican campaign efforts in my town.

affirmative action for the mentally challenged--good for you!

Posted by: haha on April 4, 2007 at 10:11 AM | PERMALINK

So Pelosi is being used by Israel to con Syria into believing that they don't want to attack them?

I hear that Olmert even gave Pelosi a bucket of water to take to Assad....

Disputo has jumped the shark...

Posted by: flora on April 4, 2007 at 10:22 AM | PERMALINK

Back in 2003 I headed up Republican campaign efforts in my town.

And Hooterville has never been the same.

Seriously, kids--ignore this poseur. No one from the Republican Party is this clumsy and oafish. When you need to know what the skinny is, I will tell you what it is and you can all just calm down until that happens.

Meanwhile, I believe it is a good thing for Speaker Pelosi to go overseas and show just how pathetic and weak the State Department under Secretary Rice has become. We need a new Secretary of State, people! And when John Bolton is that new Secretary of State, things will work in our favor.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 4, 2007 at 10:57 AM | PERMALINK

The trolls here have really sucked it lately.

Posted by: phleabo on April 4, 2007 at 11:03 AM | PERMALINK

Egdick, Al, and Norman Mitty - in all your mock outrage, did you ever realize that Republican members of Congress are also visiting Syria?

In fact, a Republican delegation left Damascus right before Pelosi arrived.

Posted by: NSA Mole on April 4, 2007 at 11:03 AM | PERMALINK

Egdick, Al, and Norman Mitty - in all your mock outrage, did you ever realize that Republican members of Congress are also visiting Syria?

Reading comprehension doesn't figure into your pathetic grasp on things, does it?

I SUPPORT Speaker Pelosi's trip to Syria. Diplomacy is a way to forestall the eventual war we must fight against Syrian hegemony. We want them complacent and dumb, and diplomacy is a lollypop full of complacency and stupidity that they can suck on for a few months or years.

The State Department is a weakened, bloated, pathetic entity. All American diplomacy should be run out of the Pentagon at this point; we are at war, after all.

Sheesh! Can't any of you think for yourselves? You're like robots that are programmed to make toast and yet, you can't find the toast, the toaster or the topping for that toast, so all you do is bang your robot head on the floor and leak hydralic fluids everywhere.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 4, 2007 at 11:08 AM | PERMALINK

I SUPPORT Speaker Pelosi's trip to Syria. Diplomacy is a way to forestall the eventual war we must fight against Syrian hegemony. We want them complacent and dumb, and diplomacy is a lollypop full of complacency and stupidity that they can suck on for a few months or years.

Norman Rogers

How much diplomacy did it take for you to get to the state of idiocy you exhibit?

Posted by: DJ on April 4, 2007 at 11:19 AM | PERMALINK

How much diplomacy did it take for you to get to the state of idiocy you exhibit?

So you're against Speaker Pelosi's trip to Syria?

What are you, a confused moonbat on drugs?

If Speaker Pelosi is able to communicate a message from the Israeli government to the Syrians that they are not going to be attacked from the Golan Heights, the Israelis can shift three armoured brigades and a howitzer battalion to the Golan and launch a massive strike against the Syrian Army and crush them before baby boy Assad can roll off his French mistress and put on his pink helmet.

The goal of all this should be a coup in Syria that puts someone in power who is ready to abandon Lebanon and play ball. One would think you moonbats would know SOMETHING about how the Middle East works by now; you have been blathering about it for years now that you think you have something to get George W Bush on.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 4, 2007 at 11:28 AM | PERMALINK

Methinks this is simply political positioning before the Iranian 'action'. The Israelis want to defuse border tensions before launching an attack elsewhere.

Israel calls the shots for both Bush and Pelosi. Any 'anger' on the part of Bush is feigned and is simply for domestic party consumption.

I'm pretty sure you'll see Israel initate the Iranian action with air stikes. An Iranian retaliation will produce photo-ops of dead Israeli children and will provide the justification for following American strikes.

At that point, the US congress and media will literally wet themselves in their excitement to get on board. Bush will have his 'second 9/11' and be restored to hero status again. Great plan.

>"devicive!!?? Where did that come from? "

Devicive: A noun coined during the latter days of the Bush regime just prior to the apocaplyse: A divisive decider.

Posted by: Buford on April 4, 2007 at 11:29 AM | PERMALINK

And when John Bolton is that new Secretary of State, things will work in our favor.

LOL. And on what planet does the legislature exist that will confirm him?

Posted by: haha on April 4, 2007 at 11:31 AM | PERMALINK

I'm pretty sure you'll see Israel initate the Iranian action with air stikes.

It would be kind of hard for Israel to hit Iran, what with the distances involved. Planes need a thing called "fuel" to not only stay in the air but to conduct what those of us in the reality based community call "combat operations." But keep playing your little game of posting anti-Israeli screeds. The fact of the matter is, we are in a partnership with Israel to remake the Middle East in our favor, and no amount of ignorant carping by the Left in this country is going to change that.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 4, 2007 at 11:33 AM | PERMALINK

The goal of all this should be a coup in Syria that puts someone in power who is ready to abandon Lebanon and play ball.

yeah, that's gonna happen, just like McCain walked the streets of Baghdad without a bulletproof vest and military escort as Iraqi children threw rose petals at his feet.

Posted by: haha on April 4, 2007 at 11:35 AM | PERMALINK

Ok Here's my conspiricy theory. Pelosi is going to iraq to secretly tell Bashar that congress won't cut off funding for the Iraq War. She will tell him that although the democrats have to pander to the radical left the war on terror in Iraq is too important not to fund.

Posted by: TruthPolitik on April 4, 2007 at 11:37 AM | PERMALINK

It would be kind of hard for Israel to hit Iran, what with the distances involved.

just like it was hard for them to hit Iraq all those years ago, and I'm sure their technology hasn't advanced since then.

Moron Rogers, is there anything you don't know?

Posted by: haha on April 4, 2007 at 11:39 AM | PERMALINK

The United States is not at war. Dick Cheney and his friends used lies and distortions to legitimize a project-war to reorganize the Middle East. It is intended to benefit their narrow financial and political interests not those of the United States. They have a decreasing circle of allies outside the United States and the majority of Americans are against them, including a sizable portion of American in their own party- just about everyone who is not cashing in. Really the only folks left who support them are the ideologically committed and the war fetishists.

Posted by: bellumregio on April 4, 2007 at 11:41 AM | PERMALINK

oh, and I'm sure Israel doesn't have aircraft carriers either. Their military has always been second rate.

Posted by: haha on April 4, 2007 at 11:41 AM | PERMALINK
Seems Israel could have delivered that message to Syria by themselves if they wanted.

Syria and Israel don't have a lot of mutual trust, nor would Syrian leadership believe that an Israeli leader taking a false public position to dupe Syria into inaction would pay any political price for that.

There is marginally more credibility in, generally speaking, an American leader as messenger there, though, but apparently either the Bush Administration wasn't willing to help keep the peace there or the Israelis didn't think the Syrians would believe anything anyone from the Administration said. Or both.

Posted by: cmdicely on April 4, 2007 at 11:50 AM | PERMALINK

Norman had such a bright future ahead of him when he was a little boy. Until he started doing whippits with the neighbor's boy. They'd empty the whipped cream canisters and cooking sprays faster than I could buy them.

Norman's descent into a whippit-induced psychosis caused Mr. Rogers to skip town, leaving me to clean bowling shoes by day and servicing the customers by night. Poor Norman was without a strong male role model, so he latched onto George W. Better than nothing, I guess.

Posted by: Norman's Mom on April 4, 2007 at 11:50 AM | PERMALINK

just like it was hard for them to hit Iraq all those years ago, and I'm sure their technology hasn't advanced since then.

The bombing of the nuclear reactor at Osirisk in 1981 was accomplished by flying over Jordan; in fact, King Husseing of Jordan SAW the Israeli planes fly over his country when he was playing golf or some such nonsense and called Saddam Hussien to warn him. Saddam was rolling off of his French mistress at the time and didn't get his pink helmet on. THAT's how they nailed that reactor.

Iran's nuclear facilities are scattered throughout the country and Ahmadhnaihahd hdhd hadhadwadddayfugheddaboutitnadjihad will have plenty of time to get his pink helmet on before the Israelis run out of fuel in his airspace. The distances involved are too considerable and Israeli aircraft would have to use one of our aircraft carriers or our airbases in Iraq to conduct combat operations, sir.

oh, and I'm sure Israel doesn't have aircraft carriers either. Their military has always been second rate.

You are a world class moron. All you would have to do is look here for a break down of Israel's Navy. I highly doubt that corvette can launch F-16s. Leave it to a moonbat liberal to humiliate itself on military matters!

Bwah hah hah hah hah hah!

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 4, 2007 at 11:50 AM | PERMALINK

King Husseing of Jordan

Pardon me, that should be King Hussein.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 4, 2007 at 11:54 AM | PERMALINK

Luckily for Israel, there was an adult in the neighborhood to help them out.


This really says it all.

And it makes sense when you figure that our Sec. of State is considered inept at anything except defending the indefensible and ignoring evidence of an attack on our soil. And lying through her teeth.

Posted by: jcricket on April 4, 2007 at 12:04 PM | PERMALINK

And it makes sense when you figure that our Sec. of State is considered inept at anything except defending the indefensible and ignoring evidence of an attack on our soil. And lying through her teeth.

I will join the liberals in denouncing the Secretary of State. I have prayed that we can find the courage as a nation to get rid of her and find a way to run diplomacy out of the Pentagon, as it was in the days of yore. There has been a stuffy and outdated approach to diplomacy since World War II that has rarely accomplished anything (except for Kissinger in the early going).

Meanwhile, the Israeli Aircraft Carrier Schlomo has sailed unmolested out of the Red Sea and is steaming for the Persian Gulf, ready to launch its bi-planes against the Iranian mainland.

Bwah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah!

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 4, 2007 at 12:18 PM | PERMALINK

Certainly it is within Pelosi's rights to visit Syria. And it is within Bush's rights to criticize the trip because it does conflict with his own approach to Syria. Nothing new in this debate between isolating rogue nations and engaging them in dialog.

But to herald her trip as some marvelous breakthrough because she (gasp) delivered a letter from Israel is preposterous. Or do Kevin and others who agree with him actually believe this visit will change Syria's behavior?

Adults in the neighborhood and around the world will judge Syria by their actions and will assess the impact of Pelosi's trip by looking for positive changes in that behavior. Naive children will proceed in the faith that dialog alone represents success, behavior be damned.

Posted by: Hacksaw on April 4, 2007 at 12:24 PM | PERMALINK

The bombing of the nuclear reactor at Osirisk in 1981 was accomplished by flying over Jordan; in fact, King Husseing of Jordan SAW the Israeli planes fly over his country when he was playing golf or some such nonsense and called Saddam Hussien to warn him.

actually, King "Husseing" was on his yacht at the time, but I'll forgive Moron Rogers his lack of historical knowledge, along with your lack of knowledge regarding everything else under the sun.

I'm sure Israel can't fly at night either to bomb whatever the fuck they want in Iran, whether it's a nuclear reactor or anything else. If they were capable of hitting Iraq over 25 years ago, then they can hit Iran now.
I'm sorry that you can't grasp this, but when your name is Moron Rogers and you mother and father/uncle fed you a diet of cat food and Jack Daniels while using you primarily as a doorstop, I'll forgive your ignorance.

Posted by: haha on April 4, 2007 at 12:26 PM | PERMALINK

The distances involved are too considerable and Israeli aircraft would have to use one of our aircraft carriers or our airbases in Iraq to conduct combat operations, sir.

You can be absolutely sure that Israeli pilots are highly skilled at aerial refueling. It is more likely that US tanker aircraft would play a significant role in an Israeli airstrike against Iran.

Posted by: JM on April 4, 2007 at 12:32 PM | PERMALINK

actually, King "Husseing" was on his yacht at the time

I corrected my misspelling of Hussein's last name and I did indicate that he was "golfing or some such nonsense" which indicates that I did not recall what he was doing when he warned Iraq of the impending Israeli air attack. I guessed, and I guessed wrong, but thanks to "google" you were able to find the right information. Good for you!

My mistakes are accounted for and admitted; I apologize for any misinformation they may have brought to the attention of the larger community.

YOUR mistake:

oh, and I'm sure Israel doesn't have aircraft carriers either.

Is the most inadvertently hilarious and ridiculous item of the day. No doubt your comment will show up on Bill O'Reilly tonight as the "most ridiculous item of the day" and will be used on "The Daily Show" to illustrate just how pathetic and ignorant the moonbat left really is.

Word has it that the Israeli aircraft carrier Tevye, the hulking sister ship of the Schlomo, was last spotted rounding the Cape of Good Hope...

Bwah hah hah hah hah hah hah!

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 4, 2007 at 12:33 PM | PERMALINK

You can be absolutely sure that Israeli pilots are highly skilled at aerial refueling. It is more likely that US tanker aircraft would play a significant role in an Israeli airstrike against Iran.

Finally, someone can think for themselves.

Here is a breakdown on their capabilities for aerial refueling. There is no need to involve US forces.

Word has it that the Israelis are building a top secret aircraft carrier...keep it on the hush hush, though. It's designed to only carry homing pigeons and lox!

Bwah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah!

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 4, 2007 at 12:37 PM | PERMALINK

My mistakes are accounted for and admitted

More lies from Moron Rogers--

It would be kind of hard for Israel to hit Iran, what with the distances involved.

A little too quick with your snarky quip, which was patently false. Considering that you suffered from fetal alcohol syndrome, I'll cut you some slack.
Good luck obtaining your future talking points from the O'Lielly Factor. You're right, Israel has a shitty military, that's why they lost so many wars with the Arabs. Pushovers.

Posted by: haha on April 4, 2007 at 12:45 PM | PERMALINK

Please don't feed the trolls.

Posted by: zookeeper on April 4, 2007 at 12:46 PM | PERMALINK

t would be kind of hard for Israel to hit Iran, what with the distances involved.

Here is a breakdown on their capabilities for aerial refueling. There is no need to involve US forces.

okay, I'll just let Moron fight it out with his multiple personalities. Say hi to uncle Jethro for me! I love it!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Posted by: haha on April 4, 2007 at 12:51 PM | PERMALINK

Well now that Pelosi has put to rest the canard that only the repugs can do foriegn policy,This should set the Retard party back decades.We ,may never see a R majority in our liftimes.Go Nancy.Go Dems, R's jusy go away.

Posted by: john john on April 4, 2007 at 12:59 PM | PERMALINK

When Monica was knobbing Bill Where do you think Condi was.You don't get a oil tanker named after you for nothing.Still some of her hair under the boardroom table at exxon.

Posted by: john john on April 4, 2007 at 1:06 PM | PERMALINK

Ah, I see that Normie is still obtaining his "news" in Schlo-Mo.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on April 4, 2007 at 1:08 PM | PERMALINK

Hey, mhr, or should I call you ethnocentrism-R-US?

Here is a pic of Laura Bush showing a little cultural sensitivity, too.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on April 4, 2007 at 1:35 PM | PERMALINK

"The trolls here have really sucked it lately."

In general, yes, but Norman has cracked me up several times lately. Last night he said "the time for talking back is over." Snicker.

Posted by: EmmaAnne on April 4, 2007 at 1:45 PM | PERMALINK

What's funny is to see GOPers respond to this as if it's out of the ordinary for Congressional officials to meet with foreign heads of state. Next they'll be saying that members of Congress should be forced to surrender their passports to the executive branch or have their travel plans approved by Cheney's office.

Face it, guys, you don't know how to do diplomacy. Or war. Or much of anything.

But they are a bit defensive about their powers - ever expanding. After all, Bush is the COMMANDER IN CHIEF! We MUST do what he tells us!

Posted by: Brian M. on April 4, 2007 at 1:47 PM | PERMALINK

Speaker Pelosi is the very definition of Competent. Not only is she keeping her caucus together and getting things done in the House, she's also doing Condi's job in the ME and forcing the MSM to take an honest look at TheSmoke&MirrorMachine operating in the WH. Things could get even more interesting if/when she focuses her full attention on TurdBlosson and his outlaw operation.

Posted by: bcinaz on April 4, 2007 at 1:54 PM | PERMALINK

But to herald her trip as some marvelous breakthrough because she (gasp) delivered a letter from Israel is preposterous. Or do Kevin and others who agree with him actually believe this visit will change Syria's behavior?

Well, Olmert clearly feels that the problem isn't Syria's aggressive intentions but the possibility of Syria misjudging Israeli intentions. It certainly seems rational to expect that this visit and message reduces the odds of that misjudgement.

Posted by: cmdicely on April 4, 2007 at 1:56 PM | PERMALINK

Just thinking about Pelosi gives me a woody.

Posted by: Norman Rodgers on April 4, 2007 at 2:03 PM | PERMALINK

Brain M.

Of course congressional leaders often meet with foreign heads of state and I would certainly not dispute their right to do so. But there are two significant differences.

First, Pelosi as the Speaker of the House represents much more than a district or state. As such, when she visits a head of state, it carries more weight than most congressional visits would.

Second, Syria is a state the administration has decided to isolate in an effort to compel it to change its behavior. Behavior that, among other things, aids the folks killing our soldiers in Iraq. Thus the administration has opposed all congressional visits (including those by republicans) to Syria. Obviously when the person third in line to the presidency makes such a visit, it undermines the administration's policy all the more.

Of course it is reasonable for people to argue that Bush's policy is the wrong policy and that Pelosi's visit represents the proper course. But that only supports the administration's complaint that her actions undercut their foreign policy. So no one is saying Pelosi should have been forbidden to go, only that her going harms our current foreign policy and undermines efforts to get Syria to change its behavior.

Posted by: Hacksaw on April 4, 2007 at 2:03 PM | PERMALINK

The media need to report more about the Republican congressfolk who are/have gone to Syria, instead of making it look like Nancy P. all by her lonesome and thus playing to the dextro-wurlitzer.

Posted by: Neil B. on April 4, 2007 at 2:10 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely:

I agree with regard to the possible impact of the letter, but at least based on the story, Pelosi had nothing to do with it other than physically transporting it to Syria. I suppose it is possible that, as a open critic of Bush, she would be able to vouch for Israel's intentions better than say Condi. But it is also possible that Olmert simply took advantage of the fact that a high-profile delegation happened to be heading over to Syria.

Either way, this is pretty thin gruel for heaping praise on Pelosi for her visit. The notion of Syria preparing for an attack is something I'd like to see more on. And the idea that Syria would respond rationally, let alone take Olmert's word for it based on who delivered a letter, is stretching things as far as I am concerned. As I said earlier, the way to measure these things is to look at behavior and not celebrate the act of talking as an end in itself.

Posted by: Hacksaw on April 4, 2007 at 2:11 PM | PERMALINK

Just thinking about Pelosi gives me a woody.

She's a fine lady and I will not denigrate the Speaker of the House. I respect our leaders.

A hint to you, sir--respect is something you have obviously never been acquainted with. A shame that so many liberals are as unhinged and as unfunny as yourself.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 4, 2007 at 2:15 PM | PERMALINK

She's a fine lady and I will not denigrate the Speaker of the House. I respect our leaders.

I'll give Norman this: at least he understands that not only will women be denigrated if he has sex with them, but if he simply gets aroused by them as well.

A hint to you, sir--respect is something you have obviously never been acquainted with. A shame that so many liberals are as unhinged and as unfunny as yourself.

Funny you should type that while upthread you stated:

You are a world class moron.

Respect, indeed.

Posted by: NSA Mole on April 4, 2007 at 2:26 PM | PERMALINK

It would be kind of hard for Israel to hit Iran, what with the distances involved.

And then I followed it up with evidence that Israel could hit Iran but that it has a limited number of aerial refueling platforms. This means that Israel could sustain limited combat air operations against Iran, but that it would be a difficult process that would not guarantee success. Iran's nuclear facilities are spread throughout that vast country and are defended with French and Soviet-era air defense platforms.

This is what careful analysis and knowledge looks like; no wonder you have little choice but to snipe at it and jam your finger in your cheek and sit there confused and angry.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 4, 2007 at 2:45 PM | PERMALINK

I'll give Norman this: at least he understands that not only will women be denigrated if he has sex with them, but if he simply gets aroused by them as well.

You sound like a fellow who has nailed one too many fat chicks and now all you can engage in is "player hating."

Poor fellow. Envy eats at your soul, you know.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 4, 2007 at 2:47 PM | PERMALINK

Consider this hypothetical: It's 2009, and President Hillary Clinton is negotiating a CO2 treaty with the world. China and India are resisting because they value economic growth more than Hollywood plaudits. Sen. McConnell, the Republican leader in the Senate, goes to China and India and assures them that no CO2 treaty is going to get through the Senate, so they can tell the president to stuff it.

Would that be OK or do you think you might be offended by an opposition leader in Congress conducting freelance diplomacy that undermines the President?

The answer can't turn on whether you approve or disapprove of the policies pursued by the legislator. If it's OK for legislators to conduct private foreign policy initiatives that undermine the administration's foreign policy, then it's OK, period, end of story.

Posted by: DBL on April 4, 2007 at 3:18 PM | PERMALINK

mhr: "There's a revealing photo of the San Francisco feminist, General Nancy, wearing a head scarf. Why the scarf? Because muslims consider female hair evil. All of it."

And you, sir, clearly respect women very much.
Ever met any?

Posted by: Kenji on April 4, 2007 at 3:24 PM | PERMALINK

You sound like a fellow who has nailed one too many fat chicks and now all you can engage in is "player hating."

Fat chicks need loving, too.

As a man much wiser than I once told me: "Don't turn down nothin' but your shirt collar."

If you're lucky, you'll find a girl with that worldview who will take pity and deflower you.

RSM and Al will be so jealous.

Posted by: NSA Mole on April 4, 2007 at 3:27 PM | PERMALINK
...Envy eats at your soul... Norman Rogers at 2:47 PM
Poor chap, it must be galling to see your attempts at being the class clown be ridiculed. So needy yet so lame.
If it's OK for legislators to conduct private foreign policy initiatives that undermine the administration's foreign policy... DBL at 3:18 PM
What foreign policy does this administration have: bomb and run? There is no foreign policy. There are no adults in charge. Why make up hypotheticals? Remember who wanted to cut and run in Somalia in 1992? Certain Republican legislators even went there. I realize that IOKIYR, but grow up: American legislators can and will travel, can and will talk to foreign leaders.


Posted by: Mike on April 4, 2007 at 3:35 PM | PERMALINK

If Bush & Cheney were impeached, Pelosi would be POTUS.
Posted by: Carl Nyberg

Right, just like Al Gore became President after Clinton was impeached.

Posted by: Brian on April 4, 2007 at 3:50 PM | PERMALINK

Mike,

For 200 years, both parties for the most part followed the rule that politics stopped at the water's edge. That has now been cast aside. Cong. Lantos, who is accompanying Speaker Pelosi, boasts to the press about the "alternative Democratic foreign policy."

I don't know whether it's a good idea or a bad idea to isolate Syria. I think good arguments can be made both ways. I do think it's a horrible idea for congressmen (whether from the same party as the president or the opposition party) to be conducting a freelance foreign policy in opposition to the administration's. In fact, I cannot imagine any arguments in favor of such conduct. A divided country is weak. A country that cannot speak to foreign countries with one voice is weak. Period.

The Democrats will rue the day they started down this path because the Republicans will be sure to do the same thing if the Democrats regain the White House. I guess if you like weak presidents and ineffective foreign policy, that's what you are going to get, for a long time to come, long after President Bush has left office.

Posted by: DBL on April 4, 2007 at 4:02 PM | PERMALINK

There's a revealing photo of the San Francisco feminist, General Nancy, wearing a head scarf.

And plenty of other photos of Laura Bush doing the same thing when visiting mosques.

Smarter trolls, please. You can smell the desperations, cluelessness and utterly Orwellian disregard for anything but the swill from Rush and the GOP blast fax...and man oh man, it ain's pleasant.

Posted by: Gregory on April 4, 2007 at 4:22 PM | PERMALINK

For 200 years, both parties for the most part followed the rule that politics stopped at the water's edge.

Like the GOP's supprot for Clinton's policies in Somalia and Kosovo, right, DBL?

That dog won't hunt. You GOP water carriers don't even sound like your lame-ass talking points are convincing yourselves, let alone anyone with half a brain.

Posted by: Gregory on April 4, 2007 at 4:24 PM | PERMALINK

Gregory,

My memory is far from perfect, but I don't recall any GOP leaders traveling overseas to tell foreign leaders that they didn't need to pay attention to President Clinton. Did Speaker Gingrich go meet with Milosovic to tell him to ignore President Clinton's demands that he stop ethnic cleansing?

I have no problems with congressmen and senators mouthing off here in the US. It's a free country. I have big problems with them going to meet foreign leaders to convey messages in opposition to what the administration is saying. I'm still waiting for you to advance some kind of reasoned argument in favor of freelance diplomacy.

Posted by: DBL on April 4, 2007 at 4:32 PM | PERMALINK

Tell ya what, DBL, why don't you come back when you have something other than straw men?

Posted by: Gregory on April 4, 2007 at 4:52 PM | PERMALINK

My memory is far from perfect, but I don't recall any GOP leaders traveling overseas to tell foreign leaders that they didn't need to pay attention to President Clinton. Did Speaker Gingrich go meet with Milosovic to tell him to ignore President Clinton's demands that he stop ethnic cleansing?

You ninny. Now the liberals will tell us how Tom DeLay was taking money from the Russians during the whole Kosovo War thing--

Monies were passed from Russian oil and gas executives working with Abramoff through a now-defunct London law firm and an obscure Bahamian company into an outfit, set up by former DeLay Chief of Staff Ed Buckham, masquerading as a grassroots advocacy group on family values. The group, the U.S. Family Network, existed for five years, but apparently did little or nothing on family issues, though it actually had the temerity to send out fundraising letters to the public, warning that “the American family is under attack from all sides: crime, drugs, pornography, and… gambling.” It also paid for ads attacking vulnerable Democratic candidates.

But what it was really doing, according to the article, was influencing DeLay to support legislation favorable to wealthy Russians—with the bill paid for by American taxpayers. DeLay traveled to Moscow in 1997 and spent time with the Russians, though he claimed to the House clerk that another nonprofit paid for it and that he was in that country to “meet with religious leaders there.”

Probably the most incendiary material in the Post story was buried, beginning in paragraph 32. The former president of the U.S. Family Network, a pastor no less, actually says that Buckham explained to him in 1999 that a $1 million payment passed through to the organization was intended specifically to influence DeLay's 1998 vote on a bill that enabled the International Monetary Fund to use U.S. taxpayer monies, in part, to bail out the Russian economy and specific wealthy Russian investors involved with the scheme.

"Ed told me, 'This is the way things work in Washington,' " [Pastor Christopher] Geeslin said. "He said the Russians wanted to give the money first in cash." Buckham, he said, orchestrated all the group's fundraising and spending and rarely informed the board about the details.

Tom DeLay and his cronies appear to have been accepting what amounted to bribes from Russians with connections to the Yeltsin-Putin regimes who wanted U.S. taxpayer monies to keep flowing to benefit them. They laundered the money, and, worse, did it through a nonprofit organization, which, in turn, claimed to be established to fight the decline in moral standards in America. Even more appalling, while this phony charity was doing this mercenary work, it was hitting up naïve members of DeLay’s political base for contributions.

Sir, allow me to take you to the woodshed. Don't issue anymore challenges until you actually know something. We just got rid of DeLay--bringing him up again goes AGAINST our interests right now.

Can't anyone play this game, dammit?

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 4, 2007 at 5:05 PM | PERMALINK

Bush and all republicans are questioning Polosi's trip to the middle east but at the same time McCain and his republican buddies were right on her heels on the same middle east trip, so FLIP-FLOP REPUBLICANS and whine as usual, it is OK for the republican retards to do it but if a democrat does it God forbid. The republicans are a party of under handed corrupt crooks, all you have to do is listen to the likes of Bush and Romney, all republicans can do is LIE, as usual.

Posted by: Al on April 4, 2007 at 5:51 PM | PERMALINK

My memory is far from perfect, but I don't recall any GOP leaders traveling overseas to tell foreign leaders that they didn't need to pay attention to President Clinton. Did Speaker Gingrich go meet with Milosovic to tell him to ignore President Clinton's demands that he stop ethnic cleansing?

--------

No - he just went to Israel to call Clinton's Sec. of State a Palestinian agent.

Posted by: pylon on April 4, 2007 at 6:40 PM | PERMALINK

Israel has all the aerial hardware it needs to hit any target in the Middle East, including AWACS, F-15I's, B707 tankers, PGM's and space-based intel. They are perfectly capable of operating day/night/all weather.

Not to mention the most powerful Navy of any Middle Eastern country and 100-300 nuclear warheads.

In a strike on Iran they'd only need our support to appear legitmate, not to ensure success in an Osirak-type operation.


Posted by: John Manyjars on April 5, 2007 at 3:43 AM | PERMALINK

Oh, and Norman, any time you'd like this liberal to pimp-slap you over matters military, bring it on.

Posted by: john manyjars on April 5, 2007 at 4:18 AM | PERMALINK

Oh, and Norman, any time you'd like this liberal to pimp-slap you over matters military, bring it on.

I have all the girlfriends I need right now, thank you.

What, praytell, gives you the cojones to question a conservative on military matters? Were you kicked out of the military for being too tubby in the last ten years?

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 5, 2007 at 9:31 AM | PERMALINK

I have all the girlfriends I need right now, thank you.

You spelled "boy" wrong.

Posted by: NSA Mole on April 5, 2007 at 5:38 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly