Fox Calls Out Gingrich Hypocrisy on Pelosi Trip to Syria
Fox Calls Out Gingrich Hypocrisy on Pelosi Trip to Syria
Today on Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace asked former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) about his views on the Pelosi-led delegation to Syria. Gingrich criticized Pelosi, saying, “I think it’s very important not to have two foreign policies, and I think it’s very dangerous for America to do what Speaker Pelosi did.”
Wallace confronted Gingrich with public comments he made as Speaker that clashed with Clinton administration policy before and during his travels abroad to China and Israel in the 1990’s. (Glenn Greenwald first documented those statements HERE.) Gingrich said at the time:
We will defend Taiwan, period. [3/31/97]
I think it’s wrong for the American Secretary of State to become the agent for the Palestinians [3/12/98]
Gingrich responded to the Taiwan comment stating, “What I said in China was U.S. policy.” But Wallace quickly refuted him: “Not according to the Clinton administration.” Gingrich then attempted to defend his statements criticizing Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and said, “I think at the time she was taking steps that were very, very pro-Palestinian.” Watch it:
Throughout the segment, Gingrich followed the White House line, attacking Speaker Pelosi but conveniently failing to mention that at least five Republicans also traveled to Syria last week, including Rep. David Hobson (R-OH), who accompanied Pelosi.
Contrary to Gingrich’s statements criticizing Clinton’s foreign policy, Pelosi’s delegation did not attempt to undermine President Bush. Hobson said, “We reinforced the administration’s positions and at the same time we were trying to understand and maybe getting some voice to some things people wanted to say that maybe they were not comfortable saying to the administration.”
Transcript:
GINGRICH: I think it’s very important not to have two foreign policies and I think it’s very dangerous for America to do what Speaker Pelosi did.
WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, we looked at your record, and let’s put up some of the instances. During a trip to china in 1997, you told leaders there, “We will defend Taiwan, period,” when U.S. policy on defending Taiwan was much vaguer than that. Just before a trip to Israel in 1998, you said, “I think it’s wrong for the American Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, to become the agent for the Palestinians.” Weren’t you more provocative than Speaker Pelosi?
GINGRICH: Look, Speaker Pelosi can be very provacative within the U.S. What I said in China was U.S. policy –
WALLACE: Not accord to the Clinton administration it wasn’t.
GINGRICH: President Clinton had just put U.S. aircraft carriers in the straits of Taiwan. I mean, the American position has always been we do not recognize Taiwan as an independent country. We would protect Taiwan if there was a Chinese — People’s Republic invaded Taiwan. I think it was very important for the Chinese to understand that there was a unified agreement. They were being very aggressive at that time.
WALLACE: And what about saying that Madeleine Albright was an agent for the Palestinians?
GINGRICH: I think at the time she was taking steps that were very, very pro-Palestinian.
WALLACE: But you understand my point it looks like there were two foreign policies?
GINGRICH: The one time I said something that was too strong when I was outside the U.S., I didn’t say anything in the U.S. that’s part of the American political system. One time I said there was something wrong, I said publicly I’d made a mistake, and I pulled back because I do believe that you have to coordinate. And I think that both Sandy Berger and President Clinton would tell you that we talked constantly about foreign policy and tried to work together in a whole range of issues on foreign policy.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
I wonder if Chris’s dad had a talk with him.
April 8th, 2007 at 2:07 pmWhat happened to Chris Wallace? Did Clinton’s smackdown cause a crisis of conscience or something?
April 8th, 2007 at 2:11 pmComment by Alan
Squat and trot troll; don’t respond, as he’s already gone.
April 8th, 2007 at 2:13 pm‘Reward good behavior’ -Atrios
April 8th, 2007 at 2:14 pmChris Wallace is starting to surprise me. He’s still pretty much a hack, but he’s seems to be trying to redeem himself — or at least flee the sinking ship, as rats tend to do.
TP, anything on Russert & MTP regarding the subject of this thread?
April 8th, 2007 at 2:15 pmhttp://thinkprogress.org/ 2007/ 04/ 06/ hatch-correction-mtp/
And I think that both Sandy Berger and President Clinton would tell you that we talked constantly about foreign policy and tried to work together in a whole range of issues on foreign policy.
Ha, ha, ha … now suddenly Sandy Berger’s got his back, after the crap Gingrich said about him?
April 8th, 2007 at 2:16 pmWow… That’s a shock. Glad to hear it. I hope Chris Wallace will continue to hold either party accountable for their words and actions. That’s what a real journalist is supposed to do…
April 8th, 2007 at 2:20 pmThis is merely Fox Noise trying to accumulate talking points about how they are not a Republican mouthpiece so when other Democrats refuse to be part of thier debates they can scream Gotcha….Fu$k Wallace.
April 8th, 2007 at 2:21 pmhey newt, shouldnt you be working on your marriage you hypocrite….
April 8th, 2007 at 2:22 pmGingrich calls for Gonzalez to resign
April 8th, 2007 at 2:23 pmNewt is one of those self serving scum politicians that doesn’t care anything about democracy or governing, just their own power, influence, and wealth. And there are plenty in Washington.
April 8th, 2007 at 2:23 pmWhen one does away with the fetters of principle and integrity, you can say some amazing things…
April 8th, 2007 at 2:24 pmWow. Isn’t this the second weekend in a row that Chris Wallace called out a Publican’s BS?
April 8th, 2007 at 2:24 pmIt’s a bit unfair for Fox to invite Newt onto a news show and then criticize him for being a hypocrite. After all, they don’t do that with all the other wingers they put on the air.
April 8th, 2007 at 2:29 pmComment by ccokz
He’s running for pres., and if he gets the nomination by some bizarre chance, as the republican nominee, he doesn’t want Gonzales to become his “anchor baby.”
April 8th, 2007 at 2:29 pmWhat IS going on over at Fox lately? Are the finally, REALLY going to be “fair and balanced”? Usually, they rip the Dems with NO quarter given, ignoring hypocrasy and double-standards practiced by the Repubs. Did someone buy the network and make some long-needed changes there?
April 8th, 2007 at 2:30 pmA conservative government is an organized hypocrisy.
Benjamin Disraeli, Speech in the House of Commons, Mar. 3, 1845
British politician (1804 - 1881)
How true that is.
April 8th, 2007 at 2:31 pmMaybe Chris is feeling the heat. Or maybe he just wants to have a career after the rest of Faux Noise gets marched off to the Hague with the criminals they enable. Whatever. Newt lies. It’s his nature. He says whatever he thinks will get him the slightest advantage, and he’s as dangerous as a cornered rat.
April 8th, 2007 at 2:32 pmSatyam:
Do you also have the clip of Gingrich advocating removing Iran’s government and replacing it with something better suited to our purposes? It’s as if what we did in 1953 didn’t happen at all, with these imbeciles.
April 8th, 2007 at 2:34 pmWhat do we think we will get from Alpha GOP?
April 8th, 2007 at 2:37 pmThe Republic Party is running out of ideas… they are now recycling their old crap, such as, Gingrich, Tom Delay and of course, Perle and Feif. They have no new heroes to offer and no real leaders to bring forward so they are stuck in the Karl Rove recycle phase. Time to move on.
April 8th, 2007 at 2:41 pmTP,
Why the hell do you delete comments with links TO YOUR OWN SITE?
That is SO frustrating!
April 8th, 2007 at 2:42 pmKudos to Chris from an unabashed lib. Even a stopped watch is right twice a day.
April 8th, 2007 at 2:47 pmGingrich as the Republican candidate is not a bad idea. The Christian right would never vote for him. Too much adultery on Newt’s part. That would be great for the Democrats because the Christian right would rather not vote then to vote for someone that didn’t support their so-called morals. Karl Rove promised them the world and didn’t deliver on any of it.
April 8th, 2007 at 2:50 pmDamn. I think that ever since the Clinton interview, Chris Wallace has been seeing the ugliness that is Fox News. Is this the dawn of a new, improved, more intelligent Chris Wallace?
April 8th, 2007 at 3:05 pmOnly time will tell.
Good job Chris Wallace. I’m liking your turnaround lately.
April 8th, 2007 at 3:08 pmThere is a good article on this that may give greater insight into FOX NEWS and the Clintons. The spin is FOX going after Gingrich on Pelosi’s visit to Syria, instead I feel that it may be more accurate to say that FOX NEWS is nuetral or even supports the Clintons. And I will really go out on a limb here and say that in the next 5 years FOX NEWS will be a liberal to Moderate “NEWS” organization.
Hillary, Rupert, and the Culture of Corruption
“Commenting on the News Corporation fundraiser for Hillary, Jeff Cohen asked, “What does Hillary want from Murdoch? Obviously, softer coverage from Fox and elsewhere.” Cohen, a liberal, asked another question many conservatives were asking: “She certainly doesn’t need his help getting funds; she raised $6 million in the first three months of 2006.” When Senator Clinton made an appearance at a Fox News event celebrating the creation of the Fox News Sunday show, Fox News anchor Chris Wallace crowed that her presence “makes a statement about how we’re regarded in top Democratic circles.” So why is the company raising money for Senator Clinton?”
“In an article titled “Is Murdoch Going Liberal?,” the New Yorker magazine referred to “The News Corp. progressives,” a group of liberals inside the company, which has “greater access to Murdoch on a daily basis” than conservatives. The magazine identified members of this “progressive” group as “Murdoch’s deputy Peter Chernin; the two co-chairs of Fox’s film division, Tom Rothman and Jim Gianopulos; and Gary Ginsberg, whom Murdoch refers to as his ‘ambassador to the Clinton Administration.’” The magazine said that “Murdoch has told associates that it was Ginsberg who persuaded him to hold the fund-raiser for Hillary.” What did Ginsberg, a former Assistant Counsel to President Clinton, say to convince you to hold the Hillary fundraiser?”
Accuracy in Media Article
These people are Globalist over anything else. Political parties are just tools in there quest for dominance. Thier alliances shift depending on the mood. Rupert Murdoch (owns Fox News) who owns 37% of BSkyB, the largest cable provider in England and Ireland, and is the Chairman of the Board of BSkyB, which carries Al-Jazeera International?
Some say Mordoch is all about the money, but at a net worth of $6.7 billion I think it’s more about the power.
April 8th, 2007 at 3:30 pmdidn’t wallace call bs on a republican last week too? a dangerous streak of journalism on fox?
…yea here it is, two in a row, excuse me while my head explodes. what happened mr. wallace? you used to be cool, man.
April 8th, 2007 at 3:33 pmhttp://thinkprogress.org/ 2007/ 04/ 01/ fox-catches-mcconnell/
Look RIGHT WING. The real issue with the Pelosi trip isn’t that she went.
Its that she HAD to go in the first place.
She shouldn’t have had to. This President is waging war in a foreign land, and he refuses to talk to their neighbors!
His refusal to talk to Syria and Iran, and North Korea, is the laziest, stupiest policy in the world.
In fact its NO policy.
Nancy Pelosi went because this President is too stupid to do it himself.
Leave her alone.
At least someones doing something.
April 8th, 2007 at 3:47 pmWhy the hell do you delete comments with links TO YOUR OWN SITE?
That is SO frustrating!
Comment by Zooey
Hey Zoo. Yep. I stopped blogging here because of the censoring of TP, and that my TP account was hacked. Nice security TP. I heard a new person took over. Doesn’t appear to be any better? I just got through trying to post a really informitive blog, and it went out into nowhere land. Whatever happened to free speech? This site still sucks moving on again.
April 8th, 2007 at 3:48 pmHey Newterd,
The only problem is, unlike Clinton, the Bushwhackers won’t talk to Democrat leadership. Can you understand that Newterd?
Geesh… these frigging idiots!
April 8th, 2007 at 3:52 pmThe Dems pulling out of the Faux news debate is what showing Faux news now trying to highlight the Repuke hypocrisy on Chris’s show.
April 8th, 2007 at 3:59 pmThe Faux news network needs to be boycotted regardless.Faux will revert to the same partisan BS after they get the Dems to show up on their network for the debates.
OK, who are you and what have you done with Chris Wallace?
April 8th, 2007 at 4:00 pmWhatever happened to free speech? This site still sucks moving on again.
Comment by JTitor
Yep, Faiz is running the joint now. Things seemed good for a while, then comments started disappearing again. I think they have their filter set to screen out comments with links — and to allow all access to trolls.
I wondered where you went, I hope you check back now and again. :)
April 8th, 2007 at 4:00 pmRepubs who went to Syria to meet with that pyschopath Assad should be ashamed of themselves. And the Speakette of the House, meeting with Assad after conferring with Prime Minister Olmert should hang her head in shame. She touts supporting the administrations position on Syria and then flouts that same position by legitimizing prime Hezbollah backers. I’m sorry they returned from the “excursion”.
WORFEUS mistakes the Speakette’s role - she did not HAVE to go anywhere - she chose to go - thus she deserves the criticism that is being heaped on her. She’s obviously confused by her new job desription.
April 8th, 2007 at 4:12 pmYep, Faiz is running the joint now.
I wondered where you went, I hope you check back now and again. :)
Comment by Zooey
Thanks Zoo. It posted for about 2 minutes then I refreashed and it was gone. So they pulled it as opposed to it being filtered. Links where to Accuracy in Media and reliable sites like that.
I do pop in every once in a while and will say hi! Keep up the good fight and don’t let the evil troll’s bite.
April 8th, 2007 at 4:15 pmSo what? On the cable FOX they had a segment called “Did Pelosi Damage America?”.
April 8th, 2007 at 4:23 pmCan we stop talking about FOX? Can the Democrats stay off FOX show? Once and for all?
I do pop in every once in a while and will say hi! Keep up the good fight and don’t let the evil troll’s bite.
Comment by JTitor
Good seeing you, JTitor, sorry about the continued weirdness around here. Trolls? I just bite ‘em back. :)
April 8th, 2007 at 4:23 pmSpeakette
Comment by valiant venus
Self-loathing woman hates all women.
April 8th, 2007 at 4:24 pm#25. Does valiant venus = mighty aphrodite on a bad day? Lets face it. The NeoCons are scratching for anything they can lie about. They know no-other way then to distort and lie about everything. Its so pathological that the sh!t they spew isn’t flying anymore. Don’t come in here and think for a second that you have some moral osmosis that will spread and cause some idiot to turn republican? I used to be a republican, but my morals where greater then the party could offer. I dumped the party!
April 8th, 2007 at 4:30 pmAccording to the Authors of Cobra II, Gingrich was appointed by Rumsfeld to the defense policy board, headed by Richard Perle. He was intimately involved in the “Planning” of the Iraq war, along with the rest of the neocons. This so called planning resulted in the military disaster we now have in Iraq. I hope if Gingrich runs for president, this becomes common knowlege.
April 8th, 2007 at 4:30 pmWORFEUS mistakes the Speakette’s role - .
Comment by valiant minus — April 8, 2007 @ 4:12 pm
No, I did not mispeak the “Speakers” role. But keep talking that way sparky.
It will do wonders for you with the womens groups.
April 8th, 2007 at 4:33 pmFirst,
Chris Wallace,
Thanks for stepping up and trying to become an American ahead of your Repugniscum owners for just once in at least several decades! Did you get a new brain or are you thinking about the trials that are soon coming? You know, that “I didn’t see nuthin’” defense?
Second
GINGRICH,
Exactly why do you think anyone, beyond the Fool-Aid Guzzlers, PH*CKING CARES WHAT THE HELL YOU THINK? YOU’VE ALREADY DONE TOO MUCH THINKING, JUST LIKE GW BOTCH!!!!!
GINGRICH, YOU ARE THE ENEMY WITHIN!!! JUST GO AWAY!!! AND DO NOT PASS JAIL!!!
April 8th, 2007 at 4:35 pmshe did not HAVE to go anywhere - she chose to go - thus she deserves the criticism that is being heaped on her.
Comment by valiant anus — April 8, 2007 @ 4:12 pm
No. She deserves praise for doing something that everyone knows needs to be done, because the pompous dunce in the Oval Office refuses to do his job.
His job dimwit, is not to start wars.
His job is to display enough diplomacy to keep us out of them.
April 8th, 2007 at 4:36 pmI thought TP hated Fox News? A question: wasn’t the Clinton administration committed to defending Taiwan?
“We will defend Taiwan, period. [3/31/97]….
Gingrich responded to the Taiwan comment stating, “What I said in China was U.S. policy.†But Wallace quickly refuted him: “Not according to the Clinton administration.—
If Wallace is correct, perhaps Progs will understand their flip-flopping on international relations is not a good campaign strategy……
Zoo - I accord the FIRST female Speaker of the House of Representatives the respect she deserves…..which is far more respectful than the vast majority of Progs accord Pres. Bush.
Tooodles…
April 8th, 2007 at 4:37 pmWorfeus - You can praise her all you want, but it does NOT change the FACT. It’s not the Speakette’s JOB to enact or convey foreign policy without the administration request. Period.
His job is to defend the country. Period. (You seem to be confusing his job description with Mahatma Ghandi….)
April 8th, 2007 at 4:40 pmI wonder how shocked the republicans are when they get asked real questions on Faux News
April 8th, 2007 at 4:42 pmBush was right about one thing. This is about good and evil.
America grew into a democracy that had learned from the mistakes of Rome, and did not launch offensive war. The only time we get into war is if we, or an ally of ours, it under assault.
Then we kick ass. My dad was in WW2, as were all of my uncles. They got the job done, because other countries were on the offensive, namely Japan and Germany, and their allies. And we beat the snot out of them. THAT Jerry Falwell, is “righteous war”.
But this. This invasion and occupation of these backwards, helpless 3rd world people, imprisoning them by the tens of thousands, destroying their history and land…. this is unforgivable.
The right is desperatly, either for their greed or cowardice, trying to turn America into an aggressive offensive country. They are tryign to change the very nature of who we are, because they are afraid of terrorism, and think they can kill everyone who doesn’t like us.
We used to be good. But that new plan sounds like evil to me.
April 8th, 2007 at 4:42 pmHis job is to defend the country. Period.
Comment by stagnant penus — April 8, 2007 @ 4:40 pm
Period?
Then whats this?
April 8th, 2007 at 4:47 pmwonder how shoicked right wingers are whn they get asked real questions on Faux
April 8th, 2007 at 4:48 pmIn fact, show me where in Article II of the Constitution that it says the President sole power is to defend the country?
In fact, show me where in Article II it even says that he is supposed to defend the country.
Show me genius.
April 8th, 2007 at 4:51 pmThe Oath the President takes, does NOT say he swears to defend the country.
The Oath the President takes says he swears to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
The Constitution.
Not the country.
PERIOD.
April 8th, 2007 at 4:54 pmComment by valiant venus — April 8, 2007 @ 4:40 pm
So, Ms. Faux Attorney, we can scrap Article II, Sections 1 (1); 2 (2); 2(3); and 3 of the United States Constitution?
And if his job is solely limited to defending the country, why wasn’t he fired by noon on 9/11?
If a security guard negligently allowed 3,000 people to be killed on his watch, he wouldn’t last another minute on his job!
And the bonus question: What does invading Iraq have to do with defending the United States?
April 8th, 2007 at 4:54 pmFrom the Constitution of the United States of America
Article II, sec 8
You do remember the Constitution right skippy?
Its the document your dimwit in Chief called an “interesting document” and his Attorney General called, “Quaint”.
April 8th, 2007 at 4:56 pmBris. It doesn’t even say he is supposed to defend the country, at least those words never appear. They are “assumed” as he is commander over the armed services during war, but it never says those words.
Most republicans like to argue that if something is not specifically stated in the Constitution, then its not law.
Well, where are those words, defend the country?
If I am missing them, fine. But someone show them to me.
April 8th, 2007 at 4:59 pmThis thread is screwing the pooch with the TP PC hall monitors on duty!!! TP get a CLUE!!!
Is Valium Venom off limits for you weaklings
April 8th, 2007 at 5:01 pmThe President belittled the Constitution publically, as did his Attorney General.
Right there he should have been impeached.
He broke his oath, to defend and uphold the Constitution by belittling it and attacking it himself.
April 8th, 2007 at 5:02 pm38. good questions.
Article II, Section 2 (1):
Yet it is to Congress that the Constitution grants the power
April 8th, 2007 at 5:03 pmWill this now post???
WORFEUS mistakes the Speakette’s role - she did not HAVE to go anywhere - she chose to go - thus she deserves the criticism that is being heaped on her. She’s obviously confused by her new job desription.
Comment by valiant venus — April 8, 2007 @ 4:12 pm
valium venom,
You are either a $#%$# troll or a &*^*&^ idiot!! Pick one and stick with it!!!! It don’t matter to me…
April 8th, 2007 at 5:04 pmAnd by the way it is normal for Congress to make fact finding missions to the middle east.
And she even took a republican congressman with her!
They are just pissed because it emasculated them to hand her the gavel.
April 8th, 2007 at 5:11 pmThats why they have to disrespect her like that. But they are not just disrespecting her, they’re disrespecting the office.
But its fine. Let em.
Like I said, it should go over real big with the womens groups.
And who needs their votes, right?
April 8th, 2007 at 5:21 pmComment by WORFEUS — April 8, 2007 @ 5:11 pm
They have a testosterone problem and a hatred (or at least controlling distain) of women!!
April 8th, 2007 at 5:23 pmPelosi could have “staged” her meeting with Syria’s president more competently by taking Lots of Republicans with her…. but the Drudge/Limbaugh attack squad is after her because they have NOTHING ELSE. They can’t exactly talk about Bush’s Successfull Middle East policy, or how Bush has shrunk the size of the Government, or how Bush is leading the Free World. The Bush record is a record of failure and incompetency, & the American people know it. The propogandist’s only recourse is to Change The Subject.
April 8th, 2007 at 5:25 pmTo continue from #45:
The Constitution gives Congress the power to control the military, and gives the President the nominal title Commander in Chief, putting the President in charge of prosecuting wars that Congress declares.
April 8th, 2007 at 5:26 pmLets just make sure we don’t lose track of the real story here.
That is, that the Bush administration is on a daily basis, further and further alienating us from the rest of the world, particularly in the middle east, and refusing to talk to countries like Iran, Syria and North Korea.
Pelosi went as an act of desperation, to try to force the President to see the futility of his isolationist strategy. But her message is being lost while we bob and weave trying to defend the trip.
Theres nothing to defend. Lots of Congress men do it. So have the last two speakers of the House. Its a non issue.
The issue is is that Bush is such a pathetic diplomat, that she felt she had to do it.
We need a President who knows how to “make treaties”.
No where in the Constitution is the President given the power to start wars.
April 8th, 2007 at 5:31 pmHere’s an interesting exerpt from the Federalist Papers:
Where we are now has been foreseen from the beginning. Both parties in Congress refuse to impeach the President and other members of the Executive Branch, no matter the mounting evidence of crimes.
With the development of microwave and plasma weapons, designed for use against United States Citizens, with the reported Haliburton constructed concentration camps around the country, the Government is well prepared and armed to crush any civil uprising.
The ballot box is an illusion, as is our freedom and liberty.
April 8th, 2007 at 5:32 pmThats exactly right Bris, and your point wasn’t lost on me. You put it out there as so clearly you scared our little ladybug troll away.
She can’t stand it when confronted with the facts. And the facts are Congress gets to start the wars. They also get to fund them, and cut the funding if they feel the executive has run amuck.
I am just wondering when they’re going to grow the balls to do that.
April 8th, 2007 at 5:34 pmNo where in the Constitution is the President given the power to start wars.
Comment by WORFEUS — April 8, 2007 @ 5:31 pm
That was given to the President by act of Congress via the War Powers Resolution:
http://www.thecre.com/fedlaw/legal22/warpow.htm
April 8th, 2007 at 5:36 pmThe issue still boils down to whether Pelosi broke the law. Click this to find out:
http://osi-speaks.blogspot.com/ 2007/ 04/ did-speaker-pelosi-break-any-law-by.html#links
April 8th, 2007 at 5:38 pmThey need to pull the pork out of the funding bill, leave the timetables and benchmarks and send the bill back over. Bush can veto it if he likes, but thats like refusing to sign your own paycheck.
If he doesn’t sign it, the money’s gone. And if he refuses to sign, and the money’s gone, then the people won’t hold Congress accountable, they’ll hold Bush accountable if he keeps the troops there. Of course he won’t be able to keep them there long. He can’t fund the war for long on his emergency funding.
Reid is going to cave. They’re even saying they’re going to cave. Even Obama is suggesting caving after the Veto, (DAMN, I was already to start sending him money too).
They need to not cave to the veto, but redraft the bill without the pork, but with the benchmarks, and send it back, “SIGNATURE REQUIRED”.
If the President doesn’t sign it, then he’ll be forced to end the war.
April 8th, 2007 at 5:38 pmI am familiar with the War Powers Act Bris, but they do not really give the President power to wage war on a country. They give him the power to wage war IN RESPONSE to an attack, but not just random general offensive warfare.
The war powers act in other words gave the President the power to attack to Afghanistan, as they were the base of ops for the attack on us.
But the war powers act did not give the President the power to invade Iraq.
Our dumb ass 109th Congress did that.
April 8th, 2007 at 5:45 pm#38 - Worfeus - As you well know (but somehow convolute), the President is Chief Executive,and as such is at the helm of the State Department, Defense Department, etc.
Art 2, SecII :”…The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion in writing…..He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers…., whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law…”
“In fact, show me where in Article II it even says that he is supposed to defend the country.”
Please accept my apology - I have, up until now, given you credit for being fairly intelligent. Obviously, the credit I gave you was unearned. Perhaps you would prefer a President who did not defend the country….
The Speakette is in charge of the legislative body holding the purse strings. She is not in the diplomatic corps or an ambassador for the administration.
April 8th, 2007 at 5:47 pmThey need to not cave to the veto, but redraft the bill without the pork, but with the benchmarks, and send it back, “SIGNATURE REQUIREDâ€.
If the President doesn’t sign it, then he’ll be forced to end the war.
Comment by WORFEUS — April 8, 2007 @ 5:38 pm
I disagree. If Bush vetoes the bill, only send him a bill that funds the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission (the “pork” that Bush finds so objectionable).
DO NOT SEND ANOTHER BILL FUNDING AN ILLEGAL AND IMMORAL WAR.
April 8th, 2007 at 5:47 pmAlso Bris, the War Powers act seems to indicate that Congress has the right to terminate a war under certain circumstances.
Notwithstanding subsection (b), at any time that United States Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.
WPA 5C
April 8th, 2007 at 5:49 pmDoes Rep. Hobson lack the balls to speak out? What a true ass, watching as Pelosi is subjected to the WH lies and distortions and saying nothing. He’s obviously a partisan hack with no morals or courage.
April 8th, 2007 at 5:49 pmPlease accept my apology - I have, up until now, given you credit for being fairly intelligent. Obviously, the credit I gave you was unearned. Perhaps you would prefer a President who did not defend the country….
Comment by valiant venus — April 8, 2007 @ 5:47 pm
SHOW ME WHERE IT SAYS THAT JACKASS.
Put up or shut up.
April 8th, 2007 at 5:50 pmComment by WORFEUS — April 8, 2007 @ 5:45 pm
But, consistent with the War Powers Resolution, the President can start a war and keep it going for 60 days before he has to get Congressional approval. It inhales greatly, in my opinion. Of course, the fear at the time was a nuclear conflict where the government would be unable to meet to respond. Who would have thunk that some President would use it to actually start wars? But they did. Beginning with Reagan.
April 8th, 2007 at 5:50 pmHe takes an oath to defend the constitution.
He isn’t doing that.
He will be impeached.
April 8th, 2007 at 5:51 pmSaddam Hussein should have been taken out in 1991 - Bush I had to contend with the prejudices of the Islamic States in that Coalition. But as Hussein breached the cease fire agreement (that he accepted and signed in 1991) the US was well within in its’ rights to resume hostilities.
My guests are arriving….til later……
April 8th, 2007 at 5:51 pmWhy is the issue of funding the war just about the troops? What about the Private Contractors, like SAIC and Blackwater, which almost outnumber the troops and get huge amounts of tax dollars.
April 8th, 2007 at 5:51 pmAmericans want to support the troops, but they might not want to support the fraud , failure, and lack of accountability provided by our highly paid private contractors.
I can’t believe the democrats aren’t making a big issue of this!
DO NOT SEND ANOTHER BILL FUNDING AN ILLEGAL AND IMMORAL WAR.
Comment by Briseadh_na_faire — April 8, 2007 @ 5:47 pm
That works too.
April 8th, 2007 at 5:51 pm61. Right on point!
So why are the Democrats so reluctant to do so?
Are We the People being represented by either of the two major political parties?
April 8th, 2007 at 5:53 pmThe Speakette is in charge of the legislative body holding the purse strings. She is not in the diplomatic corps or an ambassador for the administration.
Comment by smallus penus — April 8, 2007 @ 5:47 pm
Tough Noogies.
She can go to a foriegn land on any fact finding mission she wants, and theres not a damned thing you can do about it.
But you keep working on that womans vote genius.
We could use a dozen more like you.
April 8th, 2007 at 5:54 pmThey need to cut the funds, period - end of discussion and that will end this war in a heartbeat. No more fingers in the money/honey pot for the Bushevites though….poor babies.
In actuality, the ONLY thing Congress CAN do is cut the funds and it’s become the mandate of the american people so they will be forced to do so.
April 8th, 2007 at 5:54 pmAs they used to say: “Cut them off at the bootstaps” and the walking will cease. (i.e. walking all over the wishes of the american people).
April 8th, 2007 at 5:55 pmInteresting. My post to #56 mentioning the terms of use against promoting one’s own project never made it. hmmmmm.
April 8th, 2007 at 5:55 pmMy guests are arriving….til later……
Comment by voluminous anus — April 8, 2007 @ 5:51 pm
Are they wearing their sheets now or do you guys wait for the bon fire for that?
April 8th, 2007 at 5:55 pmWhat happened to the various states efforts to send impeachment charges to the Congress? Can you get on this TP? Thanks.
April 8th, 2007 at 5:57 pmWho would have thunk that some President would use it to actually start wars?
Comment by Briseadh_na_faire — April 8, 2007 @ 5:50 pm
Our founding fathers would have.
I am certain of that.
Cowardice is what ultimately destroys democracy.
April 8th, 2007 at 5:58 pmIt’s not the Speakette’s JOB to enact or convey foreign policy without the administration request. Period.
His job is to defend the country. Period. (You seem to be confusing his job description with Mahatma Ghandi….)
Comment by vermin venus —
The Speakette has no job, because there is no such position in the US government as Speakette.
April 8th, 2007 at 5:58 pmAnd “his job,” eh? For someone who claims to be a lawyerette with military-ette experience, you certainly haven’t grasped the fact that women are equally eligible to hold any position, including SPEAKER of the House, in the US government.
April 8th, 2007 at 6:00 pm
Another important clarification from the War Powers Act.
April 8th, 2007 at 6:05 pmAlso the War Powers Act speficially directs the President REPORTS to Congress at least once every six months on the war specifics, including timeslines and estimates for conclusion.
April 8th, 2007 at 6:08 pmSo why are the Democrats so reluctant to do so?
Comment by Briseadh_na_faire — April 8, 2007 @ 5:53 pm
Thats what I’d like to know.
The authority is clearly there for Congress to revoke the presidents authority for this war and call the troops home.
They need to stand up.
April 8th, 2007 at 6:10 pmhttp://www.whitehouse.gov/ news/ releases/ 2002/ 10/ 20021002-2.html
Yeh, but the Resolution also says this V V;
To restore peace, not to instigate more war.
April 8th, 2007 at 6:10 pmActually its every sixty days =)
April 8th, 2007 at 6:13 pmSorry - OT - POLAR BEAR
Urgent:
If you care about the polar bear species, please take 15 seconds of your time to send an automated comment to Dr. Rosa Meehan, Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
The deadline is tomorrow for sending them an email.
Please visit:
http://www.polarbearsos.org/
and click Take Action to send your email.
Thank you!
- Tom
April 8th, 2007 at 6:18 pm#66 — Your recall of history is a bit skewed. Desert Storm was a multilateral UN Security Council sanctioned operation with its primary mission being that of ejecting Iraq from Kuwait. There was a specific mission, there was a unity of nations allied to accomplish the mission. It was NOT part of the mission to “take Hussein” out, as Dubya did. You might want to do your own search to find this information. It only took me about five minutes to confirm what I understood to be the facts that led up to Desert Storm.
April 8th, 2007 at 6:25 pm#80 I believe Bush has been delinquent on his reports to Congress; in fact, I’d bet good money on it. What can one expect though from someone who is stuck in the “juvenile delinquency” stage of maturity?
As for the other post regarding the individual efforts to force Congress toward impeachment, I’d also like some info on that. Clearly, as in the Hazelton situation where the government has been derelect in it’s duties, where do the individual states stand vis-a-vis enforcing laws which the federal government is NOT enforcing as well as unifying and forcing a mandate on Congress to bring about impeachment hearings. John Conyers, very early on, began discussions in the clostrophobic bowels of some basement room and then the GOP smeared him on something really trivial and it seems he’s been hushed up. By whom I wonder and how have they done this??
April 8th, 2007 at 6:26 pm#85 Kudos! And you are absolutely, 100% correct! I wince every time I hear the “take Saddam out” or other mob-like comments by our commander in chief like “bring ‘em on”… or the ridiculous deck of cards which made locating and killing the people whose photos appeared on Bush’s Deck some kind of lurid, tawdry game. I guess he’s stuck on the “baseball card collecting stage of life” though as in his biography (Bush on the Couch by Justin A. Frank) he mentions that W was so obsessed with finding his photo on a baseball card that when he owned the Texas Rangers, he had a card made up with his disgusting mug on it - as if, as if, as if….he was even coordinated to throw a ball!
I believe it’s called sadism when one delights in inflicting pain on others, isn’t it???
April 8th, 2007 at 6:29 pm#80 I believe Bush has been delinquent on his reports to Congress; in fact, I’d bet good money on it.
Comment by veritas — April 8, 2007 @ 6:26 pm
That would be a good bet.
I recall some congressmen complaining about that recently.
April 8th, 2007 at 6:30 pmHelen, you are correct.
In fact, the treaty our not so valiant troll referenced, if memory serves me correctly, was signed by the coalition, not just us.
If the coalition is not intact then how can we even reference it.
We’re not the kings of the world.
April 8th, 2007 at 6:31 pmWhat is unclear about that to Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid?
April 8th, 2007 at 6:32 pmCould somebody please tell me what policy of the United States Nancy Pelosi undermined?
Lay it, specifically - what did Pelosi say to Assad that is at variance with America’s official position on any issue?
April 8th, 2007 at 6:32 pmshe did not HAVE to go anywhere - she chose to go - thus she deserves the criticism that is being heaped on her. Comment by venomous p*nis envy — April 8, 2007 @ 4:12 pm
So then Newt deserves the criticism heaped upon him that show he’s a hypocrite - nice of you to admit that. Wait, you didn’t admit anything - lawyerette! Imagine that!!!
And since no one asked you to SAY anything - you deserve the criticism heaped upon you!
You’re a st*pid c*nt - mighty Anorexic - but you knew that didn’t you?
April 8th, 2007 at 6:33 pmComment by Helen Rainier
V V seems to live in skewed state. It’s the constant state of hypocrisy in which they dwell that seems to cause it.
April 8th, 2007 at 6:37 pmNice catch Helen. =)
Mark Twain
April 8th, 2007 at 6:40 pmChris Wallace…I keep seeing some sparks of his dad in him. He should grow a backbone and leave Fox. Make his dad proud…
April 8th, 2007 at 6:40 pmThe monkeys at Faux have already decided that Newt (and probably McCain) isn’t their first choice, so they are willing to call them on their bullshit. Let’s see if Romney or Guliani get the same treatment.
April 8th, 2007 at 6:42 pmBut as Hussein breached the cease fire agreement (that he accepted and signed in 1991) the US was well within in its’ rights to resume hostilities. My guests are arriving….til later…… Comment by valiant venus — April 8, 2007 @ 5:51 pm
The UN says you’re an idiot, and we were not ‘within our rights’.
Did you inform your guests that you’d be serving them as the main course? I’m sure they’d be happy to know you’ll throw them up later to ensure you stay thin….
I find it amusing what a complete *lunatic* you are, and yet you believe your *reality* is real. Look in the mirror sometime, crazy girl, and not at your *imaginary friends* coming to dinner. Reality is that you’re a creepy pathetic and stupid little c*nt that thinks dead baby jokes about your own imaginary children is funny. You’re the pathetic person that justifies supporting mass murder, genocide, and terrorism is *good*, as long as it frights commies. You’re a freak, a loser, and a crazy little b*tch. That’s why to *everyone* here, you’re the *joke* that you can’t get!
April 8th, 2007 at 6:43 pmAn interesting Easter Day tidbit: go to http://www.911truth.org and see what Dennis Kucinich is willing to do regarding the glaring inconsistencies in the official story and what people are now saying. Very intriguing, to say the least and I’m glad that Dennis has the stones to begin asking questions because the level of distrust currently among the people regarding this government of corruption warrants a reopening of the 911 commission and a reevaluation of the entire situation now that scientists are weighing in, timelines which were considered to be accurate are now proven to be inaccurate, the war games which “just happened to be occurring” on 9/10 and 9/11, and many, many other aspects of what may become the biggest “coverup” since JFK.
I can’t help but be suspicious when I say that because we all know precisely whom was head of the CIA and photographed outside the Texas School Book Depository on that very dark day…and who is probably running this puppet in the WH today….yep….one and the same….Bush #41. Somehow when my “gut” connects those dots and begins to truthfully tell me when this country began it’s decline in deceit, it appears to be the JFK coverup…..and then fastforwarding to all of our problems, woes, and the things which just don’t add up today….and it becomes a full circuit….right back to the Bush Dynasty.
April 8th, 2007 at 6:43 pmHelen: Ignore VV Troll. We’ve come to recognize her with a new moniker though: Valiant Uranus. Wrong planet but much more apropos. Don’t waste precious life energy on someone so necrotic.
April 8th, 2007 at 6:45 pmBut Colin Powell visited with Syria in 2003 when they had tens of thousands of troops occupying Lebanon. What is the deal? George W. Bush is willing to deal with a dictator when he is militarily occupying a democracy, but is unwilling to deal with him AFTER he has pulled his troops out.
That’s seems odd.
-GSD
April 8th, 2007 at 6:46 pmHas anyone ever seen the “stir” Nancy has caused to all of these emasculated men in our government? Good grief! Just because an intelligent, articulate, beautiful, ball-breaking woman wields some power, they are all coming unglued. Amazing how the mysogenists come crawling out of the woodwork like hungry cockroaches, isn’t it?
Amazing how many men are so concerned about their masculinity these days. They’re all “outing” themselves before the american public as they throw “Pelosi tantrums”. I think it’s pretty comical, actually and will be the kiss of death for those running for office …. like Smarmy Joe Lieberman, for one.
April 8th, 2007 at 6:49 pmMy guests are arriving….til later……
Comment by voluminous anus — April 8, 2007 @ 5:51 pm
Filming Jackass III are we?
April 8th, 2007 at 6:51 pmWHAT’S THAT YOU SAY, Newt? YOU ARE AN ADULTERER, THAT’S COMMON KNOWLEDGE, BUT A LIAR AND A HYPOCRITE???? I GUESS THAT’S TO BE EXPECTED FROM A JINGOISTIC DEMAGOGUE RACIST AND RABBLE-ROUSING HATEMONGER LIKE YOU, Newt, YOU STUPID F*CKING A**HOLE AND IN-HUMAN DAMNED BEAST AND THING FLOATING IN A SWAMP OF PUTREFYING GUTS AND VOMIT!!!!!! WHY DON’T YOU GET YOURSELF KILLED BY FALLING INTO A TANK OF HUNGRY GREAT WHITE SHARKS OR GO PUT BLACK MAMBAS INTO YOUR TROUSERS???? OR FALL INTO A PIT OF BOILING SULPHUR OR A VAT OF THE STRONGEST ACID KNOWN TO MAN? OR DOUSE YOURSELF WITH GASOLINE AND LIGHT A MATCH OR HOLD FOUR STICKS OF DYNAMITE, ONE IN YOUR MOUTH, TWO IN BOTH EARS, ONE IN YOUR RECTUM, AND LIGHT THE FUSE????? TO THE MOON, ALICE!!!!! HAH!
April 8th, 2007 at 6:51 pmIt’s because Nancy is a woman that everyone is so stirred up about it - simple as that! This patriarchal government of ours is about to change…and for the good. We need empathetic, soulful, spiritually attuned, compassionate, maternal individuals in the situations we now face globally. Not some faux virility, penile obsessed, nutcase who has never quite measured up to his father’s expectations. Sigmund Freud would have a veritable “heyday” studying this chimp!
April 8th, 2007 at 6:52 pmJust saw where they have proof that Giuliani and Gonzo personally “pushed” for Bernie Kerik’s nomination as Homeland Security Chief. Hmmm….strange bedfellows, aren’t they? This affiliation will tank Rudy’s campaign in one fell swoop….that along with the animal rights activists spreading how his wife is involved with experiments on dogs…He’s history! Guess he and McInsane can comiserate with each other now.
I think there should be another investigation now opened on how Gonzales “aided and abetted” the nomination of a known criminal, aka Bernie Kerik and attempted to foist him into a very important position in our government. He had to have been properly vetted….by whom I wonder?? When?? and how???
The people need to press for an “ad hoc” committee to be formed in Congress right now to investigation the degree of pressure which both Giuliani and Gonzales applied to secure Kerik’s nomination.
April 8th, 2007 at 6:57 pmValiant Venus,
Madame Speaker did not do ANYTHING to undermine the President’s foreign policy. She went there with several other Republican’s who vouch for Speaker Pelosi. Everything she did in Syria respected Bush’s foreign policy decisions. The REPUBS who went with her say this!!
There have been MANY congressional officers (including former Speakers) who have traveled to the Middle East. The only difference is that when Republican’s went abroad to China and the Middle East they UNDERMINED Clinton’s foreign policy (openly and blatantly). They purported to represent the U.S. when President Clinton’s foreign policy direction was in complete contrast to what they presented.
Now, for the love of God, wake up already!
April 8th, 2007 at 6:59 pmRaymond #102
Why are you holding back?
April 8th, 2007 at 7:09 pmWhat’s going on with Wallace. I think this is the second time in a month he has asked a hard question of a Neocon. Could it be that he has grown a conscience? I suspect that Wallace will be looking for other employment pretty soon. Faux Noise doesn’t not tolerate dissenters.
April 8th, 2007 at 7:09 pmBriseadh
Okay, this is a very cynical part of me writing here:
They want a Democrat president to get America out of it, so they will let it continue until a Democrat president is in office. A soldier’s blood for a propagandist’s ink becomes a normal exchange when party becomes more important then state.
April 8th, 2007 at 7:15 pmBruce,
There can be NO doubt that is what they are trying to do.
That way, the 30%’ers will NEVER have to face up to any of their failures.
April 8th, 2007 at 7:19 pmIt boggles the mind that they can delude themselves so incredibly much.
While I agree that President Bush would make a fascinating specimen for psychological investigation….he is truly a Front for a group of men whose motives are much more obvious….Wealth and Power.
April 8th, 2007 at 7:22 pmEveryone in this country whose income is less than $100,000 is paying their taxes for Private Contractors. The republicans have privatized much of the services once provided by the Govt. And while this was supposed to eliminate waste and inefficiency, what it really eliminated was OVERSITE. The record of waste, fraud and abuse of private contractors is both secretive and staggering!
Congress needs to shine a spotlight on this record, and end the lack of accountability.
Many science fiction authors have projected the future of mankind on earth to be a dissolution of nations, and the establishment of corporate city states.
April 8th, 2007 at 7:28 pmThe evidence of this evolution is readily apparent.
It will all come down to who is able to control the remaining resorces.
Thats only if we let men like Bush and Cheney keep running things Raven.
In the end, I think the Constitution will win out, and Bush will be impeached.
In fact, I believe he will be impeached this year.
April 8th, 2007 at 7:36 pmStay out of the Bushes
And of course, the Democrats get the same kudos that Nixon got.
If I was an American, and this was 2008, I would vote Green.
April 8th, 2007 at 7:39 pmI wish I shared your optimism, Worfeus.
I’m afraid that idiot will be the undoing of America as we know it.
April 8th, 2007 at 7:44 pmBruce Gorton,
Unfortunately, the Green Party is not strong enough to be a viable 3rd party.
It has only succeeded in taking votes away from Democrats.
April 8th, 2007 at 7:56 pm:(
Comment by Bruce Gorton — April 8, 2007 @ 7:15 pm
Yet there could be a Democrat President sooner than ‘08 if Congress impeached Bush, Cheney, Rice and Gonzales in one fell swoop.
Even in the worst case scenario, the Republicans would fall in lockstep behind their leaders in spite of mountains of damning evidence brought out under oath in impeachment hearings.
Since you’re never going to sway the die-hard 30%ers, such hearings would serve to persuade the other 70% that the Republican Party can never be allowed to rise to power again. ever.
But the Democrats seem to be playing to the same 30%.
April 8th, 2007 at 8:00 pmWhat is needed is to get votes from those who haven’t voted before. There’s enough there to control the country.
April 8th, 2007 at 8:02 pmI wish I shared your optimism, Worfeus.
I’m afraid that idiot will be the undoing of America as we know it.
Comment by trueblue — April 8, 2007 @ 7:44 pm
America is bigger than any one man. Even Bush.
I think America will show him that.
April 8th, 2007 at 8:05 pmAnd we don’t need no king!
April 8th, 2007 at 8:05 pmMy post was deleted. All it said was “who cares?” And I got a good knock on FOX and Democrats who guest on FOX. I didn’t use foul language.
April 8th, 2007 at 8:12 pmNice Satyam. Very nice. Wow. The nanny state has arrived.
I’m sorry. I was wrong about my post deletion. My word search did not work properly. I’m sorry Satyam.
April 8th, 2007 at 8:13 pmWow, Worfeus.
When I’m having a bad day, can I write you?
;)
You are so optimistic.
I truly hope you are right.
April 8th, 2007 at 8:16 pmPut up or shut up.
Comment by WORFEUS — April 8, 2007 @ 5:50 pm
It seems like VV is all for the President taking liberties with the powers he assumes but she holds the Speaker to a much more rigid, literal standard.
April 8th, 2007 at 8:27 pmAs in the Constitution never said the Speaker could go to Syria so she can’t go.
But you keep working on that womans vote genius.
We could use a dozen more like you.
Comment by WORFEUS — April 8, 2007 @ 5:54 pm
Exactly W - they brow beat Pelosi for doing the same thing done previously by male Speakers and also by male Republicans now. It certainly appears primarily chauvinistic.
April 8th, 2007 at 8:36 pmAre they wearing their sheets now or do you guys wait for the bon fire for that?
Comment by WORFEUS — April 8, 2007 @ 5:55 pm
You’re right, probably too hard to build that big cross with the sheets on.
April 8th, 2007 at 8:38 pm[…] trip to Syria. Senator John Kerry has a very supportive post on the Daily Kos. Surprisingly, Chris Wallace at Fox confronted Newt Gingrich about his flip-flop (you see as speaker he did the same thing). […]
April 8th, 2007 at 8:47 pmI posted this comment in another thread, but it is relevant here too. So here it goes, with a few changes:
The Logan Act specifically prohibits private citizens from negotiating with foreign governments. Members of Congress are not private citizens: They are part of the government.
Also, Pelosi did not travel to negotiate with Assad, but to talk with him; the same goes for the Republican delegation that preceded Pelosi’s visit, and the one that followed it. Not to mention the Republicans accompanying Pelosi in her delegation. This talking point would mean that all delegations violated the Logan Act.
I would mention Congressional delegations that have traveled abroad to engage foreign governments during previous administrations, but I think my point is clear.
As for recent applications of the Logan Act, in 1975 two US senators were accused of violating the Act for traveling to Cuba, of all places. This is what the DoS said at the time:
The clear intent of this provision [Logan Act] is to prohibit unauthorized persons from intervening in disputes between the United States and foreign governments. Nothing in section 953 [Logan Act], however, would appear to restrict members of the Congress from engaging in discussions with foreign officials in pursuance of their legislative duties under the Constitution.
CRS Report from Congress - Conducting Foreign Relations Without Authority: The Logan Act
What right-wingers are saying in essence, is that members of Congress should sit tight behind their desks, waiting for the president to ask funding for this or that foreign policy initiative, without becoming involved in what they are funding. In other words, they propose that Congress should abdicate its Constitutional duties. Every right-winger’s dream nowadays.
The Logan Act talking point does not have a leg to stand on.
April 8th, 2007 at 9:00 pmWow, Worfeus.
When I’m having a bad day, can I write you?
Comment by trueblue — April 8, 2007 @ 8:16 pm
Sure.
Good will win this one. The US is not a tyrannical conqueoring regime, and we are also not a bunch of chickenshits who hand over our liberties and constitutional rights because we’re afraid of a few terrorists.
Maybe thats why Bush is doing what he’s doing.
Because he wants more terrorists.
More terrorists mean more power.
At least to him.
But either way I do believe this country is blessed, and I believe that good will triumph over evil, and Bush will impeached.
I see the signs everywhere.
April 8th, 2007 at 9:12 pmGreat post Greg.
She never ever pretended for a moment as far as we know, to act as a negotiator of any terms of any sort.
I think this was a fact finding mission designed to show the President what he needs to do.
I think she was hoping it would raise the level of discourse to push the President to listen to reason and start reaching out.
April 8th, 2007 at 9:14 pmAre they wearing their (Vermin Venus’s guests) sheets now or do you guys wait for the bon fire for that?
Comment by WORFEUS — April 8, 2007 @ 5:55 pm
You’re right, probably too hard to build that big cross with the sheets on.
Comment by shane
Actually, WORFEUS and shane, I feel that Vermin Venus/Mighty Hypocrite’s guests are a figment of the imagination like her/his dead child and just an excuse not to reply further to the various posters here taking issue with his/her neo-CON spin.
April 8th, 2007 at 9:29 pmI myself would like to ask if VerminVenus ever took issue with Newt Gingrich and Dennis Hastert making policy-like statements in other countries when they were respectively Porker (er, Speakette) of the House. But I don’t really expect an answer from the hypocritical troll.
Comment by WORFEUS — April 8, 2007 @ 9:14 pm
Thanks, Worfeus.
You are correct in that Pelosi didn’t even pretend to be a negotiator (I’ve been following the right-wingers’ fake outrage with interest), it is the Bush cultists that have insinuated she did.
Pelosi’s was -as you say- a mission to fill the gaps in the failed Bush foreign policy towards Syria. This administration won’t engage Assad, but someone has to. Same goes for Iran.
April 8th, 2007 at 9:36 pmGingrich is a punk ass bitch.
April 8th, 2007 at 9:39 pmGingrich is a punk ass “bitch.”
Comment by Rocks911
Please don’t insult female dogs; the preceding two words should suffice.
April 8th, 2007 at 9:44 pmComment by Lora — April 8, 2007 @ 9:29 pm
I wonder if those guests include the retired Superior Court judge with whom she shares the political discussions she has on Think Progress.
Yes, Lora -Varmint Genus has claimed to have these dinner conversations with a retired judge and a “few colleagues”.
I kid you not; read for yourself.
She must have one very lonely life that she has to make one up.
April 8th, 2007 at 9:51 pmI kid you