Hillary Clinton Defends Pelosi Over Syria Trip: She Was ‘Doing The Right Thing’
Hillary Clinton Defends Pelosi Over Syria Trip: She Was ‘Doing The Right Thing’
In a radio interview with a Syracuse radio station, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) issued a staunch defense of Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) trip to Syria last week. Noting that Republicans also visited Syria last week, Clinton said the congressional delegations did “the right thing”:
I think that both her delegation, which was primarily Democrats, and a Republican delegation that was there approximately at the same time are doing the right thing. We have got to engage these countries.
“I don’t agree with the President’s view that we don’t talk to bad people,” Clinton said, “because clearly that’s not a smart way to figure out how you can bring leverage on them and that’s what I’m interested in.” Clinton is right. Leverage over Syria can only come from giving the regime an opportunity to demonstrate it is willing to become part of the solution rather than remain part of the problem. The Bush administration’s approach of isolating Syria has only made the situation worse because it contains no incentives for Syria to change its behavior.
Interviewer: Nancy Pelosi has taken that trip to Syria which raised a lot of controversy. What was your take on that? Were you pleased that she did that or do you think that was a mistake?
Senator Clinton: No, I think that both her delegation, which was primarily Democrats, and a Republican delegation that was there approximately at the same time are doing the right thing. We have got to engage these countries. Obviously we have serious differences with a country like Syria, but we’re sure not making progress towards our goals in the region by isolating and ignoring them. So I wish the President were engaged in the region, in the way that I would think a President should be. You know we were always engaged, whether it was a Republican or Democratic President. With the former Soviet Union, we had a Communist Empire with thousands of missiles pointed at us, with Presidents who said that they wanted to bury us, running proxy wars against us. We never stopped engaging and talking and we never gave up on our values. In fact I think we learned a lot about our adversaries which helped us eventually bring about their decline and defeat in the Cold War. Well I think that’s the much smarter way. I don’t agree with the President’s view that we don’t talk to bad people because clearly that’s not a smart way to figure out how you can bring leverage on them and that’s what I’m interested in.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
131 Responses to “Hillary Clinton Defends Pelosi Over Syria Trip: She Was ‘Doing The Right Thing’”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
When did arguing for peace become the wrong thing? Oh yeah, I forgot who was in charge…
April 10th, 2007 at 3:34 pmWell, that’s just a priceless photo.
April 10th, 2007 at 3:36 pmIt is about time some of the Dems start speaking out about this.
Speaker Pelosi and her delegation was invited back to Syria by their President. Good for her.
April 10th, 2007 at 3:37 pmI asked my GOPer father in law about: what then was the Republican congress people doing in Syria? He said they were sending the appropriate message, and Pelosi was not. How does he know who was saying what to who?
April 10th, 2007 at 3:38 pmI have to say that Hillary is correct in this situation, and her explanation was very clear and understandable. Communication is not a “reward”. With so much at stake, we cannot afford to avoid talking with anyone - whether they are friends or not.
April 10th, 2007 at 3:39 pmWell, that’s just a priceless photo.
Comment by Badmoodman — April 10, 2007 @ 3:36 pm
Yeah, it’s pretty clear that neither Pelosi nor Clinton much care for Georgie. If looks could kill, he’d be a goner.
April 10th, 2007 at 3:40 pmI’d like to see Pelosi deck Shrubby,I bet she could kick his cry baby spoiled ass.
April 10th, 2007 at 3:40 pm#2 - I love the look on Hillary’s face. It’s the “ok, here goes… be prepared to be insulted to my face and smile about it because it’s the POTUS. For now.“
April 10th, 2007 at 3:41 pm…. stupid DOUCHEBAG…..
April 10th, 2007 at 3:44 pmThere is a shocker..the queen of the surrender lobby says, “nice job baby”.
April 10th, 2007 at 3:47 pmnancy is a perfect example of why libs cannot be in charge of anything important to the country
April 10th, 2007 at 3:47 pmI love the way Bush attempts to trivialize what he is doing by simply stating that we “don’t talk to bad people”…. is this to imply that we do talk to “good people”? By whose standards is good judged against bad? Bush’s?? Obviously, his own standards are proving to be flawed in his horrendous misjudgments of cronies whom he’s put in critical positions within his administration. So, in other words, by Bush’s definition of “good” versus “bad”, we can handily say that, according to Bush, his own good people (who are really bad) would be the kind of people worth dialoguing with. Huh?? Hardly, as it is turning out.
So, the concept of allowing people to be judged by a “known flawed individual making the erroneous judgments” is nothing more than nonsense, made up by a president-cum-spin artist.
We know that Bush’s mind is incapable of judicious logical thought processes; we now know that he oversimplifies everything - as indicated by his incredibly sparse vocabulary of late: “Bad people”, “pure evil”, etc. How can we continue to allow this man, who has now been proven to have made critically erroneous judgments in the war, his cabinet positions, Katrina, our open borders, etc. to be given one shred of credibility for anything he says at this point??
April 10th, 2007 at 3:49 pmScared GOPERs on here. OOOOOoooo.
April 10th, 2007 at 3:50 pmPatrick1..the king of the surrender to bush lobby doesn’t like it when congress stands up to bush.
April 10th, 2007 at 3:50 pmThese nitwits-in-charge are totally emasculated by Nancy! It’s amazing how much publicity their fear and attempts to degrade her (albeit futile!) have received. What a bunch of scared $hitless whimps!
April 10th, 2007 at 3:51 pmpatty & ct.
dudes you really should see someone about your inferiority complex with women, does your mom know you hate her too? MY guess you both are 18-55 still living with mom in her basement, while secret hating her.
April 10th, 2007 at 3:52 pmThe more this man speaks; the bigger the moron he makes of himself. Tomfoolery and Buffonery personified!
April 10th, 2007 at 3:52 pmPelosi is trying to look bush in the eyes… I wonder if bush simply avoided eye contact with her the whole time? How embarrassing for bush.
April 10th, 2007 at 3:53 pmpatrick1 (who is ct) is an outed mysogenist.
April 10th, 2007 at 3:53 pmIf the Rightwing doesn’t like it you have got to be doing something right.
April 10th, 2007 at 3:53 pmWhy did the republicans surrender to the Saudis on 9/12 … over a cigar?
April 10th, 2007 at 3:53 pmHas nothing to do with the alleged females, Pelosi and Clinton. It is their view that the United States and Western Civilization should be surrendered to Islamo Fascism that is cause for concern.
April 10th, 2007 at 3:54 pmHow does he know who was saying what to who?
Comment by ForTruth — April 10, 2007 @ 3:38 pm
God?
:D
April 10th, 2007 at 3:55 pmThere is a shocker..the queen of the surrender lobby says, “nice job babyâ€. Comment by Patrick1 — April 10, 2007 @ 3:47 pm
What an articulate description of yourself, and Bush!
April 10th, 2007 at 3:56 pmHas nothing to do with the alleged females, Pelosi and Clinton. It is their view that the United States and Western Civilization should be surrendered to Islamo Fascism that is cause for concern. Comment by Patrick1 — April 10, 2007 @ 3:54 pm
As opposed to your view that Western Civilization should be surrendered to Christo Fascism? Obviously that DOESN’T concern you?
See, idiot, the difference between you and us, is that we’re opposed to ALL fascism. Whereas you’re a fan of the Christo/Judeo type, and think you’re actually different from the Islamo type. That’s your delusion - whack job.
April 10th, 2007 at 3:57 pmAhh the rightwing talking point containing the word surrender. That’s a fresh idea.
April 10th, 2007 at 3:57 pmYou are not opposed to Islamo Fascism. The 1990s and your current leaders policies on the subject provide overwhelming proof of that fact.
April 10th, 2007 at 3:59 pmDidn’t Bush ever watch the Godfather movies? “Keep your friends close and your enemies closer”…this administration’s policy is to ignore and isolate and then they’re surprised when they start trouble.
I love Hillary’s “LOSER” look.
April 10th, 2007 at 4:00 pmThere is a shocker..the queen of the surrender lobby says, “nice job babyâ€.
Comment by Patrick1 — April 10, 2007 @ 3:47 pm
You coming in here and insulting liberals just because they are liberal is totally and utterly EQUAL to what you just condemned Clinton and Pelosi of doing.
Basivcally - you are what you hate.
Now, shoo…
April 10th, 2007 at 4:00 pm#26 You prefer appeasement?
April 10th, 2007 at 4:01 pmFor the past six years we’ve had the foriegn policy of a three-year-old. I’m glad to see that change. It’s reassuring that Democrats and Republicans are both moving toward a foriegn policy with the maturity level of adults. Maybe in the next 20 months W will grow up, but I wouldn’t hold my breath (although he might).
April 10th, 2007 at 4:02 pm..in this corner,…with the red crescent trunks, …. weighing in at 99 lbs….Islamo Fascism
April 10th, 2007 at 4:02 pm…in the far corner… with the red white and blue trunks weighing in at 800 lbs.
Christocorporate Fascism
It is their view that the United States and Western Civilization should be surrendered to Islamo Fascism that is cause for concern. Comment by Patrick1
Since I imagine that you fail to see the idiocy of your comment, what is it exactly that prompts your concern?
my goal is to find a cure for irony and make a fool outta god
April 10th, 2007 at 4:02 pmSee, idiot, the difference between you and us, is that we’re opposed to ALL fascism. Whereas you’re a fan of the Christo/Judeo type, and think you’re actually different from the Islamo type. That’s your delusion - whack job.
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus — April 10, 2007 @ 3:57 pm
Well said
April 10th, 2007 at 4:03 pmI have an idea: go on the attack and don’t let the Republicans drag this stupidity out any longer.
Maybe Nancy should go talk to the Iraqi government and talk about equitably sharing oil revenues among all Iraqis.
Help Bush achieves the goals Congress has asked him to achieve.
April 10th, 2007 at 4:05 pmPatrick1 reminds me of bill krystol, chickenhawk warmonger and simple-minded.
April 10th, 2007 at 4:07 pmYou prefer appeasement?
I prefer fighting the REAL enemies of this country, not the ones that Bush CLAIMS are the enemy but in reality had about as much chance of attacking us as a flea has against a Sherman Tank.
Talking to someone isn’t appeasement. It’s diplomacy. I know that word isn’t in your vocabulary, so please go look it up before you open your fool mouth again.
April 10th, 2007 at 4:07 pmIf independent trips to foreign nations by Democrats piss Bush off, the only solution is to do more of them.
April 10th, 2007 at 4:08 pmI wish someone would appease me. I’m tired of solitary sex.
April 10th, 2007 at 4:08 pmWell the left’s policy of appeasement in the 1990s lead to the deaths of 3,000 Americans in one hour. I have no doubt that a Clinton/Pelosi policy with the advice of Assad will get ten times that number.
April 10th, 2007 at 4:09 pmHow does he know who was saying what to who?
Comment by ForTruth — April 10, 2007 @ 3:38 pm
Because Limbaugh and O’Reilly tell them so.
April 10th, 2007 at 4:09 pmYes Patrick, I would prefer appeasment. Replace surrender with appeasment from now on. Thank you.
April 10th, 2007 at 4:10 pmFirst the Repukes bashed Pelosi for going to Syria.
When it turned out the Repukes were also going to Syria, they bashed Pelosi saying she bungled a message from Israel to Syria.
When it turned out Pelosi didn’t bungle the message, the Repukes bashed Pelosi saying she was saying the wrong message from the US.
The State Department was in all Pelosi’s meetings in Syria. They have not said Pelosi did anything of the sort.
Looks like three strikes for the Repukes and they’re OUT!
April 10th, 2007 at 4:11 pmMaybe Nancy should go talk to the Iraqi government and talk about equitably sharing oil revenues among all Iraqis.
Comment by George — April 10, 2007 @ 4:05 pm
You really should suggest that to her. It’s the best step for a solution I’ve heard thus far.
April 10th, 2007 at 4:11 pmDiplomacy would be forcing the Fascists back into their holes under the threat of destruction. Going to them hat in hand begging them to let you withdrawl to Okinawa is appeasement.
April 10th, 2007 at 4:11 pmveritas
You forgot that he also molests small farm animals.
April 10th, 2007 at 4:11 pmI wish somebody would appease Patrick…right up the ass.
I hear Jeffy Lube Gannon has an hour free this Thursday for Patrick.
April 10th, 2007 at 4:12 pmComment by Xbox360Fan — April 10, 2007 @ 3:52 pm
They’re both kind of Norman Bates-ish don’t you think?
April 10th, 2007 at 4:13 pmApparently, Patrick simplemindedly confuses diplomacy for surrender….
my goal is to find a cure for irony and make a fool outta god
April 10th, 2007 at 4:13 pmI have no doubt that a Clinton/Pelosi policy with the advice of Assad will get ten times that number.
Comment by Patrick1 — April 10, 2007 @ 4:09 pm
Considering your .000 batting average on every psychic prediction you’ve ever made, I’d suggest you find a different line of work, Miss Cleo.
April 10th, 2007 at 4:13 pmPatrick is a typical Repuke troll…a lying sack of crap.
The Democrats did not cause 9-11. Thats a Repuke LIE.
Chimpy IGNORED warnings about 9-11. Chimpy was President.
9-11 happened because the Repukes were incompetent. The Democrats had nothing to do with it.
Stupid troll. Go back under your bridge.
April 10th, 2007 at 4:15 pm“Well the left’s policy of appeasement in the 1990s lead to the deaths of 3,000 Americans in one hour. I have no doubt that a Clinton/Pelosi policy with the advice of Assad will get ten times that number.”
Patrick1, please provide any amount of support that we lefties appeased Saudi Arabia before they attacked? Oh wait…those are Bush’s friends…I don’t follow you I guess. Oh wait wait, in 1994, Republicans gained control over Congress and 6 years later gained control of the White House. I guess they did appease the 911 attackers after all.
April 10th, 2007 at 4:16 pmNotice how the Repuke troll tries to reframe Iraq.
Most Americans want us to get out. Now.
But he says most Americans want to “surrender” or “appease” terrorists.
That’s spin and lies. We won’t stop fighting terrorism.
We will just stop the occupation of Iraq.
Stupid troll.
April 10th, 2007 at 4:16 pmthe alleged females, Pelosi and Clinton… Comment by Patrick1
“Alleged” females? (shaking head) Excuse me? You lost me on that one.
But that is a typical remark from a troll. For all the regular posters, I’m sorry I stooped to his level and responded.
April 10th, 2007 at 4:17 pmTrekkie,
And what would you name the US’s real enemies?
Me: poverty, poor education, non existent healthcare for all, cronyism, the current tax system….
Just hoping for more info. (guess I like your name.)
;)
April 10th, 2007 at 4:17 pmBasivcally - you are what you hate.
Now, shoo…
Comment by unbelievable — April 10, 2007 @ 4:00 pm
Really, I thought you are what you eat?!?
SO Patrick1 - EAT SHIT!
There now he’s covered.
April 10th, 2007 at 4:17 pmSo Bush turned down the offer from Sudan and Saudi Arabia of Osama Bin Laden? Wow, and he wasn’t even President. Impressive.
April 10th, 2007 at 4:18 pm“Diplomacy would be forcing the Fascists back into their holes under the threat of destruction.”
Patty, this dick wagging tactic hasn’t worked for the last 6 years; what makes you think it will work now?! Do you really think these people are afraid of tactics like that?!
I mean, seriously, can’t you just see Habbib saying, “awww shucks Mr. Wilson, you could kick my butt…I’m scared now”
Um no. More than likely, this “tough talk” from the cheap seats (you know, you arm chair warriors w/no testicular fortitude to go to war yourself) is only going to anger and polarize Muslims, creating more and more terrorists (you know, since we’ve been bombing them to death, leaving them with no where to work).
You’re a tool.
April 10th, 2007 at 4:20 pmFunny how nobody is mentioning this and it was quietly reported recently the Condi Rice has agreed to engage in talks with the Palistinian Hamas party (a US list terrorist organization) which had previouly been shut out do to their unwillingness to peacefully coexist with Israel and acknowlege it’s right to exist. Why is nobody’s panties all in a wad over this break from our policy of “not engaging in talks with bad people” ?!?!
More double standard hipocrasy from the same people that brought you GW and the GOP Band
April 10th, 2007 at 4:21 pmComment by Tom3 — April 10, 2007 @ 4:12 pm
We are not here to give Patrick what he wants. Okay maybe this one time.
April 10th, 2007 at 4:21 pmFour attacks on the United States in the 1990s. The left’s response? They blew up a tent and an aspirin factory. When Clinton was confronted by the Islamists in Somalia in 1993, he ran.
You want more proof of appeasement of Al Qaeda by the left?
April 10th, 2007 at 4:22 pmWe haven’t been attacked since the Clinton failure of 9/11 after being attacked at will in the 1990s so something is working and it isn’t Nancy Pelosi kissing Assad’s ass.
April 10th, 2007 at 4:23 pm“So Bush turned down the offer from Sudan and Saudi Arabia of Osama Bin Laden? Wow, and he wasn’t even President. Impressive.
Comment by Patrick1 — April 10, 2007 @ 4:18 pm”
I know your talking points do NOT include this tidbit, so I will provide it……
With those offers were stipulations that the US did not want to meet.
Not to mention…… OBL was under control at the time. He was taking pop shots at us, but he was NOT able to perform any real damage.
Now run back to your handlers and ask them what to say next.
April 10th, 2007 at 4:23 pmPatrick1, why aren’t you at the recruiting office?
April 10th, 2007 at 4:25 pmThere is no such entity or idea as Islamic Fascism. This is a Bush Administration canard. Islamic fundamentalism, extremism, yes, is dangerous. But so is Christian fundamentalism and any other kind of extremism. The ‘terrorists’ as we so blanketly call them (or the enemy or whatever patrick deems to be the term du jour) seek an Islamic theocracy, and any of us that can use a dictionary will know that a theocracy and a fascist state are decidedly different.
The least you can do when oversimplifying a complex issue is get your terminology correct.
April 10th, 2007 at 4:25 pmPatrick1
Pssst, I don’t know if anybody told you this, but 9/11 actually happened during your presidents reign you total moron. GO LOOK UP THE DATE YOU IDIOT.
April 10th, 2007 at 4:26 pmStipulations that Clinton wouldn’t meet that cost the lives of 3,000 Americans. I’m not sure about that. We would have to see the papers that Sandy Burglar shoved down his pants from the National Archives to know that for sure.
April 10th, 2007 at 4:28 pmWe haven’t been attacked since the Clinton failure of 9/11 after being attacked at will in the 1990s so something is working and it isn’t Nancy Pelosi kissing Assad’s ass. Comment by Patrick1 — April 10, 2007 @ 4:23 pm
The 9/11 attack occurred under the failure of Bush, dum bass. There was no second attack on the US territory for almost 8 years because of Clinton - so by your definition, something was working.
Now, by kissing ass, were you referring to the picture of Bush, kissing the Saudi prince?
You’re an idiot Patrick1, just in case no one else has told you this today.
April 10th, 2007 at 4:28 pmWe haven’t been attacked since the Clinton failure of 9/11 after being attacked at will in the 1990s
Comment by Patrick1 — April 10, 2007 @ 4:23 pm
3,194: Number of terrorist attacks worldwide in 2004 , as reported by the U.S. government’s National Counterterrorism Center
11,100: Number of terrorist attacks worldwide in 2005 , as reported by the U.S. government’s National Counterterrorism Center
1: Rank of Iraq among all nations as a training ground for terrorists
April 10th, 2007 at 4:30 pmPatrick1 doesn’t quite get appeasement. He is obviously referring to the late 1930’s policy of European countries bending to Hitler’s demands.
Of course, the major difference between now and 1937 onwards is that we aren’t at “war” with an advanced industrial nation with the capacity to fight us on a battlefield. Instead we are fighting asymmetrical warfare in which the enemy has no real chance of winning. The likelihood of the US becoming an Islamic state? As close to zero as I dare imagine. However, the attacks seem to be more to do with politics within the Islamic world - Kill members of the Great Satan, build up support within your country.
I’d recommend reading “Dying to Kill” by Mia Bloom. Very interesting read into the politics of terror and suicide bombings.
Yes, I know Mia works at a University so is probably part of the left wing conspiracy but give it a try. :-)
April 10th, 2007 at 4:31 pmBecause of Clinton, Osama Bin Laden was free to attack the United States of America at will leading to the planning of the 9/11 attacks in 1998 and their execution in 2001. I’m sure had Clinton or Gore been President when the towers fell that by God they would have blown up another tent. That would have taught OBL a lesson.
April 10th, 2007 at 4:32 pmPatrick1
No. Bush taking more vacations then any president in president in America’s history, cost more then 3000 Americans their lives.
Bush ignoring intellegence reports cost 3000 Americans their lives.
Of course, little things like work ethic aren’t exactly a Republican’s strong suit.
April 10th, 2007 at 4:32 pmComment by wags — April 10, 2007 @ 4:25 pm
Goddamn spot on comment!
From across the pond I salute you! You’ve hit the nail right on the head.
April 10th, 2007 at 4:33 pmThank you #64.
I’ve thought that the term ‘Islamic Fascism’ was a sort of oxymoron, or at least moronic.
The Bush regime, on the other hand, now there’s an example of fascism.
Here’s 14 points:
http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm
April 10th, 2007 at 4:34 pmHell little things like ethics aren’t the Republican’s strong suit.
April 10th, 2007 at 4:34 pmThe Repukes blamed Clinton for 9-11 on that awful ABC tv show.
It was completely debunked. Every single claim.
Pull your head out of your ass, Patrick.
April 10th, 2007 at 4:35 pmthe attacks seem to be more to do with politics within the Islamic world - Kill members of the Great Satan
I’m sure that provides great comfort to the dead and their families.
April 10th, 2007 at 4:35 pmChimpy took a vacation before 9-11 despite the warnings.
Chimpy took a vacation before Katrina despite the warnings.
The only time Chimpy cut a vacation short was so he could sign the unconstitutional Repuke bill to “save” the dead Terri Schiavo.
Chimpy is an idiot and so are his supporters.
April 10th, 2007 at 4:37 pm“Because of Clinton, Osama Bin Laden was free to attack the United States of America at will leading to the planning of the 9/11 attacks in 1998 and their execution in 2001. I’m sure had Clinton or Gore been President when the towers fell that by God they would have blown up another tent. That would have taught OBL a lesson.
Comment by Patrick1 — April 10, 2007 @ 4:32 pm”
OK….. Then answer me this……
If OBL attacked us on 9/11, how in the world did he know the CODED LANGUAGE FOR AIR FORCE ONE????
Sept. 13, 2001, White House briefing:
• Reporter: “Can you confirm the substance of that threat that was telephoned in…that Air Force One is next and using code words?â€
• Ari Fleisher (Press secretary): “Yes, I can. That’s correct.â€
Fox News Sunday, 23 Sept 2001, Tony Snow: “Sept. 11 there was a report that there was a coded message that said, “We’re going to strike Air Force One†that was using specific coded language and made the threat credible. Is that true?
• Condoleezza Rice: “That is true…. I will tell you that it was plenty of evidence from our point of view to have special measures taken at that moment to make sure the president was safe.â€
April 10th, 2007 at 4:39 pmInbred syphillitic Repuke trolls like Patrick are incable of rational thought.
They don’t think anything through. They just puke up talking point LIES.
Unfortunately 30% of Americans are this stupid. We need to start some kind of remedial training to de-Chimpify these idiots.
April 10th, 2007 at 4:39 pmPatrick there is a pubic hair on your coke can.
April 10th, 2007 at 4:40 pm3,000 on September 11
April 10th, 2007 at 4:41 pm3,000 plus in over 4 years of war.
And those are just American casualties.
Not counting the wounded who have died or killed themselves since returning home, if they ever do.
Tens of thousands of iraqi civilians killed.
Looks like you have finally found a profession you can suceed at, George W. Butcher
I love Hillary Clinton. I can’t wait till shes president. Cmon everyone shes the obvious choice. Obama has no idea what hes doing beyond telling everyone what we want to hear.
April 10th, 2007 at 4:41 pmComment by Patrick1 — April 10, 2007 @ 4:28 pm
Look, 9/11 was a tragedy but I’m not into trying to blame either Clinton or Bush. Ever since I was born, someone has been trying to blow me up. Previously it was Irish Nationalists, now it’s radical Islamist, next year it could be fundamentalist Cornish separatists for all I know.
As much as a Government fights terrorism, the Government has to get it right 100% of the time. The terrorists only need to get it right once.
If there is a positive to take from the years after 9/11, the fact that you haven’t had another attack proves that the support for terrorism in the US community is very low. Don’t fool yourself it’s due to stronger policing. During the Troubles, the UK security forces were all over the IRA, the INLA, UVF etc like a rash. However, as they had community support the terrorist acts kept going on.
Hell, the 7/7 bombings in London were committed by UK citizens.
Be happy that the US community isn’t so divided. That is what will stop future attacks, not military adventures abroad.
April 10th, 2007 at 4:41 pm..and yes I love that photo.
April 10th, 2007 at 4:41 pm#73 - thanks for that link. i’ve read those points before and wondered to myself about correlating them with examples. Great site.
Patrick- grow up. When people try to explain certain things about the world to you, listen without sticking your fingers in your ears and singing “Let The Eagle Soar”.
April 10th, 2007 at 4:43 pmBecause of Clinton, Osama Bin Laden was free to attack the United States of America at will leading to the planning of the 9/11 attacks in 1998 and their execution in 2001. I’m sure had Clinton or Gore been President when the towers fell that by God they would have blown up another tent. That would have taught OBL a lesson. Comment by Patrick1 — April 10, 2007 @ 4:32 pm
I’m sure if they were president, they wouldn’t have ignored memos that telegraphed coming attacks. You’re an idiot Patrick1
April 10th, 2007 at 4:43 pm“…Fox News Sunday, 23 Sept 2001, Tony Snow: “Sept. 11 there was a report that there was a coded message that said, “We’re going to strike Air Force One†that was using specific coded language and made the threat credible. Is that true…”
Probably because Karl Rove was sending his e-mail through the RNC server instead of the authorized White House one.
April 10th, 2007 at 4:44 pm“Be happy that the US community isn’t so divided. ”
But it is. Chimpy has divided us.
You can see by the delusional posts of the Repuke trolls in here.
They’ve been fed lies for years and they’ve been trained to hate liberals without questioning why.
We will be lucky if we avoid a second Civil War in the US.
April 10th, 2007 at 4:45 pmPatrick1:
April 10th, 2007 at 4:45 pmNo you didn’t!
HaHaHa
Larry1!
Why would you even bring up 9/11? That’s like trying to blame Pearl Harbor on Hillary. Get a life you twit.
April 10th, 2007 at 4:46 pmOT, but awesome:
Panel Supoenas Gonzales for Documents
April 10th, 2007 at 4:48 pmBECAUSE OF BUSH OSAMA BIN LADIN IS STILL OUT THERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
April 10th, 2007 at 4:49 pmYou know what strikes me with 9/11?
The righties wave it around like it is some sort of triumph for Bush. You know, the same Bush who, shortly after 9/11, ran and hid. It wasn’t Bush that first on the scene, it was Guliani, that actually led the nation, it was Clinton that was the first US president there, no, Bush ran and hid right up until he was sure it was safe for a photo opp.
And hell, if the deaths of 3000 of your fellow citizens, is the big defence of failed policies, it kind of makes you wonder about the rightwing in America. Lets take a look at this: This was the worst failure in America’s security, in America’s history. Pearl Harbour wasn’t as bad as 9/11.
It was the absolute worst thing anyone ever did to America, and the stupid idiots on the right think that this is a defence? They try to blame Clinton for 9/11, but, Clinton was the first president to recognise the threat of terrorism. He was the first to set up an office specifically targetting terrorism, and he caught the masterminds of the first WTC bombing.
Indeed, many a rightwing politician, accused Clinton on wagging the dog on terrorism. They even played clips of that specific movie whenever Clinton opened his mouth on the subject, and if you want to check go ahead. Archives are out there.
Indeed, most of what the rightwing spews on Clinton dealing with terrorism, is outright lies. The guy who was president at the time of 9/11, was George Bush. He had been president since the start of that year, he had time to change anything that was wrong, and unlike Clinton, his party had all three houses.
Bush went on vacation. The rightwing likes to pretend that the ranch was just a Texas version of the whitehouse, but frankly, after how little Bush knew during Katrina, that lie is stale.
You want to find someone to blame for the lapses of security, don’t look at the guys who were there from Reagan’s era. Don’t look at the president who came before the president at that time, look at Bush. The buck stops somewhere, and it isn’t with the nearest Democrat. It is with whoever is the president at the time, and the president at the time, was GW Bush.
That the rightwing tries to at once use it as some wierd triumph that this happened, and tries to divorce itself from responsibility is simply a symptom of the fact that they are contemptable freaks who do not deserve the respect one would grant other human beings.
April 10th, 2007 at 4:50 pmActually the coded message was about the baggage handlers going on strike.
April 10th, 2007 at 4:50 pmThis is a no brainer! It’s like that question about “is being gay immoral”, you don’t equivocate, or give a non-answer. You answer the question, and speak loudly and forcefully.
These aren’t tip-toe on eggshell issues. Talking with Syria is long overdue.
Pelosi needs way more defending and support than she’s getting, because she’s getting pummeled by the paleo-cons and the usual right wing suspects.
This is the wrong time to run and hide from Pelosi, wimpy Dems!
April 10th, 2007 at 4:52 pmComment by Tom3 — April 10, 2007 @ 4:45 pm
I admit that divisions exist in the US but they don’t appear (once again, from my perspective across the pond) to be as deep as the divisions in, say, Northern Ireland. Although the situation is improving, the gulf between the Protestants and Catholic community is wide.
My example is watch an Old Firm game - Celtic vs Glasgow Rangers. Both are Glaswegian teams and have the sectarianism built into them. Celtic are Irish Nationalist and Rangers are loyalist. The vitriol is something else. I’d post some of the chants they sing but they are very offensive. The least offensive one I can think of (sung by the Rangers fans) is
When I was young
I had no sense
I bought a pipe for sixty pence
and the only tune that I could play
was f*ck the Pope and the IRA.
Remember, this is at a Football (soccer) game.
It’s a whole different thing. I really hope you guys never get to that level…
April 10th, 2007 at 4:59 pmFrom 1998-2000, the Repugs were fixated on Clinton’s fly. Mainstream medis loved Ken Starr’s pornography, and chasing poor Monica. Bill Clinton wacked Afganistan but was accused of wagging the dog. Plenty of people are guilty of dropping the ball on Saudi terrorist Bin Laden: not Bill Clinton. Hillary will more than match the Women Haters Inc. who think they run the show. Women will vote Hillary and Hillary will fix the mess that men have made of America and the countries we have dissed.
April 10th, 2007 at 4:59 pmI especially like this quote from Umberto Eco (a fantastic author if anyone is interested)
“However, the followers of Ur-Fascism must also be convinced that they can overwhelm the enemies. Thus, by a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak. Fascist governments are condemned to lose wars because they are constitutionally incapable of objectively evaluating the force of the enemy.”
April 10th, 2007 at 5:02 pmL’il Dick Cheney and Halliburton are NOW pulling out of Iran…
…using a loophole (a foreign owned subsidiary)…
…Halliburton (Cheney) has been doing business all along w/ Iran…
…even though “LEGALLY” NO U.S. country is allowed to do so…
…and the REPULSIVESCUM talking point…
…is that Nancy Pelosi violated the Logan Act…
…and should be tried for treason…
…these talking points are being parroted by YOUR:
family members
neighbors
friends
co-workers
significant others
…HYPOCRISY thy fathers and mothers are Repulsivescum conned’self-serving Bushites…
…and worshippers of the TRUE TRAITOR L’il Dick…
…Liberal/Progressives how can you stomach them?
April 10th, 2007 at 5:17 pmDumbass Bush cultist: “I’m sure had Clinton or Gore been President when the towers fell that by God they would have blown up another tent.”
I’m sorry everyone, but I can’t let this one go. If Gore had become president, I’m going to assume he would have pushed for implementation of his own Gore Commission on terrorism and safety. Among the suggestions ignored and ridiculed by the repub congress were reinforced cockpit doors, armed air marshals on all commercial flights and strict check-in proceedures. Any one of these, if implemented, might have completely foiled the 9-11 attack. If Bush hadn’t stolen the Whitehouse from Gore, the attacks probably wouldn’t have been successful.
April 10th, 2007 at 5:22 pmAs far as Hillary is concerned, she’s a centrist and not liberal enough for my tastes, but I like her. She’s extremely competent and seems to care about working people. If she had had her way in the early 90’s, we’d have univeral health coverage of some kind today. I’ll pull the lever for her with a smile on my face if she’s the nominee. Besides, I really want a woman president. It’s a disgrace to our democracy that we haven’t had one yet.
April 10th, 2007 at 5:25 pm[…] Hillary Clinton was obliged to defend Speaker Pelosi’s Syrian junket on a radio program in New York this week. In the course doing so, she (incorrectly) observed that the United States maintained permanent negotiations with the USSR, which led to an American victory over them: In fact I think we learned a lot about our adversaries which helped us eventually bring about their decline and defeat in the Cold War. (ThinkProgress) […]
April 10th, 2007 at 5:29 pm….and the politians just Throwing Stones
As the kids they dance and shake their bones
Because it’s all too clear we’re on our own……
April 10th, 2007 at 5:30 pmI wish Clinton would have voiced her support for Pelosi from the beginning instead of waiting until it was safe enough politically to do so.
April 10th, 2007 at 5:35 pmComment by wags — April 10, 2007 @ 5:02 pm
I can recall Umberto Eco and his Ur-Fascism concept being quoted at the start of a book I’ve recently finished called, (oddly enough) “American Fascists” which looks at the aims of the Far right Christians in the US. Very interesting stuff.
A large part of my degree looking at Fascism so I’m always interested in how it’s viewed.
April 10th, 2007 at 5:41 pmIv’e heard the syrian Ambassador on c-span several times. He is very articulate and persuasive….a real pro. If we are going to win the hearts and minds of the Arab people, we better know everything they have to say, and be able to present our side of the argument. “We Don’t talk to Bad people” as our policy … is both Stupid and Counterproductive.
April 10th, 2007 at 5:46 pmUnbelievable that this Syria business should still be derided. Just because this administration and its supporters are too chickenshit to talk to “bad people”, doesn’t mean everyone else is too.
April 10th, 2007 at 6:15 pmHow creepy do Pelosi and Hillary look in that picture?
Yikes!
April 10th, 2007 at 6:35 pmAs far as Hillary is concerned, she’s a centrist and not liberal enough for my tastes, but I like her. She’s extremely competent and seems to care about working people. If she had had her way in the early 90’s, we’d have univeral health coverage of some kind today. I’ll pull the lever for her with a smile on my face if she’s the nominee. Besides, I really want a woman president. It’s a disgrace to our democracy that we haven’t had one yet.
Comment by Bluedog49
I dont care for Hillary. However if Gore does not run and she gets the nomination then I will look forwards to her having the PATRIOT ACT in her hands and then following up on her worry about a VAST rightwing conspiracy. There is one and it is based in the evangelical world… and there is a long list of documented terrorist actions by the rightwing… PURGE TIME!
April 10th, 2007 at 6:44 pmI wish Clinton would have voiced her support for Pelosi from the beginning instead of waiting until it was safe enough politically to do so.
Comment by Frybread
Exactly.
April 10th, 2007 at 6:45 pm“How creepy do Pelosi and Hillary look in that picture?
Yikes!”
–Says a guy who really liked looking at Dennis Hastert
I think they’re both very nice looking women. They exude class and confidence. They’re grownups.
April 10th, 2007 at 6:49 pmSee, now you guys don’t know why or even whether Clinton voiced her support earlier. As a matter of fact, this isn’t the first time she’s voiced support. It’s simply the first time the media reported it.
It amazes me how there is, even for liberals, this frame of negativity through which we see everything she does. There’s always a hidden political agenda. People always seem to think they’re able to read Hillary’s mind. My favorite is the prism of how she is so damned ambitious. Right, she’s so ambitious that, at a time when she was nationally recognized as a top woman lawyer and advocate for childrens’ rights, she basically dropped her career to support her husband’s political career and raise her daughter. Remember when all the Hillary-haters said she’d drop Bill after he left office?
April 10th, 2007 at 6:54 pmNANCY IS TRIUMPHANT, THESE OUTDATED SWIFT-BOAT-SHIT-SMEARS FROM ALL SIDES ARE LIKE TINY DROPS OF WATER RUNNING OFF A DUCK’S BACK—SHE’S ENJOYING THE REFRESHING PITTER-PATTER, WHILE THE ACCUMULATED TORRENT OF ILL-WILL ARISING FROM THESE ATTACKS ARE FLUSHING CHIMPya, the white house, Bushland Uber Allies DOWN THE CRAPPER OF FUTILE ATTACKS!!!!! HAH!!!! DIDN’T EXPECT THAT RESULT, NOW DIDYA, “TUSH-land Uber Allies” AND YA ASS-faced BUTT-Cheeked commander-in-THIEF Monkey Boy CHIMPya????
April 10th, 2007 at 7:07 pmComment by Bluedog49
How has Hillary courageously shot down the lies of the republicans? She waits until everyone else has staked out there position and then she picks a place to stand.
When people like Russ Feingold stood up and told the truth did she put the weight of her presence squarely behind them? Or wait until it was more popular to do so? Russ Feingold isnt some 60s hippie radical. He was simply telling it like it is… yet that was too “out there” for the likes of Hillary.
There is nothing unique about her in this regard however… until not too long ago the same could be said for just about every single senator.
April 10th, 2007 at 7:13 pmYES!
Hill’reh has now connected the dots for all those American’s that hadn’t yet associated Pelosi’s inability to handle a simple message from Israel to Syria with her being a woman.
Now everyone is brought face to face with the “oh yeah” moment, and rethinking their support of Hill’reh being commander in chief.
April 10th, 2007 at 9:25 pmYES! Hill’reh has now connected the dots for all those American’s that hadn’t yet associated Pelosi’s inability to handle a simple message from Israel to Syria with her being a woman. Comment by Jason M. Hendler — April 10, 2007 @ 9:25 pm
BHAHAHA, you know Hendler, the only AMERICA that matches your delusions, is the less than 30% crowd you go to church with. The rest of America sees you, and nutjobs like you as idiots - just as we do.
Now everyone is brought face to face with the “oh yeah†moment, and rethinking their support of Hill’reh being commander in chief. Comment by Jason M. Hendler — April 10, 2007 @ 9:25 pm
Substitute Hill’reh with Bush, and you’ve got a bingo - dum bass.
This is right up there with your predictions of the 2006 elections. Didn’t you learn anything j*ck*ss, about exactly how out of touch with UhMerucku you are? Just because you’re a he-man woman hater (whom your fellow CON - Valiant Venus - says looks like a wimpy loser), that can’t get a date, don’t blame women. It’s clearly YOUR FAULT - LOSER!
April 10th, 2007 at 9:32 pmBlueDog49, EXACTLY.
Man, every damn politician…let me stress that word, POLITICIAN, will not get ANYwhere unless they triangulate, stroke egos, and make smart moves. Feingold does not have, nor will ever have a chance at the Presidency; he can afford to be a ‘maverick,’ and while many Dems think the same, they must walk that POLITICAL LINE. There are no apologies here. They do what must be done, and the end will justify the means. I’m more left than right, that’s for damn sure, but I’m also not a “loony left” member either. Moderation is good for the soul, and the only reason I can come up with people’s hating on Hillary, is that she’s a woman doing the same goddamn things a man does, in the political sphere. She’s just as good at it, only she has a V instead of a P.
You don’t have to like her, but stop hating.
April 10th, 2007 at 9:42 pmJason is scared spitless of Hillary Clinton. Wow.
April 10th, 2007 at 10:10 pmNow everyone is brought face to face with the “oh yeah†moment, and rethinking their support of Hill’reh being commander in chief.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — April 10, 2007 @ 9:25 pm
Yes, Jason that is so obvious in the fact that the woman has raised more campaign money at this point inthe competition than any one else prior. People, especially the welfare check collectors you ascribe to our side who have no money, just love giving away their hard-earned and over-taxed dollars soooo much more than eating or paying their mortgage that they’d give it to someone they thought would lose.
Your logic is worse than fallacious Jason. Now so somewhere else where all the women aren’t so much smarter than you…
April 10th, 2007 at 11:14 pmHillary Clinton has been on the right side of the political game ever since she begun playing it.
April 11th, 2007 at 2:28 amWhy should any one think that Nancy Pelosi went so far away to bring back some thing wrong?
So where is Senator Obama in all of this? Why isn’t he speaking up?
April 11th, 2007 at 3:11 amA step in the right direction.
April 11th, 2007 at 7:42 amNext step is to acknowledge that the Palestinians are people too and are suffering under occupation. Bonus of 10 points will be awarded for saying “suffering under BRUTAL occupationâ€.
Animal Sex Free Animal Sex Stories Sex With Dogs
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 14th, 2008 at 8:03 pmCum Asian Cum Ass Cum
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 16th, 2008 at 11:03 pmflights to ireland
Also a ticket may be free, and serve as a proof of reservation.
March 17th, 2008 at 6:13 pmDoing Psychic Reading
It is a quite interesting post but quite difficult to understand for me -
March 17th, 2008 at 8:58 pmCum Gay Cum Shot Cum Whore
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 19th, 2008 at 2:57 amcum shots
March 19th, 2008 at 10:59 amCum Swallowing Cum Cum Eater
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 22nd, 2008 at 1:23 amJessie
Great post. I have added you to my digg bookmark
March 27th, 2008 at 9:56 pm