I’m going to keep the question simple. Do you agree with Nancy Pelosi going to Syria? A nation we downgraded diplomatic ties with in 2005 to protest the murder of the duly and democratically elected leader of Lebanon.
What say you?
Please share widely!
And here’s a question for you: how do you feel about the various Republicans that are presently in, or have recently visited, Syria?
<
p>
is a Democrat. Everything she does is suspect, right?
<
p>
What I really don’t understand is the Republican obsession with ad hominem attacks. A main talking point in the 2005 elections was, “Do you really want Nancy Pelosi running congress?” Having read your previous comments, it’s hard to take your question as anything more than an extension of this canard.
<
p>
There’s desire on the right to demonize certain people, associate them with others, and then call them stupid names. Hillary is a case in point. Some people laughably call her a liberal. Michael Moore is another case in point. His name has become a modifier for the word liberal.
<
p>
Do I care if Nancy Pelosi visits Syria? No. Would I care if Trent Lott did? Aside from the fact that it would be newsworthy, no, I wouldn’t care. Our country has been politically stripmined by the Bush Administration, which discounted diplomacy a long time ago. It’s time to start reaching out to the major players in the Middle East. If that takes the Speaker of the House, then so be it. We’ve seen the President’s idea of diplomacy in Iraq.
<
p>
Mark
Also let me ask you this. If the shoe were on the other foot, and this was a Democratic President and a Republican Speaker of the house visiting a leader of a country that the President has downgraded diplomatic ties with, would you have the same reaction?
<
p>
If so good for you. But I would have a hard time believing you, especially with the vile hatred of the current president billowing from the left.
<
p>
With the radical Islamists we had tried diplomacy for twenty plus years, what did it get us. 3000 dead Americans on 9/11. On that day foreign policy changed for me. I believe that it is imperative that we as a nation carry a big stick and not walk that softly, in order to root out the cancer that is Islamic Fundamentalism. My approach may be different than yours, and we’ll see which one is valid. But the problem is too many lives hang in the balance.
What does that have to do with Syria?
<
p>
Radical Islamists are the terrorists. That is the connection.
during their fight against the Russians. I guess by your logic that makes us “radical Islamists” as well.
<
p>
To the extent that Syria sponsors terrorism, it is definitely not to extend a fundamentalist Islamic agenda, so it is misleading to paint them with that brush.
<
p>
If you really are against radical Islam, then you have to criticise US relations with countries like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
<
p>
Syria does cause a lot of trouble in the region, but they are also very influential and border both Irag and Israel. I don’t think we can realistically afford to simply ignore them if we want peace in the region.
<
p>
followed by our baseless invasion of iraq. who are the terrorists?
sometimes in the world we live in a nation makes choices. At the time we were helping the Mujahadeen the Russians were our chief rival. We were trying to stop the spread of Stalinism across the globe and in our own hemisphere. We as a nation felt that supporting a war against the Russians was the right thing to do. Where we erred, and I’ll agree with Marty Meehan on this one was not helping Afghanistan to win the peace. We did not do enough during the 1990s after the Afghanistan war to help the country rebuild. We relied on a blind faith that those we helped would be sympathetic to us after we helped them. That obviously wasn’t the case.
<
p>
As far as Iraq and Iran go. You choose what side you were going to be on. And unfortunately the world runs on petroleum so you are going to have to make a choice.
I think you got your words mixed up — you meant:
<
p>
<
p>
đŸ˜‰
I did not know about the trip by the Republican’s as it was not reported.
<
p>
Your “cutesy quote” further illustrated my point. Thanks! đŸ˜‰
“I believe that it is imperative that we as a nation carry a big stick and not walk that softly.”
<
p>
How’s that working out for us? I’ll answer – piss poorly.
The only metric by which I measure this president and his policy is the following:
<
p>
We(The United States) have not been attacked since 9/11 where we have not been engaged. Through the use of force, the Patriot Act and disrupting terrorist finance and communications networks George Bush has achieved this. And for that I am eternally greatful.
“We(The United States) have not been attacked since 9/11 where we have not been engaged.”
<
p>
We (The United States) had not been attacked previous to 9/11 since German U-Boats shelled Cape Cod and the Japanese sent over explosives-laden silken hot air balloons during World War II .
<
p>
If you think it is “pretty well” that Bush presided over the most serious attack on our country since the Civil War, you’re welcome to do so.
<
p>
in the 1990s at the same site as 9/11 at the African Embassies, at teh Embassy in Tehran, and the USS Cole.
And also the anthrax attacks in Sept 2001, whose perpretator the Bush administration has never determined (perhaps his DoJ was too busy helping the president in the 2002 races), and the Oklahoma City bombing by extremist conservatives?
…since I live in the “homeland” and I do not consider those attacks the same as an attack on the homeland.
<
p>
But, if we are to use the embassy standard, then EaBo’s argument goes out the window since we had an Embassy attack this year.
<
p>
Also, if we are going to bring the Cole into this, then we have to consider all the US military deaths in Iraq at the hands of unprovoked millitants. Therefore, the US is under constant seige.
<
p>
The biggest lie is that we either fight them in Iraq or we fight them here. Wrong. The guys who hit the towers are from Saudi Arabia and Afgansistan. Any of the Al Qeueda, etc in Iraq are not sophisticated enough to attack us here. Basically, we did them a favor by parking 150,000 targets in their back yard. Why come to the US when you can kill Americans at home?
It was by greek “leftists” MSNBc’s word not mine.
Before 9/11, we hadn’t been attacked since 1994. Before that it was 1941. That’s a pretty good track record that has nothing to do with Bush or the Patriot Act.
<
p>
Nothing done in Iraq has had a positive impact on the safety here on US soil. 3200 soldiers have died in Iraq, more than 9/11. That is 3200 more Americans that have died in the last 4 years had we not gone to Iraq. Not to mention, we have vets with no arms, can’t have sex anymore, commit suicide because of PTSD, vets that get “Walter Reeded”, and severely disfigured vets. Homeland Security sucks out loud. Iran is in it’s strongest position ever. Iran is the true winner in the Iraq war.
<
p>
If we haven’t been attacked since 9/11 it’s because of cleaning house in Afganistan (rembemer the Taliban? Well, they’re back) and pure luck. We are not significantly safer than we were in 9/10/01.
US military death toll in March nearly double that of Iraqi forces
<
p>
So, basaically we have twice as many American troops dying for “Iraqi Freedom” than Iraqis. I feel safer already!
Thanks, George Bush.
<
p>
I take issue with the notion, in the first place, of
‘downgraded diplomatic ties’ in general and in particular
with doing so as a form of punishment and/or pique.
It’s childish in the extreme and counterproductive
in its entirety.
<
p>
Secondly, I don’t think that a Democratic President would
do such a thing: Democrats like to talk and like to keep
enemies talking. Therefore, your question is an academic
exercise in..
<
p>
…in what, exactly?
<
p>
Your question rests on the assumption that pulling the
rug out from under the diplomats is a legitimate act.
It is not. That you then use that little slice of
juvenalia to question the legitimacy of Nancy
Pelosi is an attempt to reap a particularly blustery
whirlwind. How’s that working for ya?
I did not know this, and to answer your question. I am upset that anybody with a role to play in our government, not on a state department initiated trip is in Syria. It is not in my opinion the right time to be sending the Syrians or any sponsors of terrorism mixed signals as a country.
<
p>
So yes, I would call the two Republican congressmen to the carpet and ask what they were thinking and why they went.
<
p>
There is a slight difference in the power of the Speakership and a run of the mill Member of Congress. And if any of them, the Republicans and or Speaker Pelosi meet with Bashar al-Assad, then it is truly not appropriate.
<
p>
was “Hanoi Jane”
what is this world coming to. she’s ruining our chance to kill more american soldiers. shame on her.
As if most people in the district cared who was visting Syria.
<
p>
But all any Democratic candidate needs to say is “if it helps bring peace to the region, then I am all for it. George Bush has refused to seriously engage Syria in the Iraq peace process, and we all know how well that is going….”
<
p>
If it is considered valid to suggest that the lack of terrorist attacks in the US are the result of Bush’s policy w/ Syria, then it is just as valid to conclude that the failure in Iraq is also the result of Bush’s policy.
State Representative Barry Finegold, who just announced his candidacy for Congress, has an approximately 12 year track record of independent thinking and voting as the State Representative from the 17th district, consisting of Andover, Lawrence, Haverhill, Essex, etc., which is squarely within the MA 5th District, and makes him the prime candidate for Marty Meheen’s seat.
<
p>
Representative Finegold’s initiatives and voting record is common knowledge and public record. Highlight’s are available at his website: http://www.barryfinegold.com.
<
p>
What impresses me the most is Representative Finegold’s combination of new ideas his embracing of technology, while being willing to take independent/unconventional stands on crucial issues, such as education, where he voted for Charter schools when such a stance was controversial and challenging to the status quo, for example.
<
p>
Of course, his initiative speaks for itself; while he is now a seasoned veteran on Beacon Hill with a tenure of about a dozen years, he was among the youngest ever Selectman to win a seat within the town of Andover (at age 24), and then as a Massachusetts State Representative (at age 25). That says plenty right there.
<
p>
While other challengers in this campaign have theories about their positions on relevant issues to the constituents, Representative Finegold has the kind of proven track record that inspires confidence among voters and within the community. Well all know the hard way how little confidence we can have in positions and promises that have no foundation in political reality and a genuine track record.
Ebo:
<
p>
You can get an answer to your question and more by watching the first debate on LTC’s web site. It should be posted in the very near future.
<
p>
Of course, your question is loaded. You could have asked “Do you agree with Nancy Pelosi going to Syria? A nation that the bi-partisan Iraq War study group suggested we talk to.