Pelosi to visit Syria

[obeygiant]

JERUSALEM — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will tell Syrian leaders when she visits Damascus this week on a trip criticized by the Bush administration that Israel will only engage in peace talks if Syria stops supporting Palestinian militants, Israel said Sunday.

"Pelosi is conveying that Israel is willing to talk if they (Syria) would openly take steps to stop supporting terrorism," Olmert's spokeswoman Miri Eisin said. "But at this point the Syrian government, by openly backing terror all around the Middle East, is not a partner for negotiations."

Israel and Syria are sworn enemies, though peace talks came close to success in 2000 before breaking down. Israel charges that Syria-based Palestinian militants are directing violence against it from the West Bank and Gaza.link (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/world/4679485.html)

[Swarmlord]

Hmmm. Who died and put Pelosi in charge of the State department?

[iSaint]

Hmmm. Who died and put Pelosi in charge of the State department?

No kidding. Nothing like a coordinated effort to impress our detractors. :rolleyes:

[Dont Hurt Me]

Hmmm. Who died and put Pelosi in charge of the State department?Bush did by ignoring everything coming out of the state dept for 6 years. Its not like our current president gets high marks for anything he has done,or anything he's accomplished. He is simply a corporate tool and little else.

[Swarmlord]

Bush did by ignoring everything coming out of the state dept for 6 years. Its not like our current president gets high marks for anything he has done,or anything he's accomplished. He is simply a corporate tool and little else.

Our government doesn't work like that and you should be grateful it doesn't.

[miloblithe]

What exactly is it about the Pelosi trip that you're opposed to? She's conveying the same message that the Bush administration conveys: we'll talk when you stop supporting terrorism.

Swarmlord, what do you mean? That it's good that Bush ignores the State Department's recommendations? I'm just not clear on what you mean.

[Swarmlord]

What exactly is it about the Pelosi trip that you're opposed to? She's conveying the same message that the Bush administration conveys: we'll talk when you stop supporting terrorism.

Swarmlord, what do you mean? That it's good that Bush ignores the State Department's recommendations? I'm just not clear on what you mean.

The message is not hers to deliver. I said nothing about Bush or the State department other than to refute the poster that said that Bush's actions effectively granted her the right or power to represent matters of State. They don't.

[IJ Reilly]

The message is not hers to deliver. I said nothing about Bush or the State department other than to refute the poster that said that Bush's actions effectively granted her the right or power to represent matters of State. They don't.

This is certainly not true. Members of Congress travel abroad all the time, and say what they wish, where they wish. They always have, and always will. If Pelosi's message carries more weight then it might ordinarily, it's because Bush is so weak.

[Swarmlord]

This is certainly not true. Members of Congress travel abroad all the time, and say what they wish, where they wish. They always have, and always will. If Pelosi's message carries more weight then it might ordinarily, it's because Bush is so weak.

Not to historic enemies and about issues relevant to an ongoing conflict where she differs from the administration. I agree that there are times and places where this would be no big deal. If she wanted to discuss trade opportunities, tourism, or cultural exchange then I'd not be concerned.

[Motley]

Is it okay if republicans visit syria? (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/04/02/international/i083853D66.DTL&type=politics)

[Swarmlord]

Is it okay if republicans visit syria? (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/04/02/international/i083853D66.DTL&type=politics)

No, as a matter of fact.

I never said that Bush controls members of his party the way I would if I were in charge. :cool:

[princealfie]

Actually I heard that Damascus was a beautiful place. I would love to check out the exotic stuff over there no diggity :)

[princealfie]

Bush did by ignoring everything coming out of the state dept for 6 years. Its not like our current president gets high marks for anything he has done,or anything he's accomplished. He is simply a corporate tool and little else.

Woohoo, on point again :rolleyes: :cool: :)

[miloblithe]

Not to historic enemies and about issues relevant to an ongoing conflict where she differs from the administration. I agree that there are times and places where this would be no big deal. If she wanted to discuss trade opportunities, tourism, or cultural exchange then I'd not be concerned.

How does she disagree with the administration? Sounds like the same message: stop supporting terrorism.

[IJ Reilly]

Not to historic enemies and about issues relevant to an ongoing conflict where she differs from the administration. I agree that there are times and places where this would be no big deal. If she wanted to discuss trade opportunities, tourism, or cultural exchange then I'd not be concerned.

If we were at war with Syria, and Pelosi was billing her visit as diplomatic, then I'd be concerned too. And has been pointed out, Pelosi is hardly the first member of Congress to visit Syria. The administration has chosen to make a fuss about this visit because it makes them look weak. If they weren't so weak then they'd probably just shrug it off with little or no comment.

[princealfie]

How does she disagree with the administration? Sounds like the same message: stop supporting terrorism.

I think that the main difference is mostly tonal: one is polite while the other is more like a threat.

[Swarmlord]

I think that the main difference is mostly tonal: one is polite while the other is more like a threat.

Good cop, bad cop? :)

[princealfie]

Good cop, bad cop? :)

More like the difference between the black and white Macbook options ;)

[pseudobrit]

No kidding. Nothing like a coordinated effort to impress our detractors. :rolleyes:

My local representative (a conservative Republican) is going along with her.

[Sayhey]

The important part of this story is not that Pelosi is going somewhere the Administration doesn't want her to go. As IJ pointed out this has gone on since forever and will continue to do so. It is a good thing that we don't only get one perspective on other nations of the world, especially our "enemies." But what is important is not that she is going (others have before her) or the content of the message she is delivering from the Israelis (it is the same words that have been said over and over) but rather the fact the Israelis have endorsed the idea of someone going to Damascus to further negotiations between the two countries. Not that this is a huge step, but it is a crack in the position of Olmert and Bush who have been unified in the neo-con position of "we don't talk to our enemies, they're terrorists."

[princealfie]

The important part of this story is not that Pelosi is going somewhere the Administration doesn't want her to go. As IJ pointed out this has gone on since forever and will continue to do so. It is a good thing that we don't only get one perspective on other nations of the world, especially our "enemies." But what is important is not that she is going (others have before her) or the content of the message she is delivering from the Israelis (it is the same words that have been said over and over) but rather the fact the Israelis have endorsed the idea of someone going to Damascus to further negotiations between the two countries. Not that this is a huge step, but it is a crack in the position of Olmert and Bush who have been unified in the neo-con position of "we don't talk to our enemies, they're terrorists."

Who cares what the Big B thinks? Lots of cute Syrian ladies over there :) Seriously, WW007D?

(that means James Bond... yes he would love them gals over there in Syria)... next.

[Desertrat]

Does anybody know if this is not factual?

"The United States regards Syria as a terrorist-supporting state. The U.S. hasn't had high level contacts with the Syrian government since the assassination of Rafik Hariri in Lebanon and indeed, the U.S. ambassador was recalled. In fact, there's been very little government-to-government contact with Syria."

What good can come of any sort of encouragement of a country which is working with Iran in the re-arming of Hezbollah?

'Rat

[Sayhey]

What good can come of any sort of encouragement of a country which is working with Iran in the re-arming of Hezbollah?

'Rat

What good came of talking to the Soviet Union or the PRC? If one doesn't talk to your "enemies" that is precisely what they will always be. In this case, they US could have moved Syria much further politically away from its de facto alliance with Iran through diplomatic efforts, but the Bush administration chose the "axis of evil" brand of diplomacy instead. The only people who truly benefit from this approach are munitions manufacturers.

[princealfie]

What good came of talking to the Soviet Union or the PRC? If one doesn't talk to your "enemies" that is precisely what they will always be. In this case, they US could have moved Syria much further politically away from its de facto alliance with Iran through diplomatic efforts, but the Bush administration chose the "axis of evil" brand of diplomacy instead. The only people who truly benefit from this approach are munitions manufacturers.

Woohoo, there's goes up my Lockheed Martin stock valuations! Woohoo!

Thanks for making my day. Axis of evil = +10.0% in stock portfolio! :p

[Desertrat]

Sayhey, if indeed she's so much against Bush's policies, how does her visit reduce tensions? If she encourages Syria's present views and policies, does that not exacerbate the various dangers extant in the mideast? For that matter, does it not encourage Syria's willingness to support those who cross its borders into Iraq, to shoot at our soldiers?

This is not at all comparable to policy makers of two hostile countries engaging in conversations designed to reduce tensions. Pelosi does not make foreign policy. That's not her job, not her Constitutional mandate.

'Rat

[princealfie]

Sayhey, if indeed she's so much against Bush's policies, how does her visit reduce tensions? If she encourages Syria's present views and policies, does that not exacerbate the various dangers extant in the mideast? For that matter, does it not encourage Syria's willingness to support those who cross its borders into Iraq, to shoot at our soldiers?

This is not at all comparable to policy makers of two hostile countries engaging in conversations designed to reduce tensions. Pelosi does not make foreign policy. That's not her job, not her Constitutional mandate.

'Rat

I guess that you're into the shoot first, ask question later type of philosophy eh? :eek:

[obeygiant]

Assuming Pelosi has read the Mehlis Report (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehlis_report), I wonder what she has to say to the Syrians. Bashar al-Assad has called Israel an "enemy," with whom no peace could be achieved. Where do you go from there?

The delegation is to next visit Syria, a sworn enemy of Israel.

Pelosi has said she will tell Syrian leaders that Israel will talk peace with them only if Syria stops supporting Palestinian militants. She has said she will also talk to the Syrians about Iraq, their role in neighboring Lebanon and their support for Lebanon's Hezbollah militants.link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6529862,00.html)


Kinda sounds like a dead end to me.

[Sayhey]

Sayhey, if indeed she's so much against Bush's policies, how does her visit reduce tensions? If she encourages Syria's present views and policies, does that not exacerbate the various dangers extant in the mideast? For that matter, does it not encourage Syria's willingness to support those who cross its borders into Iraq, to shoot at our soldiers?

This is not at all comparable to policy makers of two hostile countries engaging in conversations designed to reduce tensions. Pelosi does not make foreign policy. That's not her job, not her Constitutional mandate.

'Rat

First, 'Rat, I don't know if this or any other of many visits by Congressmembers (including members of the GOP (http://local.lancasteronline.com/4/202433)) will reduce tensions. I just know a policy refusing to talk to your "enemies" accomplishes very, very little other than creating another villain to rail against. If what you want is war that can be effective in persuading people that we have to invade Syria (or Iran, or North Korea, or Cuba, or Venezuela, etc.) If you want to solve problems between countries short of the invasion and overthrow of sovereign governments, then diplomacy (i.e. talking to each other) is the method that holds the most promise.

And, no, Pelosi doesn't have the constitutional mandate to conduct foreign policy. She, and every member of Congress, have the constitutional mandate for oversight of foreign policy, allocation of funds for the conduct of foreign policy, and the approval of specific programs involved in foreign policy. From the beginning of this nation, members of Congress have travelled to nations around the globe in the conduct or their constitutional mandate (sometimes in opposition to past administration's wishes,) but now that the new speaker wishes to do the same this becomes a constitutional crisis? I think not.

Assuming Pelosi has read the Mehlis Report (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehlis_report), I wonder what she has to say to the Syrians. Bashar al-Assad has called Israel an "enemy," with whom no peace could be achieved. Where do you go from there?

link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6529862,00.html)


Kinda sounds like a dead end to me.

You negotiate. Just like the Israelis did with the Egyptians and the Palestinians before them. If Israel wants peace with its neighbors the only way to it is through negotiations. This shouldn't be a hard concept to understand. Doesn't mean Israel has to accept the position of its adversaries (notice the message Pelosi is delivering is the same the Israelis have had for decades), but it does mean that peace can only come through talks.

[solvs]

Kinda sounds like a dead end to me.

Probably. Just as when the Republicans did the same thing, as noted above. But it couldn't hurt for them to do what Bush is obviously unable (or unwilling) to. At least somebody is trying instead of all the empty rhetoric. Worked with NK (kinda).

What I find suspicious is that he criticized her, but not members of his own party. Makes it seem kinda disingenuous. Par for the course I suppose, but it's a non-issue if one were to say it's ok for Republicans but not Democrats.

[zimv20]

reuters (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070404/ts_nm/syria_usa_pelosi_dc;_ylt=AmZ3VgqvyIZe1n5wGOm8VoGs0NUE)


Syria tells Pelosi it's ready for peace talks

DAMASCUS (Reuters) - U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, on a visit to Syria opposed by the White House, said on Wednesday President Bashar al-Assad was ready to hold peace talks with Israel.

But her remark that Israel was prepared to negotiate with Damascus prompted Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's office to underline the Jewish state's preconditions for such talks.

Democrat Pelosi is the most senior U.S. official to visit Syria in more than two years.

(more)

[IJ Reilly]

Meanwhile, as if we needed a reminder of how far apart these parties are:

Arabs look askance at Olmert offer

Some see the prime minister's invitation to talks as an effort to get recognition for Israel without making sacrifices.

CAIRO — Days after Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert invited Arab rulers to Jerusalem for peace talks, the offer seems to have sunk without effect into the mire of regional rhetoric.

None of the key Arab leaders had yet given a firm, public answer to Olmert's invitation by Tuesday night. The little that had been said, such as a pointed statement from the Saudi Cabinet, could be described as resentful. Rather than hopeful and curious, the reaction among Arab television pundits and newspaper writers ranged from tepid to cynical.

Arabs complained that Olmert was too politically weak in Israel, where his standing in polls has plunged, to deliver any diplomatic breakthroughs. They even lamented the lack of an Israeli strongman in the mold of former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. And they criticized the temerity of the Israeli leader for inviting Arabs to Jerusalem, the holy city whose political fate is one of the great and unresolved issues of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

But mostly, they behaved as though they were still waiting for Israel to make a move.

"It's a gimmick," Abdel Moneim Said, head of Egypt's Al Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies, said of Olmert's Sunday speech. "He's not interested in the promotion of the peace process, but rather in testing the other side."

The Arab world collectively outlined its conditions for peace with Israel at last week's Arab League summit in Riyadh, the Saudi capital. The offer: All Arab countries would normalize relations with Israel. In exchange, Israel would have to withdraw from all land seized in the 1967 Middle East War and live peaceably with a Palestinian state that has Arab East Jerusalem as its capital. Israel would also have to accept the return of Palestinian refugees, a condition Olmert firmly rejected again after the summit.

When they endorsed this plan, originally cobbled together five years ago by Saudi Arabia, the Arab leaders made it plain that there was little room to alter their demands. Israel would have to accept the Arab conditions as the framework for negotiation.

Having thrown down the gauntlet, the Arabs may have expected something more, or at least something different, than Olmert's invitation. The Arab League will sponsor a working group to study opening contacts with Israel, but that seemed to be as far as the Arabs were willing to go.

"They need to say, 'Yes, we accept this, total withdrawal for total peace, let's go for it.' If not, then there has to be another plan," said Abdel Khaleq Abdullah, a political analyst and talk show host in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. "They need to advance a plan of their own, no matter what it is, with maximum and minimum needs. For now, to say, 'Let's talk,' well, that doesn't make sense. What is your position? Clarify your position!"

The fundamental disconnect lies in timing: In the Israeli view, Olmert suggested the summit to begin debating the thorny questions that have long impeded peace. But in the Arab world, the suggestion of such a meeting sounded like a reversal of the proper order of things. To attend such a summit would already, in itself, signal recognition of the Jewish state, Arab analysts pointed out.

In most Arab countries, the diplomatic freeze is only the tip of the Arab-Israeli disconnect: Israel is blanked out of maps, the international calling code for Israel is blacked out of telephone books and even the mention of the country's name is taboo in polite company.

To many Arabs, Olmert's invitation looked like an effort to get the payoff of Arab recognition without making sacrifices. Most Arab leaders, presiding delicately over populaces that have been educated to abhor the "Zionists," believe they simply can't afford to meet with the Israelis without first demonstrating significant and public concessions from Israel.

The Israeli leader "wants normalization before a peace agreement, which is putting the wagon before the horse. The Arab leaders will not accept Olmert's proposal," Ahmed Tibi, an Arab member of the Israeli parliament, said in a radio interview Sunday night. "Olmert must say yes to the Arab peace initiative as a basis for talks, and then only after serious negotiations could a summit take place as a final step toward an agreement."

The Saudi Cabinet echoed those sentiments Monday in even stronger terms, releasing a statement that declared, "Israel should understand that peace requires it to put an end to violations, repression and constant, inhuman practices against the Palestinian people before any other matter."

By calling for meetings with moderate Arab states, Olmert was trying to splinter Arab unity, some analysts said.

"What's not acceptable is for individual countries to go behind the others' backs and meet with the Israelis. They have to go as a group," said Khaled Batarfi, a Saudi columnist. The Israelis "are not really interested, but they're under international pressure and they have to come up with a response. Most people are not really hopeful that anything will come out of this."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-arabs4apr04,1,1873304.story

[princealfie]

Meanwhile, as if we needed a reminder of how far apart these parties are:



http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-arabs4apr04,1,1873304.story

I wouldn't call the LA Times a reliable source of info however.

[obeygiant]

You negotiate. Just like the Israelis did with the Egyptians and the Palestinians before them. If Israel wants peace with its neighbors the only way to it is through negotiations. This shouldn't be a hard concept to understand. Doesn't mean Israel has to accept the position of its adversaries (notice the message Pelosi is delivering is the same the Israelis have had for decades), but it does mean that peace can only come through talks.

Well I hope she talks the Syrians into abandoning the path of terror and providing support for Hamas and Hezbollah. Also maybe she could talk Assad into keeping 90% of all suicide bombers (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/blogs/news_blog/070327/most_suicide_bombers_in_iraq_c.htm) from using Syria's border to enter Iraq. Go Nancy!

[zimv20]

I wouldn't call the LA Times a reliable source of info however.

then what, pray tell, would you call reliable?

[princealfie]

then what, pray tell, would you call reliable?

The answer is easy.

NOTHING. Don't trust anything. Everything is suspect.

[zimv20]

The answer is easy.

NOTHING. Don't trust anything. Everything is suspect.

gee, somehow i was expecting a serious response.

[princealfie]

gee, somehow i was expecting a serious response.

That's a serious response. I'm that cynical.

[obeygiant]

The answer is easy.

NOTHING. Don't trust anything. Everything is suspect.

Thats true.

[IJ Reilly]

Thats true.

Well I certainly don't believe you. :p

[IJ Reilly]

I wouldn't call the LA Times a reliable source of info however.

What part of the posted article is suspect, in your opinion? Do you know any part of it be factually incorrect?

[obeygiant]

Well I certainly don't believe you. :p

Well, my source was the LATimes. :)

[princealfie]

What part of the posted article is suspect, in your opinion? Do you know any part of it be factually incorrect?

Okay, let's start with one statement first: "But mostly, they behaved as though they were still waiting for Israel to make a move."

Is this a provable fact?
How can read the minds of what they are thinking to begin with?

Again this statement is mere interpretation not a fact that is provable by any observation of their facial expressions or gesticulations.

[Desertrat]

"What I find suspicious is that he criticized her, but not members of his own party."

Why suspicious? It's a difference in views on policy, same as here when folks criticize Bush or anybody else. We criticize those with whom we disagree; we don't criticize those with whom we agree.

As far as the article, the Arabs have long been unwilling to accept that they got their butts kicked in 1967. They've been whining ever since about their loss of territory. They've been whining about the results of the UN vote ever since 1948; whining about losing in 1967 and 1973. I might have a different attitude except that they went and asked for the butt-kickings. All by themselves, with no outside cheerleaders.

Sorta like some guy at a Vegas craps table; he loses, but wants his money back so he can try again.

'Rat

[zimv20]

That's a serious response.

though you may have meant it seriously, it doesn't make it a serious response. something analytical, such as what IJ is asking, is what's needed.

[princealfie]

though you may have meant it seriously, it doesn't make it a serious response. something analytical, such as what IJ is asking, is what's needed.

But the point is that when we start to overanalyze stuff, then that's not always for the best. Instinct proves more efficient than hemming and hewing with forethought for about ten minutes while another person simply goes and does it.

Again, from experience, this is a serious response. If you analyze anything in the papers, you can find holes easily.

[pseudobrit]

But the point is that when we start to overanalyze stuff, then that's not always for the best. Instinct proves more efficient...If you analyze anything in the papers, you can find holes easily.

Are you contradicting yourself on purpose?

[princealfie]

Are you contradicting yourself on purpose?

Isn't the nature of man to be contradictory?

[IJ Reilly]

Isn't the nature of man to be contradictory?

No.

[zimv20]

If you analyze anything in the papers, you can find holes easily.

your supporting arguments are all about the fallability of 2nd hand information. that's fine, i'm with you on that. but you started by attacking the LA Times. pretending that was merely an opening salvo into an entire "question the media" rant is disingenuous; you obviously have a problem w/ the LA Times specifically, but won't admit it. why?

[princealfie]

No.

Then I quote Roland Barthes:

"What I claim is to live to the full the contradiction of my time, which may well make sarcasm the condition of truth.”

[princealfie]

your supporting arguments are all about the fallability of 2nd hand information. that's fine, i'm with you on that. but you started by attacking the LA Times. pretending that was merely an opening salvo into an entire "question the media" rant is disingenuous; you obviously have a problem w/ the LA Times specifically, but won't admit it. why?

Because they use value judgments that aren't provable by empirical evidence.

April 24, 2006
At Los Angeles Times, a Columnist Who Used a False Web Name Loses His Blog
By KATIE HAFNER

In the last few years, newspapers around the country have been testing the waters of the seldom-restrained, often scrappy world of Web-based journalism by setting their reporters loose to write their own blogs.

Last week, the experiment backfired for The Los Angeles Times. The newspaper suspended the blog of one of its columnists after it was revealed that he had posted comments on the paper's Web site and elsewhere on the Web under false names.

Michael A. Hiltzik, 53, a business columnist and a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter for the paper, acknowledged using the names Mikekoshi and Nofanofcablecos not only in posts to his own blog, but on other Web sites as well.

In a statement on Mr. Hiltzik's blog and printed in the paper last week, The Los Angeles Times said Mr. Hiltzik's actions had violated the newspaper's ethics guidelines, "which requires editors and reporters to identify themselves when dealing with the public." That policy "applies to both the print and online editions of the newspaper."

The incident has underscored the difficulties that can arise when a newspaper gives free rein to staff writers on the Web. "You give up a lot of control. It requires an enormous amount of trust," said Mickey Kaus, a columnist for Slate.com.

Mr. Hiltzik's reputation at The Times is mixed. In 1993, while serving as a correspondent in Moscow, he was recalled to Los Angeles after it was discovered he had been reading his colleagues' e-mail messages. Six years later, he and a fellow Times writer, Chuck Philips, received a Pulitzer Prize for a series of articles on corruption in the entertainment industry.

Mr. Hiltzik has been writing his Golden State blog, which carries the same name as his newspaper column, since last fall. As a blogger, Mr. Hiltzik is often strident in his liberal views, and has engaged in public political scrapes with a number of conservative bloggers.

It was one such blogger, Patrick Frey, who exposed Mr. Hiltzik's anonymous postings. Mr. Frey, an assistant Los Angeles district attorney, maintains a conservative blog called Patterico's Pontifications. Last week, Mr. Frey wrote on his blog that Mr. Hiltzik had been posting to Web sites pseudonymously for two or three years. Shortly thereafter, The Times suspended the Golden State blog.

In an e-mail exchange for this article, Mr. Hiltzik declined to comment on his actions, as did officials at The Times.

"We're still investigating the matter and will not comment further until we've completed that process," said Amy Moynihan, a spokeswoman for the paper, in an e-mail message.

The incident has also called into question a newspaper's ability to enforce its own ethics policies.

"I'm all for ethics," said Jack Shafer, the media critic at Slate.com, "but the newspaper wants its writers to always identify themselves when operating in the public sphere. I can understand that, but good luck enforcing a policy like that in the Internet era. There are just too many places to hide now."

John Robinson, the editor of The News & Record in Greensboro, N.C., who writes a blog for the paper, said that while the temptation to cloak one's identity may be stronger on the Web, "you really expect your staff to maintain their integrity, and part of that is to be who you say you are." Mr. Hiltzik's anonymous posting was "just a dumb thing to do," Mr. Robinson added.

Mr. Hiltzik remains employed at the paper and is continuing to write his print column, which appears twice a week. The print column is overseen by an editor, but the Golden State blog was not.

Mr. Hiltzik himself has written about the problematic nature of newspaper-sponsored blogs.

"Can a company that derives economic value from its reputation for literacy, judiciousness and taste comfortably lend its imprimatur to an unfiltered online diary?" Mr. Hiltzik wrote in his print column and on the Golden State blog last October. "Blogs are by nature almost impossible to censor."

Mr. Hiltzik continued, "How these experiments will work out is anyone's guess. Anything may happen."

Ouch, ouch, ouch :eek: :eek: :eek:

[pseudobrit]

Isn't the nature of man to be contradictory?

I'm wondering if a sometimes "contradictory nature" might slip into a ridiculously ****ing desultory one.

[IJ Reilly]

Okay, let's start with one statement first: "But mostly, they behaved as though they were still waiting for Israel to make a move."

Is this a provable fact?
How can read the minds of what they are thinking to begin with?

Again this statement is mere interpretation not a fact that is provable by any observation of their facial expressions or gesticulations.

You need only read the article to understand that statement. But yes, if you start with the presumption that it's probably all wrong, then you will easily come up with statements which are not "provable facts." This will be more of a problem with the layers of interpretation you insist on placing on the article, not with the article itself. Deconstructionism at its worst.

[princealfie]

You need only read the article to understand that statement. But yes, if you start with the presumption that it's probably all wrong, then you will easily come up with statements which are not "provable facts." This will be more of a problem with the layers of interpretation you insist on placing on the article, not with the article itself. Deconstructionism at its worst.

Yes, but I am a deconstructionist by nature so basically that is the lens I will be using to decipher the meaning in this article.

[IJ Reilly]

Because they use value judgments that aren't provable by empirical evidence.

"They" meaning, this one person?

I cannot imagine having a more pointless debate. Thanks for destroying what could have been an interesting discussion.

[aquajet]

Okay, let's start with one statement first: "But mostly, they behaved as though they were still waiting for Israel to make a move."

Is this a provable fact?
How can read the minds of what they are thinking to begin with?

Again this statement is mere interpretation not a fact that is provable by any observation of their facial expressions or gesticulations.

Excellent observation. Are there any other things you want to point out, or is this enough to trash the whole thing?

[IJ Reilly]

Yes, but I am a deconstructionist by nature so basically that is the lens I will be using to decipher the meaning in this article.

Apparently you don't understand the concept of deconstructionism. But thanks again -- this discussion was in danger of becoming interesting until you stepped in.

[zimv20]

April 24, 2006
At Los Angeles Times, a Columnist Who Used a False Web Name Loses His Blog
By KATIE HAFNER

okay, so he was found out and stopped. this seems responsible, much like a newspaper printing a retraction.

that you're willing to take an incident like this and render the entire LA Times news organization null and void means, once again, we're going to have little to talk about.

find me a pattern of, say, interference in content from business interests, or an editorial staff which is just plain incompetent, and that will be compelling. in the meantime, i have also completely lost interest in this sub-thread.

[Sayhey]

Isn't the nature of man to be contradictory?

...M: No you did not.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: You didn't.
A: Did.
M: Oh look, this isn't an argument.
A: Yes it is.
M: No it isn't. It's just contradiction.
A: No it isn't.
M: It is!
A: It is not.
M: Look, you just contradicted me.
A: I did not.
M: Oh you did!!
A: No, no, no.
M: You did just then.
A: Nonsense!
M: Oh, this is futile!
A: No it isn't.
M: I came here for a good argument.
A: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.
M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
A: It can be.
M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
A: No it isn't.
M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
A: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!

A: Yes it is!
M: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
(short pause)
A: No it isn't....Monty Python's Flying Circus (http://www.mindspring.com/~mfpatton/sketch.htm)

[IJ Reilly]

in the meantime, i have also completely lost interest in this sub-thread.

That's generally the purpose of deconstruction. All words and facts are exposed to subjective interpretation and consequently are rendered meaningless. In short order, nobody knows what anybody is talking about. Loss of interest in the original topic follows.

[jayb2000]

Wow, this thread deconstructed in a hurry. :eek:

[obeygiant]

Wow, this thread deconstructed in a hurry. :eek:

It sure did. I guess its just spin to get our mind off Pelosi's power trip. Although the Zim/IJ dialog with with princealfie is entering some strange territory and could entertain.

[princealfie]

It sure did. I guess its just spin to get our mind off Pelosi's power trip. Although the Zim/IJ dialog with with princealfie is entering some strange territory and could entertain.

Indeed, isn't the point of this thread to cause critical thinking? If I don't apply my methodology of understanding the source which is imploded to begin with, then what's the result of trying to understanding the exact implications of Pelosi's trip then?

[princealfie]

okay, so he was found out and stopped. this seems responsible, much like a newspaper printing a retraction.

that you're willing to take an incident like this and render the entire LA Times news organization null and void means, once again, we're going to have little to talk about.

find me a pattern of, say, interference in content from business interests, or an editorial staff which is just plain incompetent, and that will be compelling. in the meantime, i have also completely lost interest in this sub-thread.

Disagree. One incident can point to the possible fact that this could exist elsewhere in the organization. Like using the scientific method, you can't prove that it doesn't exist elsewhere as long as the possibility could exist. Short of inspecting everyone in the LA Times office, I'm sure that there are other questionable people who are working over there.

[obeygiant]

Indeed, isn't the point of this thread to cause critical thinking? If I don't apply my methodology of understanding the source which is imploded to begin with, then what's the result of trying to understanding the exact implications of Pelosi's trip then?

Hey, it's alright. Sometimes the argument itself is more interesting than the topic.

[miloblithe]

That's generally the purpose of deconstruction. All words and facts are exposed to subjective interpretation and consequently are rendered meaningless. In short order, nobody knows what anybody is talking about.

Wrong. Deconstruction is, if anything, about exposing assumptions.

[obeygiant]

Wrong. Deconstruction is, if anything, about exposing assumptions.

I'll second that. Although I'll say everyone has their own belief window that they see the world thru.

[princealfie]

Wrong. Deconstruction is, if anything, about exposing assumptions.

Indeed. I tend to read everything based on the methodology of Barthes' S/Z which is the exemplary method of determining how the world functions and don't function.

I will read any newspaper article based on five approaches:

Hermeneutic Code
Semic Code
Proairetic Code
Symbolic Code
Cultural Code

For me, I don't just skim an article. I look at it based on the cultural and historical biases of the original journalist and see what the imploding qualities of the writing is. Style, content, even the literary techniques all indicate the contradictory possibilities within what seems to be a straightforward text.

[IJ Reilly]

Wrong. Deconstruction is, if anything, about exposing assumptions.

Supposedly, but in practice, not really. Academics love to argue about the meaning of deconstruction because by definition, nobody can never really know what it means. In fact debating the meaning of deconstruction itself results in a paradox, perhaps even an oxymoron. In the real world, the actual effect of deconstruction is to make all discussion fundamentally impossible. The technique is used by debaters when they prefer not to address a topic.

I'll second that. Although I'll say everyone has their own belief window that they see the world thru.

If there was such a thing as a perfect deconstructionist statement, this would be it. All views are subjective, therefore we have no basis for discussing anything.

[princealfie]

Supposedly, but in practice, not really. Academics love to argue about the meaning of deconstruction because by definition, nobody can never really know what it means. In fact debating the meaning of deconstruction itself results in a paradox, perhaps even an oxymoron. In the real world, the actual effect of deconstruction is to make all discussion fundamentally impossible. The technique is used by debaters when they prefer not to address a topic.



If there was such a thing as a perfect deconstructionist statement, this would be it. All views are subjective, therefore we have no basis for discussing anything.

Actually if all views are subjective, then we have to look at ourselves more critically. And see what cultural/semiotic biases that we manifest.

You see, around here, pretty much anything goes :) in our postmodernist universe.

[princealfie]

Supposedly, but in practice, not really. Academics love to argue about the meaning of deconstruction because by definition, nobody can never really know what it means. In fact debating the meaning of deconstruction itself results in a paradox, perhaps even an oxymoron. In the real world, the actual effect of deconstruction is to make all discussion fundamentally impossible. The technique is used by debaters when they prefer not to address a topic.



If there was such a thing as a perfect deconstructionist statement, this would be it. All views are subjective, therefore we have no basis for discussing anything.

I disagree, one of the assumptions of deconstruction is:

"There is no outside of the text; everything that we can know is text, that is, is constructed of signs in relationship. This claim does not mean that there is nothing outside of language: the claim refers to the realm of human knowledge, not to the realm of concrete existence (elusive as that might be). Deconstruction does not deny the existence of an independent, physical world."

The point of deconstruction is to examine the relationship of the semiotic allusions within a particular text (in this case, the articles referrent to Pelosi's visit). The question is to peruse the manner that the language of the article and to implicate that it doesn't have a correlation to the actual events of the Pelosi's visit to Syria. In fact, it could be possible that the article could speak of an action which may not have happened in the way that it is portrayed.

It is the intertextuality that I wish to examine in the Pelosi visit article.

[IJ Reilly]

Now here's a pretty magnificent irony. The story which set this entire threadlet in motion was about the inability of the parties in the Middle East to establish even the most rudimentary means of communicating with each other about their common problems. This discussion was sabotaged by someone with deconstruction, one of the most tried-and-true methods of destroying communications.

The real irony is that this exercise should give us a fresh insight into the problems of the Middle East. It turns out that some people far are more invested in obfuscation than they are in communication. It's not a problem unique to the Middle East.

[Sayhey]

Wow, this thread deconstructed in a hurry. :eek:

Heh, I thought my detour into Monty Python sketches was the logical next step for where this thread was headed. :D

[solvs]

Why suspicious? It's a difference in views on policy, same as here when folks criticize Bush or anybody else. We criticize those with whom we disagree; we don't criticize those with whom we agree.
But for the same thing? It's hypocritical to attack someone for doing the exact same thing you've let others to do in your stead (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/04/did_white_house.php). This is political posturing to make her look bad while fellow Republicans are told it's perfectly fine for them to do it.

I guess its just spin to get our mind off Pelosi's power trip.
What power trip? There's a whole group of them. Dem and Repub. No one would have even cared if Bush didn't try to single her out while not only ignoring the people from his own party who went but actually giving them the ok to go.

Although I'll say everyone has their own belief window that they see the world thru.
Yes, but some of us have big windows, and some can't even figure out how to open the curtains. ;)

It turns out that some people far are more invested in obfuscation than they are in communication. It's not a problem unique to the Middle East.
What else can you do when you've got nothing else?

For the record, I applaud those on both sides for at least trying something Bush obviously has not been successful with. Sure, diplomacy doesn't always work, but it should at least be attempted before we go all out. And even better when it does work, like with Iran (lately) and NK (kinda). We've seen what cowboy politics do for everyone, and no one wants that anymore.

[princealfie]

better when it does work, like with Iran (lately) and NK (kinda). We've seen what cowboy politics do for everyone, and no one wants that anymore.

And what is the nature of cowboy politics? Isn't that some variant of what Clint Eastwood did pre-dirtyharry style?

[obeygiant]

What power trip? There's a whole group of them. Dem and Repub. No one would have even cared if Bush didn't try to single her out while not only ignoring the people from his own party who went but actually giving them the ok to go.


Thats exactly why she let those republicans tag along. To have a way to deferr the fact that she's going about this by herself.

Pelosi announced in a press conference that the two sides are ready to talk which is nothing new. She didnt really accomplish anything. The two sides were always ready to talk. The trick is to get Syria to stop supporting terrorism and as far as I know Pelosi didnt do that. Welcome to what we already knew!

[miloblithe]

This discussion was sabotaged by someone with deconstruction, one of the most tried-and-true methods of destroying communications.

I think you're confusing a form of literary criticism/philosophy and posts by one individual who claims to be a deconstructionist. One person's actions don't represent the whole. Just because he may be using the idea to obfuscate, doesn't mean that it can't be used to clarify.

[princealfie]

I think you're confusing a form of literary criticism/philosophy and posts by one individual who claims to be a deconstructionist. One person's actions don't represent the whole. Just because he may be using the idea to obfuscate, doesn't mean that it can't be used to clarify.

Indeed, however the further one attempts to clarify the matter, the more difficult it is to watch the events congeal.

For example, since the Republicans and Democrats are the same in principle, I think that the criticism of Pelosi's trip is just another fictional attempt to create tension where none is needed.

[Sayhey]

Thats exactly why she let those republicans tag along. To have a way to deferr the fact that she's going about this by herself.

Pelosi announced in a press conference that the two sides are ready to talk which is nothing new. She didnt really accomplish anything. The two sides were always ready to talk. The trick is to get Syria to stop supporting terrorism and as far as I know Pelosi didnt do that. Welcome to what we already knew!

As I said much earlier in this thread, the "what's new" in this story is the fact of Olmert's government breaking with Bush and expressing its willingness to negotiate with Syria. Up to this point they weren't even willing to do that. Not a great breakthrough, but something that could be important, especially since the Israelis picked the Speaker to deliver their message. Do you see the beginnings of daylight between the Bush administration and the Israeli government?

[IJ Reilly]

I think you're confusing a form of literary criticism/philosophy and posts by one individual who claims to be a deconstructionist. One person's actions don't represent the whole. Just because he may be using the idea to obfuscate, doesn't mean that it can't be used to clarify.

Not confusing, just generalizing the concept and applying it to our situation. He didn't make any claims to deconstructionism until I mentioned it, and I seriously doubt that he'd even heard of it before then. We're not engaging in a literary or a philosophical discussion here; if we were, it might be interesting to deconstruct words and points of view as a literary or philosophical exercise (not that it would actually achieve anything). The way it's used in more casual debates is to overwhelm the discussion with relativism, to call into question the source of every fact, claiming that nothing can be evaluated objectively. The debate is ended, without having to offer a single fact, or to refute a single argument.

This isn't academic, philosophical or literary deconstruction at work. I suppose you might call it cynical deconstruction. It's debating on the cheap.

[Swarmlord]

As I said much earlier in this thread, the "what's new" in this story is the fact of Olmert's government breaking with Bush and expressing its willingness to negotiate with Syria. Up to this point they weren't even willing to do that. Not a great breakthrough, but something that could be important, especially since the Israelis picked the Speaker to deliver their message. Do you see the beginnings of daylight between the Bush administration and the Israeli government?

No I don't see the daylight between Israel and the US. I see a lot of Israelis with WTF looks on their faces though. From what I read and heard on the news this morning Olmert didn't know what in the heck Pelosi is talking about - something many of us have known for years. Did I mention that she's a grandmother? She always points that out as if it explains her position on issues.

[princealfie]

No I don't see the daylight between Israel and the US. I see a lot of Israelis with WTF looks on their faces though. From what I read and heard on the news this morning Olmert didn't know what in the heck Pelosi is talking about - something many of us have known for years. Did I mention that she's a grandmother? She always points that out as if it explains her position on issues.

Perhaps you were talking to a biased sample of Israelites? :confused:

[Swarmlord]

Perhaps you were talking to a biased sample of Israelites? :confused:

Probably. Just the ones that are sick of being bombed over the border by Hezbos and don't believe that Assad could stop them even if he tried.

[princealfie]

Probably. Just the ones that are sick of being bombed over the border by Hezbos and don't believe that Assad could stop them even if he tried.

Yeah, you got a pretty biased sample there. I remain bemused.

[nbs2]

I am surprised (well, not really) to see what could have been a valuable discussion about Pelosi's trip to the ME degenerate into Rep/Dem attacks.

Anyway, I suppose that it might be in another thread, but haven't seen mention here of the Olmert denial of any message being given for transmittal by Pelosi.

It appears that even The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/04/AR2007040402306_pf.html) is not too impressed with her trip and accordingly her leadership. Over the last year or so, I have been more and more non-plussed with the policies of the administration, but this editorial surprisingly enough (when you consider my leanings) echos the sentiments that I have been developing.

[obeygiant]

The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/04/AR2007040402306_pf.html)

From above article:

As any diplomat with knowledge of the region could have told Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Assad is a corrupt thug whose overriding priority at the moment is not peace with Israel but heading off U.N. charges that he orchestrated the murder of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq al-Hariri. The really striking development here is the attempt by a Democratic congressional leader to substitute her own foreign policy for that of a sitting Republican president.

[Sayhey]

I am surprised (well, not really) to see what could have been a valuable discussion about Pelosi's trip to the ME degenerate into Rep/Dem attacks.

Anyway, I suppose that it might be in another thread, but haven't seen mention here of the Olmert denial of any message being given for transmittal by Pelosi.

It appears that even The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/04/AR2007040402306_pf.html) is not too impressed with her trip and accordingly her leadership. Over the last year or so, I have been more and more non-plussed with the policies of the administration, but this editorial surprisingly enough (when you consider my leanings) echos the sentiments that I have been developing.

The Washington Post is no longer the Post of Ben Bradlee and Katie Graham.

The Post’s editorial pages are a source of much dissatisfaction among many Post-watchers. At his mother’s urging, one of Don Graham’s first and most important acts as publisher was to remove the longtime editorial page editor, Philip Geyelin, who was a solid liberal, and replace him with Meg Greenfield, a maverick with strong neoconservative leanings. Many observers say the pages have been drifting right ever since. In October 2001, the former Post editorial writer and syndicated columnist Colman McCarthy published a scathing article in The Progressive entitled “Why the Washington Post Op-Ed Page is So Dull.” McCarthy monitored the Post op-ed page daily for three months, and concluded that “it is a sheet of numbing sameness: centrist or rightwing viewpoints, listless writing, and pro-establishment megaphonics.” Friends say that Graham has grown increasingly conservative in recent years, and that the op-ed page — which features Robert Novak, Charles Krauthammer, and George Will as regular columnists — is not inconsistent with his own views. What is clear is that it’s a page in which conservative voices are very strong and liberal voices are very weak. Columbia Journalism Review (http://www.cjr.org/issues/2002/5/wash-stability.asp)

My read is that Olmert has backed off after pressure from the White House. Pelosi did not make it up that they gave here a message to deliver.

[Thomas Veil]

The Washington Post is no longer the Post of Ben Bradlee and Katie Graham.

Columbia Journalism Review (http://www.cjr.org/issues/2002/5/wash-stability.asp)Well. :mad: Strike another of the sources I can depend on for genuine news.

The right is really taking over all the media.

This (http://www.foxfaith.com/) scares me too.

[solvs]

And what is the nature of cowboy politics? Isn't that some variant of what Clint Eastwood did pre-dirtyharry style?
No, he actually wasn't that bad of a politician.

Thats exactly why she let those republicans tag along.
Uh, they were there first. She came tagging along later. If you're going to attack her, you should at least have your facts straight as to why you should be attacking her.

She didnt really accomplish anything.
Of course not. Neither did the Republicans who went. But at least they were doing something. All we get from Bush is tough talk, which just turns their people against us. He wasn't happy with the fact that any of them went and wouldn't use his talking points, but then, the Republicans didn't really care what he wanted.

I'd rather we talk than do nothing, or worse, make things even worse.

[Sayhey]

Well. :mad: Strike another of the sources I can depend on for genuine news.

The right is really taking over all the media.

This (http://www.foxfaith.com/) scares me too.

The Post still has some standards that set it apart from rags like the Washington Times, but its editorial policy is no longer liberal.

[obeygiant]

Uh, they were there first. She came tagging along later. If you're going to attack her, you should at least have your facts straight as to why you should be attacking her.


Please post these "facts".


Of course not. Neither did the Republicans who went. But at least they were doing something. All we get from Bush is tough talk, which just turns their people against us. He wasn't happy with the fact that any of them went and wouldn't use his talking points, but then, the Republicans didn't really care what he wanted.

I'd rather we talk than do nothing, or worse, make things even worse.

I guess you don't understand that we've been talking to Syria for a long time with NO RESULTS. The US was in the process of isolating Syria until Pelosi went to go visit. It sends mixed signals and images that Syria can now use as propaganda. Its one thing to disagree with the president, its another to overstep your bounds and usurp authority.

[princealfie]

Well. :mad: Strike another of the sources I can depend on for genuine news.

The right is really taking over all the media.

This (http://www.foxfaith.com/) scares me too.

Honestly, I don't trust any source whatsoever, left or right. Those are just arbitrary distinction based on historical and cultural assumptions actually. Isn't fascism a variant of communism with just a few twists?

Political designations are merely labels, signifying nothingness.

[Thomas Veil]

In the Israeli view, Olmert suggested the summit to begin debating the thorny questions that have long impeded peace. But in the Arab world, the suggestion of such a meeting sounded like a reversal of the proper order of things. To attend such a summit would already, in itself, signal recognition of the Jewish state, Arab analysts pointed out. Quoted in IJ's post #31 (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=3515024&postcount=31).

Yada yada yada, and on and on and on. It is this sort of childish posturing that Pelosi is trying to break through. Watching these two countries, it's like two guys standing back-to-back with their arms folded, waiting stubbornly for the other one to be the first turn around and acknowledge that there's even anyone else in the room.

So Pelosi failed. Like that's never happened in Middle East negotiations before. Big deal. She at least had a better chance than Bush with his policy of wanting to isolate Syria, which is doomed to fail. Is Pelosi's group sabotaging foreign policy? Yeah, maybe. But at least the intent is to show the Arabs and Israelis that not everyone in the United States government is a clumsy, my-way-or-the-highway absolutist, and that some of us are genuinely interested in working with them on a peace process.

You don't solve these kinds of deep problems with one meeting, or even a hundred meetings. It will take time and accommodation on both sides and tons of diplomacy to see any progress, not just tough talk.

And speaking of which, Mr. Diplomacy himself, Dick Cheney, had to have his say (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/06/cheney.pelosi.reut/index.html) about this.

[miloblithe]

Honestly, I don't trust any source whatsoever, left or right. Those are just arbitrary distinction based on historical and cultural assumptions actually. Isn't fascism a variant of communism with just a few twists?

Political designations are merely labels, signifying nothingness.

Don't be afraid to realize that things have meaning. It's a whole wide world out there, and it's actually pretty interesting.

[princealfie]

Don't be afraid to realize that things have meaning. It's a whole wide world out there, and it's actually pretty interesting.

Yes, but the meaning is wholly dependent on the signposts in a particular culture. One must remember the context.

I don't believe in the lack of meaning. I just believe that meaning is dependent on the cultural affectations of a particular interpretation. For example, it's just a matter of what lens is being used to understand and decipher the text at hand.

[IJ Reilly]

Fortunately I think the various parties involved recognize she doesn't speak for the United States in those circumstances, she doesn't represent the administration.

So no problem then, right?

[nbs2]

So no problem then, right?

Regardless of his ethics (or lack thereof), you have to admit Cheney is a pretty astute guy. Which is why I'm surprise he would say something so dumb. Believing that an American delegation of authorities wouldn't be viewed as having some semblage of authority is silly. Although the comments coming out of TWH have been cutting those illusions off - after all they do get CNN in Damascus.

[IJ Reilly]

Regardless of his ethics (or lack thereof), you have to admit Cheney is a pretty astute guy. Which is why I'm surprise he would say something so dumb. Believing that an American delegation of authorities wouldn't be viewed as having some semblage of authority is silly. Although the comments coming out of TWH have been cutting those illusions off - after all they do get CNN in Damascus.

He's trying to have it both ways, by pretending that Pelosi is creating some sort of miniature Constitutional crisis by visiting with a foreign leader, while at the same time minimizing the visit's importance. This certainly isn't an example of astuteness on Cheney's part. It just made me laugh.

[Swarmlord]

So no problem then, right?

Except for this latest development. http://opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009908.

Hopefully they'll have an investigation committee empaneled in time for her return.

[obeygiant]

Except for this latest development. http://opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009908.

Hopefully they'll have an investigation committee empaneled in time for her return.

"the people of the United States have given to the executive department the power to negotiate with foreign governments, and to carry on all foreign relations, and that it is therefore an usurpation of that power for an individual to undertake to correspond with any foreign power on any dispute between the two governments, or for any state government, or any other department of the general government, to do it."

Griswold and Parker were Federalists who believed in strong executive power. But consider this statement by Albert Gallatin, the future Secretary of the Treasury under President Thomas Jefferson, who was wary of centralized government: "it would be extremely improper for a member of this House to enter into any correspondence with the French Republic . . . As we are not at war with France, an offence of this kind would not be high treason, yet it would be as criminal an act, as if we were at war." Indeed, the offense is greater when the usurpation of the president's constitutional authority is done by a member of the legislature--all the more so by a Speaker of the House--because it violates not just statutory law but constitutes a usurpation of the powers of a separate branch and a breach of the oath of office Ms. Pelosi took to support the Constitution.


The Republicans probably won't take this issue this far about her going the Syria. In any case it would probably be called a "fishing expedition" by Dems.

[pseudobrit]

Let's just invade Syria instead and get it over with then. Worked out well for Iraq.

[Thomas Veil]

Except for this latest development. http://opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009908.That's from the notoriously right-wing WSJ opinion page. To quote Stan Lee, "'Nuff said."

Hopefully they'll have an investigation committee empaneled in time for her return.Let's do that! And then we can all sit down and talk about the idea of separation of power and abuses of office. I'm sure the Bush administration will have lots to explain to such a committee.

[obeygiant]

That's from the notoriously right-wing WSJ opinion page.


That pesky Wall Street Journal, I could just pinch them.

[princealfie]

Let's just invade Syria instead and get it over with then. Worked out well for Iraq.

I presume that you're one of them imperialists again eh?

[Sayhey]

Except for this latest development. http://opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009908.

Hopefully they'll have an investigation committee empaneled in time for her return.

You have no idea how fitting it is that the WSJ and you would push the enforcement of a unconstitutional law passed by the administration that gave us the Alien and Sedition Acts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts). Bush, like Adams before him, champions the idea of an all powerful executive. It is a good thing that history has shown that Adams overreach into monarchal powers was stopped, and it is far beyond the reach of this President to try to do what even Adams couldn't.

With regards your own cheerleading of this outrageous idea, it is just sad that we have people in this forum who would want to surrender more of our freedoms to the present day authoritarians.

[zimv20]

it is just sad that we have people in this forum who would want to surrender more of our freedoms to the present day authoritarians.
... while rooting for the failure of diplomacy.

i really wonder if the sentiments would be so strong if the speaker wasn't a woman. or does her party affiliation account for 100% of such sentiments?

[obeygiant]

... while rooting for the failure of diplomacy.


Good point.

[Swarmlord]

You have no idea how fitting it is that the WSJ and you would push the enforcement of a unconstitutional law passed by the administration that gave us the Alien and Sedition Acts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts). Bush, like Adams before him, champions the idea of an all powerful executive. It is a good thing that history has shown that Adams overreach into monarchal powers was stopped, and it is far beyond the reach of this President to try to do what even Adams couldn't.

With regards your own cheerleading of this outrageous idea, it is just sad that we have people in this forum who would want to surrender more of our freedoms to the present day authoritarians.

Lol! So you think that sedition is constitutionally protected?

<quote>
The Alien Friends Act (official title: An Act Concerning Aliens) authorized the president to deport any resident alien considered "dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States." Enacted June 25, 1798, with a two year expiration date.
</quote>

oooh. Wouldn't want to deport someone dangerous.
<quote>
The Alien Enemies Act (official title: An Act Respecting Alien Enemies) authorized the president to apprehend and deport resident aliens if their home countries were at war with the United States. Enacted July 6, 1798, with no expiration date, it remains in effect today as 50 USC Sections 21-24.
</quote>
How dare we deport enemy aliens during war!

<quote>
The Sedition Act (official title: An Act for the Punishment of Certain Crimes against the United States) made it a crime to publish "false, scandalous, and malicious writing" against the government or its officials. Enacted July 14, 1798, with an expiration date of March 3, 1801.
</quote>

Sounds like we need more Americans doing this. Especially if they are members of Congress themselves.

Yup, you sold me on your brand of America.:rolleyes:

[solvs]

Please post these "facts".
http://local.lancasteronline.com/4/202433

It's the first one I found, but I have more if you'd like. They were there a week before. Approved by the WH BTW. (correction, endorsed by the White House (http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/0406frilets064.html))

I guess you don't understand that we've been talking to Syria for a long time with NO RESULTS. The US was in the process of isolating Syria until Pelosi went to go visit. It sends mixed signals and images that Syria can now use as propaganda. Its one thing to disagree with the president, its another to overstep your bounds and usurp authority.
I don't even know where to start with that, but maybe you can post some links to help me out. ;) I know we haven't had results. Which is why THEY we going. If she and the Republicans were undercutting the WH, why did they ok it? Why hasn't anything they've done worked? And it has actually seemed to do some good (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17937056/). I just saw on the news Syria is opening talks again and may be releasing one of our prisoners. I'll try to find a link, but to be fair, I'll believe it when I see it. If they're lying, we'll know. If this turns into another situation like what happened in Iran, I'm thinking it's a good thing and glad we didn't stick with the rhetoric (please, Syria was already being propandized) or worse, go and attack them like so many do who are obvious ignoring our failures in the rest of the region.

What we were doing wasn't working, and what she (and the Republicans) were doing was completely within their rights (Bush isn't King, THEY have this power too), not to mention the fact that the WH said it was fine before they went (again, see the link above).

Hopefully they'll have an investigation committee empaneled in time for her return.
Are they going to do something about the Republicans too (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070404/republicans-syria)?

We keep forgetting about the Republicans who were doing the same thing, a week before, with the approval and endorsement of the White House... but somehow the Speaker of the House has overstepped her bounds. :rolleyes:

[Swarmlord]

<snip>
We keep forgetting about the Republicans who were doing the same thing, a week before, with the approval and endorsement of the White House... but somehow the Speaker of the House has overstepped her bounds. :rolleyes:

I guess the key there was that they were endorsed by the White House.:rolleyes:

[IJ Reilly]

Okay, I get it -- the only members of Congress who have a right to travel abroad and meet foreign leaders are those who are "endorsed by the White House."

A novel, if frightening, Constitutional interpretation.

[solvs]

Okay, I get it -- the only members of Congress who have a right to travel abroad and meet foreign leaders are those who are "endorsed by the White House."

Actually they do have to go over some of it with the CIA, Secret Service, etc. But since the THEY I was referring to included her, this really is a non issue. Even so, she wasn't doing anything the Republicans weren't. Less so actually. And they were the ones criticizing Bush, whereas Pelosi claimed to be merely continuing what he and his commission were recommending. :confused:

So pretty much the only reason Bush is criticizing her is because... actually, I don't really know. Doesn't make any sense. She making him look bad maybe?

Everybody knows Bush isn't the King, right?

[IJ Reilly]

Everybody knows Bush isn't the King, right?

If Bush is the King, then his crown is hanging down around his ears at the moment -- and he's got nobody to for it blame but himself.

This is really the key to the issue, IMO. If Bush hadn't maneuvered himself into such a weak position, he wouldn't find himself feeling the need to criticize a Democratic congressional leader's visit to Syria. Either the visit would not have occurred or he could have shrugged it off. We're only hearing such angry, partisan rhetoric from the White House over it because they're on the defensive. It's the only game they've got left.

[skunk]

and he's got nobody to for it blame but himself.Have you taken leave of your language, Yoda? :confused:

[IJ Reilly]

Have you taken leave of your language, Yoda? :confused:

For that to you to thank I have.

[zimv20]

harpers (http://harpers.org/archive/2007/04/horton-president-carter-bush-ordered)


President Carter: Bush Ordered Me Not to Go to Damascus

carter: “I have known President Bashar al-Assad since he was a college student, and I thought it might be helpful if I went and urged him to support the peace process in the Middle East. But for the only time in my life as a former president, I was ordered by the White House not to go.”

[Thomas Veil]

Nice. :mad:

[zimv20]

The Post still has some standards that set it apart from rags like the Washington Times, but its editorial policy is no longer liberal.

and until they fixed it, check out this confusion (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/07/AR2007040700441.html?hpid=topnews) from the wash post:

President Bush used his Easter weekend radio address to suggest that while Americans are "blessed" to have so many brave, volunteer military service members, congressional Democrats are jeopardizing their safety by refusing to sign his $100 billion war funding bill.


seems they eventually figured out (or someone pointed out) that congress doesn't actually sign bills into law.

[Swarmlord]

<snip>
seems they eventually figured out (or someone pointed out) that congress doesn't actually sign bills into law.

They'll figure it out when he vetos that pork laden thing they came up with and can't come up with the votes to override the veto.

[zimv20]

They'll figure it out when he vetos that pork laden thing they came up with and can't come up with the votes to override the veto.

we're OT now, but i'm curious -- please list for me what in the bill you consider pork.

[Sayhey]

Lol! So you think that sedition is constitutionally protected?<snip>

Yup, you sold me on your brand of America.:rolleyes:

I think criticism of your government is, indeed, protected speech, and has nothing to do with sedition. I think rounding up people based on their country or origin is reprehensible. I think trying to ban people from traveling is unconstitutional. And I also think the accumulation of power in the hands of one individual, no matter what party they belong to, is dangerous in the extreme and has nothing to do with what the revolution that won our nation's independence was about.

You might want to do a little reading of the Adams administration and the excesses of power that led to the elimination of the Federalist party and the advent of the Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party as the dominant force in US politics for the next 25 years. There are lessons to be learned in history if you bother to learn them.

[pseudobrit]

Lol! So you think that sedition is constitutionally protected?

<quote>
The Alien Friends Act (official title: An Act Concerning Aliens) authorized the president to deport any resident alien considered "dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States." Enacted June 25, 1798, with a two year expiration date.
</quote>

oooh. Wouldn't want to deport someone dangerous.
<quote>
The Alien Enemies Act (official title: An Act Respecting Alien Enemies) authorized the president to apprehend and deport resident aliens if their home countries were at war with the United States. Enacted July 6, 1798, with no expiration date, it remains in effect today as 50 USC Sections 21-24.
</quote>
How dare we deport enemy aliens during war!

<quote>
The Sedition Act (official title: An Act for the Punishment of Certain Crimes against the United States) made it a crime to publish "false, scandalous, and malicious writing" against the government or its officials. Enacted July 14, 1798, with an expiration date of March 3, 1801.
</quote>

Sounds like we need more Americans doing this. Especially if they are members of Congress themselves.

Yup, you sold me on your brand of America.:rolleyes:

Ladies and Gentlemen, a real, living Federalist in our midst.

I wonder how far back this new Regressive trend can take us? Will it end with emancipation or suffrage or can it go back to serfdom?

[pseudobrit]

and until they fixed it, check out this confusion (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/07/AR2007040700441.html?hpid=topnews) from the wash post:


seems they eventually figured out (or someone pointed out) that congress doesn't actually sign bills into law.

Of course they don't actually sign them. That's what the rubber stamp is for.

[solvs]

harpers (http://harpers.org/archive/2007/04/horton-president-carter-bush-ordered)
I never thought I could hate Bush anymore than I already do, but he just keeps making it easier.

we're OT now, but i'm curious -- please list for me what in the bill you consider pork.
Of course it had pork in it. It was filled with pork. But who was that pork for? It certainly wasn't for the Dems and moderate Repubs that already supported it.

Would have been nice if they could have passed it without the excess, but it barely passed as is.

I think criticism of your government is, indeed, protected speech, and has nothing to do with sedition.
Unless liberals do it. Then it's treasonous. ;) When cons did it during Clinton's reign of terror, it was patriotic. :rolleyes:

[obeygiant]

I never thought I could hate Bush anymore than I already do, but he just keeps making it easier.


hate leads to suffering. (http://img172.imageshack.us/img172/1061/yodainjedicouncilclosefab1.jpg)

[solvs]

hate leads to suffering. (http://img172.imageshack.us/img172/1061/yodainjedicouncilclosefab1.jpg)

You think I like hating the President? I don't. I don't like hating anyone. But he has done things that have pissed me off to no end. Most of which personally affect me and/or people I care about.

As I keep saying, I'll stop hating him when he stops giving me reason to.

[solvs]

Bush didn't object when they first asked before they went. (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/08/rahall-syria-trip/)

And if anyone wasn't sure, Newt Gingrich and Dennis Hastert are hypocrites. (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/04/09/chris-wallace-exposes-newt-gingrichs-pelosi-hypocrisy/)

[obeygiant]

And if anyone wasn't sure, Newt Gingrich and Dennis Hastert are hypocrites. (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/04/09/chris-wallace-exposes-newt-gingrichs-pelosi-hypocrisy/)

on Fox News Channel none the less.

[solvs]

on Fox News Channel none the less.

Thought you'd get a kick out of that.

Surprised me when I first saw it too.