Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Searching for a clue
Posted by: McQ on Wednesday, May 02, 2007

Seems The Carpetbagger Report can't wait for the right to start sounding off about this:
I can’t wait to hear the noise machine blather endlessly about how Condoleezza Rice is undermining U.S. policy by chatting with Syrian officials.

[...]

Ah yes, the Pelosi meeting. As I recall, when the Speaker of the House chatted with Syrian officials last month, the White House, congressional Republicans, and far-right activists were apoplectic. CNN ran a news segment on Pelosi’s trip titled “Talking to Terrorists.”
Uh, time to buy a clue. Talking to Syria is Rice's job. It is that for which she's paid the big bucks.

As for Peolosi, an analogy is in order: it would be a bit like Ms. Rice stepping up to the podium in the House of Representatives and attempting to call the House to order and pass the Iraq funding supplemental bill. The condemnation would be loud and a certain element would certainly "blather endlessly" about it. Apoplectic wouldn't begin to describe the reaction of Democrats or the "reality based community".
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
That’s not what you said in the sandmonkey post a few down the queue.
The signal given by Pelosi, et al, was that the US was interested in placating a thug. The signaled promise that changes were in the wind was enough to free Assad from fearing any real consequences for his actions.
How much more interested are we if we send the Secretary of State over? Is Atlas Pam going to put out a cartoon of Assad bending Condi Rice over his desk, like she did with Pelosi? We can argue the question of whether talking to foreign leaders is part of the House Majority Leader’s job, but that’s not the case you were making earlier. That case was all about the signals she sent by engaging Syria and giving dictators legitimacy. Nice rollback though. Of course this leaves you arguing about the definition of fact-finding with regards to meetings you weren’t in, that were attended by republicans as well as Pelosi and State Department Officials. Good luck with that.
 
Written By: Retief
URL: http://
I can’t wait to hear the noise machine blather endlessly about how Condoleezza Rice is undermining U.S. policy by chatting with Syrian officials.
It won’t happen...........

 
Written By: darohu
URL: http://
As for Peolosi, an analogy is in order: it would be a bit like Ms. Rice stepping up to the podium in the House of Representatives and attempting to call the House to order and pass the Iraq funding supplemental bill. The condemnation would be loud and a certain element would certainly "blather endlessly" about it. Apoplectic wouldn’t begin to describe the reaction of Democrats or the "reality based community".
That would, however, be an excellent thing to do, and thus teach an object lesson: "This is your job, this is our job, now stfu..."
 
Written By: Scott
URL: http://
How much more interested are we if we send the Secretary of State over?
Why do you think that the Secretary of State’s message would be different from a message given by the President himself? Why do you think that Representative Pelosi’s message would be anything like a message given by the President himself?

I can already imagine why you cannot see the difference between the two.
 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
What we are seeing is a turf war between the Secretary of State and the Speaker of the House. Pelosi is trying to usurp the power of Secretary Rice in foreign affairs. It’s all part of the Democrats delusion that winning control of Congress makes them rulers of America. Never mind there are two other branches of government. The “People” have spoken and Democrats believe the message is “Take over and establish a Socialist, Pacifist, Isolationist society run by Unions and Special Interest Groups.” Unfortunately the boobwazee have no interest in governance and only are interested in their Beer, Snacks and the Boob Tube. We will get the kind of Government we deserve. Bummer.
 
Written By: James E. Fish
URL: http://faroutfishfiles.blogspot.com/
It is that for which she’s paid the big bucks.
Paul Wolfowitz’s girlfriend gets paid more.
 
Written By: unaha-closp
URL: http://warisforwinning.blogspot.com/
Why do you think that the Secretary of State’s message would be different from a message given by the President himself? Why do you think that Representative Pelosi’s message would be anything like a message given by the President himself?
Do you have any proof that Pelosi’s message was any any different from President’s?
And do you really suggest that the Speaker should not be able to meet the foreign leaders? Does it only apply to Pelosi whom you don’t like, or to Gingrich and Hastert that did the same thing as well?
 
Written By: Nikolay
URL: http://
Oh, thank God for Nikolay. Otherwise, I thought we wouldn’t be rehashing an old discussion.
 
Written By: steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/
Do you have any proof that Pelosi’s message was any any different from President’s?
What we have is the administration asking her not to go. So do you suppose, after telling her not to go, they were convinced she’d be carrying the same message as the president’s?
And do you really suggest that the Speaker should not be able to meet the foreign leaders?
Nope, they go on fact finding tours all the time. What she did was attempt to engage in diplomacy.

Not. Her. Job.
Does it only apply to Pelosi whom you don’t like, or to Gingrich and Hastert that did the same thing as well?
None of ’em ... and I’ve previously made precisely that point.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Paul Wolfowitz’s girlfriend gets paid more.
Feinstein’s take beats both of theirs combined...
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Do you have any proof that Pelosi’s message was any any different from President’s?
Since Pelosi does not agree with anything President Bush proposes, it would be highly unlikely she would be carrying a message Bush would approve of.
 
Written By: James E. Fish
URL: http://faroutfishfiles.blogspot.com/
Do you have any proof that Pelosi’s message was any any different from President’s?

Since Pelosi does not agree with anything President Bush proposes, it would be highly unlikely she would be carrying a message Bush would approve of.
James, the request was for proof, not idle speculation based on wooly suppositions. You’re just trying to use your rightwing logic to silence his dissent.
 
Written By: Robby
URL: http://
What we have is the administration asking her not to go. So do you suppose, after telling her not to go, they were convinced she’d be carrying the same message as the president’s?
They didn’t tell her not to go. They played "gotcha" after she went.
And, seriously, what kind of different message do you think she would send? Like "we don’t mind you letting terrorists slip into Iraq"? Or "don’t let that Zionist entity survive"? Or "keep on screwing Lebanon, we dhimmicrats totally love it"?
Nope, they go on fact finding tours all the time. What she did was attempt to engage in diplomacy.
Because Matt Drudge told you so.
What she did wasn’t in any way different from what Gingrich and Hastert did in their times, in fact what they did was worse — i.e., they did contradict Clinton, while Pelosi just said platitudes, "behave, change your ways, and we will welcome you again".
 
Written By: Nikolay
URL: http://
My God, Nikolay, read the old posts on this before spouting off.

The context of her discussion and what she said and why many feel it is different and wrong are there. And that is including where she distorted the Israeli position

You would seem less of an idiot if you at least researched it first.
 
Written By: cap joe
URL: http://
Because Matt Drudge told you so.
Jeez I hate newbies. They drive in and mouth off without even bothering to get a flavor of the site. Matt Drudge, Jeez

Back to the DU for you.
 
Written By: cap joe
URL: http://
And that is including where she distorted the Israeli position.
Olmert is a total screw-up with 2% approval rating who does stupid things all the times. Pelosi’s message to Syria was: "renounce terrorism, Hamas, blah-blah-blah, there will be peace with Israel". Olmert’s "clarification" was: "yes, we want peace with Syria, but they have to renounce terrorism, Hamas blah-blah-blah first". That’s just the case of media distortions and a lot of cheap gotcha politics.
No idiot could really believe that Pelosi said to Syrians "Israel doesn’t mind your support for Hamas at all".
 
Written By: Nikolay
URL: http://
Olmert is a total screw-up with 2% approval rating who does stupid things all the times.
Oh, man ... pathetic.

Red herring alert.

What in the world, even if true, does that have to do with the fact that she misrepresented his position?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Well Mark, let’s walk through this slowly. McQ suggests that Pelosi, by going to Syria, sent Assad a signal that "the US is interested in placating thugs". Up to now Bush’s message has been "we don’t talk to no evildoers like you", but Pelosi did. Guess what, Bush just sent the Secretary of State to talk to the very thugs McQ seems concerned about. (Maybe because our policy of not talking to them has completely failed to influence their behavior in ways we’d prefer.) If Pelosi’s going sent McQ’s message, then Rice’s going sent the message much more strongly.

Or maybe Bush’s "we don’t talk to dictators, we crush them" policy was idiotic from the start and neither of these visits to simply engage Syria is quite the apocalypse y’all made Pelosi’s out to be.

 
Written By: Retief
URL: http://
One way or another Mr. Retief, it’s not the job of the Speaker of the House of Representatives to wander around being a diplomat.

It wasn’t when Gingrich was Speaker either.

The Speaker has no business going anywhere and talking to any leader of any country telling them any thing on behalf of the government because it’s not the Speaker’s job to establish and/or administer Foreign policy.

Rice on the other hand....

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
What in the world, even if true, does that have to do with the fact that she misrepresented his position?
The fact that he’s a screw-up means that if he claims that she misrepresented his position, this doesn’t mean that this is the case. He’s the same guy that acknowledged that Israel has nukes, when it’s official policy of Israel not to acknowledge this. He decided to insert himself into this controversy for whatever stupid reasons that only he himself knows.
He’s so stupid as to claim that Iraq war was good for Israel, when the Iraqi parliament is lead by a speaker that claims that all the terrorism in Iraq is caused by the Zionist conspiracy and the Iraqi government wouldn’t condemn Hezbollah and supports anti-Israel boycotts.
 
Written By: Nikolay
URL: http://
The fact that he’s a screw-up means that if he claims that she misrepresented his position, this doesn’t mean that this is the case.
Ah, so he doesn’t know his position as well as she and you know it, right?

Yeesh.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
looker, that’s a dandy position to have. It’s wrong, but at least consitent. It’s also the fall back position that McQ articulates in the post related to this current thread. But it’s not what he or the whitehouse was saying at the time Pelosi was there. If it had been he’d have had to explain why it was the job of a whole delegation of congressional republicans who were in Syria the week before Pelosi. Or explain the conspicuous silence on that topic.
 
Written By: Retief
URL: http://
It’s wrong? Really?

When the Secretary of State meets with a foreign power that’s not the same as when the Speaker of the House does it, especially when the Speaker is from the party that, for want of a better but less accurate term, opposes the party that controls the White House. The Sec State has to meet with evil empires, etc. The Speaker....nyet.

Meeting with foreign leaders who we’re at odds with has become a mainstay of her job it seems. I’d say that sends a pretty clear message and the message certainly isn’t one of a ’United’ States. But you clearly can’t, or won’t see the trend in her behavior in order to be able to stick with your chosen talking points, which are misrepresentations in and of themselves.

I recall posting on the original thread, the most consistent point was Pelosi was out of her depth, and acting out of her job description.


 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Ah, so he doesn’t know his position as well as she and you know it, right?
The fact that Cheney says that insurgency is in its last throes doesn’t mean that it’s in its last throes. The fact that Olmert says that Pelosi misrepresented his position doesn’t mean that this happened. Pelosi said to Assad: "Renounce Hamas, blah-blah-blah, Israel will speak to you". Some Drudgian rumor turned it into "Pelosi says that Israel is willing to sing kumbaya with Syria". Olmert fell for it and issued a "correction", the Drudgian noise on this non-issue became even louder.

And the only way that Pelosi was not "on President’s message" is in not falling for the non-official part of his policy, such as support for the crazy "Reform Party of Syria" that is lead by a guy that left the country when he was eight and makes Chalabi look a sane and well-beloved politician. He’s a kind of guy that all the genuine dissidents hate — he has no real convictions or interests besides his own, but his crazy rantings make a good pretext for declaring all the opposition groups treasonous fifth column.
 
Written By: Nikolay
URL: http://
The fact that Cheney says that insurgency is in its last throes doesn’t mean that it’s in its last throes.
Do you even realize how many stupid categorical mistakes you’ve made in this thread?

I mean, that analogy is a complete non sequitur and you don’t even realize it.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
I mean, that analogy is a complete non sequitur and you don’t even realize it.
Because Cheney doesn’t have a correct information, he says something that is not true. Because Olmert doesn’t have a correct information, he says something that is not true. What’s wrong with this analogy?
He certainly knows his own position, but that doesn’t preclude him from being misinformed about what Pelosi said in Syria.
 
Written By: Nikolay
URL: http://
He certainly knows his own position, but that doesn’t preclude him from being misinformed about what Pelosi said in Syria.
Ah, of course ... it couldn’t possibly be Pelosi who’s misinformed, could it?

Good grief.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
being misinformed about what Pelosi said in Syria
It’s okay McQ, he thinks Mossad is as big a group of idiots as Plame runs with.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider