Now if the Libs/Dems would just realize how close we are to history repeating. But as I saw in another post - they equate Bush to Hitler, not the crazy man in Iran.

The only history the libs see repeating is the halcyon Vietnam era, and of course nobody has a right to make any other historical comparisons. Its Vietnam or nothing, sister. They never learn.

Interesting how, on the day Amnesty International condemn worsening conditions at Guantanamo Bay, and Iran finalizes the release of the 15 British Marines detained in what, since the Iran-Iraq war dissolved internationally recognized boundaries, was disputed waters - both bad news for warmongering republicans - all this blog can think to do is try and continue to insult a democrat...

The other day someone replied to a post I made, saying how well the detainees are treated at Gitmo. Get your head out of the sand. Read Amnesty International's report.

This blog called for military action against Iran because it was the only way to free the UK hostages. They've been freed without a shot being fired or a bomb being dropped.

How many times do you guys have to be proved wrong before you'll start to recognise that it's NOT the glorious rose-tinted world you seem to think it is out there?

Probably as many times as it takes you to be proven wrong.

Time and time again people will continue to believe they are "correct" and that "history proves them correct." The problem with history is that few tend to live long enough to be "proven correct."

Paraphrasing Gozer: "By the time your proven correct, you're history!"

Luv the photoshopping, Leo!

Thanks, Freedom--that was my first attempt at an animated gif :)

So let me get this straight. You post a link making fun of Republican James Baker, a long time Bush family friend and ally for talking to Iran and equate that with Pelosi and some republicans visiting Syria. At the same time you equate modern day Syria with Nazi Germany. Wow.

So are you calling Republicans Frank Wolf of Virgina, Robert Aderholt of Alabama and Joseph Pitts of Pennsylvania, appeasers for going to Syria? After all they went there first.

Um, while you wingnuts are getting your panties in a wad because Pelosi met with President Assad, you seem to have nothing at all to say about the fact that congressional Republicans sent a delegation to Syria to meet with Assad just a couple days ago. What's more, the Republicans in question pretty much give the Administration the finger:

WASHINGTON — Three Republican congressmen who parted with President Bush by meeting with Syrian leaders said Wednesday it is important to maintain a dialogue with a country the White House says sponsors terrorism.

"I don't care what the administration says on this. You've got to do what you think is in the best interest of your country," said Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va. "I want us to be successful in Iraq. I want us to clamp down on Hezbollah."...

Bush sharply criticized House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., for leading a delegation to meet with Syria's president, Bashar Assad.

The White House, however, stayed relatively quiet about a similar trip just a few days earlier by Wolf and GOP Reps. Robert Aderholt of Alabama and Joseph Pitts of Pennsylvania....

"This is an area where we would disagree with the administration," Aderholt said. "None of us in the Congress work for the president. We have to cast our own votes and ultimately answer to our own constituents. ... I think there's room that we can try to work with them as long as they know where we draw the line."

Since the Administration has repeatedly shown itself to be incapable, incompetent, and unwilling in the realm of foreign relations, then it is up to other leaders to step up to the plate. For the sake of America's best interests, Bush either needs to lead, follow, or just go away (preferably the latter). Emotion-driven slogans that appeal to the very worst in ourselves are no substitute for a foreign policy.

"James Addison Baker III (born April 28, 1930) served as the Chief of Staff in President Ronald Reagan's first administration, Secretary of the Treasury from 1985 to 1988 in the second Reagan administration, and Secretary of State in the administration of President George H. W. Bush. He is also the founder of the James Baker Institute."

Just wanted to make sure you knew who you were making fun of.

Lord, I leave for a few drinks and have to return to this again. I said it on a different thread, Ill say it again here in reference to the republicans: WHO?

Now compare them to Speaker Pelosi who wields far more power and is second in line to the POTUS. Do you really believe that the dictator Assad looked upon the obscure republicans as anything more than a nuisance?

Who exactly is the press fawning over, who received the headline photos in the media? Please.

I also hear the Israeli gov't is using Pelosi as a go-between between them and Syria. All in all, I'm not sure this is a topic the GOP wants to emphasize. There are just too many holes in the argument.

Cheney W. Halliburove III,
I am shocked, shocked to read that you don't think republican congressmen count.

This blog called for military action against Iran because it was the only way to free the UK hostages. They've been freed without a shot being fired or a bomb being dropped.

And of course the release had nothing to do with the two carrier battle-groups drifting by Ahmadinjad's window, nor the Russian media report that America was planning to bomb Iranian nuclear sites on friday.

Yes, no shots were fired, yet the civilized world is again treated to the specatacle of Iran snatching people up and parading them like circus animals. How many occurrences since the revolution?

Alas, no condemnation from the righteous whisperwolf about the myriad violations committed against the British prisoners; their videotaping, duress confessions or forced wearing of clothing other than their prescribed uniforms, nor the very manner in which they were captured.

Of course the good liberals will simply excuse this treatment as a come-uppance for the west, a dose of our own medicine for all the ills we inflict on the world. Its typical and shameful but not unexpected, the left is constantly willing to exculpate the tyrants and savages.

Cheney W. Halliburove III,
Aside from the fact that your post is off topic, can you link to any post on this blog or others that suggested that the British prisoners got what they deserved.

I am shocked, shocked to read that you don't think republican congressmen count.

Then perhaps you need to read one of the earlier threads where the discussion eventually ricocheted to this very issue.

I castigated both Pelosi and the republicans for sticking their proboscis where they shouldnt; this casual mixing with the likes of dictator Assad sends the wrong message and smacks of snively pandering.

Cheney W. Halliburove III

"I castigated both Pelosi and the republicans for sticking their proboscis where they shouldnt; this casual mixing with the likes of dictator Assad sends the wrong message and smacks of snively pandering."

So are you saying that no one in our government should have anything to do with dictators? I have a feeling that it wouldn't take much research to find a few cases of Bush or his administration pandering to a dictator or two. Or are you saying that it's ok for Bush to pander but not anyone else?

I apologize with all possible deference, dear Casper, I didnt realize you were the blog moderator. Perhaps whisperwolf could join me in the stocks, since I was responding to his clouded assertation which was...um...'off topic'.

However, I suppose I might be willing to post a few dozen links to various sites which detail the left's adoration and/or excusal of Castro, the terrorists of Fallujah, the men who committed the 911 attacks, Che Guevara, Arafat, Tookie Williams, the 1979 takeover of our Iranian embassy, the deaths of private contractors in Iraq, etc. etc. etc.

As I previously stated, the left is constantly willing to exculpate tyrants and savages, the above list contains them both.

Cheney W. Halliburove III,
Please post away as I don't have any great love for the left.

Seriously, if I misunderstood your post I apologize. While I don't agree with you, you make good points and you don't insult people who disagree with you.

Please casper, save the insipid contortions for the exercise room, I dont have the patience to play semantic games with you. Attempting to parse my words by attaching your own meaning will only get tiresome. And only two choices at the end, really, I expected better.

Pelosi is not the president and her diplomatic haggling from the outside, speaking as if she is an official representative of the Bush administration, is fallacious and partisan. Its not her purview, and the cloying manner in which she subtly suggests to the dictator Assad is demeaning to the office of the president.

Ricorun: That's not what I heard/read. Israeli is none too happy Pelosi is hanging out in Syria.

I have no doubt that Pelosi is doing this for political reasons. However, if Bush was doing a better job, she wouldn't have this opening. I also find if hypocritical of the Bush administration to work with some dictatorships while blasting others.

CWH: And of course the release had nothing to do with the two carrier battle-groups drifting by Ahmadinjad's window, nor the Russian media report that America was planning to bomb Iranian nuclear sites on friday.

...or...

Cheney 3-

Gee, maybe you should be a little more intellectually "involved" in following international and domestic politics before posting here if;

a) You've never heard of anyone in that GOP cohort that just went to Syria,

b) You think it was the media who first decided to criticize Pelosi's trip,

c) You think only certain US elected public officials make local waves when travelling overseas.

You may just be playing dumb because you have no defense for the White House's two-faced partisan critique of Pelosi. If it is bad for any American to "validate" the Syrian regime by engaging in diplomacy, then Bush should have said so about the Republican delegation before Pelosi's, since theirs was chronologically prior.

And don't play like the "left" has a monopoly on dangerous bedfellows. Last time I checked the Bush's were personal friends, supporters, and business parters with a small dictatorship called the Sauds.

Anyway, as it ends up now the GOP trip was executed with the full cooperation of the Bush Administration and State Dept.

Insert right foot in mouth...

I apologize for being somewhat irascible in my last post, its getting to be time for bed and Im at my worst knowing the alarm will sound much too early.

If Pelosi really cared about the direction of the country, the last place she should present herself is before a tyrant. Why not start in a civilized country, England or Germany for example? No, instead she chose the very heart of the region which is causing so much grief to the world, and inserted herself into a cauldron which certainly doesnt need an extra American hand to help with the delicate stirring.

The POTUS must sometimes interact with dictatorships, its the nature of the business, but that business also includes the diplomatic options. Ignore them today, subtly befriend them tomorrow, all the while working to see their expulsion from power. Pelosi gave the illusion that Bush is now irrelevant and that SHE should be the power broker.

Ahh faget it.. They'll never get it.
Honestly, it's like something's blinding them to what's really happening.
The left has taken such a warped curve (since vietnam and the flower child era) that they're back where they started.
The fact that Hollywood movies garner more of their attention than current events speaks VOLUMES.
You can practically name the movies that influenced them.
From Soylent Green to Norma Rae to 1984 to Syriana these people keep floating around the same ideas decade after decade.
And not one of them DARES to make a movie about an islamic terrorist who's MISSION and life goal is to kill a westerner like Van Gogh in Denmark or christian school children in Indonesia or say... 3000 americans on 9-11.
They pick their battles as they see and feel them viscerally. They don't think globally or even idealogically. It's all "Hey, the only one threatening my house right now is 'the government' so why should I get animated about some terrorists in Iraq or Afghanistan."
Unflappable. That is what they are.

I must say anillo, I prefer the debate technique of people like casper to yourself, at least he had the courtesy to read prior postings.

The marrow of my argument is that Pelosi isnt just a congresswoman, she is the Speaker of the House and second in line to the POTUS, a title which embodies her with far more diplomatic potency than your average politico.

Read my last post, dealing with dictators is a sad necessity of being president but the manner of those dealings can be both subtle or unambiguous. Dispatching two anonymous congressmen to tickle the Syrian waters is nothing new, for all we know they were sent to gauge Assad's potential for either the carrot or the stick. The bonus is that Assad knows he is being watched but is not allowed to gain any importance by dealing with senior administration officials.

Pelosi acted and talked as if she were the one to ultimately decide foreign policy on matters between Syria, Israel and the United States. Her actions set a dangerous precedent by giving the illusion that Bush is now, or soon will be, irrelevant to the process.

I realize you felt triumphant in your post, confident that you were able to score a 'gotcha' point at the end; however, if you took the time to read earlier postings, you might gain a better sense of what the debate was really about. Which foot was that again?

Actually word is that the Germans were threatening to cut off supply of some necessary components for Irans nuclear industry if the hostages were not released. Ahamadjen (spelling?) realised that he could not get anything else out of holding the British. But he might get something from letting them go - although exactly when the British Embassy in Terhan is not sure. (atleast according to the last news item I saw, I don't have cable).

True Patty. Luckily we in America haven't had folks invading us militarily or attacking us in the streets every day for years. We have had the luxury of picking and choosing what we want to get involved in. For some we should never be involved.

For others we should only get involved while things are going well for us.

Still others think we should try and remove evil at it's source before it can spread to our shores.

There are so many views, and all are allowed because we are so very far from the trouble. Or are we? If areas of our country began "rioting" regularly (France) would we wake up to the problems or would we just warn tourists away from those areas and tell the police and fire departments to stay away from those areas? (Again like France. Though some city areas are avoided today) Obviously a single attack does not crystalize our views on these global problems, would several change that?

Most likely the Iranians didn't let them go for nothing. We've always had to bribe these bastards. Time to stop that.

gozer, I'm not really up on feeling flowery, during war time, about what the left has the "right" to espouse.
Any other time maybe. But not now.
They are as simple minded as they were in the sixties and seventies and WILL not change with the times.
They missed 911.