Haven't we learned anything over the past 100 years?

Some of us have. We've learned that you cannot trust a tyrant, no matter how big his smile.

OTOH, the left has learned that if you appease these people, they isolate their tyranny to their own borders, mostly, and while the left's in power, the DBM isolates its own coverage so as not to include the tyranny...

The Democratic leaders are traitors. Pelosi, Lantos and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer-who "met in Egypt with leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamist network that spawned Hamas"-should be brought up on charges. At the very least, they should be charged with violating the U.S. Constitution and overstepping their Congressional authority with this unauthorized, un-Constitutional "diplomacy" with terrorists. America is at war. Treason should be prosecuted once in a while.

Can we question their patriotism NOW? Please?

Fine let them go to Iran. I believe thats what Ahmedenajad wants anyway. Somewhere inside his palace I see him sitting at a throne with a hooded-black robe, cackling to himself, "Ah, yes the west is weak, Pelosi is strong in the force, she be a great asset, I have forseen it."

I'm trying to figure out how Nancy's foreign relations relate to Hillary. Is she running for Hillary's VP? Is she running against Sen. Clintion? Or is Nancy simply stoking her own ego without regard for the Democrat presidental race?

America is not at war, that would require a declaration from Congress. It is engaged in a police action. And there is no constitutional prohibition on congress to discuss issues with foreign leaders.

Talk about the pot and the kettle. Republicans talk to tyrants all the time. Heck, some visited Syria just before Pelosi did. Bush's stubborn refusal to talk to North Korea has proven to be a monumental failure and now the Republican White House IS talking to Kim, lunatic dictator extraordinaire, proliferator-in-chief and arms dealer to the world's pariahs (also with the consent of the US of course). The White House even admitted to talking with Iran's mullahs. And Iraqi insurgents groups. And Musharraf...

You clearly do not know what you speak of. Despite Iranian college students recently chanting "Death to the Dictator" at one of his recent speeches (What? Iranians allow some dissent?) Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not a dictator. His party did not gain any seats in the Assembly of Experts which chooses the next Grand Ayatollah. The Republican Guard barely seems to listen to him and he serves at the pleasure of the mullahs.
Their economy is in the crapper and he most likely will be out of power during the next election cycle or sooner if the mullahs decide.

What is it about lunatic, hate-filled, anti-American tyrants which makes liberal Democrats get weak in the knees?

What is it about liberals who accuse Dubya of not tolerating dissent, while "kneeling before the shrines" of dictators who imprison, torture and/or murder those who dare to dissent in their own countries?

OTOH, the left has learned that if you appease these people, they isolate their tyranny to their own borders

What makes their attempts at negotiation with terrorists and their tyrannical enablers so dangerous is that this time, what the Dems have learned is wrong. The tyrants may stay behind in their own countries, but the terrorists they enable will not.

"Ahmadi Nezhad has almost lost all the important people that backed him during presidential elections last year."
http://www.iran-press-service.com/ips/articles-2007/march-2007/ahmadi_revoked_30307.shtml

What is it about lunatic, hate-filled, anti-American tyrants which makes liberal Democrats get weak in the knees?

boy howdy, do you have that wrong. Libs love America, we only hate w and his gang of thieves. Fortunately he'll be gone back to his pig "ranch" in a short while and then hopefully on to prison for his crimes against humanity. Also fortunately, 70% of the American people understand this. It is the lunatic 305 -- you -- who still think your bizarre, ranting carping is anything but a lunatic fringe. Enjoy it while you can.

Mark, I agree 100 percent. Bowing down to dictators such as Ahmadinejad, Kim, Abdullah and Musharraf is not acceptable.

Mark,
You never fail to provide comic relief for the realists of this country. How much longer are you going to express your admiration for a President that's striving to bring the country down into the vortex of his discredited policy? Democrats do not hate this country like the Republicans do. Democrats do not hate the troops like the Republicans do. Unfortunately W has placed us into a completely impossible position in Iraq yet you persist in your adoration of him. I can always depend on this website for a view into the world of the misinformed, pathetic idealogues like yourself that continue to believe that W has any chance redeeming himself and his rapidly dissolving 'legacy'.

Wow, so Ms Pelosi and her entourage which included no Republicans, snuck out of the country and had secret meetings with foreign officials without President Bush's knowledge or approval?
Yes go ahead bring her and those with her up on charges please. This American begs you.
BTW how's Alberto doing these days?

Patxx,
See, that's what I mean about uninformed. There were 4 (FOUR) Republicans in Speaker Pelosi's group that went to the Middle East. It's so easy to spew misleading garbage than to actually stick to the facts. Oh BTW, she stopped in Israel first and carried a personal message to Syria from the Israeli PM (that means Prime Minister). It's interesting that this website is not whining about Daryl Issa's trip to Syria the week before Speaker Pelosi's trip. It's so easy to ignore inconvenient truths when spreading Republican talking points.

NJLiberal,
I'm pretty sure patx77 was being ironic and sarcastic.

Mark Noonan,
Uh oh, those crazy democrats are at it again. Bill Richardson just got North Korea to

Here's how Newsmax obscures the news:
"New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson may have just ended his fledgling campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, shipwrecked on the rocky coast of North Korea."

And here's what happened:
North Korea has offered to allow UN nuclear inspectors to enter the country for the first time in more than four years and to begin shutting down its main nuclear reactor within a day of retrieving its funds from a Macao bank, said Bill Richardson, a Democratic U.S. presidential candidate, who returned Wednesday from a trip to North Korea, where he had met with officials.

Why is the White House enabling these Democrats' discussions with barbarians?
It's called diplomacy.

"We've learned that you cannot trust a tyrant, no matter how big his smile."
When did this learning come about? Those of your ilk have been supporting tyrants-of-convenience for decades. Now suddenly you know better? I think not.

"overstepping their Congressional authority"
Funny, we didn't hear any complaints when Newt Greenitch went to China and lectured them on US foreign policy about Taiwan.

carsick: I believe the administration asked Richardson to go to North Korea. He was not, however, meeting because of nuclear weapons, but to recover the remains of our troops lost in the Korean War.

NJlibtard: We've already discussed this over and over and over again. No one on this blog condoned the unknown Republicans going to Syria either.

Carsick sputters: "Despite Iranian college students recently chanting "Death to the Dictator" at one of his recent speeches (What? Iranians allow some dissent?) Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not a dictator."

Hmmmm. 70% of the Iranian population believe Ahmadinejad is a dictator but you say he isn't. LOL!!

So, sick and NJ kook, you both actually think that your lib leaders will have an impact on the security of America through their diplomatic escapades?

Talk about lemmings!

Firstly, Piglosi lied when she attempted to act as liason between Syria an Israel and Israeli PM Olmert emphatically denied any such endorsement.
Secondly, if you call wearing a burka and kissing the bacteria infested toes of Bashar al-Assad, the thug terrorist that supports Hezbollah and Hamas, diplomacy, you're living on a different planet! Anyone that believe a word out of his mouth is a fool..period.
Thirdly, ole chubby cheeks Richardson (he's part Mexican ya know) strolls on over to NK to visit with his, and Maddam Dulbright's b-hole buddy Kim Jong Sicko to engage in a little game-o-b-ball to solve all the nasty problems that the west has created for the poor little disturbed midget.

You both see your leaders as diplomats and contrary to popular liberal belief, 70% of the planet views them as "suckers".

What is it about lunatic, hate-filled, anti-American tyrants which makes liberal Democrats get weak in the knees?

You are an @sshole! No mention of repubs going, huh? No mention of the fact that we talked with USSR during the cold war, nazis during wwii and n. korea and china during korean conflict. Why no mention of that? Then instead of honestly posting, you then start calling people names. Thats grade school crap. That is what we expect from you dear lead Dumbya. We have come to expect insanity from bush, but at least you could pull your head out of HIS @ss for a second and get a breath of fresh air. You need it, badly!

navydad: Thirdly, ole chubby cheeks Richardson (he's part Mexican ya know) strolls on over to NK to visit with his, and Maddam Dulbright's b-hole buddy Kim Jong Sicko to engage in a little game-o-b-ball to solve all the nasty problems that the west has created for the poor little disturbed midget.

You do realize that that chubby cheeked Mexican had the full endorsement of W, don't you? This is not in any way an instance of parallel diplomacy. W's the guy who sent him.

"What is it about lunatic, hate-filled, anti-American tyrants which makes liberal Democrats get weak in the knees?"

That's right! The best way to deal with these wogs is in secret, underground and with arms trading!

kimberly
The definition of a dictator is an absolute ruler. Ahmadinejad is an elected leader who barely won his election and his party actually lost council seats.
The rulers in Iran are the mullahs and the Grand Ayatollah... and then the Republican Guard. He defies either of them too much and he'll be gone.
Stop trying to learn about the world by depending solely on right wing blogs.

My point about Richardson was that the administration was backing a Democrat talking to a barbarian. Though there was no press of him being asked to do anything beyond collecting the remains.
The topic of this post is that we should not talk to barbarians.

Navydad
I'm curious, where did you find that 70% number? Poll after poll has shown that world opinion of America has gone down dramatically since our invasion. I don't think that world opinion was formed because of the congressional minority party who did not have a member in the White House.

Rico
Yes, I understand, but ole CC is one of those that thought he could sway NK's nuke ambitions by circumventing our Administraion a few years back.
Just making a point, that's all.

sick
If you'll notice, I didn't mention America, now did I? I said 70% ( a generalization based on the average intellect) of the "planet", in which most people understand that Syria is a main supporter of terrorism...something most people believe, even you, I'm sure of it. So, if you believe this fact, you do, don't you? Then you must agree that if I agree and you agree and let's say Rico agrees that Syria is a state sponsor of terrorism, then that makes 100% of those involved in this agrument in agreement, which means that my 70% figure is actually low. And since we know that Syria is a SPoT, then that makes your leaders suckers if they believe they can promote change. Unless you don't believe, in which case you are dumber and more gullible than I first thought.

Sorry neocons, as much as you hate to admit it, Iran is a DEMOCRACY. And so was Iraq before we broke it.

Ahmadighanjadijad was ELECTED by the people of Iran, not selected by some secretive Islamic court.

carsick,
You state that "technically", Ahmadinejad is not a dictator. Fine.

Apparently the Iranian students you mentioned in your first post disagree with you.

Maybe you need to calmly explain the finer points of how you know more about how their country is run and what it's like to live there to them. They are obviously not as informed of the political and governmental climate in Iran as you are.

I have an idea...why don't you tag along with Pelosi while she flips her skirt over the dicta...I mean...Iranian President's head. Maybe you could walk outside the "Presidential Palace" and explain how the Iranian citizens are lucky to have Ahmadinejad as "president" and not Bush. I'm sure Bill, Al, Rosie and many other Hollywood "intellectuals" would applaude your efforts. Hell, you might even be asked to become Obama's VP running mate!! Nirvana at last!! The return of Camelot!! All the world will love us!! Even more so when the smoke from our burning cities subsides and is no longer contributing to the Global Warming concerns....

haha, that was fun... I kinda' understand why the left likes to just make things up instead of finding, evaluating and presenting facts in a debate. Work sucks...

Can one of you please attempt to explain why the Pelosi trip amounted to treason, while the same types of trips made by republicans were completely unobjectionable? (I mean, the explanation is obvious -- you're political hacks -- but I was wondering if you wanted to offer an alternate explanation.)

Little history lesson for the 30%ers: Wolf and Issa recently went to Lebanon and Syria, from which they criticized Bush policy. Gingrich went to China in 97, and afterwards the Clinton Administration was forced to state that Gingrich was speaking for himself. Hastert went to Columbia in 97, and told murdering Columbian generals to deal directly with the GOP and circumvent the executive branch.

But all that's okay with you guys. The real problem is that Pelosi went over there and explained to Assad the same policy which Bush has stated.

First I invite you to explain what otherwise looks like gross hypocrisy. Then, depending on how you do, I'll explain why you are forced to be hypocrites on this point.

MyPetGloat
Although I detect a sense of sarcasm. Your point actually has more merit than you think.

Believe it or not, considerable good came from this cabal and along with it a whole new way of negotiating deals....behind the scenes of course.

Back in the late 80's I had a paper shredder next to my desk with Ollie's picture on it...what a great guy!

navydad
Terrorist supporting nations are nowhere near 70% of the world population, powers or countries first of all.
And secondly, if you are just making up a number, just admit it. What you wrote above is gobbledy gook justification for a fictional number.

I'm curious why so many have turned down the president's invitation to become the war czar though given that the role is to to oversee the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with authority to issue directions to the Pentagon, the State Department and other agencies the candidates, all being ex-military and experienced with the chain of command, probably know that that role is already filled...by the commander in chief.
Has the president lost faith in the commander in chief?

Rich,
I'm certain you can find a protest rally here in the good ol' USA where students are calling Bush a dictator. Calling him that and being that are two different things.
It's tiring to explain things to people who have so little knowledge of the areas they want to share an opinion on. Please read this so at least you can get a bit more knowledge of how Iran works:
http://www.iran-press-service.com/ips/articles-2007/march-2007/ahmadi_revoked_30307.shtml

sick

I never said terrorist nations either. You have an odd way of interpreting things.

The 70% statement was a generalization...get it? And when I asked if you and Rico agree that Syria is a SSoT, if you agree, then we're closer to 100%, since you're a kook, Rico is and Ind. and I'm conservative which rounds out the consensus.

You kooks pay way to much attention to polls...lighten up a bit!

ChooseLife writes: "Sorry neocons, as much as you hate to admit it, Iran is a DEMOCRACY. And so was Iraq before we broke it."

I assume you are referring to the Iraq elections where Saddam won 99.9% of the votes? LMAO!!

Carsick: I'm getting tired of explaining to you the difference between a dictator and a democracy! Why don't you read some Iranian blogs (the ones that haven't yet been discovered by the dictatorship and taken down and the blogger sent to prison without a trial) and then get back to me.

BTW, since you obviously have very little knowledge of my worldly travels and research, quit assuming you know ANYTHING about me. Thanks.

navydad,
I'll quote you directly:
"You both see your leaders as diplomats and contrary to popular liberal belief, 70% of the planet views them as "suckers".

How do you define "planet"?
It certainly isn't a handful of commenters at Blogsforbush, that's for sure..

kimberly,
I'd be happy to see your list of Iranian bloggers and read some of what they have to say.
In the meantime, you might learn a bit yourself by reading the article I keep linking to in the Iran Press Service. It is the oldest post-revolution English language Iranian publication outside Iran.

carsick...are you Steve in disguise?
It's all analogy!!!

K4B

Carsick has no sense of humor and is just plain dense!!

navydad
Do you want to debate using real information or do you want to just say "Democrats are traitors" and then fall back, when challenged, on "I was being humorous."
Calling more than half the population (those who oppose the President's strategy in Iraq) traitors is a serious charge.
Back it up or back away.

By the way, "70% of the planet" is not an analogy. The term you might be looking for is "hyperbole".

No, we'll stick with analogy.

Carsick...dems are traitors and you are not humorous.

BTW, the crap that you post is never assumed to be "real information".

Ha ha ha.

An exaggeration is a generalization (your term) and is now an analogy. Better call Webster's, there's a new definition in town.

I was going to try to inject a little reason into the overall debate, but it appears that, once again, the overall debate has gotten beyond that point. So I will only respond to only a specific issue...

navydad: Yes, I understand, but ole CC is one of those that thought he could sway NK's nuke ambitions by circumventing our Administraion a few years back. Just making a point, that's all.

What point was that? Are you implying that Bush, knowing full well what Richardson's credentials are (or, according to you, lack thereof), must be an imbecile for sending Richardson to head the diplomatic effort in NK? In other words, is this another example of the Bush administration's incompetence? If not that, then what are you saying exactly?

Rico

Most of that post was meant to be dings and digs.
But I guess my humor didn't come thru...sorry!

K4B:

Saddam actually had 100% of the vote.

he hired Diebold too.

Joke's on all you. Pelosi's office has stated she has no intention of going to Iran. If you actually read the excerpted piece that Mark posted, you would note that nowhere does Pelosi say that she intends to go to Iran, or even wants to go to Iran. All she did was not dispute (e.g., not say anything about) the statement that she might be ready to go to Iran and have a dialogue. As usual, this is a made up controversy designed to hurt Pelosi.

For those keeping score, we've got:

1. Airplane-gate (Pelosi demands bigger jet!) - Fabricated controversy. Speaker did not ask for any plane.

2. Pelosi's trip to Syria. Hypocritical, fabricated controversy. Hypocritical in that Republicans were there one week before, and with her on her trip. Hypocritical because Hastert and Gingrich made several trips to foreign countries as Speaker and specifically spoke against stated US policy (Pelosi did no such thing.)

3. Pelosi's plans to go to Iran. Fabricated controversy. Pelosi never said she plans to go, and has now specifically said she doesn't.

That makes you wingnuts 0-3 against Pelosi. Care to try again?

Chose.Life.Not.War,

So you and your DEMOCRAT friends believe "...Iraq [was a DEMOCRACY] before we broke it."

16 October, 2002:

"Iraqi officials say President Saddam Hussein has won 100% backing in a referendum on whether he should rule for another seven years."

"There were 11,445,638 eligible voters - and every one of them voted for the president, according to Izzat Ibrahim, Vice-Chairman of Iraq's Revolutionary Command Council."

"The government insists the count was fair and accurate."

"Saddam Hussein - who has ruled Iraq since 1979 - was the only candidate."

"The government offered no explanation for how it tabulated paper ballots from remote regions across the country of 22 million people overnight."

"The referendum was a simple 'yes' or 'no' vote on keeping Saddam in power another seven years."

Would anyone VOTE otherwise in SADDAM's DEMOCRACY considering:

"Saddam Hussein killed an estimated 1.3 to 1.5 million people -- maybe more -- a horrifying picture of between 70 and 125 civilian deaths per day for every one of Saddam's 8,000-odd days in power"

"...history may judge that the stronger case was the one that needed no inspectors to confirm: that Saddam Hussein, in his 23 years in power, plunged this country into a bloodbath of medieval proportions, and exported some of that terror to his neighbors."

"...Along with other human rights organizations, The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq. Human Rights Watch reports that in one operation alone, the Anfal, Saddam killed 100,000 Kurdish Iraqis. Another 500,000 are estimated to have died in Saddam's needless war with Iran. Coldly taken as a daily average for the 24 years of Saddam's reign, these numbers give us a horrifying picture of between 70 and 125 civilian deaths per day for every one of Saddam's 8,000-odd days in power"

"...suggested that the number of those who have "disappeared" into the hands of the secret police, never to be heard from again, could be 200,000."

"Kurdish groups estimate Anfal's victims were ... up to 180,000 ... Human Rights Watch concluded that 'the Iraqi regime committed the crime of genocide.' Anfal's intense phase lasted three months in the spring of 1988. If we estimate its victims at 100,000, the regime was killing Kurds alone at a rate of around 30,000 each month, or a thousand a day."

"Saddam Hussein's government may have executed 61,000 Baghdad residents, a number significantly higher than previously believed..."

"...occupation authority in Iraq has said that at least 300,000 people are buried in mass graves in Iraq. Human rights officials put the number closer to 500,000, and some Iraqi political parties estimate more than 1 million were executed."

Yeah ...Right you DEMOCRATS ...SADDAM HUSSEIN ran a GREAT and MODEL DEMOCRACY!

It's always good to know that DEMOCRATS believe Saddam Hussein was better for Iraq!

Yes... Let's have another DEMOCRAT CHEER for Saddam Hussein and his DEMOCRACY!!!

AAR

I can't believe CLNW actually said that Iraq was a democracy before the invasion. I knew he/she/it was a kook, but I didn't think he/she/it was a lost cause.

Anybody else want to jump on the kook ship?

I have a medical question for all you libs and lib trolls...
Doesn't all that bile just play hell with your stomach lining??????

Saudi Arabia approves of Nancy Pelosi's visit to Syria!!!

Saudi Paper: Pelosi is the 'Alternate President' -Lgf, "At the Saudi Gazette, here’s an editorial published shortly after Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s visit to the House of Saud": "The Alternate President".

US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi reminds us of the ambitious office worker who is surrounded by dunderheads who can’t or won’t get the job done. So she rolls up her sleeves and says for all the world to hear: “Well, it looks like I’ll have to do it myself.’

Pelosi, the rabble-rousing Democratic leader – or better yet the Alternate President – apparently has decided that President George Bush’s refusal to sit down and negotiate with Syria and Iran is just plain silly. If we are going to inch closer towards peace in Iraq, slow down Iran’s nuclear ambitions and create a stable region, perhaps folding our arms across our chests and frowning is not the right approach.

"What is it about lunatic, hate-filled, anti-American tyrants which makes liberal Democrats get weak in the knees"?
If that were true, Bush would've gotten 100% of the vote...

I'm still waiting for someone with responsibility for posts at this blog to acknowledge that bashing only Pelosi for something (a) that a republican congressional delegation did one week before she did and (b) in which she was actually accompanied by republicans, is simple partisanship, and hypocritical partisanship at that. In the alternative, I would find this blog more respectable if at the very least it named and similarly criticized the above-mentioned republicans just as it does pelosi and the democrats.

MBC

I don't recall a Republican relaying any bogus message from the Israeli PM to the Syrian thug leader...do you?? That's because the Republicans mostly speak with one voice, unlike the Dems that feel they should be dictating foreign policy.

Sounds to me like Pelosi must have read that bipartisan blue ribbon committee that Bush impanelled the Iraq Study Group

I think SteveGA pretty much nailed it. One fake scandal after another trying to "nail" Pelosi and she comes out clean of each one. Meanwhile, in the time period of the last three months, I've lost track of the number of REAL scandals this Administration has generated. But this thread isn't about scandals, it's about how wrong Pelosi is to have gone, with Republicans, to Syria to stress America's position to the government there, because talking to these guys doesn't work and what Bush is doing, um, works so bloody well.

Bush's foreign policy is broadly acknowledged to be the worst on record. Now even England hates us and when there are not even three countries left where less than half the country no longer views us as moral leaders, that's just great. And we have been so stellar in our foreign policy successes in the Mid East, like. Um. Uh. Um.

Paging Madame Pelosi. At least she can't screw it up any worse. I mean, seriously.

Well Peter

Then you obviously have never understood our foreign policy, nor do you understand that America MUST speak with one voice, otherwise our enemies will try to find holes in our weakness....idiot.