Because terrorists have twisted a religion is no reason to not be respectful of the religion as a whole. No need to throw out the baby with the bath water. In your mind you have made the scarf a symbol. The terrorists certainly have done no such thing, and won't see it as a symbol of their cause at all.
Roxran, again I think you're missing that Syria is a secular dictatorship and it in her meetings with Assad she wasn't wearing the headscarf. If she was appeasing Assad why would she NOT wear the headscarf druing her meetings with him? This debate over Pelosi's head covering has completely sidetracked the debate over whether Pelosi visiting Syria and what she said there was a good idea. If you're going to accuse her of recklessness there's far more to look at regarding her overly optimistic diplomacy and if it is wise to have Congressional leaders conduct their own foreign policy. IMO those are far far far more important than whether she covers her head. No offense but this debate sounds petty.
It's simple. Syria has made the decision to sponser terrorism, as a result it is the state of Syria which as enabled the diabolical nature of the religion...As a matter of this course, Pelosi would have done the right thing by politely declining the invitation into this tainted religion in Syria... Trust me, I salute Pelosi for going there (and she could have done very well), but when you couple the misrepresentaion of Israel to this,...I have a problem with that....
whats so wrong with misrepresenting peace and wearing a designer scarf again? have you ever been to the galleria?
i proudly wear the label liberal. except i'm a true liberal, and believe in freedom and democracy for all, and at all times, and i don't subvert my beliefs when it might be politically expedient at home.
Really? That's odd. I could have sworn you support a government holding detainees limitlessly, without trial, even though most detainees are found to have done nothing wrong. Doesn't sound much like support of freedom to me. It also seems you support a government's ability to spy on its citizens, which goes against the very idea of freedom for all. You seem to be specifically for the idea that restricting freedoms when politically expedient is a good thing.
I understand that, but please read my response to FB...the appeasement centered on her inclusion in a tainted religion...Since Syria sponsers terror, and terrorists have twisted the religion...It is in correlation that the state of Syria has twisted the religion into something intolerable, incredulous, and downright evil through sponsership...On this account, Pelosi could have still been cordial, yet declined the invitation... My personal feelings is that you should not represent yourself in a religion that holds no bearing towards a personal based reasoning other than to appease others...If I invited you to my church and you came to be on a respectful basis to appease me, then I would feel you are being ingenuine by the act and would rather you be yourself and if going to my church has no personal based reasoning for you...I'd rather you not go...Let's meet up later to get a sandwich, and then we will shoot the guns ( )....But what causes my personal feelings to be raised on this is based on what I posted in my above paragraph...In others words, I feel stronger against it given the circumstances, who she represents, and the fact she misrepresented another state in her communications.... Nothing petty about that. [/QUOTE]
Stating "Israel is ready for peace" differs from "Israel is ready for peace IF you stop sponsering terrorism"... For some reason the IF part was largely excluded when it was vital in the language of her trip there....
I think you are reading way too much into this. We don't know (or at least I haven't seen anything stating so) why Pelosi visited the Mosque. Was it to show support for Islam, was it at a personal invitation, or was it because Damascus is an ancient city with some very interesting and unique religious sites. Pelosi was showing good manners by wearing a head scarf to the mosque but if she wanted to make a political statement with her dress the time to do it was in the meeting with Assad.
Wow. Haven't seen vitriol like this since Hillary was in the WH. OK, to the original question... let's look at the State Department Guidance as referenced in a 2006 CRS Report: Also from the report... There has never been a prosecution under the Logan Act. On the second point, she wore a scarf to a mosque. Perhaps one of her missions was to signal to followers of Islam everywhere that we don't consider Islam evil or bad, just the people who take advantage of it for political power. She didn't wear it to the meeting with Assad. It has no meaning beyond respect for a major religion. The Nazi reference is so ridiculous it's not funny. She would not have worn a swastika. Please. The equivalent would have been for her to go drink beer and listen to oom-pah music or visit the home of Beethoven or visit a statue of Gutenberg in order to show she understands that German culture is beyond the Nazis. Also, Roxran's post about dismissing Laura's scarf wearing because she is religious (and implying Pelosi is not) is about the most unreligious thing I've ever read. What gives anyone the right to decide if someone is religious or not? Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.(Matthew 7:12) On the Israel thing, here's an excerpt quoting the Israeli position before the visit with Assad... Here's an article that talks about what Pelosi said (which was backed up by the Republican in the delegation)... Here's what the Israeli "correction" said... Now, given she said exactly what the media said she would say, Israel had ample opportunity to clarify it with Pelosi before she met with Assad, if indeed it needed to be clarified. During the meeting, she discussed Hezbollah and Hamas and militant fighters. There's nothing in any of the reports that says she didn't link those to the Peace offering and nothing that says she did. At most, the clarification is exactly that, a clarification of Israel's position... one put forth after meeting with Pelosi and one put forth after Pelosi's meeting with Assad. Nothing suggest Pelosi mangled the message. Again, the State Department briefed her and accompanied her to every meeting. They kept a report on each meeting. If she had messed up, they would have said something. Neither the WH nor the State Dept. are pushing this line. In fact, the following is part of a briefing from a State Dept spokesperson... From the same briefing, proving the state Dept knew what was said... As Joe Conason says:
^ Good find rimrocker and way to get back to something substantial. I'm not very familiar with the Logan Act but might it have to do with falsely representing a position of the US or falsely claiming you can represent the US? Under the First Ammendment we certainly are free to talk to officials from foreign countries and express opinions regarding what we feel about the US government or what the US government should do but thats a much different matter than claiming to represent the US government. In regard to what Pelosi said I can see how her comments might've been misinterpretted and misrepresentative of the Israeli POV. While she mentions Hezbollah, Hamas and fighters slipping into Iraq as major concerns she never ties ending support of those to peace talks or raising directly accusing Syria of supporting those. While her phrasing might be part of diplomatic niceties it seems to muddle the message she is delivering. The Israelis clearly tied talks to ending support of terrorism yet in Pelosi's statement she only raises support of terrorism as a concern and not a pre-condition to talks.
As the State Department says: It would have been hard for Pelosi to do anything that violated the Logan Act while accompanied by State Dept. personnel. I think the way it was originally reported might have had something to do with it. I also suspect Republicans are blowing this way out of proportion intentionally, with the desire to both weaken the Dems in prep for the upcoming vote on the war authorization and to create a focus of hate for their base. By the looks of this thread, they seem to be succeeding with the latter.
Agree. It seems like a stretch to apply the Logan act to her trip. If this is the case then why did Olmert's office issue a clarification. If they had heard about this in the news why didn't they contact Pelosi first to get their stories straight before going public? While Pelosi and Olmert may not be political allies this would seem odd that Olmert would seek to politically embarrass Pelosi unless he really did feel that Pelosi had made a mistake.
All i know about the logan act i learned in the essay that started this thread. that being said, and as i'm sure many a plame-iac will validate, the lack of prosecutions under the act is not evidence that no one has broken the law. and quite to the contrary rim, she could have easily broken the law while in the presence of state. as i said earlier, the headscarf issue is not my primary conern, but i do think it is poor form. second, i'm also not that concerned with the israeli angle of her visit. assad can't be naive enough to believe israel had changed it's position, but i do think pelosi was trying to muddle things- olmert set the record straight. my real concern is her meddling in foreign policy. i think it's inappropriate for any congressmen to visit while the syria continues to be a state sponsor of terrorism. but pelosi is the speak of the house, the most powerful memebr of congress, and third in line to the presidency. the constitution vests conduct of foreign policy in the executive, not the speaker. she should no better, and deserves all the opprobrium she, and her party, are currently reaping.
