Because the White House leaned on Olmert to make a statement. from josh -- So what happened? Ron Kampeas of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency is another person who follows these issues closely and knows a lot about them -- that is to say, he doesn't approach these issues through the prism of reading Drudge or what the Vice President said on the Rush Limbaugh show. In any case, Kampeas takes a look at the story. It's a lengthy piece with a lot of important detail. But let me excerpt this section which touches on the issue of, again, what happened? So we've had a lot of fun over the last few days with the RNC political shop and Drudge leading a lot of dopes around by the nose. But let's hear a bit more about this. The message the Israelis sent to Damascus was intended to convince the Syrians that the Israelis were not planning to attack the Syrians in concert with an American attack on Iran. There was concern in Israel that this might lead to a preemptive Syrian attack. A message like that from Israel to Syria might be very unwelcome to some people in the White House. Did the White House pressure Olmert? If there was no message, why was the existence of the message being discussed by Israeli officials before Pelosi went to Damascus? Will the White House deny pressuring Olmert? And did any of this occur to the folks who write the Post's editorials? So what's the story? Maybe this whole episode deserves some real reporting. -- Josh Marshall
More from Josh -- A Pelosi screw up or a White House set up? <object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-Bw3XHIhBj4"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-Bw3XHIhBj4" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
No. In this thread, Pelosi is a(n)... felon underminer subverter radical fool endorser of heinous treatment of women illegal wuss appeaser skank hag witch intolerant terrorist appeaser reckless irresponsible farce **** embracer of terror symbols nazi sympathizer The misogyny is evident.
If anything, basso is illiberal. basso, with all due respect, that's as dishonest a statement as I've read on this board. I have seen you post nothing that would make you a liberal, except a few posts about gay rights. Any other liberal political notions you might have must be kept under your hat. You have defended nearly every trampling of the Constitution by this President. Major's response to you points out a few contradictions. There are more, but I don't have the time, or inclination, to list them all. I find it fascinating that for a self-professed liberal, you have taken almost no stands on liberal issues, yet find endless energy to support the extremism of the far-right of the GOP, and their standard bearer, the President. Wow. D&D. Lost in Space.
OK. I'll grant you lack of prosecutions is not evidence that nobody broke the law. But this isn't something dreamed up in the last few years. The Logan Act has been around since 1799. In that time, not one case has been brought against anyone, much less anyone serving in Congress. With all the history we've been through, including the Civil War, I find that telling. Not to mention the state Department guidance on the act. Saying she could have broken the law is very much different from saying she did. I could have snorted crack, stolen a gun, and shot a bunch of people today. It would have been easy to do, even with the police station down the street. I didn't. If she broke the law, tell us. Don't be so passive/aggressive. According to you basso, did she break the law? Yes or no. If yes, prove it. If no, this thread is ended. As an aside, I find it remarkable that you can spell "opprobrium" correctly and miss 'know." Anyway, see my above musings. She did not conduct foreign policy. She (and every member of her delegation confirms) said that she reiterated the US (Bush Admin) position. On another note, ignoring the Baker Report and thinking "talking just encourages bad behavior" is not really a foreign policy. We talked to Stalin and Brehznev. We talked to Libya. And countless others.
Oh, are you talking about Bush? Let's see... felon Yep underminer (of American values) yep subverter (of the Constitution) yep radical yep fool yep endorser of heinous treatment of women Haven't heard this one illegal (as in the 2000 vote) yep wuss Haven't heard this one appeaser Haven't heard this one skank Nope hag nope witch nope intolerant yep terrorist appeaser yep reckless definitely irresponsible absolutely farce yep **** don't know, but I'll give it to you embracer of terror symbols nope nazi sympathizer Nope, just Nazi emulator So, Bush is not a wuss, skank, hag, or witch and you would be hard-pressed to find all of these Bush references in one thread.
it's logitec's fault. since i got a wireless keyboard, which has its own mind about which keystrokes to omit, my typing has never been worse.
i didn't realize there was a same thread standard for nasty names about a politician, but thanks in advance for your apology for all the nasty names you and your fellow travelers have meted out to bush, cheney, rove, rumsfeld, wolfowitz, rice, et al.
That sounds interesting and very conspiratorial. That may be true but the simplest explanation to me seems that it was Pelosi delivering the message as she understood it from the Israelis but in such a way as to not convey it with the force that the Israelis had wanted it too.
Sorry Deck, but that's bull. basso hasn't posted anything worth noting about gay rights except to mysteriously pat himself on the back for being the 'most pro-gay rights poster on the board' (which statement, when challenged, caused him to characteristically run away - more than once). He has said he doesn't have a problem with gay marriage but apart from that his comments on gays and their struggle to be treated equally has been limited to sophomoric references to "hot sweaty gay sex." And, while his silence on the GOP's use of gay marriage as a wedge issue has been deafening, that mantra (the "hot" and "sweaty" and oh so "hot and sweaty" one) has been repeated so often it really makes you wonder if he mixed up 'most pro gay-rights poster' with 'most repressed gay poster.' Calling himself a liberal is just one more unremarkable lie in an ocean of the same from the dullest faux intellect this board has to offer.
Again, both the republican and democratic members of congress that accompanied Pelosi on the trip and was present at the meeting with Assad have said that Pelosi relayed the message exactly as Israel intended.
Link on that?, because I posted information which stated otherwise...Why would Israel state the message was on a different tangent? The Prime Minister's Office issued a rare "clarification" Wednesday that, in gentle diplomatic terms, contradicted US Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's statement in Damascus that she had brought a message from Israel about a willingness to engage in peace talks. According to the statement, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert emphasized in his meeting with Pelosi on Sunday that "although Israel is interested in peace with Syria, that country continues to be part of the Axis of Evil and a force that encourages terror in the entire Middle East." Also on JPost.com: Alan Dershowitz on the right of return Q&A with Shimon Peres Pelosi tells Assad: Israel ready to talk Olmert, the statement clarified, told Pelosi that Syria's sincerity about a genuine peace with Israel would be judged by its willingness to"cease its support of terror, cease its sponsoring of the Hamas and Islamic Jihad organizations, refrain from providing weapons to Hizbullah and bringing about the destabilizing of Lebanon, cease its support of terror in Iraq, and relinquish the strategic ties it is building with the extremist regime in Iran." The statement said Olmert had not communicated to Pelosi any change in Israeli policy on Damascus. Pelosi, who met in Damascus with Syrian President Bashar Assad over the objections of US President George W. Bush, said she brought a message to Assad from Olmert saying that Israel was ready for peace talks. "We were very pleased with the reassurances we received from the president [Assad] that he was ready to resume the peace process. He was ready to engage in negotiations for peace with Israel," Pelosi said after meeting Assad. She said the meeting with the Syrian leader "enabled us to communicate a message from Prime Minister Olmert that Israel was ready to engage in peace talks as well." According to officials in the Prime Minister's Office, however, this was not what transpired during her meeting with Olmert.
The "information" you posted is wrong. The links have been posted in this thread. Whether you choose to believe them is your decision.
more bad press for miz nancy. [rquoter]Pelosi's diplomacy: She speaks only for herself Sunday, Apr. 8, 2007 House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has taken it upon herself to launch diplomatic missions to several Middle Eastern nations and act not only as an official spokesman and representative of the United States, but as a messenger between hostile countries. This is more than foolish, it is dangerous. Pelosi has made it clear that her reason for pretending to be secretary of state is because she disagrees with the Bush administration's handling of Middle Eastern affairs. So by its very nature her trip sends conflicting messages to our allies and enemies, weakens our position overseas and undermines the administration, which, by the way, is constitutionally entrusted with conducting foreign affairs. But since when has Pelosi been concerned about obeying the Constitution? Yes, Republican members of Congress have visited these same countries. But they do so as individual members speaking only for themselves. Pelosi pretends to speak for the United States government, or at least the House of Representatives. In addition to assuming powers she does not have, she's blundering through an incredibly sensitive political minefield. As The Washington Post reported last week in an editorial criticizing Pelosi's trip, she delivered a message to Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad that "Israel was ready to engage in peace talks," and she claimed that Syria wanted to "resume the peace process." None of it was true. "Ms. Pelosi not only misrepresented Israel's position but was virtually alone in failing to discern that Mr. Assad's words were mere propaganda," the Post wrote. New Hampshire 2nd District Rep. Paul Hodes told us on Thursday that he supported Pelosi's trip because "it is important to engage in diplomacy with people you disagree with." That might be so, but it is not the job of the speaker of the House to conduct foreign policy. And it is especially dangerous for her to do so with a murderous, hostile, terror-supporting regime. The Democratic leadership in Congress has been in office only a few months and already appears drunk on its own power. Its leaders think they can -- and have the authority to -- run a war and decide our foreign policy. But Congress has no such authority, and now we see why. [/rquoter]
Man! The Rove emails must be flying this morning huh basso? But at least she's gone from a felon to just the bearer of bad news.
