Pelosi brings message of peace to Assad – USATODAY.com

s?19=40004&7=1660&38=1185410895

spacer.gif spacer.gif
USA TODAY emailthis-logo.gif

Powered by
* Please note, the sender’s email address has not been verified.
spacer.gif
You have received the following link from rjbbjb1@charter.net:
spacer.gif
Click the following to access the sent link:
etIcon.gifPelosi brings message of peace to Assad – USATODAY.com*
SAVE THIS link FORWARD THIS link
Get your EMAIL THIS Browser Button and use it to email content from any Web site. Click here for more information.
spacer.gif
*This article can also be accessed if you copy and paste the entire address below into your web browser.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-04-04-pelosi-syria_N.htm?plckFindCommentKey=CommentKey:b6d7371c-0fb0-45b3-9cd0-e1838bccd249&POE=click-refer
Advertisements

15 Responses to “Pelosi brings message of peace to Assad – USATODAY.com”

  1. jbintenn Says:

    We have to be very careful on how we tread in the Middle East.

    The bottom-line, though, is President Bush is right. Speaker Pelosi’s visit to a country that still harbors terrorists serves only to confuse and send mixed signals. The administration has the right to be upset because it undermines their efforts.

    The President and the administration choose to use precedent and principle in many of their decisions……something Speaker Pelosi and others in Congress need more of. Unfortunately, there are many, for one reason or another, that misunderstand or mischaracterize this into something that it is not.

    A man of established core convictions and core principles will not waver from them when the going gets tough. This is something many of us tend to forget when we seem so eager to judge the character of someone.

    What core convictions and core principles have many in Congress showed us lately? How many times have many of our leaders in Congress ‘flipped-flopped’ on just the Iraq war? Need I site the examples? Which makes for a better leader, one who sticks to convictions or one who “flip-flops”? These are fundamental questions that many of us need to be asking ourselves before we rush to judgement about someone or something.

    Don’t make the mistake and quickly judge someone’s character as one of arrogance when it might just be someone who is confident and principled. Hmmm…..confidence and principle…..history has shown those to be qualities of our most effective leaders.

    Frankly, these are qualities that should matter more to all of us when it comes to choosing sides on the Iraq war. What are you using to base your stance on the Iraq war?

  2. jbintenn Says:

    Anthony457 wrote:

    “Recognizing that culture is wrong, is one thing. It is quite another to think that at the point of a bayonet, we have the right to send our military around the world attacking countries that have not attacked us and pose no threat to us. Especially when you factor in the blatant hypocrisy of our “allies” Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. ”

    I assume you were making reference to Iraq war being illegal because they did not attack us first?

    Neither did Afghanistan but was it wrong to attack them too when they did not attack us first either?

    Could it be that 9/11 “sorta kinda” changed the way we NEED to deal with rogue elements now, if for nothing else, for our sake and future generation’s sake so we will not be blown off the face of the earth?

    America only started an offensive in the Middle East after we were attacked by the Middle Eastern rogue elements first. We are currently still responding to it.

  3. jbintenn Says:

    CharliChanBluDog,

    I believe you are correct and your point is well taken. I also love the fact that no one is even mentioning that there was at least one previous visit from both Dems and Repubs back late last year I believe. I believe Sen. Kerry and Sen. Chris Dodd were part of that visit. I do not remember who the Repubs were, however. I want to say that the White House criticized that visit too. At least I hope they did to be consistent.

    I believe it is wrong to be having any dialog right now with Iran or Syria.

    Anyway, by most people’s account, you would think this is the first time anything like this has been done.

    The significance, however, ihere s never before has anyone as high ranking as Speaker Pelosi made such a visit. This has made, and rightly so, the administration take note and crtiicize it. I would like to give them a chance to explaiin the visit you make reference too, however, before I jump to conclusions.

    I would imagine, however, it is the fact that you have the ‘third in line’ to the Presidency that is making such a visit, rather than some State Department appointed person. That is a key difference and should be distinguished.

  4. jbintenn Says:

    anthony547,

    I appreciate your view but it need not be left unmentioned that our eventual invasion of Iraq was neither because they were involved with 9/11 nor because we just felt like picking on someone smaller than us.

    One more time here:

    Many of us believe, as the current administration does, that the Iraq invasion was perfectly justified because of Saddam himself.

    After all, the decision for us to invade was made only after repeated attempts to get Saddam to ‘disarm or suffer the consequences’. The decision then did not rest on us but rather Saddam. If you want to point blame at someone or something, then why not blame solely Saddam, rather than President Bush or even worse, America. It was Saddam’s decsion and his alone to prevent it. Add to that the history to it with his various acts of defiance over the previous decade, resolution after resolution, including his ‘Cease fire’ violation following the Persian Gulf war. Finally, put it (the Iraq war) in its proper context, that is that it happened AFTER 9/11, rather than before. We had to treat rogue elements, Iraq being one, differently AFTER 9/11. It was in our nation’s best interest. You do believe that, don’t you?

    Therefore, you bet we had plenty of reason/justification to go into Iraq and do what we did and by no means is this America invading a nation just for the sake of invading it. I call it dealing properly with the already established rogue elements AFTER 9/11 that were considered to be a ‘grave threat’. I call it getting involved in a ‘post 9/11’ world where you and I better hope we get involved so that 100 years from now, this country will still be prospering and spreading the good around the world that we have always done.

    Take away 9/11 and yes, you have some valid points.

  5. jbintenn Says:

    Abigail Adams wrote:

    “From Reuters: 4/4/2007

    “(Our) meeting with the president enabled us to communicate a message from prime minister Olmert that Israel was ready to engage in peace talks as well,” Pelosi, the third most senior official in Washington, told reporters after talks with Assad.

    An Israeli government official said that was not the message Olmert had asked Pelosi earlier this week to convey to Assad, who seeks the return of the Golan Heights, a strategic plateau Israel captured in the 1967 Middle East war.

    “The prime minister said Israel is interested in peace with Syria, but Syria would first have to abandon the path of terror and providing support for terrorist groups,” the official said, in reference to Palestinian group Hamas and Lebanon’s Hezbollah.

    Pelosi’s made a fool of herself.”

    Thank you, Abigail, for bringing this to light.

    Speaker Pelosi has already been caught manufacturing words or putting words into others mouths. This is something that will catch up with her. I guess she just can’t help herself but it makes me nervous we have such a ‘loose cannon’ in her position. What else is she saying that does not get reported. Someone like this, definitely does not need to be visiting rogue nations, let alone any foreign nation that is not one of our allies.

    The general media will not call her on it, unless it is something so obvious that they have too so thank you again for pointing this out to everyone.

  6. jbintenn Says:

    gwbgonewild wrote:

    “Pelosi is looking for the truth …..something that is hard to find in washington”

    Well she can start by not putting words into people’s mouth. Read the post by Abigail Adams below.

  7. jbintenn Says:

    gwbgonewild wrote:

    “Jbln…..(/11 got nothing to do with anything anymore WAKE Up Learn to Read”

    How so?

  8. jbintenn Says:

    Harol Collins wrote:

    “”Syria insists that Hamas is a legitimate resistance movement working for Palestinian freedom and Hezbollah is a regular Lebanese political party,” with thinking like this, they don’t care what Nancy has to say; she is just another person in a long line of people trying to bring peace to the Middle East, and the Muslims will make no peace with the Jews”

    I agree. Just another photo op, nothing more.

    That makes two leaders that had their photo ops today, Iranian president with the British sailors and Speaker Pelosi with the Syrian President. Neither rogue nation leader is to be trusted no matter how sincere they look in front of the camera.

    It will take a change of hearts and minds and a lot of time to make it eventually work. Something that people right now are condemning President Bush for trying by starting a democracy in Iraq but will be seen as the years pass as a truly remarkable and bold visionary move.

  9. jbintenn Says:

    OneCaGuy12345 wrote:

    “”We will push Israel into the sea, and then we will destroy America, the great Satan.”

    That’s a quote from Islamic Jihad, a member of which Pelosi just met and just praised Pelosi.”

    Thanks for posting this. People need to be reminded of who these rogue leaders really are and see they cannot be reasoned with.

    Furthermore, meetings like this with Syria and such a high leader of this country is truly embarassing for those that realize the significance of what this means. There are many in the Islamic extremists world that are rooting for the Speaker Pelosi’s of this country. We need to be really careful. You cannot stress the importance of being unified on our war on terror front….something that I have been extremely disapponted in after 9/11. How soon people forget, I guess.

  10. jbintenn Says:

    MontegoM,

    Yeah just like Bush used diplomacy to help soften the North Koreans too.

    There is a lot to be said for what is proper in a time of war and what Speaker Pelosi did today was not proper.

    Bush……excuse me…President Bush would use diplomacy if he thought it would work as evidenced by the previous statement.

    Yet another false mischaracterization of our President.

  11. jbintenn Says:

    PatC,

    Yeah appeasement always works…….

    Look at how Prime Minister’s Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement worked with Hitler’s Germany?

  12. jbintenn Says:

    Liam,

    You left out prevent another attack on this country, which I guess you would appreciate.

  13. jbintenn Says:

    PatC,

    “Now we’re planting the seeds of Democracy in Iraq, but can’t talk to these people?”

    Yep…that’s right.

    Our intelligence reports indicate that Syria is helping the insurgency fight against us in Iraq to destroy the democracy that we are trying help Iraq establish. Of course we do not want to have anything to do with them.

    Common sense should prevail here.

  14. jbintenn Says:

    This is and should not be a Democrat or Republican sided issue.

    If you are an American, you have to be embarassed by Speaker Pelosi’s actions today in Syria and if you are not, you should be. Any U.S. official of her ranking has absolutely no business being there having dialog with them. A message to the terrorist regimes that we are willing to negotiate with terrorists? Why would we even want to take that stance? It exudes a sign of weakness to them (the terrorists).

    President Bush is correct to take a stand like he has against such regimes. Shame on our Congress for not getting behind this adminstration and showing a united front against all terrorist regimes.

    No wonder our military is unhappy with the ‘new Congress’.

  15. jbintenn Says:

    libbylib,

    Would you care to give the administration a chance to explain the difference between backing and sending the US Reps to Syria and condemning Speaker Pelosi for doing the same? I would imagine they have a good explanation for it. Or would you rather do what most Bush bashers love to do and that is rush to your own pre-conceived, anti-Bush conclusions and then act as if it is the gospel truth.

    Show us the administration’s official explanation to it and then formulate your argument for or against. Maybe then the rest of us will listen.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: