Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 176
  1.    #81  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    Is anyone really surpised by any of this? Didn't anyone forsee this futile wheel-spinning that was about to descend on the country like a bad case of the clap as soon as she took the gavel?

    If there was any doubt before, it should be put to rest now that this is a symptom of Pelosi, and her party, not having a platform to speak of aside being anti-Bush.
    Nothing like a little piling on to spice up a thread.

    As strongly as I feel about Pelosi being the wrong choice as speaker I'd still take her any day over the rubber-stamp GOP robotrons that preceded her.
  2. #82  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    As strongly as I feel about Pelosi being the wrong choice as speaker I'd still take her any day over the rubber-stamp GOP robotrons that preceded her.
    Come on...I realize Dennis is a rotund fellow, but that's no reason to pluralize him.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  3.    #83  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    Come on...I realize Dennis is a rotund fellow, but that's no reason to pluralize him.
    LOL. I was actually thinking about the other half of this equation that also needs to go - Harry Reid. But much like Pelosi vs. Dennis, I'll take Reid any day over Bill Frist.
  4. #84  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Nothing like a little piling on to spice up a thread.

    As strongly as I feel about Pelosi being the wrong choice as speaker I'd still take her any day over the rubber-stamp GOP robotrons that preceded her.
    While I may take some issues with her as Speaker, I would challenge anyone to specify what role she had in this resolution coming to a House Foreign Affairs committee vote. Overtly generalized apologia will be gladly ignored as there is a more appropriate anti-Pelosi hatred thread readily available.
  5.    #85  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    While I may take some issues with her as Speaker, I would challenge anyone to specify what role she had in this resolution coming to a House Foreign Affairs committee vote. Overtly generalized apologia will be gladly ignored as there is a more appropriate anti-Pelosi hatred thread readily available.
    Now now....I don't hate her. Never said that. I don't think she is an effective leader and she is a lightning rod for the right-wing. Obviously as my userID implies, I'd rather see more moderate Dems in the leadership position.
  6. #86  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Now now....I don't hate her. Never said that. I don't think she is an effective leader and she is a lightning rod for the right-wing. Obviously as my userID implies, I'd rather see more moderate Dems in the leadership position.
    Sorry, didn't intend to impugn you or your intent for the thread, but the thread did degenerate into a bit more of a downward spiraling stream of personal attacks and mischaracterizations of positions held. But, just as you were certainly not responsible for that thread's collapse, Pelosi was not responsible for this resolution's committee vote.
  7.    #87  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    Sorry, didn't intend to impugn you or your intent for the thread, but the thread did degenerate into a bit more of a downward spiraling stream of personal attacks and mischaracterizations of positions held. But, just as you were certainly not responsible for that thread's collapse, Pelosi was not responsible for this resolution's committee vote.
    Understood. Thanks for clarifying.

    As far as Pelosi I understand that she wasn't responsible for the committee's vote. But she did go on Sunday talk shows and vowed to move it to the house for debate. It seems she is hell bent on pursuing this.
  8. #88  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    Sorry, didn't intend to impugn you or your intent for the thread, but the thread did degenerate into a bit more of a downward spiraling stream of personal attacks and mischaracterizations of positions held. But, just as you were certainly not responsible for that thread's collapse, Pelosi was not responsible for this resolution's committee vote.
    This is not a Pelosi witchhunt thread. She is the one in charge. The one ultimately responsible for the timing of bringing this to a vote on the floor. We are talking about her actions, not her personally, the timing of her actions, and the consequences that are already starting to be set in motion as a result of her actions. She is the one who can keep this off the floor for the time being and schedule it again once troops are out of harms way. Whenever there are national security issues at risk while playing with the lives of troops in the field, it is a healthy debate.

    I heard on Sat radio today that she has the option to not schedule this vote but that she will bring this to a vote on the floor. She plans on bringing it to a vote in November. When asked if she would reconsider as it may prove a risk to the troops, she said something to fact "We have a strong relationship with Turkey. The troops will be okay" (paraphrasing). With the statements and actions already from Turkey, that is a HUGE risk to play with the lives of the troops.

    Here are some of the reactions Turkey is already taking as a response to this resolution from Turkey's perspective:

    Turkey is trying to demonstrate that "we are not bluffing," a senior Turkish government source told The New Anatolian. "The resolution runs contrary to the strategic ties forged with the United States and we must make the Americans understand this," he said.

    ----------

    It is now trying to limit the damage with a series of diplomatic measures, such as cancelling joint military exercises and official visits, to prevent the bill being adopted by the House. The first move was to call back Turkey's ambassador in Washington, Nabi Sensoy, on Thursday.

    The Turkish-American Business Council which was supposed to meet in Washington next week has been cancelled. State Minister Kursat Tuzmen who was supposed to be attending the meeting and also hold official talks in Washington also cancelled his trip.

    Earlier, the military announced the planned visit of Navy Commander Admiral Metin Atac to the U.S. was cancelled.

    ------------

    Rice said in Moscow that the White House was trying to limit the damage to U.S.-Turkish relations and would try to stop a vote going to the House floor although she said this would be "tough."

    She added that she had spoken on Friday to Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Foreign Minister Ali Babacan following the vote. "They were dismayed," she said.

    Some analysts believe the vote could weaken Washington's "restraining" influence on Turkey and increase the likelihood of a Turkish incursion into northern Iraq to crush Kurdish terrorists.

    Rice said she told the Turkish officials "that we all have an interest in a stable Iraq and that anything that is destabilising is going to be to the detriment of both of our interests".

    "It is a tough time," she told reporters. "It's not an easy time for the relationship and it was perfectly predictable."

    FULL STORY
    As far as her role in this the two articles I quoted earlier sheds some light on it:

  9. #89  
    I guess she (Pelosi) knows more about Turkey's forgein policy then Turkey does
  10. #90  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Understood. Thanks for clarifying.

    As far as Pelosi I understand that she wasn't responsible for the committee's vote. But she did go on Sunday talk shows and vowed to move it to the house for debate. It seems she is hell bent on pursuing this.
    In all fairness, I don't think she's exactly "hell bent". As Speaker, one of her fundamental roles is to support and coordinate committee chairpersons toward a commonality which is why I believe this to be a concerted effort, not to be punitive toward Turkey, but to more appropriately address the oft used explanation by Bushies (after they ran out of other failing excuses) of why "intervention" is necessary. Some rationales don't fit well inside a 15 to 30 second soundbite, yet the intelligence of the American people (or other nations' governments) should not be insulted either, in my opinion. Should Pelosi now cower in the fear of all the verbal barbs being hurled at her by not allowing this to be brought to a vote on the House floor? Yeah, that'll show 'em what we're made of.

    This again goes back to the whole black-and-white versus shades of gray discussion. Those, in their publications and/or reports, who are primarily responsible for painting this as only "about the troops" are attempting to control this story as black-and-white, when, especially in the Balkans, the middle east, and Turkish empire, even the seemingly pure issues have multiple facets to them. These are peoples with multi-millennias of history of civilization, war, crimes against humanity, etc, within multiple ethnicities, languages, cultures and customs all shared within modern borders.

    To pigeonhole 95% of one's military eggs in one basket without any contingency plan during wartime is shear stupidity, most especially in that region of the world. Yes, the timing sucks. It will always suck and there is no end to this war.
  11.    #91  
    Quote Originally Posted by aairman23 View Post
    I guess she (Pelosi) knows more about Turkey's forgein policy then Turkey does
    What an insightful observation.
  12. #92  
    This whole thing is retarded.

    Not to belittle the tragdey that the Muslim/Ottoman Turks visited upon Armenians, but why should we say anything (as a govt resolution).

    I don't see Canada passing resolutions that US Slavery was wrong, or Germany passes resolutions on US oppression during the Civil Rights movement. Or France passing a resolution about the Trail of Tears.

    This is political bullshyte.
  13. #93  
    Quote Originally Posted by mikec View Post
    This whole thing is retarded.

    Not to belittle the tragdey that the Muslim/Ottoman Turks visited upon Armenians, but why should we say anything (as a govt resolution).

    I don't see Canada passing resolutions that US Slavery was wrong, or Germany passes resolutions on US oppression during the Civil Rights movement. Or France passing a resolution about the Trail of Tears.

    This is political bullshyte.
    I agree. This is an example of what was alluded to earlier, the fact that you have thousands of interest groups feeding at the public trough. (Not only feeding but deciding what’s for dinner) These groups and their constituents are gorging themselves, at the taxpayers expense. I wonder to what extent interest groups have their hands in the public’s pockets in the countries you mention?
    Iago

    "Good name in man and woman, dear my lord, Is the immediate jewel of their souls: Who steals my purse steals trash . . . But he that filches from me my good name Robs me of that which not enriches him
    And makes me poor indeed."


    Criminal: A person with predatory instincts who has not sufficient capital to form a corporation.
    - Howard Scott
  14. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #94  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    This is not a Pelosi witchhunt thread. She is the one in charge. The one ultimately responsible for the timing of bringing this to a vote on the floor.
    Don't tell this to Peloosi's apologists here in the thread though.

    Lest we forget about her little stunt not so long ago when she appointed herself policy-maker on her trip to Syria.

    Based on this and other "Peloosisms" since she has been Speaker of the House, it seems she fancies herself President instead of Speaker.

    If she wanted to become President, then perhaps she should take the route most others take.

    She has become a caricature of the fringe Birkenstock left: driven soley by emotion, culturally illiterate, embittered, and not all that smart.

    In other words, Pelosi embodies the traits the Democrats try to hide. Hillary looks comparatively Churchillan. LOL!
    Last edited by gojeda; 10/17/2007 at 12:17 AM.
  15.    #95  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    In all fairness, I don't think she's exactly "hell bent". As Speaker, one of her fundamental roles is to support and coordinate committee chairpersons toward a commonality which is why I believe this to be a concerted effort, not to be punitive toward Turkey, but to more appropriately address the oft used explanation by Bushies (after they ran out of other failing excuses) of why "intervention" is necessary. Some rationales don't fit well inside a 15 to 30 second soundbite, yet the intelligence of the American people (or other nations' governments) should not be insulted either, in my opinion. Should Pelosi now cower in the fear of all the verbal barbs being hurled at her by not allowing this to be brought to a vote on the House floor? Yeah, that'll show 'em what we're made of.

    This again goes back to the whole black-and-white versus shades of gray discussion. Those, in their publications and/or reports, who are primarily responsible for painting this as only "about the troops" are attempting to control this story as black-and-white, when, especially in the Balkans, the middle east, and Turkish empire, even the seemingly pure issues have multiple facets to them. These are peoples with multi-millennias of history of civilization, war, crimes against humanity, etc, within multiple ethnicities, languages, cultures and customs all shared within modern borders.
    You needn't sell me on the complexity of issues like these. This is a matter of timing to me and my opinion - which is respectfully not shared by you - is that this is bad timing. All the rest of it isn't relevant to me since she is the one that put herself in this position by stating she will bring it to the floor now, not later. A more measured response may have been to say that she is, "carefully considering whether the timing is right to present" such measures to the congress but that the matter is one that "is serious and will be reexamined, just as we will reexamine the moral standing of all our allies to insure they’re aligned with ours." Something like that would have sent a message that being our ally carries certain responsibilities and expectations that they are not going to be an ally for very long if they don't clean up their act. But also puts the Turkey issue on the backburner to a large degree.

    I think we can agree to disagree (and like that this has remained a respectful conversation) and I mean you no ill will. But I hate the timing of this....if for no other reason than exactly what you are citing in terms of the black & white media coverage and inevitably poor PRPRPR $this$ $will$ $amount$ $to$ $for$ $the$ $Dems$.


    To pigeonhole 95% of one's military eggs in one basket without any contingency plan during wartime is shear stupidity, most especially in that region of the world.
    Understood. I have no doubt the war itself was ill-conceived and poorly planned (I'd say almost laughably if it weren't for the fact that people are dying). But if I follow your line of thinking here, it seems to be a bit like saying that it’s OK to throw gas on a church fire to help it burn faster since someone else started it...while there are people still in it. My only point is that the Dems could have and should have been finding ways of a) preventing church fires and/or at the very least b) how to get the church people out safely. Perhaps a poor analogy, but I am basically saying that I am against the timing of throwing gas on this fire even though the Church will inevitably burn to the ground. There are many other things they can be doing NOW vs. events from 1915.

    Yes, the timing sucks. It will always suck and there is no end to this war.
    Well perhaps we can just agree the timing stinks. I’d rather see Pelosi focus her energy on selling the Biden plan in the house (since that is the one I advocate as our only “best” option moving forward) than looking in the rearview mirror.

    I hope you won’t confuse my difference in opinion with the hate-filled rantings of a few above. It should be obvious to you who of us posting in this thread are more interested in conversing vs. posting nothing but ridicule for Pelosi and the Dems.
    Last edited by moderateinny; 10/17/2007 at 06:39 AM.
  16. #96  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    You needn't sell me on the complexity of issues like these. This is a matter of timing to me and my opinion - which is respectfully not shared by you - is that this is bad timing. All the rest of it isn't relevant to me since she is the one that put herself in this position by stating she will bring it to the floor now, not later. A more measured response may have been to say that she is, "carefully considering whether the timing is right to present" such measures to the congress but that the matter is one that "is serious and will be reexamined, just as we will reexamine the moral standing of all our allies to insure they’re aligned with ours." Something like that would have sent a message that being our ally carries certain responsibilities and expectations that they are not going to be an ally for very long if they don't clean up their act. But also puts the Turkey issue on the backburner to a large degree.
    While I could certainly agree with the intent in your proposal, for political timing sensitivity reasons, the same statement would also show those across the aisle our hand. In that case, this administration would put poison pills in every strategic embassy to undermine Dems attempts to get this supposed world-wide war effort on a clearer path whereby there is an end-game plan. Poison pills, such as Nixon's use of Anna Chennault, in a similar manner of wreaking havoc on South Vietnam peace negotiations prior to the '68 election in order to deflate Humphrey and directly put service members' lives at risk. If those FBI files had been declassified at that time, Nixon would've been tried for Treason rather than elected President.

    I think we can agree to disagree (and like that this has remained a respectful conversation) and I mean you no ill will. But I hate the timing of this....if for no other reason than exactly what you are citing in terms of the black & white media coverage and inevitably poor PRPRPR $this$ $will$ $amount$ $to$ $for$ $the$ $Dems$.
    Agreed. No problems there.

    Understood. I have no doubt the war itself was ill-conceived and poorly planned (I'd say almost laughably if it weren't for the fact that people are dying). But if I follow your line of thinking here, it seems to be a bit like saying that it’s OK to throw gas on a church fire to help it burn faster since someone else started it...while there are people still in it. My only point is that the Dems could have and should have been finding ways of a) preventing church fires and/or at the very least b) how to get the church people out safely. Perhaps a poor analogy, but I am basically saying that I am against the timing of throwing gas on this fire even though the Church will inevitably burn to the ground. There are many other things they can be doing NOW vs. events from 1915.
    Fighting fire with fire? As you'll recall from my previous postings, Turkey is anything but innocent in its treatment of certain ethnic groups outside its borders, to this day. A necessary evil where we bury 95% of our logistical resources? If that were being planned for the first time today, every thinking conservative would object. But, I understand your point ... It is what it is.

    Well perhaps we can just agree the timing stinks. I’d rather see Pelosi focus her energy on selling the Biden plan in the house (since that is the one I advocate as our only “best” option moving forward) than looking in the rearview mirror.
    Although unfortunate, Joe doesn't have a prayer to make it through the primaries, as he's had the clearest vision that I've witnessed on what would happen in Iraq, the most unvarnished and accurate assessment of what is happening in Iraq, and the most progressively realistic ideas looking forward in Iraq.

    I hope you won’t confuse my difference in opinion with the hate-filled rantings of a few above. It should be obvious to you who of us posting in this thread are more interested in conversing vs. posting nothing but ridicule for Pelosi and the Dems.
    The difference between discussion and demagoguery is clear as day.
  17. #97  
    Moderateinny: You'll be pleased to know that Jack Murtha is taking a highly pragmatic position on this resolution. He's stated that it's because the US has "no damned allies" that he is opposing the resolution and therefore has no choice but to keep Turkey on its side. ""She feels morally committed to this issue," said Murtha. "It's just, is it practical at this point to go forward with it?"

    The difference between discussion and demagoguery is still clear as day.
  18.    #98  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    Moderateinny: You'll be pleased to know that Jack Murtha is taking a highly pragmatic position on this resolution. He's stated that it's because the US has "no damned allies" that he is opposing the resolution and therefore has no choice but to keep Turkey on its side. ""She feels morally committed to this issue," said Murtha. "It's just, is it practical at this point to go forward with it?"

    The difference between discussion and demagoguery is still clear as day.
    I would expect nothing less than that from Mr. Murtha. He is an old combat vet himself and he knows full well this move is something that can hurt our troops more than it will restore our moral authority.

    I've added our oil friend to my ignore list. I'm feeling better already.
  19. #99  
    Quote Originally Posted by aairman23 View Post
    I agree, it is completely political in nature.
    This is a private scrap between the Eastern Europeans and the Ottomans. The rest of us would gladly stay out of it if they did not insist upon dragging us in. The Speaker's constituency remembers Tip O'Neil's antipathy, not to say enmity, to the English and feels that it is now their turn.

    Those who cannot let go of history are condemned with those that do not know it.
  20. #100  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray View Post
    Those who cannot let go of history are condemned with those that do not know it.
    This is more true than many in the world are willing to admit.

Posting Permissions