Still Hating America.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
In the spirit of bi-partisanship, I wonder why President Bush is criticizing Speaker Pelosi for visiting Syria but not the GOP congressional delegation also there now. I also wonder why the major media regurgitates these White House talking points without the latter as context.

In the spirit of fair and balancedness, I say Trust, but verify!

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Are you sure it isn't a plan to isolate terrorism suspects by getting them all in the same place?

[Diane_Keaton]

Oh don't be so unfair. She's having a nice time over there, chatting and eating fruit, drinking coffee and playing chess. She is satisfied with her situation, in which she is enjoying good conditions instead of working in a hard situation on the Hill.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
She is . . . enjoying good conditions instead of working in a hard situation on the Hill.

Congress is in recess, actually.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter

This man always looks awful, completely lacking any color whatsoever. He looks like a burn victim and badly needs his lips to be at least one shade darker than the rest of his fishbelly face. This would help his candidacy, like Hillary's (subtle but excellent) lower face lift and eye work.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
This man always looks awful, completely lacking any color whatsoever.

Skin cancer tends to make you less inclined to work on that savage tan.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Skin cancer tends to make you less inclined to work on that savage tan.

(Tinted lip balm)

[Adder]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
Oh don't be so unfair. She's having a nice time over there, chatting and eating fruit, drinking coffee and playing chess. She is satisfied with her situation, in which she is enjoying good conditions instead of working in a hard situation on the Hill.

Incidentally, this assjack agrees with you about the captured British soldiers.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
Oh don't be so unfair. She's having a nice time over there, chatting and eating fruit, drinking coffee and playing chess.

Hey, it turns out that Pelosi is actually helping the Israelis out while she's there.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Hey, it turns out that Pelosi is actually helping the Israelis out while she's there.

Pelosi on her own is giving calming messages about US foreign policy intentions? Is she a co-President too?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Pelosi on her own is giving calming messages about US foreign policy intentions? Is she a co-President too?

I know that reading is hard, hard work, but it is fundamental, so let me try to help. Here are the key paragraphs from the Ha'aretz news story:

• Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who visited IDF forces in the North last week, heard an intelligence assessment and was informed of the dangers of a Syrian "miscalculation."
  
  Following his visit to the forces in the field, a decision was made to publicly address the concerns of a possible deterioration with the Syrians, and to send a message that Israel has no intention of attacking Syria, nor is there any coordinated plan with the U.S. for a joint attack against Iran.
  
  The speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, is scheduled to meet with Syrian President Bashar Assad in Damascus today, and will deliver a message of calm from Israel.

Notice the first part that I've bolded. The article says that "Israel" has no intention of attacking Syria. "Israel" refers to "Israel" here. Likewise, the last two words quoted above -- "from Israel" -- signify that Pelosi is delivering a message to the Syrians of calm about Israelis intentions, not U.S. intentions.

You'll notice that the article doesn't say anything about U.S. intentions per se. You found those ideas in a portion of brain known as your "fertile imagination."

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I know that reading is hard, hard work, but it is fundamental, so let me try to help. Here are the key paragraphs from the Ha'aretz news story:

• Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who visited IDF forces in the North last week, heard an intelligence assessment and was informed of the dangers of a Syrian "miscalculation."
  
  Following his visit to the forces in the field, a decision was made to publicly address the concerns of a possible deterioration with the Syrians, and to send a message that Israel has no intention of attacking Syria, nor is there any coordinated plan with the U.S. for a joint attack against Iran.
  
  The speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, is scheduled to meet with Syrian President Bashar Assad in Damascus today, and will deliver a message of calm from Israel.

Notice the first part that I've bolded. The article says that "Israel" has no intention of attacking Syria. "Israel" refers to "Israel" here. Likewise, the last two words quoted above -- "from Israel" -- signify that Pelosi is delivering a message to the Syrians of calm about Israelis intentions, not U.S. intentions.

You'll notice that the article doesn't say anything about U.S. intentions per se. You found those ideas in a portion of brain known as your "fertile imagination."

so when the number 3 ranking official in the US Government says "nor is there any coordinated plan with the U.S. for a joint attack against Iran" she doesn't mean anything about what the US is doing.

My bad. It's been awhile since Dems were in power, and i had forgotten about the whole "what does 'is' mean?" argument.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
so when the number 3 ranking official in the US Government says "nor is there any coordinated plan with the U.S. for a joint attack against Iran" she doesn't mean anything about what the US is doing.

No. If she says that Israel doesn't have a coordinated plan with the U.S., that doesn't mean anything about what the U.S. might do unilaterally. Note that the U.S. has diplomatic relations with Syria and Israel does not. Countries that want to send a message to countries with which they do not have diplomatic relations often use a third country to do so. For example, when Iran made overtures to the U.S. a few years ago, it did so through Switzerland. Even most conservatives seemed to grasp that the communications delivered to us by the Swiss were messages from Iran. Communicating precise messages of that sort is part of something called "diplomacy," once an integral part of how we interacted with other countries.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
No. If she says that Israel doesn't have a coordinated plan with the U.S., that doesn't mean anything about what the U.S. might do unilaterally. Note that the U.S. has diplomatic relations with Syria and Israel does not. Countries that want to send a message to countries with which they do not have diplomatic relations often use a third country to do so. For example, when Iran made overtures to the U.S. a few years ago, it did so through Switzerland. Even most conservatives seemed to grasp that the communications delivered to us by the Swiss were messages from Iran. Communicating precise messages of that sort is part of something called "diplomacy," once an integral part of how we interacted with other countries.

can't Syria just read it in your blogger's column- they have internet right?

if you honestly believe Pelosi saying that doesn't kill our credibility if we say, attack Iran, then you have no ability to interact with other people in any constructive manner. OTOH, I don't believe you really believe half the biased stuff you post here, so rock on.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
can't Syria just read it in your blogger's column- they have internet right?

I'm sure the Syrians read Ha'aretz, just like Djerejian does. But if Pelosi hadn't made the trip, what would they be reading about?

if you honestly believe Pelosi saying that doesn't kill our credibility if we say, attack Iran, then you have no ability to interact with other people in any constructive manner.

If Pelosi goes to Damascus and says, I am delivering the following message from the Israelis, and the message is that the Israelis aren't planning to attack Syria, then, no, it doesn't "kill our credibility" if we later attack Iran. This is mostly because there's no reason to believe that Pelosi told anyone in Damascus that the U.S. wouldn't planning to attack Iran. If she actually said that, she would get a different degree of criticism from the White House, and rightly so.

OTOH, I don't believe you really believe half the biased stuff you post here, so rock on.

I can't figure out whether you're trying to be an asshole when you say this, or whether it's inadvertant. Come to town and we'll have a drink and you can explain.