She's Got Balls - Page 15 - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #141 of 154 (permalink) Old 04-06-2007, 08:52 AM
~BANNED~
 
Jakarta Expat's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2006
Vehicle: PM me to Join the Expat Muslims for Obama Club........
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia
Posts: 17,697
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by elau
Name one politician who has not done that. You are giving Pelosi way too much credit.
I'll name 2, George Bush Jr and Tricky Dick Cheney
Jakarta Expat is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #142 of 154 (permalink) Old 04-06-2007, 09:02 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Jayhawk's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2005
Vehicle: S500/W220/2000
Location: Lawrence, KS (USA)
Posts: 21,652
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Oh... And did I mention: Pratfall in Damascus - washingtonpost.com

But that is nothing to scarf at, when you consider that Pelosi's scarf collection included a red print style that she wore around her neck when she was in Jerusalem. In Syria and Saudi Arabia, she wore one dominated by yellow. And then while in Beirut, she had a blue scarf tied jauntily around the strap of her shoulder bag.

Now this is serious stuff: Nancy Pelosi, Respectfully Maintaining Her Own Image - washingtonpost.com


Don't believe everything you think
Jayhawk is offline  
post #143 of 154 (permalink) Old 04-06-2007, 09:14 AM
~BANNED~
 
Jakarta Expat's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2006
Vehicle: PM me to Join the Expat Muslims for Obama Club........
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia
Posts: 17,697
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Media Mostly Ignore Whether Pelosi’s Syria Trip Violated The Logan Act

Media Mostly Ignore Whether Pelosi’s Syria Trip Violated The Logan Act

Posted by Noel Sheppard on April 6, 2007 - 10:16. Imagine if you will that in September 1996, just days after America launched a missile strike on Baghdad to expand the “no fly zone,” Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich met with Saddam Hussein to discuss foreign policy matters without the permission of President Clinton.
Would the media have vociferously discussed the possibility that Gingrich had violated federal law in doing so?
If the answer is a resounding “Yes,” then why have extremely few press outlets broached this issue as it pertains to current Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s (D-California) recent potentially law-breaking trip to Syria?
To best understand the issue, a little history is necessary. The Logan Act was created in 1799, and reads as follows:
§ 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.
The Act was named after George Logan, who in 1798, went to France without President John Adams’ permission to try and settle the Quasi-War.
With that in mind, there seems little doubt that Pelosi might have made the same mistake Logan did, and could be, at the very least, investigated for doing so.
Yet, Google and LexisNexis searches reveal few media outlets considering this possibility.
For instance, on April 3, the New York Post published an editorial entitled “Nancy’s Nonsense”:
More than two centuries ago, Congress passed the Logan Act, which forbids private citizens from negotiating with foreign governments. As an elected official, Pelosi isn't restrained by the law - but its meaning is clear.
Negotiating with world leaders - particularly those at odds with the United States - should be left to the president, or those authorized by him to do so.
On April 6, the Wall Street Journal’s Robert F. Turner wrote a piece entitled “Illegal Diplomacy” (subscription required):
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may well have committed a felony in traveling to Damascus this week, against the wishes of the president, to communicate on foreign-policy issues with Syrian President Bashar Assad. The administration isn't going to want to touch this political hot potato, nor should it become a partisan issue. Maybe special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, whose aggressive prosecution of Lewis Libby establishes his independence from White House influence, should be called back.
The "Logan Act" makes it a felony and provides for a prison sentence of up to three years for any American, "without authority of the United States," ...
And, as NewsBuster Mark Finkelstein reported Friday, NBC’s Matt Lauer and Tim Russert actually discussed Pelosi’s possible violation on the “Today” show.
Yet, though USA Today editorialized Friday that Pelosi “violated a long-held understanding that the United States should speak with one official voice abroad - even if the country is deeply divided on foreign policy back home,” nowhere was the actual law in question, and its seriousness, addressed.
Furthermore, though the Washington Post published its own editorial Thursday harshly critical of Pelosi’s trip, it too ignored the actual illegality potentially involved.
As far as I can tell, this is about all the coverage this matter has been given by mainstream news outlets in the United States.
Do you think the media would have been as forgiving of Speaker Gingrich if he had so behaved when Clinton was president?


Media Mostly Ignore Whether Pelosi’s Syria Trip Violated The Logan Act | NewsBusters.org

// // //
Jakarta Expat is offline  
post #144 of 154 (permalink) Old 04-06-2007, 11:26 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
elau's Avatar
 
Date registered: Oct 2002
Location: Maryland
Posts: 5,392
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
You guys really should thank Pelosi for her stint. Otherwise, this would have been a media frenzy for your opposing party.

Rice: All Alone on Middle East Peace | TIME

'95 R129
'04 G35.5 BS
'10 X204
elau is offline  
post #145 of 154 (permalink) Old 04-06-2007, 11:38 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Jayhawk's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2005
Vehicle: S500/W220/2000
Location: Lawrence, KS (USA)
Posts: 21,652
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by elau
You guys really should thank Pelosi for her stint. Otherwise, this would have been a media frenzy for your opposing party.

Rice: All Alone on Middle East Peace | TIME
OMG! Somebody actually called Time on its "news" (editorial) reporting and "...they regret the error." What a day!!

Don't believe everything you think
Jayhawk is offline  
post #146 of 154 (permalink) Old 04-06-2007, 07:58 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
FeelTheLove's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayhawk
Oh... And did I mention: Pratfall in Damascus - washingtonpost.com

But that is nothing to scarf at, when you consider that Pelosi's scarf collection included a red print style that she wore around her neck when she was in Jerusalem. In Syria and Saudi Arabia, she wore one dominated by yellow. And then while in Beirut, she had a blue scarf tied jauntily around the strap of her shoulder bag.

Now this is serious stuff: Nancy Pelosi, Respectfully Maintaining Her Own Image - washingtonpost.com

Yo, dipshit:



And who can forget:

FeelTheLove is offline  
post #147 of 154 (permalink) Old 04-06-2007, 08:07 PM
Moderately subtle
 
edfreeman's Avatar
 
Date registered: Dec 2003
Vehicle: 94 E500, 97 500SL
Location: Soddy Daisy, TN
Posts: 8,526
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Quoted: 81 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
Send a message via AIM to edfreeman
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jakarta Expat
Media Mostly Ignore Whether Pelosi’s Syria Trip Violated The Logan Act

Posted by Noel Sheppard on April 6, 2007 - 10:16. Imagine if you will that in September 1996, just days after America launched a missile strike on Baghdad to expand the “no fly zone,” Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich met with Saddam Hussein to discuss foreign policy matters without the permission of President Clinton.
Would the media have vociferously discussed the possibility that Gingrich had violated federal law in doing so?
If the answer is a resounding “Yes,” then why have extremely few press outlets broached this issue as it pertains to current Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s (D-California) recent potentially law-breaking trip to Syria?
To best understand the issue, a little history is necessary. The Logan Act was created in 1799, and reads as follows:
§ 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.
The Act was named after George Logan, who in 1798, went to France without President John Adams’ permission to try and settle the Quasi-War.
With that in mind, there seems little doubt that Pelosi might have made the same mistake Logan did, and could be, at the very least, investigated for doing so.
Yet, Google and LexisNexis searches reveal few media outlets considering this possibility.
For instance, on April 3, the New York Post published an editorial entitled “Nancy’s Nonsense”:
More than two centuries ago, Congress passed the Logan Act, which forbids private citizens from negotiating with foreign governments. As an elected official, Pelosi isn't restrained by the law - but its meaning is clear.
Negotiating with world leaders - particularly those at odds with the United States - should be left to the president, or those authorized by him to do so.
On April 6, the Wall Street Journal’s Robert F. Turner wrote a piece entitled “Illegal Diplomacy” (subscription required):
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may well have committed a felony in traveling to Damascus this week, against the wishes of the president, to communicate on foreign-policy issues with Syrian President Bashar Assad. The administration isn't going to want to touch this political hot potato, nor should it become a partisan issue. Maybe special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, whose aggressive prosecution of Lewis Libby establishes his independence from White House influence, should be called back.
The "Logan Act" makes it a felony and provides for a prison sentence of up to three years for any American, "without authority of the United States," ...
And, as NewsBuster Mark Finkelstein reported Friday, NBC’s Matt Lauer and Tim Russert actually discussed Pelosi’s possible violation on the “Today” show.
Yet, though USA Today editorialized Friday that Pelosi “violated a long-held understanding that the United States should speak with one official voice abroad - even if the country is deeply divided on foreign policy back home,” nowhere was the actual law in question, and its seriousness, addressed.
Furthermore, though the Washington Post published its own editorial Thursday harshly critical of Pelosi’s trip, it too ignored the actual illegality potentially involved.
As far as I can tell, this is about all the coverage this matter has been given by mainstream news outlets in the United States.
Do you think the media would have been as forgiving of Speaker Gingrich if he had so behaved when Clinton was president?


Media Mostly Ignore Whether Pelosi’s Syria Trip Violated The Logan Act | NewsBusters.org

// // //
Tsk tsk tsk . . . well, at least she showed up bush, or showed her bush, or something like that.

edfreeman is offline  
post #148 of 154 (permalink) Old 04-06-2007, 08:14 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
FeelTheLove's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)

The Sounds of Silence

The Bush administration’s refusal to talk to those it deems unworthy is complicating the mess in the Middle East. No wonder the rest of the world is now working around Washington.

Web-Exclusive Commentary
By Christopher Dickey
Newsweek
Updated: 2 hours, 20 minutes ago

April 6, 2007 - “What can you tell us about Iran?” President George W. Bush asked the Saudi Arabian foreign minister at a meeting in Washington almost a year ago. “Who are the leaders and who are not? Who are the decision makers and who are not?”

Those weren’t such dumb questions. From the Iran hostage crisis, when U.S. diplomats were held captive for 444 days before their release in 1981, to the Iran hostage crisis, when U.K. sailors were held captive for 13 days before their release on Wednesday, the problem many governments have faced with Iran is knowing “who are the leaders and who are not.”

Does the real power lie with the Iranian president or the Supreme Leader, with reformers or hard-liners? Are the best interlocutors accredited diplomats or shady middlemen? Do the Israelis have special insights--and connections? Do the Europeans? Can the Iranians be bought off? Or intimidated? And how to measure progress before the final resolution of the crisis?

The best advice the Saudi foreign minister could offer Bush was to talk to everybody in Iran, according to Turki al-Faisal, who was then his country’s ambassador to Washington and who witnessed the encounter. But in that quintessential shadowland that is the Middle East, the Bush administration prefers talking to nobody unless it finds somebody who thinks more or less the way it does. And folks like that are fewer and fewer.

Washington seems to believe that by standing back from dialogue with any of the many forces it deems unsavory and unworthy, it can so frustrate their desire for recognition that they’ll bend to whatever conditions the administration imposes. But the obtuseness of such obstinacy is, well, obvious. The American silent treatment is creating more noise all the time. The world is trying to work around Washington as if it were a stalled 18-wheeler in the middle of a busy highway. You can’t just ignore it, but if you can squeeze by, you do, and a lot of the time you’re honking your horn.

The Saudi diplomatic initiative so much in evidence at an Arab summit in Riyadh last week and laid out for NEWSWEEK by Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal is one example. The Saudis are quite consciously talking to just about everyone on Washington’s list to snub: Hamas, Hizbullah and even the squint-eyed little Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, president of Iran
Inevitably, there’s some confusion. Take this week’s Middle East tour by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. There’s been a lot of sniping, second-guessing and backbiting about her visit to Damascus. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert even entrusted her with a message to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, then said she delivered the wrong one.

Excuse me, was Olmert at any of the Damascus meetings? No, and Pelosi says she was perfectly tough in the actual encounter. The Israelis are responding to Pelosi’s public statement afterward, which left out the many preconditions Israel always puts forward as it pursues its own failed policy of tight-lipped obduracy.

No doubt the Olmert government and the White House are rattled by the cacophony in Syria these days, not least because so many Republican lawmakers are passing through there, too. Assad met with them both before and after Pelosi. “I don't care what the administration says on this. You've got to do what you think is in the best interest of your country,” said Rep. Frank Wolf from Virginia. “I want us to be successful in Iraq. I want us to clamp down on Hizbullah.”

Add to all this the many back channels and surrogate spokesmen claiming to engage in dialogue, and the muddle deepens. Iran’s negotiator Ali Larijani talks to the Europeans about the future of Iran’s controversial nuclear program, but does he really speak for the Iranian leadership? Sometimes it seems he does, sometimes it seems he doesn’t, and many times in the past, he’s been on the verge of making a deal that, in the end, he couldn’t deliver. After 30 years, this frustrating pattern with Tehran doesn’t look like it will change any time soon.

But there is no longer any good reason for Washington to make the situation more complicated by refusing to talk. At least then it could put each interlocutor to the fundamental test: can he deliver? That’s how you know, at the end of the day in Iran, in Syria, among the Palestinians or anywhere else in the world, “who are the leaders and who are not.” As things stand, thanks to the Bush administration’s bad judgments and sullen silences, that very same question is one being asked about the United States.
FeelTheLove is offline  
post #149 of 154 (permalink) Old 04-06-2007, 08:37 PM
Moderately subtle
 
edfreeman's Avatar
 
Date registered: Dec 2003
Vehicle: 94 E500, 97 500SL
Location: Soddy Daisy, TN
Posts: 8,526
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Quoted: 81 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
Send a message via AIM to edfreeman
Quote:
Originally Posted by FeelTheLove

The Sounds of Silence

The Bush administration’s refusal to talk to those it deems unworthy is complicating the mess in the Middle East. No wonder the rest of the world is now working around Washington.

Web-Exclusive Commentary
By Christopher Dickey
Newsweek
Updated: 2 hours, 20 minutes ago

April 6, 2007 - “What can you tell us about Iran?” President George W. Bush asked the Saudi Arabian foreign minister at a meeting in Washington almost a year ago. “Who are the leaders and who are not? Who are the decision makers and who are not?”

Those weren’t such dumb questions. From the Iran hostage crisis, when U.S. diplomats were held captive for 444 days before their release in 1981, to the Iran hostage crisis, when U.K. sailors were held captive for 13 days before their release on Wednesday, the problem many governments have faced with Iran is knowing “who are the leaders and who are not.”

Does the real power lie with the Iranian president or the Supreme Leader, with reformers or hard-liners? Are the best interlocutors accredited diplomats or shady middlemen? Do the Israelis have special insights--and connections? Do the Europeans? Can the Iranians be bought off? Or intimidated? And how to measure progress before the final resolution of the crisis?

The best advice the Saudi foreign minister could offer Bush was to talk to everybody in Iran, according to Turki al-Faisal, who was then his country’s ambassador to Washington and who witnessed the encounter. But in that quintessential shadowland that is the Middle East, the Bush administration prefers talking to nobody unless it finds somebody who thinks more or less the way it does. And folks like that are fewer and fewer.

Washington seems to believe that by standing back from dialogue with any of the many forces it deems unsavory and unworthy, it can so frustrate their desire for recognition that they’ll bend to whatever conditions the administration imposes. But the obtuseness of such obstinacy is, well, obvious. The American silent treatment is creating more noise all the time. The world is trying to work around Washington as if it were a stalled 18-wheeler in the middle of a busy highway. You can’t just ignore it, but if you can squeeze by, you do, and a lot of the time you’re honking your horn.

The Saudi diplomatic initiative so much in evidence at an Arab summit in Riyadh last week and laid out for NEWSWEEK by Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal is one example. The Saudis are quite consciously talking to just about everyone on Washington’s list to snub: Hamas, Hizbullah and even the squint-eyed little Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, president of Iran
Inevitably, there’s some confusion. Take this week’s Middle East tour by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. There’s been a lot of sniping, second-guessing and backbiting about her visit to Damascus. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert even entrusted her with a message to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, then said she delivered the wrong one.

Excuse me, was Olmert at any of the Damascus meetings? No, and Pelosi says she was perfectly tough in the actual encounter. The Israelis are responding to Pelosi’s public statement afterward, which left out the many preconditions Israel always puts forward as it pursues its own failed policy of tight-lipped obduracy.

No doubt the Olmert government and the White House are rattled by the cacophony in Syria these days, not least because so many Republican lawmakers are passing through there, too. Assad met with them both before and after Pelosi. “I don't care what the administration says on this. You've got to do what you think is in the best interest of your country,” said Rep. Frank Wolf from Virginia. “I want us to be successful in Iraq. I want us to clamp down on Hizbullah.”

Add to all this the many back channels and surrogate spokesmen claiming to engage in dialogue, and the muddle deepens. Iran’s negotiator Ali Larijani talks to the Europeans about the future of Iran’s controversial nuclear program, but does he really speak for the Iranian leadership? Sometimes it seems he does, sometimes it seems he doesn’t, and many times in the past, he’s been on the verge of making a deal that, in the end, he couldn’t deliver. After 30 years, this frustrating pattern with Tehran doesn’t look like it will change any time soon.

But there is no longer any good reason for Washington to make the situation more complicated by refusing to talk. At least then it could put each interlocutor to the fundamental test: can he deliver? That’s how you know, at the end of the day in Iran, in Syria, among the Palestinians or anywhere else in the world, “who are the leaders and who are not.” As things stand, thanks to the Bush administration’s bad judgments and sullen silences, that very same question is one being asked about the United States.
Nothing like a quick change of subject (or an attempt at one) when all else fails . . .

edfreeman is offline  
post #150 of 154 (permalink) Old 04-06-2007, 08:43 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
FeelTheLove's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Change of subject? How is that?
FeelTheLove is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Similar Threads
    Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
    Guts and Balls........ Texas Off-Topic 2 11-09-2006 10:34 AM
    You think you have BALLS? jupiterpbc Off-Topic 4 04-10-2006 04:35 PM
    She's 37, he's 15, she's carrying his baby, they're to be wed, it's all so sweet... Check Codes Off-Topic 3 12-14-2005 03:17 PM
    goot balls!! theboss Off-Topic 0 07-13-2005 03:59 AM
    Where's Ellen? She's been awefully quiet. I wonder what she's up to. Norb R170 SLK-Class 0 06-03-2002 11:49 AM

    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome