Letters to the Editor
-
Good for Nancy Pelosi
I'm just glad that somebody from the US government is engaging with an Arab nation in a way that does not involve oil (Saudi Arabia), threats (Iran), humiliation (Palestine) or bullets (Iraq).
I hope other US leaders will learn from this.
-
Imagine II
Imagine if, in 2001, rather than the don't mess with Texas attitude threatening the world and the axis of evil with, "You're either with us or against us!", Bush had engaged in dialogue with the world. Imagine if Bush had said, "We need to combat terrorism and bring terrorists to justice. I invite the world to join the US in promoting freedom throughout the world. I invite all countries to reach out to reach out to each other to promote peace. Security will not come about through war but through dialogue and the prosperity of open markets. As the leader of the free world, I am dedicated to helping others achieve the peace and prosperity that we have gained in the US. Let the world unite against those who would promote fear and show that their is a better way."
Three cheers for Pelosi! Two more years of Bush...
-
Conason
Conason knows about "Big Lies"[ his book] of the right. This is a mere example of that. But the Washington Post just had to get in on the act by smearing her,in effect.By the way, Ann Coulter is the love child of Phil Shoofly[ aka Phyllis Scahfly] and Bill O'Reilly[ so I made it up].
-
This is what happens... when Presidents Go Bad
Step back a bit. Doesn't this whole sad situation belong at Bush's feet?
Perhaps there are valid criticims one could make about Pelosi's specific comments during her trip. (Was Olmert playing a game, or was there a more accurate or diplomatic way for Pelosi to represent her conversation with Assad?) None the less, I heartily support the move she and the other Republican congressmen made - such moves are vital.
Criticisms about most other aspects of her trip - the fact that she took it, the level of dignitary she met with, her attire - are pure rubbish.
There's one, however, that is worth discussing. It's the criticism that she's somehow undermining the President's foreign policy by visiting a country without his blessing.
When a President drives our nation's foreign policy far outside of our best traditions, outside of a strikingly uniform consensus among our most revered past officials, outside of our core American values, and outside of well-known principles --- principles that show undesirable outcomes from policies that have failed time and time again --- bold moves like Pelosi's - particularly bold because she is the Speaker - are going to happen.
This is a powerful theme that is rarely treated in the press. The pinnacle of this phenominon is when a President goes to war under questionable pretense, without the support of the electorate. It wreaks havoc on propriety, unity, respectfulness and quality dialogue.
The Buck Stops Here
This President has Broken America's Heart. God Bless America with healing from these deep, staggering wounds.
-
Two headscarfs: Pelosi and the female British Sailor
How beautifully illustrative that the pictures of Speaker Pelosi choosing to wear a headscarf and the female British soldier forced (exclusively among the British captives) to don religious clothing appeared simultaneously. Yes, symbols have meaning, and one of those meanings is cultural respect. But that doesn't mean that we're supposed to, as Conason proposes, entirely blow off the concept that one of the meanings of headscarfs et. al. for women is submission and shaming, not the free proffering by that woman of "respect." That's why I recoiled when I saw the images of Pelosi. Context matters.
For women, exclusively, there's a thin line between being empowered or shamed by religious imagery, and it's a line that I wish that Pelosi had contemplated more before her trip. If she were a private visitor or tourist, it would be fine for her to don religious headgear. But she went to the Middle East on a diplomatic mission and also, quite specifically and symbolically, as a powerful female elected official holding a post previously denied to American women on the basis of gender. As such, is it too much to ask of her to stick to places where she isn't asked to (exclusively and visibly) don a contentious religious symbol of female humility, which is what the headscarf has become? I think she took some courageous steps in the Middle East, and I'm glad she went, but all things aren't as equal, or as benign, as Conason implies. How ironic that, simultaneously, that female British soldier was being forced to wear a headscarf while her male peers were treated differently, a message that has apparently infected a British public now primed to pillor the young woman back home for being a female soldier in the first place.
Such is the (important) slippery slope that women confront in religious settings (yes, I would never wear bare arms in a Church; nor would my brothers wear shorts in one, but that type of "respect" is not what we're talking about here) and, tragically, outside of them. And, more tragically, in political settings, where submission by female elected officials should never be a compromise. And, even more tragically, in the Democratic party, where too many guys of the Conason/Stephanopolous camp are all too eager to dismiss concerns about excluding and oppressing women (see, as I've cited before, the first chapter of Stephanopolous' autobiography, where he waxes poetically about the surge of power he felt being in the places in church 'where women couldn't go' and being allowed to carry the Bishop's regalia, which women couldn't touch: you see the Clinton years unfolding, uncomfortably and unconsciously).
Conason once again shows the unfortunate Democratic-boyos tin ear when confronted with the mere notion of female oppression. Too bad he doesn't cover that with a scarf.
-
What is Pelosi thinking?
I have to admit that as much as I believe that the U.S. should talk with its enemies, the trip to Syria by Pelosi and the other legislators made me very uncomfortable. The fact that Pelosi apparently did nothing but repeat a well-known Israeli stance (i.e. she didn't screw up, as the White House charged) isn't especially reassuring. Scheduling a photo op with someone like Assad -- something she surely must have known would be used by the far-right to score political points -- doesn't say much for her political instincts. What happened to skilled political operator we were promised?