Letters to the Editor
-
The most difficult part...
Is that we even have to point these things out. I blame the press.
-
Good Catch!
Glenn, don't you ever sleep?
-
The difference
What separates Pelosi's actions, in the minds of those on the right, from Gingrich's is that Gingrich was being tough, while Pelosi was advocating peace through diplomacy. The former is viewed as the only appropriate American response, the latter as wimpish. It is hard not to think that it is only a matter of time before these thugs get us into trouble... again.
-
CNN
The worse part is not what the right wing is doing. Of course we expect them to continue acting like morons. It would be more surprising if they weren't affecting mock outrage over something in the stupidest possible way. No, its that they seem to have an ally in "your liberal media." For seven straight days CNN and particularly Malveaux have been regurgitating the White House and freeper spin on this with just about zero qualification or contextualization. Now, the thing is I don't know if Malveaux has ever won a Peabody so I have no way of knowing whether I should simply trust her unqualified assertions on this.
-
Isn't it obvious?
The Corporate Media have become Mushrooms.
And they think the rest of us enjoy what they do.
Being kept in the dark and fed horsesh*t.
-
Call to action
I note Atrios and MediaMatters have calls to action to CNN to set the record straight on Pelosi's trip to Syria. If you are so inclined please go there and put your $0.02 in.
-
Totally Different
Gingrich didn't wear a scarf.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=25004 -
IOKIYAR
The media whores have a double standard.
At this point, in the year 2007, it is crystal clear that the media whores are our enemies. Their offenses are many and grave.
-
Not A Contradiction: Republicans Are Automatically Patriots, Democrats Treasonous
Unfortunately Republicans do not see any hypocrisy between screaming about NANCY PELOSI going to Syria, and ANY Republican going to ANY country in ANY capacity.
That's because they simply assume that everyone agrees with their conspiracist paranoia: Republicans are by nature patriotic and good for America, and Democrats are by nature treasonous and will serve to undermine the US of A.
So they see no contradiction. If Republican Congressmen go to Syria, they'll obviously put on cowboy hats, shove Assad down in his chair and slap him around while they sing Yankee Doodle Dandy, like Real Men would. If Nancy Pelosi goes to Syria, she's obviously going to bow down and promise to make California the first American State of the New Jihad Caliphate. That's how they see the world.
Republican politicians are the same people who reject any objective measurements on who is good or bad for U.S. and world security, since they would fail any such test.
-
The Daily Star : Why Pelosi's visit to Damascus upset the neocons so much
http://dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=17&article_id=81214
THE DAILY STAR
Why Pelosi's visit to Damascus upset the neocons so much
Thursday, April 05, 2007
Editorial
...The neocons, whose ranks include both officials and armchair intellectuals with considerable influence in the United States, Israel and even here in Lebanon, insist that Pelosi's move sent all the wrong messages to the region's "terrorists" and "terrorist enablers." A better approach, they argue, would be to continue to try to pressure and ignore states like Syria and Iran until they eventually collapse into submission.But their prescription constitutes a willful denial of certain regional realities. Like it or not, Iran and Syria, for historic and geographic reasons, do have considerable influence in places like Palestine, Iraq and Lebanon, and no amount of bullying can reduce their sway. What can change, however, is how these states use their leverage, and as we have seen, they can either help secure stability or create chaos in other countries. Obviously, isolation and intimidation give them no incentive to play nice.
But neocons cringe at the idea of opening channels of dialogue with Damascus and Tehran. Put simply, they prefer to demonize, rather than deal with, their political rivals...
...That is why the neocons are howling over Pelosi's visit: The realization of their ambitions requires continued hostility and instability in order to justify additional meddling in the Middle East.
- - Editorial in "The Daily Star" of Lebanon
-
Juan Cole' thoughts on Pelosi visit
Juan Cole's blog is the first thing I read each morning. Juan Cole is a middle east history professor at Univ of Michigan and he posts a daily blog. One joke is that the CIA can quit and just read his blog.
He has an interesting piece today on Nancy Pelosi's visit.
http://www.juancole.com/2007/04/israel-vs.html
His blog is
http://www.juancole.com
-
Pelosi said what?
http://gulfnews.com/opinion/columns/region/10116167.html
In Damascus, Pelosi repeated the usual demands of the Bush administration. She called upon Syria to tighten security on the borders with Iraq and exert more efforts to prevent the infiltration of foreign fighters whom she described as "killing American soldiers".
She asked the Syrian government to halt arms shipments to Hezbollah and Hamas and facilitate the establishment of the international tribunal, which is supposed to investigate the assassination of former Lebanese prime mister Rafik Hariri.
More interestingly, she asked Syria to help release the two captured Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah, the incident that triggered the last summer's war in Lebanon.
Syrian officials asked Pelosi what the US would pay in return for their cooperation on the aforementioned issues. Pelosi's answer was ambiguous. She admitted that despite that she holds the third most senior position in the hierarchy of power in the US; she does not wield much influence on the making of US foreign policy, which falls completely in the hands of the White House.
- - Gulf News, Dubai, UAE
In other words, Pelosi didn't make her own foreign policy, and took great pains to support the Administration's positions, and she explained to foreigners who might be ignorant about the U.S. that Congressional leaders such as herself don't have the customary powers of parliamentary leaders in other countries.
It's hard to imagine a greater contrast with Newt Gingrich.
-
Double Standards Are What The Right Believes In
So there's nothing surprising in this.
The media swallowing it all whole, however, though no longer surprising to anyone, is still morally repulsive.