Letters to the Editor
-
No Shit, Sherlock
"Would you be shocked if it turns out that while people may support an opening of the dialogue, they may not want Pelosi to initiate it?
I wouldn't be."
Of course, this poll would be taken after the public has been inundated with bullshit from our "mainstream" punditocracy such as we are witnessing today.
Here's a poll question for you, Sherlock.
What percentage of people in the United States believe it is mere coincidence that the major media (the usual suspects) all seem to have the same topic, presented in the same manner, in today's papers and on today's "news" programs?
-
Great Success!
While some here complain about the impossibility of overcoming media indifference to the truth, Glenn has actually done it, as seen by Cliff May's acknowledgement of the reality of public opinion regarding Iraq. Fatalism and superior nihilism seem to me to be among the discredited assumptions.
-
Some Republicans Appear to Be Starting Their Own Foreign Policy, Too
The point the people in that video were making isn't about simply about opening dialogue with Syria, it is about Dems doing it on their own, starting their own Foreign Policy... Lee Hamilton discussed it in the very beginning of the video.
-- Hankest
Then they should be discussing the fact that the Republicans who traveled to Syria earlier said things like this:
“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, R-Va. “I want us to be successful in Iraq. I want us to clamp down on Hezbollah.”
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20070404-1605-republicans-syria.html
It's not just the Democrats who are making their "own" policy, but the Democrats are the only ones who face any scrutiny. And that is the issue here.
-
I can't stay on topic...
...because they're never on topic. It's the only way I can keep up with there bullshit. I can think associationally, too. I had to smash my head to f'ing pieces to do it, but I can do it too.
The bottom line with these folks running the show is that the longer they are running the show, the more likely it is that people will die. No need to read more into that that what it says "people" will die. On all sides, everywhere.
You can see it in the way they argue. Popper and Ayer and Flew and Carnap and what not said for something to mean something it's got to be yes or no, for or against.
Watch them argue enough and you can see what they're for, and what they're against.
For instance:
Iranian hostages. When Iran had the hostages, they said it meant we should go to war with Iran. When Iran let the hostages go, they said it means we should go to war with Iran.
Conclusion: They want to go to war with Iran.
They've already made up their minds, they're just waiting for an opportunity to make it happen. That's why Bill O and Newt Gingrich get together after the hostages are released so that O'Reilly can say that what we're doing with Iran is like the appeasement of Hitler and Newt can identify some of his political opponents and Neville Chamerlains. I won't get more detailed than that because I was barely listening to them; I've heard that song so many times that it's lost most of it's meaning for me.
These people are paper thin. Almost to the point of being invisible. But I won't let them get invisible. I've read Our Town. I know the danger of taking things for granted. And for that reason, I can see right through these nit-wits.
-
We Asked, We Got!
Glenn
you said are using this poll ("By 64% to 28%, respondents favored the group's recommendation to open direct talks with Iran and Syria
I don't think you meant that to imply the people being polled felt that way about Pelosi opening such talks rather than the president.
I have no idea how people feel about Pelosi going over there.
-- Hankest
A better quality troll!
Hankest is indeed a concern troll, which is really the only possible strategy a troll can take around here and have even a cricket's prayer of succeeding with.
And yet, Hankest's trollery far outweighs his concern, since there are any number of commentators here who can look at his "concern," look at Glenn's post, and point out the obvious mismatch.
Like this:
No, Glenn did not mean "to imply the people being polled felt that way about Pelosi opening such talks rather than the president." He's not an idiot, and neither is anyone else here, aside from the trolls. He meant precisely what he said--that Pelosi was acting on a well-supported mainstream premise. To wit:
Hence, Nancy Pelosi's belief in engaging the Syrians in dialogue -- a belief endorsed by, among others: (a) the uber-establishment Baker-Hamilton Commission, (b) the Israeli government, and (c) the vast majority of American people ("By 64% to 28%, respondents favored the group's recommendation to open direct talks with Iran and Syria") -- is, in American Media Land, depicted as some sort of radical and fringe idea, something which threatens to make Nancy Pelosi, two months after she took office, "the most controversial House Speaker yet."
Read in context, Glenn's meaninig is perfectly clear. It's quite likely that fewer folks would have wanted Pelosi to take the lead, rather than Bush. But you go to diplomacy with the diplomats you've got.
Yet, since Pelosi--unlike Gingrich--did not deviate from the official American line, work to undermine it, or create instability in the region, it's unlikely that the numbers would be all that different, especially given Bush's spectacularly low approval ratings.
Nonetheless, all that is irrelevant. Glenn's point was not that Pelosi had the express support of the American people for taking the initive herself. It was that Pelosi was acting in accord with the desires of the American people, as well as the Baker-Hamilton Commission and the Israeli government. I'm quite certain that both Baker-Hamilton and the Israeli government would have preferred Bush's initiative rather than Pelosi's as well.
But that doesn't undermine Glenn's point, either. A political leader does not always follow the polls, but a responsible one will lead the polls by doing what will accomplish what people want, even when they are not yet clear on the means. In a case like this, it is certainly sufficient for Pelosi to act in accord with what the American people want, what the Israeli government wants, and what the bipartisan foreign policy establishment wants. And it's sufficient for Glenn's point that she was doing so.