Democrocalypse '07, or The Great Sell Out.

Originally posted by xmotex


Iraq is in a civil war, and all the neighboring states are getting involved to one extent or another. The Sunni's are terrified of a Shia-dominated Iraq, and the Iranians are trying to ensure one.

I always like it when we help the underdog, sounds like the Sunni need our help then. Or would you just throw them to the dogs as others seem want to do?

Originally posted by Phoenix
I had no idea the US supported the Sandinista's, can you provide a link for that? I would be very interested in learning just how the US supported the Sandinista's cause its news to me.

DOH!

Yeah that was a typo, I meant the Contra's in their fight against the Sandanistas.

They were a terrorist group by any definition.

Originally posted by Phoenix
I always like it when we help the underdog, sounds like the Sunni need our help then. Or would you just throw them to the dogs as others seem want to do?

Well the Sunni's are mainly screwed because of Al Quaeda provoking a civil war by bombing the Golden Mosque. It's also Sunni militants who are behind the vast majority of attacks on US forces, all the propaganda about Iran notwithstanding.

But if you want the US to support Al Quaeda...

Originally posted by Phoenix


I always like it when we help the underdog, sounds like the Sunni need our help then. Or would you just throw them to the dogs as others seem want to do?

Don't you find it ironic that now you want to protect the Sunni's; the religious faction that was responsible for the torture and killing under Saddam? Amazing how loyalties change and morph with enough spin.
Seems like only yesterday we were basically at war with the Sunni's.

Originally posted by whaaa


Don't you find it ironic that now you want to protect the Sunni's; the religious faction that was responsible for the torture and killing under Saddam? Amazing how loyalties change and morph with enough spin.
Seems like only yesterday we were basically at war with the Sunni's.

I thought it was the Baathist party of Saddam and Saddam himself that we deposed, silly me what was I thinking.

Now that we got the above out of the way whom in this country (US) resisted each and every attempt to call this a religious war just a few years ago, talk about revisionist history eh.

Originally posted by Phoenix



I thought it was the Baathist party of Saddam and Saddam himself that we deposed, silly me what was I thinking.

Silly you indeed! The Baathist were Sunni's.

www.globalsecurity.org...

Originally posted by xmotex


I meant the Contra's in their fight against the Sandanistas.

They were a terrorist group by any definition.

I guess you're trying for moral equivilency (sp) with these comparisons. That does not work for me when motivation and end results originally desired are taken into account outside the vacuum of presentation put forth here.

Honestly put, our enemies want us dead or conquered at which time their ideology will be forced upon the unwilling by duress under arms or threat of death.

In the current state of things wars fought between major powers or nuclear armed states would unravel civilization as we have it now. Wars almost have to be fought by proxy as has been seen in the last 50 years or so. Call it terrorism by both sides if you like but we actually are fighting a triangulated war pitting the old Communist/Capitalist ideologies together with radical religious ideologies all mixed in depending on what advantage may be gained with temporary allied agreements. Hypocritical? sure, but thats what has to happen if the ultimate outcome has any favor for the west.

My fear is that the west cannot keep its will to see this thing through.

You said earlier that you want the US or west to go after AQ, seems Iraq has become a magnet for them looking at estimated casualty figures, I'd rather the radical elements spend the blood and money there than here - really makes no difference to me which middle eastern nation they come from. So far the battle has been carried to them.

Originally posted by whaaa

Silly you indeed! The Baathist were Sunni's.

www.globalsecurity.org...

Could they have been Sunni by birth and radical Baathists by desire or training?

Could the Baathist insurgency which first existed was appropiated by radical element of the Sunni AQ type - what came first.

Bottom line the average Iraqi seems to be willing to fight back against the radical element ruining their chance for choice in government.

Good stuff, Phoenix. You hit the nail on the head; we are fighting an ideology. The elephant in the room just seems to be how to get rid of it. I know one thing for sure though; pleading and pandering to our enemies through partisan subversion is one of the worst ways to deal with it imaginable.

Pelosi's actions are on the brink of treason. It was unprofessional, and I did not expect that from her.
I must also mention that I have noticed how the democrat party is virtually in disarray. There is no clear leadership and so far they seem incapable of forming any long-term goals. The only time they are united is during an anti-bush rally. Now I'm not so fond of Bush myself, but when Democrats are catering to the terrorist agenda it certainly does send the wrong message and they disgrace the integrity of this great nation.

The hypocrisy here makes me want to puke. Pelosi is a traitor but when
Republicans go to Syria, they are diplomats. Do you think that this kind of one sided criticism is really the way to deny ignorance. You realize of course that this type of partisan cheer leading makes you look like a bunch of mooks.


local.lancasteronline.com...

[edit on 7-4-2007 by whaaa]

Originally posted by whaaa
The hypocrisy here makes me want to puke. Pelosi is a traitor but when
Republicans go to Syria, they are diplomats.

and when ronald reagan talks to the soviets he's the man that single-handedly ended the cold war...

so partchimp, was it ok for reagan to talked to people who would have glassed america if given an opportunity where there was no mutually-assured destruction?

Where is Osama binLaden. Why with all the resources and the ability to track his every move in the past, including ousting him from one nation to import him to Afghanistan, (a misdeed on par with sending Marx to Moscow), have they not found him.

Why has the uniter divided the nation into two polarized camps, no one disagrees with defending our borders against enemies. The attention on infighting about imagined political differences will make little difference if the figurehead for the 911 attacks remains shrouded in conspiratorial secrecy.

Send him first to Africa and have him tried for the Africans murdered there in the bomb blast, then the Sudan where he carried out the coup. Send him to every other nation where he has carried out horrendous attacks and murdered thousands of innocent people. Finally bring him home to Saudi where he has also murdered people and let them try him by sharia law.

When he's brought to the public square, the executioner will ask the families of his victims if anyone can forgive him. If not, let them carry out the sentence.

So where is bin Laden, divisive uniter? Something stinks in Denmark and the political infighting is simply a diversion from the real patriotism citizens need to carry out in a responsible and democratic fashion.

A few observations:

1. Only two things really bothered me about Pelosi's visit to Syria:

a. The Syrians, though they hypothetically could offer us a couple of things that we want (which is what saves the trip from being entirely an act of political posturing) there is no way in hell that the congress alone can get them on board for it. It's not that Pelosi was wrong to try and get the Syrians to play ball through diplomacy. The problem is that it seems unlikely that Pelosi can get us a lasting compromise with Assad if she can't also get a lasting compromise with Bush.

Pelosi was right to go to Syria and try to engage them because we need their self-absorbed, chiefly secular, somewhat Saddam-like Ba'athist government officials to try the idea of quietly making minor concessions, such as safe borders for Iraq so that we can soon leave that country to stand or fall on its own as a sovereign nation.

She was right in that, but she was wrong not to have first gone to the White House with a REALLY good plan and a WHOLE LOT of political capital so that she could go to Syria with Condi Rice by her side to deliver a clear message from THE UNITED STATES and not from a politician.

Because let's face it, when Bush says something, they say "the people/democrats/un/russians and chinese might be able to stop him". When Pelosi says something, "She does not control the army, and that's what we are worried about."

But if by some friggin miracle the same meaningful words were coming from both Condi and Pelosi, I think Assad would have soiled his pants in his haste to comply before the stick side of the extended carrot/stick offer came down on him. Besides... having TWO powerful women to deal with would have been twice as puzzling for the Syrians.


b. That brings me to my second concern. Why the heck did she cover her head? I understand the issue of cultural respect, but I think it was a bad decision on many levels. Not only does seeing the first female Speaker of the House in that circumstance make a really ironic and slightly politically damaging impression on Americans who see it, but more importantly it defers to the fundamental problem we are having with Islam- it fails to draw the line and say, "we will respect your beliefs, but not be bound to comply with them". Diplomatically speaking it sent a message that we do not understand, or worse, refuse to confront, the cause of the problem between our nations.


2. We are almost certainly going to lose in Iraq, the definition of losing in this case being failing to establish a lasting stable government of the people's choosing. I don't like it, I don't want us to lose, I joined the USMC in 2003 because I didn't want us to lose, but within the bounds of the values that make our country worth serving, it is unlikely that we will win this war. Our forces are very good at what they do, it's not their fault.

We cannot strategically or financially afford to stay in for the DECADES that this mission could take though. It's not that our guys aren't up to the task- our budget isn't. We can't afford to be up to our neck in Iraq with nothing to throw at other major concerns for years on end. We can't afford to spend a hundred billion dollars a year on a war that is doing less to advance our security than other potential options might accomplish.

If we went Mongol on them, we'd get results so fast it wouldn't even be funny. But what is the point of making America victorious if the means are as morally reprehsible as what we are opposing? I'm not saying we are that bad- I'm saying that we'd have to become that way if we wanted to actually win the WOT while following the current strategy- and if we continued the current strategy with any less than that level of brutality- it would be as lengthy and costly and fruitless a war as Vietnam.

There is nothing cowardly or unamerican about seeking a more sustainable strategy within which to continue our prosecution of the WOT. You can buy a lot of friends, train a lot of intelligence operatives, and drop a lot of laser guided bombs for a third of a trillion dollars, and unlike spending that money on Iraq, you can do it on a global scale, as needed, without exposing American personel to attack and without diminishing our ability to respond to potential military crises in other parts of the world.

As an added bonus, if we would express our motives transparently and exercise force responsibly, so as to remove any doubt that we seek justified ends by justified means, we'd might actually be able to get some cooperation out of our erstwhile friends.

Some of them have been lead by our miscalculations to the once ridiculous seeming idea that America might be more dangerous than a cult of wife beating genocidal maniacs who pervert a very large religion in order to gain a seemingly endless supply of recruits that transcends all borders... I mean Jesus Christ, there was never even a Bond villain that bad! Yet we have acted in a way that has allowed our friends to wonder if we might be worse than them. This is unbecoming of and completely unnecessary for a nation such as ours.



3. In my humble opinion, the best way to tell if the democrats are really trying to do what is best for our nation is to watch how hard they try and how successful they are. I believe that they can win this political battle if they are willing to expend the political capital to get it done. I believe that it is in their partisan interest NOT to stop the war in Iraq, but to let Bush stymie a feigned effort on their part, thus allowing them to rally their base and appeal to the war-weary middle that the only way to stop this war is to trust them with the presidency and a super-majority in congress.

If the Democrats stop the war in Iraq before the next election, every Democrat not named Hillary Clinton can forget about becoming the next POTUS and the party would lose a couple of seats in the House of Representatives. Worse still, if the exit were to go too badly, the democrats would probably lose control of the senate and a Republican running on WOT reform (without a return to Iraq) would possibly be able to take the White House.

If the Democrats look like they tried their best and were defeated by a fiercely partisan Republican congress acting in lock-step with the Bush administration (which would be the case if they keep throwing up bills for Bush to veto and never make a power play to either over-ride the veto or strong-arm Bush) then they would be able to gain a few more seats in the Senate next time out (meaning that with only a few maverick Republicans on their side, they could get cloture on any bill they wanted) and win the White House in a walk.

Achieving a victory in 2008 is VITAL to the long-term health of their party. They have been in the White House too infrequently since the Johnson administration, and with the "Republican Revolution" they came very close to becoming a traditional party of opposition. If they can't hold the White House and AT LEAST a minimally hostile congress for 4-6 of the next 8 years (starting in 08) then the Democrat party will be in danger of completely losing its identity and either being replaced or altered by 2020 or 2024, because sooner or later, if they dont start winning consecutive elections, there wont be anyone left who remembers what a Democrat government is, and the fire of their base will be extinguished.

For that reason, I believe the democrats will probably "fire the honorable shot" and tacitly surrender to Bush. But I hope that I'm wrong, and if I am wrong, there is nothing partisan or indescent about their current stance. (Actually there's nothing wrong with their stance either way- if i'm right about them, the only problem with their stance would be that it isn't really their stance.)

The Dems overwhelmingly replaced the Reps because the majority of the American People wanted out of the Iraq Situation. When they tried to pass the "toothless disapproval", the people rose up angrily and demanded to know why they refused to use the power of the purse to get us out of Iraq.

The Dems have repeatedly tried to work with a President whom has refused to acknowledge the will of the people, the wishes of Congress, or the Senate. He has steadfastedly refused to budge an inch, threatening to veto anything that remotely has a date for pulling out attached, and refuses to give us any solid information on the war other than to "trust him".

Well, he's squandered our trust, he squandered our money, and absolute most importantly, he's squandered the lives of thousands of Americans and our allies. The people who voted them in are furious about it, and they're demanding their House and Senate end this war.

So what exactly would you have them do? Please. Enlighten us. Other than simply throwing partisan insults out there, how about you give us a solution as to how this situation can be resolved without pulling out, and with a President who refuses to listen, refuses to take advice from the ISG, and refuses to aknowledge the will of the people.

And as for Pelosi going on talks, how is this "bending over for terrorist nations?" How has merely talking, opening up channels of dialogue, done anything detrimental towards a final resolution. Should she instead of shown up with tanks and guns and simply invaded? The Bush Administration has repeatedly and steadfastedly REFUSED to open up any lines of dialogues with the major other powers of the Middle East. The only line of dialogue he wishes to hear is the report of a rifle.

While the use of sanctions and warfare can certainly kill lots and lots of people, they do not open the way towards any kind of final solution. The only way we're ever going to achieve Peace in the Middle East is either to nuke the whole area to unusable slag, or get open dialogue and talks going. Personally, I prefer the latter, and apparently so does Pelosi.

[edit on 4/8/2007 by thelibra]

Originally posted by thelibraWhile the use of sanctions and warfare can certainly kill lots and lots of people, they do not open the way towards any kind of final solution.

Given your choice of words, I disagree. Bush's strategy becomes the words final solution rather nicely at times... but like its 1930s-40s namesake, it just won't work. And BTW, I am only kidding, but I do believe it is true that if a politician were to use the words you chose in any war-related context, their approval rating would instantly drop 3 points.


As for what you actually said, I pretty much agree, but I think it leaves open a path of least resistance that should be avoided if at all possible.

The Democrats should do what they were elected to do if there is any way at all they can accomplish it, but the preferable way to do it is not merely to find a way to outmanuever Bush (ie, cut funding, which, by the way, although it is not preferable, I see as a valid effort- it is Bush, not the Dems, who is holding our troops hostage for political gain, because it is Bush, and not the Dems, who wields the power to execute a safe withdrawl).

The way I would prefer to see the dems get us out is to go Powell Doctrine on Bush's butt and present an overwhelming force against Bush should he fail to comply. Take him and his cabinet hostage and see if he blinks.

If I were running the show on the Dem side, I'd give Bush and the Republicans in congress fair warning that they were going to have to meet certain minimum standards of compromise, or I would begin impeachment proceedings against Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Alberto Gonzales, and Dick Cheney, and I'd warn them that I had plenty left where that came from for Condi, Gates, Chertoff, any senator who was implicated in McConnell's little bribery operation, and of course Bush himself.

Force republicans in the senate to be accountable for their support or opposition the the many wrongs of this administration and see if Bush doesn't very quietly offer a deal. The dems can't get the impeachments, I realize that, but the Republicans in the senate don't want to deal with the political fallout of saving Bush, so they will offer a compromise, and the only way for Bush to avoid having his veto overridden by Democrats and Republicans together will be to get out of the way and sign a compromise bill that is sent to his desk.

Of course it's not as if that's a hard plan to cook up- I think the Democrats are afraid that it will make them look extremely radical, because most people will see it merely as a move to spite Bush's name for history's sake. They are unlikely to actually use the full leverage of their position because some of them are afraid that being too extreme could cost them their jobs... I tend to come down on the side that says no matter how extreme you may be, if you're getting things done, you can usually get 51% of the people to forgive you.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
As for what you actually said, I pretty much agree, but I think it leaves open a path of least resistance that should be avoided if at all possible.

Normally I would agree as well, especially were the situation prior to Iraq. There was a time when, evil megacorp internationals aside, America herself was a beacon. When 9/11 hit, even countries whom hated us were sending their condolences. The world was ready to back us in Afghanistan, lending their aid, troops, or at the very least, their public moral support (which we've since learned is more valuable than we thought).

Instead, Bush squandered our entire nation's credibility, caused us to be condemned in the eyes of most of the world, alienated our allies, done a poor job in Afghanistan because most of our resources are focused on a waste of hundreds of billions of dollars, thousands of American lives (if not tens of thousands, since civilians and contractors are not counted among the casualties, and are estimated to be equal to or greater than the military casualties), and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives, and more or less declared war on an entire religion...

We can't play Cowboy anymore. We are indeed currently a superpower, but our place is no longer guarenteed or even expected to remain that way. China is expected to surpass us in every aspect within 10 years, and should they wish to impose their policies on the world, in the same way America has, the ONLY country even remotely capable of meeting that threat is India. India is the only country that can come close to matching China in terms of population, production, rate of scientific advancement, and rate of economic growth.

The only way we Americans are going to survive, much less retain any semblence of status in the world, is going to be as a diplomatic, aerial, and space power. Bush has destroyed our diplomatic capitol; it'll take decades to repair the damage he's done. We're rapidly losing ground in the theater of space as our own populace denies the neccessity for maintaining space superiority, while the Chinese simultaneously are putting tremendous time, research, and resources into attaining it. And, unfortunately, as we've come to learn the hard way in Iraq, aerial superiority is no longer an assurance of a clean and swift victory.

What I see Pelosi doing is not a path of least resistance, but an attempt to take charge of the diplimotic theater where the Bush administration has failed so miserably. Bush's condemnation of her attempts at diplomacy only underscores the reason for our current low standing in the eyes of the world, which in turn further justifies her visits.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
If I were running the show on the Dem side, I'd give Bush and the Republicans in congress fair warning that they were going to have to meet certain minimum standards of compromise, or I would begin impeachment proceedings...

Oh, absolutely. Heck, I wouldn't have even given him the option. Day One in congress I'd have started impeachment proceedings for Cheney and then follow it up with Bush. I strongly suspect, however, they've already played the "impeachment card". Remember when Bush said Rumsfeld was doing fine and would stay with him throughout the term, and then as soon as the Reps lost the House and Senate, Rummy was sent packing? I expect that they traded Rummy for the impeachment card. To be frank, though, think they could have gotten a lot more for it.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
...the only way for Bush to avoid having his veto overridden by Democrats and Republicans together will be to get out of the way and sign a compromise bill that is sent to his desk.

I don't know that he will ever see it that way. A reasonable president would, but our current president has completley lost his grip on reality. He still sees himself as having won the election by a landslide, mandated by God, and considers his lack of popularity to be a virtue, and the fault of the liberal media, rather than his own incompetence. In his own eyes, he's Saint George, and his "Dragon" is apparently the whole Middle East. Methinks in reality he's more like Don Quixote, with each Middle Eastern country being a windmill.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
They are unlikely to actually use the full leverage of their position because some of them are afraid that being too extreme could cost them their jobs.

It's really hard to say at this point why they won't use the full leverage of their position. Keep in mind, I'm an ex-Republican (thanks to Bush), and still not a Democrat, though I voted Democrat in the last election just to bring some semblence of "balance of power" back into the vocabulary of the U.S. Government. So I don't really trust Democrats to "do the right thing", but I guess I distrust them less than I do Republican politicians.

Why don't they use the full powers at their disposal though? I suppose the reasons are different for each member, really. I still believe there are a few honest men and women in politics who really are trying to do the right thing, or trying to represent their constituency, or both. Some Dems probably feel that too extreme of a shift from one end of the spectrum to the other, too quickly, would cause more harm than good. Some might feel that, despite the origins of the war in Iraq, the current Iraq Situation really does require us remaining there, but with a better plan of action and withdrawal. Some might be afraid for their jobs.

I think really, though, most are worried about what the message would be to the American People if, immediately upon coming into power in the House and Senate, they removed the President and Vice President from power, leaving Pelosi as the Commander in Chief. Understandably, there would be an enormous uproar from the right, whether they approved of Bush or not, and accusations of a hostile takeover of the Executive Branch would abound. Pelosi would never be accepted as a legitimate president under such circumstances, no matter how justified the reasons for her being there. There would then be active attempts to have her removed from office, and we'd probably see the beginnings of the failure of our very governmental system as we started flying through CICs faster than an unstable junta.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
.. I tend to come down on the side that says no matter how extreme you may be, if you're getting things done, you can usually get 51% of the people to forgive you.

I agree, except possibly would amend that with "getting things done WELL".

It sounds like our views are pretty similar, though we arrived at them in different ways.

Originally posted by thelibra
What I see Pelosi doing is not a path of least resistance, but an attempt to take charge of the diplimotic theater where the Bush administration has failed so miserably. Bush's condemnation of her attempts at diplomacy only underscores the reason for our current low standing in the eyes of the world, which in turn further justifies her visits.

I think I see what you're saying: perhaps I should have said "path of less resistance". Least resistance is leaving Bush alone. Less resistance is going around him (what Pelosi is doing). Most resistance (but most effective if it works) is politically strong-arming Bush into doing what needs to be done.

Its not that I don't appreciate Pelosi's effort, but the fact of the matter is that she can't succeed until she puts Bush in his place once and for all. She can't offer Assad anything solid in the way of enticement to compromise while she's got a Bush veto hanging over any attempt at progress. She can't even be sure that Bush would accept a Syrian concession. Suppose that Pelosi convinced him that we didn't intend to fight them, and he agreed to break his alliance with Iran. Who is to say Bush won't just say, "I don't believe that for one second and I fully intend to make preemptive attacks on Syria when the time to invade Iran comes", and blow the whole thing.
The sad thing is, even though its a ridiculous scenario, it sounds very Bush.

Oh, absolutely. Heck, I wouldn't have even given him the option.

I would, but only because it wouldn't actually succeed. I think Bush can get 35 Republicans to protect him at all costs. I just don't think he can get 40 of them to prevent a veto-override if doing so keeps them from having to stand up and be counted on the subject of impeachment.

If we could actually get rid of him, I would have impeached on day one. Since we can't though, and the damage of impeachment is strictly political (it's a great chance to put the sins of the Republicans all over the news for the next year and a half, which would be disasterous for them in the next election), it would be cheap and abusive on a Bushesque level to impeach for impeachment's sake. It would however be perfectly acceptible to use that as leverage to achieve success on a policy issue in the best interest of the United States.

I strongly suspect, however, they've already played the "impeachment card".

That is a really good point, but if you are correct that they could get more for it (and I think you are) then I say play it again. A threat doesn't lose potency the first time you tap it. As long as you retain the ability to do it, you can leverage it up until the point where the consequences of defying you are no longer greater than the consequences of compliance. Bush knows that the war is over when he's gone... a little under two years from now. Is shortening that by six months or 1 year really so unacceptable that he would rather lose all standing with every connection he has by being the one who destroyed the Republican party? I don't think his daddy's friends would buy his bankrupt oil companies anymore after something like that.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
I don't know that he will ever see it that way. A reasonable president would, but our current president has completley lost his grip on reality.

Then let his veto get overridden. Then, although Pelosi won't have the weight of the state department behind her, which is the big benefit of taking on Bush before going to Syria, at least when she goes to Syria after winning over Bush's veto she'll be able to credibly claim that she has something to offer independent of Bush's blessing.

It's really hard to say at this point why they won't use the full leverage of their position. Keep in mind, I'm an ex-Republican (thanks to Bush), and still not a Democrat, though I voted Democrat in the last election

Same here. That's exactly why I wouldn't just impeach regardless for the good of the party- I'm not a party man. At the moment though, I've signed on as a free agent and I'm not making too much noise about the fact that I'll be shopping around for a better deal in November.

I think really, though, most are worried about what the message would be to the American People if, immediately upon coming into power in the House and Senate, they removed the President and Vice President from power, leaving Pelosi as the Commander in Chief.

I'd be one of the people making an uproar if that happened. I don't think its an issue since they simply don't have the votes and they know it- that seems unlikely to be the thing holding them back from trying to force Bush's hand.
Just academically speaking though, if they had the votes to impeach, I would expect them to impeach Dick Cheney then publically offer George Bush a short list of moderate VP appointments who would be confirmed, with the understanding that Bush will be impeached even if he fails to nominate one of the suggested VP replacements.

That way you end up with someone like John McCain or Colin Powell just keeping things on an even keel and preventing things from getting worse for a couple of years, even if they don't conceede to the party agenda and give us exactly the policy we demand.

I agree, except possibly would amend that with "getting things done WELL".

A phenomenon much rarer than reelection in our nation.

It sounds like our views are pretty similar, though we arrived at them in different ways.

It's always nice to be in good company.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
and when ronald reagan talks to the soviets he's the man that single-handedly ended the cold war...

That was his job to do so. Pelosi is playing outside her sandbox. It's not her job and she's interfering with the State Department.

Oh .. and Reagan didn't 'singlehandedly' end the cold war.
He did a lot, but the Pope and the solidarity movement in Poland
had A LOT to do with the colapse of the USSR.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Why the heck did she cover her head? Diplomatically speaking it sent a message that we do not understand, or worse, refuse to confront, the cause of the problem between our nations.

Like I said, she's playing outside her sandbox. She's NOT a diplomat. She doesn't work for the State Department. She doesn't have advisors telling her what signals she's sending.

She's a flake and she's making the job of the State Department HARDER.

Her line on TV now is that she's bringing the president's message to Syria. Yeah, right! Like anyone believes that? She stepped in it big time ...

She stepped in it big time ...

Indeed. I always find it humorous when someone's power trip ends up tripping them up instead. This is another prime example of the leftist partisan's pandering out of fear and pure hatred for the right. I just hope the nation makes the right choice in next years election...