Bush sez we're "Sending mixed signals to Syria"?

[Stinky The Clown]

What a bullshit, bogus fucking argument.

Does this asswipe think the Syrians are stupid? Does he think they don't understand our politics? Does he think they have an overly high opinion of Nancy Pelosi's power vis a vis the asswipe's power?

This argument works, maybe, with teenage lovers and 3 year olds who cry for cookies ..... but for ANY national leader?

Gimme a fucking break.

[Phredicles]

1. 3 year olds who cry for cookies = key publican demographic

That 30% approval has to come from somewhere.

[TheCowsCameHome]

2. Who were the three Repubes that went with her?

I don't hear any bitchin' about them being in Syria.

[azurnoir]

4. Well the GOPPERS gave

those nasty Syrians a strong message
this wrighty site is calling Nancy Pelosis visit a "slap in the face" LOL
http://alphabetcity.blogspot.com/2007/04/slap-in-face-republicans-in-damascus.html

[anitar1]

6. They did not go with her. They were already in syria when she flew over.

there. I saw it in an article posted on DU a few days ago. It was a newspaper article, if I am recollecting correctly. So If they can go, what's wrong with Dems going ? the usual crapola.

[TheCowsCameHome]

7. Typical RW spin - They are soooo desperate these days.

I just wondered who they were.

[The Count]

3. Of course - GOP-ers go, Dems go - how is a Syrian to figure out?

:shrug:

[Toucano]

5. Well, to be fair, the signals are mixed.

His and Condi's are moronic signals, and Nancy's are wise signals. :)

Syria is no doubt confused at how intelligent, peace-loving people can be led by such an ignorant war monger. But this confusion is universal, I'm sure.

[chieftain]

8. The remaining shreds of America's good name require mixed

signals to be sent by those of us who reject the trogdolitic macho-ism of the fools who are running our foreign policy for the moment.

[goclark]

9. Well said Chieftain nt

[Vulture]

10. I do not know why Bush is complaining...

...since the Logan Act has not been enforced since it was enacted, and there have been plenty of politicians (Republicans and Democrats) who could have been prosecuted with it during his administration. If Bush gave a crap he could have started enforcing it years ago, starting with his own party. Too late now.

(It may be unpopular to point it out, but technically what Pelosi is doing is almost certainly illegal -- definitely prosecutable -- and whatever gray area and wiggle room exists in the law, her widely reported comments in the press are virtually admissions of guilt under the applicable statutes that largely eliminate the ability to use the gray areas. Fortunately, even Bush is unlikely to go that far since it would very obviously be arbitrary and political enforcement.)

[Oreo]

12. Interesting

Didn't know there was such a creature

§ 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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act

[Vulture]

15. I did not know that either

A couple friends of mine, some of whom are lawyers and generally knowledgeable about this kind of thing, vaguely recalled that such a statute existed when idly discussing this the other day and were able to dredge it up (it is not the kind of thing one uses every day). In their opinion, this is probably one of the most brazen and unambiguous violations of the statute in recent memory, and given the facts at hand they are probably right that a credible case could be made. I cannot imagine that anyone will prosecute it though.

I learn something new every day.

[Renew Deal]

11. Since when was dialog using words the wrong signal?

There's nothing wrong with talking. You don't have to agree.

[qwlauren35]

13. He's RIGHT!!!!

Our legislative and executive branches have some major differences of opinion on foreign policy.

I, for one, am VERY happy to see our legislative branch making this clear to world leaders.

If it makes the president squirm, tough nuts. :nopity:

[IChing]

14. He Said this 3 years ago-2004- sound familar?

"It's hard work. The American people know that. But I believe it's necessary work.
And I believe a leader must be consistent and clear and not change positions when
times get tough. And the times have been hard -- these are hard times.

But I understand that
-- what mixed messages do. You can embolden an enemy by sending a mixed message.

You can dispirit the Iraqi people by sending mixed messages.
You send the wrong message to our troops by sending mixed messages.

That's why I will continue to lead with clarity and in a resolute way,
because I understand the stakes. These are high stakes."

http://www.politicalgateway.com/main/columns/read.html?col=150