Did Pelosi Committ a felony?

[loosecannon]

Using the nationalities of some hijackers to attempt to portray 9/11 as a Saudi attack on America is bullshit.

Yeah, I mean Saudi Arabia only financially supports Bin Laden to some degree and directly supported the actual suicide bombers while they trained in the US.

And they continue to allow the Madrassas to pump out American hating fundamentalists that so many fear as Islamofascists.

That is merely every reason to hold Saudi Arabia responsible.

It is called "state sponsor of terrorism". And Bush holds it hands in a gesture of sincere effection.

[loosecannon]

uh...that would be racisim wouldn't it?

No but thanks for the dumb question.

It is called being "against them because they aren't with us". Or it could be called calling them what they are "a state sponsor of terrorism". Or "axis of evil nation".

Or in Condi speak we could say that "some nations have chosen to be destabalizers".

Normally when somebody attacks you you call them enemies.

[loosecannon]

Certainly discrimination. Are all Saudis terrorists?

Are all Iraqis Saddam Hussein?

Are all Cubans Castro?

Are all Iraqi children developing WMD?

Did everybody in Hiroshima attack Pearl Harbor?

Are all Palestinians refusing to recognize Israel?

what was your question again?

[Kathianne]

Are all Iraqis Saddam Hussein?

Are all Cubans Castro?

Are all Iraqi children developing WMD?

Did everybody in Hiroshima attack Pearl Harbor?

Are all Palestinians refusing to recognize Israel?

what was your question again?

So the Saudi nationalists that attacked on 9/11 were Saudi leaders, ie royalty?

Excuse me, but I'm no backer of the Sauds, just do a search. But your 'arguments' are more than lame.

[Gunny]

Please tell me you're not one of those who thinks the electorate is made up exclusively of hard-core Bush-worshipers and far left Democrats, with no relatively sane voting blocs to be found.

This question has what to do with my response to your statement?

You attempted to use what I said concerning Pelosi in the leadership role to take a shot at the President. I merely responded, using your own insulting language.

If you think for a second that the President of the United States doesn't feel the weight of the responsibility of his job whether or not you agree with that President's politics and/or decisions, I would say you are quite mistaken.

To answer your question in this post, no I am not one who believes the electorate is made up only of the extremes.

Do you?

[Gunny]

Actually, I figure it is appropriate. The hijab is a cultural affect only. Yes, it has roots in Islam, but the hijab is literally a cover whereas teh khimar(sp?) is the actual veil. It's no more offensive than the tradition among a number of Christian denominations which insist women wear skirts or dresses rather than jeans.

IMO, when traveling it is proper to observe the basic customs of your host country, just as you would observe your host's rules when in their house. It's a matter of courtesy. Now if you're not comfortable with your host's customs, you should discuss it beforehand, and decide whether you want to visit or not (if your host insists you adhere to their traditions).

So I don't have a problem with Condi Rice, Laura Bush or Nancy Pelosi for wearing the hijab while visiting in the Middle East.

(I still think that Pelosi stepped over her authority while on her trip, but that's a different aspect which should be discussed separately.)

I don't agree when that respect is being shown toward a backwards-assed religion.

[Gunny]

Iran WAS our enemy 27 years ago.

Pelosi's trip is pale in comparison to many, many other GOPers and Dems alike who actually did interfere in our foreign affairs.

Singling out Pelosi while ignoring dramatically more blatant offenses, like the Iran contra afair is crap.

And Cuba's revolution including Castro were our ALLIES until we abandoned Castor's revolution in mid sentence.



Kewl, so when our enemies with oil attack us directly, on our soil, we make up and hold hands with them...

Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda have oil? News to me.

But when freinds with oil don't attack us we invade their nations and occupy them into complete destruction.

I assume you are referring to Iraq. Saddam Hussein and his regime were enemies of the US at least since 1990.
Very logical, reasonable, and natural.

I am surprised I never really understood our methodology until now

It isn't logical, reasonable nor natural using your fallacious parameters.

[Gunny]

So the Saudi nationalists that attacked on 9/11 were Saudi leaders, ie royalty?

Excuse me, but I'm no backer of the Sauds, just do a search. But your 'arguments' are more than lame.

The entire premise of his argument is retarded.

[grunt]

The entire premise of his argument is retarded.

Actually...you're both wrong...


loosecannon is just retarded...period.

[Dilloduck]

Actually...you're both wrong...


loosecannon is just retarded...period.

So is Pelosi--I just watched that silly woman defend her trip to Syria by saying that the message she gave to Assad was completely in line with the president which might be fine if she hadn't said previously that the Bush policy was an absolute failure. Sorta makes one wonder why she felt the need to repeat "failed policy".

[grunt]

So is Pelosi--I just watched that silly woman defend her trip to Syria by saying that the message she gave to Assad was completely in line with the president which might be fine if she hadn't said previously that the Bush policy was an absolute failure. Sorta makes one wonder why she felt the need to repeat "failed policy".

Did she really say that?

[manu1959]

No but thanks for the dumb question.

It is called being "against them because they aren't with us". Or it could be called calling them what they are "a state sponsor of terrorism". Or "axis of evil nation".

Or in Condi speak we could say that "some nations have chosen to be destabalizers".

Normally when somebody attacks you you call them enemies.

so you want to invade saudi arabia now?

oh and you insulted me again so i dinged you again...a promise is a promise

[manu1959]

Did she really say that?

yep just heard her on the local radio...she said she left her differences behind?

not sure how the logic works though .... bush won't negotiate with syria until they close their borders....i guess nancy flew there and negotiated with them to do just that? closer their borders?...hey wait, that would be negotiating against the wishes of the president which is a violation of the logan act....and would make her a potential felon....or maybe she is secretly working with bush....

[loosecannon]

So the Saudi nationalists that attacked on 9/11 were Saudi leaders, ie royalty?

Excuse me, but I'm no backer of the Sauds, just do a search. But your 'arguments' are more than lame.

No my analogies were spot on. WWI was begun because a single individual assasinated an arch Duke.

The US has punished nations many times because a small group of leaders were our chosen assholes.

And the Saudi leadership not only was involved in supporting the AQ org thru financial assistance but they allow the madrassas to exist WITH their blessing.

Saudi Arabia is our enemy since 9/11. That's a fact Jack.

Iraq, no, not at all.

Afghanistan YES, the world agreed, but only inso far as it was harboring Bin Laden.

[Gunny]

So is Pelosi--I just watched that silly woman defend her trip to Syria by saying that the message she gave to Assad was completely in line with the president which might be fine if she hadn't said previously that the Bush policy was an absolute failure. Sorta makes one wonder why she felt the need to repeat "failed policy".

Got to love the logic.