BREAKING NEWS: Iran backs down..

[Severa]

Wrong again Mr. Andy. That myth has already been shot down in another thread. It's fascinating how these things start taking a life of their own and then suddenly become fact.





As I said, an answer for everything. It doesn't have to make sense. And no sources quoted. Typical.

What myth?

Jerusalem Post - PMO denies peace message to Assad

The Prime Minister's Office issued a rare "clarification" Wednesday that, in gentle diplomatic terms, contradicted US Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's statement in Damascus that she had brought a message from Israel about a willingness to engage in peace talks.

According to the statement, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert emphasized in his meeting with Pelosi on Sunday that "although Israel is interested in peace with Syria, that country continues to be part of the Axis of Evil and a force that encourages terror in the entire Middle East."

Olmert, the statement clarified, told Pelosi that Syria's sincerity about a genuine peace with Israel would be judged by its willingness to "cease its support of terror, cease its sponsoring of the Hamas and Islamic Jihad organizations, refrain from providing weapons to Hizbullah and bringing about the destabilizing of Lebanon, cease its support of terror in Iraq, and relinquish the strategic ties it is building with the extremist regime in Iran."

The statement said Olmert had not communicated to Pelosi any change in Israeli policy on Damascus.

 

[Idiot]

When a left wing rag like the Washington Post calls a left wing hag like Pelosi, "foolish", you probably ought to pay attention. Palosi had to have stepped far out of bounds for the Post to slam her.

That's a pretty good system ya got there Charlie. When they say something you don't like they're a left-wing rag. When they say something you do like you've got your built-in rationalization for believing it. Why don't you just read various sources and then use your brain to make your own decision instead of making an assumption, Kinda like you did when you assumed that I gave you red karma. I have zero points, the most I can give you is blue, if I understand the karma rules. As I've said before if I criticize someone I'm gonna have the balls to do it openly, unlike most people here.

 

[AndyMarquisLIVE]

Dude, Iran grabbed these guys while the Brits stood around slack jawed with their pants down.

Britain got OWNED, and there isn't any other way to look at it.

You never answered my question, dummy. What role did Nancy Pelosi have in the release of the soldiers, and what inside information do you have to verify this since I can't find anything on CNNNBCFOXABCCBSBBCSKYITN.

I'm also looking for the information where it says the British Government admitted to their soldiers being captured in IRANIAN TERRITORY.

 

[Idiot]

What myth?

Jerusalem Post - PMO denies peace message to Assad

The Prime Minister's Office issued a rare "clarification" Wednesday that, in gentle diplomatic terms, contradicted US Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's statement in Damascus that she had brought a message from Israel about a willingness to engage in peace talks.

According to the statement, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert emphasized in his meeting with Pelosi on Sunday that "although Israel is interested in peace with Syria, that country continues to be part of the Axis of Evil and a force that encourages terror in the entire Middle East."

Olmert, the statement clarified, told Pelosi that Syria's sincerity about a genuine peace with Israel would be judged by its willingness to "cease its support of terror, cease its sponsoring of the Hamas and Islamic Jihad organizations, refrain from providing weapons to Hizbullah and bringing about the destabilizing of Lebanon, cease its support of terror in Iraq, and relinquish the strategic ties it is building with the extremist regime in Iran."

The statement said Olmert had not communicated to Pelosi any change in Israeli policy on Damascus.

Show me a source where Nancy pelosi says "she had brought a message from Israel about a willingness to engage in peace talks." The only article I could find about what the message was is this one. The only message it says that she passed on was that "Israel has no intention of attacking Syria, nor is there any coordinated plan with the U.S. for a joint attack against Iran." It goes on to quote Olmert as saying the same thing. He went into great detail as though it was point he wanted to make clear.

In a holiday interview with Haaretz, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert also commented on the assessments of a possible "war in the summer."

"The Syrians, according to their statements and those of others recently," Olmert said, "appear to be saying that there is an American plan to attack Iran in the summer, and at the same time, and in coordination with Israel, to also attack Syria and Lebanon."

"I can tell you that there is no such plan that we know about, and in any case, there is no reason for the Syrians to prepare for such an eventuality. There is always concern that when one side prepares for war, and the other side is preparing to counter the other side's preparations, then the first side interprets the preparations of the other side as if it is the manifestation of its fears, and the situation goes into a spin, and control is lost.

"We have no intention to attack the Syrians," Olmert said, "we prefer to make peace with the Syrians, but it is a fact that the army is carrying out very intensive training in all systems, all branches, all units, in all areas, and it will continue doing so as part of its annual plans, and it will be ready for any eventuality - including the possibility of what is called miscalculation ... But we take into account everything, and hope that the things that should not happen, do not happen."

That's pretty much in line with what she said the message was. The quotes from your article doesn't in any way conflict with that simple message. What he said in your article is basically that the Israeli policy toward Syria hasn't changed. Her statement says Israel isn't going to attack Syria or Iran. The only way they would conflict is if Israeli policy is in fact to attack one or the other.

This is elementary reading comprehension. Read them both and decide for yourself if they conflict. Don't take my word or the media's word for it.

 

[Lenny]

Did you mean to say something different.

Nope, it's very clear what I intended to say.

 

[Lenny]

Thanks Lenny Boy.

Btw, I've been meaning to mention this to you... your avatar.... uh, how do I say this... should you be doing that in public? You don't happen to be related to Pee Wee Herman do ya?

No relation to Pee Wee or Paul Rubin. See, that's the difference between you and those of us who aren't so shallow. I know Pee Wee's real name. And I know who my AV represents and what he's doing.

Too bad your intellect is stuck in the sewer.

 

[Severa]

Show me a source where Nancy pelosi says "she had brought a message from Israel about a willingness to engage in peace talks." The only article I could find about what the message was is this one. The only message it says that she passed on was that "Israel has no intention of attacking Syria, nor is there any coordinated plan with the U.S. for a joint attack against Iran." It goes on to quote Olmert as saying the same thing. He went into great detail as though it was point he wanted to make clear.



That's pretty much in line with what she said the message was. The quotes from your article doesn't in any way conflict with that simple message. What he said in your article is basically that the Israeli policy toward Syria hasn't changed. Her statement says Israel isn't going to attack Syria or Iran. The only way they would conflict is if Israeli policy is in fact to attack one or the other.

This is elementary reading comprehension. Read them both and decide for yourself if they conflict. Don't take my word or the media's word for it.

That didn't take long.

CNN.com - Pelosi pushes Syria on Hamas, Hezbollah links

From the article (emphasis mine):

Pelosi said she and her delegation "expressed our concern about Syria's connections to Hezbollah and Hamas" and discussed the issue of militant fighters slipping across the Syrian border into Iraq. "These are important issues not only in the fight against terrorism but important priorities for us for peace in the Middle East," she said. (Watch what Pelosi thought was accomplished during visit Video)

She said she brought a message to al-Assad from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that Israel was ready for peace talks with Syria. Al-Assad gave assurances that "he's ready to engage in negotiations for peace with Israel," Pelosi said. She later left Syria, heading for Saudi Arabia, the next leg of a Mideast tour.

-------------------------------------------------------------

At any rate, what the bloody hell is she DOING over there? She's not State Department, nor are any of the other congresscritters (Repubs or Democrats) going over there. Leave the negotiations with Syria up to the ones whose JOBS are to go over there and broker the deals.

 

[Idiot]

That didn't take long.

CNN.com - Pelosi pushes Syria on Hamas, Hezbollah links

From the article (emphasis mine):

Pelosi said she and her delegation "expressed our concern about Syria's connections to Hezbollah and Hamas" and discussed the issue of militant fighters slipping across the Syrian border into Iraq. "These are important issues not only in the fight against terrorism but important priorities for us for peace in the Middle East," she said. (Watch what Pelosi thought was accomplished during visit Video)

She said she brought a message to al-Assad from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that Israel was ready for peace talks with Syria. Al-Assad gave assurances that "he's ready to engage in negotiations for peace with Israel," Pelosi said. She later left Syria, heading for Saudi Arabia, the next leg of a Mideast tour.

-------------------------------------------------------------

At any rate, what the bloody hell is she DOING over there? She's not State Department, nor are any of the other congresscritters (Repubs or Democrats) going over there. Leave the negotiations with Syria up to the ones whose JOBS are to go over there and broker the deals.

I read the article, I watched the video, and I didn't hear her say, nor did CNN attribute any direct quotes to her that said Israel wants to have peace talks. They had a direct quote where she said Syria would like peace talks. Why not the other way around? Are they trying to save ink? If that's the message they want to convey then let them provide a quote or a video.

I've seen articles that flat-out say that Olmert said "We sent no message with Pelosi." But then when you search the article he didn't say anything close to that.

Sorry but If I've learned one thing over the last 6 years it's that EVERY media outlet has its own agenda and they're smart enough not to be obvious about it. They're even smart enough to make it seem like just the opposite. That's why there's this big disagreement between the parties as to whether the media is liberal or not. They use partial quotes along with their own interpretation to try to make us think what they want us to think. This is the most important point of the entire article. You'd think they could get a one sentence quote or get it on tape.

Believe it if you like. I don't.

But let's forget what the media is trying to make us think for a minute. Instead let's just use our own brains and think about this in realistic terms.

1. Pelosi was in Israel on Sunday. Olmert knew she was going to Syria yet he voiced no opposition to it.

2. Israel has a vested interest in negotiating with Syria. Agree or not?

3. However they also get 100 billion dollars in aid from the US every year.

4. GWB is adamant that no one negotiates with Syria.

5. GWB controls the purse strings to the $100 billion.

I would think that they would have to be very careful what they say. If you were Olmert would you want to p!ss off GWB?

I'd love to hear your own thoughts on the subject without the media spin.

 

[Severa]

I read the article, I watched the video, and I didn't hear her say, nor did CNN attribute any direct quotes to her that said Israel wants to have peace talks. They had a direct quote where she said Syria would like peace talks. Why not the other way around? Are they trying to save ink? If that's the message they want to convey then let them provide a quote or a video.

I've seen articles that flat-out say that Olmert said "We sent no message with Pelosi." But then when you search the article he didn't say anything close to that.

Sorry but If I've learned one thing over the last 6 years it's that EVERY media outlet has its own agenda and they're smart enough not to be obvious about it. They're even smart enough to make it seem like just the opposite. That's why there's this big disagreement between the parties as to whether the media is liberal or not. They use partial quotes along with their own interpretation to try to make us think what they want us to think. This is the most important point of the entire article. You'd think they could get a one sentence quote or get it on tape.

Believe it if you like. I don't.

But let's forget what the media is trying to make us think for a minute. Instead let's just use our own brains and think about this in realistic terms.

1. Pelosi was in Israel on Sunday. Olmert knew she was going to Syria yet he voiced no opposition to it.

2. Israel has a vested interest in negotiating with Syria. Agree or not?

3. However they also get 100 billion dollars in aid from the US every year.

4. GWB is adamant that no one negotiates with Syria.

5. GWB controls the purse strings to the $100 billion.

I would think that they would have to be very careful what they say. If you were Olmert would you want to p!ss off GWB?

I'd love to hear your own thoughts on the subject without the media spin.

MY thoughts? Pelosi should have kept her happy ass in DC and left it up to the State Department. That's my take on it. Same to the Congressmen and women that went before her. That goes for the R and Ds. Leave the diplomacy to the State Department.

 

[Idiot]

MY thoughts? Pelosi should have kept her happy ass in DC and left it up to the State Department. That's my take on it. Same to the Congressmen and women that went before her. That goes for the R and Ds. Leave the diplomacy to the State Department.

I can accept that as long as you said the same thing when Denny Hastert went to Columbia and tried to get them to deal directly with Congress and by-pass Clinton. However, I distinctly recall that most republicans, politicians and otherwise, didn't have that attitude at the time. How can you allow one party to blatantly do whatever they want and expect the other party not to try to do the same thing?

 

[PsyOps]

I can accept that as long as you said the same thing when Denny Hastert went to Columbia and tried to get them to deal directly with Congress and by-pass Clinton. However, I distinctly recall that most republicans, politicians and otherwise, didn't have that attitude at the time. How can you allow one party to blatantly do whatever they want and expect the other party not to try to do the same thing?

Is that all you liberals have whenever something like this happens? They did it too... They did it too...

 

[Idiot]

Is that all you liberals have whenever something like this happens? They did it too... They did it too...

You mean like... Clinton thought he had WMDs too!


You probably never heard that one have ya?

 

[Idiot]

When a left wing rag like the Washington Post calls a left wing hag like Pelosi, "foolish", you probably ought to pay attention. Palosi had to have stepped far out of bounds for the Post to slam her.

This is for all of you who suddenly love the Washington Post.

Hussein's Prewar Ties To Al-Qaeda Discounted
Pentagon Report Says Contacts Were Limited

By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, April 6, 2007; Page A01

Captured Iraqi documents and intelligence interrogations of Saddam Hussein and two former aides "all confirmed" that Hussein's regime was not directly cooperating with al-Qaeda before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, according to a declassified Defense Department report released yesterday.

The declassified version of the report, by acting Inspector General Thomas F. Gimble, also contains new details about the intelligence community's prewar consensus that the Iraqi government and al-Qaeda figures had only limited contacts, and about its judgments that reports of deeper links were based on dubious or unconfirmed information. The report had been released in summary form in February.

 

[Bustem' Down]

This is for all of you who suddenly love the Washington Post.

That's fine, the war was over WMD's, and the continued noncompliance with the UN.

 

[PsyOps]

That's fine, the war was over WMD's, and the continued noncompliance with the UN.

Well, yes and no. It was also over Saddam's ties to terrorist organizations. Read UNR 1441 and the IWR.

 

[PsyOps]

This is for all of you who suddenly love the Washington Post.

Okay, first of all, we don't suddenly love the Post. Most of us are shocked they are even reporting anything remotely criticizing anything the democrats do.

From the article:

Captured Iraqi documents and intelligence interrogations of Saddam Hussein and two former aides "all confirmed" that Hussein's regime was not directly cooperating with al-Qaeda before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, according to a declassified Defense Department report released yesterday.

Perhaps Saddam wasn’t “directly” cooperating with al Qaeda but he was indirectly. This article doesn’t appear to discuss nor dispute the Zarqawi factor (e.g. the fact that he got in the country with the help of one of Saddam’s sons - Uday - and set up a terrorist network).

The article does say:

Instead, the report said, the CIA had concluded in June 2002 that there were few substantiated contacts between al-Qaeda operatives and Iraqi officials and had said that it lacked evidence of a long-term relationship like the ones Iraq had forged with other terrorist groups.

So there was a relationship. And given time it could be assumed, based on the last part of that paragraph “that it lacked evidence of a long-term relationship like the ones Iraq had forged with other terrorist groups.”, that the Saddam regime would have eventually developed a more meaningful, long-term relationship with al Qaeda as it did with other terrorist networks.

I don’t suppose that’s even remotely a possibility in your mind Idiot?

 

[2ndAmendment]

Damn I hate to admit it when you are right. Britain did look like chumps in this. They never should have conducted a military operation in that area if they were not prepared to protect their forces. These British "heroes" surrendered to the Iranians with no resistance, then went on TV kissing their captors balloon knots.

Did the British think they were patrolling the English Channel or the Persian Gulf?

Yep. As soon as the Iranian gun boats show on the scopes, the Brits should have deployed overwhelming force.

 

[Idiot]

That's fine, the war was over WMD's...

That was the 2003 reason.

 

[Idiot]

I don’t suppose that’s even remotely a possibility in your mind Idiot?

More than possible, I would say it's likely. And it could have been dealt with without costing over 3200 American lives.

But then only AFTER we dealt with the Taliban and Osama bin Laden.

I don't like to be lied to.

 

[Idiot]

So there was a relationship. And given time it could be assumed, based on the last part of that paragraph “that it lacked evidence of a long-term relationship like the ones Iraq had forged with other terrorist groups.”, that the Saddam regime would have eventually developed a more meaningful, long-term relationship with al Qaeda as it did with other terrorist networks.

That's not what Dick Cheney has been saying. Even though this report was just released he knew he was lying. Now even after it's public he continues to lie like he did yesterday.

Make that, I HATE to be lied to.