BS: Syria- Opinion in Washington Post

Subject: BS: Syria- Opinion in Washington Post
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Apr 07 - 04:29 PM

The Truth About Syria

By Liz Cheney
Thursday, April 12, 2007; Page A27

Anyone familiar with the past two years of Lebanese politics would never claim, as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi did in Damascus last week, that "the road to Damascus is a road to peace." Her assertion must have seemed especially naive to the people of Lebanon, where the list of the slain reads like a "Who's Who" of Syria's most vocal and effective opponents.

This round of murders began at 12:56 p.m. on Feb. 14, 2005, when 2,000 pounds of TNT exploded outside the St. George Hotel in Beirut, killing former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq al-Hariri and 22 others. Hariri's crime? He was increasingly outspoken in opposition to Syria's involvement in Lebanon. Basil Fleihan, a member of the Lebanese parliament, was riding with Hariri that day. Burned over 95 percent of his body, he was recognized only when someone heard him whisper "Yasma," his wife's name. Fleihan died two weeks later.

Following Hariri's assassination, Lebanon's freedom forces, known as the "March 14 movement," demanded an end to Syria's military occupation. They won a majority in the country's parliamentary elections.

Their victory did not go unanswered. Three days after the first round of elections, on June 2, 2005, Lebanese journalist Samir Kassir, an outspoken opponent of Syria, was murdered by a car bomb. In response, hundreds of Lebanese journalists gathered in Martyr's Square and held aloft black pens inscribed with Kassir's name as they chanted, "We will not kneel." One of those in attendance said, "When you read Kassir's work, you will know who killed him." His last column criticized the Syrian regime for imprisoning a group of civil activists.

Three weeks later, the day after the March 14 forces announced their electoral victory, the Lebanese intellectual and anti-Syrian leader George Hawi was assassinated by a car bomb. Lebanese journalist Michael Young wrote that Hawi's killing was a clear message to the March 14 forces: The risks to you of ending Syria's occupation will be high.

On Dec. 12, 2005, the United Nations issued a report concluding that it was unlikely that Hariri's assassination could have been carried out without Syria's knowledge. That same day, Gibran Tueni, editor in chief of An Nahar newspaper, another influential opponent of Syria, was killed by a car bomb. Tueni, who had been among the first at the scene after Samir Kassir's murder, knew he was risking death by vocally opposing Syrian oppression. He did it anyway.

Last November, the 34-year-old minister of industry, Pierre Gemayel, became the latest victim. An outspoken anti-Syrian member of the cabinet, Gemayel was killed when his motorcade was rammed by gunmen who then shot him in the head at point-blank range. Gemayel's murder was seen as a clear message to the March 14 forces inside the Lebanese government: We will kill you to prevent you from acting against Syria's wishes.

These murders are intended to terrorize Syria's opponents into silence. They also eradicate the intellectual and political leadership of Lebanon's democracy movement. Imagine if, in 1776, James Madison, John Adams or Thomas Jefferson had been struck down by assassins. Could America have been born without them? It seems a calculation has been made that if enough Lebanese democrats are killed, Lebanese independence will die in its cradle.

At the same time Syria is terrorizing Lebanon, it is facilitating the flow of insurgents into Iraq, supporting the terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah, and allowing its territory to be a foothold in the Arab world for Iran's belligerent ambitions. It continues all this despite scores of trips by senior diplomats to Damascus to "talk to the Syrians."

It is time to face facts. Talking to the Syrians emboldens and rewards them at the expense of America and our allies in the Middle East. It hasn't and won't change their behavior. They are an outlaw regime and should be isolated. Members of Congress and State Department officials should stop visiting Damascus. Arab leaders should stop receiving Bashar al-Assad. The U.N. Security Council should adopt a Chapter VII resolution mandating the establishment of an international tribunal for the Hariri murder.

The Security Council should also hold Syria accountable for its ongoing violations of existing resolutions. The U.S. government should implement all remaining elements of the Syria Accountability Act and launch an aggressive effort to empower the Syrian opposition. European governments should demonstrate that they value justice over profit and impose financial and travel sanctions on Syria's leaders.

After Pierre Gemayel's assassination, I received an e-mail from a Lebanese member of parliament. "It is so awful," he wrote. "Pierre was such a promising young man, and he was afraid of nothing. They will try to kill all of us in the end, but we will keep fighting. We will never surrender."

Conducting diplomacy with the regime in Damascus while they kill Lebanese democrats is not only irresponsible, it is shameful.

The writer was deputy assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs from 2002 through 2003 and principal deputy assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs from 2005 to 2006.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria- Opinion in Washington Post
From: dianavan
Date: 12 Apr 07 - 06:13 PM

As if Liz Cheney is about to be objective about anything to do with the Middle East or U.S. affairs. I wouldn't bother to read anything written by her. The only reason she has her job is because her daddy is V.P. Now she has Wolfowitz' Arab girlfriend working for her too.

...and you think these people are to be believed and admired?

I hope Wolfowitz loses his job and the whold world learns about this nepotistic mob and the level of their 'professionalism'.

From the Times Online (but you can read it anywhere if you Google)

"The World Bank President said that he would "accept any remedies" proposed by the institution's directors, representing its 185 member countries, after he admitted personal involvement in the pay rise and promotion for Shaha Riza, his partner. A chastened and nervous Mr Wolfowitz told a packed press conference: "I made a mistake, for which I am sorry."

Earlier it was revealed that he had directly intervened in the arrangements for Ms Riza's transfer to the US State Department in mid-2005 to avoid a conflict of interest after his contentious appointment as head of the World Bank at the behest of the White House. Under World Bank rules, staff are banned for working under the direction of a colleague with whom they are romantically involved.

Details emerged of a memorandum from Mr Wolfowitz instructing Xavier Coll, the Bank's human resources head, over the terms for Ms Riza's secondment. This led to her being given an exceptional salary rise and enhanced annual pay awards, lifting her earnings to $193,000 (£97,600) a year tax-free — an $61,000 rise overall. The memo also set out arrangements for her promotion."

Subject: RE: BS: Syria- Opinion in Washington Post
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 12 Apr 07 - 10:19 PM

The US Government has long held to the ostrich philosophy of dealing with unfriendly countries--If you don't talk to them, they're really not there. A notable break through was when Nixon finally recognized Red China. And we've been dealing with them ever since.

Maybe instead of worrying about what "messages" we're sending, we should just talk to them.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria- Opinion in Washington Post
From: Rapparee
Date: 12 Apr 07 - 10:32 PM

Same deal with Cuba, Dick.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria- Opinion in Washington Post
From: Peace
Date: 12 Apr 07 - 10:42 PM

Posted this yesterday, I think. Wolfowitz story.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria- Opinion in Washington Post
From: Peace
Date: 12 Apr 07 - 10:47 PM

"The World Bank President said that he would "accept any remedies" proposed by the institution's directors, representing its 185 member countries, after he admitted personal involvement in the pay rise and promotion for Shaha Riza, his partner."

His partner, huh? In crime?

Subject: RE: BS: Syria- Opinion in Washington Post
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 12 Apr 07 - 10:57 PM

Dianavan, we know how much you like Cheneys now, but you have not addressed or refuted any of her points. I know you can do better.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria- Opinion in Washington Post
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 12:13 AM

I can hardly think of a worse place to be than be a small nation positioned between Syria and Israel. It would be like being trapped in a narrow alleyway between an ax murderer and a professional hitman who's got you on his "to do" list.

You decide which is which... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Syria- Opinion in Washington Post
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 12:32 AM

Maybe you'd like to tell us.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria- Opinion in Washington Post
From: dianavan
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 01:47 AM

John on the Sunset Coast - Instead of challenging individuals who post, perhaps you should state your opinion. Put up or shut up.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria- Opinion in Washington Post
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 10:41 AM

When you present an opinion to respond to, perhaps I will.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria- Opinion in Washington Post
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 11:22 AM

Sure. I pick Israel as the professional hitman (employer: USA), and Syria as the ax murderer.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria- Opinion in Washington Post
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 11:26 AM

Well, you'd be half right. Israel only attacks Lebanese territory when attacked from Lebanese territory. Syria, on the other hand thinks of Lebanon as Syrian territory, part of a Greater Syria. Good try, though.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria- Opinion in Washington Post
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 11:32 AM

Whatever. Depends who you talk to.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria- Opinion in Washington Post
From: Peace
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 11:49 AM

Nope. Depends on who you listen to.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria- Opinion in Washington Post
From: dianavan
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 02:52 PM

John on the Sunset Coast - "I wouldn't bother to read anything written by her." What part of this do you not understand? I wonder if Shaha Riza helped her write it. As far as I'm concerned, she should apply to become the U.S. Czarina.

I agree with Little Hawk on this one. How do you pick who is the 'bad guy'? Syria, Israel; Israel, Syria. The Middle East is a mess and I don't think the U.S. has done anything to make it more peaceful. If anything, they just stirred the pot.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria- Opinion in Washington Post
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 07:50 PM

Hello!, Dianavan, that was the point of my first post on this thread.
You don't like her and you won't read her argument. Heaven forfend that you might learn something from someone you disagree with. Maybe Liz Cheney is all wet...maybe she's right. My bottom line is that you should respond to what she writes, not to your emotional, visceral reaction to who she is.
John

Subject: RE: BS: Syria- Opinion in Washington Post
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 08:34 PM

Just goes to show ya that the Post ain't this pinko rag that the righties like to say it is, afterall....

But let's get real here...

Sure, the Post allows righties to have their column inches but what it doesn't fo is change their spots...

Liz Cheney is a far right war monger... Always has been... Don't blame that on the Post as if the Post is endorsing her fir right warmonging views that are so out of touch with modern times that it is laughable...

Her and her husband's ill0thinking (if you can call iot thinking) have created ***Iraqmire*** almost single nadedly... These folks are no visioaries... They are sick pweople who should be brought up on charges of crimes against humanity...

This world ain't the friggin' wile west... It is an interconnected global economy that can't afford the misguided opinions of the Liz Chaneye's to dominate policy... These folks need to be put out to pasture... Their time has passed...

I'm so sick of their wars and threats of war that it make me want to puke...

"When will they ever learn, when will they ever learn???"

These teo creepop won't... They are beyond learning anything... Even when the intellegence community says that there is little chance that the insurgents in Iraq have little intersts in attacking the US these creepos still get plenty of PR/mic time to say what ever pops into the ugly little heads on the subject...

America is slowly becoming a very bad dream with insane idiots who don't have any par4ticular interst in the truth having not only the power but the microphone???

Beam me up... It's totally insane here... Totally...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Syria- Opinion in Washington Post
From: dianavan
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 08:38 PM

er, bobert, I think you're confusing Lynn Cheney with Liz Cheney. Not that there is a big difference but ...

Subject: RE: BS: Syria- Opinion in Washington Post
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 09:05 PM

Which one is married to Dick, d???... That's the one I'm pissed off with... And her husband...

Nevermind...

Grrrrr.....

Subject: RE: BS: Syria- Opinion in Washington Post
From: dianavan
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 09:15 PM

Lynn is the wife, Liz is the daughter. The daughter is more like her dad than her mom. A real chip off the old block!

Subject: RE: BS: Syria- Opinion in Washington Post
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Apr 07 - 08:58 AM

Bobert,

As usual, you have attacked the person who presents a viewpoint you do not like, instead of challanging WHAT she has said.

I, IMO, ** GUESS ** that you can't find anything that you think is wrong other than the person who wrote it. ( Just my opinion, I certainly would not want to presume to understand what you are thinking when you present such an attck on commentary)

Subject: RE: BS: Syria- Opinion in Washington Post
From: Peace
Date: 14 Apr 07 - 09:10 PM

You can't separate the writing from the writer, because Liz Cheney has the added agennda of smearing Democrats for any and everything from now until the election.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria- Opinion in Washington Post
From: Songster Bob
Date: 14 Apr 07 - 09:46 PM

"Conducting diplomacy with the regime in Damascus while they kill Lebanese democrats is not only irresponsible, it is shameful."

Gee, if we never talked to anyone who ever had an opponent killed, not only would we never talk to anyone, but NO ONE WOULD EVER TALK TO US!!

No one's hands are clean in the Middle East, from Israeli soldiers who use civilians as "human shields"* to the several different insurgent groups in Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Kurdistan, Iran, to the US soldiers and marines stuck in an unwinnable situation in Iraq. And things will NEVER IMPROVE till we stop shooting our mouths off and start listening. A conversation requires listening as well as talking, you know.

And Nancy Pelosi's bipartisan group MET WITH THE WHITE HOUSE before leaving, so those in the madministration now trying to make political hay are two-faced at the minimum. Typical Republicans, I would say. And this kind of act, this cynical approach to politics, is why we look first to see who is talking before we bother to read the words they've written. Is it wrong? Maybe. But it saves a lot of time, and keeps the blood pressure under control, to look at the name of the writer, and when we see Novak, Krauthammer, Will, or Cheney as the author, a prudent approach is to just ignore it.

Songbob

* see the recent news story about this practice

Subject: RE: BS: Syria- Opinion in Washington Post
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Apr 07 - 09:50 PM

We must demonize Nancy at all costs.
Blame all middle east US strategy failures on Pelosi and magnify our financial war investments to tne max...just in case the people do get their hands back on the goverment.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria- Opinion in Washington Post
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 14 Apr 07 - 10:40 PM

What a close-minded bunch of debaters we have here!!!! I guess I'll no longer read posts from Songster Bob, dianavan, Little Hawk et. al. because I know where they're coming from. I won't listen anymore to Randi (sp?) Rhodes or Ed Schultz, nor read Maureen Dowd or Susan Estrich nor any left of center pundant; we conservative leaning folk need to protect our blood pressure, too. I guess I'll become become the mirror image of you.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria- Opinion in Washington Post
From: Peace
Date: 14 Apr 07 - 11:56 PM

"The Security Council should also hold Syria accountable for its ongoing violations of existing resolutions. The U.S. government should implement all remaining elements of the Syria Accountability Act and launch an aggressive effort to empower the Syrian opposition."

There are two things conflated here in Cheny's article. The Syria Accountability Act is an American thing, and the Security Council is a UN thing. The two are NOT the same, except maybe in the mind of someone who thinks the US runs the UN (and maybe that's not far from the truth). She seems to suggest another unilateral action by the US. Hell, destabilization is what the US is accusing Iran of doing in Iraq. But because it agrees with US interests, it's OK for the US to do that in yet another country.

Howzat for addressing her article?

Have a good evening all.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria- Opinion in Washington Post
From: Songster Bob
Date: 14 Apr 07 - 11:58 PM

Well, if I were as well-known as those folks I mentioned, all of whom spout off in the pages of the "liberal" Washington Post (it's a mark of the power of the right-wing mouthpieces that a Republican paper is called "liberal" when it's mainly their printing of the truth that gets them that label), then it'd be sensible not to read what I say, too. The point isn't that the source is the problem, it's that some sources are so predictable.

No one likes to read things that upset them, especially when the writers use non-sense when they could be using logic, when they use talking points instead of facts. The folks I mentioned are so predictable, and the talking points so cut-and-dried (one week it's Pelosi, next week it's how Don Imus is a liberal BUT his freedom of speech is being curtailed, and soon it will be that politicizing the Justice Department is no big deal). It's like a megaphone, with the smallest ideas being trumpeted, repeated, and blown up as if they meant something.

I know that right-wingers are not all nuts. But when all you hear is the same thing, from so many predictable sources, and it's easy to find that the "facts" they spout are not facts at all, you can see why I don't spend much time deconstructing their specious arguments.

Tell me you're a Republican, I can live with that. Tell me Ann Coulter is your hero, I can ignore you without a problem. Tell me I have to read every word that Coulter or Novak writes and I'll tell you to get out of my life. I don't need it.

Bob

And I should not write while upset.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria- Opinion in Washington Post
From: Donuel
Date: 15 Apr 07 - 12:23 AM

I could be a Republican if it were a Goldwater republican with an emphasis on the enviorment and strong limits on imperialism.

I could be a JFK Democrat with the strong seperation of church and state and strong limits on CIA misadventures.

But I could never be a fascist neo con Cheneyite repeating the same memo points year after year after year.

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

W on his Crawford porch in the year 2009:

Cheney is a parrat squawking "AlQaeda Iraq 911 AlQaeda Iraq 911 AlQaeda Iraq 911"

at which point W takes a gun and bang---> a big fluff of feathers float away.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria- Opinion in Washington Post
From: Donuel
Date: 15 Apr 07 - 12:40 AM

A Q Khan has given centrifuge know how and equipment along with Chinese bomb designs. The entire nuclear weapon business is now in private hands, private corporations and private religious motivations to use them.

Singling out any Islamic state as the atomic enemy is delusional.
We opened Pandoras box and we have endured the consequences everyday since.

The 50 to 100 nukes in Pakistan are but another coup away from jihadist hands (as well as some sophisticated codes)

the descendents of the Muslm brotherfood and Celaphates also have atomic devices (not just dirty bombs) Simply even Syria probably has atomic bombs but that does not mean they belong to Syria.

Its enough to make a poor shnook like Cheney dig the deepest bunker in DC. and repeat himself endlessly.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria- Opinion in Washington Post
From: dianavan
Date: 15 Apr 07 - 02:51 AM

"The point isn't that the source is the problem, it's that some sources are so predictable." - Songster Bob

Very true, Songster.

"I guess I'll no longer read posts from Songster Bob, dianavan, Little Hawk et. al. because I know where they're coming from." - John on the Sunset Coast

Thats just fine. Thats your perogative. As Songster says, by now you know what I'm going to say, anyway. Nobody is forcing you to read it.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria- Opinion in Washington Post
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 15 Apr 07 - 11:16 AM

There seems to be some sort of idea that we're punishing "bad" nations by refusing to speak with them. Strikes me that they're the ones we have to learn to speak to.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria- Opinion in Washington Post
From: dianavan
Date: 15 Apr 07 - 01:49 PM

Good point, dick.

Its like the little girl who sticks her fingers in her ears and says, "la,la,la, I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"

Perhaps its time for our politicians to mature and realize that its time for diplomacy to evolve.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria- Opinion in Washington Post
From: Donuel
Date: 15 Apr 07 - 02:06 PM

lalalalalala

you don't hear me.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria- Opinion in Washington Post
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 15 Apr 07 - 07:13 PM

Dianavan, have the good grace to quote me in context, or do you not normally apprehend a complete idea? To be clear, I was using irony to point out your own dismissive form of argumentation.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria- Opinion in Washington Post
From: Ron Davies
Date: 15 Apr 07 - 08:21 PM

OK, Sunset John--would you mind telling us what your interpretation of "aggressive effort to empower the Syrian opposition" is? Does it involve US soldiers or a US attack on Syria?--yes or no? If not, what does it involve? Just need your view of this--for clarification. You're not expected to be an expert--just to have some idea of what the phrase in question means. Since it seems you endorse it.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria- Opinion in Washington Post
From: dianavan
Date: 15 Apr 07 - 09:12 PM

I'm pretty good at comprehending ideas, Sunset John, but not so good at apprehending them.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria- Opinion in Washington Post
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 15 Apr 07 - 10:12 PM

Look up apprehend in your dictionary, d.

Ron where do I seem to endorse those phrases? I have made no comment whatsoever; I only suggest you at least address whatever arguments the the writer makes rather than just blowing her off as a 'Cheney". Is that so terrifying?

Subject: RE: BS: Syria- Opinion in Washington Post
From: dianavan
Date: 15 Apr 07 - 10:35 PM

O.K. John on the Sunset Coast - I get it.

btw - I have no love for Syria but I don't think the U.S. is capable of solving all the problems in the world. Seems like this is a simple, first step:

"European governments should demonstrate that they value justice over profit and impose financial and travel sanctions on Syria's leaders."

How does one go about getting European governments to do what you want them to do?

She should ask her daddy.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria- Opinion in Washington Post
From: Ron Davies
Date: 15 Apr 07 - 11:28 PM

Sunset John--

Do you endorse the phrases--yes or no? If you don't, you are certainly giving a good impression of implying you do.

At some point, you have to commit to something.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria- Opinion in Washington Post
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 16 Apr 07 - 12:00 AM

Well, it appears to me that you and Liz Cheney have at least some area of agreement, although you might differ greatly on its implementation.
BTW, we might not be floundering in getting European assistance if her daddy, indeed, had any answers.

I am sure you are are a very busy person (no irony intended), and a very thoughtful one. But if you find time for some extra reading, may I recommend to you four books I've read over the past 8 or 10 months. They all have to do with the history of Islamic relation vis-a-vis Europe. They are, I believe, well balanced and heavily footnoted, but not difficult reads. Perhaps you've read one or more of them.
"1453" by Roger Crowley about the conquest of Constantinople by the Ottomans.
"Dogs of God" by James Reston, Jr. about the expulsion of Moors and Jews from Spain, and the efforts of Columbus to find patronage for his explorations. I especially enjoyed and learned from this book.
"Paris 1919" by Margaret Atwood re: the Versailles Peace Conference. Especially of interest here is the part about the break-up of the Ottoman Empire. My own belief is that the root of world problems during the last 50+ years can be found in what occurred then. Virtually everything enacted in Paris has unraveled, in Europe and in the Middle East, both.
"A Peace to End All Peace" by David Fromkin. This book lays out in detail how the modern Middle East was put together under primacy of the British and French after WWI. There are no heroes here!

Sorry to go on so long. And so to bed.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria- Opinion in Washington Post
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 16 Apr 07 - 12:24 AM

Firstly, Ron, I am not Sunset John (altho' I am in my approaching my sunset years rapidly), so I would appreciate it if you would refer to me as John, or for differentiation, John OTSC; I will call you Ron or Ron Davies. Fair enough.

Secondly, I am not on trial and you are not the prosecutor, so I don't need to answer yes or no. It has no bearing my comments.

Thirdly, any inference on your part that I do endorse certain phrases is simply in your mind because we normally disagree. I have rather emphatically stated that my disagreement is with the ad hominum invective she receives here, as opposed to responding what she wrote. If you can't tell the difference in this argument, Ron, then its your problem.

Now really to bed.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria- Opinion in Washington Post
From: dianavan
Date: 16 Apr 07 - 02:11 AM

Thanks, John - I have read 2 of the 4 books you mentioned. Appreciate the recommendations. I'll be off to the library tomorrow PM.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria- Opinion in Washington Post
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 Apr 07 - 11:39 PM

John--

You have mastered the art of coy stepping around the topic--a skill common to many Bushites. Cheney raised some specific issues.

Interesting that you are still unwilling to commit to any stance--yet still feel fine about attacking other posters who don't like Cheney's views.

The attacks on Cheney are based on a lot more than personality.
So sorry you feel it's an inquisition. Sometimes it's hard to get a straight answer out of Bush supporters. But I still suspect they do have opinions--in fact are not shy about implying lack of patriotism on the part of Bush opponents. But they're good at clamming up when they feel ill at ease about something they might believe--for fear they might have to actually defend their positions with logic.

If the shoe fits.....

Subject: RE: BS: Syria- Opinion in Washington Post
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 12:34 AM

I would swear you're writing about yourself, Ron. Were you looking in the mirror?

I'm not posting about what Cheney said, only that many here prefer to attack her, herself, rather than her ideas, and you still are. What i think or believe is not germain to these postings. Its the process I'm interested in.

Don't bother to respond if it's just more of the same; my fingers hurt repeating my position so often. Finito.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria- Opinion in Washington Post
From: dianavan
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 01:11 AM

John fTSC, "we know how much you like Cheneys now, but you have not addressed or refuted any of her points. I know you can do better."

Eight posts later and not a single comment from you on any of her points.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria- Opinion in Washington Post
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 09:52 AM

Read two posts up, dianavan.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria- Opinion in Washington Post
From: dianavan
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 11:06 AM

The process of what?

Subject: RE: BS: Syria- Opinion in Washington Post
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 08:37 PM

Argumentation to Cheney's essay as posted by Bobert. For two days folks went off on Cheney, Wolfowitz (not mentioned by Cheney), neocons (whatever that means nowadays...I remember when in the late 60s it referred to Liberals who had became Conservatives) and Republicans in general. But not one post really addressed what Cheney 'wrote', and darn few since then have.

I don't care if everybody here disagrees with what Liz Cheney wrote, but address her ideas, not her. That I can respect. BTW, a couple of years ago on another thread I took to task someone I generally agreed with because of the rudeness of much of what he wrote. Thankfully he no longer posts here. So you see, I'm an equal opportunity critic.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria- Opinion in Washington Post
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Apr 07 - 07:50 AM

No Results in Damascus

Having finished hosting U.S. politicians, Syria's dictator has returned to jailing dissidents and sponsoring terrorism.
Friday, April 27, 2007; Page A22


THE CONGRESSIONAL leaders who visited Damascus this month to meet Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad gave a practical test to the oft-stated theory that "engaging" his regime is more likely to produce results than the Bush administration's policy of isolating it. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was particularly unstinting in her goodwill, declaring that she had come to see Mr. Assad "in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace." In a statement, her delegation reported that it had talked to Mr. Assad about stopping the flow of foreign terrorists to Iraq and about obtaining the release of kidnapped Israeli soldiers. It also said it had "conveyed our strong interest in the cases of [Syrian] democracy activists," such as imprisoned human rights lawyer Anwar al-Bunni.

Three weeks have passed, so it's fair to ask: Has there been any positive change in Syrian behavior -- any return gesture of goodwill, however slight?

Mr. al-Bunni might offer the best answer -- if he could. On Tuesday, one of Mr. Assad's judges sentenced him to five years in prison. His "crimes" were to speak out about the torture and persecution of regime opponents, to found the Syrian Human Rights Association and to sign the "Damascus Declaration," a pro-democracy manifesto.

By condemning Mr. al-Bunni to prison, Mr. Assad was delivering a distinct message to Syria's would-be liberal reformers and those who support them: There will be no change on his watch. The same message came in the parliamentary "elections" that the regime staged on Sunday and Monday. No independent candidates were permitted; a predetermined number of winners from the official party ensured that the parliament will remain a rubber stamp.

What of the other items on the U.S. congressional agenda? Well, there has been a major surge in suicide bombings in Baghdad and elsewhere in Iraq this month, in what U.S. commanders describe as an attempt by al-Qaeda to defeat the new security operation in the capital. According to U.S. and Iraqi officials, almost all suicide bombers in Iraq are foreigners, and some 80 percent of them pass through Syria. The border remains as porous as ever.

Meanwhile the military wing of Hamas, whose headquarters is in Damascus, launched a barrage of rockets and mortar rounds at Israel from Gaza on Tuesday. Israeli officials said the attack appeared aimed at creating a diversion that would allow Hamas to capture more Israeli soldiers. If so, the operation failed -- but none of the hostages Ms. Pelosi said she spoke to Mr. Assad about have been released.

To recount this dismal record is not to endorse President Bush's refusal to engage in high-level bilateral contacts with Mr. Assad's regime. In certain contexts it may be worth trying to talk to Syria -- for example, when negotiations are directed at particular ends, such as securing Iraq's borders, and coupled with forceful diplomatic and economic steps to raise the pressure on the dictatorship. The danger of offering "friendship" and "hope" to a ruler such as Mr. Assad is that it will be interpreted as acquiescence by the United States to the policies of dictatorship. Ms. Pelosi's courting of Mr. Assad didn't cause Mr. al-Bunni's prison sentence this week -- but it certainly did not discourage it.