web analytics

Pelosi Hearts Dhimmitude

By ATWadmin On April 3rd, 2007

House Speaker Pelosi visits Syria to implement Baker Study Group recommendations despite requests from the Bush Administration that she not do this, and voluntary submits to a "modesty" head scarf and dhimmitude.  It seems that she has more respect for Syria than she does for the United States. 795151-756586-thumbnail.jpg
Nancy Pelosi in Syria

55 Responses to “Pelosi Hearts Dhimmitude”

  1. I cant say ive ever seen Condoleeza wear a headscarf?

  2. What a crone!

  3. Alison: It’s so San Fransico what Pelosi is doing, proving that she’s "culturally sensitive," statesman-like, yet hip etc. She seems totally unaware of the photo of the female British sailor FORCED to wear a scarf, or the bravery of someone like Nouri Al-Sbeth choosing not to wear a scarf.

    It’s so easy for her to posture – she’s a millionaire and lives in San Fransico – a wonderfully free place to live. She’ll never know what it is like to be subjugated in a misogynist society.

  4. A full burka would have shown her unity much more clearly.

    I’m picturing about 100 burka clad women in a San Fransico Gay Pride parade. You could throw in a dozen or so small children dressed as suicide bombers with happy face balloons and toy uzi sidearms. CAIR could pass out ROP pamphlets with Keith Ellison at the microphone calling for converts. They could probably get a few Trani’s to throw t-shirts and shawls to the crowd. A couple of mullahs on stilts juggling Bush/Cheney heads to entertain. The lesbian crew could coordinate the stoning of right wing conservatives with a few beheadings of Christians as a side show. I’m not sure what the nudist crew would contribute other than to reiterate the obvious need for More Burkas Now! Jimmah and Nancy could ride together in the lead convertable heading up this whole bizzare affair.

    Liberals and Islam make mighty strange bedfellows.

    I won’t link it, (out of respect for David) but if you’re interested, look up Zombietime’s website. She’s a photographer that covers Pelosi’s district and the goings on of her constiuents. Enlightening or shocking depending on your point of view.

  5. sorry Patty et al but shrubie is not america in fact increasingly he’s not even american

    I wonder when he will move to the Emirates with Michael Jackson and Haliburton

  6. Daphne – your parade description – LOL. 🙂

    I once lived in Berkeley. I know the area and freak scene well.
    I’m glad I moved.

  7. Isn’t she gross??

    I agree with others – a headscarf is not becoming on her.

    Patty – I finally listened to that link that you recommended – that Evan guy with the 45 minute talk about what ails the liberals – leftists I call them. It was very good and I am glad that I listened to the whole thing.

  8. <Q>the liberals – leftists I call them</Q>

    Hell Monica, Andrew is probably the only one other than you and Troll posting here that isn’t a leftist in your book 😉

  9. Patty and Alison aren’t.

    I don’t consider you a leftist either, Mad. Neither is Colm. Neither is my friend CH.

    You and Colm are seriously misguided, but you are not leftists.

    (Winking – I’m WINKING!)

  10. LOL Monica – David is noticeably absent!

  11. Thank you Monica!

  12. Oh! David goes without saying!

  13. And no – thank YOU, CH!

  14. Love the Burqa suggestion! Nancy is a moonbat and her "submission" is symbolic of Democrat submission, which is why the MSM want them BACK in the White House.

  15. ROFL Daphne – ‘mullahs on stilts juggling’ etc, (the whole comment), isnt THAT the truth.

  16. She wore the scarf as a sign of respect going into a Mosque which hardly qualifies for this hysterical response. It is customary to accept certain minimal conditions when entering a house of worship. Male politicians often wear something upon their head when entering a synagogue.

  17. Mahons, they don’t "often" wear something on their head in a synagogue. They ALWAYS do, and rightly so.

    I agree with your post.

  18. Indeed Mahons.

    When you enter the Vatican your legs and shoulders must be covered. Something that people of all faiths and none do as a sign of respect.

  19. I am not a Pelosi fan but these attempts to demonize her are getting sillier by the minute.

  20. "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi mingled with Syrians in a market and made the sign of the cross at a Christian tomb Tuesday during a visit to pursue dialogue with the country’s leader. President Bush denounced the trip, saying it sends mixed signals to Syria’s government.


    Wearing a flowered head scarf and a black abaya robe, Pelosi visited the 8th-century Omayyad Mosque, shaking hands with Syrian women inside and watching men in a religion class sitting cross-legged on the floor.

    She stopped at an elaborate tomb, said to contain the head of John the Baptist, and made the sign of the cross. About 10 percent of Syria’s 18 million people are Christian."


    So she wears a headscarf inside a place of worship. Big deal.

    It’s clear from this story (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6522743.stm ) and the accompanying video that she was wearing normal Western dress during the rest of her trip in Syria.

    Pathetic. Even by the standards of this moonbat colony.

    Incidentally, the Israeli government doesn’t seem to be nearly as bothered about this trip and are willing to use it to open up a communication channel with the Syrians:


  21. Er hello…guys?

    The woman in the post above is legally bound to wear a headscarf in Parliament, just as she would be in a mosque. She chose NOT and demonstrated enormous courage in going against traditionally viewed notions of respectful behaviour.

    And Chris – when was the last time you witnessed a woman enter a catholic church stick with this pathetic old notion? I have scarves my grandmother wore to church sure – stored away in an old wooden box for posterity.

    You seem to be missing the obvious point given that this represents something entirely different for women in the islamic world!

  22. To all the Pelosi Apologists.

    What you all appear oblivious to is the fact that she in consorting with a terror regime, pure and simple. THAT is her crime and it is a pity that more of you don’t accept that. Whether she wears a garb of dhiimitude is her business, but she does represent the USA and she is a gruesome affront to all who value democracy. Dimitri – did you get a link to share with us explaining how she tackled boy bashar on his support of terrorism? Moonbattery is in the eye of the beholder.

  23. <em>And Chris – when was the last time you witnessed a woman enter a catholic church stick with this pathetic old notion?</em>

    I have already decribe the strict dress code that the Vatican operates for men and women.

    Quite a few of the women in my church wear scarves, they don’t have to but they do.

  24. A woman risks HER LIFE to buck not religious ‘trends’ but religious insistance and almost at the same time Pelosi chooses to don one with a tacit nod of her own volition (and then i have to read the above from Chris). Not even comparable! This woman in Kuwait is American educated – the least Ms Pelosi could have done was respect her and state "Hmm let me think about the way Islam treats women in the ME at the moment and just say no?".Or shall i court controversy to look blithley respectful. What a choice for Ms Pelosi eh. Tough one that.

  25. Yes, you do Alison.

    You can go on one of your feminist rants if you wish but you are preching to the converted. That being said many moderate Muslims would have appreciated the respect that Ms Pelosi showed.

  26. Ut oh Chris. As we say in Tx, now ya done did it!

  27. Alison: I applaud the official from Kuwait who entered a government building without a scarf. I suspect she would wear one in the Mosque that Pelosi went to. There is a difference between secular and sacred institutions. Pelosi is demonstrating that all Americans are not consumed with hatred for one of the world’s major religions, and she can respect a cutom that is quite minimal in its impact. There is a time and place for everything.

    David: I recognize you use the word "crime" as a rhetorical point, since no actual crime has been committed. I have never seen Democracy defined as "whatever George Bush says".

  28. "Dimitri – did you get a link to share with us explaining how she tackled boy bashar on his support of terrorism? Moonbattery is in the eye of the beholder."


    Why don’t you take it up with the Israeli government? As I said, they seem to be a good deal less bothered by this visit than you and the rest of the moonbat colony.


    I can understand that anything that lessens the possibility of another glorious war may distress you. But if you and the rest of the colony are so keen on fighting for ideological purity, why haven’t you all been down at your local recruiting office?

  29. LOL, bless you Chris but you keep missing the beat. NOT visting the mosque on her little tour and simply conducting whatever business she wanted was surely enough. Shoulder covering, head covering, respectful nods to traditions – what a lot of deferential nonsense in this instance and what timing. I’ll rant away in support of Nouria’s bravery versus Pelosi’s silly dimwittery when the two roll side by side anyday.

  30. Mahons,

    Isn’t the world just so full of back seat drivers?

    It just seems so petty that she feels it necessary to ‘air her dirty laundry’, to strangers, not out of any sense of patriotism, but just to aggravate an opponent. Choose between Bush or Clinton…

    Hardly a statesman-like action is it? after all, she is not yet the President, much as she would like to be…

  31. <Q>made the sign of the cross.</Q>

    Outrageous behaviour! Disrespectful to the millions of protestants round the world!

    The Scarf thing is a storm in a tea cup.

    The issue is whether she should have gone to Syria.

  32. Mahons,

    Surely her actions beg the question, – why do we need a President or Prime Minister, or indeed a government?

    If a public figure can show her contempt in such a fashion, for her governing authourity, why don’t we all show our contempt for any public figure with whom we may disagree, and on any pretext?

    Taking matters into her own hands, in this fashion is akin to anarchy, because it sure ain’t democracy…

  33. Mad: Good quip on the slight to Protestants. I was impressed that she made the sign to St. John the Baptist since the symbolism of acknowleding one who lost his head while defying one who doesn’t use his head is telling.

    Ernest – What did she do that was anarchy? Contempt for authority IS one of the hallmarks of democracy.

    Alison – Do you object to her visiting any mosque? Whatever problems you may have with Isalm it is the relgion of a significant part of the world population. What is wrong with a little dialogue?

  34. Alison: "NOT visting the mosque on her little tour and simply conducting whatever business she wanted was surely enough. Shoulder covering, head covering, respectful nods to traditions – what a lot of deferential nonsense in this instance and what timing."

    Exactly. It’s bad enough that she chooses to go around BUsh and start a whole new and different foreign policy, but then she has to kow-tow to the most mysoginist vile aspects of Islam – the total degredation and objectivification of women – it’s disgusting to me.

    Mahons: For God’s sake, Mahons, she’s not on summer tour of Syria. She’s next in line for the Presidency after Cheney. Why don’t you take this seriously? Because she’s a woman? She’s a dangerous irresponsible member of the government not just somebody’s mother.

  35. <em>Ut oh Chris. As we say in Tx, now ya done did it!</em>

    When they started getting names they began to think they were real people with the same rights as the rest of us (men)

    I would go back to the old Irish way of calling them "Bean an ti", the woman of the house. 😉


    <em>Shoulder covering, head covering, respectful nods to traditions – what a lot of deferential nonsense in this instance</em>

    That’s the bit I was addressing, love 😉

    The fact that she did that was a sign of repect, she was right to do it.

  36. Patty: You are so intellectually dishonest that you have to resort to a an accusation that has no foundation. I never made any statement about Pelosi’s gender (except perhaps to defend it).

    Alison: let us separate the issues here. One seems to be that you can’t stomach her going to a mosque. What if she went to a Catholic Church? Woman are not permitted to be priests. Should she not go there in protest. What about an Orthodox Temple? Woman have to cover their heads there (and sit in a designated area). Should she refuse to go there?

  37. The right is supposed to promote free speech and personal freedom, very little of that is on show in this thread.

    In fact most of us freedom lover on this site are leftwing, interesting.

  38. Bush is not her commander the reason she is 3rd in line is because she is supposed to keep the topiary treat in check

  39. Mahons,

    There is a real difference between a healthy contempt, and mischiefmaking for its own sake.

    I think she suffers delusions of competence, and has little knowledge of consequence.

    But then, I suppose, in the left’s eyes, she means well – and that makes her actions acceptable.


    It is worth bearing in mind that freedom comes with it’s own responsibilty. I am not querying her behaviour while in Iran, but the fact that she seemed to think it the right and apprpriate thing to do at this time.

  40. Ernest: If Cheney went and performed oral sex on Osama Bin Laden in the main square of Damascus many of the same people that are having fits here over Pelosi would be telling us that he was engaged in critical diplomacy.

    This is political posturing (by both sides) and not a national security issue.

    A fundamental question remains, is the Speaker of the House of Representatives required to avoid countries that we are not formally at war with just because the President doesn’t want her to go there. I am unaware of any law to this effect. Those who are having fits seem to be blind to the fact that Republican Congressman have recently been there without any of the hysteria we are seeing with Pelosi’s trip. They also seem to fail to recognize that Congresssional delegations have historically made these types of trips.

  41. Mahons: There is no law against Pelosi going. No one said there was. No one is saying she should be arrested or stopped. That doesn’t mean I won’t criticize her. The other Republicans who went are also at fault in my opinion. They politically aren’t as prominent as Pelosi so my criticism is not directed at them specifically with equally vehemence. Their ability to undermine foreign policy is not as pronounced as Pelosis.

    It’s frivolous and irresponsible to do what Pelosi is doing – visiting mosques, genuflecting at Christian graves…how charming, quaint, stupid.

    Although you would like to make this a strictly partisan issue, it is not.

  42. She’s also saying some pretty stupid things…

    "The road to solving Lebanon’s problems passes through Damascus," Pelosi told reporters after meeting with Lebanese parliamentary leader Saad Hariri at Qoreitem.


    Saad Hariri’s father was assassinated at the command of Bashar Assad.

    Lebanon’s biggest problem is it’s Syria supported Hizballah terroists.

    I’m not impressed with Nancy on so many levels.

  43. Patty: Your entire writing on this issue is partisan if you had the sense or decency to admit it.

    Daphne: I am not impressed with Pelosi either. I find her to be strident at times and too placating to the extreme left in her party. I’ll have to check out the context of that quote. Obviously Syria is part of the problem in Lebananon.

  44. Well, at least she’s animated, her predecessor made a glass of water look lively.

  45. Mahons: "Your entire writing on this issue is partisan if you had the sense or decency to admit it."

    Why do you say this? (The partisan part, not the being decent and admitting it part?) This is an honest question to you.

    I am criticizing Nancy Pelosi, not Joe Lieberman, not Hilary Clinton. Neither of them would ever do anything as stupid as this. Joe Lieberman would not do anything this detrimental to the country. Hilary Clinton would not to anything this detrimental to a woman’s right not to submit to Islamic practices of "modesty." Nancy Pelosi has now made it more difficult for Syrian Muslim women to resist the Mulim edict to cover their hair – I can’t imagine Hilary doing this.

    I don’t bother criticizing the Republicans who also went because they don’t count like Nancy.

  46. Mahons,

    Pelosi’s trip is comparable to Fonda’s trip to N.Vietnam, in the 70’s – seditious in nature, and intent.

    At least Cheney could say he was there as a genuine representative of the President, and thus the Government. Your childish remark re oral sex, shows the paucity of your defence.

    It seems that America has a long tradition of tolerance where traitors and sedionists are concerned, going back to the Civil War, and usually described, or excused – as the exercise of ‘free speech’, and usually by socialist elements. It would seem that no conflict would be complete without its cult of celebrity traitors, backsliders, and ‘fifth columnists’.

    How a nation can ever survive when it lauds it’s traitors and denigrates it’s heroes, is a mystery to which we may, unfortunately, soon have an answer. The thought that Kerry might have been President seems even more scary now than at the time of the election…

    Perhaps this is why the US has never won a war, (other than minor skirmishes), without the assistance of Allies to provide that ingredient of resolve so necessary to bring a war to a conclusion.

    Unfortunately, as that ingredient seems also to be in short supply amongst even the Allies in this instance, it does not bode well for a successful conclusion this time around.

  47. Patty: You aren’t partisan?

    Ernest: Fonda on her trip supported the NVA and their aims in word and deed. Pelosi did not express support for Syria’s aims or deeds. That is the difference.

    The comment on Cheney was a joke. You don’t have to like it. However, I love that you took it seriously and suggest that Cheney in such circumstances would be a representative of the President. I couldn’t have written it funnier if I tried.

    We tolerate free speech. That simple. We don’t laud actual traitors and we don’t denigrate our heroes. That is nonsense.

    I have no idea where you are coming from on the US never winning a war without Allies to give it resolve. Still smarting from the Revolution and War of 1812? In any event I for one won’t disparage our allies during any conflict we were involved in. As for resolve, we have sufficently demonstrated that over the years and you are among those who have benefitted.

  48. Mahons,

    C’mon, don’t start playing the wounded patriot – "Oh! I’m so hurt that you dare to criticise my country".

    You know very well were I am coming from – and it isn’t a criticism of free speech. It isn’t even a criticism of America. It is an outright criticism of the state of politics as practised by the Democrat Party. Where they are prepared to sacrifice the integrity of the nation to score points against a President they don’t like.

    All of Pelosi’s posturing is no more than positioning for the election to come. A pathetic attempt to preempt future events.

    Like so many socialists she has difficulty in distinguishing ‘right from wrong’, and just as you are, – quite prepared to distort and demean the meaning of free speech. Just where is the line between free speech and outright sedition?

    Just where is her display of statesman-like responsibility? she has none, – like a bull in a china shop she rampages around the ME, making promises she has no right, or ability to fulfil, and yet, you defend that behaviour as ‘free speech?’

    "In any event I for one won’t disparage our allies during any conflict we were involved in" – and neither did, nor would I…

    "we have sufficiently demonstrated that over the years and you are among those who have benefited" – as have we, and you are also among those who have benefited…

    Never has a conflict been waged where one side has been so hampered by division from within…

  49. Ernest: I don’t feel wounded at all and fire away. You keep missing – you’ll have to go to Monica’s firearms school.

    The Democrats gave Bush a lot of support on national security issues, far more than the Republicans ever gave Clinton.

    What promise did Pelosi make? I am not aware of any.

    There is no example of sedition that I am aware of that she committed. Can you give me a quote or an act tha tviolated our law?

    Lastly, do you read your own comments? First you indicate that the US lacked sufficient resolve in the conflicts in which they were engaged, then you say you wouldn’t criticise an ally. Odd.

  50. Mahons,

    I suggested that – ‘perhaps’ – an apparent lack of resolve – ‘may’ – be the reason…hardly the connotation you implied.

    I am sure that you would agree to a certain lack of resolve in the current conflict, not by the military, but certainly by much of the political ‘left field’ running interference.

    Clinton did zilch for security issues, while in power, unless you count the bombing of an aspirin factory in Bosnia, or wherever it was, hence the lack of need for support, he didn’t have any security schema worth mentioning.

    I appreciate that she has not broken the letter of the law, but surely, the ‘spirit’ has been severely mauled?

    "You keep missing’ – well, of course I do, I don’t wish to be accused of a ‘friendly fire’ incident, do I? …

    I appreciate the longstanding tradition of tolerance for the likes of Pelosi, but does that really put them above any criticism?

  51. Ernest: Let me answer your last point first – No, she is a public figure and a political one at that. She is accountable like any other. When that criticism isn’t accurate or is motivated extremism I feel it is necessary to point that out.

    An unkind person who responded to you in kind might point to terrorist attacks during Clinton’s watch and comparing the record to the attacks during the present administration. I don’t think that would be fair to Bush and I don’t think you are being fair to Clinton.

  52. Mahons: "The Democrats gave Bush a lot of support on national security issues, far more than the Republicans ever gave Clinton."

    The above,Mahons, is a partisan statement. You express great umbrage with me for being "partisan" – but I think in fact it is you who is partisan.

  53. Mahons,


    USA TODAY ON THE PELOSI TRIP: "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi crossed a line this week by visiting Syria, where she met with President Bashar Assad. She violated a long-held understanding that the United States should speak with one official voice abroad � even if the country is deeply divided on foreign policy back home. . . . It’s not up to the speaker to unfreeze relations with Assad."

    Interestingly, I think that the more Pelosi acts like a wannabe President, the worse it is for Hillary. And I think that Pelosi knows that.

    It would seem that my prognosis of her trip was not so far from the mark as you would try to make out..perhaps you should redefine your parameters on free speech…

  54. Patty: I don’t blame you if you don’t read your own comments, but you were the first one to claim partisan. I think there are times when partisanship is clearly called for, just not every time.

    Ernest: A USA Today Editorial or an opinion expressed therein is just that, an editorial or an opinion. I don’t necessarily agree with Pelosi, just her right to do it. As for Hillary, she’s far more conservative than Pelosi.

  55. Mahons,

    Sure she had the right, pity she has sacrificed her ‘common sense’ on the altar of self-aggrandisment.

    While accepting that the Today item was just editorial comment, it does seem that the consensus is with my way of thinking about it…