Hijab Nancy (D-Damascus)

Does Condoleeza Rice kowtow to the backwards Islamic culture by donning hijab haute coutoure when carrying out US policy or is that honor reserved for the vaunted First Grand-Lady Speaker of the House? Truly a role-model to young girls across Damascus:

A New Direction
It’s a “New Direction”, indeed.

I was a little offended and confused by this picture – at first! I mean, why pay for all that plastic surgery if you’re going to throw a paperbag over it anyway, you know? Unless you feared the Syrians cracking the Phoenician-like code in your crow’s feet.

But then, it kind of grew on me. There’s a undeniable transparency about watching someone so enamored with being “the first woman” this or that who will sell-out her sisterhood street-cred in order curry favor with the House of Baby Assad.

And while Lefties were more than uncharitable in their condemnation of Israel for invading Lebanon as Syrian-backed terrorists launched attacks from Lebanese territory in 2006, all seems to be forgiven because we need “dialogue” with the men who ordered the assassination of Lebanon’s Prime Minister. Nuance.

At least Rumsfeld wasn’t wearing oil sheik robes when he shook Hussein’s hand. Let’s hope the right will have sense enough to capitalize on this poli-porn extravaganza courtesy of Hijab Nancy groveling before the Dictator of Damascus in slave garb.

Maybe next time she visits Oakland she’ll be decked out in an Adidas tracksuit, Kangol hat and draped in gold chains. Just being culturally sensitive don’t you know?

Sweetness & Light points out the Logan Act and we’re left to wonder – what part of Treason is it that Democrats keep pretending to not understand?


  1. I love the caption, and indeed that photo is stunning in that context of a new direction. Not only do we have to surrender in Iraq, but we have to submit to the will of Allah??!! On Passover and this close to Easter? What. A. Twat.

  2. She’s gonna have to be a little more careful with that scarf if she continues on to Iran. That’s displaying enough hair to cause trouble. :mrgreen:

    What a dhimmi.

  3. It’s wrong no matter who is doing it. Had I seen Rice or Bush doing it – I would have criticized them as well.

    My wife’s Catholic and I’m not. So when we go to her church I don’t jump up and take communion or for Palm Sunday I don’t hustle to the front of the line to get ashy.

    But you’re right Matt, you’re right. That’s a good look for Nancy. She should campaign in it.

    She looks like the wife of the man on the Led Zeppelin IV cover.

  4. I found the pics pretty offensive. If she truly was in the course of visiting a mosque, I guess that would be OK. I mean after all, my brother had to buy the paper trousers in Rome to go into the Vatican (they have a no shorts rule – despite the fact my brother’s “shorts” were longer than the Swiss Guards’ below-the-knee knicks).

    But if she was just wearing it around -ehhhh, No. No way in Hell.

  5. So criticize Bush and Rice now. And then wonder why it was publicized when Pelosi did it and not when Bush or Rice did. And then wonder why GWB complained about Pelosi going to Syria, but not about the Republican congressmen who where in Syria *at that very time*.

    As for the look, I really don’t care what politicians look like. But a party that welcomed racist Thurmond and kept him in office long after he looked at all human should not complain about how others look.

    That’s right, Cranky, Republicans were in Syria and Republicans have gone to Syria in the past. Oh, and Democrats have gone to Iraq, so you were wrong there as well. Don’t you remember that doctored photo falsely claiming that soldiers were avoiding Kerry on his visit?

  6. Don’t you remember that doctored photo falsely claiming that soldiers were avoiding Kerry on his visit?

    Matt, I shot off incorrectly as Smantix pointed out offline).

    But Kerry? No way. That was a Plastic Kerry™.

  7. Matt,

    I don’t have a problem with Nancy wearing a head scarf while visiting a mosque. If you are going to lower yourself to walk into a place where women are 2nd class citizens, then you wear the required dhimmi garb.

    As far as the White House complaining about Pelosi’s trip, it was not the partisan issue you lefties are making it out to be. Yes, there were three Republicans on the trip. They were part of this misguided bi-partisan mission suggested by the Iraq Study Group.

    Why is Pelosi being “singled out”? It’s not because she is a Dhimmocrat, it’s because she is LEADING the delegation.

    And the White House had this comment (from the CNN.com, March 31) as the delegation was preparing to leave:

    “We do not encourage and, in fact, we discourage members of Congress to make such visits to Syria,” said White House deputy spokeswoman Dana Perino. “This is a country that is a state sponsor of terror, one that is trying to disrupt the (Prime Minister Fouad) Siniora government in Lebanon and one that is allowing foreign fighters to flow through its borders to Iraq.”

    The trip is a bad idea because CONGRESSMEN (and WOMEN)ARE NOT HEADS OF STATE. It is not their job to meet with leaders of foreign countries…especially known terrorists. It is subversive, and actually illegal.

    What both Bush and the State Department should have said to Pelosi and the congressman was “screw you, you’re not going.”

    As far as when Republicans have “gone to Syria in the past”…OK, when? And in what capacity? I cannot remember any Republicans from the US meeting with Assad.

    But John Kerry did. He had no trouble laying out his own foreign policy, as if HE was the President.

    I will concede (as Michelle Malkin and other on the right did) that the href=”http://powerlineblog.com/archives/016314.php”>photo of John Kerry in Iraq made it appear that the troops were avoiding him, when that photo was in fact him meeting with journalists.

    But the photo was not doctored, so quit accusing the right of the same tricks used by the left-wing media.

    (That last link was for you, Swampy)

  8. Well, there was a Republican delegation to Syria this last weekend. Even while Bush was complaining about Pelosi there were Republican congressmen doing the same thing. Peolosi was not leading that delegation, they were already there. And that was not the first. But somehow it does not become a public issue until a Democrat does it. Of course it is a partisan issue.

    As for the scarf, I have seen pictures of Condi in a scarf in Saudi. And not in a mosque. Personally, I find the photos of Bush holding hands with a Saudi prince, in the *US*, far more troubling.

    So the photo of Kerry was simply taken deliberately out of context. Is that the standard of honesty you want to stand by? If so I am sure I can get you some examples of the right wing media doctoring photos.

  9. Go right ahead, Matt. For every example you can come up with on the right, I can come up with five from the left.

    The photo was not “deliberately” taken out of context…it was an assumption made based on early reports back from a military blogger stationed in Iraq. Here is the original story that began it all.

    What doesn’t change is that despite of the fact the photo was taken out of context, the truth of John Kerry’s visit was not. Since he was treated like plutonium while he was there, it was assumed that that photo was a representation of that.

    And unlike lefty bloggers, the right was quick to make the correction and apologize.

    Matt, how dense do you have to be to not understand this sentence:

    “We do not encourage and, in fact, we discourage members of Congress to make such visits to Syria,” said White House deputy spokeswoman Dana Perino.

    That’s all members of Congress. The President (rightly) does not want members of congress…Republican OR Democrat…going overseas on the pretense of formulating or representing US foreign policy.

    And rightly so. As the Washington Post points out, Pelosi pretty much f***ed things up in Syria. And…the Republican part of the delegation NEVER SPOKE TO ASSAD.

    In other words, Matt…you fell for the Kool-Aid Ms. Pelosi feeds you leftards. She gets criticized for going to Syria, and she complains…”Well…there were Republicans there TOO.”

    So instead of owning up to her screw up, she shifts blame.

    I don’t know what brought you here, Matt…but keep bringing your weak-ass shit in here. And feel lucky that I am the one smacking you down, because if Preston or Smantix get ahold of you, you’ll need years of drum therapy in the fetal position to recover.

  10. The sum total of the evidence that Kerry was treated negatively was that photo. And since we agree that the photo is misleading, there is no evidence. And all that blog has is a bunch of rumor and since that blogger give the deceptive photo why believe his words.

    As for this sentence: ““We do not encourage and, in fact, we discourage members of Congress to make such visits to Syria,” said White House deputy spokeswoman Dana Perino.”

    That came after they had attacked Pelosi by name (and said nothing regarding other congressional delegations) and *after* this contradiction was pointed out to them. Try and find some criticism of the Republican delegations from *before* Pelosi’s trip.

    BTW, I sure am impressed with your use of profanity. It makes for much stronger arguments and reduces the need for things like evidence or morality. I am sorry that having another POV around distresses you so much. If you are more comfortable writing to those who already agree with your views I can leave you alone.

  11. Let’s find some common ground here. Matt finds pictures of men holding hands offensive and so do I.

    The issue at hand is the treasonous undermining of US policy. I don’t care if it’s Left coast Republicans or Bath House Liberals doing it.

    Do we want to return to a “But He’s Our Bastard” Foreign policy? Just bribe Mugabe, Mbeke, Qaddafi, Kirchner, Chavez, Morales, etc., etc.?

    Yea, it’s funny seeing a lapsed Catholic like Pelosi running around in her burqa. She’s a faker in her own religion, might as well be a faker in two. The only thing funnier is watching people defend her with “they did it too!”

    If that defense isn’t good enough when applying it to Clinton bombing Iraq because of their WMD program in 1998 then why should it be applicable over Hijab Nancy.

    And thanks Billy. I’d hate to think the trolls are sitting on my bridge smoking cigarettes and harassing passersby when I’m at work all day.

  12. No problem Smantix. I’ve had the flu all week and have become quite a crank with little to do but prop up my laptop in bed. I tell ya, feeling like a giant germ AND having to deal with whiny liberals can really get to a guy.

    Matt…since you are unable to read, I think I’ll just ignore you from here on. So go ahead and keep twisting the facts to suit your view of the world. Now go on over to HuffPo where that kind of logic is not only allowed but encouraged.

  13. No, I find a picture of our president holding hands with a Saudi prince offensive. Remember Saudi? The country where most of the 9/11 attackers came from. Saudi, the country that funds Islamic fundamentalist schools around the world. That Saudi that, under this administration, has not been “our bastard”, they have been our “good friend”. Or, at least, the hand holding friend of our president. So, yes, that is something that bothers me.

  14. No, I find a picture of our president holding hands with a Saudi prince offensive.

    Well, that’s not very tolerant of you.

    But you do make another valid point. The Saudis are not our friends. If there wasn’t so much mutual investment in eachother’s countries, Bush may well have been discussing a Rhombus of Evil.

    But really, why does that make it OK for congresspersons to undermine the foreign policy set by the chief executive?

  15. Matt, you obviously haven’t been here before. We have kicked a mudhole in the republicrats around here for the very things you’re talking about.

    I get the feeling that you think that every one of your comments is a “gotcha”. That just makes you look like a tard. Which you probably are, but you make a few valid points, and when ‘tards do that around here, we’ll give ’em that.

    So before you go lumping us in with the rest of the GOP sheep blogs, you might want to do some reading. Or you can just leave. Doesn’t really matter.

  16. As long as Opinion Journal stays off of immigration, they can still muster a good editorial once in a while:

    In fact, Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Lantos both voted for the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003 that ordered Mr. Bush to choose from a menu of six sanctions to impose on Damascus. Mr. Bush chose the weakest two sanctions and dispatched a new Ambassador to Syria in a goodwill gesture in 2004. Only later, in the wake of the Hariri murder and clear intelligence of Syria’s role in aiding Iraqi Baathists, did Mr. Bush conclude that Mr. Assad’s real goal was to reassert control over Lebanon and bleed Americans in Iraq.

    With her trip, Ms. Pelosi has now reassured the Syrian strongman that Mr. Bush lacks the domestic support to impose any further pressure on his country. She has also made it less likely that Mr. Assad will cooperate with the Hariri probe, or assist the Iraqi government in defeating Baathist and al Qaeda terrorists.
    So this is Democratic foreign policy: Assure our enemies that they can ignore a President who still has 21 months to serve; and wash their hands of Baghdad and of their own guilt for voting to let Mr. Bush go to war. No doubt Democrats think the President’s low job approval, and public unhappiness with the war, gives them a kind of political immunity. But we wonder.

    Once we leave Iraq, America’s enemies will still reside in the Mideast; and they will be stronger if we leave behind a failed government and bloodbath in Iraq. Mr. Bush’s successor will have to contain the damage, and that person could even be a Democrat. But by reverting to their Vietnam message of retreat and by blaming Mr. Bush for all the world’s ills, Democrats on Capitol Hill may once again convince voters that they can’t be trusted with the White House in a dangerous world.

    Sadly, this is the realization I reached a long time ago.

  17. Matt S (Friday, April 6, 2007 @ 7:36 am)
    No, I find a picture of our president holding hands with a Saudi prince offensive…

    I remember Bush holding Prince Abdullah’s hand (an elderly man with questionable balance) like I remember Bush holding Senator Byrd’s hand (an elderly man with unquestionable imbalance).

    So, yeah, I can appreciate Bush touching evil in many venues. Sometimes the office obligates you to do unseemly things.

Comments are closed.