Pelosi Going to Syria Despite Objections

Just out today...

The Israelis are asking Speaker Pelosi to carry a communication from the Israeli government to the Syrians. The State Department also sent Pelosi something to take to President Assad.

So maybe this isn't as bad as everyone here was assuming.

--Shannon
 
Sounds to me like she is doing what all the bipartisan reports and people that truely have America's interests in mind want her to do and the only flack is coming from an embarrassed administration that has proven their own incompetence time and time again.
 
Amazingly, she is doing exactly what you accuse the existing administration of using their ambassadors for. Carrying messages. Now, of course, to make this significant, these messages couldn't have been delivered any other way. Gimme a break.

Sounds to me like she is doing what all the bipartisan reports and people that truely have America's interests in mind want her to do and the only flack is coming from an embarrassed administration that has proven their own incompetence time and time again.

Care to give us a little proof of that statement? People who actually have America's interests in mind? Gee, that would be the State Department and the Israelis? Again, this couldn't have been done without her heading off to make political hay?

There are posters here who have an amzingly compartmented mind. The history of Congressional junkets to governments inimical to American interests is one of total failure. No matter the party affiliation. Yet, because they disagree with the current administration's policies, they're willing to overlook said dismal record.

Given that none of us are privy to high-level, or even low-level, diplomacy in the international community, we haven't the knowledge to ascertain what is or isn't being discussed. Information available via the MSM is unreliable, even deliberately slanted. The Internet is so full of contradictory information as to useless without access to original files. Yet, here we are, talking about failed policy, and Americans with our best interests at heart.

I'll accept such OPINIONS when they are accompanied by fact. Until then, they hold no more weight than any other unsubstantiated collection of utterings.
 
JR47,

Read the congressional record and the bipartisan reports referenced in the article linked to the original post. This administration has stubbornly refused to vary from its unsuccessful policy regarding Syria despite many recommendations to do so.
 
Not to go tit for tat But. Can you imagine if Newt did this to Clinton.
I think at this point its GW's move. I wonder what he will do :rolleyes:

And at the same time she and her cohorts are attempting to secure the defeat the military.
 
There is nothing forbidding a member of Congress from engaging in diplomacy, nor can the Executive forbid a Legislator from doing so.

The better question is what authorizes a member of Congress from taking the actions under discussion. The answer to that is nothing. Under the Constitution, Congress has the authority to regulate trade with foreign nations via legislation, while the President has the authority to negotiate treaties which necessarily involves diplomacy.

Pelosi is absolutely free to travel to areas where it is not illegal for US citizens to venture. But nothing authorizes her to use her office to engage in "diplomacy" while doing so.
 
*sigh* I love selective journalism:

White House Official Criticizes Pelosi Visit to Syria (Update1)

By Laura Litvan and Brendan Murray

March 30 (Bloomberg) -- A White House spokeswoman denounced a plan by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to visit officials in Syria as part of a trip to the Middle East.

Pelosi's outreach to a state sponsor of terrorism is a ``really bad idea,'' White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said at a briefing in Washington. ``Someone should take a step back and think about the message that it sends and the message that it sends to our allies.''

Perino's remarks come as a group of Republican lawmakers has embarked on their own trip to Syria. Michael Lowry, a spokesman for Representative Robert Aderholt, said that the Alabama lawmaker will visit Syria as part of a Republican delegation led by Representative Frank Wolf, a Virginia Republican. Wolf is the top Republican on the House appropriations subcommittee that funds the State Department.

Perino wasn't available to comment about that trip.

[full story on Bloomberg.com]

So, I guess the whole "talking to terrorist sponsors is irresponsible" argument is dead.. sorry Hannity.
 
Read the congressional record and the bipartisan reports referenced in the article linked to the original post. This administration has stubbornly refused to vary from its unsuccessful policy regarding Syria despite many recommendations to do so.

Hmmmmmmm, would that have missed this?

The independent bipartisan commission suggested in December that engaging Syria and Iran could help the war effort. The Bush administration eventually agreed to reach out to the two countries, but only to discuss Iraq.
U.S. officials held their first direct, high-level contact with Syrian representatives in years when they met in Baghdad this month with officials from several Middle East countries to discuss Iraq.

So, the current Administration is meeting in Baghdad this month, but Pelosi has some mandate to open a second dialogue? By the way, the article references a single report.

This is significant in that it merely provides further proof that no administration is exempt from the brush you swing so mightily at Bush. American Foreign policy has been in a tail-spin since Theodore Roosevelt. There has been no effort to implement any sort of continuing dialogue, unless it's during a war. Every Administration coming into power plays fast and loose with ambassadorships, and regards prior achievements as non-binding. To blame a current administration for the problems inherent in such a morass is beyond ludicrous.

I'd be willing to bet that, should America find itself infected with a Liberal Democratic Administration in '08, that what I just explained will happen yet again. Then, in short order, the same old tired whine will surface yet again.

Based on the Congressional Record, which is also subject to editorial slant, the Report from the Bipartisan Committee, which was anything but, and the news available from the MSM, neither political party has a clue how to develop, much less augment, a coherent foreign policy. Then again, neither of us is actually privy to what is truly happening, are we? You are gathering an opinion from the same sources as me, and we are arriving at the same, but different conclusions. You blame a single man for a centuries long problem. I blame the rampant partisan politics of America for the problem.

Nancy Pelosi is out to build a name for Nancy Pelosi, probably for a run at the presidency. She is typical of the flash versus substance politics that has given us this fiasco. She needs to stay home and explain the billions of dollars in federal contracts that she wrangled for her husband. Here, and I thought that Haliburton was supposed to have that sewn up.

Something truly stinks here. However, it's MUCH larger than a single man, or a single party. You want a solid, lucid, Diplomatic Corp? A firm Foreign Policy? Then get rid of the existing politicians, and start over. Otherwise, you're wrestling with a pig. You end up filthy, and the pig loves it.:eek:
 
Every Administration coming into power plays fast and loose with ambassadorships, and regards prior achievements as non-binding. To blame a current administration for the problems inherent in such a morass is beyond ludicrous.

I'd be willing to bet that, should America find itself infected with a Liberal Democratic Administration in '08, that what I just explained will happen yet again. Then, in short order, the same old tired whine will surface yet again.
Show me in other adminstrations where such incompetent, unqualified, and just downright unsuited people have been given the high positions they have been given in this administration.

Of course once another administration comes in all the hate America is now experiencing can be blamed on them.

Bush managed to take us from a position of having the compassion and support of the free world after 9/11 to the most hated state we have ever obtained. I had to cancel a trip to Greece this year because of the negative opinion of even europeans towards Americans. Never have I ever had to be concerned with such things.

It also appears that three rep. conressmen are going to Syria also but you do not see any whining about that from Bush. Could it be because Pelosi cannot be controlled as easily when she returns and tells the press what she saw and heard?
 
Show me in other adminstrations where such incompetent, unqualified, and just downright unsuited people have been given the high positions they have been given in this administration.

You may disagree with the policies, but I'd love to see where exactly the people in this administration are unqualified.
 
You may disagree with the policies, but I'd love to see where exactly the people in this administration are unqualified
Brown, Bolton, Meyers, Nicholson, Stratton, etc...you need more? All just good 'ol boys with no real credentials except for being on the boards of big businesses that Bush has ties to personally or making large donations. Except for Bolton who is just a psychopath and Miers who was just a boob.
 
Except for Bolton who is just a psychopath and Miers who was just a boob.

Exactly what qualifications does one need to be an advisor? Bush won his second term so I'd say they were doing their jobs pretty well. As for Bolton, he's the perfect thing for the UN.

That is unless you think that an utterly corrupt, irrelevant, and imcompetent social club for third world countries requires something other than Bolton's credentials.
 
Except for Bolton who is just a psychopath

If saying what you mean, meaning what you say and not taking crap from a bunch of third world blood suckers and European liberals now qualifies you as a psychopath I better go get checked:rolleyes:
 
Bolton told it like it was

He spoke his mind and called it like he saw it.The bureaucrats at the UN can't deal with the plain truth. Geeze I better get checked myself :D
 
Show me in other adminstrations where such incompetent, unqualified, and just downright unsuited people have been given the high positions they have been given in this administration.

Janet Reno (who got her position because Hillary liked her work in a child sex case which was overturned after it was discovered Reno engaged in prosecutorial misconduct), Ron Brown, Andrew Cuomo, Jocelyn Elders.
 
I'd suggest that you need look no further in ANY administration in the last 100 years than the list of Ambassadorships awarded. You fixate on this administration, ignoring the fact that Europe has dis-liked us since we saved their butts in WWII, then rebuilt their econmies, yet didn't listen to how they wanted the world run. As long as we stood ready to defend them from their ancestral enemies, they loved us.

Your opinions of who is, and isn't, qualified to hold a particular position are echoed in EVERY administration. That has NOTHING to do with FOREIGN POLICY. Bring it back on subject. Your vitriol for Bush isn't a factor to anyone here but you.

Brown, Bolton, Meyers, Nicholson, Stratton, etc...you need more? All just good 'ol boys with no real credentials except for being on the boards of big businesses that Bush has ties to personally or making large donations. Except for Bolton who is just a psychopath and Miers who was just a boob.

Unless you actually have a degree in psychology, you're off-base here.

As for credentials, the same claims can be made against every administration since Grant was president.

Shall we return to the topic at hand? If not, I can predict that a Moderator will soon shut this down.
 
Unless you actually have a degree in psychology, you're off-base here
Actually I have a masters in psychology. I do not feel I need to in this case though. It is pretty obvious from reading the man's history that he has strong sociopathic tendencies. Just read what Colin Powell has to say about this man.
As for credentials, the same claims can be made against every administration since Grant was president.
Not really, if you look at most admnistration a teaching professional has been Sec. of Education (not the wife of a large contributor), an efficency or enviromental expert has headed fema (not an ex horse trainer and friend of the family) and on down the list.
 
no, not psychopath, sociopath. That's accurate. He is a bully and will do what he wants regardless of anyone else's opinions. That's why Bush sent him to the UN!
 
Back
Top