Pelosi Going to Syria Despite Objections
- Thread starter RERICK
- Start date
Playboypenguin
Moderator
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.
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.
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.
Playboypenguin
Moderator
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.
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.
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:
[full story on Bloomberg.com]
So, I guess the whole "talking to terrorist sponsors is irresponsible" argument is dead.. sorry Hannity.
[full story on Bloomberg.com]
So, I guess the whole "talking to terrorist sponsors is irresponsible" argument is dead.. sorry Hannity.
Hmmmmmmm, would that have missed this?
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.
Playboypenguin
Moderator
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?
Playboypenguin
Moderator
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.
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.
DonR101395
New member
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Playboypenguin
Moderator
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.
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.