Prime Minister Pelosi and Secretary of State Lantos undermine U.S. foreign policy

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Democrats at War
Prime Minister Pelosi and Secretary of State Lantos undermine U.S. foreign policy--and maybe their own party.

Friday, April 6, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

Democrats took Congress last fall in part by opposing the war in Iraq, but it is becoming clear that they view their election as a mandate for something far more ambitious--to wit, promoting and executing their own foreign policy, albeit without the detail of a Presidential election.

Their intentions were made plain this week with two remarkable acts by their House and Senate leaders. Majority Leader Harry Reid endorsed Senator Russ Feingold's proposal to withdraw from Iraq immediately, cutting off funds entirely within a year. He promised a vote soon, as part of what the Washington Post reported would also be a Democratic offensive to close Guantanamo, reinstate legal rights for terror suspects, and improve relations with Cuba.

Meanwhile, Speaker Nancy Pelosi made her now famous sojourn to Syria, donning a head scarf and advertising that she was conducting shuttle diplomacy between Jerusalem and Damascus. If there was any doubt that her trip was intended as far more than a routine Congressional "fact-finding" trip, House Foreign Affairs Chairman Tom Lantos put it to rest by declaring that, "We have an alternative Democratic foreign policy. I view my job as beginning with restoring overseas credibility and respect for the United States."


Yankee go home.

Aint she cute
http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/040607pelosi.jpg

WSJ (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009903)

[Lemur]

Yes, only a Democrat would visit Syria. Traitors! Oh, wait ... (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a1YH6znT2Z10&refer=home)


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.

[Tribesman]

This is outrageous , how dare Pelosi undermine Americas foriegn policy , thats the job of George Bush .

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Perino wasn't available to comment about that trip.

So you dont know if it was approved by the Whitehouse.


This is outrageous , how dare Pelosi undermine Americas foriegn policy , thats the job of George Bush .

:laugh4:

[Lemur]

More info (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/01/AR2007040100314.html) on the Republican Syria jaunt.


U.S. House members meeting with President Bashar Assad Sunday said they believed there was an opportunity for dialogue with the Syrian leadership.

The U.S. House members, who included Virginia Republican Frank Wolf, Pennsylvania Republican Joe Pitts and Alabama Republican Robert Aderholt, also said they had raised with Syrian officials the issue of stopping the alleged flow of foreign fighters from Syria to Iraq.

In a statement issued by the U.S. Embassy in Damascus, the congressmen said they had talked about "ending support for Hezbollah and Hamas, recognizing Israel's right to exist in peace and security, and ceasing interference in Lebanon."

"We came because we believe there is an opportunity for dialogue," the statement said. "We are following in the lead of Ronald Reagan, who reached out to the Soviets during the Cold War," it added.

Actually, I think it's great they're talking. We need to engage all of Iraq's neighbors if we want to get out of there this decade. The only odd thing is singling out Pelosi for special criticism for talking to Syria.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Actually, I think it's great they're talking. We need to engage all of Iraq's neighbors if we want to get out of there this decade. The only odd thing is singling out Pelosi for special criticism for talking to Syria.

Again she was told not to go. You dont know if thats the case wiith the Republicans and I doubt it is. Theres certainly nothing wrong with talking to them if the administration sends you there.

[drone]

Aint she cute
http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/040607pelosi.jpg

How did she manage to find a scarf big enough to contain that hairdo of hers? :inquisitive:


This is outrageous , how dare Pelosi undermine Americas foriegn policy , thats the job of George Bush .:applause:

[Major Robert Dump]

Actually I think she was just selling Girl Scout cookies, so everything should be okay.

[Lemur]

Well, apparently the three Republican Congressmen visited Syria against the administration's wishes (http://www3.whdh.com/news/articles/national/BO48047/).


The White House insisted it wasn't just singling out Pelosi and her Democratic delegation, and opposes trips to Damascus by Republican lawmakers as well. Three GOP congressmen who met with Syria's leaders last weekend defended their visits.

"I don't care what the administration says on this. You gotta do what you think is in the best interest of your country," said Rep. Frank Wolf of Virginia. "I want us to be successful in Iraq. I want us to clamp down on Hezbollah."

[Gawain of Orkeny]

The White House insisted it wasn't just singling out Pelosi and her Democratic delegation, and opposes trips to Damascus by Republican lawmakers as well. Three GOP congressmen who met with Syria's leaders last weekend defended their visits

Ok the RINOs are no better :laugh4:

[Lemur]

As I said, I think talking to your enemies is a good thing. If the administration refuses to do it, I have a hard time condemning others who wish to step into the gap. This is one of those Baker/Hamilton points that was entirely correct.

On the other hand, I think that Congress should not be playing silly games with the war's funding. They should give the president everything he wants. It's his war, now, and he should not be allowed to blame any failures on a stab in the back. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stab_in_the_back)

[Gawain of Orkeny]

As I said, I think talking to your enemies is a good thing. If the administration refuses to do it, I have a hard time condemning others who wish to step into the gap. This is one of those Baker/Hamilton points that was entirely correct.


Do you really think theres no communications between the whitehouse and Iran?

[Devastatin Dave]

Good old San Fran Nan. I loved how she said that the Israelis were ready to talk but shortly after the PM said they never said such a thing. Silly woman. I hope some Saudi prince gets a hankering for her old wrinkled ass and sticks her into a room with a bunch of his other slaves/wives. God, how much money are we paying for her little field trip? :wall:

[Lemur]

Do you really think theres no communications between the whitehouse and Iran?
Weren't we talking about Syria? As to Iran, I have no idea what level of contacts we have. I know that in the past we've been pretty much blind to what's going on inside. It's well documented that as of the 9/11 attacks, we didn't have a single humint resource in Persia, which is amazing; we were relying entirely on sigint and satellites.

I don't understand the current administration, which makes it difficult for me to gauge what they are or aren't doing.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Well, I've recently read editorials in several different newspapers (WSJ, WaPo, etc.) criticizing Pelosi for trying to have the democrats run foreign policy, and giving mixed signals. They are right to - this kind of diplomacy is stupid and counterproductive.

CR

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Weren't we talking about Syria

Yeah my bad.

Heres something from two of the lliberals favorite people on the topic :laugh4:


RUSH: A couple of quick more things before you have to go. What's the administration's view today, what's the emotion, what are you thinking about Speaker Pelosi's trip to the Middle East, specifically the conveyance of the incorrect message to Bashar Assad in Syria about peace talks with Israel?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, it's not helpful. I made it clear earlier that I thought this created difficulties, if I can put it in a gentle form. Obviously, she's the speaker of the House and ought to travel to foreign nations and ought to conduct visits.

RUSH: She's not entitled to make her own foreign policy, is she?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: She's not entitled to make policy. She, in this particular case, by going to Damascus at this stage it serves to reinforce, if you will, and reward Bashar Assad for his bad behavior. He's done all kinds of things that are not in the interests of the United States, including allowing Syria to be an area from which attacks are launched against our people inside Iraq. He obviously was heavily involved, right now, in supporting an effort by Hezbollah to try to topple the government in Lebanon. This is a bad actor, and until he changes his behavior he should not be rewarded about visits by the speaker of the House of Representatives.

RUSH: Well, how much damage has she done by conveying to Assad that Israel is ready for peace talks when Israel is not ready for peace talks as Syria is currently constituted?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I think, clearly, she stimulated a reaction out of the Israeli. Prime Minister Olmert immediately made it clear that she was not authorized to make any such offer to Bashir Assad. Among other things, of course, the Syrians have not renounced their support for terror. The major terrorist organizations that are dedicated to the destruction of Israel, such as Hamas, are headquartered in Damascus, Syria. It was a non-statement, a nonsensical statement. It didn't make any sense at all that she would suggest that those talks could go forward as long as the Syrians conducted themselves as a prime state sponsor of terror.

RUSH: You are a reserved individual --

THE VICE PRESIDENT: (chuckles)

RUSH: -- and very professional, and you've been doing this a long time, but I'm asking this for people in my audience as well as me. How do you feel when this...? Don't you get enraged when this kind of thing happens?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: (chuckles) Well, I've been around a long time. I'm obviously disappointed. I think it is, in fact, bad behavior on her part. I wish she hadn't done it, but she is the speaker of the House, and fortunately I think the various parties involved recognize she doesn't speak for the United States in those circumstances. She doesn't represent the administration. The president is the one that conducts foreign policy, not the speaker of the House.

[gunslinger]

What a joke. Of course, at her age I can understand why she doesn't feel able to wait two years for her party to gain the legal responsibility for setting foreign policy and military stategery.

Edit: I just can't get over that picture. Do you think that if Hillary were elected president she would submit to covering herself in similar fashion when visiting her Muslim friends?

[Adrian II]

What foreign policy?

[Xiahou]

Well, I've recently read editorials in several different newspapers (WSJ, WaPo, etc.) criticizing Pelosi for trying to have the democrats run foreign policy, and giving mixed signals. They are right to - this kind of diplomacy is stupid and counterproductive.

CR
Here's the editorial from the GOP lapdogs at the WaPo:
Pratfall in Damascus
Nancy Pelosi's foolish shuttle diplomacy

Thursday, April 5, 2007; A16

HOUSE SPEAKER Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) offered an excellent demonstration yesterday of why members of Congress should not attempt to supplant the secretary of state when traveling abroad. After a meeting with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad in Damascus, Ms. Pelosi announced that she had delivered a message from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that "Israel was ready to engage in peace talks" with Syria. What's more, she added, Mr. Assad was ready to "resume the peace process" as well. Having announced this seeming diplomatic breakthrough, Ms. Pelosi suggested that her Kissingerian shuttle diplomacy was just getting started. "We expressed our interest in using our good offices in promoting peace between Israel and Syria," she said.

Only one problem: The Israeli prime minister entrusted Ms. Pelosi with no such message. "What was communicated to the U.S. House Speaker does not contain any change in the policies of Israel," said a statement quickly issued by the prime minister's office. In fact, Mr. Olmert told Ms. Pelosi that "a number of Senate and House members who recently visited Damascus received the impression that despite the declarations of Bashar Assad, there is no change in the position of his country regarding a possible peace process with Israel." In other words, Ms. Pelosi not only misrepresented Israel's position but was virtually alone in failing to discern that Mr. Assad's words were mere propaganda.

Ms. Pelosi was criticized by President Bush for visiting Damascus at a time when the administration -- rightly or wrongly -- has frozen high-level contacts with Syria. Mr. Bush said that thanks to the speaker's freelancing Mr. Assad was getting mixed messages from the United States. Ms. Pelosi responded by pointing out that Republican congressmen had visited Syria without drawing presidential censure. That's true enough -- but those other congressmen didn't try to introduce a new U.S. diplomatic initiative in the Middle East. "We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace," Ms. Pelosi grandly declared.

Never mind that that statement is ludicrous: As any diplomat with knowledge of the region could have told Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Assad is a corrupt thug whose overriding priority at the moment is not peace with Israel but heading off U.N. charges that he orchestrated the murder of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq al-Hariri. The really striking development here is the attempt by a Democratic congressional leader to substitute her own foreign policy for that of a sitting Republican president. Two weeks ago Ms. Pelosi rammed legislation through the House of Representatives that would strip Mr. Bush of his authority as commander in chief to manage troop movements in Iraq. Now she is attempting to introduce a new Middle East policy that directly conflicts with that of the president. We have found much to criticize in Mr. Bush's military strategy and regional diplomacy. But Ms. Pelosi's attempt to establish a shadow presidency is not only counterproductive, it is foolish.link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/04/AR2007040402306_pf.html)

[Tribesman]

Edit: I just can't get over that picture. Do you think that if Hillary were elected president she would submit to covering herself in similar fashion when visiting her Muslim friends?
Are you equally outraged when your president dons a Kippah ?
If not then what is it you can't get over ?


Well, I've recently read editorials in several different newspapers (WSJ, WaPo, etc.) criticizing Pelosi for trying to have the democrats run foreign policy, and giving mixed signals. They are right to - this kind of diplomacy is stupid and counterproductive.
mixed signals ? stupid and counterproductive ?
Oh I see , there was this study group about the mess in Iraq .Your wise president in the interests of not being stupid , counterproductive or sending mixed signals decided to follow the groups recomendations and not talk to Syria :yes:
Oh sorry my mistake , the group that your president commisioned said do talk to Syria , hey its an easy mistake to make:laugh4:

[Lemur]

Heres something from two of the lliberals favorite people on the topic :laugh4:

[segment of transcript from the Limbaugh/Cheney interview]
Here's the thing about Cheney, Gawain -- he's been wrong on almost every important issue with Iraq. He was the guy who declared "I think that the people of Iraq would welcome the U.S. force as liberators; they would not see us as oppressors, by any means (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0209/09/ltm.03.html)." Didn't quite play out that way, now did it? He was the guy who said that "We're in the last throes of the insurgency (http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/30/cheney.iraq/)," about two years ago. Them's some long throes. He was one of the biggest proponents of the WMD theory, as well as the completely unsubstantiated Al Qaeda/Iraq link. "In Iraq, a ruthless dictator cultivated weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them. (http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/stupidquotes/a/cheneyquotes.htm)" As it turns out, wrong. "He gave support to terrorists, had an established relationship with al Qaeda, and his regime is no more. (http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/stupidquotes/a/cheneyquotes.htm)" That sentence is a little trickier: sort of, wrong, and the last bit is true.

In his latest interview, Cheney trots out the Al Qaeda/Iraq link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070406/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/iraq_pentagon_intelligence) again, demonstrating a breathtaking disconnect from consensual reality.


"He took up residence there before we ever launched into Iraq, organized the al-Qaida operations inside Iraq before we even arrived on the scene and then, of course, led the charge for Iraq until we killed him last June," Cheney told radio host Rush Limbaugh during an interview. "As I say, they were present before we invaded Iraq."

However, a declassified Pentagon report released Thursday said that interrogations of the deposed Iraqi leader and two of his former aides as well as seized Iraqi documents confirmed that the terrorist organization and the Saddam government were not working together before the invasion.

The Sept. 11 Commission's 2004 report also found no evidence of a collaborative relationship between Saddam and
Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network during that period.

Whether or not you agree with Cheney's policies, he has a demonstrated record of being just plain wrong.

[KukriKhan]

This is outrageous , how dare Pelosi undermine Americas foriegn policy , thats the job of George Bush .

To quote a respected member here: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

[KafirChobee]

Gee, I seem to remember a Presidential candidate in 1980 making secret deals with Iran for them to hold the American diplomats hostage until after the elections. That came out in the Iran-Contra investigations - you know? Of course they did do it secretly and without fanfare - which maybe Nancy's error.

Still, atleast someone is talking to Syria (and the world) to demonstrate that not all Americans are unwilling to compromise and can form complete sentances without a speech writer.

But, I'm sure Mr. "the problem with diplomacy is it takes so loooooooong" Bush has a plan for involving the neighbors of Iraq to assist in our withdrawal - oh, wait he's already said he's leaving that up to his sucessor.

The problem with Bush and Company is that only the language changes (what ever makes a good sound bite) - but, the policy stays the same. And, the policy is ignore the problem and maybe it will go away.

:balloon2:

[Azi Tohak]

This is outrageous , how dare Pelosi undermine Americas foriegn policy , thats the job of George Bush .

:laugh4:

Thanks Tribesman! I needed a good laugh. I give you two points.

Azi

[ICantSpellDawg]

I'd bet it's a conspiracy. :book:
The US government is one big theater of good cop, bad cop.
Everyone knows that hostile regimes are more likey too work with the Dems because they can get more out of them and it makes the Bush admin look dumb(er).
Everyone also knows that we all want to solve tough international problems.
The Bush admin, to solve a problem, can silently give the job to the Dem majority leader in order to make concessions without looking weak.
The Dems will act in the Nations interest because they will look like self driven compromisers, defiant in the face of the Admin.
In the end, It won't really impact the election because the majority leader (not presidential contender) did it.
If it did impact the election, who cares, both parties are part of one umbrella party that plays 2 different angles, all to encourage the surplus population in believing that their votes and passions matter.

Just a thought. probably far from reality.

[Brenus]

That is a good news: USA 've got a Foreign Policy...

[Pannonian]

This is outrageous , how dare Pelosi undermine Americas foriegn policy , thats the job of George Bush .
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful - and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people - and neither do we."

President George W. Bush (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3541706.stm)