Nancy is being used. She is going to Syria. The president has asked her not to. He has personally not dealt with Syria because they are a terrorist nation, helping people who attack our interests around the globe, especially those attacking our military in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Nancy shouldn't go. She is displaying dishonor to her nation and to her president. It is apparent that dishonoring Bush is a goal of hers, but she is mistaken to think any good will come of it from doing so in this fashion. They Syrians know what they are doing. They will use her visit as a way to denigrate Bush also. In this Pelosi and the Syrians are unified. This association itself should be enough to show Pelosi the impropriety of her actions --she is aligning herself with the Syrians because they have a common enemy: Bush. But one doesn't befriend a cobra, for any reason! Even if they do share animosity for a common foe.
But another aspect of human nature that Nancy is missing is that people have no respect for disloyalty. The Syrians will take advantage of Nancy's visit, but, in the long run, they will have no respect for her. Disloyal people garner no respect from those they seek to run to.
No good can come from this. It denigrates our president and makes a fool of our speaker of the House. Pray for Nancy that she will have a safe trip, and that God will bless her with wisdom and that she will consider honor, and other virtues. Pray for the health of her family also.
For the news story, click.
12 comments:
On what grounds is this congress woman doing this? She has no constitutional right to act as an ambassador. Where in the world do these liberals get off? They are completely over stepping their bounds as if they are all powerful and then have the audacity to say that President Bush is empirical!
I'm not saying that everything this current administration does is perfect, but we have a checks and balances and separation of powers government set up and that is being completely side stepped by this woman who's gotten a little to big for her britches! She is NOT the president even though in (GOD FORBID)the event that something happens to both President Bush and Vice President Cheney she is 3rd in line. She has, in her mind, been handed some extreme sense of power!
OK and besides all that, she is a woman. The Syrians will not respect her for that fact alone. What's more, She is a western woman, a whore in their eyes. She will accomplish NOTHING!
wow, remind me not to get on nancy's bad side :)
Andy, I assume me mean the Nancy who posted and not Nancy Pelosi (although the comment works either way).
Yes, Nancy is a Jersey Girl. It's always better to have them at your side in a fight, rather than in your face.
Gotta love the passion. . . .
Nancy,
Sadly, but as usual, the Bush Administration has tried to mislead us. While criticizing Pelosi and her group, they have failed to mention a seperate but not White House authorized trip to Syria by (SHUDDER) Republicans. So I guess these particular republicans are "liberals" as well.
I picked up the story on Bloomberg News, but it has been confirmed by the offices of some of those involvded.
**
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.
**
As for why they are doing it. Visiting states like Syria and opening a dialogue were part of the 9/11 commisssion recommendations. All of which the President has decided to ignore.
Other "liberals", like Colin Powel for example, have strongly urged such actions.
Despite the fact that The White House has attacked any other opinion on the war, typically accusing them of wanting to surrender and other such nonsense, other groups are really trying to find a way for the US to come out of this with some good.
Pelosi and Democrats are focred to operate thsi way, since the White House refuses to even discuess these matters with anyone.
Our futures are at stake. Most of us don' tthink the Bush Plan is really working.
Recommendations are just that. They are not mandates. Pelosi's actions publicly humiliate the White House. She knows it. My guess is that's why she is doing it.
Believe me, behavior like this excites her base, and that is important for upcoming elections.
Mr Wizard... These said Republicans are just as wrong as the Libs are now. I have never said that I agree with everything the current era of law makers (either party) are doing. And more than that I disagree more than I agree.
Facts are facts though... you can dispute them if you want but Speaker Pelosi is just FLAT OUT WRONG! (As were the republicans you mentioned.) According to the Logan Act which was passed in 1799 under President John Adams, private citizens are prohibited from negotiating with foreign governments without official sanctions. Regardless of what the 9/11 commission recommended. They were not elected by the people. They make suggestions. Period.
Forgive me if I sound too passionate. I apologize if my opinions are expressed to strongly. I have never been shy. Sorry Andy... didn't mean to frighten you! :)
Nancy, I have often apologized for wrongs I have said, or for not listening, etc. However, I make a rule to not apologize for passion.
Your passion is a good thing! Andy can take it!
Nancy
I don't think she is negotiating. I think she is opening a dialouge. Fact finding.
You are correct, she doesn't have the authority to negotiate, so if she "agrees" to something on behalf of the US, she is violating law.
That being said, I see nothing wrong with any group going out and talking to other people.
I am convinced that the world has its troubles today largely because we never bother to get to know each other. When we make mass assumptions about a nation like Syria, we dismiss what are likely millions of peace loving citizens.
Folks around the world have a bad image of the USA for a lot of reasons. But first on the list is that they have never had the chance to learn about us. Their leadership fills them with venom for the US, and there is nothing to counter it.
Talking doesn't hurt anyone, and we give to much credence to posturing.
I disagree with the current philosophy of cutting of dialugue with any nation. Nothing at all can be solved that way.
And lets do away with the notion that the President of the USA has the final say in everything.
And finally, you never should feel the need to apologize to me for disagreeing -- even passionately. I love the discourse. It's healthy to talk and its just as healthy to disagree.
One of my hopes in participating here is to hopefully make readers realize they have to question their political leaders. Having faith in THEM is foolish.
While this next statement isn't presented to argue whether or not Pelosi is right, but to show how hypocritical the current Republican Party is.
have Faith in God, question politicians. All of them.
**
In 1997, Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) led a delegation to Colombia at a time when U.S. officials were trying to attach human rights conditions to U.S. security assistance programs. Hastert specifically encouraged Colombian military officials to “bypass” President Clinton and “communicate directly with Congress.”
…a congressional delegation led by Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) which met with Colombian military officials, promising to “remove conditions on assistance” and complaining about “leftist-dominated” U.S. congresses of years past that “used human rights as an excuse to aid the left in other countries.” Hastert said he would to correct this situation and expedite aid to countries allied in the war on drugs and also encouraged Colombian military officials to “bypass the U.S. executive branch and communicate directly with Congress.”
Subsequently, U.S. Ambassador to Colombia Myles Frechette sent a cable complaining that Hastert’s actions had undermined his leverage with the Colombian military leadership.
In other instances, Hastert actually guided congressional staff to unilaterally reach deals with Colombian officials:
House Foreign Affairs Committee staff, at the direction of the Hastert group, would fly to Colombia, meet with the nation’s anti-narcotics police and negotiate the levels and terms of assistance, the scope of the program and the kinds of equipment that would be needed. Rarely were the U.S. diplomatic personnel in our embassy in Bogata consulted about the “U.S.” position in these negotiations, and in a number of instances they were excluded from or not even made aware of the meetings.
The Latest from the Washington Post:
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."
source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/04/AR2007040402306_pf.html
I am not the biggest fan of Pelosi's trip, so I am not going bother to defend it, other than to say it is in reality no different that what the Republicans are doing there, its just getting more press because the President made a big political stink about it.
Most of what the Washington Post declared has fact this morning has been proven inaccurate by the light of day.
****
The editorial rests on two claims, both of which are baseless.
1) Pelosi passed an incorrect message from Israel to Syria. Pelosi said yesterday that she gave Syrian officials the message that Israel is “ready to engage in peace talks.” The Post falsely claims, “The Israeli prime minister entrusted Ms. Pelosi with no such message,” misinterpreting a statement from the Israeli Prime Minister’s office that simply reiterated its position that talks with Syria will not take place until Syria has taken steps to end its support for extremist elements. There is no evidence that Pelosi failed to communicate this message. In fact, Pelosi’s delegation specifically pressed the Syrian president “over Syria’s support for militant groups and insist[ed] that his government block militants seeking to cross into Iraq and join insurgents there.”
2) Pelosi is attempting to “establish a shadow presidency.” This claim is directly contradicted by the Post’s own reporting this morning, which states, “Foreign policy experts generally agree that Pelosi’s dealings with Middle East leaders have not strayed far, if at all, from those typical for a congressional trip.” Pelosi herself has “described the trip as little different than the visit paid to Syria the same week led by Rep. Frank R. Wolf (R-VA),” and she went to great lengths to express her unity of purpose with President Bush on terrorism issues. The Post’s own reporting today also cites several instances of members of Congress meeting with foreign leaders during the past 30 years. As ThinkProgress noted yesterday, in contrast with Pelosi’s trip, previous congressional actions abroad attempted to directly undermine President Clinton.
***
You, Mike, are legitametly allowed to be critical of the trip. The White House and the Republican political leadership cannot. They have practiced for years what they are criticizing today. That's the real poitn I am trying to make.
I must admit that I do not trust the main news outlet for most of the papers in the country (that would AP from NY, and the NYTimes). I feel a need to sift through the news and read between the lines.
Consequently, when the Washington Post, normally slanted towards people like Pelosi (unlike the Washington Times which slants right), it did cause me to pause --why are they shooting their own?
Probably an agenda, within an agenda, within an agenda.
Post a Comment