Concern troll.

A: Nancy Pelosi admits Syria exists, unlike the Bush administration who ignores the entire country in the hope it will disappear.

Q: What official government views of our country did Pelosi represent?

A: She went counter to the Bush view that Syria shouldn’t exist.

Q: What official US diplomatic initiatives did she attempt?

A: She admitted Syria existed.

Q: What official view of Israel did she misrepresent?

A: She represented that Israel doesn’t want war, and that Syria should stop aiding terrorists.

Q: What did the Republican delegation discuss in their meeting?

A: that Syria exists, contrary to the Bush head in the sand strategy.

Are we at war with Syria now? Nobody tells me anything!

Educate yourself on the issue. Don’t expect everybody else to do your homework for you.

2) The US was not at war with factions in South America at that time.
Except for that pesky War on Drugs. Hastert was of course negotiating with Military Leaders.
3) The White House was not up for grabs at the time of Hastert’s visit
And this point means…

What policy initiatives has Nancy Pelosi formed with regard to Syria?

What official government views of our country did Pelosi represent?

What official US diplomatic initiatives did she attempt?

What official view of Israel did she misrepresent?

What did the Republican delegation discuss in their meeting?

Not to mention her trapsing around Syria in the oppressors hijab.

Sorry, You Are Not a Winner. Please Try Again.

The bottom line is, Nancy Pelosi engaged in conduct unbecoming her country and her office. She didn’t just have a “public meeting” with a head of state. Not only did she misrepresent our country’s views on Syria (like or not, the executive branch takes precedence in matters of foreign affairs), she attempted to introduce diplomatic initiatives, something she has no business doing. In addition, she also misrepresented the views of Israel. Assad, apparently realizing what a sucker he was dealing with, spoon fed her exactly what she wanted to hear. The entire episode was a disgrace.

Duros, the Republicans that visited Syria did not in any way shape or form do anything close to what Pelosi did. Delegations of House and Senate members visiting other nations is common.

“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.”

Not to mention her trapsing around Syria in the oppressors hijab. What a fool.

“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.”

Perhaps it is time for us to again trot out that worn liberal cliche, “Shredding the Constitution.”

With regard to the Hastert story, three things stand out to me:

1) Hastert was not Speaker of the House
2) The US was not at war with factions in South America at that time
3) The White House was not up for grabs at the time of Hastert’s visit

If you want to revisit history, then you should also consider the continual overtures that congressional Democrats made to Daniel Ortega during the 1980’s, which included an official visit to Nicaragua by John Kerry and Tom Harkin.

Then there is the disturbing evidence found in KGB files that Ted Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, and Tip O’Neil all volunteered to help Soviet propaganda efforts in order to undermine the Reagan administration’s policies in Europe.

Pot, meet kettle. “Speck” and “beam” works well, too.

Jay - Has Pelosi told Syria to avoid speaking with Bush directly?

Well, we do know that Howard Dean is telling other countries that, though whether Syria is on that list is unknown.

And yes, it is ultimately a good thing, regardless of the political motivations behind it. I have always beleived that Syria was the key to peace in the Middle East. We shall see if they are finally serious.

And we certainly can’t have that, now can we?
What would be worse for the WH, that a democrat bridged the gap where they could not, or that a (gasp)woman did it?

BTW, a republan delegation met with Syria’s president last week. Not a peep from W. about that.

Bottom line is that if this stunt somehow gets Syria to come to the table in good faith with respect to Israel and the Middle East in general then that is obviously a good thing.

Until that’s occurred, comparing her actions to Hastert’s is disingenuous.

And Mike, deciding to raise a fuss over the possibility of money from the Middle East in DNC coffers is funny, when you look at the current occupant’s cozy relationship with the House of Saud.

“…Hastert said he would{remove conditions} 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.”

is roughly equivalent to having a public meeting with a head of state.

And you’re calling other people hypocrites?

Heal thyself.

Here’s your 500 GB hard drive