On Hardball, Maryland’s own Rep. Elijah Cummings gave what I thought has been the best answer to this useless notion put out there by the RNC and flogged by the press that it’s somehow a bad thing for Speaker Pelosi to engage in some of the diplomacy the Bush administration has sucked so badly at.
RELATED: FLASHBACK: Hastert Traveled Abroad, Told Foreign Leaders Not To Listen To Clinton
I wonder, what if the parties were switched, and Pelosi were a Republican, and she went overseas making promises to anti-American leaders in exchange for their help in undermining a Democrat White House?
You think the Democrats would be branding her trip the “New October Surprise” and demanding hearings and investigations?
Would the Republicans be justified in doing the same thing right now?
(PS - I hope someone is keeping tabs to see if a lot of cash from the Middle East suddenly turns up in DNC coffers, a la the DNC/ChiCom fundraising scandal ten years ago.)
Ahh Mike
There are several Republicans in Syria also talking with Syrian leaders and these Repubs may possibly be there with the blessing of the WH….
So I guess GWB is undermining his own WH by sending three Republicans to the region…..
GWB has been an abject failure as far as showing real leadership oin the region…talk is cheap
You and your Rethug buddies should get on your knees and thank Nancy Pelosi for having the BALLS to go over there and open a dialougue with Iraq’s neighbors in hopes of getting our troops home and securing peace
Why are Rethugs so blinded by aimlessly defending GWB that a simple gesture of diplomacy (even wearing a head scarf for gods sake) can be turned into some sort of traitorous act.
And the DNC/middle east campaign cash comment is childish if there is any party that has actually accpeted contributions from an actual terrorist it would be your party …remember this guy
Abdul Tawala Ibn Ali Alishtari
If you are worried about payoff money being funneled to political campaign chests, Mike, you should probably start with the tens of billion of dollars missing in Iraq and the tens of billions of dollars in contracts handed out, most to politically connected (big donor) companies.
Hi, Mike. The Republicans HAVE done that. Here’s Think Progress:
“Speaker Pelosi has done nothing to suggest that she intended to speak on behalf of President Bush or the U.S. Government. But her predecessors haven’t been so respectful.
“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.”
The Republicans keep whining about Executive Authority, but no group EVER did more to undermine Executive Authority than the Republicans when Clinton was President. EVER.
Frankly, I am damned sick of the Republicans CONSTANT hypocrisy about EVERYTHING. It’s SO constant that you right-wingers don’t even notice that your doing it anymore. It’s become part of the air you breathe.
IOKIYAAR
http://www.vietnamembassy-usa.org/news/story.php?d=20060414184332
http://www.ibiblio.org/obl/reg.burma/archives/199901/msg00084.html
Just because a politician visits a country, that doesn’t make them a diplomat. In the real world, diplomacy works like this:
From fd10801′ link:
“The Bush administration’s policy is to shun contact with Syria…”
Unless, of course, they’re sending people there to be tortured, then it’s OK.
ND We had this discussion elsewhere. Give it a rest.
You missed a bit: “We had this discussion elsewhere and I was losing. Give it a rest”.
On an unrelated note, a 500 gig hard drive? You can get those? Which organ do you have to sell to buy that?
On an unrelated note, a 500 gig hard drive? You can get those? Which organ do you have to sell to buy that?
Not sure if you’re serious or not, but you can get a 500gb hard drive for less than $200.
Hey, we are two steps behind you over here.
N G : You can’t lose a discussion, you twit!
Here’s your 500 GB hard drive
Iggy, so what you’re saying is that it’s ok for Nancy Pelosi to do it now, but it wasn’t ok for Hastert to do it then.
And you’re calling other people hypocrites?
Heal thyself.
In Jay’s alternate reality this:
“…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.
Jay - Has Pelosi told Syria to avoid speaking with Bush directly?
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.
So Hastert, as one of 435 members of the House of Representatives meeting with Colombian military officials is the equivalent of the Speaker of the House meeting with the president of Syria?
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.
…then that is obviously a good thing.
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.
Seeing how the WH has a woman as Secretary of State who is also (gasp) black, the fact that Pelosi is a woman is meaningless. The fact that she is either cutting deals with a foreign leader, or benig used as a pawn by one, is a different story. She isn’t some rank and file congresswoman.
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.
Well, we do know that Howard Dean is telling other countries that, though whether Syria is on that list is unknown.
Hope you all read the Washington Post’s smackdown of Grandmother Superior today:
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.
I guess I missed the part where Dean is telling other countries not to talk to Bush in that article, SaveFarris. He says that Bush has done alot of damage to US international relationships, and says he is trying to repair some of that damage.
Pelosi bitch slapped by the WaPo -
“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.
Spider, I didn’t bring up the comparison to Hastert. Iggy did.
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.
William, just in response to this silliness…
Not to mention her trapsing around Syria in the oppressors hijab.
Sorry, You Are Not a Winner. Please Try Again.
1) Hastert was not Speaker of the House.
No but he represented the majority party and entered direct negotiations as such.
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?
Midderpidge, for somebody that seems to know exactly what’s what, you sure have a lot of questions.
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
Are we at war with Syria now? Nobody tells me anything!
Oceania has always been at war with Syria.
Q: What policy initiatives has Nancy Pelosi formed with regard to Syria?
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.
“Not to mention her trapsing around Syria in the oppressors hijab.”
Concern troll.
Greetings!..
Very good forum! Good info!
loans http://payday-loansff.blogspot.com
This simply prodigy!
cialis http://cialis–aa.blogspot.com
This simply prodigy!
tramadol http://tramadol-22sp.blogspot.com
The Author, you simply - super hero!