"Rice Meets with Syrian Official"

YEAH!

So!

It my understanding that Syrians don't like childless and barren carpet munchers!

I guess the bush league needs a grandma, that they publicly lambasted, to show them the way.

""""I believe her intention in going there was just to embarrass the administration. That's why I was critical of her,'' Boehner said."""

Boner indeed. The gop is lucky when their fuck-ups are only embarassing to the united states and need no help in doing that, many of their idiotic failures are of a criminal nature.

Its pretty simple: It is Rice's job to advance the foreign policy of the United States as head of the State Department. That responsibility is hers alone and certainly not Nancy's or any other MOC.

could be because Polosi's visit to Syria was immensely popular with the the syrian public ,as they saw her a somebody willing to talk rather than just spouting off the same old convert or die mantra this administration has bee using

I think it is embarrassing that this administration needs congress to do their international PR work for them

congress to do their international PR work

If that's all it was, then it was really poorly handled.

Rice's job to advance the foreign policy of the United States as head of the State Department...

Posted by Rightocenter at 2007-05-04 02:19 PM


That would be great ... if they had an actual Foreign Policy to advance.

Other than Armageddon that is...

If that's all it was, then it was really poorly handled.

Posted by Rightocenter

"poorly handled" is the epitath of the Bush administration as there has not been ONE thing, domestic or foreign policy in the last six years where the administration has come out looking good.

""""I believe her intention in going there was just to embarrass the administration. That's why I was critical of her,'' Boehner said."""

Boner indeed. The gop is lucky when their fuck-ups are only embarassing to the united states and need no help in doing that, many of their idiotic failures are of a criminal nature.

Posted by panchovilla

did you have anything to say about the quote that YOU posted? you post a quote that accurately describes pelosi's trip to syria... then you go on a rant that isn't related to the quote?

please explain.

donnerboy, how long did it take you to come up with that zinger?

geezer, how is our economy looking again? oh yea thanks.

panch, do you think its a good idea to have various individuals in our gov deciding on a personal level, and acting on, what they think is the best path of foreign policy at the given time?

Rightocenter

Palosi was open about what she told the syrians, she was open to the president about goning to syria before she left...nothing really shocking

the only reason the right got their panties in a bunch is because we are supposed to be "enemies with syria" just like we are supposed to be "enemies with Iran" and "enemies with SA"....so they want to frame it like she was signing a treaty with a waring country

Bush foreign policy:

"When all else fails, then and only then, try diplomacy."

donnerboy, how long did it take you to come up with that zinger?

about 3 seconds

the Bush Administration Goals have become quite transparent to me.

well then i guess you got their number... their only foreign policy goal must be armageddon. good read.

Typical, It really does not matter what Bush et.al do. It is discounted by the haters. I am sure that most believe it is a good thing to have dialoge with Iran and Syria. Sure, we wish it were sooner, but better late than never. Why not just say, "wow, I am glad we are getting to this. I hope she is wildly successful because if she is, maybe we can get out of this war sooner." God Speed Secretary Rice

doem,

we definately aren't best buds with syria are we?

the right got their panties in a bunch because pelosi decided on her own to act on what she thought was the best course for US foreign policy.

again i ask... do you think its a good idea for any gov official to act on what they as an individual think is the foreign policy of the US towars another state? especially a state we are not friendly with?

sawdust, are you suggesting that libs not look for a chance to bash bush no matter what the article/occurance?

good luck

Posted by panchovilla

did you have anything to say about the quote that YOU posted? you post a quote that accurately describes pelosi's trip to syria... then you go on a rant that isn't related to the quote?

please explain.

Posted by Yodar013 at 2007-05-04 02:46 PM | Reply

Deconstruction:

Original quote:

""""I believe her intention in going there was just to embarrass the administration. That's why I was critical of her,'' Boehner said."""

""Boner indeed."" - In case you missed it, it's a (fucking) obvious and somewhat lame jab indicating I disagree with the bonehead comment (read: the quote). What you call accurate is what I call stupid and equate to backpeddling in light of a successful foreign visit on the part of the opposition.


"""The gop is lucky when their fuck-ups are only embarassing to the united states and need no help in doing that, many of their idiotic failures are of a criminal nature."""

this means: a righty accusing others of trying to embarass the bush league (if you follow real close, you'll see i'm referencing the quote again) should look upon the gop's actions and track record at embarassing themselves. It is also reinforcement of my previous comment that Pelosi maybe showed up the admin., the only reason they could be embarrassed is because of the large vacuum that they call their foreign policy.


"""panch, do you think its a good idea to have various individuals in our gov deciding on a personal level, and acting on, what they think is the best path of foreign policy at the given time?"""


Any individual, no. Unless you are specifically at war with a country, an official representative of the opposition meeting with selected gov't officials of a foreign state is appropriate, unless it's to undermine existing policies.

Right O Center,

There is a difference between not being best buds and being enemies. What does not friendly mean? Are we not friendly with Russia as well? What about China? oh boy the list could go on and on if we use this type of language.

You can look up Palosi's own quotes on this matter. There is no evidence that she delivered any kind of message that was contrary to this administration's. Criticism of the republican visit to Syria was 1/10 of what it was for Palosi. Why is that?

Pancho,


Pelosi in syria: bad.
Rice in syria: good.


That is correct. The Executive Branch is solely responsible for foreign policy. Much of that policy is conducted through the Secretary of State.


Pelosi made an ass of herself. Condi didn't (at least in this particular instance).


Does this make sense?

Any individual, no. Unless you are specifically at war with a country, an official representative of the opposition meeting with selected gov't officials of a foreign state is appropriate, unless it's to undermine existing policies.


Posted by panchovilla

you didn't need to be so pompus, but its okay, thanks for the explanation and not avoiding my question. you are advocating that pelosi was right on in her decision to meet with syrian officials... yet you say "...opposition meeting with selected gov't officials of a foreign state is appropriate, unless it's to undermine existing policies."

was she undermining the existing policies of the state department at the time?

That is correct. The Executive Branch is solely responsible for foreign policy. Much of that policy is conducted through the Secretary of State.


Pelosi made an ass of herself. Condi didn't (at least in this particular instance).


Does this make sense?

Posted by JeffJ at 2007-05-04 03:28 PM | Reply

Jeff, I see a nuance between defining foreign policy and a foreign visit.

I would venture that Pelosi made an ass of the administration: through a very simple and easy gesture, she opened the doors to discussion with that state.

For the past 6 years, the admin. has showed us only one approach to foreigh policy, buy the ones you can, threaten those you can't. A child could have predicted the outcome of that strategy. Now, countless billions later, hundreds of thousands of lives later, they realize that "talking" might solve issues and are pissed at the fact that they're obvious shortcomings where displayed for all to see by Pelosi.

Pelosi in syria: bad.
Rice in syria: good.

Anyone underlining the fact that the right blasted pelosi in no uncertain terms www.foxnews.com
: a bush hater.

Pathetic.

Posted by panchovilla

-do note i could be as pompus sounding as you in my responses but i don't. fyi.

pelosi in syria: not her job
rice in syria: her job

also,

condi just looks like a "me too please!" in this stupid charade, a month after the actual bridge was laid.

You can look up Palosi's own quotes on this matter. There is no evidence that she delivered any kind of message that was contrary to this administration's. Criticism of the republican visit to Syria was 1/10 of what it was for Palosi. Why is that?

Posted by Doem

her simply meeting with them at the time was delivering a message contrary to this admin's... message at the time.

why is there ten times the criticism? because its not her place to be doing that.

personal note: i think we should have been talking with syria a long time ago. maybe pelosi is part of the reason we are now, and good for that. but it still wasn't her place to do so.

Pelosi made an ass of herself. Condi didn't (at least in this particular instance).


Does this make sense?

Posted by JeffJ at 2007-05-04 03:28 PM

Oh no Pelosi did NOT make an ass out of Herself. She made an ass out of DUbya pure and simple. Oh and I do not believe SHe was advancing foreign Policy but nice try yet again JeffJ for You are wrong again. Oh and Without Pelosi the British SOldiers might not have been freed ever think of THAT JeffJ Doubtful

Larry

Pancho,

I would venture that Pelosi made an ass of the administration: through a very simple and easy gesture, she opened the doors to discussion with that state.


I disagree. She doesn't represent the state. She has no power in this particular arena.

Allow me to illustrate with an example:


It would be like the Teamster's union attempting to negotiate a labor contract with Ford on behalf of the UAW.


In my analogy, Pelosi is the Teamster's union.

She made an ass of herself IMO.

"""was she undermining the existing policies of the state department at the time?"""

Policies? No. Read the article.
Highlighting the fact that there is NO actual foreign relations strategy: yes.

You say it's not her job. I would state that she was doing the job that the admin. seems incapable of doing: foreign relations that don't involve the threat of laser-guided bombs.

panch, for the most part i agree with you thats whats funny. i think this admin had the wrong policy for syria as well as iran. talking doesn't have to involve negociations, it can be just listening.

at the same time i see a potentialy bigger problem with other gov officials deciding our foreign policy.

I still think Pelosi is hot... Why am I the only one who thinks that?

Jeff, thanks for the kind words. I only post infrequently because I usually have nothing important to add amidst the noise and angst of most of the other posters here.

Dr. Rice is a very intelligent and capable woman, but I do agree with your assessment that she is probably not the right choice given the fact that most of her policy efforts, because of the disaster in Iraq, have to be focused on the ME. In a quieter time, she probably would be much more effective since she could focus on countries and cultures that embrace, rather than shun, powerful women.

larry,

extra pinky still botherin ya?

so meeting with syria isn't advancing a foreign policy agenda? hows that?

Panchovilla they don't get it. They will never get it. They drank the Bush Lemming Juice therefore they are deluded and "poisoned" Sorry to say but it's the truth.

Larry

You say it's not her job. I would state that she was doing the job that the admin. seems incapable of doing: foreign relations that don't involve the threat of laser-guided bombs.

Posted by panchovilla

but was it her job?

y or n?

so meeting with syria isn't advancing a foreign policy agenda? hows that?

Posted by Yodar013 at 2007-05-04 03:48 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

You and I could meet over coffee doesn't mean we are going to go to Your place and have sex now does it??

Larry

I don't remember the particulars here (and I am too lazy to look them up). But, didn't Pelosi screw up some message from Isreal to Syria? Again, I am for anything that will make this war shorter (and not make the situation any worse than it already is), but Pelosi seemed to be out of her league here. My advice to her would be to, leave the diplomacy to the professionals.

I disagree. She doesn't represent the state. She has no power in this particular arena.

Allow me to illustrate with an example:


It would be like the Teamster's union attempting to negotiate a labor contract with Ford on behalf of the UAW.


In my analogy, Pelosi is the Teamster's union.

She made an ass of herself IMO.

Posted by JeffJ at 2007-05-04 03:41 PM

She does represent someone, does she not? She's not just a random housewife that woke up one fine morning and decided to go for a visit to syria, is she?

She's essentially the official voice of the opposition, for now, and is fulfilling her role as a member of the u.s. gov't, not some other foreign state, which is why your teamster analogy does not stick.

As to the impact of her visit, I still think it amplified the admin's shortcomings for all to see.

thats right lar, just cast off anybody who doesn't agree with you. whats the use in open discussion right? we have all been 'poisoned'... great mentality.

Rice lost her credibility as one of the chief spinners in the leadup to war.

However, I do think TALKS with anyone are a positive step. Bullets don't seem to be working out too well....

One other point. Much as I believe that the Bush Administration's policy of not officially talking to Iran and Syria is, to put it mildly, short-sighted, I do believe that Ms. Pelosi overstepped her authority in having a very public meeting with Assad.

There is also a logical inconsistency in saying that "Pelosi was not advancing foreign policy" but also then saying "Pelosi opened the doors" for discussions with Syria.

You and I could meet over coffee doesn't mean we are going to go to Your place and have sex now does it??

Larry

Posted by LarryMohr

wow lar, i know you want to fuck me and all but come on man.

so talking to a country that you have not been talking to isn't a change in foriegn policy towards that country?

It has nothing to do with Bush lemming juice, Larry.

It has everything to do with the seperation clause of the Constitution - which is a document that I happen to know you are quite familiar with.

She's essentially the official voice of the opposition, for now, and is fulfilling her role as a member of the u.s. gov't, not some other foreign state, which is why your teamster analogy does not stick.

As to the impact of her visit, I still think it amplified the admin's shortcomings for all to see.
Posted by panchovilla

so do you think its a good idea to have the current party and the opposition party carry out the forign policy of the US on their own?

but was it her job?

Posted by Yodar013 at 2007-05-04 03:50 PM | Reply

Yes. In light of the obvious failure of the admin. to advance anything worthwhile on the foreign relations stage, as an elected servant of the state and official voice of the opposition, it is her duty to see to the best interests of your country.

Unless I'm unaware of some job description that prohibits this, Yes, it's damn well her job.

JeffJ, this generation of Republican leaders, and their
propaganda arm over at Fox, are so stupidly naked, so blunderingly moronic in their hypocrisy -- laughter and
sympathy for such a pathetic lot is the only fair response.
Pelosi embarrassed an administration that has been
embarrassing America for 6 plus years now. She did
a patriots job, making up for the traitors job the repubs have been doing...

I can't believe you guys weren't pissed when Jimmy Carter flew off to N. Korea and brokered a deal with Kim in the '90's. To the best of my knowledge he did so without consulting President Clinton. Furthermore, he was never appointed and approved via advise and consent by Congress for any type of foreign-relations position within the Clinton Administration.

Clinton wanted to take an isolationist stance against N. Korea, but then caved when Carter brokered that deal. I don't think Jimmy Carter is Bill Clinton's favorite person.

It has everything to do with the seperation clause of the Constitution - which is a document that I happen to know you are quite familiar with.

Posted by JeffJ at 2007-05-04 03:55 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Newt Gingrich did the same thing You want to condemn Her just for MEETING with a Country??ow is MEETING with a Foreign COuntry the same thing as Advancing a Foreign Policy. Big Huge Difference.

Pelosi: This is the Foreign Policy of the United States. You would have a point

Pelosi Hey Assad whats going on You would not have a point.

Larry

but was it her job?

Posted by Yodar013 at 2007-05-04 03:50 PM | Reply

Yes. In light of the obvious failure of the admin. to advance anything worthwhile on the foreign relations stage, as an elected servant of the state and official voice of the opposition, it is her duty to see to the best interests of your country.


Unless I'm unaware of some job description that prohibits this, Yes, it's damn well her job.

Posted by panchovilla

first of all, there is something that prohibits this, the constitution.

you see i thought she was supposed to wait until the admin is voted out before she asserts her agenda. my mistake. i guess if you aren't happy with the admin's agenda you should just assert your own. that should work well.

Yes, it's damn well her job.


To subvert the Constitution as well as the will of the people?

Like it or not, Bush was elected President through a little process known as voting. Foreign policy is conducted by the Executive branch, regardless of how incompetent the Executive branh seems to be.


Don't you guys know Civics101?

Democrats RESIGN for supporting Robert Byrd ,he is a Racist.Any Answer or just dem lies?

There is also a logical inconsistency in saying that "Pelosi was not advancing foreign policy" but also then saying "Pelosi opened the doors" for discussions with Syria.

Posted by leftcoastlawyer

Thank you!


I really didn't think this was a difficult point to grasp.

the only reason the right got their panties in a bunch is because we are supposed to be "enemies with syria" just like we are supposed to be "enemies with Iran" and "enemies with SA"....so they want to frame it like she was signing a treaty with a waring country

Posted by Doem at 2007-05-04 02:49 PM

I agree, but it wasn't just the righties that were pissed, my understanding is that a large portion of the career diplomats in Foggy Bottom were livid that she did that, regardless of political affiliation.

How is just talking to a foreign COuntry advancing Our Foreign Policy. As long as She does not State that this is what Our Foreign Policy is or Declaring that XYZ is Our Foreign Policy.

Larry

"why is there ten times the criticism? because its not her place to be doing that."

No i didnt mean Rice, reublican congressmen went to Syria to mee ti with officials about the same time Palosi did,
yet palosi got almost all of the criticisim. Why is that?

Rice is Dubya's House Ni**er!!!!

How is just talking to a foreign COuntry advancing Our Foreign Policy. As long as She does not State that this is what Our Foreign Policy is or Declaring that XYZ is Our Foreign Policy.


See Leftcoast lawyer's comments.


No i didnt mean Rice, reublican congressmen went to Syria to mee ti with officials about the same time Palosi did,
yet palosi got almost all of the criticisim. Why is that?

Because she's in a higher profile position, and is a member of the opposition party, so it carries the appearance of subverting presidential foreign policy. Other than that, your point is spot-on.

""""There is also a logical inconsistency in saying that "Pelosi was not advancing foreign policy" but also then saying "Pelosi opened the doors" for discussions with Syria."""

I don't recall stating she was advancing foreign policy, if I did, I would just offer the following precision: her actions made things advance, as in move forward. The point that is most relevant: she was not defining foreign policy, which is NOT her job, she participated in the arena of foreign policy and consequently facilitated or forced a reaction from the gop.

Had any of this been illegal or to the detriment of u.s. security or interests, please tell me:

1) why was pelosi not arrested?

2) why is condi "me too" rice doing the exact same thing 1 month later?

And Jeff, please tell me how she is subverting the constitution?

"""so it carries the appearance of subverting presidential foreign policy."""

Interesting choice of words, Jeff.

y do we keep going in circles?

you think its okay for a gov official to subvert the constitution and advance their idea of the US foreign policy... because you agree with her idea over the admin.

we think the constitution should be upheld and that foreign policy should be dictated by the elected admin.

simple

Just talking to a Country is NOT advancing a foreign Policy nice try yet again JeffJ Oh and this statement really takes the cake.

Because she's in a higher profile position, and is a member of the opposition party, so it carries the appearance of subverting presidential foreign policy. Other than that, your point is spot-on.


Posted by JeffJ at 2007-05-04 04:16 PM | Reply


If it is wrong as You say for Pelosi to go and just talk to Syria then it is equally wrong for the Repoublicans for doing the same thing. Nice try yet again.

Larry

"""so it carries the appearance of subverting presidential foreign policy."""

Interesting choice of words, Jeff.

Posted by panchovilla at 2007-05-04 04:25 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

I call it BULLSHIT POPPYCOCK that is what I call it.

Larry

Cya I have a stopped up sewer that needs unstopped.

Larry

but Pelosi seemed to be out of her league here. My advice to her would be to, leave the diplomacy to the professionals.

Posted by sawdust


Maybe I'm missing something. Just WHO is in the league here??? We've been having our assess handed to us for the last four year not only in Iraq but in afghanistan, we don't seem to know what the fuck we're doing in Iran and North Korea and Russia and China are laughing all the way to the bank as they loan us multi-billions for the collective wars. Who are these professionals you are talking about? Every step we've taken since 911 has been wrong, even domestically we have screwed up royally everywhere to the point that confidence in government is even more laughable than it was before. And you're nitpicking about Pelosi going to Syria. We should bitch at the fact that Rice is going to all these conferences where other countries are present and coming back with squat.

"""simple"""

Yodar, you're twisting things around. Earlier you accused me of being (sic) "pompus", with your last post, I would accuse you of being either disingenuous, simple-minded or a cheap provocateur.

Which is it?

It's about appearances, folks.
Speaker of the House and opposition party leader visiting Syria, a country which our President has a policy of not engaging makes a high-profile visit???


If Bill Clinton had a similar policy toward, say Libya and Newt Gingrich then went on a high-profile visit with Qudafi, you'd be all sorts of pissed (and you should be!). For clarification, see my Jimmy Carter reference.


And Jeff, please tell me how she is subverting the constitution?


Read the seperation of powers clause.


If it is wrong as You say for Pelosi to go and just talk to Syria then it is equally wrong for the Repoublicans for doing the same thing.

I agree, and I said that.

My post was in response to the question as to why Pelosi's visit was so much bigger of a deal than those Republican senators. I was answering that question.

This is actually quite simple.


1. The President has sole power of foreign relations.

2. The President's policy in regards to Syria is one of no diplomatic dealings - no talking to Syria.

3. The Speaker and opposition party leader makes a high profile visit to Syria in spite of the President's established policy in regards to that country.



Seriously, why is this so hard to grasp?

D'OH!

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.

"""Read the seperation of powers clause.""

I did. It didn't.

Sanantonio,


This is the first I've seen of that.

Hastert clearly violated the seperation of powers clause, even moreso than Nancy did.

Pancho,

That was an interesting read and I feel it solidifies my point.

Team Bush has a strategy in regards to Syria. Pelosi's visit appears to be an attempt to undermine the Bush administration. Again, see my comments on appearances.

Jeff - according to the Republicans who accompanied Pelosi to Syria, she firmly pressed Asad on each and every one of Bush's demands re: funding of terrorism, interfering in Lebanon, etc.

They said she told him that there was no party division in what was expected of Syria, that Democrats and Republicans were united.

I believe the Administration completely went to extraordinary lengths to make it look like she was trying to change, or soft pedal policy, or create her own version. She didn't.

Admittedly she handled some of the stuff (like the Israeli thing) clumsily.

Seriously, why is this so hard to grasp?

Because "meeting" or "talking" to leaders of foreign countries IS NOT a violation of the Separation of Powers enumerated in the Constitution. Pelosi offered nor received any diplomatic negotiations during her conversations. She followed the recommendations of the Presidentially-appointed Iraq Study Group to engage certain nations in conversations that didn't necessarily imply that they are evil and unworthy of sitting down with, of which Bush said were good ideas on how to move forward before he decided that his way forward was still better than anyone else's.

Ultimately the President doesn't have "sole powers" to do anything internationally except to protect this nation and its assets from immediate harm. Congress still has to approve any treaties, tariffs, or trade policies before they can be legally enacted. Our government was ALWAYS meant to involve more than one branch's ideas that impact the whole body politic, which is defined by the notion of "checks and balances."

I am sorry for you righties...

You are in such denial.

Bush is one step (stumble) away from IMPEACHMENT.

70% of the People have lost confidence in him.

Even his own party is beginning to wake up and smell the stench.

When Congress feels that the Presidential Abuse of Power and gross Misconduct and arrogant disregard for the Will fo the People and the rule of LAW is threathening our national Security it is their duty to take matters into their own hands.

You are offended because a mere woman (and a Democrat to boot) has shown your Dear Leader to be the fool that he is.

Tony,

Because "meeting" or "talking" to leaders of foreign countries IS NOT a violation of the Separation of Powers enumerated in the Constitution. Pelosi offered nor received any diplomatic negotiations during her conversations.


Agreed - it's a matter of appearances, more than anything.


She followed the recommendations of the Presidentially-appointed Iraq Study Group

It's not her position to do so. It is the Executive branch's decision to act (or not act) on a study group's recommendations.


Ultimately the President doesn't have "sole powers" to do anything internationally except to protect this nation and its assets from immediate harm. Congress still has to approve any treaties, tariffs, or trade policies before they can be legally enacted. Our government was ALWAYS meant to involve more than one branch's ideas that impact the whole body politic, which is defined by the notion of "checks and balances."


The president has the sole power to conduct foreign relations. He chooses his Sec of State (his primary cabinet position for foreign relations) at the advise and consent of the senate. Regarding treaties and such....The Executive branch negotiates them, Congress approves them. If his policy is one of 'no-talk' then to ignore that EVEN if she doesn't deviate from his other positions has the appearance of violating the seperation.

President: My policy is no dialogue with Syria.

Pelosi: Fuck his policy, I am going to meet with them anyway.

This is particularly true in light of the fact that the President specifically asked Nancy and her entourage NOT to visit.

believe the Administration completely went to extraordinary lengths to make it look like she was trying to change, or soft pedal policy, or create her own version. She didn't.


She did from the standpoint that the admistration's policy was one of no diplomacy until certain conditions are met. Even if she was toeing his line in regards to those positions, she doesn't speak for the President.

Later all.

President: My policy is no dialogue with Syria.

The President has no authority to stop any American citizen from talking to anyone without a law passed through Congress. Have you forgotten about the 1st Amendment, sir? It doesn't stop at this nation's borders. The President is an elected representative of this nation, as is Pelosi, and nothing more. He cannot decree what citizens can or cannot do without Congress' approval. Your point is invalid on its face.

Talking is not usurping the President's perogative to set foreign policy because nothing Pelosi says carries any weight in regards to US law. Her stature as the 3rd highest ranking US official DOES carry weight, and since numbers one and two have made it their policy not to talk to certain people, that fault/responsibility lies with them doesn't it?

Rogue-

C'mon, you can do better then an unattributed cut-n-paste from that bastion of "neutrality," thinkprogress.org.

What that opinion piece is talking about is Congress' attempts to enforce the "Leahy Law", which was Congress' attempt to apply

a human rights standard to U.S. counterdrug aid, prohibiting the use of such assistance by units whose members are credibly alleged to have committed gross human rights violations unless the recipient government demonstrates that it is "taking effective measures to bring the responsible members of the security forces to justice."

RoC - I didn't get get that from ThinkProgress. It does appear there, but also in a number of other sources, including from The Council on Foreign Relations.

Regardless, the point is, you and your right leaning buds were so quick to condemn Pelosi when she did not even contradict Bush's position with Asad. Are you trying to whitewash what Hastert did which directly contradicted Clinton? Or Maybe what Gingrich did:


"Another much-discussed example was former House Speaker Newt Gingrich's trip to China in 1997. During his visit, he privately told Chinese officials that the United States would come to Taiwan's defense if it came under attack from the mainland. The White House at the time distanced itself from the speaker's remarks, said Gingrich was "speaking for himself," and reiterated its support for the Taiwan Relations Act, which upholds the "one-China policy." Gingrich later acknowledged his comments were a mistake, Mann says."

I don't like Bush and I don't like Rice but talking to Syria is a damn good idea whoever does the talking

"I don't like Bush and I don't like Rice but talking to Syria is a damn good idea whoever does the talking."

Agreed.

"Talk Talk is always better than War War."

Be Well.

Glad she is not longer dressing like a Ho and talking the Democratic initiative