It has just be disgusting to watch Pelosi on her grand tour...the worst part about it is that she doesn't understand what she's doing. Locked in her ultra-liberal cocoon, she thinks she's doing wonderful things for the world.

When, oh when, will liberals understand that you don't make peace by shaking hands with barbarians?

It's not just Pelosi and Democrats.

"Three Republican congressmen who parted with President Bush by meeting with Syrian leaders said Wednesday it is important to maintain a dialogue with a country the White House says sponsors terrorism."
"I don't care what the administration says on this. You've got to do what you think is in the best interest of your country," said Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va. "I want us to be successful in Iraq. I want us to clamp down on Hezbollah."

And people here call Pres Bush arrogant, but say nothing about Pelosi.

carsick - what you are confronting (and will find daily here at B4B) is a category of blatant hypocrisy so profound you would only expect it be reserved only for the most blind of partisans...

oh wait....

what really scares 'em deep down is this:

Pelosi's trip is an embarrassment for the president because it shows an American actually involving herself in realities on the world stage rather than stuck in denial and fantasy. That may sound a bit starry-eyed. But think about it and I'll think you'll see that that's a lot of what this is about.

in light of this BIPARTISAN trip (that the bush administration actually helped coordinate for the GOP band), what has them piddling in their britches is that they look like a small, neutered administration that sits on the sideline, yelping like a bunch of brats, while the adults take charge and start the lengthy process of cleaning up after the kids.

Pelosi is bringing some sanity back into the arena of American foreign relations. The world can now see that the era of Bush's failed doctrine is nearing the end and as is evident with the those Republicans abandoning the ship, support for the 'shoot first, talk later' nonsense is quickly eroding.

Meanwhile, Alberto is in practice mode. From the Washington Post:

"Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales has retreated from public view this week in an intensive effort to save his job, spending hours practicing testimony and phoning lawmakers for support in preparation for pivotal appearances in the Senate this month, according to administration officials.

--snip--

Ed Gillespie, a former Republican National Committee chairman, and Timothy E. Flanigan, who worked for Gonzales at the White House, have met with the attorney general to plot strategy. The department has scheduled three days of rigorous mock testimony sessions next week and Gonzales has placed phone calls to more than a dozen GOP lawmakers seeking support, officials said."

Amazing. The guy needs three full days to practice how to TELL THE TRUTH. I can't believe he can't just walk in, take an oath and say what happened. No. He needs 72 hours of grilling to learn how to spin, spin, spin his lies.

The Attorney General for the United States of America, ladies and gents. Stand back in awe.

Mark -

"Locked in her ultra-liberal cocoon..." ? LOL! This coming from someone who is a die-hard supporter of the most insulated, out-of-touch, and bubble-enshrouded president of all time.

Look, nobody is under any illusions here about the true nature of Syria or President Assad. But in the grown-up world of international politics (obviously beyond Mr Bush's simpleton world-view), it is often in the national best interest to meet with and talk to all kinds of unsavory world leaders.

Mao Tse-Tung, for example, was perhaps the most vile, ruthless, Godless, and murderous despot the world has ever seen. And yet, Nixon understood that a thawing of Sino-US relations was an important step towards countering Soviet interests, and eventually bringing about reform in China. Or, to put it in your words, he "made peace by shaking hands with 'barbarians'." Today, China has fully adopted western capitalism and is a key trading partner. And while the democratic process still has a long way to go in China, there have been continuous signs of a slow and irreversible evolution towards more freedom and greater openess. I don't think any of this would have been achieved had the US remained implacably belligerent towards China, as it undoubtedly would have had Mr Bush been president during that time. Such unenlightened inflexibility would have only solidified a bunker mentality among the Chinese leadership, further closed off China to outside influences, and strengthened the hand of hard-liners there.

And so it is with Syria and Iran. Both nations are currently ruled by hard-liners who are openly committed to the destruction of Israel. And yet, both nations are key to our overall goals of regional stability and a "least worst" outcome in Iraq. As the sole Shi'a-dominated nation in the region, Iran has enormous influence over internal Iraqi politics, and over key Shi'a leaders there. And Syria has a keen interest in seeing a stable Iraq, since Syria is the major destination of millions of Sunni Iraqi refugees. Syria has also been the key hurdle to securing regional peace between Israel and the Arab world.

I would ask you this Mark: is Syria's Assad anything close to as "barbaric" as Mao was? If we could talk to Mao, why can't we talk to Syria? Does it suit the best interests of the US (and Israel) to keep Syria isolated and in the cold, thus further strengthening the monopoly of extremist elements there - or would it be better to find ways to bring Syria in from the cold, seeking over time to more closely integrate Syria and open it to external influences, as we did with China?

And the current hard-line regime in Iran is particularly vulnerable to western overtures. The Iranian mullahs and Mr Ahmadinejad are deeply unpopular within Iran. In a desperate attempt to stoke patriotic support, the hardliners have sought to provoke confrontation with the West (ironically, this is exactly Mr Bush's political strategy as well!). In short, the mullahs feed off of hostility from the West, prolonging and strengthening their grip on power, in much the same way Fidel Castro has only benefitted from the US policy of isolation and belligerence towards Cuba. Conversely, nothing undermines the power of the hardliners in the Iranian government more than talking with Iran, or re-establishing diplomatic relations. There are significant reformist elements in the Iranian government whose power and influence would be greatly enhanced if the US would only engage Iran.

But all this international relations stuff is, again, the work of mature, informed, pragmatic adults. Infantile appeals to evil-doer rhetoric have certain resonance with Mr Bush's emotionally immature base - but they do nothing to further US and world interests. Six plus years of Bush's infantile and emotion-driven foreign "policy" have only served to greatly damage US power and prestige.

I guess you "Bushies" have to ask yourselves what is more important: seeking more wars in the desperate hope that your revered leader regains some of his lost popularity, or moving forward in a new direction. What is more important to you - Mr Bush's political fortunes, or the best interests of our great country?

The libs are telling us again that we will have "peace in our time". Where have we heard that before. Now we can understand how it was possible that the mistakes were made pre World War 2 and could have stopped hitler. Its called liberalism.

I think anyone, including the 3 unknown Republicans, are idiots for going to Syria. There I said it. Happy now, neorads?

BTW, don't any of you have day jobs?

kimberly - i am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are simply acing in blind concert with rovian principles, being a true bush disciple. that said, your worldview is so myopic - the purview of a simpleton - we can't expect mush more from your lot than a few senseless and forgetful one-line lobs.

As one person posted on another site...

Pelosi modern day Chamberland.

If all Pelosi was doing, was on a fact finding mission, then I would have no problems with her going anywhere.

But what she is doing, is making foreign policy statments, which have not been approved by congress. Congress sets foreign policy, not the leader of the house.

and for those who like to site the ISG reccommendation, it atates the US should engage in direct talks with Syria and Iran under a Iraqi led Group, not the USA go off one their own.

The USA shouldn't be negotiating about Iraq with out the Iraqi government blessing.

As for Pelosi remarks..... Sher public statement about Israel was not the message Israel sent and show's Pelosi's insensitivities to the affairs in the middle east.

Over all I think she did based on US politics and nothing to do with anything else.

I'm not sure if the silent majority will approve of the Leader of the House, setting a precedent of trying to make the postion one of equal power of that of the President.

You may hate Bush and his policies, but is it really worth setting a dangerous precident, with only 1 year and 8 months before a new President is elected??

Seems foolish, self centered and ill-advised to me.

Orrin Hatch on Carole Lam: "She was a former law professor, no prosecutorial experience, and the former campaign manager in Southern California for Clinton"

None of that is true. Either he's a liar or he's being sold lies and believes them.

I'm beginning to think after all the obfuscation and outright untruths that the Republican party is trying to destroy any sense of credibility they have with the vast majority of Americans. I just can't figure out what they gain by it.

Carsick - what does your last post have to do with this post?

Meanwhile, the Washington Post points out “Nancy Pelosi's foolish shuttle diplomacy”.
Here’s my favorite part, “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."

And the Jeruslem Post points out that she claims to have “‘a message from Prime Minister Olmert that Israel was ready to engage in peace talks as well.’

According to officials in the Prime Minister's Office, however, this was not what transpired during her meeting with Olmert."

So, the “mature, informed, pragmatic adults” are actually simplistic, lying, international neophytes trying to act responsible and are ill-equipped for the task.

hatch must be gunning hard for the AG position - demonstrating his ability to lie with impunity.

so rathaven's approach is bomb's away! ha - fat f**kin' pampload of good that's done us in the past. keep the gun cabinet locked and safe from the children i say.

Aaron - what you fail to understand is that it was PRESIDENT NIXON not Speaker of the House Tip O'Neil who chose when and how to begin the talks with China.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE PELOSI is not charged with foreign policy, and should have bowed to the Whitehouse's wish that she NOT INTERFERE. But of course, that would mean she would acknowledge limits on her power, and that would never do.

So conscriptor's approach is avoid the subject and build a straw man, flail away, fool.

The AP reports that Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) met with Syrian President Bashar Assad today in Damascus. And according to the article, Issa criticized the administration while on the visit:

Commenting on Bush’s criticism, California Republican Darrell Issa said the president had failed to promote the necessary dialogue to resolve disagreements between the U.S. and Syria.

“That’s an important message to realize: We have tensions, but we have two functioning embassies,” Issa told reporters after separate meetings with Assad and his foreign minister, Walid al-Moallem."

“President Bush, is the head of state, but he hasn’t encouraged dialogue. That’s an important message to realize: we have tensions, but we have two functioning embassies.”

waiting for rathaven to pile on to his boy...

When I see what Pelosi and others do, I am reminded of Vladimir Lenin's phrase 'useful idiots...'

fair enough rathaven

The Administration criticized Issa in 2003 for the same thing, after that meeting Issa declared, "We looked the president [Asad] in the eyes and asked for his assurance that he would expel any Iraqi leader in his country and not grant asylum. He agreed." With this pledge in hand, Issa and Rahall declared victory. Issa later pronounced that Asad's "word seems to be good."
The problem, of course, is that Asad lied.”

Like I said, "international neophytes trying to act responsible and are ill-equipped for the task"

kjstrouble
What does more lying have to do with the administration and this blog attacking Pelosi for going to Syria with a bi-partisan group and calling the trip appalling?
Well, credibility.
Unfortunately it looks even more ridiculous when now...how many?...republicans have tromped to Syria?

” Republican Rep. David Hobson, who was part of Pelosi’s delegation, said: “We reinforced the administration’s positions and at the same time we were trying to understand and maybe getting some voice to some things people wanted to say that maybe they were not comfortable saying to the administration. The jury’s out … but this was not an anti-administration trip at all.”

Rathavan,
Did you forget to include this little bit or did the administration tell Ohlmert to change his story?

"Pelosi is conveying that Israel is willing to talk if they (Syria) would openly take steps to stop supporting terrorism," Olmert's spokeswoman Miri Eisin said. "But at this point the Syrian government, by openly backing terror all around the Middle East, is not a partner for negotiations."

other members of Congress have gone to Danascus recently, but of course you people continue to lambast Pelosi only - there needs to be more DIPLOMACY in the world today - how do you think Blair got the sailors back? I think we have had quite enough of Bush's cowboy 'my way or the highway' diplomacy - see where it's gotten us?
Darrell Issa, a Republican!!, is over there right now, and I quote, Issa, " looks forward to continuing the dialogue with Syria on issues of concern to both countries" endquote
wake up people - talking to our 'enemies ' is, sometimes, the way to go

The Republican Congressmen should not have gone without the administrations blessing, if they too are trying to interject in foreign affairs. And if as you say, they are part of Pelosi's group that would seem to be the case.

As for the Olmert message, do you really think that Pelosi would spin it that way? That is not how I heard it on the MSM - atleast not from Pelosi. Ofcourse, the Isrealis would clarify her misstatements.

"The officials said Olmert had told Pelosi that he thought her trip to Damascus was a mistake, and that when she asked - nevertheless - whether he had a message for Assad, Olmert said Syria should first stop supporting terrorism and "act like a normal country," and only then would Israel be willing to hold discussions.

The first part of that message, the officials said, was lost in what was reported from Damascus on Wednesday."

Yep, she's a real diplomat, pissing off three Heads of State with one statement; we should put these "adults" in charge more often.

kjstrouble
There have been two groups of republicans who went to Syria. One before her trip and one now. Her trip was a bi-partisan one. Theirs were not.
As was reported at the time:

"I think they might've thought there was some wedge between the president's policies and the House Republican policies," he said. "But (Pelosi) enunciated and we all enunciated that we wanted them to do more."
...
"Hobson, who came at Pelosi's invitation, said he's on the trip because he wanted to make it a bipartisan one and wanted to lend a Republican perspective to the trip..."
...
"I think actually we've helped the administration's position by showing there's not dissension," he said.

kjstrouble -

"...what you fail to understand is that it was PRESIDENT NIXON not Speaker of the House Tip O'Neil who chose when and how to begin the talks with China."

What you conveniently overlook is that I am criticizing PRESIDENT Bush's childishly aggressive, knee-jerk reactions that are no substitute for an actual foreign policy. I would like nothing better for PRESIDENT Bush to grow up and do what PRESIDENTS (like Nixon) do: talk to "evil-doers".

So if PRESIDENT Bush would like to "decide when and how" to talk to Syria and Iran, then by all means he should just do it. He's had 6+ years to "decide when and how".

Any time now, Mr Bush. Any time.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said the Bush administration is also unhappy that three Republican congressmen visited Syria yesterday.

"Our policy and our feelings apply to everybody," Mrs. Perino said.

Aaron,
This Administration has already stated clearly what is necessary to open talks with Syria; the same things Asad's father agreed to when Syria was engaged during the Bush 41 Administration, the same things that Clinton asked when he requested that Asad return to peace talks in 2000 after the death of his father (the reasonable one).

If Asad doesn't comply; there can be no negotiations. Nothing new here, no Kumbaya by the fireside until Asad calls off the killing.

And photo ops by half-assed diplomats looking to score points doesn't make the situation any safer for Lebanon or Israel.

Rathavan,
The one glaring difference between Bush41 and Clinton's time with now is that Iraq is in the midst of a Civil War that more than likely will require a regional solution.
Given Hobson's account (he supports the occupation of Iraq), it does not appear Pelosi did anything detrimental to America's position. Certainly no more than all the republicans who are going there.

That may be hard for you believe but you may be formerly comfortable with that kind of thing.

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.”

Aaron - did you read the second paragraph of the post?

As for any group of congress "critters" going to a foreign country without the approval of the President and advising that country to bypass the Whitehouse - it is never a good idea. Even with bj Billy in the Whitehouse - Congress should not have been trying to run the foreign policy. Too many cooks in the kitchen would be a good analogy, because you generally just get a ruined meal.

I will say it again, any Congressperson going to a foreign country to try and circumvent the President is wrong, now, in the past (even if one disagreed with that policy) or in the future. Madame Pelosi and her bi-partisan team need to get their a**es back here. One wonders what the Republicans were thinking going with a media hog like her?

Oops, here's another republican talking about his trip over to Syria: U.S. Rep. Joe Pitts

"Pitts and U.S. Reps. Frank Wolfe of Virginia and Robert Aderholt of Alabama met with Assad Sunday to talk about issues in the Middle East three days before Pelosi's delegation arrived there on a similar mission.

"Dialogue is not a sign of weakness," Pitts said after returning home Wednesday. "It's a sign of strength."

Pitts said the congressional Republicans' meeting with Assad did not undermine Bush because they emphasized the same policies the president advocates...."

kjstrouble
There is no indication that any of the delegations were doing anything to "circumvent the President."
In fact, I suspect all the groups were briefed by the State Department before they departed.

kjstrouble -

"Too many cooks in the kitchen would be a good analogy, because you generally just get a ruined meal."

Yes, but today there is no cook in the kitchen. The meal isn't get cooked at all, and everyone is starving waiting for a certain inept chef to get back from Crawford.

carsick,
Syria was an ally during the first Gulf War. What could be a greater regional conflect than that?

But, that Assad died, and the son is the one we cannot negotiate with. Clinton admitted that he knew Assad (the elder) was a murderous thug, but felt that dealing with him was good "for the region." Isn't this the very thing you decry when claiming that Reagan supplied Saddam with weapons? (Which he didn’t, btw)

Your Hastert example is not the same; the US had already approved sale of military items to Colombia, Congress had attached “human rights” conditions to the sale which were unwarranted and ultimately overturned. Hastert, as Speaker of the House, the same House that was requiring the restrictions took a delegation to Colombia in May 1997 to assure the government there that they could “work around” the restrictions.

The Clinton Administration was “looking for ways” to release millions of $$ in aid to Colombia’s armed forces but was unable to because of the restrictions. Hastert’s acknowledgement to the Colombian government was legal and did not undermine any Administration negotiations with said Colombian government.

Re: U.S. Rep. Joe Pitts; Do I have to state it again? "Our policy and our feelings apply to everybody," Mrs. Perino said. This is the "So's your old man" argument; our guys did something stupid, but your guys did it too. Just try to stay up for a moment; half-assed diplomacy (not to be confused with already agreed upon trade deals) do not serve the interests of the US.

"Syria was an ally during the first Gulf War. What could be a greater regional conflect than that?"

What could be a greater conflict? You're joking right?
Iraq is in a civil war that has a great potential to engulf the entire region. That certainly was not the case when we drove Hussein out of Kuwait.

good deflection carsick

As to your other points:
State Department spokesman Sean McCormack, commenting on Pelosi's trip, said during his briefing today, “I don’t think [the trip] necessarily complicates anything that we’re doing.”

And you might want to read this:
http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB69/col52.pdf
(check around page 32 I believe) before you start making up things about Hastert's trip and his supposed okay to tell the Colombians to go around the administration.

Or read this:
"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."

Or read this:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000953----000-notes.html

car - i think what is becoming crystalline is that many on the right (in tandem with the administration) are scared to death of the notion that pelosi, issa, pitts, hobson, aderholt, and wolf (note the last FIVE are GOP members) may actually produce some positive breakthroughs in the region and may come out looking like the diplomatic stars next to the antiquated isolationists that represent YESTERDAY'S failed neocon vision.

I don't know what you think you found, but this was a Trade Deal and fully within the authority of Congress.

Read this, the State Department had already signed off on the deal. No laws broken, not the same as half-assed dip-lomats. Try sticking to the subject.

Scared to death that they will make as much “progress” as Issa did in 2003 (see my post above)? Believe it or not, that’s EXACTLY what we fear! Half-assed dip-lomats!

conscriptor,
I'm pretty sure none of them are attempting any independent diplomacy. That would be against the Logan Act.

But, you're on the right track. What the administration is probably most afraid of is the implications of this statement:
"Dialogue is not a sign of weakness," Pitts said after returning home Wednesday. "It's a sign of strength."

Who doesn't want dialogue? Who's weak?

diplomat was poor choice of words.. delegate probably more apt

"...no Kumbaya by the fireside until Asad calls off the killing."

So, your blanket characterization of talks with adversaries is that they amount to "kumbaya" and fire-side chats? So Nixon's rapprochment with China - perhaps the most brilliant and stunning diplomatic move in US history - was just "kumbaya"? (speaking of which, when was the last time you remember Bush doing a bit of brilliant diplomacy - or brilliant anythkng for that matter...)

"If Asad doesn't comply; there can be no negotiations..."

Yeah, that's Bush's diplomatic "logic": unless the other nation immediately complies with our demands beforehand, there can be no negotions about... um... complying with our demands! LOL. Look, the whole point of talking with adversaries is to get them to adopt a more mutually favorable stance. You don't demand these things before talking - they are the result of talking.

If Nixon had applied the same standard of, "If Asad [or Ahmadinejad] doesn't comply; there can be no negotiations...", then there wouldn't have ever been talks with China either. These preconditions to opening talks merely insure that the Bushies don't ever have to engage in talks in the first place. For purely domestic political considerations, talking with adversaries does not suit Mr Bush. His image is built entirely upon being the lone cowboy who lays down the law against "evil-doers". We can't very well have Sheriff Bush singing "kumbaya" now, can we?

"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."

Let the indictments begin!

conscriptor

Get real, both GOP and DEMS congressmen and women have been going to Syria for years, that's nothing new.

The only objection is to the 3rd person in line, who has opposing views to the Admisitration going.
It sets a dangerous precident, that has now been established.

I'm sure after 2008 elections and by some mircale there's a Democrat President, and as will be the case a split House/Sentate, most people don't want the Leader of the House, getting directly invovled in foreign affairs, if their views contradicts those of the President.

The Speaker of the House really needs to look beyond the next 18 months, when looking at foreign poilcy.. as a future Presidents and Congresses will be effect by setting precidents.

Pelosi is being short sighted and irresponsible, whether or not her trip has any effect or not.

rathavan,
So you do think that Hastert was right to tell a foreign government to go around the President of the US. Just as I wrote.

By the way, State didn't sign off until June and Hastert visited in May. Is he a time traveler too?

Trade Deal, if you cannot see the difference then I can't help you.

The memo from State is dated August 1996!

Aaron,
The regional peace talks involve more than jus the US and Syria; like DNK and the other parties involved there (Russia, China, Japan South Korea) the US would be negotiating in bad faith if we were to engage against the interests of our ally, Israel.

These were the conditions laid out during the Clinton Administration, and remain the conditions before Israel returns to the table. What would you suggest? We abandon our ally and hold unilateral talks, reach agreement then codicil a separate peace? Should we sell out the Israelis as Chamberlain sold out the Czechs to obtain “peace in our time”?

Shameful, just shameful, who else are you willing to throw under the bus in your never-ending derangement against this President? Have you no decency? Haven’t the Jews suffered enough?

conscriptor: Just because I don't agree with you, my world is myopic and I'm a simpleton? LMAO. If you ask me, it is YOU who doesn't know jack about Syria and its imposed leaders. Why don't ya read a few Syrian blogs or some books by those who have escaped the grasp of an evil dictator and then get back to me.

PS I've traveled to all seven continents and lived on four. You?

D'oh... make that DPRK fingers fast, brain, not so much ...

rathaven,
You'll have to show me sometime where it is specified that a member of congress can unilaterally make decisions with foreign countries in a way that does not defy the Logan Act. And then point out how Hastert had that authority. Yes, the US wanted to give money to Columbia but how they gave it was a negotiating tool to be used by the executive not the legislative. Hastert undermined that and you think that's fine.
Your position is clear.

STRAWMAN ALERT!

Rathaven -

"Should we sell out the Israelis as Chamberlain sold out the Czechs to obtain “peace in our time”?

Shameful, just shameful, who else are you willing to throw under the bus in your never-ending derangement against this President? Have you no decency? Haven’t the Jews suffered enough?"

LOL! Oh my! Straw man alert! Straw man alert!

Do you all ever tire of the straw man rhetorical strategy - not to mention stooping to craven emotional melodrama?

So, advocating talks with Syria is morphed into wishing suffering on the Jews! Completely with WWII imagery! LOL.

Listen pal - the only thing truely shameful here is your use of the suffering of the Jews as an excuse for Bush's inept lack of engagement. How dare you evoke Jewish suffering to justify Bush's warped world-view. Have you no shame at all?

By the way, if you have ever read an Israeli newspaper, you'd quickly understand that the majority of the suffering Jews you melodramatically alluded to are in favor of talking with Syria and Iran.

Pelosi responds:
[Pelosi spokesman Brendan] Daly pointed out that Pelosi was briefed by State Department officials before her meetings with the foreign leaders and that State Department officials also attended her meetings.

So if Pelosi really committed foreign policy flubs of the first order, the State Department is in a position to confirm as much.

The White House certainly received a read-out of what exactly Pelosi and the foreign leaders said in their meetings. Significantly, the White House has not openly accused Pelosi of the foreign-policy missteps the Post had accused her of.

In an e-mail follow-up, Daly wrote: “WH has not said that because in fact the Speaker did not get the message wrong — she included the necessary caveats and did not say or imply that this was a change in Israel’s position.”

Trade Deal, if you cannot see the difference then I can't help you.
I can see the difference, rathaven... but IIRC, only the _Executive_ is granted the power to negotiate such agreements; Congress must the ratify the result to make it binding.

In other words, even though the administration didn't cry foul, Hastert's trip was far more un-Constitutional than Pelosi's, but that's okay because he's a Republican...

Aaron,
Read them daily, and yes, we are in favor of dialog with Syria. We’re also in favor of staying alive long enough to see the fruits of that dialog. How long do you suppose the State of Israel will last if the only allies of Israel negotiate without Israelis or Israeli interests at the table?

Didn't Olmert say, "Syria should first stop supporting terrorism and "act like a normal country," and only then would Israel be willing to hold discussions."?

Carsick, That’s comforting; the White House has to issue clerifications of Pilosi’s statements. Real fine diplomat here.

Carsick, That’s comforting; the White House has to issue clerifications of Pilosi’s statements. Real fine diplomat here.

Legion,
The “deal” was negotiated by the Administration with the approval of State, it was a done deal. Hastert didn’t change any part nor did he broker any new deal. He simply stated what the Administration had already approved and signaled that the unreasonable conditions previous Congress' had would not be a deal breaker. Human Rights was not part of the Administration's negotiations; check the record.

Now, can we get back to the subject? Or all of you trolls going to keep going back to trade deals in the 1990's?

When the White House wants to aid silly witch hunts by Fox and Limbaugh and B4B by admonishing and giving "background" when they were fully aware of what transpired, and then they get caught for being duplicitous and cynical...yeah, they might want a clarification...
to reduce the loss of credibility. Comforting to know how they work wouldn't you say? At least they are predictable.
Do as much damage as they can before the fog lifts and the sun comes out...then clarify.

Aaron writes,
“[] stooping to craven emotional melodrama?”
How about bad metaphors and illogical allegory?

“Yes, but today there is no cook in the kitchen. The meal isn't get cooked at all, and everyone is starving waiting for a certain inept chef to get back from Crawford.”

“His image is built entirely upon being the lone cowboy who lays down the law against "evil-doers".”

"We can't very well have Sheriff Bush singing "kumbaya" now, can we?

But, I think you said it best when you wrote, “And so it is with Syria and Iran. Both nations are currently ruled by hard-liners who are openly committed to the destruction of Israel. And yet,…”

There can be no “and yet” at the end of that sentence, unless you just write off Israel as a “debt never to be repaid” (Moshe Dyane)

Carsick,
You forgot to mention the Swiftys in your fevered rant. Don’t want to forget the boogeyman that cost you an election. It’s not Nancy’s fault she’s a dunce, it’s Fox News!

I’m outta here, your too carsick for my tastes.

s/b "you're" sorry keefer, my bad.

Piglosi is an idiot. So are these kooks.

Interesting how the press characterizes a visit by a Democrat (and woman):
MALVEAUX cnn: We understand that Pelosi met with the prime minister of Israel and that she was, in fact, delivering a message. But with all due respect, she has no official capacity to negotiate with your government here.
Why should the Americans, or even the international community, see this any more as a political stunt here, a publicity stunt, a big wet kiss to President Al-Assad?"

And yet the White House knows what transpired because State Department officials were in on all the meetings.

And by the way, the EMU aspects of what the Exec. wanted in the TRADE deal with Columbia were about human rights. Hastert disagreed.
You can read the story here:
http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB69/part3.html

RE: "Amazing. The guy needs three full days to practice how to TELL THE TRUTH."

That's a trivial nothing compared to how long, how many times, how many lawyers, and how many million dollars it took to FINALLY DRAG the truth (or at least a portion of it) out of former-President (Democrat) Bill Clinton!!!

AAR

Yeah AAR, What'd they spend? $126 million to get the president to admit he got a blow job and didn't want other people to know about it.
Proud moment for our country that was.

Exaggeration of the number is intended in case you want to freak out.

RE: "What'd they spend? $126 million to get the president to admit..."

Yep! That's a Democrat for you. Harder than trying to pull teeth from that proverbial chicken!

For most of us, it only requires us to raise our RIGHT hand and swear to tell the truth!!!

AAR

Aaron,

It was a mistake for Nixon to go to China.

You don't make peace by shaking hands with barbarians...the long term affect of Nixon's normalization with China is that China - still under the ruthless boot of tyranny - is now seeking to challenger our position in the Asia/Pacific theater.

Brilliant. Just what we needed...and we sure need more of it now, right?

No more making deals with Satan to drive out the Devil.

Carsick,

Do you pay attention to what you read?

Pitts said the congressional Republicans' meeting with Assad did not undermine Bush because they emphasized the same policies the president advocates...."

Pelosi doesn't advocate the same position as the President...she's off on her own hook after her caucus banned the phrase "war on terrorism" and voted to surrdender in Iraq. What Syria sees in Pelosi is an American who is willing to kneel down...they are delighted she is coming...makes them feel great about themselves to think that a civilized person wants those savages in Damascus to be partners in peace...

Mark Noonan,
As I clipped earlier in this thread (see below) Hobson was a participant with Pelosi on the trip. He says otherwise. If you are calling him a liar then you may want to back it up with something other than pure conjecture. The State Department had rep.s in every meeting she was in so if she was freelancing, as you claim, I'm certain it would be out already.

"I think they might've thought there was some wedge between the president's policies and the House Republican policies," he said. "But (Pelosi) enunciated and we all enunciated that we wanted them to do more."
...
"Hobson, who came at Pelosi's invitation, said he's on the trip because he wanted to make it a bipartisan one and wanted to lend a Republican perspective to the trip..."
...
"I think actually we've helped the administration's position by showing there's not dissension," he said.

Or this:
Hobson also frowned upon complaints from Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, about the trip. He said the administration knew about the trip in advance and provided the delegation with a jet.

“As far as I know, they never said a word to anybody until we were in the air,” Hobson said.

Mark -

"No more making deals with Satan to drive out the Devil."

OK, fine. But keep in mind that "making deals with Satan" has always been a Republican forte. Remember when President Carter made human rights the centerpiece of his foreign policy? The Right derided him as hopelessly naive, explaining that in the real world you sometimes need to make certain alliances with tyranical leaders to further your national interests. The Republicans justified supporting all kinds of ruthless, human-rights abusing dictators simply because they were anti-communist - and conversely, on several occisaions engineered the overthrow of legitimately democratic governments. "Realpolitik" it was called. Now we're supposed to believe that you Bushies are champions of human rights, freedom, and democracy? Excuse my skepticism. You all became human rights and democracy fanatics only because that is the only rationale left to you for stupidly invading Iraq.

"...the long term affect of Nixon's normalization with China is that China - still under the ruthless boot of tyranny - is now seeking to challenger our position in the Asia/Pacific theater."

"Brilliant. Just what we needed...and we sure need more of it now, right?"

And what do you think would have been the outcome had Nixon taken Bush's belligerent tack of refusing to talk with China, isolating China, and villifying China to score cheap popularity points at home? Answer: China today would have been a closed society a la North Korea, hell-bent on cold war with the US, ruled by another murderous dictator, and pushing the world to the brink of nuclear holocaust. Just what we needed - right?

"China today would have been a closed society a la North Korea, hell-bent on cold war with the US, ruled by another murderous dictator, and pushing the world to the brink of nuclear holocaust. Just what we needed - right?"

Sounds like a distinction without a difference.

"Sounds like a distinction without a difference."

Only if you perceive day and night to be distictions without a difference.

I just got back from China. Sorry to report that they aren't our enemies. Far from it. I know that disappoints you. Nor is China anything like what it was during the cultural revolution. Two completely different countries.

So, Aarontime, you had meetings with the leaders of China to make this determination? Gimme a break, dude!

Wow,
Talk about bringing the thread full circle. Here's some China, some potential Republican candidate info and the hub bub about the Speaker of the House.

"Asked about Mr. Gingrich's statements, a Clinton Administration official in Washington said Mr. Gingrich had received briefings about American policy toward China, but that Mr. Gingrich ''was speaking for himself'' in his conversations with Chinese leaders."
...
"In an interview on Friday, Mr. Gingrich said he had spoken with Mr. Clinton, and with Mr. Gore on several occasions, to make sure that their messages to Beijing dovetailed. At the time, he did not mention his message on Taiwan." NYT March 31,1997

Of course, Gingrich is a republican so he was doing the right thing. Right?

kimberly4bush -

"So, Aarontime, you had meetings with the leaders of China to make this determination? Gimme a break, dude!"

Am I not allowed to give my impressions upon visiting China? Well, don't put any stock in my opinions - go reserach it for yourself.

btw - I noticed you wingers claim that Iraq is a perfectly safe place and a real success story. So you went to Iraq and had meetings with the leaders of Iraq to make this determination? Give me a break, dudette!

Amazing. The guy needs three full days to practice how to TELL THE TRUTH. I can't believe he can't just walk in, take an oath and say what happened. No. He needs 72 hours of grilling to learn how to spin, spin, spin his lies.

The Attorney General for the United States of America, ladies and gents. Stand back in awe.

Posted by: Cyberactor at April 5, 2007 11:47 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Come on Cyber, you of all people should know it takes alot more than 72 hours to spin lies. I mean that's what your occupation is all about is it not?

First of all, I don't recall anyone stating that Iraq was a complete success or a perfectly safe place. And, since I can't go see it for myself, I rely on Iraqi blogs and our troops' blogs for what's going on in that country.

Just because one visits a country doesn't prove the country is not our enemy. You have no clue what's going on behind closed doors.

Here's some tidbit syou might have missed on your visit:

China's 2.3 million-strong military is the world's largest and has been criticized abroad for not being open about its spending. Unlike the U.S., where Congress is required to approve the military budget, China's military is extremely secretive and rarely releases information on its spending.

Gee, wonder why that is.

China Is increasing its military spending and tempting the USA by making comments like "If you want to push for independence for Taiwan, you will not have success at the end of the day."

That's a nice, friendly comment ... don't ya think?

China has announced that it will have a 17.8% increase in miltary spending. That is equal to billions. This isn't this first time in recent years that China has bullied the USA. They started up the "one china policy" and went to hundreds of small nations and got them to agree to the policy that states they will side with China on all major issues.

Pakistan, Viet Nam, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Libya... let's stop talking to them, too. I'm sure that would work out great.

Instead of not talking to them, we should stop giving them billions of dollars in aid. Now, wouldn't it be interesting to see what happens if we did that!

kimberly: Instead of not talking to them, we should stop giving them billions of dollars in aid.

That, I would say, is really a distinction without a difference.

Now, wouldn't it be interesting to see what happens if we did that!

Oh yeah, it sure would.

"China has announced that it will have a 17.8% increase in miltary spending. That is equal to billions."

What you fail to realize here is that even with that increase, China only spends roughly $50 billion a year on defense. In other words less than 10% of what the US spends. They also have a population more than 4 times that of the US to defend, so 2.3 million isn`t that big of an army. Thats like buying a 30mm chain gun, then telling everyone else on your block they aren`t allowed to own a .22 rifle.

China is not interested in provoking a military conflict with the US. What`s the trade deficit? How many 100s of billions in US bonds and currency have they bought so Bush could finance his wars? We`ll be paying interest on that for eternity. China is more interested in buying America one piece at a time.

"This isn't this first time in recent years that China has bullied the USA. They started up the "one china policy" and went to hundreds of small nations and got them to agree to the policy that states they will side with China on all major issues."

This made me giggle like a school girl. First, there are only approx 192 nations on earth. Maybe China went to Mars and got some of the countries you and your neocon friends seem to inhabit to sign on to make it to the 100s mark.

As far as getting small countries to sign on to what you want to do, I will have to remember to send Iceland and Palau and thank you card for joining the "Coalition of the Willing." I guess there troops got lost on their way there, since the US and the British make up 99% of the coalition in Iraq.

BTW, I have been to China and live in Asia.

Gaijin,

The $50 billion, however, is only the announced figure...the true amount is probably one or two times that amount, and as the Chinese government does not provide for the material well being of the troops anywhere near what we provide to ours, they get a lot more bang for the buck.

A brand new Army enlisted man makes a base pay of $14,400 per year - which seems small, but remember his food, medical and housing are free. After four years, presuming reasonable conduct, that same soldier would be making 24k per year...and this is not including various allowances soldiers are provided in addition to pay, depending on circumstances of service.

Meanwhile, it has proved impossible to find out what a new recruit to the Chinese army makes...but as Per Capita Income in China is less than $2,000 per year, we'd probably want to figure that the pay of a new recruit is substantially less (the US is 41k per year and a new recruit makes 14.4k; if we hold this ratio, then a Chinese recruit would make about $800.00 per year).

As you can easily see, the annual cost of the troops - before a dime is spent on training and equipment - is vastly more expensive than it is in China...so, China's supposedly lower military budgets actually do constitute a grave worry.

That's an important message to realize: We have tensions, but we have two functioning embassies." Darrell Issa (R-CA), travelling with Pelosi.

"(Pelosi) did not engage in any bashing of Bush in any meeting I was in and she did not in any meeting I was in bash the policies as it relates to Syria." Rep. David Hobson (R-OH) also travelling with Pelosi

Even some republicans realize Bush is filled with bovine feces, yet the shrill shrieking continues here