http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/30/pelosi.trip/index.html

uncool

it's like she hasn't taken Civics 101

3/30/2007 9:39:08 PM

I'm not saying I support Syria... but under very few circumstances is any kind of diplomatic outreach going to do any sort of damage.

3/30/2007 9:41:51 PM

it's not her job to do that

3/30/2007 9:42:33 PM

So is the criticism that she's going above-and-beyond, or that she's reaching out to a leaders of a nation that has in the past, and may presently sponsor terrorism?

Because my gut says we ought to be talking to the guys who sponsor terrorism...

Though she might speak too softly for the message I'd endorse.

[Edited on March 30, 2007 at 9:48 PM. Reason : .]

3/30/2007 9:48:01 PM

that she's going above-and-beyond

the president is the top diplomat

we have a department of state to do that job

no matter how you feel about him, she doesn't need to be going over the president head on this

[Edited on March 30, 2007 at 9:50 PM. Reason : .]

3/30/2007 9:49:40 PM

I thought that we recently added syria to a favored nation status? I remember the administration getting a lot of flak for this? Do explain.

3/30/2007 10:30:56 PM

Yeah, I don't think we need to be doing freelance foreign diplomacy. How bad would it be if 20 senators did that plus the state department and they all had different messages?


Not good.


^ No they were added to a different list: a state sponsor of terrorism (Hezbollah)

[Edited on March 30, 2007 at 10:31 PM. Reason : .]

3/30/2007 10:31:20 PM

*sigh

what is the problem with her going? in all honesty, contrete reasons, why is it a big deal?

it's not like she can make any deals or anything behind bush's back

she can't fuck anything up, she's simply trying to show an outreach, possibly a tactic that hasn't been tried?

[Edited on March 30, 2007 at 10:35 PM. Reason : she actually CAN fuck]

3/30/2007 10:32:35 PM

^

Quote :

"Yeah, I don't think we need to be doing freelance foreign diplomacy. How bad would it be if 20 senators did that plus the state department and they all had different messages?"

3/30/2007 10:34:23 PM

I wonder if this would be news if some Republicans were visiting Syria too.

Oh wait: http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/30/syria-hypocrisy/ No, it wouldn't.

Quote :

"The White House today lashed out at Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) for daring to visit Syria in the coming days. ... Not only are the administration’s attacks on Pelosi hypocritical, but the timing suggests they are a partisan hit. ... Here’s what the White House isn’t talking about: Republican Reps. Aderholt and Wolf are currently visiting Syria. According to a congressional official on Rep. Robert Aderholt’s (R-AL) staff, Aderholt and Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) are currently visiting Israel and Syria. Republican Rep. Hobson accompanying Pelosi on Syria visit. Speaker Pelosi will be traveling with a contingent of members of Congress to Syria. The delegation includes Reps. David Hobson (R-OH), Keith Ellison (D-MN), Tom Lantos (D-CA), Henry Waxman (D-CA), Louise Slaughter (D-NY), Nick Rahall (D-WV). ... "

3/30/2007 10:51:05 PM

yeah, that's not cool

3/30/2007 10:51:56 PM

^^ winner

3/30/2007 10:54:53 PM

There is a danger that she would undermine what little diplomatic effort that the Administration is making, especially if she starts quietly promising things to the Syrians. The visit alone doesn't raise any issues per say, but given Howard Dean's recent comments:

Quote :

""I am trying to build relationships with other governments in preparation for a Democratic takeover," Dean told me. "I want to make clear that there is an opposition in America and that we are ready to take power and that when we do, we are going to have much better relationships with them.""

If they're not coordinating with the state department and are instead going on their own, they may undermine foreign policy efforts by the United States; there tends to be a lot of stuff going on quietly even with nations like Syria and Iran. If Pelosi begins to promise things to the Syrian government, then it might encourage the Syrians to simply stall efforts towards our interests.

Mind you, our foreign policy is pretty screwed up, but I would prefer the Democrats simply work within the United States to beat on the White House instead of attempting to cut separate deals with other nations and undermine all American diplomacy as a whole.

Think back to the Iranian hostage crisis back in 1979. How would people feel if the rumors were true that the Republican opposition party cut a deal behind the White House's back to hold the hostages past the November election and then give them some kind of aid or support in return? That the Republicans intentionally undermined the White House's efforts to free American hostages, even if their efforts had effectively collapsed and few Americans supported the White House anymore? Now what would happen if the Democrats promised the Syrians something to undermine Iraq stabilization efforts to strengthen political efforts for an American withdrawal and ensure Democratic supremacy in 2008 in return for favors?

By no means am I saying that this is Pelosi or Dean's intentions, but there is the possibility that discussions, promises, and assurances, no matter how well intentioned, may turn out against America's greater strategic interests.

3/31/2007 3:37:50 PM

Dodd and Kerry(i think both sr members on the Foreign Affairs Committee or something like that) both went last year or the year before and talked to him. It isnt that big of a deal. Like she is going to do anything Bush wants????? That is why she got her position, to not give Bush a blank check/free pass/do whatever he wants, like the GOP had been doing.



[Edited on March 31, 2007 at 5:26 PM. Reason : w]

3/31/2007 5:22:15 PM

yo is libya still considered like bad?

like i know they gave up their nuclear weapons programs finally, etc.- and they are off the us state sponsors of terror now

3/31/2007 5:36:21 PM

Wow if Pelosi ever thought an auto mechanic or somebody had tried to take advantage of her naivete...

3/31/2007 5:54:26 PM

^^ we have opened an embassy there and they were featured in this month's STATE magazine so all roads are pointing to a cautious no

3/31/2007 7:32:08 PM

last i heard, the President doesn't control the US Congress.

and the US has an embassy in Damascus by the way. it's not like she's going off the map.

....


so, fuck Bush. and fuck what he thinks anyhow.

apparently not much of the country has any faith in him to get us out of the mess he got us in. so someone needs to go see what the options are.




[Edited on March 31, 2007 at 8:36 PM. Reason : ]

3/31/2007 8:34:54 PM

Quote :

"Dodd and Kerry(i think both sr members on the Foreign Affairs Committee or something like that) both went last year or the year before and talked to him. It isnt that big of a deal. "

It is kind of a big deal b/c...

Quote :

"She will be the highest-ranking U.S. official to visit Syria since relations deteriorated between Damascus and Washington."

and the fact that she's totally disregarding the whole chain of command thing

Quote :

"last i heard, the President doesn't control the US Congress."

no, but unlike the Speaker of the House, it's the President's job to represent the country, like it or not

[Edited on March 31, 2007 at 9:32 PM. Reason : sd]

3/31/2007 9:30:38 PM

of course she doesnt represent the US. she can't negotiate any kind of treaties. no one has suggested anything like that. she's going with a bipartisan delagation of congressmen.

the point is, the white house is presuming to tell the Congress where they can and can't visit.

Quote :

""We do not encourage and, in fact, we discourage members of Congress to make such visits to Syria," said White House deputy spokeswoman Dana Perino."

the point is, we maintain an embassy in Syria, a US Ambassador there, and they are a member nation of the UN.

so... what it really comes down to is, and i repeat,

Quote :

"so, fuck Bush. and fuck what he thinks anyhow."

4/1/2007 12:00:45 AM

She is a member of the legislature, her job is to.. wait for it... legislate! She nor any other congressman has any business meeting with foreign heads of state. It's not part of her job. I don't care if she were a Republican or a Democrat, this is out of line.

4/1/2007 8:34:56 AM

Quote :

"the point is, we maintain an embassy in Syria, a US Ambassador there, and they are a member nation of the UN."

exactly, and last time i checked, Nancy Pelosi was the Speaker of the House...which isn't the same as being the US Ambassador of Syria

everyone has their role

Nancy Pelosi is neither the President or the US Ambassador to Syria, nor is she above them

4/1/2007 10:39:07 AM

Newsflash. No member of congress can leave the country.

4/1/2007 12:29:20 PM

yeah

because congress-people go to Syria to visit Arab-Disney....

4/1/2007 1:10:05 PM

so just to summarize this thread...why exactly is it a BAD thing that shes going to syria?

4/1/2007 1:28:53 PM

Just like when Jesse Jackson freed the prisoners, the White House didnt like that either.....blah

4/1/2007 1:40:07 PM

^^

it's not the legislature's job to do diplomatic work without the blessing of the white house

now, if the white house is politicizing this in an unfair manner, like moron suggested, than obviously they're in the wrong

but if Pelosi is intentionally going over the President's head, that's not right

the actual situation seems to be a little murky now

4/1/2007 2:10:35 PM