Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by obeygiant, Apr 1, 2007.
Hmmm. Who died and put Pelosi in charge of the State department?
No kidding. Nothing like a coordinated effort to impress our detractors.
Bush did by ignoring everything coming out of the state dept for 6 years. Its not like our current president gets high marks for anything he has done,or anything he's accomplished. He is simply a corporate tool and little else.
Our government doesn't work like that and you should be grateful it doesn't.
What exactly is it about the Pelosi trip that you're opposed to? She's conveying the same message that the Bush administration conveys: we'll talk when you stop supporting terrorism.
Swarmlord, what do you mean? That it's good that Bush ignores the State Department's recommendations? I'm just not clear on what you mean.
The message is not hers to deliver. I said nothing about Bush or the State department other than to refute the poster that said that Bush's actions effectively granted her the right or power to represent matters of State. They don't.
This is certainly not true. Members of Congress travel abroad all the time, and say what they wish, where they wish. They always have, and always will. If Pelosi's message carries more weight then it might ordinarily, it's because Bush is so weak.
Not to historic enemies and about issues relevant to an ongoing conflict where she differs from the administration. I agree that there are times and places where this would be no big deal. If she wanted to discuss trade opportunities, tourism, or cultural exchange then I'd not be concerned.
Is it okay if republicans visit syria?
No, as a matter of fact.
I never said that Bush controls members of his party the way I would if I were in charge.
Actually I heard that Damascus was a beautiful place. I would love to check out the exotic stuff over there no diggity
Woohoo, on point again
How does she disagree with the administration? Sounds like the same message: stop supporting terrorism.
If we were at war with Syria, and Pelosi was billing her visit as diplomatic, then I'd be concerned too. And has been pointed out, Pelosi is hardly the first member of Congress to visit Syria. The administration has chosen to make a fuss about this visit because it makes them look weak. If they weren't so weak then they'd probably just shrug it off with little or no comment.
I think that the main difference is mostly tonal: one is polite while the other is more like a threat.
Good cop, bad cop?
More like the difference between the black and white Macbook options
My local representative (a conservative Republican) is going along with her.
The important part of this story is not that Pelosi is going somewhere the Administration doesn't want her to go. As IJ pointed out this has gone on since forever and will continue to do so. It is a good thing that we don't only get one perspective on other nations of the world, especially our "enemies." But what is important is not that she is going (others have before her) or the content of the message she is delivering from the Israelis (it is the same words that have been said over and over) but rather the fact the Israelis have endorsed the idea of someone going to Damascus to further negotiations between the two countries. Not that this is a huge step, but it is a crack in the position of Olmert and Bush who have been unified in the neo-con position of "we don't talk to our enemies, they're terrorists."
Who cares what the Big B thinks? Lots of cute Syrian ladies over there Seriously, WW007D?
(that means James Bond... yes he would love them gals over there in Syria)... next.
Does anybody know if this is not factual?
"The United States regards Syria as a terrorist-supporting state. The U.S. hasn't had high level contacts with the Syrian government since the assassination of Rafik Hariri in Lebanon and indeed, the U.S. ambassador was recalled. In fact, there's been very little government-to-government contact with Syria."
What good can come of any sort of encouragement of a country which is working with Iran in the re-arming of Hezbollah?
What good came of talking to the Soviet Union or the PRC? If one doesn't talk to your "enemies" that is precisely what they will always be. In this case, they US could have moved Syria much further politically away from its de facto alliance with Iran through diplomatic efforts, but the Bush administration chose the "axis of evil" brand of diplomacy instead. The only people who truly benefit from this approach are munitions manufacturers.
Woohoo, there's goes up my Lockheed Martin stock valuations! Woohoo!
Thanks for making my day. Axis of evil = +10.0% in stock portfolio!
Sayhey, if indeed she's so much against Bush's policies, how does her visit reduce tensions? If she encourages Syria's present views and policies, does that not exacerbate the various dangers extant in the mideast? For that matter, does it not encourage Syria's willingness to support those who cross its borders into Iraq, to shoot at our soldiers?
This is not at all comparable to policy makers of two hostile countries engaging in conversations designed to reduce tensions. Pelosi does not make foreign policy. That's not her job, not her Constitutional mandate.