The Pelosi Visit To Syria
The Hits, They Keep On Coming
By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in Featured Stories | Foreign Affairs — Comments (11) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Consider the following from the New York Times (read on):
Ever since 1952, when a Republican senator, Arthur H. Vandenberg, coined the phrase, it has been said that in American foreign affairs, politics should stop at the water's edge. Now, with President Bush confronting an opposition party in control of Congress, that fiction is becoming harder to maintain.
With a final stop in Lisbon on Friday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi headed home to a Washington that is still ringing with complaints from senior Bush officials that her stop in Damascus to visit with Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian president, bolstered the image of Syria at a time when United States policy is to isolate it.
The tone of the complaints -- particularly Vice President Dick Cheney's public characterization of her visit as "bad behavior" -- contrasts sharply with the administration's silence about a similar trip to Damascus a week ago by Republican lawmakers, Representatives Frank R. Wolf of Virginia, Joe Pitts of Pennsylvania and Robert B. Aderholt of Alabama.
Nor was there much heard from the White House about a meeting that Representative Darrell Issa, a California Republican, had with Mr. Assad on Thursday, a day after Ms. Pelosi met with the Syrian president.
Three points in reply:
- I have no problem with "sitting down and talking to our enemies." The problem I have is when we sit down and appear to have nothing to say. Unless there are specific items to be discussed and negotiated over, unless the timing for negotiations is right and unless we go into negotiations knowing what our bargaining position is and what the best alternative to a negotiated agreement is in a given circumstance, I see no point in talking just for the sake of talking.
- In the event that Republicans went to Syria to engage in talking for the sake of talking, I think they also committed a serious diplomatic blunder. But . . .
- None of the Republicans was Speaker of the House of Representatives. And yes, that matters.
By the way, see this. Can you spell "consensus"?
Of course you can.
« Republican Moderates May Walk Away From Veto Threat — Comments (17) | "An iPod In Every Ear!" — Comments (16) »
The Pelosi Visit To Syria 11 Comments (0 topical, 11 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Columbia was not supporting terrorist operations against our Armed Forces and our country. Iran is doing both.
====
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." -- James Madison
I mean, yeah, I hate Syria as much as the next guy, but let's try to keep our point coherent by keeping our beef with Pelosi (and those sell-out Republicans who also went there) about Syria.
nah, pretty close to illiterate. Just one of the mindless drones who drop by to post talking points.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
whereas Her Royal Highness was the chief luminary of the state visit, that is, the unapproved visit to foreign powers visibly hostile to the United States.
We have a longstanding relationship with Colombia and support of its efforts in the drug war.
Just so you know.
Much of the current hysteria about not talking to our adversaries is a symptom of displacement, a psychological mechanism that allows one to ignore real threats like Islamic terrorism, in order to focus on imaginary phantasms like Anthropogenic Global Warming. Part of the left's denial of reality, a symptom of a larger mass psychosis infecting much of the American electorate. Marquis would be one of those infected.
you were one of my favorite braves back in the day.
but do you really not see the near-universal criticism of what Speaker Pelosi did? your only exception is the equivocal NYT piece?
and then to play the hypocrisy card.... very disappointing coming from the guy who caught the last out of the 1995 WS.
This isn't Gingrich going to China or Hastert and Columbia.
Couple Pelosi's trip with Lantos remarks, throw in funding and time tables for withdrawal, a little mix of Syrian terror and support of other terrorists, and you have the makings of an ugly and immoral foreign policy.
The unconstitutional power grab is a calculated, deliberate attempt to strip the Bush Presidency of it's authority. Done by morons it follows that there are no concerns for precedent, consequently no thought for the future, and as always not a glimmer for consequences.
The sane among liberal ranks, always a tiny and beleaguered minority, recognize this. The NY Times, where fever runs high and drool covers the floor, doesn't. Therefore you get the sort of brain dead spew you would expect from lefty blogs.
One of which I just spent a couple of days on and was reminded that clams don't think. A total waste of time.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
I'm curious to know why your choice of title, since the NY Times piece's main point was the hypocrisy of the Bush's administration of not criticizing Republicans who went to Syria.
And by the way, wasn't Dennis Hastert speaker of the House when he went to Colombia to speak to colombian military without the authorization of Bill Clinton? What did any Republican say about this? Would you like Hastert and Pelosi to both go to jail at the same time?