Middle East Mission: Nancy Pelosi Marches On!
Apr 5th, 2007 | 28 responses
Nancy Pelosi, accompanied by Tom Lantos (in red tie), points to dried fruits and herbs during a tour of a central Damascus market in Syria. Photograph: Hussein Malla/AP
If you can’t beat them then join them!
That’s an old saying which President George W. Bush needs to follow to upstage the House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s much-publicised trip to the middle east. Sitting and sulking in the White House will not help much.
After her visit to Syria, Ms Pelosi reached Saudi Arabia and met King Abdullah. But first a detailed report about her Syria visit.
“The speaker of the US House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, delivered a powerful challenge to the Bush administration’s stewardship of American interests in the Middle East by breaking with its policy of isolating Syria and holding talks in Damascus with President Bashar Assad,” says The Guardian.
“Ms Pelosi’s status as the third most senior elected figure in Washington makes her visit to Damascus the most serious challenge to the Bush administration strategy of isolation in four years. In a further sign of Syria’s re-emergence on the international stage, three Republican congressmen made a separate visit to Damascus this week.
” ‘This is only the beginning of our constructive dialogue with Syria and we hope to build on this visit,’ said Tom Lantos, the chairman of the house committee on foreign affairs, who accompanied Ms Pelosi.
“The US vice-president, Dick Cheney, accused Ms Pelosi of undermining Washington’s policy of isolation and of rewarding Syria for what he called bad behaviour.
“But behind the scenes the picture is more complicated. An assistant US secretary of state, Ellen Sauerbrey, met Syrian officials in Damascus last month to discuss the flight of Iraqi refugees, and Mr Bush has sanctioned the presence of US diplomats at a regional meeting on Iraqi security, attended by Syria and Iran.”
For a detailed report about Ms Pelosi’s visit to Saudi Arabia please click here… The Saudi King, an old ally of the US, had recently described the war in Iraq as “illegitimate” and called the Arab nations to check the American influence in the region.
China is taking unusually great interest in this visit. For an in-depth story in People’s Daily Online please click here…
There’s another interesting story in The Guardian: “Nancy Pelosi’s Syrian adventure”…Read on…
28 Responses to “Middle East Mission: Nancy Pelosi Marches On!”
Pelosi and Lantos in Syria is a great story!
One of the memes of liberal folks here at TMV is of the Unitary Executive, yet here we have the Speaker playing at being Secretary of State. A fact admitted by Lantos, who declared:
“We have an alternative Democratic foreign policy. I view my job as beginning with restoring overseas credibility and respect for the United States.�
Yep, there is the Foreign Policy of the United States, under the Constitution belonging to the Executive branch.
And now, Lantos says, there is also a “Democratic foreign policy”.
I await all liberals at TMV who have expressed outrage over Bush’s pushing the envelope on the powers of the executive to express their outrage at Pelosi’s exceeding her Constitional authority.
A “Democratic Foreign Policy” for the United States of America has no more Consitutional authority than “Marlowe’s Foreign Policy for the United States of America”.
In fact, I think I will visit Italy in my first trip abroad, as part of my Foreign Policy.
Bringing the bikini babes of the Amalfi Coast on board will be a crucial first step in the “Marlowe Foreign Policy” for peace in the Middle East.
The hilarious joke that is Pelosi as whiteface Condi Rice wouldn’t be so bad if that stick-insect Boy Assad had not killed the former president of Lebanon, his next-door neighbor.
Wonder if the airhead from the City on the Bay asked the stick-insect about Rafiq Hariri?
daveinboca- And your point is?
Oh look, our Congress members do not even need helmets and body armor in this supposed land of “terrorists”. Do not forget that it was Syria on our side during the first republican war with Iraq. I simply cannot wait for trade relations with Syria!
BTW, has McCain and Graham left Iraq yet? Don’t think anybody knows or even cares. Somewhere Michael Ware is laughing his arse off, bent nose and all. lol
Since our authors seem to think the “The Guardian” is a good source of unbiased (“centrist”) news, read this piece by none other than the overtly pro-Bush WaPo on Pelosi’s “not exactly truthful” diplomacy.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/04/AR2007040402306.html
Geez, I wish I could come here for both sides of a story instead of having to always dig it out myself.
Here is another good take in the difference in the media coverage of the McCain trip vs. Pelosi. As it points out, where is all the ‘other side of the story’ coverage for Pelosi, or as the author put it, the ‘snark’.
From Snark to Syria
hat tip: Instapundit
Fair and balanced indeed. Good thing there is no bias in the MSM (only Fox).
What kind of fools actually think what Pelosi is doing is wonderful, other than liberals in the media?
I also find it strange that no one has mentioned the effect on some other countries in the region. Egypt, Jordan, ect. Their response has been widely negative. Pelosi brought Syria back into the game but didn’t make them pay for it. That makes no sense to me. It seems that Pelosi isn’t much on the international diplomacy thing or that this part of her trip had much more with making a domestic political point, than anything having to do with Syria
DLS, why do you think Pelosi going over and talking is a bad thing? It shows that not all of us are petulant like Bush is. It shows that the majority of Americans are reasonable people and not a bunch of kooks who will marginalize and/or attack all those that disagree with them.
I it should also be taken into context as not a counter policy to the Bush administration but more of the laying of the groundwork for later diplomatic negotiations once there is a new administration, whether Republican or Democratic.
It would be more foolish to support the presidents current knee-jerk policies.
I agree with Ashen Shard.
I’m sure Pelosi sign a surrender document and Sharia Law will be implimented when she returns. Why this visit is even more treasonist than Nixon kissing up to Mao and Choa(sp). Pingpong worked for Far East diplomacy, what will come from the ME, chess?
All those that have commented about this post that back Bush’s assertions, and foreign policies with the ME, how is all that working out? Oh, you say it’s an absoloute mess there now? Then shut the hell up, and find a better path, or succumb to stupidity of repitition….fools.
What law has Pelosi broken? The ISG has urged talks with Syria and Iran, but after Bush stubbornly refused to consider it, congressional members of both parties made forays to Syria and Iran. If Pelosi had a hand in inducing Syria to ask Iran to free the British hostages, then her trip was a success. Bush is trying to be Reagan-lite but lacks the common sense, flexibility and diplomatic instincts of Reagan. Pelosi doesn’t need to act like Bush’s puppet, but is her own person, representing the 70% of Americans who disapprove of our ME policies.
What the future First Ladies will wear after the Pelosi visit.
First Lady Laura Bushoud
I pretty much Agree with Ashen Shard, it was the right move practically, but I also see Marlowe’s point on the separation of powers argument. However, this isn’t even close to warrantless wiretapping, and a comparison is frankly insulting. No law has ever attempted to restrict the freedom of movement of public officers as private citizens, and to equate such a trip with the breach of a major, pivotal constitutional amendment.
If there was a breach of the law, it was probably only who paid for her plane ticket, extra security, etc. That really makes it a misappropriation rather than a constitutional breach.
> DLS, why do you think Pelosi going over and talking is a bad thing?
First of all, don’t be superficial — you’ve done this before with the soldier kidnapped by terrorists and the related “wearing a uniform” remark elsewhere and now you do it with “talking” here.
* She is insulting and disrupting and undermining the Bush adminstration — and US foreign policy
* She is shallowly posturing and trying to boost the Democrats’ political condition and prospects
* She is being friendly to adversaries of the USA when these adversaries have acted against US
* She is exhiibiting appeasement
* She is implying toleration, if not acceptance or even approval of Syria’s and Iran’s misconduct
> It shows that not all of us are petulant like Bush is.
> It shows that the majority of Americans are reasonable people
> and not a bunch of kooks who will marginalize and/or attack
> all those that disagree with them.
Oh, please.
> “We have an alternative Democratic foreign policy.
> I view my job as beginning with restoring overseas
> credibility and respect for the United States.�
First of all, too bad Pelosi didn’t say this. (Coward.)
Second, a lot’s wrong in there.
Third — what alternative, appeasement of Iran and Syria? One also wonders how their potential sellout of Israel would compare to the Bush people’s own tendencies. And what about a goodwill mission to Caracas on the way home, Tom ‘n’ Nancy?
Fourth, credibility and respect among whom, Iran, Syria, al-Qaida?
As to the quote itself, it would make fine “opposing party’s response” jabber after Bush’s next state of the union speech.
As to Lantos as future secretary of state under Hillary, well, the words are there, but what else?
Fred Hiatt wrote that piece of sniveling dreck in the WaPo and it’s already been debunked:
“[Hiatt's] claim is directly contradicted by the Post’s own reporting this morning, which states, “Foreign policy experts generally agree that Pelosi’s dealings with Middle East leaders have not strayed far, if at all, from those typical for a congressional trip.” Pelosi herself has “described the trip as little different than the visit paid to Syria the same week led by Rep. Frank R. Wolf (R-VA),” and she went to great lengths to express her unity of purpose with President Bush on terrorism issues. The Post’s own reporting today also cites several instances of members of Congress meeting with foreign leaders during the past 30 years. As ThinkProgress noted yesterday, in contrast with Pelosi’s trip, previous congressional actions abroad attempted to directly undermine President Clinton.”
Did you note the part about how Hiatt’s editorial nonsense is contradicted by his own newspaper?
DLS – I don’t expect you to understand this, because your ideas about foreign policy are straight from the Bushist playbook, but people with a more professional take on foreign policy can and will tell you that sulking and refusing to talk to national leaders because you think they’re Teh Evil! is plain stupid.
For the past 6 years, our foreign policy has been run by people who only know how to threaten and bluster, who think refusing to talk to people indicates strength, and who think blowing things up is the best way to deal with countries and individuals they don’t like. It’s as if our foreign policy was run by arrested adolescents who learned all they know from role-playing games and Star Wars fanfiction.
What Pelosi did is show how grownups do foreign policy. The fact that she has been welcomed by so many of our ‘adversaries’ is a very hopeful note – it means that, once we’re rid of the Bushists, the world may regard Bushism as an aberration, and possibly we can regain our stature in the world.
Marlowe,
I suggest you go back and read the U.S. Constitution. There’s absolutely nothing in the Constitution that states that foreign policy belongs solely to the Executive Branch. In fact, according the Consitution, the Legislative Branch actually has a great deal of authority with regards to foreign policy:
The Congress shall have Power To . . .
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces . . .
In addition, Article II Section 2 states that Congress must also be involved in making treaties with foreign nations:
In other words, Marlowe, your assertion that foreign policy “belonging to the Executive branch” is . . . well . . . flat out WRONG.
You might have a point, however, with regard to the President appointing and receiving ambassadors, as Article II Section 2 indicates that it’s the President’s responsibility to appoint ambassadors (with the advice and consent of the Senate), and Article II Section 3 indicates that it’s the President’s responsibility to “receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers.”
That’s hardly the say thing as your blanket statement about foreign policy
“belonging to the Executive branch.”
Are you kidding me, Marlowe? So the President using the TSA to monitor electronic surveillance within the United States, exercising the broad powers granted to him in the USA PATRIOT Act, denying an American citizen the right of Habeas Corpus, and ignoring that laws and court ruling of individual states (i.e. prosecuting medical marijuana users in California, ordering Terry Shiavo’s feeding tube be reinstated in Florida)–that’s Constitutional . . .
but Pelosi visiting a foreign head-of-state is unconstitutional?
Just what version of the Constitution are you referring to?
Good points, Casey L- but of course Pelosi’s trip makes great fodder for those who want to paint the Democrats as defeatist appeasers who seek only to undermine our president , who in his great wisdom, has decided not to talk to states that sponsor terrorism. The point about Wolf or GOP leaders undermining Clinton’s foreign policy will be lost in all of the spin.
Yikes. It’s blockquote shanigans again!
NOTE TO TMV VISITORS:
PLEASE remember to “undo” the blockquote option before the end of your comment. Failure to do so causes everybody’s comments to be merged together, as was the case above.
To those on the right several republicans have done the same damn thing Pelosi did, but it wasn’t a big deal with it was the boys from the same side. Also, today there is a republican delegation following meeting with Assad as well. Also, there was a republican with Pelosi when she went. But I guess its Pelosi whose the sole fuckup for opening a dialogue. Especially considering the Bush administration has been handling things so fucking brilliantly so far. I mean seriously, where could one possibly find fault?
Unconstitutional or not, it is completely ridiculous. A democratic foreign policy? ARe you kidding me? There should be one foreign policy, namely that of America.
Nicrivera (I think…the block quote thing is odd) said: “In other words, Marlowe, your assertion that foreign policy “belonging to the Executive branchâ€? is . . . well . . . flat out WRONG.”
The Executive control over Foreign Policy is constitutionally analogous to its control over the armed forces. In both cases, Congress controls the purse strings. Congress also advises and consents on appointments, promotions at senior levels.
But just as Peolsi can’t go to Iraq and order troops around, so too is she blocked from ordering diplomats around and making policy.
There is, after all, a Secretary of State…constitutionally under the Executive Branch.
If you are correct…then any member of Congress could go around the world and negotiate with foreign leaders…with the full authority of the United States of America.
That is patently absurd.
The Speaker has no such authority under the Constitution.
Did Tip O’Neill or Sam Rayburn go to Moscow to negotiate with the Soviets…against the wishes of Reagan, Truman or Eisenhower?
To those on the right several republicans have done the same damn thing Pelosi did, but it wasn’t a big deal with it was the boys from the same side
This is because a president can usually depend on his own party not to diplomatically and strategically stab him in the back. This cannot be said of Pelosi and in fact she no sooner has her meetings then the Israelis are announcing they did NOT say that.
Good points, Casey L- but of course Pelosi’s trip makes great fodder for those who want to paint the Democrats as defeatist appeasers who seek only to undermine our president
This is exactly the purpose of the trip. Parties do it to each other all the time. There is no doubt in anyones mind that Pelosi and company are here to win the hearts and minds of the restless antiwar who voted them into office. Syria really has little to say in the stand off with Iran and it is actually behaving quite decently considering there are 150,000 American Troops next door.
I suggest you go back and read the U.S. Constitution. There’s absolutely nothing in the Constitution that states that foreign policy belongs solely to the Executive Branch.
Absolutely right which is why the combined foreign policy by tradition has been left to the Executive branch of the government so that there is one person speaking for the country and not 538 of them. Gets sorta confusing when more then one person is saying what the USA will and wont do. This is evidenced by John McCain walking thru the streets of Baghdad saying what he said and Pelosi going to Syria and saying what she says and on and on. Remember as soon as she opened her mouth, the Israelis said “We did not say that.”
The ISG has urged talks with Syria and Iran, but after Bush stubbornly refused to consider it, congressional members of both parties made forays to Syria and Iran.
There is not a single thing wrong with them doing so other then to further Fracture and splinter the effort to deafeat terrorism to the point that it is no longer a worldwide threat. Obviously you will never defeat terrorism completely.
However the real point here is that the Allies of the USA are seeing in us the absolute total lack of will to fight this war and are then wondering why they are even involved themselves when technically it was not even their war but joined it as a courtesy and the right thing to do per treaty obligations, etc.
Their Forays into the muck are not intended to help. They are intended to shore up voter loyalties with the result depriving the President of international support and cohesion as the world watches in amusement as the once vaunted American Resolve melts like a snowcone in an oven.
Not sure what happened above with most of my post being in Italics when I thought I correctly used the em/Italics button.
If the State Dept objected to her visit to Syria, why did they brief her before she left? And Carter has said that Bush would not allow him to visit with the Syrian king, so if it was really a problem, Bush would have disallowed Pelosi’s visit as well. It is disingenous of Bush to allow her to go, have the State Dept brief her and then tear her apart, particularly since she has not broken significantly with official US policy, and since Repub Frank Wolf just left the country recently. This is a tempest in a teapot- Bush has chosen to play off of her visit because he thinks he can get political advantage out of it.
I actually think it is a plus, since we are so concerned about the state of human rights in the ME, for these countries to see a strong, independent female leader. It gives hope to millions of women enslaved by Sharia.
In the 90′s GOP Congressmen visited Colombia and Slovakia to discuss a policy that diverged radically from Bill Clinton’s- it is high hypocrisy, that they are now screaming about a Democrat’s visit.
[...] Apr 6th, 2007 by mvdg H/t Swaraaj Chauhan [...]