Comments on: Rogue Senators Undermining American Interests

By: Pyst

Pyst — Mon, 01 Jan 2007 06:04:31 +0000

“Or would citing some actual facts detract from the mindless right-bashing which, in addition to mindless left-bashing, – and like your precious Specter and Kerry and Dodd – are hurting America?”

Right bashing? I MISS the old GOP, the one that included thought and actual conservatism. Btw Specter is GOP…you lose points for that one, and the fact I care for none of the senators listed.

Don’t bother me if you use the “you didn’t cite any facts” chant when you yourself had none it the damn post. Your blogpost is called an opinion peice, and if you can’t recognize that you dont belong here.

By: Jim S

Jim S — Mon, 01 Jan 2007 03:25:41 +0000

It’s not possible to put aside anti-Bush feelings on this issue and be realistically considering it. The fact is when it comes to virtually anything concerning foreign relations the question is not whether Bush and his minions will screw it up. The question is just how badly they’ll screw it up. Since it has also been proven that the Bush administration cannot be trusted to be telling Congress the whole truth about things why shouldn’t Senators go and try to find out things for themselves?

By: SteveK

SteveK — Mon, 01 Jan 2007 03:12:42 +0000

It sounds like Andrew is playing the “treason card” when all the congress critters are doing is their job… It’s called “Oversight” and there are many that don’t recognize it because it has been missing for so long.

By: Rudi

Rudi — Mon, 01 Jan 2007 02:09:55 +0000

I would say that these senators went with good intentions. Where was your outrage when Wheldon was ready to travel to NK and Iraq to further his crazy agenda.

By: GreenDreams

GreenDreams — Sun, 31 Dec 2006 23:31:23 +0000

OK, I read the whole post and fully disagree. Yes, we have trained diplomats, but an administration that is openly hostile to diplomacy. Your use of the term ‘treason’ is completely inappropriate. Treason is when you sell weapons to the enemy, as Reagan did. I approve of my representative traveling to trouble spots to talk and listen. I wish our belligerent, arrogant and incompetent administration would do more of that. When the intelligence agencies and the state department are commanded to lie to Congress, or to deny them any access to any information they have, it’s time for saner minds to engage in direct investigation, discussion, and yes, diplomacy to seek answers where our blinkered foreign policy team clearly cannot.

By: Andrew Quinn

Andrew Quinn — Sun, 31 Dec 2006 21:16:41 +0000

Please, Pyst, please just read the article.

Put aside your anti-Bush administration railing, read the article, and tell me that they’re not hurting the nation.

Enough rhetoric, enough constant drudgery of vague accusations against the President – please demonstrate specifically how their actions have helped the nation any more than Bush or Condi.

Or would citing some actual facts detract from the mindless right-bashing which, in addition to mindless left-bashing, – and like your precious Specter and Kerry and Dodd – are hurting America?

By: Pyst

Pyst — Sun, 31 Dec 2006 20:56:22 +0000

Effectiveness? Do please let us all know just when the administration has actually been effective on this issue.

Someone has to be doing the work Bush/Condi hasn’t tried or can’t do, and it seems the congress is about to do the heavy lifting for the next 2 years since we’ve been saddled with the worst run administration in over a century.

Great, another “moderate” view I guess.

By: Andrew Quinn

Andrew Quinn — Sun, 31 Dec 2006 20:35:32 +0000

I’m going to ask you guys to read the Middle East Forum post quoted and linked in my article.

It’s not that Senators should necessarily NEVER participate in diplomacy, it’s when they go directly against the State Dept’s requests and their actions undermine the nation’s position at the negotiating table.

The article cites the distinct negative impact these actions have had.

By: just passing by

just passing by — Sun, 31 Dec 2006 19:43:39 +0000

You are kidding, right? It has been a long tradition, dating back to the Romans even, of Senators and Representatives going off to meet and talk to people the official administration may not want to, or want not to be seen talking to, or want to convey a more nuanced position to their adversaries. It has always been a necessary and useful weapon in the arsenal of diplomacy, and has usually been done with backdoor approval from administrations of the time, even though public posturing has always been against. This time it may be different, and if so, thank god and what took them so long?!

By: Paul Silver

Paul Silver — Sun, 31 Dec 2006 19:41:38 +0000

I feel that the Legislative branch has patiently given the President reasonable time to demonstrate his competence and make progress. I applaud Senators insisting on getting direct feedback on their questions.

By: Michael van der Galien

Michael van der Galien — Sun, 31 Dec 2006 19:36:58 +0000

Andrew. I posted something about this a while ago, and I agree with you that it is quite strange and that – in my opinion – they should not be doing it. In short, it is not their responsibility, even when they take it voluntarily.

However, traitors? No, treason does not apply to them. Do you know how strict ‘treason’ is? In the legal meaning of it I mean? It cannot be used in these kind of circumstances.

(nor should it by the way)

By: Gary

Gary — Sun, 31 Dec 2006 19:35:42 +0000

Your statement about the senators may or may not be correct. Considering how ineffectual our path in that arena has been for years, I’m not overly concerned.

Maybe someday we will get a real administration who can manage foreign affairs.