The Big Cat Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 I don't quite understand why Dubya is making a big deal about her meeting with President Assad. He seems as opposed to the trip as she seems for it. I understand Bush's hard line "we don't talk to them" stance and I think Pelosi is deliberately undermining that, but political assassination aside, what bad could come from her meeting with an un-friendly head-of-state? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 She'll look dazzling in a Burka. Go, Nancy. Go! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 She'll look dazzling in a Burka. Go, Nancy. Go! The Executive Branch carries on affairs of State, not the Legislative Branch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pdh1 Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 I don't quite understand why Dubya is making a big deal about her meeting with President Assad. He seems as opposed to the trip as she seems for it. I understand Bush's hard line "we don't talk to them" stance and I think Pelosi is deliberately undermining that, but political assassination aside, what bad could come from her meeting with an un-friendly head-of-state? I think its a great idea, if she stays there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D_House Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 A few thoughts: 1. she's going as part of a bipartisan delegation, acting on behalf of the bipartisan Iraq study group's recommendations for enhanced diplomacy with Iraq's neighbors. 2. the White House, for whatever reason, did not see fit to publicly criticize a group of Republican lawmakers (Reps. Frank Wolf (R-VA), Joseph R. Pitts (R-PA) and Robert Aderholt (R-AL)) that visited Syria and Assad two days before Pelosi. http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationwor...world-headlines 3. the Isreali President has come out and defended Pelosi's trip. http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idU...mp;pageNumber=2 if this is "political assassination," or an attempt to "undermine" the President, then Pelosi alone is not guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 The Executive Branch carries on affairs of State, not the Legislative Branch. There is that. But apparently, Nancy Pelosi was elected the "co-executive". At least, ever since the mid-terms I've been under the distinct impression that the Speaker of the House can do whatever the hell they want... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted April 3, 2007 Author Share Posted April 3, 2007 A few thoughts: 1. she's going as part of a bipartisan delegation, acting on behalf of the bipartisan Iraq study group's recommendations for enhanced diplomacy with Iraq's neighbors. 2. the White House, for whatever reason, did not see fit to publicly criticize a group of Republican lawmakers (Reps. Frank Wolf (R-VA), Joseph R. Pitts (R-PA) and Robert Aderholt (R-AL)) that visited Syria and Assad two days before Pelosi. http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationwor...world-headlines 3. the Isreali President has come out and defended Pelosi's trip. http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idU...mp;pageNumber=2 if this is "political assassination," or an attempt to "undermine" the President, then Pelosi alone is not guilty. good points. Do you think she actually seeks to accomplish anything, or even thinks she has a chance to? Or, is she there because she can be? I'm inclined to think it's a combination of the two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 good points. Do you think she actually seeks to accomplish anything, or even thinks she has a chance to? Or, is she there because she can be? I'm inclined to think it's a combination of the two. Seriously...has a Congressional fact-finding mission ever gone overseas and accomplished anything? Even beyond that...as wacka said, the executive handles affairs of state. Theoretically, Pelosi could come back having a lot of insight to provide to the White House as to Syrian relations. As a practical matter...this White House has rather inflexibly decided that Syria's part of the "Axis of Evil", and that's that. I don't see how Pelosi's - or anyone else's - input is going to change that, irrespective of partisanship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 I don't quite understand why Dubya is making a big deal about her meeting with President Assad. He seems as opposed to the trip as she seems for it. I understand Bush's hard line "we don't talk to them" stance and I think Pelosi is deliberately undermining that, but political assassination aside, what bad could come from her meeting with an un-friendly head-of-state? Best to keep a unified front against adversaries. The old, and correct, wisdom - politics stop at the borders - as well as ex-Presidents (and Vice-Presidents) keeping their mouths shut in deference to later executives - has been ripped to shreds by the likes of leftists like Carter, Gore, and Clinton. What self-serving men they are... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 Best to keep a unified front against adversaries. The old, and correct, wisdom - politics stop at the borders - as well as ex-Presidents (and Vice-Presidents) keeping their mouths shut in deference to later executives - has been ripped to shreds by the likes of leftists like Carter, Gore, and Clinton. What self-serving men they are... Things change... You are such a fuddy-duddy! Who cares which lawmaker goes where... Why is it "correct"... Explain? Clarify it in the Constitution... Or is it? Affairs of the State... Executive branch... Any scholars out there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 The Executive Branch carries on affairs of State, not the Legislative Branch. Ya think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted April 3, 2007 Author Share Posted April 3, 2007 Best to keep a unified front against adversaries. The old, and correct, wisdom - politics stop at the borders - as well as ex-Presidents (and Vice-Presidents) keeping their mouths shut in deference to later executives - has been ripped to shreds by the likes of leftists like Carter, Gore, and Clinton. What self-serving men they are... aaaargh I can't help but notice you didn't include Bush Senior to that list... Do you consider Bush Jr. "self serving?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted April 3, 2007 Author Share Posted April 3, 2007 Best to keep a unified front against adversaries. The old, and correct, wisdom - politics stop at the borders - as well as ex-Presidents (and Vice-Presidents) keeping their mouths shut in deference to later executives - has been ripped to shreds by the likes of leftists like Carter, Gore, and Clinton. What self-serving men they are... and wait what? What do ex-presidents have to do with this argument? In regards to 'unified fronts'- is this to say that the president's voice/face is the voice/face of the American government...sounds a bit like a dictator. Checks and balances? Signing statements? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 Best to keep a unified front against adversaries. The old, and correct, wisdom - politics stop at the borders - as well as ex-Presidents (and Vice-Presidents) keeping their mouths shut in deference to later executives - has been ripped to shreds by the likes of leftists like Carter, Gore, and Clinton. What self-serving men they are... Carter? Yeah, why would you want a Nobel Prize-winning champion of human rights jetting all over the world interfering with Bush's foreign "policy"? Gotta keep a nut like that in the box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 Carter? Yeah, why would you want a Nobel Prize-winning champion of human rights jetting all over the world interfering with Bush's foreign "policy"? Gotta keep a nut like that in the box. He's really good at elections. Do they have a Nobel for that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 Here are the different ways I look at this. 1. She should not be going there unless the President sends her bipartisan or not. Republicans shouldn't be going either unless the President sends them. People who are not active members of the government are free to do whatever they want but if you are an active member of the government then you must respect the chain of command. 2. It is very obvious that her trip is being singled out and the trip the day before is being ignored. The bipartisanship of her trip is never mentioned either. Why? It's obvious but if you don't know it's just a reason to slam the Dems. 3. There is a caveat here for her trip and the trip of all of the Republicans involved too. When a President is so freaking incompetent and ignores the advice of people who are much more learned than him in the issues and continues to "stay the course" of a losing plan it changes the rules. 4. in·san·i·ty Pronunciation: in-'sa-n&-tE Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural -ties 1 : a deranged state of the mind usually occurring as a specific disorder (as schizophrenia) 2 : such unsoundness of mind or lack of understanding as prevents one from having the mental capacity required by law to enter into a particular relationship, status, or transaction or as removes one from criminal or civil responsibility3 a : extreme folly or unreasonableness b : something utterly foolish or unreasonable. IMO, all of those apply to the Bush administration and so when the President and Vice President fit the definition of insane all bets are off. In a situation like this it is imperative that Syria and Iran be reached out to. Like it or not they have the power over us right now. Bushes negotiating strategy is to go to war. If you don't want to go to war do what he says or else. However, when he goes to war it's done in a half-butted ill conceived and haphazard way. This doesn't really make people scared it makes them bolder. They realize the U.S. is spread too thin in order to mount any serious attack. So they continue with nuclear aspirations and fund terrorist opposition groups and thumb their noses at the U.S. daring us to try anything. They know the Taliban is quickly gaining control of Afghanistan again and that the Iraq war is going horrendously and that the chickenhawks in charge of the war strategy couldn't win a game of Stratego against any of even their most dim brained army strategists. So when it becomes a safety issue for the country because the country is being endangered by a loose cannon who thinks that the Presidency of the U.S. is a dictatorship where he doesn't have to pay attention to the laws that every President must follow it is incumbent on some people in government to reach out and let these enemies know that not all Americans are as wacky as the administration and not to judge the whole country by it's insane leader. Should all Venezualans be judged by Hugo Chavez? The President has taken a large group of people and put them into a prison without any trials to determine what crimes they may or may not be guilty of. So now when Iran takes British sailors and refuses to give them back accusing them of a crime the President says that is immoral and wrong?! Another question I have for the Bush supporters is this; If you found out that the British sailors were being "waterboarded" would you think they were being tortured? I would, but then again I think the guys in Guantanamo being "waterboarded" are being tortured too. 'Nuff said Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 She'll look dazzling in a Burka. Go, Nancy. Go! Here ya go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 Here ya go. What was that word from the SNL, it escapes me. I think it was Church Lady that used it. Damn if I remember. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 The Executive Branch carries on affairs of State, not the Legislative Branch. That would be the case if we had a competent administration, but since we don't someone has to be the adult and not just talk to the people we like. Nixon talked to North Vietnam and China, Carter talked to Egypt, and Reagan talked to the Soviet Union, but Bush and Rice can't talk to Syria or Iran. Even the Israeli PM wants to have regional talks including Syria and Iran, and Bush is opposing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 That would be the case if we had a competent administration, but since we don't someone has to be the adult and not just talk to the people we like. Nixon talked to North Vietnam and China, Carter talked to Egypt, and Reagan talked to the Soviet Union, but Bush and Rice can't talk to Syria or Iran. Even the Israeli PM wants to have regional talks including Syria and Iran, and Bush is opposing it. I just love when you partisans apologize when your group basically subjugates the Constitution. You wanna run foriegn policy? Win the executive. Until then, sit your ass in Washington and do your goddamn job. There's nothing worse than a "leader" who tries to everyone's job but their own, except the assclowns who keep making excuses for their incompetence. Care to go back through the last 10 administrations to find which countries each one didn't have public relationships with? Or are you just going to continue regurgitating Salon.com BS? [/rhetorical] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts