PDA

View Full Version : Pratfall in Damascus


CaJuNsOuLjA
04-05-2007, 10:43 AM
Pratfall in Damascus

HOUSE SPEAKER Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) offered an excellent demonstration yesterday of why members of Congress should not attempt to supplant the secretary of state when traveling abroad. After a meeting with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad in Damascus, Ms. Pelosi announced that she had delivered a message from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that "Israel was ready to engage in peace talks" with Syria. What's more, she added, Mr. Assad was ready to "resume the peace process" as well. Having announced this seeming diplomatic breakthrough, Ms. Pelosi suggested that her Kissingerian shuttle diplomacy was just getting started. "We expressed our interest in using our good offices in promoting peace between Israel and Syria," she said.

Only one problem: The Israeli prime minister entrusted Ms. Pelosi with no such message. "What was communicated to the U.S. House Speaker does not contain any change in the policies of Israel," said a statement quickly issued by the prime minister's office. In fact, Mr. Olmert told Ms. Pelosi that "a number of Senate and House members who recently visited Damascus received the impression that despite the declarations of Bashar Assad, there is no change in the position of his country regarding a possible peace process with Israel." In other words, Ms. Pelosi not only misrepresented Israel's position but was virtually alone in failing to discern that Mr. Assad's words were mere propaganda.

Ms. Pelosi was criticized by President Bush for visiting Damascus at a time when the administration -- rightly or wrongly -- has frozen high-level contacts with Syria. Mr. Bush said that thanks to the speaker's freelancing Mr. Assad was getting mixed messages from the United States. Ms. Pelosi responded by pointing out that Republican congressmen had visited Syria without drawing presidential censure. That's true enough -- but those other congressmen didn't try to introduce a new U.S. diplomatic initiative in the Middle East. "We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace," Ms. Pelosi grandly declared.

Never mind that that statement is ludicrous: As any diplomat with knowledge of the region could have told Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Assad is a corrupt thug whose overriding priority at the moment is not peace with Israel but heading off U.N. charges that he orchestrated the murder of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq al-Hariri. The really striking development here is the attempt by a Democratic congressional leader to substitute her own foreign policy for that of a sitting Republican president. Two weeks ago Ms. Pelosi rammed legislation through the House of Representatives that would strip Mr. Bush of his authority as commander in chief to manage troop movements in Iraq. Now she is attempting to introduce a new Middle East policy that directly conflicts with that of the president. We have found much to criticize in Mr. Bush's military strategy and regional diplomacy. But Ms. Pelosi's attempt to establish a shadow presidency is not only counterproductive, it is foolish.

Link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/04/AR2007040402306_pf.html)

CaJuNsOuLjA
04-05-2007, 10:46 AM
Sorry, but I think this warrants her immediate removal if it can be wholly verified as accurate. This is a diplomatic blunder of the worst kind. First, she goes over there when we as a nation have a "no communication" policy with Syria and then she lies effectively burying any credibility she has in the future. Shyt is ridiculous.... I FCUKIN' HATE POLITICIANS :angry7:

AliceInChains02
04-05-2007, 10:49 AM
meh. :eh:

CaJuNsOuLjA
04-05-2007, 10:53 AM
meh. :eh:

So do you think this is acceptable behaviour for such a high ranking official within the US government as the Speaker of the House, basically the Speaker of our legislative branch? Or do you agree that this was absurd?

AliceInChains02
04-05-2007, 11:08 AM
So do you think this is acceptable behaviour for such a high ranking official within the US government as the Speaker of the House, basically the Speaker of our legislative branch? Or do you agree that this was absurd?

i think the whole thing was political. there's probably a lot to it we don't know. why would she lie about what the PM said? i'd like to understand her motivation if they want to me think she's some crazy bitch like they're making her out to be.

CaJuNsOuLjA
04-05-2007, 11:14 AM
i think the whole thing was political. there's probably a lot to it we don't know. why would she lie about what the PM said? i'd like to understand her motivation if they want to me think she's some crazy bitch like they're making her out to be.

Well, she has many reasons to lie, one being that it makes her look great were she to be considered the catalyst for such a break-through. The actual question you should ask is why should she or any other politician (Yes, Republicans went too, funny how nothing was said about it until a Dem or Dumi [Rick] went) go there when we have a "no communication" policy with Syria? Her motivation was strictly political. There were no good intentions there, were taht the case she'd be working on changing the communication policy, they've got enough seats.

AliceInChains02
04-05-2007, 11:16 AM
Well, she has many reasons to lie, one being that it makes her look great were she to be considered the catalyst for such a break-through. The actual question you should ask is why should she or any other politician (Yes, Republicans went too, funny how nothing was said about it until a Dem or Dumi [Rick] went) go there when we have a "no communication" policy with Syria? Her motivation was strictly political. There were no good intentions there, were taht the case she'd be working on changing the communication policy, they've got enough seats.

Did she think she could just announce lies and get away with it? That seems a bit stupid to me. I don't understand how things work in politics, but I don't know how she thought she could get away with this.

CaJuNsOuLjA
04-05-2007, 11:19 AM
Did she think she could just announce lies and get away with it? That seems a bit stupid to me. I don't understand how things work in politics, but I don't know how she thought she could get away with this.

Well Clinton thought he could lie about Monica, Nixon thought he could lie about Watergate, why the hell not Alice?

AliceInChains02
04-05-2007, 11:20 AM
Well Clinton thought he could lie about Monica, Nixon thought he could lie about Watergate, why the hell not Alice?

Because she should know that if you go announce that someone just said something, and they didn't say it, and they have no reason to protect your interests, then they're probably not going to keep quiet about it.

CaJuNsOuLjA
04-05-2007, 11:31 AM
Because she should know that if you go announce that someone just said something, and they didn't say it, and they have no reason to protect your interests, then they're probably not going to keep quiet about it.

Right...it actually benefits Israel to seem to want to be friendly with Syria. Because momentarily, they are considered the a$$holes of the Middle East due to their no nonsensical attitude towards entities who wish harm to the people of Israel. Israel tends to go against the grain tho and for good reason, they've attempted time and time again, conceded time and time again only to be attacked later by-entities within- the very same nations they wished to be peaceful with. This is why Israel wouldn't have submitted such a statement or allowed for such a policy. Back on topic though: Do you not see where Pelosi stands to gain by telling her little fibb? Perhaps she thought it would be acceptable to say that Israel wanted peace with Syria (absent of Israel actually saying so) allowing for a Syrian response and then based on said response, antipatively, Israel would be influenced to get on-board?

CaJuNsOuLjA
04-05-2007, 11:32 AM
Because she should know that if you go announce that someone just said something, and they didn't say it, and they have no reason to protect your interests, then they're probably not going to keep quiet about it.

Besides, politicians have done just that for years now...

CaJuNsOuLjA
04-05-2007, 11:34 AM
*anticipatively

Gigolo Jason
04-05-2007, 12:46 PM
Pelosi is a fool who is only isolating herself and the Democratic party from the American public.

She will not be in her current office long if she keeps this up.

CaJuNsOuLjA
04-05-2007, 02:22 PM
Dayum, this is a preeeetty slow day in the Polytico Ass :eh:

Rick H.I.C.
04-05-2007, 06:28 PM
Sorry, but I think this warrants her immediate removal if it can be wholly verified as accurate. This is a diplomatic blunder of the worst kind. First, she goes over there when we as a nation have a "no communication" policy with Syria and then she lies effectively burying any credibility she has in the future. Shyt is ridiculous.... I FCUKIN' HATE POLITICIANS :angry7:
Expect anything less from the lying liberal dummicrats? Guessing it will get covered up and forgot about quick. Anybody else they would be on fire!
Did I mention all politicians suck! All a bunch of lying shtuffs to stay in power.