Bush just blasted Pelosi for going to Syria, saying it’s “counterproductive” and sends “mixed signals” to the Assad government. Story here. Will her trip yield any beneficial results?
HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost They will run into a wall if they take off with this story.
Bush, Pelosi, or Assad?
If president Bush is to have any credibility with his bitching, he must first attend to beam in his own party’s eye:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2003647048_pelosi02.html
Bush will run into a problem, explaining how the Repubs that were there before her were not guilty of the same imagined offense.
Bah. Brand separation.
Not even Coke and Pepsi, more like Coke and Diet Coke; ‘the kinder, gentler, sugar-free face of imperial conquest’.
Honestly I can’t imagine Pelosi would say anything wildly different then what Bush would say when meeting with Assad: Don’t screw around in Lebannon, Democracy==Good, please don’t give people guns to shoot at us in Iraq, etc.
Eh, predictable really. Bach in the '90s people like Tom Friedman were saying the same thing about Gingrich’s foreign trips.
Just the normal push and shove of politics. I don’t put too much stock in it unless those people going over get it into their heads to do some negotiating with those leaders. That’s a power the Executive Branch alone has.
While I agree that on the whole, it makes more sense for negotiations with other countries to be done by the Executive or his formal or informal agents, I don’t see that spelled out anywhere that the respective branches’ powers are defined.
In fact, just the opposite - Congress, in Article I, Section 8, has the powers to lay and collect duties (presumably import duties, i.e. tariffs), to regulate commerce with foreign nations, to borrow money (presumably from other countries, back in that era) on the credit of the United States, to regulate the value of foreign currency, and so forth.
Negotiating is a power? It’s basically a fancy way of saying talking.
Being able to enter into binding agreements with other countries would be a power, but that’s something that neither Pelosi or the Bush can do unilaterally.
Unless Mr. Friedman (or better yet, Bill Clinton) was chastising Newt while at the same time ignoring foreign trips taken by Congressional Democrats, your comparison is not valid.
A quiet admission that kicking Syria out of The Lebanon led to chaos might go down well.
Heck, they took over after the Israelis marched out, and they (the Syrians) did a good job
(subject to the missile build up)
I have a vested interest, a friend of mine speny some time over there, and he said the Roman remains were profoundly interesting.
‘The Decider’ (spelled ‘Dictator’) is all sulky and pouty because he’s supposed to be the Supreme Boss of Everything and somebody’s doing something he doesn’t want her to. Boo hoo.
He Decided to ignore the very good advice he was given to negotiate with Syria. Props to Pelosi for doing what Shrub is too stubborn/stupid to do.
Actually, Bush did criticize the Republican delegation.
So let’s dispense with that little canard. Bush doesn’t like it when people go over and give Assad some face-time legitimacy. Now, this position can be defended or criticized, but let’s not pretend it was a partisan attack.
She’s certainly within her rights to go. I recall such trips by Jim Wright, Newt Gingrich and Denny Hastert when each was Speaker - never to as controversial a semi-enemy as Syria, though. If she’s made to look like Assad’s patsy, it could hurt her and the House Dems politically. Hope some good comes of the trip, but I have my doubts.
Another article: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/04/pelosi.mideast.ap/index.html
I find especially amusing the very slight scent of condescension I perceive from the treatment Pelosi et al. are giving to Bush’s complaints. The subtext, it seems to me, is dismissive with a touch of contempt: “George can say whatever he likes, we’re doing this anyway.” They’re treating him as increasingly irrelevant in his own government. “He bitched about it, did he? Huh, isn’t that interesting. Okay, now, on to business.” Must drive the Deciderer frakking nuts.
Oh balderdash. You can’t use diplomacy to resolve disputes when you refuse to engage in it. Shrub thinks that him ignoring people somehow will drive them to want to kowtow to him and please him. Well, how’s that been working for him thus far? :rolleyes: He’s clearly clueless in matters of foreign diplomacy. Thank heavens there’s finally some members of Congress willing to do the kind of work that Dub is incapable of performing welll.
I don’t know about other people, but I know that I was more interested in seeing specific criticism against republican delegates, for doing the same thing Pelosi is doing (since the White House has singled out Pelosi by name, mentioning that her actions are “sending the wrong message”).
I came across this particular story, which should help in putting that dog to rest, though. This story reinforces what you’re saying, Mr. Moto.
Sen. Arlen Specter Planning Trip to Syria Despite Bush Objections
LilShieste
Is she, though? Are members of Congress exempt from the Logan Act?
I doubt they are, since the Logan in question was a prominent politician of his time who was trying to negotiate an end to the Quasi War.
However, history has shown that particular law to be pretty ineffective in preventing this sort of thing.