Pelosi's trip to Syria

[jjimm]

@Mr. Moto

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.

You know, I’ve seen a lot of accusations of press bias on these boards over the years, and usually I’ve been very dubious - and on investigation the accusations have usually turned out to be wrong (pace december). But this is a clear misrepresentation by AP and SFGate subs of what Bush said, and I’m very disappointed.

[elucidator]

Oh, piffle! No body is going to believe that Ms. Pelosi is empowered to negotiate. I kinda think something of consequence should occur before we get all legal on her ass. That law is “pretty ineffective” in this case because applying that law would be, like, stupid.

You bet the visit sends a message, and its one GeeDubya doesn’t like to hear: that he’s not “the Decider” anymore.

note to jjim: be more specific?

[Syntropy]

@elucidator

Oh, piffle! No body is going to believe that Ms. Pelosi is empowered to negotiate. I kinda think something of consequence should occur before we get all legal on her ass. That law is “pretty ineffective” in this case because applying that law would be, like, stupid.

You say that as if Bush wouldn’t consider making a stupid, politically damaging move.

[Squink]

@elucidator

Oh, piffle! No body is going to believe that Ms. Pelosi is empowered to negotiate.

Not even one of Mr. Bush’s shiny new U.S. attorneys? After all, they do serve at the pleasure of the president, and the president is displeased.

[jjimm]

@elucidator

note to jjim: be more specific?

(My bold throughout.) Per Mr Moto’s White House link:

@GWB

We have made it clear to high-ranking officials, whether they be Republicans or Democrats, that going to Syria sends mixed signals – signals in the region and, of course, mixed signals to President Assad. And by that, I mean, photo opportunities and/or meetings with President Assad lead the Assad government to believe they’re part of the mainstream of the international community, when, in fact, they’re a state sponsor of terror; when, in fact, they’re helping expedite – or at least not stopping the movement of foreign fighters from Syria into Iraq; when, in fact, they have done little to nothing to rein in militant Hamas and Hezbollah; and when, in fact, they destabilize the Lebanese democracy.

There have been a lot of people who have gone to see President Assad – some Americans, but a lot of European leaders and high-ranking officials. And yet we haven’t seen action. In other words, he hasn’t responded. It’s one thing to send a message; it’s another thing to have the person receiving the message actually do something. So the position of this administration is that the best way to meet with a leader like Assad or people from Syria is in the larger context of trying to get the global community to help change his behavior. But sending delegations hasn’t worked. It’s just simply been counterproductive.

Vs.

@SFGate

President Bush criticized the [Pelosi’s] trip, saying it sends mixed signals to President Bashar Assad.

Yes, indeed, he did. But as you can see above, he did it on a general basis. I don’t know what info Pelosi had about what Bush said, but her reply indicates that the AP journo gave her a set-up question:

“It’s interesting because three of our colleagues, who are all Republicans, were in Syria yesterday and I didn’t hear the White House speaking out about that,” Pelosi said, referring to the Sunday meeting of Reps. Frank Wolf, Joe Pitts and Robert Aderholt with Assad in Damascus.

She could of course being the one misrepresenting, of course. Now look at the AP’s own coverage (different story I think):

On Tuesday, President Bush denounced Pelosi’s visit to Syria, saying it sends mixed signals to Assad’s government. “Sending delegations doesn’t work. It’s simply been counterproductive,” Bush said.

Refer back to what Bush said. This is not factually incorrect, but it’s a clear misrepresentation.

[elucidator]

@Squink

Not even one of Mr. Bush’s shiny new U.S. attorneys? After all, they do serve at the pleasure of the president, and the president is displeased.

Well, you can damn sure bet Ms. Pelosi won’t…

No. I can’t do it. It would be wrong…

[Elsie]

Nice to reflect on how one person’s “mixed messages” is anothers brand separation.

If you concentrate, you can just about feel the power slipping away . . .

[Squink]

@Elsie

Nice to reflect on how one person’s “mixed messages” is anothers brand separation.

No doubt this AP headline is pissing off the white house occupants:
Pelosi brings message of peace to Assad
Bush is supposed to be the annointer of Men of Peace.

[Duckster]

@Mr. Moto

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.

Hmmm …

LANCASTER COUNTY, Pa. - While U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s upcoming visit to Syria has caused the White House to bristle, a little-publicized rendezvous took place Sunday between Syria’s president and Lancaster County’s congressman.

And though Bush administration officials have been criticizing Pelosi, it’s not clear what role the White House and the U.S. Department of State played when U.S. Rep. Joe Pitts and two other Republican congressmen met with Syrian President Bassar Assad.

Pitts is a Chester County Republican who represents Lancaster County.

Gabe Neville, Pitts’ chief of staff, said Monday the conference between Assad and the three Republicans was intended to be “low profile.”

“It was done in cooperation with the administration,” he said.

Source: http://local.lancasteronline.com/4/202433

[BrainGlutton]

@Duckster

Gabe Neville, Pitts’ chief of staff, said Monday the conference between Assad and the three Republicans was intended to be “low profile.”

I guess that’s the difference. There is no way a meeting between the Speaker of the House and a foreign head of state can be “low profile.”

[elucidator]

So! This was a covert meeting!

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

@Quiddity Glomfuster

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.

No. It’s not that he is incapable of performing well or not. That is irrelevant.

“Ignoring”, as you put it, is for better or worse a tool of diplomacy. President Bush, and President Bush alone, sets the diplomatic agenda for the United States. Pelosi, via her position in the government, is extending Syria legitimacy that the President has determined they don’t deserve. I make no judgments as to whether they deserve legitimacy or not, because it’s not for me to say. Nor is it for Speaker Pelosi to say. That’s the long and short of it.

Perhaps you don’t mind that this delegation is doing what they are doing because you perceive it to be the right thing to do. That is for you to decide for yourself. But that doesn’t change the fact that it is not the job of the Speaker of the House to extend olive branches, or even create the perception of one.

[elucidator]

With all due…

Ms Pelosi’s “visit” merely states the thunderingly obvious: that GeeDubya has lost the confidence of the people and their elected representatives. This is not news to anyone who can read a newspaper. The Bushiviks are merely hoping to squeeze some juice out of their previous attempts to depict Ms Pelosi as just to the right of Hanoi Jane. Its a tired old ploy, but they’re running on fumes.

[Aquila_Be]

@Squink

No doubt this AP headline is pissing off the white house occupants:
Pelosi brings message of peace to Assad
Bush is supposed to be the annointer of Men of Peace.

It seems that Pelosi also pissed off the Reform Party of Syria:

reformsyria.org

Had Speaker Pelosi worn the Hijab inside a Mosque, this would have indicated respect but for Pelosi to wear it on the streets of Damascus all the while she is sitting with the self-imposed Baschar al-Assad who has come to symbolize oppression and one of the reasons why women are forced to wear the Hijab as they turn to religion to express their freedom is a statement of submittal not only to oppression but also to lack of women’s rights in the Middle East. Pelosi just reversed the work of the Syrian civil society and those who aspire for women’s freedom in the Muslim countries many years back with her visual statement. Her lack of experience of the Middle East is showing.

[Mr.Moto]

Washington Post blasts Pelosi trip.

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.

So there is a difference between these delegations. Whatever the other ones may have done, they didn’t misrepresent the Israeli position to one of its sworn enemies and they didn’t make the mistake of taking Assad’s words at face value. So even if all of these delegations need to be denounced as a matter of course, it is clear to me that Speaker Pelosi’s actions do deserve special attention and criticism.

[elucidator]

For an alternative view of the matter, I offer http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/05/post-editorial-pelosi-syria/...headlined “Washington Post Misleads, Contradicts Own Reporting, to Attack Pelosi”…

The editorial rests on two claims, both of which are baseless.

1. Pelosi passed an incorrect message from Israel to Syria. Pelosi said yesterday that she gave Syrian officials the message that Israel is “ready to engage in peace talks.” The Post falsely claims, “The Israeli prime minister entrusted Ms. Pelosi with no such message,” misinterpreting a statement from the Israeli Prime Minister’s office that simply reiterated its position that talks with Syria will not take place until Syria has taken steps to end its support for extremist elements. There is no evidence that Pelosi failed to communicate this message. In fact, Pelosi’s delegation specifically pressed the Syrian president “over Syria’s support for militant groups and insist[ed] that his government block militants seeking to cross into Iraq and join insurgents there.”…

They also take an interesting stroll down memory hole lane with this:

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/04/hastert-colombia/

…Speaker Pelosi has done nothing to suggest that she intended to speak on behalf of President Bush or the U.S. Government. But her predecessors haven’t been so respectful.

In 1997, Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) led a delegation to Colombia at a time when U.S. officials were trying to attach human rights conditions to U.S. security assistance programs. Hastert specifically encouraged Colombian military officials to “bypass” President Clinton and “communicate directly with Congress.”…

(links available at site. Site decidedly sinister, tighty rightys advised to proceed “Shields Up”)

But at least responsible elements have made an effort to tamp down this peace scare…

[David_Simmons]

@Airman Doors

President Bush, and President Bush alone, sets the diplomatic agenda for the United States.

I think this overstates the actual power of the President as specified in the Constitution. Here is the entire section regarding Presidential powers

Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.

Would you point out the part that gives GW sole power to determine US foreign policy?

By custom and expediency, the President has assumed the role of the voice of the US to foreign governments. Customs can be changed and what is expedient in some circumstances may not be so in others. In particular, when a President blindly and obstinately proceeds on a course that has resulted and is resulting in grave injury to US interests it just might not be expedient to let him continue unimpeded.

Additionaly, the Logan Act has been mentioned. Here is the text of that law

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

It appears to me that in order to violate this law an individual must have the intent to interfere in foreign relations in a way that is damaging to the US. I doubt that anyone can show that Pelosi intended to damage US interests in any way.

Members of Congress travel to foreign countries and speak with their leaders all of the time. Any number of voices have been raised that we must involve Iraq’s neighbors in any settlement of the Iraq situtation. The President refuses to make any move in that direction.

What can be done about that? Must we and the world just sit and wait until 20 January 2009 when we will be rid of this blot on the good name of the US?

[elucidator]

@David Simmons

…In particular, when a President blindly and obstinately proceeds on a course that has resulted and is resulting in grave injury to US interests it just might not be expedient to let him continue unimpeded…

In which Dave displays, once again, his gift for understatement.

[BrainGlutton]

@David Simmons

Any number of voices have been raised that we must involve Iraq’s neighbors in any settlement of the Iraq situtation.

But did Pelosi actually discuss that with Assad?

[Squink]

U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi visited Saudi Arabia’s appointed advisory council on Thursday, taking a chance to sit on the speaker’s chair in the all-male house – while it was empty.

Thank God it wasn’t occupied, or we’d be deluged with imagery of ‘Pelosi’s Saudi lap dance’.