namelesstavern.net

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070404/ts_nm/syria_usa_pelosi_dc

I swear she's playing out of the Carter handbook. In October of 2003 in her support of sanctions against Syria she made this statement:

http://www.house.gov/pelosi/press/releases/Oct03/SyriaAccountabilityAct101503.html

Syria’s assistance to terrorist organizations is well known, and the State Department continues to list Syria as a state sponsor of terrorism, in violation of resolutions on that issue by the United Nations Security Council. The Bekaa Valley in Lebanon, which Syria controls, provides a haven and the site of training facilities for Hezbollah, Hamas, and other terrorist groups. These activities could not occur without the assent of the Syrian government.

The people of Israel and the cause of peace in the Middle East have been the traditional targets of the groups helped by Syria, but today’s attack on the U.S. convoy in Gaza is a reminder that the United States, and our interests around the world, are foremost on terrorist target lists. Dealing with the problem of terrorism must be our chief priority.

One of the lessons learned thus far in the war on terrorism is that there can be no success without disrupting the support networks on which terrorists rely. Rhetoric has thus far not been effective in encouraging the Syrian government to cease its assistance to terrorists, and to remove its forces from Lebanon.

So sanctions didn't work, the country still aids and harbors terrorist organizations and through them kill innocent civilians and American Troops. Her answer now? Try and negotiate (capitulate) some sort of peace deal between Syria and Israel.

We called to the attention of the president our concern about fighters crossing the Iraq-Syria border to the detriment of the Iraqi people and our soldiers

"Concern"? How about fucking outrage. "Fighters"? I guess we stop calling them terrorists when we are trying to make nice and be subservient. "Detriment"? Understatement of the year, I'd think it's safe to say that when someone kills your people or the civilians they are trying to protect it's a tad bit beyond merely detrimental.

Don't get me wrong, opening communications to some extent with Syria isn't necessarily a bad thing, but pandering to them is the wrong way to go. We saw it with Iran and the taking of hostages, concession didn't work, only a firm stand did. There are basically only two solutions to dealing with countries under leadership such as this, concede to their demands at which point be ready to concede later on when they take the exact same action that worked before without repercussions, or take a firm stance to what is unacceptable, and stop trying to pay them in some form or another to stop attacks against you.

why do you equivilate negotiations with capitulation? And if we are to follow the line of thinking you are presenting here, then any negotiations with North Korea is capitulation. In truth all NK wants is to get paid so what exactly is the difference? I suppose you think we should attack Syria next in bush's war for oil control er terror.


oh and to clarify, I do not think Pelosi should have gone to syria, she has much more to do here forcing bush's hand

Neither is correct in my opinion. I strongly believe we should ignore syria and treat it as it really is, a loose coalition of warring tribes. Nothing of value has ever come from that "country" and more than likely ever will. We should leave that area (including Israel) and let them hash out their differences. While we are at it, lets stop selling our military might to these people. I'm curious to know what war would be like if the US had never sold any of our arms to Isreal and the middle east. I'd wager they still would be slinging stones at each other rather than morter shells.

they would probably be fighting with russian and chinese arms

If so, would terrorists have attacked Moscow or Beijing?

good point. we'll never know thou

Evermore wrote:why do you equivilate negotiations with capitulation?

I don't. I do equivocate her particular brand of negotiations in this case as such. I look at her choice of wording, her failure to convey correctly Israels stance. I look at Assad's response of being willing to cooperate but only if the US makes the first concessions.

Our bargaining chip here should be the lifting of sanctions imposed on the country, not appearing to entertain the idea of the US putting pressure on Israel to return to Syria a strategic area that was used as a base from which to terrorize the country.

The reason you equivocate negotiations with capitulation is due to the nature of this conference.

Israel has stated that it will not negotiate with Syria while it provides terrorist support to Hamas and Hezbollah, which has been proven, and engages in assassinating Lebanons leaders and in known covert operations in Beirut meant to disrupt the Lebanese elected government.

Nancy Pelosi, who is not part of the State Department, and has no legitimate way to actually speak for the United States, wrongly told the media and Syria that Israel is ready to begin the peace process. This legitimizes the current Syrian government and policies and makes it tougher for us to isolate them, which we are trying to do. Right or wrong, it is not Nancy Pelosi's business to negotiate for the US Government, and her actions were foolish and helped the Syrians.

It required Israel to backpeddle and state it's position, muddying things, while aiding and helping the Syrian propaganda machine in the international community.

I agree with this editorial from the Washington Post, which is a left leaning newspaper:

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.

Who cares. She's almost doing all of this throw it in Bush's face. Why not let her? Bush is an idiot that has turned the US into a joke globally, and he's allowed Republican Congressmen over there before.

Burgy99 wrote:Who cares. She's almost doing all of this throw it in Bush's face. Why not let her? Bush is an idiot that has turned the US into a joke globally, and he's allowed Republican Congressmen over there before.

If she is placing a political agenda above the interests of our country then yes I care... I was giving her the benefit of doubt and not making this charge. I would think though that if you believe that she would sacrifice national interest to get political shots in you would care.

As far as allowing Republican Congressmen to go to Syria A). it wasn't in the same capacity and B). Unlike them she is Speaker of the House, not just a Congressional representative.

Lueyen wrote:
If she is placing a political agenda above the interests of our country then yes I care... I was giving her the benefit of doubt and not making this charge.

Well isn't our president doing the very same thing ?

Burgy99 wrote:

Lueyen wrote:
If she is placing a political agenda above the interests of our country then yes I care... I was giving her the benefit of doubt and not making this charge.

Well isn't our president doing the very same thing ?

In regards to what action exactly?

Being pig headed about staying in Iraq when every one is telling him to get out ?

Burgy99 wrote:Being pig headed about staying in Iraq when every one is telling him to get out ?

So wouldn't you say staying in Iraq is a bad political move?

Of course I would say staying in Iraq is a bad political move. Going over there in the first place was dumb.

Well since staying in Iraq is a bad political move, then I think it's safe to say Bush is not doing it for reasons of political gain, therefore he's not doing the very same thing you've charged Pelosi of doing.

Burgy99 wrote:

Lueyen wrote:
If she is placing a political agenda above the interests of our country then yes I care... I was giving her the benefit of doubt and not making this charge.

Well isn't our president doing the very same thing ?

I didn't say he was doing it for political gain Lueyen, but it his still his political agenda. Theres nothing for him to possibly gain since he's already going down as the worse president in history.

The key difference and the reason the two actions are not similar is that Bush is not taking his stance on Iraq to throw it in his political opponents faces. He's stated his reasons, agree or disagree with them it doesn't really matter in this context. His reasons are that withdrawal would be detrimental to our country, Iraq and the Middle East in general.

He's doing what he thinks is best for our national interests. You said Pelosi was doing what she did to get at a political opponent, national interests aside. There's a very stark difference there.

Why can't Pelosi be doing what she's doing because SHE believes it is best for America? Just because you disagree with her, doesn't mean she's doing it for nefarious reasons. I disagree rather strongly with Bush and his faith-based initiatives. That doesn't mean I think he is endorsing them for some nefarious purposes, however, I just think he's wrong.

Remember, the bipartisan Iraq Study group STRONGLY recommended direct dialogue with both Syria and Iran. She could merely be attempting to follow their advice and guidelines. Do I think it's the best plan in the world? No, of course not. But it's manifestly obvious that the President's methods aren't working, and he refused to even consider the recommendations by the ISG, which was lead by his own father's Secretary of State, so...

Ultimately, we'll have to see what the long term impact of the visit is. If it helps lead to morem dialogue and a greater chance for peace, then it it worked. If it doesn't, then I can't see as how it made things materially worse than they already were. Ultimately, I think the whole controversy will end up being a tempest in a teapot.

-Arlos

She's a woman, she doesn't even know what SHE wants.

Never mind an entire fucking country...

Burgy99 wrote:Being pig headed about staying in Iraq when every one is telling him to get out ?

Not everyone.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17970430/

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) will launch a high-profile effort next week to convince Americans that the Iraq war is winnable, embracing the unpopular conflict with renewed vigor as he attempts to reignite his stalling bid for the presidency.

Phlegm wrote:

Burgy99 wrote:Being pig headed about staying in Iraq when every one is telling him to get out ?

Not everyone.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17970430/

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) will launch a high-profile effort next week to convince Americans that the Iraq war is winnable, embracing the unpopular conflict with renewed vigor as he attempts to reignite his stalling bid for the presidency.

Dude John McCain is a "bushie". If Bush pissed on the flag he would support it.

Actually Arlos, I never did say Pelosi wasn't doing what she thought was best, that accusation was made by Burgy99 saying who cares. It does concern me that anyone is of the mindset that doing something that might potentially be damaging to our country is okay if it's for the sake of taking shots at Bush. Although I don't believe Pelosi lost much sleep over the idea, I don't believe she did it all to "throw it in Bush's face".

One of the conservative talking points is along the lines that she overstepped her bounds. While that might be the case, I don't really hold that against her. I view it in much the same light as I view the previous non binding resolutions on Iraq. Although I may not agree with the positions, I do think that they have a positive outcome (even if it's inadvertent) in that these things are putting some pressure on the Iraqi government that was needed. I'm hoping to see some positive effect from this even if it's indirect and not what she was aiming for.

Again I have not issues with opening channels of communication, but I don't see it as being positive if done with a sort of cap in hand approach she seems to have taken. Like I stated previously, a strong stance that allows for consideration of lifting sanctions would be one thing, entertaining ideas of the US pressuring Israel to give up Golan is entirely different.

In the end I believe her actions will not be perceived by the likes of Syria and Iran as a shift in US policy that is more gentle and something to be worked with, but as a weakness to be exploited by saying one thing and doing another. In short I believe it encourages actions from these sorts of countries that are veiled threats and thumbing their noses at us.

Looking into the future I see it as very likely that Pelosi will eventually make a presidential bid. We've just recently seen the beginnings of Iran going back to it's old tricks with hostages. Most here probably don't remember the hostage situations during the Carter administration, the ones that ended abruptly when Regan took office. I do remember that time and the lessons everyone who was alive should remember. Showing these countries that they can get anything from us via overt terrorist acts only encourages them to keep doing it to get what they want. A solid hard nosed stance gets the results, pandering negotiations result in continued problems.

Pelosi was a strong supporter of sanctions against Syria, and is in a position to have a profound impact toward the lifting of those sanctions. Reservations aside about her actions (which is pretty much the view I look at this with anyway) I think she really missed the boat here and could have accomplished far more positives if she had approached the situation with this in mind.

Evermore wrote:

Phlegm wrote:

Burgy99 wrote:Being pig headed about staying in Iraq when every one is telling him to get out ?

Not everyone.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17970430/

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) will launch a high-profile effort next week to convince Americans that the Iraq war is winnable, embracing the unpopular conflict with renewed vigor as he attempts to reignite his stalling bid for the presidency.

Dude John McCain is a "bushie". If Bush pissed on the flag he would support it.

If the Republicans run McCain in 2008 they will deserve the loss of the race.

I doubt he'll make it through the primaries.

I figure either Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney will win out, but someone could come out of left field.

I'm more interested in the DNC side, and who will pull out in front there.