39 Comments

1. Terrye:

Well considering how far her majesty has her nose stuck in the air, I doubt if she can see anything.

Apr 3, 2007 - 10:14 am 2. ElMondo:

She’ll only see what she wants to see.

“”When we go there, we’ll be talking about the overarching issue of the fight against terrorism and the role that Syria can play to help or to hinder,” Pelosi told the Associated Press.”

And what she sees is an opportunity to get help in Iraq from a neighboring country. Normally, that’d be a laudable goal, save for the fact that she’s going to one of the three countries that’s helping cause the troubles to begin with!!.

That’s like going to the arsonist for help with the fire. And I’m just so bitterly disappointed that she doesn’t see that.

She only sees this image in her mind that she can do better than anyone else in the region (I’d like her to talk to some of the Beruit Lebanese about getting Syrian “help” for any situation). To that end, she’s not going to see any of what your link pointed out, even if its in front of her face.

Apr 3, 2007 - 11:18 am 3. ElMondo:

Okay, I swear I only hit “Post” once. Go ahead and delete the duplication if you want to, Roger. Sorry ’bout that.

Apr 3, 2007 - 11:19 am 4. rjschwarz:

I’m not a big fan of Nancy but there is an old saying, “Only Nixon can go to China”.

If Nancy tells Assad that she’s going to support blowing the living crap out of him… Since she is the good cop (as far as the bad guys go) in the Administration this would carry a lot of weight and probably cause Assad to wet himself and stop.

If Nancy tells him that. There are a lot of other things she could say that would be harmless or damaging but I have to hope that an elected member of Congress has some sense, even if they play to the insane wing of the voters too often.

Apr 3, 2007 - 11:31 am 5. jedrury:

The great traveling liberal bandwagon arrived in Damascus comprised of Democrats Henry Waxman and Tom Lantos of California, Louise Slaughter of New York, Nick Rahall of West Virginia and Keith Ellison of Minnesota and of course, Queen Nancy herself.

How much reefer does she smoke to come up with a half ass trip like this ?

Apr 3, 2007 - 11:37 am 6. Bostonian:

RJSchwarz,

It seems more like to me that Nancita will be giving the message (intentionally or perhaps not) that Assad should just hang on until someone more reasonable (a Democrat) is in the White House.

Apr 3, 2007 - 11:38 am 7. Buddy Larsen:

A deal between the Democrats and the Terrorists. “America”, whatever that is, can just go bleep itself.

Apr 3, 2007 - 12:28 pm 8. Bostonian:

We have CNN in the elevator at work, lucky us.

CNN’s headline on this is that Pelosi’s visit is the first visit by a high-ranking Democrat “since relations with Syria began to deteriorate four years ago.”

When exactly did we have “good” relations with this dictatorship and why is that a “good” thing?

Apr 3, 2007 - 12:28 pm 9. Buddy Larsen:

Israel better strap on its helmet.

Apr 3, 2007 - 12:29 pm 10. ElMondo:

“When exactly did we have “good” relations with this dictatorship and why is that a “good” thing?”

On top of that, Bostonian, isn’t Assad’s regime the sort of government that the left usually crucifies America for “dealing” with? I guess it’s alright for some to talk to repressive dictatorships, as long as it’s for “proper” reasons. Such as differentiating onesself from the Bush administration…

Sheesh… the hypocrisy is galling.

Apr 3, 2007 - 1:18 pm 11. Buddy Larsen:

“Why of course, Mr. President Assad, we Democrats will help you take the Golan Heights!”

(psssst–aide, what the heck is the “golan heights”?)

Apr 3, 2007 - 1:49 pm 12. Soldier's Dad:

Roger,

When the Speaker of the House of Representatives starts dressing like this to avoid “offending anyone”

It is all over…break out the Burkas…the other side won.

Apr 3, 2007 - 2:09 pm 13. Terrye:

Buddy:

Or she will tell him to just keep those borders open and those terrorists going into Iraq, because the nastier it gets there, the better it is for her party.

Not her country, but then the country runs a slow second to winning. By winning I mean the next election, not something as unimportant as a war.

Apr 3, 2007 - 2:11 pm 14. Buddy Larsen:

Afraid you’re right, Terrye–though it won’t be put in such direct terms.

“How can we help each other?” will be the question, and the answer–what you said–is inexorable, given the cast of characters.

Apr 3, 2007 - 3:02 pm 15. Buddy Larsen:

It’s as if Benedict Arnold had been able to mobilize the sizeable number of American Royalists–Tories–and had managed to become George Washington’s co-president.

Apr 3, 2007 - 3:07 pm 16. Dan Panorama:

From Haaretz:

“Israel’s political and military leadership has been preparing in recent weeks for the possibility of a Syrian attack on the Golan Heights that will start as a result of a “miscalculation” on the part of the Syrians, who may assume that Israel intends to attack them.

Israel, however, has delivered a calming message, and has no plans to attack its northern neighbor.

According to information Israel received, the Syrians are concerned that the United States will carry out an attack against Iran’s nuclear installations in the summer, and in parallel Israel would strike Syria and Lebanon.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who visited IDF forces in the North last week, heard an intelligence assessment and was informed of the dangers of a Syrian “miscalculation.”

Following his visit to the forces in the field, a decision was made to publicly address the concerns of a possible deterioration with the Syrians, and to send a message that Israel has no intention of attacking Syria, nor is there any coordinated plan with the U.S. for a joint attack against Iran.

The speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, is scheduled to meet with Syrian President Bashar Assad in Damascus today, and will deliver a message of calm from Israel.

“We hope the message will be understood,” political sources in Israel said yesterday. “The question is whether Assad is looking for an excuse … so that he can carry out an attack against Israel in the summer, or whether this is a mistaken assessment.”

-So basically Nancy Pelosi is….helping Israel at THEIR request to PROTECT the Golan Heights.

I know it’s ingrained, but everyone needs to drop this assumption that Bush and Israel are always in agreement as to what’s best for Israel and start evaluating them as different actors. Bush has done next to nothing that concretely benefits them except invade Iraq, and ask Israelis how much safer they feel now with a suddenly exponentially stronger Iran as a result.

Apr 3, 2007 - 9:20 pm 17. Buddy Larsen:

Dan, even given the rosiest assessment, what is the Speaker of the House doing operating what amounts to a second, independent, foreign policy? Doesn’t this weaken the position of our supporters in the neighborhood?

The game has always been to win the cooperation and allegiance of the opinion-makers of Araby. What could this trip possibly do, but encourage those influentials to hedge themselves toward accommodation with our enemies? Isn’t this rather a strange thing all in all?

Apr 3, 2007 - 10:03 pm 18. Buddy Larsen:

I mean, who’s the next acting ambassador-at-large with a personally-derived portfolio to the world? The Mayor of New Orleans? Old Joe from down at the gas station?

No, this is bad work–it frays America’s reputation and weakens the world-wide anti-jihad forces. The Democrats know all that of course, but are doing it anyway–and precisely in order to delegitimize the president and his team (and the executive branch as it is currently incarnated).

It’s a coup-lite, is what it is. And it’s totally unjustified by anything at all, other than the Democrat’s own overheated rhetoric and dishonest policy on the war. Rhetoric & policy now moving into an exceedingly dangerous direct action.

Apr 3, 2007 - 10:17 pm 19. Terrye:

The point is the Bush administration said it was a bad idea for her to go and she responded with some obnoxious remark about how the president needs to calm down because there is a new Congress in town. It is an unnecessary slap in the face to the Bush administration at a time when we have troops in the field.

If the Israelis want to deliver a message to Syria they are quite capable of doing so without Princess Nancy and her entourage.

Apr 4, 2007 - 2:35 am 20. Lem:

I don’t know what the fuss is all about.

Didn’t Bill Clinton ask Newt Gingrich to get Slovodan Milosevic to stop genocide?

After the outing of Valery Plame, Joe Wilson could not be seriously considered to go to Syria.

Thank God for Nancy

Apr 4, 2007 - 6:21 am 21. ALEXISTAN:

No wonder she is welcomed there. She is there principal Western enabler. She represents one side the enemy is playing in the immortal game of “divida et impera.” And behold! The UK seamen are released. They are rewarding the appeasers.

For now. She, and her ilk, are gator food.

Apr 4, 2007 - 11:37 am 22. Buddy Larsen:

Wonder if the kidnappings were expressly for that purpose? Nahhh–

Apr 4, 2007 - 12:02 pm 23. Buddy Larsen:

Let’s see how Madam Speaker performs on supporting the UN’s investigation of the Rafik Hariri assassination.

Apr 4, 2007 - 12:19 pm 24. David Thomson:

Nancy Pelosi is tacitly telling the world that George W. Bush is not really the elected leader of the United States. She is supposedly his equal. This is a horrible message to give to our Islamists enemies. They will be sure to take full advantage of the situation.

Apr 4, 2007 - 5:19 pm 25. Dan Panorama:

I think it’s okay for her to relay a message from Israel on a fact-finding trip, as long as she’s not negotiating US treaties or something which would be both illegal and wrong. Yeah Israel can relay the message, but not themselves (they have no relations with Syria) and it now has some credibility because it comes through the US while we score points with both groups. We are at our best when we are a credible means of negotiation between nations, it’s something many Republican and Democrat administrations have encouraged.

By the way, three GOP congressman went on a trip to Syria too that Bush didn’t mention and some reports imply assisted them with. I know that Roger genuinely believes in isolating Syria and isn’t just trumping this up as a partisan issue, but if you’re going to criticize Nancy Pelosi would you agree they should be criticized too? And would you like a reporter to ask the administration why they get a free pass and possibly encouragement for doing the same thing?

Apr 4, 2007 - 6:47 pm 26. Barrett:

Dan,

First and foremost, the GOP participants are not third in line to be President.

Having said that, they should not be there.

Nancy is a buffoon, who is blinded by her hatred for GWB, her moral relativism, her obligation to those who put her in power and her lack of ability to judge people.

Let’s see GWB versus Assad? It is hard question and you must have really high SAT scores to figure this one out! Not!!!

To underscore how clueless Nancy is, she does not comprehend that women are whale sh#t in the eyes of Assad and his ilk. Her being there is just another sign of American weakness and wickedness to them. Maybe genital mutilation will open her eyes?

This whole show is painfully pathetic to watch. Buddy and Terrye have it pegged.

Apr 4, 2007 - 7:04 pm 27. Buddy Larsen:

The difference is like two different young fellas both dating your daughter. They’re both alike in every way, except one of them is respectful and helpful, the other is insulting and grasping. Would you be right to encourage the one and discourage the other?

Not that a presidency or a foreign policy is like a young lady, but both can have friends as well as enemies–as well as enemies who claim to be friends.

IOW, it’s not that a Speaker went to Assad, it’s that a Speaker who has been publicly touting a separate agenda (that happens, on the critical issue, to be also Assad’s agenda), and who has spent years deliberately demeaning the president and delegitimizing American foreign policy, went to Assad.

Apr 4, 2007 - 7:20 pm 28. Buddy Larsen:

Barrett make a damn good point–this lady is third in line to the presidency, and is over there consorting with a group that has actually assassinated foreign politicians who’ve thwarted them. And gotten away with it, too, BTW.

Apr 4, 2007 - 7:31 pm 29. Captain Hate:

“I know it’s ingrained, but everyone needs to drop this assumption that Bush and Israel are always in agreement as to what’s best for Israel and start evaluating them as different actors. Bush has done next to nothing that concretely benefits them….”

Yeah, nothing like that wonderful Roadmap for Peace that addressed all of Israel’s needs in a very effective manner.

Apr 4, 2007 - 8:07 pm 30. LALEO:

The trip and its repercussions is best summarized in piece by Michael Young in Lebanon’s Daily Star:

Apr 4, 2007 - 8:11 pm 31. gk:

What is odd to me is Rep.Tom Lantos is no fool. Why would he attach himself to this three ring circus? Is he losing it? He of all people is not fooled by Syrian duplicity, why now? Even among my democratic friends they see Pelosi’s hotdogging as a bad move and one that can easily boomerang on the next (supposed) democratic presidency.

Apr 4, 2007 - 9:33 pm 32. Dan Panorama:

“To underscore how clueless Nancy is, she does not comprehend that women are whale sh#t in the eyes of Assad and his ilk. Her being there is just another sign of American weakness and wickedness to them. Maybe genital mutilation will open her eyes?”

I know this is easy to say – but think about it for a minute and ask yourself how much you or GWB really mean it. Do you really mean that we should not have relations with anywhere that is actively anti-women legally or culturally? Or that engages in barbaric rituals? If that were even remotely the justification for Nancy Pelosi not going to Syria why do have ANY relations at all with Saudi Arabia which is far worse in regards to women? Should we criticize politicians for going to Pakistan, another of our supposed allies? How about China, where female infanticide is through the roof? You mention genital mutilation – horrifying yes, but should we have no more contact with African nations in which this is practiced? You see how this logic takes one further and further into total isolation to crippling levels.

Now I understand that Syria is ruled by despotic thugs at best and that there is a serious case to be made for isolating them – but the feminist argument is just not a reasonable one in this regard. We don’t get to negotiate with only the most enlightened countries, that’s unfortunately not how diplomacy works. As the old saying goes “you don’t make peace with your friends…”

Apr 4, 2007 - 9:51 pm 33. Buddy Larsen:

That’s a good point, Dan, but a small one in the scheme of things.

Far more important is that with the growing aggressive congressional “oversight” of every possible executive initiative, and the concomitant appearance–if not the reality–of Assad now having an ear in those high councils, our allies throughout Araby now have one more worry, and one more reason to avoid total commitment to the vision of a post-jihad future.

Conversely, the Baathists of Syria now have some degree of less worry about overstepping their Hezbollah play for control of Lebanon, and some degree of less worry about the democratization of Iraq.

It’s a chess game, and a kibbitzer has just reached into our side of the board and carelessly, seemingly just for the hell of it, sacrificed at least a pawn or two, if not more.

And for what? Because the little Leninists on her staff egged her on? Egged her on to “show that Bush/Cheney a thing or two” ?

Apr 4, 2007 - 10:29 pm 34. Buddy Larsen:

IOW, even if the damage done by the visit itself turns out luckily to be small, it is the implication–that the American establishment has gone off sort of like Ash the robot in “Alien”, and is giving up advantage and position for no gain other than mindlessly executing a hard-wired “bring down Bush” program–that will still be huge.

And again, ‘huge’ most of all for those allies & countrymen who live and fight in the ‘hood and who already had their necks stuck out plenty far enough.

Some ’support’.

Apr 4, 2007 - 11:20 pm 35. Terrye:

Fine, the GOP Congressmen should not have gone either, but then again, they did not tell Bush to calm down, threaten to impeach him and promise to suck up to the enemy either.

I bet the jiahadis are getting a real kick out of this. hardy har har.

Apr 5, 2007 - 2:06 am 36. Terrye:

I think something else is worth considering here as well.

In my district here in Indiana, Brad Ellsworth ran and won on a very conservative ticket. He maybe a Democrat, but he is prolife, anti amnesty, pro military, anti cut and run etc. The man is more conservative than I am and his one nod to populism was that when he got to Washington he was going to bring down the price of gas for all us working people, by God by gum.

Well so far, he has not kept one single promise and the locals have seen that their support for him has accomplished nothing other than nonstop antics, show trials and pandering the enemy by a power mad Grandma Pelosi.

As a womwn I am ashamed that the first woman Speaker would put that damn scarf on her head and go pander to a bunch of antiAmerican, anti democratic murdering thugs…but I wonder what effect it will have on the blue dogs..who have to live with her antics.

That election might have been meant to bring the country back to the center, away from the right. But Ms. Pelosi has made it plain that we went right past the Center to the left without even slowing down. I wonder if this will hurt or help the Democrats in the long run?

Apr 5, 2007 - 2:31 am 37. Henry Bowman:

Terrye:

It’s a simple fact that 1st-term Congress Critters just do as they are told by the bosses in their party (does not matter which party). So, Mr. Ellsworth is very likely simply following orders.

Unexpectedly, today’s Washington Post has blistering editorial deeply criticizing Pelosi for her trip to Syria, going so far as to refer to her trip as “…an attempt to establish a shadow presidency…”.

The editorial is at the link below:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/04/AR2007040402306.html

Apr 5, 2007 - 6:46 am 38. Buddy Larsen:

The WaPo statement is rightly critical, but only on the grounds of the stupidity of the Speaker’s sweeping–and wrong–statements.

I hate to be critical of the critique, but the “isn’t she silly?” proposition does a neat cover-up of the deeper possibilty that she might know exactly she’s doing, which is (a) to make progress in the long-term undermining of the governmental institutions of the Republic, while (b) striving mightily to insure the defeat of OIF (which amounts to avoiding the political defeat of her own anti-war, anti-Bush faction).

Apr 5, 2007 - 8:31 am 39. Buddy Larsen:

I take back the (a)–the mention of an attempted “shadow government” does allude to that institutional attack. But the (b) is still valid, imho.

Apr 5, 2007 - 8:49 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: