Pelosi, Lantos may be interested in diplomatic trip to Iran - Page 2




 
--
Pelosi, Lantos may be interested in diplomatic trip to Iran
 
April 11th, 2007  
major liability
 
 
Pelosi, Lantos may be interested in diplomatic trip to Iran
Ugh... now the only question is, is she any better than Bush? God help us if she isn't.
April 11th, 2007  
Team Infidel
 
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...epresentatives

mmarsh.. please tell me anywhere in this job description does it state that the Speaker represents the U.S. on foreign policy matters? I can't find one.

She needs to stick to her job.

I am a Republican, but a moderate.

We already have a State Department, but I suppose we are all well served if anyone who feels like it can represent us abroad. Let us not stop with just Nancy Pelosi. Why not have all 435 House members, the 100 senators and a few Supreme Court justices travel to where ever they like and represent us how they wish.
As Luther Billis from “South Pacific” might say, “It would confuse the heck out of our enemies.”
The Pelosi method of foreign policy is not quite as good as the idea Luther Billis had. At least he was trying to work with the government.
If she can do as she feels without regard to the authorities above her, what is to keep those below her from defying her and doing the same?
Making laws and funding the government is the job description of the Congress. Luther Billis overplayed his hand and got in a lot of trouble, but hurt few people. Pelosi playing into the hands of a terrorist state like Syria could hurt us all.
April 11th, 2007  
mmarsh
 
 
How about Denny Hastert, he visited the Iraqi government in 2006? Actually it is her job, All Congressmen have the duty to remain public relations with other countries. We are talking about a practice that has been going on for a very long time. Pelosi is hardly the first. I have no problem with it as long as they don't overstep.

Again, aside from meeting from Assad, how exactly has she undermined our Foreign policy? What were the consequences of her visit upon how the US government conducts its business? The only damage caused was to the ego of a few politicans, I won't loss any sleep over it.

No offense to you DTOP, but that is precisely that attitude of the White House that drives me crazy. "We have the White House, therefore you do as we say". I don't think so, we are not a monarchy. The legislative branch is not at the Presidents beck and call, and it does have the right to stick its nose in the presidents business if the President isn't doing his job or if he oversteps his bounds. Thats why Bush is having so much problems with Congress. He still thinks they are going to do whatever he tells them. It just isn't going to happen.

As for revenge, I grant you the public interest isn't served. I said over a year ago that if Dems were to take back power, the GOP shouldn't expect any mercy. Frankly the Dems response is tamer than I thought it would be. Consider ourself luckly the Dems chose not to let the Leftwing radicals into power. Pelosi is a spring lamb compared to some others I know who are furious at her for not 'sticking it' to the GOP.

Still, you cannot lecture people on revenge when your on party was guilty of it as well, the time to show restraint was when you are in power, not when you are out of it.
--
Pelosi, Lantos may be interested in diplomatic trip to Iran
April 11th, 2007  
bulldogg
 
 
Try reading the Constitution... its sorta like a primer for the roles, duties, responsibilities and limitations on government office holders. You don't get to make up new rules and break the supreme law of the land just because you don't like how someone else does their job. Try it with your boss, tell him you think he sucks at negotiating with your suppliers and do it yourself... be sure to let us know how that works out for you.
April 11th, 2007  
DTop
 
 
No offense taken because it not "my party". I am not a registered Republican or Democrat for that matter but I am of course, a conservative. What drives me crazy is those in power who think it's within their discretion to ignore the Constitution and unilaterally conduct talks with a nation known to have sponsored the same terrorists that kill our servicemen and women. That, my friend is how she's undermining foreign policy. If you think she's not trying to garner an agreement with Syria then what, pray tell do you think she's doing there? To me her actions are not surprising but quite disappointing nonetheless.
April 11th, 2007  
Donkey
 
 
Sweet more wasting of my tax dollars

And Pelosi and her cronies running around going to every shady president and dictator acting like a hand shake and a hug will change how these people think. All it is going to do is show weakness and give these guys a good laugh when she leaves...

I would love to be a fly on the wall after these meetings, I could only imagine what these thugs are saying...
April 11th, 2007  
5.56X45mm
 
 
Let the ***** go. Let iran take her Hostage. I'd rather have her there in Iran than here in the USA.....


As for her role, SHE IS NOT THE SECRETARY OF STATE nor the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!
April 11th, 2007  
Team Infidel
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donkey
And Pelosi and her cronies running around going to every shady president and dictator acting like a hand shake and a hug will change how these people think.
Birds of a feather, flock together.....
April 11th, 2007  
mmarsh
 
 
Team Infidel + DTOP

There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents her from meeting with Assad. There is nothing illegal or unconstitutional about it. If you don't think thats the best use of her time, your entitled to that opinion, but there is nothing illegal about it as long as she doesn't attempt to enter unto treaty or attempt to negotiate a treaty. Heck if you could meet with Assad if he would agreed to it, it still be perfectly legal.

She didn't go to Syria because of Iraq but because of Israel. Th only time Iraq came up was went she asked Assad to better patrol the Syrian-Iraqi border to keep terrorists out. On that point she is echoing the Bush Administrations demands.

But her main reason was to convey the message that Israel was willing to talk peace if Assad would stop supporting the Palestine terrorists. In other words as Israel has no Diplomatic ties to Syria, the Isreali Government asked her to to go on their behalf...

"She said the delegation gave the Syrian leader a message from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert whose essence was that Israel was ready to hold peace talks with Syria".

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17920536/

The real question is why Olmert didn't ask the Bush Administration to carry the message. I think the reason is because Bush has done so much to antagonize the Syrians that a message as important as this one would be better received by Syria if it were delivered by an enemy of the Bush Administration.

Or perhaps the Israelis don't trust the Bush Administration...

Either way, it speaks volumes in what low esteem our Foreign policy is held at the moment.
April 11th, 2007  
phoenix80
 
 
^^^ You're full of balloney ^^^
 


Similar Topics
U.S. Bid To Limit Iran Gets Wary Response
Iran Looks Like The Winner Of The Iraq War
De-Arabization of Iran
What If Iran Gets the Bomb? Good Analysis
Rice warns Iran of UN sanctions