Pelosi, Lantos may be interested in diplomatic trip to Iran

phoenix80

phoenix80

Banned
U.S members of congress Mr. Tom Lantos and Ms. Nancy Pelosi think a trip to Iran and shaking madman's hand would be okay, and Iranian regime media doesn't hide their happiness about that idea and the holocaust survivor Tom Lanton thinks it is the United States' duty to provide Iran with nuclear fuel:
  • "Speaking just for myself, I would be ready to get on a plane tomorrow morning, because however objectionable, unfair and inaccurate many of (Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's) statements are, it is important that we have a dialogue with him,'' Lantos said. "Speaking for myself, I'm ready to go -- and knowing the speaker, I think that she might be.''​
Incredible... I always thought that there should be a law preventing people over the age of 70-75 to run for public office due to shortage of useful brain cells which might unable them to make live & death decisions at the highest levels. No?

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/10/BAGV9P6C0S6.DTL

http://thespiritofman.blogspot.com/2007/04/oldie-talking.html
 
Last edited:
This is overstepping their bounds. Congressional members do NOT have Constitutional authority to conduct foreign policy, treaties etc... that is the explicit domain of the President. Someone needs to rein these upstarts in and educate them "old school". Who the :cen: does this woman think she is?
 
bulldogg said:
This is overstepping their bounds. Congressional members do NOT have Constitutional authority to conduct foreign policy, treaties etc... that is the explicit domain of the President. Someone needs to rein these upstarts in and educate them "old school". Who the :cen: does this woman think she is?
Click to expand...

An angry power-hungry liberal woman from the people's republic of San Fran?
 
Madam Pelosi going to Iran?

This means I will have to revise my opposition to Governments taking hostages. :|
 
She is the Speaker of the House...... NOT the Secretary of State. She needs to worry about her job, not making diplomatic splashes
 
Team Infidel said:
She is the Speaker of the House...... NOT the Secretary of State. She needs to worry about her job, not making diplomatic splashes
Click to expand...

The Reason Pelosi is there is because of the utter incompetence of the Executive Branch. Had we had a foreign policy that worked (even just some of the time), I doubt should would need to go.

Its true that these types of missions are typically reserved for the Secretary of State serving at the President behest. The problem is our Secretary of State only accomplishment in the last year and a half is to

1. get off the plane
2. smile, shakes hands,
3. Get back on the plane.

I mean really, aside from North Korea (who will break this deal as they have broken all the others) what has she actually accomplished? NOTHING. Not that I blame Condi for her no-accomplishment track record, its hard to be successful when your boss is as incompetent, out of touch with reality, and unpopular as George Bush is.

I think the only reason Condi hasn't resigned yet is because she too afraid what would happen to US foreign policy if it got back in the mitts of the Cheney/Rumsfeld Neocon Cabal again.

What we need is someone connected to the US Government, with power but not under the White House's control. So if Pelosi gets things moving forward, then maybe it isn't a bad idea to send her, or anybody else not connected to the White House for that matter.
 
Come on mmarsh, I don't know how things work over there in France but here in this country, as has already been stated, the speaker of the house does not set foreign policy or broker treaties. It may surprise you to hear but this woman is not very popular among Americans, she's not very competent as is demonstrated by her complete disregard for our constitution and our political system. Her only motivation is political grandstanding in order to attempt to undermine the Republican administration any chance she gets and if an opportunity doesn't arise, she'll create one.
She's making a mockery of her position (an unelected one I might add). She doesn't represent the American people other than those in her own little district. So please, don't try to elevate her to anything other than the rebellious and repulsive upstart she truly is. She is accomplishing nothing other than to divide and embarrass this country with her holier than thou left wing extremist attitudes.
What we really need is someone who will conduct themselves in an honorable and respectful manner properly befitting their position as speaker of the house of representatives and not spend every waking moment undermining the President of the United States. :roll:
 
mmarsh.. you are such a typical Democrat... You obviously don't understand the FACT that Sen Pelosi does NOT dictate foreign policy. Regardless of what your opinion is on the status of our government. It is not her responsibility. It would be like you going to a foreign country and dictating policy.

Right now, and Dtop back me up on this one.... Sen Pelosi is becoming the "Strategic Corporal" of the Senate. If you need a definition... look it up.
 
Team infidel

Actually I am a registered Republican, but I keep an independent mind. You are sounding like a Conservative, always blaming the Democrats/liberals for your own parties mistakes. I just love listening to the GOP blaming the liberals while seeming oblivious to the cesspool THEY have created over the past several years. Ever wonder why you lost the last election?

Read the Constitution, there is nothing the prohibits the Speaker from visiting foreign countries leaders, its actually quite common. Thats all she has done. The rest is just political propaganda. I challenge you to show me a treaty on behalf of the US Government that she has signed.

DTOP

What treaties? She hasn't signed anything, she doesn't have the authority to do that. If your worried about politicians overstepping their authority you might want to take a look at our President.

There is a difference between what the the GOP FEARS might happen, and what has ACTUALLY happened. So far nothing has happened other than a meeting with Assad, thats it. And to prove to you that this is nothing than the GOP playing politics, the day AFTER Pelosi visited Assad, the GOP did the very same thing.

http://fe26.news.re3.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070406/pl_nm/syria_usa_congressman_dc

Strangely, I didn't hear the GOP or the White House accusing Darrell Issa of undermining the government.

Pelosi isn't my first choice either, but she isn't nowhere near as unpopular or incompetent as somebody else I could mention. And I remind you that blaming someone who has been in office 2 1/2 months is not going to buy political cover for the failed policy of an administration who has been in power for 6 years. 2 months of Democrats rule doesn't justify the past 6 years.

The real issue is that the White House doesn't like having to share power. Thats what this is really all about. The House speaker does not serve at the Presidents whim. Pelosi is merely reminding everyone that unlike the 109th Congress, the 110 congress will not rubber stamp the Presidents agenda. This is as it should be, but try explaining that to a group of people that view the Presidency as an Imperial rule. They are worse than Nixon.

As for undermining the Administration, I don't think the GOP has any grounds for complaints. It certainly didn't stop them from the persecution of Bill Clinton. What goes around comes around. But I don't even thing vengeance is the issue. Its a competency issue. Its time to give the other side a chance at bat, especially at Foreign Policy where the Administration has proved particularly incompetent.
 
Last edited:
That seems to be exactly the role she's assuming. The problem is that once one assumes that position, one must also assume the responsibility and accountability for the repercussions resulting from the actions taken. The difference between Pelosi and the Strategic Corporal as I see it is that the Strategic Corporal has the same mission in mind as his/her commander and in the case of Ms. Pelosi, I just don't see that aspect. But yes, I do think that is what she believes she's doing. Good call TI.

Mmarsh, that seems like a short sighted and petty set of reasons for Pelosi to take it upon herself to undermine our foreign policy. It's not her job, period. Her job is not to seek revenge for the trouble that Pres. Clinton got himself into, although I agree that is exactly what she's doing. Petty revenge is unbecoming of anyone in her position. The other side won't get "a turn at bat" until they get elected to the Presidency. Until then, Pelsosi needs to stop her petty nonsense.
As far as Darrell Issa, when was he Speaker of the House?
 
Last edited:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Speaker_of_the_House_of_Representatives

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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...
 
Last edited:
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!
 
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.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top