The Democratic leadership of Congress has rejected a White House invitation to discuss the Iraq funding issue. Pelosi and Reid argued that they would not go to a White House meeting as long as the President insisted that certain tenets of his policy were nonnegotiable.
But Pelosi had no problem flying to the Middle East to meet with President Assad of Syria. Certainly there are a host of issues Pelosi and Assad could clash over, and not resolve, but that didn't preclude her from engaging in dialogue with him.
In fact, she and Congressman Lantos have even left the door open to the possiblity of meeting with the powder keg Iranian President Ahmadinejad. Keeping in mind their refusal to engage in dialogue with Bush, here's what they both said about Ahmadinejad:
LANTOS: I would be ready to get on a plane tomorrow morning, because however objectionable and, um...unfair and inaccurate many of Ahmadinejad's statements are, it is important we have a dialogue with him.
LANTOS: So speaking for myself, I'm ready to go, and think the speaker, I think she might be.
PELOSI: A person of Mr. Lantos' stature and personal experience, is saying that I as a Holocaust survivor and even recognizing the outrageous statements of the president of Iran, I think it's important to have dialogue. I think that speaks volumes about the importance of dialogue.
Except with the President, of course.
I feel like there is a Hegelian element to their approach to foreign policy. What I infer from their statements is something like, "Let's take your inaccurate statements and fuse them with what we are saying; then we can come up with foreign policy that makes everyone feel in control and happy.
ReplyDeleteDialogue = Dialectic?!
Oh yeah, I was also thinking that you guys are probably zionists, or at least lean that way . . . which also explains your problems with what they are doing.
ReplyDeleteI guess my first post didn't work.
ReplyDeleteWell what I wrote was that the democrats could be doing other stuff but they now have to clean up Bush's mistakes. And remember that Bush will soon be out of office (thank god) and other politicians will still have to deal with syria and iran. so what I mean is what they are doing is good because they need to set things up for down the road when the idiot neo-cons who love dropping bombs on iraqi children are finally out of power!
Jason,
ReplyDeleteGreat observation. I am concerned about the long term consequences of Pelosi's meeting with Assad. The Syrian president encourages Hezbollah in Lebanon, provides sanctuary to members of Hamas and gives the green light to terrorists entering Iraq from Syria.
Say what you like about the tactical errors in Iraq but it is hard to argue against Bush's prudent policy of isolating Syria until certain conditions are met.
What basis do we have for believing anything Assad or much less Ahmadinejad say? Ahmadinejad believes he has an escatological role in ushering in a global Islamic Caliphate. He's said as much and yet the world ignores it. That an American politician of Pelosi's stature would seriously consider engaging in dialogue with someone like this truly vexes me. That she has already sat down with a Baathist dictator is even more troubling. That she refuses to meet with President Bush, and further, delayed action on a bill to fund the mission in Iraq, preferring instead to hit the chic boutiques of Damascus, is disgusting.
Another observation: Responding to Cheney's criticism of her trip as "bad behavior," Pelosi lamented the "poverty of ideas" in the Administration regarding the region. Yet only a day before, she defended her trip against critics by stating that she brought a unified American message to Assad. She said that she left politics at home to deliver the same "direct" message as President Bush to the Syrian leader. So either she is confused...or she's lying. "Poverty of ideas" or the same message as the President...which is it?
Nice insight, James.
ReplyDeleteI am inclined to say that if President Bush had focused more on diplomacy and public diplomacy earlier then Pelosi would not have her "justification" to visit the Middle East to pick up the presumed slack. (This phenomenon also explains why we have so many conspiracy theorists. If the government is not going to tell the truth by hiding it from us, then we the conspiracy theorists will tell the truth with our infallible internet resources.) It is obvious that she intends to repair the demeanor of the U.S. in Syria's perception; however, I have yet to determine how she intends to do that by undermining the duties reserved solely to the president. It's embarrassing. Her trip was simply unprofessional. It shows weakness. Quite plainly, I think this indicates that she still has a domestic public affairs mindset and is thus far incapable of thinking like an integrated grand strategist.
Dominic,
ReplyDeleteI think your comment on Pelosi's political tunnel vision is right on.
And if I ever hear someone describe Speaker Pelosi as an "integrated grand strategist" I think I would be forced to jump off of the nearest bridge!
"It is obvious that she (Pelosi) intends to repair the demeanor of the U.S. in Syria's perception; however, I have yet to determine how she intends to do that by undermining the duties reserved solely to the president."
ReplyDeleteI couldn't have put it better myself, Dominic. Pelosi and her ilk are a national embarrassment. The Democrats have interpreted their November vitory as a "mandate" to do as they please, even assuming the powers reserved for the Executive branch. The truth is, the actions of the Democratic leadership are based solely on doing whatever it takes to get them back into power.