Democrats & Liberals Archives

Deal With It

Despite objections by President Bush, the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, met with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in Damascus. Republicans are going nuts, but Pelosi has no power to negotiate treaties or conduct foreign policy so I’m not sure what harm they think was done. The only thing Pelosi’s visit did was make President Bush look silly for not talking to Assad himself.

President Bush insists that he won't talk with Syria until they change their evil ways, as if talking to President Bush is some kind of reward. Please. That's the same wacky logic that makes CEOs hold "lunch with the boss" contests. I mean, who the hell wants to have lunch with their boss?

No, diplomatic contact is not a reward. It's what you do when you want something from another country, but aren't yet willing to invade and annex them. It's very odd that President Bush thinks depriving Syria of his physical presence will make Assad stop allowing jihadists to cross into Iraq. That's one heck of an ego trip.

Pelosi's got the right idea about getting Assad to close his borders to jihadists: If we're not going to put enough troops into Iraq to seal the Syrian border, then we need to deal with Syria. Every evil regime has a price -- Kim, Qadaffi, Mubarek and Musharraf are all tyrants and dictators that President Bush has dealt with. Why not Assad?

Posted by American Pundit at April 5, 2007 2:31 AM
Comments
Comment #215129

They made their big turn down the road to Hell when they invented the spear some 20,000 years ago. It
has been down hill ever since.

Fatal defect: stupidity, malice, greed, incompetence
leading to extinction.

They perceive a clever solution to their problems as
a benefit rather than a deadly threat. They misuse their brain to achieve incredible feats of stupidity.

Posted by: John Welsch at April 5, 2007 6:21 AM
Comment #215130

These Republicans no they can only rule by fear. They need enemies to rally their supporters. It’s hard to create a monster for everyone to hate and loathe if some one goes and starts talking to them. Dam you Nancy!

Posted by: muirgeo at April 5, 2007 7:18 AM
Comment #215140

AP
Talking is dangerous. If we dont watch our step peace may rear its ugly head then what happens? And whats this chasing jihadist crap, that might actually help in the war on terror. What are these dems up to?

Posted by: j2t2 at April 5, 2007 9:01 AM
Comment #215142

Who would have thought that these people can be trusted?

What a novel approach…
Have No Fear…Pelosi is here…

Posted by: cliff at April 5, 2007 9:02 AM
Comment #215146

Yeah, Assad and the hairy thug in Iran are looking dominate and intimidate the dems, b/c (after all) they know who their “friends” are in the US! Pelosi is playing right into their hands.

Posted by: rahdigly at April 5, 2007 9:29 AM
Comment #215148

Uh-oh….the secret’s out and now we’re really in trouble!! Some over here do have a brain and control of the language. How humiliating though, that the President is among them.
The schoolyard bully has been challenged and is responding in the typical way. All of his bravado is like a pathetic attempt to hang onto what he is rapidly losing. Nancy appears to recognize and know how to deal with temper tantrums, so she just might have shown al-Assad that there are cooler heads (and fuller ones) over here that are willing to exercise diplomacy. What if it works????

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at April 5, 2007 9:30 AM
Comment #215156

How Bush ever got elected still befuddles me to this day. His inabilility to intellectually bargain has been obvious since day one of his regime. Combine the latter with shallow views, obstinancy, and the inability to admit he was wrong and you have a person not worthy of sitting in the most powerful seat in the world. Shame on his supporters for not seeing thru his thin veil.

Apparently it is allright for republicans to visit Syria but not democrats. It seems like the republicans are having trouble accepting the fact that they no longer run the show. It would be much easier for them if those irritable dems would just sit back and let business continue as usual. But what a pain in the ass it is when the dems think they should be included in the process of running the government. Nancy has upstaged George plain and simple and George is embarased, as he should be. And so should those who elected and still support him.

Posted by: ILdem at April 5, 2007 10:12 AM
Comment #215159

Pelosi convinced our enemies that she (and the dems) would talk to terrorists. Nice! What a leader. She proves she is a “Chamberlain”; while Bush is a “Churchill”. Yet, since many of you continue to hate Bush over the terrorists, you’ll never see that. What a shame!!

Posted by: rahdigly at April 5, 2007 10:22 AM
Comment #215164

No rah…once again it is your perception that is skewed, and you’ve got the shame part all wrong!!

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at April 5, 2007 10:30 AM
Comment #215167

Nice comeback, sandra! Ha! Even the (liberal) Washington Post knows it; check out this article titled “Pratfall in Damascus
Nancy Pelosi’s foolish shuttle diplomacy”
. Now, some of you have to actually click on the link and read the (entire) article; yet, I’m going to paste some of the quotes.


“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… 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.”


This is (exactly) why hate for Bush trumps people’s judgements.

Posted by: rahdigly at April 5, 2007 10:47 AM
Comment #215168

As a somewhat loyal libertarian, I don’t give a rat’s-a$$ about either the republicans or the democrats… and that qualifies me to view and debate them objectively. If it was a Dem prez and a Repub went to Damascus, the Dems would all be in the same uproar that the Repubs currently are… so, big deal… just another case of each party trying to pi$$ on the other’s tree. That said…

The constitution clearly states that the responsibility for foreign affairs lays with the president. The fact that the speaker of the house is going to a country not on friendly terms with ours and delivering a completely different message than that of our president’s (and, as previously stated, the person responsible for our foreign affairs) sends a very, very bad message. And, the fact of the matter is, Syria IS known to harbor terrorists.

Is Pelosi a demon for going to speak with Assad? Of course not… she is doing what she thinks is right, it’s just that it’s not her job. All you faithful-as-a-sick-dog Dems… are you also going to argue that it’s the job of the mayor of Pine Bluff, Arkansas, to go to Venezuela to try to reconcile with Hugo Chavez? No… it’s not their job. Speaker Pelosi should get a better understanding of the duties of her job.

Posted by: Doug Langworthy at April 5, 2007 10:55 AM
Comment #215172

Umm… rah. Your link doesn’t work. As for the excerpt, so what?

Pelosi convinced our enemies that she (and the dems) would talk to terrorists.

LOL! After Bush actually paid al-Qaida ransom for the return of Christian missionaries, you’re worried that talking to them is bad?

President Bush’s official policy is now to appease terrorists:

News that the government facilitated the ransom payment comes just one month after State Department officials announced a change in longstanding U.S. policy of not paying ransoms to kidnappers.

Spare me your ignorant indignation, rah.

The fact is, no harm was done by Pelosi’s visit and the lines of communication are open with Syria. President Bush, you’re needed on line 2.

Posted by: American Pundit at April 5, 2007 11:05 AM
Comment #215176
And, the fact of the matter is, Syria IS known to harbor terrorists.

Spare me, Doug. Bush deals with Pakistan all the time. Let’s see… Which terrorist responsible for the worst attack on US soil since Pearl Harbor is being harbored by Pakistan…?

I was going to leave that as a rhetorical question, but I suspect most right wingers sincerely don’t know the answer: It’s Osama bin Laden.

Hell, it just came out that the US is sponsoring its own anti-Iranian terrorist group.

The U.S. has been secretly advising and encouraging a Pakistani militant group that has carried out a series of deadly guerrilla raids inside Iran … The group stages attacks across the border into Iran on Iranian military officers, Iranian intelligence officers, kidnapping them, executing them on camera.

Should we not talk to ourselves because we sponsor our own terrorists, Doug?

The fact that the speaker of the house is going to a country not on friendly terms with ours and delivering a completely different message

Pelosi didn’t make any trade deals, sign any treaties or say anything directly to Assad that Bush hasn’t said about Assad in public. That dog don’t hunt, Doug.

Posted by: American Pundit at April 5, 2007 11:22 AM
Comment #215177

AP, thanks for letting me about previous link that didn’t work; here’s the link Pratfall in Damascus
Nancy Pelosi’s foolish shuttle diplomacy
, again.


Here’s another article about Nancy’s blunder.


Maybe someday the anti-Bush crowd will take responsibility for their words and actions. Maybe!

Posted by: rahdigly at April 5, 2007 11:24 AM
Comment #215189

rah, again, so what? Your little op-ed piece just makes the point that miscommunications happen when you refuse to talk directly.

Thank you for supporting the point of Pelosi’s trip, rah.

Posted by: American Pundit at April 5, 2007 12:23 PM
Comment #215199

AP, the point is that Pelosi went over there to undermine Bush; to leaders that (also) want to undermine and embarrass Bush, and she ended up putting her foot in her (big) mouth; and the anti-Bushies are (now) trying to defend her. This is (exactly) why the anti’s get the “siding with the enemy” title for their comments and actions. And, here we have Pelosi over there “siding with the enemy”!! Yet, you don’t see a problem with that. Hmmm…

Posted by: rahdigly at April 5, 2007 12:52 PM
Comment #215201

Rah supports wasting taxpayer money just to try and make his own President look bad so he can get votes?
I must have missed where he said that.

Posted by: kctim at April 5, 2007 12:53 PM
Comment #215203
AP, the point is that Pelosi went over there to undermine Bush

No. Pelosi went over there because if were not going to send enough troops to Iraq to seal the Syrian border, and we’re not going to destroy Syria, then diplomacy is the only way we’ll get Assad to keep jihadists from crossing his border into Iraq, killing US soldiers and undermining the mission in Iraq.

rah, why do you oppose a measure — put forth buy the President’s own Iraq Study Group — to keep foreign jihadists from killing American troops and undermining the mission in Iraq?

Your opposition sounds traitorous. Are you speaking for the Republican Party? ‘Cause that would explain a lot.

Posted by: American Pundit at April 5, 2007 1:03 PM
Comment #215205

j2t2:

“Talking is dangerous. If we dont watch our step peace may rear its ugly head then what happens?

I know, I know!! We bomb it back to the Stone Age.
In keeping with the Curtis Lemay school of diplomacy.

Posted by: Tim Crow at April 5, 2007 1:14 PM
Comment #215207

AP, please. Pelosi’s not a secretary of state or the President; if she wants dialogue with the enemy, the same enemy that this (ELECTED) President decided not to deal with, then she needs to be elected President. Period! It’s that simple. So, if anyone is being “traitorous” here, it’s Pelosi and her followers.


And, if Pelosi went over there to “promote peace”, then she certainly “stepped in it” when she basically lied about “Israel being ready to engage in Peace talks”, b/c Iraeli PM stated that they said no such thing. Not to mention, she said it to a country that is a state sponsor of terrorism; particulary against Israel. Oooops!!!

Posted by: rahdigly at April 5, 2007 1:21 PM
Comment #215210

rahdigly,

The reason we are in the mess we are in is precisely because Bush isn’t talking to these people.

Syria isn’t going to change just because Bush isn’t talking to them, and to think they will is the height of arrogance.

You seem to equate any/all diplomacy with Chamberlain. It just ain’t so.

We need all of the players in the Middle East on our side, if we are ever to extricate ourselves from the chaos we have created.

Not talking isn’t helping.

Posted by: Rocky at April 5, 2007 1:39 PM
Comment #215213
Pelosi’s not a secretary of state

Nor did she usurp any of the duties of the secretary of state. She didn’t make a treaty or a trade agreement or any kind of binding deal. She went over there to talk to Assad just like Republican Congressman Darrell Issa did today.

Assad and Darrell Issa, a member of the House Committee on Intelligence, discussed ways to improve relations between Washington and Damascus.

rah, you make it so easy to shoot down your arguments because you so adamantly support failed policies that even Republican partisans like Issa acknowledge aren’t working.

Posted by: American Pundit at April 5, 2007 1:51 PM
Comment #215219

Rah

AP, the point is that Pelosi went over there to undermine Bush; to leaders that (also) want to undermine and embarrass Bush, and she ended up putting her foot in her (big) mouth; and the anti-Bushies are (now) trying to defend her. This is (exactly) why the anti’s get the “siding with the enemy” title for their comments and actions. And, here we have Pelosi over there “siding with the enemy”!! Yet, you don’t see a problem with that. Hmmm…

Bush needs absolutely no help attaining a measure of embarasment. He has more than enough to last him , his family and our nation several lifetimes. The siding with the enemy thing is getting really old and boring. Everyone knows by now it is nothing more than neocon ploy to try and further their failed and demented agenda to try and point their self inflicted problems to the dems. Pack it in Rah, it is time you came up with some new ammo. And if possible try and find something credible.

Posted by: ILdem at April 5, 2007 2:08 PM
Comment #215220

It’s always good to know where your support lies.

One terror leader, Khaled Al-Batch, a militant and spokesman for Islamic Jihad stated “If the Democrats want to make negotiations with Syria, Hamas, and Hizbullah, this means the Democratic Party understands well what happens in this area and I think Pelosi will succeed. … I hope she wins the next elections.”

Islamic Jihad has carried out scores of shootings and rocket attacks, and, together with the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group, has taken responsibility for every suicide bombing in Israel the past two years.

—-

Abu Abdullah, a leader of Hamas’ military wing in the Gaza Strip, said the willingness by some lawmakers to talk with Syria “is proof of the importance of the resistance against the US.

“The Americans know and understand they are losing in Iraq and the Middle East and that their only chance to survive is to reduce hostilities with Arab countries and with Islam. Islam is the new giant of the world,” he said.

—-

Pelosi’s visit to Syria was very brave. She is a brave woman,” Jihad Jaara, a senior member of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group and the infamous leader of the 2002 siege of Bethlehem’s Church of the Nativity.

“I think it’s very nice and I think it’s much better when you sit face to face and talk to (Syrian President Bashar) Assad. It’s a very good idea. I think she is brave and hope all the people will support her. All the American people must make peace with Syria and Iran and with Hamas. Why not?” Jaara said.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 5, 2007 2:08 PM
Comment #215223

Rocky,

“The reason we are in the mess we are in is precisely because Bush isn’t talking to these people.”


No, not talking to them is a good thing. In fact, showing action against countries like that will get them to stop this sh*t alot quicker. All talking does is allow the enemey to “play” them. And, the enemy is (indeed) playing the anti-Bush crowd like complete (and utter) fools!!!


“Syria isn’t going to change just because Bush isn’t talking to them, and to think they will is the height of arrogance.”

And to think that talking to them is going to change Syria, is the height of “foolishness”!


AP,

“rah, you make it so easy to shoot down your arguments because you so adamantly support failed policies that even Republican partisans like Issa acknowledge aren’t working.”


I believe Issa and the rest of them are wrong; especially Pelosi lying about “Israel ready to engage in peace talks” when they said NO such thing. Look, the anti-Bush crowd is being played by these thug dictators; they know you hate Bush and they’ll use that hatred you have against Bush to undermine he and Israel (and the rest of the infidels for that matter). However, if the anti-Bush crowd is ok with being played, that’s fine with me; at least we’ll know who you are and what you believe in.

Posted by: rahdigly at April 5, 2007 2:13 PM
Comment #215236
Look, the anti-Bush crowd is being played by these thug dictators

That’s funny. When al-Qaeda endorsed President Bush’s re-election, they warned their fellow jihadists that the Democrats were going to play them! They warned,

“Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps because he and the Democrats have the cunning to embellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and Muslim nation as civilization.”

“Because of this we desire you (Bush) to be elected.”

I think Democrats know what they’re doing. President Bush’s campaign manager, Matthew Dowd, knew it as well when he wrote an op-ed entitled, “Kerry was Right”.

Posted by: American Pundit at April 5, 2007 2:35 PM
Comment #215237

rahdigly,

“not talking to them is a good thing.”

Not talking is never a good thing.
Not talking is why were in the mess we’re in.
Not talking is why we have no true allies in the region.

The Middle East doesn’t need us, and they don’t need America to buy their crude.
They were fighting each other long before we got there and they will be fighting each other long after we leave.

America needs a stable Middle East keep get the supplies of petroleum flowing that we need to keep our economy going.
Without that petroleum we’re toast.

Posted by: Rocky at April 5, 2007 2:36 PM
Comment #215239

“America needs a stable Middle East keep get the supplies of petroleum flowing that we need to keep our economy going”

That should read;

America needs a stable Middle East to keep the supplies of petroleum flowing so that we can keep our economy going.

Posted by: Rocky at April 5, 2007 2:40 PM
Comment #215240

It’s a bunch of childish bull$#!+ and a waste of tax payers money.
Pelosi wanted to deliver a message?
Ever heard of the telephone?
It costs a lot less.

Posted by: d.a.n at April 5, 2007 2:51 PM
Comment #215241

AP:

Terrific article. You have upset all the Republicans.

Senator John McCain goes to Iraq and walks through a supermarket together with 100 troops and a few hellicopters - and Republicans think this is wonderful propaganda. The senator is not encroaching on the commander in chief. Of cours not, they insist.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi goes to Syria and the Republican reaction is the same as though she committed a crime. They insist she is encroaching on the commander in chief.

Ridiculous. As a member of the legislature she is visiting a foreign country in order to get a better picture of the world so she may legislate more wisely. This supposedly is what McCain did.

Posted by: Paul Siegel at April 5, 2007 2:59 PM
Comment #215243

AP,

“I think Democrats know what they’re doing. President Bush’s campaign manager, Matthew Dowd, knew it as well when he wrote an op-ed entitled, “Kerry was Right”.”


I don’t believe the democrats know what they’re doing; because if they did, they wouldn’t get played like this. And, I can tell you that everytime Al Qaeda has a video or press release all they do (to me) is recite democrat talking points.

“accept the facts of what is happening on the ground, and reject the fantasies with which Bush tries to deceive you”
“Among [Bush’s] ravings is that he has deprived al-Qaeda of a safe haven in Afghanistan”
“The entire world bears witness to his naked, barefaced lie”


Now, that doesn’t sound much different then what the Democrats and bloggers have been saying about Bush.


Rocky,

“The Middle East doesn’t need us, and they don’t need America to buy their crude.”

Of course they don’t; they have the rest of the world to buy their oil. And, since the rest of the world is so dependent on oil, they will bow down to the terrorist leader’s demands. They will never be diplomatic and they will not come to their senses and (all of a sudden) realize that what they’re doing is “Wrong”. And, as long as they know that the Bush haters are in their pocket, along with Europe and Asia b/c of oil, then they can do what they want.
They were fighting each other long before we got there and they will be fighting each other long after we leave.

America needs a stable Middle East keep get the supplies of petroleum flowing that we need to keep our economy going.
Without that petroleum we’re toast.”

Posted by: rahdigly at April 5, 2007 3:29 PM
Comment #215247
Terrific article. You have upset all the Republicans.

Thanks Paul, but poor rah-rah is a lone voice in the wilderness. Looks like he’s so wrong that nobody’s got his back on this one.

BTW rah, Bush’s guy at the State Dept., McCormack, just told reporters that Pelosi’s trip didn’t “complicate things” as President Bush asserted. And it turns out that Pelosi didn’t bungle the Israeli message as your WaPo op-ed claims either.

Significantly, the White House has not openly accused Pelosi of the foreign-policy missteps the Post had accused her of.

In an e-mail follow-up, [Pelosi’s spokesman] Daly wrote: “WH has not said that because in fact the Speaker did not get the message wrong — she included the necessary caveats and did not say or imply that this was a change in Israel’s position.”

Posted by: American Pundit at April 5, 2007 4:10 PM
Comment #215251
Paul Siegel wrote: This supposedly is what McCain did.
It’s fascinating how blind party loyalists can rationalize away anything.

The fact is, what John McCain did is worse.
He was essentially lying.
That tiny market in the Green zone is NOT representative of the vast majority of Iraq.

But the fact is, they’re BOTH full of it, and they’re both wasting the tax payers money.
When is Do-Nothing Congress going to finally start paying attention to our nation and start addressing some of these problems? ! ?

It doesn’t matter which wing has the majority … since they just keep flying around in circles, accomplishing little-to-nothing.

Posted by: d.a.n at April 5, 2007 4:34 PM
Comment #215286


Visits to despots like this give me the feeling that the dems are getting ready to throw Israel under the bus in exchange for a promise of peace from the cut throats in the middle east. Pelosi was just there to lay the groundwork.

Posted by: carnak at April 5, 2007 9:33 PM
Comment #215303

AP…..what’s your analysis/opinion of this???

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-abrams/convicted-felon-elliott-_b_45114.html

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at April 6, 2007 1:14 AM
Comment #215327

Funny! The Israelis are denying that gave Pelosi any message to deliver to Syria.

So, whose lying?

Posted by: d.a.n at April 6, 2007 9:40 AM
Comment #215333

And now Dick Cheney is accusing Nancy Pelosi of “bad behavior”. So now he is going to send her to bed without dinner? Pretty big talk from a guy whose only official job is to wait for the President to take a bullet.

Posted by: Woody Mena at April 6, 2007 10:06 AM
Comment #215390
AP…what’s your analysis/opinion of this???

Doesn’t surprise me. The Bush, Jr. administration is full of convicted crooks like Abrams, Poindexter, and Wienberger circling around the edges. I mean, what can you expect from a political party that treats a convicted traitor like Oliver North as a hero.

Posted by: American Pundit at April 6, 2007 11:29 PM
Post a comment