Should Pelosi go to Iran?

[WI Crippler]

Unless she is going to go over and have lunch, and talk about baseball season ( or some other irrelevant topic ), she should not go.
Meeting with a foreign leader to discuss ideas for future relations is delegated solely to the executive branch.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

This is ridiculous. Just talking to a world leader is not negotiating, nor is it establishing a foreign policy.

Yes it is we had a no talk policy with Syria, Pelosi has established a secondary foreign policy, and even according to her own statements it was more than a fact finding mission she went there to negotiate for peace in Israel and Iraq.

Jesse Jackson does that kind of thing all the time, and no one ever criticizes him for trying to create his own foreign policy independent of elected officials.

Jesse Jackson is not the Speaker of the House and he did not travel to Syria in order to pursue the recommendations of the Baker/Hamilton commission.

 

[RightinNYC]

How do you figure? Both houses of Congress need to approve legislation, not just the Senate.

I'm not talking about legislation, I'm talking about foreign policy. The foreign policy of the nation is created by the executive, and in cases where we enter into treaties, it is approved by the Senate alone. The House has no say and plays no role in this.

Can you prove that Pelosi plans to go to Iran to conduct negotiations rather than to listen/learn? This same line was repeated over and over after her Syria trip, yet I haven't seen anyone mention a single thing that she negotiated. If she did, then of course she should cease and desist, as she has no authority to offer anything on behalf of the US government.

Clearly, there is a disagreement between President Bush and congressional Democrats over how to deal with Syria. Democrats have embraced the Baker Hamilton study group recommendations that the United States engage in negotiations with Syria and Iran to find a diplomatic solution to the troubles in Iraq. President Bush has grave concerns about Syria's involvement in Lebanon and support for terrorism, and about inadequate security along the Iraq border. Further, he does not believe that Syria could or would desire to significantly improve America's fortunes in Iraq.

Disagreement over Syria policy is legitimate, but Pelosi went to Syria bearing a message that "the road to Damascus is a road to peace" as well as an olive branch from Israel, which apparently meant to convey no such message.

Clearly, other members of Congress have gone to Syria, including Republicans. But most went to listen, not to bring tidings from the U.S. We have also seen instances of private citizens like Jesse Jackson or former president Carter conducting their own foreign policy. They may be thorns in the sides of presidents, but no one believes that they speak for the U.S. When the Speaker of the House comes bearing messages, it sends the signal that there is another foreign policy team in addition to the president's.

AEI - Short Publications

"During her visit Pelosi announced she was conveying a message from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to Syria that Israel was ready to engage in peace talks.

The Israeli Prime Minister immediately denied making such a statement."

and as TOT pointed out, Lantos's statement: "We have an alternative Democratic foreign policy."

What is that, if not diplomacy? They are

a) Advocating for the implementations of recommendations which the President has declined to support
b) Claiming to bring an offer of peace from another country (which then denied making it, making it even worse)
c) Plainly admitted that they are there pursuing a "Democratic foreign policy"


Think about that for a second. There is no such thing as a "Democratic foreign policy" once you leave our borders. When you're here in America, you can argue about foreign policy all you like, but when public officials travel around the world, there is only US Foreign Policy. Our founding fathers understood this, and gave the executive the exclusive right to set it. Pelosi et. al. are directly contravening that.

People get all riled up when Bush takes actions that usurp the authority of the judiciary or the legislature, and I'd hope that they would recognize this as the exact same thing.

 

[RightinNYC]

This is ridiculous. Just talking to a world leader is not negotiating, nor is it establishing a foreign policy. Jesse Jackson does that kind of thing all the time, and no one ever criticizes him for trying to create his own foreign policy independent of elected officials.

Because nobody believes that Jesse Jackson has the authority to speak for any portion of the US government.

 

[tecoyah]

I simply dont think she is the right person to make the gesture...and I think we all know who is. Unfortunately the Administration will not create an atmosphere that allows for communications in any meaningful way....so, we will likely end up with more violence, and a whole lot of dead folks.

No....she should not go, but someone should before its too late.

 

[niftydrifty]

Hell, she might as well go and ****ing stay there, she's shown us who's side she's on. She's a Democrat before she's an American, and that makes her a traitor as far as I'm concerned.

In addition to having a "thanks" button, it would be nice if there were also a "no thanks" button.

The Following User Says No Thank You to Galenrox For This Useless Post:
Niftydrifty

 

[RightinNYC]

I simply dont think she is the right person to make the gesture...and I think we all know who is. Unfortunately the Administration will not create an atmosphere that allows for communications in any meaningful way....so, we will likely end up with more violence, and a whole lot of dead folks.

No....she should not go, but someone should before its too late.

This is a completely valid point.

 

[SgtRock]

She should go to Iran. She should stay in Iran. She should marry Ahmademonjihad and become part of his haram. ~ Sgt Rock

 

[Stinger]

She isn't. Ideally Bush would appoint an ambassador and Condi Rice would make a trip to Iran. But the appropriate people aren't stepping up.

That's been tried, it didn't work the Iranians don't want to talk or negotiate. That is why we are not talking to them as we build support with other countries to isolate them and cut them off. THAT is the US foreign policy which the congress has no business trying to manage or direct.

As a private US citizen, she has the right to meet with pretty much whomever she wants.

Why do you keep bringing up that strawdog argument. Who paid for her trip? Did she or did she not present herself as the Speaker of the House?

 

[Stinger]

No....she should not go, but someone should before its too late.

The Iranians, under the little Hitler have no interest in negotiating or talking other than to keep up their charade while they continue doing what they want. We have already tried talking, now we isolate and get other countries to join in and force Iran to make a move towards resolving this.

Look how they just tried to assert themselves. What is there to talk about at this point, they are going forth with their nuclear plans and want nothing from us to end it.