US speaker meets Assad despite Bush anger

[tecoyah]

You have unamed sources and the CIA denies any involvement with the group.

And you would expect....something else?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

And you would expect....something else?

What like you having a named source? No I wouldn't.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

If he was working in concordance with with Clintons policy, then why was he going around saying not to listen to Clintons policies and goverment?

Your quote proves nothing the bottom line is that Hastert was working in concert with the foreign policy of Clinton.

A) Hastert was not the Speaker of the House.

B) Columbia was not a state sponsor of terrorism.

C) Clinton did not say for Hastert not to go infact it was a bi-partisan delegation which included Clinton himself:

Bipartisan collaboration

House Speaker Dennis Hastert, a Republican instrumental in getting the aid through Congress, appeared in Colombia with Clinton, saying "for the sake of our children and our grandchildren, we can't afford to let this fail."

CNN.com - Pastrana, Clinton defend Colombia aid package - August 30, 2000

So where are the pages of condemnation by the White House and other republicans on the republicans going to Syria with Pelosi and on their own?

Boehner, Hobson clash on Pelosi trip

So one of the most powerfull Republican congressmen declines to crticize one his own doing exactly the same as a democrat. But let me guess, its because she is the Speaker of the House, something that really only matters in the US.

No having the person third in line to Presidency set up a dualistic foreign policy contrary to that of the President sends a clear message that our enemies can drive a wedge between the legislature and the executive, having Hobson go doesn't mean jackshit, A) He's a RINO anyways, and B) who the fuc/k is Hobson, he's an unheard of inconsequential nobody.

Did he? lets look at it again since you are avoiding the other thread.

From basicly the "horses mouth" I would say..unless you count the Jerusalem Post as a liberal anti Isreal rag.

PMO denies peace message to Assad | Jerusalem Post

Fine let's see how you spin this crap.

First this "clarification"...sounds more like a botched hatchet job ordered by Bush on a political enemy.

Well to me it sounds like a clear denunciation of Pelosi for acting in an official capacity to negotiate peace talks to which Israel never authorized her to negotiate.

Then again the Isrealies might think its good to "beef up" their connection with Bush by hitting out at his domestic political enemies. But lets look at this "clarification"

Sure thing. :roll:

So he emphasized at his meeting with Pelosi what we all know.

Yep that they would not negotiate with Syria as long as they continue to support terrorism.

But was there a message?

Yes that they would only negotiate with Syria if they quit supporting terrorism which is not the message Pelosi brought to Assad.

So the usual foot draging by Isreal with preconditions and so on. Nothing new there, but at least Isreal is willing to discuss peace.

That's not the message brought to Syria, the message brought to Assad was that Israel was ready to negotiate peace talks now not later.

Was there a message though from Olmert to Assad via Pelosi.

Not the one Pelosi brought.

Or at worst could Pelosi have been lead to belive that Olmert wanted to send a "message" to Assad?

Pelosi claims there was. Okay so far so good. And there is nothing wrong in what she said. Isreal is willing to discuss peace, as long as the long list of precondition are met. Nothing new there. Now Assad knows it for sure.

Again that is not the ****ing message that she brought to Assad what about the following do you not understand: ""Israel was ready to engage in peace talks," I don't see Pelosi mentioning any preconditions there do you?

Now wait a minute. First part of that message.. must mean there WAS a message. Can the Isrealies make up their minds? And was it "lost" in the reporting, or was it just not emphazied well enough via the media?

There was a message and it was clear: "stop supporting terrorism," not: "we are ready to engage in negotiations.

But wait, the "first part of the message" was this basicly. She did press Assad on his support for "terror". So whats the problem?

The problem is that Pelosi said that the Israelis were willing to engage in official peace negotiations with Syria, she made no mention that if and only if the Syrians were willing to stop supporting terrorism then they might talk.

Bottom line Pelosi said the following:

"Israel was ready to engage in peace talks," when the Israelis gave her no such authority to deliver such a message as is proven by the statements of the Israeli PM.

 

[oldreliable67]

An op-ed piece in todays WSJ gets it right. Paraphrasing from portions and quoting from others...

It is becoming more and more evident that the Democrats are viewing their election as a mandate for something far more ambitious than merely opposing the war in Iraq-- to wit, promoting and executing their own foreign policy, albeit without the detail of a Presidential election.

If there was any doubt that Pelosi's trip was intended as far more than a routine Congressional "fact-finding" trip, House Foreign Affairs Chairman Tom Lantos put it to rest by declaring that, "We have an alternative Democratic foreign policy. I view my job as beginning with restoring overseas credibility and respect for the United States."

Rarely in U.S. history have Congressional leaders sought to conduct their own independent diplomacy, with the Speaker acting as a Prime Minister traveling with a Secretary of State in the person of Mr. Lantos. Mr. Lantos probably got closer to their real intentions when he told reporters that "This is only the beginning of our constructive dialogue with Syria, and we hope to build on it." The Pelosi cavalcade is intended to show that if only the Bush Administration would engage in "constructive dialogue," the Syrians, Israelis and everyone else could all get along.

Yeah, right. As the WSJ notes:

This is the same Syrian regime that has facilitated the movement of money and insurgents to kill Americans in Iraq; that has been implicated by a U.N. probe in the murder of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri; and that has snubbed any number of U.S. overtures since the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003. Perhaps if he works hard enough, Mr. Lantos can match the 22 visits to Damascus that Bill Clinton's Secretary of State Warren Christopher made in the 1990s trying to squeeze peace from that same stone.

In fact, Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Lantos both voted for the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003 that ordered Mr. Bush to choose from a menu of six sanctions to impose on Damascus. Mr. Bush chose the weakest two sanctions and dispatched a new Ambassador to Syria in a goodwill gesture in 2004. Only later, in the wake of the Hariri murder and clear intelligence of Syria's role in aiding Iraqi Baathists, did Mr. Bush conclude that Mr. Assad's real goal was to reassert control over Lebanon and bleed Americas in Iraq.

The immediate implications of Pelosi's trip are clear: Pelosi has now reassured the Syrian strongman that the US President lacks the domestic support to impose any further pressure on his country. She has also made it less likely that Mr. Assad will cooperate with the Hariri probe, or assist the Iraqi government in defeating Baathist and al Qaeda terrorists.

Yes, Congressional Republicans have visited Syria too. But Ms. Pelosi isn't some minority back-bencher. Without a Democrat in the White House, she and Mr. Reid are the national leaders of their party.