Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

I have less problem with Pelosi's typical hypocrisy than with her consorting with barbarians. These scum the hands of whom she's shaking are the same who blew up Rafik Hariri and otherwise took one of the beacons of reason and moderation in the Middle East (Lebanon in the 50s and 60s) and raped it so thoroughly that the poor place now rivals the Palestinian refugee camps in its misery.

To do that to your fellow Arab, let alone your fellow man, tells anyone with a spark of humanity that Assad pere and fils and all their orc-like associates aren't fit to be counted among the human race anytime this next millenium. Yet that vain Frisco airhead goes to shake hands -- hands dripping with the blood of ten thousand Lebanese innocents -- just so she can grab a photo op looking "diplomatic" and all. See, George? It isn't so hard to "talk" to our enemies. All they want is to be friends...provided we look the other way when they commit hideous murder...and occasionally bend over ourselves, when the ol' itch strikes to feel like a real man...

Feh.

Posted by Carl Pham at April 4, 2007 12:37 AM

So, during the Rodham or Obama administrations, I wonder how the Left will react, when they are constantly confronted with pix of Nancy Pelosi not just shaking hands w/ the likes of Assad, but donning the hijab?

Think they'll be as pleased with it as when they point to the pix of Rummy shaking hands w/ Saddam?

Posted by Lurking Observer at April 4, 2007 05:58 AM

Rummy shook hands with Saddam when the U.S. thought he could be a tool to contain Iranian aggression and *before* Saddam launched the 1987 air attack on the USS Stark; 1988-89 Anfal campaign against the Kurds; 1990 invasion of Kuwait, among other examples in his history of agression. Pelosi is consorting with Syrians after many examples of their aggression in Lebanon, Israel and the new Iraq.

Posted by John Kavanagh at April 4, 2007 06:40 AM

Syria remains, at least to this point a bulwark against Islamic extremism. Not that they don't stink as Carl says in his Phamplet above so correctly, but they aren't raving nutcases like Al-Qaeda in Iraq.

In that sense, Pelosi's trip, wearing the veil etc. is preferable to the Bush family love affair with the Saudis don't you think? How many pictures do we have of the various Bush-Cheney crowd kissing one or the other Saudi prince (now if it was a Saudi princess, heh, that would be different, but they are pretty well shut up in harems with chastity belts securing their assets). These latter folk are the sponsors of the schools that train the Jihadis.

What would Condi have worn if she were in Syria dong the chit-chat?

If Pelosi gets the Israeli's and Syrians talking, that's going to be quite a San Francisco coup. Whether it is right to stiff the executive branch like that is another question.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at April 4, 2007 07:38 AM

I have less problem with Pelosi's typical hypocrisy than with her consorting with barbarians.

If your litmus test of diplomacy is who Pelosi shakes hands with, then you should take a good look at this picture:

http://www.diosa.net/art-net/RumsfeldHussein.jpg

You should also ponder this remark from Bush, which he has repeated with variations many times: "I always enjoy talking to my friend, Vladimir Putin."

Now, Nancy Pelosi may be talking to the Syrians, but she did not call them her friends. Talking to Syria is no more than following the adage, "keep your friends close, and your enemies closer."

But I agree that there is one mode of consort with barbarians that is truly unacceptable. Namely, if you outright borrow their barbarism for your own ends. A few years ago, the Bush Administration shipped an apparently innocent Canadian citizen to Syria, where he was tortured for months. That is the kind of consort that should anger you.

Posted by at April 4, 2007 08:14 AM

You bow your head if you're in a church. You wear a yarmulke in a synagogue. It's just being respectful, nothing more.

Posted by Jane Bernstein at April 4, 2007 08:33 AM

I have no problem with it, actually, as long as it's in a mosque. But I certainly wouldn't expect her to wear it other places.

Posted by Rand Simberg at April 4, 2007 08:37 AM

I understand that it was in a mosque, or at least on the way to one, that the photo of Mrs. Pelosi was taken.

And, of course, this is a relevant comparison, too.

Posted by Jane Bernstein at April 4, 2007 08:40 AM

Agree with Jane, especially the relevant picutre of Madame Bush.

What is worse is to follow the link and see how many stupid people think there is a problem with Pelosi wearing this veil or whatever. It's either they are stupid or willfully attempting to create an issue where there is none. Maybe it's the latter. At least I hope so. Part of the problem may be the fact that the average American really has no clue about other cultures or thinks there is any merit to cultural sensitivity.

In any case it is probably an Armani veil, not the cheap thing on Laura's head. ;-)

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at April 4, 2007 08:58 AM

I have no problem with it, actually, as long as it's in a mosque. But I certainly wouldn't expect her to wear it other places.

You have written a page in feminism made stupid. It's not just a pot-kettle-black jibe against Democrats as Jane Bernstein noted. It's also just plain backwards in regard to the real issues of women's rights in Syria. This is how many women in Syria dress:

http://www.lacoctelera.com/myfiles/loquenodije/Syria%20women.jpg

If Pelosi only wears a headscarf, that's actually a huge step forward. A headscarf by itself is not that big of a deal. Women, and feminists of either gender, have more important things to worry about.

Posted by at April 4, 2007 10:23 AM

Disclaimer: I'm not an US citizen.

Personally I'm not a feminist and couldn't be bothered less by whatever women (or men for that matter) choose to do as private individuals as long as it is voluntary/consentual for all parties involved. To me that's simply individual freedom.

However Nancy Pelosi is not claiming to be in Syria as a private individual. At the same time she is not in Syria as a representative of US foreign affairs policy (that's the sole domain of whichever administration is in the White House and the current one sure didn't send her).

Nancy Pelosi is in Syria as a vocal opponent of US foreign affairs policy as Speaker of the United States House of Representatives and second in line for succession to the presidency.

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."
- snipped from here

The relevant part is "or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.".

The Syrian government has been regarded as an enemy of the US not only during the current US government but during all recent US governments.

Is Nancy Pelosi adhering to the enemies of the US, giving them aid and comfort? If she isn't then she's at least extremely close. I think even her most ardent supporters ought to realize that it's too close for comfort and it frankly worries me that her team thought the visit would be a good idea in any way.

Posted by Habitat Hermit at April 4, 2007 10:49 AM

Just wondering... why does Syria get some sort of "credit" for being less extreme than (for instance) Al Qaeda in Iraq, when they're a major part of the life support system FOR Al Qaeda in Iraq, as well as Hezbollah?

Posted by Phil Fraering at April 4, 2007 10:51 AM

If your litmus test of diplomacy is who Pelosi shakes hands with, then you should take a good look at this picture:

First of all, anonymous inanity, I don't have a "litmus test." Nobody with a brain does, which is why the fact that a photo of Rummy and Hussein doesn't by itself mean dick. What I do have is rational judgment and a command of the relevant historical facts, and these tell me first of all that Pelosi has zero legitimate business in Syria. She can find out nothing she doesn't already know that relates to her Constitutional duties, and her Constitutional duties most certainly do not include independent foreign policy initiatives that undermine or contradict or even "helpfully" supplement those of the person specifically elected to execute the policies of the United States, namely the President.

Leaving aside the obvious Constitutional problems -- a gross violation of the separation of powers doctrine -- let us remember Nancy Pelosi represents only one small district in northern California. In no way can she be considered a legitimate representative of the entire United States, almost all of whom had no chance to vote or not vote for her.

(You'll note -- or rather readers with brains will note -- that this argument does not apply to Rumsfeld, who was part of the Executive Branch, and hence specifically charged with executing aspects of the foreign policy of the United States.)

So why is she there? There are two obvious answers: (1) to interfere with the foreign policy of the President, and/or (2) to enhance her own political appeal to supporters who do not like the foreign policy of the President but lost the last election. The former is unconstitutional and illegal. The latter would merely be crassly narcissistic, if the government of Syria were not among the worst evil blood-stained wretches on the planet, or even if she visited the citizens of Syria, Syria itself, and stayed as far away from Butcher Assad and his minions as possible. As it is, her conduct, if not actually illegal, is disgusting and ignorant. She might as well have been photographed shaking hands with John Wayne Gacy during a fact-finding trip devoted to ascertaining conditions on death row.

Posted by Carl Pham at April 4, 2007 11:59 AM

Carl, re. your Phamplet above, If as apparently, Pelosi may have had something to do with the Syrian effort that just had the British sailors released, the Armani veiled narcissistic traitor, not content to have Bush beg her for war funding, has just cut Bush off at the ankles. Remarkable; not right, but nevertheless remarkable.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at April 4, 2007 12:09 PM

Part of the problem may be the fact that the average American really has no clue about other cultures or thinks there is any merit to cultural sensitivity.

Or maybe part of the problem is that the average Islamic troglodyte has no clue about other cultures, cultures that might consider a demand that women cover their hair, because Muhammed said otherwise they might wickedly tempt men to sin, to be offensive.

If a Jew visited Germany in 1938, do you think it would be "culturally insensitive" of him to refuse to wear the yellow star? If a grown black man visited Mississippi in 1882, is it "culturally insensitive" of him to object to being called "boy" or "nigger"? If a diplomat gives birth to a daughter in Sudan while on duty there, is it "culturally insensitive" of her to refuse to have the child's clitoris snipped off?

You see, at some point a knee-jerk fetishization of "cultural sensitivity" becomes merely a betrayal of your own values, or even a craven refusal to hold any values at all. Does wearing the head-scarf go down that path? I don't know. Some people who have reason to know think so. (If the link doesn't work, google "Ayaan Hirsi Ali" and you'll find something relevant.) The question is legitimate, and can't be brushed off with mindless pap about "cultural sensitivity".

Posted by Carl Pham at April 4, 2007 12:23 PM

Mindless pap is Brian's stock in trade, Carl.

Posted by Rand Simberg at April 4, 2007 12:30 PM

If as apparently, Pelosi may have had something to do with the Syrian effort that just had the British sailors released

I would find it easier to believe she has something to do with the Sun coming up every morning.

The media are frantically looking for some angle on this story that points away from the possibility that what Iran did is merely a garden-variety act of war, or piracy, and that its solution (if it is indeed solved) will be by means of an totally culturally-insensitive Neanderthal threat of massive retaliatory violence by Britain or its major ally in the region, the US.

Because these facts, if true, are embarassing news for the post-modernist school of thought that all international problems can be solved by nuanced discussions between people with PhDs from the Kennedy School, and are only made worse by plain-talking cowboys from Texas.

Posted by Carl Pham at April 4, 2007 12:32 PM

What the Speaker and the far left of the Dem party...and to be fair the far right of the GOP do not understand, is that our culture is special and preserving why that culture is special is more important then almost anything else we do.

Heaven save us from the nuts of both parties.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at April 4, 2007 12:57 PM

Toast_n_Tea are you claiming that Nancy Pelosi was on an officially sanctioned yet secret mission on behalf of:
- the british government?
- the US executive branch she adamantly opposes?
- both?
- neither?

Are you aware that saying "[Nancy Pelosi]...has just cut Bush off at the ankles." contradicts the notion of her operating (secretly or not) on behalf of the US executive branch, thus making any action of hers illegal?

No matter which you're actually saying took place why do you think the connection apparent? Syria is claiming some involvement (which in no way necessitates that it's true) but not in any way including Pelosi and Pelosi isn't claiming she had any involvement either is she?

Regardless, the hostages aren't out of Iran yet, hell they aren't even in the british embassy in Teheran yet so let's not celebrate before they're out of Iran.

Posted by Habitat Hermit at April 4, 2007 01:19 PM

Speaker Pelosi has spoken with Mr. Assad, and has returned with an agreement. I believe this means peace in our time.

Posted by Neville at April 4, 2007 01:32 PM

Habitat:

Yes, I think she is treading in hot water. I'm not celebrating anything she has done.

Robert:

What about the veil thing? For it or against it? Did our culture take a hit when she wore it?

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at April 4, 2007 01:33 PM

What about the veil thing? For it or against it? Did our culture take a hit when she wore it?

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at April 4, 2007 01:33 PM

I didnt see her wear a veil...but I think that the entire "local" thing is ridiculous. She has no role wearing a scarf on her hair, or the abayua (the black robe) or anything like that...If their culture wants to do that then that is their business...our culture doesnt and that is our business...

Robert

Posted by Robert G.Oler at April 4, 2007 03:07 PM

When I first heard the about the "release" (as pointed out, they will be released when they are released, until then it is empty rhetoric), I suspected someone might claim Pelosi had some hand in it. That would be an incredibly bad precedent to set.

There is a reason US policy doesn't allow negotiations with terrorists or others who kidnap and hold people hostage for ransom. It's one thing for the US to offer military and general support to Britain in the advent force is needed to release the hostages, but another thing for someone to act without official sanctioning by the US or Britain on either states behalf.

Habitat Hermit is right, that's bordering on all sorts of crimes. However, John Kerry did the same thing in Paris during Vietnam, so in a sense, the precedent has been set. Still, he was only a military officer, not an elected member of the Government, and the highest member of that part of Congress that has no Constitutional authority to decide on US international agreements or treaties.

Posted by Leland at April 4, 2007 03:19 PM

if the government of Syria were not among the worst evil blood-stained wretches on the planet,

I'll set aside for the moment the entirely unfounded thesis that Pelosi has violated separation of powers. She hasn't remotely; it only looks that way because Bush's foreign policy towards Syria has been virtually a zero.

Instead, I'll focus on this: If the Syrian government is so "blood-stained", why did the US send an apparently innocent Canadian citizen to one of its prisons, where he was tortured for months? Why should anyone trust what Bush says or does about Syria in the face of such actions?

Posted by at April 4, 2007 05:10 PM

Nameless, I agree that the canadian shouldn't have been sent to Syria but I think it was unavoidable. In no way do I feel sufficiently knowledgeable about this in particular and as always I can be as wrong as anybody but it's my impression that the US has wanted individuals extradited from Syria and vice versa. An uneasy agreement among governments in conflict require reciprocity to even barely function. That's intended as an explanation not an excuse.

In this specific case both the US and Syria wanted to talk to this individual and both (one using interviews/interrogation and the other using torture - real torture, not sleep deprivation or dog parades) found that this individual was unconnected to anything at all really. Actually I'm not sure about the syrians in that regard nor whether they released him back to Canada without canadian pressure.

Are the US complicit in torture by extraditing persons to governments that use torture? I can understand and even partially agree with such
a viewpoint but ultimately if Syrians use torture then Syrians should be blamed for that and no-one else.

I think the real lesson from such as this is that no-one (of any opinion, action or inaction) should fool themselves into believing they still retain any innocence -but this does not equate to nor support any wider moral equivalence. I know plenty will disagree (especially those who believe pacifism is without consequences) but this post is already getting far too long.

Should I trust Bush? No, why should I? Why should I even need to? I can't read his mind any more than anyone else. I "trust" Bush as far as I agree more with his administration than with any alternatives on offer (I hoped for McCain in 2000 and I'm hoping for Giuliani in 2008, Giuliani is closer to my own opinions than anyone else for quite a while). I support the decision to invade Iraq with all that entails not because of the watered-down and simplified arguments used to the public (imo the first big mistake) and in the UN (not a mistake but a necessity in order to have any reasonable chance of UN SC support) nor because it was Bush who made it but because I on my own (still) believe it was not only a correct decision but a desperately needed one for any chance of a better future in the middle east and also the rest of the world. My opinion is that even if all US troops were to disappear from the region this very second the chances would still be better than before the war -much better- although the longer they stay and the more successful they and Iraq becomes the fewer lives will be lost in the long run.

Oh and about Nancy Pelosi etc. I don't know enough about the republican representatives that also went to Syria recently but I don't think they had any business being there either unless it was on official behalf of the executive branch (and I don't think they were). I assume the ambassador that also visited recently was there in a legal official capacity. If any of them went there in opposition to US foreign policy they're just as much out on a limb as Pelosi and even if they weren't as long as they weren't there on behalf of the executive branch they should all receive harsh legal scrutiny of their actions (Pelosi too of course).

Posted by Habitat Hermit at April 4, 2007 08:20 PM

Are the US complicit in torture by extraditing persons to governments that use torture?

In the sorry case of Maher Arar, the US could completely absolve itself of complicity, or make up for its complicity, by taking the two obvious steps that Canada took:

1) Apologize to Arar and pay compensation
2) Demand explanations from the other countries involved.

What has the US done instead? They say, don't ask what we did with Arar, it's a matter of national security and a secret. Arar still not allowed in the US, he's still on a watchlist, and the reasons for that are also secret. That is not the way to look innocent in this story.

As I said, for various reasons there is no separation-of-powers problem with Pelosi going to Syria. But even aside from that, Pelosi did not undercut Bush's supposed isolation policy nearly as much as sending Arar to Syria did. If the goal is to isolate Syria because it's a barbaric enemy, then extradition and reciprocity don't make sense; Arar should never have been there.

Posted by at April 4, 2007 09:10 PM

Pelosi and the 3 congressmen did a disservice to their country. They hand a brutal dictator a pr coup for what? Nothing. Did Tip O'Neill or Newt do something this stupid? Why did Pelosi feel the need to go to a Mosque? She's not in the National Cathedral every Sunday. What a hypocrite.
To that nameless commenter who must be the brother of that supposed innocent Canadian, so what? Your moral equivalence meter must be stuck. Where was he caught? What was he doing? Some more facts would be nice.

Posted by Bill Maron at April 4, 2007 09:30 PM

Bill Maron: Wikipedia can answer all of your questions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar

Arar was "caught" at JFK airport while returning from a vacation with his family in Tunisia.

Posted by at April 4, 2007 09:52 PM

I'll set aside for the moment the entirely unfounded thesis that Pelosi has violated separation of powers.

Why is it unfounded? Do you deny the principle of separation of powers exists? Do you deny that the President is specifically charged with executing US foreign policy and Congress is not? Or do you imagine that Pelosi's reasons for the trip have nothing whatsoever to do with US foreign policy?

Or is it that you think an airy statement that the proposition does not merit your consideration could be mistaken for an actual, you know, logical argument? Hope not -- that would be pretty insulting to the intelligence of most regular TTM readers.

Instead, I'll focus on this: If the Syrian government is so "blood-stained", why did the US send an apparently innocent Canadian citizen to one of its prisons, where he was tortured for months?

Interesting logic. Let's try it in a few other places:

If driving while drunk is so "dangerous", why do otherwise respectable citizens do it? It must not be dangerous after all!

If accidentally cutting your thumb off while chopping vegetables is so "painful", why did my neighbor Sam do it last Wednesday? It must not be as bad as they say!

And so forth. In other words, there are zillions of reasons why the one incident you've claimed happened might have happened, ranging from bad judgment to weird accident. An additional possible reason is the one you think this incident proves, i.e. that the Syrian regime is not as bad as all the history professors, thousands of news stories, the UN, the Lebanese emigre population, et cetera and so forth say it is. They might all be lunatics, it's true.

How do we choose between the possible reasons for the incident? Door Number 1: bad judgment on the Administration's part, let's say. Door Number 2: an unfortunate accident. Door Number 3: a massive conspiracy to portray the Syrian regime unfairly as murderous thugs.

Hmm, which door would common sense suggest we pick? Your position is we should pick Door Number 3. Which is excellent proof that common sense is not as common as we'd like to think.

Also, in case you -- or rather some more intelligent reader -- is interested, the logical goof you've pulled is called affirming the consequent, and it's pretty common among folks with a good grasp of facts but a poor ability to integrate them.

Posted by Carl Pham at April 4, 2007 10:04 PM

An interesting story for which he offers no proof but his own words. So the US believes the RMCP and ship him back to Syria, where he was born and it's our fault?

Posted by Bill Maron at April 5, 2007 12:20 AM

Your position is we should pick Door Number 3.

No, it isn't. It's door number #1: It was very bad judgment, covered to this day by hypocrisy and abuse of secrecy. My point is that it was much worse than anything that you have thought to accuse Pelosi of doing.

As for Pelosi and separation of powers, she didn't claim to be an ambassador and she didn't sign any treaties. So she didn't violate the Constitution. What you (or actually Bush) claim is that because Bush withdrew his ambassador to Syria, no one else should talk to the Syrian government either. But the first part is incompetent diplomacy; the second part is inventing clauses in the Constitution.

Posted by at April 5, 2007 12:26 AM

"Mindless pap is Brian's stock in trade, Carl."

Nobody mentioned me, Rand. Are you hearing things, or is this "Brian Derangement"?

Posted by Brian Swiderski at April 5, 2007 01:52 AM

Nameless here's what Pelosi claims to be doing http://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/pressreleases?id=0131

She (and whoever foolish enough to join her from any party) are obvisously claiming to be there in some sort of official capacity (Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the United States House of Representatives and second in line for succession to the presidency) but still they're visiting without the consent of those in charge of foreign policy (the executive branch/current administration), i.e. in opposition to the only ones who gets to decide US foreign policy as well as the only ones who have a legal right to decide whether they get to go in any sort of official way (Pelosi or the Iraq Study Group do not have such authority plain and simple).

Would it become clearer to you if we took the person one step up on the ladder from Nancy Pelosi: Dick Cheney, and sent him to... let's say North Korea and in this hypothetical situation he was in North Korea without the consent of the President, arguing against the President of the US and US foreign policy?

Do you realize that what Nancy Pelosi is doing is actually worse than such a ridiculous hypothetical example? (the Vice President is after all a member of the executive branch while Pelosi isn't).

This constitutes direct, public, premeditated, and flaunted subversion of the government of the United States and its foreign policy by its own members. Perhaps not tantamount to treason but getting very close to it.

There are no unknowns about this, it's right there out in the open and doesn't rely on "belief" of any kind, or conspiracies, or party affiliation, or anything of the sort. The clarity of this situation begs for action to anyone who doesn't want the US government to be hollowed out from within. Anyone who doesn't want to inherit the United Shells of America when their choice (whatever that might be) manages to get into power should want to crack down on this.

If something as easy as this doesn't get corrective attention then what makes you believe that any action on far less easily documented and far less legally straightforward issues have any chance of doing anything but create noise?

Posted by Habitat Hermit at April 5, 2007 09:47 AM

i.e. in opposition to the only ones who gets to decide US foreign policy as well as the only ones who have a legal right to decide whether they get to go in any sort of official way

You're really standing separation of powers on its head if you think that the president has any sort of monopoly on foreign policy. The Constitution says that the president signs treaties and appoints ambassadors. Those are two specific modes of foreign policy that are his duties. That does not mean that he can decide all by himself who other people can and can't talk to.

The whole problem here is that the policy of isolating Syria, even though Bush may well sincerely want it, is fake. A real travel ban would require Congressional authority. Short of that, if you can go to Syria, and I can go to Syria, why can't Pelosi go to Syria? Again, if you can go to Syria, or I can go to Syria, then Assad is within his rights to shake hands with us. The same goes for Pelosi. Even if there were a travel ban to Syria, Assad would be free to meet any American he pleases in Kuwait, or in any other country.

With this backdrop of fake isolation of Syria, it's clear why Pelosi is making Bush look bad. Just by meeting Assad, she is showing that the precepts of his foreign policy aren't true. But that's his fault, not hers.

The story of Pelosi in Syria is not going to last; it's a tempest in a right-wing teapot. But there is a much more serious problems with Bush's delusional view of Syria as an Axis power --- even though it's true that the Syrian government is run by mafiosos. Syria's real role in the war in Iraq is no more and no less than that it has open borders. It has accepted a million Iraqi refugees, and it is a trade lifeline for Iraq. Terrorists can get through, but so can everyone else. Bush is in no position to attack Syria just because it won't close its border.

Posted by at April 5, 2007 12:15 PM

My point is that it was much worse than anything that you have thought to accuse Pelosi of doing.

No it wasn't. Your point was that the Syrians are not as bad as I said they were, and you thought proof of that was the US (supposedly) deporting someone there. Geez, can't you keep even your own thoughts straight?

And your new point, that Pelosi shouldn't be criticized because someone, somewhere, is probably doing something worse, is laughable. I'm surprised someone old enough to know how to read and write would imagine that's any kind of serious argument.

As for Pelosi and separation of powers, she didn't claim to be an ambassador and she didn't sign any treaties. So she didn't violate the Constitution.

Whether an action is constitutional or not is rarely settled by a cursory reading of it. And it's hardly a question of what the Constitution doesn't explicitly forbid to the Speaker of the House is allowed. In fact, I don't know whether or not the Supreme Court would decide Pelosi's ventures in Syria are unconstitutional. No one does, or else it would have been tested before now. I do know it's possible that it could be held unconstitutional. Informed opinion on the subject is that the Constitution generally says that in foreign policy the President proposes and Congress disposes. Meaning the President initiates foreign policy and the Congress refines it by their response -- by whether or not the Senate ratifies formal treaties and ambassadors, whether or not the House appropriates funds to support the President's initiatives, et cetera.

What Pelosi is doing comes close to an attempt to negotiate a new agreement with a foreign power (which is clearly the President's job) or, worse, trying to actively undermine the policy of the President. That's worse because of a fact some folks on the left simply can't seem to get their heads around: George Bush was elected by a majority of Americans. That means he, and not Nancy Pelosi or the latest Washington Post poll, is the best representative of the will of the entire country. (You can make the case that Congress as a whole is a good representative, too, of course, but this has little practical meaning since all of Congress can't even agree on the time of day, pretty much. In any event, Pelosi is acting not at the behest of Congress but because she herself thinks she knows better than the President. She may, but it's not her place to act on that thought (or hope), because she hasn't submitted her opinions and policy preferences to the entire nation's voters. George Bush has.)

What you (or actually Bush) claim is that because Bush withdrew his ambassador to Syria, no one else should talk to the Syrian government either.

Correct, with one key amendation: no one else purporting to represent the United States should talk to the Syrian government. Nancy Pelosi, private citizen, can talk to Baby Assad as much as she wants. Just like you or I could.

To think otherwise is to invite chaos. I'm sure if the shoe were on the other foot -- if Republican Representative Tom Tancredo went to Korea in 2010 and bad-mouthed President Hillary Clinton's way of dealing with the North/South Korea issue, Democrats would flip out about his undermining the policies of a duly elected President.

We get along in this country by practising a certain amount of patience. If we don't like the policies of the President, we don't undertake any action whatsoever to stop them, from sabotaging his initiatives like Pelosi and other Democratic fools all the way up to armed insurrection like they do in Iraq. Instead we wait and we try to get a new and different President elected. That's called the rule of law, and it's what we're trying to teach the Iraqis. Maybe we'd have better success if the Democrats didn't so often act like the end goal of changing "bad" policies by President Bush justify nearly any means whatsoever.

Posted by Carl Pham at April 5, 2007 12:15 PM

from sabotaging his initiatives like Pelosi

But she's not sabotaging his initiatives. She's sabotaging his lack of initiative. :-)

Posted by at April 5, 2007 12:36 PM

She's sabotaging his lack of initiative.

At least you recognize sabotage.

Posted by Mac at April 5, 2007 08:26 PM

"Now, Nancy Pelosi may be talking to the Syrians, but she did not call them her friends. "

--She did. "We came in friendship" were her words. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/04/AR2007040402306.html?nav=hcmodule)

Posted by jjustwwondering at April 6, 2007 12:32 PM

Post a comment