Boy, talk about self centered. Let's see, Saudi Arabia is a place where women are not allowed to drive, aren't allowed to leave the house unaccompanied by a male, aren't allowed to appear in public without their face covered, and are burned alive rather than allow someone to see them without the proper Islamic attire. They are treated worse than second-class citizens--they have essentially no rights at all. But what is Nancy Pelosi worried about?

None of that. No. She's complaining to them because they don't have enough female politicians. Just when you thought she couldn't be any more clueless.

[Noon Update]

Compare and contrast how the media treated John McCain's visit with how they treated Queen Nanc's:

Assad's been trying to play his empty "peace process" card for months, because he's facing an international murder rap for killing Rafiq Hariri, and because he wants to put Lebanon back in his hip pocket. If he can get the Speaker of the House to play the dupe on his behalf, that works for him. In fact, just the footage of their meeting helps him, because it suggests that his isolation is ending. The EU has been frustrated with him, and the Arab League may have failed to close a deal with him on the paralysis of Beirut, and his Arab neighbors may have stopped trusting him long ago, but hey, he's still got some people willing to try to help him out of a jam: Tehran, Hezbollah, and Nancy Pelosi. I mean, why should the US be content with merely pulling out of Iraq in defeat when it can kiss Syria's butt as well?

So after Pelosi stopped talking, then what happened? All the stories that I've seen about Pelosi's embarrassing amateurism are perfectly straightforward accounts of what she did and what she said, with a little underplayed regional context. Where's the smartass coverage of Pelosi's visit? Where are the telling juxtapositions? Where's all the snark when we need it? I can't find any of it.

I live in the Mojave desert, where scattered creosote bushes and the occasional Joshua tree are the main vegetation. My monthly water bill is $17. flat fee for connection to the system, and $.10 per thousand gallons. In an average month I pay $.20 for water for two people. There is no incentive for conservation and I have plenty of neighbors who maintain grass lawns by daily sprinkler irrigation. In the desert. Of course, some of my tax money pays for advertisements and exhortations to conserve water.

It seems like the perfect socialist system to me. Charge according to cost and ignore the financial and environmental consequences.

Oops. that post should have gone to the previous thread.

Pelosi Panic '07 continues!

It was a private discussion, so you have no idea what was actually talked about. A one page news brief from Fox News that discussed her fashion choices more than foreign policy is pretty thin gruel for this eruption of faux rage.

And Olmert's statement today - well this is what he said to Haaretz the other day:
"The Syrians, according to their statements and those of others recently," Olmert said, "appear to be saying that there is an American plan to attack Iran in the summer, and at the same time, and in coordination with Israel, to also attack Syria and Lebanon."

"I can tell you that there is no such plan that we know about, and in any case, there is no reason for the Syrians to prepare for such an eventuality. There is always concern that when one side prepares for war, and the other side is preparing to counter the other side's preparations, then the first side interprets the preparations of the other side as if it is the manifestation of its fears, and the situation goes into a spin, and control is lost.

"We have no intention to attack the Syrians," Olmert said, "we prefer to make peace with the Syrians, but it is a fact that the army is carrying out very intensive training in all systems, all branches, all units, in all areas, and it will continue doing so as part of its annual plans, and it will be ready for any eventuality - including the possibility of what is called miscalculation ... But we take into account everything, and hope that the things that should not happen, do not happen."

which is basically what Pelosi and Lantos conveyed in person to Assad.

And as for breaking an iron ring of isolation around Damascus, the White House sent GOP congressmen there recently, and will be meeting with Syrian and Iranian representitives ant the upcoming Iraqi conference.

In short: The squirming and shouting of the suddenly irrelevent 101st fighting keyboarders is actually pretty funny.

Duncan Young wrote:
"It was a private discussion, so you have no idea what was actually talked about"

Yet afterwards Duncan claims to know what was actually talked about:
"...which is basically what Pelosi and Lantos conveyed in person to Assad."

That's called a contradiction Duncan. As for the rest you should read the relevant blog posts & comments on this site from April 3rd onwards..

There is always concern that when one side prepares for war, and the other side is preparing to counter the other side's preparation...

If this was actually said, then it leads me to wonder why Pelosi is already drawing up "sides" to a conflict.

HH,
No contradiction.
The first part concerned the Saudis.

The second part concerned the trip to Syria, of which Israeli sources said:
"The speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, is scheduled to meet with Syrian President Bashar Assad in Damascus today, and will deliver a message of calm from Israel.

"We hope the message will be understood," political sources in Israel said yesterday. "The question is whether Assad is looking for an excuse ... so that he can carry out an attack against Israel in the summer, or whether this is a mistaken assessment." "

from the Haaretz article.

Better reading comprehension please.

Nancy Pelosi is just not very bright, Rand. I'd have thought you knew that already, since you lived in California so long. Even amongst Bay Area politicians, a rather...er...colorful lot, not all of whom, admittedly, have a diagnosed psychiatric illness, she stood out as a warm, friendly airhead. More like Barbara Boxer than Dianne Feinstein, if you know what I mean.

In this case, she's just forgotten how to tell the difference between cause and effect. She thinks the poor status of women in the Kingdom is a result of the fact that there are no women on the unelected Shura council, rather than a cause.

Nancy Pelosi is just not very bright, Rand. I'd have thought you knew that already, since you lived in California so long.

I'm actually quite painfully aware of that, Carl. I guess this is what happens when you put "the children" in charge of the Congress.

Duncan Young:
Yeah I missed that you were talking about completely different things. I read the "And" starting your third paragraph as a continuation rather than a change of subject.

Still none of that relates much to the reasons why Pelosi & her merry (Republican) men shouldn't do what they're doing (discussed at lenght elsewhere).

To those who support their actions as messengers (and more); isn't it rather embarrasing when Israel afterwards has to explain what the message really said and that it in no way signifies any change of policy? I mean that must be some crappy message delivery on the part of Pelosi & co no matter which way you look at it.

Not that we can expect anything else since they:
- don't work for the State Deparment
- aren't meant to be doing hands-on foreign affairs, negotiations, message delivery or anything else of the sort and have little if any experience in such matters
- aren't there at the request of the executive branch
- simply have no real business there

This whole situation goes far beyond policy differences.