Nancy Pelosi is dumber than I originally thought

[Ibanez]

Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) offered an excellent demonstration yesterday of why members of Congress should not attempt to supplant the secretary of state when traveling abroad. 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. Having announced this seeming diplomatic breakthrough, Ms. Pelosi suggested that her Kissingerian shuttle diplomacy was just getting started. "We expressed our interest in using our good offices in promoting peace between Israel and Syria," she said.

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.

Ms. Pelosi was criticized by President Bush for visiting Damascus at a time when the administration -- rightly or wrongly -- has frozen high-level contacts with Syria. Mr. Bush said that thanks to the speaker's freelancing Mr. Assad was getting mixed messages from the United States. Ms. Pelosi responded by pointing out that Republican congressmen had visited Syria without drawing presidential censure. That's true enough -- but those other congressmen didn't try to introduce a new U.S. diplomatic initiative in the Middle East. "We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace," Ms. Pelosi grandly declared.

Never mind that that statement is ludicrous: As any diplomat with knowledge of the region could have told Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Assad is a corrupt thug whose overriding priority at the moment is not peace with Israel but heading off U.N. charges that he orchestrated the murder of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq al-Hariri. The really striking development here is the attempt by a Democratic congressional leader to substitute her own foreign policy for that of a sitting Republican president. Two weeks ago Ms. Pelosi rammed legislation through the House of Representatives that would strip Mr. Bush of his authority as commander in chief to manage troop movements in Iraq. Now she is attempting to introduce a new Middle East policy that directly conflicts with that of the president. We have found much to criticize in Mr. Bush's military strategy and regional diplomacy. But Ms. Pelosi's attempt to establish a shadow presidency is not only counterproductive, it is foolish.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/04/AR2007040402306_pf.htm


What in the world is she thinking?

[NellieBly]

Atrios calls Hiatt a wanker. Think Progress says Hiatt is "misleading." I think Hiatt is just the biggest idiot in Washington, DC. Absorb that statement for a moment. The biggest idiot in Washington. Why? Most recently, this:

. . . 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. . . . Only one problem: The Israeli prime minister entrusted Ms. Pelosi with no such message.
What is the basis of Hiatt's statement? Seemingly this:

"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.
Now is that a contradiction Mr. Hiatt? Are you saying Israel is not and was not ready to engage in peace talks with Syria? Is this true? Then what in the heck is wrong with Israel? They SHOULD be ready to engage in peace talks with Syria.

It is hard for some folks to say these things, but I will say it, Fred Hiatt is not a smart man. He has proven to be a disingenuous man but many credit him with an intelligence he simply does not possess. What he wrote in this editorial simply makes no sense.


Let's continue to try and understand what Hiatt might be trying to say. He wrote:

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."
This would be relevant IF Pelosi had said to Olmert that "[Syria] was ready to engage in peace talks" with [Israel]." It would not make it true, only relevant. But Pelosi said that Israel was ready for peace talks to Assad of Syria. Does Hiatt not understand this? I submit that this is definitive proof that Hiatt is an idiot.

Look, Hiatt wrote falsehoods. I do not think he lied. I think he is an idiot. He wrote:

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 false in every respect. The first part is false for the reasons I just demonstrated. The second part is false because he has no idea what Pelosi thinks of what Bashar Assad said.

Here is what Hiatt would have had the Speaker say apparently:

As any diplomat with knowledge of the region could have told Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Assad is a corrupt thug whose overriding priority at the moment is not peace with Israel but heading off U.N. charges that he orchestrated the murder of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq al-Hariri.
I hope each of those diplomats with knowledge would tell Mr. Hiatt that the Speaker would have been foolsih to say that in public in Syria. It appears that Hiatt embraces the Bush school of diplomacy - where the US tells people to go eff themselves. Hiatt is, plain and simple, an idiot.

Here he proves it again:

The really striking development here is the attempt by a Democratic congressional leader to substitute her own foreign policy for that of a sitting Republican president. Two weeks ago Ms. Pelosi rammed legislation through the House of Representatives that would strip Mr. Bush of his authority as commander in chief to manage troop movements in Iraq. Now she is attempting to introduce a new Middle East policy that directly conflicts with that of the president.
This is just nonsense. What was Pelosi's new foreign policy initiative? As for "managing troop movements" in Iraq, is Hiatt talking about a withdrawal date? Is he arguing the Congress can't end the Iraq Debacle he loves so dearly? Agai, Hiatt is an idiot.

Then this piece de resistance from the idiot Hiatt:

We have found much to criticize in Mr. Bush's military strategy and regional diplomacy. But Ms. Pelosi's attempt to establish a shadow presidency is not only counterproductive, it is foolish.
For the head cheerleader for the Decider to call anyone foolish is chutzpah of the highest order. Or, more likely, idiocy of the highest order. I don't know what Donald Graham sees in Fred Hiatt, but his Editorial Page is a laughing stock for good reason.

[cannon_fodder]

But hey, the Roman Senate often negotiated outside the scope of the consulars who were not really in charge of the armies.

I have mixed opinions on Bush's foreign policy (mostly bad), but too many of our citizens cant figure out who does what in our government.  Can you imagine being a foreigner and trying to understand that this powerful person visiting your country has no power to negotiate or speak for the United States?  Very confusing.

Oh well.  At the end of the day perhaps some good will come from it.  At least the people of Syria know America hasnt forgotten them and does something other than bomb Arabs (as some TV networks seem to report).

[iplaw]

quote:They SHOULD be ready to engage in peace talks with Syria.

Ummm...no they shouldn't.  Syria has no interest in establishing peace with Israel, nor with the US, and anyone who thinks differently is deluding themselves.  This is akin to asking Poland to be ready to engage Germany in peace talks after Hitler's invasion...[xx(]  Israel has every right to ignore that terrorist crank.  Once Assad has Hezbollah disarmed and it's practitioners put in prison I would talk with him.

NellieBly:  could you please better separate your comments and quotations in the future.  It's very hard to decipher your post.

[iplaw]

quote:Is he arguing the Congress can't end the Iraq Debacle he loves so dearly?

That's exactly what he's saying because it's true.  Congress cannot force the President's hand on Iraq.  They can be chumps and partisans by defunding the war and risking the lives of our servicemen but they can't dictate the foreign policy or the validity of the deployment.

[Conan71]

Pelosi took a large dump in the "legislature" of Saudi earlier today, bringing up the issue of why there are no women in politics in SA.

I hope she had the decency not to order a pork chop and glass of scotch, or touch anyone with her left hand.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/05/AR2007040500317.html

FYI- Hiatt is hardly alone in his criticism.  Other outlets of the more leftist media are also questioning the visit to Damascus.

She did not go on an anonymous goodwill mission, it took on the appearance of a visiting head of state which she isn't- this an unprecidented arrogant stunt for a speaker of the house.

[rwarn17588]

Apparently you have a short memory about Newt Gingrich's arrogance. [}:)]

[guido911]

Thanks RW, I was beginning to think you were not going to come to Pelosi's defense...

[rwarn17588]

I'm not.

But holding a position like Speaker of the House almost requires some arrogance. That's the nature of the beast, no matter which party is in power.

[Breadburner]

She's an airhead...Nice rack though...

[tim huntzinger]

She is 3rd in line for the White House, she joins EIGHT REPUBLICRATS who have made similar visits during the past two weeks, and frankly she could go over there crap her pants, beat up children, steal a bunch of stuff and still could not do the harm that the Bush Administration is doing.

This plane is going down and I do not think we should be arguing about how many angels are on a the head of a pin when we need to bring as many resources to bear.

The Admin, by singling out Pelosi while ignoring the GOP legislators is again playing politics with its 'war on terror.'  GO NANCY GO!!

[iplaw]

I for one think it's a great thing for her to keep doing.  It highlights the Dems frivolity with which they deal with forign policy matters and terrorists, and certainly displays their naiveté in dealing with facist totalitarian ideology.

This bonehead move was a big win for anyone who wants to see Repubs in office in '08.  If they keep making ignorant plays like that, we won't even have to campaign.

Not only was she not authorized to speak on behalf of the administration, she chose to speak on behalf of Israel, a soverign nation which she wasn't authorized to speak for either.  I think she has delusions of grandeur about her own power.

[cannon_fodder]

Tim, once again you have exemplified either ignorance or a purposeful avoidance of the truth.

Prior congressional committees that have gone over seas have done so as part of FACT FINDING missions.  They went to assess a situation and discuss legislative matters.  While they have no authority in diplomacy, they have the right to know what is going on.  This is a long standing tradition for Republicans, Democrats, Wigs, Torries, and Independents.

What is NOT a tradition nor allowed under the constitution is one branch of government usurping the powers of another.  Like it or not, the president and his executive branch are in charge of diplomacy and all foreign affairs.

The Wall Street Journal points out all the above:
http://users1.wsj.com/lmda/do/checkLogin?mg=evo-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB117582330980561775.html%3Fmod%3Dopinion_main_commentaries

NPR seems to think she crossed the line:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9389210

And USA Today agree's with me:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20070406/cm_usatoday/pelosistepsoutofbounds


Certainly you arent going to argue that USA Today and NPR are just lining up behind their man Bush.  Pelosi didnt like the executive branches authority so she set out to undermine it.   As messed up as our government is, lets not make excuses for any more frolics into another branches power.

[tim huntzinger]

duhhhhh-uhh OKAYYYY you are right.  Two opinions outweigh alllll else.  Everything USA or WSJ says is now gospel to me.

The NPR story talks about her 'courage' and does not say she crossed any line, just 'pushed the envelope' and are concerned the trip may backfire politically.

Every published report asserts Pelosi reinforced solidarity with Israel and the Admin, so what is the problem?  She went with other folk, y'know, INCLUDING REPUBLICANS.

[rwarn17588]

Nobody's gonna care about this by the 2008 elections. If the British kidnappings ended badly, maybe. But they didn't, so that's it.

Besides, folks in the media wanted Gingrich to get involved in foreign matters:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/04/05/gingrich_china/index.html

So what's the diff?