pudge's Journal: Why Pelosi Is Different, And Wrong

IHT makes a common, and ill-considered, criticism of the Bush administration:

The tone of the complaints - particularly Vice President Dick Cheney's public characterization of her visit as "bad behavior" - contrasts sharply with the administration's silence about a similar trip to Damascus a week ago by three Republican lawmakers, Frank Wolf of Virginia, Joseph Pitts of Pennsylvania and Robert Aderholt of Alabama.

The difference is that the three Republicans made it very clear in their trip that they supported Bush, though they did not represent him. Pelosi, on the other hand, is openly opposing Bush's policies and trying to work diplomacy in her own way, taking on the Constitutional role of the President for herself.

For example, Pelosi was supposedly delivering messages to Syria from Israel, but Israel immediately backed off from Pelosi's claims. A Congressman has no business, whatsoever, being in this position in the first place. That is the purview of the State Department and the President and anyone whom the President specifically appoints to be involved in such matters, not for any Congressman, even Madame Speaker.

The Constitution says that the President directs diplomatic policy. It's that simple. If you go abroad to one of our enemies -- for lack of a better term, that's what Syria essentially is at this time -- you must not go against the Chief Diplomat. If you do, you are crossing a line that should not be crossed, and that is what Pelosi is doing, and it is not what the three Republicans are doing.

Pelosi and her fellow Democrats claim she was not going against Bush policy, not budging "half an inch", but Pelosi's own words prove that's false: she said her goal was to attempt to push the Iraq Study Group recommendations, which are not Bush policy.

There is no sharp contrast, as IHT claims; the Republicans are not going against Bush policy, and Pelosi is. Of course, their very first paragraph of the story shows that they either don't understand what is going on, or are simply choosing Pelosi's side in the disagreement, as they place all the blame on Bush, when it's Pelosi who is acting outside of her Constitutional role.

This has to be a cover story

[sulli]

There is no way Pelosi is there on her own accord. I think she is there delivering official messages, but has previously agreed that she would allow Bush to criticize her publicly about the trip in order to maintain the fiction that the US doesn't talk with Syria.

We sent Maker Arar there to be tortured, for heaven's sake. Surely we aren't above pretending that a visit by the Speaker of the House is not official?

(At least I hope this is the case, because we really ought to get Syria to play ball. Israel

Re:

[pudge]

There is no way Pelosi is there on her own accord. I think she is there delivering official messages, but has previously agreed that she would allow Bush to criticize her publicly about the trip in order to maintain the fiction that the US doesn't talk with Syria.

That is very possible, of course. It's also possible that Israel did tell Pelosi exactly what she told Syria, and then denied it, just to make her look bad, and that Rove is behind the whole thing. :-)

I'd like to think that there is "no way" she is there on her own accord. And if someday we find out that's what happened, that she went at the behest of Bush, then I will gain back some respect that I lost for her this week.

Pelosi's own words

[jamie]

Pelosi's own words prove that's false: she said her goal was to attempt to push the Iraq Study Group recommendations

I just skimmed the link you provided and didn't see that; can you quote that please?

Re:

[pudge]

Pelosi's own words prove that's false: she said her goal was to attempt to push the Iraq Study Group recommendations

I just skimmed the link you provided and didn't see that; can you quote that please?

I heard her say it, but that link only shows her spokesperson saying it (which for you, I know from past experience, is good enough ...).

Re:

[jamie]

Pelosi's own words prove that's false

can you quote that please?

her spokesperson saying it (which for you, I know from past experience, is good enough...)

You know that? Or you assume?

Re:

[pudge]

More links, one another spokesman talking, and one a written statement from her office:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2007/03/30/AR2007033002010.html?nav=hcmodule [washingtonpost.com]

http://mediamatters.org/items/200704030010 [mediamatters.org]

She is free to disavow the claims made by two of her spokespeople (why does she need TWO anyway?) and her office's written statement.

Re:

[jamie]

I don't understand, so maybe I missed something. Why do you think there are two spokespeople?

What I see from the links you provided is:

Ocala.com [ocala.com]:

Pelosi's spokesman Nadeam Elshami responded to Cheney by saying Pelosi pressed Assad on issues of concern.

"The administration has rejected the bipartisan recommendations of the Iraq Study Group to engage Syria and instead continues to engage in a war of words with Republicans and Democrats on this issue," he said from the Saudi capital, Riyadh, where the dele

Re:

[pudge]

I don't understand, so maybe I missed something. Why do you think there are two spokespeople?

What I see from the links you provided is:

Ocala.com [ocala.com]:

Pelosi's spokesman Nadeam Elshami responded to Cheney by saying Pelosi pressed Assad on issues of concern.

Yeah, there was one more [sfgate.com] I forgot to link to:

Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly said the delegation "intends to discuss a wide range of security issues affecting the United States and the Middle East with representatives of governments in the region, including Syria," as recommended by the Iraq Study Group.