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

basically they are saying reagans people talked to iran to have them released on the day he got sworn in as a big publicity stunt making republicans look good

i can see the reason people are mad that shes doing it now is cause she is gonna try to broker some deal that makes democrats look good

is that about right...am i close?

4/3/2007 2:45:24 AM

Just curious....she is in the position to offer what to the Syrians?

4/3/2007 7:09:10 AM

Oral sex.

And possibly political favors if Democrats can win the presidency.

4/3/2007 7:37:03 AM

That would be a gamble for the Syrians...because right now, there is really no way to tell how the election is going to turn out, hell no way to tell who is even going to be nominated. Just curious though, how do middle eastern governments typically view female politicians?

4/3/2007 7:50:42 AM

I can't say this with any accuracy, but dealing with politicians from other countries probably requires them to do a lot of things they'd rather not do, including treating a woman equally. I doubt they'd snub the German PM for example.

Though from everything I've read the two countries that would deal with female politicians the best are Lebanon and Iran. (Lebanon has a large Christian population and a pretty good democratic system and Iran is considered to be the most moderate of all the ME nations despite having whackjobs at the top.)

4/3/2007 7:57:42 AM

All she can do is talk to them. And what does that do for America's enemy? If anything it gives them a sense that the Americans are playing into their rhetoric.

Pelosi can offer nothing, she can do nothing for the Americans or the Syrians.



The President (Reagan) can do a shit load.



This is not a time nor a place for freelance foreign policy.



And for the record dnl... no, you're not right. Not even close.

[Edited on April 3, 2007 at 10:23 AM. Reason : .]

4/3/2007 10:22:27 AM

It could just be that the Republicans are scared that any semblance of competent foreign diplomacy might halt their profitable never-ending wars in their tracks.

4/3/2007 10:39:25 AM

Quote :

"Just curious....she is in the position to offer what to the Syrians?"

Maybe. Given the Republican Party's complete disarray, the Democrats stand a good chance of siezing control of the White House while maintaining their grip on Congress. If she can sell them on that, then yes, Pelosi is in position to offer something to the Syrians. However, it is still WAY TOO EARLY to really gauge where the 2008 Presidental elections will go.

That, and I'm not cynical enough yet to think the Democrats would actually sink that low.

[Edited on April 3, 2007 at 10:58 AM. Reason : .]

4/3/2007 10:57:44 AM

broker a deal for what exactly?

4/3/2007 5:38:19 PM

the white house is upset about this because it shows that america, god-forbid, might be willing to start sitting down and actually talking with these people instead of just giving the same bs of "we'll negotiate after you do what we want you to do."

4/3/2007 6:04:01 PM

4/3/2007 7:08:46 PM

4/3/2007 7:29:26 PM

odd...I didn't know one of the responsibilities of the congress was to formulate foreign policy...I'll have to go take a hard look at that Constitution thingy

4/4/2007 11:00:44 AM

I fail to see why it is a bad thing for anyone in a powerful decision making chain to have a sit down and talk with anyone else in a powerful decision making position.

Maybe if the state of politics wasn't so X vs Y and the goal was to come to solution that worked for everyone (often through some type of compromise), this wouldn't be a problem.

Just another reason to hate A) The Bush administration and B) the state of the game in general.

They are all scumbags.

4/4/2007 11:03:07 AM

it doesn't seem like she's saying anything to them other than 'hey if you stop supporting terrorist organizations then we'll support you.' which should be our standpoint anyway instead of 'we're not going to even consider negotiating with you until you drop support.'

it's hardline vs. reasonable.

4/4/2007 11:07:59 AM

OMG NANCY PELOSI IN A HEADSCARF!!!!!!!111111oneoneone


Laura Bush:

Condi:

4/4/2007 12:24:35 PM

i think the real issue is that the incessant blinking of her eyes will probably be taken by syria as a threat..she seriously has something wrong with her head

4/4/2007 12:31:08 PM

does laura bush buy visine in bulk? I imagine she uses a lot, what with the botox permanently keeping her eyes open and all.

4/4/2007 12:32:38 PM

botox? are you confusing laura bush with john kerry?

4/4/2007 12:39:41 PM

now that you mention it, laura bush does always have the same look on her face. not the same expression, but the same damn LOOK, must be carved in.

4/4/2007 1:20:34 PM

^^ are you confusing John Kerry with John Edwards?

4/4/2007 1:32:19 PM

nope

4/4/2007 1:34:10 PM

Syria is claiming to have helped negotiate the release of the British sailors in Iran.








MAN WHAT A BUNCH OF ASSHOLES.

4/4/2007 1:47:28 PM

Quote :

"^^ are you confusing John Kerry with John Edwards?"

Are you confusing John Edwards with John Edwards?

4/4/2007 2:20:27 PM

^good one

too bad you wont know ive complimented your joke since you love censorship

4/4/2007 2:23:24 PM

It's not Pelosi's job to set foreign policy. She's overstepping her boundaries here and is trying to upstage Bush, it'll be interesting to see what kind of reaction this will receive.

4/4/2007 7:09:55 PM

You mean like when bush bypasses congress and appoints people to positions that they would not otherwise get?

4/4/2007 7:17:40 PM

http://local.lancasteronline.com/4/202433

Quote :

"Pitts in Syria before Pelosi But county’s U.S. rep. draws less criticism By Dave Pidgeon, Staff Intelligencer Journal Published: Apr 03, 2007 1:43 AM EST LANCASTER COUNTY, Pa. - While U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's upcoming visit to Syria has caused the White House to bristle, a little-publicized rendezvous took place Sunday between Syria's president and Lancaster County's congressman. And though Bush administration officials have been criticizing Pelosi, it's not clear what role the White House and the U.S. Department of State played when U.S. Rep. Joe Pitts and two other Republican congressmen met with Syrian President Bassar Assad. Pitts is a Chester County Republican who represents Lancaster County. Gabe Neville, Pitts' chief of staff, said Monday the conference between Assad and the three Republicans was intended to be "low profile." "It was done in cooperation with the administration," he said. However, White House spokesman Alex Conant said Monday the Bush administration — as a blanket policy — "discourages all of (Congress') visits" to Syria, a country believed by the White House to sponsor terrorism. The House Speaker's office criticized the Bush administration for focusing their criticisms — until Monday — on Pelosi, the top House Democrat, for leading a congressional delegation to meet with Assad later this week. "There's a Republican trip going before her, and no one is criticizing that," Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill said. "So clearly the White House's motives here are in question." Details about Pitts' trip to Syria, including when the White House learned of it and whether and how the Department of State was involved, were not available from Neville, who said, "I'll let (Pitts) answer that when he gets back." Neville also declined to divulge Pitts' return date, citing security concerns. The Republicans' conference with Assad was first reported by The Associated Press in a story about Pelosi. Pitts' office made no public announcements preceding the Damascus visit. The Bush administration has accused Syria of supporting terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah in their efforts against Israel, meddling in the affairs of nearby Lebanon and allowing foreign fighters to cross the Iraqi border to engage U.S. forces. Administration critics from both political parties and the recent bipartisan Iraq Study Group have recommended open talks with Syria to resolve these issues. Pelosi, in published reports, characterized her planned meeting with Assad as a "fact finding" mission through which her delegation can "hopefully build the confidence" between the United States and Syria. Pelosi is leading a seven-member congressional delegation that includes six Democrats and one Republican through the Middle East with planned visits to Israel and Lebanon, as well as Syria. Sunday, White House counselor Dan Bartlett said on CBS' "Face the Nation" that "most Americans would not think that the leader of the Democratic Party should be meeting with the heads of a state sponsor of terror." White House spokeswoman Dana Perino, who last week called Pelosi's planned meeting with Assad a "bad idea," told White House reporters Monday she did not talk about the trio of Republicans in Syria because she was asked specifically about Pelosi. Visits by high-profile American officials, like one conducted years ago by then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, do not deter Syria, Perino said. "Syria uses these opportunities to flaunt photo opportunities around its country and around the region and around the world to say that they aren't isolated, that they don't need to change their behavior," she told reporters. "And it alleviates the pressure that we are trying to put on them to change their behavior.""

[Edited on April 4, 2007 at 7:18 PM. Reason : .]

4/4/2007 7:18:09 PM

^^ The President has the constitutional authority to do so, so cry me a river.

^ Acting as a liason and being a rogue maverick are two entirely different things entirely. I'm sorry if you can't tell the difference.

4/4/2007 7:21:14 PM

Quote :

"You mean like when bush bypasses congress and appoints people to positions that they would not otherwise get?"

bush is the only person in the world in any field of business who has ever done this

4/4/2007 7:23:20 PM

You would be surprised how far a tray of baklava can take you diplomatically.

4/5/2007 1:34:24 AM

for a whole tray? for free?

4/5/2007 2:05:15 AM

From the Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/04/AR2007040402306.html

Quote :

"Pratfall in Damascus Nancy Pelosi's foolish shuttle diplomacy Thursday, April 5, 2007; Page A16 HOUSE SPEAKER 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."

4/5/2007 10:47:51 AM

Good job Ms. "Advance my gay rights movement to Syria" Pelosi

4/5/2007 10:50:50 AM

Quote :

"Marwan al-Kabalan, a professor of political science and media at Damascus University, said Ms. Pelosi’s arrival here may take the pressure off diplomats and other Western officials seeking to engage Syria. Yet many Syrians were left wondering what really changed after Ms. Pelosi’s plane took off from Damascus Wednesday afternoon. Some analysts said they feared that instead of a grand opening with the United States, Syria had become a pawn in an domestic dispute between the Democrats and the Republicans."

Another rather amusing snippet from the NY Times, both good and bad. Good that she may have paved a path for others to follow in re-engaging Syria, bad in which this trip has led to confuse people in the region about where American foreign policy is.

4/5/2007 11:08:05 AM

exactly, it leaves American foreign policy ambiguous, which is precisely the reason she did not belong in syria.

4/5/2007 11:21:44 AM

Because they are either with us or against us.

4/5/2007 11:23:30 AM

Quote :

"From the Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/04/AR2007040402306.html "

The Washington Post is the Fox News of print. It's an incredibly biased publication and in my opinion isn't a very good place to get news. But just for the record, I don't really agree with Pelosi going to Syria either. Bush is doing a good job of political manuevouring right now, but anyone with half a brain can see that's exactly what's going on. This and the whole Iraq spending bill are just political attacks on the Democrats. Learn to see both sides.

4/5/2007 12:00:53 PM

Quote :

"GINGRICH: I think it’s very important not to have two foreign policies and I think it’s very dangerous for America to do what Speaker Pelosi did. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, we looked at your record, and let’s put up some of the instances. During a trip to china in 1997, you told leaders there, “We will defend Taiwan, period,” when U.S. policy on defending Taiwan was much vaguer than that. Just before a trip to Israel in 1998, you said, “I think it’s wrong for the American Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, to become the agent for the Palestinians.” Weren’t you more provocative than Speaker Pelosi? "

Quote :

"Rep. Nick Rahall (D-WV), who traveled last week with Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) as part of her delegation to the Middle East, said this morning on C-Span that Pelosi told Bush of the trip to Syria a day before they left, and Bush did not object. Rahall said, “The Speaker had met with President Bush in the halls of the U.S. Capitol just the day before we left and mentioned to him that we were going to Syria. No response at all from the President.” ... President Bush “did not tell her not to go, nor did the State Department tell us not to go,” Rahall said. “The State Department was certainly aware of our traveling to Syria and our full itinerary. And there were State Department officials in every meeting that we had on this codel. So that is all hogwash as far as I’m concerned.”"

4/8/2007 11:02:49 PM

Quote :

" WALLACE: Mr. [Gingrich] we looked at your record, and let’s put up some of the instances. During a trip to china in 1997, you told leaders there, “We will defend Taiwan, period,” when U.S. policy on defending Taiwan was much vaguer than that. Just before a trip to Israel in 1998, you said, “I think it’s wrong for the American Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, to become the agent for the Palestinians.” Weren’t you more provocative than Speaker Pelosi? ""

nice PWNT by Mike Wallace. thanks for that.

fwiw, the Speaker of the House is second in line to the Presidency, right behind the Vice President.

and lets not forget that Pelosi was a leader of the complete takeover of both houses of congress and pulled the rug out from under the sitting administration.

talk about a "mandate". thats far more impressive than Bush's narrow reelection against a weak dem. opponent in 2004.



[Edited on April 9, 2007 at 1:31 PM. Reason : ]

4/9/2007 1:28:31 PM

damn that sucks they made a woman like 3rd in line to be president

4/9/2007 1:36:54 PM

i know, you'd rather have a "man date" wouldntcha?

4/9/2007 1:46:00 PM

^^Don't take your feelings about your mother out on all females.

4/9/2007 2:56:30 PM

as far as the "what power does she have?" question. well she could, oh i don't know introduce and endorse legislation that is favorable to syria.

4/9/2007 3:05:14 PM

We need a woman president.

4/9/2007 4:12:36 PM

Quote :

"I fail to see why it is a bad thing for anyone in a powerful decision making chain to have a sit down and talk with anyone else in a powerful decision making position. Maybe if the state of politics wasn't so X vs Y and the goal was to come to solution that worked for everyone (often through some type of compromise), this wouldn't be a problem. Just another reason to hate A) The Bush administration and B) the state of the game in general. They are all scumbags."

Because the President has the traditional lead and loose constitutional responsibility on foreign policy. Not Congress. It's an institutional issue, not a party issue.

[Edited on April 9, 2007 at 4:29 PM. Reason : .]

4/9/2007 4:29:44 PM

They are worried about her "pulling a Reagan".

4/9/2007 4:37:55 PM