Thoughts on Pelosi in Syria

[Buskerdoo]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17930075/

I think that for the most part politicians have no clue about foriegn policy and they should stay home and do their job.

Nancy Pelosi and any other senator or congressperson was not ellected by a majority to represent the country. Only a small, very small, percentage of people voted these people into their positions.

[micksss]

She is over there with Republicans too. Richardson is in North Korea this week as well. I think that it is a step in the right direction.

[Buskerdoo]

I don't care what party they are part of, they are not trained in foreign policy negotiations.

[littleFella]

Originally Posted by Buskerdoo

I don't care what party they are part of, they are not trained in foreign policy negotiations.

No idea why the hell she went there, but still, based on the latest history, no US foreign policy negotiators appear to have gone through any kind of foreign policy negotiations training. If they did, the curriculum needs some major work.

[nhebb]

I don't have a problem with congressional delegates making foreign affairs visits. I do have a problem with it if they have no other agenda than to win political points at home, though.

Richardson is a good case in point. Based on his previous visits to North Korea, it was a widely held belief that North Korea had agree to stop developing nuclear arms. We now know that's not true. those types of things don't get switched off and on like a light bulb.

[Buskerdoo]

Originally Posted by littleFella

...based on the latest history, no US foreign policy negotiators appear to have gone through any kind of foreign policy negotiations training. If they did, the curriculum needs some major work.

I agree.

[nhebb]

The Washington Post sure slammed her today:
Pratfall in Damascus

[Buskerdoo]

Originally Posted by nhebb

The Washington Post sure slammed her today:
Pratfall in Damascus

In other words she simply lied thinking it would make her look good. Stupid.

As I've said before, she, or any memeber of congress was not elected by a majority of Americans and entrusted to represent the country.

[John Scott]

In other words she simply lied thinking it would make her look good. Stupid.

It does appear that way.

Looks like she just wanted to get her name in the news.

[South]

She's completely out of her zone of competence with this. She has no business doing what she's doing, and this kind of showboating is embarrassing for her and everyone else involved.

[StupidScript]

As I've said before, she, or any memeber of congress was not elected by a majority of Americans and entrusted to represent the country.

So ... only George or Dick should be the ones to go ... also without any training? (Condi's only foreign relations training was on-the-job ... and what a whiz-bang job she's been doing!) And what about our diplomats who are trained in foreign relations ... since they weren't elected to represent the country, but are appointed by the Administration ... they shouldn't go, either?

So who should go? Or maybe you're thinking that any type of diplomacy is a bad idea?

I'm thinking that every type of diplomacy should be given a chance. It's way better than no attempt to build bridges. And if Pelosi was swindled by Olmert (and who hasn't been, in those circles) it's more of a sign of immaturity than stupidity. In her case, unlike in GWB's case, at least she can become more mature through experiences like this.

Besides, all of this Pelosi-bashing is just a piling on by an Administration that has been neutered. Several delegations of Republicans have engaged in similar junkets without comment by the Administration, but when the first female Speaker of the House (and coincidentally, a Democratic Party member) does the same, all of a sudden it's a "bad idea"? Sounds like silly whining, to me.

[Buskerdoo]

Originally Posted by StupidScript

So ... only George or Dick should be the ones to go ... also without any training? (Condi's only foreign relations training was on-the-job ... and what a whiz-bang job she's been doing!) And what about our diplomats who are trained in foreign relations ... since they weren't elected to represent the country, but are appointed by the Administration ... they shouldn't go, either?

Interestingly you could have simply stated the fact that the United States Constitution divides foreign policy powers between the President and the Congress so that both share in the making of foreign policy. Unfortunatley, it is very murky water. The bottom line is that Congress does not execute policy. Period. That is the job of the executive branch of the government. Anything that undermines this, like going out and stating policy that is not condoned by the current administration, and many citizens of the country, is wrong.

So who should go? Or maybe you're thinking that any type of diplomacy is a bad idea?

Not worthy of comment.

I'm thinking that every type of diplomacy should be given a chance. It's way better than no attempt to build bridges.

Not if if hurts the country. The next democrate president isn't going to be too happy when a republican goes off and tells another country whatever. But in that case, the democratic pres will have the presses support.

And if Pelosi was swindled by Olmert (and who hasn't been, in those circles) it's more of a sign of immaturity than stupidity. In her case, unlike in GWB's case, at least she can become more mature through experiences like this.

We'll see. I have my doubts.

[StupidScript]

Originally Posted by Buskerdoo

Interestingly you could have simply stated the fact that the United States Constitution divides foreign policy powers between the President and the Congress so that both share in the making of foreign policy. Unfortunatley, it is very murky water. The bottom line is that Congress does not execute policy. Period. That is the job of the executive branch of the government. Anything that undermines this, like going out and stating policy that is not condoned by the current administration, and many citizens of the country, is wrong.

That sounds good, to me. Really, it does. That interpretation makes a lot of sense.

Not if if hurts the country.

Subjective. See below.

The next democrate president isn't going to be too happy when a republican goes off and tells another country whatever. But in that case, the democratic pres will have the presses support.

You're probably right about that, too.

While I agree with the structure of the system, and its separation of duties, I do not agree with a separation of rights that is the result of what I believe to be a misleading interpretation of the system's definition.

Congress literally represents the people of the U.S.A., and I could go on about how individual Members of Congress represent a fraction of the country as a whole, regardless ... if a Member of Congress is empowered (and there's no way Pelosi would have mavericked-out on something like this) to engage in conversations with foreign leaders, even if the practical interpretation of the visit was that it signified a presentation of official U.S. foreign policy, I could argue that it was actually a demonstration of the liberty to exercise the rights afforded to us by the same Constitution that defined its framework.