Pelosi now speaks for Israel, too UPDATED
So Nancy Pelosi went to Syria anyway, despite being asked not to by the White House and the Israelis.
But nobody tells Nancy what to do, right? After all, she's the 'most powerful woman in America'. Just ask her.
Now, the entire reason for the trip, reportedly to force Pres. Bush to open a dialog with Syria, has been put in jeopardy.
During a meeting with PM Olmert, who also asked Pelosi not to go to Damascus, he gave her this message for Syria:
The officials said Olmert had told Pelosi that he thought her trip to Damascus was a mistake, and that when she asked - nevertheless - whether he had a message for Assad, Olmert said Syria should first stop supporting terrorism and "act like a normal country," and only then would Israel be willing to hold discussions.
Stop supporting terrorism. Then, maybe, we can talk.
But somehow Pelosi forgot that part when she met with Syrian President Assad. She apparently told him only that the Israeli's were "ready to talk" and left out the single most important part of the message: the prerequisite to stop supporting terrorists.
"We were very pleased with the reassurances we received from the president [Assad] that he was ready to resume the peace process. He was ready to engage in negotiations [for] peace with Israel," Pelosi said.
"[Our] meeting with the president enabled us to communicate a message from prime minister Olmert that Israel was ready to engage in peace talks as well," Pelosi, the third most senior official in Washington, told reporters after talks with Assad. An Israeli government official said that was not the message Olmert had asked Pelosi earlier this week to convey to Assad, who seeks the return of the Golan Heights.
Israel then had to clarify their position.
So, Pelosi, against the wishes of the U.S. and Israeli Governments, met with Assad and gave him the wrong message. But Nancy got her photo-op and free publicity anyway, so I'm sure she's happy. Never mind the fact that she embarrassed the U.S., Israel, the House and, least importantly, herself.
Bush, meanwhile, called the meeting "counterproductive":
"Photo opportunities and or meetings with President Assad lead the Assad government to believe they're part of the mainstream of the international community when, in fact, they're a state sponsor of terror," Bush said.
We used to have a saying when things got messed up: too many Chiefs and not enough Indians. That's what we have here: too many people want to be President and dictate policy but nobody wants to play by the rules. Heck, you know something's wrong when Jimmy Carter agrees with you.
Did she make a mistake or just lie? Hopefully it was an honest mistake, but it doesn't really matter, does it? She put herself in a position she had no right to be in and screwed it up. Nancy Pelosi does not set foreign policy nor does she speak for the United States, unless empowered to do so by the president.
She promised the 'most ethical Congress in history' but, now that she's in power, is playing by her own rules; unless you consider subverting the foreign policy of the United States 'ethical'. And what do you want to bet her name comes up somehow in the bargaining for those Royal Sailors and Marines?
You want to know what it will be like with a Democrat in the White House during these times? Take a good look, America.
Hell, pretty soon, we won't even be able to call it the “war on terror” anymore.
Related posts:
More at:
- Villainous Company: Hillary, You Can't Be Seriousa 'message of peace' for Syria. Is it possible that Pelosi is that far off the grid? That she would make up this message and pass it along without the blessings of Israel? She clearly is out to make a name for herself her, while embarrassing the U.S. and Israel, but would she really do that?
***UPDATED***: The plot thickens. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said today that he did not give Pelosi
Syria is a state sponsor of terrorism and supports Hamas and Hezbollah, to name only a few. They are also suspected of the assassination of the Lebanese Prime Minister last year. They train and equip terrorists, and are widely believed to allow terrorists to pour through their borders and into Iraq. Obviously, these people are among those that we are fighting in Iraq, and they are killing our soldiers there.
So why would Pelosi go there?
For the press and photo ops? To embarrass the U.S. and Israeli Governments? To defy Bush? To push her own agenda, regardless of what is best for America? To try and give credence to the Democrats and their 2008 run? To fuel her own ego?
Yes.
And she made us weaker in the world for it.
Here's some analysis from The Washington Post:
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.
They left out one word, however, in their conclusion.
Dangerous.
Sources in PM Olmert's office said Pelosi lied deliberately.
In a special statement of clarification, the bureau stressed that Olmert had told Pelosi that Israel continued to regard Syria as "part of the axis of evil and a party encouraging terrorism in the entire Middle East."
According to sources at the Prime Minister's Office, "Pelosi took part of the things that were said in the meeting, and used what suited her."
Now that sounds like Nancy Pelosi.
Recent Comments