Thursday, April 5, 2007


"We were very pleased with the reassurances we received from the
president that he was ready to resume the peace process,"
Nancy Pelosi

The Democratic Party, not content with winning control of Congress has now set up it’s own State Department. One of it’s first moves is the delegation of Democratic members of Congress lead by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi trip to Syria.

Pelosi met with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad at his hilltop Palace. Apparently Syrian Israeli peace talks were at the top of the agenda. "Syria tries to read the American tea leaves very closely, and this type of signal is read as very significant in Damascus," said Paul Salem, director of the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut

The delegation which includes, Reps. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), Nick J. Rahall II (D-W.Va.), Louise M. Slaughter (D-N.Y.), Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), and David L. Hobson (R-Ohio) has comforted the renegade country.

"The presence of the American speaker of the House in Damascus carries
more than one meaning, the most important of which is convincing American
officials of the importance of dialogue with Syria and its key role in the
region. It is also a blunt recognition of the failure of the Bush
administration's policy."
Al-Thawra editorial.

The newspaper Al-Thawra is run by the Syrian Government, which seems to be exploiting the Diplomatic adventures of the Democratic House members.


Breeze Denotsko said...

Now that we are a few short years from a nuclear power in Iran. It is important for ALL arab nations to show they CAN be dealt with one on one.
This whole "expoitation", as you put it, is just smart, American style, diplomacy. They must establish that diplomacy is their prefered method and will give results better than the methods we have come to use at pesent.
If the arab nations look divided and at odds with the west, the world at large will appose a nuclear Iran.
So this vistit and the publicity surrounding it is a new pattern developing in the region. A pattern that is designed to both strengthen the arabs on a whole and to make the US look bad and loosen it's strangle-hold of the region.

Further Why are you so republican and synical about things that can be equated down to good diplomacy. You, if you want to be or not, are a spin doctor. If you look at what is going on in the region, you will see; a why and a reason. Instead you try and belittle the only thing America have done that has had good results for us and the region. Are you sexist?
You should work for FOX News!

Jim Fish said...

Pelosi being Female and a Democrat is irrelevant. I would have the same criticism if it were a Male Republican undercutting a Democratic president. The point is, overseas, you do not undermine the countries foreign policy. Politics stops at the “Waters Edge”, while here criticize all you want to. That the job of “The loyal opposition”. When a high official goes overseas they are seen to represent the United States irrespective of their political party. If they send a message contradictory to the administrations foreign policy they are confusing other governments, making it harder for the administration to carry out a coherent foreign policy. That harms the country.

Breeze Denotsko said...

Due to that FOOLISH '...waters edge" way of dealing with other nations, the USA is loosing its political power. It has also given this president the idea that he can whatever he want unapposed.
The real reson we are having the problems we are now is Bush has been allowed to do whatever he wanted.
I am happy to see real diplomacy...after all it cant be worse than what Bush has done.

Breeze Denotsko said...

Another thing...Syria isnt directly involved in any issues directly involving the USA. Bush refuses to talk to them for no real reason. (unless you still believe his administration has a clue)
But Bush has not been honest with us and the world is paying the price. How long should we wait before engaging the contries in region in diplomace.
America wanted a change, Bush refused to deliver. So screw his ideas on things.

Jim Fish said...

Presidents, good or bad, are given the job to conduct Foreign Policy by the Constitution. It’s their job to make the final decision. That is the rule we live under, so for the next two years Bush is in charge.

You have been given the right to criticize the President’s policies by the Constitution. That is your job. One of our nations problems is too many people are shirking their responsibility to pay enough attention to what’s going on to be informed citizens.

If you don’t like the policies of an administration, work to elect people who agree with your vision. The reality is, in Foreign Affairs, the only opinion that counts is the Presidents. Everybody has to live with it.

Breeze Denotsko said...

Ok I will agree with that but I had to BLOG a "response" on my blog!
See what you made me do fish!