What do you expect from a liberal.

 

 

And a conservative is just so much better? :lol:

What Pelosi may or may not be able to accomplish is totally irrelevent. She is Madame Speaker not Madame President. It's not her place to run foreign policy so it would be out-of-line for her to try.

So when can we expect someone to step up to the plate and actually run foreign policy? And this is a serious question. I just don't see anyone, on either side, doing it or as near as I can tell, willing to give it a try.

The Senate budget bill was a clear indication that there are other powers at work pulling the strings, not Pelosi. She is ineffective and therefore does not bother me (anymore).

Just let them go for a while and everyone can see them for what they are...complete idiots.

:thumb: I agree.

Another example of someone who just doesn't go away.....:madman:

Maybe we could send them on a fact-finding mission in a small boat just off the coast of Iran. :sssh:

 

I'll kick in for gas and a GPS device that I will personally check out for her.

For the record, I don't care for Pelosi and would never cast a vote for her, unless she were running against a moron like Dubya.

 

I personally think any effort we can make toward helping clean up the mess in the Middle East should be attempted, within reason. It's pretty clear the Bush method doesn't work, and has been counterproductive at best.

 

I agree, but you never go over the President's head. Pelosi is power hungry and put herself ahead of the country. I would find it hard to believe that she did this out of a personal conviction that we should bring Syria back to the table. She did it to get her face in the paper.

Can Bush go too?

Sure! I think Cheney would do a better job anyway.

So when can we expect someone to step up to the plate and actually run foreign policy? And this is a serious question. I just don't see anyone, on either side, doing it or as near as I can tell, willing to give it a try.

Rice should be handling this. I'm not sure why she won't deal with Syria. Is it Condee or George that is holding things up?

FoxNews is reporting that Pelosi gave Syria the wrong message from Israel.

I agree, but you never go over the President's head. Pelosi is power hungry and put herself ahead of the country. I would find it hard to believe that she did this out of a personal conviction that we should bring Syria back to the table. She did it to get her face in the paper.

 

 

I don't have a problem with it for three reasons:

 

1) U.S. foreign policy has been run into a ditch under this administration. George W. Bush has about as much moral authority on the subject of effective foreign policy as Captain Hazelwood has on the subject of steering a supertanker through the Prince William Sound.

 

2) Starting a dialogue with Syria was one of the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group. James Baker (Bush 41's Secretary of State and co-leader of the ISG) is no left wing kook and neither is study participant Ed Meese. Quite frankly, if this president is too stubborn or too dumb to take a pragmatic approach on the advice of others with much more experience, I'm glad someone is "going over his head".

 

3) We need to change our approach to the middle east problems we have become mired in. No matter what Bush and Cheney say (ironically two men who never saw combat), we can't maintain the magnitude of our military deployment in Iraq indefinitely. Our military, and in particular the U.S. Army, is near the breaking point (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1606888,00.html), and we have to find a way to disengage from this misguided war in a way that minimizes the damage.

Doesn't matter on any of your points; it's absolutely wrong of her to do this and can only make things worse long term. Sonny got the Godfather shot doing the same thing.

Allowing the Speaker of the House to conduct foreign policy because you disagree with the President's foreign policy makes as much sense as allowing the Speaker of the House to cast votes on the Supreme Court because you don't like the courts decisions. Allowing someone to assume constitutional powers on which they have no claim is a recipe for chaos.

Allowing the Speaker of the House to conduct foreign policy because you disagree with the President's foreign policy makes as much sense as allowing the Speaker of the House to cast votes on the Supreme Court because you don't like the courts decisions. Allowing someone to assume constitutional powers on which they have no claim is a recipe for chaos.

 

Amen. To put it more simply, if your child is being coached by an idiot, do you tell your kid to do whatever he/she wants b/c the coach is an idiot? No, you tell your kid to follow the coach, b/c authority needs to be respected in order to maintain stability. I don't agree with Bush, I believe that he is not intelligent enough to be president, and stupid for not having surrounded himself with people that can give him sound advice. However, this is not Pelosi's place. Are we supposed to allow anyone that holds a significant position in the government to meet with whomever to promote public policy?

Interesting op ed piece on this subject:

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17986085/site/newsweek/

 

Does the President's continued ineptness in dealing with problems in the Middle East invite others to work around him?

Interesting op ed piece on this subject:

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17986085/site/newsweek/

 

Does the President's continued ineptness in dealing with problems in the Middle East invite others to work around him?

 

Good question. I don't have an answer but then again Pelosi is third in line to the Presidency. Its not like she is way down on the totem pole. I know alot of people who feel her trip was meant to embarass President Bush but I think he manages to do that all by himself. Another thing-I'm sure this trip by Pelosi didn't come up as quickly as the hiring of Coach G so why wasn't something done to prevent her from going in the first place if everyone thought it was so out of line???????:confused: