What is Digg?57 Comments
- EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -4/+25Obviously they wont, because it's Rice's job--and Rice's job alone--to screw up foreign relations.
- theblooms, on 10/12/2007, -15/+36@ blakacid
You know, written into the Constitution, (the Law of the Land), there is this thing called "Separation of Powers." And, unfortunately for Nancy Pelosi, the Secretary of State is under the sole direction of the Executive Branch. And it the State Department that meets with and negotiates with Foreign Powers. And it is the State Department (with the Senate's approval), that draws up treaties and such with said Foreign powers. And once again, Nancy Pelosi isn't even in the Senate, so she has absolutely no say there, either.
To sum it up succinctly: Nancy Pelosi had no ***** whatsoever business in Syria. It is in Condoleezza Rice's primary ***** JOB DESCRIPTION to go there.
Stop drinking the Kool-Aid that these websites are feeding you, and think for yourself. - t3soro, on 10/12/2007, -13/+25You guys are idiots if you think this is hypocrisy; Secretary Rice works for the President (Executive Branch), whose job is to conduct foreign relations. The Legislative Branch was not created with the intent to conduct foreign relations. Buried as inaccurate.
edit: my buddy theblooms beat me to it :) - t3soro, on 10/12/2007, -7/+17Oh really, Junkyarddawg? Please refer to me where the Congress has the right to conduct foreign relations. I just read over Article I, Section 8, of that little-known document commonly referred to as the Constitution of the United States, which is about the powers of Congress. I don't remember seeing anything about conducting foreign relations anywhere in there.
Go look it up for yourself:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=105_cong_documents&docid=f:sd011.105
(the Constitution in plain text) - Dhalsim007, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13That's Rice JOB, you idiot. She is the official ambassador for the USA, and reflects the country's official policy. Pelosi is not authorized to speak for the country as its representative.
- thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13Hey moron...
Pelosi's job is to conduct the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Not conduct foreign policy talks. - blakacid, on 10/12/2007, -23/+30Hypocrisy.
- lieutenantmudd, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13I hate the Bush adminstration, but the State Department is right on this time. The Foreign Service Officers throughout the world put years into building very specifc, and very detailed political positions tailored to each country. And Pelosi's trip erased years of work. The FSOs in Syria have lost tremendous power, they have lost their strategical and tactial advantages in all matters because now Syria knows the officers are not the only conduit they can go through.
I believe Congress should write our general foreign policy, but despite my dislike for Bush, one man - the President - should conduc that policy. - EtherGnat, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10So I assume you were outraged in 1997 when Republican Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert led a Congressional delegation to Colombia in an admitted attempt to subvert US foreign policy?
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB69/part3.html
"One example of this was a congressional delegation led by Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) which met with Colombian military officials, promising to “remove conditions on assistance” and complaining about “leftist-dominated” U.S. congresses of years past that “used human rights as an excuse to aid the left in other countries.” Hastert said he would to correct this situation and expedite aid to countries allied in the war on drugs and also encouraged Colombian military officials to “bypass the U.S. executive branch and communicate directly with Congress.” - EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8@thcobbs,
as usual, you don't know what you're talking about. So before calling anyone moron, you might want to get your facts straight. Every Speaker of the House takes trips abroad, both to find facts and to meet with leaders, and even deliver messages as appropriate. It's not always helpful, but it's never done as a surprise to the State Department or if they expressly say no (well, Hastert's case may have been exceptional).
In this case, it was entirely appropriate, as Pelosi went with the full knowledge and consent of the State Department, which had publicly said "we don't negotiate with Syria" but obviously had been talking behind the scenes, though not well. The trick is, once Pelosi went, the WH decided to pull the rug out and make it seem like she went on her own, which is *****. She went with 9 other representatives, half of them GOP (who never would have gotten caught up in any rogue attempt to conduct DIPLOMACY).
The problem here is that Rice has publicly claimed we won't talk to Syria when we clearly need to reach an agreement with them over Iraq and probably Israel too. If Pelosi's trip helped to thaw the ice a bit, that's exactly what we needed.
And the hypocrisy is Rice claiming it was somehow bad to make diplomatic overtures and then go, four weeks later, herself. She's taking advantage of the opening Pelosi made while simultaneously criticizing her for it. That's what's so warped about this.
All of you saying who's job is this and that have no knowledge of foreign policy. Everything that is going on is normal, except for two things: the Adminstration doesn't normally criticize the Speaker for something they were on board with before she left, and this administration in particular is horrible about actually conducting diplomacy when it counts. They're still stuck in the "bring it on" mode that served us so well. - UltraMegaFilms, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Just because Rice is "talking" doesn't mean anything will be accomplished. She seems to have a history of doing jack *****.
- lieutenantmudd, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10@enceladus
Congress most assuredly should write our foreign policy goals. However, to conduct foreign policy is to negoiate, and you can not negoiate if your opponent has two people to play against each other. No matter how much you hate Bush, it is his responsiblity to CONDUCT foreign policy. - tidu, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11"Going to Syria for a personal political agenda purpose (Pelosi) and going to Syria as the duties of your position (Rice) are not the same."
natey's completely right. We do hate our administration, but they HAVE a foreign policy, and probably a fragile one at best. We don't need Pelosi ***** it up even more. - CogitatorX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I love all these rightwing "Constitutional scholars" that come out to jump on Pelosi. Never mind that it's common place for congress people, Senators, state Governors, etc. to visit other countries, even unfriendly countries.
If you're going to whine at least have the nads to whine about the real constitutional crisis of the suspension of habeas corpus, illegal wiretapping, signing statements and the Bush administrations attempt to nullify the legislative and judicial branches in order to create in the words of the Neo-cons themselves "an Imperial Presidency". - EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Anytime Rice wants to start, she's welcome to it.
- Comatose51, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Yes those "political positions" are paying off handsomely for us right now in Iraq. Syria and Iran are the two countries named in the Baker report who have a lot of potential to help us in Iraq yet we haven't engaged them despite the recommendations of that report. Wake up for our country's sake! Believe it or not, the Executive branch doesn't have absolute power. When you do something stupid, even if it has taken years, it makes sense to undo it. Bush foreign policy has sucked and haven't done us any good. Iran is running around developing nuclear weapons and we can't do a damn thing about it since we don't even have the military to pacify Iraq. And yet some of you idiots want to just stand back and let them continue. Way to be passive when action is most needed.
- Fieri, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10Um...whoever submitted this needs to reread their high school political science textbook.
Seriously. The Secretary of State is the diplomatic arm of the POTUS. Members of Congress are to legislate, not negotiate outside their Constitutional roles. - Enceladus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Never said it wasn't the President's job to conduct our foreign policy. But to deny that Congress has at least some role is incorrect.
- moman, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Everyone who is saying that its Rice's job to handle foreign affairs and not Pelosi's is missing the god damn point.
The point is, the Bush administration blasted Pelosi for talking to Syria because "we don't negotiate with terrorists", and now 4 weeks later, the Secretary of State is doing just that. How do you think this makes us look in the world's eyes?
Hell, I agree with you, Pelosi's trip to Syria was probably pure politics and probably shouldn't have happened, but the Bush administration should have reacted the way the did just to then go ahead and pull this off - interg12, on 10/12/2007, -13/+17Will Fox News tear Rice a new one for an entire news cycle? only if they're as balanced as they proclaim!
- Comatose51, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Wow some of you dumbasses need to revisit your political science and US government books. Congress most certainly has a role in foreign policies and international relations. Why do you think treaties must be ratified by Congress? Checks and balances work on the principle of overlapping areas of responsibility. I guess you forgot about that too and have joined the Bush plan for dictatorship. Hey, you know who had a parliamentary body that has no role in foreign affairs? Nazi Germany! Wouldn't that be lovely for the US. Let Bush have a completely free hand in his expert practice of foreign affairs because we obvious have so many new friends since he's come to office. We obviously can still project a lot of power now that we're tied down in Iraq. Thank God our founding fathers had the foresight to know that idiots can become President and made sure there are people who can stop him from running amok. Those people are Congress and the Supreme Court.
- EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7For crying out loud, every single Speaker of the House on both sides of the aisle has conducted both fact-finding and diplomatic trips abroad, as do most members of Congress on both sides of the aisle. And when they do, they do so with the full knowledge and often accompaniment of staff from the dept of State. Negotiations aren't even done by the Secretary, they're done by lower level staffers. People like Rice and Pelosi are there for face time. That's it. They send messages. They meet and greet.
People claiming Pelosi did something unprecedented or wrong were apparently literally born yesterday. You can't be that stupid, can you?
The problem with Rice going is not that she's Secretary of State. It's good when she actually tries to do something for a change. The problem is that she's already shown an unwillingness to negotiate. And when asked whether Rice would talk to her counterpart from Iran next week when they meet, all the President said "she'd be cordial."
We don't need cordial. We need results. We need real dialog. We need for the US and Iran to come to an agreement on Iraq if we're ever going to resolve our commitments there, sooner rather than later. Rice's attitude is that diplomacy "sends the wrong message."
She was a ***** as NSA and she's even worse at State. Incompetence is the name of this administration. - ipeeandpoop, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4If your not a neocon trying to scare and threaten the Syrians, you're off message and not to speak to them. Not just Syria but other countries where the neocons are plotting. Neocon diplomacy is no diplomacy.
- siszam, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Theblooms: "To sum it up succinctly: Nancy Pelosi had no ***** whatsoever business in Syria. It is in Condoleezza Rice's primary ***** JOB DESCRIPTION to go there."
1. Bush and Co. (including Condi) have no interest in diplomacy until a Democrat makes them look bad by doing their job for them. Bush has done nothing but tell lies about other leaders who don't agree with his elitist views or his illegal invasions of other countries. He has no desire to serve the people who elected him let alone try to work out issues with other countries. Either you agree with Bush or he ignores you and calls names like a petulant brat. He doesn't act like a mature, sane leader.
2. Pelosi has every right to travel and see whoever she wants. She's a free person over the age of 21. To suggest she is somehow more restricted in movement than any other person in the world is, to put it plainly, asinine. Her position gives her even more reason for what she did. Someone has to represent the people and show the world we're not all crazy, psychopaths like Bush. - Enceladus, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7@t3soro
The legislative branch definitely has power over foreign.
Congress has the power to declare war. Article 1, section 8.
Treaties can only be ratified by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. Article 2, section 2.
I think those two right there pretty much spell out that Congress has at least some power over foreign affairs. - Mosatii, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6What's the problem? She is doing her job.
- Xbot, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7Hey guys:
People have done this before, both republicans AND democrats. Are you still ready to finger-point when it's your 'good ole' party' that has also participated in it?
It is also to note (slightly off topic) that George Bush said timelines were fine in '99 when Clinton authorized the use of force elsewhere (and we lost 0, count them, 0 troops in that conflict). But now he has a poor view of them: something about politicians like him saying it's for the generals on the ground to decide. What if the generals on the ground decide that it's time to leave? I doubt Bush would have the same liking towards them. War's just too damned profitable to let it go like that. - Junkyarddawg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2No, but she's perfectly within her right to hold talks with anyone she wants. As were the other congressmen who accompanied her.
Pelosi _personally informed_ the president that she'd be visiting Syria and holding talks with the administration, as is her right, and the president _didn't object_. She went, together with e.g. GOP representatives, and once there the administration decided to score political points by claiming that talking to the Syrians undermine US position.
But lo and behold, just a few weeks later Rice is sent to have talks with Syria *and* Iran.
Yes, that's hypocricy. More, there is a good chance Rices visit is due to subjects brought up during Pelosis visit. - floorman56, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Dude ...even the New York Times slammed her for going.... the New York Times!!!
- antoniojvr, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7It's thinkprogress. Can't expect much from them.
- CogitatorX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ fieri
"The only thing Bush has done to increase executive authority is appoint favorable justices, which is expected."
I don't know whether you rightwing apologists are just very disingenuous or grossly ignorant. Do you even know what a Neo-Con is? Oh, as for your argument: Signing Statements, 'nuff said.
Say "hi" to Tattoo while you enjoy your stay on Fantasy Island. - eker, on 10/12/2007, -7/+7Are we going to digg up every piece of shameless partisan hackery thinkprogress posts? Christ.
- pcorajr, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6That is her job you ***** morons, she is not good at it but that is her job
- benam44, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6you are kidding.... Meeting with foreign dignitaries to push our one, unified Executive Branch foreign policy is Condi's job... not a legislative job...
- Beatmiser, on 10/12/2007, -7/+7Much as I dislike the Bush Administration, Pelosi had no ***** business in Syria. Much as I dislike Rice, it's very much her business to be in Syria.
Sorry, not hypocrisy on the Bushie front. ((which is rare)) - jchrome, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Although I'm sure that any clear-thinking individual long ago came to the conclusion that the Bush Administration is one of the most dangerously stupid and pig-head group of leaders that the country has ever seen, they would also know that it is in fact Rice's job (and certainly not Pelosi's) to engage in diplomatic foreign relations on behalf of the country.
- natey3, on 10/12/2007, -18/+17Going to Syria for a personal political agenda purpose (Pelosi) and going to Syria as the duties of your position (Rice) are not the same.
- Zephkiel, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5No, no, you don't understand. It was bad last month. Now it's perfectly acceptable. Didn't you get the memo?
- topher515, on 10/12/2007, -15/+13I love how the Bush Administration has just completely done away with any sort of subtlety in its hypocrisy and propaganda. Now its just whatever is convenient at literally that particular moment in time.
Reminds me a lot of "1984". As soon as a particular policy becomes inconvenient, the old one is wiped out and is considered never to have existed in the first place. - kerbechard, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3OMFHGJTFC! WE HAVE TO STOP THESE EVIL HYPOCRITES!!!!!
Oh, it's the Sec. State's job. never mind. - Vermifax, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1RE: the average digg user
"atheist" - Well, I believe in God. I just can't stand religions. They can complicate one's path to divine spirituality.
"hates vista" So, who really LOVES Vista...?
"loves macs" I love my five Macs. That being said, I believe it's split 50/50 on Macs. Half love Macs. Half envy Macs.
"liberal" Being a Liberal worked for Jesus (until NeoCons had him killed). I love being a Liberal. Being a conservative makes people repressed, cranky and xenophobic.
"hippie" I remember Hippies being in generally happy dispositions in life, that is until NeoCons started imperialistic crusades worldwide.
"marijuana" Well, maybe people should snort coke like George W. Bush. Or other narcotics like Rush Limbaugh.
"jump on any issue that hits the front page" I'll give you that one, though I don't really see the frustration in this.
"no matter what it is." Now, THAT was a generalization and a false one.
Thank you for resisting the temptation of homophobia in your ridiculous rant. - jstohler, on 10/12/2007, -13/+11SOP for BushCo.
- GR3G, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2Never fear Commander Guy is in charge, he'll make it all OK! http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/05/02/bush-im-the-commander-guy/
- SUPERnova007, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2Why is Rice in Syria? to undo what Pelosi did maybe. Its just conjecturer, but why else would they do something so stupid .
- viktro, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2Pelosi is not a senator..in fact her title SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE probably gives you a hint. Yah damn condi for like..doing what her job requires...yall need to find some real reasons to hate bush and stop being stupid.
- Fieri, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1As what you guys call a "neocon," I "whine" about all of those things. I just don't believe that they're part of an evil plot to take over the country. I believe that Bush sincerely wants to fight those he believes are enemies, and that he sometimes goes too far.
I do believe you're engaging in a bit of hyperbole with that list however. None of those things have done more than intensify under Bush. Habeas corpus has been skirted around in extreme cases by past Presidents. Wiretapping is a decades-old method of enemy communication intercepts. Signing statements are as old as the Presidency.
Obviously Bush has made errors in all three of those areas. But there are people in this country not entitled to habeas corpus, and there are cases where wiretapping is justified.
As to your claim about the expanding of executive power, that is pure crap. The only thing Bush has done to increase executive authority is appoint favorable justices, which is expected. - gtluke, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0omg, thats her JOB
pelosi's job is a senator
HUGE difference here. - HanSolo69, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1Hypocrisy? How about the state department would rather do their own job?
- DeskFlyer, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2State department: "Our hypocrisy......will blot out the Sun!"
- Allymarie, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2what bitches!
-
Show 51 - 57 of 57 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is