Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 73

Thread: Condi Meets With The Syrians--Wheres the outrage from the Hypocrite Right?

  1. #1

    Condi Meets With The Syrians--Wheres the outrage from the Hypocrite Right?

    [QUOTE][B]Rice meets with Syrian foreign minister[/B]

    SHARM EL-SHEIK, Egypt (AP) -- U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice met Syria's foreign minister Thursday in the first high-level talks between the two countries in years.

    The meeting came hours after the chief U.S. military spokesman in Iraq said Syria had moved to reduce "the flow of foreign fighters" across its border.

    The Bush administration has shunned Syria, which it considers a state supporter of terrorism, and last month President Bush assailed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for making a trip to Damascus, saying it sent mixed messages to the Syrian government.

    But the White House has been under pressure to talk with Syria and Iran, another U.S. opponent in the region.

    Still, a substantive U.S.-Iran meeting appeared less certain. The Iraqi government is pressing for Rice and her Iranian counterpart to hold talks during the gathering, saying Washington's conflict with the government in Tehran is only fueling the instability in Iraq.

    In Baghdad, U.S. Maj. Gen. William Caldwell said Syria had tightened its borders and reduced the number of foreign insurgents crossing into Iraq -- a chief demand of the United States.

    "There has been some movement by the Syrians. ... There has been a reduction in the flow of foreign fighters into Iraq" for more than a month, Caldwell said.

    Rice and Syrian Foreign Minister Waleed Moallem met on the sidelines of Thursday's conference. Earlier, a senior State Department official said they would discuss "Iraqi security issues." The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the meeting was still being arranged.

    Both the United States and Iran had also spoken favorably of a possible meeting, but the chances for that remained unclear.

    'Pleasantries' with Iran's foreign minister
    Rice and the Iranian foreign minister "exchanged pleasantries" over lunch, the Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit said. "They said hello, that's about it," said State Department spokesman Sean McCormack.

    Iraq and the United States hope Thursday and Friday's conference of nearly 50 nations at this Egyptian Red Sea resort will rally international support -- particularly from Arab nations -- for an ambitious plan to stabilize Iraq.

    Iraq is pressing for forgiveness of debt and for Arabs to take greater action to prevent foreign fighters from joining the Iraqi insurgency. Arab countries, in turn, demand Iraq's government ensure greater participation by Sunni Arabs in the country's political process, echoing the United States.

    Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki opened the conference by urging all countries to forgive his country's enormous foreign debts -- estimated at about $50 billion. Another $100 billion has already been written off by the Paris Club of lender nations. (Watch what has paralyzed Iraq's government)

    But Saudi Arabia's foreign minister, Saud al-Faisal, told the conference only that his country "has expressed its readiness to alleviate some of the debts on Iraq" and was currently in discussions with Iraqi officials to deal with the issue "in line with the regulations and bases of the Paris Club."

    Iraqi and U.S. officials had said Saudi Arabia privately had already committed to forgiving 80 percent of Iraq's $17 billion debt.

    Al-Faisal, addressing the conference, renewed a Saudi offer of $1 billion in loans to Iraq, on the condition that the money be distributed equally among "Iraq's geographical sectors."

    Al-Maliki pledged to institute reforms to boost Sunni participation but said forgiving Iraq's debts was the only way the country could rebuild.

    Rice's meeting with Moallem marked the first such high-level talks since the February 2005 assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Syria denies it had anything to do with the killing, but U.S. and European officials have since shunned the Damascus government.

    Iraq and many Arab countries have been particularly eager, even desperate, for such talks between the United States and its Mideast opponents -- saying they are only the way to stabilize Iraq and lessen Iran's growing influence in the region.

    U.S. has accused Iran of fueling Iraq's violence
    Rice also has said she was willing to meet Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki after years of accusations and name-calling between the nations. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had also expressed interest in such a meeting. (Watch what Rice hopes to accomplish)

    During Thursday's session, the two sat on far ends of the large conference hall where the ministers and top diplomats from nearly 50 nations gathered. They both attended a lunch along with the other foreign ministers.

    "All of us here today are bound to the future of Iraq. What happens in Iraq has profound consequences which will affect each and every one of us," Rice said in a speech to the conference.

    In his speech, Mottaki blamed Iraq's turmoil on "the flawed policies of the occupying powers" -- referring to the United States.

    Iraq has offered to mediate between Iran and the U.S., an aide to al-Maliki told the Associated Press, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the discussions.

    Al-Maliki told Rice on Wednesday that "a rapprochement must take place between you and the nations of the region to solve the issue of Iraq, particularly Syria and Iran," according to Iraqi Planning Minister Ali Baban, a Sunni.

    The United States accuses Iran of fueling Iraq's violence by arming and backing militants there, a charge Iran denies.

    The two-day conference brings together officials from Iraq, the United States, Iran, Russia, China, Europe and Arab nations.[/QUOTE]

    It was only one month ago that the Right Wing Media jumped all over Nancy Pelosi for meeting with the Syrians. Pelosi was accused of "sending mixed messages" to a country supporting terror. Vice President Cheney called Pelosi’s effort “bad behavior.” President Bush said Pelosi’s delegation
    was “counterproductive.” Dana Perino suggested Pelosi was visiting to “have a photo opportunity and have tea” with Syria’s prime minister.

    So what changed in ONLY 1 MONTH that now , meeting with the Syrians is OK???? What a bunch of hypocrites!!!

    BTW, I applaud Rice meeting with the Syrians. I think it is vital for our interests in the ME to open communications with both the Syrians and Iran. I only wish Rice did this 2-3 years ago. But its never too late

  2. #2
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    On some beach... somewhere...
    Posts
    3,735
    [QUOTE=kennyo7]It was only one month ago that the Right Wing Media jumped all over Nancy Pelosi for meeting with the Syrians. Pelosi was accused of "sending mixed messages" to a country supporting terror. Vice President Cheney called Pelosi’s effort “bad behavior.” President Bush said Pelosi’s delegation
    was “counterproductive.” Dana Perino suggested Pelosi was visiting to “have a photo opportunity and have tea” with Syria’s prime minister.

    So what changed in ONLY 1 MONTH that now , meeting with the Syrians is OK???? What a bunch of hypocrites!!!

    BTW, I applaud Rice meeting with the Syrians. I think it is vital for our interests in the ME to open communications with both the Syrians and Iran. I only wish Rice did this 2-3 years ago. But its never too late[/QUOTE]


    Are you serious? You honestly can't see the difference between Pelosi meeting with Syrian Prime Minister and Rice meeting with a Syrian Foreign Minister? You can't be that dense. :rolleyes:

  3. #3
    Rice's job is largely International Relations for the President, and working towards the Foreign Policy objectives he wishes to persue. Hence, there is nothing wrong with her conversations as long as they are authorized by the President.

    Pelosi, in a nutshell, choose to act outside her authority in order to both circumvent, and conteract, the sitting President's Foreign Policy.

    Why the President would authorize Rice's visit now? No idea, but maybe it's to clarify what the ACTUAL American foreign policy position is towards Syria, rather than whatever illegal and unauthorized promises Pelosi made. Hard to say.

  4. #4
    [QUOTE=JetFanTransplant]Are you serious? You honestly can't see the difference between Pelosi meeting with Syrian Prime Minister and Rice meeting with a Syrian Foreign Minister? You can't be that dense. :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

    Are you serious? Are really this dense.
    If meeting with the Syrians is wrong because we are negotiating with a terroris supporting country then what difference is it whos doing the negotiations. The argument was that we should not be negotiating with the Syrians PERIOD. That it was counterproductive. How could it be that in a matter of 1 month it is now the right thing to do. How could it be that it is now not sending the wrong message to the syrians.
    Please put on some big boy pants and use your brain.

  5. #5
    [QUOTE=Warfish]Rice's job is largely International Relations for the President, and working towards the Foreign Policy objectives he wishes to persue. Hence, there is nothing wrong with her conversations as long as they are authorized by the President.

    Pelosi, in a nutshell, choose to act outside her authority in order to both circumvent, and conteract, the sitting President's Foreign Policy.

    Why the President would authorize Rice's visit now? No idea, but maybe it's to clarify what the ACTUAL American foreign policy position is towards Syria, rather than whatever illegal and unauthorized promises Pelosi made. Hard to say.[/QUOTE]

    First off , i agree there is nothing wrong with her conversations with Syria. I encourage it.

    Youy are wrong however, in saying that Pelosi's visit to Syria was ILLEGAL and Unauthorized. Please show me what law she violated. And It [I]was [/I] authorized the moment the President's Office briefed her prior to the meeting.

  6. #6
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,975
    Pelosi got the ball rolling on diplomacy with Syria. Good job by Condi and the White House to take that opportunity and follow it up with further dialog between the two nations.

  7. #7
    [QUOTE=kennyo7]First off , i agree there is nothing wrong with her conversations with Syria. I encourage it.

    Youy are wrong however, in saying that Pelosi's visit to Syria was ILLEGAL and Unauthorized. Please show me what law she violated. And It [I]was [/I] authorized the moment the President's Office briefed her prior to the meeting.[/QUOTE]

    Covered in a previous thread. As you have previously said yourself, "Do your own homework". :P

    Congresspeople are not authorized by the Constitution to set Foreign Policy on their own.

    If you can find some piece of text in the Constitution or in Law that allows a Congressperson to consciously over-rule the President on a Foreign Policy issue on their own (i.e. without a vote of all of congress, passed into law), travel to that country to meet their leadership privately, and to make unknown promises or discussions of American positions and future legislation that specificly countermand the official foreign policy of America, as rightfully set forth by our President, or by our ENTIRE Congress, please, by all means, educate me.

    It doesn't help Pelosi that she completely screwed up her visit by passing on positions that were quickly contradicted as untrue.

  8. #8
    I think you [I]completely [/I]missed the point of the controversy surrounding Pelosi meeting with Syria.

    Rice meeting with a foreign nation is just as good as Bush meeting with a foreign nation. She's the Secretary of State. That's her job. What are you, kidding?

  9. #9
    [QUOTE=parafly]Pelosi got the ball rolling on diplomacy with Syria. Good job by Condi and the White House to take that opportunity and follow it up with further dialog between the two nations.[/QUOTE]
    Agreed.
    Way to go Nancy!

  10. #10
    [QUOTE=parafly]Pelosi got the ball rolling on diplomacy with Syria. Good job by Condi and the White House to take that opportunity and follow it up with further dialog between the two nations.[/QUOTE]


    That my be true, in the long run Pelosi's visit could have positive results.

    But to cry "hypocrisy" over this visit is ridiculous. Very ridiculous.

  11. #11
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    On some beach... somewhere...
    Posts
    3,735
    [QUOTE=kennyo7]Are you serious? Are really this dense.
    If meeting with the Syrians is wrong because we are negotiating with a terroris supporting country then what difference is it whos doing the negotiations. The argument was that we should not be negotiating with the Syrians PERIOD. That it was counterproductive. How could it be that in a matter of 1 month it is now the right thing to do. How could it be that it is now not sending the wrong message to the syrians.
    Please put on some big boy pants and use your brain.[/QUOTE]


    Fisher addressed much of it... See, you rail against the President for "not talking" and "staying the course" yet, when he makes changes or responds to the public / congressional pressure, your rail him for that. You can't have it both ways. I understand your animosity towards the President, much of it is warranted. I understand your animosity towards the Republican party, again, much of it is warranted.

    But when the party or the President does something you agree with, do you really have to post such an vitrolic message?

    A simple "about time" would serve your purpose much better.

    You are a phenominal lost cause. Keep on posting... you make a great case against your own party.

  12. #12
    [QUOTE=kennyo7]The argument was that we should not be negotiating with the Syrians PERIOD. [/QUOTE]


    You're completely wrong. The argument was that Pelosi should not be undermining the President by visiting with Syria. International relations is not the prime responsibility of the Speaker of the House. That is not a diplomatic position.

  13. #13
    [QUOTE=pauliec]That my be true, in the long run Pelosi's visit could have positive results.

    But to cry "hypocrisy" over this visit is ridiculous. Very ridiculous.[/QUOTE]

    Why is it ridiculous?
    The same criticisms made about talking with Syria 1 month ago surely apply today, no? What has changed about Syria in a course of 1 month that does not "send a wrong message" today ?

  14. #14
    [QUOTE=kennyo7]Why is it ridiculous?
    The same criticisms made about talking with Syria 1 month ago surely apply today, no? What has changed about Syria in a course of 1 month that does not "send a wrong message" today ?[/QUOTE]

    See post above -- it's not about Syria itself, it's about the duties and responsibilities of the Speaker of the House.

  15. #15
    [QUOTE=JetFanTransplant]Fisher addressed much of it... See, you rail against the President for "not talking" and "staying the course" yet, when he makes changes or responds to the public / congressional pressure, your rail him for that. You can't have it both ways. I understand your animosity towards the President, much of it is warranted. I understand your animosity towards the Republican party, again, much of it is warranted.

    But when the party or the President does something you agree with, do you really have to post such an vitrolic message?

    A simple "about time" would serve your purpose much better.

    You are a phenominal lost cause. Keep on posting... you make a great case against your own party.[/QUOTE]

    No I actually [B]applauded[/B] them for talking with the Syrians. I wish he did so 2 years ago.

    It is you who wants it both ways. Criticise speaking with the Syrians 1 month ago as "sending the wrong message" b/c you are "rewarding bad behavior" and then doing the very same thing 1 month later when nothing has changed.

  16. #16
    [QUOTE=Warfish]Covered in a previous thread. As you have previously said yourself, "Do your own homework". :P

    Congresspeople are not authorized by the Constitution to set Foreign Policy on their own.

    If you can find some piece of text in the Constitution or in Law that allows a Congressperson to consciously over-rule the President on a Foreign Policy issue on their own (i.e. without a vote of all of congress, passed into law), travel to that country to meet their leadership privately, and to make unknown promises or discussions of American positions and future legislation that specificly countermand the official foreign policy of America, as rightfully set forth by our President, or by our ENTIRE Congress, please, by all means, educate me.

    It doesn't help Pelosi that she completely screwed up her visit by passing on positions that were quickly contradicted as untrue.[/QUOTE]

    As soon as you define what foreign policy she set, then i wll agree with you.
    Heres a hint, she did not set any foreign policy. Not only that, but the meeting was not "private" as you claim. It was very public and Bush not only knew about it , but had his people debrief her beforehand. Additionally she did not make any deals with syria. so get your facts straight

    Congressmen speak with foreign leaders all the time. She did nothing different. She hardly set any precedent. She not only acted within the law, she did what was right. She even got the presidents OK. The moment he briefed her on the trip, he was giving the OK
    Last edited by kennyo7; 05-03-2007 at 04:07 PM.

  17. #17
    Has anyone maybe thought that there have been secret talks between Wasington and Syria.

  18. #18
    [QUOTE=kennyo7]No I actually [B]applauded[/B] them for talking with the Syrians. I wish he did so 2 years ago.

    It is you who wants it both ways. Criticise speaking with the Syrians 1 month ago as "sending the wrong message" b/c you are "rewarding bad behavior" and then doing the very same thing 1 month later when nothing has changed.[/QUOTE]

    Speaker of House without consent of Congress or the President chooses to contradict and undermine American Foreign Policy, bad.

    President changes Foreign Policy and send his duly appointed Rep to do the talking, good.

    This thread is a reach of amazing proportions Ken. You may be a flaming communist liberal, but I know you are a SMART flaming communist liberal. I agree with Transplant, just say "about damn time" next time.

  19. #19
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    On some beach... somewhere...
    Posts
    3,735
    [QUOTE=kennyo7]No I actually [B]applauded[/B] them for talking with the Syrians. I wish he did so 2 years ago.

    It is you who wants it both ways. Criticise speaking with the Syrians 1 month ago as "sending the wrong message" b/c you are "rewarding bad behavior" and then doing the very same thing 1 month later when nothing has changed.[/QUOTE]


    First off, you won't find post one about how I felt about Pelosi speaking to Syria. So please, for the last time, stop trying to put words into my mouth.

    Second, it's not about "speaking to Syrians" it's about usurping the authority to do so.

    I agree, we should have, if we already weren't, been speaking to Syria years ago.

    Again, your point would have been better illustrated with an "about time" comment rather than accusing all Republicans of being hypocritical about an argument you clearly do not understand.

  20. #20
    [QUOTE=kennyo7]She even got the presidents OK. The moment he briefed her on the trip, he was giving the OK[/QUOTE]

    Incorrect. She was briefed to limit the damage and ensure her safety. Nopthing more, nothing less, and certainly not approval or permission.

    Keep reaching Ken, if you like. I'd like to think you better than this kind of weak silly reach, but if it makes you happy, you go on an enjoy yourself.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us