Democrocalypse '07, or The Great Sell Out.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Like I said, she's playing outside her sandbox.

Yes and no. She does not have the authority to create any lasting agreement, however as the leader of one house of what the founders undeniably considered the most critical branch of our government, she does have a perogative to gain the best possible understanding of the policy issues that congress will be called to act on, because lest we forget, Bush doesn't have the votes to ratify a proper treaty in the senate under almost any circumstances unless he completely bends over for the dems and gets his party to come with him, so his only shot at getting anything done with Syria that will have any legal legitimacy at all is to pursue a Congressional-Executive Agreement with a majority of each house of congress (essentially passing a unilateral law that binds the US to the terms of a treaty by its own choice, theoretically without the international weight of a treaty [athough CEAs are popularly viewed as being equal to treaties in many circles]).

In so many words, Pelosi does have a role to play the formation of our foreign policy and therefore it is not unjustified for her to go to Syria to gain an independent understanding of the situation she will be addressing. I defer to you solely in the respect that she has no business going there to "convey the president's message" unless in the company of appropriate executive personel, in which case her purpose would be to present a united front, not to be the primary messenger. The fact is, we know that she can't make policy, and we know that she wasn't speaking for the president. She said what she said because saying, "I don't trust a word that comes out of the state department and I had to find out for myself so Bush wouldn't pull another fast one on us like he did with the WMD" just wouldn't sound very good.

She's a flake and she's making the job of the State Department HARDER.

That would be the case if the state department was doing its job at all. Since Bush has essentially retasked the State Department into "The Department of Ominous Warnings and Domestic Political Posturing" I don't think much is lost. If the state department were doing its job, Condi and Bush would have had a very long and serious discussion with Pelosi before this trip and reached a clear agreement that it was a fact-finding trip that should be treated only as such (to prevent sending the wrong messages) and then they should have tasked appropriate staff to accompany Pelosi to ensure that this legitimate fact-finding mission didn't produce any unintended problems.

I'm totally with you that Pelosi said and did a couple of things that were diplomatically irresponsible, but I believe that she and the state department equally share responsibility for that failure because both sides were too busy trying to destroy one another to bother with doing their jobs correctly. I also believe that the trip itself was not irresponsible as it did pertain preparations for something that Pelosi will probably have to deal with. For that matter, it pertains on some level to things that Pelosi is already dealing with, because last I checked, Syria was a part of the problem in Iraq, which we elected this congress to resolve in some fashion.

She stepped in it big time ...

And in so doing joined a large and prestigious club which our poor, undermined executive branch founded.

"I hope this is what all of you far lefter's wanted."

Yes thankyou. Now go home and mope about our success. The Iranian hostage situation demonstrated quite neatly that it's possible to solve many of our differences without going in and blowing everyone up. It must pain you that talking actually does work, I know how much you were looking forward to a nother cool firework display to yell "Yee-Haw" at and if you're very very lucky you might just get it before Bush is sacked in 2007. But the way things are going I'm glad to say it seems unlikely.

Originally posted by thelibra
The Dems overwhelmingly replaced the Reps because the majority of the American People wanted out of the Iraq Situation.

LOL

Keep believing that, but I know for a fact that Nick Lampson was elected because Tom Delay was not on the ballot.

Originally posted by etotheitheta
Keep believing that, but I know for a fact that Nick Lampson was elected because Tom Delay was not on the ballot.

oohh the "i know for a fact but can't back this statement up with anything more than silly emoticons" argument.

how about this one, i know for a fact that tom delay wasn't on the ballot because of his own mistakes, it's called crime.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Originally posted by etotheitheta
Keep believing that, but I know for a fact that Nick Lampson was elected because Tom Delay was not on the ballot.

oohh the "i know for a fact but can't back this statement up with anything more than silly emoticons" argument.

how about this one, i know for a fact that tom delay wasn't on the ballot because of his own mistakes, it's called crime.

Oh, I am sorry, do you live in Sugarland or Clear Lake, Texas. Because as I recalled, Tom Delay had the money, Lampson had his leftover from his stint, Gibbs had hers from city council and her medical practice, but the Republican contenders were left in the cold because of Delay. Do not be so crast and hasty to come to such an emotional conclusion.