Pelosi pushes Syria on Hamas, Hezbollah links

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 Nancy Pelosi “Crosses Herself” Inside Syrian Mosque | Sweetness & Light This site even has pictures. Drop the attitude. :rolleyes:

You got the attitude man. A Christian tomb is an entirely appropriate place for a Christian symbol.

[The Decider]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 How does me showing some sign of being taken aback by having a Christian do the sign of the cross in a mosque say anything about my knowledge of Christians in the region. Let alone a politician who is supposed to be working diplomatically and opening up the channels of communication. It's ballsy. The arrogance and ignorance is overwhelming but not surprising.

Huh? Since when is making the sign of a cross at a Christian pilgramage site maintained and protected by Muslims "arrogant and ignorant?" The Muslims themselves revere the holiness of the site. They use the name Prophet Yahya for John the Baptist. Jesus himself is a prophet in the Islamic religion.

Nancy Pelosi did nothing out of the ordinary in that Damascus mosque. Christian pilgrams have gone there and made the sign of the cross for hundreds of years. If anything she highlighted the complexity of the Islamic religion, a religion condemned by many Americans as a perpetual source of hatred toward Christianity. The Omayyad Mosque and the John the Baptist shrine within it suggests otherwise.

Islamic view of John the Baptist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Patrick Henry You got the attitude man.

I'm not following you around trying to pick little fights in random threads over an argument I wasn't even involved in.

A Christian tomb is an entirely appropriate place for a Christian symbol.

It's a Christian tomb in a mosque. It's ballsy. I didn't make any judgment as to whether or not it was appropriate.

Quote by: Decider Huh? Since when is making the sign of a cross at a Christian pilgramage site maintained and protected by Muslims "arrogant and ignorant?"

No that was in relation to PH following me around trying to pick little elementary school fights. Not toward Pelosi.

[The Decider]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 No that was in relation to PH following me around trying to pick little elementary school fights. Not toward Pelosi.

This was your first comment about Pelosi's sign of the cross:

Chaosssaber314: "I'm not sure whether or not to call this courageous or arrogant. Perhaps a mixture?"

Do you still see Pelosi's sign of the cross as a "mixture" of courage and arrogance after learning that Muslims care for and worship John the Baptist as a prophet, just as Christians do?

[Chaossaber314]

Right and I think given the circumstances it was ballsy as a politician attempting to appeal diplomatically to the Muslim leadership of Syria. I respect ballsy most of the time.

[bishop]

chaos & pat, quit this pointless banter now please.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 PH following me around trying to pick little elementary school fights.

This is a debate forum, my friend. You need to expect opposition.

The opposition may be elementary or complex, but dissing a Christian's decision to make the sign of the cross in an appropriate location is not protected speech around here. The rules of the forum give us members lattitude to oppose one another's views.

[The Decider]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 Right and I think given the circumstances it was ballsy as a politician attempting to appeal diplomatically to the Muslim leadership of Syria. I respect ballsy most of the time.

The "Muslim leadership of Syria," if they are real Muslims, consider John the Baptist an Islamic prophet. They also recognize that Christians revere John the Baptist as a Christian saint, and protect the site of his alleged remains within the mosque. Syrian and non-Syrian Christians make pilgramages to the tomb and make signs of the cross. Why would any Muslim take offense, let alone a Syrian leader? Comments like "ballsy, arrogant, and courageous" speak to an American public that is ignorant of John the Baptist's position in Islam and Christianity, not to any negative reprocussions in a nation that reveres the man as a prophet.

[Chaossaber314]

The "Muslim leadership of Syria," if they are real Muslims, consider John the Baptist an Islamic prophet.

Jesus Christ is consider an Islamic Prophet as well. That hasn't stopped violence in the region.

[The Decider]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 Jesus Christ is consider an Islamic Prophet as well. That hasn't stopped violence in the region.

True. And still the John the Baptist shrine remains a protected and revered symbol for both Muslims and Christians. Why would making the sign of the cross at that shrine anger Syria's leaders (who are secular Baathists, by the way, not Islamic fundies)? Why would they see it as "arrogant" if they too see the shrine as holy?

[BobbyO]

Quote by: GHook93 All this is regardless of the point. Not even Pelosi's critics can say she doesn't have a back-bone. The point is that finally someone in the Washington sees that value in opening up communication and talking with our enemies face to face. Honestly I have gained a lot of respect for her, because she has taken this trip.

But they can say she doesn't have a brain. How does Pelosi et. al. feel that she is on the same side as the government of Syria?

She even muffed the message from Olmert, and the PM of Israel had to issue his own clarification of what Pelosi was supposed to have said.

If the Democrats want to set foreign policy, then they need to win in 2008. Otherwise, they should keep such disputes in the USA.

[brien]

Quote by: The Decider Israeli Prime Minister Olmert thought the trip useful enough to give Pelosi a message for President Assad. It would be nice if Secretary of State Condi Rice had brought that message herself, but she can't because Bush ignored the recommendations of his own Iraq Study Group that we open a dialogue with Syria and Iran. The American people supported the ISG. It's also a good thing that our elected leaders actually meet other world leaders and build relationships. Just because Bush can't find half the world on a map doesn't mean our entire government should remain ignorant and unconnected with non-Americans, even those who don't like us very much. Is she not doing that? Again, is she not doing that? It's amazing. She gets slammed for wearing a "PC" hijab and slammed for making the sign of the cross in a nation with millions of Christians. How many Americans even knew that Christians live in Syria? Or Jews for that matter? Damn liberal media!

Praddle on the Decider. She doesn't have the Constitutional authority to do any of what she did in the name of the US. She was in the Middle East with no more power to negotiate than you or I. So tell me, what good does it do?

I say none. I say it confuses everyone in the Middle East because she presents herself as an authorized government representative of the US. In fact, she is a member of Congress and not the State Department. She is infringing upon the Constitutional powers of the President. It is akin to the Office of the President coming into Congress and introducing a House Resolution. It is unconstitutional and only serves to muddy the waters of communication to the power brokers in the Middle East. It allows them to think they can deal with Congress rather than the State Department and thus undermines the State Department and the Constitution. This is the real harm done, not merely to the Bush Administration, but to future Presidents and to the Constitution itself. She is setting precedent that any Congress person can follow who wishes to disagree with any President on matters of Foreign relations. This is the harm in the bigger picture of the results of her self appointed dally into the foreign relations responsibility set forth in the powers of President and the State Department by the Constitution.

I may disagree with the Bush Foreign Policy all day long, but I will defend their Constitutional right to be the sole purveyor of foreign policy as outlined in the Constitution. Once again, Pelosi and company would be far more effective to use their power to shape foreign policy in the halls of Congress and not ineffectively in the sands of the Middle East.

[brien]

imo, this is a good thing to do - particularly with the expectation that the next administration will handle foreign affairs with a level of professionalism that has been absent under the current administration

Bish, this may very well be true but she is infringing upon the Constitutional authority of the Executive Office and US State Department and this sets dangerous precedent in our government. Even the appearance of a Congress person acting in the role of the State Department undermines our Constitution because foreign policy is much about protocol. When Bush is finally gone, and there is, perhaps Clinton in the White House, what is to stop Conservative Republicans from making forays and overtures in the Middle East and attempting to circumvent, or even undermine, the Foreign Policy of the US as presented by the Department of State. Pelosi's actions are a devisive move that harms our government in its Constitutional construction more than it helps.

No, this sends a confusing and wrong message to foreign countries. It allows them to think they can circumvent our constitution by making overtures to partisian politicians in the US and I say that is the real heart of the matter here. We may have partisian disagreements here within our borders over foreign policy, but they belong to us, and our State Department is charged to act out of one policy as presented by the Department of State, not Congress.

As a side note, I see, as a result of Pelosi's trip, two members here who are at each other over something as simple as a Christain symbolic action. And this is merely on our little patch of the planet, so you see, it's about protocol as well.

[The Decider]

Quote by: brien She doesn't have the Constitutional authority to do any of what she did in the name of the US. She was in the Middle East with no more power to negotiate than you or I. So tell me, what good does it do?

Was she "negotiating?" Was the Republican delegation that preceded her "negotiating?" Does the US Constitution prohibit Republican or Democratic representatives from visiting Damascus, Tel Aviv, and Riyadh?

Quote by: brien I say it confuses everyone in the Middle East because she presents herself as an authorized government representative of the US. In fact, she is a member of Congress and not the State Department. She is infringing upon the Constitutional powers of the President.

Could you please provide a quote by Pelosi or the Republican delegation members that they were negotiating anything on behalf of the US president. Otherwise, please stop making that claim.

Quote by: brien This is the real harm done, not merely to the Bush Administration, but to future Presidents and to the Constitution itself. She is setting precedent that any Congress person can follow who wishes to disagree with any President on matters of Foreign relations. This is the harm in the bigger picture of the results of her self appointed dally into the foreign relations responsibility set forth in the powers of President and the State Department by the Constitution.

This is total, unadulterated, BS. Pelosi did not begin the tradition of congressional delegations in the Middle East. She followed precedent. If you disagree with the practice, then address its LONG history, not Pelosi's alleged "precedent" setting activities. Your bias against Pelosi is showing; and so is your hypocrisy.

[The Decider]

Quote by: brien As a side note, I see, as a result of Pelosi's trip, two members here who are at each other over something as simple as a Christain symbolic action. And this is merely on our little patch of the planet, so you see, it's about protocol as well.

Are you criticizing Pelosi for violating diplomatic protocol too? Please explain. She wore the hijab when appropriate (just like Secty of State Condi Rice) and made a sign of the cross at a venerated Christian shrine (just like millions of Christian pilgrams have done over the centuries).

[brien]

Was she "negotiating?"

She made the statement that all roads of peace go through Damascus. Is this not discussing foreign relations? Who was she speaking for on this one. On whose authority did she make this statement?

So can you prove she didn't discuss foreign relations with Syria? If she didn't, what was she over there talking about? Her office decorations? Her grand children? LOL on this one. She gave the impression she was there to discuss foreign policy as well, and that is bad enough. The "message" she brought from Israel was later disavowed by that State so how did this help anything in the M E? She also pretended to be a Diplomat and if you can't see the harm in this, then you are either naiive or uninformed in Diplomacy. Besides, I answered this to Bishop, so please don't repeat his questions.

Could you please provide a quote by Pelosi or the Republican delegation members that they were negotiating anything on behalf of the US president. Otherwise, please stop making that claim

Bull shit Decider. She made the statement about Damascus. She was over there representing herself as a embasary of the US government. Do you think she would have got an audience with Syria if she wasn't the SOTH in US Congress. Give me a break.

This is total, unadulterated, BS. Pelosi did not begin the tradition of congressional delegations in the Middle East. She followed precedent. If you disagree with the practice, then address its LONG history, not Pelosi's alleged "precedent" setting activities. Your bias against Pelosi is showing; and so is your hypocrisy.

LOL on this one. Because one member of Congress undermines the Constitutional authority of another branch of the government, it makes it ok for another member to do it is well. Are you seriously suggesting since a few others have done this before, she has precedent to do it was well. I yi yi :rolleyes:

Give it up Decider. The Constitution vests the Executive Branch to conduct foreign policy through the Dept of State, not through Congress. Even the appearance of Congress people conducting foreign policy outside the PROTOCOL of the Dept of State is a dangerous departure form over 200 years of Contitutional limits set upon the Congressional branch of our government. If you can't see the harm to both the Constitution and our government by these renegade actions of Pelosi et all, then you apparently don't understand the Constitution and our government, and neither does Nancy Pelosi and her delegation of psuedo diplomats.

[The Decider]

Quote by: brien Who knows? She gave the impression she was and that is bad enough. Besides, I answered this to Bishop, so please don't repeat his questions.

So your answer is "no, she didn't claim to represent the State Department." Point made.

Quote by: brien Bull shit Decider. She was over there representing herself as a embasary of the US government. Do you think she would have got an audience with Syria if she wasn't the SOTH in US Congress. Give me a break.

Now you're back to claiming that she represented the State Department. Could you please make up your mind?

The Republican delegation that preceded Pelosi met the Syrian president too. So, to answer your question, no, one doesn't need to be in the Congressional leadership to get an audience with President Assad.

Quote by: brien LOL on this one. Because one member of Congress undermines the Constitutional authority of another branch of the government, it makes it ok for another member to do it is well. Are you seriously suggesting since other have done this before, she has precedent to do it was well. I yi yi :rolleyes:

First off, you haven't demonstrated that any congressperson violated the US Constitution. Give this tactic a try: provide evidence from a constitutional scholar that congressional trips overseas are unconstitutional.

Quote by: brien The Constitution vests the Executive Branch to conduct foreign policy through the Dept of State, not through Congress. Even the appearance of Congress people conducting foreign policy outside the PROTOCOL of the Dept of State is a dangerous departure form over 200 years of Contitutional limits set upon the Congressional branch of our government. If you can't see the harm to both the Constitution and our government by these renegade actions of Pelosi et all, then you apparently don't understand the Constitution and our government, and neither does Nancy Pelosi and her delegation of psuedo diplomats.

Again, your outrage at Pelosi after DECADES of congressional trips to other nations is total and complete hypocrisy. Why can't you acknowledge that Pelosi didn't invent overseas congressional delegations and that she didn't "set precedent?"

The Pelosi Haters doth protest too much.

[The Decider]

Quote by: brien She made the statement that all roads of peace go through Damascus. Is this not discussing foreign relations? Who was she speaking for on this one. On whose authority did she make this statement?

"All roads of peace go through Damascus" is an old axiom of Middle East politics. Does the US constitution prohibit the discussion of politics between congressional delegations and world leaders?

Quote by: brien So can you prove she didn't discuss foreign relations with Syria?

As you well know, no one can prove a negative. It's up to you to prove that Pelosi's trip, and the Republican trip preceding hers, were "unconstitutional." That's your claim. Back it up, please, with legal opinions and not just your own.

Quote by: brien The "message" she brought from Israel was later disavowed by that State so how did this help anything in the M E? She pretended to be a Diplomat and if you can't see the harm in this, then youare either naiive or uninformed in Diplomacy.

Olmert didn't "disavow" the message. They added that preconditions to peace talks still existed, which Pelosi relayed to Assad. Olmert never denied giving her the message.

In any case, let me know when you've assembled your constitutional indictment against Pelosi. Please cite legal precedent in your brief.

[brien]

So your answer is "no, she didn't claim to represent the State Department." Point made.

My answer is yes, she did make appearances to represent foreign policy for the US. Her comment about Damascus proves this. Point made.

The Republican delegation that preceded Pelosi met the Syrian president too. So, to answer your question, no, one doesn't need to be in the Congressional leadership to get an audience with President Assad

Irrelevant. I say that since she was the SOTH in Congress, it makes her actions even worse. She is a Congressional leader that should respect the spirit of the Constitutional separation of powers.

First off, you haven't demonstrated that any congressperson violated the US Constitution. Give this tactic a try: provide evidence from a constitutional scholar that congressional trips overseas are unconstitutional.

Your reaching here and wasting my time. The actions of Congress people who travel overseas to meet with heads of foreign states are acting as psuedo diplomats and undermine our constitutional separation of powers. This is a violation of the spirit of the Constitutional law and the construction of the US government. Congress is not charged with conducting foreign diplomacy in any way shape or form. This is her transgression.

Again, your outrage at Pelosi after DECADES of congressional trips to other nations is total and complete hypocrisy. Why can't you acknowledge that Pelosi didn't invent overseas congressional delegations and that she didn't "set precedent?"

I have no outrage. Please show me where and whom in Congress has represented the US to foreign heads of state in the past decades you point to in your post. You make it sound like this is a matter of general course in the conduct of Foreign Policy. This is simply not true. So you show me the decades of proof you have..

The Pelosi Haters doth protest too much

Look I don't hate Pelosi. I disrespect what she is doing to the Constitution of the US. Plain and simple. If you can't see the damage she is doing, then you either don't understand the Constitution, the construction of the separation of powers in government, and Diplocmacy or you simply are a Pelosi political hack.

[brien]

All roads of peace go through Damascus" is an old axiom of Middle East politics

LOL on this one.

. It's up to you to prove that Pelosi's trip, and the Republican trip preceding hers, were "unconstitutional." That's your claim

My claim is she is violating the spirit of law and thus undermining the Constitutional separation of powers. Since they are are acting outside the powers vested in them in the Constitution, they are violating the spirit of the constitution. Don't get all legal on me here. I used the word "unconsitutional" in the spirit of the law, not the legal sense.

Olmert never denied giving her the message.

I didn't say that. I said he disavowed the message and he did because she didn't get it correct. Thus the dangers of accepting non diplomats to attempt to participate in foreign policy.

I say it is "uncosntitutional" for Congress to engage in foreign policy by conducting foreign negotiations with the heads of states in foreign lands. This is true. Look it up for yourself in the Constitution. Congress is not charged with this repsonsibility, the Executive Branch is in the document. Article II section 2

Edit to add:

When your darling Democrats are in the White House, and members from the opposite Parties tramp around the globe conducting psuedo diplomacy, don't complain because it is a trap that you have laid for yourself. I will be waiting for your decades of proof.