Thursday, April 05, 2007


I believe we should not forget what Senator Webb of Virginia said in his rebuttal to the State of the Union address a few short months ago. From the WP:

Webb concluded his speech with references to former presidents Dwight Eisenhower and Theodore Roosevelt and a warning for Bush:

"These presidents took the right kind of action for the benefit of the American people and for the health of our relations around the world. Tonight, we are calling on this president to take similar action in both areas. If he does, we will join him. If he does not, we will be showing him the way."

That is the attitude of the new Democratic congress. For speaking with the leader of Syria, Nancy Pelosi is not a traitor... she is just showing Bush a different way to get things done. Kudos to her. In that one short visit, it is possible she accomplished as much or more positive things than the Bush administration has in the Middle East in its sad 6 1/2 years.

Diplomacy does not always work, but it is always good to at least give it a chance. By setting this example, Pelosi doesn't send mixed messages to Syria, she lets Syria know that not all of us in America want to bomb Damascus... that it's basically just a handful of people who want war, and that they won't be in power all that much longer. And then maybe we can get some positive things done in that part of the world.


Blogger PoliShifter said...

Eli over at Multi Medium touched on diplomacy a bit earlier today (or yesterday).

You're spot on with regards to Pelosi. She is showing leadership.

Our President and Vice President are guilty of treason, not Pelosi.

Ofcourse the wingnuts always fail to mention all the diplomatic trips Republicans took under Clinton's Presidency. They fake this disdain as if Pelosi is doing something so extreme and controvertial.

Anyway, Eli's post was on an article in the NYT regarding diplomacy.

Eli concluded and I agree that the main point here is that BushCo does not want peace thus there is no need for diplomacy.

War and conflict works on many levels for BushCo including enrichingg the war profiteers, broadened powers, and the ability to limit our freedom in the name of "security".

Pelosi is threatening to Bush because she actually wants peace, something BushCo can't afford to have.

12:10 AM  
Blogger Lizzy said...

BushCo will say and do everything they can to ensure that their war will go on and expand.

Nancy Pelosi needs to keep doing what she's doing, and go beyond that. She must show the world that Bush does not represent the US.

8:37 AM  
Blogger Mandelbrot's Chaos said...

Well, as soon as Speaker Pelosi does something well and truly controversial, I'll be among the first to say so. That said, she's a high-ranking member of the government of the United States, with all of the power and responsibility that goes along with it, and it seems she has a better grasp of both than the current President. Furthermore, she's second in the line of succession to the office of President.

This isn't some clergyman going over there on a tour to stroke their own egos. This is the Speaker of the House, and even if you don't respect the individual, you must respect her office. From what I've seen so far, I happen to respect both, but I'm never optimistic about the chances of maintaining a positive opinion of any elected official. For those who say it was treason, I advise them to read the Constitution of the United States of America. It is the ONLY crime specifically defined there, though there are other equivalent, differently-named and -defined crimes currently encoded in law. By visiting Syria, a nation with whom we are NOT engaged in hostilities, acting as a representative of the government in her legal capacity as Speaker of the House, the most she's guilty of is hurting someone's feelings. For those who have a problem with it, well, they're number one, and that's my middle finger showing my opinion of them.

I think the greater issues about this war are the broadened powers and the abridgments of our freedoms. I'm not so concerned with what you refer to as the "war profiteers," since people didn't have a problem with them when Clinton's administration was hiring them for his follies.

I think peace should always be an option, and should always be explored first before anything else is done, but the sense I get is that some among the left prefer diplomacy for diplomacy's sake, and that's good. Just ask a few million Jews in 1930s-1940s Europe about the result of that. Again, peace should always be an option, and a highly preferred one, but it should never be the only option.

3:56 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home