Quote:
Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
It may not be a direct contradiction. But still....she talked a big game about how the proper way to deal with Syria was through isolation and letting the president impose sanctions. Since then, nothing has changed in terms of Syria's behavior, so why the sudden decision to go and "open a dialogue" knowing full well the Pres thinks it's a bad idea for either party to do it and that the U.S. should stand with one voice. I think the answer is to thumb her nose at the Pres and flex the bigger political muscles she has gotten since the Act was passed. The kind of games that are annoying when played domestically, but much worse when played internationally. Be honest - do you really think for Pelosi or Essi, etc. this is about having thoughtful convictions about how our approach to Syria should change?
|
When you say "this," do you mean their visit or your outrage? It's pretty clear to me that many congressmen could have visited Syria before the last election or now without elicited the contrived outrage that Pelosi's trip got, which was entirely a function of the White House's decision to criticize her -- but not the other Republicans visiting Damascus during the same congressional recess. In turn, the White House's decision was obviously a political hit on Pelosi. As Shape Shifter aluded to earlier, Republicans lined up to support Speaker Newt Gingrich when he visited China; notwithstanding, some of the same people now criticize Pelosi. I don't see any reason to think that Pelosi's visit reflects fundamental differences between her and the White House about what our Syria policy should be, for the simple reason that I don't see any reason to think that there are fundamental differences between the White House and those Republicans who are there. She's not "thumbing her nose" at the President, and more than those Republicans are. The President attacked her, not the other way around.
