Is Rice engaging in ‘bad behavior’?

May 2, 2007

I can’t wait to hear the noise machine blather endlessly about how Condoleezza Rice is undermining U.S. policy by chatting with Syrian officials. (thanks to L.J. for the tip)

A senior Iraqi official and a senior Arab diplomat say Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will meet Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moualem in Egypt on Thursday or Friday.

It would be Rice’s first meeting with a Syrian foreign minister since she took over at the State Department in 2005, adding potentially significant bilateral talks to a regional session meant to help stabilize Iraq. […]

A meeting between Rice and Moualem would mark a shift for the Bush administration. After failing to win his way with the Syrian government during his first administration, U.S. President George W. Bush decided that dialogue with Damascus was futile. The administration rejected the recommendation of a high-level panel on Iraq policy that called for direct talks between the U.S. and Syria and Iran, and sharply criticized House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Cal.) when she visited Damascus last month.

The ringleader of this spectacularly stupid smear was the Bush White House. Somehow I suspect Rove & Co. will be a little quieter now.

Just to be clear, I’m not criticizing Rice for possibly having discussions with Syria’s Foreign Minister; I’m just stunned by the hypocrisy of it all.

Literally just one month ago, the Bush administration said U.S. officials should not have contact with the Syrian government, accusing the Syrians of meddling in Lebanon, supporting terrorism, and being unhelpful on Iraq. White House spokesperson Dana Perino said it sends the wrong “message” for members of Congress to discuss anything with Syrian officials.

For a lot of conservatives, that’s all they needed to hear. Indeed, far-right blogs pounced — one said this is proof that “Democrats seem to be setting up a separate government with its own suicidally blind idea of who’s a terrorist and who isn’t (basically, nobody is).” Another insisted that Pelosi’s decision to visit with Syrians is “repulsive” and questioned her loyalty to the U.S. Another still asked, “Can we question [Democrats’] patriotism now?” Yet another concluded that Pelosi’s talks “teeter on the edge of treason.”

Dick Cheney called Pelosi’s discussions “bad behavior.” The president personally criticized talks with Syria, saying discussions have been “counterproductive” and concluding that they send “mixed signals” to the Middle East. For two weeks, Fox News talked about almost nothing else.

And now, lo and behold, Bush’s Secretary of State seems to believe talking with high-ranking Syrian officials may not be such a bad idea after all. Will CNN run features about Rice “talking to terrorists”? Somehow, I doubt it.

May 2, 2007 at 10:41 am

The spin now will be that the apoplexy over the Pelosi trip was all about separation of powers, not about the Bush Doctrine of never talking to adversaries.

There’s a big difference between what Rice is doing and what Pelosi did … Rice talked to them in Egypt. And since we have used extraordinary rendition to secretly send folks to Egypt for torture, maybe Rice waterboarded al-Moualem and got plenty of secret information out of him. That’s my right wing talking point and I’m sticking to it.

The spin will be

The Bush admin can talk to the Syrians
The Congress cannot

hypocritical…YES

It’s all a matter of timing. It wasn’t OK when Pelosi did it, because that was then. This is now.

See? Much different.

The same thing will happen when the Republicans finally call for the withdrawal of American troops. The timing of this reversal will have nothing to do with Republican polling numbers being in the toilet or the upcoming elections.

But does anyone think getting the idiot Rice to talk to Syria will help? These are still idiots, and they still have their agenda.

I think everyone should send her a head scarf.

Condy c/o
U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20520

I will wear a head scarf, in honor of these talks.

Interesting that Republican legislators have been doing tons of shuttle diplomacy with Syria over the years and Condi stayed put. It took Nancy Pelosi’s bi-partisan trip (yes, she had at least one GOP congressman in her entourage) to force Rice to openly engage the Syrians.

Rice will travel incognito, disguised as the U. S. Secretary of State. The purpose of the meeting is to arrange the defection of Alberto Gonzales.

I can’t wait to hear the noise machine blather endlessly about how Condoleezza Rice is undermining U.S. policy by chatting with Syrian officials.

CB, it was certainly really messed-up when the right-wingers were criticizing Pelosi, and maybe their (and the administration’s) claims that her talking to Syria can make their subsequent talking to Syria appear questionable, but this is different. Condi is in the administration, so it’s a lot easier to conclude that when she speaks for them it’s consistent with their policy, and that it’s authorized by the chief executive.

For the administration and for Republicans in general, I’d offer as advice some words of wisdom from the young women of Germany: “I like sex, just not when the other person is screwing it up.” It takes two to tango; the Democrats can contribute a lot, and two popular parties in a modern, peaceful, bountiful country represent the countries full range of individuals and ideas. If Pelosi can accomplish anything for the country by doing what she’s doing, don’t discourage her.

Republicans don’t have all the ideas and all the best efforts.

Considering Condi’s record of diplomatic successes, she should wear the headscarf as a gag.

Uh, that should have been “country’s full range”

Shorter me: I see the hypocrisy better when it’s the Republican congress members making unauthorized diplomacy trips who aren’t getting criticized- less when it’s Condi

Somehow I suspect Rove & Co. will be a little quieter now.

Have you forgotten the famous formula?

IOKIYAR.

We’re talking about people who tried to make it seem that Pelosi snuck out of the country to meet with the Syrians.

Shocked! I say I am shocked! To learn members of the Democrat Party are talking to our enemies!

As I recall, the “furor” died down the minute someone pointed out that:

1. A Republican went on this “secret mission.”

2. The SD had to be heavily involved with the logistics of such a trip so cries of outrage and surprise were a bit…stupid.

By the time Dick “Duck!” Cheney started in with the “Bad Behaviour” crapola, everyone had lost interest.

So…. any news on complying with Waxman’s subpoena? Are Dems going to slap her with contempt of Congress yet????

I’m sure we’ll hear nothing from CNN on talking to terrorists. They don’t determine how to spin this, rather, they sit back and wait for the RNC talking points on this. They smeared Pelosi in the way they did to advance the narrative that the democrates are weak on foreign affairs and security. That’s the way it had to be spun and CNN dutifully jumped on board.

Now, as always, it politics, not policy. This will be discussed on the news without any reference to the contradiction between Rice and Pelosi. It will be like last month’s hysterics never happened.

It’s OK if you’re a republican.

Funny thing, though – when Dennis Hastert did and said this:

In 1997, Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) led a delegation to Colombia at a time when U.S. officials were trying to attach human rights conditions to U.S. security assistance programs. Hastert specifically encouraged Colombian military officials to “bypass” President Clinton and “communicate directly with Congress.”

…a congressional delegation led by Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) which met with Colombian military officials, promising to “remove conditions on assistance” and complaining about “leftist-dominated” U.S. congresses of years past that “used human rights as an excuse to aid the left in other countries.” Hastert said he would to correct this situation and expedite aid to countries allied in the war on drugs and also encouraged Colombian military officials to “bypass the U.S. executive branch and communicate directly with Congress.”

[snip]

In other instances, Hastert actually guided congressional staff to unilaterally reach deals with Colombian officials:

House Foreign Affairs Committee staff, at the direction of the Hastert group, would fly to Colombia, meet with the nation’s anti-narcotics police and negotiate the levels and terms of assistance, the scope of the program and the kinds of equipment that would be needed. Rarely were the U.S. diplomatic personnel in our embassy in Bogata consulted about the “U.S.” position in these negotiations, and in a number of instances they were excluded from or not even made aware of the meetings.

when he was majority leader in the house in the nineties, there was nary a peep from the Reich wing. There is no mention of this Republican’t flip-flop from anyone in the mainstream mediathese days, either. What a surprise!

Ah yes, the Pelosi meeting. As I recall, when the Speaker of the House chatted with Syrian officials last month, the White House, congressional Republicans, and far-right activists were apoplectic. CNN ran a news segment on Pelosi’s trip titled “Talking to Terrorists.”
……..Rice is Secretary of State. Her job is Foreign Policy. Pelosi is Speaker. She CANNOT constitionally make foreign policy.

Lantos (D) accompanying Pelosi, stated in an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle: “We have an alternative Democratic foreign policy”.

Surely even liberals can read the Constitution. There is ONE foreign policy for the United States, and only ONE branch of government that determines it: the Executive.

The Supreme Court has reinforced this in countless rulings. In the landmark 1936 Curtiss-Wright case, the Supreme Court reaffirmed:
“Into the field of negotiation the Senate cannot intrude, and Congress itself is powerless to invade it.”

“Powerless”. Do you understand that word? Pelosi cannot, despite what Lantos says, or you or anyone here thinks, make foreign policy or negotiate with foreign leaders.

To be fair, many of the conservative complaints were that a member of Congress was going, just as they complained about Kerry going to Iraq earlier in the year. While some did take a position opposing any US government communication, I believe others would have accepted communication from the Executive Branch but not Congress.

This gets back to their lack of respect for separation of powers and for the role of Congress in providing oversite. When I had a post on this at Liberal Values after Pelosi went, I got conservatives responding that the House has absolutely no business in foreign affairs. (After all, the Senate, and not the House ratifies treaties.) When I responded with a link to the House Foreign Affairs Committee, demonstrating that the House does consider matters involving foreign affairs, as well as their involvement in spending with regards to all aspects of government policy, I received no further response.

“When I responded with a link to the House Foreign Affairs Committee, demonstrating that the House does consider matters involving foreign affairs, as well as their involvement in spending with regards to all aspects of government policy, I received no further response. ”

You are exactly right. Congress controls power of the purse. They control funding for State…as they control funding for Defense.

Congress can shut down the Iraq War by withdrawing funding (provided they can override a Presidential Veto).

Congress cannot, however, order troop movements or strategy. Neither can they dictate foreign policy. The House Foreign Affairs Committee is not a constitutional entity. Committees come and committees go (HUAC anyone?). It has oversight of spending…not foreign policy…through the House of Representatives.

Lantos, who is currently head of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, realized this. Thus, he backed off radically after the firestorm blew over his statement.

Rep. Lantos (before): “We have an alternative Democratic foreign policy”.

Rep. Lantos (after): “Nor did Speaker Pelosi challenge the president’s right to make foreign policy. Far from it.”

Pelosi’s comment was the best, as she totally caved, after someone informed her of her weak constitutional footing. Far from Lantos’ “alternative democratic foreign policy” she declared – after being advised of her constitutional authority (or lack of it)…

Speaker Pelosi: ” “Our message was President Bush’s message,” Pelosi said in a phone interview with The Associated Press from Portugal, where she stopped briefly en route back to the United States.”

Rice would rather talk to Syrian *terrorists* than to Waxman; talking to Syrian government must seem like a holiday, in comparison.

Hey Marlowe –

Read comment # 15 above and condemn Rep Hastert, too.

Or are you just another Republcan’t hack?

Republican’ts – can’t be intellectually honest?

If Hastert pulled what was described by #15 (he did not cite a source) then he acted in an unconstitutional manner. I would appreciate a source, since I would be surprised that Hastert was not handed his hat if this is true. Considering the Constitutional precedent that has been established,( the posters here lack of knowledge notwithstanding) I can’t think of a reason he wouldn’t have been beaten down with this by his political opponents. Not because they were Dems or not, simply because politicians rarely avoid a weapon that they can use against an opponent.

I do not have Bush Derangement Syndrome and I did vote for the man, twice, but I am hardly a “Bush lover”. I am more of a Democrat hater. He spends too much time attempting to appease people who hate him and will give him not an inch, anyway. As long as he remains President he is (and Rice as his agent) the one who gets to set foreign policy.

If the Defeatocrats can actually get a candidate elected President they can decide foreign policy. Hopefully, the Presidential candidates will be honest and run on surrender. John Edwards said in the recent debate that “we will send a timeline for “withdraw” and if that bill gets vetoed we will send another. If that bill gets vetoed we will send another! If that bill gets vetoed we will send another!” The Democrats are ready to fight in the fields, and fight in the streets and fight in the skies and fight in the beaches and on the seas. They will never, never surrender….. in their fight to surrender! (my apologies to Churchill)

Hey Marshall,

Democrats want what America wants – and end to a war that was illegal on its face and ill conceived, planned, and implemented. No one wants Iraq to go down in flames, but they are not doing the job that needs to get done. Sending a few more troops for, as Bush would like us to see it as “the conflict of our very way of life” is rather dishonest, isn’t it? If the fight was that important to our way of life, don’t you think that the Republicans in Congress would be talking DRAFT the way that Dem Charlie Rangel is? I think that would end the war, and the neo-con Republican base don’t want that to happen – there is just too much money being made on oil futures and military spending the way things are. I digress, but the war spending serves other neo-con purposes as well, such as bankrupting Social Security, providing political cover for vetoing labor legislation, and bringing the insurance and drug companies under control. Without this messy war, we would have some focus on domestic issues that need attention.

Marshall, I do respect someone who will still admit that he or she voted for a complete moron twice. It shows conviction, something that the people that you voted for have very little of.
I hope you, as a protector of the Constitution aren’t going to sit still when this rogue Administration announces that the 22nd Amendment will be suspended during this “time of war”. These folks are a coup waiting to happen, if you ask me.

Comments are closed.