Pelosi, Lantos may be interested in diplomatic trip to Iran

[Geezah]

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Tom Lantos, D-San Mateo, just back from a trip to Syria that sparked sharp criticism from Republicans and the Bush administration, suggested Tuesday that they may be interested in taking another diplomatic trip - to open a dialogue with Iran.

The Democratic speaker from San Francisco and Lantos, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, were asked at a press conference in San Francisco Tuesday whether on the heels of their recent trip to the Middle East they would be interested in extending their diplomacy in the troubled region with a visit to Iran.

"Speaking just for myself, I would be ready to get on a plane tomorrow morning, because however objectionable, unfair and inaccurate many of (Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's) statements are, it is important that we have a dialogue with him,'' Lantos said. "Speaking for myself, I'm ready to go -- and knowing the speaker, I think that she might be.''

Pelosi did not dispute that statement, and noted that Lantos -- a Hungarian-born survivor of the Holocaust -- brought "great experience, knowledge and judgment" to the recent bipartisan congressional delegation trip to Israel, the Palestinian territories, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia in addition to Syria.

"I find the president of Iran's remarks to be so repulsive that they are outside the circle of civilized human behavior,'' Pelosi said, referring to Ahmadinejad's past comments that Israel should be wiped off the face of the map and his questioning of the existence of the Holocaust.

"But a person of Mr. Lantos' stature and personal experience is saying that -- even as a Holocaust survivor and even recognizing the outrageous statements of the president of Iran -- it's important to have dialogue. I think that speaks volumes.''

Pelosi was criticized by President Bush, Vice President **** Cheney and other members of the administration for meeting with Syrian President Bashar Assad, who the administration said has meddled in the politics and fomented violence in Iraq and Lebanon and is a state sponsor of terrorism. Other Republicans, however, also visited Syria during the current congressional recess. One of those lawmakers, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Vista (San Diego County), visited Syria a day after the Pelosi delegation and said the Bush administration should be talking with Assad as a way of trying to bring peace to the region.

The president also has tried to isolate Iran, saying its government, too, has aided attacks against Americans in Iraq and elsewhere while ramping up its efforts to build nuclear weapons.

Lantos said that for more than a decade, he has been trying to obtain a visa to visit Tehran with the help of former U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan -- and to date neither he nor any other member of Congress has been successful.

Pelosi said that throughout the congressional delegation's recent Middle East trip, "every place we went we had a constant message: the safety and security of Israel, fighting terrorism.''

"There was, of course, a shadow over all of it, Iran: Iran's support of terrorist groups is something that must be stopped,'' she said. "Iran's quest for a nuclear weapon is something that must not happen and we must stop them with the strongest of diplomatic measures.''

Lantos noted that "with the speaker's support,'' he has co-sponsored legislation in the House that calls for making available to all countries -- including Iran -- nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes under international oversight by establishing a "nuclear fuel bank."

"So if the Iranian president says that he is developing (nuclear material) for peaceful purposes, we are assisting him in that process,'' said Lantos, who anticipated the legislation could pass as early as May.

Link (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/10/BAGV9P6C0S6.DTL)

I'm not sure that Lantos is right, as far as confronting Amijimijob. After all, someone that has said that he wants to wipe Israel off the map, and denies the holocaust could give two sh!tes about someone that survived something that in his mind did not take place.

Anyway, looks like Pelosi is the new Neville Chamberlain in our time:(

[Dasein]

Anyway, looks like Pelosi is the new Neville Chamberlain in our time

Why do you equate all diplomacy with appeasement? Why is she the next Chamberlain as opposed to the next Metternich or Castlereagh or even Kissinger?

[Mr. JOSHUA]

Why do you equate all diplomacy with appeasement? Why is she the next Chamberlain as opposed to the next Metternich or Castlereagh or even Kissinger?


OMG did you just say Kissinger?

[shocker1]

Mrs. Speaker and Rep. Lantos do not represent me. Nor do they have the ok from the State Dept and to top it off my Reps in congress do not get a vote on this not even a say in a committee. All the while delaying money for the war by adding crap too the bill and playing glad hand with Assad and now maybe Iran! WRONG! Right or wrong the policy on Iran or any country is set by the Executive Branch and approved through appointments and committee acton in congress. Both parties have been doing this type afront to a President since the 70's. It is no wonder the whole system is a train wreck with constant elections and pandering for bucks while our people are dying over there!

On the flip side I see the Dems showing their colors right off the bat in ways that go well beyond the logical. Good show Nancy pants, attack ads this year will have no trouble finding material. If the Conservative base was not motivated this will do it, thanks!.

This thing with the fuel bank has already been rejected by Iran and since they have reached "industrial" scale enrichment, why would they want such a deal?

[Mailman]

Why do you equate all diplomacy with appeasement?

Because thats exactly what it is, appeasement.

The speaker does not speak for the country, nor does she have the permission to act for the State Department. In fact you could go as far as to say her trip will undermine the President and the State Department.

Then gain, I guess tahts what the Dems real goal is...to undermine Bush as much as possible because to them Bush must be defeated at all costs regardless of the actual cost to America.

Mailman

[Dasein]

Because thats exactly what it is, appeasement.

Who is being appeased with what?

[WarriorMonk]

just let all the appeasement things go, if the Dems actually do appease Ahmendijablablah, and then he decides to become all smart and do something stupid like attack us, or break the promise, or nuke somebody, you can guarantee that the response is 10 times stronger than if you didn't appease him - and that's a good whupping there.

[Geezah]

Why do you equate all diplomacy with appeasement? Why is she the next Chamberlain as opposed to the next Metternich or Castlereagh or even Kissinger?

You're right, she's not in charge of the country unlike Chamberlain, so maybe she should concentrate on what she should be doing.

As far as diplomacy goes, Chamberlain tried it with a lunatic and he failed, which once again proves, you must pay attention to history or you are doomed to repeat it.

Peace in our time, the quote to end all quotes...............

[Dasein]

As far as diplomacy goes, Chamberlain tried it with a lunatic and he failed, which once again proves, you must pay attention to history or you are doomed to repeat it.

Sometimes you need to make a deal with Stalin to defeat Hitler, and Churchill himself had rather cozy relations there. In the case of Iraq, we need to engage Iran and Syria, as they will always be Iraq's neighbors, even when we're gone.

We should have started engaging Iran and Syria before we even invaded Iraq, as getting those two on our sides early on would have made things substantially easier for us in the long run.

[noname]

There can be no peace without victory. Why is that such a foreign idea these days.

[Dasein]

There can be no peace without victory. Why is that such a foreign idea these days.

Because it has always been a foreign idea. Many wars throughout history have ended without any clear victor. Now, had you said there can be no peace without justice, you might be on to something, but peace without 'victory' is quite common.

[Ordie]

Lantos has a long record in congressional diplomacy. This stems from the tradition of his predessor Leo Ryan, who was killed in Jonestown, Guyana.

Lantos is probably the most hawkish Democrat in Congress. Moreover he's was part of the team that resumed diplomatic relations with Libya. He has close kinship with Bill Richardson from his days in Congress.

Keep in mind, there is a famous Vulcan quotation:

"Nixon went to China"

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Keep in mind, there is a famous Vulcan quotation:

"Nixon went to China"

As always, the Vulcans are very wise. I can't help but notice that the saying isn't "Tip O'Neill went to China".

[Ordie]

As always, the Vulcans are very wise. I can't help but notice that the saying isn't "Tip O'Neill went to China".

Actually it was Sec. of State Kissenger through Pakistani intermediators. When Kissenger was visiting Pakistan, at night he flew to Beijing to meet Zhou Enlai and return within a few hours.

Nixon felt under pressure due to the SALT agreements with the Soviets and Vietnam. A visit to China would set the paradigm for the next 40 years.

[Alpheus]

Sometimes you need to make a deal with Stalin to defeat Hitler, and Churchill himself had rather cozy relations there. In the case of Iraq, we need to engage Iran and Syria, as they will always be Iraq's neighbors, even when we're gone.

We should have started engaging Iran and Syria before we even invaded Iraq, as getting those two on our sides early on would have made things substantially easier for us in the long run.

First of all, Churchil never had "cozy relations" with the Soviets. He mistrusted and hated the communists.
Getting Iran and Syria on our side?!?!? They wouldn't help us for all the tea in China!
And lastly, isn't there something in the Constitution that prevents legislators from proforming diplomacy?

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Actually it was Sec. of State Kissenger through Pakistani intermediators. When Kissenger was visiting Pakistan, at night he flew to Beijing to meet Zhou Enlai and return within a few hours.

Nixon felt under pressure due to the SALT agreements with the Soviets and Vietnam. A visit to China would set the paradigm for the next 40 years.

My point is that it wasn't some schmuck from Congress doing it against the wishes and articulated foreign policy of the administration. E pluribus unum and all that.

[Dasein]

First of all, Churchil never had "cozy relations" with the Soviets. He mistrusted and hated the communists.

Churchill, while no doubt an anti-Communist, nonetheless realized early on the importance of an alliance with the Soviets in opposition to Nazi Germany. Chruchill also had fairly good personal relations with Stalin, at least during the war years.


Getting Iran and Syria on our side?!?!? They wouldn't help us for all the tea in China!

Why not? We have obvious common causes with Iran, and it would make more sense for the US to try and win over Tehran than leaving it for the Russians or Chinese to expand their influence there. Both the US and Iran are also concerned about the heroin traffic coming out of Afghanistan, and as the Taliban is now heavily involved in that trade, this means the US and Iran are eady allies against the Taliban in Afghanistan.

[Geezah]

Sometimes you need to make a deal with Stalin to defeat Hitler, and Churchill himself had rather cozy relations there. In the case of Iraq, we need to engage Iran and Syria, as they will always be Iraq's neighbors, even when we're gone.

We should have started engaging Iran and Syria before we even invaded Iraq, as getting those two on our sides early on would have made things substantially easier for us in the long run.

The enemy of my enemy is my temporary friend, no good can come from a group of individuals that want to Islamofi the World. They have taken Islam to an extreme and would love nothing more than to convert everyone. There is no reasoning with these nutjobs.

[-peacemaker-]

Not sure if this has been brought up on these forums before but I think that Nancy Pelosi can be charged with a felony under the Logan Act, all that the republicans need to do is muster up some courage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Who cares?

Political opposition has been going on overseas junkets for years. To get a feal for a nations attitudes towards, build ******* with leaders to make things smoother and what not.

Welcome to the world of foriegn relations.

[-peacemaker-]

Who cares?

Political opposition has been going on overseas junkets for years. To get a feal for a nations attitudes towards, build ******* with leaders to make things smoother and what not.

Welcome to the world of foriegn relations.

Obviously, one of the founding fathers and the second President of the United States cared enough to sign the Logan Act into law. In order to prevent such things that Pelosi is doing.

Also, usually when somebody who is involved in Foreign Relations (ambassadors, secretaries of state, etc) They have the consent of the United States goverment and usually the President of the United States too; to have dialogues with foreign countries. Nancy Pelosi had no such consent. She's a congresswoman in the House of Reps, not the damn Secretary of State.

[Ordie]

The fact of the matter is that Condi, a Soviet specialist, is not well matched for the job. She's no Kissenger, Albright or George Shultz. Like Powell, she is not only discredited overseas but within the beltway. VP Cheney's trip to Pakistan is a good example how things are mucked up. VP usually tend to stay away as far as possible from danger zones.

The one person I do respect and they do give her "carte blanche" in Africa is Jendayi Frazer. She is one of the few who is in the front lines of Africa and gives a damn.

[Dasein]

Obviously, one of the founding fathers and the second President of the United States cared enough to sign the Logan Act into law. In order to prevent such things that Pelosi is doing.

The State Department stated explicitly that it does not consder the Logan Act to apply to Congressmen in the excercise of their legislative duties. Rather, the Logan Act was intended to apply to private citizens.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Obviously, one of the founding fathers and the second President of the United States cared enough to sign the Logan Act into law. In order to prevent such things that Pelosi is doing.

Also, usually when somebody who is involved in Foreign Relations (ambassadors, secretaries of state, etc) They have the consent of the United States goverment and usually the President of the United States too; to have dialogues with foreign countries. Nancy Pelosi had no such consent. She's a congresswoman in the House of Reps, not the damn Secretary of State.

That law looks like it's unconstitutional according the latest court case. There has never been a conviction with it and they have looked at getting rid of it.

But if you want to use it. How about we go after every single ****ing CEO of a US company who is outsourcing jobs, enters into agreements with governments to setup factories and what not?

[-peacemaker-]

The State Department stated explicitly that it does not consder the Logan Act to apply to Congressmen in the excercise of their legislative duties. Rather, the Logan Act was intended to apply to private citizens.
Exactly how does traveling to Syria and talking with a government that has been suspected (or known) to support terrorist acts and terrorist activities entail into Congresswoman Pelosi's legislative duties? :roll:

That law looks like it's unconstitutional according the latest court case. There has never been a conviction with it and they have looked at getting rid of it.
It is still a law and there is a first time for everything :)

But if you want to use it. How about we go after every single ****ing CEO of a US company who is outsourcing jobs, enters into agreements with governments to setup factories and what not?
You may want to read the Logan Act, pay special attention to the part about disputes and controversies with the United States government.

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

And factories getting moved from Machigon to China does not breach this?

[-peacemaker-]

And factories getting moved from Machigon to China does not breach this?
No

I'm sorry, maybe I should have said that you should pay special attention to the whole text of the law instead of focusing on one part. Go ahead and re-read it, and explain to me how a factory owner moving a factory to China is in breach of the Logan Act. Keep in mind that China is a major trade partner of the US, albeit there is a huge trade-deficit.

[loganinkosovo]

Let them go......then cancel their passports and put them on the enemy combatant list.

[Dasein]

Exactly how does traveling to Syria and talking with a government that has been suspected (or known) to support terrorist acts and terrorist activities entail into Congresswoman Pelosi's legislative duties?

As Congress is responsible for ratifying treaties, declaring war and funding any military action other than war, it is important for Congressmen to be familiar with both our allies and potential enemies.

[JJC]

Does it worry anyone that our political system is falling a part? One party is doing every thing to hurt the other even when we are at war. What happened to the idea of being united when it comes to foreign policy? The president has constitutional powers to deal with foreign matters, it should not be a priority of the speaker of the house!

I feel like Pelosi is pulling these stunts just to piss Bush off, but she and her party don't seem to care that they are seriously hurting the securty of the U.S; how, because Middle East countries and all these terror groups are watching and learning on how to break us.

[Dasein]

Congressmen have been meeting with foreign leaders for decades, Pelosi is not doing anything new in this regards.

Further it is essential that we engage other countries in the region if we hope to have any success in Iraq. Iraq does not exist in a vacuum, and that means we must realize and address the fact that Iraq's neighbors, like Syria and Iran, have interests in Iraq and the region. Bush does both Iraq and the united States a grave disservice when he ignores the diplomatic front.

[shocker1]

All the high minded arguments that give Mrs Speaker a Pass on this are way off. It does not matter if you like what she is doing or not she only speaks as a mmember of Congress for her district. If her grand trip was just approved by some committee she would have at least one leg to stand on. Fact is she is standing on nothing but hotair. Unless my Reps or Senators vote or at least debate the context of Mrs. Speaker's jet setting then it's wrong.

I do not care how many have done it or what party this is dangerous to play Speaker of the Sec of State Pro Temp. Then it is with known supporters of Islamic terrorists groups, The MB to top it off with another Dem, the Grand Daddy of all terrorists groups.

As much as I like to see the Dems step in popo like this. It is dangerous and undermines the office not only for Bush but for Presidents to come. Take the partisan bs out of the thought process on this issue and it is plainly wrong!

[Calanen]

Not sure if this has been brought up on these forums before but I think that Nancy Pelosi can be charged with a felony under the Logan Act, all that the republicans need to do is muster up some courage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act

The US Attorneys would have to charge her if they wanted to, it would not really be up to the Republicans. You'd have to see what she actually said or did while overseas to see if she breached the Act.

[markjh]

http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/07.04.03.Syriana-X.gif

No comment p-)

[Freedom-Fries]

No comment p-)
The Cartoon is false, she's a woman and therefore must wear a dish towel on her head

[Mailman]

We should have started engaging Iran and Syria before we even invaded Iraq, as getting those two on our sides early on would have made things substantially easier for us in the long run.

Awe bless, how innocent of you :D

Iran and Syria are part of the problem...engaging them would be about as useful as engaging North Korea.

Both of these countries have their own vested interests in the middle east and those interests are the same as the wests.

Mailman

[Dasein]

Iran and Syria are part of the problem...engaging them would be about as useful as engaging North Korea.

Of course they are now, because the US has stated the purpose of trying to set up a democratic government in Iraq is to destabilize the governments of Syria and Iran - to set off a domino effect in the region. Thus, both Syria and Iran now have an interest in making sure Iraq is kept unstable.

However, this needn't have been the case, had the US been willing to try and build a regional alliance and involve Iraq's neighbors in the reconstruction process. Neither Iran nor Syria have any love for Saddam Hussein, and there is ample cause for common interests between the US and Iran with regards to drug smuggling coming out of Afghanistan, so cooperation could have occured on multiple fronts.

The problem is, the US allowed idealism to cloud it's judgement - Iran and Syria were the bad guys, the Axis of Evil, and so we prevented ourselves from negotiating with them, even though such negotiations would have advanced our real interests. Unfortunately, Iraq wasn't worth it, it was mre important to maintain an ideologically pure foreign policy than it was to set the stage for possible real success in Iraq, and so here we are now, year 4 of the occupation, with the Green Zone getting bombed and no end in sight.

[jasonblaster]

The worst part is how she said she stuck with the Presidents feelings in what she discussed with Syria, except for that one little thing about "don't ****ing go talk to those assholes until they straighten their **** out"

Can't wait to see the photos of her and "MyMood ImInAJihad" all over tehran, visiting sites, holding hands, having lunch and a laugh. It'll make me sicker of her than I already am.

[Mailman]

Of course they are now

Now? Where have you been for the last 20 odd years?

Iran and Syria havent all of a suddent turned in to problems as of yesterday or today...these countries have always served their own interests from supporting terrorism etc.

Mailman

[Dasein]

Now? Where have you been for the last 20 odd years?

There have been problems with both countries in the past, but at the same time, we were making progress with Iran during the 90s.


Iran and Syria havent all of a suddent turned in to problems as of yesterday or today...these countries have always served their own interests from supporting terrorism etc.

Of course they've served their own interests, I would expect nothing less from any state. Terrorism and proxy warfare is a common tactic used by many countries. Claiming that Iran and Syria support terrorism means very little, as it is a normal part of international relations.

[Geezah]

There have been problems with both countries in the past, but at the same time, we were making progress with Iran during the 90s.

Was that up until a nut case that was involved in the taking of American hostages in the 70s got into power????????