Reply With QuoteWhy do you equate all diplomacy with appeasement? Why is she the next Chamberlain as opposed to the next Metternich or Castlereagh or even Kissinger?Anyway, looks like Pelosi is the new Neville Chamberlain in our time
Pelosi, Lantos may be interested in diplomatic trip to Iran
LinkHouse 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.
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
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?Anyway, looks like Pelosi is the new Neville Chamberlain in our time
Originally Posted by Dasein
OMG did you just say Kissinger?
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?
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
Who is being appeased with what?Because thats exactly what it is, appeasement.
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.
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...............
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.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.
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.
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.There can be no peace without victory. Why is that such a foreign idea these days.
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"
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.
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?
Posting Permissions
