Pelosi Goes to Syria, Press Loses Mind
The Wall Street Journal editorial page, with typical judiciousness, gets the Pelosi trip quite wrong. First, George Logan was not a member of the Congress when he made his "pacifist" trip to France. (He was elected to the Senate three years later, in 1801.) Second, Pelosi did not make the trip to negotiate with Assad, but to talk with him. Third, this is not a "wartime" situation--in fact, we continue to have diplomatic relations with Syria. Fourth, as others have noted, numerous Republican members of Congress have gone to speak with Assad. In fact, it was a Republican, Chris Shayes, who first told me that I should go over and interview Assad. Fifth, the media coverage of this on CNN and elsewhere has been abysmal. (Do you think CNN would repeatedly call itself the best political team on television if it actually was?)Something about the utter absurdity of the press reaction to this trip seems to me to have really gotten to people. Time and CNN are, of course, part of the same company. And Washington Post op-ed columnist Eugene Robinson is here on Hardball rightly dissing the Post's inane Pelosi-bashing editorial. I mean, the WSJ editorial page is in the business of vicious smears, but the Post and CNN are really unusually off the rails here. On the other hand, the Post's been dabbling in neoconservatism for years now and CNN, too, decided a while back that it would rather be Fox-lite than a news channel.
What really baffled me is the pea-brained proceduralism of something like USA Today's editorial on the subject holding that Pelosi "violated a long-held understanding that the United States should speak with one official voice abroad — even if the country is deeply divided on foreign policy back home." This rule has, simply put, never stood. Members of congress have always voiced their opinions on foreign policy questions. Foreigners have always listened more to the president since he has, you know, all this power. Worse: "smiling photos of Pelosi and the Syrian president convey the unspoken message that while the U.S. president is unwilling to talk with Syria, another wing of the government is." This is nonsense on its face. The problem with Pelosi's decision to talk to Assad was that it sent the message that Pelosi is willing to talk to Assad? They even go on to agree with Pelosi on the merits that Bush's Syria-freeze policy is stupid. So what's the problem?
It's as if they think that maybe if we all close our eyes and just believe hard enough, Bush will suddenly become a non-terrible president and so there's no need to actually challenge his policies and doing things that puncture the bubble of faith are positively harmful.
Comments
On the plus side, it's good to see Joe Klein inching toward sanity. I guess the WaPo and USA Today editors just long for the days when Newt Gingrich was 1000% behind Clinton's foreign policy, and never traveled to other countries to say otherwise.
"long for the days when Newt Gingrich was 1000% behind Clinton's foreign policy, and never traveled to other countries to say otherwise."
Or the days when presidential candidate Ronald Reagan''s handlers nobly resisted cutting a deal on the hostages with the Iranians behind Carter's back
Matt,
Why does everyone forget that Newt was actively representing himself as an AUTHORITY to Middle Eastern and other countries when he was Speaker of the House under Clinton. Pelosi's actions pale in comparison.
The landscape would be dim without GE. I totally heart MSNBC.
Part of the problem is that Pelosi is a Democrat; another part is that she has a vagina. Yet another part is that her approach of actually talking to people points up the obvious flaws in the Bush/neocon approach of Death Before Diplomacy.
The WSJ claim that Pelosi is a de facto traitor is laughable. Prima facie laughable. Indeed...where's Condoleeza Rice? Editing her next foreign policy speech to make sure it has the requisite number of threats?
I couldn't help but notice that the USA today article said Pelosi was "third in the succession line to the presidency "
...this is technically true, but it still seems a rather monarchical thing to point out. The president has seemed a fair bit like a monarch of late.
In bashing Pelosi, the fascist c***suckers like Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, the WSJ editorial page etc. seem to ignore the fact that GOP Congressman Frank Wolf and two other GOP Congressman visited Syria a few days before Pelosi did and also met with Assad.
MY,
The Post has only been dabbling with neo-conservatism. Oh no my friend, they are in it up to the fist.
I may have to change my nomme de post to Hiatt's tiny left nut. Good for Joe. He's showing glimpses.
One of the nice things about having had an open society for the first 115 or so years of our constitutional republic is that pretty much the whole world knows the limits of congress' influence on our foreign policy. This is another way in which all these arguments about unseemly appearance are overwrought.
By the same token, "third in succession" obviously doesn't describe what the worlds' diplomats know to be our reality. It's a way to imply that since (a) Peolsi's not just a member of congress, and (b) she's acting irresponsibly, she's really out of her league. Leave the adult stuff to serious people, like Republicans and men.
You tell em Matt. Watching this week's news was like watching a friggin idiot inferno.
The recent spate of abhorrent Pelosi coverage has made me long for the halcyon days of the Anna Nicole Smith Mourngy— back when reporters had consciences and tact. There is no desire to report news anymore in the MSM— just the desire to grab attention with both fists, a mouth, and any other available orifice. Look at me! Look at me! The Wolf's at the door, and his name is Blitzer. Nobody even for a second believes the shit they are spewing— as long as the aggrieved white male and hijab-fearing female can nod their head and cluck about the "liberals" and the "a-rabs" and waddle on down to Home Depot to buy a new fence, it's all good, everyone gets paid, and the wheel keeps a rollin' all night long.
Ugh.
Don't look now, but the Opinion Journal article never says anything about Logan being a member of congress.
The media freak-out over Pelosi is certainly weird, but the whole Bush v Pelosi situation is weird. Bush has an approach to foreign policy that he's going to maintain until he leaves office. He's going to keep the American military in Iraq, refuse to talk with countries like Syria and Iran, and generally operate in a peremptory, arrogant, fashion.
But there's a problem here besides the fact that Bush's way of doing foreign policy is such a failure. Last year, the U. S. public, mainstream media, and policy elites repudiated Bush's foreign policy and opinion coalesced behind the Baker/Hamilton Commission. Since Bush decisively rejected the public consensus on Iraq and foreign policy, he has become a renegade president in many ways. Bush has legitimacy as a duly elected president, but he no longer represents more than 1/3 of the American public (if that).
Into this situation steps Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi has done a great job of becoming an alternative to Bush. When Nancy Pelosi speaks now, she is not only speaking as the Speaker and chief spokesperson for the Democratic Party. Pelosi also speaks as the most authentic representative of the majority of the American public. In other words, when Pelosi speaks, she speaks for the American people.
Obviously, there is danger in Pelosi's assuming this role as Speaker rather than President. However, Bush has given up the role and it would be more dangerous, however, if nobody in the federal government sought to represent the American public. With the repudiation of George Bush, there's an uncomfortable vacuum in American democracy. Pelosi is filling that vacuum and doing a pretty good job of it, but the media is still fairly uncertain and uncomfortable with the whole problem.
The Pelosization of US foreign policy
Read this Arab News article:
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&article=94673&d=7&m=4&y=2007
How "honest" of you not to point out that the Arab News article was written by Amir Taheri, the same guy who wrote the notorious articles falsely claiming Iran was going to make Jews wear special badges.
Yes, when this guy claims that Syria was on the brink of caving to international pressure before Pelosi met with him, you should really believe him. Particularly if he tells you what you want to believe, of course.
When Polosi comes home she should immediately announce her intention go back for another visit. She should make it clear that she will be willing to go back again and again and again, until we have a new President, or a new policy in the region.
How unpatriotic of the WSJ and the WP for bashing an elected American official when they are visiting a foreign country. If they have any disagreements with our elected Representatives they should have the common decency to hold their criticism until the offcials return back home.
I wonder if fatboy would like to venture an opinion as to what of any benefit arose from pelosi's visit? did it achieve anything at all? Does the cake destroyer sincerely think that making a big show of operating on behalf of israel only for the israeli government to release a statement essentially saying youre full of shit portrays pelosi in a good light?
She embarassed herself and youre only denmonstrating yourself to be a dishonest hack by posturing as if this visit was of any worth.
pimp hand: Try typing with both hands.
Yes, the press treatment of the Pelosi trip is very discouraging.
It is a right-wing media.
Isn't it likely now that the media are going to continue to follow Republican talking points on and on, throughout the next two years, throughout the election, and, if the Democrats win, blasting the new president at every turn?
Pimp hand, has it occurred to you that maybe the Israelis are lying?
I heard Michael Savage praise Pelosi the other day for going to Syria on grounds that "you can talk to Arab Nationalists but not 'Islamo-fascists'" (or something like that).
The "one voice" bit is just the latest evidence of a fossilized elite media.
The one voice notion is not only historically untrue, but betrays the elite anxiety about democracy ever breaking out in this country. One of the reasons the D.C. press corps, or at least in its stratospheric reaches, so loves Bush's policies is because they so exemplify the notion of the absolute power of the executive. The instincts of court society are monarchical - and D.C.'s system of opinion-makers, think tankers, and lobbyists in perpetual circulation is very much a court society, as much one as you'd find in, say, Byzantium in 1220.
Having watched politics for about 10 years now, I can only reach one conclusion.
The media has a number of unspoken rules of how we are to conduct ourselves. They are unwritten, unarticulated, and undefended. They swing into action when a (1) a Democrat does something other than agree with a Republican; or (2) a Republican says they have been violated.
The violation is magnified if the actor is a woman, a liberal, or a minority.
It's been true my whole life. Words that often appear when one is broken "appearance of impropriety" and "long-held understanding" etc. The key is to avoid the substance of the conduct. And even moreso, avoid the effects and results of the conduct - that would be a horrible way to judge governance.
Now, there is a worse corollary. When Republicans violate rules of law, or engage in conduct with really bad substantive conduct with worse results, the same exact words are used. When Republicans clearly mislead the entire public about matters of great national importance, like the budget, taxes, and war, we are LUCKY if the media will actually use words that condemn them as much as they condemn liberals for violation of some rule.
Interestingly, one can see similar trends in Republican advocated jurisprudence, but that's beyond the scope of this comment.
Good comment.Thanks admin.
mirc
mirç
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mirc yukle
mirch
mırch
mirc turk
turk mirc
mırcturk
turkmırc
mırc turk
turk mırc
turkiyemirc
türkiyemirc
turkiye mirc
türkiye mirc
mircturkiye
mirctürkiye
mirc turkiye
mircturk
turkmırc
muhabbet
forum
forum
turkforum
turkiyeforum
mirc
turkmirc
toplist
site ekle
pagerank
turkmirc
turkforum
sohbet
chat
sohbet odaları
bedava sohbet
bedava chat
türk
karar
thanksss
porno
sex
hikaye
sex
hikaye
porno
sex
sex shop
seks shop
güzel sözler
mirc
porno
güzel sözler
hikaye
mirc
hikayeler
mirc
kelebek
elektronik sigara
elektronik sigara
elektronik sigara
sex
porno
hikaye
sex
porno
mirc
seks shop
hikayeler
hikaye
sex
hikayetube
sex |
porno |
hikaye |
sex hikayeleri |
sex hikaye |
sex porno |
seks shop |
geciktirici |
penis büyütücü |
hikaye |
hikaye |
sex |
videohikaye.com |
sex |
porno |
hikayetube.com |
porno |
mirc |
yüzük |
güzel sözler |
elektronik sigara |
pilli sigara |
elektronik sigara |
elektronik sigara |
elektronik sigara
penis büyütücü
Post A Comment