But not the Democrats? Its wrong for Pelosi to go, but the Republican senators that were just there in the right? Will bush ever stop making an @ss of himself? Ever??
2007-04-04 03:22:11 · 11 answers · asked by bushisamoron1212 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Yes it is as long as they don't accomplish anything like Pelosi did, if they are just there on vacation, shoot a little golf. But don't let Pelosi talk to their leaders because she might get something done. .
2007-04-10 14:29:02 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
The Republican senator in question did not go to Syria bringing false information and was asked to go by the executive branch. That's the branch that's actually allowed to negotiate foreign policy, not the Speaker of the House. The Republican senator did not go over there to "negotiate with sponsors of terrorism" as Pelosi did, either.
2007-04-11 14:18:59 · answer #2 · answered by cardace80 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
there is a lot of comments from them, yet regrettably none that make experience. there is the "properly, they'd not have went the two." Please. Our representatives bypass to the middle East perpetually, do no longer faux like this is a few thing new. sure, for the duration of wartime too. If Bush replaced into keen to proceed to be silent approximately 3 Congressmen who only took place to be Republicans and settle for his conflict philosophy, yet drew up short at Pelosi, 2d in line to the Presidency and with lots extra clout and a different philosophy from our esteemed President (cough cough) what conclusions are there left to allure to? to those that say she has no organization there, it is not her job? I understand why she needed to bypass to the middle East to allure to her very own conclusions and collect info. she would be able to't anticipate honesty from our President and there is extra desirable than one thank you to epidermis a cat. She is crucial member of our government who's predicted to lead our Congress with awareness and counseled determination making. She can't do her job suited whilst she has to handle a adversarial President who refuses to correctly known the region of Congress in conflict and has made it his undertaking to coach them a lesson approximately only who's on top of issues. She could have went, and that i for one am happy that she did. we've had a precarious working courting with Syria interior the previous that this President has rejected and brought about to slowly fall down by his complete dismissal of the fee of international family members. this is how international locations of the international that dislike one yet another get interior the direction of the subsequent twelve months, the next day, with out militarily attacking one yet another - they communicate, they make concessions, and that they attempt to be sensible and functional. that's noticeably in all probability that Pelosi carried a message to the Syrians and the middle East that the subsequent administration does no longer be working with out the earnings of international family members and could be working harder to unravel the subject concerns plaguing the middle East from a political and diplomatic point of view quite than strictly a militia approach. Lord, somebody had to do it. the whole international rises each and on a daily basis protecting its breath and praying George Bush won't ignite WW III until now he leaves workplace.
2016-10-21 00:05:40 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, Just because! But remember The republican did not bring a false statement from the Israeli president and lie to a foreign dignitary about a peace plan.
2007-04-10 03:00:07 · answer #4 · answered by dnimrich 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It is OK if the President of the United States asked them to go because the office of the President has judgment authority on such things.
2007-04-11 05:32:23 · answer #5 · answered by puddog57 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The administration has admonished all the free-lance foreign relations ambassadors. The news you heard probably only reported part of the story. Imagine that. I hope people are more serious about the sovereignty of this nation after Bush leaves office. It's obvious that he's psst people off to the point of most people can't see clearly when something is just wrong. Here's my question that proves that I am non-partisan in my objection:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AvvcYgWhzXz_u7p5sQDNoMnsy6IX?qid=20070402164653AASIlwS
2007-04-04 11:21:39 · answer #6 · answered by Whootziedude 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
It is not OK or any of them to go. They are undermining the presidents constitutional right to conduct foreign policy.
2007-04-09 05:24:55 · answer #7 · answered by gerafalop 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
last time i look at the constitution the presidency does not make you a king,unless you are a slave.
2007-04-11 15:14:14 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not as long as he's on earth.
2007-04-10 14:19:09 · answer #9 · answered by pilot 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
shes a true WACK JOB!!! traitor!!!!!
2007-04-11 14:26:10 · answer #10 · answered by bikenut02 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋