Why no comments from conservatives about the Republican Congressmen who visited Syria last week?

Answer 1

Now, now. The cons are having such fun Pelosi-bashing. And here you are spoiling the party with facts! That's not very nice of you! LOL

I notice, though, that some ofthe answerers are really showing their ignorance. Members of Congress have always made a practice of visiting frreign countries for a variety of reasons from fact-finding to informal negotiations. Do these people really know so littleabout our country's history and government?

Answer 2

There's plenty of comments from them, but unfortunately none that make sense.

There's the "well, they shouldn't have went either." Please. Our representatives go to the Middle East all of the time, don't pretend like this is something new. Yes, during wartime too. If Bush was willing to remain silent about three Congressmen who just HAPPENED to be Republicans and accept his war philosophy, but drew up short at Pelosi, second in line to the Presidency and with a lot more clout and a different philosophy from our esteemed President (cough cough) what conclusions are there left to draw?

To those who say she has no business there, it's not her job? I understand why she needed to go to the Middle East to draw her own conclusions and gather facts. She can't expect honesty from our President and there's more than one way to skin a cat. She is a very powerful member of our government who is expected to guide our Congress with wisdom and informed decision making. She cannot do her job properly when she has to deal with a hostile President who refuses to acknowledge the role of Congress in war and has made it his mission to teach them a lesson about just who's in control.

She should have went, and I for one am glad that she did. We have had a precarious working relationship with Syria in the past that this President has rejected and caused to slowly disintegrate through his complete dismissal of the value of diplomacy. This is how countries of the world that hate each other get through the next year, the next day, without militarily attacking each other - they talk, they make concessions, and they try to be realistic and reasonable. It's highly probable that Pelosi carried a message to the Syrians and the Middle East that the next Administration would not be operating without the benefit of diplomacy and would be working harder to solve the problems plaguing the Middle East from a political and diplomatic standpoint rather than strictly a military approach. Lord, someone had to do it. The entire world rises each day holding its breath and praying George Bush won't ignite WW III before he leaves office.

Answer 3

I voted republician and even though I belong to no party I generally side with the Repubs. I say Good to Nancy and the Congressmen who went. don't believe that talking to Syria will help anything but what the hell it is worth a try. People are making this a big political issue but whats the harm in any of them going and discussing options and issues. The only problem I see is if someone starts telling things to other countries that they have no need to know or if they start airing dirty laundry that should be handled in house. Our politicians need to project a united front abroad even if they don't agree with each other. We are one country and that is very important to remember.

Answer 4

they all have the "right" to be there. It had nothing to do with "mixed" signals.

The Constitution makes clear that the Congress has broad authority to actively participate in foreign and military affairs. After all, the founders created the legislative branch as the first defined branch of government and afforded to it the power "to regulate commerce with foreign nations," "to define and punish... offenses against the law of nations," "to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water," and "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

It is Nancy Pelosi's job to open and maintain the lines of international communication that allow her -- and, by extension, the Congress -- to be full and active participants in the forging of America's foreign policy priorities. She does so not as an interloper on executive authority but as the leader of a co-equal branch of the federal government of the United States.

The only part that is disturbing is that Pelosi is vilified for going while there is silence about the Republicans going.

Answer 5

you're growing to be extremely some very screwy solutions to this question. The worst of it extremely is from "fact seeker". How in the international everybody ought to study that textual content and have self assurance of one minute that the Speaker of the domicile or any member of Congress has the authority to habit overseas coverage? they're constrained to creating guidelines. MAKING guidelines! it extremely is the interest of the legislative branch. Nancy Pelosi does no longer represent usa she would not even represent Congress. She represent some thousand voters in her congressional district and that is it! what's faulty with you human beings? She became to date out of line she would besides walked into the preferrred courtroom and tell chief Justice Roberts she needs a diverse decision on some regulation. I merely galls me to take heed to human beings pontificating over the structure at the same time as all they attempt to do it justify the democrats mis-deeds. i do not choose any congressmen or senators appropriate to themselves in overseas coverage concerns. stay domicile!!! study the connected link. what's faulty inclusive of her?

Answer 6

Hey , I did .
But the interesting thing is that even though I condemned both Pelosi and the Republicans who went over there without State Department Authorization and all of them should be censured/sanctioned , several Liberals answered saying that I wasn't being fair and not holding the Republicans to the same standards . Ya see, it was right there before their very eyes, but they are too blinded by hatred to see !!

EDIT* - WOW. . Look at all the Republican admissions that the Republicans who went were wrong too !!!
Take that to your next Liberal Party and Teach them to be as honest as us !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Answer 7

They are following the recommendation of a bipartisan commission cochaired by former secretary of state Jim Baker.

Bush is alone in his views of foreign policy.

Answer 8

Actually, I have commented on it. I do not approve of any US representative who is not directed by the President to interfere in US Foreign Policy. There are members of the Executive branch of our government whose job it is specifically to address foreign relations. It is not the job of the US House of Representatives to conduct foreign policy. They are all in direct violation of US policy, if not constitutional law.

Answer 9

I agree with John. I have not commented about any of the Members of Congress who have visited the Middle East in a "negotiating" capacity, but regardless of their party, I think it is inappropriate.

We elected them to represent us in Washington, DC and to make our laws. They are not supposed to be conducting foreign policy. That is not their job.

Answer 10

Like the first answer, they had no place there as Pelosi had no place there.
I didnt comment on them, but I didnt comment on Pelosi either previous to now.