Someone on this site just accused Nancy Pelosi of making a deal while she was in Syria (????) to get the Iranians to release the British hostages, and they said that they wonder what she promised them, and who empowered her to make such promises.
Yesterday, conservatives were crowing about what a great job Bush did negotiating the release of these hostages.
Which is it, people? Were they released because the evil Pelosi did something really, really bad... or were they released because of the heroic contributions of our glowing Commander-in-Chief?
Can't be both. Pick one and stick with it.
2007-04-05 02:28:06 · 14 answers · asked by Bush Invented the Google 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
jhl: Oh, I agree. I'm just addressing the idiotic notion that either of them DID have something to do with it. I think the Iranian President did it to self-promote.
2007-04-05 02:34:23 · update #1
jim_2ooo: Since you were at the meetings Pelosi had in Syria AND Israel, why don't you tell us all what the conversations were, and set the world straight on what she was supposed to tell them, as opposed to what she told them? We'll wait here for your response.
2007-04-05 02:37:27 · update #2
They were released because the Iranian leader is smarter than given credit for. I believe this entire ordeal was orchestrated from the start by him. He went from diabolical dictator to Mr. Goodwill overnight. I don't believe Pelosi or Bush played any part in his scheme.
EDIT: This must be a landmark morning........we are agreeing entirely too much. LOL
2007-04-05 02:30:39 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 8⤊ 2⤋
In case you haven't noticed, there are always conflicting perspectives in Washington, and usually neither are true!
The British captives were released because the Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, wanted to. He said, "I want to give them as a present to the British people to say they are all free."
Simple as that. Pelosi is not the terrorist-sympathizer the nutty right-wingers have her pegged for, and Bush is not the savior they believe he is.
From where I'm sitting, it looks like Pelosi visited Syria because she understands the concept of diplomatic talks, a class Bush obviously slept through. I applaud her brave decision to speak with Syrian leaders. We'll never get anywhere if all we do is threaten military action with every country we meet.
2007-04-05 09:41:27 · answer #2 · answered by emilyg419 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Bush must have had his head in the sand again, this would have been a great oppurtunity for him to start the negotions with Iran, but he slipped up again. Now that the prisionors are released, and home in Britan this will be harder to accuse Iran of anything. GO NANCY GO! She is not afraid to talk and listen and do some giving and taking. She seems to do this with respect and diginity, not forced on anyone like The Bush Administraion does. Bush is a divider, not a uniter.
2007-04-05 09:36:46 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
She did not make a deal. If she had there would have been some type of press conference acknowledging that.
She was in Syria with a message (overture ) from Israel. Bush opened his mouth and tried to do the good cop/bad cop thing alongside Blair but if he thought that Iran would have fallen for that then he would be dumb. The aircraft carriers in the Gulf did not deter them or seem to scare them so his opening his mouth would not have made a difference to them.
You are acting surprised that the neo cons gave Bush credit for something he did not do. This is the same twit who does not WANT to talk to Iran much less negotiate with them He would have taken the jackboot approach. Blair probably told him to "back off"
Now the "evil' Pelosi who went to Syria, did so based on the Iraq study group recommendations. We have to start somewhere.
For all of those neo cons out there that called her treasonous yadda yadda yadda. they are a bunch of morons and hypocrites. NOT ONE of them opened their mouths and criticized the 3 REPUBLICANS who went in a delegation prior to hers last week. BUT OOOOh that " damn" Pelosi. Puhleeze
2007-04-05 09:32:23 · answer #4 · answered by thequeenreigns 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Did they site their sources? Last I read Persian Journals reported Syria claims she is a brave lady. Deals. That's Clintone. Iran was suppose to send their version of PM to Pakistan 2. I am glad she did not get that long range plane.
I vote Tony Blair did it. He refused to accept the terms of that volatile President of Iran. That dude pissed off Russia & China over the 15 too.
2007-04-05 09:43:10 · answer #5 · answered by Mele Kai 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Iranians released the hostages so that pelosi would not come to Iran. Actually it had a lot to do with Tony Blair.
2007-04-05 09:31:28 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
You need to show some back up. I did not hear a thing about conservatives or any Americans negotiating the release of those folks! You can't just make things up ya know.
2007-04-05 09:39:41 · answer #7 · answered by john s 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Neither side has any proof of this, and until i see it in print, I won't believe a word of it. Bush would love to say he has something to do with it, but I find it highly unlikely he did anything.
2007-04-05 09:36:44 · answer #8 · answered by Third Uncle 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
this is what I don't get... yes a diplomats trip should jive with the presidents foreign policy.. but nancy is doing good.. she's helping the peace... and if that doesn't jive with Bush's policy.. then we have much bigger problems than just Iraq.....
2007-04-05 09:52:06 · answer #9 · answered by pip 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Pelosi should be applauded for her successful diplomatic trip to Syria. They can be such a great partner for the USA one day.
Tony Blair probably made a backroom deal with Iran. I doubt Pelosi had anything to do with it.
2007-04-05 09:32:11 · answer #10 · answered by Villain 6 · 3⤊ 4⤋