Again Hastert was working in concordance with Clinton's foreign policy, he was not the Speaker of the House, and Columbia is not a state sponsor of terrorism.
If he was working in concordance with with Clintons policy, then why was he going around saying not to listen to Clintons policies and goverment?
Apparently you didn't read your own article.
So where are the pages of condemnation by the White House and other republicans on the republicans going to Syria with Pelosi and on their own?
In a meeting yesterday with Dispatch editors and reporters, Boehner declined to criticize Hobson for joining Pelosi, saying her stature gave the visit an imprimatur it didn't deserve.
Boehner, Hobson clash on Pelosi trip
So one of the most powerfull Republican congressmen declines to crticize one his own doing exactly the same as a democrat. But let me guess, its because she is the Speaker of the House, something that really only matters in the US.
WTF are you talking about? The PM disavowed Pelosi's statements to the Syrians.
Did he? lets look at it again since you are avoiding the other thread.
From basicly the "horses mouth" I would say..unless you count the Jerusalem Post as a liberal anti Isreal rag.
PMO denies peace message to Assad | Jerusalem Post
The Prime Minister's Office issued a rare "clarification" Wednesday that, in gentle diplomatic terms, contradicted US Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's statement in Damascus that she had brought a message from Israel about a willingness to engage in peace talks.
First this "clarification"...sounds more like a botched hatchet job ordered by Bush on a political enemy. Then again the Isrealies might think its good to "beef up" their connection with Bush by hitting out at his domestic political enemies. But lets look at this "clarification"
According to the statement, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert emphasized in his meeting with Pelosi on Sunday that "although Israel is interested in peace with Syria, that country continues to be part of the Axis of Evil and a force that encourages terror in the entire Middle East."
So he emphasized at his meeting with Pelosi what we all know . But was there a message?
Olmert, the statement clarified, told Pelosi that Syria's sincerity about a genuine peace with Israel would be judged by its willingness to "cease its support of terror, cease its sponsoring of the Hamas and Islamic Jihad organizations, refrain from providing weapons to Hizbullah and bringing about the destabilizing of Lebanon, cease its support of terror in Iraq, and relinquish the strategic ties it is building with the extremist regime in Iran."
So the usual foot draging by Isreal with preconditions and so on. Nothing new there, but at least Isreal is willing to discuss peace. Was there a message though from Olmert to Assad via Pelosi. Or at worst could Pelosi have been lead to belive that Olmert wanted to send a "message" to Assad?
Pelosi, who met in Damascus with Syrian President Bashar Assad over the objections of US President George W. Bush, said she brought a message to Assad from Olmert saying that Israel was ready for peace talks.
Pelosi claims there was. Okay so far so good. And there is nothing wrong in what she said. Isreal is willing to discuss peace, as long as the long list of precondition are met. Nothing new there. Now Assad knows it for sure.
"We were very pleased with the reassurances we received from the president [Assad] that he was ready to resume the peace process. He was ready to engage in negotiations for peace with Israel," Pelosi said after meeting Assad.
So Syria is also willing to negotiate.. cool. But of course they have their own precondidtions so we basicly at a stalemate, but at least there is a "willingness". Still nothing wrong there on Pelosi's part.
She said the meeting with the Syrian leader "enabled us to communicate a message from Prime Minister Olmert that Israel was ready to engage in peace talks as well."
So was there a message?
According to officials in the Prime Minister's Office, however, this was not what transpired during her meeting with Olmert.
The officials said Olmert had told Pelosi that he thought her trip to Damascus was a mistake, and that when she asked - nevertheless - whether he had a message for Assad, Olmert said Syria should first stop supporting terrorism and "act like a normal country," and only then would Israel be willing to hold discussions.
Seems there might have been a message, its a bit unclear.. so lets for the sake of argument say there was no message and only the usual preconditions were talked about... and that they are not willing to discuss peace? I see some conflicting information here. On one hand Pelosi said to Assad, that Isreal was willing to discuss peace (which is true), but then Olmerts office say that is not true, but then again flip flop and say it is?
The first part of that message, the officials said, was lost in what was reported from Damascus on Wednesday.
Now wait a minute. First part of that message.. must mean there WAS a message. Can the Isrealies make up their minds? And was it "lost" in the reporting, or was it just not emphazied well enough via the media?
Pelosi said the congressional delegation she led raised the issue of kidnapped IDF soldiers Gilad Schalit, Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev and conveyed "the importance of Syria's role in promoting peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis." She also said she had pressed Assad on Syrian support for Hamas and Hizbullah.
But wait, the "first part of the message" was this basicly. She did press Assad on his support for "terror". So whats the problem?
EVERYONE here needs to sty on topic or you'll be banned from this thread.
