Pelosi shrugs off White House criticism

[Julie]

House work is okey by me, except ironing. I hate it!

Vacuuming is the worst for me. I actually pay my children to do it for me. Sad, huh?

[Shek]

Vacuuming is the worst for me. I actually pay my children to do it for me. Sad, huh?

That's not sad; that's smart! Outsourcing chores to the kids rocks! Unfortunately, my oldest is only 7, so there's only so much I can outsource

[Julie]

That's not sad; that's smart! Outsourcing chores to the kids rocks! Unfortunately, my oldest is only 7, so there's only so much I can outsource

Hmmmm....outsourcing....never thought of it that way. Cool !....now I don't feel so bad about doing it. Thanks Shek ! :)

[bfng3569]

bfng,

There is no doubt that policy decisions resulted in strains on foreign relations. However, some of the actions of the administration amounted to pouring gasoline on the fire. That is something that the administration is culpable for. To blame it on the other country (they forced me to make a public announcement that we weren't going to allow them to compete for reconstruction projects ) simply doesn't fly.

There is a difference between being the big boy on the block (speak softly and carry a big stick) and letting everyone know that you are the big boy on the block.

I am not saying blame it on the other country, i am saying they are just as culpable for the state of affairs as Bush and his adminstration.

You almost make it sound as if reacting to the other country is the only bad decision or choice that was made while completely ignoring the actions of said country.

To me that certainly seems one sided and hypocritical.

I know bashing bush and blaming everything on him is the popular thing to do both in this country and outside of it, but as I was saying before, there is much more blame to go around than just the U S and bush's foreign policy decisions.

[bfng3569]

I wasn't referring to WHO was representing the US, but the COUNTRIES we were embracing as Allies. I have never considered Pakistan an ally on terror, as much as the Bush Administration portrays them to be.

From a legal standpoint, I've never said it was okay. Read back through my posts regarding the Logan Act.

One particular statement Pelosi made while in Syria sticks in my mind. She said, "If the US considers the road to terror leads to Syria, then that is also the road to peace as well." I can't argue with that statement. With that said, wasn't it you who said diplomacy is a two-way street? Bush has proven not to be very good in Foreign Relations. Whether Pelosi is or is not the right person to represent the US in that regard, she seems a damn better sight qualified than Bush is, or has been.

In the forum "The Iranian Question," I have posted in a discussion involving Nixon embracing China, as well as Reagan embracing the Soviet Union, both nations being isolated and/or considered rogue nations at the time, and the successfulness of those two Presidents' Foreign RELATIONS in their embracement. These Foreign RELATIONS accomplishments were done successfully without war.

That, my dear, is my argument.

yes, i did say it was a two street.

But i think the arguement of China or the Soviet Union are utterly and totally irrelevant to the middleast though. Did you remember russian or chinese terrorists running around kidnapping and excuting people, blowing up airports and aircraft?

Your statement "Foreign RELATIONS accomplishments were done successfully without war" means what exactly? everything can be accomplished thru dialogue and diplomacy? There is no need for war as you seem to imply?

when Bush invaded iraq, how long had Saddam been given to comply with either the cease fire of the first gulf war, or the united nations sanctions against him? and had he at the time of invasion?

no.

Bush has proven to be not so good at foreing relations, but pelosi has? Why, becuase he took a tough stance on China, north korea, iran, and iraq?

Becuase he didnt appease france, germany or russia before invading?

[Shek]

I am not saying blame it on the other country, i am saying they are just as culpable for the state of affairs as Bush and his adminstration.

You almost make it sound as if reacting to the other country is the only bad decision or choice that was made while completely ignoring the actions of said country.

To me that certainly seems one sided and hypocritical.

I know bashing bush and blaming everything on him is the popular thing to do both in this country and outside of it, but as I was saying before, there is much more blame to go around than just the U S and bush's foreign policy decisions.

bfng,

Let's delve into the decision to explicitly state as a policy that if you weren't a member of the coalition of the willing, then don't even bother to submit bids for reconstruction.

1) Was it necessary to explicity state it? There wasn't any doubt that we were going to control it since we had the largest military presence, so what benefit was gained by making it explicit?

2) What did the above decision do in terms of providing evidence that we weren't in Iraq for the money, but to liberate them?

3) What effect did the above decision do in terms of foreign support of OIF, as well as foreign support of their domestic governments (especially if they were part of the coalition of the willing)?

4) Has the above decision helped us get more support from other nations in Iraq?

Please don't conflate the policy decision and foreign relation decision in your discussion. I am discussing the decision to explicitly state "no contracts for you." Consider the policy to be a done deal, and only discuss the foreign relations approach to the policy.

Also, think about the dichotomy between Iraq and Afghanistan, and why NATO is in one country in force and is a minimally marginal player in the other, even though blowback from Iraq will spill into NATO countries just as much from its participation in Afghanistan, and so they have an interest in seeing Iraq stabilzed.

[Julie]

yes, i did say it was a two street.

But i think the arguement of China or the Soviet Union are utterly and totally irrelevant to the middleast though. Did you remember russian or chinese terrorists running around kidnapping and excuting people, blowing up airports and aircraft?

It is relevant in that China was isolated because of severe humanitarian violations, which was one of several deciding factors in removing Saddam in Iraq. The Soviet Union was isolated because of attempting to acquire nuclear weapons/arms race. Whatever the reason, neither nation was considered an ally of the US, BUT a Republican President/administration embraced them through diplomacy instead of isolating them further. By all accounts, success was had in both instances.

There is no need for war as you seem to imply?

No, that is not what I'm saying. My feeling is we went to war while simultaneously allying with the wrong countries. In other words, I feel we did it a$$ backwards, which is why the whole thing is a mess, and could in fact get worse as to relations with other countries, instead of getting better.

[bfng3569]

bfng,

Let's delve into the decision to explicitly state as a policy that if you weren't a member of the coalition of the willing, then don't even bother to submit bids for reconstruction.

1) Was it necessary to explicity state it? There wasn't any doubt that we were going to control it since we had the largest military presence, so what benefit was gained by making it explicit?

2) What did the above decision do in terms of providing evidence that we weren't in Iraq for the money, but to liberate them?

3) What effect did the above decision do in terms of foreign support of OIF, as well as foreign support of their domestic governments (especially if they were part of the coalition of the willing)?

4) Has the above decision helped us get more support from other nations in Iraq?

Please don't conflate the policy decision and foreign relation decision in your discussion. I am discussing the decision to explicitly state "no contracts for you." Consider the policy to be a done deal, and only discuss the foreign relations approach to the policy.

Also, think about the dichotomy between Iraq and Afghanistan, and why NATO is in one country in force and is a minimally marginal player in the other, even though blowback from Iraq will spill into NATO countries just as much from its participation in Afghanistan, and so they have an interest in seeing Iraq stabilzed.

Why though? why do you want to delve into that decision explicitly?

My point was merely the fact that whether the decision was good or bad, helpful or hurtful, the fact remains that there was quite allot that led up to it, that everyone seems to like to forget about.

You said earlier ‘To blame it on the other country (they forced me to make a public announcement that we weren't going to allow them to compete for reconstruction projects ) simply doesn't fly’ and why does it not fly? Again, my point is that relations were already damaged, that point seems to be ignored, and the US reaction is what is put on the spot. France, Germany and Russian spent months playing there political games out in the open at the expense of our administration, why is it that we are the sole entity (administration, Bush, how ever it should be properly termed) to fix those relations?

Its all politics, nothing more. One country slaps another in the face, don’t be surprised when the favor gets returned.

Again, I am not arguing that the decision to publicly announce it like that was helpful or good from a foreign relations view (or any view), I am saying that it was tit for tat, purely political, and from were I sit, very well deserved.

You don’t publicly embarrass one nation, and not expect a response.

As far as Afg. and Iraq, and why Nato is in one and not the other, you need to be more specific I think with your point.

I don’t claim to be an expert on anything, or even to really know enough about things to really contribute, I am merely an average everyday person that tends to like to avoid the news more so than read it these days, but I don’t want to misconstrue what you are saying? But I am curious also as to what Nato countries are seeing blow back from Iraq or Afg?

[bfng3569]

It is relevant in that China was isolated because of severe humanitarian violations, which was one of several deciding factors in removing Saddam in Iraq. The Soviet Union was isolated because of attempting to acquire nuclear weapons/arms race. Whatever the reason, neither nation was considered an ally of the US, BUT a Republican President/administration embraced them through diplomacy instead of isolating them further. By all accounts, success was had in both instances..

No, the soviet and union and china are different stories and not comparable.

And the Soviet was not isolated by anyone, especially for attempting to aquire nuclear weapons.

[/QUOTE]No, that is not what I'm saying. My feeling is we went to war while simultaneously allying with the wrong countries. In other words, I feel we did it a$$ backwards, which is why the whole thing is a mess, and could in fact get worse as to relations with other countries, instead of getting better.[/QUOTE]

So who were the wrong countries we allied with, and who should we have allied with?

(and please excuse me if the quotes dont work out, not to familiar with this multiquote thing, and yes, my spelling is horribling)

[Shek]

(and please excuse me if the quotes dont work out, not to familiar with this multiquote thing, and yes, my spelling is horribling)

bfng,

To do multiple quotes, the start tag is {quote=insert name of poster here}, and the end tag is {\quote}. Instead of using the curvy brackets, { & }, use the square brackets instead, [ & ]

Cheers.

[Shek]

Why though? why do you want to delve into that decision explicitly?

My point was merely the fact that whether the decision was good or bad, helpful or hurtful, the fact remains that there was quite allot that led up to it, that everyone seems to like to forget about.

You said earlier ‘To blame it on the other country (they forced me to make a public announcement that we weren't going to allow them to compete for reconstruction projects ) simply doesn't fly’ and why does it not fly? Again, my point is that relations were already damaged, that point seems to be ignored, and the US reaction is what is put on the spot. France, Germany and Russian spent months playing there political games out in the open at the expense of our administration, why is it that we are the sole entity (administration, Bush, how ever it should be properly termed) to fix those relations?

Its all politics, nothing more. One country slaps another in the face, don’t be surprised when the favor gets returned.

Again, I am not arguing that the decision to publicly announce it like that was helpful or good from a foreign relations view (or any view), I am saying that it was tit for tat, purely political, and from were I sit, very well deserved.

You don’t publicly embarrass one nation, and not expect a response.

As far as Afg. and Iraq, and why Nato is in one and not the other, you need to be more specific I think with your point.

I don’t claim to be an expert on anything, or even to really know enough about things to really contribute, I am merely an average everyday person that tends to like to avoid the news more so than read it these days, but I don’t want to misconstrue what you are saying? But I am curious also as to what Nato countries are seeing blow back from Iraq or Afg?

bfng,

I am concentrating on one specific example as it is illustrative. You can shut out non-participants from the coalition of the willing in Iraq from contracts. Whether you announce this publically as a stick in the eye or keep it on the down low, the end result is the exact same.

The policy decision to shut them out is the tit-for-tat. What's the upside of publically announcing it - you overtly signal your policy in an "in your face" type of way, and so maybe you gain more traction for participation in future endeavors. However, minimal to no contracts awarded to non-COW partners signals this just the same IMO. What's the downside - you add fuel to the fire of those constituencies abroad that don't like you, and you push some of those off the fence into the camp of those who don't like you because now you aren't just being unilateral, but you're doing it in a bullying type of way.

So, once we needed support from NATO for Iraq, the domestic desire from NATO countries to help out the bully limited this support, and it has hampered our abilities to achieve our goals in Iraq. You can try to portray these foreign leaders in whatever way you want to, but in the end, they answer to their domestic constituencies, as they is where their bread is buttered.

As far as blowback, the Madrid and London bombings are examples of blowback from Iraq. However, I would argue that participation in Afghanistan brings the exact same risks, and so the opportunity cost of in terms of blowback from additional participation in Iraq is relatively low to zero IMO. Thus, it is the lack of domestic support within those NATO countries, a condition exacerbated by our foreign relations support in the setting up of the false dichotomy of "either you're with us or against us," a dichotomy that wasn't necessary.