Today's Democrat and Chronicle carries a story about Louise Slaughter's (NY-28) participation in the Congressional delegation to the Mideast led by Nancy Pelosi. This delegation has become controversial because it is visiting Syria. Randy Kuhl's spokesman, Bob Van Wicklin, gives Kuhl's response:
Randy feels that it's the administration's job to deliver diplomatic messages, not Congress [...] The fact that Speaker Pelosi botched the message she delivered on behalf of Israel is evidence of that. We need to speak through one secretary of state, not 535 of them.
Kuhl has consistently favored diplomatic dialogue with Syria and Iran. The basic facts of the Pelosi "botch" are available from the Washington Post, which excoriated Pelosi for her misstep in an editorial yesterday.
Comments
You're not really going to cite the Washington Post's neocon editorial board on this one? Fred Hiatt may as well be Doug Feith when it comes to foreign policy.
A columnist from WaPo "excoriated" the Post's own board for this editorial. Check it out.
I guess the irony of Kuhl's spokesman using talking points from a "liberal" paper - the Washington Post - is only amusing to me.
I thought that editorial gave the substance of the accusation against Pelosi, namely, that she miscommunicated the message from Olmert, in a succinct couple of paragraphs. Whether you agree with the conclusion is another matter. I think there's some truth in it.
I understand and agree with the broader point - that we need to engage with Syria. I also think that Congressional delegations can be useful in doing high-level diplomacy (goodwill, for want of a better word) and low-level diplomacy (e.g, trade missions). I don't question Pelosi's right to talk with Syria. But Pelosi's playing a dangerous game when she tries to play envoy between Israel and Syria. Even professional diplomats get burned working with those two countries. She seems to have made a small misstep, which her opposition turned into a big deal.
Also, in the video you linked, Robinson just addresses the general principle that Pelosi should talk to the Syrians. As I said above, I agree with that. He didn't address the question of the limits of what the Speaker should do when visiting other countries.
I'm not convinced she miscommunicated. There's a backstory there that you may not be aware of, since it wasn't reported in the U.S. media -- that Israel has been trying to open peace negotations with Syria and Bush has been trying to sabotage it.
My take is that the Bushies came down on Olmert and he had to say something slightly critical of Pelosi.
I'm afraid you've been fooled by the neocon spin here. No shame in that: Fareed Zakeria briefly convinced me that after we invaded Iraq, we'd become allies with Iran. I wish I could tell you was kidding. In fairness, I only believed it for a couple weeks.
Anyway, you should read what TPM says about it all. Josh Marshall is one of the few bloggers who reads the Israeli press carefully.
And, also, the fact that professional diplomats fail at brokering deals between the two countries is no reason that the U.S. shouldn't try.
The Bush administration's failure to act as a go between has been problematic, to say the least.
I read Josh Marshall and must have missed the discussion of how Olmert was strongarmed. But if he was, that's just another demonstration of something that's pretty obvious: the president and the executive branch are the ones with the power here. If they can get Olmert to turn on a dime, it shows that someone like Pelosi will never accomplish a diplomatic mission that isn't in line with the policies of the administration.
Members of the legislative branch can do a little diplomacy at the margins, but the heavy lifting has to be done by the Executive. If Pelosi goes beyond the narrow limits of what a Speaker can reasonably accomplish, she'll probably make things worse, not better, since she'll be working at cross-purposes against an administration that would love to sabotage her efforts.
You know you're wrong here. I'll just leave it at that.
Actually, I won't leave it at that because that's kind of a a-hole thing to do. Here's my points:
(1) How could Pelosi possibly make things worse given that things are as bad as they could possibly be?
(2) Take Olmert's criticism as you want: would Olmert have had Pelosi convey any kind of message if he objected to her visit?
(3) Fred Hiatt (head of the WaPo editorial board) has been wrong about every single thing about the war so far -- why would he be right about this? You might want to read some of his (provably false) columns trashing the Scooter Libby trial for a sense of his overall reliability.
(4) Read Juan Cole's take on this.
(1) How could Pelosi possibly make things worse given that things are as bad as they could possibly be?
If there was an opening for reconciliation between Israel and Syria (doubtful) and she miscommunicated a message, then she could make things worse by causing a missed opportunity. Plus, things aren't as bad as they could possibly be. There could be an open war between Israel and Syria now, for example.
(2) Take Olmert's criticism as you want: would Olmert have had Pelosi convey any kind of message if he objected to her visit?
I accept the notion that Olmert might have been strongarmed by the US to back off, and therefore changed his story. Or, perhaps, he changed his story in the face of internal political pressure, since he's got one foot in the political grave. In any case, as I said above, that's exactly why legislators can't be effective diplomatic negotiators unless they're prosecuting the agenda of the Executive branch. They don't have any clout on their own to tie down a deal. It's too easy for the principals in the deal to go back on their word when it suits them. On her own, Pelosi can send signals, foment goodwill, etc. She just can't broker peace accords without help from the State Dept.
(3) Fred Hiatt (head of the WaPo editorial board) has been wrong about every single thing about the war so far -- why would he be right about this? You might want to read some of his (provably false) columns trashing the Scooter Libby trial for a sense of his overall reliability.
I think that editorial is a little over the top, but Pelosi handed this minor point to her critics by overreaching.
Just to be clear: I've never disputed the major point, namely, that she has a right to go to the Mideast and to talk with the Syrians. She has the right to get photographed with Assad, talk to Israel, etc. What's not smart -- politically or diplomatically -- is for her to try to broker deals independent of the US Government. That's the overreach, and that's what I object to.
(4) Read Juan Cole's take on this.
I think he's right that the AIPAC lobby will be OK with Pelosi's trip, that sending signals to the Mideast that moderation could be on the way is probably a good thing, etc. Note that he doesn't address the point that VanWicklin and the WAPo make, which is that she muffed part of the mission.
There could be an open war between Israel and Syria now, for example.
And you really think Pelosi's visit could bring that about?
Do you seriously think there is any possible harm Pelosi's visit could have done? That's not to say her visit couldn't be a failure -- but the Bush administration's policy has been such a failure that it would be hard to make things worse.
Do you seriously think that Pelosi's visit could make thinks worse than they already are? It's hard for me to see how even a botched attempted go-between (and it's debatable that this was one) would be worse than no attempt at all.
On her own, Pelosi can send signals, foment goodwill, etc.
Agreed completely. That's all I'm trying to say. I think it's likely that, at worst, her trip accomplished nothing, and, at best, she sent signals and fomented good will. Signals and goowill, mind you, that are desperately needed in the absence of any input from the Bush administration.
One can debate whether her trip was a net wash or a net plus. I don't claim to know the answer. But to claim it harmed anything is, I think, ludicrous (I'm not saying tha you claimed this, only that the Post did).
And you really think Pelosi's visit could bring that about?
No - my point was that you seemed to base your argument on the claim that things are so bad in the Mideast that anything is better than nothing. I think things could get a lot worse, and some botched diplomacy could make it worse. That said, Pelosi's botch, if there was one, is probably more of an embarrassment than a danger to Mideast peace.
Anyway, I don't think our positions are that far apart.
Anyway, I don't think our positions are that far apart.
I agree -- I mistook your link to the WaPo editorial for an endorsement of the positions taken therein.