It simple. Pelosi has some standards. There are leaders of some countries that she thinks dialog is a good thing and some she doesn't.

I wonder if the Iranian parliment has a position open for a female speaker?

excellent point/post

So a Holocaust survivor is eager to fly to meet with a the rabid Holocaust denier, and someone who is ready to wipe all the Jews off the face of the earth?

SF Nancy must've passed around some powerful weed.

Peloci: "That's not worthy of the concerns of the American people"

I think she is miscalculating. I think a lot more Americans are concerned about winning than about the democrats scoring cheap political points. Sure, she and most democrats are primarily concerned with trying to make the Bush Presidency be percieved as a failure regardless of the consequences to the US and the world, but I don't think her actions will play well with those of us who want the US to win. And I think those of us who want the US to win far outnumber those who would prefer the democrats' plan of premature retreat and handing a victory to the terrorists.

Kim, what are they going to talk about? Bush has taken all options off the table, so what is the point?

I think that dialogue has to be a part of any solution in the Middle East. You can agree or disagree with Pelosi's methods, but to question her loyalties seems to me to go over the edge.

"Kim, what are they going to talk about? Bush has taken all options off the table, so what is the point?"

Posted by: BarneyG2000

Interesting question Barney. I wonder what she has to talk about with Ahmadinejad. How to wipe out all the Jews, perhaps? I do question her patriotism!

Pelosi has assented to Bush's Iran build-up in the Gulf and she's accompanied by the rabid zionist Lantos, both AIPAC-approved last month.

So expect some happy results from the Iranian talks. As the Indians on TV say: She brings strong medicine. She has the carrot(Bush policy opposition) and the stick (Lantos).

As for dissing Bush, she can meet with him any day. The war WILL be funded, but the lame duck appearance must be maintained for political reasons. If the surge goes south, the less Dem fingerprints, the better.

" Sure, she and most democrats are primarily concerned with trying to make the Bush Presidency be percieved as a failure.." PB

Well it looks like they succeeded. GOP is complete disarray and revolt. Just look at a few select quotes from a NY Times story:

"It's not that I have any particular problem with the people who are running for the Republican nomination. I just don't know how they can run hard enough or fast enough to escape the gravitational pull of the Bush administration."

"I would say a lot of people are not turned on because they don't see a lot of bright spots out there," Mr. Beltram said. "Home prices are going down. Gas prices are going up. And the war keeps dragging on."

"We don't do well until we have a common enemy," Mr. Dawson said. "Right now, our enemy is ourselves."

"It's a dying administration," Mr. Steele said. "There's a fatigue factor and there's a rubbing-off when it's not very smart to be closely associated with such low ratings."

"The war in Iraq and public opposition to it has put a pall on Republicans," said John C. Danforth, a former Republican senator from Missouri.

Holey Cow Barney! People making disparaging remarks about the Republican party actually got quoted in the New York Times!?!?!

SHOCKED! I tell ya, I'm totally shocked!

Nancy Pelosi, Queen of the Middle East. Wow.

What a party.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a deeply dangerous figure. It is not wise for the Speaker Of The House to open any dialogue at this time with Iran, because Ahmadinejad would only use the visit for propaganda purposes to strengthen his position in Iranian politics.

By contrast her visit which sought to ween Syria away from Iran, and promote as dialogue between Israel and Syria was well intentioned, although Israel decided to undermine her effort because they likely prefer their current relationship with Syria, and shy away from any talks that could force more land concessions. Israel is only 11 miles wide at it's most narrow point, and more land concessions only endanger their security.

Iran has made it abundantly clear that they are not interested in stopping enrichment. Is Speaker Pelosi going to talk them out of it?

She's not a diplomat, nor does she have the skills, knowledge or the intelligence to be one.

Once again, someone needs to look at the laws regarding this sort of freelance policy making.

This is all besides the point that our Justice League delegation already visited Iran.

Confederate Yankee brings up this interesting point:

Liberals are solidly behind the idea of boycotting a news network to avoid giving them legitimacy, but they are in favor of defying their own government's foreign policy to lend legitimacy to yet another terrorist state that has sponsored attacks on our allies and are actively engaged in trying to kill U.S. soldiers.

Kim Priestap lied when she wrote: "...she [Speaker Pelosi] refuses to sit down and talk to President Bush about funding for the Global War on Terror in Iraq and Afghanistan"

That's just another Republican lie. Pelosi is willing to sit down with Bush, and has stated that publicly, so long as he doesn't, in her words -- "insist[s] on preconditions in their negotiations over a spending bill to fund the war in Iraq.

If Bush insists on preconditions, he isn't negotiating. Is Georgie planning to sit Nancy down and lecture her sternly about her trip to the Middle East? You know -- put her in her place?

Tsk Tsk, Kim. Is an honest discussion of the issues, based on facts not lies, beyond your reach? Why do conservative bloggers lie like this...?

Maybe pelosi was screwing those ay-rab foreign leaders? Maybe pelosi will screw amadinijad? Then who is a "crappy-headed ho"?

So Lee, what you saying is that it's o.k. for Pelosi and Reid to come to a meeting with the President with their pro-surrender and pro-give the terrorists a victory preconditions, but it's wrong for the President to have pro-US succeeding preconditions.

The convincing threat of force greatly strengthens one's negotiating position. What the Democrats, and specifically Ms. Pelosi, have done is made the threat of force much less convincing. As a result, it makes the necessity to use actual force more likely.

Specifically, Iran is unlikely to stop its pursuit of nuclear weapons unless it believes that there's credible threat of repercussions against it. All that Ms. Pelosi has accomplished is to show that the U.S. is divided against itself; thereby removing credibility from any threat Iran may face. In turn, this makes it more likely that we'll wind up in a scenario in which we'll be forced to choose between military action against Iran or standing by while Iran becomes a nuclear power.

If she insists on going to Iran, let her. Just don't let her back in to the U.S. when she returns.

Lee:

That's just another Republican lie. Pelosi is willing to sit down with Bush, and has stated that publicly, so long as he doesn't, in her words -- "insist[s] on preconditions in their negotiations over a spending bill to fund the war in Iraq.

If Bush insists on preconditions, he isn't negotiating.

A precondition is something that must be agreed to before negotiations, it doesn't negate negotiations. The only reason Speaker Pelosi won't agree to it is that she's afraid of having partial ownership of the war. Bad news for her is that she cannot support the troops without taking partial ownership of the war.
But, she'd rather play politics than fund the troops.
That's all well and good. Speaker Pelosi can show her support for the American troops by meeting with Iran while Iranian supplied and funded roadside bombs are killing our men.

Is Georgie planning to sit Nancy down and lecture her sternly about her trip to the Middle East? You know -- put her in her place?

I think he should. He should be exploring if prosecution is a possible outcome of usurping power in the government.

Kim lied?..... LIED?.........Geeze.. what an interesting mind Lee has..since the entire MSM are saying the same thing!

You got that right _Mike_!

It's just like when Kerry was running in '04 and he said that he voted to treaten Iraq with the use of force, but not to actually use force.

The leaders of rogue nations and terrorist organization know that the democrats will only make empty threats.

Well, Lee's version of lying is rather broad.

Speaker Pelosi has said she won't sit with President Bush because she has to agree to preconditions to do so.

Kim said Speaker Pelosi won't sit with President Bush.

Kim is obviously lying.

According the LA Times poll (released yesterday) a majority of Americans are backing the Dems play:

Should the Dems cave to Bush's demand
Fund the war without conditions: 43%
Withhold funding until Bush signs: 45%

Should Bush veto the bill
No = 48%
Yes = 43%

BarneyG2000:
According the LA Times poll (released yesterday) a majority of Americans are backing the Dems play:

I understand that you're a Liberal so you're likely at least mathematically challenged if not generally mentally challenged.

45% is not a majority. 48% is not a majority.

50%+1 would be a majority.

No, according to the LA Times, a slight majority of people polled agree with the Democrats.

Barney:

Given that most polls have a +/- 3-4% margain for error, that means diddly.

Hey Barn....great bit of research. A lib qouting an LA Times poll!!!! Now that's unique! Kinda like picking up the phone and talking to yourself. Please keep up the good work.

I believe in the eyes of the average American Nancy is not really losing anything. I am not sure how many people on the street really could name the Speaker of the House let alone care that she is over there. After all, look how many other legislators have traveled overseas on "fact finding" missions. So, if nothing comes of it, big deal, nothing was expected. If something does, it makes Bush look bad no matter what she had to say in secret to get a bone thrown to her. Her worst nightmare would likely be actually having responsiblity for something of consequence and she is not willing to do that right now. I am sure at some point in the future she will voluntarily or involuntarily find that she must be a legislative leader and assume responsibility for SOMETHING in the role of her job description. Bush owes her nothing. This is all political. Just as the Sunni/Shia or the Fatah/Hamas clashes have provided a temporary respite from the focus on destroying Israel, it would be fun to sit back and see Nancy and Hillary duke it out for the title of "Most Powerful Woman in America" using these stupid political games they play.

I have been blogging that Mrs. Pelosi should be prosecuted under The Logan Act (and I have posted the full text of the Act). She is further in violation of the separation of powers which reserves the conducting of foreign policy to the EXECUTIVE.

She should be prosecuted, convicted, impeached and sent to prison. The order is irrelevant. Just so it's done.

My late father frequently said that "figures lie and liars figure" and in 65 years on this planet, I have never seen reason to dispute that phrase. Still don't. Especially when the poll is conducted by the L.A. Times, a known bastion of unreasoning BDS!

I guess you guys don't like the poll results? Mike, it is a majority of those that answered the question.

The findings are significant because a majority of Americans are either for:
-Defunding
or
-Setting a timeline

The last of the GOP talking points are going down in flames.

I guess you guys don't like the poll results?

What results.

The results are negligible. The most they do is show how sharply divided America is on the subject.

Now you're the one trying to spin it by claiming (in your own words) "a majority of Americans are backing the Dems play"

What a bunch of bull dung.

Wow! Again the liberal lefties hypocritical stance comes out. I do not know why I am surprised. I seem to remember GW asking the democratic leadership to come to the table to discuss revamping social security. Both these magnificent leaders said as long as partial privatization is on the table, we are not going to negotiate. A pre-condition? Yup.

There is ALWAYS a ground work before negotiations. Only mature business people understand that. It always comes down to the core of the lefties; they do not like the military. This is just a tool they are using to stop them. ww

I know Barn.....you "speak for all america"...lolol Isn't that Harry Reid's line?

What brave leaders we see on the Dem side. Won't meet with the President (please forget that THEY have their own preconditions like "surrender" as distated by Markos and the other moonbat kings), won't go on the evil Fox network, but willingly visit the leaders of terrorist-sponsoring states!

FDR, JFK, Scoop Jackson, Hubert Humphrey must be doing a 2 1/2 wit a twist in their graves.