Preconditions
The White House has spent the better part of two weeks condemning the trip to the Middle East taken by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and several other members of the House (including one Republican) because of her announced visit to Syria for talks with Bashir Assad. Casting the complaint in terms of Democrats undermining the White House, the President has cheerfully ignored the fact that a group of Republican members of Congress made such a trip earlier. So much for bipartisanship. The White House, at least on the surface, does have grounds to complain: that kind of diplomacy is supposed to be the province of the executive branch. Therein lies the problem.
No one denies that foreign policy is the job of the White House, but this White House refuses to talk to one of the key players in the current troubles in the Middle East (Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine). An editorial in today's NY Times excoriates the administration for its refusal to engage Syria diplomatically until certain "preconditions" are met.
...the Bush administration has far more appetite for scoring political points than figuring out whether talking to Syria might help contain the bloodletting in Iraq or revive efforts to negotiate peace.
So long as Mr. Bush continues to shun high-level discussions with this troublesome but strategically located neighbor of Israel, Lebanon and Iraq, such Congressional visits can serve the useful purpose of spurring a much needed examination of the administration’s failed policies.
Ms. Pelosi and the five Democrats and one Republican who accompanied her are scarcely the first to raise such questions during the three years that Mr. Bush has instructed his top envoys — and reportedly Israel as well — to avoid negotiations with Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad. Plenty of other Republicans and Democrats have been taking similar trips and offering similar advice. They were ignored, but spared the White House’s ridicule.
In the administration’s perverse view, the only legitimate time for negotiations would be after the most contentious and difficult issues — Syria’s support for Hamas and Hezbollah, its meddling in Lebanon and open border with Iraq — have already been resolved. Thus, what ought to be the main agenda points for diplomatic discussions have been turned into a set of preconditions designed to ensure that no discussions ever take place. As the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, Congressional representatives of both parties, this page, and many others have pointed out, Washington should be eager to raise just those issues, along with the possibility of a land-for-peace deal with Israel, directly with Syrian leaders. [Emphasis added]
Yes, Washington should be eager to raise those issues. Many in Washington are, just not those who live and work at one particular address. It's beginning to look like this administration doesn't want the war in Iraq to end, at least not by diplomacy. As a result, the this volatile region of the world is held hostage at an insane version of Lewis Carroll's tea party.
It's time to call for clean cups.
No one denies that foreign policy is the job of the White House, but this White House refuses to talk to one of the key players in the current troubles in the Middle East (Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine). An editorial in today's NY Times excoriates the administration for its refusal to engage Syria diplomatically until certain "preconditions" are met.
...the Bush administration has far more appetite for scoring political points than figuring out whether talking to Syria might help contain the bloodletting in Iraq or revive efforts to negotiate peace.
So long as Mr. Bush continues to shun high-level discussions with this troublesome but strategically located neighbor of Israel, Lebanon and Iraq, such Congressional visits can serve the useful purpose of spurring a much needed examination of the administration’s failed policies.
Ms. Pelosi and the five Democrats and one Republican who accompanied her are scarcely the first to raise such questions during the three years that Mr. Bush has instructed his top envoys — and reportedly Israel as well — to avoid negotiations with Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad. Plenty of other Republicans and Democrats have been taking similar trips and offering similar advice. They were ignored, but spared the White House’s ridicule.
In the administration’s perverse view, the only legitimate time for negotiations would be after the most contentious and difficult issues — Syria’s support for Hamas and Hezbollah, its meddling in Lebanon and open border with Iraq — have already been resolved. Thus, what ought to be the main agenda points for diplomatic discussions have been turned into a set of preconditions designed to ensure that no discussions ever take place. As the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, Congressional representatives of both parties, this page, and many others have pointed out, Washington should be eager to raise just those issues, along with the possibility of a land-for-peace deal with Israel, directly with Syrian leaders. [Emphasis added]
Yes, Washington should be eager to raise those issues. Many in Washington are, just not those who live and work at one particular address. It's beginning to look like this administration doesn't want the war in Iraq to end, at least not by diplomacy. As a result, the this volatile region of the world is held hostage at an insane version of Lewis Carroll's tea party.
It's time to call for clean cups.
posted by Diane at 4:23 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home