About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

AP's Loven asked Bush at presser if Pelosi's Syria trip was "pre-empting" diplomacy -- no mention of GOP visit

April 03, 2007 3:02 pm ET
image

12 Comments

During his April 3 press conference, President Bush called first on Associated Press staff writer Jennifer Loven, who asked if Bush was "worried" that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-CA) scheduled trip to Syria "might be pre-empting your own efforts" to establish a dialogue with Syria. Sixteen minutes after Bush finished answering Loven's question, she posted a report noting that Bush "voiced displeasure" with Pelosi's trip, "saying it sends mixed signals to the government of President Bashar Assad." Although in the article she quoted Bush saying that "a lot of people have gone to see President Assad ... and yet we haven't seen action," in neither the question nor the article did Loven note that a Republican-led congressional delegation met with Assad on April 1.

Loven omitted any specific reference to the Republican-led trip, even though in answering her question, Bush himself mentioned -- apparently for the first time publicly since the White House began criticizing the Pelosi trip -- that Republicans have gone to Syria as well. Bush said that he has "made it clear to high-ranking officials, whether they be Republicans or Democrats, that going to Syria sends mixed signals -- signals in the region and, of course, mixed signals to President Assad."

As Media Matters for America has noted (here, here, and here), several media figures have reported White House criticism of Pelosi without also noting the inconsistency in the administration's silence on the GOP-led delegation. The selective criticism by some in the media of Pelosi's planned visit to Syria mirrors conservatives' attacks on Democrats who traveled to Damascus in December 2006. As Media Matters noted, numerous conservative media figures assailed Democratic Sens. Bill Nelson (FL), John Kerry (MA), and Christopher Dodd (CT) for meeting with Assad but ignored Sen. Arlen Specter's (R-PA) meeting with the Syrian president later that month.

From the April 3 press conference:

LOVEN: You've agreed to talk to Syria in the context of the International Conferences on Iraq. What's so different or wrong about Speaker Pelosi having her own meetings there, and are you worried that she might be pre-empting your own efforts?

BUSH: We have made it clear to high-ranking officials, whether they be Republicans or Democrats, that going to Syria sends mixed signals -- signals in the region and, of course, mixed signals to President Assad. And by that I mean, you know, photo opportunities and/or meetings with President Assad lead the Assad government to believe they're part of the mainstream of the international community, when, in fact, they're a state sponsor of terror; when, in fact, they're helping expedite, or at least not stopping the movement of foreign fighters from Syria into Iraq; when, in fact, they have done little to nothing to rein in militant Hamas and Hezbollah; and when, in fact, they destabilized the Lebanese democracy.

There have been a lot of people who have gone to see President Assad -- some Americans, but a lot of European leaders, high-ranking officials -- and yet we haven't seen action. In other words, he hasn't responded. It's one thing to send a message. It's another thing to have the person receiving the message actually do something. So the position of this administratiion is that the best way to meet with a leader like Assad, or people from Syria is in the larger context of trying to get the global community to help change his behavior. But sending delegations hasn't worked; it's simply been counterproductive.

From Loven's AP report:

President Bush voiced displeasure on Tuesday with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's trip to Syria, saying it sends mixed signals to the government of President Bashar Assad.

"A lot of people have gone to see President Assad ... and yet we haven't seen action. He hasn't responded," Bush told reporters at a Rose Garden news conference.

He said Assad had not reined in violent elements of militant groups Hamas and Hezbollah as requested by the international community and had acted to destabilize the democratically elected government of Lebanon.

"Sending delegations doesn't work. It's simply been counterproductive," Bush said.

He also expressed frustration with the congressional debate on Iraq war spending and accused majority-party Democrats of being "more interested in fighting political battles in Washington than providing our troops what they need."

Bush renewed his veto threats on both a House and Senate spending bills. He noted that it had been 57 days since he requested more than $100 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by pete bogs (April 03, 2007 3:14 pm ET)
         

      on the contrary - Pelosi's trip is an example of diplomacy... one Bush could stand to learn from...

      Report Abuse
      • Author by dorsai (April 03, 2007 4:30 pm ET)
           

        I do not understand the GOP in title.

        Do they mean the three GOP people who went with Pelosi, because there was no other deligation than Pelosi's?

        Report Abuse
      • Author by redking75687 (April 04, 2007 1:53 am ET)
           

        No, it's an example of US politicians delivering threats from the Israeli government.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (April 03, 2007 3:16 pm ET)
         

      Too bad the GOP can't spend as much energy being competent as they do lying.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by Harlequin (April 03, 2007 3:51 pm ET)
         

      As a nation Syria knows the difference between a House Speaker and a President. But it wouldn't hurt to have a visit by the House Speaker because our system is built on check and balances. This is how diplomacy works.

      If a country can speak to a House Speaker that has powers to check the other branch then it can be a diplomatic advantage to have the House Speaker come to the country.

      It is also to the House Speaker's advantage to communicate with other countries because it will give the House Speaker credentials when it comes to the exercise of check and balances back home in our country.

      Bush doesn't understand diplomacy and how it works.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by anotheramerican (April 03, 2007 4:51 pm ET)
         

      Harlequin,

      I disagree. While the members of the legislature are entitled to go on fact finding missions, (which I think are really mostly junkets,) it is the administration that conducts diplomacy not the legislature.  I would think you would know that. 

      MMFA is curiously silent about Congressman Tom Lantos, who is a member of the Pelosi junket, who said, "We have an alternative foreign policy." 

      Can you take a guess at which foreign policy Lantros and Pelosi will discuss with Assad?  Can you not see that these Congressional members are going to try to see what Assad will think of their foreign policy?

      Pelos, by virtue of her position as Speaker of the House, sends messages every time she spouts off.  However it is not her job to go and meet with our enemies.  By meeting with Assad, she and her party have proven again that political differences no longer stop at the water's edge. 

      The legislature is trying to usurp the power of the presidency and his constitutional right to direct foreign policy with this stunt and the micromanaging of the war. 

       

       

       

       

      Report Abuse
      • Author by spintronic (April 03, 2007 4:58 pm ET)
           

        Oh, the war he LIED us into?  His dreadful foreign policy that has created more enemies and bad will towards the US.  Someone needs to do something to assure the rest of the world we aren't out to get them.  I applaud Speaker Pelosi for her efforts - I take it you had no heartburn with the GOP delegation that preceded hers then? (if you didn't then that just goes to show that your comment is nothing more than partisan whining)

        Report Abuse
      • Author by solon (April 03, 2007 5:04 pm ET)
           

        What makes Syria our enemy? We have disagreements with them as we do with Saudi Arabia, but they have cooperated with us in the war on terror if NOT in the invasion of Iraq, our own state dept says they havent been involved in direct terrorism since 86 and dont allow Syrian groups to target Westerners. Our disagreements dont define them as enemies and as long as they dont we can influence their behavior. They arent good guys that is for sure but they arent Afghanistan either. There is little Syria does that Saudi Arabia hasnt in the past, and they arent as fundamentalist Islamic in their governance. I can join you in a whole lot of condemnation of Syrian actions but that doesnt define them as our enemy. If it did there is no reason Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and The UAE wouldnt be so defined also with Jordan on the fence.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by redking75687 (April 04, 2007 1:59 am ET)
             

          Syria is our "enemy" because Israel and AIPAC have bought out our government. We must hate Syria because Israel commands it. Pelosi will journey there with Lantos, one of the most zionist of Dem Congressmen, to demand Syria stop helping Hezbollah defend Lebanon from Israel or supporting Palestinian anti-occupation factions. This entire trip is another example of Isreali domination of US politics and regional foreign policy and Democrat complicity with Israeli war crimes.

           

          Report Abuse
    • Author by spintronic (April 03, 2007 4:53 pm ET)
         

      I'd just like to know WHAT efforts the Bush White House have made with regards to diplomacy with Syria?

      Anyone?  Anyone?

      Wasn't that one of the ISG recommendations? Ones he ignored?

      That question almost sounds like it was a "setup" (ala Jeff Gannon) 

      Report Abuse
    • Author by Harlequin (April 03, 2007 5:40 pm ET)
         

      The legislature is trying to usurp the power of the presidency and his constitutional right to direct foreign policy with this stunt and the micromanaging of the war. - anotheramerican / Tuesday April 3, 2007 04:51:04 PM EST

      anotheramerican,

      Have you ever read the Constitution?

      Anytime a President wants to get into a treaty he must have the advise and consent of the Senate to do so.

      Congress has to power to provide funding; this power of Congress is not micromanaging the war as you claim. This power of the purse is the power of Congress.

      As for your usage of the term war it would do you good to read where it states clearly in the Constitution that only Congress can declare war. This has never been done.

      Do not let Bush or the media con you because Bush is trying to claim dictatorship and truth be told our country isn't based on the dictatorship model; it is based on the check and balance model and it is this model of check and balance Bush is trying to defy. 

      Report Abuse
    • Author by pete bogs (April 04, 2007 12:14 pm ET)
         

      "it is the administration that conducts diplomacy not the legislature"

       apparently not in this administration... leaving lawmakers to do Bush's job for him...

      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.

  • Associated Press
    Associated Press

    The Associated Press
    450 W. 33rd St.
    New York, NY 10001

    Main Number
    +1-212-621-1500

Most Popular Tags

Feed IconRSS Feeds

Get personalized rss or email alerts

Connect & Share

Facebook Twitter Digg YouTube MySpace