or
Join Now!
|
|
Home/Government/Politics
|
| Forum |
Ask A Question |
Question Board |
FAQs |
Search |
Return to Question Board
| Question Details |
Asked By |
Asked On |
| The Score |
Itsdb |
04/05/07 |
al-AP writes...
TEHRAN, Iran - President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad defused a growing confrontation with Britain, announcing the surprise release of 15 captive British sailors Wednesday and then gleefully accepting the crew's thanks and handshakes in what he called an Easter gift.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair expressed "profound relief" over the peaceful end to the 13-day crisis. "Throughout we have taken a measured approach - firm but calm, not negotiating, but not confronting either," Blair said in London, adding a message to the Iranian people that "we bear you no ill will."
The announcement in Tehran was a breakthrough in a crisis that had escalated over nearly two weeks, raising oil prices and fears of military conflict in the volatile region. The move to release the sailors suggested that Iran's hard-line leadership decided it had shown its strength but did not want to push the standoff too far.
Iran did not get the main thing it sought - a public apology for entering Iranian waters. Britain, which said its crew was in Iraqi waters when seized, insists it never offered a quid pro quo, either, instead relying on quiet diplomacy.
Syria, Iran's close ally, said it played a role in winning the release. "Syria exercised a sort of quiet diplomacy to solve this problem and encourage dialogue between the two parties," Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem said in Damascus.
The announcement of the release came hours after U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi met with President Bashar Assad in Damascus, trying to show that a U.S. dialogue with Syria - rejected by the Bush administration - could bring benefits for the Middle East. The British sailors were not part of their talks, and it was not clear if the release was timed to coincide with her visit.
Iran's official news agency said the British crew was to leave Iran by plane at 8 a.m. today. By Wednesday evening they had still not been handed over to the British Embassy in Tehran and the embassy said it was not clear where they would spend the night. Britain's ambassador met with the sailors and confirmed they were in good health, Britain's Foreign Office said.
Several British newspapers credited Blair's foreign policy adviser Nigel Sheinwald and Iranian chief negotiator Ali Larijani with laying the groundwork for an agreement during telephone contacts that began Tuesday night. Larijani had gone on British TV on Monday and signaled that Tehran was looking for a diplomatic solution.
British officials were told to pay close attention to Ahmadinejad's press conference but were unsure the release would come until they heard his words, The Independent newspaper said.
Ahmadinejad timed the announcement so as to make a dramatic splash, springing it halfway through a two-hour news conference.
The president first gave a medal of honor to the commander of the Iranian coast guards who captured the Britons, and admonished London for sending a mother, Leading Seaman Faye Turney, on such a dangerous mission in the Persian Gulf.
He said the British government was "not brave enough" to admit the crew had been in Iranian waters when it was captured.
Ahmadinejad then declared that even though Iran had the right to put the Britons on trial, he had "pardoned" them to mark the March 30 birthday of the Prophet Muhammad and the coming Easter holiday.
"This pardon is a gift to the British people," he said.
After the news conference, Iranian television showed a beaming Ahmadinejad on the steps of the presidential palace shaking hands with the Britons - some towering over him. The men were decked out in business suits and Turney wore an Islamic head scarf.
"Your people have been really kind to us, and we appreciate it very much," one of the British men told Ahmadinejad in English. Another male service member said: "We are grateful for your forgiveness."
Ahmadinejad responded in Farsi, "You are welcome."
The score? al-AP/Iran/Ahmedinejad/Syria/Islamofascism - at least 5
US & British Foreign policy/British Marines/women's rights/GWOT - 0
The Mahdi Hatter looks like a god for 'towering' British Marines (and one in a scarf) "thanking" him for his Easter gift. Syria gets a triple play for Pelosi's visit, her idiotic misrepresentation of Israel's message and perfect timing for 'facilitating' the release of the hostages. And they all get a boost from al-AP's glowing account of the whole affair. Can it get any more pathetic? |
Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 04/06/07 12:48 pm:
Syria gets a triple play for Pelosi's visit, her idiotic misrepresentation of Israel's message and perfect timing for 'facilitating' the release of the hostages.
Heck ,even the Washington Compost editorial staff figured that out .
HOUSE SPEAKER Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) offered an excellent demonstration yesterday of why members of Congress should not attempt to supplant the secretary of state when traveling abroad. After a meeting with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad in Damascus, Ms. Pelosi announced that she had delivered a message from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that "Israel was ready to engage in peace talks" with Syria. What's more, she added, Mr. Assad was ready to "resume the peace process" as well. Having announced this seeming diplomatic breakthrough, Ms. Pelosi suggested that her Kissingerian shuttle diplomacy was just getting started. "We expressed our interest in using our good offices in promoting peace between Israel and Syria," she said.
Only one problem: The Israeli prime minister entrusted Ms. Pelosi with no such message. "What was communicated to the U.S. House Speaker does not contain any change in the policies of Israel," said a statement quickly issued by the prime minister's office. In fact, Mr. Olmert told Ms. Pelosi that "a number of Senate and House members who recently visited Damascus received the impression that despite the declarations of Bashar Assad, there is no change in the position of his country regarding a possible peace process with Israel." In other words, Ms. Pelosi not only misrepresented Israel's position but was virtually alone in failing to discern that Mr. Assad's words were mere propaganda.
Ms. Pelosi was criticized by President Bush for visiting Damascus at a time when the administration -- rightly or wrongly -- has frozen high-level contacts with Syria. Mr. Bush said that thanks to the speaker's freelancing Mr. Assad was getting mixed messages from the United States. Ms. Pelosi responded by pointing out that Republican congressmen had visited Syria without drawing presidential censure. That's true enough -- but those other congressmen didn't try to introduce a new U.S. diplomatic initiative in the Middle East. "We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace," Ms. Pelosi grandly declared.
Never mind that that statement is ludicrous: As any diplomat with knowledge of the region could have told Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Assad is a corrupt thug whose overriding priority at the moment is not peace with Israel but heading off U.N. charges that he orchestrated the murder of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq al-Hariri. The really striking development here is the attempt by a Democratic congressional leader to substitute her own foreign policy for that of a sitting Republican president. Two weeks ago Ms. Pelosi rammed legislation through the House of Representatives that would strip Mr. Bush of his authority as commander in chief to manage troop movements in Iraq. Now she is attempting to introduce a new Middle East policy that directly conflicts with that of the president. We have found much to criticize in Mr. Bush's military strategy and regional diplomacy. But Ms. Pelosi's attempt to establish a shadow presidency is not only counterproductive, it is foolish.
Couldn't have said it better myself . She violated a long held understanding that the United States should speak with one official voice abroad .She threw tat thug Assad another lifeline even as the President attempts to marginalize him. But not to worry ;at least she has the support of Hamas,Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad .
Maybe Ms. Damascus Nan should read her pocket sized Constitution that Robert Byrd is fond of giving new members . She would learn the extent of Congressional authority regarding foreign policy .
Article 2, Section 8 clearly states that Congress shall have the power:
“…To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;…To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;…”
Article 3, Section 2 clearly states that by their “advice and consent” they authorize the President of the United States:
“…To make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law;…”
Missing from this list is the power to directly engage in foreign relations and to enter into official relations with foreign heads of state. This doesn't go just with Pelosi but with every other fool from both houses who go on these fact finding missions without marching orders from the White House.
Contrast her trip with the mission being undertaken by Democrat Presidential candidate Govenor Bill Richardson. He is on his way to North Korea with the White House approval carrying a unified message to the NORKS. Victor Cha, who specializes in Asian affairs on Bush's National Security Council will be with him. I have said it before . There are many areas of disagreement I have with Richardson ,but he and Joe Leiberman are the only Democrats I would consider casting a ballot for.
Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 04/07/07 1:41 pm:
Joe and Bill are good guys ... they seem to get it where so many dems do not. I can only interpret this congress' actions as engaging in a coup d'état, and I pray the American people are seeing that as well. Pelosi's trip was the last straw for me. Damascus Nan (I like that) said “On all the issues, it was a very direct message, very consistent with the Bush administration’s message.”
Really? I thought the president's message was to end all support for terrorists and open the door to freedom. Did she give that thug that message? Did she chastise Assad for using child soldiers, denying rights to Syrian born Kurds, oppression and detention of political dissenters, support for the 'insurgents' in Iraq, Hamas' efforts to overthrow Lebanon, or the 2nd class status of Syrian women? NO, she said Israel was ready to play nice.
That she would claim her message was that of the president's, when it clearly was not and without the administration's blessing - coupled with congress' foolhardy attempt to manage the war in Iraq - is nothing less than an attempt to establish themselves as the supreme authority of this country.
It's amazing how willing the left is to abandon their core principles - the same principles they so outrageously criticize Bush for not adhering to - to gain power. If I've said it once I've said a thousand times, it's all about power for them, they don't give a damn about anything else.
Steve
Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 04/07/07 6:20 pm:
consistent with the Bush Adm. message ? She's joking of course. She can't even claim to have followed the Iraq Surrender Group's blueprint. At least they laid out conditions that Syria would need to meet.
|
| |
|
Your Options |
Additional Options are only visible when you login! !
|
|
|
|
