that old guy has a nice mustachce

How is it a Senator's place to meet with foreign leaders? Isn't that only for the President, VP or SoS? Arent' there laws against this kind of thing?

Well, now we know who are some of those "foreign leaders" he kept talking about.

Zelda, are you joking?

Karol, I suppose you would prefer we just invade Syria? Seriously, Kerry is doing what the president should be doing. Sort of like when Clinton made a statement to the world about the tsunami because Bush chose to remain silent for days.

I know you will disagree with me, but I am grateful to see that someone is trying to make diplomatic inroads into Syria. If ultimately we are forced to take military action there, or in Iran, we may be put in the position of fighting a two-front war (unless the Peace Fairy smacks Iraq with her magic wand) -- something we can ill afford to do effectively, and which history teaches is a fatal mistake.

Rick--

Bush is..oh....wait...what's he doing....oh...yeah...managing the free world. He wasn't sitting in his ranch in Crawford playing checkers for four days. He was managing a crisis. He was appopriating aid. He was sending ships. And planes. And helicopters. And relief workers. I am not slamming Bill Clinton, because I respect him a lot for his humanitarian work, and a crisis like this is exactly where his leadership shines. But frankly, "making a statement" is about the least important activity I could think of in the middle of a humanitarian crisis.

A few weeks after a visit from Richard Armitage, Deputy Secretary of State, and one month after U.N. resolutions against Syria, John Kerry visits to improve relationships? Coincidentally this is only weeks after the worst human disaster in modern history. Syria is undoubtedly more pressing than tens of millions homeless in Indonesia.

John Kerry is advocating the “we” improve relationships with the last remaining Baathist government where reminisce of Saddam’s government is waging war against the United States in Iraq. I assume he needs 16 more U.N. resolutions before he decides Syria should improve "their" relationship instead of "we" improving ours?

One of the main topics discussed by John Kerry, was weapons of mass destruction. I thought they didn't exist and he flew to Syria to discuss them?

I talk extensively about this at my blog: http://runningmate.blogspot.com/

Dorian, my understanding is that Bush did not start doing those things for days. More to the point, Bush was not personally appropriating aid or sending ships, planes, helicopters and relief workers. Indeed, no funds needed to be appropriated until after Bush increased the commitment to beyond what was already available to him.

In my view, Bush's job was to make sure that the victims had as much aid as quickly as possible. That was not done: too little was pledged in the first and most critical days, not only increasing the potential scope of the devastation but creating a public-relations fiasco; nor did Bush act consistent with what would be expected of the leader of a country that is itself a leader of countries: he did not stand up and LEAD. He laid low, as he did after 9/11.

But to get back to the real subject at hand, tell me: what is Bush doing about Syria and Iran?

Rick, once upon a time it was the Liberal line that you do not treat with fascists. When did that change?

Running for election.

Why else would he be in Syria?
Auto-legitimization?
Waking from a bad dream?
What. . . ?

I wonder if Lebanon came up in the discussions (Lebanon being a Syrian protectorate and all).

Rick--

In the tsunami crisis, we have contributed more aid (by far) than any other country...Our government contributed a gigantic monetary relief package, our citizens have contributed more than most other national governments, we are contributing food, clothing, relief workers, boats, planes and ships. By far, it is the most comprehensive contribution of any country on the planet and it's uninformed to say otherwise.

Dorian: I didn't.

Rick:

If you agree that we have produced the most comprehensive tsunami aid package on the planet...what are you complaining about?

I wish I could read the local paper (The Syrian Sentinel - watching you reading us) and see if their version of msm says Kerry's visit is as funny as ours. "ooo," says Habib, "I loved you in the 2004 election... can I have an autograph?"

Kerry walked away feeling the relationship could be improved. Non-statement. Even great relationships can be improved. This relationship is in the bowl, circling for position. Of course it can be improved. Stop funding terrorists, and keep John Kerry. Win win for everyone.

The gentleman DOES have a nice moustache.

Rick,

U.S. aid isn’t slow just because the left says it is. Then compared to what? There have been at least five or six world disasters that have killed over 30,000 in the past two decades and left over half a million homeless each time.

The U.S. has almost always put up 0-25 Million immediate, with and adjustment to 100-350 Million within a week after on-ground assessments and then another revision of 500M-1B after a year for infrastructure rebuilding. Find a speech Clinton gave on a world disaster of this scale that was within three days or where his initial response was over 15-25 Million the first few days. You wont. So what is different this time? Only your politics.

20 Navy ships and an Aircraft Carrier, halfway around the world, mobilize while the country is at war within hours of the tragedy and this is not a response? In three days, there mysteriously appears a coalition of countries. And the cost of operating the Navy in Indonesia has already made this the most expensive response in history. It took a week before the U.N. and DART even made it to Indonesia.

Shouldn't America be trying to improve relations with Syria or don't you need more allies in the Middle East? I believe the UK get on fine with Syria. Tony Blair was there in 2001 and the Syrian leader had a state visit to the UK the following year.

No, Syria should be trying to improve relations with us. Maybe they can send over a hasbeen of their own.

Syria is backing, training, and supporting the insurgency in Iraq against American soilders and Iraq citizens lead by reminence of Saddams goverment, and "we" need to improve relations.

Less than 5 months ago, "the U.N. Security Council passed a resolution calling on Syria to withdraw its troops from Lebanon and dismantle the Syrian-backed Lebanese Hezbollah guerrilla group.” - AP

In 2001, Syria wasn't harboring Saddam's goverment and sending insurgency to kill British soilders. After the U.N. passed resolutions against Syria's terrorist actions you are suggesting we tell them, never mind. We will be nicer. Keep shooting at us.

This just shows that Kerry is in never-never land. His actions in Syria are even opposite of U.N. sanctions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45326-2004Dec7.html

Dorian and Discovery: My beef is not with the aid effort, but with Bush's lack of leadership. As the leader of the wealthiest, most powerful country in the world (except for Saudi Arabia), I expect the President of the United States to stand up and take a position of leadership in times of global crisis. Particularly for a president who seems to pride himself on bold leadership and whose flaks constantly deride the UN, it is pathetic that he did not immediately make a brief statement calling for a quick and generous global response to the greatest natural disaster of our times.

And Discovery, I don't know where you get your numbers from, but if the US usually gives 0-25 million immediately, why did we give so little this time when the magnitude of this disaster was on a scale far exceeding any other?

Karol,

We should be doing everything possible to avoid military conflict with Syria or Iran. Remember "bring it on"? We're not prepared.

Rick, which is it? Do you want a cowboy who doesn't think before he acts or not? And, is there ever a situation that Bush can handle to your satisfaction or is that (R) next to his name always going to cloud your judgement?

Rick,

What wasn't paid for immediately? What could have been purchased quicker or sent quicker?

One week into the disaster, the media was still reporting 30,000 people dead. Two weeks later it is 150,000 people dead and still climbing. President Bush was supposed to know miraculously within 24 hours, spread over 6 countries, that the magnitude was over 150,000 people, what relief effort was required or what ultimate dollar figure was appropriate? While you wanted a speech, Bush was mobilizing operations, assembling a coalition and coordinating budget teams to move billions of dollars for relief. A speech hours later saying sorry for 10,000 dead, here is some money, looks pretty silly when three weeks later the figure is pushing 200,000 dead and 5 million homeless.

More supplies, ships, people and teams were mobilized quicker than any other disaster in history. A coalition of nations this large has never been put together. And two weeks later, the U.N. or DART doesn’t have anything on the ground. You should be asking why the U.N. is demanding money when they showed up two weeks late and haven't left the hotel room.

Discovery: check your facts. Bush did not speak publicly on the tsunami for three DAYS.

But I never said we are not providing enough aid. My criticism was of Bush's handling of the POLITICAL situation. For a man who has run some of the most aggressive, media-savvy campaigns ever, he really blundered what could have been an easy opportunity to increase the US's global esteem.

He should have come out immediately, expressed sympathy, assured that he would act swiftly to ensure that the U.S. provided all the aid it was capable of providing, and called on other nations to do the same. Instead, he said nothing and the adminsitration pledged a paltry $15 million, giving his critics the opportunity to say he was a stingy skulker.

Bush likes to talk about "political capital" in the national arena, but he seems to blow an awful lot of opportunities to earn it in the global market.

I have many criticisms of Bush, and while none of them has to do with the (R) in front of his name, many of them have to do with what I perceive as his inability to manage foreign policy.

I find it interesting, however, that in a post about Syria, you all keep trying to blast me for criticizing the tsunami aid effort (again, I criticized only Bush's handling of the "PR" element of it).

Syria poses a more serious threat to the US than Iraq did pre-invasion, and the immediacy of the threat (at least to our servicemen and women) has increased as a result of the invasion. Neither ignoring the problem nor resorting again to military action are, in my opinion, suitable responses.

I don't want a cowboy who doesn't think before he acts. I want a leader who thinks before he acts, and one who can do so in less than three days.

I appreciate the discussion Rick.

Syria is currently killing American soldiers in Iraq and funding Hezbollah. And to deal with this you suggest the U.N. and U.S. be nicer? The Deputy Secretary of State was just there. I wouldn’t call that ignoring. Kerry’s solution: we improve relations while they are shooting at us and funding terrorism? Bet that scared them. In October, 2004 Kerry said he would be tougher on Syria. Is this his definition of tough?

On your P.R. - Response saves lives. P.R. does not save lives. Who benefits from relief? The millions of survivors. How are they, the most important people, going to hear a beautiful speech when they’re homeless! What better P.R. then to show up with food, water, rebuild a home and national economy over the next decade while wearing an American Flag?

50,000 people died in an earthquake in Iran last year. 33,000 died in Turkey and 30,000 died in Venezuela in earthquakes during Clinton. No immediate financial aid, within the first few weeks, was over 15-25 Million. Why not more? Where are you going to spend it and what do you need? Don’t know until after the ground assessments. That is why it is standard response. Clinton didn’t even send one cent to Turkey during the first week. All stores, plants and factories were leveled. First response is rescue operations, water purification, shelter, mobile hospitals and food. Therefore we initially spend supplies, resources and manpower. Your attack has no precedent.

The real measure is what else could have been bought in the first week to save more lives? And I did say three days, you misread.

Why does every criticism of Bush have to be responded to with "Well, Clinton was no better"? I didn't mention Clinton at all, and I am not criticizing the extent of America's aid. I stand by my criticism of Bush handling of the political aspect of this. He could have made a statement -- from Crawford, even -- without it cutting into his busy schedule of flying planes over to Indonesia or whatever it is you think he was doing.

But this was about Syria. Karol, who accuses me of criticizing Bush because he is a republican, is perfectly content to broadcast the meme that John Kerry is foolish and/or in bed with terrorists for visiting Syria. Something you just acknowledged the Deputy Secretary of State just did. Arlen Specter was recently there, too.

I believe that communication is the key to "normalizing" relations with Syria and Iran. I believe a greater reliance on diplomacy would have avoided the majority of the problems we faced and are facing in Iraq, and I would hate to see the same thing happen again, because we don't have enough military resources (i.e., human bodies) to bring order to Iraq right now, much less to engage with a country that actually has WMDs.

A person/country can be tough without resorting to violence. In fact, in my experience it is the weak who are quickest to resort to violence, especially preemptive violence.

Here's a news story that talks about this:

http://www.capitalnews9.com/content/headlines/?ArID=112501&SecID=33