Pelosi's Illegal Diplomacy

[Vegas]

http://users2.wsj.com/lmda/do/checkLogin?mg=evo-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB1175 82330980561775.html%3Fmod%3Dopinion_main_commentar ies

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may well have committed a felony in traveling to Damascus this week, against the wishes of the president, to communicate on foreign-policy issues with Syrian President Bashar Assad. The administration isn't going to want to touch this political hot potato, nor should it become a partisan issue. Maybe special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, whose aggressive prosecution of Lewis Libby establishes his independence from White House influence, should be called back.

The "Logan Act" makes it a felony and provides for a prison sentence of up to three years for any American, "without authority of the United States," ...

[Vegas]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20070406/cm_usatoday/pelosistepsoutofbounds

Democrats in Congress have been busy flexing their foreign policy muscles almost from the moment they took power in January, for the most part responsibly. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record) crossed a line this week by visiting
Syria, where she met with President Bashar Assad. She violated a long-held understanding that the United States should speak with one official voice abroad - even if the country is deeply divided on foreign policy back home.
Like it or not (and we do not),
President Bush's policy has been to refuse to negotiate with Syria until it changes its behavior. That behavior is malignant. Syria has long meddled destructively in neighboring Lebanon and is widely seen as the bloody hand behind the 2005 assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri. Syria has aligned itself with
Iran and supports the violently anti-
Israel groups Hezbollah and Hamas. It foments violence in
Iraq by allowing suicide bombers and jihadists to cross the Syria-Iraq border.

Pelosi surely knew that as speaker - third in the succession line to the presidency - her high-profile presence in Damascus would be read as a contradiction of Bush's no-talkpolicy. No matter that she claimed to have stuck closely to administration positions in her conversations with Assad, smiling photos of Pelosi and the Syrian president convey the unspoken message that while the U.S. president is unwilling to talk with Syria, another wing of the government is. Assad made good use of the moment.

Also along was House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Tom Lantos (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., who said the meeting was "only the beginning of our constructive dialogue with Syria, and we hope to build on this visit." That suggested Democrats are going beyond unobjectionable fact-finding and getting-to-know-you conversation into something closer to negotiations, undermining U.S. diplomacy.

If there's any justification for Pelosi's trip, it is that foreign travel by members of Congress is important. Many come to office with little knowledge of the world and soon need to make important decisions about it. This was starkly evident in December when the congressman Pelosi chose to head the critical House Intelligence Committee revealed that he didn't know the difference between Sunnis and Shiites - knowledge critical to understanding Iraq and the war on terrorism.

The speaker presumably is better informed. Pelosi said she made the trip because the bipartisan Iraq Study Group urged greater engagement with Syria. That argument is strengthened by the fact that Assad also got visits this week from several House Republicans, who defied White House requests they not go. "I don't care what the administration says on this," said Rep. Frank Wolf (news, bio, voting record), R-Va. "I want us to be successful in Iraq. I want us to clamp down on Hezbollah."

But Wolf can travel to Syria virtually undetected. Pelosi has an international profile. That guarantees her heavy media coverage but multiplies the price of a misstep, which she quickly made when she created confusion about how eager Israel is to resume peace talks with Syria. Israel immediately clarified her remarks.

Pelosi's office defended her trip by noting that the "administration's cold-shoulder approach has yielded nothing but more Syrian intransigence." As true as that is, the place for Pelosi to make the case is not in Damascus. It's not up to the speaker to unfreeze relations with Assad.

[ryr8828]

Free pass. No treason for Kerry when he was younger spouting off in France, no treason for Ted Kennedy when he was passing stuff to the Russians, no indictment of Leahy for constantly leaking info, and general worldwide applause for Carter when he goes around making his anti-Israel and anti-US statements around the world. Steal documents and hide them in your pants? No big deal.

I'll tell you what you don't want to do. Don't forget a short convo with someone, or the date it happened. Even if it was a few years ago. Even if it isn't the focus of the investigation. That my friend can land your ass in prison.

[Vegas]

Free pass. No treason for Kerry when he was younger spouting off in France, no treason for Ted Kennedy when he was passing stuff to the Russians, no indictment of Leahy for constantly leaking info, and general worldwide applause for Carter when he goes around making his anti-Israel and anti-US statements around the world. Steal documents and hide them in your pants? No big deal.

I'll tell you what you don't want to do. Don't forget a short convo with someone, or the date it happened. Even if it was a few years ago. Even if it isn't the focus of the investigation. That my friend can land your ass in prison.

Only if you're a Republican.

[George Washington]

Memories are short and facts can be cherry-picked as this thread so clearly reveals.

[BoredWithNoSB]

That argument is strengthened by the fact that Assad also got visits this week from several House Republicans, who defied White House requests they not go. "I don't care what the administration says on this," said Rep. Frank Wolf (news, bio, voting record), R-Va. "I want us to be successful in Iraq. I want us to clamp down on Hezbollah."


Why doesn't it throw the treason term around for this guy too? Heck, Carter spends time in Palestine. Enemy Combatant his ass. :rolleyes:

Seriously, what Pelosi did was not good, and I would be complaining about it if the tables were reversed, but the way this is presented is just being obnoxious for the sake of being obnoxious.

[George Washington]

Now here is some real selective memory, cherrypicking of facts, and even creating your own facts out of whole cloth:


"Free pass. No treason for Kerry when he was younger spouting off in France, no treason for Ted Kennedy when he was passing stuff to the Russians, no indictment of Leahy for constantly leaking info, and general worldwide applause for Carter when he goes around making his anti-Israel and anti-US statements around the world."

The same charges could be made about numerous worthy Republicans (i.e. Ronald Reagan and his representatives with Iran in October 1980) ad nauseum.

[ryr8828]

Now here is some real selective memory, cherrypicking of facts, and even creating your own facts out of whole cloth:


"Free pass. No treason for Kerry when he was younger spouting off in France, no treason for Ted Kennedy when he was passing stuff to the Russians, no indictment of Leahy for constantly leaking info, and general worldwide applause for Carter when he goes around making his anti-Israel and anti-US statements around the world."

The same charges could be made about numerous worthy Republicans (i.e. Ronald Reagan and his representatives with Iran in October 1980) ad nauseum.

Reagan had been elected President. If he hadn't, the hostages would have died of old age in Iran. I'm guessing that Reagan and his reps talked with Carter about their moves. If you have proof otherwise I'm willing to read it and respond.

The hostages were released either the day before inauguration, or the day of inauguration, I don't remember. I believe the reason is because Reagan wasn't planning on screwing around about it.

Strength is the only thing these people understand.

[LSU]

Strength is the only thing these people understand.



I don't disagree with that...but power can be wielded with words as well as weapons. And if the talking doesn't work, the weapons may. I don't think the reverse of that is true in most cases.


In the end, that region is FUBAR. And the less we rely on them, the better, IMO.

[Vegas]

I don't disagree with that...but power can be wielded with words as well as weapons. And if the talking doesn't work, the weapons may. I don't think the reverse of that is true in most cases.


In the end, that region is FUBAR. And the less we rely on them, the better, IMO.

So how do you feel about domestic oil drilling and nuclear power?

[LSU]

So how do you feel about domestic oil drilling and nuclear power?



Not keen on the oil drilling, but I'm open to nuclear power...with the proper safeguards, of course.


Really, by the "proper safeguards" I mean clear out Kansas of everyone and put them elsewhere, then put as many reactors as you can fit in central KS. It's relatively central to the US, so it will fill the needs of many states, and if it melts down, there's really no one there...and if there are people there...their Kansans.

[Vegas]

Not keen on the oil drilling, but I'm open to nuclear power...with the proper safeguards, of course.


Really, by the "proper safeguards" I mean clear out Kansas of everyone and put them elsewhere, then put as many reactors as you can fit in central KS. It's relatively central to the US, so it will fill the needs of many states, and if it melts down, there's really no one there...and if there are people there...their Kansans.

If you don't want to drill for domestic oil, we're stuck with buying it from the middle east.

[ryr8828]

Not keen on the oil drilling, but I'm open to nuclear power...with the proper safeguards, of course.


Really, by the "proper safeguards" I mean clear out Kansas of everyone and put them elsewhere, then put as many reactors as you can fit in central KS. It's relatively central to the US, so it will fill the needs of many states, and if it melts down, there's really no one there...and if there are people there...their Kansans.

East coast/West coast. No need to move anyone.

That's where the cities are. Your last point is still valid.

[LSU]

If you don't want to drill for domestic oil, we're stuck with buying it from the middle east.



Assuming alternative energy sources aren't developed.


I'm under no illusions that we can halt our dependency on oil tomorrow. We have to be weaned away from it. The sooner some serious effort is put into alternatives, the better, IMO.

It may take 20 years...maybe 50...

Just think if seriousness would've been applied 20 years ago or 50 years ago...we may be free.

I don't want to be saying that exact thing 20-50 years from now.

[ryr8828]

If you don't want to drill for domestic oil, we're stuck with buying it from the middle east.

We should save it and not use it. Save it for the future, but then don't use it in the future.
It must have some other use.

[LSU]

East coast/West coast. No need to move anyone.

That's where the cities are. Your last point is still valid.



I'll counter your east/west coast and raise you Great Lakes region and MS river cities.


3 areas...encompassing all major cities...well, most of them at least.

[ryr8828]

I'll counter your east/west coast and raise you Great Lakes region and MS river cities.


3 areas...encompassing all major cities...well, most of them at least.

Only if Chicago is in your proposal, and I'm sure it is.

[LSU]

Only if Chicago is in your proposal, and I'm sure it is.



It's on Lake Mich...

[LSU]

It's on Lake Mich...



In this instance, we can clear out...say...Wyoming. Put the reactors between some big mountains...if there's a meltdown, the wild game are affected, leading to mutations for bigger and better elk and mule deer. It'll be a hunter's wet dream.

2nd choice, AZ. The people are old there, anyway. A little radioactive mutation won't hurt them...at least, not in breeding terms.


Central Region...Kansas in a landslide.



Eastern Region...hmmm gotta think about that...gotta go with South Carolina. I've heard they have the largest list of registered hate groups. Sounds like a good place for a meltdown.


Problem solved.

[BoredWithNoSB]

In this instance, we can clear out...say...Wyoming. Put the reactors between some big mountains...if there's a meltdown, the wild game are affected, leading to mutations for bigger and better elk and mule deer. It'll be a hunter's wet dream.
2nd choice, AZ. The people are old there, anyway. A little radioactive mutation won't hurt them...at least, not in breeding terms.
Central Region...Kansas in a landslide.
Eastern Region...hmmm gotta think about that...gotta go with South Carolina. I've heard they have the largest list of registered hate groups. Sounds like a good place for a meltdown.
Problem solved.

Bill Richardson and Spence Abraham couldn't have devised any better plan than this. I'm sold. Excpet, you'd have to make sure the AZ location was in NE AZ. Phoenix is nice.

[Vegas]

In this instance, we can clear out...say...Wyoming. Put the reactors between some big mountains...if there's a meltdown, the wild game are affected, leading to mutations for bigger and better elk and mule deer. It'll be a hunter's wet dream.

2nd choice, AZ. The people are old there, anyway. A little radioactive mutation won't hurt them...at least, not in breeding terms.


Central Region...Kansas in a landslide.



Eastern Region...hmmm gotta think about that...gotta go with South Carolina. I've heard they have the largest list of registered hate groups. Sounds like a good place for a meltdown.


Problem solved.

So where does the nuclear waste go? Senator Reid has pretty much killed the Yucca Mt. thing. I'm all for that project, myself.

[George Washington]

"Reagan had been elected President."

Not in October 0f 1980, unless you are attempting to claim that the election had been fixed by that time.

"I'm guessing that Reagan and his reps talked with Carter about their moves."

Another example of the wish being the father of the thought. The fact that the political contacts with Iran started in October 1980, a month before the elections, is why the term "October Surprise" has become a staple in American politics. Since you are doing a lot of "guessing" here, I'm also making an educated guess that your knowledge of U. S. political history of the latter 20th century is of recent origin and solely from textbooks or Republican Party literature.


If you have proof otherwise I'm willing to read it and respond.[/QUOTE]

[LSU]

So where does the nuclear waste go? Senator Reid has pretty much killed the Yucca Mt. thing. I'm all for that project, myself.


We have a vast wasteland in Iraq right now...a little more waste wouldn't hurt...those people are already screwed.

Or sell it to Iran. Fuckers will melt their eyes out before they figure out it's not what they're looking for.

[ryr8828]

"Reagan had been elected President."

Not in October 0f 1980, unless you are attempting to claim that the election had been fixed by that time.

"I'm guessing that Reagan and his reps talked with Carter about their moves."

Another example of the wish being the father of the thought. The fact that the political contacts with Iran started in October 1980, a month before the elections, is why the term "October Surprise" has become a staple in American politics. Since you are doing a lot of "guessing" here, I'm also making an educated guess that your knowledge of U. S. political history of the latter 20th century is of recent origin and solely from textbooks or Republican Party literature.


If you have proof otherwise I'm willing to read it and respond.

Sorry, I just scanned over your previous post and responded to it. Missed the October reference.
I will allow you to educate me on this October Surprise. Hopefully with facts and links, and not just vague references.

In 1980 I was 23 years old. I may have something missing in my memory from that time, although I still stand by my opinion about the hostages, Carter, Reagan, and the end result.

[Potomac Yank]

In 1980 I was 23 years old. I may have something missing in my memory from that time, although I still stand by my opinion about the hostages, Carter, Reagan, and the end result.
*
*

Wasn't Carter the one that brought Sadat, and the Israelis together?

[ryr8828]

*
*

Wasn't Carter the one that brought Sadat, and the Israelis together?

I believe so.

[Potomac Yank]

To get Sadat and Menachem Begim to sit down and talk at Camp David on Sept. 17 1978.

It was historically unheard of.
Two Middle Eastern mortal enemies.
Sitting down and talking about it, instead of shooting at it.

How Carter pulled that off, borders on the super natural.

It eventually led to the Israeli - Egyptian Peace treaty of March 26 1979.

It's already been proven that anyone can start a war, but it takes a MAN to work out a Peace.

[Vegas]

To get Sadat and Menachem Begim to sit down and talk at Camp David on Sept. 17 1978.

It was historically unheard of.
Two Middle Eastern mortal enemies.
Sitting down and talking about it, instead of shooting at it.

How Carter pulled that off, borders on the super natural.

It eventually led to the Israeli - Egyptian Peace treaty of March 26 1979.

It's already been proven that anyone can start a war, but it takes a MAN to work out a Peace.

It also took a boatload of US Taxpayer dollars.

[Potomac Yank]

It also took a boatload of US Taxpayer dollars.

1. First of all, you put a price on peace, which automatically tells me that you've never been in a war.

2. Talk about Boatload of US Taxpayer Dollars:

Your Fearless Warrior Leader that's never been in a war, and his five, or is it six deferments second in command, ... or is it first?

They have spent Super Tankerloads of US Taxpayer Dollars in their pursuit of their Corporate War, and other failed adventures.

Are you comparing those two nomes with a Giant that succeeded in getting a peace treaty?

I can't believe you said that?

[ryr8828]

1. First of all, you put a price on peace, which automatically tells me that you've never been in a war.

2. Talk about Boatload of US Taxpayer Dollars:

Your Fearless Warrior Leader that's never been in a war, and his five, or is it six deferments second in command, ... or is it first?

They have spent Super Tankerloads of US Taxpayer Dollars in their pursuit of their Corporate War, and other failed adventures.

Are you comparing those two nomes with a Giant that succeeded in getting a peace treaty?

I can't believe you said that?

CNN of all people doesn't give Carter as much credit for that peace treaty as you do. An excerpt from their biography of Anwar Sadat:


In October 1973, Egypt and Syria attacked Israel, aiming to reverse losses suffered during the 1967 Six Day War and destroy the Jewish state. Initially, the Arabs gained much ground. However, with U.S. help the Israelis turned the tide. The war ended after both the Soviet Union and the United States intervened to prevent a destruction of the balance of power in the region. When U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger brokered a truce, Sadat became convinced that good relations with Washington served Egypt's interests better than friendship with Moscow. Sadat abrogated the Soviet-Egyptian Treaty of Friendship in 1976.
Having achieved a somewhat improved negotiating position vis-a-vis Israel in 1973 and '74, and with the sympathy of the United States, Sadat next pursued peace. In November 1977, in order to overcome Israeli suspicions, he made a historic trip to Israel, also addressing the Israeli parliament (Knesset). This breakthrough led to the Camp David talks moderated by the new U.S. president, Jimmy Carter, and eventually the Camp David peace treaty. In 1978, Sadat and his Israeli counterpart, Prime Minister Menachem Begin, jointly received the Nobel Peace Prize. But although welcomed in the West, the Camp David Accords were almost unanimously rejected by the Arab world, and to many Arabs Sadat was a traitor. Sadat was assassinated on October 6, 1981, in Cairo by Muslim fundamentalists while reviewing a military parade commemorating the 1973 Yom Kippur war. He was 62.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/kbank/profiles/sadat/

This biography seems to point to the starting influence as being Kissinger and Sadat. I'm not slighting Carter's moderation skills, and he did invite Begin and Sadat to Camp David to facilitate the negotiations.

Something else we can learn from this piece comes from Sadat's assassination. The rest of the Arab world didn't want peace with Israel. As a general rule, they still don't. Nor do they wish to have peace with us.

They have to be dealt with from a position of strength. As long as they are funding terrorism against the free world there will be war. The only other option for the United States is to succumb to their wishes.

[Vegas]

1. First of all, you put a price on peace, which automatically tells me that you've never been in a war.

2. Talk about Boatload of US Taxpayer Dollars:

Your Fearless Warrior Leader that's never been in a war, and his five, or is it six deferments second in command, ... or is it first?

They have spent Super Tankerloads of US Taxpayer Dollars in their pursuit of their Corporate War, and other failed adventures.

Are you comparing those two nomes with a Giant that succeeded in getting a peace treaty?

I can't believe you said that?

Jimmy Carter's a giant? Were you alive when he was president?

[Potomac Yank]

CNN of all people doesn't give Carter as much credit for that peace treaty as you do. An excerpt from their biography of Anwar Sadat:

[/i]
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/kbank/profiles/sadat/

This biography seems to point to the starting influence as being Kissinger and Sadat. I'm not slighting Carter's moderation skills, and he did invite Begin and Sadat to Camp David to facilitate the negotiations.

Something else we can learn from this piece comes from Sadat's assassination. The rest of the Arab world didn't want peace with Israel. As a general rule, they still don't. Nor do they wish to have peace with us.

They have to be dealt with from a position of strength. As long as they are funding terrorism against the free world there will be war. The only other option for the United States is to succumb to their wishes.

*
*
While many have to resort to the Cut and Paste, either because they were to young, or were not around yet, I resort to my memory for that period.
For instance, in 1978, the time of the treaty signing, I was already 47.
I can recall each of the incidents mentioned in that cut and paste.

Posting Anwar Sadat's bio, serves another purpose, and I want to thank you for that.
It shows what kind of a menche he was.

Sadat was a man of vision, and his goal was for Egypt to make it, not only in the Middle Eastern Arab world, but in the world community.
He had giant pelotas, he knew that when he signed the treaty with Israel, he was dead man walking.
I developed a strong admiration for the man. ... he was a menche!

For those that rely on the cut and paste about Sadat, let me break this to you gently.
During that period, there were many, on both sides of the ocean, that were either trying to stabilize or agitate the middle eastern powder keg. (what else is new, they knew about oil then to.)
Every one else talked the talk, but it was President Carter that walked the walk.
In view of what was going on in the world, cold war and all, and as much as Sadat wanted to, If anyone on this board thinks it was easy to get both Sadat and Begim to sit down together at a table .. guess again, or go back to the history books of that period.

Getting the adversaries to the table, is equated to President Carter walking on water.

As for Bush, we all know that he doesn't believe in the "Table".
He, and his side kick Sleazy Dick, believe in sending others to do, what they themselves wouldn't do. ... so much for "finishing the job".

RYR Quote:
"They have to be dealt with from a position of strength. As long as they are funding terrorism against the free world there will be war. The only other option for the United States is to succumb to their wishes."

*
*
I like your attitude.:)

However, In view of the over 3000, young and older that have given their all.
I'll believe in the conviction of said attitude when I see the cowboy from Crawford, his side kick, and all of their disciples spend a year in Iraq.
Then, and only then, will that macho talk be a point of debate.

Outside of that, everything's looking up in Kansas City. :)

[Potomac Yank]

Jimmy Carter's a giant? Were you alive when he was president?

*
*
YES.

Which begs the question.

How old are YOU? :)

[ryr8828]

*
*
While many have to resort to the Cut and Paste, either because they were to young, or were not around yet, I resort to my memory for that period.
For instance, in 1978, the time of the treaty signing, I was already 47.
I can recall each of the incidents mentioned in that cut and paste.

Posting Anwar Sadat's bio, serves another purpose, and I want to thank you for that.
It shows what kind of a menche he was.

Sadat was a man of vision, and his goal was for Egypt to make it, not only in the Middle Eastern Arab world, but in the world community.
He had giant pelotas, he knew that when he signed the treaty with Israel, he was dead man walking.
I developed a strong admiration for the man. ... he was a menche!

For those that rely on the cut and paste about Sadat, let me break this to you gently.
During that period, there were many, on both sides of the ocean, that were either trying to stabilize or agitate the middle eastern powder keg. (what else is new, they knew about oil then to.)
Every one else talked the talk, but it was President Carter that walked the walk.
In view of what was going on in the world, cold war and all, and as much as Sadat wanted to, If anyone on this board thinks it was easy to get both Sadat and Begim to sit down together at a table .. guess again, or go back to the history books of that period.

Getting the adversaries to the table, is equated to President Carter walking on water.

As for Bush, we all know that he doesn't believe in the "Table".
He, and his side kick Sleazy Dick, believe in sending others to do, what they themselves wouldn't do. ... so much for "finishing the job".

RYR Quote:
"They have to be dealt with from a position of strength. As long as they are funding terrorism against the free world there will be war. The only other option for the United States is to succumb to their wishes."

*
*
I like your attitude.:)

However, In view of the over 3000, young and older that have given their all.
I'll believe in the conviction of said attitude when I see the cowboy from Crawford, his side kick, and all of their disciples spend a year in Iraq.
Then, and only then, will that macho talk be a point of debate.

Outside of that, everything's looking up in Kansas City. :)

You're causing me to look up words I don't have time for right now. I've got family over.
I thought Menche pitched for the royals?

[Vegas]

*
*
YES.

Which begs the question.

How old are YOU? :)

I'm 48 and I remember the Carter years too well.

[Potomac Yank]

I'm 48 and I remember the Carter years too well.

*
*

You must have been a very politically astute young man of 18 - 19 - 20 - 21.

While all your peers are chasing girls, .. you were remembering the Carter years. :)

You must have suffered a lot during those years.
No war to go to.
No girls, and the Carter years. :)

There's an old saying, and it's before your time.

Tell it to the MARINES.

[LSU]

I'm 30 and barely remember the Clinton years.

Bush, however, is leaving a lasting impression.

[Vegas]

*
*

You must have been a very politically astute young man of 18 - 19 - 20 - 21.

While all your peers are chasing girls, .. you were remembering the Carter years. :)

You must have suffered a lot during those years.
No war to go to.
No girls, and the Carter years. :)

There's an old saying, and it's before your time.

Tell it to the MARINES.

I was very interested in politics at that age, especially when I was going to college and taking out school loans. The way Carter was driving the economy into the ground made for a lot of anxiety. And the hostage crisis, the giveaway of the Panama Canal, the malaise speech, 18% inflation, 20% interest rates, etc.....yes I remember.

[Potomac Yank]

You're causing me to look up words I don't have time for right now. I've got family over.
I thought Menche pitched for the royals?

*
*

Your attempt at avoiding, and side stepping the issue, is funny. :)

However, I am benevolent, and I do understand your problem.
It stems from growing up in an everyone's the same group.
Same mindset.
Same look.
Same religion.
Same everything.
Strictly a diversity absents environment.
Not to worry .... It will be passed on.

Before I forget.
A happy holidays to you and yours.

Joe (the angelic and peace loving Dem/Liberal) .. that was not Damn Liberal. :)

[IBC]

This is great. You do know republicans went too right? Talking with your enemies is more important than talking with your friends.

[IBC]

I am sorry but this shows the ridiculousness of Bush believers. They want to change the subject and attack Nancy Pelosi for going to Syria because their foreign policy has been a complete and udder failure. At least three republicans have visited Syria SINCE Pelosi went. This is just spreading half-truths.

[Vegas]

This is great. You do know republicans went too right? Talking with your enemies is more important than talking with your friends.

They were on the trip, but not with her:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/novak/331875,CST-EDT-NOVAK08.article

[IBC]

They were on the trip, but not with her:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/novak/331875,CST-EDT-NOVAK08.article
Do you shun them?

[Vegas]

Do you shun them?

I question why they went, but they didn't try to impose their own foreign policy defying the constitution like Pelosi did.

[IBC]

I question why they went, but they didn't try to impose their own foreign policy defying the constitution like Pelosi did.
And Pelosi did this how?

[Vegas]

And Pelosi did this how?

http://www.thepartisanpatriot.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2761&postcount=2

[IBC]

http://www.thepartisanpatriot.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2761&postcount=2

Defying the Constitution? I am glad she went to help our country try and preemptively get over the biggest disaster in foreign policy in our countries history. I mean Bush, not the war in Iraq. The Repubs helped too. I am glad they are willing to say to their own party that they are wrong on this issue. Issa just got back too. That makes another one.

[Potomac Yank]

Bush I: The Corporate Oil War in Kuwait and Iraq.

[B]Bush II: The Corporate Oil War in Afghanistan and Iraq.


Before the neo cons, and the followers of The Project for the New American Century start running for their favorite 9/11 rational, consider this.

Fifteen of the nineteen attackers were Saudis.

When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7th 1941.
We didn't retaliate by attacking Peru.

It never had anything to do with terrorist, that was a cover up, and a snow job by this administration.

It was always about the second largest deposit of oil in the world.

You can look it up, just read the letter.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

[swordfish]

Here is what I got out of that letter.

Clinton is telling Bush that he must remove Saddam regardless of the cost.
Clinton says he is fully aware of the dangers of implementing this plan.

So basically your telling us that Clinton and Bush are working together in some grand conspiracy? Let's move this thread over to conspiracy forum so I can blow it up.

I fully agree. All the top politicians are working together. The parties are just a distraction to divide the people and keep us arguing while they erode our rights. Each party has destroyed the Constitution and the feelings of founding fathers.

Before long we'll be in the worst militia state one can imagine. One world power.

[ryr8828]

Here is what I got out of that letter.

Clinton is telling Bush that he must remove Saddam regardless of the cost.
Clinton says he is fully aware of the dangers of implementing this plan.

So basically your telling us that Clinton and Bush are working together in some grand conspiracy? Let's move this thread over to conspiracy forum so I can blow it up.

I fully agree. All the top politicians are working together. The parties are just a distraction to divide the people and keep us arguing while they erode our rights. Each party has destroyed the Constitution and the feelings of founding fathers.

Before long we'll be in the worst militia state one can imagine. One world power.

You should re-read. The letter was to Clinton, not from him.

I scanned it quickly also, but I noticed the date.

[Potomac Yank]

You should re-read. The letter was to Clinton, not from him.

I scanned it quickly also, but I noticed the date.

*
*

Thank you for pointing out that the letter was to Clinton.

That was fair of you, and it didn't go unnoticed.

[hannitykillspuppies]

that pnac group is a scary bunch. not surprising that this administration is littered with them.

[IBC]

that pnac group is a scary bunch. not surprising that this administration is littered with them.
and they are the architects of the disastrous foreign policy blunders.


and the neocons fell silent.

[hannitykillspuppies]

http://users2.wsj.com/lmda/do/checkLogin?mg=evo-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB1175 82330980561775.html%3Fmod%3Dopinion_main_commentar ies

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may well have committed a felony in traveling to Damascus this week, against the wishes of the president, to communicate on foreign-policy issues with Syrian President Bashar Assad. The administration isn't going to want to touch this political hot potato, nor should it become a partisan issue. Maybe special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, whose aggressive prosecution of Lewis Libby establishes his independence from White House influence, should be called back.

The "Logan Act" makes it a felony and provides for a prison sentence of up to three years for any American, "without authority of the United States," ...

this is a great op-ed piece. especially when you consider that the state department has said the logan act does not pertain to members of congress. brilliant.

[IBC]

this is a great op-ed piece. especially when you consider that the state department has said the logan act does not pertain to members of congress. brilliant.
Yes. The WSJ editorial page can come up with some doozies can't it? Now, I want to know who wrote that, as I can't read the whole article w/o subscribing.

[Vegas]

this is a great op-ed piece. especially when you consider that the state department has said the logan act does not pertain to members of congress. brilliant.

That is simply not true.

The Logan Act (18 U.S.C. § 953) states:

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

[IBC]

That is simply not true.

The Logan Act (18 U.S.C. § 953) states:

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.
So, I know this president has acted over and over again like he was the United States and the only one who has the authority of it, but this is simply not true.

[hannitykillspuppies]

Yes. The WSJ editorial page can come up with some doozies can't it? Now, I want to know who wrote that, as I can't read the whole article w/o subscribing.

someone from the reagan administration.

[hannitykillspuppies]

That is simply not true.

The Logan Act (18 U.S.C. § 953) states:

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.so the state department lied or is wrong?

[hannitykillspuppies]

That is simply not true.

The Logan Act (18 U.S.C. § 953) states:

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

In 1975, Senators John Sparkman and George McGovern were accused of violating the Logan Act when they traveled to Cuba and met with Cuban officials. In considering that case, the U.S. Department of State declared:


"The clear intent of this provision [Logan Act] is to prohibit unauthorized persons from intervening in disputes between the United States and foreign governments. Nothing in section 953 [Logan Act], however, would appear to restrict members of the Congress from engaging in discussions with foreign officials in pursuance of their legislative duties under the Constitution. In the case of Senators McGovern and Sparkman the executive branch, although it did not in any way encourage the Senators to go to Cuba , was fully informed of the nature and purpose of their visit, and had validated their passports for travel to that country."

http://usgovinfo.about.com/b/a/217569.htm

[Vegas]

In 1975, Senators John Sparkman and George McGovern were accused of violating the Logan Act when they traveled to Cuba and met with Cuban officials. In considering that case, the U.S. Department of State declared:


"The clear intent of this provision [Logan Act] is to prohibit unauthorized persons from intervening in disputes between the United States and foreign governments. Nothing in section 953 [Logan Act], however, would appear to restrict members of the Congress from engaging in discussions with foreign officials in pursuance of their legislative duties under the Constitution. In the case of Senators McGovern and Sparkman the executive branch, although it did not in any way encourage the Senators to go to Cuba , was fully informed of the nature and purpose of their visit, and had validated their passports for travel to that country."

http://usgovinfo.about.com/b/a/217569.htm

Legislative duties....that's different than foreign policy. That's a congressional thing. Foreign policy is a presidential thing.

[IBC]

Legislative duties....that's different than foreign policy. That's a congressional thing. Foreign policy is a presidential thing.
Unfortunately, that is the way THIS president sees it. Congress has the power to declare war. Congress has the power to ratify trade treaties. The president is supposed to negotiate the will of the American people in conjunction with congress. The Constitution says nothing about the President being responsible for foreign policy. This president unfortunately has sought to expand the power of his branch of government, and selectively hear from other branches. Pelosi had not only a right, but a responsibility to represent the will of the congress and the American people. Sorry Vegas, it just doesn't fly, and she broke no laws.

[LSU]

Unfortunately, that is the way THIS president sees it. Congress has the power to declare war. Congress has the power to ratify trade treaties. The president is supposed to negotiate the will of the American people in conjunction with congress. The Constitution says nothing about the President being responsible for foreign policy. This president unfortunately has sought to expand the power of his branch of government, and selectively hear from other branches. Pelosi had not only a right, but a responsibility to represent the will of the congress and the American people. Sorry Vegas, it just doesn't fly, and she broke no laws.


I don't agree with the bold part. A president is elected in regards to how the people think he'll run the country. No elected official goes simply by popular demand. If that were the case, we'd be switching directions more times than a drunk gerbil in one of those little plastic balls.

Unfortunately for people like you and I, this particular president always takes a left when we want to take a right and vice versa. Those actions are eroding him, but if the Left doesn't get someone with ideas rather than criticisms, we'll both get stuck with the same guy under a different name next time.

[IBC]

I don't agree with the bold part. A president is elected in regards to how the people think he'll run the country. No elected official goes simply by popular demand. If that were the case, we'd be switching directions more times than a drunk gerbil in one of those little plastic balls.

Unfortunately for people like you and I, this particular president always takes a left when we want to take a right and vice versa. Those actions are eroding him, but if the Left doesn't get someone with ideas rather than criticisms, we'll both get stuck with the same guy under a different name next time.

Ok, I see your point. Do you see mine about how nowhere does it say he is solely responsible for foreign policy?

[LSU]

Ok, I see your point. Do you see mine about how nowhere does it say he is solely responsible for foreign policy?



I see the point you're making, but I would counter that if everyone with a swingin' dick and an opinion wanted to pimp their idea of a foreign policy to foreign nations, we'd have a lot of confusion amongst the foreign nations. And I'm not so sure Pelosi would represent any more of the populace than Bush's ideas do...

But throw in the other 3 or 4 reps that went over there recently and pretty much did the same thing...well, it really isn't that bad. That's why I said her execution of the whole deal is FUBAR. She could've surrounded herself with the Reps that went over there to appear less individualistic. Bad planning. The dems should know by now that the reps are good at making a story where there shouldn't be one...any time they plan to do something, they should plan for worst case scenario follow ups.

[IBC]

Who Makes Foreign Policy?

December 11, 2006

The Iraq Study Group released its report last week, giving the president several recommendations to consider in prosecuting the war. Similarly, the incoming Democratic leaders in Congress promise to urge the President to take a new course in Iraq. Meanwhile, one newly elected member of Congress was asked on national television about the Iraq war. She responded by saying she had no real opinion, and that foreign policy was “up to the president.”

In each instance, it is assumed that the president will make Iraq policy. I’m not talking about the details of actual military operations in Iraq; I’m talking about the broader policy questions of how long our troops will stay, how many will stay, and how victory will be defined.

The media, Congress, and the American public all seem to have accepted something that is patently untrue: namely, that foreign policy is the domain of the president and not Congress. This is absolutely not the case and directly contrary to what our founding fathers wanted.

The role of the president as Commander in Chief is to direct our armed forces in carrying out policies established by the American people through their representatives in Congress. He is not authorized to make those policies. He is an administrator, not a policy maker. Foreign policy, like all federal policy, must be made by Congress. To allow otherwise is to act in contravention of the Constitution.

Library of Congress scholar Louis Fisher, writing in The Oxford Companion to American Military History, summarizes presidential war power:

The president's authority was carefully constrained. The power to repel sudden attacks represented an emergency measure that allowed the president, when Congress was not in session, to take actions necessary to repel sudden attacks either against the mainland of the United States or against American troops abroad. It did not authorize the president to take the country into full-scale war or mount an offensive attack against another nation.

But it’s not simply the decision to wage war that is left to Congress. Consider also the words of James Madison:

Those who are to conduct a war cannot in the nature of things, be proper or safe judges, whether a war ought to be commenced, continued, or concluded. They are barred from the latter functions by a great principle in free government, analogous to that which separates the sword from the purse, or the power of executing from the power of enacting laws (italics added).

So Congress is charged not only with deciding when to go to war, but also how to conduct-- and bring to a conclusion-- properly declared wars. Of course the administration has some role to play in making treaties, and the State Department should pursue beneficial diplomacy. But the notion that presidents should establish our broader foreign policy is dangerous and wrong. No single individual should be entrusted with the awesome responsibility of deciding when to send our troops abroad, how to employ them once abroad, and when to bring them home. This is why the founders wanted Congress, the body most directly accountable to the public, to make critical decisions about war and peace.

It is shameful that Congress ceded so much of its proper authority over foreign policy to successive presidents during the 20th century, especially when it failed to declare war in Korea, Vietnam, Kosovo, and Iraq. It’s puzzling that Congress is so willing to give away one of its most important powers, when most members from both parties work incessantly to expand the role of Congress in domestic matters. By transferring its role in foreign policy to the President, Congress not only violates the Constitution, but also disenfranchises the American electorate.

[IBC]

I see the point you're making, but I would counter that if everyone with a swingin' dick and an opinion wanted to pimp their idea of a foreign policy to foreign nations, we'd have a lot of confusion amongst the foreign nations. And I'm not so sure Pelosi would represent any more of the populace than Bush's ideas do...

But throw in the other 3 or 4 reps that went over there recently and pretty much did the same thing...well, it really isn't that bad. That's why I said her execution of the whole deal is FUBAR. She could've surrounded herself with the Reps that went over there to appear less individualistic. Bad planning. The dems should know by now that the reps are good at making a story where there shouldn't be one...any time they plan to do something, they should plan for worst case scenario follow ups.
Or w/o a swinging dick in this case. I agree with what you said though.

[Potomac Yank]

that pnac group is a scary bunch. not surprising that this administration is littered with them.

*
*

If you think that letter to Clinton was scary?

Read this letter, and don't overlook the signatures.

You almost want to jump out of your seat, and shout "SEIG HEIL".

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

[Land_Shark]

[QUOTE=hannitykillspuppies;3396] Nothing in section 953 [Logan Act], however, would appear to restrict members of the Congress from engaging in discussions with foreign officials in pursuance of their legislative duties under the Constitution."

True. However, the Constitution clearly applies to members of Congress and vests in the Executive Branch the power to dictate foreign policy. Ms. Pelosi and her entourage were clearly out of bounds by their own statements. Not only that they interfered with the foreign policy of an ally - Israel. If I were the Israeli Prime Minister I would revoke her dipolmatic status and prohibit her from entering the country for a time.

[Potomac Yank]

[QUOTE=hannitykillspuppies;3396] Nothing in section 953 [Logan Act], however, would appear to restrict members of the Congress from engaging in discussions with foreign officials in pursuance of their legislative duties under the Constitution."

True. However, the Constitution clearly applies to members of Congress and vests in the Executive Branch the power to dictate foreign policy. Ms. Pelosi and her entourage were clearly out of bounds by their own statements. Not only that they interfered with the foreign policy of an ally - Israel. If I were the Israeli Prime Minister I would revoke her dipolmatic status and prohibit her from entering the country for a time.

*
*

May I interest you in a membership card to The Project for the New American Century? :)