Pelosi Lies and Her Trip Is A Dud

[red states rule]

Wrong. Having a difference of opinion doesn't give the opposition the right to conduct a separate course of diplomacy. The Executive Branch manages diplomatic missions - not Congress.



You are wrong on this point. Quite a few Dems have based their hopes for 2008 on the U.S. losing in Iraq - and their policy advocacy supports this. Playing games with funding and setting arbitrary deadlines only give aid and comfort to the enemy. You have just falling for the DNC talking point.

Dems are trying to take over all the power from the President and run all aspects of foreign policy

 

[red states rule]

you break the stupidity law here daily red states, maybe it's time to have you sent to the front lines.

Libs usually have that reaction when confronted with facts and truth.

Even when the liberal Washington Post and USA Today go against her = you know their is a problem

 

[red states rule]

Well, I ain't anyone's president, but unless you're privy to some super-duper, ultra top secret intel the rest of the world doesn't have access to, Syria hasn't tried to kill me or any other Americans that I can tell.



War is an act engaged in by nation states with standing armies. Terrorism is an inherently criminal act, which international police and intelligence agencies are best equipped to deal with. The role of the military is limited to actions by spec-ops units in rolling up the operations targeted by said law enforcement and intelligence agencies.



Still trying to blame Goat-boy for Chimpy's mess, eh? Can't hide that "<b><font color= red>L</font></b>" on your forehead, can ya.

So if the US is hit again we will send John Edwards to the nearest Federal Court and file a lawsuit against al Qaeda

 

[red states rule]

you break the stupidity law here daily red states, maybe it's time to have you sent to the front lines.

Speaking of foreign affairs
By Tod Lindberg
April 10, 2007




If, as Karl Marx's adage holds, history repeats itself, the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce, what happens when the repetition repeats itself?
Well, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's foray into shuttle diplomacy between Israel and Damascus seems firmly stuck on farce, much in line with a certain former House speaker's foray into China policy at a comparable point in his tenure.
What happened then: Newt Gingrich, newly installed as speaker following the Republican takeover of Congress, brought into the job the tendency of congressional Republicans to take a hard line against Beijing and to support Taiwan with little reservation. China, meanwhile, was hopping mad over Taiwan's "splittism," any activity that gave an indication of movement toward independence. One such incident was the desire of Taiwan's democratically elected president, Lee Teng-hui, to visit the United States to attend a reunion at his alma mater, Cornell University. The Clinton administration, under pressure from the Republican congressional majority, granted Mr. Lee a visa against the wishes of Beijing (and against much internal opposition from China's sympathizers within the administration).
The Beijing government didn't like the idea of the so-called president of the renegade Chinese province of Taiwan making even an unofficial visit to the United States, and began stepping up military activity around the Taiwan Strait, complete with missile tests in the general direction of Taiwanese territory. Was China contemplating a military move, forceful reunification of Taiwan with the mainland? Or perhaps seeking to intimidate Taiwanese voters from supporting the independence-minded candidate in upcoming elections? Or perhaps just probing to see how attached the United States really was to Taiwan? Things wouldn't really cool down for almost a year, until the Clinton administration dispatched two carrier battle groups to the region, which made it clear to Beijing that a military move on Taiwan would mean war with the United States. But in the meantime, on a Sunday talk show, Mr. Gingrich bespoke himself of the no-doubt heartfelt opinion that Taiwan should be recognized as an independent nation.
I've got to admit I liked it at the time, just from the point of view of in-your-face to the Chinese communists. But you could say, with some fairness, that all heck broke loose in the aftermath of the comment. U.S. diplomats rushed all over the world to reassure the Chinese and everyone else that, notwithstanding the comments of the speaker, U.S. policy had not changed, pointing out that in the American system, even a figure so powerful as the House speaker doesn't actually speak for the government. Meanwhile, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, the architect of the opening to China, took it upon himself to phone Mr. Gingrich and patiently explain the facts of life, after which a chastened speaker recanted his position in an about-face that was not exactly lovely to behold.
Fast forward a dozen years, and you have Mrs. Pelosi's trip to Damascus. There's nothing wrong with a congressional delegation setting forth for a little fact-finding, of course, even if the effect is sure to raise the blood pressure of the administration in office, one way or another. Typically, of course, such delegations make a point of trying to represent during their travels the actual views of the U.S. government as articulated by the president and the State Department. But there have always been flamboyant exceptions, such as Rep. Jim McDermott's visit to Baghdad prior to the war.
But it's one thing to spout off as a mere member of Congress and another thing to, in effect, assign yourself the role of negotiator on behalf of the U.S. government. That, in effect, is what Mrs. Pelosi did, and she looks quite the fool for having done so. In Jerusalem, she discerned a new willingness to talk with Syria, when what she really encountered was the settled position of the Israeli government. In Damascus, she discerned a new willingness to make peace with Israel, when what she really encountered were the familiar misrepresentations of a loathsome dictatorship.
As she was trumpeting this supposed peacemaking breakthrough between the Jewish state and its Arab antagonist, she actually invoked, in fine Christian spirit, the "road to Damascus." This time around, it fell to The Washington Post's editorial page to take her to the woodshed, describing her misadventures as "counterproductive," "ludicrous" and "foolish." I somehow doubt that's the language Mr. Kissinger used on Mr. Gingrich, but I'm pretty sure it likewise captured Mr. Kissinger's sense of amateur hour on Capitol Hill.
Here's the odd fact underlying both episodes: Each of these House speakers had generated foreign policy positions not on the merits but for partisan political purposes: to press an attack not for the purpose of changing policy but to make political hay. And when the positions in question emerged from their partisan contexts for a test drive in the real world, they blew up spectacularly in each leader's face.
Proven mastery of domestic politics does not automatically convey mastery of statesmanship, a lesson House speakers sometimes get to learn the hard way.

http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20070409-100840-5906r.htm

 

[Rosotar]

So if the US is hit again we will send John Edwards to the nearest Federal Court and file a lawsuit against al Qaeda

What do you mean "if" RSR?

The conclusion of the intelligence community is that George Bush's policies have made us LESS safe and have only served to strengthen our enemies.

Thanks to Bush It is no longer a question of "if" but when.

 

[red states rule]

What do you mean "if" RSR?

The conclusion of the intelligence community is that George Bush's policies have made us LESS safe and have only served to strengthen our enemies.

Thanks to Bush It is no longer a question of "if" but when.

It has been nearly six years and we have not been hit

However, with Dems opposing every method to capture, question, and track terrorists; with the liberal media reporting/publishing classifed documents - it is helping the terrorists carry out their long term plans

 

[Rosotar]

It has been nearly six years and we have not been hit

And you're giving Bush the credit for this?

Again, the experts say it's not if but when.

You should be careful trying to give Bush credit for something he has nothing to do with.

If and when we do get hit again I doubt if you'll be so willing to give him the blame and you can't have it both ways.

However, with Dems opposing every method to capture, question, and track terrorists; with the liberal media reporting/publishing classifed documents - it is helping the terrorists carry out their long term plans

Do you mean with the Democrats protecting our constitution and the free press doing their job?

Perhaps you'd be happier in a country without a constitution and a free press?

 

[red states rule]

So who would you give credit to?

The liberal media is doing their job by helping the terrorists by telling them what the government is doing to find them?

 

[Rosotar]

So who would you give credit to?

Credit for what?

For the fact that terrorists haven't decided to hit us again yet?

You could call that luck....but it's only temporary.

The liberal media is doing their job by helping the terrorists by telling them what the government is doing to find them?

So far the media has only done that if what the government is doing is illegal.

 

[red states rule]

Credit for what?

For the fact that terrorists haven't decided to hit us again yet?

You could call that luck....but it's only temporary.



So far the media has only done that if what the government is doing is illegal.

So on 9-11 if someone had tokd you we would have been hit agian after nearly six years - you would have called it luck?

So now fighting terrorists and tracking their phone calls and money is illegal?

 

[Bullypulpit]

Dems are trying to take over all the power from the President and run all aspects of foreign policy

Where do you get his stuff? Is it pulled directly from that vaccuum between your ears? Or do you have SOME link to a credible source on the matter? Never mind, that last was a purely rhetorical question.

If anyone has been usurping power, it has been the Bush administration. They have been babbling about the notion of a "unitary executive" from they occupied the White House some six years ago. This concept is, of course completely unconstitutional, and a threat to the Republic.

 

[red states rule]

Where do you get his stuff? Is it pulled directly from that vaccuum between your ears? Or do you have SOME link to a credible source on the matter? Never mind, that last was a purely rhetorical question.

If anyone has been usurping power, it has been the Bush administration. They have been babbling about the notion of a "unitary executive" from they occupied the White House some six years ago. This concept is, of course completely unconstitutional, and a threat to the Republic.

They want to assume the duties of the CIC

They are trying to set foreign policy

They want to decide when and where to deploy the troops

Seems like they are trying to take over the Executive branch

 

[red states rule]

Where do you get his stuff? Is it pulled directly from that vaccuum between your ears? Or do you have SOME link to a credible source on the matter? Never mind, that last was a purely rhetorical question.

If anyone has been usurping power, it has been the Bush administration. They have been babbling about the notion of a "unitary executive" from they occupied the White House some six years ago. This concept is, of course completely unconstitutional, and a threat to the Republic.

Pelosi's power grab
TODAY'S COLUMNIST
By Barry Casselman
April 12, 2007


Now that the pre-eminent constitutional scholar and sometime speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, has determined that she is by fiat the commander in chief of our armed forces and secretary of state as well, it is time to consider the consequences of her actions by the same rules. If she commits "high crimes and misdemeanors" within those parameters indicated by the Constitution, would she be liable for removal from office by impeachment?
As luck would have it, the impeachment process begins in her own House, and since she has proclaimed herself virtually the entire executive branch of government, it follows that she might no longer have the constitutional protection of members of Congress who can be removed from office only by a vote of their colleagues in their own legislative body.
On the other hand, if the House would vote a bill of impeachment of Mrs. Pelosi, would that, by reason of the aforementioned rule, automatically remove Mrs. Pelosi from office, thus making the impeachment moot? Oh, these fiats make everything so complicated.
So filled with herself by her elevation to high legislative office as a result of the elections of November last, she embarked on a state visit to the Middle East contrary to the policy of the president of the United States, and appeared to be negotiating with nations hostile (read as "enemies") to our country against the interests, and without any authority, of her own country.
Headlines from the Middle East trumpeted her warm welcome in Syria and by the current government of Israel (which is inept, unpopular and soon to be replaced). Is anyone surprised? Unquestionably, the leader of Iran felt left out. Perhaps he released the British sailors to get Mrs. Pelosi's attention.
Furthermore, at her command, the "war on terror" is being banned in all legislative language, and the movement of our troops is now to be a function of her military whim, based of course on her many years as a military strategist and combat veteran.
Actually, according to Mrs. Pelosi and some of her colleagues, there is no longer a need for the executive branch of the American government. Congress can handle it all quite well, thank you, and "Shrub" Bush would be well advised just to host state dinners for visiting chiefs of state before they consult with the speaker.
To further increase their popular support, and to ensure their total victory in 2008, Mrs. Pelosi and her Democratic allies in Congress and in state legislatures are proposing massive tax increases and vast new spending programs. Of course, they are blaming all of our problems on a conspiracy of the rich, and promise to punish these individuals for their successful entrepreneurship. That's the ticket. The year 2008 will be a landslide.
I am pleased to note that President Bush has not entirely retreated from the field, and unless I have missed something very important, our generals and their troops still report to him.
Not to be outdone by their colleagues in the House, the Senate exacted some gratifying revenge on Mr. Bush by blocking his nominee to be ambassador to Belgium, Sam Fox, who had incidentally contributed to the Swift Boat campaign in 2004. The target of that campaign, Sen. John Kerry, was reported to have received some satisfaction when Mr. Bush withdrew the Fox nomination.
Just as he, as well as those Democrats and members of the media who relish Mr. Bush's decline in the polls, were savoring their victory, the president, obviously self-deluded that he was still "chief magistrate" of the nation (George Washington's phrase), appointed Mr. Fox to be ambassador on a recess appointment, his term to be exactly as long as if he had been confirmed by the Senate.
No doubt, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, recognizing only Mrs. Pelosi to be in charge, will accuse the president of breaking the law by exercising his constitutional authority (which, of course, has been abolished by Mrs. Pelosi's fiat).
In Europe (which is accustomed to these matters), Mrs. Pelosi's behavior and actions would be called an attempted coup d'etat. Europeans will be polite, nonetheless, and will not say this aloud, because frankly they are secretly pleased that George W. Bush is apparently no longer in charge.
So we are at a constitutional stalemate. Who's in charge of the executive branch? The speaker of the House or the president of the United States? The only way to settle it, I think, is to impeach the impostor, whoever she or he may be.

Barry Casselman writes about national politics for Preludium News Service.

 

[red states rule]

Nancy and Lantos have used appalling judgement regarding this Burka Junket. Declaring that the Dems have their own separate foreign policy is a violation of the separations of power - and borderline treason during a time of war. Considering that in most elections, this one included, the majority is only a percentage point or so higher than the minority, there is not national will to lose the war on purpose. This may play well in the blue state metro areas (although even in SF, there is a great deal of criticism of Pelosi) - but it is not going to helpt the Dems win the red ones.

Where are the transcripts?
Gerd Schroeder
Where are the transcripts of the dialogue between House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad? Speaker Pelosi yesterday claimed that she said nothing to contradict the foreign policy of the President, but offers no details. I for one would like to hear the evidence for myself. Especially after hearing a member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Tom Lantos, claim last week that they have an "alternative Democratic foreign policy" that is different from the President's. How can both the Speaker and the Chairman both be telling the truth?


If the Democrats in Congress have the right to demand the transcripts of Vice President Cheney's Energy Working Group, then surely we have a moral right to know what was said between the Speaker and President Assad, and judge for ourselves where the truth lies.


It is interesting to note that there is no audio of the meeting that we see looped endlessly on TV. But it is clear through the body language of President Assad that he seems to be clearly lecturing her about something, while she appears to be dimly smiling and nodding. What is the discussion about? Will we ever know?

Conservatives have every right to ask the tough questions and take advantage of the sensitivity that the Speaker clearly has about this her visit.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/04/where_are_the_transcripts.html

 

[wiggles]

It has been nearly six years and we have not been hit

However, with Dems opposing every method to capture, question, and track terrorists; with the liberal media reporting/publishing classifed documents - it is helping the terrorists carry out their long term plans

I don't suppose you'd ever give snaps to Clinton for the fact that after the '93 WTC bombing there wasn't another attack on U.S. soil for eight years -9/11/01 was about a year after he left office.

 

[no1tovote4]

I don't suppose you'd ever give snaps to Clinton for the fact that after the '93 WTC bombing there wasn't another attack on U.S. soil for eight years -9/11/01 was about a year after he left office.

Slightly less than 8 months to be precise. But that's quibbling. I'd give him credit for it. And the alert border guards who saved his gonads.

 

[wiggles]

Slightly less than 8 months to be precise. But that's quibbling. I'd give him credit for it. And the alert border guards who saved his gonads.

plus the fact that he actually paid attention to security memos and Richard Clarke...

 

[maineman]

I don't suppose you'd ever give snaps to Clinton for the fact that after the '93 WTC bombing there wasn't another attack on U.S. soil for eight years -9/11/01 was about a year after he left office.

RSR cannot give Clinton credit for anything, he is not programmed that way.

 

[maineman]

plus the fact that he actually paid attention to security memos and Richard Clarke...

exactly.. realistically, does anyone think that Clinton would have paid as little attention to the fateful August 9th PDB as Bush did?

 

[hjmick]

exactly.. realistically, does anyone think that Clinton would have paid as little attention to the fateful August 9th PDB as Bush did?

And what do you think Clinton would have done with information this vague?

No target specified, no date of attack specified, the PDB only speaks in generalities as far as attacks are concerned. It mentions on going investigations.

Look, I am not currently a fan of the administration, they've been a huge disappoinment, but I don't know what could possibly have been expected of them based on the information at hand.