Pelosi Lies and Her Trip Is A Dud

[maineman]

When losing - change the subject

That is one thing you are good at

Losing on Pelosi - bring up Iraq

not losing on Pelosi at all....and I am merely trying to get you to explain yourself....I ask on every thread and you always run away like a girlieman...whi IS that?

 

[red states rule]

not losing on Pelosi at all....and I am merely trying to get you to explain yourself....I ask on every thread and you always run away like a girlieman...whi IS that?

When the Washington Post expresses dismay over the lack of results of San fran Nans "fact finding" trip - is was not a fact finding trip

Her Coddle A Dictator tour blew up in her face

 

[maineman]

When the Washington Post expresses dismay over the lack of results of San fran Nans "fact finding" trip - is was not a fact finding trip

Her Coddle A Dictator tour blew up in her face

the Washington Post does not set the agenda for the speaker's fact finding junkets.

I thought you knew that.

 

[red states rule]

the Washington Post does not set the agenda for the speaker's fact finding junkets.

I thought you knew that.

So the Washingto Post and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert were lying about San Fran Nan's "fact finding" mission?

 

[maineman]

So the Washingto Post and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert were lying about San Fran Nan's "fact finding" mission?

bearing an incidental message is not negotiating or setting policy..... the trip was a fact finding mission, pure and simple. Pelosi wanted to better understand the area and the players so that she could more effectively exercise her oversight role.

 

[maineman]

and you claim that the washington post lies all the time.. don't act so surprised about it now!

 

[red states rule]

bearing an incidental message is not negotiating or setting policy..... the trip was a fact finding mission, pure and simple. Pelosi wanted to better understand the area and the players so that she could more effectively exercise her oversight role.

Like with Clinton - everyone around her are lying - she is the only one telling the truth

 

[maineman]

Like with Clinton - everyone around her are lying - she is the only one telling the truth

I don't think you have any right to claim that the washington post now tells the truth when you have castigated them for lying repeatedly in the past.

take a side and stay on it.

 

[Gunny]

the speaker was only trying to acquaint herself with the issues and the players so that she might better exercise her oversight role.

Congress has no oversight in foreign policy. Not legally.

 

[red states rule]

Congress has no oversight in foreign policy. Not legally.

She should have been charged with violation of the Logan Act

 

[Gunny]

She should have been charged with violation of the Logan Act

Incorrect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act

 

[Annie]

Incorrect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act

Actually he may have a point:

http://opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009908

Mr. Turner was acting assistant secretary of state for legislative affairs in 1984-85 and is a former chairman of the ABA standing committee on law and national security.

 

[Gunny]

Actually he may have a point:

http://opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009908

This is an excerpt from the link above.

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

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. Senator McGovern’s report of his discussions with Cuban officials states: "I made it clear that I had no authority to negotiate on behalf of the United States — that I had come to listen and learn...." (Cuban Realities: May 1975, 94th Cong., 1st Sess., August 1975). Senator Sparkman’s contacts with Cuban officials were conducted on a similar basis. The specific issues raised by the Senators (e.g., the Southern Airways case; Luis Tiant’s desire to have his parents visit the United States) would, in any event, appear to fall within the second paragraph of Section 953. Accordingly, the Department does not consider the activities of Senators Sparkman and McGovern to be inconsistent with the stipulations of Section 953.[4]

In 1984, President Ronald Reagan stated that the activities of the Reverend Jesse Jackson, who had traveled to Cuba and Nicaragua that year and had returned with several Cuban political prisoners seeking asylum in the United States, may have violated the Logan Act; but Jackson was never indicted.[1]

In 1987 and 1988, President Reagan was furious at what he felt to House Speaker Jim Wright's "intrusion" into the negotiations between Nicaragua's Sandinista government and the Contras for a cease-fire in the long civil war. The National Security Council considered using the Logan Act to muzzle Wright, but nothing ever came of it.

I agree that the bolded portion is vague, since as provided in my first two links, by law Congress has NO business in foreign policy. I think Pelosi's behavior was unethical, but good luck getting a Dem-controlled Congress to call her on it.

I don't believe however, trying to prosecute her for violating the Logan Act which has been uniformly ignored since the early 1800s, and that case went no where, would be the right thing to do.

The libs on messageboards are playing semantics with "neotiating" and "fact-finding", when the law actually says "conduct foreign policy." But I don't know how one would prove intent in a court of law; which, would be required to prosecute under the Logan Act.

 

[red states rule]

The administration did not go after Sandy Burger - so why should they have went after San Fran Nan?

 

[Annie]

The administration did not go after Sandy Burger - so why should they have went after San Fran Nan?

Both of which are reasons that the legacy will not be good.

 

[Gunny]

The administration did not go after Sandy Burger - so why should they have went after San Fran Nan?

They also didn't go after Dennis Hastert nor Newt Gingrich. What's your point? You are the one claiming felony for the violation of the Logan Act.

 

[red states rule]

They also didn't go after Dennis Hastert nor Newt Gingrich. What's your point? You are the one claiming felony for the violation of the Logan Act.

Tom Lantos admitted the Dems were conducting their own foreign policy - is that enough of a difference?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/04/democrats_playing_with_fire.html

 

[maineman]

Tom Lantos admitted the Dems were conducting their own foreign policy - is that enough of a difference?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/04/democrats_playing_with_fire.html

Lanto said that democrats had their own foreign policy.
that is not news. He did NOT say that Pelosi was conducting negotiations designed to accomplish that foreign policy while in Syria.

 

[red states rule]

Lanto said that democrats had their own foreign policy.
that is not news. He did NOT say that Pelosi was conducting negotiations designed to accomplish that foreign policy while in Syria.

Democrats can have their own foreign policy when they run the Oval Office

Until then, The Pres speaks for this country and sets foreign policy

The arrogrance of the left oozes out again

 

[maineman]

Democrats can have their own foreign policy when they run the Oval Office

Until then, The Pres speaks for this country and sets foreign policy

The arrogrance of the left oozes out again

we can have our own ideas as to what American foreign policy ought to be and we can certainly express those ideas so that the American voter can know what they are voting for.... we will only get to IMPLEMENT our foreign policy from the oval office starting in January of '09. Pelose masde no agreements, she signed no treaties, she negotiated no actions.... she was there to meet the players and to get to know and understand the region and its problems. Clearly, relying on the Bush administration for knowledge was a losing proposition.... if you'll recall, the Bush administration told us, for example, that there was no doubt that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's and that we knew right where they were!