Pelosi Lies and Her Trip Is A Dud

[no1tovote4]

she was not negotiating or doing anything other than getting a first hand understanding of the area and expressing her opinion. She broke no law....but I am not surprised that republicans would rather talk about this little diversion and make this molehill into a mountain in hopes that Americans will ignore the real mountain of dead american servicemen and women who are dying at an ever INCREASING rate in Iraq. FACT: American casaulties over the last 7 months 52% HIGHER than the seven months before that. But let's spend all ******* day indicting Pelosi for violation of the Logan Act. That shows the real priorities of the right.

She most definitely suggested a course of action for Syria, that is conducting Foreign policy.

I'm not surprised that Democrats would ignore any suggestion of impropriety of their leadership and attempt to deflect a conversation on that subject to something else that they would rather speak on. It is embarrassing.

 

[no1tovote4]

and how come the right makes a big deal about how wrong Pelosi was for visiting Syria and NOBODY from the right EVER says BOO about Robert Aderholt of Alabama, Frank Wolf of Virginia and Darrell Issa of California - all REPUBLICAN congressman - doing EXACTLY the same thing?

When will I hear the cries from the right that Aderholt, Wolf and Issa be charged for vioations of the Logan Act?

Anytime soon?

I didn't think so.

Then you didn't read the link provided by Care, I even stated that Bush did say things about those people.

You, in your ravening defense of all things Democrat, slave to the party and not the nation, have simply refused to read anything from any person on the other side.

Seriously, I have never, in all the years I have known you, seen you even suggest that a Democrat might do something wrong. It's bullocks, it's simply partisan, it is just as bad as another who might think all Republicans are perfect.

Get over it. People are people regardless of the party they are in.

 

[maineman]

She most definitely suggested a course of action for Syria, that is conducting Foreign policy.

I'm not surprised that Democrats would ignore any suggestion of impropriety of their leadership and attempt to deflect a conversation on that subject to something else that they would rather speak on. It is embarrassing.

I am not embarrassed in the least by Speaker Pelosi...nor am I embarrased about Aderholt or Wolf or Issa.

I am, however, embarrassed, saddened and outraged at the blight on the middle east put in motion by our terrible president and I am really repulsed by righties like you that would continue to suck his dick.

 

[maineman]

Then you didn't read the link provided by Care, I even stated that Bush did say things about those people.

You, in your ravening defense of all things Democrat, slave to the party and not the nation, have simply refused to read anything from any person on the other side.

Seriously, I have never, in all the years I have known you, seen you even suggest that a Democrat might do something wrong. It's bullocks, it's simply partisan, it is just as bad as another who might think all Republicans are perfect.

Get over it. People are people regardless of the party they are in.

I think that every democrat who voted for the use of force resolution did something wrong and I have said that on may occasions. I think that Clinton dod wrong when he let that fat slut suck him off and even more wrong when he wagged his finger at us and denied it. I think Lieberman did a terrible thing by not accepting the will of the democratic voters in his state.... I think that Durbin engaged his mouth before his brain when he used nazi POW camps and Pol Pot in the same paragraph with words that could even remotely be construed to have something to do with our armed forces.... I think that democrats have made many mistakes over the years and I have written about them here and elsewhere...

 

[maineman]

and please note the title of this thread and the thrust of it...this has never been about congressmen conducting foreign policy...it was another RSR HATES LIBS rant...

you KNOW from past experience that I can play that game....and you know that I rarely if ever start them, but rarely if ever walk away from them once started. I am proud of that first point and admittedly slightly less proud of the second.

 

[no1tovote4]

I am not embarrassed in the least by Speaker Pelosi...nor am I embarrased about Aderholt or Wolf or Issa.

I am, however, embarrassed, saddened and outraged at the blight on the middle east put in motion by our terrible president and I am really repulsed by righties like you that would continue to suck his dick.

LOL. I have never done anything of the sort. And such direct ad hominem attack makes it clear that you are losing the argument.

At this moment we are speaking of Pelosi and other congresspersons, I speak as purely intellectually interested on a law that has never been used. You speak as the defender of the party you hold all allegiance to. You attempt to deflect it to another nation, you attempt to pretend that the only subject anybody can ever speak on is that other nation.

So, let's be clear. I do not think that Pelosi should be prosecuted under this law. I do not think she will be. I do think that the law is likely unconsitutional because of the vagueness when it starts speaking on "defeat" and other points. However, it is ineteresting to discuss this intellectually which of the visits would be "illegal" or not.

Now, stating that I think that all four of the congresspeople who have been mentioned, unless given authority by the President, would be in violation of this "law" isn't an attack on your precious party. So get off your low horse and stop the ad hominem attacks and either enter the discussion with intellectual honesty or just find another thread.

 

[Care4all]

Yet iterating a position on Foreign Policy is conducting foreign relations. So, the "she supported Bush" theory wouldn't be a defense here.

Really? How so? If she was briefed by the White House on what to say, and she said what the white House told her to say, then what in heavens name are you talking about here no1?

If you read the law it really doesn't matter what she says, it matters where she goes. That Bush objected to all trips to Syria by other than those he sends pretty much tells you that he didn't send her there with the authority to conduct a foreign relations mission.


She did not go on a Foreign relations trip, she went on a foreign relations FACT FINDING TRIP....as PART of her trip she was exploring one of the options that the committee that President Bush appointed and our tax payers dollars paid for... concluded as a tactic or option, in the Iraqi study group/commission.

And Bush DID NOT OBJECT TO ALL trips to Syria...ONLY THIS ONE, did he make an issue on since his policy of ignoring Syria took place in 2003....infact there were probably at least 10 different visits to Syria by Congress members....did you hear anything about those trips from the white house? This was PURELY PARTISAN POSITIONING with their attack on Pelosi in public, while briefing her behind the scenes imo.

As I said, the law has never been used and likely never will be.

Well I'll be damned, I thought YOU just SAID that the LAW was NOT broken, so what precisely does this mean No1?

 

[no1tovote4]

Really? How so? If she was briefed by the White House on what to say, and she said what the white House told her to say, then what in heavens name are you talking about here no1?

If she was briefed and told what to say it would still be conducting foreign policy, it would just be with approval.

She did not go on a Foreign relations trip, she went on a foreign relations FACT FINDING TRIP....as PART of her trip she was exploring one of the options that the committee that President Bush appointed and our tax payers dollars paid for... concluded as a tactic or option, in the Iraqi study group/commission.

That is a defense position for this law only. It is ridiculous to say that somebody who is telling the leader of another nation what they should do is not suggesting foreign policy.

And Bush DID NOT OBJECT TO ALL trips to Syria...ONLY THIS ONE, did he make an issue on since his policy of ignoring Syria took place in 2003....infact there were probably at least 10 different visits to Syria by Congress members....did you hear anything about those trips from the white house? This was PURELY PARTISAN POSITIONING with their attack on Pelosi in public, while briefing her behind the scenes imo.

You didn't read you own link there, the WH position on this is he objects to all of those visits to Syria. This isn't "purely partisan" this is somebody who actually educated himself on the subject at hand, and even read your article. You know the one you linked to.

As I said, the law has never been used and likely never will be.

Well I'll be damned, I thought YOU just SAID that the LAW was NOT broken, so what precisely does this mean No1?

I said that it would be legal to go on a fact finding trip without permission of the president, but conducting foreign relations without that permission is in violation of that law.

I didn't say that the law was not broken, I said that it was never used. It may or may not have been broken, but even if it has been broken it is unlikely ever to be pressed by either side.

You are once again solely in defense mode. I'm in this because I think it is intellectually interesting to discuss it.

 

[no1tovote4]

Anyway, Care...


Here is the WH official position on trips to Syria by Congress:

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino on Monday stressed that the Bush administration objects to all visits to Syria.

From this link posted by you earlier:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/845016.html

 

[Care4all]

Anyway, Care...


Here is the WH official position on trips to Syria by Congress:


From this link posted by you earlier:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/845016.html

Yes No1, the press secretary after the fact, did "say" they object to all of them, WHEN she was questioned by a white house correspondant about it because the white house appeared to be hypocritical to be causing this fuss about ONLY Nancy's trip publically....this took place at the white house press briefing.

In December, just 4 months previous to the pelosi trip another republican congressional envoy made the same trip to Syria, did you read anything about the white house objecting to this trip and singling it out or the trip by the Republicans during the same week as Pelosi's....?

The answer is: NO.

This was ALL purely political jesturing and positioning on the White House's part and even perhaps political positioning on the world stage for pelosi too imo.

Care

 

[Care4all]

That is a defense position for this law only. It is ridiculous to say that somebody who is telling the leader of another nation what they should do is not suggesting foreign policy.

Oh, it may be foreign policy "so to say" but it is NOT pelosi's own foreign policy but the foreign policy of the USA that she stands by as a Leader of our Country's Congress.




You didn't read you own link there, the WH position on this is he objects to all of those visits to Syria. This isn't "purely partisan" this is somebody who actually educated himself on the subject at hand, and even read your article. You know the one you linked to.

I did read it No1, and I explained above precisely why the White House secretary said this....because she was QUESTIONED by the press on WHY they HAD NOT objected to the other visits to Syria by congressmen since the 2003 Bush policy change on Syria... you can view this on c-span in their archives of the White House Press briefings.


I said that it would be legal to go on a fact finding trip without permission of the president, but conducting foreign relations without that permission is in violation of that law.

So? Based on this description did Pelosi break the Law or NOT?

I didn't say that the law was not broken, I said that it was never used. It may or may not have been broken, but even if it has been broken it is unlikely ever to be pressed by either side.

Really? Well I just went back to the post where I thought you said it would be legal for her to go on a fact finding trip...but I realize now that I misunderstood your point on that post. My apologies! This is why I was confused!

You are once again solely in defense mode. I'm in this because I think it is intellectually interesting to discuss it.

ok! It is very interesting to me also, and from all of the foreign relations fact finding trips that congressmen have made over the years on all different fronts, this just appears to be a mountain made out of a mole hill by a Rovian type plan to jump on the democrats...

it was much to do about nothing and purely political....something to cause deflection from what else that was going wrong in Iraq or with the fired justices and Gonzales and just something else done by the "Uniter" to devide us imho!

Care

 

[no1tovote4]

Yes No1, the press secretary after the fact, did "say" they object to all of them, WHEN she was questioned by a white house correspondant about it because the white house appeared to be hypocritical to be causing this fuss about ONLY Nancy's trip publically....this took place at the white house press briefing.

In December, just 4 months previous to the pelosi trip another republican congressional envoy made the same trip to Syria, did you read anything about the white house objecting to this trip and singling it out or the trip by the Republicans during the same week as Pelosi's....?

The answer is: NO.

This was ALL purely political jesturing and positioning on the White House's part and even perhaps political positioning on the world stage for pelosi too imo.

Care

Just like saying it is solely a "fact finding mission" when she directly spoke to the President of Syria about policy is political positioning on the world stage.

 

[Gunny]

Oh dear....Gunny, Pelosi did not break the Law, PERIOD. Just as the Republican convoy of congressmen that visited the leaders of Syria 3 days before pelosi's vist and 4 days after her visit.

The White House was notified and told of her trip. The White House could have told her not to go, that she would be breaking the law if she did go....and the white house could have also told the other republican convoys not to go to syria, that they too would be breaking "this law" that you speak about, but they did NOT.

you ARE BEING A child AND NOT ALLOWING logic AND facts TO MERGE.

Disappointing....to say the least....especially when there are real issues to be pissed at the Dems for or repubs for....instead, passing LIES about someone is more important.....shameful imo!

I would have to say that the person being a child here is you. You feign a position of superior knowledge and intellectual superiority when your absolute blindness to fact and the letter of the law say otherwise.

PROVE please, how she broke this law....SHOW us how she broke this law, in writing please....ALSO make sure you INCLUDE the other envoys this same week visiting Syria...SHOW HOW they broke this law.....

I'll be waiting.

Care

I would have to say that the person being a child here is you. You feign a position of superior knowledge and intellectual superiority when your absolute blindness to fact and the letter of the law say otherwise. Pretending you don't see the writing in bold caps on the wall doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I provide you with the Constitution, and the legal ruling by SCOTUS. You have YET to read, comprehend or address it. Instead you play this little game of mock exasperation while assuming much about me that is not true.

You cannot get around the fact that SCOTUS ruled the President is the sole representative of the US where foreign policy is concerned, and that it specifically stated that Congress should not try to and does not have any business in it.

Unless you can provide evidence that Pelosi was sent to Syria at the behest of the President, then as Speaker of the House of Representatives she was out of bounds and attempting to usurp the powers delegated to the Chief Executive by the US Constitution, and reinforced by a SCOTUS ruling by conducting foreign policy with another nation's head of state.

I've backed my opinion with the law of the land, a ruling by SCOTUS, and the event of Pelosi's trip to Syria. You have backed yours to this point with nothing but attacking my intelligence for not following your party line like a good little sheep.

I can live with THAT.

 

[maineman]

Gunny.... two points:

1. It is a matter of opinion and not necessarily of fact that Pelosi was "conducting foreign policy" and not merely gaining a first hand perspective on the issues over which she would guide congressional oversight.

2. Republican congressmen went to Syria before and after her trip yet I hear no clamoring from anyone for THOSE congressmen to be censured in any way for overstepping THEIR constitutional authority.

 

[Care4all]

I would have to say that the person being a child here is you. You feign a position of superior knowledge and intellectual superiority when your absolute blindness to fact and the letter of the law say otherwise. Pretending you don't see the writing in bold caps on the wall doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I provide you with the Constitution, and the legal ruling by SCOTUS. You have YET to read, comprehend or address it. Instead you play this little game of mock exasperation while assuming much about me that is not true.

You cannot get around the fact that SCOTUS ruled the President is the sole representative of the US where foreign policy is concerned, and that it specifically stated that Congress should not try to and does not have any business in it.

Unless you can provide evidence that Pelosi was sent to Syria at the behest of the President, then as Speaker of the House of Representatives she was out of bounds and attempting to usurp the powers delegated to the Chief Executive by the US Constitution, and reinforced by a SCOTUS ruling by conducting foreign policy with another nation's head of state.

I've backed my opinion with the law of the land, a ruling by SCOTUS, and the event of Pelosi's trip to Syria. You have backed yours to this point with nothing but attacking my intelligence for not following your party line like a good little sheep.

I can live with THAT.

gunny, the white house briefed her on their foreign position and on other things before she left on her trip....THUS they approved her trip.

gunny, she did not approach syria's leaders with her own foreign policies, you have NOT given any proof of such.

gunny, the white house not only allowed her trip, but they allowed the trips of at least 10 different congressional trips there the past 3 years....on fact finding missions.

gunny, within one week of pelosi's trip there was another congressional envoy meeting with the syrian leader...on a fact finding mission.

gunny, in december of 2006 there was an additional republican envoy of 4 congressmen that met with the syrian leader...on a fact finding mission.

gunny, arlen spector recently met with the Syrian leader on another fact finding mission.

gunny, please rethink your position. Congressmen and senators are required to go on these ''fact finding foreign missions''
-----------------------------------------

gunny, you are right, i am stubborn....but only when i am right, beyond a shaddow of a doubt....and i am, regarding this!

 

[Care4all]

Just like saying it is solely a "fact finding mission" when she directly spoke to the President of Syria about policy is political positioning on the world stage.

that's being petty no1...

of course any congressmen on a fact finding mission over seas may need to reiterate America's policies in order to get the information they need...

are you implying that no senators and no congressmen should ever reiterate america's foreign policy provisions when traveling over seas and meeting with leaders on fact finding missions damo?

i disagree with you if you are.

and the last 100 years of precedence differs with you also!

care

 

[no1tovote4]

that's being petty no1...

of course any congressmen on a fact finding mission over seas may need to reiterate America's policies in order to get the information they need...

are you implying that no senators and no congressmen should ever reiterate america's foreign policy provisions when traveling over seas and meeting with leaders on fact finding missions damo?

i disagree with you if you are.

and the last 100 years of precedence differs with you also!

care

I am saying that if they do such without the permission of the President, they would be in violation of this law if they were in a land who we had problematic foreign relations. Such as Syria.

The law is pretty clear on it, as well as the SCOTUS ruling.

I have a suspision that she was sent there to talk to them by the President who made a big deal about it, not for political purposes, but to give her a better chance of success as it would be somebody that wasn't on "Bush's side" on the subject. But it is just a suspicion.

When I made that statement it wasn't to show that she had broken the law, per se, it was to make clear that if you are speaking to the policy and actions of a foreign power you are conducting foreign relations. Telling another nation what they ought to be doing is not "fact finding".

 

[Care4all]

I am saying that if they do such without the permission of the President, they would be in violation of this law if they were in a land who we had problematic foreign relations. Such as Syria.

The law is pretty clear on it, as well as the SCOTUS ruling.

I have a suspision that she was sent there to talk to them by the President who made a big deal about it, not for political purposes, but to give her a better chance of success as it would be somebody that wasn't on "Bush's side" on the subject. But it is just a suspicion.

When I made that statement it wasn't to show that she had broken the law, per se, it was to make clear that if you are speaking to the policy and actions of a foreign power you are conducting foreign relations. Telling another nation what they ought to be doing is not "fact finding".

actually, it kinda makes sense....especially how ''cooly'' she handled all the negative publicity and how easily she seemed to blow it off...

care.

 

[Gunny]

Gunny.... two points:

1. It is a matter of opinion and not necessarily of fact that Pelosi was "conducting foreign policy" and not merely gaining a first hand perspective on the issues over which she would guide congressional oversight.

She went to Syria to discuss foreign policy with the Syrian head of state. That is "conducting" foreign policy.

The problem stems from the fact that Bush's standing orders on Syria are that Syria will not be negotiated with until Syria meets certain requirements. That is within his right, by law, to do.

And you were in the military longer than I was, if not by much, so you KNOW what a "standing order" is. It means the answer is "no" with express permission otherwise.

2. Republican congressmen went to Syria before and after her trip yet I hear no clamoring from anyone for THOSE congressmen to be censured in any way for overstepping THEIR constitutional authority.

I must be typing with invisible ink. I have stated, more than once, that any Republicans congresspersons who went to Syria for the purpose of conducting foreign policy without the express consent and/or appointment by the President, of State Dept as proxy, were just as wrong in doing so as Pelosi was.

I shouldn't have to qualify that with you. I can understand someone else who is letting her mouth flat outrun her mind because she doesn't know me and is trying to debate with her opinion, but you KNOW I'm not going to cut ANYONE any slack either way.

Hastert did the same thing back in the 90s with the head honcho in Columbia, and what he did was wrong. If this was the 90s, and Hastert had just made headlines for telling the Columbian head of state to just bypass the President and go straight to Congress, and the law was presented then as I have presented it now, I'd have said the exact same thing about him then as I am saying about Pelosi now, with one exception ....

Clinton did not have a standing order that Columbia would not be negotiated with. However, Hastert clearly went outside the legal limits of the Consitution telling a foreign head of state to bypass the Chief Executive.

 

[Annie]

Interestingly enough, some of this was addressed prior to the visit, including the pitfalls. It's made very clear that the White House had seriously discouraged the trip, for a myriad of reasons:

http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=9389210

he Risks and Rewards of Freelance Diplomacy

(Because of intense interest in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, NPR makes available free transcripts of its coverage. View related web coverage or listen to the audio for this story)
Talk of the Nation: April 5, 2007

NEAL CONAN, host:

This is TALK OF THE NATION. I'm Neal Conan in Washington.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi led a congressional delegation to the Middle East this week for meetings with the heads of government in Israel, Syria and Saudi Arabia. President Bush has harshly criticized the speaker's meeting with Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad.

Yesterday in Damascus, Speaker Pelosi said her discussions had gone well with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and with President Assad.

Representative NANCY PELOSI (Democrat, California): We were very pleased with the reassurances we received from the president that he was ready to resume the peace process, he was ready to engage in negotiations with peace with Israel. The meeting with the president enabled us to communicate a message from Prime Minister Olmert that Israel was ready to engage in peace talks, as well.

CONAN: Shortly afterward, Prime Minister Olmert's office issued a clarification and said that Speaker Pelosi had mischaracterized his message, and there appears to be little new in President Assad's statement. Speaker Pelosi said her goal was to re-open dialogue with Syria in line with the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group. Her critics charge that she's running an alternative foreign policy, which is the responsibility of the president and the secretary of state.

Later in the program, Ask Amy. As high-school seniors around the country hear from colleges, Amy Dickinson joins us to discuss how to deal with disappointment. If you have questions about that, you can e-mail us now: talk@npr.org. But first the risks and rewards of private diplomacy.

What works? Can private citizens or members of Congress cross the line? Can they be useful? Our number is 800-989-8255, 800-989-TALK. E-mail is talk@npr.org. You can also comment on our blog. It's at npr.org/blogofthenation.

With us from his office here in Washington, D.C., is Hisham Melhem. He's the bureau chief of Al Arabiya, a 24-hour Arabic TV news channel. He also writes for An-Nahar, a daily newspaper in Lebanon. Nice to have you back on the program.

Mr. HISHAM MELHEM (Bureau Chief, Al-Arabia): Thank you.

CONAN: What's been the reaction in the region to Speaker Pelosi's trip to Damascus?

Mr. MELHAM: Well, to begin with, in Syria, there was a sense of jubilation and vindication and even a sense of triumphalism, if you will, because they felt that Nancy Pelosi is breaking the policy of isolation that the Bush administration has tried to impose on Syria for some time now. And so they saw that as the beginning of the end of that kind of an approach by the Bush administration.

In other parts of the region, in Lebanon for instance, there is a great deal of trepidation, if you will, on the part of many, many Lebanese. Because they did not want Nancy Pelosi to appear as if she is rewarding the Syrian strongman by giving him that kind of legitimacy, if you will. And in fact that's what they told her when some of the Lebanese leaders met with her before she went to Damascus, and they asked her to stress the need for Syria to cooperate with the United Nations in the investigation of the killing of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.

...