Hillary Has Speaker Pelosi’s Back
Tweet
Of course Nancy Pelosi was right to go to Syria, says Sen. Hillary Clinton. Only idiot Republicans and their friends in the press think otherwise, added Oliver Willis.
102 Responses to “Hillary Has Speaker Pelosi’s Back”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
er.
i’m a democrat, and i’m find with Pelosi going to Syria, but i think there’s VERY GOOD argument for why she shouldn’t have gone. i don’t have time to express it here, but i’m sure you’ve heard it from many a reasonable Republican.
this kind of post irritates me, cause all it does is bring you down to their level. what did this post add? where’s the analysis? it’s like liberal porn. liberals can come here, get off on it, and then leave and not have to think about the underlying issues.
Or, you could read the link and not have to have everything hand-fed to you…
Actually the issue is whether she should have gone – not if its technically legal. Arguably the second most powerful politician in the world, she goes to a terrorist-enabling state and starts negotiating with the head enabler. And screws it up.
We have this thing called ‘separation of powers’ and the Executive Branch makes and enacts foreign policy – not Congress. Sending a terrorist enabling dictator like Assad a message that we have have more than one foreign policy is wrong and dangerous.
actually, I beg to differ with dugre….
It is whether or not it is legal for her to negotiate with other countries on behalf of the US….and legally it is not.
She can go sit by the pool or go to a souk and spend her hubbies cash, but she cannot legally act as an agent of the US government in executing foreign policy.
I don’t see it as an issue that she went, just that she tried to play Secretary of State while she was there. Had she been a formal or informal envoy of the president, that would have been one thing. But she wasn’t. Instead she was trying to work her own deal to the dismay of the Israelis and the White House.
um, i did read the link. both of them.
i’m not sure which you’re referring to. the first one: just says what happened, and that pelosi’s cool. fine by me but it doesnt engage the issues. the second one: dumb crap. but that kind of dreck isn’t the only argument against Pelosi.
What did you mean by your post, Oliver? If you just wanna post about something happening that’s fine, but if you’re gonna claim everyone on the other side is an “idiot” then you should probably offer up some reasoning.
Fake outrage. Pedro, Dugger, Hedley — it’s all theater. Or were you similarly outraged by a) Hastert when he did it, b) the other Republican congressmen on the delegation, and c) the State Department and White House, who approved of this trip when they set it up beforehand?
Fake, fake, fake, just like when you pretend to be against torture. All you really believe in is HATE THE LIBRULLS!!!11!!!1
just like when you pretend to be against torture
That horse is dead – D-E-D-D! Stop beating it…
Now, you’re torturing us!
Actually the issue is whether she should have gone – not if its technically legal.
Glad to see you admit that some things are wrong even if they’re not actually illegal. Now go apply that to Scootergate and Purgegate, please.
Fake outrage is aobut right. Pelosi goes to Syria, she’s cleared through the state department, she informed the president before she went, a Republican delegation was there the day before, there were Republicans on her junket, she reinforces US policy regarding Syria with the single exception that she does it in person.
Have you noticed the difference between Republicans and Democrats going abroad?
Republicans at best accomplish nothing. At worst, McCain they waste resources and risk the lives of our soldiers to have a photo op (and possibly inadvertently cause the execution of 21 Iraqis).
Pelosi goes to Syria, hostages are released, peace is that much closer and the US has a dialogue to build on for peace, something Bush has failed to lead on.
Richardson goes to North Korea, the bodies of our POWs and MIAs are that much closer to home and he gets the ball rolling on nuclear disarmament, again something Bush has failed to lead on.
The Bush foreign policy seems to be based on temper tantrums. It’s like MTv’s My Super Sweet Sixteen show with politics and policy.
“Only idiot Republicans…”
It’s been many years since I’ve even seen evidence of any *other* kind.
Hastert did not: a) meet with the leader of a non-allied nation as Speaker of the House; b) carry out his own agenda contrary to that of the White House; and c) “misinterpret” (to be kind) the position of our most interested ally. Further, the Republican delegation was not trying to promote their own agenda, contrary to that of the White House and Israel. And what does the trip being approved by the State Dept. have to do with anything? All that means is that she was allowed to travel and not that her agenda was approved.
Good try.
There weren’t “Republicans” on her junket. There was one Republican, David Hobson from Ohio.
Yuk, yuk. The reason why Bush won’t admit to waterboarding is because he’d open himself to criminal prosecution as a torturer under this law.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002340—-000-.html
You’ve admitted yourself that you approve of unAmerican, Stalinist, Khmer Rouge techniques. It’s simple, Frank: You admit you’re no better. If you hold the founding principles of America in contempt, I imagine it’s hard to maintain any self respect. But that’s your problem, not mine.
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h_cat39.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/04/AR2006100402005.html
Meanwhile, you have yet to demonstrate that the Pelosi “scandal” is anything but hollow. At least you’ve backed off the utterly insane claim that it’s “illegal.”
“b) carry out his own agenda contrary to that of the White House; and c) “misinterpret” (to be kind) the position of our most interested ally.”
Yawn. He most certainly did b), and I fail to see why c) is newsworthy. Bush does c) every day.
Fake your outrage harder, please, Hedley.
And Richardson is in North Korea with the support of the White House, not working against it.
she cannot legally act as an agent of the US government in executing foreign policy
What evidence do you have that she tried to do that? None? That’s what I thought.
I don’t see it as an issue that she went, just that she tried to play Secretary of State while she was there
I’m tempted to say if the real Secretary won’t do her job it’s about time someone else did, but really, what was it that she did that constitutes
“playing Secretary of state”?
How is what she did different from what the Republicans who visited Assad at the same time did?
From the Fox News description of her visit:
Pelosi was careful to say that Democrats and President Bush share no policy differences on Israel, the Palestinians or Syria.
I’m afraid my dear wingnut brethren have been caught pants-down in a total state of smear-wanking tumescence.
So you concede a). It’s a start.
I love when Cons pretend to give a shit about diplomacy. It’s really quite amusing to see them slip out of one skin and into “concerned internationalist” mode when their real concern is making sure the Rapture comes ASAP.
I love when Cons pretend to give a shit about diplomacy. It’s really quite amusing to see them slip out of one skin and into “concerned internationalist” mode when their real concern is making sure the Rapture comes ASAP.
“So you concede a)”
Totally meaningless.
PS to b.schac: spare us the concern-troll coyness, please. If you have a VERY GOOD reason why Pelosi should not have gone, let’s hear it, because I certainly haven’t heard it from our Republican pals.
“So you concede a)”
For his next trick, Hedley will get you to concede that Hastert did not make his trip in the month of April
Playing Secretary of State is doing more than mere “fact-finding” which Congresspeople do all the time, and justifiably so. When the junket becomes an attempt to create foreign policy contrary to the wishes of the president, then there is an overstepping of bounds.
That is what differentiates Pelosi’s trip from Richardson’s (and the fact that Richardson is unlikely to meet with Kim Jong Il (sp?)). Richardson is going with the support of the White House (and, presumably, with an unofficial message or two) and with a qualificaton to discuss the matter at hand (i.e., nuclear energy). Presumably any message Richardson brings from South Korea won’t result in South Korea all but calling him a liar 5 min. after his press conference.
Was point A about Hastert going to a foreign country and negotiating with that country’s leaders undercutting the foreign policy goals of the President of the United States. Which is comparable to Pelosi because she went to a foreign country and talked to the leader of that country while not negotiating any treaties or policy?
Hate to break it to you Hedley but Richardson’s trip was about releasing the bodies of MIAs and POWs. North Koreans have respect for Richardson and have dealt with himin the past and have even gone to him for advice on how to talk and deal with President Bush. The North Koreans used his visit as an opportunity to open other areas of negotiation.
Then again, legally anyone can act as an agent for the US. The State Dept vetted the trip and witnessed the discussion.
No, she wasn’t.
But he did. Haster, in fact, said to negotiate with US congress, not president.
Dr AGH: You’re tenacious, but you lack thinking skills:
You’ve admitted yourself that you approve of unAmerican, Stalinist, Khmer Rouge techniques.
Never
It’s simple, Frank: You admit you’re no better.
Never did.
If you hold the founding principles of America in contempt, I imagine it’s hard to maintain any self respect.
Imagine away — there is absolutely no connection between the two. If there were, and I contend that there isn’t, you’ve certainly never demonstrated it.
But that’s your problem, not mine.
If I have any problem with your stupendously doubtful hypothesis, it is that you persist in it with no evidence whatsoever, and that you keep trying to fit me into some bizarre mold you have created in your own mind.
Other than that, I love my country, and I feel fine about it. While I do suffer from occasional bouts of depression, they are not ideological in origin.
Not to worry, there is hope for you.
The President is not doing his job. Our lives are in danger and the world is in chaos because of it. So until we get a Democratic president, Speaker Pelosi is stepping up to the plate.
That’s the thing Oliver. She isn’t stepping up to the plate so much. She’s showing a little initiative and in the absence of leadership from the White House it just looks like she’s doing the President’s job.
Just remember: when Hedley uses terms like “create foreign policy” and “overstepping her bounds”, he means precisely NOTHING. No legal meaning, no political meaning, no historical meaning. Just sound and fury from the howling void.
“no evidence whatsoever… I love my country”
Not enough to stop it from being degraded by Bush’s Khmer Rouge torture policies, sadly.
Dr. AGH: I ask you again (for about the 5th time) besides voting for Kerry (who, as I’ve already stated, never declared that he would stop the so called “torture”), what have you ever done to remove this bloody stain from the national fabric?
You have “provided no evidence whatever” that you “love your country”. As a matter of fact, you have judged this country by precisely one standard, that it tortures prisoners, and you have found it wanting.
I contend that you not only don’t love your country, but that you have no idea what America is truly about, and, further, that you lack the courage of your unfounded convictions.
You are a phony, and your self – righteous indignation is comical, at best.
it’s like liberal porn. liberals can come here, get off on it, and then leave and not have to think about the underlying issues
I think this sums up OW’s site perfectly. Thanks, b.schac!
“you have judged this country”
Huh? I’ve judged YOU, genius, for not just voting for, but APPROVING our country’s reputation being ruined by Stalinism. I did neither of those things, and in fact voted, spoke out, and marched against torture.
That’s the thing Oliver. She isn’t stepping up to the plate so much. She’s showing a little initiative and in the absence of leadership from the White House it just looks like she’s doing the President’s job.
Why go through a pesky thing like an election when you can just grab the wheel from the backseat and try to show everyone that you can do a better job of steering the ship?
“just grab the wheel from the backseat”
And the anti-woman rhetoric emerges. Otherwise, no content in that post. But what would you expect from a “drone”?
“We have this thing called ‘separation of powers’ and the Executive Branch makes and enacts foreign policy – not Congress.”
Um, Dugs, the president makes and enacts foreign policy? PLease tell me, great constitutional scholar that you are, who has the power to ratify treaties or declare war or fund foreign aid etc. etc.?
And the anti-woman rhetoric emerges
Must be your sexist sterotypical thinking that only a woman can be a backseat driver. But what else would you expect from someone who has already conceded that he approves of torture and doesn’t love his country.
HA! HA! VRWC applies a sexist stereotype to women, then blames the guy who calls him on it! Why don’t you tell us a racist joke, and then claim “you don’t see color”? Maybe you can sell Imus on your brilliant defense!
Thanks for being honest Ollie…
shorter:
We liberals don’t really care about the Constitutional separation of powers unless it is convenient for you. If we don’t like how the president performing his constitutional duties we will just do it anyway
No, Speaker Pelosi is performing her duties within the limits of her powers (which is more than I can say for the President). Furthermore, somebody referenced ignoring elections in order to do this, but it is specifically because of an election why Pelosi has the power she does. No matter how you try November 2006 happened.
but if you’re gonna claim everyone on the other side is an “idiot” then you should probably offer up some reasoning
I’m honestly asking here and I don’t want to seem arrogant, but do people really expect me to restate an argument I’ve been making for 7 years on each and every post? I’m (apparently naively) making the assumption that readers don’t look at a blog post in a vacuum and can scroll.
VRWC, Bush is asleep at the wheel and running off the road. Pelosi is honking the horn from another car.
Shorter Pee: she’s doing something wrong, I can’t name it or explain it, but it’s undermining the divine right of George W Bush, God Save the Ki… President.
While I don’t have a problem with Pelosi going to Damascus, I’m still not sure what the point is. Scratch that. I know what the point is — looking good in the polls for opposing Bush is the point. Even more so for the Republicans also going.
My issue is Bush doesn’t give a damn what Pelosi does, nor does he give a damn what anyone else does. The cons are right that foreign policy is reserved for the executive branch in the Constitution, and though that doesn’t actually prevent this stuff (heck, I could go to Damascus and do this), he’ll use that as a reason not to listen. And Nancy Pelosi knows that.
Oliver | Apr 10, 2007 8:00:47 PM
“No matter how you try November 2006 happened.”
Sums it up nicely, OW. The blustering from Dugger, Pee and Frank since November has been most entertaining.
Hey CONS:
What is the primary source of political information for the Republicans who frequent this board??
Is it FNC??
RW Talk Radio??
CNN, MSNBC, Network News, or BLOGS???
I am curious…
I am curious…
Indeed, you are.
Yes, NOV 2006 happened.
Yes Rep Pelosi from SF Calif became Speaker of the House.
And, yes, she is trying to act like the Secretary of State.
Illegal? No.
Futile and foolish?
Oh, yeah.
Better to try and fail – and there’s no proof the Speaker’s failed – than to not even try at all.
This former senator has an interesting take on the Syria situation.
“Interesting” in a one-more-thing-Bush-has -totally-fucked-up kind of way.
“trying to act like the Secretary of State”
Fake outrage. Fake, fake, fake. You never cared when Hastert did it. You didn’t object when GOP congressmen did it. Wah wah wah.
Anyway, none of you have come close to demonstrating how meeting with foreign leaders amounts to “making foreign policy.” Will you ever?
Nope.
Dr. Anatole Gavage-Huskanoy: If anybody knows about “fake outrage”, it’s you.
Oh boy, is it ever you!
As for being outraged, grandstanding politicians don’t outrage me anymore. There have been way too many for way too long.
Now, it’s just sad that they so egregiously waste the taxpayers’ money, that that isn’t even an issue, anymore.
Is it legal? Was it advisable? Will it accomplish anything?
All the wrong questions…
The right question is: Doesn’t she have more important things to do here in the United States?
Of course, for you, the most important question is what has this to do with torture?
And, incidentally, O bastinado – obsessed one, visiting foreign dignitaries has been so intimately linked to foreign policy and for so long that that point need not be brought up — except of course by you.
What do you care? It has nothing to do with torture…
“waste the taxpayers’ money”
Says the man who supports hundreds of billions thrown away for a masturbation fantasy…
I see Hillary is trying to get Nancy’s endorsement. Maybe because Nancy has credibility and Hillary doesn’t
Bringing up Hastert again and again is a red herring. Hastert never did anything while Speaker of the House, 2nd in line to the Presidency. And once again, Pelosi wasn’t in Syria simply to meet Assad and be a factfinder to aid in the performance of her position as a Representative and Speaker. Instead, she was trying to cut a deal between Syria and Israel to get Syria to the table. In the process Israel said she conveyed their position all wrong. Way to go Nancy!
Remember when the Cons were in love with Congress’s policy-making role? Like that vote calling for regime change in Iraq? Use of Force Authorization? Remember all that?
But now that Democrats are exercising their constitutional powers, Cons like VRWC retaliate with woman-hate and false claims about the constitution. Pathetic.
“Instead, Hastert was trying to pressure the Columbian military to bypass the U.S. executive branch and communicate directly with Congress.”
Of course, Hedley didn’t mind Hastert’s Columbian Adventure because Hedley is lying when he claims to care about this issue. He just cares about attacking a Democrat. As with so many Cons, it’s Hedley’s only real principle.
Of course, the Dr. is being typically dishonest in attempting to compare a Congressman meeting with military officials to the Speaker of the House meeting with a head of state. Hastert wasn’t trying to change policy or even make new policy and regardless, he wasn’t speaking with a head of state. If Pelosi was meeting with Syrian military officials and trying to convince them to talk to Israel, have at it. But that isn’t what she did and it is intellectually dishonest to suggest otherwise. Ultimately she was all but called a liar by Israel and was nothing more than a photo opp for Syria, despite her best attempts. Way to go Dems!
Of course, the Dr. is being typically dishonest in attempting to compare a Congressman meeting with military officials to the Speaker of the House meeting with a head of state. Hastert wasn’t trying to change policy or even make new policy and regardless, he wasn’t speaking with a head of state. If Pelosi was meeting with Syrian military officials and trying to convince them to talk to Israel, have at it. But that isn’t what she did and it is intellectually dishonest to suggest otherwise. Ultimately she was all but called a liar by Israel and was nothing more than a photo opp for Syria, despite her best attempts. Way to go Dems!
Well obviously I know you think it was okay for Hastert to undermine Clinton’s policies and substitue his own, Hedley, in his words “bypassing the Clinton administration.” Thank you for copping to that, at least. The problem is, you haven’t explained WHY that’s okay. Is it because you… can’t?
“Hastert wasn’t trying to change policy or even make new policy”
In fact: “While the Clinton administration was pressuring Colombia to stop human rights abuses, Rep. Dennis Hastert was telling the country’s police and military leaders that rights concerns were overblown, a newly declassified government document says.”
Remember, in Hedley’s world, Republicans can do no wrong, and Democrats can do no right. That position and that alone determines his facts.
fd10801 | Apr 10, 2007 9:29:05 PM
” …grandstanding politicians don’t outrage me anymore … Now, it’s just sad that they so egregiously waste the taxpayers’ money …”
Well, the oil WAS going to pay for the war …
Do you keep a straight face when you’re typing this crap?
As it happens, what Pelosi did WAS illegal…..
“Let’s be clear from the start: There isn’t much question that Speaker Pelosi has committed a felony violation of the Logan Act. This two-century-old law, codified at Section 953 of the federal penal code, bars Americans who are “without authority of the United States” from conducting relations “with any foreign government … in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States[.]”
It is settled beyond peradventure that the authority of the United States over the conduct of foreign relations rests exclusively with the executive branch. As John Marshall, later to become the nation’s most important Chief Justice, famously observed, “The President is the sole organ of the nation in its external affairs, and its sole representative with foreign nations.… The [executive] department is entrusted with the whole foreign intercourse of the nation.” In 1936, the Supreme Court explicitly acknowledged in its Curtiss-Wright Export decision, the “delicate, plenary and exclusive power of the President as the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations[.]” And, as convincingly explained in the Wall Street Journal by the eminent Professor Robert F. Turner, the congressional debate over passage of the Logan Act demonstrates that the law was understood to bar legislative interference with the president’s management of American diplomacy.”
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTJlODU3MDc3ZjEzZjEzYzVkNGRmNzhiYmZiNjkwNTI=
Unfortunately, the “eminent” wingnut Professor Turner failed to explain why no one’s ever been indicted, tried, or convicted under the Logan Act in the past 200 years: because it’s a path nobody on either side wants to go down, as they’d have to prosecute every Congressman and Senator. Not that Pedro will tell you that – only Democrats can do wrong in his world!
But go ahead, prosecute her. See what happens then, Cons.
Pedro, you are calling for Hastert to be thrown in jail, right?
I’m curious what relations Pee is alleging Speaker Pelosi conducted in regards to disputes and controversies between Syria and the United States. Did she negotiate a trade agreement? Peace treaty? Did she form some kind of Nuclear Weapons Ban or Armistice? Did she issue Letters of Marque? Did she try to sell Syria arms? What promises or assurances of US conduct did she make?
Oh. As a VIP she visited a head of state and discussed some issues that affect the region.
MODERATOR: So you don’t believe, Vice President Gore, that we should take sides and resolve this right now? A lot of people pushing hey, the United States should declare itself and not be so neutral in this particular situation.
GORE: Well, we stand with Israel, but we have maintained the ability to serve as an honest broker. And one of the reasons that’s important is that Israel cannot have direct dialogue with some of the people on the other side of conflicts, especially during times of tension, unless that dialogue comes through us. And if we throw away that ability to serve as an honest broker, then we have thrown — we will have thrown away a strategic asset that’s important not only to us but also to Israel.
MODERATOR: You agree with that, Governor?
BUSH: I do. I do think this, though. When it comes to timetables it can’t be the United States timetable as to how discussions take place. It’s got to be a timetable that all parties can agree to, like the Palestinians and Israelis. Secondly, any lasting peace is going to have to be a peace that’s good for both sides. And therefore, the term honest broker makes sense. This current administration’s worked hard to keep the parties at the table. I will try to do the same thing. But it won’t be on my timetable, it will be on the timetable that people are comfortable with in the Middle East.
Think the US is being an “honest broker” in the Middle East under Bush?
Who said what Hastert did was okay? If he sought to undermine the Clinton Administration, he was completely wrong to have done so. The point — which you repeatedly and conveniently ignore — is that Hastert was not Speaker of the House at the time and was not meeting with a Head of State.
Pelosi did not commit a crime, and unsurprisingly the National Review is full of crap.
Well, the oil WAS going to pay for the war …
I never said it would.
Wasting money is never good.
Killing terrorists is always good.
Finally, my bushy tailed friend, I do have trouble keeping a straight face when I read your comments.
I missed the part about the National Review.
Did you mean this?
The talk about charging the Speaker with a Logan Act violation is foolish.
I understand you work in the field of correcting Media errors, is that right?
“The point is that Hastert was not Speaker of the House at the time and was not meeting with a Head of State”
So if a ordinary congressman meets with officials, that’s okay, and if a speaker meets with officials, that’s okay, and if a congressman meets with a head of state, that’s okay, but for some reason a speaker meeting with a head of state is NOT okay? Where are you getting this stuff, Hedley? Now you’re just making stuff up to justify your preexisting outrage.
Hastert represented the Republican controlled congress to military leaders of a foreign country. He promised them legislative exemptions directly undercutting the policy position of the President in the midst of policy negotiations.
Bush was purposely not engaged in negotiations with Syria. Pelosi promised Syria nothing. All she did was meet with a foreign head of state and discuss issues.
Apparently the right wing confuses foreign policy with high school social drama. In high school that kind of silent treatment might work ostracizing some poor hapless girl who smiled at the cheerleader’s boyfriend. In the Middle East it jeopardizes the US ability to act as an honest broker in the peace process.
Media Matters gives a weak ass response by quoting the CRS opinion that congressfolk can speak with other countries while engaged in “legislative matters”….of course conducting US foreign policy is not a “legislative matter”…so the point is moot. The second and more ridiculous argument is that “no one has ever been prosecuted” under the logan act….well, that is an interesting legal precedent. I bet wee Willy Clenis would have loved to use that defense when he became the first sitting president impeached for perjury.
Oh and Frank, Ollie is not in the business of correcting media errors…he is the TECH GEEK for a group that purports to correct media errors…
“of course conducting US foreign policy is not a “legislative matter”
Tell it to Denny Hastert. Tell it to the Republicans who voted for regime change in Iraq and who vote on foreign policy matters in every session. Tell it to every member of Congress, Pedro, because every one of them goes on these delegations and meets with foreign officials to discuss foreign policy, because the distinction between “legislative matters” and “foreign policy” exists solely in your 110 degree brain, Pedro.
As for the Logan act, I think the best thing you could do for Nancy Pelosi is to indict her under the Logan act. Nothing would call attention to the Bush administration’s overreach like prosecuting a member of Congress for something EVERY MEMBER OF CONGRESS is “guilty” of. So please, by all means, throw her in the briar patch!
For the record, I reiterate my surprise that Pedro is calling for the prosecution and imprisonment of Dennis Hastert.
And now thre is talk about the Speaker going to negaotiate witth Iran. Forget the illegality or non illegality, this woman comes from the Ted Mack school of diplomacy and to have screwed up in Iraq is bad, but to follow that up by going to Iran is beyond comprehension.
“and to have screwed up in Iraq is bad, but to follow that up by going to Iran is beyond comprehension.”
Did I just read that?!? I think Dugger just renounced his support for Bush! Good for you, buddy! I was so wrong about you!
Seriously, I don’t get the whole false outrage thing. Pelosi went to the State Dept. and the White House before her trip. She informed both that she was going (with the Rep. from Ohio). The White House said “Well, okay, go ahead. We don’t think you should but okay, fine. It is within your authority to do so.”
Then they waited until the wheels hit the tarmac in Damascus to spring this bullshit ambush. “Oh no! Oh dear, she’s undermining the Presdint! Whatever will we do?”
Please. Another quality product from Turd Blossom Industries.
Duros: It’s called “diplomacy”.
In order for the US to maintain its non – recognition policy of Syria, they have to strongly disapprove of Pelosi’s visit, even though (as I pointed out elsewhere) the State Department briefed her before she went.
Not all that complicated after all, is it?
No, it’s not complicated. Conservatives don’t like liberal ideas on foreign policy, and vice versa. What’s objectionable is the hollow idea that Pelosi did something unique, unusual, over the line or even illegal, as conservatives have screeched. It’s just one branch fighting another in an arena where both have power.
It’s just one branch fighting another in an arena where both have power.
Let’s be clear here: I said no such thing, and I definitely disagree with you.
Fine Frank. Show us the written non-recognition policy on Syria. There should be an executive order or a bill or resolution to that effect with restrictions on contact with the Syrian government.
Non-recognition and diplomatic disengagement. AKA Bush is a flip-flopper.
Bullshit, Frank. It’s called an ambush.
Non-recognition and diplomatic disengagement.
That is what passes for diplomacy with your team.
OthersDemocrats should’ve been unapologetic last week defending Speaker Pelosi because the truth was on our side: She had a right to go. And she was right to go. The coordinated attack on her trip to Syria was as inappropriate as it was irresponsible.
whoops.
So John Kerry says… That settles it.
Did the State Department brief Speaker Pelosi before she went to Syria? Yes, they did.
midderpidge: Suddenly you’re pretending that Bush administration won’t sit down with Syria?
Your left-wing buddies have been saying it for days.
No, midderpidge, you want something looked up, look it up.
The Great Karnak predicts midderpidge’s answer: So,Frank, you’re admitting there is no such thing…
Frank’s response: Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Frank’s response: be unable to form a coherent claim, much less back it up. Invest instead in ‘ha’s. What’s your meaningful complaint against Pelosi? Nothing but politics as usual, as far as I can tell, with the standard GOP dishonesty as a topping.
Dr. AGH: I respond to one comment at time. I made my feelings clear on Speaker Pelosi’s trip, and I didn’t, and don’t, feel like repeating myself, each time you ask.
You have repeated the claim that this is politics as usual, with no evidence either time you made the statement.
Does that bother you?
Of course not…
I don’t have to make any claims about Pelosi. I just have to shoot down yours. And you have yet to even construct an intelligible claim, much less substantiate it. If that’s how you want to leave things, I won’t be surprised.
Damn those Republican congressmen! completely undermining the President and giving Nancy Pelosi the impression that its OK to talk with Asad.
Gosh Frank, am I pretending that Bush won’t sit down with the Syrians? What is a policy of non-recognition if not a refusal to deal with a state?
Yes Rep Pelosi from SF Calif became Speaker of the House.
And, yes, she is trying to act like the Secretary of State.
Illegal? No.
Futile and foolish?
Oh, yeah.
* * *
Now, it’s just sad that they so egregiously waste the taxpayers’ money, that that isn’t even an issue, anymore.
Is it legal? Was it advisable? Will it accomplish anything?
All the wrong questions…
The right question is: Doesn’t she have more important things to do here in the United States?
* * *
In order for the US to maintain its non – recognition policy of Syria, they have to strongly disapprove of Pelosi’s visit, even though (as I pointed out elsewhere) the State Department briefed her before she went.
* * *
You have repeated the claim that this is politics as usual, with no evidence either time you made the statement.
Enough about me, Dr, AGH, let’s talk about you.
Since it seems you can’t read, you might want to find someone who can to read all those things you say I never said.
What is a policy of non-recognition if not a refusal to deal with a state?
Well, gee, midderpidge, since you’ve pretty well summed it up, you can stop being a butthead and stop asking me to prove it.
I reread your charges against Pelosi. Acting foolish? Wasting money? Misplaced priorities? Typical Republican charges best summed up as politics as usual.
See Frank, my positions are that the Bush policy of non-recognition is
1. unofficial.
2. directly opposite to Bush’s earlier stated belief that the US has to be an “honest broker” (able to talk with the various factions) in the Middle East. Flip Flop.
Dr. AGH: Wrong
midderpidge: So?
I like that this is getting easier.
I guess it’s no surprise that you won’t articulate your specific complaint against Pelosi. It’s because you yourself don’t know what it is.
Dr. AGH: I’ve said it twice. What is a surprise is that you can make such an obviously false statement, when the evidence is in clear in black and white.
You seem to be huskanoyed. Would you like to be fed the statement by gavage?
Gavage away. You’ve provided no evidence that anything out of the ordinary took place. I look forward to that evidence.
Dr. AGH: You’ve done nothing but say, “It ain’t so.”
So, this one – sided discussion is hereby closed by the one who has provided all its content.
That would be me.
You’re the one making the claim, so if you don’t bring any evidence, why should anyone listen to you, Frank?