Setanta wrote:OCCOM BILL wrote:Setanta wrote:I suspect that would be a case of whose ox had been gored.
As is typical, that's precisely the misunderstanding here on A2K. If Pelosi is wrong, than so too was Hastert (both seem pretty obvious to me). As far as legality is concerned; it's bigger than Hastert, Pelosi, Bush or Clinton.
I see--what evidence do you have that Pelosi has taken bribes from the Syrians?
Huh?
Cyclops; those speaking on Bush's behalf are hardly synonomous with those who oppose Bush's stance, speaking against his wishes. It is childish to pretend these are the same thing. And WTF would be Pelosi be doing in Syria if not to discuss U.S. Policy?
Advocate wrote:Bill, if you were in congress and you saw the president severely damaging the country through his poor judgment in foreign affairs, would you really just sit there and do nothing?
I don't think there are many in congress who would let the country go down the drain with taking some action.
The system has checks and balances, and your argument is meritless. It must be exceedingly rare for a foreign policy to please 100% of Congress. Should the norm be constant meddling by those opposed?
OCCOM BILL wrote:Setanta wrote:OCCOM BILL wrote:Setanta wrote:I suspect that would be a case of whose ox had been gored.
As is typical, that's precisely the misunderstanding here on A2K. If Pelosi is wrong, than so too was Hastert (both seem pretty obvious to me). As far as legality is concerned; it's bigger than Hastert, Pelosi, Bush or Clinton.
I see--what evidence do you have that Pelosi has taken bribes from the Syrians?
Huh?
Your quoted remark seems to suggest that there is no difference between what Pelosi is doing and what Hastert did. However, if you had carefully read what i wrote earlier, and if you have bothered to check out the link to the article which i posted, you'd have seen that Hastert was accused of taking bribes from Turkish officials. Therefore, i see no reason to equate the case of Hastert and Pelosi unless and until someone alleges as credibly as Mr. Rose does in his article about the allegations aginst Hastert that Pelosi has taken bribes from Syrian officials.
OCCOM BILL wrote:Setanta wrote:OCCOM BILL wrote:Setanta wrote:I suspect that would be a case of whose ox had been gored.
As is typical, that's precisely the misunderstanding here on A2K. If Pelosi is wrong, than so too was Hastert (both seem pretty obvious to me). As far as legality is concerned; it's bigger than Hastert, Pelosi, Bush or Clinton.
I see--what evidence do you have that Pelosi has taken bribes from the Syrians?
Huh?
Cyclops; those speaking on Bush's behalf are hardly synonomous with those who oppose Bush's stance, speaking against his wishes. It is childish to pretend these are the same thing. And WTF would be Pelosi be doing in Syria if not to discuss U.S. Policy?
First, you stated that Bush 'refuses to engage in Diplomacy with Syria.' But that's false, because by sending Congressmen there he's doing exactly that. I never made the claim that Pelosi went on anyone's behalf at all, or spoke against Bush's wishes, or anything.
Second, Pelosi has the exact same rights as any other citizen of America to travel to another country and speak with whoever she pleases about whatever topic she pleases. She doesn't speak for America, true; however, do you really believe the Syrians were ever in doubt about this fact?
Cycloptichorn
Setanta wrote:OCCOM BILL wrote:Setanta wrote:OCCOM BILL wrote:Setanta wrote:I suspect that would be a case of whose ox had been gored.
As is typical, that's precisely the misunderstanding here on A2K. If Pelosi is wrong, than so too was Hastert (both seem pretty obvious to me). As far as legality is concerned; it's bigger than Hastert, Pelosi, Bush or Clinton.
I see--what evidence do you have that Pelosi has taken bribes from the Syrians?
Huh?
Your quoted remark seems to suggest that there is no difference between what Pelosi is doing and what Hastert did. However, if you had carefully read what i wrote earlier, and if you have bothered to check out the link to the article which i posted, you'd have seen that Hastert was accused of taking bribes from Turkish officials. Therefore, i see no reason to equate the case of Hastert and Pelosi unless and until someone alleges as credibly as Mr. Rose does in his article about the allegations aginst Hastert that Pelosi has taken bribes from Syrian officials.
That would be relevant had I said; "If Hastert is wrong; so too is Pelosi... but I didn't. Based on your info alone; you have merely fortified what I did say (If Pelosi is wrong, than so too was Hastert) and strengthened the argument, considerably, at that.
Cyclops; you're just being stubborn, for no good reason. Common sense:
1.Pelosi went to talk about politics. Why else would she go?
2.Syria was interested
because she's Speaker, not because she's Jane Citizen.
3. Since she opposes Bush'
; this is meddling. No parallel can be drawn to someone who doesn't oppose Bush's
But she's not there in any official capacity, and there's nothing preventing her from going in an unofficial one. I can't find any evidence that she has done anything wrong at all. The fact that the Syrians think she's important and worth talking to is immaterial; that's their decision to make.
Do you have any evidence that she talked about any US foreign policy, at all? The reports I read centered around Israeli-Syrian relations. I understand where you are coming from - I don't think your point is entirely invalid. But there's nothing technically stopping her from doing it.
Your opinion that she shouldn't be doing it is a valid one; but it's just an opinion. There really isn't anything barring her from doing so.
Cycloptichorn
OCCOM BILL wrote:Advocate wrote:Bill, if you were in congress and you saw the president severely damaging the country through his poor judgment in foreign affairs, would you really just sit there and do nothing?
I don't think there are many in congress who would let the country go down the drain with taking some action.
The system has checks and balances, and your argument is meritless. It must be exceedingly rare for a foreign policy to please 100% of Congress. Should the norm be constant meddling by those opposed?
Well, I guess you would just there (putting form over substance). Bush has really messed up in the foreign affairs area, and we can't wait until 2009 to do something.
this is supposed to be your evidence?
OCCOM BILL wrote: And WTF would be Pelosi be doing in Syria if not to discuss U.S. Policy?
O'Bill, you need to get much better at this
OCCOM BILL wrote:Cyclops; you're just being stubborn, for no good reason. Common sense: <snip>
Stubborn? O'Bill, you seem to have prepared this chapter of it. Common sense is NOT the evidence you were asked for.
Beth, the request is as silly as the ongoing discussion. If the woman has no authority to speak as a representative of the U.S., has no reason to be heard other than as a representative of the U.S., then she has no business being there in the first place... which was my initial response. Why that statement of fact is problematic for anyone here, I have no idea.
If you're asking me to quote the contents of a conversation I wasn't privy to; I cannot. But what difference does it make? Do you suppose she traveled to Syria to discuss American Idol?
Hey, pretending that Pelosi visiting Syria had nothing to do with politics is just plain dishonest. At that level, pretty much everything has a political angle to it. If BUSH went, it would certainly have been a political statement; the same for Cheney or Rice or any number of administration officials. In that sense, you can't blame people for reading the same kind of motives into a Pelosi visit.
The nation does benefit from having a unitary foreign policy. Even if you think that policy is misguided, the solution is not to engage in your own separate diplomacy. That sort of thing encourages a lot of double-dealing on both sides, and increases the ability and motivations of foreign countries to involve themselves directly in our political processes. We really don't want unfriendly Middle Eastern governments making policy decisions in hopes of influencing US elections, for example. We also don't want friendly countries worrying that their diplomatic interests are going to get thrown under the bus in a bit of congressional log-rolling on an unrelated issue.
Specifically to this position, should Pelosi be inserting herself into Israeli/Syrian relations? Goodness knows many people accuse the Israelis of being too involved in our political processes as it is; do we really want them to become convinced that the US electing Republicans is a matter of Israeli national security? I can hear the wails now...
I don't want to make it sound like the Republicans have never engaged in this either; goodness knows there's been politicking where there shouldn't be in many, many areas. But there's definitely a norm against breaking publicly with the administration in the realm of foreign policy - even when you disagree strongly with its direction, the proper approach is to your own administration, not foreign governments. Whether Pelosi violated a law or not is, largely, immaterial; even if it was explicitly illegal, I doubt anybody would be interested in prosecution (or, more realistically, would be able to push it through!) But our government has a number of social norms that make things work more smoothly, especially between the parties - think about the traditions of Senate collegiality, for example. It's pretty much incontrovertible that Pelosi is stepping on one of those norms a lot harder than a Speaker of the House ought to.
I think you have it wrong about the motivation of the Dems. For instance, they are getting precious little out of promoting a higher minimum wage. I wager that few of the affected people even vote.
It is a different story with the Reps, where all is for self-enrichment, or for the further enrichment of wealthy individuals and corporations.
Quote:has no reason to be heard other than as a representative of the U.S.
This is your error. Assumptions don't make strong arguments.
I would note that there is zero evidence she discussed anything having to do with the US, at all.
Av -
Quote:But our government has a number of social norms that make things work more smoothly, especially between the parties
You can thank the Republicans for trashing each and every one that they possibly could over the last 12 years or so. Now that the tables are turned, it's shocking? Please
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn wrote:Quote:has no reason to be heard other than as a representative of the U.S.
This is your error. Assumptions don't make strong arguments.
I would note that there is zero evidence she discussed anything having to do with the US, at all.
This continues to be an idiotic quibble. Were she not a representative of the United States; the Syrian government would have no interest in her. Stop it.
While I dont think ANY member of Congress has the authority to visit foreign heads of state without the approval of the President or the State Dept,I heard an interesting theory on the radio today.
I confess that I dont know what show it was,I heard it while channel surfing.
Maybe Pelosi didnt go to Syria to make Bush look bad.
Right now,she is the most powerful woman in DC.
That could all change if Hillary gets elected President.
What if Nancy is in Syria,not to bash Bush,but to increase her own personal resume,so that if Hillary does get elected she wont lose her position of power?
What if she is simply trying to block Hillary's ascent to the position of "most powerful woman"?
OCCOM BILL wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:Quote:has no reason to be heard other than as a representative of the U.S.
This is your error. Assumptions don't make strong arguments.
I would note that there is zero evidence she discussed anything having to do with the US, at all.
This continues to be an idiotic quibble. Were she not a representative of the United States; the Syrian government would have no interest in her. Stop it.
Members of congress travel to other nations all the time and into areas of just as much tension with or without presidential approval. There is no reason why pelosi's visit to syria is any different regardless whether she brought up any political talk or not unless it went directly against current US policy, that would cross over the line (an ethical one at any rate), I would think. We have no evidence she is going to go to Syria to talk a different approach to Syria than is current policy therefore at this point she is doing nothing wrong. Period. or Stop it.