All things Pelosi

Willful partisan blindness is annoying.

0 Replies

Butrflynet wrote:

What this is all about is pure partisan politics as always.

for dang sure

Quote:

Democrats say the complaints have a certain political expediency to them, and note that many of the same people criticizing Ms. Pelosi's decision to delve into foreign policy were fine when Newt Gingrich, then the Republican speaker of the House, made his own foray into foreign policy back in 1997.

The Republican House leader, John A. Boehner of Ohio, criticized Ms. Pelosi's trip, telling reporters that she was in Syria "for one reason, and that is to embarrass the president." In 1997, Mr. Boehner accompanied Mr. Gingrich to China, and called the trip "very educational."

As One Syria Trip Draws Fire, Others Draw Silence ... link

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Willful partisan blindness is annoying.

Have you read your own posts in this thread?

~~~~~~~

Dunno where your PelosiBurr came from, but it's striking.

~~~~~~~

Citizens, and politicians, travel to other countries - and speak to politicians in those countries every day. It's not unusual - regardless of where you (citizen/politician) stand in regard to your own government.

0 Replies

<Paull, before I moved to New Mexico recently, I lived in 95501, the Eureka/Arcata area; before that for decades, in Venice, which is 90291.>

0 Replies

ehBeth wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Willful partisan blindness is annoying.

Have you read your own posts in this thread?

Have you? (I am equally critical of partisan interference from both sides, and concurred that Hastert's was the greater wrong... hello.)

ehBeth wrote:

Citizens, and politicians, travel to other countries - and speak to politicians in those countries every day. It's not unusual - regardless of where you (citizen/politician) stand in regard to your own government.

Pretending her government status is incidental constitutes willful ignorance. Would you have forwarded such an argument when Newt went to China (who was wrong to do so, if Clinton wished otherwise)?

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Willful partisan blindness is annoying.

The charge of partisan blindness (if you were referring to mine) is unsubstantiated since I also dont think the republicans who went on the trip Syria were wrong either.

0 Replies

osso, it's lonely being a warmongering conservative here, but I manage. Good luck to you in the high dry southwest, was there last summer touring the Nation, and there is a lot to like.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

A member of congress and, especially, a Speaker, has a right, and almost an obligation, to visit other countries to glean facts and contacts needed in his or her legislative duties. I haven't seen where Pelosi has abused this right, and give her credit for visiting such an important country relative to our problems in the Middle East.

That depends on who paid for the trip,doesnt it?
Or does it matter who paid for the trip?

0 Replies

MM, could you please elaborate.

0 Replies

ehBeth wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Willful partisan blindness is annoying.

Have you read your own posts in this thread?

~~~~~~~

Dunno where your PelosiBurr came from, but it's striking.

~~~~~~~

Citizens, and politicians, travel to other countries - and speak to politicians in those countries every day. It's not unusual - regardless of where you (citizen/politician) stand in regard to your own government.

Thay all have a weird Pelosi burr, as far as I can determine, the Right, I mean.

Glad you have posted the link re the hypocrisy...here's a bit more analysis re the alleged "felony" smear:

WSJ op-ed attacking Pelosi baselessly asserts she may have committed a felony
In an April 6 Wall Street Journal op-ed touted on the Drudge Report and by NBC's Matt Lauer, attorney Robert F. Turner asserted that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) "may well have" violated a federal criminal law, the Logan Act, when she met with Syrian president Bashar Al-Assad on April 3. But at no point did Turner note that the issue of whether a member of Congress has violated the Logan Act has never been adjudicated by a court. Nor did he inform readers of a 1975 State Department statement -- noted in a February 1, 2006, report on the Logan Act by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) -- that states: "The clear intent of this provision ... is to prohibit unauthorized persons from intervening in disputes between the United States and foreign governments. Nothing in [the 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." Turner purported to know the scope of a member of Congress' legislative duties for purposes of the Logan Act, and to know that Pelosi has acted outside that scope. But he cited no judicial authority for that specific position -- nor could he, since there are no court decisions interpreting that statute as it may apply to actions by members of Congress.

Turner, a former acting assistant secretary of state for legislative affairs in the Reagan administration, noted in his op-ed that the Logan Act (18 U.S.C. 953) "makes it a felony and provides for a prison sentence of up to three years for any American, 'without authority of the United States,' to communicate with a foreign government in an effort to influence that government's behavior on any 'disputes or controversies with the United States.' " Turner asserted that Pelosi "may well have" violated that act when she, "against the wishes of the president," traveled to Damascus "to communicate on foreign-policy issues with Syrian President Bashar Assad."

From his op-ed:

Ms. Pelosi and her Congressional entourage spoke to President Assad on various issues, among other things saying, "We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace." She is certainly not the first member of Congress -- of either party -- to engage in this sort of behavior, but her position as a national leader, the wartime circumstances, the opposition to the trip from the White House, and the character of the regime she has chosen to approach make her behavior particularly inappropriate.

Of course, not all congressional travel to, or communications with representatives of, foreign nations is unlawful. A purely fact-finding trip that involves looking around, visiting American military bases or talking with U.S. diplomats is not a problem. Nor is formal negotiation with foreign representatives if authorized by the president. (FDR appointed Sens. Tom Connally and Arthur Vandenberg to the U.S. delegation that negotiated the U.N. Charter.) Ms. Pelosi's trip was not authorized, and Syria is one of the world's leading sponsors of international terrorism. It has almost certainly been involved in numerous attacks that have claimed the lives of American military personnel from Beirut to Baghdad.

However, a 1975 State Department memo, as quoted in the 2006 CRS report, states the following:

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, 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 [then-] Senators [George] McGovern [D-SD] and [John] Sparkman [D-AL] 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........

Full text here

0 Replies

I'm not "the Right", I don't read the "Drudge Report" and I don't have a burr. I simply can not think of a single legitimate reason for Nancy Pelosi to visit Syria. Can anyone?

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

I'm not "the Right", I don't read the "Drudge Report" and I don't have a burr. I simply can not think of a single legitimate reason for Nancy Pelosi to visit Syria. Can anyone?

Can anyone on the right who is sliming her for doing so think of a single legitimate reason why she shouldn't?

Off the top of my head, in reasons for, it is common practice for politicians to visit many countries, to find out about specific things, or to get a general sense, unfiltered by others' perceptions, of what is going on.

I would think a compelling reason NOT to go would be necessary before such nonsense as sliming her and calling her a felon.

But I guess that is what passes as political debate for many.

0 Replies

Well said.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
I'm not "the Right", I don't read the "Drudge Report" and I don't have a burr. I simply can not think of a single legitimate reason for Nancy Pelosi to visit Syria. Can anyone?

Can anyone on the right who is sliming her for doing so think of a single legitimate reason why she shouldn't?

Did you read Asherman's post? The usual ABB/hyper Partisan Left (complete with Right Wing labels for all who disagree, which is extra funny these days since I'm being bombarded with Left Wing labels on another thread) are overtly hiding behind undue burdens of proof in favor of common sense on this issue. Bush's foreign policy is to isolate Syria. Nancy's party would open the lines of communications and contrary to the Policy Maker's wishes; Nancy Pelosi decided to do just that. This is interference, sends mixed signals and it has absolutely nothing to do with her job.

dlowan wrote:

Off the top of my head, in reasons for, it is common practice for politicians to visit many countries, to find out about specific things, or to get a general sense, unfiltered by others' perceptions, of what is going on.

Is there a reason in those reasons?

dlowan wrote:

I would think a compelling reason NOT to go would be necessary before such nonsense as sliming her and calling her a felon.

But I guess that is what passes as political debate for many.

Deb, did you bother to read the law in question before declaring her innocent and the people who suggest she may have violated the law slimers?

10 pages ago I wrote:

I think I was thinking of this:
The Logan Act
§ 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments.
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.
18 U.S.C. § 953 (2004).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act

Anyone who doesn't think it reasonable to compare her behavior to the above paragraph is not being reasonable.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

dlowan wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
I'm not "the Right", I don't read the "Drudge Report" and I don't have a burr. I simply can not think of a single legitimate reason for Nancy Pelosi to visit Syria. Can anyone?

Can anyone on the right who is sliming her for doing so think of a single legitimate reason why she shouldn't?
Did you read Asherman's post? The usual ABB/hyper Partisan Left (complete with Right Wing labels for all who disagree, which is extra funny these days since I’m being bombarded with Left Wing labels on another thread) are overtly hiding behind undue burdens of proof in favor of common sense on this issue. Bush’s foreign policy is to isolate Syria. Nancy’s party would open the lines of communications… and contrary to the Policy Maker’s wishes; Nancy Pelosi decided to do just that. This is interference, sends mixed signals and it has absolutely nothing to do with her job.

dlowan wrote:
Off the top of my head, in reasons for, it is common practice for politicians to visit many countries, to find out about specific things, or to get a general sense, unfiltered by others' perceptions, of what is going on.
Is there a reason in those reasons?

dlowan wrote:
I would think a compelling reason NOT to go would be necessary before such nonsense as sliming her and calling her a felon.

But I guess that is what passes as political debate for many.
Deb, did you bother to read the law in question before declaring her innocent and the people who suggest she may have violated the law slimers?

10 pages ago I wrote:
I think I was thinking of this:
The Logan Act
§ 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments.
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.
18 U.S.C. § 953 (2004).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act
Anyone who doesn't think it reasonable to compare her behavior to the above paragraph is not being reasonable.

Did you follow my link re the alleged Logan Act stuff?

I take it you similarly condemn the Republican group who are there?

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

MM, could you please elaborate.

I am wondering who paid for the trip.
Who asked Nancy Pelosi and the other congreepeople along on the trip,what were there motives,and why were those specific congresspeople asked along.

Its a fairly correct axiom to always "follow the money" in something like this to really get the truth.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

Did you follow my link re the alleged Logan Act stuff?

Yep... and Joe took care of that many pages ago as well.

dlowan wrote:

I take it you similarly condemn the Republican group who are there?

I don't believe I've condemned anyone. I do disapprove of ANY visit, by ANY American that is not approved by the White House. Read back and you'll see that Newt Gingrich and Hastert drew similar criticism from me, for doing the same while Clinton occupied the White House. The country needs to have one foreign policy (especially with countries that we're on the verge of war with). There are a gazillion platforms Nancy Pelosi can stand on to voice her opposition to the President's policies. She need not deliver mixed signals to our enemies to accomplish it. If this were a Republican (think Newt) during a Kerry Presidency; the hyper partisan foolishness would simply be on opposite sides... and those for their Rep interfering would still be wrong.

0 Replies

Bill, who I think demonstrates a high degree of minimally-realized potential for rational thought, hasn't quite twigged on the modern conservative movement's standard procedure for sliming. Take a thing...make it look ugly...repeat it through multiple propaganda outlets. Dean's 'scream', Gore's 'invention of the internet', Kerry's war record, Obama's 'muslim past', etc etc. As Dem takeover of congress loomed in probability, the slime project on Pelosi was inititated. It continues on-going. In intelligence nomenclature, this is called "black PR". Whether "everyone does it" is a questionable assumption in itself but even if one grants the assumption, left out is the matter of degree and the matter of intention. In any case, there is simply no question regarding the obvious application of such a strategy towards Pelosi.

I love this little bit from the origins of the Logan Act (see wikipedia) in the 1790s...

Quote:

Secretary of State Timothy Pickering, also of Pennsylvania, responded by suggesting that Congress "act to curb the temerity and impudence of individuals affecting to interfere in public affairs between France and the United States." The result was the Logan Act

The whiff of power vested in social class comes through quite unmistakeably.

The assertion that the US government needs to speak with a singular voice in its dealings with other nations is simplistic, naive and more than a little bit totalitarian. In this case of Pelosi (or republican congressmen) visiting Iran, any claim that Iran or another government will somehow be fooled into believing all americans or politicians are agreed on values and policy if only Pelosi or others don't go talk to the Iranians is perfectly foolish.

As to what good reason there might be for dialogue with Iran, of course the Baker/what's his name commission makes that quite clear...a clarification one would assume quite obvious.

0 Replies

Occom Bill has an opinion he expressed it, and many including myself disagree. Blatham is correct when he states the main debate by many others is entirely different in nature.

Moving on, I seem to be slower on this tide of this Pelosi story as I seem to run accross the facts well after they have already been discussed by everyone both on blogs and through the media. (aint modern politics grand?) So if this has already been discussed, sorry.

anyway I seem to have missed something when I said it seems pelosi left out something important Olmert said.

Quote:

Speaker Pelosi accurately relayed a message given to her by Israeli Prime Minister Olmert to Syrian President Assad.

The tough and serious message the Speaker relayed was that, in order for Israel to engage in talks with Syria, the Syrian government must eliminate its links with extremist elements, including Hamas and Hezbollah.

Furthermore, the Speaker told Assad that his government must also take steps to block militants seeking to cross the Syrian border into Iraq and that it must cease its ongoing efforts to destabilize Lebanon and to block the international community's expressed desire for an international tribunal to investigate the assassination of former Lebanese premier Rafik Hariri. The Speaker has no illusions about the nature of the regime in Syria.

The Post's editorial misinterprets a statement issued by the Israeli Prime Minister's Office, which sought merely to express that the message given to Speaker Pelosi did not indicate a change in Israel's position toward Syria. The Speaker neither said nor implied that this message was a change in Israel's position.

Most troubling, the editorial contradicts the Post's own reporting on the bipartisan delegation, asserting that Pelosi is attempting to "establish a shadow presidency." From the Post's reporting by Elizabeth Williamson today: "Foreign policy experts generally agree that Pelosi's dealings with Middle East leaders have not strayed far, if at all, from those typical for a congressional trip." Clearly, this consensus opinion by policy experts was lost in the one page from Williamson's reporting to the Post's editorial page.

In fact, as The New York Times reported, Pelosi herself stated that she supports the President's policy goals in Syria. She agrees, however, with the bipartisan Iraq Study Group that constructive dialogue is a critical means of addressing our concerns with Syria. The Administration's cold-shoulder approach has yielded nothing but more Syrian intransigence.

http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?p=215

I think there has been world mass confusion on this whole Pelosi mess because of the right wing concerted efforts to discredit her to the point where even Olmert felt he had to make a clarrification where apparently none was needed. Also, Pelosi seems to be right on step with Bush on Syria, she just simply disagrees about not talking with them and apparently she is not the only one. I agree with her and the other republicans and the Commission report, dialogue needs to take place between oppposing countries if any understandings is ever to take place.

From what I can tell, she would only have committed a felony if she promoted policies different from the administration or if she went without authority. Here is where it gets a little tricky because Bush knew she was going and expressed a desire for them not to go, but did not forbid them to go.

Quote:

As amended, the Act states:

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without
authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/61050.pdf

0 Replies

What Olmert had to clear up was Pelosi's sophomoric attempt at playing Secretary of State. Clearly, she portrayed a predictable conversation as some kind of a breakthrough (when no such breakthrough took place)... Clearly, Olmert didn't send her to deliver a message at all (conversely; he outed her BS)... Clearly, she was trying to justify a trip that had no justification and failed miserably to do so.

Our allies shouldn't have to publish corrections to bogus statements random representatives utter, while pretending their position is greater than it is.

Imagine Blatham, of all people, abandoning partisan spin in favor of the truth (right decent of you Blatham):

Blatham wrote:

As to what good reason there might be for dialogue with Iran, of course the Baker/what's his name commission makes that quite clear...a clarification one would assume quite obvious.

Yes, one would assume that quite obvious, wouldn't one? Funny your cohorts have chosen to pretend this isn't quite obvious; no doubt because it is well established that implementation of the "Baker/what's his name commission's" is 100% at the discretion of the President (as in not the speaker and/or the House). Clearly, the Pelosi apologists would rather pretend her trip didn't constitute an attempt at correcting what they consider Executive shortcomings in Foreign Policy... while all the while cheering her on for doing just that.

Usurping executive power erodes the system of government just as surely as Bush's attempts to increase it. It was created with a balance for a purpose, and the non-hyper-partisan recognize this as infinitely more important than the score-card between Left and Right. It continues to amaze me that the hyper-partisan among us will so willingly deny the obvious, providing the short term effect favors their side. This amounts to short sighted stupidity when you consider the fact the Left has taken over the House and Bush is a lame duck.

0 Replies

All things Pelosi

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know