username wrote:If you're going to argue the Logan Act, go back and read it as it was presented above. It does NOT say "without the approval of the president". It DOES say "without the approval of the United States". George W. Bush is not synonymous with the United States. Looking at the polls from the last several years, it's pretty clear that in fact the United States doesn't approve of him. He's the one that should shut up. Nancy Pelosi is one of the two heads of the U.S.Congress, a co-equal branch of the government to the executive. Which pretty much gives her the right to go to Syria and to ignore the White House's blatantly political spin on the whole thing. She is at least as much "the United States" as W. is. And she's considerably more in tune with what the people of the United States want.The President is in charge of foreign policy. Whether you, me, or the polls say we love or hate him is irrelevant. Not only are you imagining popularity having anything to do with it; but that would be a lousy precedent anyway. In a Country of Laws it would be unwise to alter them based on which way the wind is blowing. Don't be so shortsighted. Pelosi has no business in Syria.
Nimh, Hastert was equally wrong. Tu Quoque examples do nothing to change the facts, and shouldn't affect one as sharp as you. Suggestions that it's about politics are laughably ignorant. Of course it's about politics. The President determines foreign policy, and those with a like mind are probably 50 times more likely to be approved to speak on his behalf. Username says Bush doesn't speak for America but the simple fact is; he does. You know better than that nonsense, so why would you think anything posted by Revel changes anything at all?
We'll see how you feel about foreign policy entrepreneurship when the party situations are reversed, heh.
Seriously, though, I don't think this is something really worth blowing up over. If we can assume for a moment that the Syrians are themselves sophisticated political entities (or, at any rate, that they have some good advisers), we have to assume that they're aware of the currents of US politics. Having Pelosi visit them doesn't really change the underlying political calculations involved. After all, it's not like the Syrian government was unaware of the differences in the present administration and any likely one under Democratic leadership.
It does, however, give the 24-hour news cycle a couple days' worth of ammunition, lots of pictures of Pelosi in a head scarf, right when Bush is preparing to veto the Iraq spending plus withdrawal plus pork bill. In that sense, terrible, terrible timing on her behalf. Had it been business as usual, it would have been very difficult to make a serious case for the separation of powers and all that; right when you're about to confront the administration about war policy, the frame is REALLY different. Moreover, it's precisely the sort of action she would be taking if, in fact, she were determined to seize the tiller of US foreign policy...
username wrote:If you're going to argue the Logan Act, go back and read it as it was presented above. It does NOT say "without the approval of the president". It DOES say "without the approval of the United States". George W. Bush is not synonymous with the United States. Looking at the polls from the last several years, it's pretty clear that in fact the United States doesn't approve of him. He's the one that should shut up. Nancy Pelosi is one of the two heads of the U.S.Congress, a co-equal branch of the government to the executive. Which pretty much gives her the right to go to Syria and to ignore the White House's blatantly political spin on the whole thing. She is at least as much "the United States" as W. is. And she's considerably more in tune with what the people of the United States want.
Nimh, Hastert was equally wrong. Tu Quoque examples do nothing to change the facts, and shouldn't affect one as sharp as you. Suggestions that it's about politics are laughably ignorant. Of course it's about politics. The President determines foreign policy, and those with a like mind are probably 50 times more likely to be approved to speak on his behalf. Username says Bush doesn't speak for America but the simple fact is; he does. You know better than that nonsense, so why would you think anything posted by Revel changes anything at all?
In 1997, Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) led a delegation to Colombia at a time when U.S. officials were trying to attach human rights conditions to U.S. security assistance programs. Hastert specifically encouraged Colombian military officials to "bypass" President Clinton and "communicate directly with Congress."
a congressional delegation led by Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) which met with Colombian military officials, promising to "remove conditions on assistance" and complaining about "leftist-dominated" U.S. congresses of years past that "used human rights as an excuse to aid the left in other countries." Hastert said he would to correct this situation and expedite aid to countries allied in the war on drugs and also encouraged Colombian military officials to "bypass the U.S. executive branch and communicate directly with Congress."
Subsequently, U.S. Ambassador to Colombia Myles Frechette sent a cable complaining that Hastert's actions had undermined his leverage with the Colombian military leadership.
In other instances, Hastert actually guided congressional staff to unilaterally reach deals with Colombian officials:
House Foreign Affairs Committee staff, at the direction of the Hastert group, would fly to Colombia, meet with the nation's anti-narcotics police and negotiate the levels and terms of assistance, the scope of the program and the kinds of equipment that would be needed. Rarely were the U.S. diplomatic personnel in our embassy in Bogata consulted about the "U.S." position in these negotiations, and in a number of instances they were excluded from or not even made aware of the meetings.
