Pelosi in Syria

[DC Tom]

I just love when you partisans apologize when your group basically subjugates the Constitution. You wanna run foriegn policy? Win the executive. Until then, sit your ass in Washington and do your goddamn job. There's nothing worse than a "leader" who tries to everyone's job but their own, except the assclowns who keep making excuses for their incompetence.

 

Care to go back through the last 10 administrations to find which countries each one didn't have public relationships with? Or are you just going to continue regurgitating Salon.com BS? [/rhetorical]

 

Clearly, you're not familiar with the "We don't like the president, so we're going to pursue our own policy" clause of the Constitution. I hear the Supreme Court is opening an embassy of their own in North Korea, as well.

 

Really, how do more people not have a problem with this? Forget the "unified front" bull sh--...there's plenty of space within the system itself for disunity and disagreement. But do people really think it's okay for two branches of the government to pursue different foreign policies, particularly when only one is empowered to do so? (And yes, from everything I've read that Pelosi has said, I think that accurately characterizes what she's doing.)

[SilverNRed]

I just love when you partisans apologize when your group basically subjugates the Constitution. You wanna run foriegn policy? Win the executive. Until then, sit your ass in Washington and do your goddamn job. There's nothing worse than a "leader" who tries to everyone's job but their own, except the assclowns who keep making excuses for their incompetence.

 

Care to go back through the last 10 administrations to find which countries each one didn't have public relationships with? Or are you just going to continue regurgitating Salon.com BS? [/rhetorical]

For that matter, what happened to all that outrage about Bush being the one tearing up the Constitution? That's been a huge talking point from the DNC for over 5 years now.

 

Someone needs to tell Nancy Pelosi that she's the majority leader in Congress, not "the Other President."

 

Oh well, I guess that Constitution thingy was stupid and old.

[Last Kid Picked]

Why is anybody from Congress meeting with a government that sponsors terrorists? No wonder they call her this generation's 'hanoi jane'.

[Steely Dan]

If you guys really care about subjugating the constitution I'm assuming you're outraged by the Administration illegally wiretapping phone calls in the US and I assume you're outraged by the administration suspending the writ of habeaus corpus. If not why?

 

The Dems didn't win the Presidency last time by a thin margin but if the election had been held one and a half years ago instead of three it would have been a landslide for Kerry.

 

Also, why do you keep referring only to Pelosi? What do you think about the Republicans joining her? What about the only Republican delegation that met with them the day before? Please enlighten me on their subjugating the Constitution. It's the same thing isn't it?

 

Were you outraged by the Reagan administration dealing drugs and sending weapons to Iran in order to fund the Contras? You must have been, right?

[Alaska Darin]

If you guys really care about subjugating the constitution I'm assuming you're outraged by the Administration illegally wiretapping phone calls in the US and I assume you're outraged by the administration suspending the writ of habeaus corpus. If not why?

You're correct. And I am furious about it, just as I was furious about many portions of the "Patriot" Act, the Iraq War, etc.

The Dems didn't win the Presidency last time by a thin margin but if the election had been held one and a half years ago instead of three it would have been a landslide for Kerry.

Right, because Kerry is just so damn competent there's no way he'd have stepped all over his dick if EVERYTHING was stacked in his favor. You know, as opposed to ALMOST everything.

 

Keep apologizing for the imcompetence. It never gets old.

Also, why do you keep referring only to Pelosi? What do you think about the Republicans joining her? What about the only Republican delegation that met with them the day before? Please enlighten me on their subjugating the Constitution. It's the same thing isn't it?

To be honest I haven't heard a single member of the Republican "delegation" speak, nor do I know why they were there. Since I am subjected to CNN at work, I've seen Pelosi strut her "stuff" on the subject. If they are attempting to do the same thing Pelosi is doing, then they absolutely are subjugating the Constitution. For me it has nothing to do with who belongs to which group who's stealing our money. I doubt seriously you can say the same.

Were you outraged by the Reagan administration dealing drugs and sending weapons to Iran in order to fund the Contras? You must have been, right?

I was in High School, so no I wasn't outraged. I didn't really understand the entire picture at the time. Would I have been outraged had I? Absolutely. It's just so great to have ANOTHER partisan parrot on the board. The ol' "the other side is worse!" mantra just never gets dated.

[Johnny Coli]

To be honest I haven't heard a single member of the Republican "delegation" speak, nor do I know why they were there. Since I am subjected to CNN at work, I've seen Pelosi strut her "stuff" on the subject. If they are attempting to do the same thing Pelosi is doing, then they absolutely are subjugating the Constitution.

 

They were there over the weekend, then moved on to Jordan (Lawmakers Visit Syria to Discuss Ties).

U.S. House members meeting with President Bashar Assad Sunday said they believed there was an opportunity for dialogue with the Syrian leadership.

 

The U.S. House members, who included Virginia Republican Frank Wolf, Pennsylvania Republican Joe Pitts and Alabama Republican Robert Aderholt, also said they had raised with Syrian officials the issue of stopping the alleged flow of foreign fighters from Syria to Iraq.

 

In a statement issued by the U.S. Embassy in Damascus, the congressmen said they had talked about "ending support for Hezbollah and Hamas, recognizing Israel's right to exist in peace and security, and ceasing interference in Lebanon."

 

"We came because we believe there is an opportunity for dialogue," the statement said. "We are following in the lead of Ronald Reagan, who reached out to the Soviets during the Cold War," it added.

 

Pelosi's trip is pretty much the same one the GOP delegation is on. Her's is following a few days behind.

[D_House]

I love when partisans call other people partisan.

[Johnny Coli]

Clearly, you're not familiar with the "We don't like the president, so we're going to pursue our own policy" clause of the Constitution. I hear the Supreme Court is opening an embassy of their own in North Korea, as well.

 

Really, how do more people not have a problem with this? Forget the "unified front" bull sh--...there's plenty of space within the system itself for disunity and disagreement. But do people really think it's okay for two branches of the government to pursue different foreign policies, particularly when only one is empowered to do so? (And yes, from everything I've read that Pelosi has said, I think that accurately characterizes what she's doing.)

 

Actually, Congress does have the right to pursue foreign policy, and has done so historically.

 

U.S. Department of State: Foreign Policy Roles of the President and Congress

Congress can make foreign policy through:

 

1) -- resolutions and policy statements

2) -- legislative directives

3) -- legislative pressure

4) -- legislative restrictions/funding denials

5) -- informal advice

6) -- congressional oversight.

 

 

In these circumstances, the executive branch can either support or seek to change congressional policies as it interprets and carries out legislative directives and restrictions, and decides when and whether to adopt proposals and advice.

 

(...)

 

Third, the roles and relative influence of the two branches in making foreign policy differ from time to time according to such factors as the personalities of the President and Members of Congress and the degree of consensus on policy. Throughout American history there have been ebbs and flows of Presidential and congressional dominance in making foreign policy, variously defined by different scholars. One study classified the period 1789-1829 as one of Presidential initiative; 1829-1898 as one of congressional supremacy, and 1899 through the immediate post World War II period as one of growing Presidential power. 4 Another study defined three periods of congressional dominance, 1837-1861, 1869-1897, and 1918-1936, with a fourth one beginning toward the end of the Vietnam War in 1973. 5 During the Reagan and Bush Administrations the pendulum swung back toward Presidential dominance, reaching its height in 1991 during Operation Desert Storm against Iraq. 6 In the post-Persian Gulf war era, both President and the Congress are confronted with issues in foreign policy that may well define which branch of government will play the dominant role during the first decade of the twenty-first century.

 

It would seem that the GOP delegation and/or Pelosi's delegation have every right to go on diplomatic and/or fact-finding jaunts at their own discretion, whether it is in agreement with the Executive Branch or not.

[/dev/null]

Care to go back through the last 10 administrations to find which countries each one didn't have public relationships with?

 

<bill clinton finger wag>

I did not have public relations, with that woman...

</bill clinton finger wag>

[molson_golden2002]

I just love when you partisans apologize when your group basically subjugates the Constitution. You wanna run foriegn policy? Win the executive. Until then, sit your ass in Washington and do your goddamn job. There's nothing worse than a "leader" who tries to everyone's job but their own, except the assclowns who keep making excuses for their incompetence.

 

Care to go back through the last 10 administrations to find which countries each one didn't have public relationships with? Or are you just going to continue regurgitating Salon.com BS? [/rhetorical]

She's running foreign policy??? I'm sorry, I didn't notice she was signing treaties with them. Congress allocates the funds to run foreign policy and the fact that she is out there discussing with world leaders the direction of our policy is a smart thing. Especially in light of the fact Bush is in charge. His incompetence needs to be challanged. Kudos to Pelosi, so far. She's doing a pretty good job as Speaker of the House.

[molson_golden2002]

For that matter, what happened to all that outrage about Bush being the one tearing up the Constitution? That's been a huge talking point from the DNC for over 5 years now.

 

Someone needs to tell Nancy Pelosi that she's the majority leader in Congress, not "the Other President."

 

Oh well, I guess that Constitution thingy was stupid and old.

Please show me how she is violating the Constitution. This is really a stupid argument

[Prognastic]

Why was Pelosi wearing a head covering?

 

 

Would we require Muslim delegates to our country to wear a yarmulke or something akin to being against their religion/culture?

 

 

Much like the British prisoners in Iran. No outrage whatsoever that the female prisoners are practically wearing burquas but yet throw underwear on a terrorists head and there's world outrage.

[DC Tom]

Would we require Muslim delegates to our country to wear a yarmulke or something akin to being against their religion/culture?

 

No, because there's this little phrase in the Constitution that says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." And last I checked, that only applies here in the US, and not in Syria or Iran, which makes it a completely irrelevent and insipid comparison.

[Chilly]

He's really good at elections. Do they have a Nobel for that?

 

No he wasn't. He lost to Reagan as an incumbent.

[Johnny Coli]

Why was Pelosi wearing a head covering?

Ask Laura Bush.

Whitehouse.gov--pics of Laura Bush's Mid-East trip (at the Dome of the Rock)

At the Western Wall

 

The pic of her in this article bears a striking resemblance to Speaker Pelosi.

 

There's a bunch more, but I'm sure you get the idea of where this is "headed".

 

(h/t to numerous commie blogs for the official White House link, h/t to Google Image for the other one)

[GG]

Actually, Congress does have the right to pursue foreign policy, and has done so historically.

 

U.S. Department of State: Foreign Policy Roles of the President and Congress

It would seem that the GOP delegation and/or Pelosi's delegation have every right to go on diplomatic and/or fact-finding jaunts at their own discretion, whether it is in agreement with the Executive Branch or not.

 

Don't get crossed over your links. Influencing foreign policy under Constitutional mandates at home and acting as a diplomat by speaking directly to sovereigns are two completely totally wholly different things.

[PastaJoe]

If it was against the Constitution for members of Congress to speak to foreign leaders, then they could be charged with treason. It isn't, they're not, and that's the end of the story. You can not like Congress making Bush look like a petulant child who's kicking and screaming about not getting his way, but it's legal and in my opinion long overdue that someone in Washington try to bring about diplomatic and political solutions, not just military as Bush continues to try.

[erynthered]

No he wasn't. He lost to Reagan as an incumbent.

 

 

Got me there!

[Johnny Coli]

Don't get crossed over your links. Influencing foreign policy under Constitutional mandates at home and acting as a diplomat by speaking directly to sovereigns are two completely totally wholly different things.

 

Fair enough. I retract "diplomacy" from my original statement.

 

It would seem that the GOP delegation and/or Pelosi's delegation have every right to go on diplomatic and/or fact-finding jaunts at their own discretion, whether it is in agreement with the Executive Branch or not.

 

However, with respect to the constitutionality of Congress influencing foreign policy, they have every right to do so, and nothing in the Constitution limits them from talking with other heads of state. A fair interpretation would be that they do not have the right to enact and sign treaties without the approval and cooperation of the Executive Branch, nor do they have the power to unilaterally negotiate international agreements, but those seem to be the only limits. They could however pass resolutions/legislation where, if they had a veto-proof majority, they would be able to circumvent the Executive Branch.

 

Long and the short, Pelosi or whomever, has as much right to "discuss" policy with another head of state as the Executive Branch does.

[GG]

Fair enough. I retract "diplomacy" from my original statement.

 

One inch at a time.

 

However, with respect to the constitutionality of Congress influencing foreign policy, they have every right to do so, and nothing in the Constitution limits them from talking with other heads of state. A fair interpretation would be that they do not have the right to enact and sign treaties without the approval and cooperation of the Executive Branch, nor do they have the power to unilaterally negotiate international agreements, but those seem to be the only limits. They could however pass resolutions/legislation where, if they had a veto-proof majority, they would be able to circumvent the Executive Branch.

 

Long and the short, Pelosi or whomever, has as much right to "discuss" policy with another head of state as the Executive Branch does.

 

And few rational heads would argue that. But partisanship aside, you really have to question the motive of Congressional delegations that take a diametrically polar actions to the branch of government that is Constitutionally mandated to actually strike a deal.

 

Perhaps someone can answer me a simple question, what in his past history has Assad shown to make grown up people believe that sitting down with him is going to move "peace" forward, other than being the flavor of the day?