Pelosi in Syria

[Johnny Coli]

Is it possible that is because only Pelosi was delivering, admittedly, a foreign policy that is different than the policy of our president and, consequently, our country?

 

I don't know if what she did was unconstitutional, but I completely agree that what she did was amazingly self-serving and completely moronic.

Do you have the transcript of those meetings, because it's now three days removed and no one has said that she discussed a different foreign policy than that of the admin.

 

Lawmakers disagree on Pelosi's Mideast trip

U.S. Rep. Dave Hobson, the only Republican to accompany the Democratic speaker, said Pelosi "did not engage in any bashing of Bush in any meeting I was in, and she did not in any meeting I was in bash the policies as it relates to Syria."

 

 

(...)

 

Hobson, of Springfield, said the trip accomplished two things.

 

"We reinforced the administration's positions, and at the same time, we were trying to understand and maybe getting some voice to some things people wanted to say that maybe they were not comfortable saying to the administration," Hobson said.

 

(...)

 

He said the administration knew about the trip in advance and provided the delegation with a jet.

[molson_golden2002]

The Logan Act (18 U.S.C.A. § 953 [1948]) is a single federal statute making it a crime for a citizen to confer with foreign governments against the interests of the United States. Specifically, it prohibits citizens from negotiating with other nations on behalf of the United States without authorization.

 

Nothing to see here, move along.

 

(And yes, the Rep House members would also fall under this)

This proves nothing about Pelosi's actions violating the Constitution. Congress can pass a law saying breathing is illegal, that doesn't mean if you breath you have violated the constitution. Has the Logan act been upheld by the Supreme Court? And under what circumstances? Seems like it was a partisan law passed in the heat of the moment to me.

[GG]

You are wrong.

 

I am outraged at the handling of the US-atty purge because, although it's not unconstitutional it's a complete subversion of the justice department orchestrated not for performance reasons, but to directly influence the next round of elections. That's not a manufactured controversy...it's real and people are pleading the fifth and resigning over it.

 

Pelosi's trip, and/or any of the other congress-persons who have gone to Syria, is/are not unconstitutional. You can keep saying it's not authorized, but people a hell of a lot smarter than you or I dissagree with you. If what she and the countless other reps over there did was even remotely a violation of any law, then the State Department wouldn't have been there briefing her and sitting in on the meetings. Also, if this was an egregious violation as you suggest, the WH would not single out a single congress-person...that's not the case here. There's nary a peep from this admin about anyone else other than Pelosi. That's a personal issue, not a constitutional one.

 

That's quite the thin knife you're using to slice the two.

 

In your view, the Reps are more guilty of trying to pressure attorneys to gain political advantage in elections in cases, where Dems probably did something to influence elections. In the end of the day, the only difference is which supplicant got elected. Contrast that with the highest profile member of Congress making the equivalent of a state visit with a hostile nation, who has no qualms in opening up his borders for insurgents to wreack havoc in Iraq.

 

There should be outrage over one of these items. I guess we're disagreeing which one is more important.

 

There's nary a peep on this today, because this story is playing out in real time. There was nary a peep about the attorney firings until three months after the event. The trouble for headline hunters is you have no idea of what this visit did to behind the scenes negotiations elsewhere in the region. You have no idea of what State was doing and who State has been talking to. Now, with Pelosi hijacking foreign policy, there's zero incentive for Assad to offer anything to the US negotiators for 21 months.

 

Congratulations, you won.

[Steely Dan]

Where is this crap about Pelosi being a headline hunter come in? I wasn't even aware of it before the ultra conservatives started making it a big issue. They're the ones looking for headlines. They think this is going to play against her. This is why the mention of the Republicans before her and with her are never mentioned by anyone on the right discussing this.

 

Jimmy Carter who has gone to many countries since losing his re-election. He said this is the first time, ever, an administration has asked him not to go. That includes Reagan and Bush 41.

 

Once again a dictatorship doesn't want anyone doing anything other than they approve of. We are free to express opinions in this country. I don't believe this rises to the Logan act because she wasn't brokering any deals. She was just trying to get Israel and Syria to start talking together. Egad! Not That!!! The Republicans who went there too are just doing the same thing. What's the difference? She's a Democrat.

 

That's quite the thin knife you're using to slice the two.

 

In your view, the Reps are more guilty of trying to pressure attorneys to gain political advantage in elections in cases, where Dems probably did something to influence elections. In the end of the day, the only difference is which supplicant got elected.

 

If you believe that's true then why are Republican members of Congress and Senate also enraged by this?

 

 

Among Republicans, Senator John Ensign of Nevada was among the most outspoken. Yesterday he declared, "The Department of Justice completely mishandled the dismissal of Dan Bogden as Nevada's United States Attorney. I appreciate the Attorney General's coming forward today to take responsibility for the mistakes that were made, to find out what went wrong and to address these problems immediately."

 

Late Update: "Sen. John Sununu of New Hampshire on Wednesday became the first Republican in Congress to call for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' dismissal." From the AP.

 

You have to remember a lot of the Senators and Congressman are lawyers and they have respect for the law. It is inconceivable that anyone wouldn't be outraged by the administration saying either you interpret the law the way I like it or your fired. That is not the spirit our country was founded on.

 

The Bush administration is trying to be a dictatorship. Anyone who tries to stop them is punished in some way or called a liberal or accused of helping the terrorists. I think most of America now is waking up to the fact that this is a very corrupt administration. It may not be legally wrong but it is soooooooooo morally wrong it shouldn't even have to be a law. Nobody in 221 years of our government has ever done it before until now. Nobody ever conceived that an administration would stoop this low and that's why it's not a law.

[erynthered]

Prediction: Pelosi will be prosecuted. Tit-for-Tat. The Repub's have a long memory, Libby, Attorneygatebullshit.

 

Its really a shame though. Waste of time and money. Way to go elected officials!!!

[SilverNRed]

If you believe that's true then why are Republican members of Congress and Senate also enraged by this?

Because they're equally retarded and equally unfamiliar with what the Legislative branch is supposed to be doing. Congress is full of dumb f#cks on both sides of the aisle. For the most part, Congress is a bunch of stupid assh0les who will do or say anything to keep a high profile and get re-elected.

 

BTW, USA Today piled on this morning:

 

USA Today

 

Democrats in Congress have been busy flexing their foreign policy muscles almost from the moment they took power in January, for the most part responsibly. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi crossed a line this week by visiting Syria, where she met with President Bashar Assad. She violated a long-held understanding that the United States should speak with one official voice abroad — even if the country is deeply divided on foreign policy back home.

 

The speaker presumably is better informed. Pelosi said she made the trip because the bipartisan Iraq Study Group urged greater engagement with Syria. That argument is strengthened by the fact that Assad also got visits this week from several House Republicans, who defied White House requests they not go. "I don't care what the administration says on this," said Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va. "I want us to be successful in Iraq. I want us to clamp down on Hezbollah."

 

But Wolf can travel to Syria virtually undetected. Pelosi has an international profile. That guarantees her heavy media coverage but multiplies the price of a misstep, which she quickly made when she created confusion about how eager Israel is to resume peace talks with Syria. Israel immediately clarified her remarks.

[/dev/null]

Prediction: Pelosi will be prosecuted. Tit-for-Tat. The Repub's have a long memory, Libby, Attorneygatebullshit.

 

Its really a shame though. Waste of time and money. Way to go elected officials!!!

 

And eventually a Republican will be targeted to avenge Nancy...

And then a Democrat will be targeted to avenge that Republican...

And then another Republican will be targeted to avenge that Democrat...

And then another Democrat will be targeted to avenge the other Republican...

 

Rinse and repeat

[molson_golden2002]

Because they're equally retarded and equally unfamiliar with what the Legislative branch is supposed to be doing. Congress is full of dumb f#cks on both sides of the aisle. For the most part, Congress is a bunch of stupid assh0les who will do or say anything to keep a high profile and get re-elected.

 

BTW, USA Today piled on this morning:

 

USA Today

Oh my, the USA Today has weighed in. Thank God! The one thing I hope Pelosi leanred from the trip is not to trust what leaders from a certain little trouble making coutry tell her in private. I would not be surprised if they set her up for failure. Funny how the American press takes Olmert's words at face value. Bias?

[Bill from NYC]

The one thing I hope Pelosi leanred from the trip is not to trust what leaders from a certain little trouble making coutry tell her in private.?

Do you want her to be a Jew hater like yourself?

[Steely Dan]

Finally moderate Republicans are free of their ultra-conservative overlords!! If you didn't side with the ultra-conservative party leadership you were a liberal. It looks like the country is finally seeing through that BS and going back to the middle.

 

 

By RAYMOND HERNANDEZ

Published: April 7, 2007

WASHINGTON, April 6 — If the Democratic ascendance on Capitol Hill was supposed to usher in dark days for Republicans, it is hard to tell from talking to moderate ones like Mike Ferguson, who represents a suburban district in central New Jersey.

 

As the new Democrat-led House rushed to complete its business before adjourning for spring break this week, Representative Ferguson was marveling at the many bills that had been passed in Congress’s first 100 days, including one that would make it easier for unions to organize and another that would increase the minimum wage.

 

“Under the Republican majority, those bills would have never gotten to the floor,” he explained before heading back to his district. “Now they have been brought to the floor, and I’ve voted for them.”

 

Mr. Ferguson’s enthusiasm captures a peculiar political reality in the Capitol: many Republicans from swing districts in the Northeast are finding that life under Democratic rule has its advantages.

 

During the 12 years that Republicans controlled the House, moderate Republicans were the stepchildren of their party, expected to vote with their conservative leadership on crucial issues, even if it meant taking positions that could anger centrist voters back home.

 

In fact, the Democrats made some of their deepest inroads last year in the Northeast. A total of 10 Republican incumbents in the House were defeated in four states — New Hampshire, Connecticut, New York and Pennsylvania — where the challengers aggressively tried to tie the incumbents to President Bush and his conservative allies on the Hill.

 

Now, with those losses still fresh in their minds, Republican moderates remaining in the House are vowing to pursue their centrist positions more assertively, even if it means endorsing Democratic initiatives.

 

And the new Republican House leadership, concerned about losing even more seats in 2008, appears to be showing a pragmatic streak by allowing moderates to stray more freely from the party fold.

 

“If there’s a good idea, we should work to get it done, regardless of whether it’s a Republican or a Democrat who came up with the idea,” said Mr. Ferguson, who was re-elected last year with just 49.5 percent of the vote.

 

Since taking control of the House in January, Democrats have pushed through bills that would raise the federal minimum wage, overturn President Bush’s restrictions on embryonic stem cell research, cut interest rates on college loans and implement Sept. 11 commission security recommendations.

 

Many moderate Republicans joined the Democrats in supporting those measures, including Representative Christopher Shays of Connecticut, who won his own re-election campaign with 51 percent of the vote.

 

“Democrats basically grabbed the center and ran with it politically,” Mr. Shays said, adding that he would continue working with the Democrats provided they did not veer from the political center.

 

Representative Peter T. King, a Republican from Long Island who regularly sides with conservative Republicans on abortion and immigration issues, said there were “definitely positives” in the direction in which Democrats had taken the House.

 

“For a pro-labor Republican like me, it’s been very beneficial,” he said.

 

In a measure of how competitive the Northeast could be next year, White House political strategists have put together a list of vulnerable House Republicans that includes five from the region: Mr. Shays, Mr. Ferguson, Representatives John Randy Kuhl Jr. from New York’s Southern Tier, James T. Walsh from the Syracuse region and Jim Gerlach of Pennsylvania.

 

The list was obtained and circulated by Congressional Democrats, who are making plans to single out Northeastern Republicans for defeat in 2008, in the hopes of completing what many in their party see as an inevitable Democratic realignment in the region.

 

In Mr. Walsh’s 25th Congressional District, for example, Dan Maffei, a Democrat who came within about 3,400 votes of defeating Mr. Walsh, is planning to run again next year and has been meeting with party leaders and donors in Albany and Washington.

 

And in the neighboring 29th Congressional District, Eric Massa, a Democrat, has told party leaders in Washington that he plans to challenge Mr. Kuhl, who defeated him last November with just 52 percent of the vote.

 

In a recent interview, Mr. Maffei argued that his prospects of winning in a Democratic state like New York were greatly improved in 2008 because the presidential election would draw thousands of additional voters to the polls, most of them Democrats.

 

“The climate of a presidential year will carry us,” said Mr. Maffei, who announced his candidacy on Friday.

 

Yet, paradoxically, the agenda that House Democratic leaders have been advancing over the last few weeks may actually give moderate Republicans political cover — certainly more than when conservative leaders ran the House.

 

In Mr. Walsh’s case, he has already sided with Democrats on several major pieces of legislation, including a nonbinding resolution opposing President Bush’s call for sending additional troops to Baghdad.

 

Mr. Walsh’s assistants say the votes reflect a centrist point of view that Mr. Walsh has held for years, but Mr. Maffei has described Mr. Walsh’s votes as opportunistic.

 

“It has nothing to do with ideology,” Mr. Maffei said. “It’s purely political.”

 

The House’s Republican moderates are a relatively cohesive bunch of about 30 lawmakers who meet as a caucus (called the Tuesday Group) each week to discuss issues like health care and jobs.

 

Recently, eight members of the group called on President Bush and Democratic leaders on the Hill to make climate change a top environmental issue this session. Increasingly, moderate Republicans have been reaching across the political aisle without fear of retribution from their own leaders.

 

The situation is a far cry from previous Congresses, when the Republican leadership squelched internal divisions and passed bill after bill on party-line votes, including budget cuts to popular programs. The leadership also pushed ideologically freighted legislation that had little chance of becoming law.

 

Last summer, for example, the Republican House leadership embarked on a legislative drive to highlight conservative causes like gun rights and new abortion restrictions. The effort was aimed at rallying conservative voters in advance of the fall elections. But moderates complained that it threatened their re-election prospects.

 

This is not to say that the Republican leaders are completely passive these days. They managed to hold their party together in opposition to a recent Democratic proposal to bring most American combat troops home from Iraq next year. The proposal passed on a vote of 218 to 212, with all but two Republicans opposing it. All of the Northeastern moderates voted against the measure.

 

But by and large, Mr. Shays said, leaders of his party are giving members greater leeway to pursue divergent views more assertively.

 

“You don’t have a Tom DeLay coming in with an ideology,” he said, referring to the former Republican majority leader whose tight control over rank-and-file members of the House earned him the nickname the Hammer.

 

“They’re picking their battles,” Mr. Shays continued. “Leaders are not trying to push their own individual agenda or their own individual ideology.”

 

Mr. Walsh said that part of the reason Republican leaders had loosened their grip was that they no longer had the burden of producing the 218-vote majority needed to govern in the House.

 

“When you are in the majority, you have to produce votes; so there’s tremendous pressure,” he said. “That’s not the case today. It’s a very different environment.”

 

But Mr. King said Republican House leaders had another reason for going easy on members.

 

“They don’t want to lose seats,” he said. “They’re not pushing members to take suicidal votes or take a bullet for the team.”

[SilverNRed]

The one thing I hope Pelosi leanred from the trip is not to trust what leaders from a certain little trouble making coutry tell her in private.

Those damn Jews are such trouble makers. Always trying to defend themselves. Can't they just let the terrorists kill them in peace? Ugh, it's just sooo frustrating.

 

They should be more like Syria.

[Alaska Darin]

Those damn Jews are such trouble makers.

Legislatively? They sure as hell are. Brutally effective at getting money, power, and influence on Capitol Hill.

[RkFast]

This proves nothing about Pelosi's actions violating the Constitution. Congress can pass a law saying breathing is illegal, that doesn't mean if you breath you have violated the constitution. Has the Logan act been upheld by the Supreme Court? And under what circumstances? Seems like it was a partisan law passed in the heat of the moment to me.

 

Seems to me youre a lowlife piece of sh-- that sits at home and Googles things to repost here in some lame attempt to look smart.

 

Its not working.

 

As if you had any idea what the Logan Act is. Before you ran off and looked it up on wiki, you probably thought it was a funding bill for new sidewalks at the Boston airport.

 

Lying fraud scumbag.

[Chilly]

lol @ u calling someone a low life piece of sh--