Pelosi in Syria

[stuckincincy]

Oh, leave Nancy alone.

 

She's just gathering and laundering campaign money like Bill with Ryadi and the Indonesians and Al with the Buddist monks.

 

Pay no attention to the Guam folks she wanted to exclude from a minimum wage hike..those pikers...Nan was just taking care of her Dole Pineapple buddies.

 

On another topic, I thought it a nice touch last week when former Klan Wizard Sen. Byrd was on the stage when Pres. Bush honored the Tuskeegee Airmen. He's such a man-of-the-people, never the hypocrite.

[SilverNRed]

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

Two branches of the government are pursuing different foreign policies. I seriously doubt Madison had that in mind when he wrote the thing.

[Johnny Coli]

Two branches of the government are pursuing different foreign policies. I seriously doubt Madison had that in mind when he wrote the thing.

Back in this old (1996) issue of US Foreign Policy Agenda (pdf), Professor Frederick L. Holborn of Johns Hopkins University disagrees with your assesment, and outlines why US foreign policy is and should be a "tug and pull", as the framers of the Constitution believed that foreign policy was "too important to be left to the President alone and that tension between the branches of government is to be expected."

 

Today, when we hear frequent appeals for a restoration of “bipartisanship” between the executive and legislative branches of government on foreign policy matters, we need to recall that the Constitution stipulated no natural harmony in foreign affairs, but rather anticipated a considerable degree of tension and inefficiencies between the President and the Congress.

 

The U.S. Constitution, unlike documents establishing almost all other governments, did not even endorse the supremacy of the executive in foreign affairs but rather laid out a mosaic of powers distinct to each branch, as well as shared responsibilities. Although there was not unanimity among the framers of the Constitution, the prevailing view was that foreign policy was too important to be left only to Presidents. The framers did not map out all the precise boundary lines among the branches, but they clearly sought a large and consequential role for Congress.

 

This president feels he has a mandate to sequester as much power as he possibly can in the Executive Branch, but that power grab seems to run counter to what many historians believe to be the original framers intent for the office, and in fact may be an example of what they were trying to avoid.

 

Also, to suggest that Congress' and the White House's foreign policy objectives are 180 degrees opposite from one another is entirely false.

[GG]

Also, to suggest that Congress' and the White House's foreign policy objectives are 180 degrees opposite from one another is entirely false.

 

Shall we get into another debate on semantics? Are "objectives" and "actions" the same thing?

[Johnny Coli]

Shall we get into another debate on semantics? Are "objectives" and "actions" the same thing?

You're arguing semantics with the wrong poster. It was in response to SnR's:

Two branches of the government are pursuing different foreign policies.

 

They're not pursuing different foreign policies. The "action" of having active discussions with foreign heads of state without the full backing of Bush is the disagreement--an "action" that we both agree is fully consistent with the US Constitution.

[Steely Dan]

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.

 

I'm very sorry to hear your computer cannot pick up news sites. You might want to look into why that is?

 

It has been mentioned it was going on before your post and with links! So why is this the first time you've mentioned the Pubs?

 

As for being partisan I have this to say. Unless you are an Ultra-Conservative these days you're branded a liberal. I have my problems with the Dems but not nearly as much with the Republicans. You can't deny the Republicans make the Dems look like saints, which obviously they aren't.

 

BTW, does anyone want to say whether Iran waterboarding sailors is torture but the US doing it is not.

[Alaska Darin]

I'm very sorry to hear your computer cannot pick up news sites. You might want to look into why that is?

Perhaps because the news sites I read are not mass media and they don't report on things like "this group of thieves is visiting this third world country to find ways to spend more of the taxpayer's money on sh-- we don't need." Nah, couldn't be that. As I said in my first post, I'm subject to CNN at work. I saw a bit of the Pelosi story, as well as Mr. Bush stepping all over himself. Whoopie.

As for being partisan I have this to say. Unless you are an Ultra-Conservative these days you're branded a liberal. I have my problems with the Dems but not nearly as much with the Republicans. You can't deny the Republicans make the Dems look like saints, which obviously they aren't.

The only reason the Dummycrats supposedly look like saints is because until January they've held virtually no power for six years. There's virtually ZERO difference between the two parties, other than the way the mass media spins the crap and the fact that so many low income people actually believe one over the other. I can at least understand why the rich support the Republicans...

BTW, does anyone want to say whether Iran waterboarding sailors is torture but the US doing it is not.

Don't care.

[The Big Cat]

The only reason the Dummycrats supposedly look like saints is because until January they've held virtually no power for six years. There's virtually ZERO difference between the two parties, other than the way the mass media spins the crap and the fact that so many low income people actually believe one over the other. I can at least understand why the rich support the Republicans...

 

 

so now that the Democrats are in power, they WILL be scandalous (afterall, there were zero Democrats in Washington prior to the mid-terms) and this just in: income dictates impressionability...jesus, man.

[DC Tom]

so now that the Democrats are in power, they WILL be scandalous (afterall, there were zero Democrats in Washington prior to the mid-terms) and this just in: income dictates impressionability...jesus, man.

 

No, they've always been scandalous. Now that they have Congress, they'll be scrutinized more.

[Alaska Darin]

so now that the Democrats are in power, they WILL be scandalous (afterall, there were zero Democrats in Washington prior to the mid-terms)

Ooh, looky. Another partisan apologist. Newsflash, skippy: No one in America cares about second place. There's a reason the phrase "absolute power corrupts absolutely" exists.

 

Build it up, then tear it down. Don't worry, you'll still be there for them - along with the other 80% of voters who regularly ignore facts and simply pull the stick for the "D" or the "R". Just make sure you keep the critical eye on the other side of the aisle and ignore your party of choice, otherwise something might actually change in America. Lord knows we can't have that.

and this just in: income dictates impressionability...jesus, man.

You using big words is like attempting to put frosting on a turd and pass it off as birthday cake. I'm sorry the concept of the royal liberal socialist screwjob is so foriegn to you. Perhaps you should visit WNY and see what the liberal Utopia looks like. Don't worry, though. Elliot Spitzer will ride to the rescue. This time it's for sure!

[Alaska Darin]

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.

I'm sure you'd be saying the same thing if we replaced replaced Pelosi's trip with one made by Gingrich or Lott, assuming one of your buffoons could actually win a Presidential election.

[The Big Cat]

Ooh, looky. Another partisan apologist. Newsflash, skippy: No one in America cares about second place. There's a reason the phrase "absolute power corrupts absolutely" exists.

 

Build it up, then tear it down. Don't worry, you'll still be there for them - along with the other 80% of voters who regularly ignore facts and simply pull the stick for the "D" or the "R". Just make sure you keep the critical eye on the other side of the aisle and ignore your party of choice, otherwise something might actually change in America. Lord knows we can't have that.

 

You using big words is like attempting to put frosting on a turd and pass it off as birthday cake. I'm sorry the concept of the royal liberal socialist screwjob is so foriegn to you. Perhaps you should visit WNY and see what the liberal Utopia looks like. Don't worry, though. Elliot Spitzer will ride to the rescue. This time it's for sure!

 

you're an angry, mean person and I pity you.

[Alaska Darin]

you're an angry, mean person and I pity you.

 

Perhaps your heroes will pass a program to help me.

[SilverNRed]

 

Perhaps your heroes will pass a program to help me.

You're an angry, mean person and I like it.

[molson_golden2002]

I'm sure you'd be saying the same thing if we replaced replaced Pelosi's trip with one made by Gingrich or Lott, assuming one of your buffoons could actually win a Presidential election.

No. WTF is she doing but talking, what's the big deal? What gets me angry is that we have a foreign government with undo inflouence over our foreign policy for their benefit, not ours.

[Alaska Darin]

No.

No what? No as in "one of MG2002's buffoons will never win the executive" or "No I wouldn't be saying the same thing if it were Gingrich or Lott doing the same thing Pelosi is doing?"

WTF is she doing but talking, what's the big deal? What gets me angry is that we have a foreign government with undo inflouence over our foreign policy for their benefit, not ours.

You're right, man. Politicians talking has never screwed anything up. Ever. Back off the meds, huh?

[RI Bills Fan]

I'm sure you'd be saying the same thing if we replaced replaced Pelosi's trip with one made by Gingrich or Lott, assuming one of your buffoons could actually win a Presidential election.

 

Darin, Darin, Darin... I'm sure that you missed this post...

 

A few thoughts:

 

1. she's going as part of a bipartisan delegation, acting on behalf of the bipartisan Iraq study group's recommendations for enhanced diplomacy with Iraq's neighbors.

 

2. the White House, for whatever reason, did not see fit to publicly criticize a group of Republican lawmakers (Reps. Frank Wolf (R-VA), Joseph R. Pitts (R-PA) and Robert Aderholt (R-AL)) that visited Syria and Assad two days before Pelosi. http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationwor...world-headlines

 

3. the Isreali President has come out and defended Pelosi's trip. http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idU...mp;pageNumber=2

 

if this is "political assassination," or an attempt to "undermine" the President, then Pelosi alone is not guilty.

 

...because if you had read that you surely wouldn't be taking off on another of your thinly disguised partisan rants...

 

 

No what? No as in "one of MG2002's buffoons will never win the executive" or "No I wouldn't be saying the same thing if it were Gingrich or Lott doing the same thing Pelosi is doing?"

You're right, man. Politicians talking has never screwed anything up. Ever. Back off the meds, huh?

 

...And sadly we haven't reached your libertarian utopia where all forms of government (with the exception of the Department of Mailing Checks to Alaskans) have been eradicated and replaced with seven surly midget curmudgeons in charge of road repair, so we still do have to put up with the antics of elected officials and their minions attempting to shape public opinion via selected expressions of outrage over the unscrupulous and possibly unconstitutional (or not) actions of the loyal (but maybe traitorous) opposition party who are busy usurping the authority of the other branch by being politically incorrect.

[Alaska Darin]

Darin, Darin, Darin... I'm sure that you missed this post...

...because if you had read that you surely wouldn't be taking off on another of your thinly disguised partisan rants...]

Right, because I didn't specifically state that the Republicans SHOULDN'T be doing the same thing. Oh wait, I did exactly that.

...And sadly we haven't reached your libertarian utopia where all forms of government (with the exception of the Department of Mailing Checks to Alaskans) have been eradicated and replaced with seven surly midget curmudgeons in charge of road repair, so we still do have to put up with the antics of elected officials and their minions attempting to shape public opinion via selected expressions of outrage over the unscrupulous and possibly unconstitutional (or not) actions of the loyal (but maybe traitorous) opposition party who are busy usurping the authority of the other branch by being politically incorrect.

I'm sorry, I can't come close to translating that. Suffice it to say, if any member of either party of Congress is off on a "fact finding" mission in a foriegn country and meeting with their head of state (especially one the executive doesn't like too much), the only people getting screwed will be the US taxpayer.

[RI Bills Fan]

Right, because I didn't specifically state that the Republicans SHOULDN'T be doing the same thing.

Why, you're right again Darin, you didn't...

Oh wait, I did exactly that.

I'm sorry I must have missed that post all six times I reread this thread looking for it. could you please point that statement out to me?

I'm sorry, I can't come close to translating that.

Rough Translation... Somebody bought into the spin, again...

Suffice it to say, if any member of either party of Congress is off on a "fact finding" mission in a foriegn country and meeting with their head of state (especially one the executive doesn't like too much), the only people getting screwed will be the US taxpayer.

Are you really saying that the only way to keep the US Taxpayer from getting screwed is for congress to rubber-stamp the executive's decisions?

 

How well has that worked for the past six years?

[Alaska Darin]

Why, you're right again Darin, you didn't...

 

I'm sorry I must have missed that post all six times I reread this thread looking for it. could you please point that statement out to me?

"If they are attempting to do the same thing Pelosi is doing, then they absolutely are subjugating the Constitution"

 

But really, it's a partisan issue for me, since I'm a huge Republican and all.

Rough Translation... Somebody bought into the spin, again...

Yeah, it's likely that YOU did.

Are you really saying that the only way to keep the US Taxpayer from getting screwed is for congress to rubber-stamp the executive's decisions?

Yeah, I've always been an advocate of doing away with checks and balances.

 

Rest assured, the only guarantee that comes out of this entire thing is more US taxpayer money ends up in the hands of thirdworld politicians, which is about all Congress has brought to the Foreign Policy "discussion" for the last 30 years, regardless of which party is in control.

How well has that worked for the past six years?

The system's been broken far longer than that - and the majority of it occured while your party of choice was controlling the Executive AND the Purse. But I have little doubt you'll support them until the worms are eating your innards.