Pelosi pushes Syria on Hamas, Hezbollah links

[brien]

Your bias against Pelosi is showing; and so is your hypocrisy.

Here is the real hypocrisy:

]Sioux City Journal: A reminder for Pelosi

If, say, Newt Gingrich had ignored a request from President Clinton to not visit Yugoslavia and instead had traveled there, even going so far as to meet with its president, Slobodan Milosevic, while he was speaker, what would Pelosi's position have been? She would have been outraged, of course - and justifiably so

.

However, when you are suffering from the delusion that you are, in fact, the president, as Pelosi appears to be, apparently you can justify that kind of hypocrisy in your mind

And since Decider mentioned the word "delusional" some have conviently ignored the Washington Post's, amoung other world newspapers, editorial condemnation of the trip as well. Many newspapers all over the world have condemned this trip, so why would any logical person support it? Ahhh, a partisian stubborn and loyal person who won't admit a mistake when they are shown it by most of the world.

.

[The Decider]

Quote by: brien I say that since she was the SOTH in Congress, it makes her actions even worse. She is a Congressional leader that should respect the spirit of the Constitutional separation of powers.

Quote by: brien This is a violation of the spirit of the Constitutional law and the construction of the US government.... This is her transgression.

Quote by: brien I have no outrage. Please show me where and whom in Congress has represented the US to foreign heads of state in the past decades you point to in your post. You make it sound like this is a matter of general course in the conduct of Foreign Policy. This is simply not true. So you show me the decades of proof you have.

Your contention that Pelosi's trip, in your words, "sets dangerous precedent," is utter hogwash. A short 5 minute Google search produced two examples just for the Clinton era (Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and then Representative Dennis Hastert). Do you want the Bush I, Reagan, and Carter eras included also? Just let me know. If you plan to fall back on the "two wrongs don't make a right" argument, you must first rescind the "precedent" contention and adopt a truly non-partisan condemnation of an established bi-partisan practice. Right now, you are still engaging in hypocrisy.

1. Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R, Georgia):

US HOUSE SPEAKER Newt Gingrich weathered a rocky visit to Israel in late May as head of a 20-member congressional delegation here to honour Israel's Jubilee. Fending off Palestinian charges of bias and barbs from Clinton administration spokesmen, Gingrich displayed formidable diplomatic skills and refreshing acumen when questioning the State Department's recent handling of the Oslo process.

In the weeks prior to leaving for Israel, Gingrich emphasised Congress' broad support for moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem and opposition to US pressure on Israel on the Oslo redeployment issue. At a Capitol Hill rally on May 19, Gingrich compared the administration's approach on the peace process to an Israeli diplomat telling the US how to defend Texas, suggesting the problem may be that American diplomats have "been in fancy hotels too long and [are] out of touch with reality". (The Jerusalem Post, May 20)

Perspective: TOUGH LOVE

2. Dennis Hastert (R., Illinois):

U.S. Embassy Colombia cable, “CODEL [Congressional Delegation] Hastert’s May 24-27 Visit to Colombia,” May 28, 1997, Secret, 28 pp.
Source: Freedom of Information Act Release to the National Security Archive

At the same time Congress was attaching human rights conditions to U.S. security assistance programs and negotiating a formal end-use monitoring agreement with the Colombian defense ministry, other lawmakers were secretly assuring Colombian officials that they felt such restrictions were unwarranted, and would work to either remove the conditions or limit their effectiveness.
One example of this was 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.”

War in Colombia - Volume III

Quote by: brien Look I don't hate Pelosi. I disrespect what she is doing to the Constitution of the US. Plain and simple. If you can't see the damage she is doing, then you either don't understand the Constitution, the construction of the separation of powers in government, and Diplocmacy or you simply are a Pelosi political hack.

By refusing to acknowledge that Pelosi is following precedent, it is you, not I, that appear the "political hack." You have relinquished the objectivity that you claim. You are singling out Pelosi. Your condemnation of such visits only surfaced when Bush, for partisan reasons, condemned Pelosi. My contention remains that you are anything but nonpartisan on this issue--your past disagreements with Bush notwithstanding. Your constitutional arguments, or rather the "spirit" of the constitution arguments, are subjective and carry no legal weight. Nor have you shown any evidence of Pelosi"/Republican delegation damage" to US foreign policy, especially in light of that foreign policy's shattered condition under the mismanagement of the current White House crew.

Quote by: brien And since Decider mentioned the word "delusional" some have conviently ignored the Washington Post's, amoung other world newspapers, editorial condemnation of the trip as well. Many newspapers all over the world have condemned this trip, so why would any logical person support it? Ahhh, a partisian stubborn and loyal person who won't admit a mistake when they are shown it by most of the world.

It is you, brien, who won't admit a mistake. When you claimed Pelosi's trip was "unconstitutional," you backpedaled to "the spirit of the Constitution." When you suggested that Pelosi had broken "diplomatic protocol" by making a sign of the cross, the facts that show otherwise never merited your reply, for obvious reasons. When you claimed that Pelosi "set a dangerous precedent" as a congressional leader, the history of Newt Gingrich's tenure as SOTH contradicts that viewpoint. And now you have wrapped yourself in the "international and domestic press" as "evidence" that Pelosi "made a mistake." Huh? The pro-Iraq invasion Washington Post criticizes Pelosi and you call that proof? The Sioux City Journal from Red State South Dakota forgets about Newt Gingrich's active opposition to Clinton's Middle East foreign policies and constructs an hilarious hypothetical about some visit to Slobodan Milosevic, a man at war with America, unlike Syria, and that's some kind of damning evidence against Pelosi?

Please, tell me you have something more.

[BobbyO]

Nancy Pelosi is speaker of the house. She is second in line of succession to the president. Arguably, she is the leader of the political opposition in the USA. Her role and function cannot be considered comparable to a couple of obscure Congressmen knocking on the door of Damascus.

Nor was her going to Damascus simply an issue of "fact finding." As even others on this very thread have observed, it was designed to challenge Bush's foreign policy in the region. That is what is so outrageous about her visit to Damascus. She can dissagree with the president all she wants in Congress and at political rallies. But when she directly challenges the president in this manner, in Syria, it is a direct assault on the president's authority in directing foreign policy. It undermines what the president is trying to do. If you want the Democrats setting foreign policy for the USA, then you need to elect a Democrat in 2008. Otherwise, quit undermining it, and at the same time, quit being used as propaganda tools (the latter though is only helpful advice to save off Democratic embarrasment over the next 18 months)

[The Decider]

Quote by: BobbyO Nancy Pelosi is speaker of the house. She is second in line of succession to the president. Arguably, she is the leader of the political opposition in the USA. Her role and function cannot be considered comparable to a couple of obscure Congressmen knocking on the door of Damascus.

And, as I stated above, Nancy Pelosi is not the first speaker of the house from the opposition party to visit Middle East capitals.

Those "obscure Congressmen" included a whole delegation from Bush's own party. Do you think that escaped Syrian notice, that members of Bush's ruling party defied their own leader to visit Damascus? It escaped Bush's notice until Pelosi made her trip. Then we heard all about these delegations and the "precedent" that Pelosi allegedly set.

It's pure Republican hypocrisy.

Quote by: BobbyO She can dissagree with the president all she wants in Congress and at political rallies. But when she directly challenges the president in this manner, in Syria, it is a direct assault on the president's authority in directing foreign policy. It undermines what the president is trying to do. If you want the Democrats setting foreign policy for the USA, then you need to elect a Democrat in 2008. Otherwise, quit undermining it, and at the same time, quit being used as propaganda tools (the latter though is only helpful advice to save off Democratic embarrasment over the next 18 months)

Bush's foreign policy has bi-partisan opposition, Bobby; a majority of Americans want this nation to follow the Iraq Study Group recommendations and open dialogue with Iran and Syria. A majority...A big majority (between 65% and 75% of Americans, including big majorities in both parties).

But, in the end, the delegations were legal and with broad bi-partisan precedent.

World Public Opinion

Majority of Americans support timetable for withdrawal - Los Angeles Times

Washington Post-ABC News Poll December 7-11, 2006 (washingtonpost.com)

[shawmutt]

Give this tactic a try: provide evidence from a constitutional scholar that congressional trips overseas are unconstitutional.

I have a source that says they are Constitutional and expected.

Kudos for Nancy Pelosi’s Visit to Syria: Newsroom: The Independent Institute

[rmnunez]

Pelosi overstepped the bounds of her authority, international relations, the sort of thing that results from discussions with heads of state, is an exclusive Executive branch responsibility. Furthermore, she appears to have ventured into mediating for third parties (Israel) and messed that up by misrepresenting their position. Additionally, she has broken the lengthy isolation several presidencies worked to maintain against the genuinely reprehensible Syrian dictator.

Cheney:

She's not entitled to make policy. She, in this particular case, by going to Damascus at this stage it serves to reinforce, if you will, and reward Bashar Assad for his bad behavior. He's done all kinds of things that are not in the interests of the United States, including allowing Syria to be an area from which attacks are launched against our people inside Iraq. He obviously was heavily involved, right now, in supporting an effort by Hezbollah to try to topple the government in Lebanon. This is a bad actor, and until he changes his behavior he should not be rewarded about visits by the speaker of the House of Representatives. Interview with Vice President Richard B. Cheney

[rmnunez]

US Constitution (Philadelphia 1787) Article I vests all legislative powers in a Congress; Section 10 of that Article prohibits any state from entering into a "treaty, alliance, or confederation."

A "treaty" under international law is an agreement between two or more states and Pelosi didn't sign nor secure Bashad's subscription to any of these, so she didn't breach the Constitution, but already we are clued to the fact international relations are something the legislators need to leave for the executive branch.

[Technosoul]

Who cares what she was wearing? Some of you guys are like those reporters who report about what women are wearing instead of what they are doing. The PC scarf is a common ritual or custom that is being respected and you are wrong to think that they do not respect the women of their countries. Would you have the same respect for George Bush if he showed up for a pubic speech in a G-string (only).

Saudi Arabia is her next stop on the middle eastern tour, just recently the King of that country denounced the war in Irag as being wrong. And basically he cut off his support for President Bush on that topic. And Rice is just a parrot for Bush. But when she gets there they (all of them) will become aware that Bush's term in office will soon be over with and that a more reasonable leadership in America is "on the way". She is acting in a responsible manner because the voters wanted a change and a new beginning in dealing with middle eastern prolbems. The majority of us are not sending a mixed message via her visits, only Bush is mixed-up and unable to communicate in a reasonable manner.

At last we got someone representing us for a change. A House Speaker for America. For it is clear that Bush has abused his authority and no longer represents the mainstream voters.

Hey, by the way, you guys fogot to mention what President Bush was wearing when he made his speech to try to downplay her visits.

It is possible that she might visit with a leader from Iran during the tour, as where she will go was not fully outlined for security reasons. But I am sure she will not float to Iran in a tiny boat without having permission to enter their boarders, like some foolish people might do. If she keeps up the good work we might ask her to resign as the House Speaker, so she can be our President instead.

Anyway the Democrats are not just sitting on their butts. And the House Speaker should talk to those middle eastern leaders to get a good idea about what they think and expect from peace talks, and other issues, so that when Congress is concidering bills or requests from the White House they will have some first hand knowledge about how to vote or debate the agenda.
She is not making deals but just getting to know who all is out there and to gather information for her self and other Congressmen. Passing on a message from Israel is not "sending a mixed message" because Israel is not acturally run by the White House anymore.

I used to work for a research division of one of our oil companies and sometimes I was at the front lobby where people came to have talks with the company staff, most of them came from the middle eastern locations where oil drilling is happening and I noticed that they sent mostly highly educated women to make deals or to attend those oil meetings. And yes, those women wore scarfs over their heads until they got inside. They were respected by the men in their own country who head up the oil businesses as they selected those women to do international business for them. The environment in the middle east is mostly hot and they can get sand blowing around in the winds, so the scarfs protect the faces and the beauty of the women, so they will have pretty skin that is not sunburned. It has nothing to do with covering up a womans "nakedness" for moral reasons, in most countries. And so what? Their public is concerned about women having soft skin and our country is concerned about women staying skinny. What's the diff.?

[rmnunez]

So far so good, but what happens if other senators and legislators follow her lead, and what do we do if the one who follows Bush doesn't follow Pelosi's policies? Getting the legislature involved in foreign policy has all sorts of negative implications in international relations, greater uncertainty, slower procedures, confusion over the authority of representatives, inmiscuition in domestic politics...

[shawmutt]

Interview with Pelosi from NPR

[Derach]

I will join my NON-PARTISAN voice to the chorus that disagrees with Pelosi's trip .... I also find it equally hypocritical of dems who point to Gingrich's and Hassert's trip as 'precedent' for Pelosi .... even though the then dem State department denounced both of those trips .... what's good for the goose, apparently, is not so good for the gander. The main reason this trip is a mistake is because she can't really DO anything of substance ... can't enter into negotiation, can't offer trade proposals, can't ask for tangible help. Furthermore, as a State dept 'outsider', she is not privy to intelligence or other resources that could flavor negotiations with Syria or Saudia Arabia. That she is openly defying the State dept is, in fact, a most troubling development, and I hope that the constitutional right of the executive branch to enter into international negotiations remains intact ... regardless of the party in office at the time.

[shawmutt]

A lot of people in this thread are repeating that fact--that she can't do any good, yet she says that her purpose was not to set up negotiations or offer a different voice than that of the president. If what she said was true--that she went, like the Republicans before her, on a fact-finding mission, would you still be so dead set against it?

I am not against her visit for two reasons. 1. Bush obviously didn't get the message in last November's elections, that most people were against this war and that something needed to change. His idea of change was to add more troops, add more fuel to the fire, turn up the heat. This may work temporarily, but once the insurgency recovers, once the people in Iraq see that nothing has changed, things will go back to normal, and unfortunately there will be more Americans over there to kill. 2. Most people, especially the sore losers of November's elections, are watching the Democratic party (and the Speaker of the House in particular) like a hawk, waiting for a slip up. Think of how much hubbub was raised for the jet incident. In living so close to D.C., I've just turned off my local public radio stations lately, there's just too much vitriol flying around.

People want change, they want something different, but when the change takes place they don't want "that change", they want a different change. This is a change, after four years of brutal war (more for Iraqis than us), a rubber stamp congress, and a stonewalling "stay the course" executive branch. I just can't bring myself to think it's a change for the worse. Time will tell.

I'll just add a bit in here that you can disregard. We have to do something different. If nothing else, we owe our troops that. The local guard is being informed they are shipping out for a second year-long tour. That's a year in some country where people want to kill you, where you are basically a prisoner, while your friends and family age a year here. These soldiers are heroes, and I hope people remember their sacrifice for many years after the war, and support them still after the yellow bumper stickers on their cars have faded away and the plastic flags are torn to shreds. After over 3,000 dead, 20,000+ seriously injured, and countless others facing years of mental anguish and physical pain for the sacrifice they have made, it's time to get a little more humble as a country and handle this situation in Iraq.

[Derach]

Shawmutt - good points and I agree with you that 1. an anti Iraq war message was sent last November, and the pres hasn't received it ... and 2, something new must be tried to bring the American cost in Iraq (both human and fiscal) to an end. However, I still feel it is not the place of the Speaker of the House to override the WH's policies (ie, visiting other heads of state without their consent) in order to bring about a change of heart there. The tool provided to her by the constitution is impeachment and the right to pass legistlation that will have an impact on the war (like funding provisions). She is not afforded the right by the constitution to disagree with the WH and subsequently 'do as she will' like a spoiled kid .... she needs to follow the rules so that when (if) the dems take over the white house, some neo-con whacko doesn't go flying all over the world to promote HIS ideas of how our international policy should be handled. I really think this is a short-sighted move on her part that will come back to snip the dems in the rear end later. I GUARANTEE that some repub will point to this trip as a justification for similar behavior down the road when (if) the dems control the State Dept ... and the dems will squak at the inappropriateness of congressional delegates acting without the blessing of THEIR white house.

[rmnunez]

Republicans wouldn't do like Pelosi, they have a much higher respect for institutions.

[The Decider]

Quote by: rmnunez So far so good, but what happens if other senators and legislators follow her lead, and what do we do if the one who follows Bush doesn't follow Pelosi's policies? Getting the legislature involved in foreign policy has all sorts of negative implications in international relations, greater uncertainty, slower procedures, confusion over the authority of representatives, inmiscuition in domestic politics... Republicans wouldn't do like Pelosi, they have a much higher respect for institutions.

rmnunez, have you been following this thread at all? Pelosi's trip wasn't unusual or unprecedented. See my comments about then Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich's delegation to Israel and his negative comments about Clinton's Middle East policy. Be fair, rmnunez, or at least give the appearance of fairness.

[The Decider]

Quote by: Derach I will join my NON-PARTISAN voice to the chorus that disagrees with Pelosi's trip .... I also find it equally hypocritical of dems who point to Gingrich's and Hassert's trip as 'precedent' for Pelosi .... even though the then dem State department denounced both of those trips .... what's good for the goose, apparently, is not so good for the gander.

Derach, I mentioned Gingrich and Hassert AFTER the question of precedent was raised by another supposedly "non-partisan" critic of Pelosi. Where was the non-partisan crowd when Pelosi was unfairly attacked?

The "precedent" I referred to was the trip itself. We had a number of people here who claimed...and still claim...that Pelosi blazed some new trail. That error has been corrected.

Now, did Pelosi actually DO the same thing as Gingrich? Let's see. Gringich did the following while in Jerusalem:

*He exchanged barbs with Clinton administration officials halfway around the world.

*He reportedly encouraged the Israeli government to disagree with Clinton's policies.

*He inflamed Palestinians with his remarks about Jerusalem belonging totally to Israel.

Now, did Pelosi or the Republican delegations say anything comparable? Did they publicly disagree with Bush policy in Damascus? Did they encourage any Middle Eastern government to disagree with Bush policies? Did she make any public statement that openly sided with any of the Middle East parties and against Bush policies?

Pelosi's presence and clothing choices got most of the attention.

Quote by: Derach it is not the place of the Speaker of the House to override the WH's policies (ie, visiting other heads of state without their consent) in order to bring about a change of heart there.

Still focused on Pelosi? Members of Bush's own party met President Assad "without the consent" of their president and party leader. Please broaden your condemnation to all persons involved, for consistency if not accuracy.

Quote by: Derach The tool provided to her by the constitution is impeachment and the right to pass legistlation that will have an impact on the war (like funding provisions). She is not afforded the right by the constitution to disagree with the WH and subsequently 'do as she will' like a spoiled kid .... she needs to follow the rules so that when (if) the dems take over the white house, some neo-con whacko doesn't go flying all over the world to promote HIS ideas of how our international policy should be handled.

What part of the constitution bars any elected official from "disagreeing with the White House? I missed that part.

And your argument about impeachment cuts both ways, Derach. The Bush Administration can initiate legal procedings under the Logan Act against any elected official it deems in violation. In fact, I wish they would. Let's have show trials of Republicans and Democrats and see where the US public stands during each of them. Compared to mustering a 2/3s congressional majority for impeachment, issuing Logan indictments would be far easier. If Bush chooses not to indict, however, then he and his sycophants should cease and desist about what the constitution does or doesn't say regarding congressional delegations overseas. Of course they won't, but the hypocrisy is clear.

Logan Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The fact is, Bush's foreign policy of isolating Syria and Iran has utterly FAILED. Elected and appointed officials from around the world are bypassing America's diplomatic sanctions and talking directly to those governments. They are doing what the Iraq Study Group recommended and the US public overwhelmingly supported.

Furthermore, as shawmutt's link stated, Congress--as the peoples' representative body--has a strong constitutional role in the formation and oversight of foreign policy:

"Before the rise of the post–World War II imperial presidency, the powers among the branches of the U.S. government were much more balanced—as the Constitution originally intended. In fact, suspicious of European monarchs’ propensity to wage war with the blood and treasure of their citizens, the Constitution’s framers actually gave more powers in foreign affairs to the Congress than the president. The Congress was given the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, declare war, raise and support armies, provide and maintain a navy, regulate the armed forces, organize, arm, and discipline the militia, and call them forth to resist invasions.

In contrast, the Constitution gave the president only two unilateral powers in foreign affairs: the chief executive was designated the commander–in–chief of the armed forces and militia (narrowly construed so as not to imply that the chief executive was commander–in–chief of the nation), and was allowed to receive foreign ambassadors and ministers. The president was allowed to make treaties with foreign nations and nominate U.S. ambassadors and high foreign policy officials, but these actions were both subject to congressional approval with an overwhelmingly large two–thirds majority vote. Clearly, the framers wanted the Congress to be the dominant branch in foreign policy, as with most other aspects of governance.

Kudos for Nancy Pelosi’s Visit to Syria: Newsroom: The Independent Institute

If the president openly disregards the will of the people, as Bush has with this "surge" and the "silent treatment" of Syria and Iran, then Congress has a DUTY to act. Impeachment and funding cuts are not only options.

Quote by: Derach I really think this is a short-sighted move on her part that will come back to snip the dems in the rear end later. I GUARANTEE that some repub will point to this trip as a justification for similar behavior down the road when (if) the dems control the State Dept ... and the dems will squak at the inappropriateness of congressional delegates acting without the blessing of THEIR white house.

There's an important variable you've omitted in your pessimistic view of the future (which is the present since you now know that congressional trips overseas predated Pelosi's by several decades). That variable is popular support. The actions of any official overseas will fail unless the people support those actions. They are an important, albeit limited, check on presidential power.

[BobbyO]

Quote by: The Decider And, as I stated above, Nancy Pelosi is not the first speaker of the house from the opposition party to visit Middle East capitals. Those "obscure Congressmen" included a whole delegation from Bush's own party. Do you think that escaped Syrian notice, that members of Bush's ruling party defied their own leader to visit Damascus? It escaped Bush's notice until Pelosi made her trip. Then we heard all about these delegations and the "precedent" that Pelosi allegedly set. It's pure Republican hypocrisy. Bush's foreign policy has bi-partisan opposition, Bobby; a majority of Americans want this nation to follow the Iraq Study Group recommendations and open dialogue with Iran and Syria. A majority...A big majority (between 65% and 75% of Americans, including big majorities in both parties). But, in the end, the delegations were legal and with broad bi-partisan precedent. World Public Opinion Majority of Americans support timetable for withdrawal - Los Angeles Times Washington Post-ABC News Poll December 7-11, 2006 (washingtonpost.com)

There is nothing wrong with a speaker of the house visiting mideast capitals. But Pelosi's objective, as you point out, is to undermine Bush foreign policy. She should not be doing that. You want the Iraq Study Group recomendations followe to the letter (btw, what are these authors opinions of negotiating with Iran nowadays, after the whole hostage situation with the Brits)? Elect a president in 2008 who will do that. Otherwise, be expected to be condemned, correctly and properly.

As an aside, the Bush Administration asked those GOP reps not to go as well (and which was a separate trip from Pelosi). Nobody much noticed when a couple of GOP folks go to damascus, because they are not in the majority party. Ms. Pelosi is not some backbencher anymore, and she has to understand that her actions are attached meanings by those who are hostile to USA interests (which Syria is hostile to USA interests in the area, as even Pelosi agreed is true). She should let the Bush Administration set the policy, and keep her opinions in Ciongress, the stump, and the editorial pages.

[Derach]

TD - I meant the constitution doesn't give any of it's sworn officers the right or 'duty' to usurp the presidency in terms of foreign relations and foreign policy. She can't constitutionally disagree with the president as a representative of the US. Meaning that Pelosi (or anyone else NOT speaking officially on behalf of the pres) doesn't 'count' ... officially. If the pres has one position, and 'party x' has another, the pres wins ... officially. By the same token, popular support doesn't really matter to the heads of state of the countries in question either ... they negotiate with and through the delegates of the White House, not congress. My 'pessimistic' view of the future is only fed by the realities of the present and past ... the details will change ... intelligent, articulate people will make valid arguments that partisans will take to heart (the Kool Aide will be drunk, so to speak) ... and this episode will be another old flame to be fanned 2 or 3 yrs down the road. The dem argument for Pelosi's trip should not have to include past references because it weakens the true reason she went (I think) ... which is she genuinely thinks she can open a channel of communication with Syria to begin to build a mid-east coallition to stabilize Iraq .... Very commendable, and I have no personal doubt that is her motivation. She never thought to herself 'Newt did this to Bill, so ... off I go' ... but a lot of dem bloggers use Newt's trip (and others) as primary justification for her trip.

I gave the reasons I oppose her representation in Syria ... I commend her intentions and hope there is positive consequences to her trip, but think the chances are greater for harm. If you think Bush is digging his heels in and being stubborn now, imagine what the nim-wit must be thinking about Pelosi (and crew) running off without his 'permission' ... She wasn't able to stop him from sending in 20,000 new troops, she wasn't able to stop him from calling up more reservists ... what will he try next? ... instituting the selective service? .... In some ways, it seems it would be better to just wait out the 18 months until this bafoon is gone and let whoever gets in start from scratch in Iraq (is there a chant there ... 'start from scratch ... in Iraq!'?) ...

[The Decider]

Quote by: BobbyO There is nothing wrong with a speaker of the house visiting mideast capitals.

What was SOTH Newt Gingrich doing in Jerusalem--buying falafel and dancing the hora? He openly opposed Clinton foreign policy, which apparently you see "nothing wrong" with. Gotcha!

Quote by: BobbyO As an aside, the Bush Administration asked those GOP reps not to go as well (and which was a separate trip from Pelosi).

Could you post a pre-April 1 link to any news story of Bush's condemnation of the Republican visitors to Damascus?

Quote by: BobbyO Nobody much noticed when a couple of GOP folks go to damascus, because they are not in the majority party.

You don't think the Syrians noticed that Bush's own party members were in Damascus? If Bush's own party defies his travel ban, what does that say about Bush's ability to influence anyone?

Quote by: BobbyO She should let the Bush Administration set the policy, and keep her opinions in Ciongress, the stump, and the editorial pages.

Well, I'm sure Pelosi appreciates the constitutional advice of the Bush crowd. But I don't think she'll take it very seriously. So, Bobby, write a letter to our Dear President and ask him to charge Pelosi under the Logan Act. Include copies for each of the Republican legislators too. Let's ratchet this story up another notch. I'm sure Bush can fit another series of court battles into his busy schedule of Congressional hearings on Alberto Gonzalez, the Iraq War, Katrina, and other notable events.

[BobbyO]

Quote by: The Decider What was SOTH Newt Gingrich doing in Jerusalem--buying falafel and dancing the hora? He openly opposed Clinton foreign policy, which apparently you see "nothing wrong" with. Gotcha! Could you post a pre-April 1 link to any news story of Bush's condemnation of the Republican visitors to Damascus? You don't think the Syrians noticed that Bush's own party members were in Damascus? If Bush's own party defies his travel ban, what does that say about Bush's ability to influence anyone? Well, I'm sure Pelosi appreciates the constitutional advice of the Bush crowd. But I don't think she'll take it very seriously. So, Bobby, write a letter to our Dear President and ask him to charge Pelosi under the Logan Act. Include copies for each of the Republican legislators too. Let's ratchet this story up another notch. I'm sure Bush can fit another series of court battles into his busy schedule of Congressional hearings on Alberto Gonzalez, the Iraq War, Katrina, and other notable events.

Oh, she doesn't take the criticism very seriously. That she embarassed herself by botching the message from Olmert, and still considers her trip a success, demonstrates that she is not a particularly serious person.

The Logan Act would not apply. That act involves private citizens negotiating on behalf of the USA. All Pelosi did was basically tell Asaad that he can be rewarded for his backing of Hezbollah, his decision to back Iran, and his support of terrorists in Iraq, if only the Dems were in office, and Asaad will respond in kind by working to create the mischief neccessary for the Dems to capitalise upon.

I had no idea there was any delegations period, going to Syria, prior to April
1. I do not recall any news stories about it. I learned today that the Bush Administration had opposed the GOP delegation going to Damascus a couple of weeks ago.