Pelosi pushes Syria on Hamas, Hezbollah links

[brien]

Quote by: The Decider First you say Pelosi made a dangerous precedent (meaning she was the first SOTH to undertake an unauthorized overseas visit) and then you claim "perhaps [Pelosi] wasn't the first." You really have to make up your mind brien. Did she set precedent or not? Gingrich met with Middle Eastern heads of state before publicly dissing Clinton's Middle East policy.

Ok One more time. If member A does something that sets a precedent, does it not contribute to "setting a precedent" if member B does it as well?

Now, just WHO did Gingrich meet with? Which President or Prime Minister? Which Middle Eastern Heads of State? Keeping in mind a head of state is a President, King or PM.

[brien]

Decider; I am assuming since you have not disagreed with the concept of 535 Congressional members all conducting foreign relations around the globe, you agree with the concept as well. 535 congressional members all acting like little diplomats. Because if you think it is ok for one member to do it, it must be ok for all 535 to do it, correct?. Therefore you see no need for the State Department as well, correct? Hey, since this is what you seem to support, am I correct in assuming this is your position?

[Yarn]

The constitution is law, not scripture.

Nothing that would not be deemed unconstitutional by courts, should be thought of as unconstitutional in anyway we ought to care about.

What is best matters more then what the founders didn't specify.

Meeting foreign leaders essentially means having discussions with them, which promotes understanding and being understood, which is beneficial.

Bushes implicit belief that not talking to countries we don't like is somehow beneficial is wrong, and not very Reagenlike.

I don't think Pelosi accomplished much with her visit to Syria, but I think she did accomplish good, in giving the Syrian's our message and making the US seem less stubborn to the world.

[Mia]

No one has posted here what exactly was negotiated, what kind of foreign policy she attempted to initiate, or how her visit was different than Republican members who have also visited Syria.

[Yarn]

She has said that she pushed Bushes message with the Syrians: Stop assisting Hamas, Hezbollah, and Sunni insurgents.

Nothing concrete came out of this, there were merely talks which did not lead to any specific actions. Nevertheless, I would argue that they were useful in themselves, though perhaps to only a minute degree.

[rmnunez]

So, what does the Constitution say about it again?

Art.II §2 - [Prez] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the US,

Art.II §3 - [Prez] shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers

Art.II §3 - [Prez] shall Commission all the Officers of the US

In old speak that means that everyone who exercises authority/responsibility to speak/act for the US reports to the Prez in fulfillment of that function even if they go through the advice and consent of the Senate (NOT the House) before they become officers of the US.

Congress (or an officer of Congress) does not have a shadow authority to execute the laws -and certainly not the shadow authority to bypass legislation itself and directly negotiate with foreign governments. In her case, as an officer of Congress, she also has an obligation to uphold laws which she herself voted for.

Washington, D.C. -House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi spoke this afternoon on the House floor in support of H.R. 1828, the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act, which passed the House by a vote of 398 to 4. Below are her remarks: "Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the bill's authors, Congressman Eliot Engel and Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, as well as the Chairman and ranking Democrat on the International Relations Committee, Congressmen Henry Hyde and Tom Lantos, for their leadership in bringing this legislation to the floor. I am pleased to have joined nearly 300 of my colleagues in co-sponsoring this significant measure, which is an effort to encourage Syria to cease its support for terrorism, and to end its occupation of Lebanon….” Pelosi Statement in Support of Syria Accountability Act

[brien]

What is best matters more then what the founders didn't specify. Meeting foreign leaders essentially means having discussions with them, which promotes understanding and being understood, which is beneficial.

What matters best is what the founders didn't specify??? So they didn't specify that the President couldn't introduce laws into Congress so he can go up the hill and draw up a resolution, introduce it, and expect a vote, right? Absurd thinking, at best, ignorant at worst.

Ok Great. Your conclusion then is that 535 members of Congress are all empowered to traipse around the globe discussing and making foreign policy for the US. This is just plain wacky and directly opposed to the expressed authority given to the executive branch of the government in the Constitution. Hey who needs the State Department anyway when we can have 535 members in COngress do the job, right?.:rolleyes:

[GHook93]

People have focused so much on Pelosi's "dissing" of the white house. However, she is taking necessary steps, in which GWB is arrogantly ignoring. She is not there to negotiate anything. She is there to open up dialog. Lack of communication is fundamental to misunderstandings. The only way to build relationships is to communicate.

[brien]

Quote by: Mia No one has posted here what exactly was negotiated, what kind of foreign policy she attempted to initiate, or how her visit was different than Republican members who have also visited Syria.

Mia; What does it matter what Pelosi said or did in Syria by meeting with Assad. What does it matter when Congressional members meet with other heads of state such as Presidents, PM's, or Kings? I say it does because what they are doing in essence is giving a foreign government the idea that the US has a revolving door in terms of Foreign Policy. So if a nation doesn't like what the Department of State issues in a statement, they have the real alternative to turn to the Congress for redress. This will set up 535 members as all seeming to have the power to negotiate FP for the US. FP is much about protocol and appearances, so once we allow Congressional delegations to represent the US in matters of FP, where does it end? It ends with 5353 psuedo diplomats all negotiating FP from their own self interest(s).

This is what, I think, the FF meant to avoid in Article 2. Section 2.

[brien]

Quote by: GHook93 People have focused so much on Pelosi's "dissing" of the white house. However, she is taking necessary steps, in which GWB is arrogantly ignoring. She is not there to negotiate anything. She is there to open up dialog. Lack of communication is fundamental to misunderstandings. The only way to build relationships is to communicate.

The only way to build relationships is to communicate.

[/QUOTE]

This is true.

However, she is taking necessary steps, in which GWB is arrogantly ignoring. She is not there to negotiate anything. She is there to open up dialog

Not in her job description. It is in the job description of the Executive Office as noted in Article 2 Section 2 in the US Constitution.

[Yarn]

What matters best is what the founders didn't specify???

Nope. I said:

What is best matters more then what the founders didn't specify.

So they didn't specify that the President couldn't introduce laws into Congress so he can go up the hill and draw up a resolution, introduce it, and expect a vote, right? Absurd thinking, at best, ignorant at worst.

It doesn't give him the power to do that, and thats a power that has to be given (perhaps the text doesn't say that explicitly, but any court will support that assertion).

The constitution doesn't prohibit you from talking to foreign leaders once you become a member of congress, and thats a power you have without having to be granted it (once again, courts will uphold that).

Once more:

Nothing that would not be deemed unconstitutional by courts, should be thought of as unconstitutional in anyway we ought to care about.

Ok Great. Your conclusion then is that 535 members of Congress are all empowered to traipse around the globe discussing and making foreign policy for the US.

They are legally allowed to. No court would even likely hear a case that they weren't. Anyone is allowed to talk to foreign leaders.

[brien]

Quote by: Yarn What matters best is what the founders didn't specify??? Nope. I said: What is best matters more then what the founders didn't specify. So they didn't specify that the President couldn't introduce laws into Congress so he can go up the hill and draw up a resolution, introduce it, and expect a vote, right? Absurd thinking, at best, ignorant at worst. It doesn't give him the power to do that, and thats a power that has to be given (perhaps the text doesn't say that explicitly, but any court will support that assertion). The constitution doesn't prohibit you from talking to foreign leaders once you become a member of congress, and thats a power you have without having to be granted it (once again, courts will uphold that). Once more: Nothing that would not be deemed unconstitutional by courts, should be thought of as unconstitutional in anyway we ought to care about. Ok Great. Your conclusion then is that 535 members of Congress are all empowered to traipse around the globe discussing and making foreign policy for the US. They are legally allowed to. No court would even likely hear a case that they weren't. Anyone is allowed to talk to foreign leaders.

So you agree that it is perectly acceptable to encourage 535 members of Congress to particapte in FP by having face to face meetings with the heads of state in other nations. No need for the State Department correct? Absurd.

It doesn't give him the power to do that, and thats a power that has to be given (perhaps the text doesn't say that explicitly, but any court will support that assertion).

In the same respect, the powers of FP are directly enumerated in Article 2 Section 2. So the members of Congress, according to your own logic, are prohibited from doing this.

[The Decider]

Quote by: brien Ok One more time. If member A does something that sets a precedent, does it not contribute to "setting a precedent" if member B does it as well?

Huh? How did Pelosi "set a precedent" already set by her predecessors, in this case former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich?

Here's the definition of precedent:

"An act or instance that may be used as an example in dealing with subsequent similar instances.

Law. A judicial decision that may be used as a standard in subsequent similar cases: a landmark decision that set a legal precedent.
Convention or custom arising from long practice: The President followed historical precedent in forming the Cabinet.

precedent: Definition, Synonyms and Much More from Answers.com

Pelosi and the Republican delegations followed historical precedent; Congress members have traveled to nations and talked to leaders about controversial subjects against the wishes of sitting presidents for a long time. Can you not bring yourself to admit the obvious?

Quote by: brien Now, just WHO did Gingrich meet with? Which President or Prime Minister? Which Middle Eastern Heads of State? Keeping in mind a head of state is a President, King or PM.

Reread post #42--all the information you need is there. Let me know if you need clarification.

Pelosi pushes Syria on Hamas, Hezbollah links

Quote by: brien Decider; I am assuming since you have not disagreed with the concept of 535 Congressional members all conducting foreign relations around the globe, you agree with the concept as well. 535 congressional members all acting like little diplomats. Because if you think it is ok for one member to do it, it must be ok for all 535 to do it, correct?. Therefore you see no need for the State Department as well, correct? Hey, since this is what you seem to support, am I correct in assuming this is your position?

All 535 Congressional members can visit any foreign leader and discuss any topic under the sun. They CAN'T negotiate treaties or mobilize militaries or appoint ambassadors. The Republicans (and Pelosi) held discussions with a foreign leader. Where does the Constitution prohibit this?

Furthermore, all 535 congressmen had the opportunity to follow in the footsteps of former SOTH Newt Gingrich and Denis Hastert (see post #42 for details). But did they? If your slippery slope argument has any value, we would have seen 535 foreign policy initiatives long before the Republicans (and Pelosi) defied King George the Jr. In fact, the political risks of defying a sitting president and his "bully pulpit" make such trips rare. Even Pelosi's trip amidst bipartisan delegations didn't insulate her from the president's partisan wrath. You've jumped on the president's bandwagon--uncritically. So much for your "non-partisan" objectivity.

[The Decider]

Quote by: rmnunez So, what does the Constitution say about it again? Art.II §2 - [Prez] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the US, Art.II §3 - [Prez] shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers Art.II §3 - [Prez] shall Commission all the Officers of the US In old speak that means that everyone who exercises authority/responsibility to speak/act for the US reports to the Prez in fulfillment of that function even if they go through the advice and consent of the Senate (NOT the House) before they become officers of the US.

What the hell is "old speak?" Sounds more like rmnunez-speak without supporting evidence, as usual. The Senate confirms nominations (unless of course the prez does a recess nomination to subvert the Senate as George Jr just did recently), but the Senate is NOT alone in government oversight of foreign policy. Nothing in the US Constitution prohibits any member of congress from travelling overseas and meeting heads of state WITHOUT official sanction of the president. Again, rmnunez, show me evidence--explicit evidence like court rulings and such--that makes the Republican (and Pelosi) delegations in Damascus unconstitutional. Your word is not good enough.

Quote by: rmnunez Congress (or an officer of Congress) does not have a shadow authority to execute the laws -and certainly not the shadow authority to bypass legislation itself and directly negotiate with foreign governments. In her case, as an officer of Congress, she also has an obligation to uphold laws which she herself voted for.

What laws did the Republicans (and Pelosi) violate? Specifically. The Logan Act? Bobby and the Wall Street Journal already tried that one, but the Bush Administration disagrees, since no charges have been filed under that Act by them or any US administration for over 100 years.

Did the Syria Accountability Act prohibit the Republicans (and Pelosi) from travelling to Damascus? Again, be specific. You're an attorney, rmnunez. Act like one and cite the law, not your interpretations of it.

[brien]

Pelosi and the Republican delegations followed historical precedent;

So they have contributed to this precedent, eh there decider? Good, glad to see you admit this so long as you point to a member of Congress, besides Pelosi et all, meeting with a President, PM or King of another nation.

Pelosi and the Republican delegations followed historical precedent; Congress members have traveled to nations and talked to leaders about controversial subjects against the wishes of sitting presidents for a long time

You keep writing this but you haven't yet listed a President, PM or King (heads of State) that another member of Congress has met with here.

All 535 Congressional members can visit any foreign leader and discuss any topic under the sun. They CAN'T negotiate treaties or mobilize militaries or appoint ambassadors. The Republicans (and Pelosi) held discussions with a foreign leader

So you think it is ok to confuse foreign nations with alternatives to meeting with the Sate Department. Fine. That's your view of the Constitution, not mine. I adehere to Article 2 Section 2 when it comes to implementing FP. If you supporrt 535 members all particpating in FP by traipsing around the globe and giving the appearance of an alternative to the State Department, so be it. FP is much about protocol and appearances and if Congress is going to play this role, then it will be confusing to foreign nations when it comes to dealing with the Department of State. Therefore, you are supporting undermining of the Constitution, Article 2 Section 2. and just don't whine about it when members do it to a Democrat in the WH. Please remember to support your idea when it goes up your own party's ass sideways. Me, I am against it no matter who is in the WH.

You've jumped on the president's bandwagon

I have not jumped on anyone's bandwagon as you would so like to see. I am defending the Office of the President, and it duties and powers, as outlined in the US Constitution in Artilce 2 Section 2. You have no such Article or Section to support your position in the Constitution. It is as simple as this.

You can say all day long she isn't conducting FP, but she is undermining the Department of State by allowing foreign governments to think they can negotiate with someone other than the Department of State in FP. This is the damage done to the Constittution. If you can't see it, not my problem. I can and do see this as harmful to the US Constitution.

Look, I am not saying your opinion is wrong. I am saying it does undermine Article 2 Section 2 of the US Constitution. I am saying that since you are agreeable to this, don't be surprised when FP is thrown into chaos because foreign nations think it is acceptable to contact members of Congress to negotiate FP in lieu of contacting the Department of State. Don't whine when it happens tou your own party's president. And don't complain when FP is reduced to foreign leaders choosing whomever they want so as to conduct thier own self interest in FP by ignoring the State Department. These problems are just the beginning in your populist FP approach.

The old saying goes, "Be careful what you wish for, because it may come true."

[The Decider]

Quote by: brien So they have contributed to this precedent, eh there decider? Good, glad to see you admit this so long as you point to a member of Congress, besides Pelosi et all, meeting with a President, PM or King of another nation.

I gave you the link to post #42 on this thread, about the Newt Gingrich trip. The information is all there. The name of the PM is there.

You said "set a dangerous precedent" in your first post on this thread. "Set" is not the same as "contribute." The Republicans (and Pelosi) visited foreign leaders like others in US history. The issue of whether the Republicans (and Pelosi) followed an "unconstititional" precedent is separate. As I've stated, the constitution doesn't prevent congressional foreign trips or the broaching of political topics. Since the Republicans (and Pelosi) didn't negotiate any treaties, move any armies, or appoint any ambassadors, they didn't violate the US constitution--and neither did their predecessors who set the "dangerous precedent." By the way, I'm not saying that Gingrich actually set the precedent. I'm sure with some research I could find some of his predecessors in foreign capitals against the wishes of a sitting president. Gingrich, however, was a Speaker of the House (like Pelosi), and as such he was an earlier example of a high ranking Congress official who defied the president.

Quote by: brien You keep writing this but you haven't yet listed a President, PM or King (heads of State) that another member of Congress has met with here.

See post #42 and the link I provided for you. Your answer is there.

Quote by: brien So you think it is ok to confuse foreign nations with alternatives to meeting with the Sate Department. Fine. That's your view of the Constitution, not mine. I adehere to Article 2 Section 2 when it comes to implementing FP. If you supporrt 535 members all particpating in FP by traipsing around the globe and giving the appearance of an alternative to the State Department, so be it. FP is much about protocol and appearances and if Congress is going to play this role, then it will be confusing to foreign nations when it comes to dealing with the Department of State.

Where does Article 2 Section 2 use the words "foreign policy?" Do you have a supporting opinion from a constitutional scholar?

Quote by: brien Therefore, you are supporting undermining of the Constitution, Article 2 Section 2. and just don't whine about it when members do it to a Democrat in the WH. Please remember to support your idea when it goes up your own party's ass sideways. Me, I am against it no matter who is in the WH.

See the Newt Gingrich story in post #42. It's already happened. The Clinton Administration complained too, but they didn't file Logan indictments or call or imply that Gingrich was a "traitor" or try to prevent congressional overseas trips not sanctioned by the State Department. If they did, please show the evidence.

Quote by: brien You can say all day long she isn't conducting FP, but she is undermining the Department of State by allowing foreign governments to think they can negotiate with someone other than the Department of State in FP. This is the damage done to the Constittution. If you can't see it, not my problem. I can and do see this as harmful to the US Constitution.

What "negotiations" did Pelosi conduct specifically? A transcript would be nice and some relevant quotes.

Quote by: brien The old saying goes, "Be careful what you wish for, because it may come true."

It already came "true" during the Gingrich trip of 1998. Until you acknowledge that point, you are still repeating the Bush talking points and undermining your claims to non-partisanship, not to mention any professed "respect" for the Office of the President.

[brien]

Where does Article 2 Section 2 use the words "foreign policy?"

If it doesn't mean foreign policy, then what exactly does it mean. Are you saying that Congress hass the authority to negotiate FP?

What "negotiations" did Pelosi conduct specifically? A transcript would be nice and some relevant quotes

.

All transcripts here? Don't have one and it is not meaningful here. I already showed you the dangers in encouraging members of Congress to pretend to conduct FP. Either you agree or you don't . Obviously you don't agree and think it is just fine to confuse foreign nations about whom to deal with in matters of FP. It encourages foreign nations to back door the Department of State. Fine. Reap what you sow because it will result in FP chaos.

It already came "true" during the Gingrich trip of 1998. Until you acknowledge that point, you are still repeating the Bush talking points and undermining your claims to non-partisanship, not to mention any professed "respect" for the Office of the President

I already told you that it didn't matter which party does this. The results are all the same. The more this is done, the more it will undermine the Authority of the Constitution and the powers granted by it to the Executive Office. The more it is done, the more encouraging it will be for foreign nations to think they can ignore the protocol of the State Department. This, my friend, is dangerous to both the Constitution and the Nation.

From your post 42:

. 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

Let's see. Newt goes to Israel to attend a Jubilee but no where do I see in your post that he met with the Prime Minister. Who was the PM he met with because I really don't recall this. I am not saying it didn't happen but please enlighten me. Furthermore, it seems he attended a Jubilee as the focus of the trip, not a meeting with the PM. We need a link to the meeting between Netanayu and Gingrich. Where is it?

Here is the Chronology of events of the Jubilee for the entire year.

CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS- 1998-1999

CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS- 1998-1999 28 Nov 2000 VOLUME 17: 1998-1999 CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS, 1998-1999

No where in this chronology can I find a meeting between the PM and Gingrich. I can locate many meetings with Clinton, Gore, Albright and Special Envoy Ross, amoung others, but no meeting with Newt.

This is the only mention of that delegation:

23 May A U.S. congressional delegation in Israel to celebrate Israels Jubilee and Jerusalem Day, headed by Speaker Gingrich, cancels plans to lay cornerstone for the proposed U.S. embassy building in Jerusalem

[GHook93]

This is true.



Not in her job description. It is in the job description of the Executive Office as noted in Article 2 Section 2 in the US Constitution.[/QUOTE]

Yet Bush is doing a hell of a lot of things that aren't in his job descriptions.

[brien]

[QUOTE=GHook93;366012]

Yet Bush is doing a hell of a lot of things that aren't in his job descriptions.

I agree. This is not a reason to undermine the meaning and the spirit of the Constitution just because we disagree with the FP of GWB. Pelosi and other Congress people would do better to work on a majority to over-ride GWB in the halls of Congress rather than making trips that showcase to the world the deep divisions in US FP that affects the world. It serves no good purpose to highlight our chaos in FP.

[The Decider]

Quote by: brien If it doesn't mean foreign policy, then what exactly does it mean. Are you saying that Congress hass the authority to negotiate FP?

No, Congress members can hold discussions. They can't negotiate treaties or other agreements in the name of the US. The Republicans (and Pelosi) didn't.

By the way, Bush may have known about Pelosi's visit all along, and didn't object:

Think Progress » Rahall: Pelosi Personally Told Bush Of Syria Trip And He Did Not Object

Quote by: brien All transcripts here? Don't have one and it is not meaningful here. I already showed you the dangers in encouraging members of Congress to pretend to conduct FP.

You referred to an Israeli "clarification." The clarification didn't quote Pelosi. I was wondering if you knew what Pelosi (and the delegation) had actually told President Assad or if you knew what Pelosi had said--in exact words--during her press conference after the meeting--the press conference that prompted the Israeli "clarification." I've been trying to locate an exact transcript of the her comments but have yet to find one. So I'm not sure what the Israelis objected to, and therefore the substance of your own objection; unless you accept the word of Prime Minister Olmert on faith. But I didn't think "non-partisans" did such things; only us "partisans."

Quote by: brien Obviously you don't agree and think it is just fine to confuse foreign nations about whom to deal with in matters of FP. It encourages foreign nations to back door the Department of State. Fine. Reap what you sow because it will result in FP chaos.

Your criticism is disingenuous. Instead of lecturing Pelosi and Democrats on "reap what you sow," you should remind Republicans of Dennis Hastert and Newt Gingrich. Isn't it fair to say that Bush and his supporters "reap" the benefits of past congressional delegations to the Middle East? At least show some fairness...you are, after all, "non-partisan." The Republicans (and Pelosi) didn't set a dangerous precedent. You could argue that they are continuing a Republican practice and say "a pox on both their houses." I would still disagree, but at least you would have the appearance of impartiality. Right now, you're comments are carbon copies of rants being posted throughout the conservative blogosphere.

Quote by: brien The more it is done, the more encouraging it will be for foreign nations to think they can ignore the protocol of the State Department. This, my friend, is dangerous to both the Constitution and the Nation.

Well let's put your theory to the test. Newt Gingrich visited Taiwan in 1997 and was blasted by China for sending "mixed messages" about US foreign policy. Since 1997, can you point to a single example of US-China relations suffering from Gingrich's decision to visit Taiwan? Can you cite one foreign policy article in a conservative or a liberal magazine/website that traces any US-China policy difficulty to the Gingrich meetings in Taiwan? Did the Clinton State Department even suggest that Gingrich had broken any laws or breached the US Constitution?

Or can you even cite a Republican/Pelosi-style delegation since 1998 to back up your contention that "dangerous precedents" will lead to 535 independent congressional foreign policies? If you can show the slippery slope at work since 1998 you may have the beginnings of an argument.

BocaGuy: Newt Gingrich's 1997 trip to China

Or, more recently, can you show any evidence that the Republican (and Pelosi) visit to Damascus has worsened US-Israeli relations, US-Lebanese relations, US-Iraqi relations, or US-Syrian relations?

You've constructed some really scary slippery-slope arguments against "unauthorized" congressional trips overseas, but you've got precious little in the way of evidence backing you up. Except, perhaps, for the Israeli "clarification" about Nancy Pelosi's post-meeting comments that neither you nor I have actually read in their entirety.

Quote by: brien Here is the Chronology of events of the Jubilee for the entire year. No where in this chronology can I find a meeting between the PM and Gingrich. I can locate many meetings with Clinton, Gore, Albright and Special Envoy Ross, amoung others, but no meeting with Newt. This is the only mention of that delegation:

You're correct. The link only cited the Jerusalem Post article from 25 May 1998, which contained a fuller description of Gingrich's trip. Gingrich met with PM Benjamin Netanyahu, a close personal friend of his, and a man who despised Clinton. The idea that Gingrich would visit Israel without meeting his friend is unthinkable. Here's an excerpt from the original article:

The Jerusalem Post, 25 May 1998

Cabinet mulls new US proposal

By HERB KEINON and Jerusalem Post Staff

JERUSALEM (May 25) --

....Yesterday, at a meeting with some 25 US legislators here on a visit to mark the country's jubilee, Netanyahu said: "I said here in the hotel on Friday that the peace process was in dire straits in the first two years of Oslo. I repeat that statement...."

CIDI : Nieuws - 1998 Overzicht

During Gingrich's 1998 visit to Israel, he also addressed the Knesset (Israel's Parliament) and met PLO Chairman Yasir Arafat for private discussions.

Yes, THAT Yasir Arafat.

CNN - Palestinians: Arafat-Gingrich talks go well - May 27, 1998

Gingrich also met the Premier of China and the President of Taiwan during a 1997 visit.

http://bocaguy.blogspot.com/2007/04/...-to-china.html