PDA

View Full Version : GOP vs. Pelosi's Daffy Diplomacy


thedrifter
04-11-07, 08:12 AM
GOP vs. Pelosi's Daffy Diplomacy
by L. Brent Bozell III
Posted 04/11/2007 ET
Updated 04/11/2007 ET

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's make-believe secretary of state routine in Syria has been painted by the press as a sign of emboldened Democrats taking on Team Bush's neocon bumblers. Chris Matthews echoed his colleagues' sentiments when he joyously declared Pelosi would "open the doors to peace."

It was, of course, an outrage, a direct slap at the president, an effort to humiliate him on the international stage. President Bush, Vice President Cheney and White House spokesman Dan Bartlett were quoted decrying Pelosi's diplomatic freelancing. Conservative talk radio was livid. But where, oh where, were the congressional Republicans?

More to the point, where is the GOP leadership? I haven't seen the polling data, but it would surprise me if one in 10 Americans could even name them, so absent are they from the scene. John Boehner and Mel Blunt lead the House; Mitch McConnell and Trent Lott lead the Senate. Other than an occasional spot on the Sunday talk shows, they might as well adorn milk cartons with most Americans.

Did the Republican leaders protest Pelosi's freelancing? There was no sign of it on ABC, CBS or NBC, or even in The Washington Post or The New York Times. OK, but perhaps that's because the networks are ignoring their blizzard of press releases, once more proving the bias of the press?

But in this case, no. A search for criticism of Pelosi's jaunt on the Websites of Boehner and Blunt turned up nothing. Ditto with the sites of McConnell and Lott. Even the conservative House Republican Study Committee's site carried nothing. The Republican National Committee had nothing on its Website other than a reprint of a Wall Street Journal editorial against Pelosi, under their feature "In Case You Missed It." It would be easy to miss it when there was close to zero GOP opposition to the Pelosi fracas on these sites. They were leaving the work to Team Bush and talk radio.

Brian Kennedy, John Boehner's press secretary, suggested that it's still early in the electoral cycle. "When he handed the gavel to Speaker Pelosi in January, Mr. Boehner stated his belief that Republicans could disagree without being disagreeable. And I don't think he felt the need to make repeated public remarks to state the obvious here, which is that Pelosi's trip was embarrassing and potentially dangerous." In other words, he passed the buck.

Boehner finally managed to denounce Pelosi's diplomacy back in Ohio in a meeting with reporters and editors of the Columbus Dispatch, only to have it backfire due to more GOP incompetence. That paper played up that Republican Rep. Dave Hobson, a good friend of Boehner's from a neighboring district, accompanied Pelosi on her trip and came out defending Pelosi -- to an absolutely embarrassing degree. Hobson not only criticized Team Bush and Mitt Romney for daring to protest Pelosi, he even praised Syrian dictator Bashar Assad as a "very educated person" who wanted stability in Iraq.

By Saturday, Boehner appeared in The New York Times -- when the Times could finish an article that read like a Democratic position paper, aimed to make him look like an enormous hypocrite. Reporters Helene Cooper and Carl Hulse tut-tutted Boehner's comment to the Dispatch that Pelosi was going to Syria ''for one reason, and that is to embarrass the president.'' But they noted, around this time in 1997, Boehner accompanied Speaker Gingrich to China -- and later called the trip ''very educational.''

It's very likely that the Times lifted this directly from leftist bloggers like Greg Sargent, who were rifling through Nexis to find exactly these comparisons to defend Pelosi's bumbling Syrian tour. But as even Sargent admitted, the parallels aren't precise.

The Clinton-Gore team offered no criticism of the Gingrich trip, but merely stated he spoke for himself. Gingrich did raise eyebrows for making bold declarations about how America under the Clinton administration would respond militarily if China attacked Taiwan, but no one viewed this as political subterfuge. And America was not at war.

Cooper and Hulse also failed to mention the New York Times editorial from that time, which slapped Gingrich for making bold declarations on behalf of the American executive branch, but also praised Gingrich for being "refreshingly candid compared with the oblique criticism favored these days by the Clinton administration. ... Mr. Gingrich's comments on the Chinese political scene were in some ways more honest than Mr. Gore's anemic formulations."

Pelosi's Syria trip did pile up some negatives, not only from talk radio hosts, but even from a strongly critical unsigned editorial by The Washington Post. Even NBC's Matt Lauer eventually found "a lot of people thought she messed up." But the allegedly fearsome "Republican attack machine" on Capitol Hill? At best, it ran on a very low volume throughout Madame Speaker's daffy diplomatic adventure. At worst, it was pathetic.

Ellie

thedrifter
04-11-07, 08:16 AM
Nancy Pelosi: Fool Or Felon?
By Joe Mariani
April 11, 2007

By the late 1790s, America was fighting an undeclared "Quasi-War" with France on the high seas. (web site) France's revolutionary government, at war with England, began allowing its navy to seize American ships trading with that country. England began interfering with American ships trading with France. Congress authorized the War Department to build six frigates (primarily intended to fight Barbary pirates, no longer confined to the Mediterranean by Portugal) in 1794, but by 1797 only three had been built.

Meanwhile, the French were further incensed by a trade agreement between America and Great Britain. In 1796, France refused to receive American diplomats, and would not restore diplomatic relations until America paid "a large bribe." In April 1798, Congress authorized President John Adams to acquire a dozen ships of war, drastically increasing the size of America's fledgling Navy, and granted those ships the authority to capture armed French vessels found off the American coast. Later that year, Congress increased the authorization to allow American ships to capture any French ship in international waters.

In the midst of all this tension, pacifist George Logan took it upon himself to "treat unofficially for a better understanding between the two Governments." In June 1798, Dr. Logan went to France to assure that government that the American people wanted peace despite the belligerence of President Adams. (web site) His words emboldened the French to continue their seizure of American vessels, undermined US foreign policy and no doubt prolonged hostilities (which lasted two more years) by revealing tensions within the US government, which the French could exploit.

Logan's high-handed activities caused Congress to pass the Logan Act the following year, which prohibits American citizens from attempting to conduct their own private foreign policy initiatives on behalf of the United States. (web site) Only the president may speak for the country as a whole when dealing with other governments. The Logan Act (US Code 18, Part I, Chapter 45, Section 953) reads: (web site)

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

In April 2007, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) took it upon herself to visit Syria while that country is involved in disputes with the United States throughout the Middle East -- not the least of which is terrorists using that country as a conduit through which to infiltrate Iraq. The White House specifically asked her not to do so, as it might undermine US policy towards Syria and embolden dictator Bashir Assad. Other politicians have visited Syria, but none have done so with the purpose of opening dialogue with that country against the express foreign policy dictates of the president. Representative Tom Lantos (D-CA), who accompanied Pelosi, said of the trip, "We have an alternative Democratic foreign policy. I view my job as beginning with restoring overseas credibility and respect for the United States." (web site)

However, Lantos' job -- and Pelosi's -- is to create laws. Foreign policy falls under the purview of the Executive branch of government, not the Legislative. Congress has as much power to conduct foreign policy as the President has to write laws -- namely, none at all. Nancy Pelosi's attempt to conduct her own private foreign policy is a clear violation of the Logan Act, for which she should be charged by the Attorney General... if he has time before the Democrats hound him out of office on yet another trumped-up non-scandal, that is.

Some have said that Pelosi, being a member of Congress, does indeed have the "authority of the United States" mentioned in the Logan Act, and was representing America on her trip. If that's true, then she did it badly. She appeared as a supplicant to Assad, and walked about wearing a headscarf and black abaya, showing her deference -- and America's, as our representative -- to overblown fundamentalist Islamic sensibilities. Pelosi allowed herself to be photographed smiling and showing friendship to a man who is the subject of a US campaign designed to isolate and embarrass him for the part his government played in the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in 2005. (web site) She badly botched a message from Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, telling Assad that Israel was prepared to resume peace talks with Syria. Olmert's actual message was that "Syria should first stop supporting terrorism and 'act like a normal country,' and only then would Israel be willing to hold discussions." (web site) It's hard to imagine how Pelosi's blundering Syrian junket could have been any more of a foreign policy disaster for the United States.

Since assuming her position as Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi has been leading the power-drunk Democrats in an attempt to reduce the presidency to the purely ceremonial position it often occupies in other nations. True power in those countries usually resides in a prime minister -- a position to be filled here, no doubt, by Madame Pelosi herself. The recent condition-laden military funding bill was a blatant attempt to usurp the president's authority as commander-in-chief, and now the Democrats are trying to take over as arbiters of US foreign policy... and it remains to be seen whether anyone will do anything to stop them.

Ellie

thedrifter
04-11-07, 10:23 AM
The Deadly Consequences of Gross Stupidity
The Fifth Column JB Williams
April 11, 2007

When you allow stupid people into any form of power, you must expect them to do stupid things with that power. In fact, as Pelosi is fast proving, you can count on it…If their power is limited to queen of the shopping mall, you’ll probably survive it. But when they start pretending to be queen of the free world, the consequences can become deadly.

The New US Foreign Policy
Comrade Pelosi’s current Treason Tour through the Mideast provides a great example of why you should never allow a little old liberal lady from San Freakcisco to play world leader or numbskull diplomat. She speaks only for Code Pinko Democrats, not America or Israel.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi wasn’t 48 hours into her "unauthorized" diplomacy trip to visit enemies of the United States before her stupidity caught up with her. Within days, Pelosi finds herself at the epicenter of a growing international incident. Stupid is as stupid does.

Despite directives from the elected US commander-in-chief to keep her legislative nose out of executive branch powers, to not engage our enemies directly in an ongoing partisan effort to undermine official US foreign policy initiatives, Pelosi boarded her Starship Stupid with a few of her partisan dimwit friends and set down in the heart of enemy territory for "unauthorized" diplomatic talks with the enemy. Somebody had better hand her a copy of the Logan Act and fast!

The Logan Act is a single federal statute making it a crime for any US citizen (including simple minded legislators who should know better) to confer with foreign governments against the interests of the United States. Specifically, it prohibits all US citizens from negotiating with other nations on behalf of the United States without proper authorization. It’s as if this language was written specifically for Pelosi herself and this set of circumstances. But it was written and passed into law in 1799, last amended in 1994.

"We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace," Pelosi told reporters after her talks with Assad. Of course, Assad and his state are well known supporters of international terrorism currently responsible for training, funding and arming terrorist crossing into Iraq for the purpose of killing American soldiers and innocent Iraqi citizens. Who said terrorism doesn’t work? It made Nancy and her dimwit buddies want to negotiate…

She told Assad, Syria, the international press and America that she brought a message of peace from Israeli Prime Minister Olmert. She said that Olmert asked her to tell Assad that they were "ready to talk peace with Syria".

Assad, Syria, the press and many foolish Americans quickly (but wrongly) interpreted her message similarly, "Everyone knows there are different points of view between Syria and the United States." "We are happy that Mrs. Pelosi and her (unauthorized and unofficial) delegation had the courage and determination to bridge these differences."

However, immediately following press reports of Pelosi’s faux diplomacy in Syria, official word came from the Israeli government. "What was communicated to the US House Speaker does not contain any change in the policies of Israel, as was communicated to other foreign leaders," a statement from Olmert's office said.

Ehud Olmert's office emphatically denied that Israel relayed any message to Syria via Nancy Pelosi accepting Syrian calls to renew peace negotiations.

The Prime Minister's Office stressed that Olmert had instead told Pelosi that "Israel continued to regard Syria as part of the axis of evil and a party encouraging terrorism in the entire Middle East."

This is a message quite different than that delivered by Pelosi in her attempt to circumvent both US and Israeli official positions relative the terror sponsor state. And the international incident was underway…

What Are the Dangers In Such an Overt Act Against Formal US Policies?
Pelosi and her cohorts are stupidly playing politics with international butchers, completely at odds with American interests and against the demands of the elected executive branch held constitutionally responsible for setting and prosecuting such policies.

They may indeed not have any direct intentions of subverting ongoing official American diplomatic initiatives or handing victory to America’s enemies. They may not be smart enough to think that far ahead actually.

Yet it is clear that no matter the myopic political motivations for their repeated traitorous acts, the end effect is at best a confusing of diplomatic foreign affairs and at worst, outright treason and a direct violation of the Logan Act which could indeed have the foolish Speaker soon peeling potatoes at Leavenworth…

In fact, if any US official had the backbone to actually defend our constitution and national interests against all aggressors, both foreign and Democrat - oops, I mean domestic, they would directly confront a growing list of Democrats willing to cross all legal and ethical lines in pursuit of their political power by way of causing American administration failures here and abroad.

Instead, Vice President Dick Cheney limited his comments on the subject to accusing Nancy Pelosi and Co. of "bad behavior", as if they were just misguided children not to be held fully accountable for their actions, who simply needed to be put in time-out.

Bush himself has been a bit more heated with his rhetoric on the matters, but he too has limited his response to rhetoric alone. Why?

It’s no secret that our enemies have and will fight harder any time they sense a weakening in American resolve. Yet, the entire Democrat party is working around the clock, even traveling to enemy states to hold un-official talks with known terrorists, even sending "unauthorized" signals of weakness from other sovereign nations like Israel, for the sole purpose of demonstrating a divided political front in US policy.

They have been signaling a US determination to retreat in defeat from the international war on terror, and all of this can only be interpreted by Americas enemies as weakened opposition and a good reason to initiate a surge of their own…

This is simple "bad behavior" demanding nothing more than child-like scolding?

If anyone believes that this or any other nation can successfully defend itself against an almost invisible enemy which hides behind women and children for the sole purpose of killing the innocent women and children of their enemies all over western civilization, please, speak up!

If anyone honestly believes that we can negotiate peace with people willing to blow up their own children for the sake of blowing up our children, please, come forward! I want to send you and your children to do the negotiating…

Even the average Republican seems more concerned with Rosie O’Donnell’s future at ABC than the future of a new House Speaker who is clearly traveling the Mideast for the purpose of undermining official US policy.

This is how we intend to win the international war against very real international terror organization and the states that support them?

Is anyone in this nation serious about protecting this nation anymore? Does anyone understand exactly what is at stake at this point in history? You think 9/11 was a bad day?

If This Insanity Is Allowed to Continue, I Assure You – You Ain’t Seen Nothin’ Yet!
Pelosi and friends should be removed from her plane in shackles upon landing on US soil. If we no longer have the guts to confront such overt acts against our national interest, then we no longer have the backbone to defend this nation from even the weakest aggressor.

If this is how we are going to defend our interests abroad, we will face our enemies on our own doorstep soon. America had better wake up and get serious about confronting all aggressors, foreign and domestic!

Bush has the authority to handcuff every individual aboard the Starship Stupid the minute in touches down in the US and charge them with improperly interfering with executive branch international diplomacy, acting overtly against the best interest of the United States in accordance with the letter and intent of the Logan Act.

God help this nation if he doesn’t have the guts to do so!

Who cares about Rosie’s insanity? What about the clear insanity of today’s Democrat Party and the insanity of a nation willing to let such acts continue unchallenged?

Ellie