I don't quite understand why Dubya is making a big deal about her meeting with President Assad. He seems as opposed to the trip as she seems for it.

I understand Bush's hard line "we don't talk to them" stance and I think Pelosi is deliberately undermining that, but political assassination aside, what bad could come from her meeting with an un-friendly head-of-state?

She'll look dazzling in a Burka. Go, Nancy. Go!

The Executive Branch carries on affairs of State, not the Legislative Branch.

I think its a great idea, if she stays there.

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.

There is that.

But apparently, Nancy Pelosi was elected the "co-executive". At least, ever since the mid-terms I've been under the distinct impression that the Speaker of the House can do whatever the hell they want...

good points. Do you think she actually seeks to accomplish anything, or even thinks she has a chance to? Or, is she there because she can be?

I'm inclined to think it's a combination of the two.

Seriously...has a Congressional fact-finding mission ever gone overseas and accomplished anything?

Even beyond that...as wacka said, the executive handles affairs of state. Theoretically, Pelosi could come back having a lot of insight to provide to the White House as to Syrian relations. As a practical matter...this White House has rather inflexibly decided that Syria's part of the "Axis of Evil", and that's that. I don't see how Pelosi's - or anyone else's - input is going to change that, irrespective of partisanship.

Best to keep a unified front against adversaries.

The old, and correct, wisdom - politics stop at the borders - as well as ex-Presidents (and Vice-Presidents) keeping their mouths shut in deference to later executives - has been ripped to shreds by the likes of leftists like Carter, Gore, and Clinton. What self-serving men they are...

Things change... You are such a fuddy-duddy!

Who cares which lawmaker goes where... Why is it "correct"... Explain?

Clarify it in the Constitution... Or is it? Affairs of the State... Executive branch... Any scholars out there?

Ya think?

aaaargh

I can't help but notice you didn't include Bush Senior to that list...

Do you consider Bush Jr. "self serving?"

and wait what?

What do ex-presidents have to do with this argument?

In regards to 'unified fronts'- is this to say that the president's voice/face is the voice/face of the American government...sounds a bit like a dictator. Checks and balances? Signing statements?

Carter? Yeah, why would you want a Nobel Prize-winning champion of human rights jetting all over the world interfering with Bush's foreign "policy"? Gotta keep a nut like that in the box.

He's really good at elections. Do they have a Nobel for that?

Here are the different ways I look at this.

1. She should not be going there unless the President sends her bipartisan or not. Republicans shouldn't be going either unless the President sends them. People who are not active members of the government are free to do whatever they want but if you are an active member of the government then you must respect the chain of command.

2. It is very obvious that her trip is being singled out and the trip the day before is being ignored. The bipartisanship of her trip is never mentioned either. Why? It's obvious but if you don't know it's just a reason to slam the Dems.

3. There is a caveat here for her trip and the trip of all of the Republicans involved too. When a President is so freaking incompetent and ignores the advice of people who are much more learned than him in the issues and continues to "stay the course" of a losing plan it changes the rules.

4. in·san·i·ty
Pronunciation: in-'sa-n&-tE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
1 : a deranged state of the mind usually occurring as a specific disorder (as schizophrenia)
2 : such unsoundness of mind or lack of understanding as prevents one from having the mental capacity required by law to enter into a particular relationship, status, or transaction or as removes one from criminal or civil responsibility3 a : extreme folly or unreasonableness b : something utterly foolish or unreasonable.

IMO, all of those apply to the Bush administration and so when the President and Vice President fit the definition of insane all bets are off.


In a situation like this it is imperative that Syria and Iran be reached out to. Like it or not they have the power over us right now. Bushes negotiating strategy is to go to war. If you don't want to go to war do what he says or else. However, when he goes to war it's done in a half-butted ill conceived and haphazard way. This doesn't really make people scared it makes them bolder. They realize the U.S. is spread too thin in order to mount any serious attack. So they continue with nuclear aspirations and fund terrorist opposition groups and thumb their noses at the U.S. daring us to try anything. They know the Taliban is quickly gaining control of Afghanistan again and that the Iraq war is going horrendously and that the chickenhawks in charge of the war strategy couldn't win a game of Stratego against any of even their most dim brained army strategists.

So when it becomes a safety issue for the country because the country is being endangered by a loose cannon who thinks that the Presidency of the U.S. is a dictatorship where he doesn't have to pay attention to the laws that every President must follow it is incumbent on some people in government to reach out and let these enemies know that not all Americans are as wacky as the administration and not to judge the whole country by it's insane leader. Should all Venezualans be judged by Hugo Chavez?

The President has taken a large group of people and put them into a prison without any trials to determine what crimes they may or may not be guilty of. So now when Iran takes British sailors and refuses to give them back accusing them of a crime the President says that is immoral and wrong?!

Another question I have for the Bush supporters is this; If you found out that the British sailors were being "waterboarded" would you think they were being tortured? I would, but then again I think the guys in Guantanamo being "waterboarded" are being tortured too.

'Nuff said

Here ya go.

What was that word from the SNL, it escapes me. I think it was Church Lady that used it. Damn if I remember.

That would be the case if we had a competent administration, but since we don't someone has to be the adult and not just talk to the people we like. Nixon talked to North Vietnam and China, Carter talked to Egypt, and Reagan talked to the Soviet Union, but Bush and Rice can't talk to Syria or Iran. Even the Israeli PM wants to have regional talks including Syria and Iran, and Bush is opposing it.

I just love when you partisans apologize when your group basically subjugates the Constitution. You wanna run foriegn policy? Win the executive. Until then, sit your ass in Washington and do your goddamn job. There's nothing worse than a "leader" who tries to everyone's job but their own, except the assclowns who keep making excuses for their incompetence.

Care to go back through the last 10 administrations to find which countries each one didn't have public relationships with? Or are you just going to continue regurgitating Salon.com BS? [/rhetorical]

Clearly, you're not familiar with the "We don't like the president, so we're going to pursue our own policy" clause of the Constitution. I hear the Supreme Court is opening an embassy of their own in North Korea, as well.

Really, how do more people not have a problem with this? Forget the "unified front" bull sh--...there's plenty of space within the system itself for disunity and disagreement. But do people really think it's okay for two branches of the government to pursue different foreign policies, particularly when only one is empowered to do so? (And yes, from everything I've read that Pelosi has said, I think that accurately characterizes what she's doing.)

For that matter, what happened to all that outrage about Bush being the one tearing up the Constitution? That's been a huge talking point from the DNC for over 5 years now.

Someone needs to tell Nancy Pelosi that she's the majority leader in Congress, not "the Other President."

Oh well, I guess that Constitution thingy was stupid and old.

Why is anybody from Congress meeting with a government that sponsors terrorists? No wonder they call her this generation's 'hanoi jane'.

If you guys really care about subjugating the constitution I'm assuming you're outraged by the Administration illegally wiretapping phone calls in the US and I assume you're outraged by the administration suspending the writ of habeaus corpus. If not why?

The Dems didn't win the Presidency last time by a thin margin but if the election had been held one and a half years ago instead of three it would have been a landslide for Kerry.

Also, why do you keep referring only to Pelosi? What do you think about the Republicans joining her? What about the only Republican delegation that met with them the day before? Please enlighten me on their subjugating the Constitution. It's the same thing isn't it?

Were you outraged by the Reagan administration dealing drugs and sending weapons to Iran in order to fund the Contras? You must have been, right?

You're correct. And I am furious about it, just as I was furious about many portions of the "Patriot" Act, the Iraq War, etc.

Right, because Kerry is just so damn competent there's no way he'd have stepped all over his dick if EVERYTHING was stacked in his favor. You know, as opposed to ALMOST everything.

Keep apologizing for the imcompetence. It never gets old.

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 was in High School, so no I wasn't outraged. I didn't really understand the entire picture at the time. Would I have been outraged had I? Absolutely. It's just so great to have ANOTHER partisan parrot on the board. The ol' "the other side is worse!" mantra just never gets dated.

They were there over the weekend, then moved on to Jordan (Lawmakers Visit Syria to Discuss Ties).


Pelosi's trip is pretty much the same one the GOP delegation is on. Her's is following a few days behind.

I love when partisans call other people partisan.

Actually, Congress does have the right to pursue foreign policy, and has done so historically.

U.S. Department of State: Foreign Policy Roles of the President and Congress


It would seem that the GOP delegation and/or Pelosi's delegation have every right to go on diplomatic and/or fact-finding jaunts at their own discretion, whether it is in agreement with the Executive Branch or not.

<bill clinton finger wag>
I did not have public relations, with that woman...
</bill clinton finger wag>

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.

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

Why was Pelosi wearing a head covering?


Would we require Muslim delegates to our country to wear a yarmulke or something akin to being against their religion/culture?


Much like the British prisoners in Iran. No outrage whatsoever that the female prisoners are practically wearing burquas but yet throw underwear on a terrorists head and there's world outrage.

No, because there's this little phrase in the Constitution that says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." And last I checked, that only applies here in the US, and not in Syria or Iran, which makes it a completely irrelevent and insipid comparison.

No he wasn't. He lost to Reagan as an incumbent.

Ask Laura Bush.
Whitehouse.gov--pics of Laura Bush's Mid-East trip (at the Dome of the Rock)
At the Western Wall

The pic of her in this article bears a striking resemblance to Speaker Pelosi.

There's a bunch more, but I'm sure you get the idea of where this is "headed".

(h/t to numerous commie blogs for the official White House link, h/t to Google Image for the other one)

Don't get crossed over your links. Influencing foreign policy under Constitutional mandates at home and acting as a diplomat by speaking directly to sovereigns are two completely totally wholly different things.

If it was against the Constitution for members of Congress to speak to foreign leaders, then they could be charged with treason. It isn't, they're not, and that's the end of the story. You can not like Congress making Bush look like a petulant child who's kicking and screaming about not getting his way, but it's legal and in my opinion long overdue that someone in Washington try to bring about diplomatic and political solutions, not just military as Bush continues to try.

Got me there!

Fair enough. I retract "diplomacy" from my original statement.



However, with respect to the constitutionality of Congress influencing foreign policy, they have every right to do so, and nothing in the Constitution limits them from talking with other heads of state. A fair interpretation would be that they do not have the right to enact and sign treaties without the approval and cooperation of the Executive Branch, nor do they have the power to unilaterally negotiate international agreements, but those seem to be the only limits. They could however pass resolutions/legislation where, if they had a veto-proof majority, they would be able to circumvent the Executive Branch.

Long and the short, Pelosi or whomever, has as much right to "discuss" policy with another head of state as the Executive Branch does.

One inch at a time.



And few rational heads would argue that. But partisanship aside, you really have to question the motive of Congressional delegations that take a diametrically polar actions to the branch of government that is Constitutionally mandated to actually strike a deal.

Perhaps someone can answer me a simple question, what in his past history has Assad shown to make grown up people believe that sitting down with him is going to move "peace" forward, other than being the flavor of the day?

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.

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."



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.

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:


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.

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.

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.

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...

Don't care.

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.

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!