Nancy Pelosi Going to Syria

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
Okay... so she is violating separation of powers by trying to do something that it's impossible for her to do and that will never happen.

[/ QUOTE ]
You claim it is impossible for Pelosi to undermine the executive branch's foreign policy? Mmmmm...Interesting theory.
BTW...The Arab press is having a field day praising Nancy Pelosi. She has given a huge propaganda coup to Damascus and Tehran. This was exactly what these thugs wanted. It gives them the belief that they can ignore Bush and wait for the Democrats to win the White House. So yes.....that does undermine the executive branch's ability to conduct foreign policy....

Like I said in other post. There is a silver lining because Pelosi is making an ass of herself which is good for Repubs...

[Roybert]

[ QUOTE ]

As a great politician once said, "The politics of failure have failed. It's time to make them work again."

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't blame me; I voted for Kodos.

[Dane S]

Sorry man but this is just a joke. Pelosi is a free citizen. She can go wherever she wants. If her independently visiting Syria undermines Bush's foreign policy, that's Bush's problem, not hers. Do you also think anti-war bumper stickers undermine "separation of powers"? What if some diplomat visiting America sees one on the highway and thinks it's our new foreign policy??!! It's hard to believe that you're serious with this stuff.

[esad]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry man but this is just a joke. Pelosi is a free citizen. She can go wherever she wants. If her independently visiting Syria undermines Bush's foreign policy, that's Bush's problem, not hers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, except for the minor fact that this trip was funded by US Taxpayers.

[pokerbobo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Okay... so she is violating separation of powers by trying to do something that it's impossible for her to do and that will never happen.

[/ QUOTE ]
You claim it is impossible for Pelosi to undermine the executive branch's foreign policy? Mmmmm...Interesting theory.
BTW...The Arab press is having a field day praising Nancy Pelosi. She has given a huge propaganda coup to Damascus and Tehran. This was exactly what these thugs wanted. It gives them the belief that they can ignore Bush and wait for the Democrats to win the White House. So yes.....that does undermine the executive branch's ability to conduct foreign policy....

Like I said in other post. There is a silver lining because Pelosi is making an ass of herself which is good for Repubs...

[/ QUOTE ]

Peloser wanted the propaganda coup too...mainly to weaken bush. (party before country) SOP for DEMS thesedays

[GoodCallYouWin]

What seems to have been forgotten is that Syria is a country that actively supports terrorists in killing Americans. You cannot negotiate with terrorists and you cannot negotiate with terrorist regimes like Syria. There is a reason Bush and the White House are not talking to Syria and that reason is they are actively engaging in supporting terrorists. What can result from talking and deals with them? They haven't stopped killing us yet...

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Oh? Since when was congress rubber stamping every bill that Bush wanted? Bush's social security reform idea was shot down.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would Bush be proposing legislation. He's overstepping his Constitutional authority and venturing into the Legislative branch of government.

Just curious what your thought is on the following hypothetical:
A sitting president/executive presents Congress with evidence of bad weapons (we'll call them WDMs) in a fantasy country called Irak. Does Congress have the power/duty to independently investigate the executive's reports? What level of responsibility should Congress have if they act on the reports presented by the Executive? Is it a "fair" argument to critique those in the opposition party to the executive that several/many/most legislators in the other party voted for a war based on this bad evidence if you believe that Congress has limited constitutional authority to investigate such matters?

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Oh? Since when was congress rubber stamping every bill that Bush wanted? Bush's social security reform idea was shot down.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would Bush be proposing legislation. He's overstepping his Constitutional authority and venturing into the Legislative branch of government.

Just curious what your thought is on the following hypothetical:
A sitting president/executive presents Congress with evidence of bad weapons (we'll call them WDMs) in a fantasy country called Irak. Does Congress have the power/duty to independently investigate the executive's reports? What level of responsibility should Congress have if they act on the reports presented by the Executive? Is it a "fair" argument to critique those in the opposition party to the executive that several/many/most legislators in the other party voted for a war based on this bad evidence if you believe that Congress has limited constitutional authority to investigate such matters?

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't read the whole thread but where is Felix stating that Bush proposed legislation? Were Clinton's actions regarding welfare reform overstepping his Constitutional authority? I'm guessing you'll state that Clinton's actions regarding Social Security weren't but Bush's actions on Social Security were. Don't see much of a difference.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't read the whole thread but where is Felix stating that Bush proposed legislation? Were Clinton's actions regarding welfare reform overstepping his Constitutional authority? I'm guessing you'll state that Clinton's actions regarding Social Security weren't but Bush's actions on Social Security were. Don't see much of a difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I don't think either are overstepping their authority. I think there are many gray areas and overlapping duties/responsibilities. My, probably poorly written, post was intended to suggest that there is a great deal of overlap between the executive and the legislature. The USA PATRIOT Act, for example, was largely written by the executive. I don't have a problem with that even though it is the legislature's job to write laws. Similarly, I don't have a separation of powers problem with Pelosi travelling to Syria (as Felix apparently does) as there is a great deal of overlap in the responsibilities of the legislature and the executive in foreign policy matters.

[MtSmalls]

The one thing that I have learned from this mis-administration is that hypocrisy knows no bounds.

from Pennsylvania's Lancaster Intelligencer Journal LINK

[ QUOTE ]
And though Bush administration officials have been criticizing Pelosi, it's not clear what role the White House and the U.S. Department of State played when U.S. Rep. Joe Pitts and two other Republican congressmen met with Syrian President Bassar Assad.

Pitts is a Chester County Republican who represents Lancaster County.

Gabe Neville, Pitts' chief of staff, said Monday the conference between Assad and the three Republicans was intended to be "low profile."

"It was done in cooperation with the administration," he said.


[/ QUOTE ]

So IOKIYAR.

Speaker Pelosi has done nothing so far, at least that has been reported, that indicates that she is speaking on behalf of Bush or the United States. But for those of you with short memories, not all Congressional members have been as respectful:

In 1997, Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) led a delegation to Colombia at a time when U.S. officials were trying to attach human rights conditions to U.S. security assistance programs. Hastert specifically encouraged Colombian military officials to "bypass" President Clinton and "communicate directly with Congress." LINK

[ QUOTE ]
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."

[/ QUOTE ]

Once again, IOKIYAR.

The wingnuts really need to get a grip on reality.