Nancy Pelosi Going to Syria

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, thanks. I actually don't have a problem with Pelosi going to Syria either. Certainly within her purveyance as a legislator in a national legislative body (as well as being a legislative leader) to do so.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
"The power to conduct and negotiate foreign policy lies with the executive branch and the executive branch only...."

[/ QUOTE ]
Something that distinguishes left from right in this country is the former's tendency to make up easily undermined facts. There is no basis, constitutional or otherwise, for the above statement. Of course the executive branch has no exclusive authority to "conduct and negotiate foreign policy." The constitution was designed to have all national policy chiefly made by the legislative branch, as it is in every republic. An exclusive right by the executive to conduct foreign policy would make the executive a foregin policy dictatorship, which of course the right prefers, but only when the president is a Republican.

Norman Orenstein, resident scholar at Bush's favorite think tank put it this way in last November's Foreign Affairs: "The making of sound U.S. foreign policy depends on a vigorous, deliberative, and often combative process that involves both the executive and the legislative branches. The country's Founding Fathers gave each branch both exclusive and overlapping powers in the realm of foreign policy, according to each one's comparative advantage -- inviting them, as the constitutional scholar Edwin Corwin has put it, 'to struggle for the privilege of directing American foreign policy.'"

Aside from the totalitarian-leaning right, everyone, including purportedly President Bush, agrees with that statement. The protests over the Pelosi trip that simultaneously ignored the same kind of trips by GOP legislators quite transparently amounted to a partisan quibble over nothing, just grist for the right-wing propaganda machine.

[Felix_Nietzsche]

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

[/ QUOTE ]
Bush has first amendment rights like everyone else.
He can propose any ideas that he wants to. He just can not create a bill. The bill MUST originate from congress....

[ QUOTE ]
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 ]
Your example does not represent reality so it is moot.
Here are the facts.
1. The CIA is the central govt agency for collecting foreign intelligence.
2. The CIA disseminates intelligence to the executive and the legislative branches.
3. Not everyone on the legislative branch is brief by the CIA. Members of the intelligence committees and certain leadership positions are privy to this intelligence. Patrick Leahy (VT) use to be on the Senate Intelligence Committee but he was kicked off the committee for leaking secrets to the media to kill defense spending he disagreed with (he is a total dishonest scumbag who violated his oath).
4. These intelligence committees are bipartisan.
5. The members of the intelligence committees get the SAME intelligence as the president. The only difference is the president can elect to get daily briefings while the intelligence committees might only meet once (or more) a week. So by the end of the week, the intelligence committees will ALWAYS have the same info as the president.
6. For an intelligence conspiracy to take place ALL the following would have to occur.
(a) Senate Dems and Senate Repubs on the intelligence committee would have to be in the conspiracy.
(b) Congressional Dems and Congressional Repubs on the intelligence committee would have to be in the conspiracy.
(c) The President and Vice-President would have to be in the conspiracy.

A conspiracy is only as strong as its weakest link. John Kerry (D) is a member if the Senate intelligence committee. Do you think he is in this conspiracy? Talk Radio had weeks of material playing sound clips of Kerry, Edwards, Reid, Clinton, and other Dems saying Saddam had WMD. Now that the polls have reversed in support of the war, they sing a different song. These people are complete hypocrites...

The fact is Saddam had chemical weapons because he used them on the Kurds and the Iranians. After Gulf War I, Saddam spent years thwarting the armistice to allow the UN inspectors unfettered access in Iraq. He never completely complied. Inspectors were regularly denied access to certain sites. We know he had WMD; the question is what happened to them? Know one can answer this question.... Not even you.
But it sounds "cool" to fabricate a conspiracy involving the president....doesn't it?

Then there is the conspiracy that the CIA was pressured to fabricate WMD intelligence. Same situation applies.
(a) You would need all the major CIA dept heads in on the conspiracy.
(b) You would need all the rank and file CIA members in the WMD dept to be in on the conspiracy. After all, one whistle blower and the entire conspiracy blows up.
(b) The Senate and Congressional oversight committees would have to be sleeping. These oversight committees control their budget so the weild a BIG stick.

The fact is no one in the CIA has ever been indicted nor has proof been produced that WMD intelligence was manufacturing WMD intelligence. If anything, the CIA has a HEAVY Democrat bent. After all, war critic Joe Wilson was sent to Niger and he was NOT required to:
1. Sign a confidentiality agreement about his mission. So he was free to discuss his 'secret' mission in a New York Times Op-Ed and write a book if he wants to on his experiences on that mission.
2. Write a written report.
These facts STINK of CIA partisanship against Bush.

You speak of conspiracies too lightly...

[Case Closed]

felix,

He never mentioned a conspiracy. Pelosi never mentioned negotiations. You ignore these things. She is not trying to overstep the president. It's a fact finding mission that happens all the time. She is a pro-active legislator. You should feel proud that you live in a nation where the most powerful office in the land can be kept in check by a woman from San Fransisco.

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
A sitting president/executive presents Congress with evidence of bad weapons (we'll call them WDMs) in a fantasy country called Irak.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sounds like he is describing a conspiracy to me.

[ QUOTE ]
She is not trying to overstep the president. It's a fact finding mission that happens all the time.

[/ QUOTE ]
Oh?
Why did Pelosi say she was carrying a message from Israel to Syria that they were ready for peace? Is this part of the fact finding mission?

Even the Washinton Post thought Pelosi was overstepping her authority.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...402306_pf.html

It is against the policy of the USA to negotiated with terrorists. Syria is a state sponsor of terror and they have engaged in multiple assassinations of Lebanese leaders. The policy of the administration is to isolate this state not give it undeserved legitimacy. Nancy undercut the president's policy and now claims due to her visit, Syria is ready for peace because of her visit. So how does a fact finding mission turn into a peace mission for the USA and Israel (a country that denies that they ever gave a peace message to Pelosi to deliver?
Did Pelosi lie about her message of peace from Israel? Seems like she did?
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

[ QUOTE ]
You should feel proud that you live in a nation where the most powerful office in the land can be kept in check by a woman from San Fransisco.

[/ QUOTE ]
Our system of checks-and-balances and separation of powers keeps the executive branch in check. Pelosi is just one vote out of 435 congressman. Her trip was an attempt to sabotage the foreign policy of a sitting president. She made an ass of herself and as a Repub....this makes me glad...

[downrange]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A sitting president/executive presents Congress with evidence of bad weapons (we'll call them WDMs) in a fantasy country called Irak.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sounds like he is describing a conspiracy to me.

[ QUOTE ]
She is not trying to overstep the president. It's a fact finding mission that happens all the time.

[/ QUOTE ]
Oh?
Why did Pelosi say she was carrying a message from Israel to Syria that they were ready for peace? Is this part of the fact finding mission?

[/ QUOTE ]
<crickets.wav>

[kickabuck]

[ 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. 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Having the person third in line for the Presidency proclaiming "the road to Damascus is the road to peace" and delivering non-existent peace offerings from Israel is everyone's problem. Although I'm not sure your average congressman's visit to Syria is a good thing, such visits do not carry nearly the import of a visit by the Speaker of the House whose actions and words will be closely scrutinized and propagandized.

[kickabuck]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"The power to conduct and negotiate foreign policy lies with the executive branch and the executive branch only...."

[/ QUOTE ]
Something that distinguishes left from right in this country is the former's tendency to make up easily undermined facts. There is no basis, constitutional or otherwise, for the above statement. Of course the executive branch has no exclusive authority to "conduct and negotiate foreign policy." The constitution was designed to have all national policy chiefly made by the legislative branch, as it is in every republic. An exclusive right by the executive to conduct foreign policy would make the executive a foregin policy dictatorship, which of course the right prefers, but only when the president is a Republican.

Norman Orenstein, resident scholar at Bush's favorite think tank put it this way in last November's Foreign Affairs: "The making of sound U.S. foreign policy depends on a vigorous, deliberative, and often combative process that involves both the executive and the legislative branches. The country's Founding Fathers gave each branch both exclusive and overlapping powers in the realm of foreign policy, according to each one's comparative advantage -- inviting them, as the constitutional scholar Edwin Corwin has put it, 'to struggle for the privilege of directing American foreign policy.'"

Aside from the totalitarian-leaning right, everyone, including purportedly President Bush, agrees with that statement. The protests over the Pelosi trip that simultaneously ignored the same kind of trips by GOP legislators quite transparently amounted to a partisan quibble over nothing, just grist for the right-wing propaganda machine.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well of course everyone can agree with that statement. The rub lies with to what degree does the person third in line for the Presidency flout the wishes of the sitting President by making proclamations on foreign soil that directly contradict the foreign policy aims of that President. Implementation of the policy of Syrian isolation is difficult and easily undermined when such a powerful member of the U.S. government openly and very publicly treats said policy with disdain. She gives comfort to and emboldens those opposed to Bush's Middle East policy. Perhaps next Nancy should go to North Korea and kibitz with Kim Jong-il, perhaps make a Pyonyang Proclamation "Freedom reigns on the Korean Peninsula" while simultaneously bringing news of a reunification offer from the South LOL. But no, no matter how enlightened Ms. Pelosi is regarding the correct course of our foreign policy, it has traditionally been the President who sets foreign policy, directly contradicting the policy on foreign soil may be noble on some level but is counterproductive to a coherent policy. Win the Presidency and run foreign affairs how you see fit.

[downrange]

As callous as it sounds there's a domestic political price to pay beyond the damage she's done to herself. Regardless of what the public thinks of Bush/Repubs on foreign matters, you certainly don't distinguish yourself with this kind of buffoonery (cue irrelevant Bush cracks).

The Dem prez hopefuls have to be none to pleased with the political advertising bonanza their opponents have been gifted. Anyone think Democrats are weak, misguided and just don't understand a dangerous world? They probably will after some Repub ad agencies get to work on this.

What an unnecessary and momentous blunder.

[Case Closed]

felix,

He did not call it a conspiracy. It was some inaccurate information presented to congress. That's all. You're the one calling that incident a conspiracy, not us.

In the article in the begining of the thread all that is mentioned is that this is a fact finding mission. One article you linked was an op/ed piece that really has no point to it. The other one states that Pelosi is over there doing some BS peace propaganda stuff. Does not appear to be much going on. She said Israel and Syria want peace...ok well that's obvious. They are not going to change policy but still want peace. I can see that her attempt to go over there and assist in the peace process was not a productive one. Possibly even counter productive. But you have failed to get across the point that she should not have done it in the first place.

I still see this as an event that happens all the time when the republicans were in power but now that the democrats want to look into things it has become poor form. No one else seems to be filling the role of looking into foriegn policy matters outside of the Bush regime. We already know that they can not handle this on their own, maybe just maybe Pelosi going to other countries to look into things on her own can be a good thing. Not this time, but I certainly think that her and other members of congress should be free to investigate issues as they see fit. It may send mixed signals to other countries, but that comes with being a democracy. We are not a fascist state, we don't have the luxury of have a single figure of authority controlling all aspects of government policy.

downrage,

Sorry it took me this long to respond to his post. I'll speed up next time.