Feminist in the US, Subservient in Syria

[busybody..]

She's a fucking disgrace, like we needed her to go over there to used as a propaganda tool.

that is why I said that PUSSY FEELS HEAT and PUSSY BACKPEDALS

obviously by her words she sees that her "act" was NOT seen well by most, even WAPO and USAToday bashed her

hence she felt the need to back pedal and "explain" her attempt at helping the President

I SAY

THIS PUSSY STINKS

 

[unregistered]

 

[busybody..]

I agree

But


The fact she said what she said, is all the PROOF one needs to realize she KNOWS she stepped in it and needed to protect herself

We, the RIGHT, were right, again

KILL DIMZ, LIBZ, MOOSESHITS and FrenchFUCKS

NOW!


Tommorrow is TOO LATE

 

[unregistered]

 

[busybody..]

USA TODAY ON THE PELOSI TRIP: "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi crossed a line this week by visiting Syria, where she met with President Bashar Assad. She violated a long-held understanding that the United States should speak with one official voice abroad � even if the country is deeply divided on foreign policy back home. . . . It's not up to the speaker to unfreeze relations with Assad."

Interestingly, I think that the more Pelosi acts like a wannabe President, the worse it is for Hillary. And I think that Pelosi knows that.

this PUSSY will hurt THAT PUSSY

 

[busybody..]

Meanwhile, the Lebanon Daily Star, not usually the most pro-Bush media outlet in the world, has it exactly right in this piece by Michael Young:


When a dilettante takes on Hizbullah.

We can thank the US speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, for having informed Syrian President Bashar Assad, from Beirut, that “the road to solving Lebanon’s problems passes through Damascus.” Now, of course, all we need to do is remind Pelosi that the spirit and letter of successive United Nations Security Council resolutions, as well as Saudi and Egyptian efforts in recent weeks, have been destined to ensure precisely the opposite: that Syria end its meddling in Lebanese affairs.

Pelosi embarked on a fool’s errand to Damascus this week, and among the issues she said she would raise with Assad - when she wasn’t on the Lady Hester Stanhope tour in the capital of imprisoned dissidents Aref Dalila, Michel Kilo, and Anwar Bunni - is “the role of Syria in supporting Hamas and Hizbullah.” What the speaker doesn’t seem to have realized is that if Syria is made an obligatory passage in American efforts to address the Lebanese crisis, then Hizbullah will only gain. Once Assad is re-anointed gatekeeper in Lebanon, he will have no incentive to concede anything, least of all to dilettantes like Pelosi, on an organization that would be Syria’s enforcer in Beirut if it could re-impose its hegemony over its smaller neighbor.

 

[unregistered]

 

[hogjack]

KILL DIMZ, LIBZ, MOOSESHITS and FrenchFUCKS

busybody's basement crawlspace is a criminal investigator's wet dream.

 

[busybody..]

HogCrap, you outa the Looney Bin for the day?


Fuck off, turdsniffer

 

[unregistered]

 

[busybody..]

 

[OrcishBarbarian]

This from the WSJ:

Illegal Diplomacy
By Robert F. Turner
Word Count: 854
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may well have committed a felony in traveling to Damascus this week, against the wishes of the president, to communicate on foreign-policy issues with Syrian President Bashar Assad. The administration isn't going to want to touch this political hot potato, nor should it become a partisan issue. Maybe special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, whose aggressive prosecution of Lewis Libby establishes his independence from White House influence, should be called back.

The "Logan Act" makes it a felony and provides for a prison sentence of up to three years for any American, "without authority of the United States," ...

http://users2.wsj.com/lmda/do/check...0980561775.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

Well then "Logan" is an ass, as is his law.

Does anyone have any information on what Pelosi actually said while in Syria? Discussing that would, at least in my estimation, be far more constructive than criticizing her choice of clothing or the mere concept of an American official engaging in dialog with Syria. If ignoring people we don't like and hoping they go away worked, Fidel Castro would have disappeared back in the Seventies.

 

[unregistered]

 

[OrcishBarbarian]

Get real, read the Constitution. There is a separation of powers, Congress cannot have it's own foreign policy. The Logan Act has been around since 1799 and was revised in 1994.

Foreign policy, perhaps not. Dialog? That's covered under the First Amendment. Pelosi has every right to travel abroad and talk to people. If her constituents don't like it, they'll let her know during the next election.

Then again, if Bush wasn't such a diehard in his Lone Ranger approach to diplomacy and policy, perhaps Pelosi's trip would not have been needed.

 

[busybody..]

Foreign policy, perhaps not. Dialog? That's covered under the First Amendment. Pelosi has every right to travel abroad and talk to people. If her constituents don't like it, they'll let her know during the next election.

Then again, if Bush wasn't such a diehard in his Lone Ranger approach to diplomacy and policy, perhaps Pelosi's trip would not have been needed.

You are an idiot!

 

[OrcishBarbarian]

You are an idiot!

That's your best rebuttal?

I see someone slept through Debate class.

 

[busybody..]

You are an IDIOT!

 

[unregistered]

 

[Paendragon]

Get real, read the Constitution. There is a separation of powers, Congress cannot have it's own foreign policy. The Logan Act has been around since 1799 and was revised in 1994.

This is what I was trying to discuss with my last post.

This would actually be interesting. The Logan Act doesn't define "authority" . . . is it the President only? Can the House of Representatives be considered an authority? The Senate? The Dems hold both.

I know the President has the power to negotiate treaties, which have to be passed by the senate. And I know that congress can pass bills that effect foreign policy, and foreign relations. So it would seem they all have their fingers in it.

I don't know enough about the act to speak intelligently, beyond what I've found in Google, but I would imagine there's too much gray area for anything to be done.

Sometimes I think I need to insult someone to have any attention paid to me in these threads.

 

[busybody..]

No she doesn't have that right to "dialog" under the color of the authority of the United States or to bring false messages to foreign powers in the name of our allies. She doesn't have the right to meddle in the foreign policy affairs of the United States without the permission of the President. It is the foreign policy strategy of the United States to limit our contact with state sponsers of terrorism, she violated that policy. Since she wasn't commissioned by the president to negotiate with the Syrian government she violated the Logan Act.

You say this

I just say he is an IDIOT!

 

[unregistered]

 

[busybody..]

john FUCKING kerry was in violation in the early 70's of the Logan Act

Everything the Swift Boat guys said was true



Logan Act

The Logan Act (18 U.S.C.A. § 953 [1948]) is a single federal statute making it a crime for a citizen to confer with foreign governments against the interests of the United States. Specifically, it prohibits citizens from negotiating with other nations on behalf of the United States without authorization.

Congress established the Logan Act in 1799, less than one year after passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts, which authorized the arrest and deportation of aliens and prohibited written communication defamatory to the U.S. government. The 1799 act was named after Dr. George Logan. A prominent Republican and Quaker from Pennsylvania, Logan did not draft or introduce the legislation that bears his name, but was involved in the political climate that precipitated it.

In the late 1790s, a French trade embargo and jailing of U.S. seamen created animosity and unstable conditions between the United States and France. Logan sailed to France in the hope of presenting options to its government to improve relations with the United States and quell the growing anti-French sentiment in the United States. France responded by lifting the embargo and releasing the captives. Logan's return to the United States was marked by Republican praise and Federalist scorn. To prevent U.S. citizens from interfering with negotiations between the United States and foreign governments in the future, the Adams administration quickly introduced the bill that would become the Logan Act.

The Logan Act has remained almost unchanged and unused since its passage. The act is short and reads as follows:

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, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of 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.

The language of the act appears to encompass almost every communication between a U.S. citizen and a foreign government considered an attempt to influence negotiations between their two countries. Because the language is so broad in scope, legal scholars and judges have suggested that the Logan Act is unconstitutional. Historically, the act has been used more as a threat to those engaged in various political activities than as a weapon for prosecution. In fact, Logan Act violations have been discussed in almost every administration without any serious attempt at enforcement, and to date there have been no convictions and only one recorded indictment.

One example of the act's use as a threat of prosecution involved the Reverend Jesse Jackson. In 1984 Jackson took well-publicized trips to Cuba and Nicaragua and returned with several Cuban political prisoners seeking asylum in the United States. PresidentRonald Reagan stated that Jackson's activities may have violated the law, but Jackson was not pursued beyond a threat.

The only Logan Act indictment occurred in 1803. It involved a Kentucky newspaper article that argued for the formation in the western United States of a separate nation allied to France. No prosecution followed.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Paendragon]

I didn't realize you had addressed me, sorry about that. With the exception of the ratification of treaties, or the confirmation of ambassadors, or officers, The foreign policy of the United States is the sole Prerogative of the President and the State Department.

Not a problem.

Anyway, I'm not so sure it's that cut an dry.. For the record, I don't think she should have had any direct discussions with Syria for ethical reasons. There's a chain you go through for this sort of thing. But I'm not convinced of the illegality of these action, primarily because the lines between the branches have been blurred so much with regard to foreign policy in the past. Congress can pass bills that have a direct effect on foreign policy, regardless of the President's view on the matter. By the word of law, it doesn't seem like the act you mentioned specifies Presidential authority specifically . . . just the authority of the United States. Because of the gray area, and her position as an elected official to congress, I don't see anything being done with regard to this.

If the Republicans were smart, they'd use this as political fodder, but keep it out of the courts. This could get ugly for Pelosi with regard to public opinion.

(I'll be gone most of the afternoon, but will follow this later on . . . I'm curious enough about this to be thinking about devoted a thread exclusively to this)

 

[unregistered]