Monday, April 09, 2007

NANCY PELOSI - AMATEUR AND DANGEROUS


From the Daily Star – Lebanon

"When a dilettante takes on Hizbullah
By Michael Young, Daily Star staff
Thursday, April 05, 2007
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." [emphasis mine]


THIS WOMAN IS NOT ONLY AN EMBARRASSMENT, SHE IS ENDANGERING OTHER NATIONS AS WELL! WHY IS SHE NOT BEING PROSECUTED. WHY ARE REPUBLICANS NOT RAISING THE KIND OF RUCKUS THAT DEMOCRATS WOULD, WERE POSITIONS REVERSED? This behavior falls far short of ANYTHING for which Republicans have been excoriated in the past 20 years! And yet, she SKATES! Am I the ONLY person outraged?

9 comments:

Paul said...

She can't be prosecuted, because as a member of Congress carrying out her duties under the constitution she is authorized to travel overseas and talk to foreign leaders.

Even if the law is constitutional with regards to others, it certainly isn't when it comes to members of congress.

Gayle Miller said...

She CAN be prosecuted if you read the clear wording of The Logan Act. Nowhere is it written in the Constitution that any member of Congress has the right to usurp the duties of the Executive branch of government.

She went to Syria OVER THE OBJECTIONS of the State Department AND the President of the United States. That is ILLEGAL and completely IMPROPER. Not to mention that her amateur meddling created MORE PROBLEMS for the nation that she SWORE to preserve, protect and defend.

She can and SHOULD be prosecuted.

Paul said...

Congress has the power to talk to foreign leaders as part of its authority in a wide variety of it's responsibilities. The president does not have the power to approve or disapprove of the actions of congress.

As you're someone so concerned with the intent of the founders, they're intent was actually the opposite, and the original intent of the set up of the constitution was that the president be subordinate to the congress.

Of course, time and ALexander Hamilton changed some of that, but it's interesting how conservatives only ignore original intent when it suits them.

Gayle Miller said...

Congress only has one power and one responsibility - TO PASS LAWS. The EXECUTIVE conducts foreign policy. PERIOD. And paul, no amount of you claiming otherwise is going to change this simple FACT.

Mrs. Pelosi commited a criminal act and should be held to account.

Gayle Miller said...

And incidentally, the Constitution made it perfectly clear, as did our nation's founders, that the three branches of government were CO-EQUAL. You really are a moron Paul.

Gayle Miller said...

From the Encyclopedia:

Responsibilities of Congress
The most important responsibility of Congress is that of making the laws of the United States. In both houses the work of preparing and considering legislation is done by standing committees, and in addition there are special committees in each house as well as joint committees with bicameral membership. The two houses have an equal voice in legislation, but revenue bills must originate in the House of Representatives.

Bills, after having been passed by each house separately, must be signed by the president of the United States within 10 days of their submission, or they become law automatically, unless Congress is not in session. If vetoed by the president, a bill may become law only by its repassage by a two-thirds majority in each house. The Constitution requires a regular annual meeting of Congress, which, since the passage of the Twentieth Amendment in 1933, begins on Jan. 3 each year. The president may call an extra session of Congress or of either house. The proceedings of each house are recorded in the Congressional Record.

Only the House of Representatives may impeach the president or other federal officers and the Senate alone has the authority to try impeachments, but each house is the judge of the qualifications of its own members. The Senate must ratify all treaties by a two-thirds vote and confirm important presidential appointments to office, including cabinet members, judges of federal courts, and high-ranking officers of the armed forces. Because of this and because it is the smaller body and its members enjoy longer terms of office and virtually unlimited debate, the Senate is regarded as the more powerful of the two houses.

Congress, as a whole, reached the zenith of its power during Reconstruction. Throughout its history many critics have charged that Congress operates under antiquated machinery and processes that are inadequate. Procedural reforms proposed have included the adoption of a rule of relevancy in Senate debate, employing joint hearings on similar bills, liberalizing the methods by which a bill may be discharged from committee for consideration, and abolishing seniority as the basis for committee chairmanships.

DOESN'T SAY A DAMNED THING ABOUT THE CONGRESS BEING MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF, DOES IT, PAUL? No, it doesn't. Because all 3 branches are co-equal!

Were you sleeping during social studies, paul?

Paul said...

What about the little comment about Congress reaching its "zenith of power" during Reconstruction?

It's frankly easy to demonstrate the 3 branches weren't intended to be, nor ever were co-equal by pointing out that the court was by far the weakest branch until John Marshall became chief justice and made his bald assertion of power in Marbury v Madison.

Show me where in the constitution the supreme court has the power Marshall simply takes. Magnificent.

Paul said...

The founders were very vocal during the constitutional convention about their fear of a strong executive. The reason Hamilton is excoriated today is due to his preference for the executive to be stronger than the congress, which came out of his experience with the articles of confederation.

Due to Hamilton's work incorporating the debt and establishing the bank -- and the figure of George Washington, who held the respect of nearly all the leaders of that generation -- the executive immediately became far more powerful than Jefferson, Madison, and many others you're probably not familiar with wanted.

I suppose you could say opinion was mixed, but I don't think you can make a realistic argument that the founders as a whole wanted the executive to be equal in power to the legislative branch. It just ain't so.

Try Carol Berkin's A Brilliant Solution for a scholarly but short and readable introduction to the constitution. I found her section on this:

Madison was a republican like all his fellow delegates, he believed that the greatest powers must reside in the representative legislature. For an American generation who rallied to the cry of "No taxation without representation," the heart and soul of any republican society must be the representative body that enacted the laws and levied the taxes, not the executive who administered those laws, not even the courts who administered justice. It was this conviction that the legislature was the core and all else was periphery that separates them from modern Americans, who look to the president for leadership and policy making. (pp. 72-3)

Paul said...

Elsewhere you say the powers are not only equal, they're separate, not overlapping. Not true.

The veto. The confirmation power. The impeachment power. The ability to choose the president if there's a tie in the electoral college. Judicial review of congress's laws.

The genius of the constitution is that they have separate but interlocking powers that enables each branch to act as a check on the other, not act alone without oversight.