posted by Capitalist Infidel at Tuesday, April 03, 2007
This picture makes my skin crawl. She has absolutely no business being there collaborating with the enemy. What on earth is this woman thinking? She is in such a powerful position and very much aware of what she is doing to America by being there. Notice, I said "to America" not "for America"and this is something that we will all suffer for.
what about the factthat THREE REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMENwent TOOin full cooperation with the bush crime family and they PLANNED their tripat the same timethey criticized pelosi for the samerepublicans are losers
I agree with Linda. This trip for Pelosi was a very unwise move. I think she's trying to exercise the power behind her position without a thought of what it's doing to our country. Looks like she is in need of a boost to her ego at the expense of America. Strange what a little power can do to some people.
So diplomacy is now "collaborating with the enemy"? That tells me quite a bit about the way you guys think. I can only pray that our country never permanantly walks away from the negotiating table - even with our enemies.
Funny, she was preceded and followed by GOP congressmen and took a Republican with her.I don't see you guys whining about that, how come?;-)MeanBobMean
I suppose it wouldn't help the moonbats here to explain that the Speaker of the House is 3rd in line for the Presidency, whereas the 3 Republicans were merely Congressmen.I expected much better from you Les. I assumed that you understood the Constitution. "Diplomacy" is the job of the Executive branch. That's the President and his Secretary of State or others whom he deems to do said diplomacy. I'm assuming you believe in the separation of powers. In that case I'm sure you're demanding that Ms. Pelosi be arrested and charged under the Logan act right?
I don't think Pelosi or the three republican congressmen should have gone to the east to speak for anyone in the U.S. Not their resonsibility.
It's interesting you should bring up the separation of powers issue, CJ. Do I think Pelosi should be charged with a crime? Nope. Here's why:I've read alot of articles on this story, as well I'm sure have you. I keep seeing phrases like "potentially illegal" or "may have violated" or "borderline criminal" used by people - especially conservative critics - to describe Pelosi's Syrian trip. The Logan Act is, unfortunately, a rather ambiguous rule. For example, some have interpreted its scope to apply only to private citizens - which means Pelosi would automatically be in the clear for any wrongdoing. There's also a debate as to whether or not the Logan Act is even constitutional to begin with. Yet for whatever reason (politics, anyone?), Pelosi's enemies have decided it's clear that the Speaker is a traitorous criminal who deserves immediate prosecution.This reaction strikes me as particularly ironic, since it's been primarily conservatives who've been out of sorts for quite some time now about what they like to label "judicial activism". Namely, the judicial branch interpreting laws to serve a subjective social or political agenda. Can't have it both ways, folks. There's a reason convictions are a rarity when dealing with Logan Act cases - it's a poorly written law. If the United States wants to avoid these kind of foreign policy political gray areas in the future, they should codify the legal position with specifics not easily left open to interpretation - or activist judges, if you will.On a personal level - which I'll admit has little to do with the law or even existing foreign policy debates - I, for one, am happy we have people in our government who still believe dialogue is more productive than silence in this situation. It's my belief that we simply cannot cut off all communication with a country so integrally connected with the GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR. (Yes, I also think banning that phrase is ridiculous. Seriously - what else should we call a "global war on terror"? A Pajama Jammy Jam?!? Silly - just silly.) Do I think the Syrians are an ally at this point? Not a chance. They're some shady, shady people without question. However, the international chess game that is foreign policy inconveniently forces us to bite the bullet, look the other way, and align ourselves with less-than-savoury characters from time to time. Saddam Hussein, anyone? At this point, we simply can't afford to help solidify a bloc of nations in the Middle East who want nothing more than a reason to openly attack our interests - especially with a potential Iranian conflict looming on the horizon. It's not that I think we should be holding hands and picking flowers while running down the hill like Laura on Little House on the Prairie, but the Syrians should at least know we're willing to work with them if they'll let us. Granted, it's a BIG "if", but what's the long-term alternative, guys? Not one I'd like to embrace, to be sure.
get used to it, capthe roof is on fire, baby
Post a Comment
View my complete profile