A Democratic House already paying "dividends"

[StrykerFSU]

From The Washington Post editorial page:

Pratfall in Damascus
Nancy Pelosi's foolish shuttle diplomacy

Thursday, April 5, 2007; A16

HOUSE SPEAKER Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) offered an excellent demonstration yesterday of why members of Congress should not attempt to supplant the secretary of state when traveling abroad. After a meeting with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad in Damascus, Ms. Pelosi announced that she had delivered a message from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that "Israel was ready to engage in peace talks" with Syria. What's more, she added, Mr. Assad was ready to "resume the peace process" as well. Having announced this seeming diplomatic breakthrough, Ms. Pelosi suggested that her Kissingerian shuttle diplomacy was just getting started. "We expressed our interest in using our good offices in promoting peace between Israel and Syria," she said.

Only one problem: The Israeli prime minister entrusted Ms. Pelosi with no such message. "What was communicated to the U.S. House Speaker does not contain any change in the policies of Israel," said a statement quickly issued by the prime minister's office. In fact, Mr. Olmert told Ms. Pelosi that "a number of Senate and House members who recently visited Damascus received the impression that despite the declarations of Bashar Assad, there is no change in the position of his country regarding a possible peace process with Israel." In other words, Ms. Pelosi not only misrepresented Israel's position but was virtually alone in failing to discern that Mr. Assad's words were mere propaganda.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/04/AR2007040402306_pf.html

It would appear that someone jumped into the deep end of the pool of international politics and found herself in over her head. Personally, I would like the Speaker of the House to be at home working with the other members of Congress in writing a bill giving our troops the money they need to fight without $20B in pork as bribes and with no timetable...but that's just me.

[peterwho]

But her intentions were good...right?

[Brent Burns]

Nancy Pelosi is really way over her head in her trip to the Middle East. That is really interesting to read that article from the Washington Post.

[SLUDoubleDeuce]

But her intentions were good...right?

You know what they say the road to hell is paved with don't you...

[StrykerFSU]

I'm not sure if anything is going to come of this but it would sure make a mess for Dems hoping that their '06 momentum will carry over to '08.

Illegal Diplomacy
Did Nancy Pelosi commit a felony when she went to Syria?

BY ROBERT F. TURNER
Friday, April 6, 2007 11:30 a.m. EDT

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," to communicate with a foreign government in an effort to influence that government's behavior on any "disputes or controversies with the United States." Some background on this statute helps to understand why Ms. Pelosi may be in serious trouble.

http://opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009908

[Campbell]

I'm not sure if anything is going to come of this but it would sure make a mess for Dems hoping that their '06 momentum will carry over to '08.

Illegal Diplomacy
Did Nancy Pelosi commit a felony when she went to Syria?

BY ROBERT F. TURNER
Friday, April 6, 2007 11:30 a.m. EDT

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," to communicate with a foreign government in an effort to influence that government's behavior on any "disputes or controversies with the United States." Some background on this statute helps to understand why Ms. Pelosi may be in serious trouble.

http://opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009908

well I learn something new every day. I would say given the Logan Act and the portions of it quoted in the above article, Pelosi would be in violation of that law. Especially, since not only did she not have permission, she was told by Bush not to go, although probably for different reasons (national security). I don't think the Republicans will touch this one other than maybe letting it get some media attention. It may have been wrong, but if the Repubicans went after her it would look like cheap partisan politics since the Bush administration is already facing battles over expanding executive powers. I'm surprised some clever White House staffer didn't bring this up prior to the trip, since I doubt Pelosi would have changed her mind and the spin on this could have been great for the GOP.

[laxfan25]

And I assume they would have to apply this to the Republican delegation that visited Syria the week before. Didn't hear a lot of grousing about that trip from the White House - seems to be a double standard toward congressional delegations visiting foreign capitals.
At least Pelosi was trying to show the possiblities for diplomatic solutions to world issues. The Brits and Iranians managed to negotiate an end to their stalemate - no one was killed, no one was invaded and both could save face.
Meanwhile the Veep is out there flogging the dead horse about an Al-Queda / Saddam connection the same day that more reports are being released further discounting the pre-war "intelligence" put together by Douglas Feith.

[StrykerFSU]

Ms. Pelosi and her Congressional entourage spoke to President Assad on various issues, among other things saying, "We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace." She is certainly not the first member of Congress--of either party--to engage in this sort of behavior, but her position as a national leader, the wartime circumstances, the opposition to the trip from the White House, and the character of the regime she has chosen to approach make her behavior particularly inappropriate.

Of course, not all congressional travel to, or communications with representatives of, foreign nations is unlawful. A purely fact-finding trip that involves looking around, visiting American military bases or talking with U.S. diplomats is not a problem. Nor is formal negotiation with foreign representatives if authorized by the president. (FDR appointed Sens. Tom Connally and Arthur Vandenberg to the U.S. delegation that negotiated the U.N. Charter.) Ms. Pelosi's trip was not authorized, and Syria is one of the world's leading sponsors of international terrorism. It has almost certainly been involved in numerous attacks that have claimed the lives of American military personnel from Beirut to Baghdad.

The U.S. is in the midst of two wars authorized by Congress. For Ms. Pelosi to flout the Constitution in these circumstances is not only shortsighted; it may well be a felony, as the Logan Act has been part of our criminal law for more than two centuries. Perhaps it is time to enforce the law.

I think that section of the article pretty clearly sums up why Pelosi's actions were unlawful. I don't know anything about the Republican delegation but the application of this law is not just about visiting a foreign capitol. It is about the purpose of the visit, the nature of the nation visited, whether the delegation has executive approval, and most importantly who the visitor is. The fact that some Republicans feel justified in flouting the President's authority speaks more to his weakening power than to the legality of their decision and hardly provides justification for Pelosi's actions that undermine American foreign policy.

Pelosi surely knew that as speaker - third in the succession line to the presidency - her high-profile presence in Damascus would be read as a contradiction of Bush's no-talkpolicy. No matter that she claimed to have stuck closely to administration positions in her conversations with Assad, smiling photos of Pelosi and the Syrian president convey the unspoken message that while the U.S. president is unwilling to talk with Syria, another wing of the government is. Assad made good use of the moment.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20070406/cm_usatoday/pelosistepsoutofbounds

I don't know that I agree with your characterization of the British situation. It seems to me, as I have stated in that thread, that the British were completely humiliated and hung out to dry by the international community. I don't see how they possibly saved face.

[sohotrightnow]

This thread is a real gem. Republicans threatening Democrats for violating the Constitution. The irony is delicious.

I'm surprised some clever White House staffer didn't bring this up prior to the trip, since I doubt Pelosi would have changed her mind and the spin on this could have been great for the GOP.

Very good observation. The operative word being "clever" to describe somebody in the Bush White House.

[StrykerFSU]

While the article about the Logan Act appeared in the Wall Street Journal, one of the few conservative newspapers in the country, there have also been links to USA Today and the original editorial from The Washington Post in this thread. These are two newspapers not known for their love of the President. The WSJ article even makes it clear in the first paragraph that it would be unwise for the President to pursue this too vigorously and calls for an independent investigator to avoid the appearance of partisanship.

I think it is safe to say that there are a lot of people across the country who disapprove of Pelosi's actions and it is not as simplistic as Republicans going after Democrats.

[sohotrightnow]

I think it is safe to say that there are a lot of people across the country who disapprove of Pelosi's actions and it is not as simplistic as Republicans going after Democrats.

If by "a lot," you mean a "minority," then I agree with you.

[Adam Gamradt]

Kudos to Pelosi for being brave enough to travel to a part of the world where all the media can tell us is that we are hated, and that terrorists run the country.

Did we not just reverse course on having a dialouge with Syria? With as badly as Rice and company have mismanaged our foreign policy, it's tough to tell. Allow the Washington Post to shed some light.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00894.html

I agree with Cliff, let's cut the crap and get the war funded. President Bush can not be surprised about having a time table forced on him. If he vetos the funding bill, then any delays are of his doing. He doesn't like checks and balances? Too bad. Plus, how many of you had a date move today for one of your projects at work? It's not like we can not change our mind, and stay longer, if need dictates.

We can not engage in endless war. Even if Dick Cheaney still can't tell the difference between Al-Qaeda and The Islamic Army of Iraq.

You can't start an unjust war, mismanage it at every turn, and then turn around and complain that Congress is attempting to micromanage it.

I suppose Pelosi's actions are bold, and she might even make a mistake or two. But her action sure beats the rigid and myopic foreign policy that we've seen over the past six years. Thankfully, we have some members of our government who won't simply close their eyes, and hope for the best.

President Bush's no-talk policy. What kind of foreign policy is that? Even in the darkest hours of the cold war, we maintained a dialouge with the Soviet Union.

I wish all you folks who rail on Democrats attempting to gain control of our out of control country, would focus on something that matters. I guess it's more fun to make fun of Rosie, and criticize Pelosi, than to actually work on ending the ongoing tragedy that is Mr. Bush's war.

I do agree with you on one point, our country deserves better leaders, of that there can be no doubt.

It is too bad that none of these folks will ever get the chance.

http://www.startribune.com/462/v-table/story/44226.html

[Adam Gamradt]

I generally don't find him funny, but Leno had a pretty good joke.

This seems to be the right crowd for it.

"Secretary of No-Particular-State Nancy Pelosi is being sharply criticized, even by the Washington Post, for visiting Syria yesterday against the wishes of President Bush. Our official policy is to punish Syria for not renouncing terror. Hey, maybe the visit from Nancy was part of the punishment."