Cheney P.O'd at Pelosi

Michael Redman said:
(I fixed that for you.)

Of course not. She is a terrorist, after all.
Click to expand...
Probably not, but she may be running afoul of the Logan act, except that I didn't see her trying to make any agreement with Syria. This line of thought/criticism of Speaker Pelosi looks a bit like more hot air, as to date it appears that no one has been prosecuted under the act. A Kentucky farmer was indicted in 1803, and Jesse Jackson was considered to have violated it by Ronald Reagan. (Bobby Goodman incident. Funnily enough, Syria was the country involved. Hassad's dad, for that matter. )
§ 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments.

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.
18 U.S.C. § 953 (2004).
Click to expand...
I heard a coffee break discussion on this matter today, and am scratching my head a bit. I look at the italicized part and assess that it would be pretty hard to prove in the case of Speaker Pelosi's recent trip to Syria.

DR
 
Last edited:
Darth Rotor said:
I saw some film clips, and heard some loud talk, but the whole bit about her "hajib" (looked like a scarf to me)
Click to expand...

There's no such thing as a hajib (I think someone got confused with haji). The word is hijab, and it's a fairly broad term and can indeed include scarves.
 
Ziggurat said:
There's no such thing as a hajib (I think someone got confused with haji). The word is hijab, and it's a fairly broad term and can indeed include scarves.
Click to expand...
Whoops, that 's what I get for having referred to hajjis as hajjis for too many months. Imprinting. Thanks for the correction. :blush: :blush: :blush:

DR
 
rikzilla said:
That's not foreign policy. Foreign policy involves reaching goals in line with national security, commerce, etc... What are Pelosi's goals? Are they in line with our national security? What does she expect to do to reach these goals? Does she have the political power necessary to set policy???
Click to expand...

Reasonable questions, z. Did you also pose these same questions of the Republicans who have visited Syria? Did you question James Baker's agenda when he went there? Did you ask the same questions of the Republican House member who accompanied Pelosi?

No? Then why do you question ONLY Pelosi's agenda?
 
SezMe said:
Reasonable questions, z. Did you also pose these same questions of the Republicans who have visited Syria? Did you question James Baker's agenda when he went there? Did you ask the same questions of the Republican House member who accompanied Pelosi?

No? Then why do you question ONLY Pelosi's agenda?
Click to expand...
Did those delegations have the endorsement of the White House? It seems Speaker Pelosi did not.

DR
 
I agree that COngress shoudl stay out of excutive duties liek this. it also seems to me that Bush has no room to complain about branches overreaching their intended role. We need an ammendment to allow recalls. It shoudl keep this sort of situation where the Speaker has to do the President's job because the president won't to a minimum in the future.
 
frank462 said:
Exactly! A perfect example from the past is when Neville Chamberlain signed the "Munich Agreement" with Hitler.
Yup, that worked out real well.
Click to expand...

At the risk of pulling a Godwin - who are you suggesting is playing the part of Hitler, Bashar al-ASAD or Bush?
 
Darth Rotor said:
Did those delegations have the endorsement of the White House? It seems Speaker Pelosi did not.
Click to expand...

Not that I know of or that was publicized. For example, I'm sure the Baker-Hamilton Commission did not because the Bush Administration rejected their recommendation to continue the dialog.
 
Mephisto said:
At the risk of pulling a Godwin - who are you suggesting is playing the part of Hitler, Bashar al-ASAD or Bush?
Click to expand...

I was not comparing anyone to Hitler. I was giving an historical example of what happens when you try to negotiate with a rogue state. Since the government of Iran has stated many times that it wants to wipe Israel off the map, I think that qualifies Iran, and its ally Syria, as rogue states.

.
 
Mephisto said:
I'm talking about the tendency of this administration to use diplomacy only as a last resort.
Click to expand...
Explain please the administrations work with North Korea (and the powers in Asia) and India on nuclear matters.

DR
 
Darth Rotor said:
Explain please the administrations work with North Korea (and the powers in Asia) and India on nuclear matters.
Click to expand...

I'll let Mephisto respond to the thrust of your question and only add a minor aside that India is generally considered an ally and not someone we would be negotiating contentious issues with. That is, one with whom the use of our military is certainly NOT on the table (to paraphrase the Veep).
 
On the negotiating with North Korea thing:
The recent negotiations with North Korea represented a significant change in US policy. It has been widely reported the current agreement with North Korea is almost identical to the agreement negotiated by the Clinton administration and rejected by the Bush administration in 2000.

It also seems to be true that the neocon's neocon John Bolton was opposed to the agreement.
 
Darth Rotor said:
Explain please the administrations work with North Korea (and the powers in Asia) and India on nuclear matters.

DR
Click to expand...
NK was, as was footstomped numerous times, a joint effort between China, Russia, US, Japan, SK and NK. Not just US and NK. Did we even do the heavy lifting on this one? Or just ultimately rehash the last treaty?

It's late and I'm tired, but I think that makes sense.

PS and by tired, I mean schnockered.
 
frank462 said:
I was not comparing anyone to Hitler. I was giving an historical example of what happens when you try to negotiate with a rogue state. Since the government of Iran has stated many times that it wants to wipe Israel off the map, I think that qualifies Iran, and its ally Syria, as rogue states.

.
Click to expand...

Well what's the alternative to negotiating with a "rogue state?" Don't you believe that through negotiation we can achieve a peaceful understanding in spite of our opinions? People always point to the "Israel off the map" thing as the reason we shouldn't use diplomacy, but isn't the crux of the problem Israel's problem? I'm not suggesting that we abandon Israel as an ally, just that a military solution is more Israel's concern.

Turning our back on countries we perceive as "rogue states" only intensifies their saber-rattling and likely influences the extremists in that country to take individual action. Hitler was an extreme example and I don't believe that most middle-eastern countries advocate wiping Jews (or Catholics or Westerners) off the planet. It is much more difficult to maintain an ongoing hatred of someone you know well (and who listens to your thoughts and opinions carefully) than it is to paint them in an unsavory light with propaganda that the worst people will buy.

All it takes is to listen and speak politely, but our insistence that we NOT communicate allows them to paint us however they feel and as I said before, only feeds the extremists in that country.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom