Eric Cantor Tells Netanyahu He'll Undermine US Foreign Policy

[Unabogie]

Eric Cantor went to Israel and told Netanyahu:

"Eric stressed that the new Republican majority will serve as a check on the Administration and what has been, up until this point, one party rule in Washington," read a statement from Cantor's office on the one-on-one meeting. "He made clear that the Republican majority understands the special relationship between Israel and the United States, and that the security of each nation is reliant upon the other."

Now, it's been a standard refrain from Republicans that "politics stops at the water's edge" and that only the President conducts foreign policy. At least one Republican has denounced his actions.

Several leading legal authorities have made the case that...recent diplomatic overtures ran afoul of the Logan Act, which makes it a felony for any American “without authority of the United States” to communicate with a foreign government to influence that government’s behavior on any disputes with the United States.

Wanna guess who made this comment?

 

[Paranormal Inquirer]

I know a lot of blogs and comments are calling this treason, but I don't see how considering Israel is not an enemy.

 

[leftysergeant]

I know a lot of blogs and comments are calling this treason, but I don't see how considering Israel is not an enemy.

Actually, it is more like sedition. Whatever.

The drooling moron is ranting about one-party rule after Obama nearly broke his back trying to accomodate the Republicants on health care. Cantor needs to get his meds reviewed. The delusions are coming back.

 

[geni]

Again the Logan Act is a historic leftover from when diplomatic protocols regarding the US were less clear than they are today. It's never been used and at some point should probably be repealed.

 

[Unabogie]

Again the Logan Act is a historic leftover from when diplomatic protocols regarding the US were less clear than they are today. It's never been used and at some point should probably be repealed.

Hey, tell that to Eric Cantor. He seems to think he committed a felony.

 

[Unabogie]

I know a lot of blogs and comments are calling this treason, but I don't see how considering Israel is not an enemy.

I don't think it's treason. I think it's destructive, hypocritical, and liable to get Americans killed. Don't take my word for it. Ask David Petraeus. He seems to think a peace deal in Israel is pretty damn important to our security. Cantor is over there screwing it up.

 

[Beerina]

Eric Cantor went to Israel and told Netanyahu:



Now, it's been a standard refrain from Republicans that "politics stops at the water's edge" and that only the President conducts foreign policy. At least one Republican has denounced his actions.

Don't mind opinions, but yes, the president is charged by the Constitution to set foreign policy. Republicans didn't like it when Democrats went to talk to Saddam, or the Soviet leaders claiming Reagan was the real threat.

But nobody has principles. They pick their positions based on what helps their side. "Nuclear option" in the Senate, anyone?

 

[leftysergeant]

But nobody has principles. They pick their positions based on what helps their side. "Nuclear option" in the Senate, anyone?

Should have been done long ago. We need to get all the vacant court seats filled and we need to be in a position to see any vacancies on the Suprteme Court filled withoit having to listen to a bunch of bed-wetting rightwingers whining about liberal juudges.

 

[Skeptic]

Er, if he claimed he has the right to set American policy, such as signing a treaty on his own with Netanyahu in the name of the USA, bypassing the president, this would be (technically, at least) treason -- although, in reality, the justice department wouldn't bother to prosecute him for treason, but merely have him laughed out of office in the next election cycle, as a total maroon. Certainly Netanyahu himself, who lived many years in the USA and knows it well, would never take such a "treaty" seriously.

But all he said here is "we oppose Obama's policy and will vote against him in Congress". So? That has always been the case. The president sets policy, but often needs approval from Congress to execute it. If the president wants to declare war (or make peace) and Congress does not agree, it's hardly "treason" to vote against it, or to declare one would. Certainly criticizing the president's foreign policy, or voting against it in constitutionally-mandated ways, is hardly "treason".

Is every congressman who voted against the Iraq war, for instance, guilty of "treason"? Is declaring one would never vote for an invasion of Easter Island even if the president wants it "treason"? Of course not.

I doubt the Logan act is intended to stop such behavior.

 

[Skeptic]

Should have been done long ago. We need to get all the vacant court seats filled and we need to be in a position to see any vacancies on the Suprteme Court filled withoit having to listen to a bunch of bed-wetting rightwingers whining about liberal juudges.

In other words, when it comes to filling positions with left-wingers, the hell with democracy and elected officials -- just DO it! Democracy, the two-party system, Congress... such unimprotant frills just get in the way of creating the progressive paradise on Earth.

Worked out really well in Soviet Russia, I've heard.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

And skeptic takes the soviet godwin award

(Not that lefty's argument is good, mind you, but making it a slippery slope is worse)

 

[Unabogie]

Er, if he claimed he has the right to set American policy, such as signing a treaty on his own with Netanyahu in the name of the USA, bypassing the president, this would be (technically, at least) treason -- although, in reality, the justice department wouldn't bother to prosecute him for treason, but merely have him laughed out of office in the next election cycle, as a total maroon. Certainly Netanyahu himself, who lived many years in the USA and knows it well, would never take such a "treaty" seriously.

But all he said here is "we oppose Obama's policy and will vote against him in Congress". So? That has always been the case. The president sets policy, but often needs approval from Congress to execute it. If the president wants to declare war (or make peace) and Congress does not agree, it's hardly "treason" to vote against it, or to declare one would. Certainly criticizing the president's foreign policy, or voting against it in constitutionally-mandated ways, is hardly "treason".

Is every congressman who voted against the Iraq war, for instance, guilty of "treason"? Is declaring one would never vote for an invasion of Easter Island even if the president wants it "treason"? Of course not.

I doubt the Logan act is intended to stop such behavior.

Did you read the links I posted? I seriously doubt it, because the quote is from Eric Cantor himself, where he accused Nancy Pelosi of violating the Logan Act for speaking with another foreign leader about US foreign policy. Pelosi did not "negotiate a treaty" on her own. Read the links!

ETA: More of what Cantor wrote in 2007...

Presenting Assad with “a new Democratic alternative” — code for making President Bush look feckless [ED: and this is not what Cantor did?]— Mrs. Pelosi usurped the executive branch’s time-honored foreign-policy authority. Her message to Assad was that congressional Democrats will forbid the president from increasing pressure on Damascus to stop its murderous way. Several leading legal authorities have made the case that her recent diplomatic overtures ran afoul of the Logan Act, which makes it a felony for any American “without authority of the United States” to communicate with a foreign government to influence that government’s behavior on any disputes with the United States. Regardless of the law, Pelosi proceeded to make Assad an important regional player without first having to become a responsible one. At such a critical moment in the volatile Middle East, this is no time for the United States to be sending out mixed signals to our enemies.

One should note that we are not now and were not then at war with Syria.

 

[Skeptic]

Did you read the links I posted? I seriously doubt it, because the quote is from Eric Cantor himself, where he accused Nancy Pelosi of violating the Logan Act for speaking with another foreign leader about US foreign policy.

And do you really think anybody's going to prosecute her for it? I'm not saying Democrats should be allowed to do so and Republicans not, or vise versa. I think it's a tempest in a teapot.

 

[Unabogie]

And do you really think anybody's going to prosecute her for it? I'm not saying Democrats should be allowed to do so and Republicans not, or vise versa. I think it's a tempest in a teapot.

I'm saying Eric Cantor was saying she should be prosecuted 3 years ago for what Eric Cantor is doing today.

 

[Skeptic]

I'm saying Eric Cantor was saying she should be prosecuted 3 years ago for what Eric Cantor is doing today.

I agree he's an idiot for saying that, I'm just noting that it's really a pissing contest, not dual treason. There are grey areas, I suppose, but they're not passed here.

 

[Unabogie]

I agree he's an idiot for saying that, I'm just noting that it's really a pissing contest, not dual treason. There are grey areas, I suppose, but they're not passed here.

Already said it wasn't treason. I'm saying Eric Cantor is undermining our foreign policy, for which he deserves criticism on the merits, because unlike striving towards peace, as Pelosi was doing, he's screwing up our ability to broker a peace deal, something every President since 1948 has advocated. He also deserves condemnation for writing that screed in 2007 in which he accused Pelosi of being a traitor and then did the exact same thing in 2010.

What a douche.

 

[Thunder]

Eric Cantor is a right-wing Jew.