Setting aside whether House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's amateur effort at shuttle diplomacy was wise or effective, did she violate the Logan Act and commit a felony during her visit to Syria? Robert Turner thinks the answer could be "yes."
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.Michael Dorf thinks otherwise. Among other things, Dorf notes that "no one has ever been convicted of violating the Logan Act, and no indictments have even issued in the last 200 years." Even if one thinks Speaker Pelosi violated the letter of the law, Dorf notes, "There is zero chance that Pelosi will actually be prosecuted." Moreover, there are many arguments she could make in her defense.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.
That Pelosi's conduct was legal, does not mean it was appropriate or politically astute. Here's more Dorf on Pelosi from Dorf on Law:
The Constitution is best read to forbid congressional freelancing (to be distinguished from such things as congressional factfinding missions to foreign countries for the purpose of oversight of appropriations and related matters). Speaker Pelosi may undermine her public position on Iraq---where the Constitution clearly contemplates a substantial role for Congress---by asserting authority in an area where the Constitution truly supports Presidential prerogative.
UPDATE: More from Michael Dorf and Marty Lederman here.
Let me also make a plea for greater civility in the comments. I believe this is an interesting issue that can be discussed without partisan vitriol or name-calling.
SECOND UPDATE: Perhaps Pelosi should take diplomacy lessons from Bill Richardson.
She only only a professional politician. Additionally, she is also Speaker of the House - a domestic policy position. The Constitution gives the purview for foreign policy to the President.
It is unconscionable for her to try and create a dual foreign policy. I can think of nothing more confusing for our allies, or more heartening for our adversaries.
If she wants to craft foreign policy, she should run for and win the Presidency. Like him or not President Bush is still in charge for the next approximately two years. You want a new foreign policy? Vote for a new direction in 2008.
Speaker Pelosi is certainly a politician with significant political experience and skill. I think it is fair to characterize her recent efforts as "amateurish" nonetheless. Indeed, such a characterization is generous compared to that of the Washington Post editorial board.
JHA
And neither of those authorizations authorizes war with Syria.
Prof. Turner really has jumped the shark.
I certainly agree that Speaker Pelosi is not the first member of Congress to engage in amateur international diplomacy. Insofar as former Speaker Newt Gingrich made equivalent missteps during his trip to China (over a decade ago, I might add, long before I started blogging), his actions were also worthy of criticism. The same goes for all those other members of Congress of whichever party whose prior actions I have failed to dredge up.
JHA
Did you even read the post? I don't endorse Prof. Turner's analysis. Prof. Dorf is far more convincing.
JHA
The only policy that I can Ms. Pelosi could be violating is some policy against contact with Syria. But has there ever even been a statement by the executive that congress people shouldn't visit Syria? The fact that there have been certain limitations on official contact by the executive doesn't mean that all contact has been cut off. If Congress People shouldn't be visiting Syria isn't the proper course of action to makes some rule or law banning such contact rather then widening the appearance of a rift in foreign policy through pubic criticism?
At one place, Dorf suggests that Congress routinely engages in fact finding, and attempts to get her off the hook that way. But, as her predecessor, Newt Gingrich, pointed out yesterday, her actions went far beyond mere fact finding to being a diplomatic conduit between the two countries. And Mrs. Pelosi admitted that she was partaking in this sort of diplomacy proudly, as she publicly disclosed the Israeli "offer" that she was taking to Syria.
This sort of shuttle diplomacy is one of the reasons that we have a Secretary of State and her entire State Department. I have no doubt that the Secretary of State and a number of her minions in the State Department know far more precisely what the Israeli position is as regards to Syria than does Mrs. Pelosi, even now.
Thoughtless efforts by members of Congress undoubtedly cause confusion in foreign countries, but that is the price we pay for being an uwieldy democracy with separation of powers.
And wouldn't the First Amendment prevent any retribution by law enforcement (or the administration) as she was only having a theoretical discussion on the issues?
Finally, in terms of Syria and Israel talking peace, why would the administration have any official control over those negotiations? Obviously if the United States was involved in a treaty or an executive agreement the analysis would be different but from everything I have read, she did not suggest an official role for the U.S.
Am I missing something?
Of course considering Gonzales' recent problems with the truth, he might have been lying.
This is also a classic strawman argument because it was't the meeting with the foreign leaders that was the issue. As has been pointed out in many places, this is done often by Congress in their "fact finding" role. The problem arose when Mrs. Pelosi went beyond that by (publically) relaying that Israeli message/position to the Syrians.
As for conducting foreign policy, Dorf suggested that the stated aim right now of the Administration is to try to isolate Syria (presumably because of their state support of terrorism, human rights violations, etc.), and Mrs. Pelosi's actions here potentially gave Syria the type of legitimacy that our government has not been giving them over the last couple of years.
I mean under the definition of 'dispute' that seems to be used here any difference of opinion between the US president and the government of a foreign power is a dispute. Hence if the current president dislikes outsourcing and doesn't want China to let US businesses to be about to outsource there then it would seem that attempts to convince/lobby the Chinese government to give your company a business license is a violation of the Logan act.
Hell if an economist sits down at a fancy dinner next to the french ambassador and casually remarks, "you know modern economic theory suggests France would be better off reducing it's trade subsidies" he would be guilty under this interpretation. In fact it is hard to imagine how any debate between a US citizen and someone employed by a foreign government about current political issues could ever be legal.
Even more absurd every time someone with dual citizenship VOTES in a foreign country and his choice of candidates was influenced by their position on trade disputes with the US they should have violated the Logan act by this reasoning.
Ohh it was the meeting with foreign leaders? But the act (at least as quoted by Dorf) seems to make no distinction between meeting with agents or officers of the government and the leader. Thus if chatting with Assad is a problem so is chatting with all the ambassadors in the US. Surely you don't think that every congressman who chats up an ambassador at a state dinner is guilty do you?
The level of harm caused by this trip is really irrelevant. The law can't ask the jury to decide whether the trip was a net positive or negative before deciding to convict. The exact same legal analysis should apply if Pelosi had visited France and successfully talked the President into dropping support for government aid to airbus. As far as the law is concerned that is as much if not more of a dispute or controversy (it is formally filled in the WTO) than our dislike for Syria's actions is.
You could make a similar argument about disclosure of classified documents. But, of course, it is still illegal to do so, and someone even on occasion still goes to jail for disclosing such. But she was operating in her official role as head of 1/2 of a separate branch of our government. Just like President Bush can't talk to foreign leaders as a private citizen, neither can Speaker Pelosi. Her office follows her whenever she deals with other governments.
As for the French example, she wouldn't be essentially acting as a diplomatic go-between negotiating with two sovereign states. And it is not clear that we really have a policy on Airbus subsidies - I know Boeing does, and that sometimes turns into U.S. policy, but I also suspect that there are plenty of free traders in the Administration who love to see this sort of thing.
Part of the problem with Pelosi's negiations here is that they potentally are directly counter to the apparent policy with regards to isolating Syria. She may not agree with them, but the people didn't elect her to make the determination of whether or not diplomatically isolating Syria was good or bad, rather it elected George W. Bush to do so for the next year and a half.
As for your last point, where would the be line drawn between fact-finding, something no one would argue she is unable to do, versus acting in her official capacity?
Being something of a luddite, I thought the Logan Act might have some bearing on a discussion of whether someone violated. That doesn't seem to be the favored approach here. I apologize if introducing the law itself makes the argument too mundane.
DoJ could just as easily prosecute leaks of classified information whenever such shows up in the WaPo or NYT. All it would have to do would be to make some showing that it couldn't figure out who the leaker was, then bring the reporters before a grand jury. If the reporters refused to divulge where they got the classified information, they would just have to sit in jail until that grand jury expired, and then after a couple of days of rest, go back before another one, and start all over again.
Disclosing classified information a felony, esp. for those who are entrusted with it (and don't have declassification authority like the President and by delegation, the VP). Yet this case is rarely prosecuted. Why? That sort of ham handed prosecutorial conduct, while legal, would be political suicide, as every paper in the country would come to the defense of the jailed reporters.
Speaker Pelosi is not going to be prosecuted for very similar reasons - she is the leader of the most popularly elected house of the most popularly elected branch of our government.
But probably what should happen is that some back bench Republicans should file ethics charges against her for this. This is the sort of thing that a much younger Newt Gingrich made famous - before he became Speaker himself and such ethics charges were filed against him.
The Administration's policy is not to have direct talks with Syria. In that sense, she did act contrary to Administration policy.
All we really know is that the Administration appears to be trying to isolate Syria diplomatically, that they asked Speaker Pelosi not to do what she did, and that it appears to run counter to their attempts to isolate the country.
But, no, we don't know everything going on here. We can't. No country, at least not big ones like ours, ever show all their cards. We don't know the limits of Syria's isolation, nor do we know how far the Administration is willing to go if our ally, Israel, were making a bona fide breakthrough attempt at negotiating peace. We don't know these things, and shouldn't expect to.
And Darrel Issa's visit (with Assad!) was not a "direct talk"?
By suggesting that Speaker Pelosi has broken the law, without mentioning the several Republican members of Congress now visiting Syria, Prof. Adler undermines any claim that he is an objective — or even credible — commentator. Simply following the White House talking points is not enough. If Adler cares at all about honesty, he'll update his post to take account of the many Republicans who have done just what Pelosi did.
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/30/syria-hypocrisy/
Rep. Issa was in direct talks with Syria. I completely agree that any punishment, disdain, complaint, etc. against Speaker Pelosi should be equally applied to the entire delegation including the Republicans. Without a doubt the Administration is acting highly partisan by only implicating only Speaker Pelosi. But they also do have a legitimate point in saying she is acting contrary to the policy of the US.
"Did you even read the post? I don't endorse Prof. Turner's analysis. Prof. Dorf is far more convincing."
Give me a break.
"Is what Pelosi did a CRIME... maybe! But this guy says she probably will get off for it, the slippery fish! It sure was stupid tho!" is basically your post. You need to bone up on your intellectual honesty there a little.
The fact that GOP Congressmen made the SAME TRIP, with the knowledge of the White House, kind of throws a wrench in this entire attempt to turn attention from the fact that our Justice Department is falling apart in scandal and impropriety.
Speaker of the House is not a domestic policy position. The Speaker is third in line for the presidency and the House acts on foreign policy issues all the time, with committees on trade, the military and a host of foreign policy issues. It's Pelosi's business to gather information and make contacts with people involved in those issues. To say that direct information gathering on those issues is running your own foreign policy is ridiculous.
It might be to, say, negotiate directly legislation with a foreign leader, though plenty of congresspeople have done that on trade issues, but she didn't do that.
If you want an example of a Congressman running a separate foreign policy, read Charlie Wilson's War. If Wilson's behavior in Afghanistan didn't violate the Logan Act, there is no act that conceivably could.
But if she went to Syria, met with Assad, and simply reinforced the substance of the Administration's policy, how bad is that? The only effect I can see is to tell Assad not to count on the Dems to support any of his positions against that of the President.
The little lady is either utterly incompetent or so viciously partisan as to be unpatriotic, i.e., to put the perceived interests of her party ahead of the interests of the United States. Amusingly enough, her inept partisanship has seriously damaged the image of the dimocrat party and I think everyone at least now realizes that. Or is there some fanatic Bush-hater out there who would like to argue Pelosi's bull-in-the-china-shop behavior has advantaged her party?
Neither the current Syrian government under Bashar, nor the the previous one under his father Hafez, have had any qualms about terrorism. The Muslim Brotherhood was a threat to Hafez's rule, and Hafez acted forcefully (massacre) and without any concern about "collateral damage" (innocents) to deal with that threat.
American citizens have died as a result of Syrian-sponsored terrorism, and it is alleged not implausibly, that Syria does not impede the crossing of its border with Iraq by jihadis. To put it mildly, Syria has no respect for the "sovereignity" of its neighbor Lebanon, and back in the '70s tried to overthrow the Jordanian government of King Hussein. Currently, Syria is Iran's active partner in arming the radical Islamists of Hezbollah and Hamas, thereby threatening Lebanon and Israel. While Syria has long maintained that the Shaba Farms area is rightfully theirs, they do not protest Hezbollah saying it belongs to Lebanon so they can make the bogus claim that Israel did not withdraw completely from Lebanon and justify their cross border attacks on Israel.
It's hard to paint Syria as a force for good in the world, but some will try.
How dare she
disobeysubvert our Israelileadersallies.Please provide citations to:
1) the federal statute making "disclosing classified information" a felony; and
2) the source for your claim that the Vice-President, "by delegation," has the authority to declassify.
Alternative, you could simply acknowledge that neither of these authorities exist.
"you are an umitigated scumbag. Are you such a moronic piece of garbage that you can't make any point without resorting to pejorative comments like "little lady' and "dimocrat?" Do you think your argument is advantaged by such sophomoric insults?"
Spectral Disorder, do you? How does it make a point to do the same thing back? You've clearly just entirely dismissed yourself. Unless your logic is that by intensifying the sophomoric, pejorative arguments we will all be so in awe of your obvious moral outrage that we'll be convinced.
This approach is so weird to me. Is it a conscious rhetorical method or are you that so self unaware? My guess it's a little of both, coupled with a bit of unfocused generalized anger in your life. I would guess staying off blogs like this would be good for you, if they just bring out that kind of frustration.
Just to make the harm point clear (you may agree) even in principle what harm to US interests was caused is irrelevant to the Logan act. The act simply doesn't mention harm so even if Pelosi's action was universally hailed as reaping great benefits to the US it's legality would be unchanged, i.e., it isn't legal to subvert the president's foreign policy only when it is bad foreign policy.
Now when I suggested that the situation would be exactly the same if Pelosi had gone to France and said to some french official, 'Common why don't you guys give in on trade dispute Y. You know we are right,' I wasn't supposing her to have been officially deputized by the president to negotiate. The fact that she would have been advocating policy the president favored wouldn't change the fact that she wasn't authorized.
Importantly the Logan act bans any intercourse or correspondence with foreign agents about a dispute or controversy. It doesn't matter if the accused was advocating US rock solid US policy or flying in the face of it the law simply doesn't distinguish the two cases. Since there was clearly no US 'measure' to be defeated it is totally irrelevant that Pelosi's visit flew in the face of US policy. Hence the reason it is impossible to coherently argue that Pelosi is guilty of violating the Logan act but the congressman who, in the absence of explicit authorization, urges the french diplomat to give in on some trade dispute over dinner is innocent.
In short you are trying to read the act to say that anyone acting in an official capacity but without the approval of the executive branch may not act to undermine the president's foreign policy. Whatever the merits of such a law it simply isn't what this one says.
In short it seems pretty clear that the Logan act is a ridiculously overbroad law that, on a straightforward reading, seems to criminalize virtually any discussion of international politics between US citizens and foreign agents. As this is obviously not what is intended the law should be tossed out by the courts as unconstitutionally vague. If not then it should be thrown out for abridging the first amendment.
So it's now illegal for an American to subvert Israeli foreign policy?
2. Not sure how Steve's post fits in, but are people really that confused about classified information? Hint: think espionage. Sorry, I don't have the statute. As for declassification, think executive order. Is this confusion a result of seeing "Confidential" stamped on legal documents and thinking that the same marks signifying national security are nothing more than an arguable privilege? "Gee, I've got this confidential document on military tactics, I think I'll read it and decide for myself... I'm smarter than the gov't after all."
Also I presume the point of noting that we are fighting Syria or in active hostilities with them is not to argue that they aren't an evil force acting against our interests but that as far as the law is concerned their is no dispute or controversy between us and Syria. Obviously a law which relied on a vague standard of 'are we friends' in such a complex area as international politics would be unconstitutionally vague (Saudi Arabia?).
Thus we must either:
1) interpret the Logan act to be unreasonably broad by counting any time a foreign government disagrees with the president about anything we are in a dispute or controversy with them which would make virtually all meetings between congressmen and foreign officials illegal.
or
2) interpret the Logan act to require war, active military hostilities or the like for us to be embroiled in a dispute or controversy with another country. North Korea, where we never really signed a peace treaty and man a heavily armed border, probably counts but then Syria does not.
As Bill Poser above said, the Constitution explicitly grants a number of foreign policy powers to the U.S. Congress. It gives the President only two: negotiating treaties and appointing ambassadors.
As pointed out again by a poster above, the Logan Act only requires approval by the United States Government. It does not specify "President." Last time I checked, the House of Representatives is also part of the United States Government.
Only people wearing partisan blinders could conclude that Pelosi violated the Logan Act (which is unconstitutional on its face in the first place).
Don't you get tired of blaming Israel for everything?
Although your question was not addressed to me, there are authorities for both propositions. The unauthorized disclosure of classified information related to national security is criminalized under various provisions of the Espionage Act. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. s793, 18 U.S.C. s798. Application of these provisions is certainly controversial (see my posts here). Also, I am not suggesting Rep. Pelosi violated these provisions, only that those who disclose such information can be prosecuted.
As for the authority to declassify information, Executive Order 13292, as interpreted by this administration, authorizes the Vice President to classify and declassify information in the performance of executive functions.
JHA
It is amazing how the story has been repeatedly distorted during the trip. The MSM kept mum on the subject of Republicans visiting Assad, and they went out of the way to misrepresent both the message Pelosi delivered for the Israelis and the Israelis' follow up comment--there was no controversy.
Now we get another idiotic "controversy"--well, another tempest in a teapot. And the felons in the White House continue unabated.
Maybe because Prof. Adler thinks he can get away with Glenn Reynolds style "just passing this on, I'm above it all!" act, but isn't half as good as Reynolds at simply letting his choice of links do the smearing and framing for him.
“Friendship? Hope? For whom exactly? My dissident colleagues, that is, the few who were granted an audience with her Congressional Highness, felt completely snubbed by her, their entire encounter did not last but for a few icy minutes, I am told. Mrs. Pelosi’s friendship and hope seem reserved to the corrupt and oppressive bunch responsible for letting jihadi elements cross freely into Iraq, except, that is, when they need a headline in the proliferating journals out there willing to celebrate their anti-Bush stances, the criminal nature of their various enterprises notwithstanding. The realists are now out full-steam ahead to reestablish old ties with the very despotic regimes that thrive by exporting their problems elsewhere. How very creative. And how very conducive to peace.”
I have now decided that I have no hope of understanding the US political system. With mine (Australia) individual politicians can and do occasionally indulge themselves in chats with others elsewhere on foreign policy, including sometimes Leaders of the Opposition, but it is always known and understood that they do not represent Australia’s foreign policy. Here we have the leader of your Congress actively promoting a different foreign policy to that of the President/Executive. And Pelosi coming across as a Leader of the Opposition making mischief for your government.
Jerusalem Post
“The Pelosi-Assad meeting, meanwhile, was widely viewed as an attempt to push the Bush administration to open a direct dialogue with Syria, a step that the White House has rejected”. And Tom Lantos “This is only the beginning of our constructive dialogue with Syria and we hope to build on this visit,"
At the same time she is misrepresenting one of your allies to an unfriendly nation with a long term commitment to seriously harming that ally. Presumably the reason that your Constitution makes foreign policy the business of the Executive is so that every ignorant man woman and his/her dog can’t stuff things up. Like, central to Syria’s “peace “ desires seems to be the return of the Golan Heights, (and why not as Amarji reports in Feb the Assads have sold them off for peanuts to mates who can’t wait to get them back and boot off the current Syrian owners.) What is Ms Pelosi’s take on this, while she stated what she thought the Israelis should do, it is hard to see what she requires of the Assads. Stop passing on the foreign terrorists to Iraq please is too silly for words.
So what is your foreign policy, to isolate Syria, or to suck up to Syria? Who decides your foreign policy, just so your allies know whose press releases to take as policy. It doesn’t hurt I think to remind the American people that along with a stated belief in your place as the Leader of the Free world goes some responsibility to both keep your house in order, and deal fairly with others, in particular your allies. It is not just Israel that is left bugged off; all of your allies have to wonder what your position is, and whether, if Ms Pelosi gets another bee in her bonnet, we too can be shafted.
She went to talk to a foreign leader. So?
I think many conservatives have a different copy of the Constitution (and the Logan Act) than do the rest of us.
As Bill Poser above said, the Constitution explicitly grants a number of foreign policy powers to the U.S. Congress. It gives the President only two: negotiating treaties and appointing ambassadors.
From the decision in US v Curtiss-Wright
It's the lack of textual support for this which caused the comment. Merely citing back the decision doesn't really respond to the original point.
I'll tell you what: you take US v Curtiss-Wright, and I'll take the plain language of the Constitution. We'll call it even.
#1. A one-line quote from John Marshall in 1800 before he was appointed to SCOTUS. (Which some have argued doesn't quite mean what it appears to when taken in fulll context).
#2. A Senate Foreign Relations Committee report from 1816 which says that the President alone can negotiate treaties with foreign nations before submitting them to the Senate for Ratification.
Of these, #2 isn't on point regarding the controversy at hand, and #1 had nothing remotely to do with the Constitution.
Was Pelosi only discussing trade with Assad?
Was Pelosi only discussing piracy with Assad?
Was Pelosi only discussing declaration of war with Assad?
Even if you can't get a conviction it could be useful to charge Pelosi, Issa, Wolf, Pitts, Aderholt and anyone else.
Also, it does not give the President "only two." You missed the next paragraph: to "receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers"
Also, last I checked, the Logan Act was passed by the U.S. Congress, exercising whatever "foreign policy powers" it has.Last time I checked, the House of Representatives didn't approve of her visit, so even if this argument of yours weren't obviously sophistry -- the Executive is charged with executing the laws -- it wouldn't excuse Pelosi's actions.
Last I knew, unless and until it is overruled by a later proceding or a constitutional amendment, a decision of the supreme court is the law of the land.
Whether or not you agree with the decision isn't at issue, it is what it is. According to the supreme court for the last 70 years the president has complete control of foreign policy.
“This is not the first time a leading Democrat has reached out abroad. In a mid-March interview that got surprisingly little attention, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean told The Politico'sRoger Simon he had met with world leaders to "build relationships with other governments in preparation for a Democratic takeover."
Dean added: "I want to make clear there is an opposition in America and that we are ready to take power and that when we do, we are going to have much better relationships with them."”
Our relationship with the US is fine, Russia, the despots of the ME, Old Europe, dear Mr Chavez to name just a few, not so good. But Mr Dean, just because you emasculate your President none of the afore mentioned are going to like you any better. And we may like you less. And your political system just isn’t designed to be led by the Speaker of the Congress, however much she desires to be seen as the Leader of America, no mere ambassadorship for this lady.
Zoe referred to MPD, I would suggest that the current Democrats are determined that the US’s role in the world should be as a headless chook. For all the belief of Americans in their Constitution as the human system from which all things good will emerge, for free, it would seem that like all political systems it is dependent on the commitment to it of the various actors, and Pelosi and her mates, unwittingly, and unknowingly, are determined it seems to push the US political system to the edge of chaos. So what will emerge? Some Democrats seem delighted that the US, at least in foreign affairs, should become, a headless chook. I am not.
I believe issues such as this can be discussed without calling people "scumbag," and hope that commenters will try and keep their comments substantive.
JHA
Now the worst thing I'd say about the US is that it is "Economically Rapacious", and with a severely corrupt set of legislators at all levels. A bit like us, really.
But if the US "self-deters", and becomes as impotent as, say, the UN or EU, no good to Man or Beast, then we should look to our own Defences.
To paraphrase Macauley:
>Maybe because Prof. Adler thinks he can get away with Glenn >Reynolds style "just passing this on, I'm above it all!"
I don't think Jon was begging for civility on this topic for the sake of protecting himself from ad hominem jibes. I'm shocked, shocked to see that a blog is driven by MSM headlines, so that the focus begins with the question of 'Pelosi and ignores contemporaneous Republican junkets by people who have relatively little power to leverage their visit into implied negotiations.
I disagree wholeheartedly that posting links to two competing analyses represents Jon's piling on to to some anti-Pelosi witchhunt, or an attempt to insulate Republicans from criticism on the same basis. The unstricken comments provide ample space for that.
He did lead one to believe that he viewed Pelosi's undertaking as less than admirable, and maybe his synthesis of much public reaction in that 'amateur' comment could constitute a cheap shot, if as he pointed out, an understated one. Maybe the worry is that an only modestly snide snippet of that sort is more damaging to Pelosi than the obviously partisan muckraking in the comments.
But it is fair to allege this was a spurious comment since he was declaiming focus on the merits of her conduct outside the abstract legal question of the Logan Felony. I just find it hard to place this snippet of attitude really anywhere on the partisan scale. Plenty of Republicans make the same kind of remarks about the Bush administration - nevermind we libertarians who once thought we were part of the coalition.
But all this whining about how the MSM has blown Pelosi's trip all out of proportion -- either by mischaracterizing her actions or by ignoring similar actions of others -- as if this kind of thing that always cuts against Democrats while the Republicans always get to slide is pretty comical. I can accept the point being made if it is advanced as the exception that proves the rule that 'democrats always get a pass' from the MSM, or the beginning of a catalog to prove that this truism ain't so.
In any event, Pelosi publicized what she was doing and she is the Speaker of the House. So the fact that the media echo chamber doesn't have an OJ trial this week and takes the ball and runs with it and foray's of minority party house members who nobody even knew were going there are but a footnote to the story, that proves what?
Personally, I'm going with conspiracy theory. Bush administration makes modest rumblings about inappropriateness of speaker's high profile trip to Syria to load the dice. Olmert allows her to read their discourse as offering some perceived feather to put in her veil and then pulls the rug out from under her the following day after she goes public. Finally the right figured out how to play hardball instead of just going on the tube and saying "stay the course" and getting appropriately hammered for it.
Even if the style of her contacts with Syria are completely within appropriate bounds for the Speaker of the House, for the very reason that she is a highly placed government official, she will not be insulated from accusations of stupidity on the substance. Sorry if that seems a little bit of harsh word, I'm not trying to make partisan cracks here and I think those are completely out of order on this thread. But take this little ditty: "We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace." Can anyone offer a reading of this comment that isn't situational ethics, Kissinger style -- see, who said this was partisan.
Brian
That said, regardless of partisan affiliation (I am a Republican who thinks the neocons have hijacked US foreign policy), let's not kid ourselves. Pelosi clearly went to Syria for the primary purpose of circumventing Bush's foreign policy.
Now whether you agree with Bush's foreign policy toward Syria or not (and I don't because I believe one should hold their enemies closer than their friends), Bush has decided to not communicate with Syria's government in any official capacity. Pelosi has circumvented the foregoing policy and has created precedent whereby a House Speaker may now engage in creating a competing foreign policy with the White House. That's not only stupid but also downright dangerous for the future conduct of America's foreign policy (or perhaps I should use the plural term "policies").
There was a time when domestic partisanship stopped at this nation's borders. I guess that time is now past.
I appreciate your attempt to keep the conversation civil, and would suggest that it would be helpful to also delete posts containing needlessly inflammatory insults such as "dimocrats".
I keep flashing on the number of folks who searched for decades to nail Bus Sr for negotiating with Iran prior to the election of Reagan. It is hard to know for sure, but somehow I feel that those who were even willing to make up such facts, because they were so important and disqualifying, are allied with those now sneering "So What?"
WHile a foolish consistency may indeed be the hobgoblin of small minds, some signs of consistency at all might be required for folks to take your debating points seriously...
Newt Gingrich's trip to China in 1997 springs to mind, since he went there explicitly to negotiate with the Chinese over Taiwan.
Not Speaker yet, but Denny Hastert that same year urged Columbia to bypass President Clinton and negotiate directly with the Congress.
"We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace.We expressed our interest in using our good offices in promoting peace between Israel and Syria."
This from the woman third in succession to the President.For the liberal press to fault her only indicates that she made a mess of her efforts to undermine the Administration. They were embarrassed for her and saw the damage she brought to the 'cause'.
None of our friends would agree that the road to Damascus is a road to peace... in fact, it's one of support for terror.
The only support Nancy got was from the terrorists themselves... not exactly a resounding vote for confidence for the American cause. She has demonstrated, in capital letters, why she should have stayed in Washington.
Myself, I'm happy she went... I predicted that the Democrats would over-reach... and alienate the voters. I had no idea that it would happen so soon.