Pelosi in Syria

[Jenksismyhero]

This has been an ongoing story for a week or so now. What do you guys/gals think about this? Personally, I think it's wrong for her to talk to anyone outside of the country. Her role is in the Congress. Foreign affairs is the job of the Executive. I remember a few years back too someone (Kerry maybe?) was speaking with Chirac a fair amount. Seems to me this does nothing but undermine what Bush is trying to do. I know not everyone agrees with his administration and their foriegn policy. But do we really want Reps from Congress doing this? Shouldn't we be speaking with 'one voice' to the rest of the world?

[kapkomet]

Uh, no, isn't it obvious that we're not "one voice"?

 

We're about 50 shrill voices all in a pissing contest.

[Balta1701]

So, let's see, just last week, Rep. Robert Aderholt’s (R-AL) and Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) took a visit to Syria and Israel. Rep. Wolf is the top Republican on the committee which decides funding for the State Department. And along on the same trip as Speaker Pelosi is Rep. David Hobson (R-OH) along with a few other Democrats.

 

This sort of visit happens all the freaking time, by both parties, to countries all over the world. The White House just wants something else to attack Pelosi on.

[kapkomet]

She is third in line of the executive branch, so she can go wherever the hell she pleases. I just hope she keeps her mouth shut.

[Balta1701]

She is third in line of the executive branch, so she can go wherever the hell she pleases. I just hope she keeps her mouth shut.

See, now that's something I can agree with. There's nothing at all wrong with any Congressperson meeting with anyone they want. But that Congressperson should be very careful in exactly what words they say, given that they are not the final arbiter of U.S. policy (although they may have some influence in it).

 

For example, it would seem like a bad thing if Mrs. Pelosi were to threaten to declare war on Syria, and it would seem to be a bad thing to say that the U.S. will never engage in hostilities with Syria. And so on.

[southsider2k5]

In theory, this seems all right, but there are some ethics things that worry me. We have already had a problem with candidates raising money from forgein sources in exchange for services to be rendered. It isn't a long leap of faith to imagine a person or persons giving the promise of something to a forgein government in exchange for supporing their campaign somehow. This pretty much happens on a daily basis with in the US, and it scares me to think how easy a trip like this could turn into something like that. I don't like the idea of forgein government having multiple entities to deal with on these levels. There is just way too big of a chance of impropriety.

[kapkomet]

It is, and it happens (the Goracle and China, which was by far the biggest deal of the Clinton Administration, IMO, but it got shoved under the carpet) all the time, unfortunately. And yes, it happens way too much on the ® side of the aisle, too.

[southsider2k5]

FWIW, I didn't put any party labels in my post on purpose. I have no doubts that this would be done by either side if they though that they could get away with it.

[Jenksismyhero]

In theory, this seems all right, but there are some ethics things that worry me. We have already had a problem with candidates raising money from forgein sources in exchange for services to be rendered. It isn't a long leap of faith to imagine a person or persons giving the promise of something to a forgein government in exchange for supporing their campaign somehow. This pretty much happens on a daily basis with in the US, and it scares me to think how easy a trip like this could turn into something like that. I don't like the idea of forgein government having multiple entities to deal with on these levels. There is just way too big of a chance of impropriety.

 

 

Well, I think it’s all crap, no matter which party is involved. The role of the Congress is to deal with matters at home. The executive deals with foreign affairs. They’re creating a situation whereby the system can be manipulated. What if she gets goodie-goodie with the Prez of Syria? What if he refuses to work with Bush and demands Pelosi do x, y, z? She (or whoever else does it) is usurping the power that was intended for the Executive alone.

 

But it’s not much of a surprise. The original form of government contemplated by the founding fathers continues to whither away. I’d really like to know how they feel about the President being in charge of just about everything these days thanks to his status in the media. I’d bet Jefferson is turning in his grave as he watches the Fed government gain so much power, the Executive branch in particular.

[Balta1701]

Well, I think it’s all crap, no matter which party is involved. The role of the Congress is to deal with matters at home. The executive deals with foreign affairs. They’re creating a situation whereby the system can be manipulated. What if she gets goodie-goodie with the Prez of Syria? What if he refuses to work with Bush and demands Pelosi do x, y, z? She (or whoever else does it) is usurping the power that was intended for the Executive alone.

 

But it’s not much of a surprise. The original form of government contemplated by the founding fathers continues to whither away. I’d really like to know how they feel about the President being in charge of just about everything these days thanks to his status in the media. I’d bet Jefferson is turning in his grave as he watches the Fed government gain so much power, the Executive branch in particular.

Congress has all sorts of powers over international relations, not the least of which is the declaration of war. But beyond that, Congressional resolutions can have profound influence over the foreign policy of the country, most notably through it's funding authority. Those billions that go to Israel every year need to be approved by Congress, Congress can exercise a lot of control over the state department through funding, and so on. Things like the Cuban Embargo are in the hands of Congress. Trade agreements go beyond that as well.

 

The President is still the key person in setting foreign policy, but to suggest that Congress has no authority when it controls the budget, the war powers, and a bunch of others is just incorrect. Here's a good summary from teh State Dept.

 

The key parts of the constitution that are relevant:

ARTICLE I Section 7. All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives, but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills....

 

Section 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense....

 

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations...

 

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization...

 

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin...

 

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

 

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

 

To raise and support Armies, ....To provide and maintain a Navy;...

 

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

 

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;....

 

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and a other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof...

[jasonxctf]

maybe its a good cop, bad cop type of situation.

[Balta1701]

While U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's upcoming visit to Syria has caused the White House to bristle, a little-publicized rendezvous took place Sunday between Syria's president and Lancaster County's congressman.

 

And though Bush administration officials have been criticizing Pelosi, it's not clear what role the White House and the U.S. Department of State played when U.S. Rep. Joe Pitts and two other Republican congressmen met with Syrian President Bassar Assad.

 

Pitts is a Chester County Republican who represents Lancaster County.

 

Gabe Neville, Pitts' chief of staff, said Monday the conference between Assad and the three Republicans was intended to be "low profile."

 

"It was done in cooperation with the administration," he said.

Perhaps it was a double cross. Set up a trip for the Republicans in Congress, wait for Pelosi to fall into the trap, and go after her if she makes the same trip. That Rove, such a genious I tells ya.

[Jenksismyhero]

Congress has all sorts of powers over international relations, not the least of which is the declaration of war. But beyond that, Congressional resolutions can have profound influence over the foreign policy of the country, most notably through it's funding authority. Those billions that go to Israel every year need to be approved by Congress, Congress can exercise a lot of control over the state department through funding, and so on. Things like the Cuban Embargo are in the hands of Congress. Trade agreements go beyond that as well.

 

The President is still the key person in setting foreign policy, but to suggest that Congress has no authority when it controls the budget, the war powers, and a bunch of others is just incorrect. Here's a good summary from teh State Dept.

 

The key parts of the constitution that are relevant:

 

I don't see speaking with heads of state on that list. Congress deals with our involvement with foreign entities from within. The executive is supposed to be our rep to the rest of the world. I'm saying it's messed up (and yet another deviation from the original intent) when members of Congress do this, whether it's been authorized by the other branches or not. It's not meant to happen per the Constitution, and for a good reason. It completely undermines our system of government.

[kapkomet]

I don't see speaking with heads of state on that list. Congress deals with our involvement with foreign entities from within. The executive is supposed to be our rep to the rest of the world. I'm saying it's messed up (and yet another deviation from the original intent) when members of Congress do this, whether it's been authorized by the other branches or not. It's not meant to happen per the Constitution, and for a good reason. It completely undermines our system of government.

MMMMM'kay. But it was ok for everyone to do it 6 months ago?

 

This is a dumb argument.

[Jenksismyhero]

MMMMM'kay. But it was ok for everyone to do it 6 months ago?

 

This is a dumb argument.

 

 

When did I say it was OK? I've never agreed with the practice of members of Congress doing anything in the foreign affairs realm. I thought it was BS when members of Congress were heading over to Iraq. In today’s time with the media playing such a prevalent role, who's to stop a powerful member of Congress (and Presidential candidate) from campaigning outside the US, buddying up to other countries and messing up the diplomatic ties that have been established?

 

How are more people not opposed to this?

[kapkomet]

Because, whether you like it or not, foreign affairs when it comes to trade, taxation (read: tarriffs) etc. are so globally intertwined, Congress has that right to travel the world to promote certain aspects of what is applicable to Congress. It's not soley on the executive branch.

[Rex Kickass]

Further sometimes Congressional delegations are used more to pass along messages as intermediaries from other states - rather than to pass along messages from our own.

 

In this case, it looks as if Pelosi was asked to bring a message from Israel to Syria... and is otherwise there to probably get an earful from Syrian officials about US relations and buy a rug or two.

 

This is a helpful thing for the country, IMHO, because since any kind of foreign involvement down there will probably be subject to Congressional approval, its nice to see that the leadership is taking the time to try and understand the political situation in the region.

[Balta1701]

At the same time Congress was attaching human rights conditions to U.S. security assistance programs and negotiating a formal end-use monitoring agreement with the Colombian defense ministry, other lawmakers were secretly assuring Colombian officials that they felt such restrictions were unwarranted, and would work to either remove the conditions or limit their effectiveness.

 

One example of this was a congressional delegation led by Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) which met with Colombian military officials, promising to “remove conditions on assistance” and complaining about “leftist-dominated” U.S. congresses of years past that “used human rights as an excuse to aid the left in other countries.” Hastert said he would to correct this situation and expedite aid to countries allied in the war on drugs and also encouraged Colombian military officials to “bypass the U.S. executive branch and communicate directly with Congress.”

 

In another cable (See Document 54) U.S. Ambassador Myles Frechette decries the fact that a shipment of items destined for the military – which had been held up pending negotiation of an end-use monitoring agreement – arrived in Colombia while the Hastert delegation was in country, undermining Frechette’s leverage with the Colombian military leadership.

Blasted Democrats undermining our President... (document from 1997)

[jasonxctf]

from all news reports today, congrats to the Speaker for a job well done in Syria.

 

when even drudge runs a headline that reads...

 

PELOSI DIPLOMACY? Syrian officials claim key role...

 

you know that you did quite well.

[Balta1701]

You ever think that Mr. Bush sometimes just sits around and thinks that everyone is now against him?

A visiting U.S. congressman held talks with President Bashar Assad Thursday, a day after a congressional delegation headed by U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi sparked controversy by meeting the Syrian leader.

 

U.S. President George W. Bush has rejected direct talks with Damascus and criticized Pelosi for her visit.

 

Commenting on Bush's criticism, California Republican Darrell Issa said the president had failed to promote the necessary dialogue to resolve disagreements between the U.S. and Syria.

 

"That's an important message to realize: We have tensions, but we have two functioning embassies," Issa told reporters after separate meetings with Assad and his foreign minister, Walid al-Moallem.

 

Issa, a Lebanese-American who frequently travels to the region, said he and other members of Congress would continue to encourage the Bush administration to engage Syria.

 

"I have no illusions. We have serious problems to be resolved but we will resolve them," he said.

And meanwhile, the Clinton News Network has so far suggested Speaker Pelosi's trip was a "big wet kiss to President Al-Assad", political theater, and was making her the most controversial speaker in history. Meanwhile, the AP concluded that the idea that the trip was a good idea was clearly in the minority by asking Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, Tommy Thompson, and Michael Bloomberg.

[Texsox]

In theory, this seems all right, but there are some ethics things that worry me. We have already had a problem with candidates raising money from forgein sources in exchange for services to be rendered. It isn't a long leap of faith to imagine a person or persons giving the promise of something to a forgein government in exchange for supporing their campaign somehow. This pretty much happens on a daily basis with in the US, and it scares me to think how easy a trip like this could turn into something like that. I don't like the idea of forgein government having multiple entities to deal with on these levels. There is just way too big of a chance of impropriety.

Agreed. I also think we should stay out of foreign elections as well. Does it also concern you that we borrow billions from foreign banks to stimulate our economy? That seems more disconcerning to me.

Well, I think it's all crap, no matter which party is involved. The role of the Congress is to deal with matters at home. The executive deals with foreign affairs. They're creating a situation whereby the system can be manipulated. What if she gets goodie-goodie with the Prez of Syria? What if he refuses to work with Bush and demands Pelosi do x, y, z? She (or whoever else does it) is usurping the power that was intended for the Executive alone.

 

But it's not much of a surprise. The original form of government contemplated by the founding fathers continues to whither away. I'd really like to know how they feel about the President being in charge of just about everything these days thanks to his status in the media. I'd bet Jefferson is turning in his grave as he watches the Fed government gain so much power, the Executive branch in particular.

 

I don't think we have anywhere in our constitution where there is no checks and balances and oversite. I don't want any President to work untethered and unchecked. I also expect our elected leaders to know what is happening all over the world. Budgeting is a huge part of their jobs and if we are spending money on it, I want the officials to know what is going on.

[kapkomet]

I'm SHOCKED that Pelosi's major fubar on saying Isreal was ready for peace talks with Syria hasn't been mentioned. Now this is where Nancy should have STFU.

 

And this is why she's dangerous as hell, because she's going off on her own agenda.

[Balta1701]

I'm SHOCKED that Pelosi's major fubar on saying Isreal was ready for peace talks with Syria hasn't been mentioned. Now this is where Nancy should have STFU.

 

And this is why she's dangerous as hell, because she's going off on her own agenda.

Of course, it could be entirely possible that things are happening exactly as they were planned out behind closed doors, where Pelosi does carry a message from Israel but then Israel denies it so that their government saves face with its right wing.

[Texsox]

I'm SHOCKED that Pelosi's major fubar on saying Isreal was ready for peace talks with Syria hasn't been mentioned. Now this is where Nancy should have STFU.

 

And this is why she's dangerous as hell, because she's going off on her own agenda.

 

What is the correct agenda and who set it?

[Rex Kickass]

Here's another black helicopter thought for you on this subject. Syria is credited with the back channel diplomacy that got the 15 UK sailors and marines sent back home this week. Notice how that was timed with Pelosi's visit?