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

[schuerm26]

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


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.

President John Adams requested the statute after a Pennsylvania pacifist named George Logan traveled to France in 1798 to assure the French government that the American people favored peace in the undeclared "Quasi War" being fought on the high seas between the two countries. In proposing the law, Rep. Roger Griswold of Connecticut explained that the object was, as recorded in the Annals of Congress, "to punish a crime which goes to the destruction of the executive power of the government. He meant that description of crime which arises from an interference of individual citizens in the negotiations of our executive with foreign governments."

The debate on this bill ran nearly 150 pages in the Annals. On Jan. 16, 1799, Rep. Isaac Parker of Massachusetts explained, "the people of the United States have given to the executive department the power to negotiate with foreign governments, and to carry on all foreign relations, and that it is therefore an usurpation of that power for an individual to undertake to correspond with any foreign power on any dispute between the two governments, or for any state government, or any other department of the general government, to do it."

Griswold and Parker were Federalists who believed in strong executive power. But consider this statement by Albert Gallatin, the future Secretary of the Treasury under President Thomas Jefferson, who was wary of centralized government: "it would be extremely improper for a member of this House to enter into any correspondence with the French Republic . . . As we are not at war with France, an offence of this kind would not be high treason, yet it would be as criminal an act, as if we were at war." Indeed, the offense is greater when the usurpation of the president's constitutional authority is done by a member of the legislature--all the more so by a Speaker of the House--because it violates not just statutory law but constitutes a usurpation of the powers of a separate branch and a breach of the oath of office Ms. Pelosi took to support the Constitution.


The Supreme Court has spoken clearly on this aspect of the separation of powers. In Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall used the president's authority over the Department of State as an illustration of those "important political powers" that, "being entrusted to the executive, the decision of the executive is conclusive." And in the landmark 1936 Curtiss-Wright case, the Supreme Court reaffirmed: "Into the field of negotiation the Senate cannot intrude, and Congress itself is powerless to invade it."


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.

[Ikohn4ever]

really scraping the bottom of the barrel for this arent you?

[Msut77]

Did the Republicans who went around the same time commit a felony?

[elprincipe]

This is an interesting question and, far from "scraping the bottom of the barrel," I'm glad it was brought up. I think the main point is whether Pelosi presented herself as representing the U.S. government or somehow negotiating on behalf of the U.S. government rather than just discussing policy. If she was just there to gather suggestions for cooperation/reconciliation, then I don't think she violated any law (regardless of what you might think of the appropriateness of her visit). But if she presented herself to the Syrians as somehow speaking for anyone other than herself, that could be easily construed as a crime under the Logan Act. It'll be interesting to see what information comes out on this matter.

[RollingSkull]

This is nothing new. Dean has been subscribing to traditional childish, simple-minded trolling of other countries to "fix our national image" for months now.

Basically, what is happening is that they're visiting terrorist supporting nations who have had a long history of operating against our national interests and telling them "Hey guys, just wait until the idiot cowboy gets out of office. Then we can go back to tacitly supporting you guys." All of it is scoring political points and undermining Bush's foreign policy while siding with murderers to do so. But, hey, at least they're not being hypocritical about it. The leftists in government have been nothing but consistent in their complete lack of ability to plan even one second in the future, their moral bankruptcy, and their only political goal being "anti-Republican."

[RollingSkull]

I'm also not particularly interested in seeing Pelosi get tried. This would come down to separation of powers (a relatively new idea for the Leftists.), and I don't want to see the Supreme Court as it stands being given yet another chance to carve a slice out of executive power.

[David85]

What about the four Republicans that went with her?

Maybe we should get the Vice President under oath and say that the terrorists were in Iraq before we invaded. I know for sure that is against the law.

Dumbasses "voting" for the people "running" this country scare me.

[Msut77]

The problem with people like RollingSkull is that they seem to be living in an alternate universe. His posts can be used as a textbook example for Psychological projection.

[Ikohn4ever]

, and I don't want to see the Supreme Court as it stands being given yet another chance to carve a slice out of executive power.


you mean like give bush the presidency?

[CappyCobra]

Bush: "Why are you looking at me? She's the one being dishonest!"
http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/2187/bushpointingfingersq8.th.jpg (http://img262.imageshack.us/my.php?image=bushpointingfingersq8.jpg)

[RollingSkull]

you mean like give bush the presidency?
Amazing how they only pay attention to the Supreme Court on a few specific situations, in this case, one that is completely irrelevant. The Supreme Court in this situation wouldn't be ruling against Bush but in pulling power from the executive branch and giving it to the legislative branch. There exists a government OUTSIDE of the political parties, and that will, hopefully, continue to exist when the Rs and the Ds have faded into the annals of history. Imagine, if you will, members of the legislative branch who want more power... even at the expense of another branch run by members of their own party. INCONCEIVABLE, you say, ALL REPUBLICANS ARE EXACTLY THE SAME. THEY ARE A SALIENT GROUP. *Shakes head*

The problem with people like Msut is that they just learned the phrase "Psychological projection" and... well, like a young child with a new toy, must run out and immediately apply it to anyone they disagree with.

[Msut77]

A Bush supporter accusing others of being immoral and lacking proper planning?

Who are you trying to fool?

[schuerm26]

A Bush supporter accusing others of being immoral and lacking proper planning?

Who are you trying to fool?

Well couldn't that same thing be said about Clinton or Gore supporters accusing President Bush of being immoral?

[dennis_t]

Where were the Republicans calling for the prosecution of Newt Gingrich when he did the same thing to Clinton in China and Israel? He was telling foreign powers not to negotiate with the president, but with the Congress instead -- a step Pelosi didn't take. So where's the condemnation of Newt from all these loyal right-wing Americans?

[CappyCobra]

Well couldn't that same thing be said about Clinton or Gore supporters accusing President Bush of being immoral? Clinton was immoral in his personal actions in the White House.
Bush was immoral for actions that question who he actually serves; The American People or the Lobbyist?

I'm not saying that Clinton was infallable but honestly, if the work was getting done (with a Republican Congress no less. Remember when parties put thier differences aside and got stuff done?), the budget is at a record surplus, unemployment is at it's lowest in recent times, getting a blowjob while on the job seems pale to the accomplishments. The pros overweigh the cons.

Where were the Republicans calling for the prosecution of Newt Gingrich when he did the same thing to Clinton in China and Israel? He was telling foreign powers not to negotiate with the president, but with the Congress instead -- a step Pelosi didn't take. So where's the condemnation of Newt from all these loyal right-wing Americans? A mere inconvient truth. As well as the one with Newt having an affair WHILE impeaching Clinton. Those facts don't support his argument as that would be deemed hypocritical. ;)

[dopa345]

Though even I wouldn't go so far as to call Pelosi's actions "treasonous", the fact that she would be willing to lower herself to ingratiate herself with the leader of a nation that sponsors terrorism just to spite the president says a lot about her character.

[RollingSkull]

Where were the Republicans calling for the prosecution of Newt Gingrich when he did the same thing to Clinton in China and Israel? He was telling foreign powers not to negotiate with the president, but with the Congress instead -- a step Pelosi didn't take. So where's the condemnation of Newt from all these loyal right-wing Americans?

Shorter dennis_t: HE DID IT TOO *runs*

Seriously, do I have to go back in time and decry EVERYONE WHO EVER EVEN THOUGHT OF SUBVERTING PRESIDENTIAL DIPLOMACY before you'll even consider the notion that what Pelosi did was wrong?

Of COURSE if Gingrich did that, he should be prosecuted. We've had more than enough legislative power grabs at the executive branch.

CappyCobra, not to rain on your parade, but I disagree with your attribution of all of those to Clinton, as well as your assertion that Bush supports lobbyists somehow more than any other president, but I ain't here to qubble over blowjobs.

[RollingSkull]

Though I'll give you everything you said about Clinton if you give Bush the same thing. After all, the unemployment rate is even lower now... 4.4% BITCHES!

[CaseyRyback]

Yea but that can be partly attributed to people taking lower paying jobs and others no longer being part of the job market due to early retirement. I know that from personal experience my father just now is making the same amount of money he was early in the decade.

[Msut77]

So anyway did the local bushbots even know that Republicans went to Syria at the same time?

Do they care? Even if they want to claim a it is only a Tu Quoque fallacy they were the ones to claim illegal acts were committed.

[elprincipe]

The problem with people like RollingSkull is that they seem to be living in an alternate universe. His posts can be used as a textbook example for Psychological projection.

Why is your first response to any opinon in conflict with your own a personal attack?

[mykevermin]

Yea but that can be partly attributed to people taking lower paying jobs and others no longer being part of the job market due to early retirement. I know that from personal experience my father just now is making the same amount of money he was early in the decade.

The unemployment rate is one of the most difficult things to measure (ever!), and every method suggested (including the current one) sucks. One of the most obvious problems is that it omits people who aren't actively seeking employment - which includes adults with no intentions or working, as well as those so jaded by the job prospects that they "drop out" of seeking work. It also, as Casey suggests, treats mere "employment" as being equivalent with something positive. It doesn't differentiate between someone earning $6 an hour who can only get 15-20 hours, and someone earning $50,000 or more.

Mean income is a better proxy, IMO, of how the average American is doing, because it provides a way of grasping at how easily individuals or households can "get by" in this day and age. A mere moment of thought shows that American poverty is not third-world poverty - having a bad house beats having no house, and having a single functioning appliance beats having to rely on the "Christian Children's Fund," for example (btw, CCF is an *awesome* organization). All that aside, look at "employed or not employed" doesn't tell you how hard it is for the average American to afford goods. Average income, however, shows that people are earning several thousand dollars less than they were six years ago - yet in that time, the cost of goods has increased dramatically (mostly as a result of the oil spike). Sure, we weathered a recession a few years ago, but your $43K (the 2003 median income) is not as strong as the $43K from a few years prior to that. It's a vastly better index of how well Americans are doing compared to that awful-ass unemployment percentage.

[The Crotch]

I plan for this post to be my sole contribution to this thread, so I'll try an' make it an expansive one. For the record: I dislike every politican mentioned thus far. I may be a dick, but I'm an equal-opportunity dick. This post won't really have much in the way of "purpose". I basically plan on responding to/commenting on things that jump out at me.Did the Republicans who went around the same time commit a felony?I'm still waiting for a response to this one, even if it is kinda beating around the bush. The issue is whether or not Pelosi committed a felony. Assuming that the others did the same thing(s) as her, they would naturally be included.

And for the record, calling someone a "bushbot" is a piss-poor way to go about anything. "Clever" wordplays don't do much besides irritate readers.

Basically, what is happening is that they're visiting terrorist supporting nations...Just how innocent do you think anyone is of that shit? Remember when Rumsfeld visited Saddam before the Gulf War (then Galloway after the war, of course)? Remember when the mujahideen were "freedom fighters" against the Communist menace? The whole "Contra" thing? I'm not excusing anything here, I'm just making sure we're all clear on this not being an isolated occurrance.
The leftists in government... Hah! You made a funny.
I'm also not particularly interested in seeing Pelosi get tried. This would come down to separation of powers (a relatively new idea for the Leftists.), and I don't want to see the Supreme Court as it stands being given yet another chance to carve a slice out of executive power.Emphasis mine.

You keep using this word without defining it. When I think of leftists, I think of these guys (http://zmag.org/weluser.htm). To hear you tell it, a leftist is a mythical individual made of straw (a straw man, if you will).

The problem with people like RollingSkull is that they seem to be living in an alternate universe. His posts can be used as a textbook example for Psychological projection.Was there a purpose to this post? Besides saying, "HEY LOOK HOW MUCH SMARTER I AM THAN THIS GUY! HE'S SO STUPID, RIGHT, IKOHN? RIGHT?"


The problem with people like Msut is that they just learned the phrase "Psychological projection" and... well, like a young child with a new toy, must run out and immediately apply it to anyone they disagree with.Oh, for fuck's sake! I just went over this with Msut! We get it! Your penii are bigger than our penii!


Seriously, do I have to go back in time and decry EVERYONE WHO EVER EVEN THOUGHT OF SUBVERTING PRESIDENTIAL DIPLOMACY before you'll even consider the notion that what Pelosi did was wrong?
That's better. Whether or not Gingrich did something wrong and should be punished for it is totally irrelevant. Putting him - and all these unrelated issues - aside, just focus on the question asked in the thread's title, folks. I think the area around the bush has been beaten enough.

Why is your first response to any opinon in conflict with your own a personal attack? This is not the elprincipe I know. Whatever happened to calling me "fucking stupid" with a "shitty command of the facts"*?

WHAT HAVE YOU DONE WITH ELPRINCIPE?

Though I'll give you everything you said about Clinton if you give Bush the same thing. After all, the unemployment rate is even lower now... 4.4% BITCHES!Myke and Casey have done an infinitely better job of responding to this one than I could.

*Not sure this second one was you, but it seems about right.

[RollingSkull]

Fuck, the Crotch wins.

Just how innocent do you think anyone is of that shit? Remember when Rumsfeld visited Saddam before the Gulf War (then Galloway after the war, of course)? Remember when the mujahideen were "freedom fighters" against the Communist menace? The whole "Contra" thing? I'm not excusing anything here, I'm just making sure we're all clear on this not being an isolated occurrance.

Well played. I meant more that these nations support terrorists that are working directly against our national interests.

You keep using this word without defining it. When I think of leftists, I think of these guys (http://zmag.org/weluser.htm). To hear you tell it, a leftist is a mythical individual made of straw (a straw man, if you will).

*Flesh slice sound. Winces in pain.* GAAAAH!

Well played again!

I didn't mean for leftists to be some sort of scare-mongering term. Because the Democrats include both the Murtha/Dean/Pelosi types AND the Liebermans of the world, I wanted a term that pointed directly at the former, with no possible misinterpretation. I could have called them progressive types, but I think they represent a sort of ideology that hijacked the progressive name.

Was there a purpose to this post? Besides saying, "HEY LOOK HOW MUCH SMARTER I AM THAN THIS GUY! HE'S SO STUPID, RIGHT, IKOHN? RIGHT?"

Oh, for fuck's sake! I just went over this with Msut! We get it! Your penii are bigger than our penii!

wang_size++;


Myke and Casey have done an infinitely better job of responding to this one than I could.

*Not sure this second one was you, but it seems about right.

(Also a response to Myke's and Casey's rejoinders) Hey, hey, I'm no economic expert. I was responding in kind to CappyCobra's vagueness. I could GoogleDetective up a few of the rarely reported stories of economic growth under the Bush administration, but dueling GoogleDetective stories wouldn't help anyone. I just don't wanna let it be taken as a freebie that Clinton is by definition better for the economy than Bush.

You can make economic data and the right mix of anecdotes say anything anyway.

[Msut77]

Was there a purpose to this post? Besides saying, "HEY LOOK HOW MUCH SMARTER I AM THAN THIS GUY! HE'S SO STUPID, RIGHT, IKOHN? RIGHT?"


The point was that Rollingskull lives in a fantasy world, crotch seems to realize that referring to his obsession with strawmen.

[Cheese]

Though I'll give you everything you said about Clinton if you give Bush the same thing. After all, the unemployment rate is even lower now... 4.4% BITCHES!

The current economy is anemic at best, even by the most basic of measures. Take the DOW. Now folks may say, "The economy is booming, we hit new records every week!" Well, we were, but you have to look at them in perspective. When Bush took office the DOW was at 11,750, today it's at 12,560. So 1,100 points in six years. And we saw a correction last month where it dropped some 300-400 points in a few days. By comparison, Clinton took office with a DOW in the 5,500's and ended with the aforementioned 11,750. During his time in office it literally doubled.

Add to that the near catastrophic shape the Housing market is in. The lowering of interest rates in recent years caused a housing boom quickly inflating home costs to as much as 40% over their actual value. In my area alone I've seen housing costs DOUBLE in five years. This was helped by incentive initial interest loans (low 3% interest for the first 3-5 years, then jumps to whatever the rate is when it expires) and variable interest loans, loans that people took maxing out their income so they could buy these overpriced houses. Now those incentive interest loans are coming to term and people that could afford their mortgage at 3% are finding they can't at 6% thanks to the lack of personal income growth (raises) over the last five years. So you have a glut of people who are quickly realizing they can't afford their homes and thanks to the gov't making it harder to file for personal bankruptcy, are forced to allow their homes to fall into foreclosure. Now, thinking a year down the line as the housing bubble relaxes/bursts, here are all these banks holding the notes for all these houses they bought at 40% above their actual value that they can't sell. And with all the foreclosures families are pushed into the rental market, rising the prices there. It makes for a potentially horrific outcome.

So, no praising the Bush Administration on it's fine handling of the economy, because I didn't even get into national debt and trade deficits.

Pelosi Article:

I don't see where she broke the Logan Act. She went there and talked to them, she didn't sign any treaties, make any promises or any such thing as far as i can tell. She made some general statements, like "We want to be on good terms with Syria." but nothing official, and seeing that we're more then likely going to need Syria in the future, nothing damaging to US foreign policy. The most controversial thing she did was carry a garbled message from Israel, which as much as it may seem so at times, is not part of the United States, so I don't see the crime. I see a wingnut grasping at straws.

[Msut77]

Why is your first response to any opinon in conflict with your own a personal attack?

If you saw something worthwhile to respond to in what he posted point it out.

It is not as if there was anything to debate in that little screed of his.

[RollingSkull]

Clinton clashed with a Republican legislature all during the tech boom, if I remember correctly. The Dow might have risen simply because of that sort of tech expansion.

Yeah, nobody pretends Bush is fiscally responsible. He spends like a Democrat! *Grin, duck, and run*

[Cheese]

Clinton clashed with a Republican legislature all during the tech boom, if I remember correctly. The Dow might have risen simply because of that sort of tech expansion.

Certainly the internet made the 90's what they were, no doubt, and as it became more popular and more mainstream the economy grew even faster. But the general shape of the economy improved drastically soon after Clinton took office and dropped shortly after he left, even showing signs before hand as Bush did well in the 2000 race and continuation of the Clinton policies was in doubt*.

* The so called 'Clinton Recession,' which was invented by Bush Administration officials who changed the commonly accepted start of the 2001 recession from march 2001 to Q4 2000. Oddly, the majority of the fourth quarter of 2000 was during the transition period, and much of the consumer confidence, foreign confidence, investor confidence, etc. would, and should, have been up in the air. Especially considering no one knew who was going to be the leader of the free world for a few weeks. So even though it took place under the Clinton Administration, you can still blame Bush for it.

[RollingSkull]

It is almost like Clinton was a +1 President of Blessed Economy. His very presence caused it to grow.

I've never heard the term "Clinton recession" before, and I've heard lots of things pinned on Clinton.

[dennis_t]

Shorter dennis_t: HE DID IT TOO *runs*

Seriously, do I have to go back in time and decry EVERYONE WHO EVER EVEN THOUGHT OF SUBVERTING PRESIDENTIAL DIPLOMACY before you'll even consider the notion that what Pelosi did was wrong?

Of COURSE if Gingrich did that, he should be prosecuted. We've had more than enough legislative power grabs at the executive branch.

CappyCobra, not to rain on your parade, but I disagree with your attribution of all of those to Clinton, as well as your assertion that Bush supports lobbyists somehow more than any other president, but I ain't here to qubble over blowjobs.

Actually, I don't think that what Pelosi did is wrong. As part of a co-equal branch of government, she has an obligation to travel, educate herself and meet world leaders. Something that other members of Congress, both Repubs and Democrats, have also done this week.

I think that what Gingrich did went far beyond Pelosi, and was wrong. She's not asked foreign leaders to negotiate with the Congress, doing an end-run around the president. But where was all the caterwauling from Repubs back then? The hypocrisy is getting thick in here.

[dennis_t]

Yeah, nobody pretends Bush is fiscally responsible. He spends like a Democrat! *Grin, duck, and run*

Actually, at least Democrats raise taxes to pay for what they're spending.

The Republican Party just puts it all on the charge account, spending with the financial acumen of a Jerry Springer regular.

[elprincipe]

This is not the elprincipe I know. Whatever happened to calling me "fucking stupid" with a "shitty command of the facts"*?

WHAT HAVE YOU DONE WITH ELPRINCIPE?

Haha, I don't remember that conversation (link ?). But if I did say that it must've been for a good reason :P

[RollingSkull]

Actually, at least Democrats raise taxes to pay for what they're spending.

The Republican Party just puts it all on the charge account, spending with the financial acumen of a Jerry Springer regular.
Google the laffer curve. I believe the tax cuts have actually increased tax revenue, and were I interested in playing GoogleDetective, I could actually dig up articles on the matter. Not on any level close to Bush's spending, of course. :P

And, if memory serves, Dean has been doing what you accuse Gingrich of doing. REMEMBER TO CONDEMN SOMEONE ELSE YOU MUST CONDEMN EVERYONE WHO EVER DID SOMETHING REMOTELY CLOSE TO WHAT THEY DID OR ELSE YOU ARE GUILTY OF THE GREATEST SIN EVER: HYPOCRISY!

[Msut77]

And, if memory serves, Dean has been doing what you accuse Gingrich of doing.

Your memory must be failing you, again.

[RollingSkull]

Your memory must be failing you, again.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0307/3142.html

Checkmate. Go home, little man.

[Msut77]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0307/3142.html

Checkmate. Go home, little man.

Ah now I see the problem, you have no clue what either Dean or Newt said.

Newt said Jerusalem is "the united and eternal capital of Israel" to Israeli leaders and ''I said firmly, 'We want you to understand, we will defend Taiwan. Period.'" to China's leaders.

While Dean did touch upon foreign policy issues (the article does not make clear who he visited or what was said) apparently he did not say anything close to saying something like we would wage war on a middle eastern country in defense of another. or saying Shia are superior to Sunni Muslims or vice versa .

[RollingSkull]

Ah now I see the problem, you have no clue what either Dean or Newt said.

Newt said Jerusalem is "the united and eternal capital of Israel" to Israeli leaders and ''I said firmly, 'We want you to understand, we will defend Taiwan. Period.'" to China's leaders.

While Dean did touch upon foreign policy issues (the article does not make clear who he visited or what was said) apparently he did not say anything close to saying something like we would wage war on a middle eastern country in defense of another. or saying Shia are superior to Sunni Muslims or vice versa .
Which is very different from what you accused Newt of earlier. From here, it seems that Newt is either speaking the usual BS to our allies, or informing China that we will make good on diplomatic obligations we signed ourselves on to.

Perhaps it would help us to define precisely what is acceptable behavior for legislators going overseas. Feckless diplomatic displays that only serve to undermine Administration policy? (Pelosi) Quiet recommendations that 'if you just hold out, we'll get the government and play ball?' (Dean) Overtly badmouthing the current government and providing propaganda for a nation that cannot possibly be considered one we are on good terms with (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/27/politics/main2404562.shtml)? (Kerry)

Help me out here.

Also, you'll need to condemn all of those before I accept your Newt condemnation as valid. :P

[dennis_t]

Google the laffer curve. I believe the tax cuts have actually increased tax revenue, and were I interested in playing GoogleDetective, I could actually dig up articles on the matter. Not on any level close to Bush's spending, of course. :P

My point exactly. He spends like a drunken sailor, his Repub lackeys in Congress go along with it, and none of them have the guts to raise taxes to pay for the spending -- which you yourself admit is far outstripping revenue.

Your modern Republican Party is the party of borrow-and-spend, drunk with credit cards and throwing money left and right. They've made the Democrats the defacto party of fiscal restraint, if for no other reason than their role as the opposition party.

And when the Dems try to make some sense of the budget mess -- for example, breaking the vague "Global War on Terror" down into actual theaters like Iraq, Afghanistan, and the homefront -- the Repubs lose their minds, because it might interfere with Dear Leader's ability to act unchecked and unrestrained by fiscal, political or moral considerations.

[RollingSkull]

I don't think Bush's spending could be matched by revenues gained from raising taxes either.

Part of Bush's reckless spending was a massive feel-good aid package to post-Katrina New Orleans because he was dragged through the mud for so long because opposition types didn't quite understand the federal vs. state responsibilities involved.

Not to mention that there were other cities hit as bad as New Orleans that simply prepared better at a local level.

And breaking down the GWoT into theaters, barring the huge bad faith leap you make in your assertion, I have never seen done as an act of 'fiscal responsibility' moreso than as actions attempting to force a worldview where Islamic terrorism is considered something to be handled with law enforcement and the likes of Iran and Syria really do just want to peacefully coexist with America, if only America would let itself be loved!

[Msut77]

Which is very different from what you accused Newt of earlier.

I do not recall accusing Newt of anything, what I said was that Dean did not say anything like what Newt said.

[Msut77]

From here, it seems that Newt is either speaking the usual BS to our allies, or informing China that we will make good on diplomatic obligations we signed ourselves on to.

The status of Jerusalem (it belonging to Israel) is not our official policy ("usual BS") and we have diplomatic obligations to China as well, since we do such a ridiculous amount of business with them it makes no sense to inflame them over something they are touchy about.

Not to mention that there were other cities hit as bad as New Orleans that simply prepared better at a local level.

What other place with anywhere near the population of New Orleans flooded?


P.s. You mentioned a "bad faith" assertion earlier, care to explain?

[elprincipe]

The status of Jerusalem belonging to Israel is not
our official policy (usual BS) and we have diplomatic obligations to China as well, since we do such a ridiculous amount of business with them it makes no sense to inflame them over something they are touchy about.

Have you ever heard of the Taiwan Relations Act? It's not "inflaming" them to tell them what the stated policy of the U.S. government is.

As for Newt's Israel thing, I think the question is did he represent that opinion to a foreign government as being any official position of the U.S. government without permission from the executive? If so, yes, he violated the Logan Act. If not, he did not...same with Pelosi.

[Msut77]

Have you ever heard of the Taiwan Relations Act? It's not "inflaming" them to tell them what the stated policy of the U.S. government is.

You do know that China pretends Taiwan does not exist?

[David85]

I say we have a trial for Nancy Pelosi over this once we have a trial on Bush's war crimes.

[RollingSkull]

You do know that China pretends Taiwan does not exist?

Politics by Msut77: Rule 1: Policy is determined by whatever placates the craziest people first. For instance, since China is more likely to nuke us than Taiwan, the Taiwanese should be left to flitter in the breeze.

[Msut77]

Politics by Msut77: Rule 1: Policy is determined by whatever placates the craziest people first. For instance, since China is more likely to nuke us than Taiwan, the Taiwanese should be left to flitter in the breeze.

My gosh that is weak.

[RollingSkull]

Color me unimaginative, but I don't see how your remark could have been taken any way other than "We can't tell China our stated policy because that ruins their 'Taiwan Doesn't Exist' game."

[MrBadExample]

Dubya doesn't need any help fucking up foreign policy. He's an expert at that. Is there one country we have better relations with now than in 2000? Even Great Britain is pissed for his saber-rattling talk when their sailors were captive.

[mykevermin]

Can we all just agree that, if this "Logan's Law" were to be enforced, the halls on Capitol Hill would be silent, save for the sighs of relief from overworked interns?

I fail to see what's so spectacular about what Pelosi did, legally, anyway.

[Msut77]

Color me unimaginative, but I don't see how your remark could have been taken any way other than "We can't tell China our stated policy because that ruins their 'Taiwan Doesn't Exist' game."

You think it would be a good idea to force a war with China?

[RollingSkull]

You think it would be a good idea to force a war with China?
Because if China goes to war with us, it will be our fault, and not theirs for crossing the ONE LINE we are obligated by treaty not to let them cross.

No, it will be Bush's fault. I'm sorry.

[Msut77]

Because if China goes to war with us, it will be our fault, and not theirs for crossing the ONE LINE we are obligated by treaty not to let them cross.

What about if China started pretending Taiwan had WMD?

[elprincipe]

You do know that China pretends Taiwan does not exist?

So what? The long-standing foreign policy of the United States is not determined by China (thank goodness).

[elprincipe]

Can we all just agree that, if this "Logan's Law" were to be enforced, the halls on Capitol Hill would be silent, save for the sighs of relief from overworked interns?

I fail to see what's so spectacular about what Pelosi did, legally, anyway.

No no, you don't understand what the Logan Act criminalizes. It merely criminalizes reps and senators negotiating with other countries like they are official representatives of the U.S. executive branch when they aren't. There are also cases where they are given license to carry messages or even negotiate, such as Bill Richardson visiting North Korea with the administration's approval.

As for Pelosi, like I said before, it depends on her own actions. Clearly her visit was not approved by the executive, so if she in any way represented herself as reflecting the foreign policy position of the U.S. government it was a violation of the law.

[MrBadExample]

Please, please, please charge Nancy Pelosi with a crime. That would do nothing but put a final nail in the GOP coffin and open the gates for Bush's own impeachment. Go ahead and charge her. I double dog dare ya.

[RollingSkull]

Please, please, please charge Nancy Pelosi with a crime. That would do nothing but put a final nail in the GOP coffin and open the gates for Bush's own impeachment. Go ahead and charge her. I double dog dare ya.

BUSH LIED PEOPLE DIED

ALSO HALLIBURTON

[Msut77]

BUSH LIED PEOPLE DIED

Notice how this is coming from someone who is unable to say that even he thinks Bush is honest.

[RollingSkull]

Notice how this is coming from someone who is unable to say that even he thinks Bush is honest.

CAREFUL WHEN YOU SAY THAT ROVE IS GONNA LOCK YOUR ASS UP IN GITMO AND HAVE YOU TORTURED WHILE HE SIPS MARTINIS MADE FROM THE BLOOD OF INNOCENT BROWN CHILDREN AND OIL FUNDS PLUNDERED FROM THE OTHER

[Msut77]

CAREFUL WHEN YOU SAY THAT ROVE IS GONNA LOCK YOUR ASS UP IN GITMO AND HAVE YOU TORTURED WHILE HE SIPS MARTINIS MADE FROM THE BLOOD OF INNOCENT BROWN CHILDREN AND OIL FUNDS PLUNDERED FROM THE OTHER


Didn't someone ask me why I insult you?

[RollingSkull]

Didn't someone asked me why I insult you?
...

...

HOW DARE YOU QUESTION MY PATRIOTISM

[RollingSkull]

Okay, Msut, you wanna play a real game then? Do you think Kerry, Edwards, Pelosi, Obama, Hillary!, Kennedy, Murtha et al are honest?

Hell, gimme a small list of 'honest' politicians, because apparently this is how you measure... something, I dunno. Because if you've found an honest politician, I wanna meet this individual.

[Msut77]

Okay, Msut, you wanna play a real game then? Do you think Kerry, Edwards, Pelosi, Obama, Hillary!, Kennedy, Murtha et al are honest?

Hell, gimme a small list of 'honest' politicians, because apparently this is how you measure... something, I dunno. Because if you've found an honest politician, I wanna meet this individual.

Before I give a full answer is this you admitting that even you think Bush intentionally misled this country into Iraq?

[RollingSkull]

Before I give a full answer is this you admitting that even you think Bush intentionally misled this country into Iraq?

I don't see how that's relevant, but, no. I do not think Bush intentionally misled the country into Iraq. At worst, he sold the case of a cause he legitimately believed was in the country's best interests (Because he has gained jack shit from all of this, that is for sure.). For me to honestly believe that he somehow manipulated the intelligence community's consensus would be laughable at best. I don't know what your standard for full honesty is, but having 100% agreement in the intelligence community is a cartoonish, childish fantasy.

So, no. Wilson has been proven to be, at best, attacking something Bush never said and, at worst, a disingenuous partisan. Unless there's some SUPAR SEEKRET JACK BAUER PROOF (Yours was not convincing) that Iraq was never ever going to threaten American interests or support/foster/enable Islamic terror...

[Msut77]

I don't see how that's relevant, but, no. I do not think Bush intentionally misled the country into Iraq. At worst, he sold the case of a cause he legitimately believed was in the country's best interests (Because he has gained jack shit from all of this, that is for sure.). For me to honestly believe that he somehow manipulated the intelligence community's consensus would be laughable at best. I don't know what your standard for full honesty is, but having 100% agreement in the intelligence community is a cartoonish, childish fantasy.

So, no. Wilson has been proven to be, at best, attacking something Bush never said and, at worst, a disingenuous partisan. Unless there's some SUPAR SEEKRET JACK BAUER PROOF (Yours was not convincing) that Iraq was never ever going to threaten American interests or support/foster/enable Islamic terror...

So you are arguing that Bush was deluded and out of touch with reality?

BTW you stating you were not convinced by what I posted means nothing, you basically said my anything I posted is invalid because it questions dear leader.

[RollingSkull]

So you are arguing that Bush was deluded and out of touch with reality?

BTW you stating you were not convinced by what I posted means nothing, you basically said my anything I posted is invalid because it questions dear leader.

Uh... okay, I think I see the problem. You're not actually reading anything I write. Clearly, the posts I am penning to this forum are somehow being transmuted when they come across on your end. With these difficulties, I imagine it is going to be impossible for us to continue trying to hold a reasonable discussion. I leave you with these words of encouragement.

KEEP SPEAKING TRUTH TO POWER BRO! YOU'LL SHOW THOSE SHEEPLE BUSHBOTS WHAT A FOOLISH VENTURE BUSH LIED THE ENTIRE COUNTRY INTO! WHY SUCH A CONSPIRACY? ... WELL, IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER! BUSH IS A REPUBLICAN, AND IS THUS PRONE TO SUCH EVILS! KEEP FIGHTING THE GOOD FIGHT MAN AND YOU'LL SEE THAT BASTARD LED AWAY IN IRONS SOMEDAY!

[RollingSkull]

But look out for BUSH'S THEOCRACY FASCIST CRUSADING STORMTROOPERS! NOBODY DESERVES TO BE THROWN IN GITMO AND TORTURED! Stay safe!

EDIT: ALSO HALLIBURTON!

[Msut77]

I think I see the problem. You're not actually reading anything I write.

I do (regrettably) read everything you write.

The only way for Bush not to have gotten every damn thing wrong intentionally is to have been completely out of touch with reality.

[RollingSkull]

The only way for Bush not to have gotten every damn thing wrong intentionally is to have been completely out of touch with reality.

You keep forgetting Halliburton!

[Msut77]

It is like talking to a chatbot.

[RollingSkull]

It is like talking to a chatbot.

He says without irony.

[Msut77]

He says without irony.

That is because there is no irony involved, you do CUT N PASTE YOUR NONSENICAL RANTS IN CAPS correct?

[RollingSkull]

That is because there is no irony involved, you do CUT N PASTE YOUR NONSENICAL RANTS IN CAPS correct?

I'll give you that. When you Google "[crime mentioned that a Democrat has done] +Republican", or demonstrate that contradictions mean little to you when you alternately deride Bush as an imbecile and accuse him of fooling the entire country into this war (Well, everyone except you. You're one the Chosen Few that can see through that Texan idiocy and see the true evil lurking inside.) you at least post with a less garish capitalization structure.

Credit where credit is due, and all that.

[Msut77]

or demonstrate that contradictions mean little to you when you alternately deride Bush as an imbecile and accuse him of fooling the entire country into this war (Well, everyone except you. You're one the Chosen Few that can see through that Texan idiocy and see the true evil lurking inside.)

Last I checked you are among the sad deluded minority, the majority have wised up.

You keep insisting on going back and asking for more.

[RollingSkull]

Last I checked you are among the sad deluded minority, the majority have wised up.

You keep insisting on going back and asking for more.

Are you as turned on as I am?