Article

2007-04-06 Home Front: Politix

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2007-04-06 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11128 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 DEBKA > ASSAD = SYRIA allegedly gave Nancy a point-by-point detailed plan proposal to achieve peace in Iraq and avoid war wid Iran. Tehran not thrilled about all the proposed points, though.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2007-04-06 01:14|| 2007-04-06 01:14|| Front Page Top

#2 This is not just nutty politics; it is dangerous. For Pelosi, this may count as interaction. But for Assad's regime in Syria, this amounts to chumps on pilgrimage. Damascus is infested by a dynastic tyranny in which "dialogue" serves chiefly as cover for duplicity and terror. These traits are not simply regrettable habits that Assad might be charmed out of. They are big business and prime instruments of power.

There is absolutely no way on earth that Pelosi is ignorant of the above facts. It is her willingness to brush aside such crucial and morally repugnant disparities in her pursuit of political self-aggrandizement that constitutes the core of her treason against American interests.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-04-06 03:07|| 2007-04-06 03:07|| Front Page Top

#3 There is absolutely no way on earth that Pelosi is ignorant of the above facts.

You really think that people like her spend any time on non-essentials like studying other cultures, etc... ?

Posted by gromgoru 2007-04-06 03:29|| 2007-04-06 03:29|| Front Page Top

#4 no way on earth that Pelosi is ignorant

Zen, am with gromogoru on that one. Despite what reality may be, and even if that was presented to her in coherent manner, her ideology trumps any facts. Hence, facts are actually un-necessary, in her view.

Posted by twobyfour 2007-04-06 03:44|| 2007-04-06 03:44|| Front Page Top

#5 If Pelosi's handlers and co-members of the House intelligence committee she sits upon have not made amply clear to her the most basic facts, like those I cited, then her actions represent a signal failure, not just of her own faculties, but that of our entire government. Once her agenda was announced, Bush should most certainly have pulled her in for a mandatory advisory session covering points such as these.

Fear not, I fully understand what you are trying to say about her own ideology trumping even the most blatant reality, but it remains up to our government to attach a price tag of censure and public condemnation for such unreasoning lunacy. Bush was well within his rights as CinC to use executive orders so as to deny Pelosi use of government aircraft to consort with known state sponsors of terrorism. His lack of moral courage to do so almost presages Democratic claims that his foreign policy needs no further undermining.

From the very outset, I have always supported the Afghan and Iraq campaigns plus the entire GWoT. At no point have I sought to be overly critical or in any way thwart the goals of these important missions. That Bush has seemingly abandoned his own determination to see these vital military engagements through to their logical conclusion is disheartening at best.

Rest assured that the disinformation, misdirection, bureaucratic meddling and overall political mismanagement of the GWoT and the Iraq campaign specifically could only be more than a little discouraging for Bush. Nonetheless, seeing him disengage his own moral determination right when it is most needed is rather disappointing.

I'll close by saying that Bush has one golden opportunity to rehabilitate his historical legacy. Should he have the fortitude to neutralize Iran's atomic weapons facilities, even just them alone without a parallel assault on Teheran's mullahs, I believe that history will redeem the other shortcomings I have noted above.

Pelosi certainly has managed to clearly demonstrate exactly why the Democrats simply cannot be entrusted with the vital task of protecting our country from its Islamic enemies. The Republicans have some 18 months to make this clear to the American electorate. If they cannot do so, then they deserve to lose the 2008 election. Worst of all is how neither the Republicans nor America itself deserves such a horrific outcome. The Democrats must neither win by advantage or default, they are simply anti-American and unqualified to even warm the chairs they sit in.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-04-06 05:45|| 2007-04-06 05:45|| Front Page Top

#6 "There is absolutely no way on earth that Pelosi is ignorant of the above facts."

In Pelosi's case I'm not so sure. She's certainly been briefed on the nature of the Assad regime, and has been informed of historical facts, so I doubt she's "ignorant" in in the sense of being uninformed.

But more than anything else that has shocked me these last five years as I've watched moonbatism grow from a few unwashed cranks right after 9/11 to lockstep control of Congress and the Democratic Party leadership today, I have been amazed and disgusted by the awesome ability of the human mind to filter out, reject, rationalize and deny *ALL* factual information that contradicts their cherished beliefs.

Nancy Pelosi's not uninformed; she's willfully ignorant. "Functionally stupid".

Posted by Dave D.">Dave D. 2007-04-06 06:33|| 2007-04-06 06:33|| Front Page Top

#7 Nancy Pelosi's not uninformed; she's willfully ignorant. "Functionally stupid".

I wouldn't even go that far. She knows who and what Assad is. She just thinks that her country's greatest enemies are her fellow citizens in the Republican party.

Posted by Mike 2007-04-06 06:49|| 2007-04-06 06:49|| Front Page Top

#8 Pelosi may have violated the Logan Act and thus committed a criminal act.

Posted by JohnQC 2007-04-06 10:33|| 2007-04-06 10:33|| Front Page Top

#9 She's certainly been briefed on the nature of the Assad regime, and has been informed of historical facts, so I doubt she's "ignorant" in in the sense of being uninformed.

No big deal, she thrived during the Clinton Era.

Posted by Shipman">Shipman 2007-04-06 11:54|| 2007-04-06 11:54|| Front Page Top

#10 Pelosi has effectively removed herself from the relevant list. Self destruction seems to be rampant among democrats. Thank you God, please continue to separate the fools from the honorable.

Posted by wxjames 2007-04-06 12:07|| 2007-04-06 12:07|| Front Page Top

#11 Pelosi was nuts to visit with Assad

Yes, So.
We already knew she was Power-Mad.

Posted by Redneck Jim 2007-04-06 16:39|| 2007-04-06 16:39|| Front Page Top

#12 She's certainly been briefed on the nature of the Assad regime, and has been informed of historical facts, so I doubt she's "ignorant" in in the sense of being uninformed.

Then Bush should have had the Attorney General in attendance to inform Pelosi that her consorting with Assad would be interpreted as a violation of the Logan Act and result in her arrest upon return to American soil.

Bush was insane to leave any stone unturned in preventing this foreign policy disaster. He has been made to look powerless and allowed the Democrats to assume a mantle of immunity from even the most blatant treason.

I don't give a flying fuck if Bush wastes $10,000,000 of my tax dollars in an unsuccessful attempted to prosecute Pelosi for violation of the Logan Act. This is something that must be instituted STAT in order to halt more of this treasonous bullshit.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-04-06 17:12|| 2007-04-06 17:12|| Front Page Top

#13 our SD County (North) Republican - Darrell Issa (Lebanese heritage) - did the same tour, and should be equally ashamed in his Assad-licking. It's a mutual-opportunity effort to look bad

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2007-04-06 18:10|| 2007-04-06 18:10|| Front Page Top

#14 What the Democrats are doing with Pelosi is trying to form a shadow presidency and government. They are really throwing out the Constitution here.
Congress gets: 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, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
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 provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Notice what Congress gets in Foreign Policy, Command decisions and outlook?
Zilch.
I doubt that any Congresscritter from *either* party actually bothers to READ this document known as the US Constitution. I do not see such things as 'setting timetables for troops' anywhere in that language. I do not see where funding for a war may have such attached to it, either.
And during a time when Congress has authorized the forces of the Union to embark upon activities in a Foreign Nation, it has one, and only one option to end them: rescind the authorization. Or support the Executive in fighting to victory as there is one and only one individual that gets that power under the Constitution and that is the President.
This was *affirmed* by the US Supreme Court in the US v. Curtiss-Wright case with the following notable in the Held section:
(7) The investment of the Federal Government with the powers of external sovereignty did not depend upon the affirmative grants of the Constitution. P. 318.
(8) In the international field, the sovereignty of the United States is complete. Id.
(9) In international relations, the President is the sole organ of the Federal Government. P. 319.
(10) In view of the delicacy of foreign relations and of the power peculiar to the President in this regard, Congressional legislation which is to be made effective in the international field must [p306] often accord to him a degree of discretion and freedom which would not be admissible were domestic affairs alone involved. P. 319.
(11) The marked difference between foreign and domestic affairs in this respect is recognized in the dealings of the houses of Congress with executive departments. P. 321.
Notice that these are the outlook of the United States as upheld by the Supreme Court and that Congress gets no say in Foreign Policy, and is to give due deference to the powers of the President in that field. Congress set up a singular policy of using force in Iraq with its war powers and the President is executing them. Because that is *it* for Congress on that front, beyond the Treaties Authorization and regularization power, and affirming Ambassadors, and commerce regularization via Treaty language. Thats it for Congress, and the Treaty Authorization and Ambassador confirmation are in the Senate only.

Posted by Deacon Blues">Deacon Blues 2007-04-06 19:44|| 2007-04-06 19:44|| Front Page Top

23:56 Mac
23:39 Throger Thains8048
23:36 twobyfour
23:35 WTF
23:32 Jackal
23:27 Jackal
23:26 Procopius2k
23:19 Procopius2k
23:18 Frank G
23:14 3dc
23:08 trailing wife
23:05 trailing wife
23:04 WTF
22:59 Barbara Skolaut
22:53 Barbara Skolaut
22:53 C-Low
22:51 Barbara Skolaut
22:49 USN, ret.
22:49 Frank G
22:42 newc
22:42 trailing wife
22:41 Frank G
22:35 trailing wife
22:26 newc