Reason Magazine

Site Search

Piling into Pelosi

Here was Nancy Pelosi pretending to be Gertrude Bell, but now, it seems, she can hardly make it to the bell. The criticisms of her trip to Damascus earlier this week, but also of what is being seen as the Democrats' effort to hijack U.S. foreign policy, are piling up so high that all I can really offer here is a selected, annotated index of abuse.

The Los Angeles Times wonders if we really need a General Pelosi. The Washington Post confirms that we do not. USA Today says it's not the speaker's role to unfreeze relations with Syria's dictator, Bashar Assad. And the Wall Street Journal mentions a major foreign stake involved, namely that Syria saw the Pelosi visit as a means of wriggling out of the investigation into the murder of the late Lebanese prime minister, Rafiq Hariri, which Syria's leadership almost certainly masterminded.

After failing to mention the trip for several days, the New York Times editorial board, which supports engagement with Syria, finally took a position on the Damascus visit, and hedged. The editors repeated the canard that engaging Syria might break it away from Iran (a position the Syrians have scoffed at), but nevertheless managed to agree that Pelosi's "job is to spur the Bush administration to pursue active diplomacy, not to attempt to conduct that diplomacy herself."

Writing in the Philadelphia Inquirer, Claudia Rosett observed that Pelosi was "nuts" to visit Damascus. In the National Review, the editors thought the speaker raised "the white flag all over the Middle East." In the Weekly Standard, Fred Barnes got a few good licks in. Here is my own contribution in the Daily Star, which Little Green Footballs was kind enough to link to. The comments section makes it interesting. In another post, LGF pointed to Pelosi's growing fan club in the Middle East. 

Among the first bloggers to savage Pelosi, in several successive posts from his pen in Bayside, was Tony Badran, who hosts the Across the Bay blog. Lee Smith, writing in Across the Bay, spills his bile all over Tom Lantos, who accompanied Pelosi and, almost magically, seemed to forget how openly critical he had been of the Syrian regime in the past. On his blog, Syrian dissident Ammar Abdulhamid explained what was at stake in Pelosi's trip with respect to human rights in Syria, and he linked to this commentary published in the Daily Star on Pelosi's silence on human rights issues while she toured Assad's domain. IraqPundit described Pelosi as "blundering" around Damascus, in a visit that is "a dream come true for the desperate Assad regime; she might as well be reading from a script provided by Assad's public relations people."

The saga will continue, and you can follow all the blogs here. No need for Pelosi to search for eggs in her back yard this Easter weekend; they're mostly dripping from her face.

Send this article to:

« The ACLU Defends Gun Rights | Main | If You Aren't Growing Tomatoes,… »

Comments to "Piling into Pelosi":

Doc | April 7, 2007, 6:19am | #

Other than 'she's not a republican' what's crawled up all these people's asses?

Grotius | April 7, 2007, 6:44am | #

I'm curious what folks would like to replace the Assad regime with? Further, how would you go about getting rid of Assad's regime?

Max | April 7, 2007, 7:06am | #

And U.S. foreign policy was going so well, until this very moment.

Federal Dog | April 7, 2007, 7:58am | #

What exactly did people expect from someone like Nancy Pelosi? This is the woman who declared about the Kelo Court: "It's almost as if God has spoken."

Mona | April 7, 2007, 8:23am | #

" In the Weekly Standard, Fred Barnes got a few good licks in. Here is my own contribution in the Daily Star, which Little Green Footballs was kind enough to link to. The comments section makes it interesting. In another post, LGF pointed to Pelosi's growing fan club in the Middle East.

Mr Young: Should it ever happen that LGF would approvingly link to one word that I wrote, I would seek psychiatric help based on evidence that I had had a personality disintegration and was trending toward xenophoboic authoritarianism, if not genocidal proto-fascism.

Were it also the case that I approvingly cited Fred "Rebel in Chief" Barnes, it would constitute evidence I ought to be committed, or at least that my critical faculties had shriveled to the point where I found merit in neoconservative hagiographers.

Yes, this entire comment is ad hominem -- I no longer attempt to reason with those who are anything but repulsed by LGF, considering you beyond hope. And quite the odd "libertarian."

edna | April 7, 2007, 8:30am | #

so a libertarian is supposed to quietly approve of middle eastern dictatorships and rain venom on anything approaching liberalism and free markets there? suuuuuuure... (smiles, nods, backs away slowly)

Mona | April 7, 2007, 8:45am | #

Edna, libertarians vehemently disapproved of Joseph Stalin but were not Dr. Strangeloves. If you, like Young, embrace both LGF and its comments section, you both are either ignorant, or depraved. Those are the only two options. You either don't know what goes on there, or do, and endorse it enough to approvingly cite, link and be grateful for their reciprocity.

Mona | April 7, 2007, 9:06am | #

Let me add, LGF had a total effing hissy fit over Nancy Pelosi's headscarf worn at a mosque in Syria -- which meltdown I indirectly addressed and showed to be insanity here and here.(I will not link to LGF in my own posts because that usually generates an invasion of vile Little Green Fascists, as happened to a blogger I cite in my first post, causing her to have to close her comments.)

For the best discussion of the MSM lunacy (Pelosi Derangement Syndrome) regarding Pelosi's trip to Syria, go here, and learn of Newt's equally "heinous" behavior as Speaker here. (Salon pieces, so brief as click through.)

Snippet from first Pelosi/Syria link:
This cheap, artificial, mindless Charles Krauthammer/Bill Kristol/Ann Coulter/Dick Cheney chest-beating faux-warrior-against-the-world mentality is now really a distinctly fringe American phenomenon....And yet the crux of our American media is beholden to that group, takes its cues from it, and treats it like it defines the mainstream. Hence, Nancy Pelosi's belief in engaging the Syrians in dialogue -- a belief endorsed by, among others: (a) the uber-establishment Baker-Hamilton Commission, (b) the Israeli government, and (c) the vast majority of American people ("By 64% to 28%, respondents favored the group's recommendation to open direct talks with Iran and Syria") -- is, in American Media Land, depicted as some sort of radical and fringe idea, something which threatens to make Nancy Pelosi, two months after she took office, "the most controversial House Speaker yet."

James Ard | April 7, 2007, 9:13am | #

I've never been to LGF but I want to thank them for saving me the time of ever reading a mona comment again.

edna | April 7, 2007, 9:28am | #

If you, like Young, embrace both LGF and its comments section

res ipsa loquitur.

i embrace reason. i suppose that means i embrace mona and juanita. whoo-hoo! baby doll pajamas and pillow fights!

Grotius | April 7, 2007, 9:31am | #

More news from the middle east:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - U.S. warplanes attacked suspected militiamen wielding shoulder-fired rockets Saturday in the second day of fierce fighting between U.S. and Iraqi forces and Shiite gunmen south of Baghdad, U.S. and Iraqi officials and witnesses said.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17978388/

lk | April 7, 2007, 9:41am | #

It does not bother me when people travel to foreign lands and talk to foreigners. The only Americans upset by this are some bloggers and MSM. They don't represent me, or most Americans. If they thought there would be a groundswell of anti-Pelosi emotion, they were wrong.

Rhinobird | April 7, 2007, 9:53am | #

I like this piece from the Wall Street Journal:
http://opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009908
It made me laugh.

Sigh. | April 7, 2007, 10:02am | #

The only Americans upset by this are some bloggers and MSM.

Welcome to that magical land "inside the beltway," where the MSM and the blogosphere count for "the public," and National Review and the Weekly Standard speak the flawless reproduced opinions of half of the US population.

Tommy Jefferson | April 7, 2007, 10:14am | #

Look who is on the front page of the American Israel Affairs lobby website:

http://www.aipac.org

Since Pelosi speaks there every year, and receives a substantial portion of her campaign funding from the Pro-Israel lobby, I’m pretty sure she knows which side her bread is buttered on.

I don’t expect she will be cutting off Israel’s yearly billions in US Taxpayer funding or their ability to deploy American soldiers in the mid-east any time soon.

jpe | April 7, 2007, 10:18am | #

If our foreign policy can be unraveled by a brief chat, then it says quite a bit more about Bush's initiatives than it does about Pelosi.

Ron Hardin | April 7, 2007, 10:23am | #

Let a thousand foreign policies bloom.

db | April 7, 2007, 10:36am | #

While I cringe at the implication that I, as a U.S. Citizen, would be perceived as being represented by Nancy Pelosi anywhere in the world, I don't see a problem here. Why should the Executive Branch have a monopoly on foreign policy?

Like spaceflight, foreign policy should be a distributed activity in which not only multiple branches of government, but more importantly, groups of individual citizens and corporations should be involved in.

Why should we stand by while any administration that we disagree with claims the exclusive right to speak to the world for us?

FinFangFoom | April 7, 2007, 10:47am | #

db, the article linked by Rhinobird discusses some of the law on that issue. I think it is doubtful that Pelosi could ever be charged under the Logan Act, but most of the other stuff is right. US Constitutional law makes it very clear that the President of the United States and assorted designated underlings (Sec State, ambassadors, etc.) are the only ones who speak for the US abroad. The executive is the "sole organ of foreign policy." This isn't to say that the Congress can have no say at all, but that Congress can only, to a limited degree, tell the President what to do.

Mona | April 7, 2007, 10:50am | #

I don't see a problem here. Why should the Executive Branch have a monopoly on foreign policy?

In some ways it does, but not in any manner Nancy Pelosi breached. All if this mouth-breathing Pelosi Derangement hysterics seems oblivious to the fact that there exists the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Ayn Randian | April 7, 2007, 10:56am | #

or their [Israel's] ability to deploy American soldiers in the mid-east any time soon.

Wow, it never ends, does it? Damn those Jews and their secret control of our military! Why, just the other day my Jewish overlords whispered in my ear about their next nefarious plot...
/sarcasm

eb | April 7, 2007, 10:58am | #

Mr Young: Should it ever happen that LGF would approvingly link to one word that I wrote, I would seek psychiatric help based on evidence that I had had a personality disintegration and was trending toward xenophoboic authoritarianism, if not genocidal proto-fascism.

Were it also the case that I approvingly cited Fred "Rebel in Chief" Barnes, it would constitute evidence I ought to be committed, or at least that my critical faculties had shriveled to the point where I found merit in neoconservative hagiographers.

Yes, this entire comment is ad hominem -- I no longer attempt to reason with those who are anything but repulsed by LGF, considering you beyond hope. And quite the odd "libertarian."


Very convincing argument, "if you disagree with me, you must be insane". Try to whittle that down to bumper sticker size.

Walker | April 7, 2007, 10:58am | #

As Mr. Young clearly has thought about this issue deeply, may I ask what he believes distinguishes this event from the Republican delegation that met with Assad on April 1st? If that meeting was okay, I assume it is not actually the fact that she met with Syria (as others have recently). Instead it must be over some concern that she personally might say something at that would jeopardize White House foreign policy.

I understand this fear, given the Republican's track record of doing exactly this during the Clinton years (Google Gingrich's China trip). Had she done this, then the outrage would have been justified. However, there is no evidence that she did this, as noted by Washington Post's Eugene Robinson. And that is certainly not what is addressed in any of the posts you link to.

Sometimes I believe this magazine is ironically titled.

db | April 7, 2007, 10:59am | #

Not sure where it says in here that the prez. is the "sole organ of foreign policy." I see language about treaties, and warmaking, but nothing appears to reserve such authority to the presidency exclusively.
ARTICLE II.
Sec. 1. The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice-President, chosen for the same term, be elected as follows.

Each State shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of Electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress; but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves. And they shall make a list of all the persons voted for, and of the number of votes for each; which list they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted. The person having the greatest number of votes shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such majority, and have an equal number of votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately choose by ballot one of them for President; and if no person have a majority, then from the five highest on the list the said House shall in like manner choose a President. But in choosing the President the votes shall be taken by States, the representation from each State having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two thirds of the States, and a majority of all the States shall be necessary to a choice. In every case, after the choice of the President, the person having the greatest number of votes of the Electors, shall be the Vice-President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal votes, the Senate shall choose from them by ballot the Vice-President.

The Congress may determine the time of choosing the Electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.

No person, except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office, who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.

In case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said office, the same shall devolve on the Vice-President; and the Congress may by law provide for the case of removal, death, resignation, or inability, both of the President and Vice-President, declaring what officer shall then act as President, and such officer shall act accordingly, until the disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.

The President shall, at stated times, receive for his services a compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that period any other emolument from the United States, or any of them.

Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States; and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend, the Constitution of the United States."

Sect. 2. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the army and navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers, and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other offices of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law. But the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers as they think proper in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions, which shall expire at the end of their next session.

Sect. 3. He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the Union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.

Sect. 4. The President, Vice-President, and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office, on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

patent | April 7, 2007, 10:59am | #

thank you veryy veryy much nice wan clor spedyy veryy veryy nıce much...

Pawel | April 7, 2007, 10:59am | #

Mona

In your rigid economic determinism and doctrinaire contempt for any idea that deviates from your orthodoxy, you libertarians are more like Stalin than you're probably bright enough to realize.

James | April 7, 2007, 11:03am | #

This nonsense has absolutely nothing to do with Syria. Like so much of US "foreign policy," it's all about domestic politics. The White House never said a word about repeated trips to Damascus by Republicans; one wonders what the reaction would be if opposition leaders from the Ukraine were bullied by their government for visiting the US.

The WH is no doubt well pleased with the domestic political effect. From a foreign policy standpoint, however, they have successfully created the impression that there is, in fact, a huge difference on foreign policy between the two parties and that the US is on the verge of a crackup. True or not, it's really not smart to project that image.

Put the blame on Pelosi if you want, but there's nothing unusual about a major politician going abroad to meet with foreign leaders. Alexander Cockburn once wrote that you could always tell when the US was up to something in a foreign land by the number of Congressional "fact-finding" missions descending on the unfortunate locals. Since Ms Pelosi is presumably responsible for crafting her party's policy towards the ME, it's hardly batshit crazy to go there and see things for herself.

A sensible administration would have scheduled a briefing in advance of the trip, told her of the players she would be meeting, official opinion of them, current problems and proposals on the table, and politely asked that she not contradict their negotiating positions, assuming they actually have any. But that would require a modicum of professionalism from a White House that has behaved like dingbat amateurs from the day it took office. All of Mr Young's bile at Syria is now directed at Pelosi but, simply put, Syria is a country we have to deal with, like it or not. Pelosi is one of the people charged with dealing with them, like it or not. She decided to go and meet the man we have to deal with there, which would be common sense in a nation that had any.

ex | April 7, 2007, 11:04am | #

db,
Why should we stand by while any administration that we disagree with claims the exclusive right to speak to the world for us?
What makes you think Michael Young disagrees with the Bush administration?

db | April 7, 2007, 11:06am | #

Nothing. I was not referring to Michael Young. I was making a general statement about some of the undesireable side effects of "representative" government when some of the governed feel unrepresented.

While not a Kerry voter myself, I'm sure there are a few out there who don't feel adequately represented by the current Administration (myself included).

FinFangFoom | April 7, 2007, 11:10am | #

Well db, executive power means he executes the law. Congress can't do anything but write laws, and the Supreme Court can't do anything but tell you what those laws mean.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?friend=nytimes&court=us&vol=299&invol=304

db | April 7, 2007, 11:12am | #

Wouldn't that mean that Congress sets foreign policy through law and the Executive merely executes it?

Happy Jack | April 7, 2007, 11:14am | #

he linked to this commentary published in the Daily Star on Pelosi's silence on human rights issues while she toured Assad's domain.

Yeah, why didn't she bring up Maher Arar when she was over there?

Ken | April 7, 2007, 11:16am | #

Sadly Mr. Young's post made no bold predictions based on what the Arab world 'really' feels. I often find these predictions by Young very useful, as the complete opposite of what he predicts almost always happens.
Gotta love Ayn Randian's tired two-step that criticism of Israel or implication they have influence on our foriegn policy automatically = anti-Semitism. Never mind that most Jews in the US, for example, disagree with the current Israeli government on many major points.

Mona | April 7, 2007, 11:18am | #

Very convincing argument, "if you disagree with me, you must be insane". Try to whittle that down to bumper sticker size.

No, if you link to and like being approvingly linked to in turn by, a proto-fascist site, and you commend that site's comments section that is renowned for genocidal, eliminationist, grossly bigoted rhetoric, then you are either ignorant of these characteristics, or you share the depravity you are linking to and commending.

Pavel: this is neither the time nor place for a discussion of my supposed "economic determinism." Please stay on point.

Thank you.

violent_k | April 7, 2007, 11:19am | #

Sometimes I believe this magazine is ironically titled.

Can we get a ref down here?
Drink? Yes?

Off Topic: The Indians home opener was called because of snow. That's right, futher muckin snow. Jeez.

anon | April 7, 2007, 11:24am | #

Sometimes I believe this magazine is ironically titled.

It is not the magazine, it is Mr. Young. His brain cells stop working the minute someone somewhere mention Syria.

VM | April 7, 2007, 11:24am | #

hey violent_k!

think of how the waterbugs in the old mistake on the lake would have responded to the snow!

:)

Sigh:
"Welcome to that magical land "inside the beltway,""

nice!

FinFangFoom | April 7, 2007, 11:30am | #

I didn't say that Congress had no say, I said that the President is the sole organ of foreign policy. The only one who can speak. But, given the extremely limited number of foreign affairs powers afforded to the Congress (only those delegated by the Constitution), the President (all the Executive power of the United States), then anything that is executive that is not merely the carrying out of laws, the President has foreign affairs authority over. The President makes treaties (with the advice and consent of the Senate), the President is the Commander and Chief, and the President is given the power to decide which other governments to recognize. The President (executive) is the only one who can speak with legal authority of the United States outside of the United States. He is the only elected by the entire country, so this makes sense. If there is any foreign policy that does not require a law, then that is solely the domain of the President in both its creation and execution. There must exist such an area given that the Congress is invested with specific powers, but a state recognized under international law has a greater number of powers. Since Congress's authority is limited but the President's is only limited within the United States, the President must be the one to have that power.

Mona | April 7, 2007, 11:30am | #

A sensible administration would have scheduled a briefing in advance of the trip,

They did. Which is all the more reason why all this pearl-clutching is absurd. The WH had Pelosi briefed in advance of her trip, and she didn't stray from message.

LWM | April 7, 2007, 11:32am | #

It's not scientific, like Altemeyer's work, but I know most of you "Libertarians" can get behind something simple like this:

LittleGreenFootballs? or Late German Fascists? (Quiz)

http://www.drmenlo.com/lgfquiz/

It's like a Nolan test on steroids so half of you should be able to complete at least half of it.

Shem | April 7, 2007, 11:43am | #

As Mr. Young clearly has thought about this issue deeply, may I ask what he believes distinguishes this event from the Republican delegation that met with Assad on April 1st?

I really would like to hear Michael Young's response to this.

Mona | April 7, 2007, 11:48am | #

Do take the "quiz" LWM links to (I'll embed it here); it is most instructive as to the mentality Michael Young aligns himself with by openly affiliating with LGF and its foul comments section.

Jim Bob | April 7, 2007, 11:57am | #

Mona,

I hear if you periodically unclench your sphincter, people who disagree with you start looking less like monsters and more like muppets.

Guy Montag | April 7, 2007, 12:04pm | #

Michael Young, I am amazed that your post made it past Reason's editorial board.

Hopefully, a federal judge wherever Ms. Pelosi (and the congresscritters who traveled with her) will issue a warrant for the arrest of them all to investigate misappropriations of federal funds for the trip. Yes, and I include any Republicans who went on an unauthorized foreign policy boondoggle.

Perhaps the Executive Branch could exercise its police powers in this affair too.

Mona | April 7, 2007, 12:05pm | #

I hear if you periodically unclench your sphincter, people who disagree with you start looking less like monsters and more like muppets.

It would be pathological to regard LGF -- and especially its comments section -- as "muppets."

Guy Montag | April 7, 2007, 12:05pm | #

Hopefully, a federal judge wherever Ms. Pelosi resides while in the DC area

ex | April 7, 2007, 12:15pm | #

Guy Montag,

You bring up a good point. What do the other Reason people make of Michael Young? I don't subscribe to Reason (so I can't cancel anything!), but I read it a lot, and don't really remember any of their antiwar writers ever challenging Young on this stuff. To misquote him, "It would make the comments section interesting."

unseen | April 7, 2007, 12:42pm | #

Doesn't anyone read or understand the constitution? If you want the speaker of the house to be Sec of State change the constitution. This is nothing but a power grab from the dems. They only won one branch of government not three. Until they win the Presidential election they should stop this unlawful unconstitutional power grab.

LWM | April 7, 2007, 12:48pm | #

Does Mr. Young get another paycheck from the Pentagon, DoD, DIA, CIA, one of them, I wonder? Maybe he takes his marching orders from Cheney himself. A look at his bio tells me he has been approached, if not hired, and his keen analysis of the Hezbollah victory and IDF defeat last year tells me he's definiitely wired in and not just a mere propagandist, although that's what he is doing here.

LWM | April 7, 2007, 12:54pm | #

Power grab?

Bwahaha.

That's what you do with power. You use it to grab more. Nothing in the constitution prohibits this. No one has ever been prosecuted under the Logan act. And they never will.

It's a quaint law from a bygone era, like the Constitution and the Geneva Convention.
Perhaps it would behoove you to remain unheard as well as unseen.

Ayn Randian | April 7, 2007, 12:55pm | #

Gotta love Ayn Randian's tired two-step that criticism of Israel or implication they have influence on our foriegn policy automatically = anti-Semitism.

Ken, let me know when your birthday is so I can buy you a dictionary and some reading skillz.

It wasn't an "Implication" on Tommy Jefferson's part when he said this:

I don’t expect she will be cutting off ...their ability to deploy American soldiers in the mid-east any time soon.

That's not an implication, genius. That's out-and-out saying "Israel controls our military" That's the kind of 'criticism' that usually gets followed by some Mel Gibson-esque "And 'Israel' controls Hollywood...and 'Israel' controls all the money" The implication (do I need to define that for you?) is clearly that Israel is code for "teh Jews"

brotherben | April 7, 2007, 1:07pm | #

I am too lazy too read everything.
Has someone mentioned the 3 republicans that were there and met with the syrians the day before Pelosi?

GCA | April 7, 2007, 1:11pm | #

I am tired of people like Mona and Edna who find it impossible to put forth any argument without demeaning all who disagree with them. Such attacks, in some cases personal, highlight the fragility of their arguments and, I suspect, the at the very minimum, the latent doubts these advocates have in their own "reasoning" and the arguments they put forth.

Oh, and about Gingrich's 1997 transgression: yes, it was wrong and violated the Logan Act. The Clinton administration should probably have made more of it than they did. But to use this example to defend Pelosi's conduct is reminiscent of the arguments made by the child caught filching cookies from the cookie jar (Newt did it and got away with it...).

Pelosi is no friend to libertarians and I seriously question her judgment and understanding of the current world condition. I really find it offensive that she outright lied to Assad about what she was told by Olmert concerning Israel's position re peace negotiations and wonder what, if anything, she could have been thinking. Condescending Grandma Pelosi, who talks down to many who far surpass her intellectually, is doing enough damage to libertarian positions domestically. I will thank her to limit her actions to harming us at home.

brotherben | April 7, 2007, 1:26pm | #

"Has someone mentioned the 3 republicans that were there and met with the syrians the day before Pelosi?"

They were:Frank Wolf, Joe Pitts, and Robert Aderholt. They met with President Assad On sunday.
Isn't Mr. Bush outraged at this powerbrab also?

carol | April 7, 2007, 1:29pm | #

Great article. I think Pelosi just put the last nail in the coffin of the Democratic party. (thank god) except she has done much damage to many countries through this ARROGANT exercise of hers. She has not only damaged the UNITED STATES, she has caused considerable damage to LEBANON, ISRAEL and IRAQ not to mention human rights in Syria and other muslim countries who are trying to get rid of these regimes. This woman needs to be tried under the Logan Act or Better yet for TREASON!!!! She is the biggest DUMB ASS to ever get elected!

carol | April 7, 2007, 1:34pm | #

brotherben,

the repubs that went were not getting the publicity because they are not the Speaker of the House, and I am not sure yet why they went. IF they were there to do the same thing as pelosi (sending the wrong message and against President Bush's wishes) then they too should suffer the consequenses! She however needs to suffer more. Her stupidity generated more harm than those repubs or Howard Dean or any other idiot that went to see Assad. All of them were ignored by the media because those people don't have any clout... but Pelosi, BIG BIG MISTAKE to go there. she should have known better!

Mark B. | April 7, 2007, 1:34pm | #

From the articles I've seen cited from Ha'aretz and the Jerusalem Post, if anyone's guilty of prevarication here it's probably Prime Minister Olmert. My guess is that he was hoping to use Pelosi to transmit an informal message from Israel to Syria, then was forced to backpeddle when the newspapers got wind of it. Given that Olmert's political position is extremely shaky right now after the Lebanon excursion last year, the resignation of the Chief of Staff and the criminal investigation of the President, he probably didn't have much choice.

For those blog and editorial writers fulminating about the potential damage Ms Pelosi could have done to US Middle Eastern policy, I have a question: how could she have made things much worse then they are now? If the US had a strong, effective SecState and clearly effective programs in place, there would probably be a lot less opportunity for Congresspeople to engage in this form of "grandstanding."

P Brooks | April 7, 2007, 1:38pm | #

Did Pelosi bring a signed treaty home with her? I must have missed that part.

lk | April 7, 2007, 1:41pm | #

Pelosi is not "suffering" and has not put any nails in any coffins, except to those who hated her before she went to Syria. And those people hate her becasue she's a she, she comes from SAN FRANCISCO, and her party thumped the Repubs in Novemeber. I like her because she is a foxy Grandma.

Alan Vanneman | April 7, 2007, 2:05pm | #

Piling into Pelosi, or mashin' on Michael? If you're reading these responses, Mike, I'm sorry, but an awful lot of Americans have lost faith in the Bush foreign policy. I read your trenchant analysis of the situation in Lebanon, and, frankly, you didn't convince me of a thing. To bring a "new order to the Middle East," as Condi Rice so naively proposed, would require an occupation force of not 100,000 soldiers, but 1 million, at least. We would have kids throwing rocks at us for the next century. I'm sorry, but secular humanism is not going to come to the Middle East on American bayonets. You're going to have to figure out how to do it on your own.

Mona | April 7, 2007, 2:12pm | #

I am tired of people like Mona and Edna who find it impossible to put forth any argument without demeaning all who disagree with them.

MMMM-kay. And I would similarly "demean" someone who was proud of links to and from Stormfront and who liked the comments section there. One does not engage persons happily (that is, approvingly) citing either Stormfront or LGF -- and its notoriously rabid comments section -- in discourse, one ridicules and exposes them for the depravity they either share, or find acceptable.

RE | April 7, 2007, 2:35pm | #

Doc, what has folks like the Washington Post and others upset is the Speaker of the House of Representatives trying to to make Foreign Policy.
As per the US Constitution, that's way, way outside the job description.

Les | April 7, 2007, 2:38pm | #

I am tired of people like Mona and Edna who find it impossible to put forth any argument without demeaning all who disagree with them.

I'm rather tired of people who misrepresent what other people say. Mona's defending herself dandily, but I'll just simply add that she's not demeaning or attacking "all who disagree" with her. She's demeaning and attacking the bigots and totalitarians on LGF and anyone ignorant enough to link to them.

It's quite easy (and, I think, reasonable) to loathe what Nancy Pelosi stands for (i.e. The Democratic Party Platform) and feel like the criticisms leveled at her for her trip are merely shallow, hypocritical, opportunistic politics as usual.

RE | April 7, 2007, 2:51pm | #

People can read any sites they wish and form their own opinions. I don't see where it's necessary (or welcome) for folks to tell them what to think about other points of view.

Self-righteous attempts to shut down freedom of speech and the open exchange of ideas make the censors look pretty bad. It's very counterproductive - and immature.

Al Fin | April 7, 2007, 2:56pm | #

Nancy Pelosi is just as flakey as we always thought she was. Nothing new there. If there are any other possible ways she could make a total bloody fool of herself, she will find them.

She posts here under a pseudonym, which you can probably guess.
;-)

LWM | April 7, 2007, 2:59pm | #

What a bunch of Idiotarians.

Anti-Idiotarian, noun


Idiot.


“That Eric Raymond is quite an anti-idiotarian.”

Nothing makes an Idiotarian look smarter than a Randian.

easter bunny | April 7, 2007, 3:02pm | #

What's wrong with LGF? I kinda like it. Actually I read it almost everyday. So far I didn't become a murderous madman, but it might happen any day.
Anyway, some comments there might be outrageous (as in every blog), but the text in itself is not racist or fascist at all, fascism is something completely different. (I could provide links, but I won't.)
Anyway, Merry Easter to all!

Chris Christner | April 7, 2007, 3:08pm | #

Mona write:

And I would similarly "demean" someone who was proud of links to and from Stormfront and who liked the comments section there

Personally, I'm a conservative who's offended by the fools posting the vicious comments on LGF, it detracts from an otherwise invaluable site. So I'm curious Mona, if you also condemn similarly extremist comments from the Left that can be found on sites like Democratic Underground, Huffington Post, and Daily Kos?

When people post joyful comments about Tony Snow's cancer returning, or VP Cheney's heart condition, or the myriad examples that show how evil people can be when they hide behind anonymity (that cretin who posted hateful messages to Cathy Siepp's website as she lay dying comes to mind), are you equally outraged?

Mona | April 7, 2007, 3:16pm | #

Les | April 7, 2007, 2:38pm | #

Thank you. Yes, I'm not exactly chair of the local Nancy Pelosi Fan Club. But if and when I criticize the woman it will be for substantive reasons, and not by joining the neocon/right-wing herd having the [pretend] vapors over a totally contrived scandal du jour.

Shawn | April 7, 2007, 3:24pm | #

"And I would similarly "demean" someone who was proud of links to and from Stormfront and who liked the comments section there"

Hey folks, nothing to see here. No logical fallacies at all.

"She's demeaning and attacking the bigots and totalitarians on LGF and anyone ignorant enough to link to them."

I don't even read the comment sections of LGF. I stick to the invaluable main site. I guess if you agree with things posted by Charles Johnson you must be a "neocon" (which he isn't) or "fascist" (which he certainly isn't). I find it quite ironic that many commenters on Reason are just as unreasonable as people on the Left/Right partisan blogs (another example being a commenter a few months ago calling that Patterico fellow's blog a "piece of shit").

"Hezbollah victory and IDF defeat"

I have a feeling you don't know what the word "victory" means.

D'Artagnan | April 7, 2007, 3:25pm | #

I want to thank all of you for contributing your intellectual insights to this particular subject. I don't pay a whole lot of attention to these personal points of view unless I need a fix. That is to say whenever I need to see myself in a positive light. A time when I can truly declare myself as a part of intelligent life on Earth, especially as it relates to the DULL (Democratic Ultra Liberal Leftists)ones on this circuit, or is that "circus?"

Rather than fall into the same pit that many of you are wallowing in right now, let me just say that Mona is a prime example of how one loves to hear themselves talk. Only problem is is that she's hell bent on trying to impress everyone on this forum with her artistic vocabulary. Fine and dandy if you are speaking at Harvard, Princeton, or Yale. Perhaps there she can find an audience. Then again, she might find herself intimidated by those who possess the same literary skills that she utilizes.

So what do my comments have to do with Nancy Baloney? Absolutely nothing!

Have a nice day everyone!

Mona | April 7, 2007, 3:32pm | #

Chris Christner | April 7, 2007, 3:08pm | #

I used to be a semi-regular at LGF -- up until about 36 months ago. After reading for the sixteen millionth time that Islam was a false religion and "cult," and that nuking all the cultists would be a great idea & etc... I finally stopped -- I couldn't take it anymore, and this was when I was still a Bush supporter.

I have not seen any significant left-wing sites in which the comments section could be accurately characterized as chronically vile. That is, where the purpose and focus of the posts are designed to elicit genocidal, bigoted filth, they do, and it is the rule not an exception of any sort.

Further, I am unaware of any well-trafficked left-wing sites at which the sorts of commentary you site abut Tony Snow or Dick Cheney are commonplace. Short of strict moderation, every political site of significant traffic is going to have an episode or even a thread that is disgusting. (And I've almost never read DU, so for all I know they fit that, but I really would not know.)

In any event, none of that is the point. I am appalled that a Reason writer approvingly links to LGF and commends the filth at the comments section there. It's a disturbing thing, and does not credit the magazine.

(But no, I'm not canceling my subscription for this who are aware of that humiliating saga in my history here.)

Ashish George | April 7, 2007, 3:32pm | #

Carol--
I'm told if you CLOSE YOUR EYES, clutch a copy of Anarchy, State, and Utopia to your breast, and say "SAN FRANCISCO LIBERAL" as loud as you can, George W. Bush's America will suddenly become the libertarianest Libertaria ever. Really. With FREE MINDS AND FREE MARKETS for all. By the way, CAPS LOCK IS AWESOME!!!

Anyway, Matt Yglesias notes: "The other thing about the Pelosi story is that I don't even understand which Syria policy Pelosi is supposed to have violated. We have diplomatic relations with Syria. Bush has not sought to change that fact. Nor has he sought new sanctions against Syria. He ordered our ambassador to come home, he ordered the State Department to cease contacts with Syria's ambassador in the US, and proclaimed there would be no high-level executive branch contacts. This policy has accomplished nothing in terms of Syrian behavior vis-a-vis Iraq, nothing in terms of Syrian behavior vis-a-vis Lebanon, and nothing in terms of Syrian behavior vis-a-vis Iran. It's a stupid, pointless policy.

But that's the policy. If Bush wants to institute a new policy wherein members of congress or members of the press can't go to Syria -- or can go, but can't speak to officials of the Syrian government -- he needs to ask congress to pass such a law, since the president isn't a God-King who gets to just arbitarily decide where people can go or who they can talk to."

http://www.matthewyglesias.com/archives/2007/04/what_syria_policy/

violent_k | April 7, 2007, 3:47pm | #

I hear if you periodically unclench your sphincter, people who disagree with you start looking less like monsters and more like muppets.

Some muppets are monsters. Not sure this helps the debate.

Monster Muppets

RE | April 7, 2007, 3:51pm | #

Chris Christner:

That was pitifully transparent. I'm embarrassed for you. Don't give up your day job. You've got no future as a liar.

Most Casual of Observers | April 7, 2007, 4:01pm | #

Since the President had specifically requested Pelosi NOT go on her MidEast tour, then she is by that fact alon in violation of the Logan act. The Republicans, Democrats (Rockefeller in 2003) or anyone else that went there without Presidential comment were there on the Presidents approval if not tacitly, then implicently.

Mona:
Since you've now done everything you said you would seek therapy for, please go get your therapy.

P.S. You are either a liar or you never visit any significant liberal website. I have and the vile that is pumped out there in a daily basis dwarfs a years worth of LGF. Therefor I do not believe you've been a regular at LGF either. Figgures. Stuck on the L's. Liberal Lefty Liar Loon.

Mona | April 7, 2007, 4:26pm | #

Most Casual of Observers | April 7, 2007, 4:01pm | #

Nancy Pelosi is not in violation of the Logan Act, which has never been invoked to prosecute anyone, and likely exempts congresspersons anyway. I know Rush and the deranged right-o-sphere are pushing this silly meme and you are regurgitating it, but I have looked into the history and actual text of the Logan Act (as a result of participating at a cerebral "left-wing" blog with many lawyers, acdemics and merely smart folks who, you know, actually know something about such things), and the whole trope is absurd. I'll get you some links -- take the time to do it -- if you promise you would read them.

Nor am I a liar. I voted for Bush in '04, as regulars here are well aware, and I left this site in a snit at all the anti-Bush, anti-war commentary. Most of my reading was at pro-Bush sites back then, including LGF.

I now read many "left" sites (considered that by dint of their being Bush/neocon opponents). And Charles Johnson is a neocon, just as the socially liberal Joseph Lieberman is. Ask Max Boot. It's the foreign policy, national security positions, baby.

chadi | April 7, 2007, 4:27pm | #

Dear Mona,
Can you please provide documented proof that Nancy Pelosi is NOT the biological mother of Jennifer "The bug-eyed bride" Willbanks?

Thank You,
Chadi

PS- Give my kind regards to the earth's core.

Most Casual of Observers | April 7, 2007, 4:46pm | #

Mona,
Sorry, no sale on your "I'm really just an honest conservative". I went to your blog, read your posts. You are something else for sure, but a conservative? Not by a leab and a bound. Therefore, your assertions of having been a Bush supporter begs the minor questions, when and why, but the major question of degree is clear, not much of any.
Feel free to dig up whatever links tickel you pink (a color I'm sure will look good on you) and I will give the the usuall Casual perusal. But it shouldn't take to much cogitaion for even the most novice of web creepers to come to the conclusion that there are equal links to argue counter to nearly anything you can imagine. Basing one's views on political links is something that the lefts "really smart people who know stuff" rely on their minions doing. Saves all those calories expended on doing the thinking for oneself. Even better if you can just put it on a bumper sticker.

Because the President told Pelosi not to go, she violated the executive privilage of the office of the president. It really is just that simple. If you have procreated and have a child who wants to go down to the courthouse and discuss your molestation charges with the DA and you tell them NOT to, that right there, is a violation of your parental authority.

Sorry that I can't provide you with reams of links to support such anargument. You'll just have to work it out yourself.

Ken McCracken | April 7, 2007, 5:08pm | #

"Nancy Pelosi is not in violation of the Logan Act, which has never been invoked to prosecute anyone, and likely exempts congresspersons anyway."

The fact that no one has ever been prosecuted under a law does not render that law inoperable. Nor is there any language in the Logan Act that in any way immunizes Congress members.

"I have not seen any significant left-wing sites in which the comments section could be accurately characterized as chronically vile."

True. The Huffington Post comments sections are actually far worse.

Fluffy | April 7, 2007, 5:24pm | #

Anyone who talks about or writes about the Pelosi visit to Syria without acknowledging that a Republican congressional delegation also went to Syria is disingenuous at best and a fucking liar at worst.

That's the bottom line. Every time the President or his representatives said a single word about Pelosi without similarly criticizing the members of their own party who went to Syria, they demonstrated once again that they are reprehensible douchebags who aren't really interested in the foreign policy they have constitutional responsibility for, except to the extent that they can employ it for domestic political purposes.

And by the way - Pawel, I don't think "economic determinism" means what you think it means.

Fluffy | April 7, 2007, 5:26pm | #

By the way, the constitution does not grant the federal government any power to limit the foreign travel of any of its citizens in any way, so the Logan Act can go fuck itself right along with the Boland Amendment.

Richard G. Combs | April 7, 2007, 5:33pm | #

The "quiz" that Mona recommended is an old and long-discredited smear job, equating, for instance, the use of "these vermin" to refer to all Jews, gypsies, etc., with the use of "these vermin" to refer to specific individuals who murdered children.

In any case, LGF's comments are unmoderated, and there are literally millions. You could probably "prove" almost anything by cherry-picking them. These ranting LGF critics like Mona never cite anything Charles Johnson has written -- even with their penchant for snatching things out of context, it's nearly impossible for them to find anything remotely offensive by Johnson himself.

Anyone who's actually spent much time reading both LGF and major lefty blogs like HuffPo and DailyKos knows that Mona must be either deliberately lying or completely delusional.

Most Casual of Observers | April 7, 2007, 5:39pm | #

Fluffy,
An appropriate name.

If your neighbor wants to go to the court house, that is their business. If they want to go there to meet with your ex's lawyers and make suggestions or offer advice or a scolding for the resolution of your divorce ON THE BEHALF OF YOUR ESTATE and you've told them NOT to, then it is NOT their free right to do so.
The President has the authority to endorse, endure, or prevent any US citizen from meeting with the leaders of other countries when they are doing so for the purpose of discussions about policy or relations. It is the perogitive of the office of the POS to decide who may and who may not speak for the US and it's views.
If Pelosi just wanted advice on the best place to get really bitchin humus or the latest in head scarves, she would be in her rights. But as soon as the President says, no to an official visit or discussons about politics,,, She is in violation of the Consitutional authorities given to the Executive.

You know, the constitution, the thing your ilk likes to extend to our enemies who have never been in the US and want only to destroy it, but somehow you believe Democrats are expempt from.

James Ard | April 7, 2007, 5:39pm | #

Foriegn policy for domestic political advantage is the Democrat's middle name. The funny part is, when they screw it all up, they're fucked too.

Example | April 7, 2007, 5:46pm | #

Oh Look! Reason.com is the home of hate filled facist racist demented haters!

"All purple people should be burned at the stake and their ashes force fed worms. They just aren't human!"

Oh wait. SNAP! I just put the comment here myself so I could support my accusation!

Just like the LGF haters do.

Is my name Mona or Fluffy

VM | April 7, 2007, 5:49pm | #

"The funny part is, when they screw it all up, they're fucked too."

:)

and interestingly enough, they have a well-established record of fucking us through failures of leadership, ideas, and strategy; as well as mismanagement of any plays for taking advantage of domestic agenda using FP.

(full disclosure: don't have an opinion on her in Damascus. Just have a strong opinion of her, generally. And she worries me...)

oh - for all those going after Mona, you can always cancel your subscription...

[runs off]

P Brooks | April 7, 2007, 5:57pm | #

"You know, the constitution, the thing your ilk likes to extend to our enemies who have never been in the US and want only to destroy it, but somehow you believe Democrats are expempt from."

Oh, waiter!

Most Casual of Observers | April 7, 2007, 5:57pm | #

"oh - for all those going after Mona, you can always cancel your subscription..."

Your solution is pointed to the wrong group of people. Running away is a liberal Democrat trait.

Mona | April 7, 2007, 5:58pm | #

Sorry, no sale on your "I'm really just an honest conservative".

I was not selling that: I am not now, and in adulthood have never been, a conservative. I am, and have always been, a libertarian. If you are familiar with F.A. Hayek, and his essay "Why I Am Not A Conservative," that would speak for me as well. Yet, he was a brilliant economist and political philosopher (among a few other impressive things) who throughly debunked socialism and centralized planning, and for that he was/is not much loved be many actual leftists.

The thing I am is anti-authoritarian. LGFers and neocons most definitely are not. And as Bush's (and the GOP's) grotesque lawlessness, penchant for war, and authoritarianism became impossible to ignore, I drifted away until I had left them. I'm not alone, as many libertarians are ending their historical "fusion" with the GOP, for essentially the same reasons I have.

James Ard | April 7, 2007, 5:59pm | #

VM, I pray they mismanage their FP election victory by failing to pass the minimum wage, the union secret ballot bill, and, of course, the tax increase.

VM | April 7, 2007, 6:00pm | #

MCoO:

it's a running joke here... (she's threatened that to us before)

I'll take your word it's a liberal Democrat trait. Probably taint cheese is a trait of their's as well! And running away probably jiggles away the bigger pieces used as icing on smug pie!

In the meantime, I'll explore the space with my COWBELL!

Ayn Randian | April 7, 2007, 6:01pm | #

Oh man, who let all looney-tunes from the left and right-o universe in here?

VM | April 7, 2007, 6:04pm | #

James Ard:

you said it! they have lots of initiatives that are fail worthy!

(I got to snicker at someone who is worried about "civil liberties" now, but was happy post oklahoma city that the gov't was "doing something" about the terrible militias! ARGH! She didn't get it. of course. But we did read from the leather-bound edition of "Heather Has Two Mommies" (but not the sweaty pillow fight scene on page 69). We then agreed that I'm the root cause of all evil, as a straight, flesh-eating male...)

Hi Randian! Welcome home!

Dunno where they came from, but it's certainly amusing!

Most Casual of Observers | April 7, 2007, 6:12pm | #

VM;
Thanks for the clarification, I was late to orientation, didn't get the org chart.

Mona:
I've been a Libertarian since before they took their trip around to the dark side of the moon. The "hands off" concept might seem to be contrary to all authority roles, except it doesn't rationally apply to leadership against threats to the US from external enemies. Anyone who would think it does needs to take the time to review the results the Mongol's enjoyed when meeting a technologically superior vastly wealthier, yet not coordinated western world. In matters of conflict there MUST be a powerful central leader,,, well,,, unless you'd just prefer to lose everything.

Ayn Randian | April 7, 2007, 6:12pm | #

Thanks VM for the greetings! I am not actually home yet (unless you call this tiny trailer in Baghdad home) but I'll call H&R my home right now...it's one of my favorite links to the U.S.

Running away is a liberal Democrat trait.

Tee-hee! Yeah, not like famous Republicans Harry Truman and Woodrow Wilson. Those tough-guy Republicans sure didn't cut and run.

Oh wait...

Actually, cutting and running is a great President Bush trait...he cut and ran from Social Security reform...he cut and ran from economic conservatism for political points and power...he's cut and run from fiscal responsibility...yeah, tough guy President Bush alright.

P Brooks | April 7, 2007, 6:13pm | #

Does anybody have a link to the text of the treaty Pelosi signed with the Syrians? Or the official transcripts of her discussions with Olmert and Assad?

My admiration for Nancy Pelosi would fit up a flea's hind end and cause not the slightest discomfort to the flea. But...

If the White House had any credibility whatsoever with regard to their policies and plans in the Mideast, Congressional delegations might settle for a briefing without feeling the need to go see for themselves, and speak directly with the principal actors.

Iggy Or | April 7, 2007, 6:16pm | #

Mona | April 7, 2007, 3:32pm | #

I used to be a semi-regular at LGF -- up until about 36 months ago. After reading for the sixteen millionth time that Islam was a false religion and "cult," and that nuking all the cultists would be a great idea & etc... I finally stopped -- I couldn't take it anymore, and this was when I was still a Bush supporter.

I'm not sure I believe you when you say that you were a "semi-regular at LGF." You might have been, but I'm suspicious. (1)What was/is your nic at LGF?

I think you are mischaracterizeing the LGF comments. To prove your point that their comments section is worse than Ebola, (2)can you link to a comment thread (any one of the 10,000 or so threads) that is representatively awful (in your estimation)? (3)What percentage of the comments in that thread do you consider nuke-em-all-false-religion-etc??

If you could answer those questions, Mona, I'd really like to see you PROVE that the LGF comments section is as bad as you say.

Ayn Randian | April 7, 2007, 6:21pm | #

If you could answer those questions, Mona, I'd really like to see you PROVE that the LGF comments section is as bad as you say.

Yes, Mona, and after that, could you please prove other matters of taste as well? Like why are lemons sour? And why don't I like the color orange?

Could you please tell me why "Iggy Or" thinks matters of opinion are provable? Is it because he's a stone-cold dumbass or could it be that he just doesn't know any better?

Grotius | April 7, 2007, 6:22pm | #

FinFangFoom,

You are discussing one particular theory of the President's powers. That theory has generally been contested since it was first put forward by the I think Marshall court.

The President makes treaties (with the advice and consent of the Senate)...

The President and the Senate make treaties. Which is why SALT II never came into being.

...the President is the Commander and Chief...

Which is a post concerning the day to day activities of the U.S. military, which are regulated by acts of the Congress.

...and the President is given the power to decide which other governments to recognize.

Hmm, that power has been jointly exercised by both the Congress and the President if I recall correctly.

The President (executive) is the only one who can speak with legal authority of the United States outside of the United States.

Yeah, that's your claim. You have as yet to demonstrate such.

Since Congress's authority is limited but the President's is only limited within the United States...

Only limited within the U.S.? Ahh, the fact that the President cannot make treaties by himself is demonstration enough that this claim makes little sense.

___________________________

It is probably far more accurate to say that foreign policy powers of the Congress are fairly significant and the foreign policy powers of the U.S. government are divided between to the President and the Congress.

Grotius | April 7, 2007, 6:26pm | #

FinFangFoom,

For your edification: http://www.fas.org/sgp/eprint/fisher.pdf

Most Casual of Observers | April 7, 2007, 6:28pm | #

AR,
I wish I could dissagree with you about Truman or Wilson, but try and find ANYONE in the CURRENT Democratic party remotely like FDR,,, Those of 100 years ago are not the indicators of todays political landscape.

As for Bush retreating on SS or Economic Consrvativism, well I didn's see it that way at all. In fact in his address to the Senate/House he specifically complained of the Democrats derailing of the SS reform and they cheered the complaint! Losing a fight is not the same as retreating.

Grotius | April 7, 2007, 6:30pm | #

FinFangFoom,

In other words, you gotta ask whether claims made by the court in Curtiss-Wright (or the claims made about that case) are indeed correct.

Iggy Or | April 7, 2007, 6:35pm | #

Ayn Randian wrote:

"Yes, Mona, and after that, could you please prove other matters of taste as well? Like why are lemons sour? And why don't I like the color orange?

Could you please tell me why "Iggy Or" thinks matters of opinion are provable? Is it because he's a stone-cold dumbass or could it be that he just doesn't know any better?"

All that verbiage.

All you had to say was, "We're talking out our asses and can't back up what we say with facts."

I'll offer you the same challenge as Mona. (1)Link to a LGF thread you consider to have a lot of vile comments. (2)Tell me the percentage of those comments fall into the "vile" category.

I doubt Mona will take the challenge. I'm sure you won't.

Most Casual of Observers | April 7, 2007, 6:40pm | #

Ayn Randian | April 7, 2007, 6:21pm | #
Yes, Mona, and after that, could you please prove other matters of taste as well? Like why are lemons sour? And why don't I like the color orange?

Could you please tell me why "Iggy Or" thinks matters of opinion are provable? Is it because he's a stone-cold dumbass or could it be that he just doesn't know any better?


Wow, and for a second their I thought Ayn might be a rational intelligent person. You sure made quick work of that misstaken impression.
Opinions about taste or color are just that, opinions. "Why" Lemons are sour however is a provable fact, because of acid content. But the preference for Orange is opinion and only a irrational person would make statments about the appeal of the color orange as a matter of fact instead of opinion. Mona didn't say "I think LGF is,,," Mona said "LGF is". Using the diffinitive means one stands ready to PROVE.

Between you and Iggy Or, who is the stone cold dumbass obviously is already evident.