Madame Pelosi......

[ADAM]

Should be shot for treason......

What authority gives her the right to usurp presidential powers ?

Me thinks the squaw has gone loco....

Your thoughts?

[Diego in Seattle]

You're an imbecile.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

Should be shot for treason......

Your ignorance of the definition of "treason" is appalling. Tell you what - find me ONE definition of treason that is Constitutionally-backed that defines what Pelosi et al. as "treason," then try to make your case.

BTW...it's not gonna happen.

What authority gives her the right to usurp presidential powers ?

Prove she and her entourage have done so. Personally, I find their trip to be tasteless and an incredibly poor choice, but in no way, shape, or form does it violate the law. The current President is a moron whose repeated incompetence and demonstrated cronyism will mark his administration as one of the worst ever...but IMNSHO, that doesn't justify Pelosi's trip.

I've noticed the disturbing trend on BOTH sides of the political aisle for defining completely legal acts by the "other side" that YOUR side doesn't like as "illegal" or "treason" (e.g., the firing of attorneys by Bush, this trip by Pelosi). Get a fucking grip, people. Your ignorance of your own nation's laws is frigging embarrassing.

[Justa Heel]

You're an imbecile.

[Justa Heel]

Should be shot for treason......

What authority gives her the right to usurp presidential powers ?

Me thinks the squaw has gone loco....

Your thoughts?

Pitts in Syria before Pelosi
But county’s U.S. rep. draws less criticism

By Dave Pidgeon, Staff
Intelligencer Journal

Published: Apr 03, 2007 1:43 AM EST

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

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

Pitts is a Chester County Republican who represents Lancaster County.

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

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

However, White House spokesman Alex Conant said Monday the Bush administration — as a blanket policy — "discourages all of (Congress') visits" to Syria, a country believed by the White House to sponsor terrorism.

The House Speaker's office criticized the Bush administration for focusing their criticisms — until Monday — on Pelosi, the top House Democrat, for leading a congressional delegation to meet with Assad later this week.

"There's a Republican trip going before her, and no one is criticizing that," Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill said. "So clearly the White House's motives here are in question."

Details about Pitts' trip to Syria, including when the White House learned of it and whether and how the Department of State was involved, were not available from Neville, who said, "I'll let (Pitts) answer that when he gets back."

Neville also declined to divulge Pitts' return date, citing security concerns.

The Republicans' conference with Assad was first reported by The Associated Press in a story about Pelosi. Pitts' office made no public announcements preceding the Damascus visit.

The Bush administration has accused Syria of supporting terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah in their efforts against Israel, meddling in the affairs of nearby Lebanon and allowing foreign fighters to cross the Iraqi border to engage U.S. forces.

Administration critics from both political parties and the recent bipartisan Iraq Study Group have recommended open talks with Syria to resolve these issues.

Pelosi, in published reports, characterized her planned meeting with Assad as a "fact finding" mission through which her delegation can "hopefully build the confidence" between the United States and Syria.

Pelosi is leading a seven-member congressional delegation that includes six Democrats and one Republican through the Middle East with planned visits to Israel and Lebanon, as well as Syria.

[Justa Heel]

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/ ... print.html

Newt Gingrich's 1997 trip to China
The GOP House Speaker went to China, made pronouncements that deviated from long-standing U.S. policy, and conservatives cheered.

Glenn Greenwald

Apr. 05, 2007 | This is, of course, totally different than the right-wing outrage scandal de jour:

New York Times, March 31, 1997 -- reporting on a trip to China by House Speaker Newt Gingrich, one week after Vice President Al Gore's trip:

Speaking with startling bluntness on an issue so delicate that diplomats have tiptoed around it for years, Newt Gingrich said today that he had warned China's top leaders that the United States would intervene militarily if Taiwan was attacked.

As he left for Tokyo after a three-day trip to China, Mr. Gingrich said he had made it absolutely clear how the United States would respond if such a military conflict arose.

Referring to his meetings with China's leaders, Mr. Gingrich said: ''I said firmly, 'We want you to understand, we will defend Taiwan. Period.'"

He also said, ''I think that they are more aware now that we would defend Taiwan if it were militarily attacked.''

Mr. Gingrich, the Speaker of the House, delivered his message, among the most forceful ever given about Taiwan by a visiting United States official, to Wang Daohan, China's chief representative in talks with Taiwan. Mr. Gingrich said he had given the same message to President Jiang Zemin and Prime Minister Li Peng in Beijing last week.

Chinese leaders offered no public response to Mr. Gingrich today. But on Friday, Mr. Jiang urged him to treat the Taiwan issue with care. . . .

Asked about Mr. Gingrich's statements, a Clinton Administration official in Washington said Mr. Gingrich had received briefings about American policy toward China, but that Mr. Gingrich ''was speaking for himself'' in his conversations with Chinese leaders.

The White House issued a statement saying that the policy of the United States was to ''meet its obligation under the Taiwan Relations Act, including the maintenance of an adequate self-defense for Taiwan,'' and that the Administration would maintain its ''one-China policy, the fundamental bedrock of which is that both parties peacefully address the Taiwan issue. . . ."

In an interview on Friday, Mr. Gingrich said he had spoken with Mr. Clinton, and with Mr. Gore on several occasions, to make sure that their messages to Beijing dovetailed. At the time, he did not mention his message on Taiwan.

Several days later, Gingrich's remarks in China led to this -- New York Times, April 4, 1997:

China admonished the United States today to speak with one voice on foreign policy and accused Newt Gingrich of making ''improper'' statements on Washington's commitment to defend Taiwan from any military attack by the mainland.

The criticism was made by the Foreign Ministry spokesman, Shen Guofang, who earlier this week had expressed basic satisfaction with remarks made by Mr. Gingrich, the Speaker of the House, during a three-day visit to China.

The visit followed Vice President Al Gore's first trip to Beijing. Both men spoke on issues of contention between Washington and Beijing, but Mr. Gingrich's remarks were noteworthy for their directness and for exceeding the normal State Department formulations on American commitments to Taiwan.

China's decision to criticize Mr. Gingrich came after he traveled to Taiwan on Wednesday and met with President Lee Teng-hui.

Back then, the media treated Gingrich like he was the American Prime Minister, and his right-wing supporters had no problem with the House Speaker travelling and expressing his own foreign policy views which deviated from the Clinton administration's. Quite the contrary, many right-wing leaders -- including Grover Norquist, Ralph Reed, and Vin Weber -- went on PBS and praised Gingrich's "aggressive role in China."

They couldn't have been more pleased that Gingrich did what, in their minds, the Clinton administration was failing to do -- standing up to the Chinese. Gingrich, as House Speaker, was heroic for going on his own and doing that. The same behavior from Pelosi (which I'm sure is, in actuality, completely different for all sorts of unknown and indiscernible reasons) is now both a grave political mistake and a reckless breach of protocol.

-- Glenn Greenwald

[Justa Heel]

And this.

So far, there is no word that Pelosi was critical of Bush policies. There is word that several Republican Congressmen who visited Syria were.

So, who does the right go after?

Pelosi.


___________________

http://tinyurl.com/22ydq8

Breaking: Republican Congressman Darrell Issa Currently In Syria For Talks

The AP reports that Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) met with Syrian President Bashar Assad today in Damascus. And according to the article, Issa criticized the administration while on the visit:

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

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

ThinkProgress contacted Issa’s press office for comment. A spokesman signaled Issa may defend the trip by claiming it was Pelosi — not him — who “broke the embargo” of meeting with Syrian officials.

UPDATE: More Issa criticism of the administration’s failed approach:

“President Bush, is the head of state, but he hasn’t encouraged dialogue. That’s an important message to realize: we have tensions, but we have two functioning embassies.”

UPDATE II: Issa is heading a 3-person delegation.

UPDATE III: House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) explains that it’s okay for Republicans to visit Syria, just not Pelosi:

Boehner declined to criticize [fellow Republican Rep. David Hobson] for joining Pelosi, saying her stature gave the visit an imprimatur it didn’t deserve.

“It’s one thing for other members to go,” Boehner said, “but you have to ask yourself, ‘Why is Pelosi going?’ She’s going for one reason and that is to embarrass the president. She is the speaker of the House. She’s giving (the Syrian) government more credit than they deserve. They sponsor terrorism. They have not been at all helpful. I wish she wasn’t there.”

Hobson defended Pelosi, saying she “did not engage in any bashing of Bush in any meeting I was in and she did not in any meeting I was in bash the policies as it relates to Syria.”

UPDATE IV: Greg Sargent notes that Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA) also rapped Bush over Syria.

UPDATE V: Asked about the Issa trip, White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe says, “I think the administration’s position on members of Congress, Democrat or Republican, is very clear: We do not think it’s productive; we do not think it is useful; we do not think it is helpful.”

Filed under: International Relations

Posted by Think Progress April 5, 2007 12:07 pm

Permalink | Comment (76)

[/quote]

[Mike the Lab Rat]

So far, there is no word that Pelosi was critical of Bush policies. There is word that several Republican Congressmen who visited Syria were.

So, who does the right go after?

Pelosi.

The right has been characteristically silent over the fact that some of their folks ALSO went to Syria.

The whole thing is a piss-poor attempt on the part of right-wing partisan hacks to whip their clueless Kool-Aid drinking followers into a frenzy. The only morons falling for it, however, appear to be the same uneducated rabble that caused our Founders to set up the electoral college.

Not that left-wing partisan hacks are any LESS stupid...

[PSUFAN]

RACK MtLR.

[Justa Heel]

Not that left-wing partisan hacks are any LESS stupid...

Of course not, all partisan hacks are ignorant. By definition.

The left-wing partisan hacks are greatly undermanned in the main-stream media against their right-wing counterparts, though, unfortunately, leading to an inbalance of power.

[OCmike]

So far, there is no word that Pelosi was critical of Bush policies. There is word that several Republican Congressmen who visited Syria were.

So, who does the right go after?

Pelosi.

The right has been characteristically silent over the fact that some of their folks ALSO went to Syria.

The whole thing is a piss-poor attempt on the part of right-wing partisan hacks to whip their clueless Kool-Aid drinking followers into a frenzy. The only morons falling for it, however, appear to be the same uneducated rabble that caused our Founders to set up the electoral college.

Not that left-wing partisan hacks are any LESS stupid...

Oh...I thought that link was going to take me to the old Blastchat board.

[Mister Bushice]

Should be shot for treason......

Your ignorance of the definition of "treason" is appalling. Tell you what - find me ONE definition of treason that is Constitutionally-backed that defines what Pelosi et al. as "treason," then try to make your case.

BTW...it's not gonna happen.

What authority gives her the right to usurp presidential powers ?

Prove she and her entourage have done so. Personally, I find their trip to be tasteless and an incredibly poor choice, but in no way, shape, or form does it violate the law. The current President is a moron whose repeated incompetence and demonstrated cronyism will mark his administration as one of the worst ever...but IMNSHO, that doesn't justify Pelosi's trip.

I've noticed the disturbing trend on BOTH sides of the political aisle for defining completely legal acts by the "other side" that YOUR side doesn't like as "illegal" or "treason" (e.g., the firing of attorneys by Bush, this trip by Pelosi). Get a fucking grip, people. Your ignorance of your own nation's laws is frigging embarrassing.

Well technically, iF Bush wanted to stir things up, he could charge her with violating the Logan Act.

under the circumstances that would be really stupid of him, but he could do it.

[Cuda]

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/ ... print.html

Newt Gingrich's 1997 trip to China
The GOP House Speaker went to China, made pronouncements that deviated from long-standing U.S. policy, and conservatives cheered.

Speaking with startling bluntness on an issue so delicate that diplomats have tiptoed around it for years, Newt Gingrich said today that he had warned China's top leaders that the United States would intervene militarily if Taiwan was attacked.

As he left for Tokyo after a three-day trip to China, Mr. Gingrich said he had made it absolutely clear how the United States would respond if such a military conflict arose.

That's STILL our official policy you fucking moron. Its never NOT been our official policy in the last 60 fucking years

[Mike the Lab Rat]

Well technically, iF Bush wanted to stir things up, he could charge her with violating the Logan Act.

If the bitch's crystal is black, get a Sandman on her ass.

[Justa Heel]

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/ ... print.html

Newt Gingrich's 1997 trip to China
The GOP House Speaker went to China, made pronouncements that deviated from long-standing U.S. policy, and conservatives cheered.

That's STILL our official policy you fucking moron. Its never NOT been our official policy in the last 60 fucking years

Gee, even if you have the attention-span of the two year old you should probably read to the end of the article before you cream on your keyboard.

The visit followed Vice President Al Gore's first trip to Beijing. Both men spoke on issues of contention between Washington and Beijing, but Mr. Gingrich's remarks were noteworthy for their directness and for exceeding the normal State Department formulations on American commitments to Taiwan.

K'edYOA, faggot.

[Cuda]

You should read your own posts then, justa tard. You specifically said Gingrich contradicted official administration policy - which he didn't- then, before even trying to extricate the plunger from your ass, you switch to "exceeding normal State Department formulations"- which, by the way, Gingrich didn't do either.

Let me reiterate: For the last 60 years, it has been official United States Policy to defend Taiwan from any attack by mainland china. The policy hasn't changed in the slightest REGARDLESS WHO WAS PRESIDENT (yes, that includes Clinton and that includes the fucking State Department).

You may be thinking of the One-China policy- which may seem at odds with defending Taiwan from mainland attack, but is an entirely different matter & doctrine.

[Justa Heel]

Uh oh, looks like the board blitterhing gaping twat "knows something" about China and desperately wants to make some little point irrespective of the actual discussion.

Ponderous.

You specifically said Gingrich contradicted official administration policy

One, I didn't say it. That was an article headline. Fucking idiot.

Two, I'm not sure how you get "you specifically said contradicted" when what was specifically said, right in front of you, said

The GOP House Speaker went to China, made pronouncements that deviated from long-standing U.S. policy.

So. Learn to fucking read. That's first. Second, get your GED and figure out the fucking differences between "contradicting policy" and "deviating from policy."

Three, and you'll never get here on your own so I'll explain it to you - the deviation in long-standing policy wasn't in the fact that we would defend Taiwan, but for it's manner of "directness and for exceeding the normal State Department formulations on American commitments to Taiwan."

Keep KYOA asshole.

[Mister Bushice]

Well technically, iF Bush wanted to stir things up, he could charge her with violating the Logan Act.

If the bitch's crystal is black, get a Sandman on her ass.

bushice watches arcane reference fly over his head

[Mister Bushice]

given how Bush has ignored the intent of the constitution as it has suited him at times, and all but flipped congress the bird over his recent ambassadorial appointment during a recess I doubt we've seen the end of this type of shit happening.

but I agree. Congress has no business conducting diplomacy. Good luck stopping that, though.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

Well technically, iF Bush wanted to stir things up, he could charge her with violating the Logan Act.

If the bitch's crystal is black, get a Sandman on her ass.

bushice watches arcane reference fly over his head

[Mister Bushice]

while I think Bush is working towards that type of societal control, I don't think he's quite there yet. :)