Error editing post! Your message is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 5 characters. where's special prosecuter Fitzgerald when you need him ?
Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: where's special prosecuter Fitzgerald when you need him ?

  1. #1
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default where's special prosecuter Fitzgerald when you need him ?


  2. #2
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: where's special prosecuter Fitzgerald when you need him ?

    Did any prominent Republican do anything like this when Clinton was President ? Not afaik. How about under Carter ? Not afaik. Not under Johnson or Kennedy either afaik.MacArthur did during the Korean War and was promptly fired by Truman but he did not hold any public office at the time.

    Most disturbing of all is the universal approval Pelosi's visit has gotten from virtually every extremist Arab and Muslim group from Hezbollah to Hamas.

  3. #3
    Featured Member Vamp's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    1,111
    Thanks
    271
    Thanked 757 Times in 289 Posts

    Default Re: where's special prosecuter Fitzgerald when you need him ?

    Well actually the issue that brought about MacArthur demise was the fact he openly threatened to attack China.

    Those other presidents you have listed did their own diplomatic work. Bush does not and its about time someone at least tried to bridge the gap.

    Alot of what Bush has done should be illegal but he made it legal.
    Nature knows no indecencies; man invents them. ~ Mark Twain


  4. #4
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: where's special prosecuter Fitzgerald when you need him ?

    Alot of what Bush has done should be illegal but he made it legal.
    that's an interesting interpretation to say the least !!!

    Back to my original point, what Nancy Pelosi did WAS illegal ... a felony under the Logan Act to be precise. Her 'guilt' was essentially proven by the Israeli prime minister being forced to make a public statement disclaiming an unauthorized 'peace offer' Pelosi made to Syrian president Assad on behalf of Israel and the USA. However, I don't hear anyone in mainstream media calling for a special prosecutor ...

  5. #5
    God/dess
    Joined
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    2,993
    Thanks
    39
    Thanked 12 Times in 11 Posts

    Default Re: where's special prosecuter Fitzgerald when you need him ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    However, I don't hear anyone in mainstream media calling for a special prosecutor ...
    Why exactly is that the job of the so-called mainstream media? And why no mention by the white house (or the so-called mainstream media) of the recent trip to Syria by a delegation of republicans?

  6. #6
    Featured Member Vamp's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    1,111
    Thanks
    271
    Thanked 757 Times in 289 Posts

    Default Re: where's special prosecuter Fitzgerald when you need him ?

    Going to war without an act of Congress was illegal.

    Wire tapping without a warrant was illegal.

    Contracts, ie Haliburton, given out without full and open competition was also illegal.

    Some how all of these things have become legal. The only people profiting from this is Bush and those he works for ( not us).

    Pelosi is trying to start peace talks between nations. This would would benefit everyone.

    In the grand scheme of things who really needs to be taken to court.
    Nature knows no indecencies; man invents them. ~ Mark Twain


  7. #7
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: where's special prosecuter Fitzgerald when you need him ?

    Why exactly is that the job of the so-called mainstream media?
    Well, in a world of 'fair and balanced' reporting, the same mainstream media that demanded a special prosecutor to ferret out who committed a crime by 'outing' Valerie Plame, and who is demanding that the firing of 8 US attorneys be investigated etc., would also be demanding that Nancy Pelosi's violation of the Logan Act be investigated.

    The only people profiting from this is Bush and those he works for ( not us).
    Actually, some of the major parties to profit from Iranian partnerships in the past, and likely to profit from Iranian partnerships in the future if the US withdraws from the middle east, are the Russians, the Chinese and the French - who all are poised to sign or who have already signed huge new energy contracts with Iran. For an informed view of 'oil politics' you might want to read ...



    Pelosi is trying to start peace talks between nations. This would would benefit everyone
    The Israelies certainly do not agree ... and said so publicly. The US State Dep't does not agree, and said so publicly in advance of Pelosi's trip. The 'moderate' Arab states also do not agree, although most are reluctant to say so publicly for fear of Iranian fomented violence in their countries.

    But more importantly the US Constitution specifically excludes the US congress from conducting US foreign policy, particularly so in the case of the highest ranking member of the US congress doing so in time of war.

    Look from a personal standpoint I am not condemning Nancy Pelosi's unauthorized foreign policy efforts on the basis of their content. I am condemning them because they are Unconstitutional, and constitute a major violation of the Separation of Powers doctrine.


    ~
    Last edited by Melonie; 04-07-2007 at 02:33 PM.

  8. #8
    God/dess
    Joined
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    2,993
    Thanks
    39
    Thanked 12 Times in 11 Posts

    Default Re: where's special prosecuter Fitzgerald when you need him ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    Well, in a world of 'fair and balanced' reporting, the same mainstream media that demanded a special prosecutor to ferret out who committed a crime by 'outing' Valerie Plame, and who is demanding that the firing of 8 US attorneys be investigated, would also be demanding that Nancy Pelosi's violation of the Logan Act be investigated.
    I don't recall much of a outcry over 'fair and balanced' reporting when it came to Kenneth Starr do you?

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    But more importantly the US Constitution specifically excludes the US congress from conducting US foreign policy, particularly so in the case of the highest ranking member of the US congress doing so in time of war.

    Look from a personal standpoint I am not condemning Nancy Pelosi's unauthorized foreign policy efforts on the basis of their content. I am condemning them because they are Unconstitutional, and constitute a major violation of the Separation of Powers doctrine.
    Why aren't you condemning republicans for the same thing?

    http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/worl...in&oref=slogin

    http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/...N-Syria-US.php

  9. #9
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: where's special prosecuter Fitzgerald when you need him ?

    ^^^ well, basically, these republicans did not take on a role of 'shadow president' i.e. attempting to propose / discuss possible peace treaties on the apparently 'official' behalf of the US and Israel (particularly one which was a major departure from the official 'official' positions of the US and Israel) ... these republicans were not specifically instructed by the US State Dep't that they should not meet with President Assad prior to their trip ... these republicans did not breach official US foreign policy of refusing to negotiate with Terrorist supporting govt's ...



    (snip)"HOUSE SPEAKER Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) offered an excellent demonstration yesterday of why members of Congress should not attempt to supplant the secretary of state when traveling abroad. After a meeting with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad in Damascus, Ms. Pelosi announced that she had delivered a message from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that "Israel was ready to engage in peace talks" with Syria. What's more, she added, Mr. Assad was ready to "resume the peace process" as well. Having announced this seeming diplomatic breakthrough, Ms. Pelosi suggested that her Kissingerian shuttle diplomacy was just getting started. "We expressed our interest in using our good offices in promoting peace between Israel and Syria," she said.

    Only one problem: The Israeli prime minister entrusted Ms. Pelosi with no such message. "What was communicated to the U.S. House Speaker does not contain any change in the policies of Israel," said a statement quickly issued by the prime minister's office. In fact, Mr. Olmert told Ms. Pelosi that "a number of Senate and House members who recently visited Damascus received the impression that despite the declarations of Bashar Assad, there is no change in the position of his country regarding a possible peace process with Israel." In other words, Ms. Pelosi not only misrepresented Israel's position but was virtually alone in failing to discern that Mr. Assad's words were mere propaganda.

    Ms. Pelosi was criticized by President Bush for visiting Damascus at a time when the administration -- rightly or wrongly -- has frozen high-level contacts with Syria. Mr. Bush said that thanks to the speaker's freelancing Mr. Assad was getting mixed messages from the United States. Ms. Pelosi responded by pointing out that Republican congressmen had visited Syria without drawing presidential censure. That's true enough -- but those other congressmen didn't try to introduce a new U.S. diplomatic initiative in the Middle East. "We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace," Ms. Pelosi grandly declared.

    Never mind that that statement is ludicrous: As any diplomat with knowledge of the region could have told Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Assad is a corrupt thug whose overriding priority at the moment is not peace with Israel but heading off U.N. charges that he orchestrated the murder of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq al-Hariri. The really striking development here is the attempt by a Democratic congressional leader to substitute her own foreign policy for that of a sitting Republican president. Two weeks ago Ms. Pelosi rammed legislation through the House of Representatives that would strip Mr. Bush of his authority as commander in chief to manage troop movements in Iraq. Now she is attempting to introduce a new Middle East policy that directly conflicts with that of the president. We have found much to criticize in Mr. Bush's military strategy and regional diplomacy. But Ms. Pelosi's attempt to establish a shadow presidency is not only counterproductive, it is foolish. "(snip)

  10. #10
    God/dess
    Joined
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    2,993
    Thanks
    39
    Thanked 12 Times in 11 Posts

    Default Re: where's special prosecuter Fitzgerald when you need him ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    ^^^ well, basically, these republicans did not take on a role of 'shadow president' i.e. attempting to propose / discuss possible peace treaties on the apparently 'official' behalf of the US and Israel (particularly one which was a major departure from the official 'official' positions of the US and Israel) ... these republicans were not specifically instructed by the US State Dep't that they should not meet with President Assad prior to their trip ... these republicans did not breach official US foreign policy of refusing to negotiate with Terrorist supporting govt's ...
    That's interesting check out this statement from those congressmen:

    ''We came because we believe there is an opportunity for dialogue''

    That sounds like negotiations with a terrorist supporting government to me.

  11. #11
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: where's special prosecuter Fitzgerald when you need him ?

    ^^^ the defining difference is not dialogue, it is a SEPARATE dialogue ...



    (snip)"Congressman Tom Lantos, who is a member of the delegation that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is leading to Syria, put the mission clearly when he said: "We have an alternative Democratic foreign policy."

    Democrats can have any foreign policy they want -- if and when they are elected to the White House.

    Until Nancy Pelosi came along, it was understood by all that we had only one president at a time and -- like him or not -- he alone had the Constitutional authority to speak for this country to foreign nations, especially in wartime.

    All that Pelosi's trip can accomplish is to advertise American disunity to a terrorist-sponsoring nation in the Middle East while we are in a war there. That in turn can only embolden the Syrians to exploit the lack of unified resolve in Washington by stepping up their efforts to destabilize Iraq and the Middle East in general.

    Members of the opposition party, whichever party that might be at a given time, knew that their role was not to intervene abroad themselves to undermine this country's foreign policy, however much they might criticize it at home." (snip)

    " Today, Nancy Pelosi and the Congressional Democrats are stepping in to carry out their own foreign policy and even their own military policy on troop deployment -- all the while denying that they are intruding on the president's authority.

    They are doing the same thing domestically by making a big media circus over the fact that the Bush administration fired eight U.S. attorneys. These attorneys are among the many officials who serve at the pleasure of the president -- which means that they can be fired at any time for any reason or for no reason.

    That is why there was no big hullabaloo in the media when Bill Clinton fired all the U.S. attorneys across the country -- even though that got rid of the U.S. attorneys who were conducting an on-going investigation into corruption in Clinton's own administration as governor of Arkansas.

    So much hate has been hyped against George W. Bush that anything that is done against him is unlikely to be questioned in most of the media.

    But whatever passing damage is being done to George W. Bush is a relatively minor concern compared to the lasting damage that is being done to the presidency as an institution that will still be here when George W. Bush is gone.

    Once it becomes accepted that it is all right to violate both the laws and the traditions of this nation, and to undermine the ability of the United States to speak to other nations of the world with one voice, we will have taken another fateful step downward into the degeneration of this society.

    Such a drastic and irresponsible step should remove any lingering doubt that the Democrats' political strategy is to ensure that there is an American defeat in Iraq, in order to ensure their own political victory in 2008.

    That these political games are being played while Iran keeps advancing relentlessly toward acquiring nuclear weapons is a fateful sign of the utter unreality of politicians preoccupied with scoring points and a media obsessed with celebrity bimbos, living and dead.

    Once Iran has nuclear weapons, that will be an irreversible change that will mark a defining moment in the history of the United States and of Western civilization, which will forever after live at the mercy of hate-filled suicidal fanatics and sadists.

    Yet among too many politicians in Washington, it is business as usual. Indeed, it is monkey business as usual, as Congressional Democrats revel in the power of their new and narrow election victory last year to drag people before committee hearings and posture for the television cameras.

    It has been said that the world ends not with a bang but with a whimper. But who would have thought that it could end with political clowning in the shadow of a mushroom cloud? "(snip)

    ~
    Last edited by Melonie; 04-07-2007 at 04:04 PM.

  12. #12
    Featured Member Vamp's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    1,111
    Thanks
    271
    Thanked 757 Times in 289 Posts

    Default Re: where's special prosecuter Fitzgerald when you need him ?

    There has been little judicial discussion of the constitutionality of the Logan Act. The Southern District of New York in Waldron v. British Petroleum Co., 231 F. Supp. 72 (S.D.N.Y. 1964), mentioned in passing that the Act was likely unconstitutional due to the vagueness of the terms "defeat" and "measures," but did not rule on the question.

    In a memorandum dated September 29, 2006, and entitled "MEMORANDUM FOR ALL MEMBERS AND OFFICERS, from the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct of the United States House of Representatives, regarding the subject of "Post-Employment and Related Restrictions for Members and Officers," members of the House who were leaving office were cautioned regarding activities that may implicate the Logan Act: 'Members should further be aware of a permanent federal statutory restriction that prohibits any U.S. citizen acting without authority of the United States from: "Directly or indirectly commencing or carrying on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government, or any officer or agent thereof, with the intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States.'"[7]

    The House memo goes on to state that the Logan Act "has never been the basis of a prosecution, and this Committee has publicly questioned its constitutionality. House Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, Manual of Offenses and Procedures, Korean Influence Investigation, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 18-19 (Comm. Print 1977). Members should be aware, however, that the law remains on the books."[
    The chair of the House Judiciary Committee in the 109th Congress, James F. Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, proposed a comprehensive revision and modernization of the federal criminal code in 2006. The bill was not enacted into law. What is noteworthy is that the Logan Act was significantly revamped in the proposed legislation to prohibit only knowingly false statements made under oath. The section revising the Logan Act was proposed to read as follows: H.R. 6253, 109th CONGRESS, 2d Session, A bill to modernize, shorten, and simplify the Federal criminal code--September 29, 2006, Mr. SENSENBRENNER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary:

    Sec. 923. False statements influencing foreign government-- Whoever, in relation to any dispute or controversy between a foreign government and the United States, knowingly makes any untrue statement, either orally or in writing, under oath before any person authorized and empowered to administer oaths, which the affiant has knowledge or reason to believe will, or may be used to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government, or of any officer or agent of any foreign government, to the injury of the United States, or with a view or intent to influence any measure of or action by the United States or any department or agency thereof, to the injury of the United States, shall be imprisoned not more than ten years.[9]
    Nature knows no indecencies; man invents them. ~ Mark Twain


  13. #13
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: where's special prosecuter Fitzgerald when you need him ?

    being an originalist, I again offer this historical perspective on the Logan Act from the OpinionJournal link, rather than the rejected proposal of Rep. Sensenbrenner which does not have the force of law ...

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

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

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

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

  14. #14
    God/dess
    Joined
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    2,993
    Thanks
    39
    Thanked 12 Times in 11 Posts

    Default Re: where's special prosecuter Fitzgerald when you need him ?

    Does this sound like a Shadow government?

    http://www.columbusdispatch.com/disp...1_QU69U7R.html

    Here's a few snipets for you:

    Rep. David L. Hobson of Springfield (Ohio GOP lawmaker), who joined Pelosi and other lawmakers in a meeting yesterday with Syrian President Bashar Assad, disagreed with Boehner that Pelosi "came here to embarrass Bush. I think she came here to reinforce certain policies, understand the region better and have the region understand her better."

    Hobson said Pelosi "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."

    Instead, Hobson said, Pelosi and the congressional delegation urged Assad to curb the number of suicide bombers who cross the Syrian border into Iraq to "murder our troops and the Iraqi people."

    Hobson said the administration knew about the trip in advance and provided the delegation with a jet. "As far as I know, they never said a word to anybody until we were in the air," Hobson said.

  15. #15
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: where's special prosecuter Fitzgerald when you need him ?

    Actually, Rep Hobson was probably far outside the 'loop'. Even the Huffington Post concedes that Pelosi was asked not to go prior to leaving for Syria. When it became clear that Pelosi was not going to accede to the president's / State Dep't's wishes, she was however provided with a briefing (to try and minimize inconsistencies in foreign policy, one would logically assume). The fact that the White House was aware of speaker Pelosi's decision to travel to Syria and meet with president Assad despite the requests of the White House / State Dep't not to do so did not provide any legal authority to stop her from going. However, the fact that the White House was aware of speaker Pelosi's decision to meet with president Assad in no way implied official White House approval of the meeting, or official White House approval of anything Ms. Pelosi chose to communicate to president Assad during the meeting. This would have been particularly the case when the content of Ms. Pelosi's communications to president Assad deviated significantly from the policy briefing she had received.



    (snip)"WASHINGTON — The Bush administration briefed Democratic Rep. Nancy Pelosi for her trip to Syria while publicly criticizing her decision to go there, the U.S. State Department said Monday.

    In disclosing pretrip briefing, department spokesman Sean McCormack said it did not represent an endorsement of the visit by the speaker of the House of Representatives.

    The Bush administration's policy is to shun contact with Syria and Iran, both neighbors of Iraq that are on the State Department's list of terror-exporting countries. The administration accuses both of meddling in Iraq's affairs.

    It was unclear whether a Republican congressional delegation that was in Syria at the weekend received a briefing similar to Pelosi's.

    Asked whether it had, McCormack said: "I don't know. We do have _ we at least offer briefings to the congressional delegations who go out to the region, and in particular to Syria."

    He said Pelosi was briefed by James F. Jeffrey, a senior Middle Eastern affairs specialist at the department. McCormack said a point of the briefing was to ask Pelosi to try to persuade President Bashar Assad to change his government's behavior.

    McCormack spoke of Pelosi's briefing in denying that she carried any message from the President George W. Bush's government. "No messages in the sense that this was a trip that was encouraged by the executive branch of the government," McCormack said.

    "Once Speaker Pelosi had made the decision that she was going to be going to Syria, we did sit down and had a briefing with her.

    "We explained where we were in our policy vis-a-vis Syria, and we encouraged Speaker Pelosi, as we have with other congressional delegations that have gone to Syria, to send a tough message to the Syrian Government that they need to change their behavior."(snip)


    The facts remain that Speaker Pelosi persisted in visiting president Assad despite official requests from the White House / State Dep't not to do so. The fact remains that Pelosi communicated to president Assad 'peace overtures' that were not sanctioned by either the US or Israeli gov'ts, which then forced President Bush and VP Cheney to publicly rebuke, and forced Israeli prime minister Olmert to publically disavow. In my book at least, this clearly appears to constitute the introduction of an unsanctioned independent foreign policy initiative on the part of Speaker Pelosi - which arguably violates the Logan Act.



    (snip)"The Prime Minister's Office issued a rare "clarification" Wednesday that, in gentle diplomatic terms, contradicted US Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's statement in Damascus that she had brought a message from Israel about a willingness to engage in peace talks.

    According to the statement, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert emphasized in his meeting with Pelosi on Sunday that "although Israel is interested in peace with Syria, that country continues to be part of the Axis of Evil and a force that encourages terror in the entire Middle East."

    Olmert, the statement clarified, told Pelosi that Syria's sincerity about a genuine peace with Israel would be judged by its willingness to "cease its support of terror, cease its sponsoring of the Hamas and Islamic Jihad organizations, refrain from providing weapons to Hizbullah and bringing about the destabilizing of Lebanon, cease its support of terror in Iraq, and relinquish the strategic ties it is building with the extremist regime in Iran."

    The statement said Olmert had not communicated to Pelosi any change in Israeli policy on Damascus.

    Pelosi, who met in Damascus with Syrian President Bashar Assad over the objections of US President George W. Bush, said she brought a message to Assad from Olmert saying that Israel was ready for peace talks. "(snip)


    At least when Neville Chamberlain made peace overtures to Adolf Hitler without any real assurances in regard to Germany relinquishing 'control' of Czechoslovakia he was the UK's prime minister. Ms. Pelosi's peace overtures to Assad without any real assurances in regard to Lebanon / Hamas / Hisbullah / Iraq were made with no authority and in direct conflict with both the White House briefing she had received as well as the content of her meeting with prime minister Olmert.

    those who fail to learn from history ...
    ~
    Last edited by Melonie; 04-08-2007 at 05:05 PM.

  16. #16
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: where's special prosecuter Fitzgerald when you need him ?

    We cannot have 535 Secretaries of State. Afaik, there was not a single instance in recent memory when a Republican member of Congress travelled abroad and tried to conduct foreign policy as Ms. Pelosi has. Pelosi and Bush both prove that you don't need brains to rise high in American politics. I'd love to see her prosecuted under the Logan Act but Bush doesn't have the guts. That also goes for the 3 Republicans she took with her.

  17. #17
    God/dess
    Joined
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    2,993
    Thanks
    39
    Thanked 12 Times in 11 Posts

    Default Re: where's special prosecuter Fitzgerald when you need him ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Stoner View Post
    Afaik, there was not a single instance in recent memory when a Republican member of Congress travelled abroad and tried to conduct foreign policy as Ms. Pelosi has.
    What about Dennis Hastert in Columbia?
    http://mediamatters.org/items/200704050008

    Or Newt Gingrich in China?
    http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa...ina/index.html

    Oh wait, Repbublican trips don't count do they?

  18. #18
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: where's special prosecuter Fitzgerald when you need him ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard_Head View Post
    What about Dennis Hastert in Columbia?
    http://mediamatters.org/items/200704050008

    Or Newt Gingrich in China?
    http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa...ina/index.html

    Oh wait, Repbublican trips don't count do they?
    Who said REPUBLICAN (watch your spelling ) trips don't count ? Mr. Newt was WRONG to do what he did and he admitted it. Unlike Pelosi, he had State Dept. clearance for his trips to Israel and China but he had no business making public statements that deviated from Administration policy.

    Hastert's trip ( and I don't like the fat jerk ! ) was a little more problematic as his ALLEGED statements were at least not made PUBLICLY. Despite that, he was WRONG to have tried to undercut Clinton's policy of human rights linkage.

    Both parties have obligations NOT to undercut the current Administration and its foreign policy both for Constitutional and practical reasons. Disagreement with the President's policy ought to be confined to Congressional debate; hearings and budgetary allocations and not by multiple visits by Senators and Congressmen to foreign countries. Aside from generating confusion both at home and abroad it's usually a ridiculous waste of taxpayer money for Congress to go junketeering all over the globe.

    Unlike you RICHARD, I have one standard of political behavior. If someone perjures themself it doesn't matter what party they belong to. If their policy is correct or beneficial, their political affiliation is irrelevant.

    Btw, would you kindly stop blaming ken Starr for Clinton's self-inflicted wounds ?He didn't tell Der Slickmeister to perjure himself. It was Janet Reno who kept assigning him to look into all of Cinton's troubles and foibles and he CLEARED Clinton for everything except perjury and obstruction of justice for which the Congress impeached him ( which btw I think was a mistake.) Not because he was innocent but because
    his perjury and obstruction involved a private law-suit totally unrelated to his OFFICIAL conduct and his political campaigns. I thought and still think the Senate should have censured him and moved on.

  19. #19
    God/dess
    Joined
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    2,993
    Thanks
    39
    Thanked 12 Times in 11 Posts

    Default Re: where's special prosecuter Fitzgerald when you need him ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Stoner View Post
    Unlike you RICHARD, I have one standard of political behavior. If someone perjures themself it doesn't matter what party they belong to. If their policy is correct or beneficial, their political affiliation is irrelevant.
    LOL, I laugh everytime I read your claims of objectivity. Thanks for the chuckle!!!

  20. #20
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: where's special prosecuter Fitzgerald when you need him ?

    and the hits just keep on coming !

  21. #21
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: where's special prosecuter Fitzgerald when you need him ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard_Head View Post
    LOL, I laugh everytime I read your claims of objectivity. Thanks for the chuckle!!!
    That's what I'm here for Richard. Comic relief.

    Btw, if it wouldn't be too much trouble, would you show me some examples where my analysis was Not objective ? Where I excused Republican misbehavior ?or instance, I've made it very clear that I don't like Bush and think he's essentially been a failed President and not just because of the Iraq debacle.
    I consider myself to be an equal opportunity critic. if you can show otherwise,knock yourself out.

Similar Threads

  1. very special
    By kitty46 in forum Picture Post
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 03-13-2007, 06:12 AM
  2. Are you special and different?
    By Nautilus in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 12-02-2006, 07:35 PM
  3. Truly Special People
    By lethalsoul in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-07-2005, 09:54 AM
  4. Special Moments
    By Nurse Betty in forum Stripping (was Stripping General)
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 04-04-2005, 04:17 AM
  5. Nothing Special
    By sander8son in forum Sex Talk
    Replies: 105
    Last Post: 08-12-2003, 02:30 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •