Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456789 LastLast
Results 121 to 140 of 176
  1. #121  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray View Post
    She was kibitzing, playing in a game in which she did not have a seat with chips that were not hers to lose. Even if the kibitzer knows the rules and the situation better and could play the hand better than those at the table, that does not justify the interference or change the outcome in a positive way.
    What is this republic to do when an administration is AWOL in its responsibilities, yet always available for photo-ops? Don't get me wrong. I'm not excusing Pelosi nor am I nailing her to a cross, as I understand the meetings were unorthodox and carried risk, yet this premise must be addressed by our government in order to fully function. What is the role of the public within such a dysfunctional administration?
  2. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #122  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    had junior and his gop gangsters not preemptively attacked and undercut Pellosi they might have had a productive secondary door to real negotiation.
    In which case that would mean she did not consider all the ramifications of her trip.

    So not only did she **** off the White House, she pissed off the Israelis while the Syrians pointed and laughed at her when she wasn't looking.

    A productive trip indeed.

    Then again, this is the same woman who thought the Pentagon was punishing her because the plane allotted to the Speaker (the same one Hastert used) cannot fly from DC to SF non-stop, which apparently was not good enough for her needs.

    This, of course, coming after Pel00si's "crusade of one" lambasting of Congress on its "excesses".

    It was a sad spectacle seeing Mothra....errr Murtha.....casually threatening the Pentagon over the whole affair, saying, "She decides on the allocations for the Department of Defense".

    Nutty...and just plain 'ol dumb.
  3. #123  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    What is this republic to do when an administration is AWOL in its responsibilities, yet always available for photo-ops? Don't get me wrong. I'm not excusing Pelosi nor am I nailing her to a cross, as I understand the meetings were unorthodox and carried risk, yet this premise must be addressed by our government in order to fully function. What is the role of the public within such a dysfunctional administration?
    The one thing that we must never do is abandon the Rule of Law. Regardless of how imcompetent, inept, dysfunctional, or illegal the administration, the "public" does not abandon the Rule of Law.

    Even though the President arrogate to himself the powers of a king, there is a limit to his sovereignty that kings do not have. He has a term and term limits. Until and unless he refuses to leave office on January 20, 2009, we follow the Rule of Law. [Remeber when we feared that if Richard Nixon were to be impeached, he might marshall tanks on the White House lawn?]

    In talking about the rule we talk about limits to power, civil rights, including habeas corpus, the sanctity of contract, separate courts, and minority rights. Not even the king, my citizens, not even the king. We often forget to talk about its opposite, the rule of men, arbitrary, capricious, and almost always self-serving and corrupt.

    The Rule applies as much to Speaker Pelosi as to the rest of us. Note that a king or dictator for life would have had the Speaker arrested. Even George Bush has sufficient respect for the rule of law that he would not arrest a leader of the Congress.

    So far the Rule has served us well. Administrations have abused it, bent it, almost to the point of breaking. So far it has held. Indeed, it will hold as long as the "public" retains hope in it. When the "public," the body politic, the consenting governed, respect it, then, by definition, it holds. It fails when we start to believe that the failures and abuses of the govening class are so excessive that we cannot wait for the next election.

    Up the next election! Always the next election!

    [And never vote for an incumbent; it only makes them arrogant.]
    Last edited by whmurray; 10/28/2007 at 02:11 PM.
  4. #124  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray View Post
    The one thing that we must never do is abandon the Rule of Law. Regardless of how imcompetent, inept, dysfunctional, or illegal the administration, the "public" does not abandon the Rule of Law.

    Even though the President arrogate to himself the powers of a king, there is a limit to his sovereignty that kings do not have. He has a term and term limits. Until and unless he refuses to leave office on January 20, 2009, we follow the Rule of Law. [Remeber when we feared that if Richard Nixon were to be impeached, he might marshall tanks on the White House lawn?]

    In talking about the rule we talk about limits to power, civil rights, including habeas corpus, the sanctity of contract, separate courts, and minority rights. Not even the king, my citizens, not even the king. We often forget to talk about its opposite, the rule of men, arbitrary, capricious, and almost always self-serving and corrupt.

    The Rule applies as much to Speaker Pelosi as to the rest of us. Note that a king or dictator for life would have had the Speaker arrested. Even George Bush has sufficient respect for the rule of law that he would not arrest a leader of the Congress.

    So far the Rule has served us well. Administrations have abused it, bent it, almost to the point of breaking. So far it has held. Indeed, it will hold as long as the "public" retains hope in it. When the "public," the body politic, the consenting governed, respect it, then, by definition, it holds. It fails when we start to believe that the failures and abuses of the govening class are so excessive that we cannot wait for the next election.

    Up the next election! Always the next election!

    [And never vote for an incumbent; it only makes them arrogant.]
    I mostly agree with your post -- but where specifically did Pellosi violate either a rule or a law ??

    Have not previous congressional leaders done analogous things ??
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  5. #125  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    I mostly agree with your post -- but where specifically did Pellosi violate either a rule or a law ??

    Have not previous congressional leaders done analogous things ??
    Not to my point. I was responding to lifes2short's question as to what we do in the face of an "AWOL" administration.

    Unless I have misunderstood what happened in Damascus, Ms. Pelosi violated the Constitutional provision that made the executive responsible for foreign relations and the historical interpretation of that provision that says that only the executive engages in diplomacy. A private citizen, one not enjoying Congressional immunity, can be jailed for enaging in diplomacy.

    Some Congressional leaders have engaged in diplomacy on behalf of the president. Others have done so in spite of him. Most of these have been censured for it, just as has Ms. Pelosi.
    Last edited by whmurray; 10/28/2007 at 03:19 PM.
  6. #126  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray View Post
    ...However, Ms. Pelosi violated the Constitutional provision that made the executive responsible for foreign relations and the historical interpretation of that provision that says that only the executive engages in diplomacy. A private citizen, one not enjoying Congressional immunity, can be jailed for enaging in diplomacy.

    I don't think that's true -- but I couldn't source that view.

    I do recall something about how Nixon, Kissinger and their friends backchanneled the Paris Peace talks before the '68 election to continue the war and sabotage Humphrey...
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  7. #127  
    Opinion piece in WSJ re legality of Pelosi's trip:
    http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009908
    The Logan Act makes it a felony and provides for a prison sentence of up to three years for any American, "without authority of the United States," to communicate with a foreign government in an effort to influence that government's behavior on any "disputes or controversies with the United States."
  8. #128  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    I don't think that's true -- but I couldn't source that view.

    I do recall something about how Nixon, Kissinger and their friends backchanneled the Paris Peace talks before the '68 election to continue the war and sabotage Humphrey...
    See Samkim's post. As to Nixon and Kissinger, one might call that "self-serving and corrupt" if not "high crimes and misdemeanors." However, they were acting in their official capacity.
  9. #129  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray View Post
    See Samkim's post. As to Nixon and Kissinger, one might call that "self-serving and corrupt" if not "high crimes and misdemeanors." However, they were acting in their official capacity.
    they were NOT acting in ANY official capacity !!!!

    These events happened BEFORE the election

    Oh and BTW -- What were the raygunites talking about to the Iranians before the '80 election while they held our hostages ?????
    Last edited by BARYE; 10/28/2007 at 06:59 PM.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  10. #130  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    they were NOT acting ANY official capacity !!!!

    These events happened BEFORE the election

    Oh and BTW -- What were the raygunites talking about to the Iranians before the '80 election while they held our hostages ?????
    I was not trying to defend anyone; just drawing a distinction.
  11. #131  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray View Post
    See Samkim's post. As to Nixon and Kissinger, one might call that "self-serving and corrupt" if not "high crimes and misdemeanors." However, they were acting in their official capacity.
    They had no official capacity to act within. Each were only private citizens at the time of their crimes.
  12. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #132  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    they were NOT acting in ANY official capacity !!!!

    These events happened BEFORE the election

    Oh and BTW -- What were the raygunites talking about to the Iranians before the '80 election while they held our hostages ?????
    Between 1961 and 1968, Nixon visited Vietnam 4 times. While he was abroad, he never criticized US policy (as opposed to a certain Speaker of the House we all know of today) even though he could have harped on Johnson's rather erratic war strategy. It was at home that he raised serious questions and cautioned the US from repeating the same mistakes committed by the French (which, in the end, was futile as a Democratic-controlled Congress ensured the defeat in Vietnam anyway).

    One of the enduring myths of American political history is that it has been said that Nixon, during the '68 elections, had a "secret plan" to end the Vietnam war. In fact is he never made such a claim.

    (This is analogous to the myth, today, that the Bush administration has claimed that Hussein was responsible for 9/11. Here again, the claim was never made.)
    Last edited by gojeda; 10/29/2007 at 03:29 AM.
  13. #133  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    Between 1961 and 1968, Nixon visited Vietnam 4 times. While he was abroad, he never criticized US policy (as opposed to a certain Speaker of the House we all know of today). It was at home that he raised serious questions and cautioned the US from repeating the same mistakes committed by the French (which, in the end, was futile as a Democratic-controlled Congress ensured the defeat in Vietnam anyway).

    One of the enduring myths of American political history is that it has been said that Nixon, during the '68 elections, had a "secret plan" to end the Vietnam war. In fact is he never made such a claim.

    (This is analogous to the myth, today, that the Bush administration has claimed that Hussein was responsible for 9/11. Here again, the claim was never made.)
    Nixon and company's interference in and sabotage of the Paris peace talks is notorious.

    Your comments are entirely unresponsive to that.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  14. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #134  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    Nixon and company's interference in and sabotage of the Paris peace talks is notorious.

    Your comments are entirely unresponsive to that.
    Much in the same way your remarks about Nixon and the Paris Peace Conference is a non-sequitur with regards to Pel00si playing Secretary of State in Damascus.

    I do find it interesting, though, that you failed to mention how Johnson conveniently halted the air campaign just in time for the elections to give Humphrey a much needed boost on election night.

    I also see you did not mention Humphrey's secret discussions with the communists in Paris and Saigon in 1971 to get information about American POWs, with the added "benefit" of enhancing his political reputation for the upcoming Democratic nomination in '72.

    Politics driving the war effort. Lovely.....

    This, of course, is just the latest attempt to "Republicanize" the Vietnam War, thereby providing little space to speak of the man whose signature appears on most draft notices from that war: Johnson.
    Last edited by gojeda; 10/29/2007 at 05:32 AM.
  15. #135  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    Between 1961 and 1968, Nixon visited Vietnam 4 times. While he was abroad, he never criticized US policy (as opposed to a certain Speaker of the House we all know of today) even though he could have harped on Johnson's rather erratic war strategy. It was at home that he raised serious questions and cautioned the US from repeating the same mistakes committed by the French (which, in the end, was futile as a Democratic-controlled Congress ensured the defeat in Vietnam anyway).

    One of the enduring myths of American political history is that it has been said that Nixon, during the '68 elections, had a "secret plan" to end the Vietnam war. In fact is he never made such a claim.

    (This is analogous to the myth, today, that the Bush administration has claimed that Hussein was responsible for 9/11. Here again, the claim was never made.)
    The law does not say one cannot travel. It does not even completely forbid all contact with foreign governments.
  16. #136  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    they were NOT acting in ANY official capacity !!!!

    These events happened BEFORE the election

    Oh and BTW -- What were the raygunites talking about to the Iranians before the '80 election while they held our hostages ?????
    I stand corrected.
  17.    #137  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray View Post
    The law does not say one cannot travel. It does not even completely forbid all contact with foreign governments.
    Getting back on topic - when is Pelosi putting this Turkish genocide issue to the floor?

    According to this article support has waned, so I wonder if it will even be brought to the floor? http://www.iht.com/bin/printfriendly.php?id=7921010

    Fortunately, there were 24 representatives that backed off and realized the timing was very very bad for such a non-binding resolution. So I am hopeful its DOA.
  18. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #138  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray View Post
    The law does not say one cannot travel. It does not even completely forbid all contact with foreign governments.
    Absolutely, but what it does forbid is "negotiating" with a foreign government (unless explicitly authorized by the President to do so).

    I think samkim alluded to that fact.

    There seems to be a history of a liason between Nixon, to Mitchell, to Chenault, to the South Vietnamese at some point during the closing weeks of the election. I am not sure this is any worse than Johnson halting bombing so Humphrey can do better on election night (which is something I mentioned earlier).

    But what we do know is that there was nothing covert about Pelosi's mission - and that places it into another catagory of arrogance altogether.
  19. #139  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Getting back on topic - when is Pelosi putting this Turkish genocide issue to the floor?

    According to this article support has waned, so I wonder if it will even be brought to the floor? http://www.iht.com/bin/printfriendly.php?id=7921010

    Fortunately, there were 24 representatives that backed off and realized the timing was very very bad for such a non-binding resolution. So I am hopeful its DOA.
    I think and hope that she grossly miscalculated on this. I think that the support was always wide and shallow. On its face, the bill seemed a safe vote, sort of like voting for mom and apple pie. I think she thought that she could throw a cheap bone to her constituency.

    She may get a memorable local win at the expense of a forgettable national loss, just for putting it out there. She can say, "See I was really there for you but the timing just was not right." It was never a substantive bill. It was not going to make anything happen. Since it was always symbolic anyway, there is no way for her to lose. She can say, "I really tried but the votes just weren't there. It was better for me to let it die than risk having it voted down for the wrong reasons."

    Her rhetoric has left her very little wiggle room, but given that she wins anyway, there may be enough.
    Last edited by whmurray; 10/29/2007 at 10:12 AM.
  20.    #140  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray View Post
    I think and hope that she grossly miscalculated on this. I think that the support was always wide and shallow. On its face, the bill seemed a safe vote, sort of like voting for mom and apple pie. I think she thought that she could throw a cheap bone to her constituency.

    She may get a memorable local win at the expense of a forgettable national loss, just for putting it out there. She can say, "See I was really there for you but the timing just was not right." It was never a substantive bill. It was not going to make anything happen. Since it was always symbolic anyway, there is no way for her to lose. She can say, "I really tried but the votes just weren't there. It was better for me to let it die than risk having it voted down for the wrong reasons."

    Her rhetoric has left her very little wiggle room, but given that she wins anyway, there may be enough.
    I wonder if the "base" really supports this though? I haven't seen any polls on it, but I should think the moderate Dems would be largely opposed. If not, well they're just setting themselves up for losing the elections in 2008 if you ask me. They've given the GOP all of the fodder they'll need to make plenty of hay this coming election (in terms of distracting the public away from their equally, if not more, abysmal record when they had a monopoly on all branches).
Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456789 LastLast

Posting Permissions