quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Somehow we're back to Bush. We're talking about Pelosi. The white house AND state department both were against her trip. But I guess if I don't believe in the "Bush is Hitler" camp, i'm supposed to shut up.

Isn't the 'white house AND state department' ultimately ran by bush? If a big corporation makes a horrible mistake and goes broke, don't you hold the CEO accountable? We are back to bush because he is the one in charge, like it or not. You can't have a discussion about the white house or any other part of the executive without talking about the person in charge. Why you would make an argument like this is beyond me.

___________________
Poetry>Byron//Blog>TheMean

quote:

Orbax At that point you kind of crossed the rubicon and you might as well lay siege to Rome

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Somehow we're back to Bush. We're talking about Pelosi.

*Sigh*

We discuss Bush in this whole ordeal because nothing would be worthwhile discuss about this trip had it not been for Bush and Cheney's tirade on Pelosi going. Furthermore, this is an issue because this Administration and the fringe wingers somehow skipped right over the fact that a prior Republican trip days earlier was made and possibly given cooperation by the State Department, PLUS there were fellow Republicans on the same envoy with Pelosi,

side by side,

hand in hand.

Thus giving a slight odor of hypocricy.

A bipartisan trip to Syria to which a solid majority of the public wants:

quote:

Respondents from both parties expressed strong support for the recommendations released last week by the Iraq Study Group, which urged the administration to make a new diplomatic effort to engage Iraq's neighbors in stabilizing the country. By 64% to 28%, respondents favored the group's recommendation to open direct talks with Iran and Syria. "Dialogue is important in any resolution," said Terry Katz, 52, who runs a landscaping company in Cincinnati. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...-home-headlines

and

quote:

32. (HALF SAMPLE) Some people say (the United States should include direct talks with Syria as part of a regional dialogue about the situation in Iraq because Syria has influence in the region). Others say (the United States should not directly engage with Syria because the U.S. has identified Syria as a sponsor of terrorism.) What do you think? Do you think the United States should or should not hold direct talks with Syria about the situation in Iraq? Should include Syria in talks - 58 Should NOT directly engage with Syria - 37 No opinion - 5 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-sr...poll_121206.htm

and:



http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/p...nt=283&lb=hmpg2

And did I mention that it's also in line with what the Bush-appointed Iraq Study Group's proposal led by Republican and long time Bush Sr. friend, James Baker?

quote:

The white house AND state department both were against her trip.

Are we supposed to be surprised that the inept "Bushie" State Dept. run by Bush's favorite woman, Condi, who's diplomatic skills have been so incredibly exemplary over the past 6 years (since the world has really come to love us on all fronts), might have been against the Democrats going, but somehow skipped right over the fact that Republicans went as well?

Sorry, but I think I've heard enough of these Bushie-type "yes-men" people who never hold Bush's asinine policies with dissent or disagreement. As it would appear, the public and bipartisan Iraq Study Group does as well.

quote:

But I guess if I don't believe in the "Bush is Hitler" camp, i'm supposed to shut up.

You're entitled to believe whatever you wish. Believe Bush is the Right hand of God for all I care - hell half his idiot followers already believe that anyway. But I'll continue judging his policies on their merits, or lack thereof, if you don't mind.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

Legislators are not ambassadors..

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Legislators are not ambassadors..

Well neither is Bush and Condi for that matter, so someone has to pick up the slack for them.

And BTW, you'd better not tell Denny Hastert or Newt Gingrich that, because those Republican Congressmen certainly thought otherwise back when Clinton was in office:

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...d=&pagenumber=2

I guess it's only when a Republican is President when that rule of yours counts, right?

And for better or for worse, Congressional members travelling abroad for diplomatic talks is nothing new:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/04/AR2007040402752.html

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 And did I mention that it's also in line with what the Bush-appointed Iraq Study Group's proposal led by Republican and long time Bush Sr. friend, James Baker?

you cannot possibly even pretend to mean Baker wanted the Speaker of the House, or even the leader of the opposition party, to communicate on behalf of the State Department.

look i'm not that bent about this, really. as purely an academic dicussion of seperate powers there is a fair amount of criticism to be had. but what is done is done and i hope this doesn't set precedent for future administrations, Red or Blue.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo you cannot possibly even pretend to mean Baker wanted the Speaker of the House, or even the leader of the opposition party, to communicate on behalf of the State Department.

You mean the Democratic House leader alongside of Republicans? I can't speculate either way without him directly stating as such. I guess ideally he would want our dept. of diplomacy, i.e. State Dept., to do this. But since Condi's unwilling to step forward, honestly I don't know what he would say. Has he said anything about it?

quote:

look i'm not that bent about this, really. as purely an academic dicussion of seperate powers there is a fair amount of criticism to be had. but what is done is done and i hope this doesn't set precedent for future administrations, Red or Blue.

I can agree in part to that. Clearly I think the Legislature should shy away from such foreign diplomatic efforts. Why both Congressional Democrats and Republicans together felt compelled to do this, honestly I don't know. They must have felt compelled enough to do it with or without the nod of the Executive. I think it is worth noting, however, that members of our Congress in a bipartisan fashion feel compelled enough to defy this Administration's unwillingness for diplomacy and talks, and decided to do it on their own.

Perhaps a bit more dialogue between this Administration and it's Congressional members are in order, but considering this Admin's outright disdain for the Legislative branch in general, I don't see that happening anytime soon.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 You mean the Democratic House leader alongside of Republicans?

everything i have read states her delegation was alone sans any Republicans who went before her, seperately.

if that is, in fact, true then wtf?

everything Pelosi has said and done up to this moment has been in complete opposition to Bush to include his State Dept., which btw, is not to be faulted and is a seperate issue but it stands to reason why this shouldn't be condoned by anyone who respects seperate powers and the future of projection of American diplomacy.

quote:

Perhaps a bit more dialogue between this Administration and it's Congressional members are in order

perhaps, but you and i should both know this is a waiting game for the Democrats.

Congress playing a key roll in opposing the executive branch in foreign policy? Why I've never heard of such a thing ... particularly conservatives advocating such a thing!

quote:

Imperial conservatives? - argument against limiting Congress's power in foreign affairs National Review In the early Fifties, conservatives were combating the proto-Imperial Presidency, now the enemy of choice has become the Imperial Congress. But the way to resist a left-leaning, irresponsible legislature, the author contend,s is not to put more power in the hands of the Secretary of State. AMERICAN CONSERVATIVES have come a long way since 1952, when Ohio's Senator John Bricker introduced a constitutional amendment to restrict the President's treaty-making power. Perhaps they've come too far. Today nothing brings foam to the conservative mandible more reliably than a favorable allusion to the Boland Amendments or the War Powers Act, and cries against "congressional micromanagement" and "535 Secretaries of State" became watchwords among Washington conservatives during the Reagan Presidency. John Bricker certainly would never have endorsed either Boland or War Powers-both are stupid measures, the one as harmful as the other is frivolous-but he surely would have agreed with their basic assumption of legislative supremacy. The idea that the legislative branch has a vital role to play in the conduct of U.S. foreign policy and the disposition of American troops was fundamental to the principles espoused by Bricker, Robert Taft, Barry Goldwater, and other spokesmen of the Right. Taft, in the words of Russell Kirk and James McClellan, asserted "the right and the necessity, in the American democratic republic, for Congress to participate with the executive in the conduct of foreign affairs," and "Mr. Republican" himself wrote in A Foreign Policy for Americans: If in the great field of foreign policy the President has the arbitrary and unlimited powers he now claims, then there is an end to freedom in the United States not only in the foreign field but in the great realm of domestic activity which necessarily follows any foreign commitments. In a recent issue of Policy Review, Representative Mickey Edwards undertook to articulate and defend the Taft-Bricker view that the U.S. Congress has a strong role in foreign policy. He did so with learning and eloquence, urging that the intent of the Framers and the conservative principles that "the separation of powers and the balance of powers were the greatest protectors of our freedoms" support his conclusion that "foreign policy is an arena in which the powers and responsibilities of the Congress and the executive share a poorly defined playing field, each with important roles to play." But Mr. Edwards's effort, valiant as it was, has generally been greeted ferociously by his conservative critics and colleagues. Nevertheless, conservatives ought to pause and re-trace the steps that have brought them close to being what Mr. Edwards calls "New Age monarchists." Constitutional arguments aside, there are plenty of sound pragmatic reasons for conservatives to defend a strong congressional role in foreign policy. Even under Mr. Reagan, conservatives in the Senate and House were vital in resisting efforts to circumvent the Taiwan Relations Act and adhere to the unratified SALT 11 treaty, among other silly State Department ideas. And senatorial efforts have not stopped there. Conservative Republicans like New Hampshire's Gordon Humphrey have been instrumental in pushing the Administration into greater support for the Afghan resistance. Moderate Democrats like Arizona's Dennis DeConcini have played similar roles with policies toward Angola's UNITA. Steve Symms, Orrin Hatch, the late John East, and Jeremiah Denton have all at one time or another (and Jesse Helms in some fields almost continuously) opposed executive-branch policies on arms control, trade with the Soviet bloc, and involvements with Latin America, southern Africa, and the Far East. If such congressional activities aren't "micromanagement," the term has little meaning. YET MOST conservatives, even while denouncing micromanagement, have applauded all these instances of it. Their view of who should run U.S. foreign policy seems to be approaching incoherence, and as Mr. Edwards warns, "conservatives need to remember that the powers we would give to a Ronald Reagan or a George Bush will someday be used by a Walter Mondale or a Michael Dukakis." Indeed, as recent history shows, these powers are already being used by a foreign-policy bureaucracy uncontrolled by elections and often independent of Congress and President alike. It's easy for conservatives today to defend virtually exclusive presidential powers in foreign affairs by citing not only left-wing congressional partisanism in foreign policy but also clear instances of legislative irresponsibility: security leaks, junketeering that compromises official U.S. policy, and general dithering, appeasement, and catering to special interests. But the conservative shift in perspective on Congress and the Presidency transcends current policy disputes and partisan bickering. It implies, logically and eventually in practice, a decisive erosion of some of the fundamental premises of conservative thought on which a good many conservative positions depend.

Oh the irony.

___________________
Retro ...

good article. should we then expect the same contempt when it becomes a Demorat/liberal Administration and an opposition leader in dealings with sworn enemies of our trusted allies?

right or wrong, of course we should.

Listen, I didn't write up the official roles of governmental positions. I don't care how many people want extra dialogue with terrorists sponsors. It isn't anyone's role but those entitled to foreign relations. It IS NOT the legislative's role.

We don't need 400 secretaries of state. We have 1.

...more on the state department later..

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton It IS NOT the legislative's role.

except

and

chiefly, yes you are correct. and if we could come up with a timeline consensus that would be respected by whomever has the presidency/legislator, as above posts have concluded (props to my main man Q5), we won't ever have this problem again.

my beef is with this over/misuse of this fledgling unitary executive theory which seems to be practiced with the abandonment of, pardon the inflammatory (it just fits best), borderlined totalitarianism.

this incident should at least serve as a slap in the face for cheney and co. to start concentrating on the job they should be doing instead of throwing temper tantrums when other people do their job for them.

bush may feel that keeping syria isolated is the best way to handle diplomatic relations with the middle east, but from experience, i think we all can agree that diplomacy is not one of the man's strong points.

now if pelosi was trying tell fart jokes...