Jimmy Carter Stikes Again- Page 2

[mejusthavingfun]

Posted: 4/5/07 at 11:57pm

She's got nothing on Olmert or Bush trust me. They lead nations.

[pab]

Posted: 4/5/07 at 11:57pm

Pelosi has been speaker for three months while Bush has been President for six years. What's his excuse?

Updated On: 4/5/07 at 11:57 PM

[mejusthavingfun]

Posted: 4/6/07 at 12:06am

Olmert has the Israali military asking for him to resign. What's more shameful than that?

[HDThoreau2]

Posted: 4/6/07 at 12:24am

In World War II if Robert Taft went to appease Hitler, he would have tried for treason.

Pelosi? She is trying to escape responsibility for her international blunder.

Pelosi allowed herself to be used as an international stooge.

And you know who is really happy, Cindy Sheehan.

[HDThoreau2]

Posted: 4/6/07 at 12:35am

The Drive-by Review sums it all up so well.

Nancypants decided since she had nothing to do after she and her fellow party members refused to provide a clean funding bill for our troops, she would prance off to Syria to meet with a terrorist supporting dictator and conduct her own foreign policy.

The leftist nitwit wasn’t content doing her own thing just for the U.S., she decided to interfere in another countries foreign policy as well.

Pelosi said she was “very pleased with the reassurances we received from Syrian president [Bashar al-Assad] that he was ready to…engage in negotiations for peace with Israel.” The meeting with Assad, she told reporters, “enabled us to communicate a message from Prime Minister [Ehmud] Olmert that Israel was ready to engage in peace talks as well.”

Problem is, Olmert never authorized her to say anything of the sort.

Trouble was, Olmert denied that he had authorized Pelosi to pass along this conciliatory message. In fact, his office issued a statement saying quite the contrary.

Before conducting peace negotiations, the statement said, “Syria must cease its support of terror, cease its sponsoring of the Hamas and Islamic Jihad organizations, refrain from providing weapons to Hizbollah 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.”

Fool!

[HDThoreau2]

Posted: 4/6/07 at 11:41am

Carter/Pelosi/Murtha declare War on Terror "over."

From Minihan's World:


The new Democratic leadership in the Congress has just achieved something the warring nations have not--overcome the Global War on Terror (GWOT). They did it the easy way, though--they simply decided never to use the name again.

The USA Today morning edition on April 4th reported that "Democrats say they are tired of Bush's use of the blanket term "global war on terror" to justify individual military operations and their hefty budgets." The paper quoted Erin Conaton, the Democratic staff director of the House Armed Services Committee, who "urged aides in a March 27 memo to "avoid using colloquialisms," such as the "war on terrorism" or the "long war," and not to use the term "global war on terrorism." In preparing the annual defense authorization bill, the staff is directed to be more specific, such as referring to operations in Iraq." That's the way to stop a war.
How the American Left Lost It

[Unknown User]

Posted: 4/6/07 at 11:50am

Gosh HD, where did the Democrat party learn such a bizarre tactic? Who would ever think that you could just change the name of something? How ridiculous! They should stick to eliminating the Death Tax and instituting Personal Retirement Accounts (or whatever the Republicans tried to rename Social Security....)

[HDThoreau2]

Posted: 4/6/07 at 11:53am

Personal retirement accounts are a great idea. I already started mine. I know not to count on SS.

Updated On: 4/6/07 at 11:53 AM

[HDThoreau2]

Posted: 4/6/07 at 9:17pm

Terrorist groups are thrilled with Pelosi's visit.
From Ynet News.com

Terrorists endorse Pelosi's 'good policy of dialogue'

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's visit to Syria Wednesday – in which she called for dialogue with Damascus – was "brave" and "very appreciated" and could bring about "important changes" to America's foreign policy, including talks with "Middle East resistance groups," according to members of Palestinian terror organizations whose top leaders live in Syria.



One terror leader, Khaled Al-Batch, a militant and spokesman for Islamic Jihad, expressed hope Pelosi would continue winning elections, explaining the House speaker's Damascus visit demonstrated she understands the Middle East.



Pelosi's visit was opposed by President Bush, who called Syria a "state sponsor of terror."


"Nancy Pelosi understands the area (Middle East) well, more than Bush and Dr. (Condoleezza) Rice," said Al-Batch, speaking to WND from Gaza. "If the Democrats want to make negotiations with Syria, Hamas, and Hizbullah, this means the Democratic Party understands well what happens in this area and I think Pelosi will succeed. ... I hope she wins the next elections."


Islamic Jihad has carried out scores of shootings and rocket attacks, and, together with the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group, has taken responsibility for every suicide bombing in Israel the past two years.

[HDThoreau2]

Posted: 4/6/07 at 9:24pm

Pelosi shows bad behavior...


WASHINGTON (UPI) -- Vice President Dick Cheney Thursday accused House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., of "bad behavior" for visiting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

Speaking with radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh, Cheney said Pelosi doesn't represent the administration.

"I think it is, in fact, bad behavior on her part," he said. "I wish she hadn't done it, but she is the speaker of the House, and fortunately I think the various parties involved recognize she doesn't speak for the United States in those circumstances."

Cheney also accused Pelosi of supporting policies that would lead to defeat in the Iraq War.

"I've got some friends on the (Democratic) side of the aisle, and I don't want to question everybody's motives," he said. "I do believe that a significant portion of the Democrats -- including, I think, Nancy Pelosi -- are adamantly opposed to the war and prepared to pack it in and come home in defeat, rather than put in place or support a policy that will lead to victory."

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., also visited Syria Thursday. White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe declined to comment on Issa specifically, but said the administration discourages official visits to the country, The Hill reported.

[HDThoreau2]

Posted: 4/6/07 at 9:53pm

The Chorus of Criticism Grows from Middle of the Road and Liberal Voices:
From the Ny Daily News:

Nancypants must be feeling pretty stupid by now.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her end-the-war Democrats have reliably invoked the oracular wisdom of last fall's Iraq Study Group as the rationale for many of their thoughts and deeds. But now report co-author James Baker, writing in The Washington Post, says Pelosi & Co. have gotten witlessly carried away in their attempt to set U.S. war policy.

Point blank, Baker says that legislatively setting a fixed troop-withdrawal timetable is something the group never recommended at all:

"In fact, the report specifically opposes that approach. ... An arbitrary deadline would allow the enemy to wait us out. ... If the Iraqi government does not meet [stipulated] benchmarks, the United States should reduce its political, military or economic support for the Iraqi government, the report said. But we did not suggest that this be codified into legislation."

Or, to put it another way, Pelosi and her crowd really ought to let the executive branch execute things rather than seek to freelance their own version. The continuing "political dogfight," Baker observes, "can only undermine U.S. foreign policy goals in Iraq and the Middle East."

Which Pelosi quiet succeeded at this week in her smiling tete-a-tete with Syrian strongman Bashar Assad, whose regime is allowing the importation of anti-American weapons into Iraq, has been implicated in the assassination of the elected president of Lebanon and is home base for the Hamas and Hezbollah terrorist organizations.

[HDThoreau2]

Posted: 4/7/07 at 8:57am

Nancypants just can't win...everyone thinks what she did is stupid!

Rich Galen compares her the girls in "Girls Gone Wild"

It's Spring Break. A time when boys and girls, pretending to be adults, go to places they know they shouldn't; do things they wish they hadn't; and pray they don't show up in a "Girls Gone Wild" DVD later on.

It's one thing to be a college student, drunk on Jello shots, at the beach bar in Daytona, lifting your shirt for some dope with a video camera. It is something else to be the Speaker of the House, drunk on power, making a fool of yourself by pretending to be a diplomat and going to the Syrian desert.

The Washington Post - not exactly known as a semi-official mouthpiece of the Bush administration - in a Thursday morning editorial called Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's visit with the president of Syria "foolish;" her statements about a diplomatic breakthrough "ludicrous;" and, her "attempt to establish a shadow presidency … counterproductive."

The Post editorial excoriated Pelosi for metaphorically sharing Jello shots with "Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad" whom it described as "a corrupt thug."

Let's go to the rule book - the Constitution of the United States - and read here in Article II section 2 what it says about who gets to do what in the area of foreign policy - diplomatically and militarily: [The President] shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States … 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 …

Whoa! Check Please. Not only does the President have the sole power to do all those things, but when the Congress is involved at all it is the SENATE, not the House which has the "advise and consent" authority.

Here's everything the main body of the Constitution says about the Speaker of the House (Art

[Unknown User]

Posted: 4/7/07 at 10:31am

Why are you so fricken obsessed with this? Are you really so zealous that no one but your precious idiot half-wit president can ever be right? God, man, get a damn grip.

AND HD, if you haven't figured it out yet, the reason the "Liberal" press often bashes liberals is that THERE IS NO LIBERAL PRESS. Well, OK, maybe the Village Voice. What you're quoting from is the UNBIASED press, where people try to look at both sides of the issue and then editorialize as they see it, as opposed to the RIGHT-WING Press where they look for any shred of evidence and use it to prop up the failed policies of the right. And when they can't find even a SHRED of evidence they just make it up-- see IRAQ/AL QUEDA linkage for example.

[HDThoreau2]

Posted: 4/7/07 at 12:01pm

The liberal media is even attacking Nancypants now! Jimmy Carter can help her with that too-he is used to it!

Courtesy of New Busters.org


Call it a flying-pig moment, or chalk it up to his concern for Dems' long-term best interests if you will. But there's no denying that on this morning's "Today," Matt Lauer absolutely unloaded on Nancy Pelosi and her ill-conceived venture into foreign policy.

The segment was entitled "Democratic Diplomacy: Has Pelosi Gone Too Far?", virtually answering the question by its very asking. In the set-up piece, David Gregory rolled two telling clips. The first was of VP Cheney's comments on the Rush Limbaugh show yesterday to the effect that Pelosi's statement regarding her trip was"nonsensical." The second was of former congressman Lee Hamilton, warning that if his fellow Dems box in the president on foreign policy, Americans might conclude that the Democrats have gone "too far."

Interviewing Tim Russert at 7:06 AM ET, Lauer came out guns ablazin'.

LAUER: Vice-President Cheney called Nancy Pelosi's trip to Syria "bad behavior," a Washington Post editorial on Thursday called it "counter-productive and foolish," and op-ed in the Wall Street Journal this morning goes a step further and suggests her trip may actually have been a felony, that it may have violated something called the Logan Act. Tim, is this the way the Democrats wanted to get off the mark in terms of foreign affairs?



RUSSERT: No, they clearly wanted to distinguish themselves from the president's policies, but you have to be careful, as Congressman Hamilton suggested. One ranking Democrat, Matt, said "we have an alternative Democratic foreign policy." That is going to be very difficult to articulate and put into place when you don't control the White House. On the other hand, Speaker Pelosi issued a statement last night on behalf of the bi-partisan delegation she is leading. Her delegation includes Republican congressmen. She is saying she has done nothing wrong or inconsistent with American foreign policy.

LAUER: Well, that's their side of the story. However, if you look back at the mid-term elections, clearly some voters in this country were unhappy with the administration's foreign policy, specifically in Iraq; it's one of the reasons we think Democrats took control of Congress. But if the Democrats and Speaker Pelosi appear to be acting irresponsibly or incompetently, and let's face it, a lot of people think she messed up on this one, what's the impact for Democrats overall?

RUSSERT: It's considerable. The Democrats have always had a difficulty being competitive with the Republicans in the public voter's mind on national security and foreign policy issues. And if the people perceive missteps, it's going to create and underscore that perceptual problem of Democrats.

LAUER: And let's go back to the point you touched on a second ago. If it's seen . . . what is the bigger and longer-term issue here if a political party is seen as usurping presidential power in designing and implementing foreign policy?

RUSSERT: As we learned in 1994 Matt, when Republicans took control of Congress with the Republican revolution and the Contract With America, people voted for change. But the voters are also willing to turn that around on its head, if they believe people have gone too far. That's why this debate is so important.

Message to Speaker Pelosi: how do you know when you've put your foot in it? When David Gregory and Matt Lauer respectfully cite VP Cheney's criticism of you.

[HDThoreau2]

Posted: 4/7/07 at 12:11pm

Pelosi might have legal trouble now too. The Wall Street Journal, responsible conservative bloggers, and newsbusters.org are all over it!

Imagine if you will that in September 1996, just days after America launched a missile strike on Baghdad to expand the “no fly zone,” Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich met with Saddam Hussein to discuss foreign policy matters without the permission of President Clinton.

Would the media have vociferously discussed the possibility that Gingrich had violated federal law in doing so?

If the answer is a resounding “Yes,” then why have extremely few press outlets broached this issue as it pertains to current Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s (D-California) recent potentially law-breaking trip to Syria?

To best understand the issue, a little history is necessary. The Logan Act was created in 1799, and reads as follows:

§ 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with 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, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

The Act was named after George Logan, who in 1798, went to France without President John Adams’ permission to try and settle the Quasi-War.

With that in mind, there seems little doubt that Pelosi might have made the same mistake Logan did, and could be, at the very least, investigated for doing so.

Yet, Google and LexisNexis searches reveal few media outlets considering this possibility.

For instance, on April 3, the New York Post published an editorial entitled “Nancy’s Nonsense”:

More than two centuries ago, Congress passed the Logan Act, which forbids private citizens from negotiating with foreign governments. As an elected official, Pelosi isn't restrained by the law - but its meaning is clear.

Negotiating with world leaders - particularly those at odds with the United States - should be left to the president, or those authorized by him to do so.

On April 6, the Wall Street Journal’s Robert F. Turner wrote a piece entitled “Illegal Diplomacy” (subscription required):

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may well have committed a felony in traveling to Damascus this week, against the wishes of the president, to communicate on foreign-policy issues with Syrian President Bashar Assad. The administration isn't going to want to touch this political hot potato, nor should it become a partisan issue. Maybe special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, whose aggressive prosecution of Lewis Libby establishes his independence from White House influence, should be called back.

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," ...

*****Update: Full WSJ article is now available through OpinionJournal (emphasis added):

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." Some background on this statute helps to understand why Ms. Pelosi may be in serious trouble.

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."

[...]

But conside 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 U.S. is in the midst of two wars authorized by Congress. For Ms. Pelosi to flout the Constitution in these circumstances is not only shortsighted; it may well be a felony, as the Logan Act has been part of our criminal law for more than two centuries. Perhaps it is time to enforce the law.

And, as NewsBuster Mark Finkelstein reported Friday, NBC’s Matt Lauer and Tim Russert actually discussed Pelosi’s possible violation on the “Today” show.

Yet, though USA Today editorialized Friday that Pelosi “violated a long-held understanding that the United States should speak with one official voice abroad - even if the country is deeply divided on foreign policy back home,” nowhere was the actual law in question, and its seriousness, addressed.

Furthermore, though the Washington Post published its own editorial Thursday harshly critical of Pelosi’s trip, it too ignored the actual illegality potentially involved.

As far as I can tell, this is about all the coverage this matter has been given by mainstream news outlets in the United States.

Do you think the media would have been as forgiving of Speaker Gingrich if he had so behaved when Clinton was president?

[Unknown User]

Posted: 4/7/07 at 1:11pm

HOW DARE YOU! HOW DARE YOU TRY TO RUN TO THE DEFENSE OF THE CONSTITUTION AFTER THE 6 YEARS OF GW BUSH WIPING HIS ASS WITH IT.

Tell ya what HD why don't you & your conservative Pals charge Nancy Pelosi with violating the Logan act and toss her in jail OK? Toss Grandma in jail and then shut the f up about it OK? IF it's a felony and you can do it, then do it. DO it. FOR ONCE JUST DO SOMETHING and not talk us to death about it! And Yeah, George Will is gonna talk about this all weekend. We know. Just go arrest her, K?

[HDThoreau2]

Posted: 4/7/07 at 2:53pm

Great suggestion!

We're gonna get Gonzales, Ashcroft, and all the great conservative lawyers to blast her into the next decade.

She broke the law, shi* on the constitution, and embarrassed the United States in ways not seen since Jimmy Carter. Let's get her out of there~!!

[HDThoreau2]

Posted: 4/7/07 at 3:01pm

Grandma Pelosi in the beautiful burka she wore this week. Will they let her take it to jail?

[Unknown User]

Posted: 4/7/07 at 3:04pm

So why do you conservatives give her crap for dressing respectfully of her host's customs? What would Condoleeza wear if or when she ever went on a diplomatic mission to a muslim nation?

What did you want her to wear? A bikini?

And have you arrested her yet? Why not? C'mon, if she broke the law let's get her in prison already.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 4/7/07 at 3:06pm

And why do you call ber "grandma Pelosi"? Is there something wrong with having grandchildren? I don't think the Democrats ever referred to President Reagan as Grandpa Reagan-- but maybe you need to be able to recognize your offspring to earn that title?

[Unknown User]

Posted: 4/7/07 at 3:08pm

I kind of like the idea of this "Parental titling" of government officials! Wonder what Grampa Cheney thinks of it? Or Bitter Barren Spinster Rice?

[HDThoreau2]

Posted: 4/7/07 at 3:09pm

Without a doubt, attorneys are working on it right now. Maybe they can get Dave Hobson (R-Ohio) while they are at it. It seems like only Nancypants broke the intent and essence of the law, but what was that bubble headed tomato doing with her?

Condi and Laura wore distinctive black cloth head wraps, but then they weren't trying to get written up in the style section of the Washington Post.

The Post seems to be saying great style, illegal behavior.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 4/7/07 at 3:12pm

Why do you conservatives hate Great Grandfather Carter so much? I can't help but wonder if you think all liberals meet to worship under a picture of President Jimmy when we plot world domination. He's a nice man but he was a pretty ineffective president. It's not like he wiped his butt with the constitution, or took a vacation during a national crisis or ran us so deep in debt we may never get out, but he was no Clinton or FDR, that's for sure! But, hey there can only be two GREATEST PRESIDENTS OF THE CENTURY!

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 4/7/07 at 3:17pm

You are so funny HD.

In NY and wasting your time on this board.

Is this really all there is to you?

You are such a silly, silly boy.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 4/7/07 at 3:22pm

So you're ripping into her because she wore a PRETTY scarf? god you right wingers are nuts.

And really, Go ahead, arrest her. And that republican congressman too-- I didn't bother to look up his name cause he's gonna be voted out next fall, I'll wait and learn his democratic succesor's name. Arrest them all. Throw your show trial, stage a political circus (yeah I read the Republican talking points) and then toss her in prison. President Obama will pardon her, The Cuomo supreme court will overturn her conviction and Seretary of State Bill Clinton will bring Israel and Syria to the negotiation table.