Pelosi In Syria

Some of you are whining that I think Pelosi should not have gone to Syria.

Well, a couple of points:

The United States speaks with one voice on foreign policy, and that voice is the President’s. The President has set a “no talk” policy with Syria, which Pelosi ignored despite the White House asking her not to go. And both she and Congressman Lantos, Chair of the House International Relations Committee, insist this is the beginning of “constructive dialogue” with Syria.

This undermines our foreign policy in a way Congressman Wolf going to Syria does not. She’s the freaking Speaker.

USA Today is just the latest national newspaper to condemn what Pelosi did. Good for them.

BTW, because Pelosi has admitted her talk went beyond information gathering, she could and probably should be prosecuted under the Logan Act.

About the author

Erick Erickson

View all posts

10 Comments

  • “The United States speaks with one voice on foreign policy, and that voice is the President’s. ”

    Of course. That’s why the founders gave the president the unilateral ability to make treaties and enshrined this prerogative in the constitution.

    This undermines our foreign policy in a way Congressman Wolf going to Syria does not. She’s the freaking Speaker.

    Well it might undermine Bush’s policy but Bush is not the end all be all of the united states. Congress is a co-equal branch of government and it’s time that George stopped acting like a spoiled child and sat down with congress.

    BTW, because Pelosi has admitted her talk went beyond information gathering, she could and probably should be prosecuted under the Logan Act.

    Nice idea there Matlock. Quick question, was Pelosi there as a private citizen or as a government official? This kind of BS might get a big old 5 from the RS echo chamber but it doesn’t pass the laugh test out in the open world.

    While I might not like Pelosi going to Syria your reasoning is flawed and unlikely to sway unbiased people.

  • FAP, consider the legislative history relating to the passage of the Logan Act, chronicled yesterday in the WSJ:

    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.

  • Palosi has access to the defense secrets of our country. In her scatter brain way, whose to say her brain, such as it is, wasn’t picked. In back rooms of her different hosts, anything could have happened. Her showing as much leg as she did and dressing in the colors she did at least was sort of “spitting in the eye” of her hosts. I wonder if she would have even been received if she’d gone dressed like that and it was Ramadan. At least Condeleeza knows the proper/repectful way to dress in Muslim countries. Maybe Palosi thought her motherly/grandmotherly way would hold some sway with all the Muslim men, but her ditziness was like a bad kid getting away with something, i.e., “spitting in the eye” of our President and Vice President and those who back them. It would be interesting to have heard the comments from the Muslim men after she left.

  • Eric I ran this by some lawyer friends of mine and they got back to me with this law is so broad and vague that A) it’s probably unconstitutional and B) it hasn’t really been used since the 19th century.

    BTW the Logan act purpose is to prohibit private citizens from NEGOTIATING with a foreign power not speaking with them. What deal did the speaker negotiate with al-Assad? And is hypocritical to call the Speaker out for merely talking with foreign leaders when Republican members of congress have frequently done the same and you have been silent?

    This is much ado about nothing and you probably know that but are happy to point out anything that takes the spot light off of the Walter Reed scandal and the turmoil in the justice department.

  • My apologies. But I sincerely didn’t see what words were above a G rating. “al-Assad” perhaps?

    Again apologies to you and your mother.

    BTW Happy Easter and a joyous Passover.

  • http://mediamatters.org/items/200704050008?show=1

    A writing about how Hastert circumvented President Clinton in direct deals with Columbia that was conveniently left out of the Washington Post. We have got to move on and salvage this Country of ours, and quit this partisan politics (utopian dream, right). It is time to get over the election of November 2006, and realize that Nancy Pelosi is the new Speaker of the House and the Democrats have control of both branches of Congress if even by a small majority that voted them in (close as horse shoes, but they are the majority).

    Easter is here, and God bless all. For those that have not been saved, I pray for you and your search for the real TRUTH.

  • http://www.antiwar.com/reese/?articleid=10781

    Pelosi and Syria by Charlie Reese. This is a quick read, and most informative about why it is important for the second in line to the Presidency has rights to visit foreign countries. We are not at war with Syria! Actually, we do not have a declared war against any particular country. That is whay Congressman Paul voted against the Iraq invasion because it was not a declared war. Mr. Paul knows the Constitution and we need him desparately to become our next President.

  • President Bush was deceived into this invasion into Iraq by those that decided to invade back in 1996. We have all been deceived, but that does not mean we keep covering up a mistake with more mistakes. Human lives are being lost every single day, several soldiers this weekend and nearly 100 Iraqis. It is time to bring our troops home, and I say that as a strong supporter of the military. I do not want to see anymore lives given for what appears to be a lost cause.