Thursday, April 05, 2007

Pelosi & "Country before party"

Democrats such as former Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton and Senators Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy say they hate it when President Bush “divides America.”

Never mind that in Britain’s Parliament a vote is called a “division;” or that on the eve of WW II President Roosevelt had the political courage and sound judgment to push a military draft bill through Congress that passed the House by just one vote.

Carter, both Clintons, and Ted Kennedy insist they oppose President Bush because “he divides us.”

So instead they support their own Democratic Party leaders such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, about whom the liberal Washington Post editorial writers said today:

[…] Pelosi (D-Calif.) offered an excellent demonstration … 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. …
”We expressed…”

Who knew that when America got its first woman House Speaker, she would use the royal “we?”

We certainly didn’t – uh, I mean - I didn’t.

The Post went on to point out some very serious problems with Queen Nancy’s proclamation:
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. …
The Post added:
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. (emphasis added)

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. (emphasis added)
Overall, the Post has it right and is speaking for all of us who put country before party.

But I’d have made a few changes in the Post’s editorial.

Instead of the Post's:
“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,”
I’d have said:
”The really striking development here is the attempt by a Democratic congressional leader to substitute her own foreign policy for that of our country’s president.”
And instead of ending, as the Post did, with:
“But Ms. Pelosi's attempt to establish a shadow presidency is not only counterproductive, it is foolish,”
I’d have ended with:
“Ms. Pelosi’s attempt to establish a shadow presidency reminds us all of why we need to select leaders who put country before party.”
What do you folks think?

And before you answer, I hope you take a look at what Betsy Newmark has to say about it all here and here.

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

Well said. I couldn't agree with you more.

straightarrow said...

Pelosi has actually committed a crime and could be prosecuted. Our jello spined president won't allow that, but he should.

Anonymous said...

She should be arrested for treason as soon as she steps foot on American soil. What a disgrace. Joe Liverman must be thanking Gd daily that he is an independant. Do the Dems really think they were given Congress for this kind of stuff?

Anonymous said...

I view Pelosi's actions to be the American version of an attempted coup.

Anonymous said...

To 1:00am,

I don't know if she actually committed a crime, but I do agree the jellyfish won't do anything about it except bluster a little bit. He should come out and blast her to hell, but he won't.

HumboldtBlue said...

Hmm, so Pelosi is a traitor? I'm sure none of the commenters here would ascribe that baseless accusation to former speaker Denny Hastert, who, while in his position as speaker, took it upon himself to negotiate (he didn't just meet with, he negotiated) with the Colombian government regarding this nation's most ridiculous and destructive war -- the war on drugs. This is just so much bloviating.

The again, President pretzel choker has done such a bangup job with foreign policy, truly heightended our standing with the rest of the world with his brilliantly planned and amazingly executed invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq, that he's managed gain the support of all Americans ... well, if approval ratings as bad as Nixon's on the day he resigned are considered support.

straightarrow said...

When sent as a representative of the President no crime attaches, otherwise it is a crime and Pelosi committed it.

If you don't like it, blame Pelosi. By the way JJ did the same thing and wasn't prosecuted. He should have been.

If Hastert wasn't an envoy of the current president he falls into the same category. If he did it, it still doesn't excuse Pelosi.

I say "if" because I really don't remember the circumstances. I'll grant you the possibility of being correct. Surprising as that is to me.

HumboldtBlue said...

"I'll grant you the possibility of being correct. Surprising as that is to me."

You would be surprised, considering that a Republican group also met with Assad, but hey, it's Pelosi, so it must have been illegal.

Keep watching FOX news to be sure you stay informed.

JWM said...

Humboltblue and Straightarrow,

You have both added to this blog with many of your comments.

John

straightarrow said...

I suppose Humboldtblue the difference between us is, if what you say is true about "You would be surprised, considering that a Republican group also met with Assad, but hey, it's Pelosi, so it must have been illegal.", is that if they did, in fact, negotiate with and make representation to Assad that they were not specifically charged with doing as per presidential assignment, then they should be put on trial also.

My position has not a damn thing to do with which political party an usurper and violator of our laws belong.

As I have stated, if you are correct, and I will grant you that assumption, though you haven't said whether they actually negotiated or made unauthorized representations, Pelosi is still not excused. But rather,all unauthorized agents acting as false representatives of our nation should be prosecuted. We know that Pelosi did both. Ergo, she has destroyed any possibility of our speaking with one voice. If the others you say have done the same thing, and I am not at all sure they have, they should share the same fate.

If Pelosi had merely visited and gathered information without making unauthorized representations or unauthorized negotiations, she would be within her rights and powers. But we know by her own press conference, that such is not the case, don't we?

Your position seems, to me, to be "your guy did it, so our guy gets a freebie". I am in favor of prosecuting all of them that did such. I am not in favor of excusing one criminal because others may have committed the same crime.

One more time, I am in favor of enforcing this law against all, repeat ALL, its transgressors.

Why are you not? Or is that an inference I have drawn that you did not intend?