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?
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
well, duh....
April 6, 2007 - 10:23 ET by MC RoveI'm disappointed in you, Noel. We don't need any more proof that Nancy is a traitor to our country! She should be forced to resign for this violation immediately!
Why is NewsBusters not calling for her head on this!
MC Rove
April 6, 2007 - 10:25 ET by Noel SheppardMC,
I thought I just did. ns
It's not enough
April 6, 2007 - 10:28 ET by MC RoveBrent Bozell should be on Hannity, O'reilly, and Rush building support for the case against her.
when i google "Nancy Pelosi" the every hit should be a conservative blog calling for her resignation.
You guys are not living up to my expactations. Get ON IT!
Could it be that this page po
April 6, 2007 - 10:40 ET by FastEdCould it be that this page points out media bias, and is not an activist site?
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
walks like a duck...
April 6, 2007 - 10:51 ET by MC Rovewell, not an "activist" site, officially. But we all know why we're here.
Who's side are you on, FastEd? you don't want Nancy Pelosi to resign?
Being here just over a week,
April 6, 2007 - 11:17 ET by FastEdBeing here just over a week, not knowing my background or stance(s), your question doesn't need a reply.
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
oh, I've been watching you
April 6, 2007 - 12:56 ET by MC Roveoh, I've been watching you far far longer than a week, my friend!
Of course you have, hater
April 6, 2007 - 13:23 ET by RJOf course you have, hater.
"Did we think Kyoto would [reduce global warming] when we signed it? . . . Hell no!" -Al Gore
MC Rove - Are you misogynisti
April 6, 2007 - 11:27 ET by ding7777MC Rove - Are you misogynistic? A Pelosi replacement Speaker would be a Democrat - so what's you're rant about?
Noel Sheppard - You guys are
April 6, 2007 - 11:02 ET by ding7777Noel Sheppard - You guys are busting more than just the news! From Speaker to private citizen in 24 hours.
From Speaker to private ci
April 6, 2007 - 11:08 ET by Dave RFrom Speaker to private citizen in 24 hours.
Actually, I would prefer to see From Speaker to inmate # ********** in twelve hours. :-)
This republic will not survive the continued neglect of its people.- Neal Boortz.
If so, they'd probably be d
April 6, 2007 - 11:10 ET by sarcasmoIf so, they'd probably be doing the Democrats a favor, and to top it off Maria Shri...um, I mean...Ahnold probably gets to choose the replacement.
JMR
The act said nothing about be
April 6, 2007 - 11:31 ET by Dan The Man 2The act said nothing about being private or otherwise. It said that no citizen may act without the consent of the President, actually the USA which means the Presient since he is empowered to do negociate treaties and congress is not. Paloosy is a felon.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark. -- save my gun, shoot a liberal.
Noel, I just sent this email
April 6, 2007 - 11:28 ET by misterbillNoel, I just sent this email to the AG s office-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------"Please place charges against Speaker Nancy Pelosi for violation of the Logan Act. There heve been other violations recently, but as Speaker she has cast an ominous shadow over the power of the US Presidency and sent a bad message to the enemies of America. I call upon AG Gonzales to do his duty and arrest and charge Ms. Pelosi ASAP."Maybe a couple of thousand of these will give the Bush admin some support in regrowing their fortitude in the face of recent elections and negative polls.
Where ’s the coward that would not dare to fight for such a land?
Sir Walter Scott
Judith
April 6, 2007 - 21:54 ET by JudithAddress to email Gonzales office, please. Let's get this rolling.
Judith
April 6, 2007 - 23:43 ET by misterbillSorry about the delay--I had signed off.
mailto:AskDOJ@usdoj.gov?subject=USDOJ%20Comments
Where ’s the coward that would not dare to fight for such a land?
Sir Walter Scott
And she looked every bit as s
April 7, 2007 - 07:35 ET by Andrew H.And she looked every bit as silly as she is.
Liberalism is a convenient lie.
MC -- she should be fired f
April 6, 2007 - 11:08 ET by Jack BauerMC -- she should be fired for that scarf alone.
The Murtha Burka... why just be fashionably late when you can be fashionably stupid as well!
JB - in a preemptive strike f
April 6, 2007 - 11:31 ET by FastEdJB - in a preemptive strike for all of our kos friends and hufftards-
"IT WAS PHOTOSHOPPED!!!!, she would never wear a bubushka, even a silk one!! Where was her entorage hair-dresser? "
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
head scarf
April 6, 2007 - 21:57 ET by JudithAn aside: Haven't heard babushka since I left the Polish section of NW Ohio. Its what we always wore. Brings back old memories and good one, too.
'The Murtha Burka'PERFECT JAC
April 6, 2007 - 21:54 ET by bigtimer'The Murtha Burka'
PERFECT JACK!
How do you come up with this great stuff...you know that is gonna catch on!
Piglosi
April 6, 2007 - 21:50 ET by JudithWHY IN THE HECK ISN'T ANYBODY HOLLERING OUT LOUD ON THIS? ARE WE SUDDENLY THE WUSSIES? FOR CRYING OUT LOUD, LETS DO SOMETHING, ANYTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Judith..It has been pathetic
April 6, 2007 - 21:58 ET by bigtimerJudith..
It has been pathetic hasn't it?
I give up on members to speak out when they could have the air-waves if they chose.
I called Asa Hutchinson on C-span about my outrage on the silence and the wussified conservatives not taking a unified stance on a lot of things, important issues, about growing a back-bone...blah blah blah..seems to go in one ear and out the other with the republican party...they will lose again if they do not get a spine instead of always thinking someone somewhere someway will carry the water for their lazy arses.
I have had it.
Let the House and Senate Republicans Handle It
April 7, 2007 - 08:06 ET by BenderLet the House and Senate Republicans Handle It
Oh yeah, that's right I forgot, the House and Senate Republicans don't care. They are a bunch of weak-kneed RINO's who care more about pork than National Security, Immigration, and success on the War On Terrorism.
They are not going to punish one of their own. That's the problem today. There are two sets of laws. One for the political class and one for you and I.
Sandy Berger steals and destroys classified documents from the National Archives - slap on the wrist.
Intern steals Civil War documents from the National Archives - 10 year prison term.
Nancy Pelosi will never be punished or even rebuked by House/Senate Republicans. It makes me sick.
Pelosi and other GOP member
April 6, 2007 - 10:28 ET by mtwokayPelosi and other GOP members of congress clearly violated the Logan Act. They should be handcuffed and arrested upon their return to the US but Gonzalez doesn’t have the gonads to do it.
We can all direct our anger towards Pelosi and what she did but the real anger should be directed at Bush, GOP members of congress, and especially Gonzalez. Gonzalez allowed himself to be neutered unnecessarily over the AG firing non-scandal and now doesn’t have the political will or backing (too bad it takes political will to enforce the law) to chase down Pelosi, handcuff, charge, and throw the traitor in jail (wow the libs would come unglued but it would be fun to watch). By his inaction/silence on this and many other issues, Gonzalez is allowing this country and the Presidency to be undermined by a group of rogue, commie traitors.
I hate to say this but if Bush/Gonzales keeps doing nothing they are just as guilty as the dems in undermining this country. I absolutely question lib’s patriotism but if nothing is done about this “shadow government” I’ll have to question the patriotism of certain GOP members.
Bush did take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, didn’t he? Doesn’t that mean enforcing the law as well?
While I agree with some of yo
April 6, 2007 - 10:50 ET by dscottWhile I agree with some of your sentiment on inaction and fumbling the ball, let's put something to rest here. Were the GOP members of Congress who went previously to Syria negotiating with Assad? What was the purpose of their trip? If you can definitively say members of the GOP were in Syria to negotiate then show the proof, if not then do everyone a favor cite exactly what they were doing there. And while you are at it, please correct me if I'm wrong in thinking Bush and the State Department may have also discouraged these folks from going also or did they go with an "approved agenda" to speak to foreign officials?
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
1. Ok, I'll admit when memb
April 6, 2007 - 11:01 ET by mtwokay1. Ok, I'll admit when members of congress go to Syria and other rogue nations they’re discussing the weather, local cuisine, and the latest soccer game.
2. I discourage my kids from doing certain things but I also warn them of the consequences, and when they clearly misbehave they’re punished. Now Bush discouraged Pelosi from going, I’ll give him that. But that’s it, nothing else from Bush or Gonzalez except silence and inaction.
Stand fast
April 6, 2007 - 11:34 ET by misterbillStand fast-- you are correct--the Speaker should be arrested. You are entitled to your opinion and I agree with you. She was asked not to go by the President per news clips I have read. I have also read that the words of a Republican who went to the mid-east were twisted by the MSM and he said nothing negative about the current administration.
Where ’s the coward that would not dare to fight for such a land?
Sir Walter Scott
I have also read that the wor
April 6, 2007 - 12:26 ET by dscottI have also read that the words of a Republican who went to the mid-east were twisted by the MSM and he said nothing negative about the current administration.
Link please misterbill, I want to cut off the lib/Dem spin on what the GOPers were doing in Syria. If we are going to roast Ms. Pelosi, I don't want any side dishes distracting from the aroma and flavor.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
dscott -
April 6, 2007 - 23:38 ET by misterbillI was on vacation when I read it--cannot find the original article now at home. I did however find what Rep Aderholt said to prove that he did not malign the Bush policy.
http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2007/04/aderholt_defends_trip_to_syria.html
How the above can be perceived as anti-Bush could only be done in a twisted mind.
Where ’s the coward that would not dare to fight for such a land?
Sir Walter Scott
The news media not only hat
April 6, 2007 - 10:33 ET by JDWThe news media not only hates Bush, but America. Why would they be so inclined to attack Pelosi for supporting the terrorists?
JDW
News media: Scoreboard for terrorists
As posted on another thread,
April 6, 2007 - 10:37 ET by FastEdAs posted on another thread, Lauer made a stupid remark, not knowing but referencing "somthing called" the Logan Act. This spotlights the so called media "heavy hitters" as readers as opposed to being reporters. They can ONLY spew back what some agenda driven "news" writer puts in front of them, instead of doing basic, basic, simple, easy to do, research.
As to why it WON'T be covered, the msm (Lsm) would then have to admit that their "friends" were wrong, and it'll be a cold day on this global warmed earth before that happens.
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
Noel,I agree 100% that Pelo
April 6, 2007 - 10:42 ET by Dave RNoel,
I agree 100% that Pelosi's little jaunt has been a running violation of The Logan Act and probably warrants a serious investigation. However, with the Democrat Party in control of congress, along with the current U.S. Justice Department's state of self-induced discombobulation (not to mention their maddening un-willingness to pursue wayward democrats-Sandy I got a slap on the wrist "Pants" Berger and Willie "cold cash" Jefferson being just two examples) I doubt anything will ever come of it.
Besides, if they did go after her, most of the former MSM would be screaming political prosecution! at the top of their lungs.
What will be interesting to see is if Nancy has another shot fired across her bow from the destroyer HMS Clinton.
This republic will not survive the continued neglect of its people.- Neal Boortz.
I DEMAND AN INVESTIGATION!
April 6, 2007 - 10:46 ET by blackrain4xmasWhere are the Congressional calls demanding an investigation?
Where is the opposition party?
Where is the Attorney General?
Why isn't the Sec State Demanding an investigation?
Bush has truly become a lame duck if he's going to ignore his responsibility to enforce the laws of the land for fear of going from 32 to 31% approval.
EDIT
Wouldn't it be amazing if in all the calls for W's impeachment...the first woman Speaker of the House had to step down so she could serve out her Congressional term in prison? I submit, that since the nation is divided evenly among party lines, and since most Americans dislike what Speaker Pelosi has tried to do (though terrorist leaders have applauded it), that if President Bush were to have the AG file charges, bring this to a swift trial, and imprison her, his poll numbers would skyrocket back up to the 50's, and Democrats would think twice about creating their own Congressional foreign policy. Does he still have the testicular fortitude? Doubt it, but you can bet good money that President Gingrich or President Thompson would be doing and not only without shame, but with pride.
You're so right. The Presid
April 6, 2007 - 11:08 ET by mtwokayYou're so right. The President's approval would skyrocket if the AG filed charges but the libs would go insane. In fact the libs would finally get their million man/woman/thing march they've wanted for so long, but the President's approval would double overnight.
Hhhhhhhhhuuuuuuuuuuppp! [hold
April 6, 2007 - 11:20 ET by pbanks7Hhhhhhhhhuuuuuuuuuuppp! [holding my breath]
Kerry, the admitted war criminal, also violated the Logan Act in the 70's. Was almost our president.
Carter, the former President, has violated the Logan Act several times.
The Gunga-din media will be sure to protect any Democ-rat who is willing to make Bush look bad. If the Bush admin even says anything, Bush will be made to be the bad guy.
Ignorance is bliss. It's easier to repeat a mindless slogan than to do some actual research.
The american people have spoken
April 6, 2007 - 11:00 ET by SportPoliticsThe american people have spoken...
Oh really,all 2% of them who spoke for the democrat party ?
It bugs me to no end when the talking blubberheads quack like 100% of the american people support their insane surrendering and white flagging.
Democrats,you have a bare 1-2% luck out in the last election, and you do NOT have the foriegn policy position of the PRESIDENCY.
You are the MINORITY when it comes to foreign policy, you morons.
A midterm election DOES NOT CHANGE THE PRESIDENCY, YOU LYING BAGS OF CRAP.
That's how Tim Russert talks. "The american people" are > add in how opposed they are to Bush...on any issue whatsoever...as if they ALL are -
That's how the lying msm does it, constantly...
The truth is a barely above 50% tiny shred more than not actually support the msm line. That's the truth. But they all talk like it's 100% of "the american people" behind their liberal Bush bashing demo supporting crap.
Every senator sees a President in the mirror
April 6, 2007 - 11:07 ET by blackrain4xmasDoes every Speaker see a President as well?
My wife's convinced that the calls for impeachment and efforts at "oversight" are really Speaker Pelosi's personal effort to have Bush/Cheney removed from office so that #3 becomes #1.
Sedition?
Coup?
Can anyone tell me what laws were broken in the Iran Contra affair and why those laws about supporting foreign forces were put in place? Was it the same reason that the Logan Act was written: to prevent anyone other than the Executive from engaging in foreign policy?
Ahhhh Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Col Oliver North...
If she wants to hold hearings about possible suggested wrong doing even possible suggested criminal firing of 8 US attorneys, I suggest that he comply with the letter of the law and with Congress' demands, and that he equally prosecute the would be queen of the United States.
Yep. Three years lady.
You were warned not to go, you went, and you screwed it up. If elections have consequences, so too surely does a deliberate, pre-meditated breaking of the law.
Or not? Perhaps President Bush will just roll over and beg to have his tummy rubbed like a lap dog...rather than have someone post a BEWARE OF DOG sign on the WH lawn.
Bush
April 6, 2007 - 22:12 ET by JudithWhat is wrong with W? It seems as though he has abdicated the Presidency. Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way!
Democrats and Foreign Policy
April 6, 2007 - 11:13 ET by River CityYES!!!!
I agree! I have also been saying this to anyone who will listen. Why aren't the Republicans saying this? The Dems DO NOT have a mandate. The mid-term election was not a national election. It was a series of local, regional and state elections. The Dems won some of them. They won enough to tip the balance of power in the House and Senate. Yes, that is what counts, but how is that a mandate? I think Nancy, Steny and Jack are using the mandate rhetoric to convince those who aren't on board that they need to be. The Conservatives better get out there and counter this with their own rhetoric.
The demolibs must have a &quo
April 6, 2007 - 11:22 ET by FastEdThe demolibs must have a "consensus", therefore it is "fact" - that's how they crunch the numbers. Remember too, where did most of the msm (Lsm) start their careers? ummm? or at least the ones who make the most spinning noise?
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
"The Act was named after
April 6, 2007 - 11:22 ET by Independence4All"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. "
"Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States...."
Sounds like she fits this description perfectly to me but people say this doesn't apply to Speaker Pelosi and her other companions? I understand she is an elected official but someone please try and explain to me how this does not apply. Did she not go over and talk to a foreign dictator, about foreign policy, during a time of war, without approval or support from the Executive branch of government? How does this not, in any shape or form, contradict/conflict with current stated foreign policy?
Noel,You beat me to the draw
April 6, 2007 - 11:39 ET by SpinyNormanNoel,
You beat me to the draw on this one, so I’ll add my 2-cents worth here. There have been Logan violation accusations launched at liberal budinskis for the past 25 years and none have reached media-bias escape velocity: Ramsey Clark, Screwy Louie Farrakhan, Jesse Jackson, and Jimmy Carter, to name but a few. Of course, none of these self-righteous charlatans were active members of government at the time.
On the other hand, I can’t help but wonder how the words “without authority of the United States” might be interpreted to her advantage in this case. Surely, America did not vote for Nancy Pelosi – unwashed tin-foil heads in San Francisco did. But I wonder how a liberal rent-a-legal-scholar might interpret those words before an all-too-eager audience………
Gotta punch out……
Give a Liberal a thought and he'll repeat it mindlessly all day. Teach a Liberal to think for himself and he'll vote Republican (or, preferably, Libertarian) for the rest of his life.
Arrogance
April 6, 2007 - 12:15 ET by Mr. TerryJust look at her face. She thinks she is president. She is an anarchist because she thinks that the rules do not apply to her. Her mentality is one of the undeveloped nations which are corrupt to the core. She has no business being in the U.S. House, yet there she is.
Like many of these other comments suggest, the AG and the White House need to slap her down for this one or they will never have the upper hand again. That goes for the rest of the GOP as well.
I'm with Ann Coulter when she complains about the GOP not having any fight in them. Why do we even vote for them? They do not represent the Americans who put them into office.
Nancy Pelosi - You are aiding the enemies of the United States.
If only T. Jefferson were sti
April 6, 2007 - 12:48 ET by FastEdIf only T. Jefferson were still around - "The purpose of government is to enable the people of a nation to live in safety and happiness. Government exists for the interests of the governed, not for the governors."
""In times of peace the people look most to their representatives; but in war, to the Executive solely."
"Were we to give up half our territory rather than engage in a just war to preserve it, we should not keep the other half long."
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
Frog Marching
April 6, 2007 - 14:23 ET by sighkobablWhere are the calls for Nancy to be Frog Marched out of the house into a waiting police car?
Better yet, there should be a Federal DA waiting for her at the airport.
Hey dumba$$es! Pelosi publicl
April 6, 2007 - 15:27 ET by waka wakaHey dumba$$es! Pelosi publicly said, while standing beside Assad, that she stood shoulder to shoulder with Bush in demanding Syria shape up! How is this "treasonous"? I mean, if that's illegal, then what about Newt's behavior back in good old 1998?
From ABC News, May 27, 1998:
DAVID ENSOR, ABC News: (voice-over) It's beginning to look as if the days when American partisan politics ended at the water's edge may be over.
Rep. NEWT GINGRICH (R), Speaker of the House:... Jerusalem, as the united and eternal capital of Israel.
DAVID ENSOR: (voice-over) That runs directly contrary to official US policy, which holds that Jerusalem's future is a matter for negotiation between Palestinians and Israelis.
Next, Speaker Gingrich took on the Clinton administration's effort to convince Israel to give up about 13 percent more of the West Bank. He said, quote, "We cannot allow non- Israelis to substitute their judgment for the generals that Israel has trusted with its security." The non-Israelis in question are Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and her aides, one of whom reacted sharply.
JAMES RUBIN, State Department Spokesman: Rather stunning comments that would undermine the efforts we're trying to make to advance America's national interest.
DAVID ENSOR: (voice-over) But it was a comment made two weeks ago that has Albright's team simmering with anger. "I think it's wrong," Gingrich said then, "for the American secretary of state to become the agent for the Palestinians."
JAMES RUBIN: I found particularly appalling an outrageous his suggestion that the secretary of state of the United States was an agent for the Palestinians.
Check out the rest of the story and how "liberal" the media really is, if you daaaare!
http://electioncentr...
Reality has a well known liberal bias.
waka equals....Someone who ju
April 6, 2007 - 15:32 ET by bigtimerwaka equals....
Someone who just eats the pages of books.
Period.
You must of digested the pages yesterday and not read them...at all.
Troll.
Why not mention the Logan A
April 6, 2007 - 15:38 ET by JDWWhy not mention the Logan Act?
Why ignore the fact that Syria sponsors terrorism?
Why ignore the fact that Pelosi's actions undermine the U.S.?
Answer: Fighting for defeat.
JDW
News media: Scoreboard for terrorists
If you are going to whine about spelling... get a life
Well let's see here, starting
April 6, 2007 - 15:45 ET by dscottWell let's see here, starting off with name calling, which means you have nothing to contribute to the discussion and is an admission you have lost the argument before it started.
Now you could have referenced some thoughtful discussion on the issue like Robert F. Turner, a law professor who believes Pelosi has in fact committed an actionable felony.
For my part, we lost that opportunity to go after Pelosi by not prosecuting Jimmy Carter when he had the nerve to chastise current President Bush for not agreeing with his negotiated position with a foreign power on another matter. Should she be prosecuted? I believe yes, just to make an example of her, will she be prosecuted, probably not as a political matter because it would look mean spirited given all the previous passes we have so foolishly given over the years.
At some point, the Bush admin. will have to show some backbone, I suspect, they are going to deal with the Dems in a truly Rovian manner leaving the Dems holding the bag looking very silly, just like the recent recess appointment. If I were Rove, I would advise W to fill all the empty slots with recess appointments and thumb my nose at the Dems just to get them mouth foaming, raving mad. No one likes raving lunatics no matter how justified they may be.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
Absolutely agree about the B
April 6, 2007 - 15:51 ET by Gat New YorkAbsolutely agree about the Bush administration getting off its pedestal and defending itself as well as about bringing charges against Pelosi under the Logan Act. What Gingrich did was make a political speech and had nothing to do with negotiating with a foreign leader. What Pelosi did was not only have policy discussions with Assad without the President's authorization but she also elected to take a message from the President of Israel to Assad without the President's approval. The fact that she bungled the message should be enough reason for her to resign.
Those who forget history...
April 6, 2007 - 16:45 ET by Kevin from the North ShoreDo you think the media would have been as forgiving of Speaker Gingrich if he had so behaved when Clinton was president?
Umm... apparently so.
Kevin,Hi!Happy Easter early..
April 6, 2007 - 16:54 ET by bigtimerKevin,
Hi!
Happy Easter early...
You are going to be another fun furry critter to play with...your not the Energizer Bunny are ya?
Carry on...and on...and on...
That MSM "giant" P
April 6, 2007 - 17:02 ET by Roger the ShrubberThat MSM "giant" Pat Buchanan is your example? You found one "pundit' (not even a reporter) and you claim victory!
Okay. You win. It's not a 100% certainty that the media would not have been as forgiving. It is actually only a 98.5% certainty. I'm convinced!
Seriously -- do they block Go
April 6, 2007 - 17:59 ET by Kevin from the North ShoreSeriously -- do they block Google from your computer or something?
http://www.cnn.com/W... (speaking of meeting with terrorists...)
http://www.cnn.com/A...
Of course, had there been an outcry by the liberal media about Gingrich's 1998 Middle East trip or 1997 China visit, the MRC would have caught it, right?:
http://www.mediarese...
http://www.mediarese...
Actually, Sparky, all I went
April 6, 2007 - 20:04 ET by Roger the ShrubberActually, Sparky, all I went on was your original link, and showed you the error of your ways.
You have to remember, and many of the "progressives" that come here do not seem to understand this: congressmen and senators can visit foreign countries on "fact-finding" missions, or however you want to call it. It especially becomes important when foreign aid is involved, because these people are the ones who vote on the funding. It is an altogether different matter when a congress(wo)man goes to a foreign country trying to implement and affect foreign policy.
Your link to Gingrich going to China is pertinent because of the Clinton scandal involving campaign donation money, and that was a congress issue. Arafat won a Nobel Prize, so that means he is hardly a terrorist, right? He is a man of peace. Stop slandering a good man's name. That link also has nothing of substance. Gingrish is doing nothing wrong, especially since Israel is the #1 recipient of US foreign aid. Sorry, Chachi, a big goose egg for your today.
As for the MRC, they can defend themselves, but I believe if you look at the top of every page, it clearly says "combating and exposing LIBERAL media bias". Feel free to post links from a "Exposing Conservative media bias" website to support your claims. I am sure there must be copious amounts of evidence to support you, since the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy has been around for so long.
Perhaps you can Google that.
Hi Rog-- Wow, between this
April 7, 2007 - 12:53 ET by Kevin from the North ShoreHi Rog--
Wow, between this thread and the Kos one, I'm struggling to get a handle on your stance on Israel -- I'm a racist Holocaust denier, but Arafat is "a man of peace"?
Thought it was a given that Noel's original question:
was aimed at the liberal media, hence my surprise at the absence of links from the MRC.
Gingrich did so behave when Clinton was president -- visiting with foreign nations in a manner that you construe here as a violation of the Logan Act.
The media were as forgiving (if not more so) -- here's a pointer to some contemporaneous reporting from the NYT.
The quotes from Buchanan et al are simply to point out the hypocrisy of praising Gingrich and slamming Pelosi (while ignoring the Republican who accompanied Pelosi, and the Republican congressional delegations that preceded and followed her in meeting with Syria.)
Nancy Pelosi is trying to i
April 6, 2007 - 17:56 ET by rainlillieNancy Pelosi is trying to implement the recommendations by the Baker-Hamilton
report( Bush hand -picked the members in the Baker-Hamilton group)
That's why she went to Syria. James Baker is one of GWB's father's
closet friends and he was a part of the group who suggested that we
meet with our enemies as well as our allies. The Right wing act as if
Nancy came up with the idea on her own.
The biggest threat to the Bush Administration is an informed public.
Our girlfiends back and she's
April 6, 2007 - 18:05 ET by bigtimerOur girlfiends back and she's gonna be in trouble....
Doo-waaa Doo-waa...
BT,I see John's "Nancy i
April 6, 2007 - 18:08 ET by BlondeBT,
I see John's "Nancy in a Head Scarf" has got you in a song-singing mood.
Good one.
Just what we need on a lovely Friday.....rainlillie's drivel.
"Nancy Pelosi is trying
April 6, 2007 - 18:07 ET by Gat New York"Nancy Pelosi is trying to implement . . . " I think you should refer to the Constitution and Article II section 3 as well as to The Logan Act. It is illegal for Pelosi to conduct any foreign policy initiative with another country without the consent of the President. Her violation is a felony. More importantly she anointed herself an official U.S. agent to take a message from the President of Israel to Assad without the President's permission. Your side constantly tries to invoke the Constitution so don't even think about being hypocritical here. She not only broke the law, but she caused a major interntional incident because she is a moron and was incapable of delivering the correct message.
GNY...I told her she was goin
April 6, 2007 - 18:18 ET by bigtimerGNY...
I told her she was going to be in trouble...
She never comes back, thats why I never mention anything important to her anymore with a serious response.
She is a waste of time and a weekly planted trolloping troll.
You most likely already know that...just thought I would throw that in just in case...
LOL!
Another piss-poor "com
April 7, 2007 - 06:45 ET by Jack BauerAnother piss-poor "comment" by one of our resident leftoid dumb clucks who can't see a point without missing it by a mile.
Truly pathetic, even by your standards, which is a very low bar.
"Nancy Pelosi is trying to implement .. " That Nancy, she's so "special".
The biggest threat to our dem
April 7, 2007 - 07:33 ET by Andrew H.The biggest threat to our democracy is the uninformed left.
Liberalism is a convenient lie.
For our friend whinylillie/naivelillie
April 7, 2007 - 13:58 ET by UnsaneUnfortunately, whinylillie, the only thing that can solve the problems in the Middle East is not the document you so love (perhaps because in addition to having the United States surrender, it demands Israel surrender as well) is good-old-fashioned VIOLENCE. Just ask Bashar Assad, whose Alawite regime has oppressed and murdered its own citizens just to stay in power for decades now.
Keep throwing your online tantrums though, demanding the government personally spoon-feed you three times a day, warm you bottle, and change you. It would be amusing if not so pathetic, even for an adolescent.
"The greatest threat to naivelillie's health is critical thinking." - Unsane
US ConstitutionArticle 2Secti
April 7, 2007 - 05:08 ET byUS Constitution
Article 2
Section 4 - DisqualificationThe President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
Article 3
Section 3 - TreasonTreason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.
You guys were whining on &quo
April 7, 2007 - 13:48 ET by ferrarimanf355You guys were whining on "selective amesia" about the U.S. Attorneys flap, so you guys should be humiliated over this "do as I say, not as I do" attitude:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/06/news/pelosi.php
Uzumaki/Ayanami '08. Because a ninja and an Eva pilot can govern the nation better that what we have now...
ferrariboy
April 7, 2007 - 13:54 ET by Dave RConfucious say: It is better to push a Porsche than drive a Ferrari.
This republic will not survive the continued neglect of its people.- Neal Boortz.