Nancy Pelosi: House Speaker, Felon and our Future President?
April 8th, 2007Our lovely House Speaker Nancy Pelosis trip to Damascus last week to discuss foreign policy issues with Syrian President Bashar Assad might be considered felony under the Logan Act, according to a former State Department official.
The Logan Act, initiated by President John Adams in 1798, 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 governments behavior on any disputes or controversies with the United States, points out Robert F. Turner, former acting assistant secretary of state for legislative affairs.
Additionally, according to WND, members of terrorist organizations whose top leaders live in Syria called Pelosis Damascus visit brave and very appreciated, saying it could bring about important changes to Americas foreign policy, including talks with Middle East resistance groups.
One quote that really disturbed me was the following:
Nancy Pelosi understands the area (Middle East) well, more than Bush and Dr. (Condoleeza) Rice, said Al-Batch, speaking to WND from Gaza. If the Democrats want to make negotiations with Syria, Hamas, and Hezbollah, 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.
Yes, changing our foreign policy with terrorist nations is exactly what we need. Whats next, a weekend visit to the caves of Afghanistan for a two day summit with Bin Laden? Is this the type of leadership we want for our country?
Technorati Tags: nancy pelosi, liberalism, robert turner, logan act, damascus
Blog Optimization
April 8th, 2007 at 4:53 am
the phrase: "to communicate with a foreign government in an effort to influence that government’s behavior on any “disputes or controversies with the United States,” gives an awful lot of elbow room - i suspect that Microsoft may be in breach of it re: differences in software patents in the EU.
I suggest that you're nitpicking.
April 8th, 2007 at 5:09 am
Grand ma Nancy is part of the Legislative Branch...Not the Executive Branch... She is in supposedly in charge of the House of Representatives...She has no reason at all for her actions other than utter stupidity (which I believe is the case)...She has time to visit State sponsors of terroroism across the world...but she can't find the time to fund the American military fighting the byproducts of these criminal regimes. The only thing she has accomplished is her first massive media flub...she has a lot of her supporters questioning her mental stability now...
April 8th, 2007 at 5:39 am
She is following an age-old precedent in which high-up members of our government go on fact-finding and relationship-building trips. Ben Franklin, so I hear, did an awful lot of that.
It was one of the MAIN directives of the Iraq Study Group that we engage Syria and Iran in discussions and Bush is refusing to listen to our intelligence agencies, our best international advisors and our generals.
The Bush policy is idiotic. The more he condescends to these rouge nations the more they close their minds to our way of life and our world view. The old addage to "keep your friends close but your enemies closer" has lasted so long for a reason.
Some logic: When I am carrying a gun (I hold a concealed carry permit) I engage aggressive people in order to create a situation in which I don't have to pull out a gun. I DON'T prod and insult them until they are enraged. Would it be legal to shoot them should they attack me after I get them enraged? Possibly. But I would still be a murderer.
April 8th, 2007 at 6:07 am
the constitution calls for the president and only the president to conduct foreign policy, and the law calls for criminal charges for those who disobay our laws, period!!!
April 8th, 2007 at 7:13 am
You people are nuts. What about Tom Delay and HIS trips to visit foreign leaders. All of you are just a bunch of hypocrites.
April 8th, 2007 at 7:16 am
Well, I guess we can't use the phrase "We do not negotiate with terrorists" anymore.
Dealing with these terrorist countries and organizations is like dealing with a spoiled child. The child will yell and scream and break things in an attempt to get what it wants from the parent. The best thing to do is ignore it until it realizes that that tactic wont work, otherwise the bad behavior will be perpetuated.
Pelosi is the crazy aunt that sneaks in when the parents are not looking and gives the child a candy bar, completely undermining the parents attempts to gain control.
Pelosi should be arrested.
April 8th, 2007 at 7:32 am
Ha! Reagan getting the Iran hostages freed - yep, that tactic won't work any more.
April 8th, 2007 at 7:44 am
There's an argument that the enforcement of archaic and defunct laws should be considered a breach of the fourteenth amendment for an abrogation of 'due process of law.' The Logan Act seems to fall into that category.
If you don't talk to terrorists, why is the president so friendly with the Saudi's? And what about Martin McGuinness? Does the former chief of staff of the IRA not count as a terrorist?
April 8th, 2007 at 8:06 am
I suppose you ignore the fact that two republican reps were in Syria at the same time. It's important that a democrat was though, b/c all democrats are traitors.
April 8th, 2007 at 9:18 am
yeah, i think we should just kill them all. that will definitely make a safer world for Americans. Pelosi's visit should be emulated by everyone involved, and shame on conservatives for failing to see that the Iraq war has provided a rallying point and training ground for any Arab who wants to get a chance to kill a bona-fide American. Discussion is the only way this will end, and thats what you seem to neglect.
April 8th, 2007 at 10:47 am
I'm sure no one thinks we should treat the Republican House members, Frank Wolfe, Joe Pitts, and Robert Aderholt who met with Assad (in Syria) on Sunday before Pelosi's visit the same--should we?
April 8th, 2007 at 11:10 am
What about the Republican congressmen such as Darrell Issa that also went to Syria?
April 9th, 2007 at 5:34 am
the Speaker was advised by the State Dept. NOT to make this trip. it is not a fact finding trip but a slap in the face to the President.
April 9th, 2007 at 6:25 am
I think that the quote (“Nancy Pelosi understands the area (Middle East) well, more than Bush and Dr. (Condoleeza) Rice,” said Al-Batch) summarizes exactly what people choose not to see.
The fact is that militant, terrorist harboring, Muslim leaders absolutely love liberals. Before the '04 elections, I found it to be extremely fun to put on a turban and hold a sign that said "al Qaida loves Kerry." Ahh, good times.
The fact that terrorists want Dems in office should be a huge hint to why Democrats should not be in office.
April 9th, 2007 at 7:04 am
Mxermadman - agreed. Mainly becuase they know that liberals are soft on terror and won't step up to the plate and handle business.
April 9th, 2007 at 7:17 am
Jimmy Carter proved beyond doubtd that liberals cannot be trusted with terrorist activity, OH Yeah, so did Billery Clinton!!!
April 10th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
"Is this the type of leadership we want for our country?"
as opposed, say, to the lying, freedom-destroying, terrorist aiding-and-abetting, warmongering leadership we currently have?
is this a trick question?
April 10th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
John - I don't get it. please elaborate when you say "freedom-destroying, terrorist aiding-and-abetting".....give us some examples of your rhetoric.
Otherwise, you make yourself look uninformed like most of the libs i know.
April 10th, 2007 at 11:50 pm
Nancy Pelosi, rules!!!
April 13th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
Nancy Pelosi, ESPECIALLY if she makes good and goes to Tehran - should be arrested and sent to Gitmo with all the other enemy combatants.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:34 am
The war in Iraq was the first time in American history that the United States engaged in a nation-building operation with UNDERwhelming force. It has been a policy of the USA since it began nation building post-WW2 to defeat and conquer the enemy with overwhelming force in order to ensure complete stability during reconstruction (see post-WW2 Japan). Afghanistan, too, began with overwhelming force but was then decreased after the start of the Iraq war. Because of our inability to understand and prepare for the inevitable sectarian conflict, rather than our president's misty-eyed idea of flowers, in a region that was only kept relatively peaceful by an absolute authoritarian leader we now face a disastrous situation. Saddam Hussein had a 500,000 strong army to ensure stability in Iraq, and George Bush thinks we can do it with an extra 20,000??
Due to this failure, the war in Iraq has become a rallying point for muslim extremists around the world. Osama bin Laden could not, in his wildest dreams, ever hoped for such an incredible boost in his power. The facts are all there: there are MORE terrorist groups and militant islamic radicals now than before the Iraq War. Our war on terror has exponentially increased our future enemies' ranks.
So now we are left with a decision: pull out, maintain, or take off the gloves. The last two, even if they successfully subdued the Iraqi population, would undoubtedly lead to severe rammifications in the Muslim world and increase American hostility far beyond its current level. A pull out is wrong as well, as it would leave the country in a sectarian civil war that would instantly spread to the rest of the Middle east. No middle eastern country will stand idly by while it watches its sunni and/or shia bretheren slaughtered.
So what now?
The only answer: we must involve the rest of the world in our rebuilding efforts. I don't know how to accomplish this. So let's start brainstorming.
April 21st, 2007 at 4:29 am
This is a funny blog. I'm particularly impressed that you managed to perfectly capture the spittle-flecked inane rage of the average wingnut.
If I were your thesis advisor, this project would get two thumbs up.
April 21st, 2007 at 8:56 am
jpe - thanks for the compliment....