Pelosi broke the law visiting Damascus

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

He told her not to go. What more is needed to forbid her from going? Put her in jail?

pout, and that's about it

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Pro Street

pout, and that's about it

Ok, so it sounds like he forbade her to go

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Ok, so it sounds like he forbade her to go

sounds like he said he didn't want to apparnetly? I guess? where?...and he has no authority to forbid the speaker from visiting another country

[imind]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Ok, so it sounds like he forbade her to go

did i miss something?

Rep. Nick Rahall (D-WV), who traveled last week with Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) as part of her delegation to the Middle East, said this morning on C-Span that Pelosi told Bush of the trip to Syria a day before they left, and Bush did not object.

Rahall said, “The Speaker had met with President Bush in the halls of the U.S. Capitol just the day before we left and mentioned to him that we were going to Syria. No response at all from the President.”

[Pro Street]

I'm still missing the part where Bush has the authority to forbid the Speaker from travelling.

[thomez]

Originally Posted by BigRob

What part of my statement are you saying is wrong?


Prostreet- Since you think she went there with no intention of acting as an envoy, are you saying she chose the middle east as a vacation destination and just happened to bump into their representatives in each country she visited?

if anything she was acting as an envoy of Israel, not of the United States - based on what she said she was doing there

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by imind

did i miss something?

Perhaps we have to do a dictionary lesson today:

Forbid

1. to command (a person) not to do something, have something, etc., or not to enter some place: to forbid him entry to the house.

Now obviously, he's not going to tie her down, so all he has are words.

Here Bush condemns her visit:

US President George W. Bush on Tuesday condemned a top US lawmaker's visit to Syria as "counterproductive" and warned against offering Iran any "quid pro quos" to free 15 British captives.

Condemn:

to express an unfavorable or adverse judgment on; indicate strong disapproval of; censure.

Other articles use the word 'objections' from Bush regarding the trip:

to express or feel disapproval, dislike, or distaste; be averse.

Try to twist it any way you want, but everyone, including Pelosi, knows Bush didn't want her to visit, and she did it anyway.

What gives Bush 'authority' some may ask? Oh I don't know, perhaps the title 'President'?

[Pro Street]

I'm tired of repeating myself when it's just ignored constantly.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Pro Street

I'm tired of repeating myself when it's just ignored constantly.

My sentiments exactly!

[thomez]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Perhaps we have to do a dictionary lesson today:

Forbid

Now obviously, he's not going to tie her down, so all he has are words.

Here Bush condemns her visit:

Condemn:

Other articles use the word 'objections' from Bush regarding the trip:

Try to twist it any way you want, but everyone, including Pelosi, knows Bush didn't want her to visit, and she did it anyway.

What gives Bush 'authority' some may ask? Oh I don't know, perhaps the title 'President'?

from your own link

Bush, speaking hours after Pelosi became the most senior US official to visit Damascus in about four years

so he said nothing about it until after the fact, even while he knew she was going

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by thomez

from your own link


so he said nothing about it until after the fact, even while he knew she was going

Then why don't you read the thread where I posted this first

[Scrum]

I can't believe people are still trying to argue this.

She did not go against the wishes of "The United States of America", she went against Bush's wishes and he is just running 1/3rd of the government.

He is not the decider in this case.

Keep trying boys. Maybe she'll rip a fart during an interview and you can all talk about how it sounded like "Thhppppttttt...I hate the troops...ttthhhppptttt".

[BigRob]

Just because we have three seperate branches doesn't mean they get together over a beer and decide every thing that happens or will happen. There are rules and procedures.

The President (who sets foriegn policy) appoints a representative (usually the Secretary of State) who works out a deal with the other nation. The treaty/policy then goes to the Senate to be adviced and consented upon before being passed with a 2/3 vote. In the process of ratification the House doesn't even get to vote. So actually Palosi doesn't get an official say in the matter of foreign policy anyway.

.PMO denies peace message to Assad | Jerusalem Post

I'll point it out since some people are having problems

"The officials said Olmert had told Pelosi that he thought her trip to Damascus was a mistake, and that when she asked - nevertheless - whether he had a message for Assad, Olmert said Syria should first stop supporting terrorism and "act like a normal country," and only then would Israel be willing to hold discussions"

So she went over there snd took it upon herself to begin acting as a diplomat between nations dispite to objection of Olmert. And if that wasn't enough

"Pelosi, who met in Damascus with Syrian President Bashar Assad over the objections of US President George W. Bush, said she brought a message to Assad from Olmert saying that Israel was ready for peace talks

So not only has appointed herself a position as a diplomat over the objections of the sitting President (who has the job of setting foreign policy)she risk setting off an international incident by relaying a message that wasn't true.

What if the US was already working on a deal with these nations and she ruined it with her action? That would be potentially undermining the United States and is AGAINST THE LAW.

Democrat,Republican,it doesn't matter. She went out of the boundry of her authority. PERIOD.

[thomez]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Then why don't you read the thread where I posted this first

you said (or implied) that he, President Bush, forbid her from going

your thread says that it was the administration that asked her not to go

they are not one in the same - if he knew of the trip and was face to face with her and did not even mention it, then he did not forbid her to go, nor did he even simply ask her not to go - his unnamed administration member doing so matters not when he said nothing himself until after the fact

if he was genuinely concerned, would he not have asked her not to go when he was standing next to her and had the chance? would he not have condemned the Republicans that had already came and went? I would think so

it seems like the strong words after are taking advantage of the political situation that has ensued since

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by BigRob

Just because we have three seperate branches doesn't mean they get together over a beer and decide every thing that happens or will happen. There are rules and procedures.

The President (who sets foriegn policy) appoints a representative (usually the Secretary of State) who works out a deal with the other nation. The treaty/policy then goes to the Senate to be adviced and consented upon before being passed with a 2/3 vote. In the process of ratification the House doesn't even get to vote. So actually Palosi doesn't get an official say in the matter of foreign policy anyway.

.PMO denies peace message to Assad | Jerusalem Post

I'll point it out since some people are having problems

"The officials said Olmert had told Pelosi that he thought her trip to Damascus was a mistake, and that when she asked - nevertheless - whether he had a message for Assad, Olmert said Syria should first stop supporting terrorism and "act like a normal country," and only then would Israel be willing to hold discussions"

So she went over there snd took it upon herself to begin acting as a diplomat between nations dispite to objection of Olmert. And if that wasn't enough

"Pelosi, who met in Damascus with Syrian President Bashar Assad over the objections of US President George W. Bush, said she brought a message to Assad from Olmert saying that Israel was ready for peace talks

So not only has appointed herself a position as a diplomat over the objections of the sitting President (who has the job of setting foreign policy)she risk setting off an international incident by relaying a message that wasn't true.

What if the US was already working on a deal with these nations and she ruined it with her action? That would be potentially undermining the United States and is AGAINST THE LAW.

Democrat,Republican,it doesn't matter. She went out of the boundry of her authority. PERIOD.

2 things with that.


#1 is that she didn't try and open relations between the US and Syria. If she brought a message from Israel, what does that have anything to do with the US?

#2 is this silly little thing. It appears that Isreal had a message for Syria afterall.

She broke no law. She did not act as a diplomatic envoy from the US.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Scrum

#2 is this silly little thing. It appears that Isreal had a message for Syria afterall.

She broke no law. She did not act as a diplomatic envoy from the US.

What does this have to do with what Pelosi said? And she did act as a diplomatic envoy from the US, she just didn't speak for America. She doesn't have to speak about America to be a diplomatic envoy. Speaking for our allies is just as bad.

[thomez]

from the statute she would not be permitted (if Bush told her not to go, which he didn't) to talk

in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States

it doesn't mention speaking for other countries, allies or not, whether she is right or wrong to do so

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by JaJae

What does this have to do with what Pelosi said?

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told a visiting group of U.S. lawmakers to relay to Syria that Israel had no intention of attacking it

The idea that Israel never had any message for Syria is false. This proves it.

Originally Posted by JaJae

And she did act as a diplomatic envoy from the US, she just didn't speak for America. She doesn't have to speak about America to be a diplomatic envoy. Speaking for our allies is just as bad.

Please point out the law where it says she cannot act diplomatically between two other countries. Speaking for allies is fine. That does not violate the law. It's not "just as bad".

It doesn't say that at all. This is yet another non-story you guys are pounding on.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by imind

did i miss something?

The definition of Hearsay evidence perhaps?