House Republicans Try To Restrict Pelosi's Travel
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) will not be permitted to use State Department funds to travel to nations that are known to have sponsored terrorism if a Republican amendment to appropriations legislation passes the House on Thursday.
The amendment to the $34 billion State and Foreign Operations bill, offered by Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), prohibits funds to be used to travel to Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Sudan or Syria.
In a “Dear Colleague” letter released earlier today, King said Pelosi had overstepped her constitutional role as Speaker when she traveled to Syria in April.
“Taking her cue from the Iraq Study Group’s recommendation that the U.S. enter into talks with Syria to forge a new way forward in Iraq, Speaker Pelosi decided to ignore the requests of the President that she refrain from traveling to the terrorist state,” the letter said.
King told The Hill that he believed Pelosi was in violation of the Logan Act, a 1799 law signed by President John Adams that prohibits unauthorized U.S. citizens from interfering with relations between the United States and foreign governments.
“I was one of the members of Congress that was incensed the Speaker had taken it upon herself to conduct foreign policy,” he said. “It was a blatant violation of the Logan Act.”
No one has ever been prosecuted under the 208-year old law, according to the Congressional Research Service.
He said that it was not the visit that caused him to introduce the measure, but Pelosi’s decision, in his perception, to act as a diplomat that made him take action.
“She carried a message from Israel to Syria and that message according to representatives of both Syria and Israel wasn’t consistent with what one of them agreed to … these are the kind of problems you get,” he said.
A spokesman for Pelosi brushed off the amendment as a partisan attack.
“How can anyone take this amendment seriously, especially when it comes on the same day that Bush Administration officials are in North Korea? And why would anyone think it is responsible to restrict the ability of the Speaker of the House to bring the concerns of the American people to foreign leaders? It is part of the Speaker’s job,” said spokesman Nadeam Elshami, a spokesman for Pelosi. “This amendment is a cheap political stunt that just won’t fly.”
Story Here
Logan Act
Logan Act PDF Format
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well it's about time! How can anyone take this amendment seriously? WTF? The Bush administration officials are the ONLY ones who should be running around to these Countries we have probelms with to talk about THIS administration's Policy! That is Condi Rice's Job. NOT Nancy Pelosi's. I can see if the President asked her to go, but to defy him and go on her own and talk to state sponsors of terrorism delivering "Her Own" foreign policy agenda instead of the President's is a clear violation of the Logan Act. When is Nancy Pelosi going to get it through her head that she is NOT the Secretary Of State or the President? As for the 9-11 Commission Report that was for the PRESIDENT to decide on what part's to work on and what part's not to. Those were recomendations to the PRESIDENT NOT Nancy Pelosi!
The amendment to the $34 billion State and Foreign Operations bill, offered by Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), prohibits funds to be used to travel to Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Sudan or Syria.
In a “Dear Colleague” letter released earlier today, King said Pelosi had overstepped her constitutional role as Speaker when she traveled to Syria in April.
“Taking her cue from the Iraq Study Group’s recommendation that the U.S. enter into talks with Syria to forge a new way forward in Iraq, Speaker Pelosi decided to ignore the requests of the President that she refrain from traveling to the terrorist state,” the letter said.
King told The Hill that he believed Pelosi was in violation of the Logan Act, a 1799 law signed by President John Adams that prohibits unauthorized U.S. citizens from interfering with relations between the United States and foreign governments.
“I was one of the members of Congress that was incensed the Speaker had taken it upon herself to conduct foreign policy,” he said. “It was a blatant violation of the Logan Act.”
No one has ever been prosecuted under the 208-year old law, according to the Congressional Research Service.
He said that it was not the visit that caused him to introduce the measure, but Pelosi’s decision, in his perception, to act as a diplomat that made him take action.
“She carried a message from Israel to Syria and that message according to representatives of both Syria and Israel wasn’t consistent with what one of them agreed to … these are the kind of problems you get,” he said.
A spokesman for Pelosi brushed off the amendment as a partisan attack.
“How can anyone take this amendment seriously, especially when it comes on the same day that Bush Administration officials are in North Korea? And why would anyone think it is responsible to restrict the ability of the Speaker of the House to bring the concerns of the American people to foreign leaders? It is part of the Speaker’s job,” said spokesman Nadeam Elshami, a spokesman for Pelosi. “This amendment is a cheap political stunt that just won’t fly.”
Story Here
Logan Act
Logan Act PDF Format
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well it's about time! How can anyone take this amendment seriously? WTF? The Bush administration officials are the ONLY ones who should be running around to these Countries we have probelms with to talk about THIS administration's Policy! That is Condi Rice's Job. NOT Nancy Pelosi's. I can see if the President asked her to go, but to defy him and go on her own and talk to state sponsors of terrorism delivering "Her Own" foreign policy agenda instead of the President's is a clear violation of the Logan Act. When is Nancy Pelosi going to get it through her head that she is NOT the Secretary Of State or the President? As for the 9-11 Commission Report that was for the PRESIDENT to decide on what part's to work on and what part's not to. Those were recomendations to the PRESIDENT NOT Nancy Pelosi!
Labels: Crybaby Liberals, Idiots, Nitwits, Syriana Pelosi
posted by Marie's Two Cents | 1:55 PM
10 Comments:
By the way,
Didnt Michael Moore violate the Logan Act?
It sure looks like it to me!
Marie, this is the first I've heard of this. I haven't heard a peep about it from the MSM yet, but I'm not surprised.
It's very good news and I was wondering how long this nutcase would be allowed to cary on her treachery at the expense of taxpayer's money; your money and mine! Since the Logan act expressly forbids US Citizens from doing this, I would ideed think tht Michael Moore has violated the Logan Act. So have a bunch of other people.
Gayle,
I know, like for instance Sean Penn? How many others have violated this act and have never been charged?
Read what Pleosi's adviser told the media, she said "It's rediculous for anyone to be using a law that hasnt been enforced in 208 years."
Well maybe it's about time we start using this act and prosecuting those that violate it!
Starting with Pelosi herself!
Some of the stuff that comes out about our congressional leaders just make go arghhhh,they're at it again ! This thing with Pelousy is serious business. Pelousy has no business undermining out foreign policy and should be no less than publicly reprimanded by the Congress. Prosecution under the Logan act just isn't going to happen but it should so a public verbal spanking is the best possible thing we can hope for.
The demodumb leaders in congress are making a mockery of our laws and our sensibilities and it's high time the rest of congress stand up and try to rescue the last vestige of honor and sensibility for us, the American people, you know, the ones that send them there to represent us.
Three Republican congressmen (Frank Wolf (R. VA); Joe Pitts (R. PA) and Robert Aderholt (R. AL) visited Syria and had private talks with Assad before Speaker Pelosi went to Syria. The WH asked that they not go, but did not prevent them in any way from going. The WH knew Pelosi was going but did not prevent her visit in any way. After Pelosi’s visit, Darrell Issa (R. CA) went to Syria and met with Assad and other Syrian officials. The WH preferred that he not go, but did not prevent him in any way.
None of the Republican congressmen were threatened with prosecution for violating the Logan Act. The Democratic Speaker of the House, Pelosi was.
In May of 1998, Newt Gingrich went to Israel and spoke about where he thought the embassy should be placed. And he did this in violation of the Clinton administration’s policy concerning the embassy.
In 1997, Denny Hastert led a delegation to Colombia at a time when US officials were trying to attach human rights conditions to US security assistant programs. Hastert specifically encouraged the Clombian military to “bypass” President Clinton and “communicate directly with Congress.”
In 2003, Tom Delay went to the Middle East and met with Israeli and Palestinian leaders to garner support for a proposed “Palestinian Marshall Plan,” which was at odds with President Bush’s road map initiative.
This can all be googled and verified. The point is that I didn’t hear outrage when the Republicans did exactly what Pelosi did. Can you explain how what Congressmen Wolf, Pitts, Aderholt, Issa, Gingrich, Hastert, and Delay is different from what Pelosi did? And if you cannot, then please explain why there is not an equal amount of outrage over the Republican congressmen who conducted their own foreign policy against the wishes of not only a president from the opposing party, but in Delay’s case, the president from his own party.
Thanks.
Three Republican congressmen (Frank Wolf (R. VA); Joe Pitts (R. PA) and Robert Aderholt (R. AL) visited Syria and had private talks with Assad before Speaker Pelosi went to Syria. The WH asked that they not go, but did not prevent them in any way from going. The WH knew Pelosi was going but did not prevent her visit in any way. After Pelosi’s visit, Darrell Issa (R. CA) went to Syria and met with Assad and other Syrian officials. The WH preferred that he not go, but did not prevent him in any way.
None of the Republican congressmen were threatened with prosecution for violating the Logan Act. The Democratic Speaker of the House, Pelosi was.
In May of 1998, Newt Gingrich went to Israel and spoke about where he thought the embassy should be placed. And he did this in violation of the Clinton administration’s policy concerning the embassy.
In 1997, Denny Hastert led a delegation to Colombia at a time when US officials were trying to attach human rights conditions to US security assistant programs. Hastert specifically encouraged the Clombian military to “bypass” President Clinton and “communicate directly with Congress.”
In 2003, Tom Delay went to the Middle East and met with Israeli and Palestinian leaders to garner support for a proposed “Palestinian Marshall Plan,” which was at odds with President Bush’s road map initiative.
This can all be googled and verified. The point is that I didn’t hear outrage when the Republicans did exactly what Pelosi did. Can you explain how what Congressmen Wolf, Pitts, Aderholt, Issa, Gingrich, Hastert, and Delay is different from what Pelosi did? And if you cannot, then please explain why there is not an equal amount of outrage over the Republican congressmen who conducted their own foreign policy against the wishes of not only a president from the opposing party, but in Delay’s case, the president from his own party.
Thanks.
Sorry for the double post. I hit the "publish" key only once.
Joanne,
It's so strange calling you Joanne instead of Mrs Green and it feels funny debating you now, but oh well what the hell you must be feeling better :-)
Yes they all asked for Permission to go to the Syria and the President Never gave it to them and they went anyway. Even though you are a Senator or Congressman or Woman especially the "Speaker Of The "House, you are suppose to get the OK from the President of the US to travel to State Sponsor of Terrorism Countries.
What's different about the Republicans who went (Who should be repremanded too if they didnt get permission) is they werent trying to do anything but relay the President's policy message.
Pelosi was trying to implement her own!
All those other guy's you mentioned got the OK from whatever President was President at the time to go! As long as they werent going to implement some wild foreign policy ideas.
Well that's what Pelosi did.
Pelosi is NOT the President nor the Secretary Of State, and should not be running around the world talking to our enemies about anything! That's Condi Rice's job!
Not to mention she is 3rd in line to the Presidency and could have put herself in great jeapordy that could have possibly set off a war between us and Syria.
And that's not even the worst part of her Tour Of Terrorist State's Trip, but she bungled a message from Israel to Syria and pissed off the Israeli's.
Then even the main stream media papers blasted her for going on this cockamaymee trip.
No one was happy about her trying to implement her own Foreign Policy and WE DONT NEGOTIATE WITH TERRORISTS!!
She is the perfect example of why we should implement a law that's been on the books and uniforced for the last 208 years!
For the benefit of Joanne I'll explain what happened and why Pelosi was in violation and the republicans were well within their rights as representatives. Nancy Pelosi found herself on the wrong side of the Logan act when she went to Syria to negotiate new Policies on her own behalf and not that of the President, a clear violation. The Republicans went to Syria and the rest of Middle East on a fact finding mission and were not attempting to establish new or different policies than those of the current President, they were well within their authority.
This Act was established pricisely for the acts of people like Nancy Pelosi.
J_G,
I'll let you read the Republican Congressmen's own words as quoted and reported in the Chicago Tribune after Pelosi's and their visits to Syria.
IMHO, they are not the words of "fact finders" but of Congressmen who disagree with the President from their own part.
Three Republican congressmen who parted with President Bush by meeting with Syrian leaders said Wednesday it is important to maintain a dialogue with a country the White House says sponsors terrorism.
"I don't care what the administration says on this. You've got to do what you think is in the best interest of your country," said Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va. "I want us to be successful in Iraq. I want us to clamp down on Hezbollah."
…"This is an area where we would disagree with the administration," (Rep. Robert) Aderholt (of Alabama) said. "None of us in the Congress work for the president. We have to cast our own votes and ultimately answer to our own constituents. … I think there's room that we can try to work with them as long as they know where we draw the line.
Another Republican congressman, David Hobson (R-OH), who traveled with Speaker Pelosi to Syria also differed with the Bush Regime partisan game players. [..]
Darrell Issa (R-CA) is generally even further to the right and at least as much of a rubber stamp as New Jersey's Christopher Smith. But he just drew a line. He's in Damascus today, meeting with Assad and also with Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem. He said "Bush had failed to promote the dialogue that is necessary to resolve disagreements between the United States and Syria."
Those words demonstrate to me that these Congressmen strongly disagree with their president's policies, and that they were in Syria, not to find facts, but to influence a change in President Bush's ME policy.
Post a Comment
<< Home