Such a grand title for an article, yes? Ralph Peters of the NY Post says it very well.
EVEN as our troops make serious progress against al-Qaeda-in-Iraq and other extremists, Congress – including Republican members – is sending the terrorists a message: “Don’t lose heart, we’ll save you!” Iraq’s a mess. Got it. The Bush administration has made so many mistakes I stopped counting a year ago. But we’ve finally got a general in Baghdad – Dave Petraeus – who’s doing things right. Iraqi politicians are still disgracing themselves, but our troops are killing America’s enemies – with the help of our former enemies.
Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq is suffering a humiliating defeat, as fellow Sunni Muslims turn against the fanatics and help them find the martyrdom they advertise. Yet for purely political reasons – next year’s elections – cowards on Capitol Hill are spurning the courage of our troops on the ground.
The frantic political gamesmanship in Congress would nauseate a ghoul. Pols desperate for any cover and concealment they can get have dragged the Iraq Study Group plan from the grave.
Masterminded by former Secretary of State Jim “Have Your Hugged Your Saudi Prince Today?” Baker, the report is a blueprint for a return to yesteryear’s dictator-smooching policy (which helped create al Qaeda – thanks, Jimbo!).
That Baker report reminds me of cheap horror films where the zombies just keep coming back – except that zombies retain a measure of integrity.
But if Republicans are rushing to desert our troops and spit on the graves of heroes, the Democratic Party at least has been consistent – they’ve supported our enemies from the start, undercutting our troops and refusing to explain in detail what happens if we flee Iraq.
So I’ll tell you what happens: massacres. And while I have nothing against Shia militiamen and Sunni insurgents killing each other 24/7, the overwhelming number of victims will be innocent women, children and the elderly.
Why anyone with any kind of intelligence levels are listening to a group of people whose approval ratings is HALF of GWB’s is a odious concept.
BlandlyUrbane of DeMediacratic Nation has some things to say as well.
Perhaps bringing up the laws which are being violated by the “Quit Iraq” caucus is in order.
Expulsion, Censure, Reprimand, and Fine: Legislative Discipline in the House of Representatives
The House of Representatives is expressly authorized within the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 5, clause 2) to discipline or “punish” its own Members. This authority of the institution of the House to discipline a Member for “disorderly Behaviour” is in addition to any criminal or civil liability that a Member of the House may incur for particular misconduct, and is a device or procedure designed not so much as merely a punishment of the individual Member, but rather ultimately as a measure to protect the institutional integrity of the House of Representatives, its proceedings and its reputation.
Congressional discipline of a Member by the House of Representatives is done by the House itself, without the necessity of Senate concurrence, and may take several forms. The most common forms of discipline in the House are now “expulsion,” “censure,” or “reprimand,” although the House may also discipline its Members in others ways, including fine or monetary restitution, loss of seniority, and suspension or loss of certain privileges. In addition to such sanctions imposed by the full House of Representatives, the standing committee in the House dealing with ethics and official conduct matters, the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, is authorized by House Rules to issue a formal Committee reproach in the form of a “Letter of Reproval” for misconduct which does not rise to the level of consideration or sanction by the entire House of Representatives. Additionally, such Committee has also expressed its disapproval of conduct in informal letters and communications to Members.
The House may generally discipline its Members for violations of statutory law, including crimes; for violations of internal congressional rules; or for any conduct which the House of Representatives finds has reflected discredit upon the institution. Thus, each House of Congress has disciplined its own Members for conduct which has not necessarily violated any specific rule or law, but which was found to breach its privileges, demonstrate contempt for the institution, or which was found to discredit the House or Senate. When the most severe sanction of expulsion has been employed in the House, however, the conduct has historically involved either disloyalty to the United States Government, or the violation of a criminal law involving the abuse of one’s official position, such as bribery.
United States Code
TITLE 18 – CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I – CRIMES
CHAPTER 115 – TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES
Section 2382. Misprision of treason
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some judge of the United States, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both.
Section 2388. Activities affecting armed forces during war
(a) Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully makes or conveys false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies; or Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or willfully obstructs the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, to the injury of the service or the United States, or attempts to do so – Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
(b) If two or more persons conspire to violate subsection (a) of this section and one or more such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be punished as provided in said subsection (a).
(c) Whoever harbors or conceals any person who he knows, or has reasonable grounds to believe or suspect, has committed, or is about to commit, an offense under this section, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
(d) This section shall apply within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States, and on the high seas, as well as within the United States.
Madame Traitor Pelosi has also violated The Logan Act:
Did Nancy Pelosi Violate the Logan Act?
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.
That is the complete text of the Logan Act, passed by the U.S. Congress on January 30, 1799, and in force to this day.
Did Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (and others) violate that act during a much-publicized, self-authorized trip to Syria?
The answer, like the law itself, is simple and straightforward: Yes.
Nancy Pelosi qualifies as “any citizen of the United States,” with no exemption as Speaker of the House.
Nancy Pelosi acted “without authority of the United States,” which, in matters of foreign policy, resides solely and exclusively in the executive branch of the U.S. Government, meaning the President of the United States and his designees. The President of the United States specifically disapproved of the Pelosi trip to Syria, asked her not to go and criticized her thereafter.
Nancy Pelosi directly commenced “correspondence or intercourse” with officers and agents of a foreign government.
Nancy Pelosi, by her own statements, intended and attempted to influence the “measures or conduct” of that foreign government. Those measures and that conduct directly relate to disputes or controversies with the United States (and its allies).
That the measures and conduct of Syria are among the worst of nations is of considerable concern from the standpoint of U.S. foreign policy, but is irrelevant from the standpoint of the Logan Act, which does not grade the behavior of countries or delineate among them for the purposes of its strictures.
That Speaker Pelosi says she said nothing on her trip that differs from the positions of the President is also irrelevant, from the standpoint of the law, and either woefully ignorant or ignorant and spiteful, from the standpoint of international relations.
The current policy of the U.S., as made by the executive branch, is to isolate Syria. That may be right; it may be wrong; it may not even matter. It is not, however, anywhere within Speaker Pelosi’s prerogative to tangibly interfere or even interpose herself by meeting directly with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for the purposes of any “diplomacy.”
Pelosi’s defenders make much of the fact that she is Speaker of the House of Representatives and only behind the Vice President in order of succession to the Presidency. That may get heads nodding on television talk shows, but falls with a thud against the words of the U.S. Supreme Court, recognizing the “exclusive power of the President as the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations” or “the decision of the executive is conclusive.”
(Contrary to the mistaken assertions of some, presidential succession is not specified in the Constitution, but in statutory law made by Congress, subject to change, as it has changed in the past. No Speaker has ever succeeded to the Presidency. Even if one ever does, that will never make the legislative branch the executive branch or allow anyone in the legislative branch to adventure past the separation of powers that is one of the cornerstones of our government.)
It is far more pertinent to ask another question regarding Pelosi’s role as Speaker of the House. What does it say to this country that she openly violates a law made by the very legislative body of which she is the putative leader? If she disagrees with the law, for any reason, it is her job to try to change it, not to violate it, no matter how much she may disagree with the foreign policy positions of a duly-elected President.
The Logan Act may be old and no one ever before prosecuted for violating it. But it is neither ill-founded nor archaic, particularly in a time of world unrest and significant domestic tension regarding U.S. policy toward that unrest. The law does not preclude all legislators’ discussions with foreign leaders, such as fact-finding, but only those which have the unauthorized intent to influence those leaders.
As recently as September 2006, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct of the House issued a memo to all members and officers that cautioned against activities that implicate the Logan Act, albeit intended as a warning to outgoing members. Similarly, in February 2006, the Congressional Research Service prepared a survey of the Logan Act for Congress. While neither document is particularly respectful of the law, there should at least be no one in Congress claiming not to understand it (including Speaker Pelosi’s Republican fellow travelers).
There is no question that many Americans and many in Congress disagree strenuously with foreign policy positions of the Bush Administration. Any and all, including Speaker Pelosi, may say so, loudly and often, in Congress, in the public square. But none of us, including Speaker Pelosi, has the right to conduct any foreign policy, without specific authorization of the President.
Now, Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Tom Lantos, Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, are openly discussing a diplomatic trip to “dialogue” with Iran. In the Byzantine world of foreign relations, that’s like trying to dismantle a nuke wearing only a head scarf for protection.
The Washington Post called Speaker Pelosi’s mission to Syria “foolish.” Vice President Cheney called it “bad behavior.” We call it felony
Bush: Will he stay the course as others run? “America good! Al Qaeda bad!” – A trader in the Qatana bazaar, Ramadi, Iraq
Rich Lowry…NY Post
THIS is a sentiment that the Iraqi trader felt safe to utter as a visiting U.S. gen eral passed by, according to John Burns of The New York Times, only after a furtive glance “up and down the narrow refuse-strewn street to check who might be listening.” In a microcosm, this is the reason why we’re finally making progress against al Qaeda in Iraq: The protection afforded by American combat power has made it possible for Iraqis in Sunni areas to turn against the terror group.
In a global struggle against Islamic extremism, it is an incontestably welcome development that ordinary Sunnis in the Arab heartland are spurning al Qaeda. The extremist group has been on a campaign of savagery in Iraq that has discredited its own cause. The grassroots revolt against it means that it is within our reach to deny al Qaeda its most important current geopolitical objective, which is plunging Iraq into a bloody chaos in which it can thrive.
But a group of Republican senators have picked precisely this moment to call for deconstructing the troop surge that has begun to give us the upper hand against al Qaeda. They thus reveal a key dishonesty in the debate over the war: Everyone professes to want to fight al Qaeda in Iraq – as opposed to policing the sectarian war – but the number of politicians willing to support the means to that end is ever-dwindling.
…fear success in the War In Iraq.
This week, Democrats on Capitol Hill are expected to present several different bills meant to undermine the war in Iraq. I fear that it will be difficult for Americans to discern the facts, as members on the Hill (including some Republicans) will revisit past failures and lament unfortunate losses rather than undertake a serious critique of the new counterinsurgency strategy.
Why? Because for some members of Congress, there is a growing fear that Gen. David Petraeus just might have a winning strategy in Iraq.
So sad to be them, eh?
Iraqnophobia is such a lethal psychosis.
I saw that headline from the Washington Compost and about spewed my coffee all over my keyboard.
The article describes how she and Dingbat (Dingell) were at odds over a few issues and how the Dingbat pretty much shunned the new and all powerful SoH.
Powerful? At what? Getting nothing done? Hell. I can do that!
Some “powerful majority they have, eh? The WORSE CONgress in our Nation’s history is nothing to brag about and to assert power over when it was that same authority that accomplished one item. Morons.
But if Pelosi has succeeded in uniting her party during her initial months as speaker, she and the rest of the leadership have yet to convince the nation that the Democrats can govern.
Pelosi, of California, has succeeded in getting all of her opening agenda through the House. But few of the initiatives have made it to the president, and only one has become law: an increase in the minimum wage.
Again, some majority. This Democratic Party led CONgress has an approval rating much less than GWB and Cheney. That says quite a bit right there.
Wow. Remember when the SoH Pelosi went to Syria and misrepresented Israel as well as the United States? Remember that? We were all wondering what the motivation was and we thought and read and wrote amongst ourselves to the tune that she must be in bed with the Iranian puppet state of Syria. Well, it appears that this was true after all. Imagine that.
Fox News: Dick Morris
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has disclosed that she holds stock valued at up to $15,000 in Alcatel-Lucent (formerly Alcatel SA), a company with extensive investments in Iran and Sudan – nations that sponsor terrorism.
The disclosure of Pelosi’s holdings comes at the same time that legislation is making its way through the California legislature barring state pension fund managers from investing in companies, like Alcatel-Lucent, that do business with “terror-friendly” nations.
According to Divestterror.org, a citizens group pushing a South Africa-style disinvestment program to discourage companies from doing business in terror countries, Alcatel-Lucent’s investments in terror countries are so extensive that it is included on the organization’s “dirty dozen” list of offending companies. The organization estimates that the company has invested upwards of $300 million in terror sponsoring nations during the past five years.
According to Divestterror.org, Alcatel is aiding Iran’s terrorist activities by providing state controlled companies with data transmission and switching network capabilities. “These contracts have reportedly included the provision of hardware, software, technologies, and training to Iranian companies.” It is also installing an undersea telecommunications cable in Iran.
Prior to his overthrow, Alcatel carried out major fiber optic products for dictator Saddam Hussein in Iraq, despite U.S. government warnings to the French company that the project could advance Iraqi military capabilities.
Alcatel is currently “involved in similar telecommunications projects ranging from upgrading networks to the installation underwater fiber optic cables” in Sudan and Libya.
Criticizing Alcatel, former House Armed Services Committee Chairman and current GOP presidential contender Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) expressed his worry over Alcatel’s activities in a letter to President Bush. In it, he wrote, “I am concerned about potential transfers of technology or sensitive information to other countries with which Alcatel has business dealings, which have included Burma, China, Iran, North Korea, Sudan and Syria.”
Florida has passed, and its governor, Charlie Crist, has signed legislation to state pension funds to sell their equities in companies that do business with Iran, Syria, Sudan, or North Korea. Similar legislation has passed in Louisiana and is making its way through state legislatures in New York, New Jersey, Ohio and California. Missouri’s state treasurer Sarah Steelman has implemented a disinvestment strategy administratively.
For the Speaker of the House to own stock in such a company is a particular outrage. She should immediately sell her stock and call on all other members of Congress who hold stock in the company to do likewise.
Only if we send a signal to these companies that their associations with Iran and other terrorist states comes at a huge price can we dissuade them from continued involvement. But if there is a massive selloff of their stock, company executives will feel the pinch in their salaries and bonuses.
Iran is in serious economic trouble. Yesterday, it announced that it would have to ration gasoline – this in a nation with the second largest proven oil reserves. But it can’t get at its oil resources without massive foreign investment. As a result, government revenues from the energy industry have dropped from $55 billion in 2006 to a projected $44 billion in 2007. In a nation where 70 percent of the labor force is employed by the government, the costs in social instability of budget cuts militated by declining energy revenues could be formidable.
Under such pressure, Iran may well have to curb its nuclear ambitions or face the prospect of overthrow by an enraged population.
Mrs. Pelosi: Do your part!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! This all too funny!
The poor “progressives” (translation: socialists) are whining about accountability and here we are with the lamest CONgress in history and the LOWEST approval ratings of CONgress in history and who are the “majority”? Democrats.
Account for that, moron!
The Two Muppeteers, Reid and Pelosi, are at it again. I guess they firmly desire to further their plunge into obscurity and place their names in The Book of All Time Losers. What are their approval ratings now? And why do they cater to the Vocal Minority on a continual basis? Your answer(s) are as good as my own. I just know that the two largest losers in the history of the United Stataes CONgress will introduce further loser mentality in the hopes to raise themselves above the primordial ooze in which they are drowning in at the moment.
From The Crypt:
Pelosi, Reid to announce new push to end Iraq war
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) are expected tomorrow to announce a new coordinated effort to force votes in July to end the Iraq war, according to Democratic insiders.
Reid has already publicly declared that Senate Democrats will offer four Iraq-related amendments to the upcoming 2008 Defense authorization bill, including a proposal by Reid and Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) to set a firm timetable to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq by next spring.
Pelosi is planning to announce that the House will also vote on a bill setting a new withdrawal timetable of April 1, 2008, although the details of the proposal were still up in the air at press time, according to Democratic sources. The House will consider this proposal as a freestanding bill, said the sources.
Pelosi is also planning to force a vote on a proposal by Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, to repeal the 2002 use-of-force resolution for Iraq. This “deauthorization” proposal may be offered as an amendment to the 2008 Defense spending bill, which the House is scheduled to take up following the week-long July 4th recess.
In addition, House Democrats will push proposals to prohibit the creation of permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq, as well as a “readiness” initiative similar to that authored by Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.). The Webb proposal would limit deployments of U.S. soldiers and marines in Iraq by requiring the Pentagon to keep military units from being sent back to Iraq until they have been stateside as long as they were in the combat zone.
Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), chairman of the powerful Defense subcommittee on the House Appropriations Committee and a leader of the anti-war movement, is planning to offer his own new measures as part of the Defense spending bill.
Pelosi has been quietly meeting with various factions within the Democratic Caucus this week on the Iraq initiative, including Blue Dog conservatives skittish about being seen as anti-military, and the Out of Iraq Caucus, whose members have pushed hard for an end to the U.S. military involvement in Iraq.
Both Pelosi and Reid have come to the conclusion that President Bush’s plan for a “surge” in the number of U.S. troops inside Iraq, has failed and that Democrats, despite losing their showdown with Bush and the Republicans over the recent Iraq supplemental funding bill, must continue to force votes to end the war. Gen. David Petraeus is supposed to report back to Congress in September on the state of the “surge,” but Democrats have decided not to wait for his report.
“The surge is a failure, it isn’t working,” said a Democratic aide familiar with the new initiative. “We just can’t leave American soldiers out there dying and not do anything.”
Reps. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.), Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) and Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), the leaders of the Out of Iraq Caucus attended a meeting with Pelosi, other Democratic leaders and the Blue Dog lawmakers today.
After the meeting, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said Democratic leaders “are working to build a consensus” within the Caucus on the Iraq proposals, but promised votes all next month on the issue. Hoyer said no date had been scheduled at this time for any of these votes, although the Defense spending bill is set to reach the House floor in mid-July.
This yet another card of a character that has not graduated from the school of the sane.
From One News Now:
Republican presidential candidate Sam Brownback is denouncing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for implying that God supports embryo-destructive research.
House Democrats recently celebrated passage of a bill that would expand federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research (ESCR). On the House floor, Speaker Pelosi (D-California) described research on embryonic stem cells as “a gift from God” and “biblical in its power to cure.”
“You destroy life to get these embryonic stem cells,” the presidential hopeful notes. “It’s like she avoids that portion of the discussion; and on top of that, we’ve just had even another breakthrough where they’ve been able to reprogram skin cells to act like embryonic stem cells …. we don’t have to destroy human life.”
Exactly so, Sir!
Pelosi has called on President Bush to reconsider his plan to veto the measure, saying that “with his cruel veto pen” last year, the president “dashed the hopes of many for the healing potential of stem-cell research.”
Pelosi is a moron. Pelosi is a murderer. Perhaps she should be euthanized?
From a commenter at the site:
Nancy Pelosi continually demonstrates that she has a huge mouth and an infinitesimal brain. She is constantly backing out-of-date ideas and erroneous concepts that tear at the very fabric of American life. Sam Brownback readily recognized, as did many of us, the false concepts that Pelosi espoused. Stem-cell research has accomplished much – but not thru the use of embryos! So why is she pushing ESCR? To waste more taxpayer money on the wealthy big PHARMA!
What gives Speaker Pelosi the right to use our tax money to visit other nations and governments? That’s what we have a State Dept. for! “Speaker of the House” does not mean “I speak for the nation” but Pelosi thinks she has free rein.
The two don’t mesh. Behold:
We have brought to your attention in previous posts the ill gotten gains of the Clintons and the Pelosis via the InfoUSA scandal both here and here. We have also brought to your attention the Double Standards of the Clintons here, and elsewhere.
Now, we would like you to ponder this revelation. Hillary has enlisted the dubious character of Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa as she courts the Hispanic vote. She has also enlisted the dubious character of Alcee Hastings to lend the “special talents” of such an individual.
In this revelation previously mentioned, one should be asking, “What the hell?”. I, for one, would like to know just what is going on in Nevada. Rory Reid, Harry Reid’s son, runs Clinton’s western efforts. It seems that the Pelosis and the Clintons and the Reids are all in bed with each other; no pun intended.
We have the Clintons on the payroll of InfoUSA. We have the Pelosi’s son on the payroll of InfoUSA. We have the son of the Reids running Hillary’s western ops. We have Rory Reid heavily involved with the mob and Nevada gambling establishments and we have Harry Reid involved with mob connections, connected to land fraud and schemes in Nevada.
And these people dare and have the audacity to preach to law-abiding citizens about ethics, honesty, integrity and reform? Spare me the insidious and duplicitous double standards of the American Democratic Party.
Especially when it comes to Hillary White Water Travelgate Rodham not-Rodham Clinton.
Thursday, June 07, 2007 11:43 PM
The NYSlimes does try sometimes with their token “sane”(?) ones?
Just as House Democrats’ fervid promises of ethics reform are running out of steam [Running out of steam? When did it start?] comes the bribery indictment of one of their own, William Jefferson, the Louisiana representative accused of stashing $90,000 in marked bills in his home freezer. Surely the image of Mr. Jefferson allegedly using the Congressional dining room to transact quid-pro-quo corruption schemes is the strongest possible wake-up call for foot-dragging [Foot dragging? How about sittiing on their butts NOT doing ANYTHING about it?] members to face up to the need for aggressive ethics enforcement. The existing ethics committee produced cobwebs, not early-warning alerts, as recent scandals were launching several lawmakers, staffers and lobbyists on prison careers. [Has he resigned yet? Are there voices of OUTRAGE for him to step down and do the honorable thing? No? Why not?]
The timing could not be better for Speaker Nancy Pelosi to offer Congress and its doubting constituents the strongest possible proposal for the creation of an independent office to oversee ethics enforcement. [Sorry to disappoint you, but nancy pelosi is chief crook…remember American Samoa “minimum wage quagmire? And her son on the payrolll of InfoUSA with NO experience to boot?] A bipartisan task force has been studying this campaign promise, and the speaker is reportedly ready to sign off on some sort of an oversight panel of respected outsiders. [Yeah. Right. Sure. UHHUH.] Details are thus far scarce. [Scarce? You mean, non-existent, right?] But if Congress wants to repair its tattered reputation, it is crucial to resist cosmetic change. For any independent panel to be convincing it must be given the power to investigate corruption allegations and make recommendations to the ethics committee for forceful action. [Excuse me. “We The People” DEMAND that “They The Crooks and Ignorers of We The People” step down so we can start all over again. WE want OUR country back!]
Such a panel could render a double service by credibly shooting down frivolous charges and by bracing the House in its duty to police wayward members. [Who defines “frivilous charges”?] The alternative is for Congress to continue to sit there in encrusted apathy, relying on criminal prosecutors and the news media to surprise it with fresh embarrassments about its members abusing the people’s business. [You mean like, do their friggin’ jobs? Surely you jest!]