BF2S Forums Naughty Nancy

Kmarion wrote:

Masques wrote:

EDIT: I would also add if indeed Pelosi served as an intermediary between Israel and Syria then no laws were broken as she would be acting on behalf of the Israelis.

Obviously she is using her position to bring about these talks. Do you think the average elderly woman could initiate such a dialog between these two? When she does that she is exploiting the office she serves.

Is it exploiting his office if the President serves as an intermediary? Could the average 60 yr old American do such things? That statement is patently ridiculous.

Congress can initiate foreign policy (though the balance of who has first priority constantly shifts depending on who is president and the makeup of Congress).

http://fpc.state.gov/fpc/6172.htm

Look at the end (where it lists the foreign policy powers granted to Congress and the Chief Executive)

Nowhere does it specifically state that an individual member of the legislative branch cannot meet a foreign head of state (depending on how you define "Public Minister" and obviously the head of state is not an ambassador). This is where we get to the vagueness of the Act.

Masques wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Masques wrote:

EDIT: I would also add if indeed Pelosi served as an intermediary between Israel and Syria then no laws were broken as she would be acting on behalf of the Israelis.

Obviously she is using her position to bring about these talks. Do you think the average elderly woman could initiate such a dialog between these two? When she does that she is exploiting the office she serves.

Is it exploiting his office if the President serves as an intermediary? Could the average 60 yr old American do such things? That statement is patently ridiculous.

Congress can initiate foreign policy (though the balance of who has first priority constantly shifts depending on who is president and the makeup of Congress).

http://fpc.state.gov/fpc/6172.htm

Look at the end (where it lists the foreign policy powers granted to Congress and the Chief Executive)

Nowhere does it specifically state that an individual member of the legislative branch cannot meet a foreign head of state (depending on how you define "Public Minister" and obviously the head of state is not an ambassador). This is where we get to the vagueness of the Act.

Notice they can initiate the policy, not execute it as Pelosi did.

Masques wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Masques wrote:

EDIT: I would also add if indeed Pelosi served as an intermediary between Israel and Syria then no laws were broken as she would be acting on behalf of the Israelis.

Obviously she is using her position to bring about these talks. Do you think the average elderly woman could initiate such a dialog between these two? When she does that she is exploiting the office she serves.

Is it exploiting his office if the President serves as an intermediary? Could the average 60 yr old American do such things? That statement is patently ridiculous.

And that would be my point. She used her position inappropriately.

Masques wrote:

Congress can initiate foreign policy (though the balance of who has first priority constantly shifts depending on who is president and the makeup of Congress).

http://fpc.state.gov/fpc/6172.htm

Look at the end (where it lists the foreign policy powers granted to Congress and the Chief Executive)

Nowhere does it specifically state that an individual member of the legislative branch cannot meet a foreign head of state (depending on how you define "Public Minister" and obviously the head of state is not an ambassador). This is where we get to the vagueness of the Act.

It's sounds pretty specific to me.

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.

I think it's safe to say the Israel/Syrian controversy impacts the United States.

Masques wrote:

acEofspadEs6313 wrote:

So does that mean members of the US military can go around and spew out things about foreign affaris as well?

Depends on how high the rank is. CinCs of combatant commands usually have a full retinue of diplomatic and intelligence personnel so in practice they are ambassadors of a sort. But individuals in the military are also constrained legally by the chain of command that most civilians don't labor under.

Masques, she gave the Syrian goverment a message of peace from Israel. THe funny thing is, Israel never said anything like that to her.

Illegal or not, she make a complete ass of herself, and embarassed the american congress. I'm pretty sure Assad had a good laugh over this...

EVieira wrote:

Masques wrote:

acEofspadEs6313 wrote:

So does that mean members of the US military can go around and spew out things about foreign affaris as well?

Depends on how high the rank is. CinCs of combatant commands usually have a full retinue of diplomatic and intelligence personnel so in practice they are ambassadors of a sort. But individuals in the military are also constrained legally by the chain of command that most civilians don't labor under.

Masques, she gave the Syrian goverment a message of peace from Israel. THe funny thing is, Israel never said anything like that to her.

Illegal or not, she make a complete ass of herself, and embarassed the american congress. I'm pretty sure Assad had a good laugh over this...

It seems that the Israelis changed their story when this got more media attention:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite? … 2FShowFull

Masques wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

You think because you work for the government that gives you an all access pass to go globe trotting around the world fucking up an already shitting situation?

Obviously not, but those that have a high enough position can intervene in certain situations. Obviously members of congress have more real power than your average low-level DoS employee.

Everyone has a specific role no matter how high their position is. She was out of line. I'm sure you can understand the clusterfuck that happens when people of authority start selecting what other roles they would like to take over with no regards to procedure. It's wrong and it's bullshit.

Masques wrote:

EVieira wrote:

Masques wrote:

Depends on how high the rank is. CinCs of combatant commands usually have a full retinue of diplomatic and intelligence personnel so in practice they are ambassadors of a sort. But individuals in the military are also constrained legally by the chain of command that most civilians don't labor under.

Masques, she gave the Syrian goverment a message of peace from Israel. THe funny thing is, Israel never said anything like that to her.

Illegal or not, she make a complete ass of herself, and embarassed the american congress. I'm pretty sure Assad had a good laugh over this...

It seems that the Israelis changed their story when this got more media attention:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite? … 2FShowFull

Humm, not exactly changed their story. More like, confirmed it but "hey it's ok, no harm's done..."

www.jpost.com wrote:

The Prime Minister's Office issued a rare "clarification" Wednesday that, in gentle diplomatic terms, contradicted US Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's statement in Damascus that she had brought a message from Israel about a willingness to engage in peace talks

This does makes the Dems look pretty bad...

Last edited by EVieira (2007-04-06 22:22:39)

Kmarion wrote:

Masques wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

You think because you work for the government that gives you an all access pass to go globe trotting around the world fucking up an already shitting situation?

Obviously not, but those that have a high enough position can intervene in certain situations. Obviously members of congress have more real power than your average low-level DoS employee.

Everyone has a specific role no matter how high their position is. She was out of line. I'm sure you can understand the clusterfuck that happens when people of authority start selecting what other roles they would like to take over with no regards to procedure. It's wrong and it's bullshit.

I know. It's particularly galling considering how Bush's foreign policy has brought such unprecedented peace and stability to the Middle East, as well as exponentially increasing American prestige around the world. To think that some members of congress (of both parties no doubt!) would actually try something other than toothless threats and tantrums! How droll!

thanks_champ wrote:

No one has brought up that she was actually trying to bring the two sides together to talk about peace. What a wicked woman she is. Really.

Yeah, she should head for North Korea now and say the South's is ready to declare peace. Where was she when those British soldiers were abducted, she could have sent a message to Iran that Blair was ready to negotiate a trade...

Last edited by EVieira (2007-04-06 22:31:02)

Kmarion wrote:

EVieira wrote:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1173879247562&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Humm, not exactly changed their story. More like, confirmed it but "hey it's ok, no harm's done..."
.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso … rael1.html I wouldn't be upset if they misquoted me every now and again...lol

Masques wrote:

I know. It's particularly galling considering how Bush's foreign policy has brought such unprecedented peace and stability to the Middle East, as well as exponentially increasing American prestige around the world. To think that some members of congress (of both parties no doubt!) would actually try something other than toothless threats and tantrums! How droll!

Ahhh Maques I expected more than this predictability from you.

Honestly, I'm more of a pragmatist than anything else. Whatever works (yes, even if its legality is marginal) which is why fundamentally I have no problem with using cracks in the law for a somewhat independent foreign policy.

Bottom line is that the current state of affairs cannot stand for long and the course followed by this administration has largely failed on several fronts. Much can be gained from negotiating with those that the west has had hostilities with in the past.

It worked vis a vis Nixon and China and there's no reason not to try it with a weaker (and not completely hostile) state like Syria or Iran.

Masques wrote:

Honestly, I'm more of a pragmatist than anything else. Whatever works (yes, even if its legality is marginal) which is why fundamentally I have no problem with using cracks in the law for a somewhat independent foreign policy.

Bottom line is that the current state of affairs cannot stand for long and the course followed by this administration has largely failed on several fronts. Much can be gained from negotiating with those that the west has had hostilities with in the past.

It worked vis a vis Nixon and China and there's no reason not to try it with a weaker (and not completely hostile) state like Syria or Iran.

Her intentions were good, I give you that. Bush's foreign policy is making things even thougher in the Middle East for the US. But we can't go around delivering peace messages that don't exist.

And when you say "not completely hostile", the only Iran and Syria can to become any more hostile is to declare war.

Masques wrote:

I know. It's particularly galling considering how Bush's foreign policy has brought such unprecedented peace and stability to the Middle East, as well as exponentially increasing American prestige around the world. To think that some members of congress (of both parties no doubt!) would actually try something other than toothless threats and tantrums! How droll!

yeah because the 6 day war and arab - israeli war and the Suez war that happpened in the middle east against Israel never would have happened unless Bush was in power. Oh yeah, and Iraq never wouild have invaded Kuwait, Lebanon never would have gone up in smoke in the 80s, the Iraq/Iran war never would have happened. Oh yeah, Bush is fully responsible for all the problems in the middle east. Hell while we're at it, let's blame him for WWI and WWII, Vietnam and Korea. Wake up and smell the facts, the Middle East has been a problem for the last 100 years and beyond. It's a small group of countries closely placed, that hate each other. Look at Europe, it's the same power plays for emerging stages on world politics that happened there in 1914 and 1949. Deepened  by a hatred of bloodlines established thousands of years ago. Wanna blame Bush for that too?

Last edited by jarhedch (2007-04-06 23:34:02)