Pelosi guilty of violating Logan Act (1790)

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Hold Pelosi responsible for the Bush administration's complete lack of a coherent foreign policy.

Actually the foreing policy of the U.S. was very coherent prior to Madame Speaker's trip to Syria. It was a policy of no talks and no negotiations with terrorists and state sponsors of terrorism at first we went the diplomatic route with Syria, nothing came to fruition so we set a policy of isolating them from the global community until they gave up their support of Hamas and Hezbollah.

 

[Mr Smith]

Tortured logic? Is that what you call stating facts? It's very simple either you think it is proper for the Speaker of the House to set up an alternative foreign policy than that of the Presidents during war time or you don't.

I don't know why some people are so eager to make my point for me. Particularly as the point would seem obvious to most people anyway. Evidently I will need to break it down in excruciating detail so everyone can understand. The question is based on false premise. It's the kind of childish rhetoric that lends itself well to neo-con pop culture double speak. So, to respond to the question as posed would be to acquiesce to false credibility.

Posing questions based on erroneous assumptions, designed to promote right wing agenda, is a common tactic which has worked surprisingly well. When you throw enough BS at the American people, eventually they smell it though.
Because neo-cons have lost the confidence of the overwhelming majority of people, they no longer control the conditions of the national debate. Their stategy has always been designed to constantly move the debate to the right. They want to insure that there is no middle ground from which to conduct honest debate. Neo-con rhetorical invective is designed to poison the well.
I say that neo-con tactics are not only intellectually dishonest, but actually immoral. Because they have created an atmosphere which stifles critical thinking and civil discourse, they denigrate democracy. Because they seek to cynically manipulate the American people with crude propaganda, sly innuendo, and out right lies, they are immoral.
So, I pose a counter question. Is neo-con thinking just intellectually dishonest, or is it actually immoral?

 

[Stinger]

This display of tortured logic, filled with painfully transparent agenda, is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.

Dodge........................................ as I said even the Washington Post sides with me on this along with many others

Scott Cain: Speaker Pelosi runs a shadow government
Does Nancy Pelosi really believe there are two Americas and she is the leader of one of them? Apparently, she does. Picking up on John Edwards’ campaign rhetoric, Pelosi is acting like there is a shadow government in Washington.
Cleburne Times-Review, Cleburne, TX - Scott Cain: Speaker Pelosi runs a shadow government

Nancy Pelosi, Democrat Shadow Government, Face Logan Act

Commentary: Nancy Pelosi, Democrat Shadow Government, Face Logan Act - The Post Chronicle

And from the liberal newspaper of record in the Capital

"But Ms. Pelosi's attempt to establish a shadow presidency is not only counterproductive, it is foolish."
Pratfall in Damascus - washingtonpost.com

So you attempts to dismiss out of hand the issue are quite transparent.

 

[Stinger]

I don't know why some people are so eager to make my point for me. Particularly as the point would seem obvious to most people anyway. Evidently I will need to break it down in excruciating detail so everyone can understand. The question is based on false premise. It's the kind of childish rhetoric that lends itself well to neo-con pop culture double speak. So, to respond to the question as posed would be to acquiesce to false credibility.

Actually your post demonstrations the lack of discourse from the left these days and the propensity to engage in discussions of style rather than deal with the issues. No there is no false premise to any of the questions, they are salient to Ms. Pelosi recent actions the the criticism she has received across the board. We can only surmise you are unable to defend her actions so would rather try to dismiss it out of hand and engage in petty criticisms of the poster here. Believe me that does not rebut what has been posted. If you want to deal with the issues then have at, if you are only going to try and attack the messengers you'll the responses to your post will soon disappear.

Posing questions based on erroneous assumptions, designed to promote right wing agenda, is a common tactic which has worked surprisingly well. When you throw enough BS at the American people, eventually they smell it though.

So that is what you believe the Washington Post and USA Today are doing?

 

[BWG]

Because neo-cons have lost the confidence of the overwhelming majority of people, they no longer control the conditions of the national debate. Their stategy has always been designed to constantly move the debate to the right. They want to insure that there is no middle ground from which to conduct honest debate. Neo-con rhetorical invective is designed to poison the well.

From the John Shadegg (R-AZ) - Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) memo. 2-13-07

Dear Colleague:

We are writing to urge you not to debate the Democratic Iraq resolution on their terms, but rather on ours.
<snip>
If we let the Democrats force us into a debate on the surge or the current situation in Iraq, we lose.

Source

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I don't know why some people are so eager to make my point for me. Particularly as the point would seem obvious to most people anyway. Evidently I will need to break it down in excruciating detail so everyone can understand. The question is based on false premise. It's the kind of childish rhetoric that lends itself well to neo-con pop culture double speak. So, to respond to the question as posed would be to acquiesce to false credibility.

Three paragraphs and yet no answer, what is false about the premise, did or did not Ms. Pelosi go to Syria and create a secondary foregin policy in contradiction to President's no talk policy? Is or is it not that in contradiction to the Logan Act, is or is not that a violation of the separation of powers? What's false about the premise?

 

[Mr Smith]

Three paragraphs and yet no answer, what is false about the premise, did or did not Ms. Pelosi go to Syria and create a secondary foregin policy in contradiction to President's no talk policy? Is or is it not that in contradiction to the Logan Act, is or is not that a violation of the separation of powers? What's false about the premise?

It is the clear intent of the Logan Act to prohibit unauthorized persons from intervening in disputes between the United States and foreign governments.
There is nothing in the Logan Act that restricts members of congress from engaging in discussions with foreign officials in pursuance of their legislative duties under the Constitution. In any case the Logan Act is irrelevant. Since it was passed in 1799 not one single person has ever been convicted or even prosecuted under the act. Just another neo-con canard designed to distract from real issues.

 

[wonder cow]

I know this thread is probably a little old. And I didn't bother to waste my time reading all of it, but did someone at least point out that this was not a violation of the logan act?

"without authority of the US"

not

"without permission from the president"

 

[missypea]

Newt Gingrich, Dennis Hastert, Darrell Issa, David Hobson, Nancy Pelosi, Arlen Specter, Frank Wolf, Joseph Pitts, Robert Aderholt, Jesse Helm, Condoleeza Rice, and George W. Bush

Off with their heads! Damn Logan Law breakers....all of them!

Peace,

http://thevanitypress.blogspot.com/2007/04/logan-act.html

 

[friday]

Of course, as the Libs like to point out, if you commit a crime and are not prosecuted for it, technically (to them) you never committed a crime! :rofl

Unless you are a republican! :roll:

 

[aps]

Of course, as the Libs like to point out, if you commit a crime and are not prosecuted for it, technically (to them) you never committed a crime! :rofl

Unless you are a republican! :roll:

Wow. That was really insightful. NOT.