COLLECTIVE MADNESS


“Soft despotism is a term coined by Alexis de Tocqueville describing the state into which a country overrun by "a network of small complicated rules" might degrade. Soft despotism is different from despotism (also called 'hard despotism') in the sense that it is not obvious to the people."

Saturday, April 07, 2007

There is no snivelling acceptable excuse for the neglect done to the US Military.


Army strained to near its breaking point

By James Kitfield, National Journal Govexec.com

KILLEEN, Texas -- Occupying a 340-square-mile swath of hill country in central Texas, Fort Hood is the home front for an Army at war.
One of the largest military installations in the world, it is the only post in the United States capable of hosting an Army corps headquarters plus two entire armored divisions: the 4th Infantry, which has recently returned from Iraq, and the 1st Cavalry, which is there now. On Fort Hood, nobody talks about what President Bush calls America's "long war" against terrorism as something in the abstract.


Within the confines of this base, the signs of war are subtle but plain. "Support Our Troops" ribbons festoon most cars. Posters for blood drives ("Save a Soldier's Life Today!") are plastered everywhere. The sight of soldiers on crutches or in bandages is commonplace at the post exchange. And every month, the base chapel holds memorial services for the local "Gold Star" spouses and families who have lost loved ones in uniform.


Amid the camaraderie of Fort Hood's military community, however, the signs of war's stress are evident. Consider the acute shortage of barracks space. Because the Army is restructuring itself into smaller, 3,500-4,500 troop brigades instead of larger, 10,000-12,000 troop divisions at the same time it is pulling units back from Cold War bases in Europe and Asia, and sending units repeatedly to Iraq and Afghanistan, the shuffling of personnel is intense.

[...]

Reliable figures are not available for the mental stress put on soldiers in the 11 Army brigades that have served three or more yearlong tours in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001. However, according to a Pentagon health study released in January, the rate of binge drinking in the Army ballooned by 30 percent between 2002 and 2005, and the increase in illicit drug use nearly doubled between 1998 and 2005.

[...]

Or consider for a moment the peculiar lack of tanks and armored Humvees in the Fort Hood motor pools. An acute and worsening equipment shortage has robbed soldiers of stateside training opportunities and decimated the readiness of units that have not gone to Iraq or Afghanistan.

For the past few years, units such as the 4th Infantry Division have been forced to leave behind much of their equipment in Iraq for use by their replacements such as the 1st Cavalry. That leaves the soldiers little equipment to train on when they return to Fort Hood.

The Army and Marine Corps have also depleted their stocks of equipment pre-positioned overseas, which will hamper their ability to respond quickly to emergencies elsewhere. That same equipment shuffle has left nearly 90 percent of Army National Guard units in the United States unready to respond to domestic emergencies, according to a recent report by a congressional commission.


If anything, equipment shortages are arguably worse today than in 1980, when the Army was recovering from Vietnam. Judging by their recent actions, Iran, North Korea, and other potential adversaries have taken note. "On the equipment side of the equation, the Army is pretty much broken," said Tom McNaugher, the longtime Army expert at the Rand think tank.

[...]

Dan Goure is a longtime Army expert at the Lexington Institute, a defense consulting firm in Virginia. He said that the Army simply was given way too much to do with limited resources. "The Army is living with [Schoomaker] and Rumsfeld's mistaken belief that the Army could undertake four or five major projects at once."


In addition to fighting the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Army was tasked with transforming itself into modular brigades, pulling back from older Cold War bases in Europe and Asia to stateside bases, increasing its size, modernizing for the future, and developing a new counterinsurgency doctrine.


"In all fairness, that was too much stress to heap on the organization all at once; and if the Pentagon maintains the current operations tempo beyond more than the next nine months or so, they may well break the Army as a result," Goure said.


Another point made by Goure, and recently by Schoomaker, is that the nation is not spending enough money overall on defense, given the demands on the Pentagon from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.


According to the Defense Department, the nation today is spending 3.9 percent of gross domestic product on the military and the war on terrorism, far below the level of national sacrifice during World War II (38 percent), the Korean War (14 percent), Vietnam (9.5 percent), the Reagan-era buildup (6.2 percent), or even the Clinton-era post-Cold War drawdown (4.8 percent). Little wonder that leaders in uniform worry that a nation increasingly divided over Iraq may become ambivalent about fully funding the military.


Comment: The only way to do it is to start doing it. Pay for it with increased import taxes on OPEC oil. Get support for the troops off the bumper and into the gas tank where it belongs. The American motor industry is suffering and up for a fire sale. Give them some big fat procurement contracts to replace needed vehicles. Have the flag waivers on Wall Street re-capitalize the US Motor Industry and get American workers and factories to build and repair the equipment promptly.

Any other ideas please state them.

49 comments:

  1. DR,
    When exactly did you turn into a leftest?. What traumatized you.

    Your Orwellian double speak grows more desparate with each event.

    You have and are utilizing all of the tactics that were used by the left during Vietnam to help our enemies, undermine our policies and eventually lose the war for us.

    Were you always on the left?

    Have you ever read the Federalist Papers and Anti Ferderalist Papers. Are you familiar at all with why we have unity of one Branch of the government, the Executive? Why not only by statute but historical precedent never broken, the State Department, a part of the Executive Branch, has always NEGOTIATED treaties that are then sent to the SENATE, not the Speaker of the House?
    Name for me a treaty that was negotiated in our long history by the legislative branch?

    You seem intent on prostituting and undermining the operation of our Constitution.

    There is only one office in this country that all citizens may vote on, the President. His office represents the Nation in it's day to day dealings with the WORLD..it was specifically developed that way so the nation would NOT have 535 different policies and voices speaking for it on the international stage.
    You may know horse manure but as a trained and degeed Political Scientist I know a good deal more than flys to horse dung about the establishment,purpose,functioning and execution of out government that you do. I suggest you and some others develop some depth of knowledge on the Constitution.

    ReplyDelete
  2. 2164
    I do wnt to thank you for highlighting the question of the Logan Act. As I mentioned it was quite a surprise to read a thread about overstepping lines of negotiating with foreign powers without it's mention.
    Thanks again.

    ReplyDelete
  3. 2164th:

    1. Pay for it with increased import taxes on OPEC oil.

    2. The American motor industry is suffering and up for a fire sale. Give them some big fat procurement contracts to replace needed vehicles.

    3. Have the flag waivers on Wall Street re-capitalize the US Motor Industry and get American workers and factories to build and repair the equipment promptly.


    4. Close the bases at Inchon, Seoul, and Pusan, and rotate the materiel into Iraq. If the NorKs wanna go up against an Asian Tiger with an economy 20 times larger, then they deserve to get spanked, and having 20,000 US troops there as a "trip wire" won't do any good.

    5. Close the bases throughout Germany, Italy, Japan, and Turkey. No more cushy billets; in the Global War on Terror it's all hands on deck in Iraq.

    6. Relocate most US Army and Marine bases to a dense belt along the border with Mexico. All training exercises in the field will double as illegal immigrant interdiction evolutions, who will stand in for "Syrian infiltrators". When troops are not in Iraq stomping on Moose Limbs, they're gonna be here giving us a real border again.

    7. No more imperial presidency. Congress should never again delegate the power to declare war to the CiC with a blank check bill like the one Kerry voted against before he voted for. That way we make sure everyone is on board next time, and there's no more Vietnam-style moves to pull the rug out from under the troops.

    8.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Media Mostly Ignore Whether Pelosi’s Syria Trip Violated The Logan Act
    Posted by Noel Sheppard on April 6, 2007 - 10:16.

    Imagine if you will that in September 1996, just days after America launched a missile strike on Baghdad to expand the “no fly zone,” Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich met with Saddam Hussein to discuss foreign policy matters without the permission of President Clinton.

    Would the media have vociferously discussed the possibility that Gingrich had violated federal law in doing so?

    If the answer is a resounding “Yes,” then why have extremely few press outlets broached this issue as it pertains to current Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s (D-California) recent potentially law-breaking trip to Syria?

    To best understand the issue, a little history is necessary. The Logan Act was created in 1799, and reads as follows:

    § 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments

    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.

    The Act was named after George Logan, who in 1798, went to France without President John Adams’ permission to try and settle the Quasi-War.

    With that in mind, there seems little doubt that Pelosi might have made the same mistake Logan did, and could be, at the very least, investigated for doing so.

    Yet, Google and LexisNexis searches reveal few media outlets considering this possibility.

    For instance, on April 3, the New York Post published an editorial entitled “Nancy’s Nonsense”:

    More than two centuries ago, Congress passed the Logan Act, which forbids private citizens from negotiating with foreign governments. As an elected official, Pelosi isn't restrained by the law - but its meaning is clear.

    Negotiating with world leaders - particularly those at odds with the United States - should be left to the president, or those authorized by him to do so.

    On April 6, the Wall Street Journal’s Robert F. Turner wrote a piece entitled “Illegal Diplomacy” (subscription required):

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may well have committed a felony in traveling to Damascus this week, against the wishes of the president, to communicate on foreign-policy issues with Syrian President Bashar Assad. The administration isn't going to want to touch this political hot potato, nor should it become a partisan issue. Maybe special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, whose aggressive prosecution of Lewis Libby establishes his independence from White House influence, should be called back.

    The "Logan Act" makes it a felony and provides for a prison sentence of up to three years for any American, "without authority of the United States," ...

    *****Update: Full WSJ article is now available through OpinionJournal (emphasis added):

    The Logan Act makes it a felony and provides for a prison sentence of up to three years for any American, "without authority of the United States," to communicate with a foreign government in an effort to influence that government's behavior on any "disputes or controversies with the United States." Some background on this statute helps to understand why Ms. Pelosi may be in serious trouble.

    President John Adams requested the statute after a Pennsylvania pacifist named George Logan traveled to France in 1798 to assure the French government that the American people favored peace in the undeclared "Quasi War" being fought on the high seas between the two countries. In proposing the law, Rep. Roger Griswold of Connecticut explained that the object was, as recorded in the Annals of Congress, "to punish a crime which goes to the destruction of the executive power of the government. He meant that description of crime which arises from an interference of individual citizens in the negotiations of our executive with foreign governments."

    [...]

    But conside this statement by Albert Gallatin, the future Secretary of the Treasury under President Thomas Jefferson, who was wary of centralized government: "it would be extremely improper for a member of this House to enter into any correspondence with the French Republic . . . As we are not at war with France, an offence of this kind would not be high treason, yet it would be as criminal an act, as if we were at war." Indeed, the offense is greater when the usurpation of the president's constitutional authority is done by a member of the legislature--all the more so by a Speaker of the House--because it violates not just statutory law but constitutes a usurpation of the powers of a separate branch and a breach of the oath of office Ms. Pelosi took to support the Constitution.

    [...]

    The U.S. is in the midst of two wars authorized by Congress. For Ms. Pelosi to flout the Constitution in these circumstances is not only shortsighted; it may well be a felony, as the Logan Act has been part of our criminal law for more than two centuries. Perhaps it is time to enforce the law.

    And, as NewsBuster Mark Finkelstein reported Friday, NBC’s Matt Lauer and Tim Russert actually discussed Pelosi’s possible violation on the “Today” show.

    Yet, though USA Today editorialized Friday that Pelosi “violated a long-held understanding that the United States should speak with one official voice abroad - even if the country is deeply divided on foreign policy back home,” nowhere was the actual law in question, and its seriousness, addressed.

    Furthermore, though the Washington Post published its own editorial Thursday harshly critical of Pelosi’s trip, it too ignored the actual illegality potentially involved.

    As far as I can tell, this is about all the coverage this matter has been given by mainstream news outlets in the United States.

    Do you think the media would have been as forgiving of Speaker Gingrich if he had so behaved when Clinton was president?

    Noel Sheppard's blog | login or register to post comments
    Categories: Bill Clinton | Congress | Foreign Policy | George W. Bush | Iran | Iraq | Nancy Pelosi | NBC | New York Post | Today | USA Today | Wall Street Journal | Washington Post


    Comment viewing options
    Flat list - collapsed Flat list - expanded Threaded list - collapsed Threaded list - expanded Date - newest first Date - oldest first 10 comments per page 30 comments per page 50 comments per page 70 comments per page 90 comments per page On topic comments All comments Insightful comments
    Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.


    MC Rove Says:
    April 6, 2007 - 10:23
    I'm disappointed in you, Noel. We don't need any more proof that Nancy is a traitor to our country! She should be forced to resign for this violation immediately!


    Why is NewsBusters not calling for her head on this!

    login or register to post comments »

    Noel Sheppard Says:
    April 6, 2007 - 10:25
    MC,

    I thought I just did. ns

    login or register to post comments »

    MC Rove Says:
    April 6, 2007 - 10:28
    Brent Bozell should be on Hannity, O'reilly, and Rush building support for the case against her.


    when i google "Nancy Pelosi" the every hit should be a conservative blog calling for her resignation.


    You guys are not living up to my expactations. Get ON IT!

    login or register to post comments »

    FastEd Says:
    April 6, 2007 - 10:40
    Could it be that this page points out media bias, and is not an activist site?

    There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V

    login or register to post comments »

    MC Rove Says:
    April 6, 2007 - 10:51
    well, not an "activist" site, officially. But we all know why we're here.


    Who's side are you on, FastEd? you don't want Nancy Pelosi to resign?

    login or register to post comments »

    FastEd Says:
    April 6, 2007 - 11:17
    Being here just over a week, not knowing my background or stance(s), your question doesn't need a reply.

    There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V

    login or register to post comments »

    MC Rove Says:
    April 6, 2007 - 12:56
    oh, I've been watching you far far longer than a week, my friend!

    login or register to post comments »

    RJ Says:
    April 6, 2007 - 13:23
    Of course you have, hater.

    "Did we think Kyoto would [reduce global warming] when we signed it? . . . Hell no!" -Al Gore

    login or register to post comments »

    ding7777 Says:
    April 6, 2007 - 11:27
    MC Rove - Are you misogynistic? A Pelosi replacement Speaker would be a Democrat - so what's you're rant about?

    login or register to post comments »

    ding7777 Says:
    April 6, 2007 - 11:02
    Noel Sheppard - You guys are busting more than just the news! From Speaker to private citizen in 24 hours.

    login or register to post comments »

    Dave R Says:
    April 6, 2007 - 11:08



    From Speaker to private citizen in 24 hours.

    Actually, I would prefer to see From Speaker to inmate # ********** in twelve hours. :-)

    This republic will not survive the continued neglect of its people.- Neal Boortz.


    login or register to post comments »

    sarcasmo Says:
    April 6, 2007 - 11:10
    If so, they'd probably be doing the Democrats a favor, and to top it off Maria Shri...um, I mean...Ahnold probably gets to choose the replacement.
    JMR

    login or register to post comments »

    Dan The Man 2 Says:
    April 6, 2007 - 11:31

    The act said nothing about being private or otherwise. It said that no citizen may act without the consent of the President, actually the USA which means the Presient since he is empowered to do negociate treaties and congress is not. Paloosy is a felon.

    Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark. -- save my gun, shoot a liberal.

    login or register to post comments »

    misterbill Says:
    April 6, 2007 - 11:28
    Noel, I just sent this email to the AG s office-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------"Please place charges against Speaker Nancy Pelosi for violation of the Logan Act. There heve been other violations recently, but as Speaker she has cast an ominous shadow over the power of the US Presidency and sent a bad message to the enemies of America. I call upon AG Gonzales to do his duty and arrest and charge Ms. Pelosi ASAP."Maybe a couple of thousand of these will give the Bush admin some support in regrowing their fortitude in the face of recent elections and negative polls.

    Where ’s the coward that would not dare to fight for such a land?

    Sir Walter Scott

    login or register to post comments »

    Judith Says:
    April 6, 2007 - 21:54
    Address to email Gonzales office, please. Let's get this rolling.

    login or register to post comments »

    misterbill Says:
    April 6, 2007 - 23:43
    Sorry about the delay--I had signed off.


    mailto:AskDOJ@usdoj.gov?subject=USDOJ%20Comments



    Where ’s the coward that would not dare to fight for such a land?

    Sir Walter Scott

    login or register to post comments »

    Andrew H. Says:
    April 7, 2007 - 07:35

    And she looked every bit as silly as she is.

    Liberalism is a convenient lie.

    login or register to post comments »

    Jack Bauer Says:
    April 6, 2007 - 11:08
    MC -- she should be fired for that scarf alone.

    The Murtha Burka... why just be fashionably late when you can be fashionably stupid as well!

    A lib***l is a deluded person who thinks that what he believes is true simply because he wants it to be true.
    Therefore reality must be shifted left to fit his odd perceptions.

    login or register to post comments »

    FastEd Says:
    April 6, 2007 - 11:31
    JB - in a preemptive strike for all of our kos friends and hufftards-

    "IT WAS PHOTOSHOPPED!!!!, she would never wear a bubushka, even a silk one!! Where was her entorage hair-dresser? "

    There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V

    login or register to post comments »

    Judith Says:
    April 6, 2007 - 21:57
    An aside: Haven't heard babushka since I left the Polish section of NW Ohio. Its what we always wore. Brings back old memories and good one, too.

    login or register to post comments »

    bigtimer Says:
    April 6, 2007 - 21:54
    'The Murtha Burka'

    PERFECT JACK!

    How do you come up with this great stuff...you know that is gonna catch on!

    login or register to post comments »

    Judith Says:
    April 6, 2007 - 21:50
    WHY IN THE HECK ISN'T ANYBODY HOLLERING OUT LOUD ON THIS? ARE WE SUDDENLY THE WUSSIES? FOR CRYING OUT LOUD, LETS DO SOMETHING, ANYTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    login or register to post comments »

    bigtimer Says:
    April 6, 2007 - 21:58
    Judith..

    It has been pathetic hasn't it?

    I give up on members to speak out when they could have the air-waves if they chose.

    I called Asa Hutchinson on C-span about my outrage on the silence and the wussified conservatives not taking a unified stance on a lot of things, important issues, about growing a back-bone...blah blah blah..seems to go in one ear and out the other with the republican party...they will lose again if they do not get a spine instead of always thinking someone somewhere someway will carry the water for their lazy arses.

    I have had it.

    login or register to post comments »

    Bender Says:
    April 7, 2007 - 08:06
    Let the House and Senate Republicans Handle It

    Oh yeah, that's right I forgot, the House and Senate Republicans don't care. They are a bunch of weak-kneed RINO's who care more about pork than National Security, Immigration, and success on the War On Terrorism.

    They are not going to punish one of their own. That's the problem today. There are two sets of laws. One for the political class and one for you and I.

    Sandy Berger steals and destroys classified documents from the National Archives - slap on the wrist.

    Intern steals Civil War documents from the National Archives - 10 year prison term.

    Nancy Pelosi will never be punished or even rebuked by House/Senate Republicans. It makes me sick.



    login or register to post comments »

    mtwokay Says:
    April 6, 2007 - 10:28
    Pelosi and other GOP members of congress clearly violated the Logan Act. They should be handcuffed and arrested upon their return to the US but Gonzalez doesn’t have the gonads to do it.

    We can all direct our anger towards Pelosi and what she did but the real anger should be directed at Bush, GOP members of congress, and especially Gonzalez. Gonzalez allowed himself to be neutered unnecessarily over the AG firing non-scandal and now doesn’t have the political will or backing (too bad it takes political will to enforce the law) to chase down Pelosi, handcuff, charge, and throw the traitor in jail (wow the libs would come unglued but it would be fun to watch). By his inaction/silence on this and many other issues, Gonzalez is allowing this country and the Presidency to be undermined by a group of rogue, commie traitors.

    I hate to say this but if Bush/Gonzales keeps doing nothing they are just as guilty as the dems in undermining this country. I absolutely question lib’s patriotism but if nothing is done about this “shadow government” I’ll have to question the patriotism of certain GOP members.

    Bush did take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, didn’t he? Doesn’t that mean enforcing the law as well?

    login or register to post comments »

    dscott Says:
    April 6, 2007 - 10:50
    While I agree with some of your sentiment on inaction and fumbling the ball, let's put something to rest here. Were the GOP members of Congress who went previously to Syria negotiating with Assad? What was the purpose of their trip? If you can definitively say members of the GOP were in Syria to negotiate then show the proof, if not then do everyone a favor cite exactly what they were doing there. And while you are at it, please correct me if I'm wrong in thinking Bush and the State Department may have also discouraged these folks from going also or did they go with an "approved agenda" to speak to foreign officials?

    “The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius

    login or register to post comments »

    mtwokay Says:
    April 6, 2007 - 11:01
    1. Ok, I'll admit when members of congress go to Syria and other rogue nations they’re discussing the weather, local cuisine, and the latest soccer game.

    2. I discourage my kids from doing certain things but I also warn them of the consequences, and when they clearly misbehave they’re punished. Now Bush discouraged Pelosi from going, I’ll give him that. But that’s it, nothing else from Bush or Gonzalez except silence and inaction.

    login or register to post comments »

    misterbill Says:
    April 6, 2007 - 11:34
    Stand fast-- you are correct--the Speaker should be arrested. You are entitled to your opinion and I agree with you. She was asked not to go by the President per news clips I have read. I have also read that the words of a Republican who went to the mid-east were twisted by the MSM and he said nothing negative about the current administration.

    Where ’s the coward that would not dare to fight for such a land?

    Sir Walter Scott

    login or register to post comments »

    dscott Says:
    April 6, 2007 - 12:26
    I have also read that the words of a Republican who went to the mid-east were twisted by the MSM and he said nothing negative about the current administration.

    Link please misterbill, I want to cut off the lib/Dem spin on what the GOPers were doing in Syria. If we are going to roast Ms. Pelosi, I don't want any side dishes distracting from the aroma and flavor.

    “The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius

    login or register to post comments »

    misterbill Says:
    April 6, 2007 - 23:38
    I was on vacation when I read it--cannot find the original article now at home. I did however find what Rep Aderholt said to prove that he did not malign the Bush policy.

    http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2007/04/aderholt_defends_trip_to_syria.html

    How the above can be perceived as anti-Bush could only be done in a twisted mind.


    Where ’s the coward that would not dare to fight for such a land?

    Sir Walter Scott

    login or register to post comments »

    JDW Says:
    April 6, 2007 - 10:33
    The news media not only hates Bush, but America. Why would they be so inclined to attack Pelosi for supporting the terrorists?

    JDW

    News media: Scoreboard for terrorists

    login or register to post comments »

    FastEd Says:
    April 6, 2007 - 10:37
    As posted on another thread, Lauer made a stupid remark, not knowing but referencing "somthing called" the Logan Act. This spotlights the so called media "heavy hitters" as readers as opposed to being reporters. They can ONLY spew back what some agenda driven "news" writer puts in front of them, instead of doing basic, basic, simple, easy to do, research.

    As to why it WON'T be covered, the msm (Lsm) would then have to admit that their "friends" were wrong, and it'll be a cold day on this global warmed earth before that happens.

    There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V

    login or register to post comments »

    Dave R Says:
    April 6, 2007 - 10:42
    Noel,

    I agree 100% that Pelosi's little jaunt has been a running violation of The Logan Act and probably warrants a serious investigation. However, with the Democrat Party in control of congress, along with the current U.S. Justice Department's state of self-induced discombobulation (not to mention their maddening un-willingness to pursue wayward democrats-Sandy I got a slap on the wrist "Pants" Berger and Willie "cold cash" Jefferson being just two examples) I doubt anything will ever come of it.

    Besides, if they did go after her, most of the former MSM would be screaming political prosecution! at the top of their lungs.

    What will be interesting to see is if Nancy has another shot fired across her bow from the destroyer HMS Clinton.




    This republic will not survive the continued neglect of its people.- Neal Boortz.


    login or register to post comments »

    blackrain4xmas Says:
    April 6, 2007 - 10:46
    Where are the Congressional calls demanding an investigation?

    Where is the opposition party?

    Where is the Attorney General?

    Why isn't the Sec State Demanding an investigation?

    Bush has truly become a lame duck if he's going to ignore his responsibility to enforce the laws of the land for fear of going from 32 to 31% approval.


    EDIT

    Wouldn't it be amazing if in all the calls for W's impeachment...the first woman Speaker of the House had to step down so she could serve out her Congressional term in prison? I submit, that since the nation is divided evenly among party lines, and since most Americans dislike what Speaker Pelosi has tried to do (though terrorist leaders have applauded it), that if President Bush were to have the AG file charges, bring this to a swift trial, and imprison her, his poll numbers would skyrocket back up to the 50's, and Democrats would think twice about creating their own Congressional foreign policy. Does he still have the testicular fortitude? Doubt it, but you can bet good money that President Gingrich or President Thompson would be doing and not only without shame, but with pride.

    login or register to post comments »

    mtwokay Says:
    April 6, 2007 - 11:08
    You're so right. The President's approval would skyrocket if the AG filed charges but the libs would go insane. In fact the libs would finally get their million man/woman/thing march they've wanted for so long, but the President's approval would double overnight.

    login or register to post comments »

    pbanks7 Says:
    April 6, 2007 - 11:20
    Hhhhhhhhhuuuuuuuuuuppp! [holding my breath]

    Kerry, the admitted war criminal, also violated the Logan Act in the 70's. Was almost our president.

    Carter, the former President, has violated the Logan Act several times.

    The Gunga-din media will be sure to protect any Democ-rat who is willing to make Bush look bad. If the Bush admin even says anything, Bush will be made to be the bad guy.

    Ignorance is bliss. It's easier to repeat a mindless slogan than to do some actual research.

    login or register to post comments »

    SportPolitics Says:
    April 6, 2007 - 11:00
    The american people have spoken...

    Oh really,all 2% of them who spoke for the democrat party ?

    It bugs me to no end when the talking blubberheads quack like 100% of the american people support their insane surrendering and white flagging.

    Democrats,you have a bare 1-2% luck out in the last election, and you do NOT have the foriegn policy position of the PRESIDENCY.

    You are the MINORITY when it comes to foreign policy, you morons.

    A midterm election DOES NOT CHANGE THE PRESIDENCY, YOU LYING BAGS OF CRAP.

    That's how Tim Russert talks. "The american people" are > add in how opposed they are to Bush...on any issue whatsoever...as if they ALL are -

    That's how the lying msm does it, constantly...

    The truth is a barely above 50% tiny shred more than not actually support the msm line. That's the truth. But they all talk like it's 100% of "the american people" behind their liberal Bush bashing demo supporting crap.

    login or register to post comments »

    blackrain4xmas Says:
    April 6, 2007 - 11:07
    Does every Speaker see a President as well?

    My wife's convinced that the calls for impeachment and efforts at "oversight" are really Speaker Pelosi's personal effort to have Bush/Cheney removed from office so that #3 becomes #1.

    Sedition?

    Coup?

    Can anyone tell me what laws were broken in the Iran Contra affair and why those laws about supporting foreign forces were put in place? Was it the same reason that the Logan Act was written: to prevent anyone other than the Executive from engaging in foreign policy?

    Ahhhh Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Col Oliver North...

    If she wants to hold hearings about possible suggested wrong doing even possible suggested criminal firing of 8 US attorneys, I suggest that he comply with the letter of the law and with Congress' demands, and that he equally prosecute the would be queen of the United States.

    Yep. Three years lady.

    You were warned not to go, you went, and you screwed it up. If elections have consequences, so too surely does a deliberate, pre-meditated breaking of the law.

    Or not? Perhaps President Bush will just roll over and beg to have his tummy rubbed like a lap dog...rather than have someone post a BEWARE OF DOG sign on the WH lawn.

    login or register to post comments »

    Judith Says:
    April 6, 2007 - 22:12
    What is wrong with W? It seems as though he has abdicated the Presidency. Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way!

    login or register to post comments »

    Just Me Says:
    April 6, 2007 - 11:13
    YES!!!!

    I agree! I have also been saying this to anyone who will listen. Why aren't the Republicans saying this? The Dems DO NOT have a mandate. The mid-term election was not a national election. It was a series of local, regional and state elections. The Dems won some of them. They won enough to tip the balance of power in the House and Senate. Yes, that is what counts, but how is that a mandate? I think Nancy, Steny and Jack are using the mandate rhetoric to convince those who aren't on board that they need to be. The Conservatives better get out there and counter this with their own rhetoric.

    login or register to post comments »

    FastEd Says:
    April 6, 2007 - 11:22
    The demolibs must have a "consensus", therefore it is "fact" - that's how they crunch the numbers. Remember too, where did most of the msm (Lsm) start their careers? ummm? or at least the ones who make the most spinning noise?

    There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V

    login or register to post comments »

    Independence4All Says:
    April 6, 2007 - 11:22
    "The Act was named after George Logan, who in 1798, went to France without President John Adams’ permission to try and settle the Quasi-War. "

    "Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States...."

    Sounds like she fits this description perfectly to me but people say this doesn't apply to Speaker Pelosi and her other companions? I understand she is an elected official but someone please try and explain to me how this does not apply. Did she not go over and talk to a foreign dictator, about foreign policy, during a time of war, without approval or support from the Executive branch of government? How does this not, in any shape or form, contradict/conflict with current stated foreign policy?

    login or register to post comments »

    SpinyNorman Says:
    April 6, 2007 - 11:39
    Noel,

    You beat me to the draw on this one, so I’ll add my 2-cents worth here. There have been Logan violation accusations launched at liberal budinskis for the past 25 years and none have reached media-bias escape velocity: Ramsey Clark, Screwy Louie Farrakhan, Jesse Jackson, and Jimmy Carter, to name but a few. Of course, none of these self-righteous charlatans were active members of government at the time.


    On the other hand, I can’t help but wonder how the words “without authority of the United States” might be interpreted to her advantage in this case. Surely, America did not vote for Nancy Pelosi – unwashed tin-foil heads in San Francisco did. But I wonder how a liberal rent-a-legal-scholar might interpret those words before an all-too-eager audience………


    Gotta punch out……


    Give a Liberal a thought and he'll repeat it mindlessly all day. Teach a Liberal to think for himself and he'll vote Republican (or, preferably, Libertarian) for the rest of his life.


    login or register to post comments »

    Mr. Terry Says:
    April 6, 2007 - 12:15
    Just look at her face. She thinks she is president. She is an anarchist because she thinks that the rules do not apply to her. Her mentality is one of the undeveloped nations which are corrupt to the core. She has no business being in the U.S. House, yet there she is.

    Like many of these other comments suggest, the AG and the White House need to slap her down for this one or they will never have the upper hand again. That goes for the rest of the GOP as well.

    I'm with Ann Coulter when she complains about the GOP not having any fight in them. Why do we even vote for them? They do not represent the Americans who put them into office.

    Nancy Pelosi - You are aiding the enemies of the United States.

    login or register to post comments »

    FastEd Says:
    April 6, 2007 - 12:48
    If only T. Jefferson were still around - "The purpose of government is to enable the people of a nation to live in safety and happiness. Government exists for the interests of the governed, not for the governors."

    ""In times of peace the people look most to their representatives; but in war, to the Executive solely."

    "Were we to give up half our territory rather than engage in a just war to preserve it, we should not keep the other half long."


    There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V

    login or register to post comments »

    sighkobabl Says:
    April 6, 2007 - 14:23
    Where are the calls for Nancy to be Frog Marched out of the house into a waiting police car?

    Better yet, there should be a Federal DA waiting for her at the airport.

    login or register to post comments »

    waka waka Says:
    April 6, 2007 - 15:27
    Hey dumba$$es! Pelosi publicly said, while standing beside Assad, that she stood shoulder to shoulder with Bush in demanding Syria shape up! How is this "treasonous"? I mean, if that's illegal, then what about Newt's behavior back in good old 1998?

    From ABC News, May 27, 1998:

    DAVID ENSOR, ABC News: (voice-over) It's beginning to look as if the days when American partisan politics ended at the water's edge may be over.

    Rep. NEWT GINGRICH (R), Speaker of the House:... Jerusalem, as the united and eternal capital of Israel.

    DAVID ENSOR: (voice-over) That runs directly contrary to official US policy, which holds that Jerusalem's future is a matter for negotiation between Palestinians and Israelis.

    Next, Speaker Gingrich took on the Clinton administration's effort to convince Israel to give up about 13 percent more of the West Bank. He said, quote, "We cannot allow non- Israelis to substitute their judgment for the generals that Israel has trusted with its security." The non-Israelis in question are Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and her aides, one of whom reacted sharply.

    JAMES RUBIN, State Department Spokesman: Rather stunning comments that would undermine the efforts we're trying to make to advance America's national interest.

    DAVID ENSOR: (voice-over) But it was a comment made two weeks ago that has Albright's team simmering with anger. "I think it's wrong," Gingrich said then, "for the American secretary of state to become the agent for the Palestinians."

    JAMES RUBIN: I found particularly appalling an outrageous his suggestion that the secretary of state of the United States was an agent for the Palestinians.

    Check out the rest of the story and how "liberal" the media really is, if you daaaare!

    http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/apr/06/flashback_gingrich_visited_israel_as_speaker_blasted_presidents_foreign_policy

    Reality has a well known liberal bias.

    login or register to post comments »

    bigtimer Says:
    April 6, 2007 - 15:32
    waka equals....

    Someone who just eats the pages of books.

    Period.

    You must of digested the pages yesterday and not read them...at all.

    Troll.

    login or register to post comments »

    JDW Says:
    April 6, 2007 - 15:38
    Why not mention the Logan Act?

    Why ignore the fact that Syria sponsors terrorism?

    Why ignore the fact that Pelosi's actions undermine the U.S.?

    Answer: Fighting for defeat.

    JDW

    News media: Scoreboard for terrorists

    If you are going to whine about spelling... get a life

    login or register to post comments »

    dscott Says:
    April 6, 2007 - 15:45
    Well let's see here, starting off with name calling, which means you have nothing to contribute to the discussion and is an admission you have lost the argument before it started.

    Now you could have referenced some thoughtful discussion on the issue like Robert F. Turner, a law professor who believes Pelosi has in fact committed an actionable felony.

    For my part, we lost that opportunity to go after Pelosi by not prosecuting Jimmy Carter when he had the nerve to chastise current President Bush for not agreeing with his negotiated position with a foreign power on another matter. Should she be prosecuted? I believe yes, just to make an example of her, will she be prosecuted, probably not as a political matter because it would look mean spirited given all the previous passes we have so foolishly given over the years.

    At some point, the Bush admin. will have to show some backbone, I suspect, they are going to deal with the Dems in a truly Rovian manner leaving the Dems holding the bag looking very silly, just like the recent recess appointment. If I were Rove, I would advise W to fill all the empty slots with recess appointments and thumb my nose at the Dems just to get them mouth foaming, raving mad. No one likes raving lunatics no matter how justified they may be.

    “The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius

    login or register to post comments »

    Gat New York Says:
    April 6, 2007 - 15:51
    Absolutely agree about the Bush administration getting off its pedestal and defending itself as well as about bringing charges against Pelosi under the Logan Act. What Gingrich did was make a political speech and had nothing to do with negotiating with a foreign leader. What Pelosi did was not only have policy discussions with Assad without the President's authorization but she also elected to take a message from the President of Israel to Assad without the President's approval. The fact that she bungled the message should be enough reason for her to resign.

    login or register to post comments »

    Kevin from the North Shore Says:
    April 6, 2007 - 16:45
    Do you think the media would have been as forgiving of Speaker Gingrich if he had so behaved when Clinton was president?

    Umm... apparently so.

    login or register to post comments »

    bigtimer Says:
    April 6, 2007 - 16:54
    Kevin,

    Hi!

    Happy Easter early...

    You are going to be another fun furry critter to play with...your not the Energizer Bunny are ya?

    Carry on...and on...and on...

    login or register to post comments »

    Roger the Shrubber Says:
    April 6, 2007 - 17:02
    That MSM "giant" Pat Buchanan is your example? You found one "pundit' (not even a reporter) and you claim victory!

    Okay. You win. It's not a 100% certainty that the media would not have been as forgiving. It is actually only a 98.5% certainty. I'm convinced!


    login or register to post comments »

    Kevin from the North Shore Says:
    April 6, 2007 - 17:59
    Seriously -- do they block Google from your computer or something?

    http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9805/27/arafat.gingrich/ (speaking of meeting with terrorists...)
    http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/03/28/gingrich.asia/index.html

    Of course, had there been an outcry by the liberal media about Gingrich's 1998 Middle East trip or 1997 China visit, the MRC would have caught it, right?:

    http://www.mediaresearch.org/archive/cyber/archive98.asp
    http://www.mediaresearch.org/archive/cyber/archive97.asp

    login or register to post comments »

    Roger the Shrubber Says:
    April 6, 2007 - 20:04
    Actually, Sparky, all I went on was your original link, and showed you the error of your ways.

    You have to remember, and many of the "progressives" that come here do not seem to understand this: congressmen and senators can visit foreign countries on "fact-finding" missions, or however you want to call it. It especially becomes important when foreign aid is involved, because these people are the ones who vote on the funding. It is an altogether different matter when a congress(wo)man goes to a foreign country trying to implement and affect foreign policy.

    Your link to Gingrich going to China is pertinent because of the Clinton scandal involving campaign donation money, and that was a congress issue. Arafat won a Nobel Prize, so that means he is hardly a terrorist, right? He is a man of peace. Stop slandering a good man's name. That link also has nothing of substance. Gingrish is doing nothing wrong, especially since Israel is the #1 recipient of US foreign aid. Sorry, Chachi, a big goose egg for your today.

    As for the MRC, they can defend themselves, but I believe if you look at the top of every page, it clearly says "combating and exposing LIBERAL media bias". Feel free to post links from a "Exposing Conservative media bias" website to support your claims. I am sure there must be copious amounts of evidence to support you, since the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy has been around for so long.

    Perhaps you can Google that.




    login or register to post comments »

    rainlillie Says:
    April 6, 2007 - 17:56

    Nancy Pelosi is trying to implement the recommendations by the Baker-Hamilton
    report( Bush hand -picked the members in the Baker-Hamilton group)
    That's why she went to Syria. James Baker is one of GWB's father's
    closet friends and he was a part of the group who suggested that we
    meet with our enemies as well as our allies. The Right wing act as if
    Nancy came up with the idea on her own.

    The biggest threat to the Bush Administration is an informed public.

    login or register to post comments »

    bigtimer Says:
    April 6, 2007 - 18:05
    Our girlfiends back and she's gonna be in trouble....

    Doo-waaa Doo-waa...

    login or register to post comments »

    Blonde Says:
    April 6, 2007 - 18:08

    BT,

    I see John's "Nancy in a Head Scarf" has got you in a song-singing mood.

    Good one.

    Just what we need on a lovely Friday.....rainlillie's drivel.

    login or register to post comments »

    Gat New York Says:
    April 6, 2007 - 18:07
    "Nancy Pelosi is trying to implement . . . " I think you should refer to the Constitution and Article II section 3 as well as to The Logan Act. It is illegal for Pelosi to conduct any foreign policy initiative with another country without the consent of the President. Her violation is a felony. More importantly she anointed herself an official U.S. agent to take a message from the President of Israel to Assad without the President's permission. Your side constantly tries to invoke the Constitution so don't even think about being hypocritical here. She not only broke the law, but she caused a major interntional incident because she is a moron and was incapable of delivering the correct message.

    login or register to post comments »

    bigtimer Says:
    April 6, 2007 - 18:18
    GNY...

    I told her she was going to be in trouble...

    She never comes back, thats why I never mention anything important to her anymore with a serious response.

    She is a waste of time and a weekly planted trolloping troll.

    You most likely already know that...just thought I would throw that in just in case...

    LOL!

    login or register to post comments »

    Jack Bauer Says:
    April 7, 2007 - 06:45
    Another piss-poor "comment" by one of our resident leftoid dumb clucks who can't see a point without missing it by a mile.

    Truly pathetic, even by your standards, which is a very low bar.

    "Nancy Pelosi is trying to implement .. " That Nancy, she's so "special".

    A lib***l is a deluded person who thinks that what he believes is true simply because he wants it to be true.
    Therefore reality must be shifted left to fit his odd perceptions.

    login or register to post comments »

    Andrew H. Says:
    April 7, 2007 - 07:33

    The biggest threat to our democracy is the uninformed left.

    Liberalism is a convenient lie.

    login or register to post comments »

    DebraJMSmith Says:
    April 7, 2007 - 05:08
    US Constitution

    Article 2

    Section 4 - DisqualificationThe President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

    Article 3

    Section 3 - TreasonTreason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

    The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

    login or register to post comments »

    Comment viewing options
    Flat list - collapsed Flat list - expanded Threaded list - collapsed Threaded list - expanded Date - newest first Date - oldest first 10 comments per page 30 comments per page 50 comments per page 70 comments per page 90 comments per page On topic comments All comments Insightful comments
    Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
    User login

    Username:

    Password:


    Create new account
    Request new password
    Browse archives
    « April 2007 Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7
    8 9 10 11 12 13 14
    15 16 17 18 19 20 21
    22 23 24 25 26 27 28
    29 30

    Help Us Fight Media Bias
    Help NewsBusters upgrade our servers by making
    a donation via our secure form. We appreciate every contribution!

    Navigation
    feedback/tips
    Editors' Picks
    Romney dogged by hunting misstatements (Ace)
    MSM loaded headline: Bush swiftboated ambassor pick (SnarkingDawg)
    Rudy aborts campaign with taxpayer funding support (JYB)
    Ripping Time's global warming survival guide (EditableConstitution)
    Media's 'hit' parade on religion (CMI)
    The surge is working (Macsmind)
    9-11 conspiracists <3 Rosie (Michelle Malkin)
    Chetry and Roberts announcement live-blogged (TVNewser)
    NY Times explains Easter, NOT! (Get Religion)
    Support NB, visit our advertisers
    Recent blog posts
    Time Magazine’s Joe Klein Declares President Bush ‘Unfit to Lead’
    Bozell Column: Easter Striptease and Chocolate Jesus
    As Temps Go Below Freezing & Snow Falls in April, Net Hype 'Dire' Global Warming
    Richard Gere on CBS's Late Show: 'We Have a President Right Now Who Lies Constantly'
    Weekend Captionfest
    The Last Time: Global Warming Recommendations That Will Put You In the Red
    CNN’s Aneesh Raman Hails the 'Precision' and 'Sophisticated' PR Campaign by Iran
    ‘Adam@Home’ Comic Strip Spreads Global Warming Alarmism to Funny Pages
    Forget Tomatoes, CNN Warns of Attack of the 'Killer Stoves'
    Israeli News Organization Reports ‘Anti-Semitic Graphic Content’ at Daily Kos
    more
    Please support NB by visiting our advertisers
    Place a Bet on Iraq The New Iraqi Dinar has been skyrocketing in the past several months. Yet it is still unbelievably affordable. The same amount that was once equal to over $82,000 can now be purchased for around $45. But, what happens when the oil really starts to flow?Read more...Gifts, Gadgets & Lifestyle Solutions Discover unique, useful Gifts & Gadgets at FirstStreetOnline.com, a Top 400 Internet Retailer. Find Gardening Gadgets, Travel Gadgets, Magnifying Gadgets, Kitchen Gadgets, Retro Gifts & Gadgets, Better Music and Better TV.Read more...Advertise here
    Recent comments
    Joe Klein is part of that MSN
    7 min 16 sec ago
    No left turns is my favorite,
    8 min 33 sec ago
    AgreedBut we knew that when G
    10 min 15 sec ago
    Well, I guess as long as they
    11 min 19 sec ago
    Former House Speaker and poss
    12 min 55 sec ago
    "When Bush came to offic
    14 min 14 sec ago
    After review of this we must
    18 min 21 sec ago
    I've always noticed a paral
    19 min 13 sec ago
    BR
    20 min 43 sec ago
    I think Klein and his ilk should get their way
    22 min 6 sec ago
    Popular content
    Today's:
    Australian TV Exposes 'Stranded Polar Bear' Global Warming Hoax
    Bozell Column: Easter Striptease and Chocolate Jesus
    As Temps Go Below Freezing & Snow Falls in April, Net Hype 'Dire' Global Warming
    Media Mostly Ignore Whether Pelosi’s Syria Trip Violated The Logan Act
    Open Thread Friday


    All time:
    Oops! CNN Airs Anchor's Girl Talk Over Bush Speech
    HBO's Gumbel: Lack of Blacks Makes Olympics 'Look Like a GOP Convention'
    On Letterman, Al Franken Jokes About Execution for Treason of Rove, Libby and Bush
    Andy Rooney to Katie: Welcome to CBS, Now Get Out
    Up the Creek: Accusing Bush of Video Stunt, 'Today' Gets Caught in Stunt of Its Own
    Bill Maher Sorry the Assassination Attempt on Dick Cheney Failed
    Ben Affleck: Bush 'Can Be Hung' for 'Probably' Leaking Plame's Name
    Al Franken's Rerun Rove and Libby Execution Remark Draws Laughter From Lauer
    Letterman Denounces Iraq War, Sheehan Critics
    'Da Vinci Code' Actor: Bible Should Have 'Fiction' Disclaimer
    Note: At this time, blogging on NewsBusters is limited to authorized contributors. To start your own discussions, head over to our Forums.

    Click here for instructions on how to become a contributing blogger.

    Advertisement







    Activist Groups Politicize WH Easter Egg Roll
    Bush More a Follower of Caesar Than of Jesus, Says Author
    Business, Not Mormon Church Ties, Funding Romney, Experts Say
    Almost Half of Americans Fear Corruption if Clintons Return to White House, Poll Finds
    Are We Experiencing a Constitutional Crisis?

    Masthead
    Executive Editor
    Matthew Sheffield


    Editor
    Brent Baker


    Managing Editor
    Ken Shepherd


    Senior Editors
    Tim Graham
    Rich Noyes


    Contributing Editors
    John Armor
    Lyford Beverage
    Tom Blumer
    Geoffrey Dickens
    Mark Finkelstein
    Dan Gainor
    David Limbaugh
    April Mickelson
    Joshua Sharf
    Mithridate Ombud
    Noel Sheppard
    Greg Sheffield
    Clay Waters

    Contributing Writers
    Michael M. Bates
    Jimmie Bise Jr
    Robin Boyd
    Edward L. Daley
    Justin Darr
    Lisa Fabrizio
    Vinny Fiore
    Christopher Fotos
    P.J. Gladnick
    Stacy L. Harp
    Dustin Hawkins
    Sharon Hughes
    Michelle Humphrey
    Warner Todd Huston
    Tom Johnson
    Justin McCarthy
    Alexandra von Maltzan
    Rick Moore
    Dave Pierre
    Amy Ridenour
    Dan Riehl
    Michael Rule
    Tom Segel
    Jason Smith
    Rudy Takala
    Greg Tinti
    Scott Whitlock
    Brad Wilmouth

    Publicist
    Michael Chapman

    Publisher
    L. Brent Bozell

    Take Action







    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Copyright © 2005-2007 NewsBusters. Terms of Use.

    ReplyDelete
  5. But conside this statement by Albert Gallatin, the future Secretary of the Treasury under President Thomas Jefferson, who was wary of centralized government: "it would be extremely improper for a member of this House to enter into any correspondence with the French Republic . . . As we are not at war with France, an offence of this kind would not be high treason, yet it would be as criminal an act, as if we were at war." Indeed, the offense is greater when the usurpation of the president's constitutional authority is done by a member of the legislature--all the more so by a Speaker of the House--because it violates not just statutory law but constitutes a usurpation of the powers of a separate branch and a breach of the oath of office Ms. Pelosi took to support the Constitution.

    [...]

    The U.S. is in the midst of two wars authorized by Congress. For Ms. Pelosi to flout the Constitution in these circumstances is not only shortsighted; it may well be a felony, as the Logan Act has been part of our criminal law for more than two centuries. Perhaps it is time to enforce the law.

    ReplyDelete
  6. FROM THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

    Illegal Diplomacy
    Did Nancy Pelosi commit a felony when she went to Syria?

    BY ROBERT F. TURNER
    Friday, April 6, 2007 11:30 a.m. EDT

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may well have committed a felony in traveling to Damascus this week, against the wishes of the president, to communicate on foreign-policy issues with Syrian President Bashar Assad. The administration isn't going to want to touch this political hot potato, nor should it become a partisan issue. Maybe special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, whose aggressive prosecution of Lewis Libby establishes his independence from White House influence, should be called back.

    The Logan Act makes it a felony and provides for a prison sentence of up to three years for any American, "without authority of the United States," to communicate with a foreign government in an effort to influence that government's behavior on any "disputes or controversies with the United States." Some background on this statute helps to understand why Ms. Pelosi may be in serious trouble.

    President John Adams requested the statute after a Pennsylvania pacifist named George Logan traveled to France in 1798 to assure the French government that the American people favored peace in the undeclared "Quasi War" being fought on the high seas between the two countries. In proposing the law, Rep. Roger Griswold of Connecticut explained that the object was, as recorded in the Annals of Congress, "to punish a crime which goes to the destruction of the executive power of the government. He meant that description of crime which arises from an interference of individual citizens in the negotiations of our executive with foreign governments."

    The debate on this bill ran nearly 150 pages in the Annals. On Jan. 16, 1799, Rep. Isaac Parker of Massachusetts explained, "the people of the United States have given to the executive department the power to negotiate with foreign governments, and to carry on all foreign relations, and that it is therefore an usurpation of that power for an individual to undertake to correspond with any foreign power on any dispute between the two governments, or for any state government, or any other department of the general government, to do it."

    Griswold and Parker were Federalists who believed in strong executive power. But consider this statement by Albert Gallatin, the future Secretary of the Treasury under President Thomas Jefferson, who was wary of centralized government: "it would be extremely improper for a member of this House to enter into any correspondence with the French Republic . . . As we are not at war with France, an offence of this kind would not be high treason, yet it would be as criminal an act, as if we were at war." Indeed, the offense is greater when the usurpation of the president's constitutional authority is done by a member of the legislature--all the more so by a Speaker of the House--because it violates not just statutory law but constitutes a usurpation of the powers of a separate branch and a breach of the oath of office Ms. Pelosi took to support the Constitution.





    The Supreme Court has spoken clearly on this aspect of the separation of powers. In Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall used the president's authority over the Department of State as an illustration of those "important political powers" that, "being entrusted to the executive, the decision of the executive is conclusive." And in the landmark 1936 Curtiss-Wright case, the Supreme Court reaffirmed: "Into the field of negotiation the Senate cannot intrude, and Congress itself is powerless to invade it."
    Ms. Pelosi and her Congressional entourage spoke to President Assad on various issues, among other things saying, "We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace." She is certainly not the first member of Congress--of either party--to engage in this sort of behavior, but her position as a national leader, the wartime circumstances, the opposition to the trip from the White House, and the character of the regime she has chosen to approach make her behavior particularly inappropriate.

    Of course, not all congressional travel to, or communications with representatives of, foreign nations is unlawful. A purely fact-finding trip that involves looking around, visiting American military bases or talking with U.S. diplomats is not a problem. Nor is formal negotiation with foreign representatives if authorized by the president. (FDR appointed Sens. Tom Connally and Arthur Vandenberg to the U.S. delegation that negotiated the U.N. Charter.) Ms. Pelosi's trip was not authorized, and Syria is one of the world's leading sponsors of international terrorism. It has almost certainly been involved in numerous attacks that have claimed the lives of American military personnel from Beirut to Baghdad.

    The U.S. is in the midst of two wars authorized by Congress. For Ms. Pelosi to flout the Constitution in these circumstances is not only shortsighted; it may well be a felony, as the Logan Act has been part of our criminal law for more than two centuries. Perhaps it is time to enforce the law.

    Mr. Turner was acting assistant secretary of state for legislative affairs in 1984-85 and is a former chairman of the ABA standing committee on law and national security.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Pelosi, Master manipulator

    Notice how she took Rep Tom Lantos with her..
    Why?

    To claim the moral high ground for the trip and further insullate her from political critique.
    Lantos, a survivor of Nazi death camps adds immediate immunity and provides immediate cover for the Speakers treachery. She's a devious woman in also having Lantos make the statement to Assad that the Democrats had a better foreign policy.
    Well the Democrats may indeed have a "foreign policy" BUT ONLY ONE VOICE SPEAKS TO THE WORLD ABOUT WHAT THE us FOREIGN POLICY IS..THE PRESIDENT.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Teresita,

    Some good points. As far as the mission in Iraq, I would add: No fighters jets, no helicopter transports, no abrams tanks. Instead, use UAVs. And B52 bombers when needed.

    Regards Wall Street helping the US economy.. MAKE THE USE OF ETHANOL A VIABLE MACRO ECONOMIC SOLUTION.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Another point made by Goure, and recently by Schoomaker, is that the nation is not spending enough money overall on defense, given the demands on the Pentagon from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.


    According to the Defense Department, the nation today is spending 3.9 percent of gross domestic product on the military and the war on terrorism, far below the level of national sacrifice during World War II (38 percent), the Korean War (14 percent), Vietnam (9.5 percent), the Reagan-era buildup (6.2 percent), or even the Clinton-era post-Cold War drawdown (4.8 percent). Little wonder that leaders in uniform worry that a nation increasingly divided over Iraq may become ambivalent about fully funding the military."


    Although I entirely agree with his overall point, his numbers are a bit misleading. Counting supplimental spending for Iraq and Afghanistan GDP spending is about 5.5%. Still peanuts in comparison to prior war efforts.

    Moreover, in the long run entitlement programs are looking to doom the defense budget to around 2% or even less.

    And within that budget, the Army gets about 20%. This is a figure that has stayed almost constant for 50 years, through the Cold War and beyond. As the strategic environment was obviously in flux through, it is at the very least irrational.

    ReplyDelete
  10. In Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall used the president's authority over the Department of State as an illustration of those "important political powers" that, "being entrusted to the executive, the decision of the executive is conclusive." And in the landmark 1936 Curtiss-Wright case, the Supreme Court reaffirmed: "Into the field of negotiation the Senate cannot intrude, and Congress itself is powerless to invade

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/04/prosecute_pelosis_crime.html

    ReplyDelete
  11. T , I like all of them. You were a little light on point 8.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Habu,

    Bush would have to be the one to make the claim that Pelosi violated the act, and then he would have to do something about it. That will not happen. he has enough troubles and by his doing nothing he will not play into the political trap she set for him.

    If he were to go at her and after her, she would merely make the case that he is not attending to business and she needed to know why. She could also claim that she needed background information to justify spending. Pelosi only hurts her standing with conservatives, where coincidentaly she has none.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Regardless of whether she'd weasel out on semantics, Pelosi certainly violated the spirit of the law. It is also true, however, that we've had many violators of the Logan Act over the past few decades, Jesse Jackson has been mentioned, Kerry is another even more egregious violation. For political reasons as well neither of them were prosecuted, so it is almost an accepted fact that it can be done at will.

    It is what happens when law becomes something to be enforced only when it is convenient to do so.

    ReplyDelete
  14. This is the grass that Rufus gets buzzed on. No it does not go in a bong.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Rufus,

    Very interesting reading that biopact.com site.

    ReplyDelete
  16. How you gonna get em to Yazoo City
    when they could be on the farm
    using switch and that pyrolosis kitty?

    ReplyDelete
  17. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  18. The only thing that is going to convince the American public that our security is at risk because of imported oil is to crank up the tax on imported OPEC oil, and do it incrementaly to a rate that makes it unmarketable in the US, and never, ever reduce it.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Rufus,

    Is there a US centric site that is the equivalent?
    Also, Google: "historical meteorological reading"?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Deuce,

    They did that in Europe. The net result, the US is in a better strategic position.

    ReplyDelete
  21. 40% loss of weight, in the first stage of fast-pyrolysis.
    ' ... are now actually building a modular, decentralised fast-pyrolysis plant that will convert wood residues into bio-oil. The 200 tonne per day plant will be located in Guelph, Ontario."

    200 tonnes per day, produces 160 tonnes of bio-oil. The oil being 2.5 times as denxe as the raw grass.

    200 tonnes per day when optimized production is 15 tons of dry biomass per acre. This was at Auburn Univ. test farm.
    A realible estimate of 10 tons per acre would be reliable.

    20 acres per day X 360 days = 7,200 acres committed to each modular, decentralised fast-pyrolysis plant. Each plant would produce 43,200 tons of bio-oil.

    Bransby's site holds the one-year record at 15 tons per acre. Those are dry tons weighed after all the moisture's been baked out. Convert that into ethanol, an alcohol that can fuel vehicles, and it equals about 1,500 gallons per acre. Bransby's 6-year average, 11.5 tons a year, translates into about 11,500 gallons of ethanol per acre.

    Each plant producing the first step in formulating a thousand gallons of ethanol from each ton of bio-mass. Producing 7.2 million gallons of ethanol per plant per year per decentralised fast-pyrolysis plant.

    The US imported an average of 10.192 million barrels per day in January. Each barrel has 50 gallons of oil. 510 million gallons

    The annual production of a decentralised fast-pyrolysis plant equalling 1.4% of a month's current imports. Less than .1% of annual imports

    We need 550 of those plants and 4 million acres of switchgrass under production, to even begin to make a dent in import needs.

    ReplyDelete
  22. d'Rat

    The US military is the 4th largest consumer of oil in the world!

    Reduce oil consumption by the US military and you've gone a long way in reducing US need for oil imports. Once US oil imports become a non issue, so is the need to maintain a massive military presence in the Persian Gulf to secure these imports.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Do not have to drill in Anwar nor Anbar.

    We have spent $500 Billion on battling rouge radicals in local civil wars.

    How much has been spent on US energy independence?

    Independence is not the Skull & Boners goal.
    Interdependence is.

    Global interdependence.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Thanks, Rufus. Now bookmarked. :)

    ReplyDelete
  25. Cheney reasserts al-Qaida-Saddam link
    Associated Press

    Cheney repeated his assertions of al-Qaida links to Saddam Hussein's Iraq on Thursday as the Defense Department released a report citing more evidence that the prewar government did not cooperate with the terrorist group

    ReplyDelete
  26. $100 Billion would go a long way to start.

    ReplyDelete
  27. It is so obvious. Too bad six years have been wasted, going on eight.

    ReplyDelete
  28. James Woolsey in agreement:
    .
    .
    if that means creating an unlikely alliance between national security hawks, American farmers, Christian evangelicals, liberal do-gooders and tree-hugging environmentalists, Woolsey said, that's just fine with him.

    "All these groups are starting to come around on this set of issues," he said.

    Woolsey said the solution to America's foreign oil addiction, as President Bush has termed it, needs to meet three standards: It has to be affordable; it has to be available soon; and it has to use the nation's existing infrastructure.

    That cuts out, for example, the hydrogen-powered vehicles that Bush has called for, Woolsey said, because the infrastructure does not exist already to support delivering hydrogen fuel to cars around the country.

    The best solution that fits all three criteria, he said, is to use biofuels, such as soy-based diesel or ethanol made from agricultural products like prairie grass, to power hybrid electric vehicles that could be recharged at night.
    .
    .

    ReplyDelete
  29. If we get a Democratic President along with a Democratic Congress, the military will be shrinking, not growing. They have many other things they'd rather spend the money on, and a large part of their party are pacifists, opposed to even the idea of war.

    Right now the Dems know they have to be somewhat subtle, with Bush still in power, so they are trying to gradually shrink it, by getting us out of Iraq and keeping us out of Iran to start.

    As for the current size of the military, the Bush administration and (former) Republican Congress must be blamed (as the article does by mentioning Rumsfeld). Who would have imagined that a Republican President and Congress, after a large scale attack on our own soil, wouldn't grow the military nearly enough? Bush could have asked for any funding he wanted after 9/11. No one would have dared say no, and lots of volunteers would come forward.

    One of the great mysteries of the world is how a president who so strongly "gets" the need to fight a long war on terror doesn't see the need to build a large military and to create the political support to make that happen.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Every winter, here, the Government mandates an ethanol mix, sold as gasoline.

    Could do it everywhere, all the time. Mandate its' use. Even if it did violate the Tenth Amendment. No one would care.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Wu Wei,

    See my earlier comment to Ms T. The answer is not a larger military, but a smarter more efficient military. Even the old school Heavy Metal geezers are starting to understand this.

    ReplyDelete
  32. > The answer is not a larger military, but a smarter more efficient military.

    Been there, done that. That's what Rumsfeld thought, and it is has proven to be false. If we "lose" in Iraq, it will be because of not having enough troops.

    In World War II we have 15 times as many troops as we do now. We need to really be ready to fight a global war on terror.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I saw this elsewhere and it made me laugh out loud:

    The sailors and marines interviewed made the British Military look like spoiled, cowardly brats. In order for them to provide the smiling, apologizing propaganda footage seen during their captivity, the Iranians had to separate them, and threaten them. Wow! What an ordeal! ... If their fathers or grandfathers behaved the same way, I suppose I would have been writing this in German.

    ReplyDelete
  34. What global war on terror?

    That is no Federal budget item, nor even an expense catagory.

    The War on Terror has been retired.
    Words never to be spoken again, at least not until Mr Murtha is removed from being in charge of Defense Appropriations.

    Just local civil wars, Afghanistan, Iraq and Somalia, Yemen, Sudan & Pakistan, too.

    The stuggle against radical extremism, that was the last rendition that was run up the flag pole, few saluted, perhaps there is some other moniker in the works.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Wu Wei: If we "lose" in Iraq, it will be because of not having enough troops.

    It's not the number of troops, but what you do with these troops. Of the 150,000 (+/-) troops used, only 1% actually go on patrol. That means that 99% percent of the personnel in Iraq are there as a VERY expensive supply tail, maintaining VERY expensive toys that are completely superfluous to the mission.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Kerkorian in $4.5bn Chrysler bid

    DaimlerChrysler has been in talks with potential partners
    Billionaire Kirk Kerkorian's firm Tracinda has made a $4.5bn (£2.2bn) cash offer for Chrysler, the ailing US arm of Germany's DaimlerChrysler.
    Tracinda, formerly a key shareholder in Chrysler, said it wanted to "build and strengthen" Chrysler.

    Chrysler management and United Auto Workers could be "equity partners", said private investment firm Tracinda.

    DaimlerChrysler confirmed that it was in talks with potential partners over Chrysler, but made no other comments.
    ________________________________________

    If LBJ were president, he would get on the phone call Hoover, ask him what he had on any of those hedge fund boys up in New York and get on the phone and jaw bone a few of them to put together $10-15 billion to buy Chrysler, recap the operations, and wait for a $20 billion contract for refitting the army vehicles being junked in Iraq.

    ________________________________________

    In a less enlightened era.

    ReplyDelete
  37. $15 billion USD!

    That will buy you an army of 150,000 Iraqis at a pay of $100,000 USD/year. Or an army of a half million Iraqis with a pay of $30,000 USD/year.

    Why is this so difficult to implement?!

    ReplyDelete
  38. Yes, McCain is sticking with the military, but that's not enough for me. He's betrayed his party way too many times, and co-sponsored legislation with Teddy Kennedy too many times.

    I notice also that McCain is not bringing any other Senators to his pro-war position. That's because none of them can stand him, not a good way for a President to be.

    ReplyDelete
  39. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  40. I just deleted a duplicate comment, in case anyone wonders what it was. I clicked the publish button twice.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Exactly, mat.
    Buy some loyalty.

    Who transfered the administration of the Iraqi Army to a nonexistent Iraqi Government?

    Four years ago.

    Why?
    What Doctrine was followed, where had that EVER been successful in building either a Government or a military?

    ReplyDelete
  42. d'Rat,

    Don't look at me, cause it wasn't me. Instead, look to that taqiyya General of yours who was just retired with full military honors.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Westhawk described how Iraqi troops were trained and treated at Camp Taji.
    Perspectives differ
    as to what was "right", as is brought out in the comments.

    The Iraqi were shortchanged and the US not deserving of much loyalty. If one looks at it from an Iraqi perspective.

    The US Commanders thought they were doing reasonably well with regards the Iraqi troops.
    Seperate and unequal.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Twas not me either.

    I made the case of Iraqi military empowerment, numerous times, oft told I was wrong. Still may turn out that way. Does not appear so, though.

    After the WMD threat was eliminated the subsequently primary missions were never treated that way. Training competent Iraqi and securing their loyalty was never seriously pursued.

    The best General we had sent to KS, the Ranger Commander from the success at Tal Afar, sent to London.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Wu said...
    "As for the current size of the military, the Bush administration and (former) Republican Congress must be blamed (as the article does by mentioning Rumsfeld). Who would have imagined that a Republican President and Congress, after a large scale attack on our own soil, wouldn't grow the military nearly enough? Bush could have asked for any funding he wanted after 9/11. No one would have dared say no, and lots of volunteers would come forward.

    One of the great mysteries of the world is how a president who so strongly "gets" the need to fight a long war on terror doesn't see the need to build a large military and to create the political support to make that happen.
    "

    INCOMPETENT, CORRUPT.
    (see refusing to secure our border and our citizenry by refusing to enforce the laws of the land.)

    Bad Generals?

    INCOMPETENT CIC if they are not replaced.
    Not rocket science.

    ReplyDelete
  46. More Media Malpractice (willisms)
    It is this kind of dishonest, defeatist article that drives conservatives absolutely nuts about the liberal, agenda-driven press. Surrender advocate (i.e., 'journalist')
    Mark Thompson of TIME
    claims that the U.S. military is 'broken-down', and profiles a young soldier named Matthew Zeimer killed in Iraq as proof. Thompson claims that the soldier received inadequate training, and implies that this is what killed him (never mind that another soldier killed alongside Zeimer was a 14-month Iraq combat veteran).

    Here is what Thompson says about Zeimer's training:
    Zeimer and about 140 other members of the 4,000-strong brigade got a cut-rate, 10-day course on weapon use, first aid and Iraqi culture. That's the same length as the course that teaches soldiers assigned to generals' household staffs the finer points of table service.

    Ray Robinson at RealClearPolitics absolutely excoriates Thompson's shoddy reporting here, by actually researching Zeimer's background. Lo and behold, Zeimer actually had months and months of training, including training in Kuwait, before he went to Iraq. Robinson was able to Google this information in mere moments.

    ReplyDelete