Why Pelosi Is Different, And Wrong
IHT makes a common, and ill-considered, criticism of the Bush administration:
The difference is that the three Republicans made it very clear in their trip that they supported Bush, though they did not represent him. Pelosi, on the other hand, is openly opposing Bush's policies and trying to work diplomacy in her own way, taking on the Constitutional role of the President for herself.
For example, Pelosi was supposedly delivering messages to Syria from Israel, but Israel immediately backed off from Pelosi's claims. A Congressman has no business, whatsoever, being in this position in the first place. That is the purview of the State Department and the President and anyone whom the President specifically appoints to be involved in such matters, not for any Congressman, even Madame Speaker.
The Constitution says that the President directs diplomatic policy. It's that simple. If you go abroad to one of our enemies -- for lack of a better term, that's what Syria essentially is at this time -- you must not go against the Chief Diplomat. If you do, you are crossing a line that should not be crossed, and that is what Pelosi is doing, and it is not what the three Republicans are doing.
Pelosi and her fellow Democrats claim she was not going against Bush policy, not budging "half an inch", but Pelosi's own words prove that's false: she said her goal was to attempt to push the Iraq Study Group recommendations, which are not Bush policy.
There is no sharp contrast, as IHT claims; the Republicans are not going against Bush policy, and Pelosi is. Of course, their very first paragraph of the story shows that they either don't understand what is going on, or are simply choosing Pelosi's side in the disagreement, as they place all the blame on Bush, when it's Pelosi who is acting outside of her Constitutional role.
The tone of the complaints - particularly Vice President Dick Cheney's public characterization of her visit as "bad behavior" - contrasts sharply with the administration's silence about a similar trip to Damascus a week ago by three Republican lawmakers, Frank Wolf of Virginia, Joseph Pitts of Pennsylvania and Robert Aderholt of Alabama.
The difference is that the three Republicans made it very clear in their trip that they supported Bush, though they did not represent him. Pelosi, on the other hand, is openly opposing Bush's policies and trying to work diplomacy in her own way, taking on the Constitutional role of the President for herself.
For example, Pelosi was supposedly delivering messages to Syria from Israel, but Israel immediately backed off from Pelosi's claims. A Congressman has no business, whatsoever, being in this position in the first place. That is the purview of the State Department and the President and anyone whom the President specifically appoints to be involved in such matters, not for any Congressman, even Madame Speaker.
The Constitution says that the President directs diplomatic policy. It's that simple. If you go abroad to one of our enemies -- for lack of a better term, that's what Syria essentially is at this time -- you must not go against the Chief Diplomat. If you do, you are crossing a line that should not be crossed, and that is what Pelosi is doing, and it is not what the three Republicans are doing.
Pelosi and her fellow Democrats claim she was not going against Bush policy, not budging "half an inch", but Pelosi's own words prove that's false: she said her goal was to attempt to push the Iraq Study Group recommendations, which are not Bush policy.
There is no sharp contrast, as IHT claims; the Republicans are not going against Bush policy, and Pelosi is. Of course, their very first paragraph of the story shows that they either don't understand what is going on, or are simply choosing Pelosi's side in the disagreement, as they place all the blame on Bush, when it's Pelosi who is acting outside of her Constitutional role.
"It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt."
Leave a comment