On Pelosi: Blessed Are The Peacemakers
You know what they say: no good deed goes unpunished.
That is certainly the case with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and her visit to Syria.
At a time (the Easter-Passover recess) when dozens of House members and Senators are visiting foreign capitals and discussing policy with foreign leaders, Pelosi is being skewered for, in the words of the Washington Post's editors, "substituting her own foreign policy for that of a sitting Republican President."
The Post accuses Pelosi of "try[ing] to introduce a new U.S. diplomatic initiative in the Middle East."
Heaven forefend! Things are going so swimmingly in the Middle East that the last thing anyone needs is for the 3rd highest official in the United States trying to resuscitate diplomacy.
The specific objection is to her meeting with the Syrian leader, Beshar Assad. Of course, few could object to what she told Assad -- that he should stop trouble making in Iraq and Lebanon, that the Israeli government is ready for negotiations, that Israel has no bellicose intentions toward Syria and that Syria should use its influence to free Israeli prisoners.
In fact, David Hobson, a Republican from Ohio who accompanied Pelosi, said that the Speaker did not stray very far from Bush administration policy. Hobson said Pelosi "did not engage in any Bush bashing. She did not...bash [Bush] policies as they relate to Syria." Instead, Hobson said, Pelosi urged Assad to curb the number of suicide bombers who cross the Syrian border into Iraq to "murder our troops and the Iraqi people."
Republican House leader, John Boehner, admitted that there was nothing wrong with legislators in general visiting Syria. "It's one thing for other members to go," Boehner said, "but you have to ask yourself, 'Why is Pelosi going?"
The answer isn't that hard. She went for the same reasons as Tom Lantos (D-CA), Chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs,as Henry Waxman (D-CA), the most senior Jewish Member of the House, as Keith Ellison (D-MN), the first Muslim-American in Congress, Rules Committee Chair, Louise M. Slaughter (D-NY), Nick J. Rahall II (D-WV), the senior Arab-Amerrican in Congress and Senior Defense Appropriator David Hobson (R-OH). She went to advance US interests in the Middle East, believing that we can perhaps get more out of Syria by engaging it than by shunning it.
The critics are feigning outrage because they don't like Pelosi (CNN, in particular, seems to have a problem with a female Speaker) and because, by visiting Syria, Pelosi has revived one of the Baker-Hamilton Report's prescriptions for ending the Iraq war: engaging Iran and Syria. And there is no document in recent times that neoconservatives ( i.e. the Washington Post's editorialists who, unlike their fine reporters, have been drum majors for the Iraq war even back when it was only a gleam in Douglas Feith's eye).
Baker-Hamilton recognizes that Syria and Iran can do more to impede the extrication of our soldiers and marines from Iraq than any other countries on the planet (with the exception of Iraq itself). On the other hand, if they choose to, they can ease our way out of Iraq and help prevent that country's further descent into chaos and civil war.
The Israeli government added to the Pelosi controversy by saying that Pelosi did not carry any private messages from Jerusalem to Damascus. But the Israelis have been using intermediaries to convey information to the Syrians for a long time. It is inconceivable that the highest ranking American to visit Damascus in memory would visit Israel, en route to Syria, and not be asked to convey a message to President Assad from Prime Minister Olmert. One can only hope that she was carrying messages from Israel. Why wouldn't the Israelis seize that opportunity?
Pelosi's visit strengthened America's position in the region, and likely helped Israel on prisoners, on Hezbollah, and in its effort to avoid another war like last summer's. It was a gutsy move by the new Speaker and one that deserves commendation, not criticism from those who are committed to the whole litany of failed policies of recent years. One would think that some of these pundits and others would look at the sheer carnage they delivered in Iraq – the 3200 American dead and the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians -- and be shamed into shutting up. But no such luck.
In this context, and on this Good Friday, it is worth recalling Jesus' words in Matthew 5:9, "Blessed are the peacemakers for they will be called the children of God." That is not exactly what the critics are calling Pelosi. But, the New Testament notwithstanding, peacemakers are rarely praised in their own time while the initiators of unnecessary wars are rarely, if ever, held accountable for them. Pelosi is too smart to expect plaudits for trying to deter war rather than simply cheerleading for a status quo that will inevitably produce the next one.
I like to hearken back to the great missed opportunity of 1971. That was when Prime Minister Golda Meir rebuffed Egyptian President Anwar Sadat's call on Israel to pull back from the Suez Canal . Sadat said that in exchange for a pullback of just a few miles - which would enable Egypt to re-open the canal -- he would begin negotiating a peace agreement with Israel. This week Yediot Achronot revealed new information about the missed opportunity.
Zeev Tzahor reports that the American Secretary of State, William Rogers, was so disturbed by Golda's rejection that he enlisted Israel's first Prime Minister, David Ben Gurion, to try to persuade her to, at least, seriously consider the offer. Let the Yediot columnist, Zeev Tzahor, tells the rest of the story (translated a little clumsily from the Hebrew).
"The 85-year-old Ben-Gurion was retired…His relations with Golda were poor, and he was not particularly eager to speak with her. Rogers implored him. The Egyptian initiative is a one-time opportunity, he said, but Golda has taken a dismissive, supercilious view of it. She admires you, maybe she'll heed your advice. Ben-Gurion acquiesced, and asked his aides to put him in touch with Golda in Jerusalem.
"The brief conversation between them was acerbic. The people present in the room heard Ben-Gurion repeat why she ought to begin negotiations with Egypt.While the people present in the room could not hear what Golda was saying on the other side of the line, it was clear to them that she was not interested in promoting the Egyptian initiative.
"Ben-Gurion lost his patience, lambasted Golda and said she was leading Israel to catastrophe, and terminated the conversation. For some reason, he placed the receiver down on the table and not in its cradle. The people present in the room heard Golda calling, "Ben-Gurion, Ben-Gurion," but he refused to pick up the telephone again. He just kept repeating, "war is going to break out soon, war is coming." It did. Israel lost 3000 men.
Ben Gurion died a few weeks later. Israel ended up relinquishing not just the west bank of the Suez Canal, as Sadat had demanded but every last inch of the Sinai peninsula.
Until this week, I had never heard that Secretary of State William Rogers tried so hard to help Israel avert catastrophe. All I recalled about him was that the pro-Israel community despised him because he was thought to have applied pressure to Israel.
Little did I know that the pressure was in the form of the wise counsel of David Ben-Gurion, the founder of the Jewish state.
I hope Pelosi is not daunted by the criticism emanating from all the usual suspects. Her delegation's visit to the Middle East advanced America's interests, and Israel's too. As they like to say in that region: the dogs bark but the caravan moves on.
FLASH: the crazed WSJ editorial page demands Pelosi be charged and sent to jail!
I like the choice of words. "sitting Republican President."
From the record of Hastert with Clinton, or Helms with Carter, or Nixon on Johnson, its apparently all right for Republicans to substitute their foreign policy for that of sitting Democratic Presidents.
April 6, 2007 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Bush administration has imploded. Now they are looking for people to blame.
April 6, 2007 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder why the WaPo felt it necessary to use the word "Republican" before 'President'.
April 6, 2007 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen
After 7 years of gross incompetence and deceit, US power and foreign policy are a shambles. Our influence in the middle east is somewhere between slim and none.
It's a tragedy of the first order that ad hoc groups such as the Baker-Hamilton commission, the Iraqi government, together with delegations of Congressmen and Senators have to do the hard work of catastrophe containment that the US Secretary of State cannot or will not do.
But those are the cards we've been dealt and none better than Nancy Pelosi to play them.
April 6, 2007 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, but guys, Pelosi wore a scarf!!! Can't you see how much worse it is? And besides, IOKIYAR, everyone knows that!
April 6, 2007 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen
The WSJ editorial board ought to be imprisoned for conspiracy to wage aggressive war.
April 6, 2007 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's pathetic, really. You know, they can't erase this in 10 years.
April 6, 2007 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why don't we turn the foreign policy of the US over to Israel? Isn't that what God would want?
April 6, 2007 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Theres an old Three Stooges short where they play plumbers; one scene has them working in a basement, and the pipes they installed look like the superstructure of a roller coaster. If the Bush gang's "basement" wasn't so tragic it would be laughable.
April 6, 2007 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
RE: FLASH
How do these people tie their own shoes with the logic they use to say things like this editorial?
It sounds to me if you go by this editorial, there should be a whole lot of members of congress, Democratic and Republican, in jail, along with staff from the State Department since it's on the record that they were there with Pelosi. Go figure.
Oh, how dare I forget, it's all there for the unclean masses to ingest unquestioned. Pardon me.
April 6, 2007 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Funny, I don't recall the WSJ asking for the imprisonment of felons like Newt.
You know, there was a case in 1980 of serious interference, some guy named Baker, I think, representing some pol named Reagan, interfered with the release of American hostages in Iran. I wonder if there is a statute of limitations? This case might still be pursuable...
April 6, 2007 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Israel actually welcomed Pelosi's visit to Syria. Perhaps the neocon Likudniks were who you were referring to?
April 6, 2007 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Robert Turner is a respected legal expert and he is right, Pelosi did commit a felony and should be brought to task for it at the very least with a hearing and censure.
You say the WAPO has libeled her, the WSJ is crazy, and the leader of Israel is a liar. The only one that is smitten by her is the blood thirsty dictator that assasinated Rafik Hariri and continues to support Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad. If hers is the model of foreign policy expertise, then I guess peace is breaking out all over.
Breaking the Logan act is a felony. Ohlmert did not break the Logan act, he was put on the spot by a nutjob speaker that doesn't believe in the US constitution. She should be ashamed of herself. She is a criminal.
April 6, 2007 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
One of the differences is she did not have permission from George W. Bush. That may bug you, but according to the constitution he decides, he is the decider on foreign policy, his decidingization is protected by the constitution. If he tells the speaker of the house to keep her trap shut on the issue and she attempts to "initiate their own foreign policy" (according to her entourage). Today she changed her tune and said, "she was "Sending Bush's message" to Assad.
I think Condi Rice can deliver the President's messages just fine and I think she is a better judge of what his message is too. We have had Secretaries of State since Thomas Jefferson and maybe Nancy thinks that office is an outdated notion.
If she disagrees with the Presidents approach to this terrorist state and she decides to attempt to create her own foreign policy "without authority of the United States,", she has created a felony. The law demands that she spend 3 years in a jail cell for this. If she gets off with censure it will be too lenient.
April 6, 2007 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
To Valdron's evaluation of Presidential posture on April 6, 2007 - 1:06pm,
Isn't lying a more appropriate position than sitting? I picture GWB lounging on Roman-inspired furniture, being fed grapes Iraqi dates (reputed to be the best in the world, perhaps that being his motivation).
While the Turks and Iranians argue the high quality of their apricots, the Iranians probably do take the pistachio gold medal. This leads to the question of which leaders like nuts, if one considers the proverb that one becomes what one eats.
Hmmm...thinking of my lunch, and my complaint that I couldn't find anything hotter than chipotles...no pequin, no Thai, no habanero, no mutant habanero. I used to grow some of the latter, developed at the USDA Agricultural Research Laboratory, at 300,000 to 500,000 units on the logarithmic Scoville scale. I've heard a new strain hits 1.2 million. What is the level at which it is considered WMD?
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
April 6, 2007 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
TJ King talking about treason. I have read dozens of posts by this US citizen who says over and over again that his loyalty belongs exclusively to Israel. This is a guy who openly holds his fellow Americans in contempt and sees the only value of young Americans as cannon fodder to be used in wars he thinks beneficial to Israel. This traitor, this self-described traitor, has no right to even have opinions on issues related to America. He lives here off this country but with not a shred of loyalty to it. And he's proud of his disloyalty.
April 6, 2007 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, TJ, what he said is this:
...which is a far cry from saying that she DID commit a felony and should be brought to task.
OK, if you want to pick some nits, the Constitution ACTUALLY SAYS THAT RECESS APPOINTMENTS can be filled ONLY if the position becomes AVAILABLE when the Congress is recessed.
Actually, almost all presidents have made appointments that are not in keeping with the Constitution regarding recess appointments, and so in practice, it is the way it is.
Now, go back and tell me all the others who have done FAR more than Pelosi did, (many are listed above) and then spout the Logan Act again.
You are full of it as usual. Only an apologist for the scumbags would want to go after someone for trying to make peace. I'm sure you sleep as well as our amoral president. Good dreams!
Dream on!
Jan Knaus
April 6, 2007 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
from Glenn Greenwald:
Newt Gingrich's 1997 trip to China
This is, of course, totally different than the right-wing outrage scandal de jour:
New York Times, March 31, 1997 -- reporting on a trip to China by House Speaker Newt Gingrich, one week after Vice President Al Gore's trip:
Speaking with startling bluntness on an issue so delicate that diplomats have tiptoed around it for years, Newt Gingrich said today that he had warned China's top leaders that the United States would intervene militarily if Taiwan was attacked.
As he left for Tokyo after a three-day trip to China, Mr. Gingrich said he had made it absolutely clear how the United States would respond if such a military conflict arose.
Referring to his meetings with China's leaders, Mr. Gingrich said: ''I said firmly, 'We want you to understand, we will defend Taiwan. Period.'"
He also said, ''I think that they are more aware now that we would defend Taiwan if it were militarily attacked.''
Mr. Gingrich, the Speaker of the House, delivered his message, among the most forceful ever given about Taiwan by a visiting United States official, to Wang Daohan, China's chief representative in talks with Taiwan. Mr. Gingrich said he had given the same message to President Jiang Zemin and Prime Minister Li Peng in Beijing last week.
Chinese leaders offered no public response to Mr. Gingrich today. But on Friday, Mr. Jiang urged him to treat the Taiwan issue with care. . . .
Asked about Mr. Gingrich's statements, a Clinton Administration official in Washington said Mr. Gingrich had received briefings about American policy toward China, but that Mr. Gingrich ''was speaking for himself'' in his conversations with Chinese leaders.
The White House issued a statement saying that the policy of the United States was to ''meet its obligation under the Taiwan Relations Act, including the maintenance of an adequate self-defense for Taiwan,'' and that the Administration would maintain its ''one-China policy, the fundamental bedrock of which is that both parties peacefully address the Taiwan issue. . . ."
In an interview on Friday, Mr. Gingrich said he had spoken with Mr. Clinton, and with Mr. Gore on several occasions, to make sure that their messages to Beijing dovetailed. At the time, he did not mention his message on Taiwan.
Several days later, Gingrich's remarks in China led to this -- New York Times, April 4, 1997:
China admonished the United States today to speak with one voice on foreign policy and accused Newt Gingrich of making ''improper'' statements on Washington's commitment to defend Taiwan from any military attack by the mainland.
The criticism was made by the Foreign Ministry spokesman, Shen Guofang, who earlier this week had expressed basic satisfaction with remarks made by Mr. Gingrich, the Speaker of the House, during a three-day visit to China.
The visit followed Vice President Al Gore's first trip to Beijing. Both men spoke on issues of contention between Washington and Beijing, but Mr. Gingrich's remarks were noteworthy for their directness and for exceeding the normal State Department formulations on American commitments to Taiwan.
China's decision to criticize Mr. Gingrich came after he traveled to Taiwan on Wednesday and met with President Lee Teng-hui.
Pelosi had precedent. By the way, she didn't threaten anyone with war.
April 6, 2007 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now, now, Jan, one mustn't introduce facts when dealing with TJ.
April 6, 2007 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
To Mark Weinberg's comment of On April 6, 2007 - 3:57pm,
I've certainly seen TJ King speak highly of Israel, but I don't remember seeing him say his loyalty is exclusively to Israel. I can think of some posters who might well say this, perhaps because they are dual citizens or Israeli citizens. Have you a link or some copied text?
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
US Constitution, Article III, Section 3. Section 3:
Treason 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.
April 6, 2007 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
You think the TJ's lose any sleep over the 3200 dead Americans in Iraq. I say "no." For TJ and those of his ilk, losing a bunch of kids from Iowa and Alabama is a small price to pay to hold on to the occupied territories.
That is the neocon position. If it benefits the West Bank settlers, an American should feel honored to die for it.
April 6, 2007 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
What?
April 6, 2007 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
George Bush himself allowed Pelosi to use Air Force One, and he gave Pelosi a Bible, a cake, and three hundred TOW missiles to present to Assad. Bush said he was reaching out to the "moderates" in Syria.
from Greenwald again;
In addition to Gingrich's solo foreign policy pronouncements in China, he also, as Greg Sargent enterprisingly unearths, travelled in 1998 to Israel and pronounced Jerusalem to be "the united and eternal capital of Israel" -- a pronouncement that, according to ABC News' David Ensor at the time, ran "directly contrary to official US policy, which holds that Jerusalem's future is a matter for negotiation between Palestinians and Israelis."
"directly contrary to official US policy,"
April 6, 2007 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
HEEEEEE"SSSSS BAAAAAACKKK
felony felony BAWK BAWK! censure censure BLEAT BLEAT! dictator dictator BABBLE BABBLE! nutjob speaker, nutjob
speaker BLOVIATE BLOVIATE! US constitution SNORT SNORT! criminal, criminal BLUBBER BLUBBER!
April 6, 2007 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Around 620,000. Approximately at the melting temperature of zinc.
April 6, 2007 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another terrific column from M.J. But you were entirely too easy on poor, befuddled Ehud Olmert who can't seem to remember what he tells all the various American pols who come to town to see him. It seems that once Pelosi left Jerusalem he forgot that he told her to tell Assad that he was actually in favor of peace.
Then when Dick Cheney took him to the woodshed, Olmert remembered that he definitely forgot any such message. It seems Dick is even telling Ehud when to use the little boy's room in his Jerusalem PM's office: "Uh, not now, Ehud, just wait a bit till Pelosi leaves Damascus, then you take your dump."
And as for the WashPo's Isreal editorial policy, it seems they must have that AIPAC intern writing their Israel editorials once again.
Richard Silverstein
Tikun Olam>
April 6, 2007 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wang Daohan, was a member of a "semi-official" foundation that discusses Taiwan relations with an equivelent organization in Taipaei. If Gingrich claimed publicly ahead of time that he did not agree with Clinton's China policy and that he was going to China to make an attempt to formulate his "own foreign policy" as the Pelosi entourage announced, and then met with the leader of China and then lied about the words of another regional government at time that Clinton was offcially refusing to allow any American officials to speak to China,.......then maybe you might be able to argue that Newt should share a jail cell with Pelosi. But none of that is true, which shows you are completely wrong.
On the contrary, Clinton and Gore were not in a situation where there was no contact with China, in fact they were both knowingly accepting bribes from the Chinese version of the CIA in exchange for weapons technology that is now threatening the American people who were the owners of that technology.
You remember Al, .."No controlling legal authority" can prove that he broke the law. He made that speech on March 3, quickly snuck out of town to go to China to hang out with his benefactors. A couple of weeks later, they are criticizing Newt for his dealings with the Chinese governemnt that just paid for Clinton's re-election? Wow, another pair of Democrat criminals.
"...Pelosi had precedent. By the way, she didn't threaten anyone with war...."
Yes she does have a precedent. Here it is:
That is why her actions were made criminal 199 years ago.
April 6, 2007 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah. Medium hot.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
April 6, 2007 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see you are following your own advice with great discipline.
April 6, 2007 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sometimes your jokes have a moderately clever twist to them, but I think you should explain your metaphor on this one. Jut because you are moderately clever on occasion doesn't mean I'm sending misslies and a Betty Crocker Bundt cake.
April 6, 2007 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah well, I guess she'll just have to get in line and wait while we see how George W. and friends do with their hundreds of hypothetical criminal charges - mass murder, genocide, etc. etc.
And I suppose she'll have to share the criminal docket with the Republican congressmen who have gone on this junket and previous junkets.
Unfortunately, matters are not nearly so clearcut as Tjking suggests The long history of Congress being involved in the making of foreign policy, and occasionally taking and moving foreign policy positions distinct from that of the President goes all the way back to Thomas Jefferson.
Indeed, historical examples range into the dozens, far too numerous and tedious to mention.
But in recent times I can think of various congressional entreaties to Hitler's Germany prior to WWII and Senator Jessie Helm's foreign policy with respect to Panama during the Presidency of Carter, and Hyde's missions to Columbia during the Clinton administration which were aimed at repudiating and undermining White House foreign policy.
But all of these amount to Republicans undermining Democratic Presidents, so I guess that's okay.
The President, near as I can tell, doesn't have much of a message. And he doesn't really decide anything. Mostly, he just baits. He's good at baiting.
Why, your President is probably the world champion at baiting. He's a master baiter.
But I don't think that's constructive.
I'm sure that Condoleeza Rice can deliver the message "The President is masturbating at the thought of what white phosphorous does to the bodies of naked arab children. Here are some polaroids."
But gee whiz. Is that a message that adds anything to anything.
Condoleeza Rice has been all over the middle east a half dozen times, and she's become something of a joke. I'm not sure she's got much credibility left over there.
April 6, 2007 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whoa, M.J.! The WSJ column is simply loony tunes. PLEASE let's circulate this link around the lib blogosphere. Neocons don't need much help in proving to the rest of us they've taken leave of their political senses, but pieces like this sure give 'em an extra nudge in that direction.
And can anyone tell me whether anyone's ever been charged w. violating the Logan Act since it was passed way back in 1799 or so? We should be doing some research on this to debunk their lunacy.
Richard Silverstein
Tikun Olam>
April 6, 2007 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please tell me the Justice Dept. is going to prosecute Pelosi for this. Please, please!! It will send Cheney-Bush's ratings down fr. whatever they are currently to whatever Olmert's are currently (someone above said 3% which may be a bit uncharitable, but possibly not far off the mark).
Richard Silverstein
Tikun Olam>
April 6, 2007 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some would say mild, with a perky and insolent bouquet.
It's the insolence that tips it over.
April 6, 2007 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not finding it in the Constitution, but there's a level of immunity for legislators that do things as a function of their office. Mike Gravel, for example, was immune from any prosecution for reading excerpts of the Pentagon Papers into the Congressional Record.
Is the immunity limited to things said on the floor, or could this apply to Pelosi's actions? Does the Logan Act really apply to Congressional fact-finding?
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
April 6, 2007 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm, I think we should encourage the Republicans and Bush to press charges.....say when Speaker Pelosi exits her return flight and on time for the evening news...say this Monday..and make sure the federal agents are big, burly and handcuff her.
I really think this would destroy the Republicans for...oh...fifty years or more.
April 6, 2007 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
TJ, buy a dictionary, proceed to look up, "sarcasm", that's spelled S A R C A S M. When you have accompished this, get back to me.
April 6, 2007 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please source your claim on the Pelosi announcement prior to going to the middle east.
Please forward indictments of Clinton/Gore on bribery charges.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The following is accurate:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oh, besides the Gingrich precedent, we also have;
In 1997, Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) led a delegation to Colombia at a time when U.S. officials were trying to attach human rights conditions to U.S. security assistance programs. Hastert specifically encouraged Colombian military officials to “bypass” President Clinton and “communicate directly with Congress.”
…a congressional delegation led by Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) which met with Colombian military officials, promising to “remove conditions on assist