Nancy Pelosi
This letter has not been edited.
YAWN.
Posted by on May 1, 2007 01:23 PMToo bad you are the only one who thinks that. Now if she gave someone a BJ that would be grounds for her removal.
Posted by Sean on May 1, 2007 01:32 PMConsidering all of the violations of law the Bush Administration has partaken in, this one is small potatoes. Tell you what-- after we prosecute Bush & Co. for illegal wiretaps, war crimes, inappropriate use of RNC emails, losing federal emails, outing CIA agents, etc., then we can talk about Pelosi. Oh, yeah.... and we'll need to prosecute all the Republicans that made that same visit.
Posted by Dan on May 1, 2007 01:35 PMBrian,
Didn't you already write in about this two weeks ago? This is a red herring. The most frequently visited country by congressional delegations is Israel. There they get instructions from their zionist puppet masters.
You should be asking " how much in campaign contributions do each congressperson get from cleverly-disguised AIPAC-controlled PACs?" Those are the ones who should be investigated, Brian, But I'll guess that yours is an effort to distract away from that question.
Brian Stuckey's posting of the same drivel over and over appears to be a flagrant violation of the Useless Moron Act.
Accountability? Tell that to your murdering masters, gutless chimp whore.
Posted by B. Drunk on May 1, 2007 01:38 PMBrian Brian Brian
There is no outcry because there is nothing to cry about. So stop crying and come up with something more tangible to smear a liberal.
Posted by balthazar on May 1, 2007 01:43 PMDan,"Tell you what-- after we prosecute Bush & Co. for war crimes..."
Now that's even funnier than trying to use the Logan Act on Puglosi.
Posted by KW on May 1, 2007 02:27 PMThe reason this hasn't been investigated is that the allegation that Pelosi violated the Logan Act has been debunked multiple times already, but those who are out to get her just won't let it go.
The animosity against Pelosi by some on the right has to be without parallel. What's funny is that none if it has stuck. The plane story, the Syria visit smear, saying she didn't want to meet with Petreus (sp?), none of it has stuck because it's all-smear-no-facts.
Suggestion: instead of trying to get Pelosi discredited by legitimate means (which is obviously not working), just start calling her names instead. It's easy and you don't need to back it up with facts ... Oh, wait. KW is already on it. Classssy!
Jeff,
Unfortunately, there's plenty of parallel. Remember the Special Prosecutor, who spent millions of the taxpayer's dollars discovering that:
A. The Clintons lost money in Whitewater.
B. The President couldn't keep his pants zipper up.
C. Bill Clinton had a certain vaguness about what constituted "sex".
So, for another million or so, the Republicans went on to Impeach. And lost. Just as they lost back in the 19th Century, when they took off after Lincoln's successor, Johnson, with nothing more to go on than sheer partisan vindictiveness.
With the Pelosi non-event, they seem to be trying for . . . a third strike, maybe? Must be SOME reason they lost in the last election; and the current polls show them trailing in the low end of the 30% bracket. Mustn't there be?
Posted by Old Grouch on May 1, 2007 02:50 PMYour right Jeff, it was beneath me to call her Puglosi. I do however fear her agenda. If you have to ask me what that agenda is, I suggest studying up on it before you praise her because her idea of new policies will bankrupt this country and the economy.
Now if we can just get the Bush haters to quit calling names... But I doubt that is possible.
Posted by KW on May 1, 2007 03:06 PMOG, I love C: vaguness about sex.
Of course we had the Pelosi Plane incident, where the Sargent at Arms suggested her group have a bigger plane. She was blamed for that too.
All of this makes me fear for the first woman president. I don`t see a smidgen of cooperation for her, whoever she is, from the right.
Posted by on May 1, 2007 03:21 PMDropped my name again.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 1, 2007 03:22 PMKW,
"her idea of new policies will bankrupt this country and the economy." ...oops, too late, the Shrub has done it for us already.
You righties are always gumming off about fiscal responsibility - funny that President Clinton (God, how we miss him) was the only one to balance the budget in the last few decades. Conservatives talk a good game but when it's time to deliver they always seem to come up short.
And you fear (Pelosi's) agenda? guess what, pal - with the mess we're in right now I think I'd choose Spongebob's agenda over Bush/Cheney's.
Posted by Drew on May 1, 2007 03:33 PMLook at me!! Look at me! I'm the most powerful woman I'm Nancy Pelosiiiiii
Posted by on May 1, 2007 03:48 PMKeith? is that you?
Posted by on May 1, 2007 04:01 PMDrew,"her idea of new policies will bankrupt this country and the economy." ...oops, too late, the Shrub has done it for us already.
I guess we're back to the name calling.
But rather than listen to Drew make things up as he goes, lets get back to reality.
Here's todays economic update. Sorry Drew, couldn't find a bad report.
I guess you're insuation about the bankrupt economy under Bush is just the hatred showing again. I really recommend you read up on Pelosi before giving her policy visions a ringing endorsement.
You're kidding, KW. THAT was your link for an economic update? The Dow Jones Index? Seriously?! All that shows is investor confidence in the stock market.... hardly an indicator of real economic data, including wage-to-inflation, home values, consumer confidence, value of the dollar to world markets, and interest spending on the national debt. Please do better next time.
Posted by Dan on May 1, 2007 04:36 PMYeah Dan, that pesky DOW huh? That darn record low unemployment is messing with you too I bet. Too bad new home construction permits are on the rise again, that kinda ruins the dismal outlook you prefer.
And don't let the outstanding quarterly reports that keep rolling in get in your way either. Oh wait, those are a large part of whats making those investors confident and causes record high stock market numbers.
But I digress, what were you saying again?
Posted by KW on May 1, 2007 04:58 PMOld Grouch,
You've managed to make quite a mangle of the Clinton legacy.
Clinton was impeached by the House and the case was sent to and tried by the Senate where it was decided that President Clinton should nto be removed.
The decision was probably based more in politics then the law. The Republicans knew that if they removed Clinton then Gore would have become President which would have strengthened Gore's bid in 2000.
They may have been right. In any event, the Republican didn't lose anything by leaving a lame duck in office for a few more months.
Clinton's impeachment carried four charges all of which were all related to his perjury in a depostion over the Paula Jones case.
Ms. Jones brought a civil suit against Pres. Clinton for sexual harassement that she alleged had occured years prior. During the discovery phase Ms. Jones' attorneys were attemtping to establish a pattern of harassment and asked the President in a sworn deposition about his relationship with Monica Lewenski, a White House intern. The President, while under oath, denied that he had seduced the young woman. He continued his denials in public waving his finger at the American public and proclaiming his innocence.
President Clinton then engaged the full resources of the Justice Department with legal maneuvering designed to suppress evidence and support his lie for about six months.
It was the Democrats, not the Republicans, who spent the public money trying to cover the President's perjury.
The truth finally became known when Ms. Lewenski produced a dress that had been stained by President Clinton during one of their escapades. After that, the DNA evidence rendered the President's lies unsupportable.
President Clinton's impeachment had nothing to do with White Water, or the Rose law firm billing recoreds, or the Travel office, or the FBI files, or Web Hubbel, or Waco, or Elian Gonzales or any of the other scandals.
President Clinton was not even impeached for seducing a young woman working in the White House which while contemptible, is not illegal.
President Clinton was impeached for lying under oath and the Chief Executive isn't supposed to do that.
You are entitled to your opinion, however confused, but you are not entitled to your own history.
Posted by James Jones on May 1, 2007 05:06 PMKW--
So you now agree the Pelsi did nothing wrong in visiting Syria? Based on your "thats as funny as using the logan act...." statement. Glad to see you've flip-flopped errrrr....changed your mind on that one.
As for your above statement - "new home construction permits" - another outright lie.
"The Realtors' existing home sales report and the government's new home sales reading have both shown tremendous weakness in the pace of sales in recent months, along with a glut of both types of homes on the market, which has depressed prices. The Pending Home Sales Index does not contain any home price measure.
The weak real estate market has badly hurt results of the nation's largest builders. Monday Centex (Charts, Fortune 500), the nation's No. 3 builder, reported a larger-than-forecast loss in the most recent quarter, its second straight quarter in the red. No. 4 builder Pulte Homes (Charts, Fortune 500) also reported its second straight losing quarter Wednesday. Also in April No. 2 home builder D.R. Horton (Charts, Fortune 500) reported the typical start to the spring home buying season hasn't begun.
The nation's largest home builder Lennar (Charts, Fortune 500) and No. 5 KB Home (Charts, Fortune 500) both reported losses in their quarters ending in November before returning to the black in the most recent period. "
from http://money.cnn.com/2007/05/01/news/economy/homesales/
Dude - you should know by now. Whenever you are there spouting BS, I will be there to smack you down.
Posted by Tbone on May 1, 2007 05:09 PMKW,
Over time the stock market tends to go up - so what? -and Bush taking credit for that is like a rooster taking credit for the sunrise.
What about the trillions in debt we're running up to china, India and others - guess bush thinks he won't be around when that comes due. His favorite trick is leaving others holding the bag. Ask his daddy's friends whose money he burned up when he couldn't find oil in Texas. Or the Texas Rangers when the genius traded Sammy Sosa and then walked away.
The only good thing to come of all this is that the Democrats are going to run everything next year - including the presidency - Thanks, Shrub!
Posted by Drew on May 1, 2007 05:16 PMKW,
I'm glad you recognized the thing about the crack. You're right, name-calling is equally useless on both sides. When I hear someone call Bush "Dubya" or "Shrub," or when they called Clinton "Bubba" (okay, that one was somewhat funny because it's just a funny word) I always wonder what the name-callers think they have accomplished in the debate.
Myself, I'm kind of an economic illiterate, so I avoid those arguments because I can't really get anywhere. I'll just say this: I've noticed that when the ecnomy is bad, it's the president's fault if you don't like the president. However, if one likes the president when the ecnomy is bad, you'll often hear how the president really doesn't guide the economy, how it's really Greenspan, et al. Same double-standard goes for when the economy is good ... Just a thought.
Posted by Jeff on May 1, 2007 05:20 PMKW "That darn record low unemployment is messing with you too I bet."
The Bush regime accounting is much like Enron's, just stop counting when you reach the correvt threshold. Unemployment numbers have decreased because unemployed workers that fall off the payment cycles are not included. This is much like the new Iraq numbers that show the surge is working, if you don't include the car bombs that is.
Sure that pesky DOW topped 13 grand. The rich get richer, while the paycheck to paycheck families dream of an extra $1000 for a downpayment on junior's braces.
Posted by on May 1, 2007 05:22 PMKW,
Making an assumption about your education level from the quality of your posting, I must hypothesize that you're likely of the middle class variety and therefore currently being pissed upon by the ultra-rich scumbags that you admire.
And you think you're singing in the rain!
Lap it up K-Dog.
Posted by Charles B on May 1, 2007 06:09 PMJonesy,
Was any part of that sermon supposed to mean anything? Or is it your position that every jot and tittle of trivia actually makes something out of what really amounted to "Much Ado about Nothing" in the end?
And a nothing that cost the taxpayers millions of dollars to pursue at that.
And, your fantasies about why aside, the Republicans lost. Just as they lost the first time. That's not just "my history". That's history.
Posted by Old Grouch on May 1, 2007 10:41 PMOld Grouch,
Here's why that post is important.
When President Clinton took office the Democrats had the presidency and both houses of congress. The President humiliated himself and debased the office.
When President Clinton left office, the Republicans had the presidency and both houses of congress.
You look at this history and conclude "the Republicans lost."
Now comes Speaker Pelosi who attempted to embarass Presidnet Bush for political gain but, probably inadvertantly, actually established a parallel foreign policy for the US during a time of war and actually met with our enemies who assist the terrorists that our troops battle daily.
Within the historical context it is not surprising that you do no see the damage that Speaker Pelosi does to the Democrat party or the the nation.
It is very likely true that you will learn nothing from history, but that doesn't mean that history should be distorted to accommodate your views. You will go on chanting your "Repubican's lose" mantra in any event.
However for the intellectually honest history is instructive but only useful to the extent it is accurately understood. That's why I go to the trouble of cleaning up the mess you make of it.
Posted by James Jones on May 2, 2007 07:05 AMMy apologies for getting back to the subject of the letter starting this thread.
Stuckey: "Logan Act, which forbids the unauthorized visits of American citizens with foreign governments."
No, Brian, the Logan Act does not forbid unauthorized visits of American citizens with foreign governments. It forbids such visits when they are "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,"
There has never been a conviction under the Logan Act throughout its over two hundred year history. It's constitutionality has not been determined. But it would seem to forbid you or I from writing a letter to the Iranian government urging it to cooperate with President Bush.
The Bush administration is not going to try to indict Pelosi for going to Iran and supporting the president's positions, which is what she did.
Posted by Truth on May 2, 2007 08:18 AMResponse to Truth: Pelosi went to Iran?? don't tell Brian Stucky, he'll be writing complaining about that for weeks!
Posted by mike h on May 2, 2007 08:28 AMTruth,
We've never before had a Speaker of the House attempt to use the authority of her office to establish a separate foreign policy when while the country is at war with our troops in the midst of battle.
The fact that Pelosi's actions are unheard of in the history of the republic is not a defence.
Speaker Pelosi has never supported any postion of President Bush but she traveled to Syria to assure Assam that the congress is behind Bush all the way? Assam knows better - they get CNN over there.
You believe that only because the alternative is damaging.
Posted by James Jones on May 2, 2007 09:06 AMCharles B - Why are you so snarly in all your posts? Is it job related? While you're thinking about it, get the bucket. There's a spill on aisle 3.
TBone - New home permits are on the rise 3 consecutive months this year. Profits will reflect this as they finish construction.
Your link also mentioned additional good news you left out. New home sales increased 2.6% and median price of housing went up 1% so you can see things aren't dropping anymore.
After the huge housing boom in '04 & '05 you'll always have a correction in the market. Otherwise people would get priced out of ever owning a home.
Trust me, real estate development is my field and I've been in it a long, long time.
Dan,the crime is they released you from the mental hospital.
Posted by Keith on May 2, 2007 09:31 AMJimmy J.:
"President Clinton then engaged the full resources of the Justice Department with legal maneuvering designed to suppress evidence and support his lie for about six months. "
I call BS. Please cite a reference.
Posted by on May 2, 2007 09:43 AMToo easy
By Peter Baker and John F. Harris
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, August 18, 1998; Page A01
President Clinton acknowledged last night that he had an inappropriate relationship with onetime intern Monica S. Lewinsky and deceived the American people about it, but he defiantly challenged independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr to stop "prying into private lives."
Seven months after he wagged his finger and sternly told a national audience that he did not have sex with "that woman," the president said during another live television address that he had not been candid...
From this point on do your own research.
The way this works here is if you want to call me names then it's up to you to provide the examples.
I didn't deny BC had an innapropriate relationship with Monica.
You said he used "The full resources of the justice dept" to cover it up.
Prove it.
Posted by on May 2, 2007 10:56 AMBrian Stuckey must be bribing someone at the News to get one or more letters full of drivel published every week.
Posted by Beavis on May 2, 2007 11:01 AMJonesy,
How conveniently you forget Newt Gingrich, and his trip to China; where the Chinese Government officially protested his behavior, as well as his speech, as deviating from U.S. Foreign Policy being then presented to them from the Executive Office.
But of course, Gingrich was a Republican. So that makes it . . . "different"? . . . or just "all right"?
Now who is giving us "selective history"?
Posted by Old Grouch on May 2, 2007 11:27 AMI think Brian Stucky is an anagram but I can`t figure out what it is. I get to sucky, ucky and can`t go any farther.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 2, 2007 11:42 AMOld Grouch
Political affiliation is immaterial.
Any member of congres can travel abroad and meet with foreign leaders. In fact it happens frequently.
What matters is the context of the trip. You neglected to explain how Speaker Gingrich's message differed from Clinton policy and the circumstances extant in the field that make the two trips comparable.
All you have told us is that the Chinese were upset which evidences nothing.
And what you haven't told us is how "President Clinton then engaged the full resources of the Justice Department with legal maneuvering designed to suppress evidence and support his lie for about six months."
That would have been an exact replica of Nixon's worst crime among many in watergate (Telling the FBI to back off the investigation because it was a CIA matter vital to national security) and thoroughly worthy of being thrown out of office and into jail.
You accuse a sitting president of obstruction of justice and can't back up your claims.
Posted by on May 2, 2007 01:38 PMJonesy,
You really take the cake! As the old saying has it.
You're running on about Pelosi being Speaker of the House and going to Syria as constituting a violation of the Logan Act, because she was - somehow, in your imagination - "establishing foreign policy". Which of course, we all know is the President's job.
But, you dismiss Gingrich, who travelled as Speaker of the House, and DID speak on foreign policy directly contrary to the President's policies, stating that the United States would follow his (Gingrich's) lead in the event of the Chinese doing something he (Gingrich) and the Republican Party did not approve of - i.e., not dealing with Taiwan as Gingrich told them to.
Do your homework. Everyone else does his/hers. Or are you really trying to tell us that you didn't know?
The evidence that the Chinese protested both Gingrich's behavior and his "message" on foreign relations between the two countries is sufficient unto itself, were anyone "smarter than a 5th Grader" to read the posting.
Posted by Old Grouch on May 2, 2007 01:43 PMI'm guessing we've heard the last of JJ on this thread, as he tends to run away like a b1tch when confronted that he's full of it.
Posted by Yo Momma on May 2, 2007 02:01 PMOld Grouch,
Not good enough.
Your charges are against Gingrich are too vague and the circumstances are vastly different. For instance, Pelosi met with Amman while our troops fought against the very terrorists he supports. We were not at war at the time of the Gingrich visit.
Your Gingrich story sound more like diplomatic maneuvering although you still haven't explained the policy differences between Gingrich and Clinton policy.
Aside from all that, even if you can find some way to accuse Gingrich of violating the Logna Act that would not authorize Pelosi's trip.
But I'll make a deal here. Let's have the Special Prosecutor that investigates Pelosi investigate Gingrich at the same time -that sound fair?
You don;t have to take my word for the fact that Pelosi has her own foreigh policy. If there was any doubt that her trip was intended as far more than a routine Congressional "fact-finding" trip, House Foreign Affairs Chairman Tom Lantos put it to rest by declaring that, "We have an alternative Democratic foreign policy. I view my job as beginning with restoring overseas credibility and respect for the United States."
As chairman Rep. Lantos works for and reports to Pelosi in the house heirarchy and when he speaks on foreign policy, he speaks not only for Pelosi but for the House Democrats.
I do my homework. That's how I know that your post
Remember the Special Prosecutor, who spent millions of the taxpayer's dollars discovering that:
A. The Clintons lost money in Whitewater.
B. The President couldn't keep his pants zipper up.
C. Bill Clinton had a certain vaguness about what constituted "sex".
So, for another million or so, the Republicans went on to Impeach. And lost
Is false. Clinton was impeached, there were four charges all related to perjury and obstruction of justice and none were related to the reasons you gave.
Your version of history is not selective. It's just false.
Posted by James Jones on May 2, 2007 02:36 PMJames Jones:
"Your version of history is not selective. It's just false."
Like your claim that Clinton used the Justice Department to cover up the Lewinsky affair.
Pants on fire.
Posted by on May 2, 2007 02:47 PM[no, it isn't]
Pants on fire?
That's got to be Truth, right?
Posted by James Jones on May 2, 2007 03:54 PMMr. Jones,
Probably. But, Truth is busy right now trying to figure out how to fit universal health care into the Constitution, so he may not respond for awhile.
Posted by on May 2, 2007 04:11 PMKW,
"Charles B - Why are you so snarly in all your posts? Is it job related? While you're thinking about it, get the bucket. There's a spill on aisle 3."
This Kettle and Pot moment has been brought to you by KW.
Posted by Charles B on May 2, 2007 04:20 PMdrew,you village idiot meatball,clinton didn't balance the budget,he vetoed the republican bill led by Newt Gingrich twice.Then the reps. started running ads. in the media showing how clinton was blocking the passage.With pressure from the American people he finally signed it.Remember "Contract With America"meatball.
Posted by Keith on May 2, 2007 04:58 PMI always feel it proper to return the love Charles B. You'll notice you're the one always serving it up first so I felt obliged.
Have a good evening!
Posted by KW on May 2, 2007 04:58 PMGood point Keith. I noticed that comment by Drew but didn't have the energy to argue with him.
The Republicans balanced the budget, not Mr. Clinton.
Posted by John II on May 2, 2007 05:03 PMJohn II,Nice to see somebody else was paying attention during the clinton adm..But again the liberal media left out the facts and inserted there lies.See drew you are a "Child Left Behind".
Posted by Keith on May 2, 2007 05:16 PMKeith, if you don't quit using that foul language, I may have to send you to bed without your alcohol.
Posted by Truth on May 2, 2007 06:06 PMJames Jones: "Pants on fire?
That's got to be Truth, right?
Posted by James Jones on May 2, 2007 03:54 PM"
No, Jimmy, it's not me. Now take you paranoia medicine and go to bed.
Posted by Truth on May 2, 2007 06:09 PMJames Jones: "But I'll make a deal here. Let's have the Special Prosecutor that investigates Pelosi investigate Gingrich at the same time -that sound fair?"
Excellent suggestion, Jimmy. I have a call in for him right now. Stand by.
P.S. Have you been taking your egomania medication?
Posted by Truth on May 2, 2007 06:12 PMJonesy,
Earlier on, I said that anyone "smarter than a 5th Grader" would be able to understand what had been posted.
I do want to apologize - to all those bright young 5th Graders out there whom I did not intend to insult. Most of them are more than smart enough to know what was meant by what was written
Quite obviously, you don't. But let's make it easy for you, shall we?
YOU wrote, "We never before had a Speaker of the House attempt to use the authority of her office to establish a separate foreign policy . . . ." Which is - at a very broad stretch at best - a sort of half-truth. And a sort of half-truth at best, only because we never before had a Speaker of the House who was a woman in "her" office.
Then, YOU said, "Pelosi's actions are unheard of in the history of the republic". That's a statement that is both pure fabrication and phony hot air.
Aside from YOUR baseless assertion about whether or not Assam "knows better" - more fabrication on YOUR part, coupled with a pointless and meaningless reference to CNN -YOU also falsely asserted that, "Pelosi has never supported any position of President Bush". YOU asserted this in spite of the repeated statements from the Republicans who accompanied Mrs. Peolsi that she WAS supporting President Bush's position, and that she DID SO throughout her stay in Syria.
A half-truth and 3 lies so far. Not much of a foundation for your argument; but about par for the course with you, since usually there isn't even a half-truth involved in what you offer.
I replied, reminding you of New Gingrich.
Gingrich was Speaker of the House. He went to China, and in China he informed the Chinese Government that the President's (Clinton's) foreign policy was not the foreign policy of the Republican Party, nor of Congress with him as Speaker. That Jonesy, was an attempt to use his office to establish a separate foreign policy.
The foreign policy in question concerned the matter of Taiwan, and how the United States would respond should China try to take overt action to annex Taiwan.
Now, Jonesy, the President - who DOES make foreign policy - had told the Chinese what the United States would do in the event. Mr. Gingrich - who, as Speaker of the House DOES NOT make foreign policy - contradicted the President; and told the Chinese that the United States would not execute the foreign policy that the President had set. This is an exact illustration of YOUR WORDS, an "attempt to use the authority of . . .office to establish a separate foreign policy".
The Chinese Government made an official protest of Gingrich's conduct, especially his "attempt to use the authority of his office to establish a separate foreign policy",
Simple enough for you?
If not, you can always take it to a 5th Grader, and get it explained at the level of your own incompetence.
Posted by Old Grouch on May 2, 2007 06:13 PMThis just in:
"A senior Iraqi official and a senior Arab diplomat say Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will meet Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moualem in Egypt on Thursday or Friday.
It would be Rice’s first meeting with a Syrian foreign minister since she took over at the State Department in 2005, adding potentially significant bilateral talks to a regional session meant to help stabilize Iraq."
Hmmm just a litle bit of hyposcrisy here. Bet Bush and company will keep their mouths shut about this.
Posted by balthazar on May 2, 2007 06:16 PMJames Jones is quite right about there being a basic difference in Gingrich's trip to China and Pelosi's trip to Iran. In his China trip, Gingrich advocated a policy different that that of the Clinton administration. In Pelosi's trip, she advocated the Bush policy.
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/08/fox-confronts-gingrich-pelosi/
"Today on Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace asked former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) about his views on the Pelosi-led delegation to Syria. Gingrich criticized Pelosi, saying, “I think it’s very important not to have two foreign policies, and I think it’s very dangerous for America to do what Speaker Pelosi did.”
"Wallace confronted Gingrich with public comments he made as Speaker that clashed with Clinton administration policy before and during his travels abroad to China and Israel in the 1990’s. (Glenn Greenwald first documented those statements HERE.) Gingrich said at the time:"
" We will defend Taiwan, period. [3/31/97]"
"I think it’s wrong for the American Secretary of State to become the agent for the Palestinians [3/12/98]"
"Gingrich responded to the Taiwan comment stating, “What I said in China was U.S. policy.” But Wallace quickly refuted him: “Not according to the Clinton administration.” Gingrich then attempted to defend his statements criticizing Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and said, “I think at the time she was taking steps that were very, very pro-Palestinian.”
"Throughout the segment, Gingrich followed the White House line, attacking Speaker Pelosi but conveniently failing to mention that at least five Republicans also traveled to Syria last week, including Rep. David Hobson (R-OH), who accompanied Pelosi."
"Contrary to Gingrich’s statements criticizing Clinton’s foreign policy, Pelosi’s delegation did not attempt to undermine President Bush. Hobson said, “We reinforced the administration’s positions and at the same time we were trying to understand and maybe getting some voice to some things people wanted to say that maybe they were not comfortable saying to the administration.”
Posted by Truth on May 2, 2007 06:20 PMJames Jones: "You believe that only because the alternative is damaging."
Maybe I am remembering wrong, but aren't you the guy who was complaining about someone mind reading?
Posted by Truth on May 2, 2007 06:24 PMJames Jones promised us proof of this statement:
"President Clinton then engaged the full resources of the Justice Department with legal maneuvering designed to suppress evidence and support his lie for about six months. "
He's yet to produce it. He did produce a news release that in no way supported the statement. I think Jimmy's motto is, "if at first you don't succeed, just act like you have". Oh, well, Jimmy is a busy fellow. Maybe next year.
Posted by Truth on May 2, 2007 06:29 PMKW,
"You'll notice you're the one always serving it up first so I felt obliged."
You know that's not true.
"Have a good evening!"
Can't, my Nuggets lost.
Posted by Charles B on May 2, 2007 08:36 PMOld Grouch,
What I acutally wrote was,
"We've never before had a Speaker of the House attempt to use the authority of her office to establish a separate foreign policy when while the country is at war with our troops in the midst of battle."
Which you reproduced as
"We never before had a Speaker of the House attempt to use the authority of her office to establish a separate foreign policy . . . .
Apparently you thought that by replacing my reference to war with ellipsis you could make it appear that I was saying that Speakers had never dabbled in foreign policy.
Truth point out the Logan act had never been enforced and I responded,
"The fact that Pelosi's actions are unheard of in the history of the republic is not a defence."
Which you represented as
Then, YOU said, "Pelosi's actions are unheard of in the history of the republic".
Complete with quotes and all, not even bothering with ellipsis this time.
You somehow can't seem to comprehend that this page is a written record. I understand your desperation but surely at some level you must understand that these cheap, dishonest misrepresentations have no hope of success.
Wouldn't it be simpler just to acnowledge you were wrong about the Clinton impeachment? After all, everybody makes mistakes.
You of all people should be used to that by now.
It is truly amazing how petty and irrelevant some people can be. President Bush sends us into the worse disaster since the Civil War without even seriously considering whether or not it was the right and prudent thing to do, and what does James Jones want to talk about? You guessed it. President Clinton. My God, James grow up.
Posted by Truth on May 2, 2007 08:40 PMTruth,
Your case is more straightforward.
You posted:
James Jones promised us proof of this statement:
"President Clinton then engaged the full resources of the Justice Department with legal maneuvering designed to suppress evidence and support his lie for about six months. "
You are just a liar.
Posted by James Jones on May 2, 2007 08:41 PMTruth,
Actually Old Grouch brought it up. I just corrected his history.
Does that change your opinon or does Old Grouch need to grow up?
Posted by James Jones on May 2, 2007 08:47 PMJonesy,
I did not bring up anything about the FALSE charge that Clinton engaged the full resources of the Justicde Department, etc.
That wa YOUR accusation. And when YOU were called upon to give evidence to back up your assertion, you did not so do, nor have you done so yet. Indeed, you were reminded that had such a charge been even partially or remotely true, it would have been sufficient to have put the President out of office; and you still went on - and you still go on - ignoring the simple fact that the IMPEACHMENT FAILED! The Republicans lost. There is ABSOLUTELY NO TRUTH WHATSOEVER IN YOUR STATEMENT concerning any Clinton mis-use of the Justice Department.
Or, to put it a bit more bluntly: YOU are a far worse liar than anyone on this website who has tried to debate with you.
Your "correction of my history" was nothing more than a compound of false accusations and rehersal of what the Republicans finally fell back upon when the Special Prosecutor couldn't find anything else to use as charges.
You seem to think that you can start out with nothing; toss in a stretched half-truth, along with a bunch of outright lies and fantasies; and then, by repeatedly shovelling heaps of fertilizer - bullshit - on it all, you then come out with something believable and important in the end. You don't.
But, that's what makes it so much fun, Jonesy boy! You're one of the best exhibitions of stubborn stupidity coupled to damn foolery to be found on the website.
Posted by Old Grouch on May 2, 2007 10:10 PMOG,
Re: JJ's proof...
....(crickets)
....(dog barks)
....(crickets)
I love it! We are now discussing JJs honesty quotient in fractions.
God I love these posts, if anyone ever dares to oversee them we should revolt.
You cannot corner JJ, thats like trying to push a worm uphill.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 3, 2007 12:34 AMOld Grouch,
You offer no explanation for your intellectual corruption. You deliberatey mis-quoted my points to allow yourself an opportunity to dispute what you pretend I wrote.
No explanation is required. The plain fact is that you require self-delusion to feed your ego.
I will deal with that last straw that has focused the attention of others and you have finally grasped at:
"There is ABSOLUTELY NO TRUTH WHATSOEVER IN YOUR STATEMENT concerning any Clinton mis-use of the Justice Department."
Really? How about this:
Washington Post 7/14/98 Robert Suro and Peter Baker "Despite serious doubts about the chances of success, the Justice Department has decided to ask a federal appeals court to reconsider its decision ordering Secret Service officers to testify in the Monica S. Lewinsky investigation, administration officials said yesterday.
7/13/98 Wall Street Journal ".Ms. Tripp finished the week with U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth sanctioning the Clinton White House and Justice Department for stonewalling a private lawsuit into how material from her personnel file was released in violation of the Privacy Act. Judge Lamberth ordered the government to pay attorneys' fees and costs for putting up roadblocks to the deposition of Clifford Bernath, the Pentagon official who released the data. More significantly, Judge Lamberth found it "highly unusual and suspect" for Mr. Bernath to have completely deleted his computer hard drive after the incident . The judge took the rare step of ordering the Pentagon ' s Inspector General to examine the hard drive and its server to see if all relevant documents in the case have been turned over to his court .."
AP 7/15/98 Laurie Kellman "Senate Republicans accused Attorney General Janet Reno of protecting President Clinton from fund-raising and obstruction of justice investigations by having the Justice Department concoct ways to shield the White House. Chief among the phony protections, Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch charged Wednesday, is the department's insistence that the law exempts Secret Service agents from having to testify in the Monica Lewinsky investigation. Sen. Arlen Specter, R- Pa., accused Reno of using a double standard in appointing an independent counsel to investigate charges of influence peddling against Labor Secretary Alexis Herman but using similar arguments to reject a special prosecutor for campaign fund raising. Specter cited ``overwhelming evidence'' of White House involvement in shady funding practices and asked ``what is the real reason, the real motivation'' for Reno's refusal to appoint an independent counsel. Even FBI Director Louis Freeh believes Reno should request an independent counsel to probe the fund-raising practices, Governmental Affairs Chairman Fred Thompson of Tennessee pointed out. `It is difficult to imagine a more compelling situation for appointing an independent counsel,'' Thompson quoted Freeh."
7/16/98 AP "The U.S. Court of Appeals today refused to reconsider a panel's decision ordering Secret Service officers to testify at the Monica Lewinsky grand jury, but gave the administration until noon Friday to appeal to the Supreme Court. Sending a strong signal to the Justice Department, the full appeals court said not one of its 11 judges wanted to reconsider the earlier decision by a three-judge panel. The ruling came just hours after the appeals court issued an emergency order stopping President Clinton's chief bodyguard and eight other Secret Service officers from testifying until it made its decision. Now that the court declined the case, the Justice Department has one last recourse: an appeal to the Supreme Court. Anticipating the need, Justice lawyers had sent protective paperwork to the Supreme Court that would ask Chief Justice William Rehnquist to block the testimony and take the case when the high court returns to work in October. The Justice Department had made a mad dash from the District Court to the Supreme Court seeking to head off the testimony of Special Agent Larry Cockell, who leads Clinton's security detail, and other officers subpoenaed by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr."
Judge Silberman's Opinion 7/16/98 "This is the first time in 13 years on this Court that I have seen a petition for rehearing or an appellant's brief that does not state the identity of the party petitioning or appealing in the caption of the brief. There is good reason. It is now established beyond dispute that the Independent Counsel stands in place of the Attorney General and represents the United States in any proceeding within his or her jurisdiction. The Independent Counsel's briefs therefore are captioned as briefs of the United States. The Attorney General apparently all too aware of this problem, filed a petition without identifying, in its caption, the party she is representing. Yet on the first page of the brief she purports to represent the United States. That is analytically impossible. We cannot have two opposing lawyers before us representing the same named party. Nor is this simply a matter of captioning. Even if under certain circumstances it can be thought that two entities of the executive branch can litigate against themselves under Article III, the Attorney General lacks prudential standing under the Ethics in Government Act. That Act provides that the Independent Counsel replaces the Attorney General with respect to all manners within the Independent Counsel's prosecutorial jurisdiction. Indeed, the Act specifically mandates that the Department of Justice and the Attorney General "suspend all investigations and proceedings regarding" the subject matter of the Independent Counsel's investigation. Unless the Independent Counsel agrees in writing to permit the Department of Justice to continue its involvement of the case, the Attorney General is permitted only to file an amicus brief in such a proceeding. An amicus brief, of course, would be inadequate here because if the Attorney General is not permitted to "represent" the United States neither is any other government lawyer. It seems clear to me that no one in the United States Government, speaking for the government, has standing to oppose the Independent Counsel in this proceeding, and, therefore, neither we nor the district court have jurisdiction over this case. "
Pete Yost. AP 7/16/98 "In a dramatic last appeal, the Clinton administration today asked Chief Justice William Rehnquist to intervene after the U.S. Court of Appeals refused to stop Secret Service officers from testifying in the Monica Lewinsky investigation. The Justice Department filed the request at the Supreme Court less than an hour after the appeals court refused to reconsider an earlier decision ordering the Secret Service personnel, including President Clinton's chief bodyguard, to testify. The appeals court sent a strong message to the Justice Department by saying none of its nine judges available on the case wanted to intervene and that the administration was unlikely to win before the nation's nine justices."
Washington Weekly 7/19/98 Wesley Phelan " Last week the nation came as close as it has in 24 years to seeing the complete emotional and legal breakdown of a presidency. The crisis was brought about by a series of federal court rulings that Secret Service agents guarding President Clinton must testify before a grand jury convened by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr [1]. The utter desperation of the administration was evident in the maneuverings of the Department of Justice, which explored every available avenue for keeping the agents from going before the grand jury. If the agents' testimony supports the claim that the President committed perjury or obstructed justice, it will be the death knell of the Clinton Administration. The court battle over the agents' testimony would then be the equivalent of President Nixon's battle to withhold tape recordings of Oval Office conversations during Watergate from Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski (see U.S. v. Nixon, 1974). Most commentators seem to have missed this very important implication of the just-completed court battle."
So you are wrong yet again.
You value this page because it provides you an opportunity to ridicule and mock feel which apparently makes you fell important - at least for a few minutes.
You obvioulsy have no great interest in the truth and are only interested in obfuscating the message by insulting the messenger. In fact there are a good many posts here that contain nothing but an insult as in the case of Charles and Sharon B.
I write what I think on this page and I tell you why I think it. I make a generalization and follow it up with an example. To my mind that is constructive debate and the value of this page. I don't feel any particular obligation to you or anyone calling themselves JJ's a lying ass to do the research required to disprove your idiotic insults. I'm certain that strikes you as odd.
You all have perfect freedom here to express yourself as you please. You have chosen your path and I will leave you to it.
Now, children, time to get back to reality. Or should we instead now take up the Nixon matter, followed by the Tea Pot Dome scandal.
For God's sake, enough already of this childish rehashing of the Clinton saga. We have a president who has taken us into the most devastating disaster the country has faced since the Civil War. If Clinton had had sex with Monica on the White House lawn and then testified that they were merely engaged in a friendly wrestling match that would pale into insignificance compared to what Bush had done to this country.
James Jones has gone hysterical over the Clinton matter. I fear for his own safety and that of his loved ones. If he keeps this up, we are going to end up with the entire archives of the Clinton saga here on the forum. Does Jones really think that anyone is going to spend time reading all of that, that is, anyone who is mentally competent?
Posted by Truth on May 3, 2007 07:39 AMSharon B,
I had to sort of "play the feminist card", and stretch things a long way, to get even the half-truth (fracion) out of it all.
Talk about "mountains out of mole hills"! The last production is almost beyond belief.
Reminds me of an old Professor I once had to listen to in one of those required classes. His neckname was "Doubledome" - behind his back, of course, since his stuffed shirt prevented most face to face contact anyway - partly because he was bald as an egg, and partly from his reputation.
Everyone is stuck with something such as, "American History 101" at some point along the line; but his Section was one to be avoided at all costs. Example: On a stifling hot day, in a remodled room without air conditioning, he told the 90 minute long, mid-day meeting, class: "Today my topic is one which I am sure all of you will find interesting. 'The role of the Penobscot Nation in the Pequot Wars'". (And the room was one of those with sealed windows, too.)
Later on, his Grad School listeners - in a basement room just across from the furnace, on a nearly zero winter evening, with the steam radiators hissing away - were treated to 90 minutes of: "Grain Production, Wheat, Corn, Barley, and Oats, in the State of Colorado from 1876 to 1900".
Same absolute straight faced insistence on the "importance" of the topic, as well as the "deference" due the lecturer, as above. Makes me wonder some about re-incarnation; and Karma too. What did any of us do to deserve this?
Posted by Old Grouch on May 3, 2007 07:46 AMWe post in good faith, his attacks are usually the first, but not always. Some of us carry a grudge from former postings. We all then spend the day pinning each other down on words and word meanings. But we deserve him because he keeps us sharp.
It`s pretty obvious that Clinton went into CYA mode and tried to cover up the whole mess,
but JJ1s "full resources of the justice department" is over the top.
Newt messed up in going to China and JJ kind of dances around that to get at Pelosi.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 3, 2007 02:11 PM