April 11th, 2007 9:46 am
Fresh off her trip with one state sponsor of terrorism, Nancy wants to “open a dialogue” with another. This time, the sky’s the limit as she wants to meet with Holocaust-denying, women-hating, terror-sponsoring, Islamofascists that want to dominate the world and “wipe Israel off the map“.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Tom Lantos, D-San Mateo, just back from a trip to Syria that brought sharp criticism from Republicans and the Bush administration, suggested Tuesday that the two may be interested in taking another diplomatic trip — to open a dialogue with Iran.
What’s she going to do? Simultaneously convince him the holocaust happened and persuade him to give up his mission of insuring the entire world converts to islam or face a painful death? Maybe she’ll sweet talk them into completely trashing their nuclear program. I’m sure they’ll be receptive.
“I find the president of Iran’s remarks to be so repulsive that they are outside the circle of civilized human behavior,'’ Pelosi said…
Translation: “He speaks my language.”
Please, dear Lord, let there be a photo op.
UPDATE:
Some interesting things being noted by others:
Liberals are solidly behind the idea of boycotting a news network to avoid giving them legitimacy, but they are in favor of defying their own government’s foreign policy to lend legitimacy to yet another terrorist state that has sponsored attacks on our allies and are actively engaged in trying to kill U.S. soldiers.
Kathryn Lopez points out that Pelosi agrees with us about it being bad form to meet with the enemy. She just defines “enemy” differently.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Texas Rainmaker is proudly powered by WordPress
Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).
Graphics by: Margolis Media Works | Style by: Lisa Sabin - E.Webscapes
The US talked with Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, Idi Amin Dada, Mobutu Sese Seko and Sadam Hussein. Talking to murderous tyrants, both friends and foes, is nothing new to the US.
Moreover, it’s been 21 years since Ronald Reagan started selling weapons to Iran in exchange for hostages. I guess Reagan and Khomeini spoke the same language as well. I believe it’s called diplomacy. Bush should give it a shot.
Comment by endorendil — 11:20 am
Except this time it’s a member of congress doing it against the wishes of the administration.
Comment by Texas Rainmaker — 11:34 am
I can almost see the dialogue now…
Pe-loco: Mr. President, it’s great to see you! I brought you a gift from my home town. It’s a book called ‘Heather Has Two Mommies’.
Ahmanutjob: Thank you. You are too kind. Ummm…My Damn Speaker, who is this man you bring with you?
Pe-loco: This is Congressman Tom Lantos. He’s a a Hungarian-born survivor of the Holocaust and…
Ahmanutjob: Survivor of the WHAT?
Pe-loco: The Holocaust, sir.
Ahmanutjob: There was no such thing. This infidel is a fraud. Remove him from my presence.
Pe-loco: Sorry, Tom, that sucks for you. Wait in the plane.
Ahmanutjob: My Damn Speaker, where is your woman-garb???
Pe-loco: Oh, how embarassing! My apologies, sir, I’ll get Tom to get my Muslim head scarf from the airplane. Now, where were we?
Ahmanutjob: Denouncing your president.
Pe-loco: Oh yes, we were indeed! Anyway, I don’t know if you followed the goings-on in Florida in our 2000 election, but…
Comment by crushliberalism — 4:49 pm
I wonder if there’s a reason she won’t take Barney Frank with her.
Comment by Texas Rainmaker — 4:50 pm
“Talking to murderous tyrants, both friends and foes, is nothing new to the US.”
I’m particularly taken with the way we communicated with Adolph Hitler and Emperor Hirohito. I’d say that was some of the most effective communications we effected in the 20th Century!
Comment by Old Soldier — 5:34 pm
“Except this time it’s a member of congress doing it against the wishes of the administration.”
TR, you were arguing that Pelosi et al shouldn’t talk to Iran because they are “Holocaust-denying, women-hating, terror-sponsoring, Islamofascists”. I’m just pointing out that that has never stopped the US before.
Members of Congress are not restricted in their ability to discuss with foreign leaders, certainly not if the US is not at war with their countries. They can’t make treaties or make binding promises, which is actually great: they can sound out their positions without consequences…
OS, that very effective communication was during a declared war. The Republican Congress had several years to declare a state of war but decided that this was not warranted. Were they wrong?
Comment by endorendil — 1:44 am
Members of Congress are not restricted in their ability to discuss with foreign leaders…
Um, Logan Act ring a bell?
Comment by crushliberalism — 6:31 am
”The Republican Congress had several years to declare a state of war but decided that this was not warranted. Were they wrong?”
Does the Authorization for the Use of Force Act ring a bell? It may not have employed the words “declaration of war,” but our young American military volunteers are not decked out in tuxedoes and evening gowns attending soirees! They are bleeding and dying: a direct result of conducting warfare as authorized by the Republican AND Democratic congress!
Comment by Old Soldier — 5:37 pm
OS, declaring a war is a simple act and defined properly in the constitution. Congress has done it several times, there is no ambiguity about how it is supposed to be done. It results in the country being at war. This did not happen. Congress authorized a police action, it did not declare war.
Comment by endorendil — 1:12 pm
CL, the Logan Act only prohibits private citizens from engaging in discussions with foreign governments to affect relations with the US. Pelosi is an elected official, not a private citizen, so the law has no relevance whatsoever.
Comment by endorendil — 1:19 pm
the Logan Act only prohibits private citizens from engaging in discussions with foreign governments
Uh-oh…someone’s gotten into Grandpa’s Dumbass Juice again.
The Logan Act:
“The Logan Act is a United States federal law that forbids unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments. It was passed in 1799 and last amended in 1994. Violation of the Logan Act is a felony, punishable under federal law with imprisonment of up to three years.
…
Passed under the administration of President John Adams, during tension between the U.S. and France, it was informally named for Dr. George Logan of Pennsylvania, a state legislator (and later US Senator) and pacifist who in 1798 engaged in semi-negotiations with France during the Quasi-War.”
So would a state legislator who was the basis of said law be a “private citizen” but a federal legislator would not be? Nice try, though. Aw, who am I kidding? It wasn’t even a nice try.
Comment by crushliberalism — 10:12 pm
“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.”
Any federal legislator has a role in determining the relations between the US and foreign governments, hence is exempted from this (has authority). State legislators have indeed no constitutional protected rights to determine federal foreign policy. As I said, you can use the Logan Act to sue many international businessmen, or state delegations trying to improve trade or tourist relations with foreign countries, but you can’t use it against Congress or White House.
Incidentally, no one is ever been convicted under the Act, presumably because it is unconstitutionally vague and broad. No one has ever been prosecuted under it. There’s been one indictment, which happened a little over 200 years ago.
So, I stand by my statement that there are no restrictions on the ability of the members of Congress to discuss with foreign leaders. Your frantic waving of the Logan Act just creates a cool breeze, it’s not an argument.
Comment by endorendil — 2:30 am
Nice job changing your argument from “private citizen”, since you lost that round.
Any federal legislator has a role in determining the relations between the US and foreign governments, hence is exempted from this (has authority).
Does English normally kick your ass that badly? Being elected to represent a district (Congressman) or a state (Senator) equates to having authority of the United States government? Just to make sure I’m understanding you clearly here (assuming you don’t try morphing your words again), Pe-loco isn’t a private citizen, right?
Dude, you’re crazier than a syphilitic badger.
Incidentally, no one is ever been convicted under the Act, presumably because it is unconstitutionally vague and broad. No one has ever been prosecuted under it. There’s been one indictment, which happened a little over 200 years ago.
Seldom in the history of this country have our elected officials been more concerned with the destruction of an administration at the expense of national security interests…until now.
Comment by crushliberalism — 7:49 am
Pelosi is not a private citizen, that was the point.
And to your other comment I have two words: Jane Fonda. Was she prosecuted under the Logan Act? No, because … well, you tell me. If the Logan Act had a snowball’s chance in hell of being used to prosecute someone, why not put her behind bars? Please!
Comment by endorendil — 11:17 am
Pelosi is not a private citizen, that was the point.
OK, thanks for the clairification: Pelosi isn’t a private citizen, but a state legislator is. Wow…it’s an honor to meet you, Sen. Kerry.
And to your other comment I have two words: Jane Fonda. Was she prosecuted under the Logan Act? No, because … well, you tell me. If the Logan Act had a snowball’s chance in hell of being used to prosecute someone, why not put her behind bars? Please!
Weak-kneed politicians didn’t want to incur the wrath of Peter Fonda and Americans who happened to like Jane Fonda (minus that whole North Korean thing, which the MSM buried deeper than Teddy buried Mary Jo Kopechne). Plus, you seem to equate failure to prosecute under the law with the invalidity of the law.
Like I said, English isn’t quite working for you today. Tonmorrow’s not looking too bright for you, either.
Comment by crushliberalism — 11:57 am
Indeed, state legislators have no federal function.
The law’s been on the books for over two centuries, we’ve seen civil war, Vietnam and Richard Nixon, but this is the first time that the law is applicable? Go adjust your tinfoil hat.
Comment by endorendil — 2:01 pm