To lazy minded media - No, Dem visits to Syria were NOT the same as GOP letter.

[blm]

Last edited Wed Mar 11, 2015, 12:35 PM - Edit history (3)

When Pelosi made her trip to Syria, and Kerry, Dodd, Specter, Rockefeller made theirs it was TO SEE WHAT EXACTLY was happening in Syria by probing for answers - it was INFORMATION GATHERING.

WHY did they HAVE to find out for themselves - because Congress knew by then that they and the nation and the leaders of other nations had already been LIED into a full-scale war by Bush-Cheney WH who now wanted to find a way to expand that war into invading Syria.

Same thing?

Back at that time, Assad was a more reasonable leader, dictatorial, more secular, more in line with Saddam of the 90s. It was the Arab Spring and the prospect of being overthrown and executed that triggered his current paranoia (situational paranoia, but, not without cause) that would target all of his perceived enemies. No, he didn't do a complete 180, but, he did do a 120.

No difference?

GOP senate isn't probing and investigating in their conduct with this letter - they are DECREEING that their position on Iraq will prevail over this president - a president who HAS NOT LIED TO CONGRESS to start a war.

The corporate media is pushing this both sides did it claim; When and where you can please point out the stark differences….especially in the context of the times. Don't let them get away with their rampant revisionism.

BTW, media, you also seem to have forgotten THIS:
Pitts in Syria before Pelosi
But county’s U.S. rep. draws less criticism

While U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's upcoming visit to Syria has caused the White House to bristle, a little-publicized rendezvous took place Sunday between Syria's president and Lancaster County's congressman.

And though Bush administration officials have been criticizing Pelosi, it's not clear what role the White House and the U.S. Department of State played when U.S. Rep. Joe Pitts and two other Republican congressmen met with Syrian President Bashar Assad.

Pitts is a Chester County Republican who represents Lancaster County.
>>>>

IOKIYAR

[global1]

1. My Guess Is The MSM Is Getting Talking Points From The Repugs....

to help take the heat off the letter they sent. The media is just going along with those talking points and putting them out to the public.

[hughee99]

2. Exactly. It's different when democrats did it.

It would have been okay for the republicans to do what they did if they didn't trust the president the way the Dems didn't trust bush.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

3. The Dems who went to Syria weren't attempting to scuttle a

nuclear non-proliferation negotiation.

Your sarcasm is based on crap.

[hughee99]

6. Bush was attempting to diplomatically

Isolate Syria and the trip underminded that. I'm not saying it was a good policy, but was the Bush administrations policy.

Also, I wasn't aware there's exceptions to these rules based on what kind of negotiation are going on.

[blm]

10. Fact-finding missions are common. Fact-finding missions are consistent

with congress' duties to the American people.

Your position is that this unusual decree signed by GOP senators and sent to Iran's leader is no different than the fact-finding mission commonly practiced by congress.

Now who on earth wants Americans to see it that way?

[hughee99]

11. Ah, the "fact finding" mission to meet with a foreign leader

that a president is trying to diplomatically isolate. No dice. It's a weak argument and you know it. A poor fig leaf won't cover the hypocrisy of this argument.

"Unusual decree"? The letter was basically something you could read out of a high school civics book and was something the Iranians were also fully aware of already. If a senator had made the same statement on the Sunday morning shows, no one would be calling it treason.

[blm]

15. That's the way you want to see it, you're welcome to your view. I disagree

with your view that there is no difference between COMMON fact-finding missions and a declaration by 47 senators INFORMING Iran's leaders that an international agreement on Iran's nuclear program would not stand.

There's a big fvcking difference and YOU know it, but, have invested yourself in pretending otherwise.

GOP talking points must be delivered.

[hughee99]

18. The Speaker of the house meeting publicly with a foreign leader that the US

is trying to diplomatically isolate isn't a "COMMON" fact finding mission, nor is it necessary to find facts, but you have invested yourself in pretending otherwise.

Mission accomplished: Hypocrisy-covering fig leaf firmly in place.

[blm]

19. A fact-finding mission IS common. She wasn't saying her policy choices would

supersede the WH's.

You're just dug in to appease your personal ego at this point. You have ZERO proof that shows why the two are no different. None. Because they are nowhere near the same.

Mision not accomplished - Not buying into the needs of your ego.

[hughee99]

21. The republicans didn't say their policy choices would supercede the WH either.

It was a reminder that the president alone doesn't have the authority to make a long term deal. That is, first of all, absolutely true AND it's also something the Iranians already know.

While the WH was trying to diplomatically isolate Syria, Pelosi went for a visit. A very public visit where she, very publicly, met with President Assad. This wasn't necessary to find facts, but she did it anyway. There's no way you can argue that this wasn't harmful to the "isolation" policy, and therefore, an interference with an administration conducting foreign relations.

You are right, though, mission not accomplished. Your fig leaf isn't covering your hypocrisy.

[blm]

23. Your Mission to stroke your own ego while pushing GOP spin is a failure.

Fact finding missions by congress = COMMON (and necessary after WH lied nation into war)

GOP letter to Iran = Stupid stunt that reeks of sedition.

[blm]

4. Horsepoo - Try CONTEXT. It was KNOWN by then that Bush lied to Congress to invade Iraq.

If there is evidence that shows Obama is trying to lie Congress into an international agreement on Iran's nuclear program then Republicans should present it.


Interesting point of view you've got there - try context and accuracy, for a change.

[hughee99]

5. Ah, so there's a "lying" exception to this rule

I wasn't aware of that. Could you show me where?

[blm]

8. Just cause. If GOP has evidence that Obama is lying about the Iran negotiations

and it becomes established fact, then they would have just cause…….but….they don't, do they?

[hughee99]

12. So there's a "just cause" exception to congress interfering in foreign policy?

if they fear the president might not be honest with them, it's okay? What level of evidence is required to meet this special exception to the rule?

[blm]

13. GOP doesn't fear Obama isn't being honest with them on Iran deal.

If they even suspected that 'fear' was legitimate they would be digging for proof to show they have cause.

They would be welcome to prove it, if they did. Bush's WH was PROVEN to have lied to congress and the American people - which NECESSITATED congress seeking answers to their questions about Syria.

Are you saying that GOP senate has proof that Obama is lying us out of war with Iran the way Dems had 100% solid proof that Bush DID LIE to congress, the people, and to other world leaders to have his war in Iraq?

If there is proof they should present it to back up their claim that this 'decree' of theirs was necessary.

If you saw that proof and are basing YOUR argument here in that proof, then show it to us - show that there is no difference as you claim.

[hughee99]

14. I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying there's no "he lied to us" exception to this rule.

You seem to think there is one. That's why I asked YOU what the standard is? If a president lies about healthcare, is it okay for the opposing party to fuck with his foreign policy? What if a president lies about another country, but NOT the country in question, or does a president have to lie about the specific country in question for congress to have the legal cover to mess around with foreign policy?

[blm]

16. What prompted Dems seeking more answers on the ground in Syria?

.

[hughee99]

17. Does a speaker of the house need to publicly meet with the president of a foreign country to get

those answers? Sorry, you're not going to succeed with an argument that it had nothing to do with domestic politics and you've failed to establish "the president lied" as a valid justification.

[blm]

20. Why would a congressperson see a NEED to schedule a fact-find mission in Syria?

You, of course, are welcome to provide proof that there was no need, since Bush did not lie about Iraq.

Good luck with that.

[hughee99]

25. I'm sorry, I just realized I'm having two arguments with the same person...

In one case you're arguing that Pelosi didn't interfere with WH foreign policy, and in the other you seem to be arguing that it's okay if she did, because the president lied. Could you please decide on which argument you want to go with "no interference" or "justified interference" before we go any further.

Also, I never argued that Pelosi didn't have reason to find facts in Syria, but I did argue THIS wasn't necessary.




And based on this article, I don't think "fact finding" was all she was doing.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/04/AR2007040402306.html

[blm]

27. No - I said FACT-FINDING missions are COMMON and this one was proven necessary

based on the stark FACT that congress had been lied into war by the same WH hoping to expand that war into Syria. Your position is that previous ENORMOUS lie by Bush WH is not a compelling reason for a congressional fact-finding mission.

You believe it was unwarranted and are TRYING to pretend it is no different than the declarative letter sent by the GOP.

If the fact-finding mission to Syria was unwarranted as you claim, then you must have proof that backs your position. Present it. The opinion from WaPost who is known as 'Spook Central' in the news business is not evidence. Their overall opinion during the Bush WH years was that Bush was on solid ground leading up to his war in Iraq, too.

Did they provide EVIDENCE for their opinion?

[hughee99]

30. How about if you make YOUR argument and I'll make mine?

I never said Pelosi didn't have reason to find facts in Syria, but I did argue she didn't need to show up in person, publicly meet Assad and tour the city with him.

You keep misstating my position and asking me for proof. YOUR position is that what Pelosi did was warranted. Please provide proof that her PUBLIC FACE TO FACE meeting with Assad was necessary for her to find the facts she needed.

[blm]

31. Protocol.

You don't like it, tough, but, following established protocol when on a fact-finding mission in the foreign country under debate is not seditious behavior.

Did she declare publicly that Bush's political decision on Syria would be overturned?

No difference, my @ss.

You have to stretch pretty damn far to try and make it so. And you're obviously very willing to make that attempt to stretch and using GOP talking points to do it.

Interesting mindset ya got there.

[hughee99]

33. She didn't need to go to Syria herself at all. There's no information she could have

gotten personally that she couldn't have gotten by sending a trusted staffer... unless you want to argue that a trusted staffer wouldn't have gotten a personal meeting with Assad.

You're argument is looking weaker and weaker with each post.

[blm]

37. LOL - only to someone who can't back up his GOP talking points.

Enjoy the GOP's Bizarro World.

Fact-finding missions to Syria for Republicans = GOOD.

Fact-finding missions to Syria for Democrats = BAD.

Pitts in Syria before Pelosi
But county’s U.S. rep. draws less criticism


While U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's upcoming visit to Syria has caused the White House to bristle, a little-publicized rendezvous took place Sunday between Syria's president and Lancaster County's congressman.

And though Bush administration officials have been criticizing Pelosi, it's not clear what role the White House and the U.S. Department of State played when U.S. Rep. Joe Pitts and two other Republican congressmen met with Syrian President Bashar Assad.

Pitts is a Chester County Republican who represents Lancaster County.
>>>>>>

[hughee99]

38. So, about that staffer...

Is it your opinion that Pelosi had to personally go to Syria?

[blm]

39. Was that your concern when GOP congress went toSyria?

Pitts in Syria before Pelosi
But county’s U.S. rep. draws less criticism

While U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's upcoming visit to Syria has caused the White House to bristle, a little-publicized rendezvous took place Sunday between Syria's president and Lancaster County's congressman.

And though Bush administration officials have been criticizing Pelosi, it's not clear what role the White House and the U.S. Department of State played when U.S. Rep. Joe Pitts and two other Republican congressmen met with Syrian President Bashar Assad.

Pitts is a Chester County Republican who represents Lancaster County.
>>>>

[hughee99]

41. I wasn't in favor of Pitts going either unless it was sanctioned by the WH and state department.

Nor would I have had an issue if the WH asked Pelosi to go, or, at the very least, not objected to it. If I recall in Pitts case, Pitts said it was coordinated with the WH, and the WH gave some generic "in general, we don't encourage trips to Syria..." which seemed to have left it ambiguous as to whether the WH supported it or not. I don't think they were ambiguous on Pelosi's trip, at least publicly, and if it turns out they secretly asked her to go despite their protests (good cop, bad cop) then I wouldn't have a problem with Pelosi's trip either, but I've seen zero evidence to support that.

Sorry, I know you were hoping I'd fall into the same trap you did trying to justify one thing and complaining about something similar based on party affiliation and despite your efforts to paint me as some republican troll here, I'm not sure that's going to work either.

[blm]

42. Not a trap - just keeping it real, apples = apples

I am refusing to see YOUR Republican talking points that conclude apples = oranges.

Provide proof why we shouldn't equate a fact-finding mission in Syria for Republican congressmen and a fact-finding mission for Democratic congresspersons in Syria at that time?

Provide proof that Pelosi's fact-finding mission to Syria is more like GOP letter to Iran than GOP congress trip to Syria.

[hughee99]

44. Why would I provide proof that Pitts trip is different from Pelosi's trip?

I said I opposed EITHER of them unless they were sanctioned by the white house. Why would I provide proof for something I'm not arguing and don't believe?

Based on your arguments, I assume you supported BOTH trips.

As far as Pelosi's mission and the GOP letter, I'd argue that Pelosi's trip is MORE of an intervention in foreign policy than the GOP letter, since Pelosi clearly met with with a foreign leader at a time when the WH was actively trying to diplomatically isolate them, while the GOP published a letter reminding the Iranians of something they already knew. A GOP senator could have simply said the same thing on the Senate floor or on the Sunday morning shows and it would have had the same impact (sending that message to Iran), the fact they chose to do it in "open letter" form is stupid political grandstanding, but has the same net effect on foreign relations.

[blm]

45. Doesn't bother me when GOP congress take their fact-finding trips.

The letter to Iranian government is a whole other orange…I mean, matter.

Sedition:

"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."

[hughee99]

48. If people in congress are meeting with foreign leaders

with WH approval, I won't have an issue. If they don't have WH approval, I'll disagree with it. For me, it doesn't matter which party is in the white house, or which party the people in congress are from. The great part about being consistent on this is I don't have to do acrobatics every time elections occur and I want to denounce a new party for doing something the old party did without feeling like a hypocrite.

As for your definition of sedition, I don't see how the GOP's open letter fits this any better than Pelosi's trip does, and for the record, I don't consider EITHER of them to be sedition.

By the way, i did notice you didn't address anything I said in your post.

[Capt. Obvious]

32. I HOPE YOU'RE HAPPY WITH PRESIDENT RUBIO

[hughee99]

34. Congrats, weakest argument yet. Should have gone with "Because Markets!"

[Capt. Obvious]

35. PRESIDENT PAUL THANKS YOU

[hughee99]

36. But that's just because he's mad the president is black. n/t

[onenote]

7. You're right -- no two situations are alike

But the "reasonableness" of the Syrian regime is a matter of debate. Syria has been on the list of state sponsors of terrorism since 1979, both before and after Assad became President.

If conducting foreign policy, including deciding who to designate as a state supporter of terrorism and deciding how interactions with the leaders of such countries should be managed is exclusively an executive branch function, then what Pelosi did was inappropriate.

However, if you believe (as I do) that the legislative branch has a role to play in foreign policy even when the role they play is at odds with the wishes of the executive branch, then the appropriateness or inappropriateness of other actions taken by members of the executive branch that are contrary to the policy positions and wishes of the executive branch are not necessarily clear cut issues. I believe the letter falls on the wrong side of that line, but less because of its substantive impact (which appears likely to be negligible), but because it was schoolyard showboating move intended to embarrass the president.

Interestingly, I doubt that the uproar would be the same if 47 repubs had simply gone on the floor of the Senate and given speeches that said essentially what the letter said.

[blm]

9. Knowing that Bush lied us into war and wanted to expand that war into Syria

was just cause for fact-finding missions.

They were NOT attempting to negotiate and NOT making decrees to leaders involved.

Big fucking differences.

Fact-finding missions are usual business, and a long-accepted practice, and the proof of Bush's lies to congress demanded on the ground fact-checking. Decrees that you will overturn an international agreement signed by the president is business HIGHLY UNUSUAL.

[spanone]

22. the media is not interested in fairness. not in the least bit.

[blm]

24. The media is not interested in accuracy. If it was accurate it would be fair,

no matter what the fallout.

They aren't showing even a passing interest in accuracy.

[Agnosticsherbet]

26. How about McCain's visit to Syria and his selfie with ISIL.

[underpants]

28. Exactly! Pelosi was not brokering or trying to disrupt an agreement/treaty

Thank you for posting that

[blm]

29. Don't let them get away with the GOP talking points.

; )

[Sick_of_TP]

40. Two totally different things

This involves other countries. By sending this letter it basically tells the other countries it's not up to the exec. branch to negotiate treaties with hostile countries. This was done to degrade the powers of OB because they consider him to not really be the pres. If you think otherwise, you haven't been watching for the last 6 years.

[blm]

43. So true - but, some here are stuck on GOP talking points

and dug in. I'll presume they are pushing the GOP talking points merely for amusement. Because….they can't POSSIBLY be serious.

[bullwinkle428]

46. I love John Stewart, but he kind of appears to be "mailing it in" a little bit, with the

piece he did on this "Democratic hypocrisy" last night.

He has called out genuine hypocrisy on the part of Democratic politicians on occasion, which causes a few here to lose their shit, but he does (and Charlie Pierce has made this observation as well) tend to fall into "Both Sides Do It Gulch" from time to time.

[blm]

47. Yep - that's a good way to describe it.

Phoning it in….that would be the production staff's errors….because some days it just takes too much effort to adhere to accuracy.