I caught a little of Ron Francis last night on the Pintek-Hosted NightTalk. Francis is a former county councilman and is looking to challenge Congressman Jason Altmire for the Pennsylvania 4th Congressional district seat.
Anyway, back to the Pintek hour. They dutifully parrotted the RNC line about the recent trip by Speaker Pelosi to the mid-East. She shouldn't have gone. She shouldn't be meddling in foreign affairs. Blah-blah-blah.
Let's bring some facts to the table. For all the outrage from the right about how a Speaker of the House of Representatives shouldn't be doing any foreign policy, no one from God's Own Party (and by the way the day before Mike Pintek declared the a few things on his show; that he knew the mind of God and that the Democrats are, indeed, "anti-God") seems to remember when Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich travelled all the way to China to deliver a message contrary to the Clinton Administration's foreign policy.
From the New York Times, March 31, 1997 and via Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com:
Which led, according to Greenwald, to this a few days later in the Times: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.''
Unmentioned, of course, by either Pintek or Francis. The political double standard on the right continues.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.
13 comments:
Ok, but we are now engaged in a war on two fronts in that region.
While she has the right to go on fact-finding junkets as a member of Congress, she also is the head of one of two branches of Congress. If she is sending her own messgae, rather than the Administration's, she is doing our country a disservice.
And yet despite all the coverage that this has received, no one has been able to prove (unlike Newt) that she was sending any message contrary to Bush's.
At this point there seems to be little to dispute about who is doing and who has done a disservice to the United States of America.
However, the word "disservice" seems a bit mild. Words like "dismantle" and "rape" come to mind.
Well, then, let's just stick to the Constitution: She has no official role in foreign policy. Nada. The Senate ratifies treaties. That's it.
By the way, she did send a message on behalf of Israel (so she says) that they claim was false.
Just because you do not agree with the foreign policy agenda of the State Dept does not give anyone the right to negotiate on their own.
xranger;
then we'll be seeing your condemnation of Newt Gingrich's trip to China in 1997 soon?
Sure he was wrong.
In time of war, Pelosi is wrong, also.
quit whining
I'm not whinning, dumbass, I'm responding to the original post.
Stop lip-diddling and get back to work.
That well-known liberal Colin McNickle, in a column Sunday in which he did indeed chastise Pelosi, also acknowledged that it is not entirely clear that Congress has no constitutional role in setting foreign policy. The belief that foreign policy is the sole domain of the executive hinges on a lone 1930s Supreme Court ruling.
I guess I missed the part about Ms. Pelosi negotiating with Syria. I'm pretty sure no one in the White House accused her of that.
I guess I also missed the part about Congress declaring war. In fact, it would seem that a majority of the nation of Wingnuttia is criticizing them for trying to un-declare it.
Here's something else I don't get: If Pelosi was wrong to visit Syria, why was it right for the White House to facilitate the visit of a delegation of Republican legislators just a few days earlier? I guess it's OK for the minority party to go, but not the Speaker of the House.
Of course, I may be a simple, bumble-headed fool who's trying to change the subject. Someone is.
hey birdbrain..yeah you xranger...my post was not to you,if i was addressing you i would a have said so..my post was to the article..if you've been following the site's posting on this issue you would know i refer to Nancy P as the Peloser and criticized her trip...so next time you engage in name calling-which is not necessary..ask first...and what the F*** is lip-diddling something rangers do to each other in their down time??? ;)
Lip-diddling is something simpletons do to while away the time.
Why would anyone want to take on actual policy issues when he can hold a spirited argument about the definition of lip-diddling?
Now we know what it's like to attend the Republican convention.
Post a Comment