OPINION & EDITORIAL
Pelosi's visit to Syria necessary
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Gerald Cox:
- I'll take a female president, just not her (December 3, 2007)
- Religion aside, faith perseveres (November 26, 2007)
- Want Big Ten sports? Get a dish (November 19, 2007)
- Civil rights movement needs 'Black-In' (November 12, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Readers smoke 'em out of their holes (April 13, 2007)
- It's Nov. 9, now what do we do? (November 9, 2006)
- Pelosi's style prevents progress (November 28, 2006)
- Lebanon buckles under war stress (November 27, 2006)
- True leaders unfairly left off influential list (May 10, 2007)
by Gerald Cox
Monday, April 9, 2007
Nancy Pelosi is at it again. In what Vice President Dick Cheney, President Bush, and even Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., would have you believe is in direct defiance of the administration and ultimately injurious to our nation's defense, Ms. Pelosi has just met with wannabe member of the Axis of Evil, Syria. Republicans are blasting the speaker for what they deem is her abject disregard for American interests, and a number even suggest that she may have violated the Logan Act, an obscure law that prohibits the average U.S. citizen from deal-making with foreign leaders. Speaker Pelosi's position as an elected official mostly protects her from prosecution under the act; however, accusations of defiance abound.
If this is defiance, we need more of it.
Speaker Pelosi is acting as if our founding fathers intended our government to have checks and balances. She's behaving as if there are different branches of government.
Oh, wait. They did, and there are.
With so much of America's interests tied up in Syria's sphere of influence, it does seem wise that we engage Syria in some form of dialogue.
Unfortunately, our current administration does not seem to think so.
Syria is considered to be sponsoring a number of well-armed insurgent groups in Iraq. Syria is also believed to be providing arms and assistance to Hezbollah militants in Lebanon and is a benevolent supporter of Hamas in Palestine. A country with that many links to known terrorist groups really isn't trying its best to make a good impression or get a legitimate head start on stability in its region.
Any country responsible for the deaths of American troops should be held fully responsible, and Syria has been implicated in the deaths of American troops from Beirut to Baghdad. Not just satisfied with arming insurgent groups, Syria has also been implicated in the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.
Get the picture? These are some bad guys. If Syria were your next-door neighbor, it'd be selling crack and AK-47s to questionable thug types out of its garage, and maybe even shooting your cat if it wandered out of the house.
"Why talk to a neighbor as bad as all that?" Mr. Cheney and Mr. Bush seem to be asking Speaker Pelosi.
Ms. Pelosi, in opposition to the White House, seems to believe that the reasons Mr. Cheney and Mr. Bush are choosing not to talk with Syria are the same reasons to talk with Syria.
President Bush has been trying to tie our behavior with Syria and other like-minded states into the overarching War on Terror. The horror of Sept. 11 introduced us to the incredible hatred that we are fighting in our global War on Terror. We got a good start in Afghanistan, gave a few people in Saudi Arabia a pass and then ended up in unwelcoming Iraq.
There is, of course, a second and less apparent approach to preventing the next 9/11: Winning the hearts and minds of the people who make up the milieu in which the next 9/11 hijackers are forming their opinion of the world. The arrogance and selectivity that many people in places like Iran and Syria ascribe to us can be better addressed if our presence in these countries is not limited to tendentious video clips complete with biased voiceovers. With the stakes so high, we can't afford the continuance of this policy of selective diplomatic isolation.
Can we trust the politicians and leaders in Syria to communicate American goodwill to their people, if only Syria would stop supporting all those terrorists? Can we trust a country that we have willingly isolated to educate its citizenry on why America really shouldn't be a target of hatred and vengeance? Can we be confident that countries we choose to ignore will buy into our ideas, and espouse peace, even unsolicited?
Can we afford to only be engaged with the Middle East militarily? Shouldn't we talk to these guys?
Something tells me the answer to those questions is the same answer to, "Did it work with North Korea or Cuba?"
Imagine if best-president-ever Ronald Reagan had chosen to follow up his whole "Evil Empire" thing with the Soviet Union with silence and diplomatic intransigence. Imagine if, throughout the entirety of the Cold War, we refused to engage Soviet Russia in diplomacy and dialogue. Cuba would be Russia's Taiwan, you and I would be well-versed in scrambling beneath our desks at the sound of an air-raid siren, and there'd still be a pretty big wall in Berlin.
While it should have been Condoleezza Rice wearing that sweet headscarf in Syria, be thankful that some high-ranking American official seems willing to engage our enemies in something other than tough-guy posturing. She's no Mr. Ronald Reagan just yet, but it seems that Speaker Pelosi is already doing the job of a president.
Gerald Cox (gcox@badgerherald.com) is a junior majoring in economics and Middle Eastern studies.
Anonymous (April 8, 2007 @ 10:32pm):
My God, please read about the Constitution and the Logan Act before you write. The Logan Act was written by some of our "founding fathers" in 1799. We do have Separation of Powers in the United States. Read Article 2 of the Constitution and you will understand the powers of the Executive Branch. Bush's foreign policy may be terrible, but he is still President.
Anonymous (April 9, 2007 @ 7:18am):
This hissyfit of pundits is absurd. 1) Republicans went with Pelosi. 2) President Bush absolutely refuses to recognize Syria (kind of like how Iran refuses to recognize Israel, no?). 3) Past House members, republican delegations even, have gone to other countries to discuss diplomacy. 4) Condi and Laura Bush have both worn headscarves during visits to the Middle East. It's all just political posturing by the Right to make up for the fact that their Foreign policy is completely myopic.
Anonymous (April 9, 2007 @ 7:31am):
10:32pm, like anyone pays close attention to the Constitution anymore. We can barely read a word of it, because the president decided to wipe his ass with it so many times.
Don't you DARE mention the Constitution if you're trying to defend this Administration. Your party is on Constitution probation for at least another decade.
Anonymous (April 9, 2007 @ 8:38am):
"...an obscure law that prohibits the average U.S. citizen from deal-making with foreign leaders."
Well as long as you think it's obscure then sure, why not break the law. After all, it's only against the law to be a Republican - Democratics are above the law.
I can just imagine how the Clitonistas would have reacted to similar BS by any Republicans during their reign.
If Bush and Cheney were REALLY evil they would both resign and let Pelosi try to straighten everything out. That would lead to such major disasters that the Democratics would lose both houses of Congress as well as the Presidency in 2008.
Anonymous (April 9, 2007 @ 8:40am):
"...wannabe member of the Axis of Evil, Syria."
Just what does it take to be a REAL member of the Axis of Evil? Check out current events and recent history you idiot.
Anonymous (April 9, 2007 @ 8:51am):
So an "obscure law" dosen't mean anything to you, but maybe the US Constitution should mean something?
Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution clearly assigns to the president leading authority for foreign policy. (''He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make treaties...'')
Anonymous (April 9, 2007 @ 10:53am):
"I can just imagine how the Clitonistas would have reacted to similar BS by any Republicans during their reign."
Well, actually Hastert did do something like that. Well actually he told Columbia to deal directly with congress and skip the president enitrely (a clear violation of Article II). Media reaction... nothing - espcially from faux news.
Anonymous (April 9, 2007 @ 10:58am):
Who's not on the axis of evil anymore? We're the only ones not on that list, and the balance of the world should be converted to a glass parking lot, as they say. You with us or against us?
Anonymous (April 9, 2007 @ 11:13am):
7:31, I doubt you can show one instance where this administration violated the Constitution and has gotten away with it. Of course, if you take the left's screwed up version of it, perhaps you are correct.
Anonymous (April 9, 2007 @ 11:49am):
In an article titled "Shame on Ms. Pelosi for Shaking the Hand of the Damascus Hangman!" Omran Salman, the Bahraini editor of the reformist website Aafaq, wrote that Pelosi had turned her back on Syrian reformists and had harmed the cause of democracy in Syria:
"Of course no observer of Middle Eastern affairs could at all take seriously what Pelosi said [about Syria's willingness to renew the peace process]. The most [such an observer] could do would be to struggle to keep from laughing...
"What the honorable U.S. congresswoman said has no basis in reality. Syria did not say that it would stem the flow of terrorists into Iraq. Likewise, it did not say that it would close the offices of Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Damascus and expel their leaders. If it had wanted to do this, it would have done so years ago, in response to American demands and pressures..."
There's more:
"The only result that Pelosi achieved in visiting Damascus, and in sitting down with the Syrian president and shaking his hand, was to deliver a blow to the liberal opposition in Syria and frustrate reformists' hopes for change. By breaking through the ring of isolation [surrounding] Bashar Assad's regime, Syria advanced [several] steps towards repression and despotism, and the march of reform and democracy fell behind.
"Is it any secret that the Syrian regime supports terrorism and is the prime suspect in being behind the... Hariri assassination and the assassinations of a number of other Lebanese journalists and politicians?
"Is it any secret that the Syrian regime is one of the most vicious of regimes, and one of the most repressive, in the region...?
"Perhaps Pelosi did not know... that during her visit to Damascus, this regime was specializing in torturing Syrian oppositionists -- among them Kamal Al-Labwani, the founder of the Liberal Democratic Rally in Syria...
"Any observer cannot help but be astounded how elected representatives of the American people, which loves liberty and humanity and is devoted to democracy, can engage with a first-rate dictatorial regime."
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Congress should not be conducting international diplomacy no matter what party is in power.
Anonymous (April 9, 2007 @ 11:53am):
Hastert meeting with allies (perfect or not) in the War on Drugs = Pelosi meeting with state sponsors of terrorism????
Anonymous (April 9, 2007 @ 12:05pm):
I think we Americans should just annihilate the rest of the world and be done with it. We are the only country that matters. First we'll take Canada so they can't stop us. Then we'll head south and take the oil fields of Mexico. Then it's off to the Middle East where we take their oil fields. Russia and Europe will be instantly paralyzed. They will fall into our hands like an overripe fruit.
USA!! USA!! USA!!
Anonymous (April 9, 2007 @ 12:11pm):
7:31, we both agree that there is a "war" Iraq and Afghanistan and on terror, correct? At what point did congress exercize its constitutional duty to declare "war?" Yes, they authorized it, but never declared it. Just because other wars were never declared (Vietnam, Korea, Yugoslavia, Drugs), doesn't mean this is by default constitutional.
Anonymous (April 9, 2007 @ 2:17pm):
With her trip, Ms. Pelosi has now reassured the Syrian strongman that Mr. Bush lacks the domestic support to impose any further pressure on his country. She has also made it less likely that Mr. Assad will cooperate with the Hariri probe, or assist the Iraqi government in defeating Baathist and al Qaeda terrorists.
This is the same Syrian regime that has facilitated the movement of money and insurgents to kill Americans in Iraq.
Anonymous (April 9, 2007 @ 2:25pm):
"First we'll take Canada so they can't stop us."
ROFLMAO - Canada has it's hand full with Denmark. Canada stop the USA? Yer killing me Smalls!
I think that the USA should forget about the rest of the world. Bring the troops home from Germany, Japan, Korea, Kosovo, Afganastan (all the Stans) and Iraq. Put them on the border and then slap a huge tariff on everything imported so the income tax can be repealed. Build nuclear power plants to eliminate any need for overseas oil. Let the rest of the world solve it's problems all by itself. Isolationism could be GREAT!
Yer right about one thing tho - if it was "all about the oil" then the USA would have taken Mexico and Venzeula instead of spending blood and treasure in Iraq.
Anonymous (April 9, 2007 @ 2:31pm):
At what point did congress exercize its constitutional duty to declare "war?"
Congress doesn't seem to keen on doing it's duty about making war or anything else. Their only objective is to get re-elected. The pay is good and the perks are especially fantastic. The medical and retirement plans are wonderful. But then the perks for anybody feeding at the public trough are huge.
Anonymous (April 9, 2007 @ 2:38pm):
"Ms. Pelosi has just met with wannabe member of the Axis of Evil, Syria."
Syria is happy with their current classification. It is a member of the famed "Axis of More-or-Less Evil" (aka "The Axis of Quasi-Evil"), along with France and Canada.
Anonymous (April 9, 2007 @ 3:13pm):
Illegal Diplomacy
Did Nancy Pelosi commit a felony when she went to Syria? (but then Democratic felonies are only punishable by hard looks or mayb a slap on the wrist).
The Logan Act makes it a felony and provides for a prison sentence of up to three years for any American, "without authority of the United States," to communicate with a foreign government in an effort to influence that government's behavior on any "disputes or controversies with the United States." Some background on this statute helps to understand why Ms. Pelosi may be in serious trouble.
President John Adams requested the statute after a Pennsylvania pacifist named George Logan traveled to France in 1798 to assure the French government that the American people favored peace in the undeclared "Quasi War" being fought on the high seas between the two countries. In proposing the law, Rep. Roger Griswold of Connecticut explained that the object was, as recorded in the Annals of Congress, "to punish a crime which goes to the destruction of the executive power of the government. He meant that description of crime which arises from an interference of individual citizens in the negotiations of our executive with foreign governments."
The debate on this bill ran nearly 150 pages in the Annals. On Jan. 16, 1799, Rep. Isaac Parker of Massachusetts explained, "the people of the United States have given to the executive department the power to negotiate with foreign governments, and to carry on all foreign relations, and that it is therefore an usurpation of that power for an individual to undertake to correspond with any foreign power on any dispute between the two governments, or for any state government, or any other department of the general government, to do it."
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009908
Anonymous (April 9, 2007 @ 5:50pm):
Blah, blah, blah, you're all a bunch of legal scholars all of the sudden. Maybe you should indict Pelosi for the Logan Act and KARL ROVE for the HATCH ACT.
This country is run by old-ass, sickly douche bags. Perhaps we should create an age of retirement for congressmen. Or, if you are deferred from war, you become ineligible for congress.
Anonymous (April 9, 2007 @ 6:14pm):
"I think we Americans should just annihilate the rest of the world and be done with it."
Or at least part of it, say the Europeans. Of course they also probably support someone else paying for it, wink, wink, nudge, say no more, cough(USA), cough(USA). Afterwards they will deny they ever supported such an action. Sort of like the Democratics with Iraq?
"Over half of Europeans would support a preemptive military strike to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, a poll released last week by a London think-tank reports."
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1173879271095&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&67
Anonymous (April 9, 2007 @ 7:05pm):
Sorry, but didn't Reagan's goons strike deals with terrorists in Iran and Nicaragua during Carter's administration?
Anonymous (April 9, 2007 @ 7:16pm):
Maybe foreign policy isn't our strong suit. We should probably stick to what makes us great: making crappy cars, creating pro-life inbred toothless country-folk, and running up massive debt.
Hey, Cletus, why ain't the rest of the world wanna be like us?
Anonymous (April 9, 2007 @ 8:19pm):
"With her trip, Ms. Pelosi has now reassured the Syrian strongman that Mr. Bush lacks the domestic support to impose any further pressure on his country."
Yeah, as if there was any question that Bush no longer has the respect and the confidence of any more than 30% of the public, especially on foreign policy . . .
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
