Blog @ MoreWhat.com

Since politicians almost exclusively initiate or react to every condition or event in a purely political fashion, how can a reasonable person ever apply the benefit of the doubt to their statements. A report at one of the left leaning websites indicates Rep Tom Lantos, D-CA, claims Olmert’s denying he authored the message passed to the Syrian leader by Pelosi was prompted by the Whitehouse. Lantos further states that he heard both versions and they are the same.

This is a perfect example of why this trip was ill-conceived and harmful to this nation. It does not matter what side of this issue you find yourself on or who is correct on the Olmert message. The same can be said about the reported reaction from the countries visited. There is no reliable process for extracting truth from this situation. That is why laws like the Logan Act are important. Allowing the opinions of differing political agendas to act on foreign affairs and diplomacy is the typical recipe for disaster. That is why these matters are better served by the executive branch.

The same can be said of the claims that the President was informed of the trip and had no objection or the exchange resulting in a Pelosi statement that the President’s reaction after the trip was politically motivated. They are all outcomes of the same problem. That is, allowing legislators to introduce their political agendas to foreign affairs It would be difficult to mount a convincing argument that Speaker Pelosi was unaware of the history and potential damage or harm that could result from her choices. Is there any way to discourage a repeat performance by Pelosi or others in her self-designated delegation short of charging all with violating the Logan Act?

One last point about this sordid affair involves the word bipartisan. As indicated below, the list of persons involved are described as bipartisan. We only see Democrats listed. Is this a complete list? Are there members of both parties listed below? Is the use of the word bipartisan a reference to the 9/11 Commission? Why is anything about this described as bipartisan?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Congressional Delegation Statement on Middle East Trip

Washington, D.C. –
A senior bipartisan Congressional delegation led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi released the following statement today following their visit to Israel, Lebanon, the Palestinian Territories, Syria, and Saudi Arabia.

In addition to Pelosi, the delegation included Representatives David Hobson of Ohio, Tom Lantos of California, Henry Waxman of California, Nick Rahall of West Virginia, Louise Slaughter of New York, and Keith Ellison of Minnesota.

“The purpose of the visit to the Middle East was to assess the impact of events in the region on the national security interests of the United States. There is no separation between this delegation, Congress, and President Bush on the commitment of the United States to fight terrorism, end the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and pursue peace. We have no illusions about the complexity of the challenges facing this region, but hope that recent diplomatic activity will generate some momentum for progress.

Trackposted to , Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson’s Website, Adam’s Blog, basil’s blog, The Amboy Times, Hollywood Gossip, Conservative Cat, , Pet’s Garden Blog, stikNstein… has no mercy, The World According to Carl, Pirate’s Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, Wake Up America, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, April 10th, 2007 at 8:52 pm and is filed under Israel, Bush, Terrorism, Hezbollah, Iraq, war, wordpress, GOP, Democrats, Religion, Waxman, disclosure, ethics, oversight, Afghanistan, Law, Justice, Hamas, Congress. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.