But good thing she wore her hijab like a good lil dhimmi girl....what a disgrace!

Let's see, we have the Speaker of the House, in person, attend a meeting and then report what transpired.

On the other hand, we have unnamed officials report something different about a meeting they did not attend.

Hmm, which one has more credibility? It's a stumper.

And a supporter of George Bush calling anyone else incompetent is pure comedy gold.

David, I think you missed something. The Prime Minister of Isreal said she was off in her dealings. He was there when Pelosi talked to him.

She was in the wrong AND misquoted what was said in Isreal.

David, I think an offical release by the Isreali Prime Minister is hardly unnamed.

I await your brilliant response.

Republicans sure didn't mind this kind of stuff when they were doing it:

"…a congressional delegation led by Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) which met with Colombian military officials, promising to “remove conditions on assistance” and complaining about “leftist-dominated” U.S. congresses of years past that “used human rights as an excuse to aid the left in other countries.” Hastert said he would to correct this situation and expedite aid to countries allied in the war on drugs and also encouraged Colombian military officials to “bypass the U.S. executive branch and communicate directly with Congress.”

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/04/hastert-colombia/

A very interesting link, TR, and if accurate (I've caught Think Progress in some whoppers in the past), then Hastert, too, deserves severe condemnation for his role in meddling in foreign.

I would have said so at the time, but as this blog would not be created for another seven years, that proved to be a bit difficult.

Have we caught the Democrat Revolution at its beginnings? They've always placed power over duty, haven't they? They've tried and failed to get rid of Bush and Cheney. They've tried and failed to force Bush or Cheney to "obey" them. So, just go over their heads and take over! There won't be any consequences (for several reasons), so here we are, with a SOTH conducting foreign policy against the wishes of the President and attempting to manage the Armed Forces against the wishes of the Commander In Chief (among other things). One thing they'll need to do to guarantee a successful revolution is to disarm the general population, but they can't do that, right?

The two selections I placed in bold above show that the President, and only the President, has the authority to command the armed forces and appoint ambassadors to conduct U.S. foreign policy.

Pelosi wasn't trying to command the armed forces or to appoint an ambassador. There are no constitutional limitations on any citizen, including politicians, from meeting with any foreign power (though this could possibly break some law). Your constitutional argument doesn't hold water.

Confederate Yankee,

My brilliant response is this: If you look at your original post, your sources were unnamed.

That was my point.

You've clarified that, and I accept that the PM of Israel says he was misquoted or his position was misstated by Pelosi.

However, the PM of Israel was not in the meeting between Pelosi and Assad, so he can only go by what Pelosi is reported to have said. As anyone who has ever been interviewed knows, even reporters who want the best for you almost always get something wrong. Keep that in mind no matter who you read.

I'm not making a case for Pelosi or this visit. Frankly, I don't know enough about what went on to form an opinion. What I am doing is making a case for more critical thinking on everyone's part.

I'm skeptical of unnamed sources and you should be too. Right or left. Just as I'm skeptical of comments from people who don't have the courage to attach their real names to their opinions. You'll notice I use mine.

How was that? Brilliant enough?

Both the House and Senate bills to withdraw troops by a certain deadline infringe mightily upon the Commander-in-Cheif's powers, and my reading of the Constitution is that this directly infringes up his roles as CiC. Congress has the constitutional authority to stop funding the war, of course; but it does not have the authority to tell the President when to withdraw them.

Also, quit trying to misrepresent my argument.

I never stated that there was a constitutional limitation on merely meeting with a foreign government. You are being disingenuous, and intellectually dishonest. there is a clearlimitation on the constitutional authority Pelosi has to make foreign policy (i.e., she has none at all), and she clearly attempted to do just that, as noted by the author of the Post editorial above, who even provided a specific example:

"We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace."

The Executive branch, and the Executive Branch alone, has the Constitutional authority to make foreign policy. She has far exceeded the scope of her powers.

In addition to exceeding her authority, Pelosi has also clearly violated the Logan Act:

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.

This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

But don't worry Lex: while Pelosi seems just as guilty as she can be, Bush lacks the stones to have DoJ prosecute Pelosi or anyone else who has violated this law.

My brilliant response is this: If you look at your original post, your sources were unnamed.

That was my point.

No, it wasn't unnamed. It was clear as day right there in the excerpt:

According to officials in the Prime Minister's Office, however, this was not what transpired during her meeting with Olmert.

Alternatively, you could have clicked the link, and perhaps noticed the headline, "PMO denies peace message to Assad." PMO refers to the Israeli Prime Minister's Office.

Is anyone else having a problem with this? Nope, just you, David.

But the part of your response that gives me the giggles is this one:

However, the PM of Israel was not in the meeting between Pelosi and Assad, so he can only go by what Pelosi is reported to have said. As anyone who has ever been interviewed knows, even reporters who want the best for you almost always get something wrong. Keep that in mind no matter who you read.

Are you seriously trying to imply that perhaps Olmert is at fault in some way, because he wasn't in the meeting to hear what Pelosi said?

Olmert knows what he told her (including that her visit to Assad was a mistake, I might add), and then Pelosi is cited by multiple media outlets in direct quotes saying something else, and it is Olmert's fault? I hardly think so.

And David, you closing cumment just cut through my heart:

I'm skeptical of unnamed sources and you should be too. Right or left. Just as I'm skeptical of comments from people who don't have the courage to attach their real names to their opinions. You'll notice I use mine.

Was that a personal attack David? Okay, I confess.

You got me. I can hardly go out in public.

I'm terrified someone might find out my real name. I can't let people know who I am. Wouldn't want that to happen. I'm far too scared to put my own name on my opinions.

It's far better than I remain anonymous.

Yeah, David, your responses are brilliant enough.

I have to admit, you have the art of sarcasm down. I've tried to hold mine in check, but I recognize a master when I see it.

However, your reading skills are not what they could be. "Officials in the Prime Minister's office..." Do these officials have a name? I imagine they do, but yet they are unnamed, making them unnamed sources. CY, this is fairly simple concept. If a quote is attributed then the source is given a name. If the quote is not attributed, then there are no names given. That makes them unnamed sources. Like a high White House official. We know they work in the administration, just as we know your sources work in the PM's office. However, they are not named. Go back and read your post again. Nary a name to be named. Not one. And, not to beat a dead horse, but none of the people, including Omert, was at the meeting between Assad and Pelosi.

Whew. Seems simple enough to me.

As for you being unnamed, I actually wasn't referring to you but to your commenters. You, however, seem to think that it was a personal attack. Believe me, CY, if I had meant you I would have said you.

Perhaps you're a bit sensitive to criticism.

Confederate Yankee,
note: Bob has been gracious enough to allow me to repost this earlier comment, one he cut because I used profanity. I sincerely apologize if I violated this blog's standards of decorum as that was never my intent. Here, edited, is my earlier comment:

You've made me curious enough to look a few things up, just to keep things honest.

Several news stories report the PM's statement as a clarification of their intent with Syria, not a refutation of what Pelosi said was stated in the meeting. Here's a quote from one report:

"Members of the delegation said that among the issues they took up in Damascus was the case of the three Israeli soldiers being held by the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah — which is supported by Iran — and the Palestinian group Hamas.

In addition to Mr. Lantos, the delegation includes Representatives Henry A. Waxman of California, Louise M. Slaughter of New York, Nick J. Rahall II of West Virginia and Keith Ellison of Minnesota, all Democrats, as well as David L. Hobson, Republican of Ohio."

So, people who were actually in the room with Assad and Pelosi say that Israel's concerns were raised. Again, people named who were at the meeting vs. unnamed sources who were not at the meeting. Which is more credible?

I also looked up the Logan Act and you're right, the administration won't prosecute, even though by my reading of the law they probably could. But the Bush people aren't alone. No one has been prosecuted in the history of the Logan Act. There seemed to be one indictment, in 1803, but no prosecution.

Again, I'm not making a case for Pelosi, but for critical thinking. I'd like to know what you think Pelosi did exactly that convinces you she tried to usurp the exec's foreign policy perogatives, because the quote you chose doesn't rise to a standard of evidence to me. But I'm not a lawyer and I could be wrong.

As for Congress attempting to take over the CINC's war powers, the resolution they attached to the funding bill was non-binding. And my guess is they know their constitutional limitations better than you or I.

Do I think it was a good idea? No. I think it was political posturing, but I don't think it was unconstitutional.

Now, unwarranted wiretaps, the elimination of habeas corpus and Bush's refusal to testify without Dick Cheney at his elbow are.

OK, maybe that last one isn't unconstitutional, but it certainly is chicken[salad].

CY,

Originally you said, the President, and only the President, has the authority to command the armed forces and appoint ambassadors to conduct U.S. foreign policy.

As I pointed out, this doesn't cover meeting with foreign powers. I was not at all dishonest in my quotation or interpretation of it.

Both the House and Senate bills to withdraw troops by a certain deadline infringe mightily upon the Commander-in-Cheif's powers,

I'm genuinely confused. When did this come up?

Congress has the constitutional authority to stop funding the war, of course; but it does not have the authority to tell the President when to withdraw them.

That's not an important distinction.

The constitution doesn't define 'foreign policy', and in fact it comprises lots of gray area. That's why I replaced it with 'meet with foreign governments'.

Find me the passage of the constitution that restricts foreign policy to the president. The authority to appoint ambassadors and commanding the military are related, but much more limited.

I'm not knowledgeable about the Logan Law, but as Pelosi is a representative for the US, so the "without the authority of the United States" clause would seemingly exonerate her. Logan seems to be aimed at meddling private citizens.

Bush met with the terrorist al Hakim in the WHITEHOUSE - and the wingnuts said absolutely nothing.

Pelosi meets with the head of state of Syria - as do many Republican congressional reps, and the wingnut get even more nutty.

Weird.

Worse yet, Bush sends American troops to die in order to prop up a government that is infested with Shia militias, and minions of Sadr. We train Shia police officers who, in turn, kill innocent Iraqi simply based on their ethnicity and religious identity.

The hypocrisy is mind blowing.

mkultra: or how about this: Bush wants to bomb Iran, so he accuses the Iranians of arming Iraqi insurgents. Except, the Iraqis who are killing our soldiers are largely Sunni, and Iran is Shia. Whoops.

Or, how about baseball fan Bush saying he's too busy to throw out the first pitch on opening day for the second year in a row. I wonder if he's scared of getting booed? I'm guessing he's going to be busy next year too.