Well, if that's an endorsement for Hillary Clinton or John Edwards or Barack Obama to have the full range of powers that Bush has abrogated to himself, then I think that I can hear right wing sphincters tightening across America. It's a good sound.

That being said, I think that Mr. Baer's comments, while well meaning, are being made in a vaccuum. Any student of American history or politics will note the deep involvement of Congress and members of Congress in foreign policy issues, both Canada and Cuba come to mind. It's one of those things that seems to occurr as a matter of course, and its not even unusual to see Congress at loggerheads with the President on foreign policy issues.

Frankly, I think American foreign policy, on a practical basis, is far too important simply to be left to the erratic pretenses of a sitting President. Too much deference to Presidential prerogatives on foreign policy has lead America into two failing wars and the utter loss of credibility.

While Clinton and then Bush may have crapped themselves over Jimmy Carter's international ventures, I'll say that Carter did manage to avert a war, and he did more for the cause of Cuban dissidents and Cuban freedom than forty years of CIA covert ops.

I don't think that we should be looking at preserving the office of the Presidency. If Bush shows us anything, it is that the office is a potential dictatorship, just waiting for the right monster. Ultimately, it strikes me that the Imperial Presidency is incompatible with long term American Democracy.

Yes of course the Speaker should conduct foreign policy, to the extent she wants and to the extent that anybody will listen. US politics is messy, US power is diffuse, and there is no sense in pretending otherwise.

The Republicans want to treat foreign countries like children, that we must speak carefully and on-message to get our point across. The real world doesn't work like that.

I'm sorry to see you got suckered by the Olmert manouver. Not much of anyone else did, though.

If you look at your calendar, the Cold War happens to be over. If you look at your copy of the Constitution, the individual branches have very few exclusive powers- and negotiation with foreign powers is one of the overlap regions. If the Executive doesn't act to take control of a vacuum with deliberation, this sort of thing happens.

In any case, you're too late. If you look at Pelosi's trip to Iraq a few weeks ago, she negotiated terms of withdrawal with Maliki in an indirect way. She in effect told him she and Reid were going to make it happen in '07 or '08. Maliki in effect told her that he was perfectly willing to go along with American withdrawal anytime now (i.e repudiate Bush on that) provided he gets a further $10 billion worth of arms and cash. Most of the reporters there didn't catch on to the meaning of the seemingly harmless and unfocussed, disjointed, offhand exchange between the two at all.

If Democrats win the office in '08 we're going to have a real President who actually bothers with fulfilling the duties of office, so I'm not concerned with an overly diminished Presidency as a result of Pelosi doing what she is.

That being said, the office itself will shrink greatly in the next year or two. The Bush/Cheney Presidency is all about maximizing and exploiting the powers taken away from Congress and the Judiciary and The People and transferred to the Presidency between 1941 and 1989 in the name of the World War and then the Cold War. But they've misused and hollowed out these powers and proven that the Presidency doesn't need them anymore, and that future Presidencies will likewise only abuse them now that the global superpower conflict is past. Democrats prefer a powerful and benign and diverse Congress as the national center of power over the Presidency anyway, at least in peacetime. The 2008 elections will create a lesser Presidency and a greater Congress than before as those Cold War powers- declaration of war, defining 'national security' properly, habeas corpus powers, etc- are taken back by Congress and the courts.

We'll be back to having a Presidency as it is described in the Constitution- in competition for power against Congress, always needing to make its case for its exercise of powers. You reflect how the country has begun to falsely assume that the Presidency is, like a monarchy or Third World prime ministership, in fact a series of entitlements and narrow absolute powers. It is in fact a set of duties with means given the office to carry them out.

You must have missed this from Josh's TPM page:

(April 06, 2007 -- 02:06 PM EST // link)

Memo to CNN: As Speaker, Gingrich thrust himself into Mideast issues with trip to Israel, defied White House, bashed White House foreign policy.
-- Greg Sargent

Is Newt Gingrich also failing to respect the institution of the presidency?

And what does being speaker change about members of congress making trips to visit foreign countries and talking with them, including their heads of state?

Your post is not a legitimate criticism of Pelosi's trip.

First, you forget to mention what "conducting foreign policy" actually means, so that a legitimate comparison can be made.

Then, you cite nothing of substance, such as the Constitution, to back up your assertion that Pelosi has no business speaking with other countries, including their heads of state.

The way I see it, congress not only has a right, but a sworn duty, to protect this country and its people. If that means going abroad and talking with the leaders of other countries then so be it, especially if the shithead in the White House won't.

********
- We do not act rightly because we have virture, we have virtue because we act rightly.

Sign the Petition at stopIranWar.com

Who the hell said she's "making foreign policy?" That's a red herring argument. She's not making foreign policy. She's trying to get the Bush Administration to HAVE a foreign policy worthy of the name. She didn't negotiate any agreement or understanding with Assad. Baer's arguments are completley w/o merit.

As for what happened with the alleged note from Olmert, why does Baer accept w/o question Olmert's contention that there was none. Accepting Olmert at his word is like accepting Bush at his. Both are known liars. There are plenty of entirely credible arguments which I've made at my TPMCafe reader blog that point to Olmert getting cold feet once his diplomatic note was publicized by Pelosi. And the distinct possibility that the Enforcer, Dick Cheney, called Olmert & told him to deny the note in order to embarrass Pelosi is very real.

I didn't know TPMCafe featured the work of neocon hacks.

Richard Silverstein
Tikun Olam>

I find it implausible that anyone who gets to be Speaker of the House might lack "the diplomatic touch". And even more implausible that Pelosi could have claimed to be conveying a message from the Israeli PM, if no such message existed (and note that the message was first reported by the Israeli press, before Pelosi ever arrived in Syria).

If the message to Syria which Olmert evidently entrusted to Pelosi has become more prominent in the media than he might have liked, forcing him to issue a denial (perhaps also at the urging of the Bush administration), then the fault for that lies in great measure with the Bush administration and those American conservatives who, by attacking Pelosi, have forced her and her allies to play up the diplomatic service she provided for the Israelis -- all Olmert's implausible denials notwithstanding. If you give someone a message to convey to someone else, and you then turn around and attack their meeting with that person as treason, you should not be surprised when your messenger defends herself by revealing the existence of the message you entrusted her with.

Accumulating Peripherals

So after that long, boring and probably fractured assessment of the Pelosi trip that I just posted, I forgot to answer Baer's original question.

Should Nancy Pelosi have gone to Syria?

She shouldn't have had to go in the first place.

But like I learned long ago when I was constantly in my own little familial power struggle with my Brother, if one of us spitefully neglected to take the trash out on our respective duty defined trash day, the other better do it or the house will just smell of trash. More often than not in our Capitol it is evident that they need a maternal figure (my Mom would whip them into shape) to remind them what is necessary and important.

"Putting aside, that Pelosi seems not to have the diplomatic touch (or one that extends beyond her deft ability to unite the Democratic caucuse these past several weeks) as evidenced by the strong set of denials out of Jerusalem that the Speaker was not carrying a communique from Olmert to Assad."

I guess this is as ironclad a case as one can ever hope to be of Pelosi's diplomatic incompetence: "a strong set of denials coming out of Jerusalem." Now we do know Mr.Baer is shall we say a strong (sycophantic?) supporter of whatever party however meritorious or dishonest happens to occupy power in Jerusalem but Mr. Baer being the dilettantish follower of Israeli politics that he is, will be shocked (yes shocked) to know that Olmert's word is not gold in Israel itself.

But if Mr Baer is a sycophant when it comes to Israeli politics, his DLC credentials in American politics certainly serve him well. He is quite serious in wanting Bush's policies to prevail over (shudder) a progressive foreign policy and that is the reason he adopts the right wing meme to attack Pelosi. He may give her the throwaway compliment of her "deft ability" to unite her caucus, but his goals are a little more explicit in his November post in which he advocates a much more divisive policy of enshrining his buddy, Bush-lite hawk, Jane Harman as head of house intelligence. I guess it is not just Republicans squirming over the results of November; Iraq-war advocates like Baer are deeply uncomfortable with the new Democratic majoirity. Here are excerpts from Baer's divisive piece in November:

"Democrats need to prove their security credentials, and they appoint a chairman of the Intel Committee who would not pass a background check if he applied for the most junior analyst post at the CIA. What's worse -- as the Washington Post descibed Pelosi's move -- is that it's "a decision pregnant with personal animus." Message: settling of scores is more important than your security.

To that, I'd add: wouldn't it be nice if the first woman Speaker had a woman chairing not just a major committee, but a national security-related one?

Politics aside, passing over Harman would be a huge blow to a committee that needs someone leading it with deep experience in, knowledge of, and outrage about the doings of the past six years. And, as one extremely senior Democratic foreign policy hand put it to me last night, there is no one in the entire Caucus with more experience and credibility on intel matters than Harman.

Of course, there are those -- Pelosi included -- who say that Harman is not sufficiently partisan. True, Harman voted for the Iraq resolution, but so did 81 other Democrats including fellow Californian Congressmen Tom Lantos and Howard Berman. Lantos is the presumptive chairman of the International Relations Comittee, and if he is challenged for that spot, it will be by Berman. Is Pelosi going to ban them from those posts too?

What matters is not how someone voted then, but what they did or didn't do in the days since then as it became apparent that the Bush Administration was unprepared, ill-equipped, and disingenuous about the entire operation. On the intel front in particular, Harman has been a dogged critic of the Administration.

* In June 2003, Harman raised concerns about the intel about Iraq WMD in a Washington Post op-ed, and in the days later launched the first congressional probe of pre-war intelligence.
* After Abu Ghraib, Harman jumped on the Administration immediately, and then authored a bill which prohibited any government official from engaging in torture, cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of prisoners (a version of this became law in the Detainee Treatment Act in 2005).
* Harman co-authored with Congressman John Conyers, a bill to require warrants for all electronic surveillance of American on US soil in compliance with FISA. And she authored another bill to require the FISA Court to approve a National Security Letter before it can be submitted to the FBI.
* Harman voted against the $87 billion in emergency Iraq war funding in October 2003, outraged over the "blank check" given to the Administration.
* And Harman was an integral player in the set-up of the current intel apparatus, while being an incessant critic of Bush for his politicization of intel, lack of plan for Iraq, and mishandling of homeland security.

This is not the record of someone who is cowed by the Administration or unsure of her beliefs.

Now, there is talk that Pelosi will disband the entire Democratic representation on the committee and start fresh (thus, avoiding appointing Hastings or Harman). This would throw the baby out with the bathwater, and undermine the effectiveness of Intel Committee oversight. Not to mention, totally undermining the stability in Intel Committee membership that the 9/11 Commission called for (and presumably Pelosi still wants to implement the full 9/11 Commission recomendations).

I have met Harman a few times. She is intense and tough; knowledgable and curious. That is to say, she is more than qualified for the post. And if Nancy Pelosi wants to do the right thing for the politics of her Caucus and the security of the nation, she'll keep Harman at Intel. "

I have to disagree with Baer on this issue, too; even though in general terms he does raise some valid issues, However, the American system of government is so broken today that precedents and constitutional fine points aren't helpful anymore. The simple fact is that, whether Pelosi should be "making foriegn policy" or not, Bush and Cheney should not be. The two of them simply are unfit. Until they are broken, the Republic is in more danger than it ever was from Iran, North Korea or Syria.

Did she break the law? Go here to find out:

http://osi-speaks.blogspot.com/2007/04/did-speaker-pelosi-break-any-law-by.html#links

Your simple approving reference to the shameful WSJ editorial suggests your opinion is worthless.

Well, since we have a lying, moronic war criminal for President (and another one as VP) I believe it's an excellent idea for the Democratic Speaker of the House to let the rest of the world know there is hope and we're not all money-grubbing war-mongering morons over here.

Tom

Why does Josh put these people on?

But let’s make sure that once we win back the White House, it’s a presidency worth having with the full range of powers and prerogatives needed for the next President to navigate the rough waters ahead.

yeah, if e're nice to Bush, the Republicans will be nice to Hillary. Gotcha, Baer.

Next, please.

Haaretz made it clear tht Olmert did not repudiate that Pelosi was carrying a message for Assad only that Israel had not changed its position. The implication of this was that the White House pressured Israel but Isreal wanted to be clear that it does not want war with Syria.

If Pelosi did not deliver this message who was going to do it? We have had Walter Cronkite and Tom Friedman act as effective go betweens. Might it be that using Pelosi was the way the Israelis could get around Bush's ridiculous ban on Israel talking to Syria?

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Wow man, you have got to be like the first person I've encountered who was actually impressed with the logic of that childish Wash. Post Editorial. You poor gullible fool. This whole "controversy" is the collective sound of threatened men everywhere who are uncomfortable watching a powerful woman act "out of turn" by your definitions of what is and isn't acceptable behavior. Then you couch your fear in these petty, silly terms - "shadow presidency", "undermining", "conducting her own foreign policy" and the like. Absolute rubbish, and presented in an absolutely ahistorical context. Way to go, dumbass. Glad to know there is no shortage of lowest common denominator bottom feeders on our side as well.

And one of Pelosi's Reaper aka Republican traveling companions has said she delivered the message just as Olmert related it to her.

There is delicate maneuvering going on here.

"Putting aside, that Pelosi seems not to have the diplomatic touch..."

And Bush does? Please Mr. Baer, spare me the nonsense. Bush's "diplomatic touch" can be boiled down to "shun or bomb people we don't like".

That statement alone pretty much guts the rest of your piece. Once you start with such a rotten foundation, how can I possibly accept the rest of your premises?

Yeah, Bush's diplomatic touch, that'll solve everything.

Mr. Baer, I think you and Harold Ford need to get a room together, one with a very large mirror, where you can sit and reflect upon where you both went wrong (hint: assuming TPM Cafe readers are stupid wasn't a good start).

Coincidentally, Krugman analyzes in today's column the Republican technique of making great waves with outlandish, baseless charges, which are then amplified by their control over the media and helped along by commentators such as Baer. Here is the section that is relevant for Baer, but the whole Krugman column (unlike the hack-work of Baer) is thoughtful, incisive and helpful:

"This is the context in which you need to see the wild swings Republicans have been taking at Nancy Pelosi.
First, there were claims that the speaker of the House had demanded a lavish plane for her trips back to California. One Republican leader denounced her “arrogance of extravagance” — then, when it became clear that the whole story was bogus, admitted that he had never had any evidence.
Now there’s Ms. Pelosi’s fact-finding trip to Syria, which Dick Cheney denounced as “bad behavior” — unlike the visit to Syria by three Republican congressmen a few days earlier, or Newt Gingrich’s trip to China when he was speaker.
Ms. Pelosi has responded coolly, dismissing the administration’s reaction as a “tantrum.” But it’s more than that: the hysterical reaction to her trip is part of a political strategy, aided and abetted by news organizations that give little lies their time in the sun.
Fox News, which is a partisan operation in all but name, plays a crucial role in the Little Lie strategy — which is why there is growing pressure on Democratic politicians not to do anything, like participating in Fox-hosted debates, that helps Fox impersonate a legitimate news organization.
But Fox has had plenty of help. Even Time’s Joe Klein, a media insider if anyone is, wrote of the Pelosi trip that “the media coverage of this on CNN and elsewhere has been abysmal.” For example, CNN ran a segment about Ms. Pelosi’s trip titled “Talking to Terrorists.”
The G.O.P.’s reversion to the Little Lie technique is a symptom of political weakness, of a party reduced to trivial smears because it has nothing else to offer. But the technique will remain effective — and the U.S. political scene will remain ugly — as long as many people in the news media keep playing along. "

Baer and his fellow wise men (Lieberman, Zell Miller, Carville, Bill Press, Colmes, Broder, Harold Ford, Jane Harman, Ellen Tauscher, Biden, Shrum,...) are the reason the Democrats have been in such bad shape for so long and the corrupt and dangerous Republicans have achieved so much power. His presenting his "ideas" here is an opportunity to clarify what we really think and want. And it has little to do with Baer's game of attacking liberal/Progressives at every chance he can usually using an unimportant side issue as the entering point for the main thrust (cf. the standard Republican modus operandi). For the record Mr Baer, you say the main question raised by Pelosi's trip was who makes foreign policy...just what policy did Pelosi enunciate? What policy did she violate? Has the Bush/neocon/Lieberman team stated that congress will have no dealings with Syria? Didn't Bush applaud the Baker-Hamilton commission (yes the one he appointed) and didn't they call for increased involvement with Syria? The real issue for Baer and these others, the real bottom line, is that they have much more in common with Bush and his thugs than they do with progressives.

I wish I could rate this comment a 6. I am so freaking tired of the naked misogyny on the right and I am desperate for them to be called out on it by our so-called 'liberal media'.

All the Hillary-hatred and Pelosi-hatred is nothing more than white male Republicans who can feel their already miniscule dicks shriveling up into their abdomens at the thought of being ruled by a powerful woman.

Fucking get over it already, you knuckle-dragging woman-haters. This is the 21st century, we have no time for your woman-bashing.

Now, we all know there is no such thing as a bad question.

All kidding aside for the scary state of politics that this suggests: can you think of any other President that has had the everyday, non-political, laissez faire, citizens reference and revisit The Constitution of the United States? Coffee shop and diner conversations are citing The Constitution, The Declaration of Independence, The Code of Military Justice, The Geneva Convention Protocols, The Federalist Papers, Title 38,.... Although I should take pride in our re-education efforts, it is only a reaction from their concern that the very basic American concepts and ideas are being perverted. Our "ignorance is bliss" attitude is having a panicked awakening.

oops. It was Lantos, hawk Democrat, who said that, as TPM reported. Sorry for the error.

You're completely wrong. I don't know why Josh lets you post here.

Negotations between Syria and Israel have reached an impasse in part because the Bush administration refuses to support them. It is incumbent upon the Democrats in Congress to let them know that _they do_ support them. It's that simple.

Let's be clear: we are witnessing a historically bad Middle East foreign policy from the Bush administration. This is having catastrophic effects in a number of arenas. Anything that mitigates against this is worth doing.

Two words: Karen Hughes.

sPh

Is this guy a Democrat? Or is he on leave from the Republican Party? Or is he using Suzanne Malveaux as a standard? This is pitiful stuff. I don't expect to find such tendentious commentary at TPM.

And, Mr. Baer, remind me to make sure I don't support any candidates who use you as an advisor or make any sort of payments to Baer Communications.

I don't mean this to sound harsh, but we as a party will be better off when you and your ilk are unemployed.

Dear Ken,

Blow it out your ass.

Very truly yours...

I have no problem with Baer, or anyone, posting here. But, you're right -- reading Josh's blog should really be a requirement for anyone who does.

Otherwise, as Baer's piece today proves, you just come off looking ignorant and ill-informed. (At the least.)

Dissent Protects Democracy

"Ken Baer's post is yet another illustrative point arguing that the Democratic party needs an completely new stable of foreign policy advisors." Yeah, but I've a feeling it's just that we're seeing the worst side here with Baer and America Abroad. Last I looked, Professor Slaughter was actually on an advisory group helping bipartisan or GOP policy, and at least two of three leading presidential candidates are much less prowar. But this Pelosi stuff is so silly I don't have anything to add to others.

John

http://www.haberarts.com/

Does anyone else find it as puzzling as I do that Bill Richardson is in N. Korea with the blessing of the Bush administration? Is it because he's a bottom-tier presidential candidate whose star the Republicans want to shine? Is it OK because he's a governor?

I disagree. It was only a tiny crap. No more than a rabbit turd.

duplicate

This is the point that Dems should be making to all the media critics,as well as Bush officials. The Constitution clearly gives Congress a role in foreign policy, and the fact the Congress traditionally allows the President to be the chief negotiator only applies when we have a President who does that job in our best interests. Since we don't have such a president, it falls to Congress to take the initiative. Instead of explaining and apologizing, Pelosi should be asserting her authority as a Constitutional Officer and doing the job that the Pres is not doing.

From the United states constitution Article I

Section 8 The Congress shall have power to...

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To declare war, ...

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

One gets the idea that Congress does have a role in foreign policy.

"them"

Yes, it is bizarre. Although I'm still not convinced that Israel wishes to negotiate with Syria, so saying that Israel is being held hostage by the US seems a bit weak to me. Epecially when according to the NY Times 'little' Israel apparently has enough clout over the US to stall a US Gulf Arms Sale...? wow!

It's interesting to note too, that while Europe HAS decided to reopen talks with Syria, to expand diplomacy in the region, they realize that the US will need to be involved in any serious negotiations between Israel and Syria.

Europe has also admitted that :

"...America understands that Iraq cannot be solved unless Syria is engaged and Israel withdraws from the Golan Heights and the West Bank," the diplomat said, speaking on condition his name be withheld..."

So, looking at this piece of news, other than the neocons, in whose interest would it be to NOT negotiate with Syria?

Again, I don't think the WH is solely to blame?

Odd, odd game.

I'm trying to find that MJ post that had the Israeli and Palestinian 'sub' committee hearing with Daniel Pipes et. all the usual crew..? I thought it was in Jan.

Why are you posting here? This blog is populated by Democrats, not professional whiners and concern trolls who are paid to sabotage the Democratic Party. The party will be so much better off once you and your ilk are unemployed.

But creating a new imbalance, by stepping on the president’s ability to conduct foreign affairs, is something that can hurt the Presidency and the country for years to come.

In ordinary times, I might have some sympathy with this notion. But these are extraordinary times. We have a rogue president that is determined to conduct a rogue foreign policy that lacks popular support. The public want somebody to do something about this, and not just sit by and fatalistically let the idiot-in-chief drive us off a cliff. Since the constitution makes no provision for defenestration, which would be the preferred option, all we are left with is hoping some of other leaders do whatever they can to undermine Bush and Co., and seize control of the country's foreign policy.

On a broader note, the current absurd foreign policy imbalance in favor of the executive did not begin under Bush, but is a tyrannical pattern of progressive usurpation of power that has been at work for at least a hundred years. I can think of a lot worse things than seriously weakening the power of the presidency. Maybe if it is weakened enough, it will someday return to something closer to the its originally intended form.

You all may think that Pelosi is attacked by the right-wing and Baer is simply joining in. That's not what the public thinks, at least that's not what they hear. They hear that Pelosi trip is like "Girls Gone Wild." Check out MediaMatters for the details http://mediamatters.org/items/200704060017

There's something very odd about this whole nonsense over Pelosi's visit to Assad as her statements to him didn't substantively deviate from the messages sent by both Bush and Olmert.

The only area of difference AF