Newest Leftie Lie on the Pelosi Trip
By streiff Posted in Archived — Comments (19) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Various shills on the left have been floating what they claim are instances of Republican speakers undercutting the foreign policy of the United States. In this quest they have tried to make Denny Hastert and Newt Gingrich out to be the same sort of bumbling goof as Nancy Pelosi.
One of these stories debuted here on RedState a few minutes ago by a drive-by dipstick:
I'm curious to know why your choice of title, since the NY Times piece's main point was the hypocrisy of the Bush's administration of not criticizing Republicans who went to Syria.
And by the way, wasn't Dennis Hastert speaker of the House when he went to Colombia to speak to colombian military without the authorization of Bill Clinton? What did any Republican say about this? Would you like Hastert and Pelosi to both go to jail at the same time?
So let's break this down.
Using Google it was pretty easy to find the Q-documents of this story. here | here | here
But is it true, I'm not familiar with the first two blogs but Think Progress is notorious for misrepresenting stories as they did last week with a study from the Congressional Research Service.
First, there is no evidence in the source cited that anything in the story is true.
Hastert did not travel to Columbia against the wishes of the Clinton Administration.
Contrary to the lie being sold around the internet, the conflict was not between Hastert and Clinton, but between Hastert and the communist sympathizer Patrick Leahy and the State Department (surprise, surprise)
In September 1996 Congress applied additional restrictions on U.S. counternarcotics aid sponsored by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont). The so-called “Leahy law” applied a human rights standard to U.S. counterdrug aid, prohibiting the use of such assistance by units whose members are credibly alleged to have committed gross human rights violations unless the recipient government demonstrates that it is “taking effective measures to bring the responsible members of the security forces to justice.” The scope of the Leahy provision was expanded for fiscal year 1998 to include all programs funded under the Foreign Operations Act, and in fiscal year 1999 similar language was applied to Defense appropriations, although the latter covered only training activities.(43)
The Clinton Administration did not disapprove of Hastert's visit. In fact, the Clinton Administration was not of one mind on the entire issue. Clinton had approved waivers for Columbia and the Office of Drug Control Policy was against the linkage.
What Hastert did was tell the Columbian government to not give in to the demands of the US ambassador and that he was working to remove the Leahy law.
will have the time over the next few weeks to keep rebutting this ca-ca as it appears. (Let me know what, if anything, you want me to do to help).
And more ca-ca like this will appear. Everytime the lefties can think of something, they'll toss it out there. And, as each new tidbit appears, the MSM will broadcast it around. And, when each tidbit is debunked (as you've done here), then the moonbats will simply let fly the next tidbit. Which the MSM will broadcast as well, dropping their interest in the now-no-longer-useful tidbit like a hot potato.
Long-term, both moonbats and MSM will look for the first chance to declare this story "stale," so they can "move on" from it. Short term, they'll hope to starve the story of oxygen by filling MSM airtime with counteraccusations like this one. Who cares if they're true, or make sense? (The MSM won't). As long as they chew up precious broadcast time and print inches, they'll do.
Think of this as a moonbat attempt to lay a smokescreen, behind which Team Pelosi can slip away.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
In the same week Pelosi is meeting in Syria with Assad Steny Hoyer is meeting with Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. This is a muslim terrorist group that is outlawed in Egypt that the House Majority Leader is meeting with. I am speechless.
http://www.townhall.com/News/NewsArticle.aspx?contentGUID=6761b3e4-c071-...
You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
What Pelosi did was wrong. What Issa and the other Republicans did was wrong. And what Dennis Hastert did was wrong. So quit hacking away at this, because if you think you’ve sliced off something you can sell as a meaningful distinction, then you’re wrong too.
The principle is simple. The Executive Branch conducts foreign policy. Period. Not Nancy Pelosi, not Darrell Issa, and, unless you feel like exposing your commitment to the principle as utterly promiscuous, not Dennis Hastert. Come on. Telling a foreign government to ignore the U.S. Ambassador? If the State Department was off message, that was for Clinton to straighten out, not Hastert. You know better.
I agree with you that Pelosi is the worst, or at least the most ineffective, Speaker of the House in history.
But all of your other points seem kind of weird. Trollish even.
It just seems odd that you would come to RedState and post such nonsense on your first post.
If you're a troll who's already been kicked off a number of times, then you know exactly what your doing.
Newsflash: we're on to the scam.
then mea culpa. I would just point out that even if politics over principle weren’t objectionable on its face, it has ironically been terrible politics for Republicans.
So if what you’re looking for is agreement by echo chamber, then go ahead; keep insisting that if they do something, it’s wrong, but if we do it -- not. But I think a better, more credible answer, is that what Hastert did was wrong, and by the way, he’s history. Pelosi’s the Speaker now, and “He did it too” is no excuse for her behavior unless she’s five. Issa and the others were wrong too, but they’re out of step with Republicans on this issue. On the other hand, last I heard, Pelosi does “speak” for the Democrats.
As for my having been kicked off this site a number of times, no, not even once (or anywhere else, for that matter). But if disagreeing with any party line is a “scam,” whether on the first visit or the hundredth, and banishment is the punishment, then by all means go ahead. You’ll be doing me a favor.
What part of the story are saying is not true? That Hastert's visit was not authorized, or that he encouraged the Columbian military and police to bypass the executive branch and communicate directly with Congress?
no objection to the visit by the administration
policy was imposed by the Senate, not the administration
the administration had been granting waivers to the policy and the agencies charged with drug eradication and killing commies were against it
you are calling the ambassador the "executive branch". Cute. But not true
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
I was merely seeking a clarification of what part of the story you were calling a lie. Because my impression was that it was sort of undisputed that the relavent document's summary of Hastert's actions ("He closed by telling the military and police that they already knew they could bypass the U.S. executive branch and communicate directly with the congress; he encouraged them to continue to do so") was accurate. If you have some information thst this document is false, I would love to see it.
he doesn't say that. He tells a friendly government that they shouldn't sign an End User Agreement on weapons they are receiving from the US because he is working to change it. The weapons were being provided by the Clinton Administration by the waiving the requirements.
The entire line of argumentation is a blatant misrepresentation of the facts as I outlined above. 1) no request from the Clinton Administration to not visit Colombia - a friendly nation I might add, 2) Hastert was rightly trying to limit the damage caused by Leahy's amendment, 3) the Clinton Administration was not in favor of the law.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
All due respect, but are you sure you read the relevant document? Because my quote above is a direct quote from the document (p.31), a downloaded pdf. of which I'm looking at right now. I'd be happy to email it to you if you'd like.
Also, my understanding of the dispute was not that it related to the Leahy Amendment (though Hastert certainly had problems with it) but that Hastert disagreed with Clinton's policy of not certifying Columbia (thus approving drug-fighting funds for that nation) because Columbia was viewed as a major civil rights violator that failed to prosecute those military and police forces that violated civil rights.
this is just assinine. How about Executive Branch > Office of Drug Control Policy > or how about Executive Branch > Drug Enforcement Administration or how about Executive Branch > Defense Department.
The last three agencies were dead set against the Leahy amendment.
Check your constitution for a reference to either the State Department or the Foreign Service.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
I never disputed that the ODCP, the DEA and the Defense Department are Executive Branch, which they obviously are. I only disagreed with your claim that US Ambassadors aren't Executive Branch, which they obviously are as well. Unless you think they're Legislative or Judicial or... no, that's pretty much all the branches of Federal Government we've got.
Nor did I dispute that ODCP, DEA and Defense opposed the Leahy Amendment.
And if your last sentence is an argument against the Constitutional legitimacy of the State Department, I've got no dog in that fight. But whether or not it should exist, it does, and it's part of the Executive Branch. That's all I said, and I'm at a loss to see how that's asinine.
when he communed with the Muslim Brotherhood the other day? If this White House continues to sit on its hands as these dangerous outrages continue, this nation will suffer greatly.
SAY anything. It would be a "bad tone" and all that rot.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
I am glad you're not on their side!
Managing Editor