You want some more objective reporting about the democrat's current leadership fiasco? Here ya go:

From today's Wall Street Journal:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may well have committed a felony in traveling to Damascus this week, against the wishes of the president, to communicate on foreign-policy issues with Syrian President Bashar Assad. The administration isn't going to want to touch this political hot potato, nor should it become a partisan issue. Maybe special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, whose aggressive prosecution of Lewis Libby establishes his independence from White House influence, should be called back.

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..." [the rest of the story is available only to paying WSJ online members].

Also, on KPAM this morning, the suggestion was made that she could now become 'Speaker of The Big House.'

Indeed, the drumbeats are getting louder for Mrs. Pelosi, even in the left-leaning USA Today:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20070406/cm_usatoday/pelosistepsoutofbounds

Herb

Between this and the upcoming scandal involving her husband's company, things could get interesting. But how could this be? She's a liberal Democrat. Those are the people who do no wrong, aren't they?

Crooks and Liars does a far better job of addressing this issue:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/04/06/bald-faced-republican-hypocrisy-over-syria-visits/#more-16018

Nice attempt to change the topic.

This thread is about Mrs. Pelosi.

Herb

Did you read the story? It is totally relevant, and on topic.

I know that's tough, so I'll just post it here:

Bald Faced Republican Hypocrisy Over Syria Visits
By: Nicole Belle on Friday, April 6th, 2007 at 9:50 AM - PDT

While the Republican leadership and their mouthpieces in the media have been frothing at the mouth to condemn Nancy Pelosi over her visit to Syria, they have been noticeably more generous towards Republicans visiting Syria as well. Even when they (*gasp!*) criticize the President on foreign soil.

DownWithTyranny:

The Chicago Tribune takes the Post's moronic editorial apart and, although, they don't speculate on the Post's motives for lying about Pelosi's trip, they leave no doubt that that is exactly what they did. Now what about Republicans in Congress?

Three Republican congressmen who parted with President Bush by meeting with Syrian leaders said Wednesday it is important to maintain a dialogue with a country the White House says sponsors terrorism.

"I don't care what the administration says on this. You've got to do what you think is in the best interest of your country," said Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va. "I want us to be successful in Iraq. I want us to clamp down on Hezbollah."


…"This is an area where we would disagree with the administration," (Rep. Robert) Aderholt (of Alabama) said. "None of us in the Congress work for the president. We have to cast our own votes and ultimately answer to our own constituents. … I think there's room that we can try to work with them as long as they know where we draw the line.

Another Republican congressman, David Hobson (R-OH), who traveled with Speaker Pelosi to Syria also differed with the Bush Regime partisan game players. [..]

Darrell Issa (R-CA) is generally even further to the right and at least as much of a rubber stamp as New Jersey's Christopher Smith. But he just drew a line. He's in Damascus today, meeting with Assad and also with Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem. He said "Bush had failed to promote the dialogue that is necessary to resolve disagreements between the United States and Syria."

So of course, you'd expect Dick Cheney and his minions to go back on Rush and denounce these turncoat Republicans, wouldn't you? Not so much. In fact, Think Progress documents where John Boehner all but says IOKIYAR:

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) explains that it's okay for Republicans to visit Syria, just not Pelosi:

Boehner declined to criticize [fellow Republican Rep. David Hobson] for joining Pelosi, saying her stature gave the visit an imprimatur it didn't deserve.

"It's one thing for other members to go," Boehner said, "but you have to ask yourself, ‘Why is Pelosi going?' She's going for one reason and that is to embarrass the president. She is the speaker of the House. She's giving (the Syrian) government more credit than they deserve. They sponsor terrorism. They have not been at all helpful. I wish she wasn't there."

I won't hold my breath to see if the editorial board at WaPo condemns these Republicans as strongly as they have Nancy Pelosi. What say you, Hiatt?

***
In context supporting stories to be found at:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/04/06/bald-faced-republican-hypocrisy-over-sy ria-visits/#more-16018
***

The answer to this thread's question:

Probably yes.

Will she be given a pass by a lily-livered, hand-wringing justice department?

Probably yes.

Where's John Ashcroft when you need him? If we were smart, Mr. Bush would have pardoned G. Gordon Liddy from any and all past Watergate transgressions [which were nothing compared to Mrs. Clinton's filched FBI files] and then named him as Attorney General.

Herb

How is one " given a pass " from the justice department exactly?

Nice hat, cowboy.

"How is one " given a pass " from the justice department exactly?"

Selective prosecution, my friend.

A classic example is the non-enforcement of our immigration laws.

Herb

John Ashcroft is probably off hatching another evil genius idea that will backfire. Like this conveniently arranged coincidence:

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/07/senate.missouri/

Or crafting another timeless embarrassment:

http://www.cnn.com/video/us/2002/02/25/ashcroft.sings.wbtv.med.html

By the way, Herb, this discussion would have fit nicely into the other Nancy Pelosi thread, but in your genius, you have split the facts up and made an argument span two fronts. Neato.

I second the nice hat, cowboy.

HerrB won't be happy until Nancy Pelosi is hanged.

Preferably during her period, and at Abu Ghraib with Lynndie England pulling the lever on the trap door.

Yee Haw! Now let's go clear some brush, cowboy!

Naw, I don't think they should hang her.

Beat her severely about the head and shoulders and then send her packing to live in Syria, Iraq or Iran (It could be her choice), now that would be OK.

Hanging would be too good!

And what do you do with the republican delegation that went there?

....

give them a ticker tape parade.

"And what do you do with the republican delegation that went there?"

Beat them too!

Depends on what they were doing, if they were only gathering information, related to their positions nothing wrong, if they were conduction diplomacy they were breaking the law, unless the administration had approved their actions beforehand.

Good lord folks. This much talk of hanging is so 1800s. Do you all want to give up electricity too?

Bring back "Hanging Judge Parker" although he really didnt hang that many.

"Do you all want to give up electricity too?"

After seeing "The Green Mile", you might want to consider that too if you're planning a life of crime.

OK - so the premise is that a visit from Pelosi gives the meeting more importance than it should?

AND it makes the President look bad?

And for those two reasons, this is a bad thing that she did?

Yeah, uh. I don't subscribe to either of those positions.

#1. That assumes that whomever she meets with in Syria is blind to the fact that we have a " thing " about Syria. Is the fear that we, as a nation, will fool Syria leadership into thinking " hey - everything is fine between us now. ALL water inder the bridge." Does anyone really think they feel that way now?

OR

This supposed " false information " that she was bringing to the table - she was a messenger. I find it hard to believe that they would just accept her word in this message and not fact-check it. I mean, this message board has apparently already debunked it - but Syria didn't? Yeah, uh no. I don't think that's the case.

#2. Meant to embarrass the President. Explain that. Take that out to it's end. Why, EXACTLY, would this embarrass the President? Because it shows his weakness in diplomatic affairs? Too bad. Eat it.

None of those claims from the Republican side make ANY sense.

And why, if everything is so clear, did Syria agree to meet with her? Did she trick them? Did it work? If not, then what's the problem? Is Syria not going to like us MORE now?

Republicans, if they could really just say what they think, should be happy about the visit. It supposedly makes Democratic leadership look bad, right? That's a GOOD thing for Republicans!

But let's stop pretending that there is some noble reason for Republicans not liking the visit. Because, you know, THEY went too. It makes them look bad because she did something she wanted to do and the republicans got tagged. Big deal, to me. Am I supposed to support ONLY Republican ideas because that's who holds the White House ( and ONLY The WHite House, by the way )?

Yeah. Uh, no.

I know it makes Republican leadership look bad. And some are still trying to play the " We want the heads of the Republican delegation who went after she did too! See? We're logical! " - but if a Republican delegation would have gone first, then they woudl be trying to take credit for some great diplomatic effort. But they didn't. So they got beat...again. And THAT'S what's stinging. Nothing else.