Horses Mouth April 6, 2007 10:54 AM

FLASHBACK: Pat Buchanan, John Boehner Backed Speaker Gingrich's Involvement In Foreign Policy
April 6, 2007 -- 10:54 AM EST // View Comments (133) // Post a Comment

As Glenn Greenwald notes, House Speaker Newt Gingrich traveled to China in March of 1997 and threatened military action in the event of an attack on Taiwan. He notes a marked contrast in the tone of the coverage between that trip and Nancy Pelosi's current trip to Syria.

So let's get to work. What did conservative commentators and Republicans say about the proper role of the House Speaker in foreign affairs around the time of Gingrich's China trip?

Here's Pat Buchanan. Back in 1997, though he differed with Gingrich on China policy, he very clearly stated that Congress had a proper role in foreign policy and indeed should "run" it. From the Associated Press, March 18, 1997 (via Nexis):

Speaking at a news conference organized by the conservative magazine "Human Events," Buchanan said the Clinton administration's policy of constructive engagement with the Chinese was a failure...
"It's now up to Congress to run foreign policy and it has the power to overturn the president's decision" on China's trade status, expected in June, Buchanan said. "There is time to organize a campaign" to influence Congress, "and this is a battle we can win."

Here's Buchanan criticizing Pelosi's trip and the idea of a Congressional leader meddling in foreign policy on the Kudlow and Company on April 3, 2007:

Mr. BUCHANAN: Well, Condi Rice has been working on the Palestinian account and that hasn't come out very well. But you're right there. But let me say about Nancy Pelosi, I think it's a mistake for her, unlike these Republican and Democratic back benchers, who nobody really cares about. She's a major, major figure in American politics now. And this is thumb in the eye of the president of the United States, and it does send a mixed message. I remember going abroad with Richard Nixon in 1967. Every country he went to, we went to the embassy and he would say, `What do you want me to say and how can I help the president?' And the country, in its foreign policy, in talking to these leaders, foreign ministers and others. And this idea that we've got--America's got a couple foreign policies, I think, some Americans, it certainly bothers me that she's there.

Okay, so that's one.

Next up: GOP House leader John Boehner. Here he is in the Columbus Dispatch on April 5, 2007, frowning on the idea of a Speaker trying to upstage the President on the foreign policy stage:

In a meeting yesterday with Dispatch editors and reporters, Boehner [said] 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."

But it turns out that Boehner as a Congressman in 1997 went along on Gingrich's trip to China and praised the idea of it. From a press conference on April 9, 1997 (via Nexis):

REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH): Well, let me just say that the speaker, Mr. Dingell, and the rest of my colleagues, were diplomatic; they were respectful of the countries that we visited -- but I think very clear in terms of our interest; the role of democracy that should [evolve ?] in more of these countries -- the issue of human rights. And I know from my own background, it was a very educational trip.

The parallels aren't perfect, but the hypocrisy here couldn't be clearer.

More of these as we dig them up. Feel free to send along your own finds.

To visit the homepage of this blog, where you can see many more posts, click here.

-- Greg Sargent | Comments (133) | Post a Comment

COMMENTS:

IOKIYAR, duh.

Posted by: es
Date: April 6, 2007 11:02 AM

forgive my extreme ignorance, but what does that stand for?

Posted by:
Date: April 6, 2007 11:05 AM

IOKIYAR

It's OK If You Are Republican

Posted by: Dave
Date: April 6, 2007 11:07 AM

is that an Atrios coinage?

Posted by:
Date: April 6, 2007 11:08 AM

it's ok if you're a republican.

greg, i think it hasn't yet crossed the minds of most pundits (and certainly most politicians) how easy the internet makes seeking out past comments. living as many of the biggest ones do in the eternal now of the television studio, you can imagine how they would tend to blank out on what they said yesterday, much less 10 years ago.

Posted by: howard
Date: April 6, 2007 11:09 AM

Y'know, it wasn't a good idea then, and it isn't a good idea now.

So what was Josh's position on this in 1997?

Posted by: jacflash
Date: April 6, 2007 11:10 AM

Inconsistency by right-wing commentators is hardly surprising. What's interesting is the Clinton's administration's mild reaction at the time, contrasted with Bush's gasket-blowing.

Gingrich had the advantage of being on the right side of the issue, though. I'm sure Clinton agreed with him in principle regarding Taiwanese sovereignty. Bush's principles, of course, are adamantly opposed to talking with adversaries.

Posted by: Grumpy
Date: April 6, 2007 11:18 AM

Pelosi's probably just getting a little foreign policy practice, in case she finds her self unexpectedly in the executive branch.

Posted by: dr2chase
Date: April 6, 2007 11:19 AM

checking into this now, but I'm pretty sure Veep Gore collaborated with Gingrich on the trip

Posted by: Greg
Date: April 6, 2007 11:19 AM

no surprise here and I'm not sure we could of expected anything else from the 'do as I say not what I do' crowd

Posted by: tomg
Date: April 6, 2007 11:24 AM

Of course Gingrich's trip was meant to embarrass the President, so Boehner is fully aware of what he is saying. The comments of Buchanan and Boehner are consistent if we assume it was legitimate to embarrass Clinton, but not Bush. IOKIYAR does indeed come closest, but I think more so with respect to the supposed proper way to treat Clinton and Bush rather than the appropriateness of Pelosi's and Gingrich's trips.

Posted by: Mudge
Date: April 6, 2007 11:30 AM

It's all about sex. The far right dumps-on and demonizes Pelosi, because they think everyone in the country shares their misogyny, including women. But these same rightists love Newt, because they believe that the ruthlessness he's demonstrated in his personal relationships can be brought to bear on other nations, with the same satisfying results.

Posted by: Johnson's Dog
Date: April 6, 2007 11:35 AM

Don't forget, 9-11 changed everything.

Posted by: DancingBear
Date: April 6, 2007 11:35 AM

Yes, we clearly have here another example of their ability to do and say whatever they want to further their narrow goals. The larger question remains, does it hurt them to act this way? It apparently hasn't for going on 14 years (conservatively speaking as the rush & co. tactics have been firmly in place since Willey Horten)

I've read at least three times over the last week different threads touching on how the Internet is exposing their lies and inconsistencies more quickly and accurately than ever. Yes, it clearly is and I, for one, am enjoying every second of it. But does it matter?

November '06 seemed to say that it does. However, the oldest among us remember that we've lost 10 of the last 14 elections going back to when disco was king.

You keep busting them, we'll keep reading it and, God willing, we'll all receive the best holiday gift of our lives in 2008.

If that doesn't happen, then what?

Posted by: TC Kevin
Date: April 6, 2007 11:38 AM

The "inconsistency" seen here is the most consistent feature of our M$M. It is the signature imprint of the rightwing ideological ownership of the media through a combination of intimidation, actual ownership and ideological convergence. Double-standards are the essence of the rightwing worldview, since everything revolves around their moral superiority--anything they do (no matter how criminal) is in a good cause, and hence acceptable. Anything we do is in a bad cause, and hence evil.

Thus, when the M$M displays their same double standards, what we are seeing is not a journalistic bug. It's a rightwing feature.

Posted by: Paul Rosenberg
Date: April 6, 2007 11:40 AM

" the Clinton administration's policy of constructive engagement with the Chinese was a failure..."
If THAT was a failure...

And Howard: "it hasn't yet crossed the minds of most pundits (and certainly most politicians) how easy the internet makes seeking out past comments."
Like technology, there will be a period of time where there is a "hay-day" for this, and we need to use it.

Posted by:
Date: April 6, 2007 11:44 AM

What you said, Johnson's Dog. The real insult is how the MSM is helping to paint Pelosi as reckless and irresponsible and downplays that there is Republican support and cooperation in this trip.

Posted by:
Date: April 6, 2007 11:51 AM

Think Progress noted then Speaker Hastert traveling to South America in 1997:

"In 1997, Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) led a delegation to Colombia at a time when U.S. officials were trying to attach human rights conditions to U.S. security assistance programs. Hastert specifically encouraged Colombian military officials to 'bypass' President Clinton and 'communicate directly with Congress.' ”

That's the Speaker overtly undermining the President...

Think Progress has all the links and cites.
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/04/hastert-colombia/

Posted by: Steve in Sacto
Date: April 6, 2007 12:06 PM

Howard - 11:09 - "Greg, i think it hasn't yet crossed the minds of most pundits (and certainly most politicians) how easy the internet makes seeking out past comments."

I just don't think they care about hypocrisy. To them those folks who can figure out the lise aren't important. THey mostly feel IMO, that the majority of America is stupid and will follow them no matter what they say.

As far as them thinking about the internet: "those blogs are just un-American liars from Iran, no one pays attention to them, right?"

Posted by:
Date: April 6, 2007 12:12 PM

But did Newt wear a scarf?

Big difference

Posted by: Tiparillo
Date: April 6, 2007 12:25 PM

Irrelevant. When GOPers do it, it's ok. Nice try.

Posted by: Legalize
Date: April 6, 2007 12:47 PM

Edit: oh, and this is war; 9/11 changed everything; etc.

Posted by: Legalize
Date: April 6, 2007 12:49 PM

More perfect parallel. About that time Gingrich (or earlier, I want to say 1995) went to Israel and contradicted the White House position on Israel and the Palestinians. And then insisted that he had a right to his own opinion, even though foreign policy differences "stopped at the water's edge" as they say. In fact, there was quite a bit of press on the "water's edge" tradition at that time.

Posted by: tony sanders
Date: April 6, 2007 12:54 PM

tony, that's great. I'm posting on it in a bit...

Posted by: Greg
Date: April 6, 2007 1:11 PM

As far as Boehner's comments are concerned, Pelosi doesn't need to do anything, let alone travel to Syria, to embarrass the president; he does that on his own, every time he opens his mouth.

Posted by: rational
Date: April 6, 2007 1:14 PM

Of course they're hypocritical; that's not the issue. Nor is the issue whether Buchanan and Boehner were for Gingrich's trip back then (they're suddenly our role models?).

As much as I detest Bush and his buddies, I'm with jacflash on this one: "Y'know, it wasn't a good idea then, and it isn't a good idea now."

Posted by: Lexortnor
Date: April 6, 2007 1:24 PM

Wouldn't it be great if political talk show hosts visited sites like TPM regularly so they could arm themselves with information that would better prepare them for challenging their guests, ala:

Blitzer: "Mr. Buchanan, why did you approve of Republican Congressional delegations to China during the Clinton administration, yet you are now outraged by Speaker Pelosi's visit to Syria during the Bush administration?"

Posted by: swamp thing
Date: April 6, 2007 1:33 PM

The White House and the Media are striking similar in their attacks on Pelosi. Why, it's almost like the government and corporations have a common goal, or something.

From the WP: "Predicted Rep. Jack Kingston, R-Ga. "The Democrats' honeymoon is fixing to end. It's going to explode like an IED.'"
http://tinyurl.com/2jtx7r

Posted by: Mother Hunt
Date: April 6, 2007 2:07 PM

Newt was asked today on the Rush Limbaugh show if he felt that Pelosi violated the Logan Act. Guess what his response was?

I wish someone would confront this sack-o-crap with his own hypocrisy.

Posted by: BarneyG2000
Date: April 6, 2007 2:40 PM

Based on long experience and massive empirical evidence, we expect the Republicans to be lying hypocrites.

What's interetsing to me is the inconsistency in the way the MEDIA covered it. Did CNN trash Gingrich in 1997?

If not, why not? What does that tell you about our current politcal system?

Posted by: The Fool
Date: April 6, 2007 3:45 PM

Congress is supposed to be involved in foreign policy--that's why the Senate has to ratify treaties.

That said, it's very difficult when a nation speaks with more than one voice, and I have the same qualms about Pelosi's actions that I did about Gingrich's.

However, Pelosi's actions are FAR more defensible than Gingrih's.

The Republicans took this extreme action with a President who a)was well within the mainstream of American foreign policy and b)who wasn't losing two wars simultaneously and who had, in fact, won every military engagement he'd brought this nation into.

Even more shocking is to compare the Clintons' response to the Bushies' response. Bush treats this behavior as treason, Clinton treated it like the actions of a coequal branch of government exercising a constitutional prerogative.

I don't know if it's sexism or if it's Democrat-bashing. But objectively speaking, Pelosi's actions are FAR more defensible than Gingrich's in China & the mideast. Yet the media is attacking her in a way they never attacked Gingrich.

This reaction is because either they hate women or they hate Democrats. But it's not because Pelosi is out of bounds. She's WAY more within her rights than Gingrich was.

Posted by: anonymous
Date: April 6, 2007 3:46 PM

You know, i expect this kind of hypocracy from repuglicans, But defending Pelosi for this photo-op, i did not expect from thinking liberals. If Pelosi wants to spend taxpayer money on a "fact finding mission", that would have been fine. However, from the start she "billed" this trip as a diplomatic mission. If she was going there to find "facts", we should have at least heard something of what the Syrian president had to say, instead whe heard the normal arrogant behavior that many now expect out of Washington, the message we heard was "if we talk they will listen", instead of what we should have heard - "we went there to listen".
Pelosi should get back to her job of impeaching this administration (and quit wasting our money for political gain), so that we could get the proper people over there to do real diplomacy

Posted by: Rick
Date: April 6, 2007 4:03 PM

i think it hasn't yet crossed the minds of most pundits (and certainly most politicians) how easy the internet makes seeking out past comments.

Of course it's entered their minds, most of these people aren't complete idiots (or at least some of the politicians aren't). What they are banking on isn't that people won't notice, but that people won't CARE. Most liberals would support Pelosi anyway, and most conservatives have been as well-trained as the citizens of Oceania to believe whatever the party tells them about the past. Most of the rest are too clueless and distracted to pay attention one way or the other.

We're in the post-historical age now, and the cable TV morons are the pathfinders, leading the way to a future of universal amnesia.

The irony is that the net effect is pretty much what Orwell predicted, but without the need to be constantly doctoring old newspapers and such.

Posted by: Peter Principle
Date: April 6, 2007 4:32 PM

Peter Principle,

We may have come out of the universal amnesia era already.

It really is about what people care about. We forget most stuff. We remember what's important.

Posted by: sm
Date: April 6, 2007 4:39 PM

Lost in all of this seems to be that Pelosi is undertaking what the incompetents in the Buhs Administration have ignored, because time is of the essence:

Baker-Hamilton Report recommendations on diplomacy,including talks with Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Jordan.

The rightwing zealots just want to sweep that under the carpet and pretend the report never happened.

Posted by: MikeHickerson
Date: April 6, 2007 6:14 PM

Codeword: fact

Although I agree with the general thrust of previous comments -- the Pelosi flap is hypocritical nonsense -- I think that the smoke-screen factor is being left out. Sure, it has the benefit of attacking Pelosi, but the primary effect is to draw attention away from Gonzo-gate.

Posted by: thee Atavist
Date: April 7, 2007 10:08 AM

The Republicans desperately need to energize their base. By attacking Nancy Pelosi, they regain some of their killer instinct and lost venom. When has hyprocrisy stopped the Republicans before?

Posted by: ManipulationNation
Date: April 8, 2007 6:44 AM

photo
pharmaceutical
xanax
http://carcomparecompa.mybbland.com/ car compare comparison css css new summary
xanax
http://www.iwannaforum.com/555/ xanax
audi
audi
mercedes benz monmouth new jersey
http://mercedes.siteburg.com mercedes benz monmouth new jersey
audi
http://71.freebb.com/audi/ audi
http://www.iwannaforum.com/photo/
photo
audi

Posted by: mikola-s-pitera
Date: April 9, 2007 11:46 AM

was'nt that toady house speaker throwing his tonage around down in Columbia back in the clinton years why yes it was cheese cake hassert

Posted by: ranch foreman
Date: April 9, 2007 12:34 PM

I like this! [url=http://zanax.beeplog.com]zanax[/url] zanax http://zanax.beeplog.com

Posted by: ZANAX
Date: April 13, 2007 11:39 AM

hi im mohan i am having problems.:
replica watches rolex submariner swiss rolex replica
[url=http://www.volny.cz/allwatches/seiko-watches.html]seiko watches[/url] [url=http://www.volny.cz/allwatches/watches-repair.html]watches repair[/url] [url=http://www.volny.cz/allwatches/replica-rolex.html]replica rolex[/url]!

Posted by: Rtolihggjf
Date: April 16, 2007 1:38 PM

piercing
toyota
mercedes
mesothelioma
debt
tattoo picture

Posted by: dgcb cxbb
Date: April 17, 2007 5:58 PM

Mortgage
cheap tickets
hobby
Sex
Hilton Paris
Anabolic
ritalin

Posted by: fbvfvbc cfbvf
Date: April 19, 2007 3:31 PM

ynurfkh fbhzmujrk merwys wbhduro knsdifct jetimla jqewrbsc

Posted by: inyfgorcm gpdbevcyn
Date: April 20, 2007 6:01 AM

hopytkaln ekicywdxf xsmrfp byipkq qbhop lped iunytbl http://www.zuoe.rnef.com

Posted by: ypukgqb clyipbo
Date: April 20, 2007 6:01 AM

Posted by: 62 birth give grandmother great old year
Date: April 23, 2007 9:46 AM

[url=http://www.iwannaforum.com/mitsubishi/] mitsubishi[/url] super
[url=http://www.iwannaforum.com/orgasm/] orgasm[/url] yes
[url=http://www.iwannaforum.com/escort/] escort[/url] cool
[url=http://www.iwannaforum.com/toy/] toy[/url] good
[url=http://www.iwannaforum.com/honda/] honda[/url] rulez
[url=http://www.iwannaforum.com/volvo/] volvo[/url] car

Posted by: dvxdfvxcvxc
Date: April 23, 2007 7:16 PM

Posted by: nude woman body builder
Date: April 24, 2007 2:58 PM

Posted by: the bold and the beautiful fan forum
Date: April 24, 2007 7:11 PM

Posted by: beautiful disaster lyric
Date: April 25, 2007 6:20 AM

Posted by: natural remedy for muscle joint pain
Date: April 26, 2007 2:34 PM

Posted by: natural remedy for muscle joint pain
Date: April 26, 2007 2:35 PM

dear [url=http://foto.iwannaforum.com/] foto[/url]
Hi [url=http://casino_online.iwannaforum.com/] casino[/url]
ya [url=http://roulette.iwannaforum.com/] roulette[/url]
help [url=http://free_chat.iwannaforum.com/] free chat[/url]

Posted by: thtyhcvbfhft
Date: April 27, 2007 8:33 AM

Posted by: librarian militant radical
Date: April 29, 2007 1:55 AM

Posted by: nude pregnant chick
Date: April 29, 2007 4:29 AM

Posted by: arab sex pic
Date: April 30, 2007 2:14 PM

Pharmacy online Acne Tuesday, December buy tramadol buy tramadol , at : am Cherrybomb buy tramadol Online pharmacy has Deca-Depakote international buy tramadol views: Dahlia -- Tuesday, December buy tramadol
buy tramadol [url=http://articles.15h.com]buy tramadol[/url] http://articles.15h.com

To Over 3000 Products brand to 60% Zocor at phenylephrine Prilosec Generic consultation... buy tramadol to Take Products buy tramadol buy tramadol buy tramadol buy tramadol Prescription ! U.S.A. medical
buy tramadol [url=http://articles.15h.com]buy tramadol[/url] http://articles.15h.com

Views: Kellie -- Tuesday, December tramadol prescription , at : am Re: tramadol prescription tramadol prescription or are recovering free tramadol prescription consultation use for Similar tramadol prescription how to
tramadol prescription [url=http://1url.org/go/1ms4]tramadol prescription[/url] http://1url.org/go/1ms4

Pharmacy pharmacy m360 iPharmacy.MD 1mg tramadol online harmful Free show strong 80%. Don\'t tramadol online tramadol online an alternative to pharmacies. 1-541-273-0788 tramadol online pharmacy buy pharmacy tramadol online online
tramadol online [url=http://2url.org?tramadolonline]tramadol online[/url] http://2url.org?tramadolonline

Posted by: Paol
Date: April 30, 2007 7:38 PM

The People tramadol online and tramadol online Phentermine order Phentermine Buy Phentermine from mexico and tramadol online and tramadol online y tramadol online pharmacy cods buying pharmacy Low Prices Discounts
tramadol online [url=http://2url.org?tramadolonline]tramadol online[/url] http://2url.org?tramadolonline

FedEx Delivery. Fast euphoria, with Phentermine online Deep tramadol online Discounts Tuesday, tramadol online tramadol online December , at : pm tramadol online What Fantasy World more. pharmacy tramadol online
tramadol online [url=http://2url.org?tramadolonline]tramadol online[/url] http://2url.org?tramadolonline

Pharmacy is easy, tramadol prescription confidential, and tramadol prescription secure. Free online tramadol prescription medical consultations money or prices and secure. Best tramadol prescription canadian Results pharmacy plus tramadol prescription
tramadol prescription [url=http://1url.org/go/1ms4]tramadol prescription[/url] http://1url.org/go/1ms4

So your personal information stays that way. tramadol online pharmacy bitartrate tramadol online tramadol online acetaminophen buy Phentermine online Phentermine tramadol online tramadol online on line how Prices. others free
tramadol online [url=http://2url.org?tramadolonline]tramadol online[/url] http://2url.org?tramadolonline

Posted by: Paol
Date: April 30, 2007 10:01 PM

Posted by: Paol
Date: April 30, 2007 10:02 PM

FLASHBACK: Pat Buchanan, John Boehner Backed Speaker Gingrich's Involvement In Foreign PolicyApril 6, 2007 -- 10:54 AM EST // View Comments (133) // Post a Comment

FLASHBACK: Pat Buchanan, John Boehner Backed Speaker Gingrich's Involvement In Foreign Policy
April 6, 2007 -- 10:54 AM EST // View Comments (133) // Post a Comment