It's Bibipalooza! Live, from Congress! One show only!

[Valmy]

In a spazzy way.

If you say so.

[The Brain]

I look around and I see a lot of new faeces. That means some of you have followed the first two rules of Languish.

[Berkut]

?
It is a member of Congress communicating with a foreign government on a policy matter.  47 members.

Which is the same thing Charlie Wilson did, but in that case it was not objectionable.  Or am I missing something?

Did Charlie Wilson do it in an effort to undermine the President?

[Admiral Yi]

Did Charlie Wilson do it in an effort to undermine the President?

Not that I'm aware of.  In fact based on the movie at least the president at the time was indifferent.

Congress does however "undermine the President" all the time.  Treaties are not ratified, nominees are not confirmed, budgets not approved, etc., etc.  Disagreements are raised in the press. 

[grumbler]

I must admit that i am not following the Charlie Wilson analogy here.  How is Wilson's action in any way comparable to the letter by the 47 Senators?

[celedhring]

I'm with grumbler here. What did Charlie Wilson do that's comparable to this? I'm asking this question honestly; I was under the impression that, ultimately, the only thing Wilson did was getting more funds for the CIA. That seems well within the purview of Congress. Ultimately it was the CIA who armed the rebels, Wilson was just sympathetic to the cause.

[Admiral Yi]

I'm with grumbler here. What did Charlie Wilson do that's comparable to this? I'm asking this question honestly; I was under the impression that, ultimately, the only thing Wilson did was getting more funds for the CIA. That seems well within the purview of Congress. Ultimately it was the CIA who armed the rebels, Wilson was just sympathetic to the cause.

Communication with a foreign government on a matter of policy.

[Valmy]

Congress does however "undermine the President" all the time.  Treaties are not ratified, nominees are not confirmed, budgets not approved, etc., etc.  Disagreements are raised in the press. 

True but this is different.  The negotiation of treaties is supposed to be the purview of the President.  If Congress has issues they need to be talking to our side, not theirs.

[Valmy]

Communication with a foreign government on a matter of policy.

And working with the executive branch while doing it, concerning matters within his prerogative.  In this case, funding for an already existing program.

[grumbler]

Communication with a foreign government on a matter of policy.

That's not something unique to CW or the senators.  Communication with foreign governments on matters of policy is a constant.

[Admiral Yi]

True but this is different.  The negotiation of treaties is supposed to be the purview of the President.  If Congress has issues they need to be talking to our side, not theirs.

This is the distinction I'm wrestling with.  On the one hand members of Congress are allowed to announce to the American public (and by extension, the world) their opposition to a certain deal, and their intention to block any required legislation, or to overturn it if their party wins the White House, but by putting "Dear Mr. Raghead" at the top of a letter the exact same communication becomes a constitutional issue.

[Berkut]

I'm with grumbler here. What did Charlie Wilson do that's comparable to this? I'm asking this question honestly; I was under the impression that, ultimately, the only thing Wilson did was getting more funds for the CIA. That seems well within the purview of Congress. Ultimately it was the CIA who armed the rebels, Wilson was just sympathetic to the cause.

Communication with a foreign government on a matter of policy.

Communication with a foreign government on a matter of policy with the intent of sabotaging the executive branch's efforts, you mean?

[Berkut]

Amazing the lengths the radicals in each party will go to justify anything their tribe does.

[grumbler]

This is the distinction I'm wrestling with.  On the one hand members of Congress are allowed to announce to the American public (and by extension, the world) their opposition to a certain deal, and their intention to block any required legislation, or to overturn it if their party wins the White House, but by putting "Dear Mr. Raghead" at the top of a letter the exact same communication becomes a constitutional issue.

I don't understand the confusion.  If you tell your brother "I am going to kill you!" he will laugh.  Tell a cop that, and you'll likely get shot.  The audience and intent of the communication matter.

[derspiess]

Amazing the lengths the radicals in each party will go to justify anything their tribe does.

Is Yi a radical?