thedrifter
04-09-07, 09:37 AM
The Pelosicrats' Coup d'Etat
by Jed Babbin
Posted 04/09/2007 ET
Updated 04/09/2007 ET
By the time Nancy Pelosi left for Syria, she had accumulated a hyper-liberal anti-war track record only Cindy Sheehan could equal. From the moment she was installed as speaker, she has run hard left. From attempting to get Jack “Cut and Run” Murtha (D.-PA) elected House Majority Leader over the liberal but still sane Steny Hoyer of Maryland to the current battle over the war supplemental appropriations bill -- which the House passed after inserting language that would force American withdrawal from Iraq by a date certain -- Pelosi has never deviated from the most radical position on the war.
On March 30, Pelosi’s spokesman issued a statement that said, “As recommended by the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan delegation led by Speaker Pelosi intends to discuss a wide range of security issues affecting the United States and the Middle East with representatives of governments in the region, including Syria.” Which is a curious statement given that the ISG recommended that the United States conduct such discussions and Pelosi has no authority to decide whether those talks would occur or represent the United States in them. (Pelosi should read, or have someone read to her, Article 2 Section 2 of the Constitution which empowers the president to make treaties, appoint ambassadors and otherwise conduct foreign policy.)
In Syria, meeting with its murderous thug President Bashar Assad, Pelosi said that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert asked her to deliver a message that Israel was ready to engage in peace talks with Syria. That was too much for even the somnolent Olmert who immediately rebuked Pelosi by issuing a statement that, “What was communicated to the US House Speaker does not contain any change in the policy of Israel.”
Leaving Syria, Pelosi delivered herself of the opinion that the talks were “very productive” and that, “...the road to Damascus would be the path to peace.” Syria’s leaders sensed that they were dealing with a sucker the likes of whom hadn’t been seen in Damascus since Clinton’s first Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, visited Daddy Assad. They seized the opportunity to characterize Pelosi’s visit a bit differently.
In an interview with the Financial Times, Syrian deputy foreign minister Faisal Mekdad, “…said he hoped the visit would signal the start of a dialogue between Syria and ‘the people of the United States.’ He called the Bush government a ‘blind administration’ that was even unwilling to engage in dialogue.”
According to the FT report of April 3, Mekdad went on to say, “The positions which have been taken by Democrats and even by a lot of Republicans in the United States Congress is (sic) very important and it’s (sic) effective. We have seen this administration being cornered.”
Most importantly, the FT report went on to quote Mekdad as having said, “Syria was under no illusion that the Democrats had very different positions on the Middle East than the current US government.”
And Pelosi doesn’t intend to stop. The Washington Post reported that Pelosi said, “We expressed our interest in using our good offices in promoting peace between Israel and Syria.” Where else will Pelosi assert her right to make foreign policy over that of the president? What are the Dems up to?
If you take the Democratic Party’s national chairman, Howard Dean, seriously there’s only one conclusion. Without bothering to win a presidential election, the Dems are trying to make separate deals, contrary to the president’s policies, with some of our most deadly enemies. They are conducting a foreign policy coup d’etat. Pelosi’s trip to Syria is just the beginning. Before you say “calm down, sir, you are hyperventilating,” read what Dean said weeks before Pelosi left for Syria.
On March 15 The Politico reported an interview with Howard Dean who told them, “… he had been meeting with world leaders to repair ‘the extraordinary damage’ that the Bush administration has done to America’s image and to prepare the way for a new Democratic president.”
Dean said, in plain terms, that Democrats are telling our enemies that they should wait out the Bush administration because a new Democratic administration would give them a better deal:
“I am trying to build relationships with other governments in preparation for a Democratic takeover…I want to make clear that there is an opposition in America and that we are ready to take power and that when we do, we are going to have much better relationships with them.
Even presidents-elect, between election and inauguration, don’t say such things. What Dean and Pelosi -- and Heaven knows which other Dems -- are doing is shocking even by Washington Post standards. We cannot call this irresponsible, because that is much too mild a word. The Democrats aren’t merely liberals, they are 21st Century Quislings.
Just for the record, the road to Damascus isn’t the path to peace. The road through Damascus is.
Ellie
by Jed Babbin
Posted 04/09/2007 ET
Updated 04/09/2007 ET
By the time Nancy Pelosi left for Syria, she had accumulated a hyper-liberal anti-war track record only Cindy Sheehan could equal. From the moment she was installed as speaker, she has run hard left. From attempting to get Jack “Cut and Run” Murtha (D.-PA) elected House Majority Leader over the liberal but still sane Steny Hoyer of Maryland to the current battle over the war supplemental appropriations bill -- which the House passed after inserting language that would force American withdrawal from Iraq by a date certain -- Pelosi has never deviated from the most radical position on the war.
On March 30, Pelosi’s spokesman issued a statement that said, “As recommended by the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan delegation led by Speaker Pelosi intends to discuss a wide range of security issues affecting the United States and the Middle East with representatives of governments in the region, including Syria.” Which is a curious statement given that the ISG recommended that the United States conduct such discussions and Pelosi has no authority to decide whether those talks would occur or represent the United States in them. (Pelosi should read, or have someone read to her, Article 2 Section 2 of the Constitution which empowers the president to make treaties, appoint ambassadors and otherwise conduct foreign policy.)
In Syria, meeting with its murderous thug President Bashar Assad, Pelosi said that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert asked her to deliver a message that Israel was ready to engage in peace talks with Syria. That was too much for even the somnolent Olmert who immediately rebuked Pelosi by issuing a statement that, “What was communicated to the US House Speaker does not contain any change in the policy of Israel.”
Leaving Syria, Pelosi delivered herself of the opinion that the talks were “very productive” and that, “...the road to Damascus would be the path to peace.” Syria’s leaders sensed that they were dealing with a sucker the likes of whom hadn’t been seen in Damascus since Clinton’s first Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, visited Daddy Assad. They seized the opportunity to characterize Pelosi’s visit a bit differently.
In an interview with the Financial Times, Syrian deputy foreign minister Faisal Mekdad, “…said he hoped the visit would signal the start of a dialogue between Syria and ‘the people of the United States.’ He called the Bush government a ‘blind administration’ that was even unwilling to engage in dialogue.”
According to the FT report of April 3, Mekdad went on to say, “The positions which have been taken by Democrats and even by a lot of Republicans in the United States Congress is (sic) very important and it’s (sic) effective. We have seen this administration being cornered.”
Most importantly, the FT report went on to quote Mekdad as having said, “Syria was under no illusion that the Democrats had very different positions on the Middle East than the current US government.”
And Pelosi doesn’t intend to stop. The Washington Post reported that Pelosi said, “We expressed our interest in using our good offices in promoting peace between Israel and Syria.” Where else will Pelosi assert her right to make foreign policy over that of the president? What are the Dems up to?
If you take the Democratic Party’s national chairman, Howard Dean, seriously there’s only one conclusion. Without bothering to win a presidential election, the Dems are trying to make separate deals, contrary to the president’s policies, with some of our most deadly enemies. They are conducting a foreign policy coup d’etat. Pelosi’s trip to Syria is just the beginning. Before you say “calm down, sir, you are hyperventilating,” read what Dean said weeks before Pelosi left for Syria.
On March 15 The Politico reported an interview with Howard Dean who told them, “… he had been meeting with world leaders to repair ‘the extraordinary damage’ that the Bush administration has done to America’s image and to prepare the way for a new Democratic president.”
Dean said, in plain terms, that Democrats are telling our enemies that they should wait out the Bush administration because a new Democratic administration would give them a better deal:
“I am trying to build relationships with other governments in preparation for a Democratic takeover…I want to make clear that there is an opposition in America and that we are ready to take power and that when we do, we are going to have much better relationships with them.
Even presidents-elect, between election and inauguration, don’t say such things. What Dean and Pelosi -- and Heaven knows which other Dems -- are doing is shocking even by Washington Post standards. We cannot call this irresponsible, because that is much too mild a word. The Democrats aren’t merely liberals, they are 21st Century Quislings.
Just for the record, the road to Damascus isn’t the path to peace. The road through Damascus is.
Ellie