Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
Thomas Sowell :: Townhall.com Columnist
Playing With Fire
by Thomas Sowell
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


Congressman Tom Lantos, who is a member of the delegation that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is leading to Syria, put the mission clearly when he said: "We have an alternative Democratic foreign policy."

Democrats can have any foreign policy they want -- if and when they are elected to the White House.

Until Nancy Pelosi came along, it was understood by all that we had only one president at a time and -- like him or not -- he alone had the Constitutional authority to speak for this country to foreign nations, especially in wartime.

All that Pelosi's trip can accomplish is to advertise American disunity to a terrorist-sponsoring nation in the Middle East while we are in a war there. That in turn can only embolden the Syrians to exploit the lack of unified resolve in Washington by stepping up their efforts to destabilize Iraq and the Middle East in general.

Members of the opposition party, whichever party that might be at a given time, knew that their role was not to intervene abroad themselves to undermine this country's foreign policy, however much they might criticize it at home.

During the Second World War, the defeated Republican presidential candidate, Wendell Wilkie, even acted as President Roosevelt's personal envoy to British Prime Minister Churchill.

He understood that we were all in this together, however we might disagree among ourselves about the best course to follow.

Today, Nancy Pelosi and the Congressional Democrats are stepping in to carry out their own foreign policy and even their own military policy on troop deployment -- all the while denying that they are intruding on the president's authority.

They are doing the same thing domestically by making a big media circus over the fact that the Bush administration fired eight U.S. attorneys. These attorneys are among the many officials who serve at the pleasure of the president -- which means that they can be fired at any time for any reason or for no reason.

That is why there was no big hullabaloo in the media when Bill Clinton fired all the U.S. attorneys across the country -- even though that got rid of the U.S. attorneys who were conducting an on-going investigation into corruption in Clinton's own administration as governor of Arkansas.

So much hate has been hyped against George W. Bush that anything that is done against him is unlikely to be questioned in most of the media.

But whatever passing damage is being done to George W. Bush is a relatively minor concern compared to the lasting damage that is being done to the presidency as an institution that will still be here when George W. Bush is gone.

Once it becomes accepted that it is all right to violate both the laws and the traditions of this nation, and to undermine the ability of the United States to speak to other nations of the world with one voice, we will have taken another fateful step downward into the degeneration of this society.

Such a drastic and irresponsible step should remove any lingering doubt that the Democrats' political strategy is to ensure that there is an American defeat in Iraq, in order to ensure their own political victory in 2008.

That these political games are being played while Iran keeps advancing relentlessly toward acquiring nuclear weapons is a fateful sign of the utter unreality of politicians preoccupied with scoring points and a media obsessed with celebrity bimbos, living and dead.

Once Iran has nuclear weapons, that will be an irreversible change that will mark a defining moment in the history of the United States and of Western civilization, which will forever after live at the mercy of hate-filled suicidal fanatics and sadists.

Yet among too many politicians in Washington, it is business as usual. Indeed, it is monkey business as usual, as Congressional Democrats revel in the power of their new and narrow election victory last year to drag people before committee hearings and posture for the television cameras.

It has been said that the world ends not with a bang but with a whimper. But who would have thought that it could end with political clowning in the shadow of a mushroom cloud?

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of The Housing Boom and Bust.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Thomas Sowell and Townhall.com's daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
Constitution-shy Nancy
Another fine column from Dr Sowell. I always enjoy his thoughtful comments.

At this point, there's little I can add. Being among the first posters here presents me with no opportunity to comment on someone else's posting.

But what I understand from the column [and the reality behind it] is that Congressional Democrats don't understand the Constitution. They seem to think that narrow victories in Congressional elections puts them in charge of everything.

Not so. For their information---assuming they deign to read my humble comments---there are, and always have been, three EQUAL parts of the federal government: Legislative, Judicial, and Executive. NO one branch is above the another. The Executive is in charge of war and the troops. The Judicial determines what's constitutional and what isn't. The Legislative makes the laws, assuming the Executive signs them.

Nancy Pelosi and her cohorts should discuss their personal power trips with good psychiatrists who understand the many damaged synapses of the Liberal mind.

NANCY
Nancy, if you want to be president, run.
GWB, stop being a whimp, fight back, defend your presidency.
It's grandstanding by the DEMS.

A LONG time ago, a teacher told us
the president was the face of the nation. What others see.
the congress was the heart of the nation. What we believe is right.
the supreme court was the soul of the nation. What we know is moral, according to the Constitution of the USA.

But, of course, these days it isn't that simple. No one can agree what is right or moral, so it is necessary (they say!) that we have more than one face to the world.

AND, the spineless republican party will NEVER stand up to such traitorous activity. Pelosi should be tried for sedition at the least. But we all know she won't be.

AND, the dems will call for more bipartisan support for their cr@p.


PLAYING WITH FIRE
As always sir, you are on target with a bulls-eye.

Pelosi continually undermines the President and is showing the World what she is all about before the next Presidential elections.

I remember when Foley would contradict everything that Regan said in his State of the Union speeches immediately after each speech was made.

The media bias is the same today as then. I just hope that the World understands that freedom of speech is something that we cherish here in the U.S.. If we had the same type of government as Russia, these types of antics would not be tolerated.

So, I defend Pelosi's right to do what she does even though I vehemently disagree with her inane antics.

Amen to tnmccoy
I too always read Thomas Sowell. He is a fine, insightful writer.

The first question I asked when I heard that Nancy Pelosi was going to Syria was, "Is this trip sanctioned by the President?"

Unlike you, I don't believe that those in control of the democrat party don't understand the Constitution. They have been taught to not let the Constitution stand in their way. This is an attempt to render the President we elected impotent and unable to proceed with his own foreign policy. As already stated by sloo and well now, the President should fight back. He should step in and tell this delegation no. The trip is not sanctioned and you are not going. Surely he can prevent this.

You nailed it Dr. Sowell!
Nancy Peloski is power mad! Pure and simple! How is it possible that trips such as hers can take place without the Presidents authorization!?
Who approves the transportation and taxpayer money to finance this!?
You know they take hundreds of people with them at the cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars. If not in the millions. And no one is accountable?? Everyone involved are violating the Logan Act and should be prosecuted!! Why in the 'blank' don't the President get a backbone!

Is RedNanny
running for POTUS? If so she needs to announce her candidacy and stop acting like a d*mned fool. Mr. Sowell really drives home the point here about our politicians clowning around while we sit waiting for the nukes to eventually hit.

I agree with one of the other posters here that the democraps know what they are doing. GW needs to stand up and fight back on these tactics. All the dims do is undermine us in a time of war. It's outrageous.

http://peppermintsplace.townhall.com
Chapter VII of Juliet's diary is on my blog now.

Goshawk
Right on. Pelosi is power hungry. The woman is out of control.

In the end, blame the American people.
After all, a lot of people voted these jokers into Congress last year.

We'll see if the college kids, intellectual sheep herders, and corpulent lesbian talk show hosts still have a raging mad-on for us middle class Christians when militant Islam descends upon Israel, and starts brandishing nuclear missiles at us and the rest of Western civilization.

What a lot of near-sighted, self-serving, godless lunatics.


-- M. Cooper

Jesus H. Jesus
Our government is in a tailspin. The Pres has no voice to speak out about this? Does he think there is no consequence?

The Dems are acting like they run the whole show! How about a press conference putting these jerks in their place, without the darned apology Bush II likes to put on as his mantle? Will Bush veto a funding bill with a troop pullout date? The word is out that he will not.

I don't believe it. I hope I am wrong as I have friends and relatives overseas. Bush should come out now and slam these interlopers to the mat. Hard. What? He can't be worried about being relected, that will never happen again, anywhere.

Tradition must be set aside.
During a crisis, polite adherence to traditions must be set aside. Iran has began to openly challenge the West, and if we do not let them know that we are willing to make major concessions, we may end up motivating the Islamists to punish us some more. President Bush is a entity that represents forceful resistance to jihaad, and that only seems to cause the Muslims to resent us even more. As such, we need to push the Executive aside and bring a Congressional voice to the ears of Iran in hopes that they will understand that we are willing to do whatever they wish so long as war can be avoided.

To let the Executive Branch remain potent means the possibility that Iran's nuclear ambtions might be thwarted, their hostage taking will be punished, their intervention in Iraq stopped, and the general wave of Islamic dominance of the West dammed up. Such defiance may lead to armed conflict, and it is far better to make concessions than to risk having even one soldier killed on either side. It is ridiculous for us to risk the lives of soldiers in possible military actions just to minimize the potential for thousands of civilian deaths in terrorist hits on our own soil. Soldiers are not employed for the defense of our citizenry, rather they are trained solely to administer foreign aid to other nations. Members of Congress are the defenders of the citizenry, and they know lives will be saved if we yield to Iran and her cohorts. Since the President can't seem to join this sentiment, then it is only right that he be brushed aside and replaced with our Speaker. To do otherwise risks a fight with the enemy, and we as Americans would much rather surrender than fight any day.

Peppermint
Re: "she needs to announce her candidacy" Pep, I think that in her warped, sick mind she believes she is more powerful than the president.

A slightly different take
Yes, Nancy the Red and the Dems are frikkin Loony Tunes, no doubt about it.

But let's be honest, if Bush wasn't such a wimp, he wouldn't let them get away with this crap without really holding their feet to the fire in the arena of public opinion.

What is with the guy? Is he that big a coward about having a political fight? His priorities seem to come from Oz. I guess he never heard TR's dictum about a big stick.

I mean, c'mon Jorge, grow a set, already!


A lot of "Firsts" lately...


Clinton was our First Black president.

GW Bush was our First Mexican president.

And now Pelosi is our First De Facto president.


I'm so steamed I just had to add
Nancy the Red can appoint herself national policy rep to the world, and ole Jorge just stands by with his head where the sun don't shine.

But he's willing to fight his own party and core conservatives tooth and nail to grant amnesty to illegal aliens.

Is this guy from Venus or Mars?

Or maybe Uranus?


All
Milo:
The public got sick of the old set of jokers, and decided to give another set a chance. Coke and Pepsi.

Sawgunner:
Pretty funny. I was going to suggest you say that Pelosi was our first Commie President, but then that would be incorrect, wouldn't it.

M. Cooper
Ditto!

BrianR
My frustration with Bush runs as deep as yours. Why in the he11 is he letting these dimocraps walk all over him!? Every one of these moonbats that went on the trip could get 3 years in prison under the Logan Act. But all the White House says is "we don't think you should go." Then does nothing!!

Goshawk
Yeah, it's an absolutely disgusting spectacle, by ALL participants.


BrianR and Goshawk
I'm as angry and frustrated as both of you. I thought Bush had a set, but apparently not. Is he just letting them get away with this crapola because he wants that amnesty so bad. What is wrong with him.


Goshawk
Something else that sticks in my crawl is that this justice department under Bush has let Sandy Burglar go practically scot free. So, I ask what is up with that. He's supposed to take a lie detector test as part of his deal he worked out with them, but he has never done so and the justice dept. does nada.

Pepp
Screwed up priorities, forgot who his friends are, no will to fight (except for illegals and Iraqis), and evidently a fear of confrontation.

Not qualities one typically hopes for in a President.

Hand it to Clinton, when Gingrich got in his face, he was willing to shut down the government.

Again, this is so typical
of the gutlessness of Republicans, and their inability to FIGHT. They let the Dems just kick their butts and biatch-slap them silly, then turn around and ask for more.

Man!


BrianR
Well, he is a disappointment to me. His priorities have certainly gone awry.

This is what gets me when you go to vote for someone you never really know what your are going to get.
These pols all lie so much.

BrianR
Yeah, I remember that. I was hoping they'd do it, bit by bit, so we could see how long it took for anyone to notice or care. I certainly didn't. We could do with shutting down a substantial part of the federal gummit.

I'd like to see that
new tax bill the democraps have invented shut down.

Peppermint
I'm with you there! It Tee's me off to no end that Sandy (the Burglar) and Cold Cash Jefferson get away scott free! I'd like to see the White House hold their own investigations on members of Congress. Call them before committee and grill them till they bleed! But we know that will never happen with these gutless Republicans in office.

I gave up...
...on defending Bush long,long ago.George Bush is what he is,and he is not anything else.George Bush was handed 9/11 as a gift on a silver platter during his first year in office.That happend to be during his Reagan phrase of his presidency,and he looked like gang-busters.After 9/11 there was nothing the American people would have denied him.

Then gradually he morphed into his father,weak president,no political instincts,depending on us rank and file to defend him(which we did),and an absolutely silent White House,sans the ability to to counter punch his political enemies,and absolutely no sense of using the media or the bully pulpet to his advantage.His success at the polls seemed to rely more on his opposition candidates than his own ability.

Couple all of this with a corrupt,self serving Republican Congress and we have disaster staring us in the face.This is why I stopped defending George Bush a couple of years ago.Is this the best our party has to offer the country?

2008
Fred Thompson for President in 2008. We had Ronaldo Maximus now we need another actor who will fight the dims.

2008
Fred Thompson for President in 2008. We had Ronaldo Maximus now we need another actor who will fight the dims.

2008
Fred Thompson for President in 2008. We had Ronaldo Maximus now we need another actor who will fight the dims.

Hear Hear!
Vote for Fredro

Time to put it to the test
Is the Logan Act just a paper tiger?

LD
Love your satire. Rifgt on.

Pelosi
Nancy Pelosi is an idiot. It would not even mildly surprise me to hear that she's actually a blonde who dyed her hair to make herself smarter. (Borrowing from the blonde stereotype for a moment.) Seriously, though, the woman's brains aren't all that impressive. When I first heard her speak at her acceptance speech when she was made Minority Leader a few years ago, my first thought was "Thank God she's not a Republican." I've heard people say she's a shrewd politician. No, she's not. She's a radical Leftist who got elected by San Francisco. I could win her House seat if I ran as a radical Leftist. It doesn't take much cunning or political skill to pull that off. Just bash Bush, bash people in Uniform (Military, cops, etc.), promote gay marriage, promote abortion on demand, and call conservatives bigots. That's a winning platform in San Fran. Throw in a little global warming alarmism, and you've got yourself a Democrat Leadership seat.

I don't call her an idiot because she's a Democrat, and I don't call her an idiot because she's a woman. Hilary Clinton is both, and SHE's not an idiot. Corrupt and megalomaniacal, maybe, but not an idiot.

If we had a president
her plane would have never left because they would have been denied exit visas. If she left anyway there would have been federal marshals waiting on her when she returned.

I did a search to find examples of Newt Gingrich making foreign trips while Klinton was president. There were none. We are breaking new ground here and if Bush sits idly by for this, as well as all of the other Democrap stuff that is going down, we will no longer have a 3 part government with checks and balances.

President Pelosi
I think President Bush should call "President" Pelosi's bluff. She oviously believes she is President Elect so let her lead. He should call a press confrence and announce that he is goung to vacation in Crawford for the rest of his Presidency leaving Speaker Pelosi in charge. Not resign mind you, just leave her in charge. Once she finds out nothing can be done without the President's signature and the Federal Government comes to a grinding halt, he should then bring her to the woodshed and explain the function of the three branches of government. Although I know this won't happen, I truly wish it would.

Damascus Nancy
Vietnam gave us Hanoi Jane. Now we're being treated to Damascus Nancy. The far more insidious difference between the two is that while Jane Fonda was a Hollywood actress, Pelosi is the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States.

The rest of the world is very much aware of the dissent within our country; Pelosi puts an official stamp on it. Her message, whether intended or not, is that the President of the United States is now irrelevant and that she's in charge. It will likely be read as "We're divided. You conquer."

Worse, as Dr. Sowell so eloquently points out, her actions set a precedent limiting the ability of this or any future administration to conduct a coherent and credible foreign policy.




GW Bush is DEAD!
Just a Niche' said God is Dead! I believe GW is dead! It must be that his staff is running things and keeping alive the myth that GW is still alive. They've found a "look alike" to cover for his public appearances and are thus able to continue to cover up his death. If GW were still alive he would be on the offense not the defense. The power of the presidency would be asserted. Surly no living president would allow the office of the Executive Branch of our government to be assaulted by and taken over by the Legislative Branch! A living president would stand behind the Constitution and defy this illegal authority being asserted over his office. A living president would know that the one and only time he has to report to congress is to give them a State-of-the-Union report -- and even that does not have to be done annually! A living president would not stand by and allow the attempted coo to overthrow his office and thus nullify the constitution! NO WAY!

Therefore George W, Bush must be DEAD! And the is no sense is supporting a dead man, he can't do anything!

Just when I think it can't get any worse
Nancy Foolousy is absolutely out of control and she must be stopped. She and her minions have worked unceasingly to undermine the President and marginalize the constitution. Now she takes her horror show on the road to Damascus and cozies up to a member of the Axis of Evil.

Here we have the best reason in the world for NOT electing a female C in C. Women, I love you, but most of your gender simply aren't wired to hold the position. It takes a fierce and steadfast warrior, someone who knows how to battle and defeat the enemy by whatever means necessary. And that doesn't seem to be Dubya, either. He showed flashes of it, but has retreated. I don't subscribe to the venom spread about him by his relentless enemies, but I am VERY DISAPPOINTED!

Another brilliant piece, Dr. Sowell, but unlike most of your words, which normally enlighten and kick start my thought process, this one makes me sick at heart and afraid for my country.

Come on Guys-it's the media!!
If everytime you were quoted it was a miss quote, how would you ever get anything done? The more I learn the more I'm discussed with it all. I like to see any Rep. get on the airways and start holding CNN, and all the rest for what they will not report. Thank God for Fox. (FAIR & BALANCED)i'D like to see term limits. Senate 2-6 year terms and House 3- 4 year terms. Then maybe they would relize they are there to get something done for us !! Not to write books and bring PORK to their States. OH well I guess I'm dreaming. Go Fred Thompson, We need to get our Country back!

It could be
Perhaps Ms. Pelosi's mission is to deliver the message to Assad (behind closed doors) that what he hears in the press is the free expression of our political system which is transparent and necessarily fractious. That's how we like it. But make no mistake Mr. Assad, in case you're thinking that a change in power in 2008 in the US will benefit your cause, think again. If that's what you're waiting for, forget it. If we come to power, in spite of our rhetoric, you will not be appeased.
Okay, so one can dream.

Also: many posters seem to be claiming that President Bush should somehow have prevented Ms. Pelosi from making this trip. Someone explain to me exactly how he might do that?

Mamadoc
"It will likely be read as "We're divided. You conquer."

That comment you made was a gem. It says it all.

To SunThe1
Read my preious post.

Happy Jake
Re:redheads. It's called artificial intelligence.

Treason
Pelosi et al consider GWBush to be "the enemy" as in aid and comfort to. They seriously look at Syria, Iran, and non-affiliated Islamic extremists as their allies, since they are all equally committed to thwarting Bush. To these jerkoffs, support for the Pres is the equivalent of aid and comfort to the enemy. Their definition of treason is as azzbackwards as the rest of their thinking.

The Fault Line
War is a a joint effort fought by the nation not by a single political party. Bi-partisanship should be the order of the day.

Bush and the republican Congress made a huge political blunder at the start of the war. Rumsfeld and Rove told him he need not share the credit for victory with the Democrats. His Congressional leaders did not coopt the democrat leaders. His popularity was so high in 2001, he forgot to bring the political leadrship together.

Not that there wasn't bad blood after the impeachment trial, but there was still the opportunity to settle into a joint Congressional position -- and by the way, a joint Investigating Committee to make sure Uncle Sam was not getting his pocket picked.

A bad political decision then has turned into a disaster now.

Pelosi and Reid and the rest of these Democrats would not have had a leg to stand on.

GWB is playing rope-a-dope -- badly. He needs to make it known that while Congress has Committees for Foreign Affairs and Foreign Relations, it has no portflio for Foreign Policy.

Loyal Democrat
I really enjoyed your post..

You should put some of your more subtle posts in lib forums and see what what kind of reaction you get. I bet they would love them too as the real meaning of the posts zoom right over heads.

Wasting MY Money!!
One thing that also bothers me about old stone face going over there is WE ARE (American Tax Payer) paying for her trip and security.

If she isn't going an official envoy from the U.S., which she isn't, she should pay for her own unauthorized trip plane, security, all of it.

She can be a traitor on her own dime.

Well I hope
If some of the terrorists capture her, since whe was considerate enough to give them a good itinerary with lots of publicity, I hope when they call the President to demand ransom, he tells them he has a bad connection and cannot hear them, and hangs up.

Reality check
Ummm...didn't notice any mention of the the Republican reps who went to Syria a couple of days ago.

Constitution, what Constitution?
While the whole idea of anyone representing the USA in a foreign country without being sent by the President is totally abhorrent to me, there is not a lot a President can do. Pelosi and others that are going to Syria know it. Yet arrogantly they do not care about the traditions or security of this country but far more importantly they are not concerned with rule of law and in this case our Constitution. Remember this is the same political party that demands the appointment of judges that create law from the bench. This is the same political party that believes that the federal government is wiser and more capable of doing everything better than you or your family can. This is the same political party that believes paying off and giving into our enemy will ensure our safety and well being. This is the same party that will tell us anything to get elected and then ignore completely what they told us they were going to do once elected. This is the same party that has made double standards a way of life in Washinton and snipe hunts more important than the people's business

Recent example is that Majority Leader Harry Reid swore less than a year ago that he would never ever cut off funds to our troops when they were in harms way. This week he decided that things have changed, which must mean that our troops are no longer in harms way. Of course just maybe he no longer thinks of the troops we have in combat as "his troops".

Of course the most famous lie in the past election is that the Democrats would eliminate earkmarking and porkchopping. Not only didn't they eliminated such budgetary ploys but they turn them into bribery.

Makoshark
Yes. But right now we sadly have a Republican party who ignores the Constitution every bit as much.

- Patriot Acts
- Military Commission Acts
- Separation of powers
- unconstitutional surveillance of Americans

just to name a few..............

Pelosi and Assad sitting in a tree....
"San FranNan", or "red Nan", if you prefer, reminds me of a spoiled teenager who is in constant rebellion against any and all authority. Perhaps she forgot to take whatever meds she is on that "calms her down".

In any event, the woman is naive if she thinks that the thug Assad will do anything but use her dumb a$$ for domestic propaganda purposes.

Someone needs to explain to the spoiled brat from the left coast, that before you can make a difference on the world stage, you have to first have a freaking clue as to what is going on.

Hope Ms. "Im a muther and grandmuther" (pun intended), can find some trees to hug in Syria. Maybe she could dust off the old hash pipe and serenade Bashir with a few choruses of Kumbaya.

Fool on a Fool's Errand
Pelosi is one of the 3 stooges from CA who can't seem to see the forest for the trees. Only a self important dimwit would think going to appease the enemy is a good thing. I would like to see the entire delegation captured by terrorists and beheaded. That definitely would send the "right" message to the looney libs. Since GW seems to have checked out on this subject, I think Townhall bloggers aught to prepare a little welcome home gift for the returning traitors.

Clowns and Mushroom Clouds
Well, we did see the Athenians deceiving themselves into a sense of security behind their walls with the Aegean at their backs, with the Spartans at their gates, until a plague (germ warfare perpetrated by the Spartans?) beset them and they lost the Peloponeasian war (signaling the end of Democracy in the ancient world, and which the World was not to see again in any major form until about 2 millenia later with the advent of the American Revolution). And we did see the Romans intent on maintaining the Circus, starving though they were, and attending the Gladiatorial blood fests in the Coliseum, with the Visigoths at the gates, until finally someone opened the doors for them and Rome was sacked, resulting in a decline in technological civilization that has barely been re-achieved within the last century or so. So it is not hard to imagine a post-modern American nation and Western civilization bathed in ennui giving way to Medieval mores and clowning before a mushroom cloud from a nuclear device detonated by mad and apocalyptic islamic fascists. Nancy Pelosi does not believe in the principles of American democracy (note her attempts to usurp the powers of the Presidency despite not being elected to that office) nor in the values of Western Civilization, so why should we be surprised at her vigorous attempts to destroy both with her complicity with radical islam. Already the Democrats' actions have emboldened Iran's mad mullahs to take British military hostages (an act of war not treated as such) resulting in a rapid rise again in oil prices with the resultant roiling of global oil markets. Harry Reid is intent on withdrawing our forward forces in the war on terror, in order to retreat into the supposed safety and security of the American nation, and play defense only; and the Democrats continue to act as if we can address terrorism with police action and defer to US courts to prosecute terrorists (the same courts that the terrorists are using to intimidate American citizens into remaining defenseless and passive at the terrorist onslaught). Not too many bright lights on the horizon. The American nation seems to want, again, to put its head in the sand and wish the world to go away, and listen to the siren song of those who assert that we nothing to worry about, if only we leave everyone else alone and mind our own business. One would think that we had learned our lesson in the 20th Century, but that does not seem to be the case.

Pandora Pelosi
The box has been opened! Its contents are now going to the middle east to assist in rekindling the fire. A fire stoked by agents intent on fulfilling personal gratification. The ills of a pandering mentality prevalent in the policy of democrats. A party that seeks, and gains, power as they rekindle dead coals. Coals that had been extingushed, and removed, from a fire burning out of control. An flame burning out of control as fuel was indiscriminately allowed to be placed on the fire. Pandora Pelosi travels now to fuel the fire of pandemonium.

our system of government has failed
our system of government is rapidly reaching a point of total failure. The politicians are all worthless and corrupt, in both parties. Hopefully the American people will realize this before it's too late and support a military coup. We need a strong leadership that is beyond the reach of all the interests that have compromised the politicians and one who can brush the courts and lawyers aside and do what has to be done.I'm afraid it's come down to "kill the government to save the people" There's no reason why we have to go down with the government.The constitution is dead, the politicians have killed it,now we have to make sure they don't get us killed. We are at war and the president doesn't enforce our borders because his biggest enemy is the opposing party. He's trying to defeat them by letting millions of people in because he mistakenly believes they will vote for his party.He is so focused on the democrats as his enemy that he is willing to let us be invaded by millions of people who will forever change the culture and nature of this country. He has such tunnel vision that he leaves the borders open while we know that thousands of terrorists cross it every year.He tries to sell our ports to the enemy and does ok the sale of our military contractors-the ones who make the weapons to our enemy. The demokrats are cavorting with enemies such as syria and standing in the way of national security measures here at home. Measures like the patriot act which are needed to prevent the enemy from massacring our families.Their lawyers and judges are making it so that it's a crime to report suspicious activities so that Americans will just sit there and be killed, just like the passengers on the planes that hit the twin towers. They are letting the enemy defeat us with our courts. The whole prospect of the upcoming elections has a surreal quality to it because no one believes any of these people are any good, they are all politicians, we need something else. Asking one to vote for a Guilianni or a Romney is so sad that it's almost funny.

Ha ha ha
I love it when fundamentalist conservatives get a taste of their own medicine.

She does what she does because of the massive power and intelligence vacuum in The White House. Since the IIC (Idiot In Chief) has lost credibility, a congressional delegation must go themselves to make assessments of leaders and conditions.

The Dems did not do this the the IIC. He did it to himself. Get used to it. The IIC has trivialized and marginalized himself through fundamentalist and conservative ideology.

You will be able to see how much of a Jonah he is when the election comes. I doubt he will be elected to many Republican events being more of a loss than an asset.

Why don't you little people get your own candidate, some fundamentalist political hack, have him call himself a Christian, and run 3rd party? Once his agenda is known, you would be smacked down to irrelevance, where you should be.


bryce
posted, "didn't notice any mention of the the Republican reps who went to Syria a couple of days ago."


It was mentioned (at least on Fox News Channel).

At least the Republicans will hopefully echo the administration's official policy regarding the Mid-East, instead of Pelosi's self-serving anti-American political rhetoric.

The US Congress is fighting a battle for power that supercedes constitutional intent. This battle has existed for at least 200 years.

The famous constitutional "checks and balances" were designed specifically to prevent one branch from assuming hegemony over the other two branches. Pelosi and Reid are attempting to diminish the executive branch and they won't stop until the Democrats hold the White House. Then, of course, they will see the situation in a different light.

Logan
Online Analyst had a good question. It was the first thing that crossed my mind. I am thinking that perhaps the Logan Act proscribed 'private citizens' from engaging in foreign affairs representations. I will go read it. The task we have right now is to distance the Republican Party from the Bush League Bunch. Duncan Hunter is right on the issues,DOING and talking. The rest of the list of candidates is a miscreant gaggle, set on Place at any price. Astonishingly, that dotard from Tennesee is supposedly acceptable to some Republicans. Not this one.

Pelosi for President
Of Syria that is. I hope they keep her.

BrianR, Pepp, et al
Bush's actions (or more correctly, lack of action) regarding the Democrats leads me to think, "What have the Socialist-Democrats got on Bush?"

What kind of leverage are the S-D's using to make Bush appear to be a girly-man?

Or is it simply the give-and-take of politics?

I'll bet Fred D. Thompson wouldn't allow Pelosi/Reid/Schumer to co-opt the executive branch of our federal government.

Sunthe1
Laughable, that suggestion that Pelosi went to Damascus to whisper tough nothings in Young Assad's ear.

(Although the trip would give her the chance to be blinded en route, not at all a bad thing.)

In the run-up to Operation Desert Storm, Bush I asked the Japanese to send an emissary to Saddam to explain what could happen to him if he used chemical weapons on our troops.

Pelosi's trip, by contrast, is like sending a Vietnamese emissary to tell Assad what could happen to him if he gets pissy on us.

Bleeding Heart Lib: You know
Or actually you probably don't, but despite the ad hominem drivel in your post, you actually did touch on something with some relevance (hey, even a blind squirrel chances on an acorn from time to time).

There is a power vacuum emanating from the White House, and power abhors a vacuum. The Dems are simply rushing to fill it. Bush did do this to himself.

Bush has hewed himself unyieldingly to a certain foreign policy -- rightly or wrongly -- and stubbornly refuses to use the bully pulpit to try to make his case to the American people. It's as if his attitude is "hey, now that I'm elected, I don't have to talk to you anymore".

This is a mistake of grotesque proportions. One of hubris.


The news article
said she has the Waxman with her. I am surprised that they let that pig-looking snout in Syria.

BHL
I still say BHL's taste better when cooked over an open BBQ pit.

Oh wait that's the job of the people that run hell. Ooops, my bad.

You'll like hell BHL. Keep being the fool that you are and you'll get there soon enough.




What a load of crap

"During the Second World War..."

Why is Sowell trying to compare the Iraq war to WWII? Would not Vietnam, or even Korea, be a much more apt comparison? Of course they would. But they wouldn't make his argument; they would likely damage his argument.

"These attorneys are among the many officials who serve at the pleasure of the president -- which means that they can be fired at any time for any reason or for no reason."

I absolutely agree, they CAN be fired. The President has the authority. But whether there's an ethical problem with their firing is another matter. If they were fired because they would not bend to political pressure (Iglesias) or because they were investigating the wrong people (Lam), then the President, who absolutely had the legal authority to relieve them, did not have the ethical or moral authority to do so.

Nixon had the legal right to fire all of the top people in the Justice Department until he was left with an Acting Attorney General willing to dismiss Watergate prosecutor Archibald Cox. But it was obvious on both sides of the aisle that he did not have the ethical or moral authority to fire an investigator who had served subpoenas on him. Nixon's abuse of his power was shocking to members of both parties, and his impeachment became almost inevitable at that point.

The point here is not that the Nixon case is at all equivalent to the USA firings, but rather that the legal authority to do something is not always sufficient.

"That is why there was no big hullabaloo in the media when Bill Clinton fired all the U.S. attorneys across the country -- even though that got rid of the U.S. attorneys who were conducting an on-going investigation into corruption in Clinton's own administration as governor of Arkansas."

Such a weak, tired, discredited argument. First off, there was no big hullabaloo following Clinton's replacement of the USAs because it was a matter of accepted political hiring. Reagan also replaced almost all of the USAs he inherited from Carter. When the other party takes over, it puts party loyalists in most appointed jobs. There's nothing untoward about this.

Secondly, anybody who thinks that Clinton wasn't investigated rigorously really needs to go back and review the record. What in Bill Clinton's past wasn't investigated thoroughly enough during his presidency? On what is such an assertion made? How many special prosecutors were there? How many millions of dollars spent investigating?

I love this part:

"But whatever passing damage is being done to George W. Bush is a relatively minor concern compared to the lasting damage that is being done to the presidency as an institution that will still be here when George W. Bush is gone.

"Once it becomes accepted that it is all right to violate both the laws and the traditions of this nation, and to undermine the ability of the United States to speak to other nations of the world with one voice..."

Isn't it brutal commentary on the incompetence and corruption of this President that the opposition party should take such action? Surely, the "lasting damage that being done to the presidency as an institution" began not with Pelosi visiting Syria, but with a do-nothing Congress failing to oversee a know-nothing administration. The latest illegalities - the White House attempting to use GSA actions to help them win or hold specific seats in the next election, the EPA attempting to shirk its responsibilities to regulate pollution, and the USF&W administrator continuously changing scientific data to benefit both private industries and herself.

Is there any better example of the incompetence of this President than AG Gonzalez? Here are the two choices: he either lied through his teeth about his involvement in the US Attorney firings, or he allowed subordinates to make the decisions to fire the top Justice Department officials in various parts of the the country. Which is it, a failure of truthfulness or a failure of leadership? Either way, it's clear to everyone outside of the White House and the Washington Times editorial staff that Gonzalez should be gone. But the President, for all we know, thinks Gonzo's doing a heckuva job.

"Such a drastic and irresponsible step should remove any lingering doubt that the Democrats' political strategy is to ensure that there is an American defeat in Iraq, in order to ensure their own political victory in 2008."

Somebody please tell me how we know when we've won. It's not an unreasonable question - how do we know when the war in Iraq is over? Are there metrics here? Is it when the murder rate drops to, I don't know, 25 per day?

"That these political games are being played while Iran keeps advancing relentlessly toward acquiring nuclear weapons is a fateful sign of the utter unreality of politicians preoccupied with scoring points and a media obsessed with celebrity bimbos, living and dead.

"Once Iran has nuclear weapons, that will be an irreversible change that will mark a defining moment in the history of the United States and of Western civilization, which will forever after live at the mercy of hate-filled suicidal fanatics and sadists."

Where was Sowell while North Korea developed their nuclear weapons - and delivery vehicles? Oh, I know - deriding the "conspiracy theorists" who kept saying that the reasoning behind the Iraq war was based on questionable sources, forgeries, and outright lies. Which, by the way, appears all the time to more accurate than not. Meanwhile, the President played his fiddle and North Korea fired up its plutonium reactor. Eventually, somebody woke up, and we basically now have the same agreement in place that we had under Clinton -- except that now North Korea has a few crude nukes and a few missiles capable of reaching Alaska, if not Seattle.

Meanwhile, we've spent so much treasure in a middle eastern country that clearly was never the threat we were led to believe it was. For five years, as our attention was turned mistakenly elsewhere, Iran was able to carefully continue to develop its nuclear program. And now, when Iran is identified as the REAL threat, somehow Democrats are to blame for the feckless response of the Bush administration to date. Just as the Democrats are responsible for discovering the many ethical and legal problems of the Bush administration.

Wake up, people. Somebody has to point out that the emperor's not wearing clothes. Maybe if we had a President who could lead, Nancy Pelosi wouldn't feel the need to do it herself.

An Old Strategy
It seems to me that President Bush employs an old strategy when it comes to Nancy Pelosi. Give her enough rope and she will hang herself. This may work but President Bush, if no one ever ties down the other end, how can she hang herself? Let's see some fight. Tie down that rope and let's be rid of these kinds of foreign junkets.

Anti-American Democrats.
Democrats lay awake all night thinking up new ways to harm and disgrace America.

IF Bush had ANY courage, he would teach the Democrats all about Executive Authority.
He would have that bunch of traitors arrested when they return, try them for treason the next day by Military Tribunal, execute them by firing squad the next day.
THEN;
He should start issuing Executive Orders canciling every law the Democrats pass.
He could teach the Democrats who was President, _IF_ he was a president.
Don't forget the option MSM gave us last time.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41106

I don't think America can survive another MSM President.

rules
Democrats don't play by any rules other than those that fit the times, I don't know why we're ever surprised anymore, and the Republicans are spineless and believe by being compassionate voters will remember it during elections, wwhich of course is ridiculous. Pelosi has the administration on the run, GWB is influenced by women, his mother, his wife, his daughters his sec of state etc. what do you expect, intimidation works.

"That these political games are being
played while Iran keeps advancing relentlessly toward acquiring nuclear weapons is a fateful sign of the utter unreality of politicians preoccupied with scoring points and a media obsessed with celebrity bimbos, living and dead."

With the abduction of 15 Brittish subjects, Iran has slapped both the EU and the UN in the face (in addition to GB, of course). And yet, there doesn't seem to be much concern about it outside of Brittain. For an interesting look at it from Mark Steyn's perspective, check out:

http://exeter.townhall.com/g/ca73c881-ee74-4524-9ba6-9b5f47f3b7f6

To Mr. BS Detector
Yes, BS is easy to detect when it is right under your nose. I love "congressional oversight". It's just like judicial review and executive privilege. It's something that a body of the government gave to itself without it being mentioned in the constitution at all.

First the Supreme Court gave itself the power to rule on constitutionality of law. Then Congress gave itself the power of “Executive Oversight”. In response the president gave himself “executive privilege”. Which Congress then challenged.

If they are to be three coequal parts of government then none of this cr*p should be going on. What it all boils down to is each body of the Federal Government giving itself more power and individual people and the States losing power.

Kudos to Speaker of the House Pelosi
you gotta know youre doing well, when far right jackals align you in their ring of hatred with that of the Clintons, Reid, Murtha and anyone else who seeks to put in check Emperor Bush.

Vic
ummm, if the Supreme Court couldn't say which laws were Constitutional, then couldn't the Congress and President legislate themselves any power they like? What then would the point of the Constitution be, if there were no arbiter of Constitutionality?

In fact, we do not have three equal branches of government, and never have. The executive has always been the most powerful branch, and the judicial the least. But it's all about using whatever power one has wisely, since eventually the will of the people will win.

The establishment of judicial review is an interesting historical interlude, worthy of study by anyone interested in politics.

Recall Pelosi
Isn’t time to either impeach or recall Pelosi?

The imperial speaker has long ago crossed the line from loyal opposition and has been part of the enemy’s encampment.

All of us whether Liberal or Conservative wish that no more troops would be killed or injured in the world.

All of us whether Democrat or Republican wish that our troops would not have to spend another day in a hot dusty desert.

We wish that Iraq was capable of governing and protecting it’s self.

The thinking realist knows that wishing will not stop terrorists. The thinking realists in the real world know that all people are not all benign loving individuals. In any society there are power hungry opportunists. In my opinion the current congressional leadership is part of the last group.

DavidMac
In answer to your post, I have wondered the same, what do the dims hold over Bush. I think he plays footsie with them because they will pass his amnesty bill. Other than that I have no idea.


To BS Detector
I would argue that the States had as much right to determine constitutionality as the Supreme Court. This was the argument that was first put forth by the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, then by the Hartford Convention, and then finally by John C. Calhoun.

This argument originally arose out of the alien and sedition acts which Jefferson and Madison thought were a challenge to individual freedom and were against the Constitution. They wrote the Kentucky and Va resolutions in response which said that it was up to the States to determine constitutionality. To me this is more logical since the Constitution is a compact between the States.

Shortly after that in a conspiracy between Adams and Marshall a case was concocted which resulted in the now infamous Marbury v Madison. In this ruling the SC gave itself the power to rule on Constitutionality. This is like giving a burglar the authority to determine where his own property begins and yours ends.

One should keep in mind that at the time of the ruling, no one agreed with the ruling, they just did nothing to oppose it since it had no real impact at the time.

GEN
I'd like to see Pelosi and her cohorts charged with treason although I know that won't happen. They are in bed with the enemy.

Pelosi hasn't got a clue
Why wait until President Bush is out of office, Pelosi is going to show President Bush how a Democrat President does it to his face. In Pelosi's mind, the November elections not only got her the Speaker of the House, but the Presidency as well. I guess no one told Pelosi, she can't make any deals on the behalf of this country, regardless on how many trips she makes abroad to undermind President Bush. When she leaves, does she know how loud the laughers going to be. The President of Syria knows who Nancy Pelosi is, and why she's coming to Syria. He doesn't have anything better to do then escort Pelosi around playing the games she plays in this country. The President of Syria is a professional when it comes to talks. If Pelosi thinks she's going to outmaneuver, him she gots another thing coming. When Pelosi leaves Syria, there going to be only one thing the Syrian President remembers from the visit. What a waste of my time!

Left Angle
Do another bong hit. When you see the "wizard" why don't you ask him for a brain?

I'm glad I wasn't sipping a soda...
...when I read tinybrain's post.

Best of tinybrain:
"Thomas Sowell wants to give the impression that Democrats are weak on national security and are in league with some of America's enemies. THIS IS PROBABLY TRUE." (my emphasis)

---> Agree. This is probably true. That's not to say that there aren't patriotic Americans within the Democrat Party, but the party has aligned their own interests to be the opposite of the country's interest. This is because they are the TRUE patriots, of course, and we're better off losing a war if it means the Democrats get back into power. Do I have the right LD?

Your next sentence throws me:
"But what about Jorge Bush? It is hard to imagine a bigger Islamic Fundamentalist lover than him."

---> Okaaaaaayyyy. I guess you're saying that "The enemy of my enemy is the REAL enemy."

patriot11C
LMAO at your post to Obtuse Angle.

I'm going to write to
Pelosi demanding a tax refund for her trip to Syria.

Whichever party that may be?
“Members of the opposition party, whichever party that might be at a given time, knew that their role was not to intervene abroad themselves to undermine this country's foreign policy, however much they might criticize it at home.”

Recent reports reveal that Ted Kennedy met with the Soviets so that the Democrats and the Soviets could coordinate to thwart the foreign policy initiatives of Ronald Reagan.

Actually, that statement from the column may be technically correct. The Democrats probably knew full well what they were doing.

Maybe as someone else said, Bush is giving Pelosi enough rope to hang herself, but more likely he's just being a patsy. To other nation's leaders, they know that government power resides in whoever wields it. The Syrians know that they CAN cut a deal with Pelosi.

The overall message Nancy gives is that you don't have to worry about George Bush -- he has less power than you imagine. He can't prevent me from coming here, or even make me pay a political price for doing so. And he's too dumb to even realize the implications of my trip.

Pelosi collecting grains of sand.
Those grains of sand that just irritate the hell out of you. That constant irritation you feel as you read, and hear, the lefts opinion. Grains of sand that are introduced one at a time, filling the sock with intent to irritate. Just like a nagging child that,finally receives what they want,just to shut them up. Their grains of sand irritate me, but I empty them back into the vast desert. That barren tract of land incapable of supporting life,from which they came.

The Left
The left is doing just exactly what they can get away with, and they are getting away with it. They are drunk with power and blurring the lines of the Constitution. They get away with it because the Republicans are not backing Bush like they should. They are governing by polls. They were trounced in the elections, but it wasn't totally over the war. It was the scandals and the spending. My, my how uneducated this country has become. This isn't Red Nancy first trip to Syria. She gets away because nobody has the gonads to call her on it. Case in point...Sandy Berger. My question is are the Dems ready, if elected to the WH, for the tables to be turned? Quite frankly it is time to give them a dose of their own medicine.

Nancy Dear
Lack of Hubris has earned you the name "Petty Pelosi." Your arrogance will place you in history as the silliest, most ridiculous individual to become Speaker of the House. Understand Petty Pelosi, you do not speak, or represent the ideals, or values of this American. It is obvious to this old retired SF soldier, that you could not follow, so you can not lead, therefore, the only direction you can go with a failure leadership style, is to drag the nation down toward defeat!

Steve O
True but sad none the less.
AND we have most of TWO MORE YEARS OF THIS CRAP TO SWALLOW!

To "Ontime" the poster
Just a quick suggestion re: on-site posting ettiquette.

Posting all in caps signifies SHOUTING, and should be avoided if possible, other than to emphasize a particular point.


Shooting us all in the back...
The first thing that came to my mind was “shooting us all in the foot”. However I think it would be more accurately put as, “shooting us all in the back”.

I finally got a chance to watch “Obsession” last night. I was thoroughly reminded of the facts of what we face. There are no “pockets” of radical Islamists. It’s not just a few “bad apples” who are dug in under the mountains of Afghanistan. It is nearly the entirety of the Muslim world.

Common, these maniacs were partying in the streets as our men, women and children were burning in the WTC.

We don’t have the luxury of allowing these socialist Hollyweird hero Dimocrats to shoot us all in the backs. And I want to say, “thank you” to all of you screwed in the head TOOLS who voted these Marxists into power.

Jim Wright Started It All
Remember the "delegation" then House Speaker Wright led down to Nicuarga in the late 80s (including then freshman senator Kerry?) They gave public speeches decrying Regean, attempted to create new protocls, treaties, and statements of unity with the commies. Thier solidarity with the Nicuagran people ended when people were able to hold elections and vote the commies out. Sound familiar?

BS Detector
Actually, Sowell's comparison with WWII holds up much better than a comparison with Vietnam or Korea.

Sowell is not referring merely to "Iraq," but to the overall war on terror. The war on terror has key similarities with WWII; namely, that the US was directly attacked at the outset; that we decided to go to war to eliminate the threat; and that in each case, we adopted a global strategy rather than simply mounting tit-for-tat counterstrikes at the attacking party.

In WWII the US was attacked by Japan, but had not been attacked by Germany or Italy when we declared war on the entire Axis. We sent our bombers to England, and our troops to invade... North Africa. Today's brilliant political hecklers would call that QED that FDR was backing us into a war against the wrong enemy that we had no business fighting. Hey, stupid, Japan is THAT way!

But FDR agreed with Churchill that the priority had to be defeating Germany. The approach to doing that was to deny Hitler control of the Mediterranean by defeating his forces in Africa, and coming at Germany in a giant pincer movement that had Allied troops invading Italy first -- none of which moves involved attacking anyone who had originally attacked the US.

This is what is called strategy. Bush is using it in the war on terror. Since there is no other obvious way to counterattack non-state actors like terrorists, his first move was to eliminate the Sunni wahhabi terrorists' most prized asset: the state sponsors of their brand of terrorism. At the time of 9/11, the top two in this category were Afghanistan and Iraq.

By contrast, neither Vietnam nor Korea is analogous to invading Iraq. Each conflict represented a regional eruption that was unrelated to an attack on the US.

A unified Communist Korea would have been a serious threat to Japan, America's former foe that was then being reconstituted as a representative, parliamentary democracy.

(This is a key "real" reason it made sense to us to guarantee a perpetual stand-off on the Korean peninsula with troops stationed there, but no such motivation existed in Vietnam.)

If there is a Korea at all in the present situation in the Middle East, it's Iran, which currently represents the greatest menace to the reconsitution of Iraq, and the most effective avenue for focusing other influences in the region, like Russia and China.

There's no Vietnam, however. Ultimately, the point about Vietnam was that America could lose there with as little long-term cost to herself as a nation has ever born from such a loss. We can't lose in Iraq with such impunity. Losing in Iraq would be much more analogous to losing Germany or Japan to radical imperialists again, after WWII.

Germany by herself couldn't take over the world, but Germany by herself can ALWAYS destabilize all of Europe, whenever she wants to. Same for Japan and the Far East, and same for Iraq and the Middle East.

No, Sowell did pretty well here. No time to respond to all your other points, but suffice it to say, every one of them is a cheap rhetorical point that doesn't stand up under scrutiny.

Sowell is correct
The Executive has constitutional authority over foreign affairs, NOT Congress, NOT the Senate.

Nancy Pelosi should be impeached, says I.

Shameless plug
Chapter 8 of Juliet's diary containing the After Action Report by GunnyG is on my blog now.
http://peppermintsplace.townhall.com

If you can get there.TH slowing down again.

Vic
I did read your post, and interpret it to say that somehow the President should have made it possible to deny Ms Pelosi a visa to go on this visit.
Others have suggested that he have her arrested, shot, impeached, tried for treason...etc.
Truly, I cannot see how any of those suggestions (as appealing as they are) are in any way realistic.

dyerje

"The war on terror has key similarities with WWII; namely, that the US was directly attacked at the outset..."

Nonsense. Germany invaded Poland in 1939.

"...that we decided to go to war to eliminate the threat..."

Okay, that's fine, but it has very little to do with Iraq.

"...and that in each case, we adopted a global strategy rather than simply mounting tit-for-tat counterstrikes at the attacking party."

Again, nonsense, as the battle of the Atlantic was very much this way prior to Pearl Harbor. When the massive Japanese attack awoke us to the realities of the world around us, we had no choice.

"In WWII the US was attacked by Japan, but had not been attacked by Germany or Italy when we declared war on the entire Axis."

Poppycock. First off, several U.S. merchant and military ships had been sunk by U-boats in the year leading up to Pearl Harbor. These were, quite clearly, attacks by Germany against America. Secondly, it was Germany that declared war first. We declared war against Japan in response to the attack; four days later Germany declared war on us.

"We sent our bombers to England, and our troops to invade... North Africa. Today's brilliant political hecklers would call that QED that FDR was backing us into a war against the wrong enemy that we had no business fighting. Hey, stupid, Japan is THAT way!"

And, of course, we had been providing both financial and materiel assistance to Germany's enemies prior to Germany's declaration of war. See Lend-Lease Act.

"But FDR agreed with Churchill that the priority had to be defeating Germany..."

Hitler's declaration of way against the United States was one of his greatest mistakes. If he had not done so, it would have been far more difficult politically for the U.S. to send massive numbers of troops to Europe (though supplies would still have flowed freely).

"This is what is called strategy."

Actually, in there is a lot of what I'd call not knowing the facts.

"Bush is using it in the war on terror... eliminate the Sunni wahhabi terrorists' most prized asset: the state sponsors... the top two in this category were Afghanistan and Iraq."

Where do you get this stuff? Iraq's involvement in 9/11 was nil, which has been demonstrated and reinforced time and again by every investigation and analysis since then. Syria has always been more involved as a "state sponsor of terrorism" than Iraq; why didn't we invade Syria? Libya has a history as a state sponsor of terrorism; why didn't we invade Libya? Iran has a history as a state sponsor of terrorism; why didn't we invade Iran? More money flows to terrorist organizations from Saudi Arabia than from any other country; why didn't we invade Saudi Arabia?

The facts are very clear that Iraq was not involved with any terrorist organization in any meaningful way following the gulf war. Why are you trying to keep that manure going? I mean, I understand the "we were wrong" argument, but this BS about Iraq being a state sponsor of terrorism? Please. I don't even think you're fooling yourself.

"By contrast, neither Vietnam nor Korea is analogous to invading Iraq. Each conflict represented a regional eruption that was unrelated to an attack on the US."

As Iraq was completely unrelated to the 9/11 attacks, a conclusion supported by every shred of evidence.

In Vietnam, we chose our battleground far away from home, because we thought (a) we needed to contain our enemy and (b) that the battle would come to us otherwise. Check.

In Vietnam, we fought an insurgent army that became increasingly well-entrenched. Check.

In WWII, every aspect of American society changed to support the war effort. Uh, no.

In WWII, we sent millions of draftees to fight multiple fronts. Nope.

In WWII, we had clear end points defining peace. Still waiting for any answer here.

"Ultimately, the point about Vietnam was that America could lose there with as little long-term cost to herself as a nation has ever born from such a loss."

I thought the point was that even the world's most powerful nation is not all-powerful.

"We can't lose in Iraq with such impunity."

Just wondering - how do you know? Isn't this what people said about Vietnam at the time? That if Vietnam fell, all the other dominoes would fall, and all of southeast Asia would be a growing communist red menace?

"Losing in Iraq would be much more analogous to losing Germany or Japan to radical imperialists again, after WWII."

You mean, like losing East Germany, Czechoslovakia, and Poland after WWII?

.

To SunThe1
There is not much he can do to prevent her from going, but there is a law on the books that she is breaking when she "negotiates" with foreign rulers. Therefor, if Bush had a pair there would be federal marshals waiting on her when she got back. Congressional immunity does not make you immune for actions taken outside of congress.

Vic

"This is like giving a burglar the authority to determine where his own property begins and yours ends."

Well, except that I think that most justices would tend to have better motives than the burglar. Not all, but most.

Certainly, the arbitration of Constitutionality does not flow from the Constitution. It does, however, have deep roots, and was a question that the founders wrote on frequently. Hamilton, not surprisingly, was a proponent of judicial review, having perhaps the best understanding of a federalist state among all of the founders. I haven't read enough of Jefferson, but he appeared consistent in wanting the people to decide the question.

What is clear to me is that the courts must be the instrument of judicial review. How else would courts rule when faced with conflicting laws that had yet to be sorted out by the States? If a law were in direct opposition to a basic constitutional principle, how would a court rule? Without judicial review, the courts would be tied, unable to render judgments. This would be unacceptable.



Come on, Vic

"There is not much he can do to prevent her from going..."

Just as there's not really much he could do when the Republican delegation went to Syria last week.

"...but there is a law on the books that she is breaking when she 'negotiates' with foreign rulers."

Um, how exactly is she negotiating? I mean, my daughter may say she's cooking breakfast on her fisher-price stove, but that doesn't mean she really is. The President may say that he's the decider, but that doesn't mean he really is.

To BS Detector
True, Hamilton was a proponent of the courts as he was a Federalist. Jefferson was an anti-federalist (the best termj I can come up with).

My solution is this:

Since the Supreme Court has become so politicized since Marbury we should ammend the Constitution to offset this. We should place it in writing that they interpret the Constitution, but have no power to "create" new law. If existing law does not cover a situation, they should remand any decision to congress for a new law. Also, the makeup of the court should be changed if the States who ceated the pact or not to be the interpreters. Each State should appoint it's own representative to the court. They will serve until age 75. They may be recalled by their State at any time for any reason. They may be recalled by the court by a 75% majority of the court.

Ah, the punishment continues . . .
We need to realize that God himself has sent Nancy to humiliate us. She is part of the divine punishment America is continuing to suffer for it's apostasy. There will be more and worse.

Question: Why should God protect us and uphold us when we ignore His commands and disobey His voice? I'm thinking of the six or seven holocausts we've unrepentantly perpetrated on our unborn, our flagrant celebration of homosexuality, and our abject loss of love for truth and honesty.

Example: The little boy next door (6 years old) was in his front yard screaming in anger at his mother yesterday because he didn't have his latest craving immediately satisfied. Expected behavior, I guess. What appalled me is that Mommy just listened with an understanding mien. No correction was proffered. Here, my friends, is another subtle indicator of the utter loss of our foundations in what is right and good.

Any one who thinks that child (barring reformative influences) will grow into a respectful, honest, diligent, productive and prosperous citizen, is under the same delusion the "God-Bless-America-no-matter-what-her-sin" crowd is under.

We desperately need a return to God, and one of the first steps in that direction is an acknowledgement that leaders like Pelosi are, in a sense, messengers from above.

NO TIME
Dr. Sowell & Mr. President George Bush
I don't have time to read all the previous posts about this subject so I don't know if it has been said.
Mr. President, if you had any balls at all, that is any balls, you would instruct your State Department to revoke the Passports of Nancy Pelosi, et. al, and refuse them permission to exit the country as is in your authority to do.
The State Department is in the Executive Branch and Mr. President you control the Executive Department.
Are you totally without balls Mr. President? Can you not just once stand up like a man and slam their cr.p back in their faces. Take charge of the government! That is what we elected you president to do.

BS Detector
Unfortunately you're a waste of time. When someone starts out by saying "Nonsense. Germany invaded Poland in 1939," as though that proves that the US didn't enter WWII because Japan attacked Hawaii, you know you can't have a meaningful conversation with him.

Have a nice day.

I wonder
...if Paris Pelosi notices while she is there, all the women in positions of great power and general equality. I'm sure they are everywhere.



Is Representative Pelosi in Violation of
The Logan Act?

Text below from Wikipedia:

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

18 U.S.C. § 953 (2004).

Bush needs to resign
Bush needs to resign and step down so Cheney can step up to the plate.

President Cheney could then appoint Duncan Hunter as Vice President.

Cheney would NOT tolerate this violation of the Logan Act.

Duncan Hunter could then use the VP position to give him name recognition with the American public.

Arco
Thanks for posting the language of the Logan Act. Given that Mrs. Pelosi is thus in violation I will write my Congressman and my two senators this evening and I will ask that they file charges against her and all those who accompanied her.

Arco
This is the text of the letter I have just sent to my representative and my two senators. I encourage everyone to send something similar.

Dear Representative / Senator ...

It has come to my attention that by traveling to Syria with an entourage of both democrat and republican members of the Congress that Nancy Pelosi is in violation of the Logan Act. Would you please see to it that she is charged accordingly and is not allowed to further interfere in the administration's foreign policy?

Thank you,


The failure of Congress is our failure
I agree with Milo D. Cooper. Ultimately the blame for the fact that most Members of Congress are corrupt, incompetent, unfocused on real problems and driven by a personal desire for power and wealth at the expense of this country lies with the American people.
We tolerate their behavior, we tolerate their games, we tolerate their lack of performance. We follow the us versus them game of the political parties. We vote based on sound bites, appearances and feelgood nonsense.
We have ourselves to blame.

John Edwards
On campaign trail telling people that he's concerned about the real issues of this country. Like Universal health care and Global warming. While praising Peloski's trip to the Mid East.

The idiot then goes on to explain that if Bush Veto's the bill sent to him (even if it is loaded with pork.) "HE" will be responsible for the troops not being funded! Not Congress. Then adds, "This president needs to do what he's told!"

And to think that there really are people that want this nut to be president!

Edwards
Fortunately Edwards won't be President.

Goshawk and Ron
yeah, Edwards is a real charmer. His focus is on changing out your light bulbs to save energy.
Fortunately he won't be POTUS, but we could get something even more evil than him.

I'm going to write that very same letter you suggested to my congressman too. I think that is a good idea for us to all do that. At least we get some outlet and who knows maybe someone will pay attention. (I know, only in my dreams)

Ask not for whom the BS is detected...
dyerje writes: "BS Detector, Unfortunately you're a waste of time. When someone starts out by saying 'Nonsense. Germany invaded Poland in 1939,' as though that proves that the US didn't enter WWII because Japan attacked Hawaii, you know you can't have a meaningful conversation with him. Have a nice day."

Too right, but what the heck, *I'll* respond to him, because sometimes I enjoy tag-teaming history elitists who pick and choose their facts in efforts to prop up their ideologies (or tear down someone else's):

____________
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

BS Detector: "'The war on terror has key similarities with WWII; namely, that the US was directly attacked at the outset...' Nonsense. Germany invaded Poland in 1939."

Militant Islam had been killing Israelis for decades before 9/11 -- yet we went to war only after Islamofascists effected an attack on American soil.


"'...that we decided to go to war to eliminate the threat...' Okay, that's fine, but it has very little to do with Iraq."

LOL! It has everything to do with Iraq. The war on terror is just that -- a war on *terror*, an *ideological* war, not simply an *organizational* war on Iraq or Al Qaeda or some other adherents to Islamic extremism. Knocking out the global cancer of terrorism isn't some small potatoes game of putting out fires as they crop up. A long-range plan of carving out the heart of the problem is required. Bush's plan of establishing a counter-ideology of freedom and democracy in the Middle East is just the sort of far-sighted game plan that is needed to address the foundation of the terrorist threat -- as opposed to extraneous manifestations of it.


"'...and that in each case, we adopted a global strategy rather than simply mounting tit-for-tat counterstrikes at the attacking party.' Again, nonsense, as the battle of the Atlantic was very much this way prior to Pearl Harbor. When the massive Japanese attack awoke us to the realities of the world around us, we had no choice."

Similarly, America made occasional minor counterstrikes in response to Islamofascist attacks on American interests in the Middle East -- before going full bore when the enemy finally launched a successful attack against America proper. Just like World War II.

Gee, this is fun!


"'In WWII the US was attacked by Japan, but had not been attacked by Germany or Italy when we declared war on the entire Axis.' Poppycock. First off, several U.S. merchant and military ships had been sunk by U-boats in the year leading up to Pearl Harbor. These were, quite clearly, attacks by Germany against America. Secondly, it was Germany that declared war first. We declared war against Japan in response to the attack; four days later Germany declared war on us."

And just like the Germans, assorted crazy Muslims attacked American citizens abroad before a major arm of fanatical Islam rammed planes into buildings here in the U.S., finally inciting us to war. Whee!


"'We sent our bombers to England, and our troops to invade... North Africa. Today's brilliant political hecklers would call that QED that FDR was backing us into a war against the wrong enemy that we had no business fighting. Hey, stupid, Japan is THAT way!' And, of course, we had been providing both financial and materiel assistance to Germany's enemies prior to Germany's declaration of war. See Lend-Lease Act."

... And of course we had been supporting Israel before 9/11. Whee!


"'But FDR agreed with Churchill that the priority had to be defeating Germany...' Hitler's declaration of way against the United States was one of his greatest mistakes. If he had not done so, it would have been far more difficult politically for the U.S. to send massive numbers of troops to Europe (though supplies would still have flowed freely)."

You spelled "war" wrong.


"'Bush is using it in the war on terror... eliminate the Sunni wahhabi terrorists' most prized asset: the state sponsors... the top two in this category were Afghanistan and Iraq.' Where do you get this stuff?"

He's thinking things through, looking at the big picture, having realized that Bush's war on terror amounts to a war on a murderous ideology, not simply combating a particular party of Muslim nuts.

Just as the US knew it would be foolish to limit our sights to Japan in WWII. Obviously.


"'Iraq's involvement in 9/11 was nil, which has been demonstrated and reinforced time and again by every investigation and analysis since then."

... And, sadly, with no relevance to anyone who doesn't have a provincial view of the matter at hand.

All the leftist whining about Iraq not attacking us on 9/11 is like complaining that your doctor cut off your gangrenous foot when he could have just kept giving you pain killers. Stupid!

Did you *see* what happened on 9/11?? Do you seriously not realize the gravity of failing to address the problem of globally disseminated religious death cults and states?


"Syria has always been more involved as a 'state sponsor of terrorism' than Iraq; why didn't we invade Syria? Libya has a history as a state sponsor of terrorism; why didn't we invade Libya? Iran has a history as a state sponsor of terrorism; why didn't we invade Iran? More money flows to terrorist organizations from Saudi Arabia than from any other country; why didn't we invade Saudi Arabia?"

Probably because it wasn't politically feasible to do so. Even after 3,000 of your people have been killed, you don't just rush headlong into battle without figuring out where to strike first. Mere weeks if not days after 9/11, we could have turned most or all of those places that you name into parking lots; contrary to your brilliant military mode of thinking that dictates that we just attack whoever ASAP, Bush waited a year and a half to think things through before making his move.


"'By contrast, neither Vietnam nor Korea is analogous to invading Iraq. Each conflict represented a regional eruption that was unrelated to an attack on the US.' As Iraq was completely unrelated to the 9/11 attacks, a conclusion supported by every shred of evidence."

Enough of the "it wasn't Iraq's fault" monkey talk. That is one of the lamest, most narrow-minded of all of the left's non-observations. Hell, I'm still waiting for you to explain the great immorality behind the Allies going into Africa, as dyerje mentioned. After all, Africa didn't attack us, yeah?


"In Vietnam, we chose our battleground far away from home, because we thought (a) we needed to contain our enemy and (b) that the battle would come to us otherwise. Check."

Dude, the battle had *already* come to us when we went into Iraq. Just like WWII. Whee!


"In Vietnam, we fought an insurgent army that became increasingly well-entrenched. Check."

Oh, I get it, you're just picking facts at random in an effort to salvage the waste that dyerje laid to your arguments. OK, I'm down with that.

In WWII, some demagogue sought to kill all the Jews. Check!


"In WWII, every aspect of American society changed to support the war effort. Uh, no."

In Vietnam, the severity of the threat to the American public posed by the rival ideology had not been demonstrated by adherents to that ideology. Nope!


"In WWII, we sent millions of draftees to fight multiple fronts. Nope."

It was a Democratic president who went to war in Vietnam. Nope!


"In WWII, we had clear end points defining peace. Still waiting for any answer here."

Bush has stated his objectives multiple times: (1) the establishment of a stable democratic government in Iraq, and (2) the attainment of Iraq as an ally in the war on terror. There, there's your answer. PLEASE go tell all the leftists out there who have been too busy being indignant and self-righteous to pay attention.


"'Ultimately, the point about Vietnam was that America could lose there with as little long-term cost to herself as a nation has ever born from such a loss.' I thought the point was that even the world's most powerful nation is not all-powerful."

Actually, the point -- and it's at the top of the short list of what the Iraq War has in common with the Vietnam War -- is that the only entity that can defeat America is America, as Sowell explained at http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2007/01/16/another_vietnam, http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4360 , and http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4112 :

"Since then, even the Communist conquerors have admitted that they did not win on the battlefield, but in the American media and in the American political arena, surrounded by an atmosphere created by a defeatist media."

"Even the current Communist rulers of Vietnam have admitted that they lost militarily in Vietnam but hung on because they expected to win politically in the United States -- as they did, with the help of the Jane Fondas, the Walter Cronkhites and a cast of thousands in the streets and on campuses across the country."

"But, in recent years, high officials of the Communist government of Vietnam have themselves admitted that they lost the war on the battlefields but won it in the U.S. media and on the streets of America, where political pressures from the anti-war movement threw away the victory for which thousands of American lives had been sacrificed."


I'm done with you, man.


-- M. Cooper


There now I feel better
I shot my letter off to Boehner. Word for word what conservative Ron stated.

Milo D. Cooper

That's quite a rant you have there, MD. And you make some good points, all of which really come to this end point: this war is unlike any we've fought previously. I know lots of you "wingnuts" (if you think I'm a "leftist" you really have no comprehension of what that word means) think that's not true, but it really is. The nature of our enemy is unlike those in any of the wars we've mentioned. It's an enemy without a state, without a specific homeland of its own. We knew that when we got to Berlin, the war would be over. No such parallel exists here.

I have to address a few of your attacks:

"'The war on terror has key similarities with WWII; namely, that the US was directly attacked at the outset...' Nonsense. Germany invaded Poland in 1939.'

"Militant Islam had been killing Israelis for decades before 9/11 -- yet we went to war only after Islamofascists effected an attack on American soil."

My point was that the US was not directly attacked at the outset of WWII. Was I wrong? Actually, much of my response was pointing out factual errors.

"LOL! It has everything to do with Iraq... Knocking out the global cancer of terrorism isn't some small potatoes game of putting out fires as they crop up. A long-range plan of carving out the heart of the problem is required."

And, again, it's well-established that Iraq under Saddam was not anything close to the "heart" of international terrorism.

"Bush's plan of establishing a counter-ideology of freedom and democracy in the Middle East is just the sort of far-sighted game plan that is needed to address the foundation of the terrorist threat -- as opposed to extraneous manifestations of it."

Sounds like a grand plan - and one with a high probability of failure. Bush would never have been able to muster the public and political will necessary to engage Iraq if this was the public reasoning behind the invasion. Actually, it sounds a lot like two things: (1) the kind of make-it-up-as-we-go-along justifying that this administration does all too frequently; and (2) a much larger "nation-building" scheme than the Republicans ever pilloried Bill Clinton for engaging in.

"...And of course we had been supporting Israel before 9/11. Whee!"

And of course, our support of Israel predates international islamic terrorism. Yahoo!

--"'Bush is using it in the war on terror... eliminate the Sunni wahhabi terrorists' most prized asset: the state sponsors... the top two in this category were Afghanistan and Iraq.' Where do you get this stuff?--

"He's thinking things through, looking at the big picture, having realized that Bush's war on terror amounts to a war on a murderous ideology, not simply combating a particular party of Muslim nuts."

Do you also think that Iraq was the #1 or #2 state sponsor of terrorism at any time since the first gulf war? Please, put your ignorance on display.

"Just as the US knew it would be foolish to limit our sights to Japan in WWII. Obviously."

That's a nice straw man you've got there - I never said that the U.S. was considering limiting our sights to Japan. I pointed out our pre-1942 materiel support of the allies in Europe, and said that would have continued, but that we would have been hard-pressed to massively engage Germany if Germany had not declared war on us. If we were so fired up to fight the Germans, why did we not declare war on Germany on December 8, since we were already writing up the papers for Japan?

"'Iraq's involvement in 9/11 was nil, which has been demonstrated and reinforced time and again by every investigation and analysis since then.'

"... And, sadly, with no relevance to anyone who doesn't have a provincial view of the matter at hand. All the leftist whining about Iraq not attacking us on 9/11 is like complaining that your doctor cut off your gangrenous foot when he could have just kept giving you pain killers."

Interesting analogy, but not apt. Better would be the doctor who cuts off your left foot rather than your gangrenous right big toe. "Who knows? Those toes might all have been bad!"

"Did you *see* what happened on 9/11?? Do you seriously not realize the gravity of failing to address the problem of globally disseminated religious death cults and states?"

Tell me something. Why didn't we go to war with, I don't know, Indonesia after 9/11? Could it be, maybe, perhaps, because they didn't have anything to do with it? I understand your argument, I really do, but it simply does not hold up as a justification for the war in Iraq, since Iraq was not even close to being one of the "state sponsors of terrorism" that have been driving this ongoing conflict. Saddam was a lot of things, and there's no doubt he was an evil man, but his regime simply was not involved in international terror at a level anything close to that of a handful of other middle east nations.

"Stupid!"

Moron!

"'why didn't we invade Saudi Arabia?' Probably because it wasn't politically feasible to do so. Even after 3,000 of your people have been killed, you don't just rush headlong into battle without figuring out where to strike first."

Huh. And somehow you think I was wrong to assert that we went to war in Europe when we did only because Germany declared war on us?

"...contrary to your brilliant military mode of thinking that dictates that we just attack whoever ASAP, Bush waited a year and a half to think things through before making his move."

Well, no. I'm sure you remember Afghanistan - you know, one of the ACTUAL state sponsors of terrorism. We attacked there quite swiftly. As for Iraq, yes, Bush waited a year and a half. And he gathered lots of information. And much of the information upon which the decision to go to war was based was seriously questioned by the intelligence community. And once we had acted and it was too late, we started to learn that very little of what was touted as the impetus for the war was actually true.

"Enough of the "it wasn't Iraq's fault" monkey talk. That is one of the lamest, most narrow-minded of all of the left's non-observations."

Really? Are you trying to say that it's not a true statement, or that it really doesn't matter to you whether or not we're justified in going to war?

"Hell, I'm still waiting for you to explain the great immorality behind the Allies going into Africa, as dyerje mentioned. After all, Africa didn't attack us, yeah?"

Hey, straw man builder - I said nothing about North Africa and any supposed immorality, but will now. Do you know so little about World War II? Our intervention in Africa was at the behest of the allies. It was also the only logical front to engage the enemy short of a massive European invasion, for which we could not be prepared for literally years.

"In WWII, some demagogue sought to kill all the Jews."

Who is the demagogue seeking to kill all the jews in the Iraq war? Or in the greater war on terror?

"It was a Democratic president who went to war in Vietnam. Nope!"

As it was Democratic president who went to war in 1941. Relevance? Nope. Yippee!

"Bush has stated his objectives multiple times: (1) the establishment of a stable democratic government in Iraq, and (2) the attainment of Iraq as an ally in the war on terror. There, there's your answer."

1. How do we know when it's done? Do we start withdrawing when the average daily murder rate in Baghdad falls below, say, 25? How about 12? How are we going to know when it's time to start withdrawing? How do we know whether the government's stable without withdrawing? Where are the metrics?

2. Why would the people of Iraq choose, through their "stable democratic government" to be the flashpoint for attacks that would otherwise be directed at the U.S. elsewhere? And if their duly elected government doesn't choose to be an "ally in the war on terror," what then? Do we never leave?

Wow, what a great answer! Basically, you don't know when it's over. Are you a Bush administration plant?

"PLEASE go tell all the leftists out there who have been too busy being indignant and self-righteous to pay attention."

Maybe you shoud curb your own indignation long enough to actually THINK about what you believe.

Imagine yourself in a Texas-sized country with borders like sieves, with sectarian regimes all around. Your democratic government's decided to ally with the U.S. in the war against terrorism. Your government has basically no ability to physically keep out people carrying bombs. They're still blowing things up because you're government has allied with the U.S. (think Israel, but without Israel's military and intelligence capabilities). All you want to do is make enough money to live on, and keep your family safe. Why would you continue to want your government to make you and your family targets?

It's amusing that you think quoting the gospel according to Sowell is somehow evidentiary. By the way, your guru misspelled "Cronkite."

"I'm done with you, man."

Coward.

Arco
"Is Representative Pelosi in Violation of The Logan Act?"

Nope.

Time to discipline San Fran Nan
San Fran Nan doing her "own thing" to such a degree should not be allowed, permitted or accepted by the President of the United States. She is the likes of a recalcitrant child and needs to be disciplined and shown who's boss.

All this brings to mind a wonderful Episcopal Priest, sadly now deceased, at a church I once went to. A very active woman in the church began to think her opinions were valued to the point that she could convince the priest to change policy. She was going on and on one day about something she found distasteful. He sat patiently while she expounded on her wants and desires. When she was finished, she asked him what he thought. His response was short and sweet. He said, "Get your own church."

This story was told to me by the woman herself. She realized she had stepped way out of bounds and saw his point. I don't know if Nan would see the point at all, but if I were the President, if nothing else I would have the satisfaction of saying, "Get your own presidency!" God forbid, I hope not.

Visits to Syria

http://local.lancasteronline.com/4/202433

"Gabe Neville, [Rep. Joe] Pitts' [R-PA] chief of staff, said Monday the conference between Assad and the three Republicans was intended to be "low profile."

"It was done in cooperation with the administration," he said.

-----

How interesting that the administration would so publicly berate Nancy Pelosi's visit to Syria ("The position of this administration is that the best way to meet with a leader like Assad or people from Syria is in the larger context of trying to get the global community to help change his behavior. But sending delegations hasn't worked. It's just simply been counterproductive.) while helping arrange such a visit by a Republican delegation.

The incompetence of this administration would be comical if it was any other country's. Because it's ours, it's just scary.

BSD is serving himself up.
I can't resist.

BS Detector writes: "That's quite a rant you have there, MD. And you make some good points, all of which really come to this end point: this war is unlike any we've fought previously."

To what extent is it unlike all those other wars? Enough for you to admit that you were simply being a contrarian in your claim that it's more like the Vietnam War than WW2? If it's really unlike any other war, then what was the point of refuting Sowell's comparison in the first place? Surely, it would have made more sense to write that *any* comparisons to *any* other wars must be insubstantial -- if you really believe that.


"I know lots of you 'wingnuts' (if you think I'm a 'leftist' you really have no comprehension of what that word means) think that's not true, but it really is."

You'll excuse me if I don't take *your* word for it -- since you seem to be backpedaling out of your pick-and-choose assertion that the Iraq War is less like WW2 than Vietnam, now taking up instead the position that *no* comparison is all that valid.


"The nature of our enemy is unlike those in any of the wars we've mentioned."

Again: *How* unlike? Apparently, you figured it was similar enough, for example, to draw comparisons between the abilities of the Vietnamese and Islamofascist terrorists to endure through entrenchment. That you cited that parallel is irreconcilable with your newly-professed belief the two are dissimilar.

Classic leftist flip-flopping and spin (whether you're a leftist or not).


"It's an enemy without a state, without a specific homeland of its own. We knew that when we got to Berlin, the war would be over. No such parallel exists here."

Does that mean that *no* comparisons are valid?


"'Militant Islam had been killing Israelis for decades before 9/11 -- yet we went to war only after Islamofascists effected an attack on American soil.' My point was that the US was not directly attacked at the outset of WWII. Was I wrong? Actually, much of my response was pointing out factual errors."

Really? That's it? You weren't attempting to back up your claim that this war is more like Vietnam that WW2? You were simply providing tutelage in military history?


"'LOL! It has everything to do with Iraq...
Knocking out the global cancer of terrorism isn't some small potatoes game of putting out fires as they crop up. A long-range plan of carving out the heart of the problem is required.' And, again, it's well-established that Iraq under Saddam was not anything close to the 'heart' of international terrorism."

*Roll eyes* He was a sworn enemy of the United States in a region of the world that is the very cradle of militant Islam. He had WMDs (fortunately for leftists everywhere, he had most of them relocated prior to our entering Iraq by force, as reported by his own staff), and he had already demonstrated that the propensity to use them for murder on a massive scale -- against fellow Iraqis, no less. He repeatedly flouted UN convention (most specifically, resolution 1441, which gave us the authority to invade Iraq, even though the UN preferred once again not to enforce its own laws), and he had even provided medical aid to one of Al Qaeda's top three operatives.

In my book, that's all pretty darned close.


"'Bush's plan of establishing a counter-ideology of freedom and democracy in the Middle East is just the sort of far-sighted game plan that is needed to address the foundation of the terrorist threat -- as opposed to extraneous manifestations of it.' Sounds like a grand plan - and one with a high probability of failure."

Only if you believe that freedom and democracy have no chance of taking root in the Arab world -- which you would need to explain to all of the American Arabs who came here to live in a free and democratic society.


"Bush would never have been able to muster the public and political will necessary to engage Iraq if this was the public reasoning behind the invasion."

Certainly not, given the virulent (and totally unfounded, mostly envy-based) anti-Americanism that has been so en vogue for the past two or three decades. But he didn't need that. He had better, entirely legal reasons for going into Iraq.


"Actually, it sounds a lot like two things: (1) the kind of make-it-up-as-we-go-along justifying that this administration does all too frequently; and (2) a much larger 'nation-building' scheme than the Republicans ever pilloried Bill Clinton for engaging in."

Fortunately for Clinton, he didn't have to deal with something as monumental as 9/11. All he had to do was provide the "path to 9/11" conditions for it.

The way I see it, nation-building is way more humane as a deterrent to the death of more Americans than turning part of the Middle East into a radioactive wasteland. In any case, *something* has to be done -- 9/11 made that crystal clear.

Now, if someone manages to come up with another solution that isn't attributable to some pie-in-the-sky Utopian ideal, then I'm all ears. Otherwise, we all need to get behind Bush and our military, and drop the politics and cynical sloganeering, and get the job done.


"'...And of course we had been supporting Israel before 9/11. Whee!' And of course, our support of Israel predates international islamic terrorism. Yahoo!"

So what? That is comparable neither to WW2 nor to Vietnam.


"'He's thinking things through, looking at the big picture, having realized that Bush's war on terror amounts to a war on a murderous ideology, not simply combating a particular party of Muslim nuts.' Do you also think that Iraq was the #1 or #2 state sponsor of terrorism at any time since the first gulf war? Please, put your ignorance on display."

Why did they have to be #1 or #2? Was Africa #1 or #2 in WW2?


[... skipping rambling, irrelevant tangents...]

"Tell me something. Why didn't we go to war with, I don't know, Indonesia after 9/11? Could it be, maybe, perhaps, because they didn't have anything to do with it? I understand your argument, I really do, but it simply does not hold up as a justification for the war in Iraq, since Iraq was not even close to being one of the "state sponsors of terrorism" that have been driving this ongoing conflict. Saddam was a lot of things, and there's no doubt he was an evil man, but his regime simply was not involved in international terror at a level anything close to that of a handful of other middle east nations."

I realize that asking the same questions over and over allows you to lead into your ad infinitum ad nauseam "it wasn't Iraq's fault" talking point, but I've already answered you several times.


"''why didn't we invade Saudi Arabia?' Probably because it wasn't politically feasible to do so. Even after 3,000 of your people have been killed, you don't just rush headlong into battle without figuring out where to strike first.' Huh. And somehow you think I was wrong to assert that we went to war in Europe when we did only because Germany declared war on us?"

Where did I write that?


"'...contrary to your brilliant military mode of thinking that dictates that we just attack whoever ASAP, Bush waited a year and a half to think things through before making his move.' Well, no. I'm sure you remember Afghanistan - you know, one of the ACTUAL state sponsors of terrorism. We attacked there quite swiftly. As for Iraq, yes, Bush waited a year and a half. And he gathered lots of information. And much of the information upon which the decision to go to war was based was seriously questioned by the intelligence community. And once we had acted and it was too late, we started to learn that very little of what was touted as the impetus for the war was actually true."

Like what? Name me something that wasn't true. (Note: Not something that the media *wishes* wasn't true.)


"'Enough of the 'it wasn't Iraq's fault' monkey talk. That is one of the lamest, most narrow-minded of all of the left's non-observations.' Really? Are you trying to say that it's not a true statement, or that it really doesn't matter to you whether or not we're justified in going to war?"

Again, we went into Iraq because Hussein refused once again to comply with UN law -- and because he was a murderous dictator, who also happened to be a professed enemy of the USA. Why was that not a good enough reason to take him down? Why did he have to be responsible for 9/11?


"'Hell, I'm still waiting for you to explain the great immorality behind the Allies going into Africa, as dyerje mentioned. After all, Africa didn't attack us, yeah?' Hey, straw man builder - I said nothing about North Africa and any supposed immorality, but will now. Do you know so little about World War II? Our intervention in Africa was at the behest of the allies. It was also the only logical front to engage the enemy short of a massive European invasion, for which we could not be prepared for literally years."

Sounds like a decision to confront the enemy in the most feasible manner, as opposed to an unworkable, direct assault. Hmmm...


"'In WWII, some demagogue sought to kill all the Jews.' Who is the demagogue seeking to kill all the jews in the Iraq war? Or in the greater war on terror?"

Is that a trick question?

Seriously, I am going to give you one chance to figure that out for yourself. Here's a hint, though: "The Holocaust never happened."


"'It was a Democratic president who went to war in Vietnam. Nope!' As it was Democratic president who went to war in 1941. Relevance? Nope. Yippee!"

How is my point less relevant than yours? You're pulling similarities between one war and another out of your rectum, why can't I?


"'Bush has stated his objectives multiple times: (1) the establishment of a stable democratic government in Iraq, and (2) the attainment of Iraq as an ally in the war on terror. There, there's your answer.' 1. How do we know when it's done? [blah bah blah]"

Before I answer your questions -- the posing of which acknowledges that Bush did state his objectives -- admit plainly that Bush did so, and that you simply weren't paying attention.

(Actually, I'm not going to answer your questions, because this is getting boring and I doubt that anyone else is still keeping up with this debate. But I do want to see if you can man up and admit that you weren't paying attention.)


"Maybe you shoud curb your own indignation long enough to actually THINK about what you believe."

I know you are, but what am I?


"Imagine yourself in a Texas-sized country with borders like sieves, with sectarian regimes all around. Your democratic government's decided to ally with the U.S. in the war against terrorism. Your government has basically no ability to physically keep out people carrying bombs. They're still blowing things up because you're government has allied with the U.S. (think Israel, but without Israel's military and intelligence capabilities). All you want to do is make enough money to live on, and keep your family safe. Why would you continue to want your government to make you and your family targets?"

First of all, you misspelled "your."

Secondly, your question goes back to my observation that you just aren't a long-range thinker. Lots of Iraqis -- and not just the Kurds -- support American intervention, and still do so despite the violence perpetrated by Muslim fanatics (as they did after being threatened wth death if they lined up to vote, for example). Also, as I wrote before, you think narrow-mindedly, i.e. it is not just Iraqis who have an interest in the establishment of a stable democracy over there, but Americans, too -- 3,000 of whom died thanks to the world's permitting a murderous ideology to flourish.


"It's amusing that you think quoting the gospel according to Sowell is somehow evidentiary."

What "gospel"? Maybe *you* consider all commentators liars by default, but I come to trust the ones who impress me intellectually over the course of several years. Sowell in particular has always impressed me with the thoroughness of his research. If you think that Sowell is lying, then say so. Drawing attention to my belief that he isn't is a disingenuous scare tactic that only amplifies the wrongess of your argument that the Vietnam War showed that a minor military power could overcome a major military power without the major power taking part in its own defeat by non-military means.


"By the way, your guru misspelled 'Cronkite.'"

*Shrug* Maybe Sowell was dictating his words. Also, is that word more difficult or less difficult to spell than "war" and "your"?

It's been sort of fun (and no challenge) debating with you. Cheers, kid.


-- M. Cooper

Dealing with sedition
Another excellent essay by the inestimable Dr. Sowell. His historical and Constitutional analysis is impeccable, as always. I would suggest a possible remedy to the escalating sedition by Pelosi, et al.

It's a rather straightforward approach, and would help restore some proper balance between the administration and the Democrat-controlled legislature. As the President's voice in foreign policy matters, the State Department should debrief Pelosi and the other Congressmen who have met with the Syrians. This should be done immediately upon their return stateside, and it should be determined whether or not any Congressman attempted to implement policy at odds with the Executive. Assuming that such behavior occurred -- and it seems impossible to think Pelosi is not attempting to undermine Executive foreign policy -- a referral to the Dept. of Justice for criminal investigation is merited.

Pelosi is one of those Democrats who cannot be persuaded by patriotism or conscience, so the prosecutorial two-by-four appears to be the only tool that can put a stop to this nonsense.

Pelosi
Nancy's actions are PR stunts designed to enhance power for the Democrats. The best interests of our democracy are not even at the bottom of her list.
She really doesn't think very much of the US audience. Unfortunately she is probably right. We may get the government we deserve, good and hard.

Thank You Peppermint
Thank you for writing your Congressman, but don't forget your two senators. I sent variations of that letter to both my senators as well as to the White House. It matters little to me that one of the senators is a democrat. Let him worry whether he is on thin ice. The more letters received, the more they understand how many share this same concern. Each letter is regarded as representative of scores of those who believe the same but did not take the time to write.

Contact your representatives.
Here are some necessary links that will help you find the address of your senators and your congressmen. I added the White House. They should hear from all concerned as well.

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm?

http://www.house.gov/htbin/wrep_save

http://www.whitehouse.gov/

Married Couple vs Salesman
The couple who enters an auto dealership unprepared will be a quick meal for the guy behind the desk.

A preditor spots disunity and indecision like a shark smells blood.

This is not rocket science, folks. Our ravenous enemies can only lick their chops when they watch the Nancy and George show.

Islamic Nuke
When the day arrives that a Arab or Egyptian radical smuggles and detonates some kind of "nuclear weapon" in a major American City it will be poetic.

Just think, San Francisco, or even Washington D.C. under a Mushroom Cloud. I can tell you I won't be shedding any tears when some folks get what they deserve at the hands of a foreign enemy we have long known about. It will be quite a shock to see the full consequences of complacience and folly. We had our chance to protect ourselves, and repeatedly decided to let down the drawbridge anyway.

Geronimo
I would agree except that if it weren't for the fellow citizens in the minority on those communites who are obviously overwhelmed by the masses of idiots. Unfortunately they don't deserve to be controlled by a board of supervisors like those San Francisco has. If it weren't for them, I too would find it very difficult to respond to a call to arms.

Sowell and Pelosi- my comments
1)Democrats can have any foreign policy they want if and when they are elected to the White House.

- right, Classic authoritarian comment by Sowell.
Democracy, anyone ?


2)Until Nancy Pelosi came along, it was understood by all that we had only one president at a time and -- like him or not -- he alone had the Constitutional authority to speak for this country to foreign nations, especially in wartime.


-right. And Bush respects the Constitution
Can you say ' double standard', Mr Sowell ?

3) All that Pelosi's trip can accomplish is to advertise American disunity to a terrorist-sponsoring nation in the Middle East while we are in a war there. That in turn can only embolden the Syrians to exploit the lack of unified resolve in Washington by stepping up their efforts to destabilize Iraq and the Middle East in general.

- oh my. They don't read American newspapers in the Middle East ? Think they don't notice polls where 2 out of 3 Americans don't believe anything Bush says ? Think they didn't notice the election in November 2006 ?


4) Members of the opposition party, whichever party that might be at a given time, knew that their role was not to intervene abroad themselves to undermine this country's foreign policy, however much they might criticize it at home.

- did you read the Iraq War Study Group recommendation ? It said we should talk to Syria and Iran. Helllooo, Bush WH, is there anybody home ? Can you say ' change course ? "
Did you notice REPUBLICANS joined Pelosi on her trip to Syria ? Are you aware REPUBLICANS visited
Syria just before Pelosi's visit.
Is there a double standard, Mr Sowell ?


5)Today, Nancy Pelosi and the Congressional Democrats are stepping in to carry out their own foreign policy and even their own military policy on troop deployment -- all the while denying that they are intruding on the president's authority.

- oh my, lets not disagree. Classic authoritarian comment by Sowell. Did you notice Republicans are crossing the aisle against Bush ? Hmmmm ?



6) They are doing the same thing domestically by making a big media circus over the fact that the Bush administration fired eight U.S. attorneys. These attorneys are among the many officials who serve at the pleasure of the president -- which means that they can be fired at any time for any reason or for no reason.

- oh puh-leeeze, Mr drama king. Most Americans are saying ' what is the truth. how deep does this mess go and who was involved. Try to get back on topic, Mr Sowell


7) But whatever passing damage is being done to George W. Bush is a relatively minor concern compared to the lasting damage that is being done to the presidency as an institution that will still be here when George W. Bush is gone.

- I agree. No president has done more damage to the Presidency than George W Bush


8) Once Iran has nuclear weapons, that will be an irreversible change that will mark a defining moment in the history of the United States and of Western civilization, which will forever after live at the mercy of hate-filled suicidal fanatics and sadists.

- Sowell can't focus his rant very well. Now he on Iran. Ok, you want to destroy/bomb Iran ? Write a column about it.

9) Yet among too many politicians in Washington, it is business as usual. Indeed, it is monkey business as usual, as Congressional Democrats revel in the power of their new and narrow election victory last year to drag people before committee hearings and posture for the television cameras.

- accountability is tough for you, too ? So sorry.

10) It has been said that the world ends not with a bang but with a whimper. But who would have thought that it could end with political clowning in the shadow of a mushroom cloud?

- I am TERRIFIED. Didn't Condoleeza Rice say the same. How come you didn't say 9/11, Mr Sowell ?

Pelosi
Pelosi's policy in everything or nothing..it was reported in the news that she would not allow anyone in her party to have a seat on any committe if they were not in line with HER thinking and ways...I thought even the Dems. were elected to their seats in Congress and had a mind of their own. I guess not tho,for if they aren't going to go along with her dictates they are to be punished,i thought there were 535 people in Congress not one. And each could vote the way they wanted to,or is it once your Speaker of the House all has to go the Speakers way or no way. Smacks of a DICTATORSHIP to me.
She is a power hungry person who reminds me of a 2 year old child who when it doesn't get its way throws itself on the floor and cries til it gets its way,and reminds me of the rants that Hitler had when things didn't go his way..
Division is just what our enemy is hoping will happen in our country and thus make us weak,weak in the eyes of all who hate us for whatever reasons,and she is doing a good job of that. You cannot talk with someone who is bound and determined to want to destroy you,they cannot be bought off with nice words nor money. Mr Chamberlain of England was a great exsample of trying to appease a nut bag,it only gives them time to arm themselves better against us,as was done by Hitler between WWI and WWII. The stronger our enemy gets over time and if they think we are becoming more and more devided and weak then it becomes apparent to them that we will be less willing to do anything when they become aggressive...appeasement is an open invitation for them to become more bold and do as they please as to them we are a paper Tiger with no teeth... As a vet, and an Independent,I pray for our country and our military personal,and our Government that they would all pull together as we did in WWII,but i fear with Pelosi and the Flower children in power we shall fall hard,my only hope is we shall be able to rise again after they fall from power..

Gregc
Did you also note Greg that no one in Pelosi's party better disagree with her...or they would not be allowed to be on any committe...hmmm now whos out of line and power hungry ? she is out of control and out of line. I for one do not believe 2 out of 3 Americans don't believe Pres. Bush.
Look up the speeches of Billybob and Billery and Teddy baby and all the Dems who in 1998 said we had to get rid of Saddam and his WMDs before Pres. Bush was in Office,talk about phoneys and liars...how short sighted you are...great job of dissing the Libs Thomas..keep it up

Pelosi, etc
Yes,you know every detail about committees, you must sit in Congress.

Check the Field Poll
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/05/BAGGVP34OU1.DTL

yes, yes, Clinton this and that.

Bombing and occupying a soverign nation is much worse than saying things about it.

How short sighted you are, lets work on 2007

Do you want to argue about Reagan, too ?

Wartime "Etiquette"
"Doctor" Sowell and others: If a war is underway, and the Commander In Chief is incompetent, what is the proper thing for Congress to do?

Pelosi
Gregc get you head on straight,i did not say anywhere in mt statement that "Iknew all about committees" where did you find that,I said the news reports said she wasn't going to appoint any of her party members who went against her policies to any committees...talk about authoritarian, and you rant on,and i believe your beloved loose zipper man bombed a soverign country also,seems you lib moonbats have short sightedness in gross amounts,I have to go now as i see as Ann Coulter is right you can't talk to a lib moonbat...and by the way we are not a democracy,we are a" a republic..for which it stands"...this is a waste of my time talking to a bunch of liberal nutbags...

Pelosi


Please explain better about the committee process, how it should be run, what policies it should pursue

Give your darling Ann a kiss on her Adams Apple

Is she still calling Edwards a faggott today ?

let me know what Coulter calls Mrs Edwards

Enjoy your day

do we have two Americas?
Do we have two Americas in a practical and functional sense? We have a polarized population whipped into frenzy by the demogoguery of politicians who benefit from dividing and creating their own niche constituents. We have those same politicians going to foreign nations speaking a different message than our president.

Is there a point when the two Americas become actually and functionally two separate and sovereign nations? Can you imagine if a liberal nation emerged? How long would that nation last? Should we not give them what they want and allow them to prove to themselves and the world once and for all the folly and utter nonsense of their philosophy?

2 Americas
I don't believe we can have 2 Americas

Obviously, the country went conservo-right after 9/11

Karl Rove, in particular, is a genius at manufacturing wedge issues that polarize

The Bush WH has worked to plant the ' unitary executive ' by virtue of a compliant Congress, a supportive Supreme court and DOJ.

We have had a compliant corporate mainstream media
that has helped further the message- at least thru
summer of 2006.

I understand that the above resonates with individuals that support an authoritarian command and control structure at the Executive branch

I am especially critical of Thomas Sowell since he espouses authoritarianism in many of his talking points. He is also caught up in the false propaganda of ' Clinton did it '

Democracy is messy. Its what our forefathers died for.

Get over it

And get out of the way because a lot more is to follow.


This is not democracy
GregC,
You said,"I understand that the above resonates with individuals that support an authoritarian command and control structure at the Executive branch"

You assume too much. There are many forms of authoritarianism in which the democrats are not unfamiliar. Whether it comes from the executive, judicial or legislative brances, it matters not. All forms are equally insidious.

When the power shifts from the people to governments that are no longer accountable because of powerful dualing medias with their niche marketing techniques that benefit from polarization rather than the truth or politicians who create an elitist power structure that cannot be punctured without millions of dollars and promises to perpetuate its own existence, no one wins. We eventually come to ruling classes and the ruled who are powerless to change the system from the inside.

It's not democracy we are seeing, it's demogoguery and you're blind if you don't see it. Or you may be somehow benefitting from it.

I agree democracy is messy. It requires honesty, integrity and authentic unity to a core set of ideals that can keep a community together in the face of diverse opinions. The unity to the core ideals can never be abdicated to the opinions and ambitions of either party. This has not happened in America for quite some time. The politics of division and contention are strong influences in our country today.

However, if unity cannot be acheived, separating is better than tearing ourselves apart from within. We did it in 1776. Should it surprise anyone if it needs to happen again? It can and should be done peacefully, of course, just like any and every election.

As far as getting out of the way. That is how slaves are made. That will not happen so you too should get over it and prepare yourself for more my presumptive friend.

Not Democracy
I standby my statements regarding Thomas Sowell and authoritarian command and control structure at the Executive branch.

There is no doubt that Karl Rove will do anything to achieve a permanent control by the Republican Party.

To mouth talking points and promote fear mongering is evidence of Kool-aid drinking. The ' Nancy Hating ' that some of you ( including Mr Sowell) take sport in is revealing.

If thats what ' unity' is all about, I am not interested.

I am against EITHER party having permanent control. I support Checks and Balances in government. This 'messy ' process is what Democracy is all about.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. If, after 6 + years you cannot see these damaging effects on our society and the future of our children/grandchildren there may be nothing I can say to you

For you authoritarians, ( part of the 25 % that support George Bush), yes ,get out of the way or cross the aisle. Democracy and checks and balnces is back





GregC
1) What is negative about an authoritarian attitude that insists that the democrats control the White House before they begin promoting a foreign policy separate from that of the administration?
2) Where has Bush disrespected the Constitution? He has remained well within the powers granted him by Article II. It is unfortunate we can't say the same about either the democrat House or the democrat Senate.
3) The point is that the administration policy was to isolate the Syrian head of state. Pelosi ignored this and chose to break that isolation and provide him credibility.
4) I hold no allegiance to the Iraq War Study Group. Infallibility cannot be associated to that group. I put my faith in the president when I went to the polls and helped to elect him. The IWSG was not elected to represent this nation and they hold no power other than to provide advice. The president is free to take it or to reject it. Further, it has been noted several times that republicans also went to Iraq and stated many times by myself and others that they deserve no less punishment than is deserved by Pelosi if their trip was not blessed by the administration.
5) Again your comment regarding Sowell being authoritarian is totally without merit. If Nancy wants to promote her foreign policy she must win an election first. It is after all the president who possesses the singular authority on these matters.
6) What do you not understand about "serves at the pleasure of the president?"
7) Cute. The damage being done to the presidency is being performed by an unwarranted constant barrage from the democrats and the media. We have been witness to many half truths and outright lies that are eagerly promoted by both. Further, if you want to compare presidents and try to determine who inflicted the most damage to the presidency itself, look to the last one.
8) Is Iran not to be considered among the foreign powers included in Bush foreign policy? Is what Thomas Sowell said still not true?
9) Democrats aren't looking to force accountability. I have heard no one actually shirk responsibility. On the other hand the monkey business Sowell discusses is there right before our eyes. We have witch hunts going on within the Congress that are designed to look for problems rather than to uncover the truth about problems that are known to exist.
10) That mushroom cloud is a real threat. The Congress should be working with the president to promote a policy to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear threat instead of "clowning in the shadow of a mushroom cloud" and only being concerned with the restoration of their own personal power.

It is unfortunate that our Congress cannot come to grips with the reality that their presidential candidates were rejected in the last two elections and that it is now Bush who is president and will be for two more years.

You made my point
GregC,
Thank you for illustrating my point. Liberals are the experts at talking points and staying on a pre-determined message of division regardless of the facts... a very real side-effect of kool-aid. You completely ignored my defintion of unity because its not in the liberal vocabulary.

Everyone wants more power than they have. The congress wants to dictate foreign policy and the judicial branch wants to legislate. My point is that the power should reside with the people while government is a steward of that power. I see government running roughshod over us... consumed with fighting political battles that serve political ambitions above real needs. Pelosi is just the latest example in this disgusting process. The republicans are no better really... their tax revenues (our money) just go to different people than the democrats. Both are guilty.

Where does absolute power reside? It's the power of the purse... the power to tax. The greatest source of power and greed in this country is our government, far exceeding the greed of puny corporations by comparison. As a small business owner and private individual, my biggest expenses are my combined taxes. That is immoral.

If you want to fight absolute power, you better start there. Any effort toward justice and equality that does not make taxes the number one priority is nothing but a smoke-screen to gain more power and convince the masses that we can't survive without them. And we certainly can't be trusted to spend our own money as wisely and charitably as the government.

Conservo Ron
1) What is negative about an authoritarian attitude that insists that the democrats control the White House before they begin promoting a foreign policy separate from that of the administration?

The Bush neocon/geopolitical WH agenda has been a dismal failure. America has fewer friends and poor creditability in world affairs as a result of this failed policy.

6 years of

Failure
F-A-I-L-U-R-E

Incompetence
I-N-C-O-M-P-E-T-E-N-C-E

New Approach required in world affairs.

End of Story.

2) Where has Bush disrespected the Constitution?

- WASHINGTON -- President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.

Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, ''whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research.
Legal scholars say the scope and aggression of Bush's assertions that he can bypass laws represent a concerted effort to expand his power at the expense of Congress, upsetting the balance between the branches of government.

The Constitution is clear in assigning to Congress the power to write the laws and to the president a duty ''to take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Bush, however, has repeatedly declared that he does not need to ''execute" a law he believes is unconstitutional.


4) I hold no allegiance to the Iraq War Study Group. Infallibility cannot be associated to that group. I put my faith in the president

- yes, your faith is misplaced.

6) What do you not understand about "serves at the pleasure of the president?"

Simple mind at work. Simple talking point.

Yes, Clinton fired all of them upon TAKING office, which is the usual practice.
But the propagandists like you and Sowell fail to say that BUSH FIRED ALL OF THEM TOO upon taking office.
So the attorneys he recently fired were his own appointments who did not sufficiently play Bush political hardball, as required by Karl Rove.

You do not wantonly fire attorneys that you appoint when they are performing at a high level.
You do not ruin the careers of US attorneys by smearing their reputations.

If it was as simple as you and Sowell say, why is Gonzales squirming and lieing ?

His department is in complete disarray. As you should notice well known Repubs are demanding Gonzales resignation.


7) Cute. The damage being done to the presidency is being performed by an unwarranted constant barrage from the democrats and the media.

Nope, your problems are self inflicted. Keep it up.


10) That mushroom cloud is a real threat. The Congress should be working with the president to promote a policy to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear threat instead of "clowning in the shadow of a mushroom cloud"

- thats why talking to Iran is a productive step.
Recommended by the Iraq Atudy Group and swiftly ignored by Bush.
Notice Blairs success at democracy ?

Get a clue. Talk to your enemies and get to know them.

You made my point, etc
1)Thank you for illustrating my point. Liberals are the experts at talking points and staying on a pre-determined message of division regardless of the facts...

-nonsense. We want facts and we want truth. Given 6 years of hubris, rubberstamping, coverups, corruption, Abramoff, $8 Billion lost in Iraq, etc, perhaps these are ' accomplishments ' you are proud of as a result of unity.

Talking points,my posterior.


2) Where does absolute power reside? It's the power of the purse... the power to tax. The greatest source of power and greed in this country is our government, far exceeding the greed of puny corporations by comparison. As a small business owner and private individual, my biggest expenses are my combined taxes. That is immoral.

- agreed. And the power to run up 9 trillion in debt

$9 trillion plus the off balance sheet Iraq War- cost estimated at $ 2 trillion

Our grandchildren and great grandchildren will be paying the interest on this debt for a long time

What about unity ?


We have two Americas I'm afraid
I guess I'm more convinced that we have two Americas. I'm not sure there can be common ground found from two totally different worldviews unless we are going to unite around the idea of merely non-violent political disagreement that is mutually agreed to resolve after each election...

scratch that idea. Politicians will take their results to the courts if they can't get their way at the ballot box.

I'm trying... can someone help me here?

2 Americas
I am not sure how versed in history you are or who is informing you on what has taken place in the past 6 years. We have had a powerful Executive Branch and a Compliant Congress.

It is obvious that the Bush WH did a major power grab vis a vis the phony intentions of the Iraq War.

I also understand that 52 million Americans ratified the Bush policy in 2004 by voting him in for a second term

You need to be aware that ' 1 party rule' is bad for America- specifically the middle class and lower income folks. That is what we had the past 6 years.

The Bush WH has used the EPA and US Attorneys Office to further his political agenda. These are simply a few examples of abuse.

It is clearly WRONG to use gov't agencies and Legal enforcement resources as tools to further the agenda of the Bush version of the Republican party.

I realize, if you support this form of authoritarian gov't, you will cheer lead it.

Plus you might fight like heck when accountability and ethics come back into the gov't forum as dictated by the Nov 2006 election

The Pelosi peace making trip to Syria is only one example of new effort to restore the Democracy ship in America and to counteract the insane neocon War Junkie mentality.

The people have spoken.

Now if you are fully behind the American Enterprise Institute I can imagine your response.













what to do?
If it is so obvious that laws have been broken, as I read day after day and week after week on these responses, tell me why now there is no move to impeach this man?

what 2 do
we need 10 more Repub senators to cross the aisle to make Impeachment hearing fly

Of course, Cheney has got to go, as well

Cheney is the real 'operational president'
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.