Wednesday, April 04, 2007

Pelosi. Perhaps she spent so much time measuring for the drapes that she overlooked the actual job description.

I'm confused. Was she elected "Ambassador at Large" or Congressional Representative? Speaker of the House or Secretary of State? Well, judging from her recent excursion to Syria to shake hands with a terrorist, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi doesn't seem to care that Diplomacy is the domain of the State Department and thus the responsibility of the Executive Branch, not the Legislative Branch. The official diplomatic relationship of the United States with any foreign power is determined by The Secretary of State. Foreign policy is the President's responsibility, not the Speaker's. For Pelosi to cross the diplomatic boundaries set by the State Department just because she "wants to" clearly indicates that the process by which we govern these United States is of no concern to her. It is disrespectful, it is defiant and it is dismissive of the authority and purpose of the Presidency (not the President, but the Presidency).

The United States pulled its ambassador from Syria. We did this for good reason. These people are not our friends. They are self professed sponsors and political backers of known terrorist organizations. (Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad) They continue to contribute to the instability of the Middle East by assasinating democratically elected foreign leaders (Lebanese Premier Rafik Hariri) and by doing nothing to deter an ever growing insurgency that kills hundreds of US soldiers and Iraqi civilians. This insurgency is being supplied by, operating from, and retreating to bases safely within the Syrian borders. Yet a high level elected American official would allow herself to be seen shaking the hand of the leader of this country? Syria is niether more deserving of diplomatic relations nor the pleasantries that accompany it than Iran or North Korea.

Diplomacy, among other things is largely about negotiation...and negotiating with regimes who back terrorist organizations is a bad idea. You don't reward terrorism! If you don't go to war with them, you penalize them by removing their ability to engage in meaningful trade and negotiations with other nations until they cease that action or practice. It's called "sanctions". Basically, there's this big sign that says "Do Not Feed The Bears" (they will take the food you give them and still eat you!) and Nancy Pelosi crosses the fence and tosses them scraps!

If you are going to be a player on the world stage and for whatever reason you decide that you are not going to play nicely, then there should be painful economic and political consequences. Syria has crossed that line and the United States and many of her allies including many Arab nations have suffered for it and have in turn leveed heavy sanctions on Syria. But 'ol Nancy, she doesn't care about all that...she really wanted that picture of her gladhanding Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad (Regional Secretary of the Baath Party). So off she went, against all prudent advice, with her delegation of self serving Dhimmicrats and one token Republican, aching to show the submissiveness required of her party's Dhimmitude.

"We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace," said Pelosi.

Oh, and in typical liberal media fashion the AP flowered it all up by including in the title of the article that she brought a "message of peace". Well, isn't that just peachy? Pelosi, this "bearer of good will and friendship" brought the same friggin message of peace that has been on the table between Israel and Syria for years. Peace "IF Syria abandoned terror and stopped assisting terror groups". These "Terror Groups" are also bonafide political parties in the middle east. Peace?? Yeah, right! Pelosi's visit was to accomplish one thing and that was to undercut the current administration. To that effect, she did a fantastic job.

The point of this article is that while Speaker Pelosi has every privledge to use her Congressional power to apply pressure on the Executive Office of the Presidency to repeal or enact certain foreign policy, it is not her right or responsibility to overstep that policy simply because she or any number of her colleagues don't agree with it. We have three branches of Government in the United States, not one. Each has its own Constitutional powers and responsibilities. It has always been the obligation of any one of these to provide checks and balances on the others but certainly not at the expense of violating policy or acting on behalf of another branch of government.

Pelosi blows it all off saying that the concerns of her delegation and those of the President are essentially the same and that all she did is travel to Syria to address those issues. Issues be damned! This has nothing to do with the issues. Rather, it has everything to do with her defiant act of offering official diplomatic channels to discuss those issues to a known supporter of terrorism being against the foreign policy of the United States and it is that very fact that makes her actions not only wreckless and irresponsible but borderline treasonous.

Nancy Pelosi stands in mockery of the laws and processes that govern our country and if someone doesn't find a way to grab the reigns on this runaway stagecoach that now occupies the powerful position of The Speaker of the House of Representatives, we might as well just crown her absolute monarch and be done with it all.

Who's side is she on, anyway? Hmmm.