In S.F., Kerry blasts critics of Pelosi's Mideast trip

John Kerry = “Nancy-Boy”

Yeah to all that, but Romney never saved a drowning gerbil.

Sometimes it is frightening to realize how close this country comes to electing people like Kerry, Gore, Mondale, etc., for president.

People like Johnson, Carter, Clinton...oh wait...they did make it....how frightening!

Romney's "knowledge of foreign affairs extends to briefing papers -- not experience,'' Kerry said of the former Massachusetts governor. "I'd rather have Nancy Pelosi's input than his." You can't fix stupid.

I love the fact that is it always the U.S. that has made the world more dangerous, not the terrorists according to this ass hat.

What, exactly, is Pelosi’s foreign policy experience? Does Kerry ever think before he opens his mouth?

Pelosi is in violation of the Logan Act, and if we had a Justice Department with any guts, would be greeted by US Marshals on her return to the states.

Has anybody told Skerry he lost in 04.

I think historians will be drawing analogies between House Speaker Pelosi’s bowing and scraping before Syrian bad boy Assad and the British and French negotiations with Hitler at Munich for a long time. The folly of this trip is mind-boggling. I wonder how long the illusion among their supporters that Pelosi and Reid will bring “peace in our time” will last? We will know soon enough, I suppose. One more chapter in a century+ of ignorant politicians blundering their way around the world. The Europeans have nerve demonizing the USA, given their own pathetic track record in the Middle East.

Democrats at War
April 6, 2007
Democrats took Congress last fall in part by opposing the war in Iraq, but it is becoming clear that they view their election as a mandate for something far more ambitious — to wit, promoting and executing their own foreign policy, albeit without the detail of a Presidential election.

Their intentions were made plain this week with two remarkable acts by their House and Senate leaders. Majority Leader Harry Reid endorsed Senator Russ Feingold’s proposal to withdraw from Iraq immediately, cutting off funds entirely within a year. He promised a vote soon, as part of what the Washington Post reported would also be a Democratic offensive to close Guantanamo, reinstate legal rights for terror suspects, and improve relations with Cuba.

Meanwhile, Speaker Nancy Pelosi made her now famous sojourn to Syria, donning a head scarf and advertising that she was conducting shuttle diplomacy between Jerusalem and Damascus. If there was any doubt that her trip was intended as far more than a routine Congressional “fact-finding” trip, House Foreign Affairs Chairman Tom Lantos put it to rest by declaring that, “We have an alternative Democratic foreign policy. I view my job as beginning with restoring overseas credibility and respect for the United States.”

Americans should understand how extraordinary this is. There have been previous battles over U.S. foreign policy and fierce domestic criticism. In the 1990s, these columns defended Bill Clinton against “the Republican drift toward isolationism and political opportunism” amid the Kosovo conflict. But rarely in U.S. history have Congressional leaders sought to conduct their own independent diplomacy, with the Speaker acting as a Prime Minister traveling with a Secretary of State in the person of Mr. Lantos.

Yes, Congressional Republicans have visited Syria too. But Ms. Pelosi isn’t some minority back-bencher. Without a Democrat in the White House, she and Mr. Reid are the national leaders of their party. Even Newt Gingrich, for all his grand domestic ambitions in 1995, took a muted stand on foreign policy, realizing that in the American system the executive has the bulk of national security power. He also understood he would do the country no favors by sending a mixed message to our enemies — at the time, Slobodan Milosevic.

What was Ms. Pelosi hoping to accomplish, other than embarrassing President Bush? “We were very pleased with reassurances we received from the president that he was ready to resume the peace process,” she told reporters after meeting with dictator Bashar Assad. “We expressed our interest in using our good offices in promoting peace between Israel and Syria.”

She purported to convey a message from Israel’s Ehud Olmert expressing similar interest in “the peace process,” except that the Israeli Prime Minister felt obliged to issue a clarification noting that Ms. Pelosi had got the message wrong. Israel hadn’t changed its policy, which is that it will negotiate only when Mr. Assad repudiates his support for terrorism and stops trying to dominate Lebanon. As a shuttle diplomat, Ms. Pelosi needs some practice.

Mr. Lantos probably got closer to their real intentions when he told reporters that “This is only the beginning of our constructive dialogue with Syria, and we hope to build on it.” The Pelosi cavalcade is intended to show that if only the Bush Administration would engage in “constructive dialogue,” the Syrians, Israelis and everyone else could all get along.

This is the same Syrian regime that has facilitated the movement of money and insurgents to kill Americans in Iraq; that has been implicated by a U.N. probe in the murder of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri; and that has snubbed any number of U.S. overtures since the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003. Perhaps if he works hard enough, Mr. Lantos can match the 22 visits to Damascus that Bill Clinton’s Secretary of State Warren Christopher made in the 1990s trying to squeeze peace from that same stone.

In fact, Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Lantos both voted for the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003 that ordered Mr. Bush to choose from a menu of six sanctions to impose on Damascus. Mr. Bush chose the weakest two sanctions and dispatched a new Ambassador to Syria in a goodwill gesture in 2004. Only later, in the wake of the Hariri murder and clear intelligence of Syria’s role in aiding Iraqi Baathists, did Mr. Bush conclude that Mr. Assad’s real goal was to reassert control over Lebanon and bleed Americans in Iraq.

With her trip, Ms. Pelosi has now reassured the Syrian strongman that Mr. Bush lacks the domestic support to impose any further pressure on his country. She has also made it less likely that Mr. Assad will cooperate with the Hariri probe, or assist the Iraqi government in defeating Baathist and al Qaeda terrorists.

* * *
Back in Washington, Harry Reid says his response to Mr. Bush’s certain veto of his Iraq spending bill will be to escalate. He now supports cutting off funds and beginning an immediate withdrawal, even as General David Petraeus’s surge in Baghdad unfolds and shows signs of promise. If Mr. Bush were as politically cynical as Democrats think, he’d let Mr. Reid’s policy become law. Then Democrats would share responsibility for whatever mayhem happened next.

So this is Democratic foreign policy: Assure our enemies that they can ignore a President who still has 21 months to serve; and wash their hands of Baghdad and of their own guilt for voting to let Mr. Bush go to war. No doubt Democrats think the President’s low job approval, and public unhappiness with the war, gives them a kind of political immunity. But we wonder.

Once we leave Iraq, America’s enemies will still reside in the Mideast; and they will be stronger if we leave behind a failed government and bloodbath in Iraq. Mr. Bush’s successor will have to contain the damage, and that person could even be a Democrat. But by reverting to their Vietnam message of retreat and by blaming Mr. Bush for all the world’s ills, Democrats on Capitol Hill may once again convince voters that they can’t be trusted with the White House in a dangerous world.

Terrorists Agree: Nancy’s Da Bomb
(tip of the hat to “Little Green Footballs” site)

The Speaker of the House is getting rave reviews for her appearances in the Middle East—from Islamic Jihad, Hamas, and the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Syria Wednesday – in which she called for dialogue with Damascus – was “brave” and “very appreciated” and could bring about “important changes” to America’s foreign policy, including talks with “Middle East resistance groups,” according to members of Palestinian terror organizations whose top leaders live in Syria.

One terror leader, Khaled Al-Batch, a militant and spokesman for Islamic Jihad, expressed hope Pelosi would continue winning elections, explaining the House speaker’s Damascus visit demonstrated she understands the Middle East. “Nancy Pelosi understands the area (Middle East) well, more than Bush and Dr. (Condoleezza) Rice,” said Al-Batch, speaking to WND from Gaza. “If the Democrats want to make negotiations with Syria, Hamas, and Hizbullah, this means the Democratic Party understands well what happens in this area and I think Pelosi will succeed. ... I hope she wins the next elections.” ...

Ramadan Shallah, overall chief of Islamic Jihad, lives in Syria, as does Hamas chieftain Khaled Mashaal. Israel has accused the Syrian-based Hamas and Islamic Jihad leadership of ordering militants in the West Bank and Gaza Strip to carry out terror attacks.

Al-Batch expressed hope Pelosi and the Democratic Party will pressure Bush to create dialogue with Syria and Middle East “resistance movements” and prompt an American withdrawal from Iraq.“Bush and Dr. Rice made so many mistakes in the Middle East. Just look at Palestinian clashes and Iraq. But I think some changes are happening for the Bush administration’s foreign policy because of the hand of Nancy Pelosi. I think the Democratic Party can do things the best. ... Pelosi is going down a good road by this policy of dialogue,” he said.

Abu Abdullah, a leader of Hamas’ military wing in the Gaza Strip, said the willingness by some lawmakers to talk with Syria “is proof of the importance of the resistance against the US. ”The Americans know and understand they are losing in Iraq and the Middle East and that their only chance to survive is to reduce hostilities with Arab countries and with Islam. Islam is the new giant of the world,“ he said.”Pelosi’s visit to Syria was very brave. She is a brave woman,“ Jihad Jaara, a senior member of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group and the infamous leader of the 2002 siege of Bethlehem’s Church of the Nativity, told WND.”I think it’s very nice and I think it’s much better when you sit face to face and talk to (Syrian President Bashar) Assad. It’s a very good idea. I think she is brave and hope all the people will support her. All the American people must make peace with Syria and Iran and with Hamas. Why not?” Jaara said.

Nancy with Our Pals the Saudis

Meanwhile, Nancy’s whirlwind shadow diplomacy tour continues in Saudi Arabia, the world center of Wahhabism and exporter of radical Islam (along with all that oil): Pelosi visits Saudi Arabia.

Normally, if it’s known that you’ve visited Israel you won’t be allowed into either Syria or Saudi Arabia. I discovered this for myself years ago while on tour in the Middle East; we were told that our Israeli visas would be included on special removable pages in our passports, so that we’d be able to go to other countries in the area. Lovely custom, isn’t it?

Of course, if you’re the Speaker of the House, your propaganda value outweighs any bothersome antisemitic customs the little people have to put up with:

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia - U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi visited Saudi Arabia’s unelected advisory council Thursday, the closest thing in the kingdom to a legislature, where she tried out her counterpart’s chair — a privilege no Saudi woman can have because women cannot become legislators.

Pelosi, the first woman speaker of the House, said she raised the issue of Saudi Arabia’s lack of female politicians with Saudi government officials on the last stop of her Mideast tour, but she refrained from criticizing the kingdom over it.

A Rational Perspective On Our Present Crises
by Gabriel Kolko

It is understandable that intelligent people should be preoccupied with the crises reported in the daily press, but they are best comprehended in their historical context. That context, and the crucial causes and motives guiding American foreign policy since 1950, are crucial to understanding the often bewildering and multidimensional events since the year 2000. George W. Bush and his cronies have done incalculable damage and committed terrible follies, but it is a fundamental error to assume that he is somehow original and the genesis of our present crisis.

It is much riskier to focus on particulars as if they have no precedents or are not part of an older, longer historical pattern. Indeed, a major fault of many assessments of US actions abroad is precisely such a disregard for the circumstances that led to them and their historical framework.

The world has changed with increasing speed over the last half-century, and there have been more wars and upheavals over the past decade than any time since 1945. Given the weaponry now available and the growing political and diplomatic instability that has accompanied the demise of Communism, this is the most dangerous period in mankind’s entire history. It is also the period of greatest changes in the balance of world forces, with the decentralization of not only powerful weapons but the reemergence of nationalist, ethnic, and religious factors. The breakup of the USSR and Communism was only partially the cause.
How global military, political, economic and other variables interact is very often unpredictable, to which one must add the domestic politics and public moods within crucial nations – of which the US is most important. World affairs are not only complex but also full of surprises – not only for us but also for those in Washington and elsewhere who aspire to control the destiny of humanity.
Contradictions and errors have been the principal characteristic of all ambitious nations, leading to wars that are not only far bloodier and longer than anticipated but also produce such unwanted political and social consequences as revolution or its opposite, reaction. The emergence of communism and fascism, and the sequence of wars over the past century, was merely confirmation of the fact that once fighting begins, human values and institutions – all the forces that create social stability – go awry.

George W. Bush inherited conventional wisdom regarding the world mission and universal interests that guide American policies on the world scene. The same ambitions have often been shared by leaders of other powers who believe that wars serve as effective, controllable instruments of national goals. What Bush did do, however, was intensify the most dangerous traits always inherent in American institutions and beliefs since 1945. He scarcely expected to get bogged down in the affairs of the Middle East, making Iran the strategically most important power in the entire region. Still less did he imagine that America’s war would rip apart the existing fragile political arrangements and boundaries so that the specter of civil wars and bloodshed along sectarian and ethnic lines in the entire Middle East that may last for years to come. President John F. Kennedy and his successors earlier had also expected that their involvement in Vietnam would be limited and short.

But once the shooting begins – and America’s “credibility” is at stake – priorities are decided for it where there is combat. Moreover, what is crucial is that its pretensions and ambitions have often led to very different parts of the globe – and the US often loses control over the military and political results of its many interventions. The world has always been very large and very complex, and it is becoming more so; the US may eventually adjust to that reality. But it has refused to do so in the past as well as the present.

Both Presidents George H. W. Bush – the incumbent president’s father – and Bill Clinton radically altered the justifications for the United States’ global foreign policy after Communism disappeared. The second Bush claims there is “a decisive ideological struggle” against Islamic fundamentalism and “terrorism,” and it is the main rationale for wars the US is now fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq, and may perhaps also fight elsewhere. But his predecessors concocted variations of these themes based on fear and anxiety in large part to justify massive military spending after the demise of the USSR, and the US’ “preemptive” interventions have been a rationale for American interventions for many decades.

Yet while an alleged Islamic threat took Communism’s place throughout the 1990s, it did so in an often-contrived fashion that made exceptions for America’s important alliances with Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and other orthodox Muslim states. But Islam has existed for centuries, it has changed very little if at all, and the US often utilized fundamentalist religion in Iran, Afghanistan, and elsewhere after 1950 as an antidote to fight godless Communism. What was crucial was that the US needed a threat and alleged danger to legitimize to its own population its global role and readiness to intervene everywhere. This justification causes it to spend almost as much on its military machine as the entire rest of the world combined.

We must never forget that the origins of most of the world’s problems go back many centuries and involve religion, boundaries, demography, nationalism – the list of causes of war and human misery is very long. The United States has scarcely been the cause of most of them. But even granted that international politics has been violent and quite irrational far, far longer, after the Second World War the American role was decisive in most places on the globe. Had Washington behaved differently after 1945 then many of today’s international crises would be very different also. In short, the “American problem” after the Second World War became synonymous with the world’s problem; virtually everything important involving change is now contingent on it.

The US since 1945 has poured fuel on the fire of atavism and irrationality, and it has blocked efforts to solve the domestic problems of countless nations in ways that were often quite sensible and equitable. It is worth contemplating what might have happened had it minded its own affairs and avoided making matters – good, bad, or neither – far worse, but especially preventing needed social and economic reforms. I have devoted one book to its interventions in the Third World alone, another on the Vietnam War, and dealt with yet many other cases elsewhere. There are also innumerable excellent detailed works that go much further.

The Middle East is currently the leading crisis facing the US and the world. President Woodrow Wilson predicted in 1919 that if the peace made after the war were not just “…there will follow not mere conflict but cataclysm.” The territorial settlements imposed on the Middle East after 1918 were entirely capricious, unjust, and arranged by the great powers with scant regard for local conditions or desires. An astonishing ignorance prevailed among most of the crucial decision-makers, not just the Americans. The reemergence of Islamic ideologies, the rise of secular nationalism in the region, Zionism and the seemingly intractable Arab-Jewish conflict, and much else is a result, to a crucial extent, of the role of outside foreign intervention.

The Second World War was further vindication of Wilson’s fears, and today we are experiencing the irrationality of the settlements that followed the First World War in the Middle East. The vast region’s nations and borders were created arbitrarily; in no area was the potential for chaos – the contested boundaries, the creation of a Jewish homeland, and much else – greater than this inherently volatile region. For there are no “natural” nations and boundaries in the Middle East and by attacking Iraq the US has reopened a potential for chaos and disorder in the entire vast region which surpasses, by far, both in size and economic importance the potential for instability which existed in Indochina, Brazil, or anyplace else where it mucked around. For while there were plenty of illusions in many other areas, in fact the turmoil the US is now creating in the Middle East is unprecedented. It could have been far different had the US not tried to control the fate of this region at all.

Communism is all but dead but the world’s sufferings have, if anything, increased with the disappearance of what was the justification for the Cold War. The resources that the US and mankind might have devoted to making peace and meeting rational human needs and desires have instead gone to preparing for and making war. Today we confront the indefinite prospect of war and human suffering on a vast scale – but this has also been the case for at least the past half-century.

April 6, 2007

“Input”!? That broad didn’t just give input!
She, as the speaker of one part of the legislative branch, took it upon her self to attempt to make a seperate peace, or treaty, or agreement, counter to the goals and aims, of the executive.

She should be impeached, removed from office, and then jailed.

Just because she is a Democrat doesn’t mean she should be able to get away with treason. Its enough with these people, already.

Yes he is! I'm proud to say that part of the last election for president involved scribbling a check to the Swiftie's that sank sKerry. Keep the Thank-note from them on the fridge in the kitchen.

jOn F'n sKerry, what a miserable POS you are. You are the only person I've heard of who tries to make a self inflicted (and succeeds)injuring themselves in the military, and puts in for a purple heart for it. , This past year, those who serve with honor, took one of the best shots ever in message delivery, at sKerry as seen below...

Take note America "John the long faced" is the democratic party leadership. If you love socialism/communism, vote democrat. Be a puker.

I'll stick with Sam Adams...

Sam Adams best summed it up when he said," If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands that which feed you. May your chain be set lightly upon you and posterity forget ye were our countrymen."

If only he’d pushed for that recount in Ohio . . .

peloopsi jusy ask Israel

The senator addressed criticism from some conservatives that environmental leaders like himself and former Vice President Al Gore are wealthy activists who may contribute more to global warming because they can buy and consume more.

First, what makes Kerry an authority in the first place? Second, if Kerry and Gore would keep their mouths shut, we wouldn't have had that half-degree rise in temperature.

Kerry knows good treason when he see’s it... he helped write the book on it.

Being the pompous, obstinate, self-serving ass that he is, he's probably using the Queen Bee's treasonous exploits to justify his own treasonous exploits.....

Nancy-Boy.

Of course he supports her. Kerry’s own private diplomacy contributed to the death of millions.

Kerry seems to spend a lot of time in ~~SF.~~ San Frisky.

Let me see if I can come up with a reason - Oh never mind it’s just to easy.