Playing With Fire

[Terri]

By Thomas Sowell
April 3, 2007

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.

More

[Amawalk John]

Pelosi's latest ego trip, this to a country that is an adversary of the United States, is simply an extension of Liberal Democrat short term domestic politics, all done with little with little or no serious thought about long term ramifications for our country or western civilization.

What she is doing has nothing to do with diplomacy. Diplomacy isn't done publicly with a swarm of electronic and other press recording every move Pelosi makes, not to mention the make up and wardrobe entourage and infrastructure such theater requires.

The Democrat "foreign policy" is nothing more than gaining control of the White House at whatever cost. I'm sure this is quite clear to Assad and other Middle Eastern heads of state.
If anyone is buying this tripe, it's the press.

[Luckyme]

I see Pelosi's and the Democrat's actions as incrementally diminishing executive powers. I believe they know exactly what they are doing. I worry that they just may succeed unless the voters wake up and see this power grab for what it is, or the Republicans find their backbone and stop it. I'm not overly confident.

[tgclark]

It is time the republicans started fighting back and reprimanding all these Bush-hating, America-hating liberals. DO SOMETHING, DON'T JUST SIT ON YOUR THUMBS AND LET THEM TAKE AWAY OUR COUNTRY.

[STEELMAN]

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."

Since Pelosi is third in line to be president, in case something that drastic should happen to put her there, it's clearly evident the so called "Power of the Speaker of the House" has bloated her ego to the point she now believes she has more "power" than the president and SHE is showing everyone she's in "charge "whether anyone else likes it or not.

You can see it in her eyes and facial expression her determination to push her agenda. Her actions only reflect her inability to understand the limits of her office and is insulting to the president. Her visit to Syria will have no effect what so ever on Syria's attitude toward the US...rather will only serve to show how weak and divisive we have become when our government allows unathorized persons to present a foreign policy contrary to the present.

As stated before...these people do not respect women or their status in our government and will have a big laugh, at our expense, when speaker Pelosi returns with empty promises made by an evil entity. Pelosi does not understand these people...it won't matter how many trips she makes...it will end in failure wherever she goes... wasting our tax dollars better spent buying amo for our military.

Alternative Democratic Foreign Policy? Has anyone heard what kind of "Winner" this is?

I'm afraid to even "think" what it might be. Will it make Syria shake in their boots? Is it so "Powerful" it will cause immediate cessation of the war on terror? What is this mysterious, world shaking ADFP? Why have they waited until now to display this wonder of political power? I'm sorry to announce folkes...there is no such policy...yet....so don't hold your breath on this one. Nancy, please stay home, practice pounding your gavel, read the congressional rules and proper procedures, and stay out of the areas of government you know nothing about.

[sherman]

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.

IMHO, This, (in it's own way), echos what I posted in the thread:

"Do you think Att. Gen. Gonzales should stepdown"

Here is the post:

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that this is nothing more than another "grab for power" play, by those who would be king.
If they are able to "bully" their way into the A.G.'s office and take it over, they would have more control/leverage over the judicial system.
We need to stop these kids NOW!

Maybe I'm the only one to see the connection between the two. I don't know

"We have an alternative Democratic foreign policy."

Leave it to the liberals to get their "alternative lifestyle" agenda added to the "mix".

Q: If these kids are so concerned about the energy crunch, greenhouse gases,...etc.; Then WHY are they wasting the taxpayers money and our energy resources to go to another area of the world?

(BTW, Is this a one-way trip?
If so, it's well worth the cost in my book! )

[Bigdog]

I understand why the left-wing politicians and most of the media ignore Dr. Sowell. Nearly everything he says, on any subject, is easily understood and almost impossible to refute, so the best thing for them is to pretend it didn't happen. What I don't understand is where are the people (who are supposed to be) on our side? They should be repeating Sowell's words loudly and often.

Yes, the Dims have a "foreign" policy. Totally foreign to common sense and decency.

[kdranch]

Condi should be there instead of Pelosi, why she is not there is a mystery and a huge mistake. History teaches us unless you involve the whole neighborhood nothing will be resolved....one rotten apple can spoil the search for democracy. Bush should have had talks with the Iranians in 2003 when they approached us, instead they turned them away. Iran is trying it's best to get noticed by the Big Guys.

If I remember right didn't we make deals with Stalin in order to win? Now Stalin was not exactly one of the good guys, but we fashioned a future, made the necessary strategic alliances to secure that future and freedom for Europe. What would have happened if we would not have had Stalin and the Red army? Same thing that is going on in Iraq right now I would argue. We always knew we would wait out Soviet Russia and kill it with connectivity.....it worked.

Iran's president is fearful of losing his job as it is, in fact he is on his way out. Remember we do have allies China and India who can apply pressure to Iran since they are the big buyers of Iranian oil, in fact can't expand their economies without it.

We are pitifully lacking in long term stategic alliances, in fact we say to the world "We do not need or want your help, we are the big superpower in the neighborhood. If we had 50,000 chinese, 50,000 Indians etc, things would be very different in Iraq.

You want peace in the Middle East.....talk to all the neighbors....I ask again where is Condi?

[lpara]

All congresscritters should be banned from going to foreign countries involved in terrorism. It should be that simple.

Can we PLEASE not let her back into the country. She was asked not to go . . . all is fair in love and WAR.

[Charie]

Bush should have had talks with the Iranians in 2003 when they approached us, instead they turned them away. Iran is trying it's best to get noticed by the Big Guys.

It's a mistake to think of this secular country run by theocrats as the "little guys" They've gotten plenty of notice in the past and none of it was good for us. Can I say, "hostages"?

You can talk to these dictators until you're blue in the face but they'll stab you in the back as soon as it's turned to go out the door.

Can I mention Saddam Hussein and "Oil for Food"?

Stalin and FDR had the same aim in mind - the destruction of Germany's military might.

We have no such common aim with Iran. Iran's aim is to do away with the West, especially us. If Iran would behave, we wouldn't care what they'd do.

Dictators do want to be noticed, however, but outside of having a Dictator Dinner once a year and passing out gold medals, I'm not quite sure what we can do besides that.

The world has been trying diplomacy for years and all it does is stave off wars for a year or two and then !boom! We're in it again and usually behind the 8-ball because we take diplomacy seriously and none of this bunch of ragtag ME countries does. And now we have China and India to worry about, too.

What makes you think they're about to help the U.S.? They're Communist countries and the day a Communist country actually helps us a day longer than they're helping themselves, is the day I'll know that hell has frozen over.

Can I also say, "Berlin Blockade" here?