Thespis Journal

Pelosi, as Speaker of the House, had no business representing America in Syria. It is obvious that her intentions were to show a divided government and undermine the position of the United States in the middle east. Pelosi is really full of herself. My only question is why wasn’t Jack Murtha with her.

Oh, and leave it to Jimmy Carter to endorse the trip. He knows a lot about dealing with Iran and others in the middle east, doesn’t he?

Update: Pelosi is blasted by the liberal Washington Post: Ouch!

Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) offered an excellent demonstration yesterday of why members of Congress should not attempt to supplant the secretary of state when traveling abroad. After a meeting with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad in Damascus, Ms. Pelosi announced that she had delivered a message from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that “Israel was ready to engage in peace talks” with Syria. What’s more, she added, Mr. Assad was ready to “resume the peace process” as well. Having announced this seeming diplomatic breakthrough, Ms. Pelosi suggested that her Kissingerian shuttle diplomacy was just getting started. “We expressed our interest in using our good offices in promoting peace between Israel and Syria,” she said.Only one problem: The Israeli prime minister entrusted Ms. Pelosi with no such message. “What was communicated to the U.S. House Speaker does not contain any change in the policies of Israel,” said a statement quickly issued by the prime minister’s office. In fact, Mr. Olmert told Ms. Pelosi that “a number of Senate and House members who recently visited Damascus received the impression that despite the declarations of Bashar Assad, there is no change in the position of his country regarding a possible peace process with Israel.” In other words, Ms. Pelosi not only misrepresented Israel’s position but was virtually alone in failing to discern that Mr. Assad’s words were mere propaganda.

Two weeks ago Ms. Pelosi rammed legislation through the House of Representatives that would strip Mr. Bush of his authority as commander in chief to manage troop movements in Iraq. Now she is attempting to introduce a new Middle East policy that directly conflicts with that of the president. We have found much to criticize in Mr. Bush’s military strategy and regional diplomacy. But Ms. Pelosi’s attempt to establish a shadow presidency is not only counterproductive, it is foolish.

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Former President Jimmy Carter expressed his support for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s trip to Syria, rejecting White House criticism of the visit.

“I was glad that she went,” Carter said Wednesday. “When there is a crisis, the best way to help resolve the crisis is to deal with the people who are instrumental in the problem.” (more…)

Special thanks to Bobby Eberle for bluntly stating that Rosie should be held responsible for her anti-American tirades on “The View.” Take time to sign the petition. Also check out more at Hot Air.

What started out as an embarrassment — ABC’s hiring of Rosie O’Donnell — has turned into a disgrace. With each passing day, O’Donnell spews anti-American rhetoric which shows that she is not only a left-wing moonbat, but totally out of touch with reality. We should all tell ABC that it is time for Rosie to go.

Last week, the ensemble of The View decided to venture into the story involving fired U.S. attorneys, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, and the White House.

During the show, Rosie said:

O’DONNELL: Okay, Republican officials who supposedly called these judges that were fired and said, are you going to prosecute this Democratic, and they said, I can’t talk about that because I’m actually a judge, and it’s illegal. And they said “click,” and they got fired.

HASSELBECK: Yes.

O’DONNELL: Now what is really scary, are the ones who they called and said yeah, sure I will. And they’re still on the bench. That’s even more frightening.

Hey Rosie… U.S. attorneys are the government’s prosecutors. They are not judges. They are presidential appointees who serve at the pleasure of the president and who can be dismissed at any time.

As noted in NewsBusters.com, Rosie also tried to say that firing only a few “judges” was actually worse that firing all of them. (more…)

We have been privately promoting Vice-President Cheney as the person most qualified to be the next President of the United States. Today, the New York Sun makes the case. While it is very unlikely at this moment to see a scenario that would take Cheney to the White House, a significant terrorist event in or around the United States of America could alter the political landscape overnight. Stranger things have happened in American politics.

The vice president’s stature would put him instantly into the first rank of contenders on the Republican side. On Monday, speaking in Alabama, the vice president received such a warm greeting that he began his remarks by saying, “A reception like that is almost enough to make you want to run for office again.” It is hard to imagine the vice president did not comprehend how tantalizing such a remark would be. He used the same opening line on March 24 when he spoke to the leadership of the Republican Jewish Coalition. This is not an endorsement, and there are things we find attractive about many of the other candidates. But for those of us who are concerned with extending Mr. Bush’s campaign for freedom around the world and cutting taxes at home, a Cheney campaign is attractive.

In the same Alabama speech in which Mr. Cheney quipped about wanting to run for office again, he said, ” America is a good and an honorable country. We serve a cause that is right, and a cause that gives hope to the oppressed in every corner of this earth. We’re the kind of country that fights for freedom, and the men and women in that fight are some of the bravest citizens this nation has ever produced. The only way for us to lose is to quit. But that’s not an option. We will complete the mission, and we will prevail.” What a contrast to the carping over tactics that has infected some of the Republican field and to the fever among the Democrats for cutting off funds for our GIs and sounding a retreat.

We have made no secret of our admiration of Vice-President Richard B. Cheney. He is the man most qualified to be President of the United States, and history will record his tremendous, unmatched contribution to the new strategy crafted to keep the United States of America safe in the wake in September 11, 2001. Cheney made another of his blunt speeches in Alabama on Monday afternoon. With plain common sense and mature perspective of American power, Cheney takes it straight to the liberals:

The most common myth is that Iraq has nothing to do with the global war on terror. Opponents of our military action there have called Iraq a diversion from the real conflict, a distraction from the business of fighting and defeating Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda network. We hear this over and over again — not as an argument, but as an assertion meant to close off argument. Yet the critics conveniently disregard the words of bin Laden himself. “The most T serious issue today for the whole world is this Third World War [that is] raging in [Iraq].” He calls it “a war of destiny between infidelity and Islam.” He said, “The whole world is watching this war,” and it will end in “victory and glory or misery and humiliation.”

Obviously, the terrorists have no illusion about the importance of the struggle in Iraq. They have not called it a distraction or a diversion from their war against the United State s. They know it is a central front in that war, and it’s where they’ve chosen to make a stand. Our Marines are fighting al Qaeda terrorists in al Anbar province. U.S. and Iraqi forces recently killed al Qaeda terrorists in Baghdad responsible for numerous bomb attacks. Iraq’s relevance to the war on terror simply could not be more plain. Here at home, that makes one thing, above all, very clear: If you support the war on terror, then it only makes sense to support it where the terrorists are fighting us. (more…)

The democrats have tried their best to act like grown-ups since they took control of congress on January 3. Yesterday, Majority leader Reid lost it. He threatened to cut off funds for troops already in the field. Reid and Pelosi have  made a giant misstep. It will be fun watching them squirm out of this one.

WASHINGTON — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said today he will try to cut off funding for the Iraq war if President Bush rejects Congress’ proposal to set a deadline for ending combat.

The move is likely to intensify the Democrats’ rift with the administration, which already contends Democrats are putting troops at risk by setting deadlines.

“It’s time the self-appointed strategists on Capitol Hill understood a very simple concept: You cannot win a war if you tell the enemy you’re going to quit,” Vice President Dick Cheney said today at fundraising luncheon for Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala.

In recent weeks, the House and Senate voted separately to finance the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but set an end date for combat in Iraq. The House proposal orders all combat troops as of Aug. 31, 2008, whereas the Senate orders some troops to leave right away with the nonbinding goal of ending combat by March 31, 2008.

The House and Senate are working on a final proposal that can be sent to the president by the end of the month.

Mindful that they hold a shaky majority in Congress and that neither chamber has enough votes to override a presidential veto, Democrats are already thinking about the next step after Bush rejects their legislation.

Reid said today that if that happens, he will join forces with Sen. Russ Feingold, one of the party’s most liberal members who has long called to end the war by denying funding for it. Reid and others have previously been reluctant to propose cutting funding out of fear it would leave troops in the lurch.

“Congress has a responsibility to end a war that is opposed by the American people and is undermining our national security,” Feingold, D-Wis., said.

President Bush answered Reid and his hapless colleagues in a Rose Garden statement this morning.

“The house and senate have spent 57 days debating bills that undercut the troops, and spending billions of dollars on projects that have nothing to do with the war. I will veto this bill and, the veto will be sustained.”

Check out Hot Air’s continuing coverage of America’s leading moonbat.

The latest edition of “Observations from a Padded Room” is full of gems. The world does seem to be going a bit crazy.

March 8, 2008: A day that will live in infamy. For the first time in the history of this once proud country we will have eagerly surrendered in a war against those who would destroy us. All this is with the complicity of the Democratic Party and a few Democrat wannabes in the Republican Party, including Chuck Hagel - who just completed the destruction of his candidacy for president of the USA.

Hillary says now that if she were president, she’d sign the “surrender on this day bill” being pushed by the white flag party. But, she’d also keep the some troops there too…. This lady has perfected the fence straddle being on opposite sides of a controversial issue at the same time. She’s so much like the Joe Lieberman we Ct. Nutmegger’s were weaned on. Only Joe had sense enough to feign a bit of moral and mental turmoil when he played both sides. Hint: Try wringing your hands a bit Hillary when you lie, don’t wear that plastic smile or use that superior icy glare as you lecture we peons; just look like you’re in agony over having to choose.

Al Gore playing the “It’s for the children” card likened the planetary crisis to a child having a fever. Gosh AL it must be contagious, because the other planets are catching it too. Al has been called a prophet and his global warming - a religion. Similarly, the secular souls of the sixties tell us religiously to love our mother earth. (Is it alright to tell big lies about your mother?) I certainly respect and respect Mother Earth, but I’ll continue to just worship her Father

Jon Kyl is reporting that the Democrats budget, without extending the tax cuts, will effectively result in the largest tax increase in history - $99 Billion. Not a problem, they’ll just blame it on Bush’s war.

Speaker Pelosi’s trip to Syria this week isn’t the only fool’s errand during the congressional spring break. There are some republicans meddling in middle east affairs too. It is too bad that members of the US House of Representatives seem to be more interested in American defeat.

From the New York Sun:

Speaker Pelosi’s visit to Syria, due to take place today, raises the question of whether the Democrats are prepared to seek a separate peace. When America was serious about war such a trip would have been seen as a scandal. At Casablanca, say, Roosevelt and Churchill decided, as one U.S. government Web site recounts, “that no peace would be concluded except on the basis of ‘unconditional surrender.’” Roosevelt wanted “to assure the people of all the fighting nations that no separate peace negotiations would be carried on with representatives of Fascism and Nazism and there would be no compromise of the war’s idealistic objectives.”No doubt Ms. Pelosi and her camarilla — including, of all people, Congressman Thomas Lantos — will deny that they had anything like a separate peace, or even peace negotiations, in mind when they set out for Damascus. They’ll make much of the fact that prior to departing for the enemy capital they visited Jerusalem, where the speaker told a dinner party in her honor at the Knesset that American support for Israel was unwavering and bipartisan.

Prime Minister Olmert asked her to tell President al-Assad that Israel would be willing to reenter negotiations only after Syria ceased support for terrorism in Lebanon and the Palestinian Arab areas. Ms. Pelosi’s own trek to Damascus was preceded by a group of Republican House members, including Frank Wolf of Virginia, Joseph Pitts of Pennsylvania, and Robert Aderholt of Alabama, proving that the Democrats hold no monopoly on undertaking fool’s errands. The three said they discussed with Syrian officials the flow of terrorists eastward from Syria into Iraq; the flow of weapons westward from Syria into Lebanon; and support for Hamas.