The Republicans better have a real man show up for ’08.

pocomoco on April 4, 2007 at 3:31 PM

I would add…”and look at the size of those hooties!”.

Connie on April 4, 2007 at 3:15 PM

Am I reading this correctly?

What was communicated to the U.S. House speaker does not contain any change in the policies of Israel, as was communicated to other foreign leaders.

Did Pelosi mis-represent to the terrorists state leaders what Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said to her about Israels policy towards said terrorist states?

Oh please lord, let it be true!

Who is this stupid woman who thinks she is a leader. Women should be subjugated with no say in a man’s world.

Ahmadinejad will have many laughs when she comes calling.

But Pelosi dismissed the White House criticism, pointing to the fact that a group of Republican politicians was in Damascus on Sunday and “I didn’t hear the White House speaking about that.”

Perhaps they had Bush’s permission to be there?

Have you been paying attention? Seriously. For six days now the administration has been hammering her over this.

JammieWearingFool on April 4, 2007 at 11:25 AM

Maybe you should get out of yer jammies for a day or so? I was speaking about the three republicans, not Pelosi.

Clarification from the Prime Minister’s Bureau

“Following quotes attributed to U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, during her visit to Damascus, the Prime Minister’s Bureau wishes to clarify the following:

During Mrs. Pelosi’s meeting with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, before her visit to Syria, the Prime Minister said 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.”

More at link

Coincidence?

Instead of the typical appeasement strategy of going ‘hat-in-hand’ to your enemies, ala Neville Chamberlain, Pelosi goes to our enemies – ‘scarf-on-head’.

Pelosi, in doing so, has diss’d her own country, and shown submissiveness to a foreign power. No wonder Assad is seen grinning in all of the photo-ops.

Or, this could also have been her answer during the interview portion of the Miss Syria pageant.

CP on April 4, 2007 at 11:45 AM

She really does want world peace!

I basically am learning to just ignore the “concerns” of the left because their concepts of fairness, truth, justice and the law come down to “what do I want RIGHT NOW.”

They complain bitterly if someone else MIGHT have broken a law, but they do it all the time themselves.

We see moonbats freaking out and committing assault over the idea that Karl Rove may have broken an e-mail storage rule, but oddly enough there doesn’t seem to be any rioting over Pelosi violating the separation of powers and the Logan act.

That’s just the latest in an endless chain of examples.

If it wasn’t for a sympathetic press corps and academy, the “Progressive movement” would be not so much a political power as a collection of bums and thugs. Well, it would be obvious that’s what they are, I should say.

Political whore.

fogw on April 4, 2007 at 11:14 AM

Well said, although being compared to Pelousi is an insult to whores.

Nancy’s just there to promote the Democratic Party’s No Terrorist Left Behind initiative.

She has no responsibility for National Security, but to give the President the tools he needs to execute his plans for National Security. She wasn’t elected President, and neither were the Dems.

This is no different from the Chairman of the DNC having chats with ‘world leaders’ and telling them that things will be different and better once a Democrat (again, presumably) takes control of the WH in 2008.

SisterToldjah on April 4, 2007 at 12:17 PM

This is worse because she is a member of the House (the legislative branch) out there acting on behalf of the U.S. (an executive branch power), without any authority to do so. Pelosi only represents her district, but is acting like she was elected on a national level. The DNC chair, on the other hand, can do whatever he wants – he doesn’t represent anyone other than his party.

Focus the anger where it really belongs.

If you think we should “focus our anger” at 3 fairly anonymous Congresscritters instead of the third in line for the presidency, well, that’s quite frankly, idiotic!

She just went up a notch in my book.

That puts her at notch -372,342,234….

Really, it’s almost not worth knocking Pelosi. No one on either side is surprised that she’d do this. Focus the anger where it really belongs.

It is indeed worth knocking Pelosi – focusing anger on her is entirely justifiable.

I’m not happy about the three Republicans who went to visit Assad, but let’s face it, no one knows who these guys are and that won’t change even after they’ve come and gone. And, even though the WH has tried to discourage visits from members of Congress to Syria, presumably these three Republicans wouldn’t bad mouth the administration and would push the same policies that the administration has.

OTOH, the symbolism of Pelosi’s visit to Syria couldn’t be more powerful. She’s third in line to the presidency, the first female Speaker of the House, arguably the ‘most powerful woman in America’ and has openly slammed the administration’s policies not just towards Syria, but the entire Middle East (and beyond, for that matter). So there’s no way in hell that she’s there to represent US interests. Nancy Pelosi is there to represent the Democratic party’s interests – and her own interests, which are, in no particular order, power, power, and power – thrown in with a mixture of defiance and callous indifference to how the actions of her and her “delegation” may affect US/Syrian relations (which are already strained as it is). This is no different from the Chairman of the DNC having chats with ‘world leaders’ and telling them that things will be different and better once a Democrat (again, presumably) takes control of the WH in 2008.