I’ve been keeping this news item in my email box for a couple of weeks.

Man Pleads Guilty in NY Terror Case – WNBC.com (April 3)

Mahmud Faruq Brent, of Gwynn Oak, Md., pleaded guilty to one count of material support for terrorism on Monday in federal court in Manhattan. Brent admitted traveling to Pakistan to receive military and terrorism training at a Lashkar-e-Taiba camp and then returning to the United States.

When Brent entered court, some of his 40 or so relatives and friends who had gathered shouted “Allahu Akbar.” After the hearing, a few shouted “We love you” as Brent was led away. On secret recordings made by the FBI, Brent allegedly said going to the camp was “one of the better decisions in my life.”

Hmmm.. “Allahu Akbar.”  Wasn’t that what the Imams were also shouting on that airplane a couple months back?  Coincidence, I’m sure…

Well I’m posting on the NY terror case today because I noticed this news yesterday:  Ohio Man Charged of Assisting Al-Qaeda – Washington Times.

A federal grand jury has indicted a U.S. citizen on charges of joining al Qaeda and conspiring to bomb European tourist resorts and U.S. government facilities and military bases overseas.  The investigation of Christopher Paul, 43, of Columbus spanned four years, three continents and at least eight countries, FBI agent Tim Murphy said today. 

Mr. Paul trained with al Qaeda in the early 1990s, according to the indictment issued yesterday. It says he told al Qaeda members in Pakistan and Afghanistan that he was dedicated to committing violent jihad. 

“The indictment of Christopher Paul paints a disturbing picture of an American who traveled overseas to train as a violent jihadist, joined the ranks of al Qaeda and provided military instruction and support to radical cohorts both here and abroad,” Assistant U.S. Attorney General Kenneth Wainstein said.

And now I’d like to reference my exchange with commenter “Kevin” earlier this week.  You see, Kevin, these Americans DO have something to worry about and SHOULD have their civil liberties infringed on because they ARE terrorists trying to KILL YOU.  So far, you still haven’t provided one example of (according to you) the FBI is “illegally using the Patriot Act” to go after American Citizens.

In a world war being waged on our civilization, I know most Americans agree that we have to sacrifice something for the good of all.  Kevin and those like him want to pretend these people are not in this country trying to kill us, and instead blame the President for destroying our nation.  Bizarro World, folks.

Oh, and pssssssst…. neither of these terror suspects are Christians or Jews.  I guess they are what the French would call “bands of youths.”

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

The commercial speaks for itself.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

After my initial post on the Don Imus hullabaloo, I didn’t think I’d have much more to say about this offensive, left-leaning radio host. But, given the synchronicity of his offensive statements and the exoneration of the Duke lacrosse players (who had been accused of raping a stripper), it occurred to me how far America has progressed in the past half-century.

Voices from the left and the right have denounced Imus for his insensitive remark. And while some have questioned whether or not he should lose his radio show, few have defended what he has to say. Not only that. Numerous corporate sponsors are “pulling ads” from his show “indefinitely.“

Perhaps Al Sharpton et al. have gotten so worked up about Imus because racism is on the wane in America. That few (if any) mainstream voices have rushed to the radio host’s defense indicates that most Americans have little stomach for such attitudes. And this holds true for mainstream conservative pundits and bloggers.

The eagerness with which Sharpton and others on the left sought to exploit the Duke case — where white lacrosse players were accused of raping a black woman — suggests that they still see an America where racism is rampant. But, as the bloggers at Maggie’s Farm put it:

Indeed, the “America is Satan” crowd gets so fired up by rare examples of blatant racism — real, contrived, or imaginary – mainly because they are so rare. And they want it to be true so badly, to support their view of the world and their raison d’etre, that facts and truth go out the window.

(Via Instapundit.)

That Imus has lost his television simulcast, that prominent corporations are refusing to sponsor his program, that leading politicians, serious pundits and bloggers have come out to denounce this man suggests that we are far from the America that many on the left envision. Don Imus’ remarks are not a sign of resurgent racism in America. Rather, the reaction to them suggests that Americans have so stomach for such insensitivity.

It’s too bad that all too many are all too eager to find racism where there is none — and to level false accusations against certain white people in their attempt to show that America has little changed in the last half-century.

- B. Daniel Blatt (GayPatriotWest@aol.com)

UPDATE: CBS has fired Imus. While I won’t shed any tears at his departure, I will note that neither the AP article nor that in the LA Times announcing his dismissal made mention of his politics. This tart-tongued talker endorsed John Kerry for President in 2004 and frequently badmouthed his then-opponent, President George W. Bush. If a conservative broadcaster had faced such a scandal, you can bet these news outlets would not hesitate to make mention of his politics.

If any of our readers find news articles indicating Imus’s left-of-center politics, please let me know.

UP-UPDATE: While no fan of Imus and while finding the erstwhile broadcaster’s comments “disgraceful,” Glenn Reynolds calls the situation “a feeding frenzy. And, really, who cares what Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson think about proper public demeanor?” He’s right about Jackson and Sharpton.

One of Glenn’s readers wonders why “Rosie O’Donnell still has a job.” Good point. She has certainly made her share of disgraceful comments — and on more than one occasion.

UP-UP-UPDATE: This LA Times article shows that Imus helped Democrats reach out to “a national audience of white males.” So at least one media outlet does not his generally liberal tilt as per my query in the first UPDATE. (Via Instapundit.)

David Hinz at RedState.com thinks possibly and provides the basis for our consideration.

Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution – “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”

While Pelosi sees it as an opportunity to embarrass the President, other world leaders see it as American Foreign policy.

So true, so true.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

TIME Magazine has a profile of one of the most influential gay men in America –Tim Gill, the founder of Quark software company and now full-time gay campaign ATM on two feet. (Hat tip to Michael at GayOrbit)

After selling the firm, he started the Gill Foundation, which has invested $110 million nationwide in gay causes over the past decade. The Gill Action Fund threw $15 million into a dozen states during the 2006 midterm elections, targeting 70 politicians regarded as unhelpful to gay causes: 50 went down. And the fund is helping transform the political face of Colorado.

The money is not always filtered through political parties, although much goes to Democrats. Almost all goes to tax-exempt 527 political organizations. Says Dr. John Straayer, a Colorado State University political scientist, “You see checks written, big checks, sometimes six-figure checks with Gill’s name. They’re pretty strategic in terms of targeting legislative races and then unleashing torrents of mail into those districts.” But no announcements of impending political targets are made; the word “stealth” occurs frequently in discussions of Gill and his associates.

So much for campaign finance reform!  But this analysis is even more disturbing to me:

“They’ve taken an in-state model and applied it to the entire country,” says Denver political analyst Floyd Ciruli. “Gill [and his people are] incredibly strategic. They simply don’t waste money. They put their funding where they can take control of legislatures.”

Juan Peron anyone?  Umm, the last time I checked no one person or one group in American should have the right to “take control” of legislatures.  There’s a word for this…. it is dangerous.  I’d like to know what the Gill-sponsored candidates have promised in return for their debit card at the Gill ATM machine.

I have speculated before that Gill was also the Log Cabin (Republicans) “Million Dollar Man” in their anti-Bush TV ads in 2004.  This TIME piece makes it seem even more likely given Gill’s “stealth tactics.  LCR repeatedly flashes Gill’s ads on their website, so he is obviously still a major donor.  But to date, Log Cabin has still not publicly accounted for where this money came from.  At least the Hypocrite Rights Campaign has finally opened their Kremlin doors and have offered some accountability.  When will Log Cabin?

And, in an absolute sheer coincidence I am sure, former LCR czar Patrick Guerriero now holds the title of�executive director at the Gill Action Fund.  I suppose in another page in Gill’s stealth campaign tactics, there is scant evidence that the Gill Action Fund exists, short of flattering articles in the gay press.  Maybe Patrick has brought some of his stealth budgeting techniques over from his Log Cabin days as well.

My point in this post?  Two-fold.   First, I’m highly skeptical and resistant to any one person having this much power and influence in our political process.  I don’t care what his politics are, Tim Gill (like George Soros) shouldn’t be able to “take control” of elected bodies in this nation.  Incidentally, Chris Crain disagrees with me and gives Gill credit for reaching out in ways not seen before. (Read the whole thing!)  Sorry Chris, I’m very skeptical, especially after reading the TIME piece.

Second, Tim Gill is no Republican, is no conservative, and is clearly a leftist in every sense of the word.  Look at his biography ($200,000 to the ACLU!), research his personal political contributions and Gill Foundation contributions — there is no doubt. So, I would STILL like to know if Log Cabin Republicans was used as a tool by Gill and his Gay Leftist cronies in their attempts to defeat an incumbent Republican President.   (I think we all know the answer already.)

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

On Tuesday of this very week… all full of bravado… Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said this:

“The president is inviting us down to the White House with preconditions,” Reid said.  “ He has to deal with Congress. We are an independent branch of this government, and by our Constitution we have equal say that he has.  And he’s got to listen to us.  Because we are speaking for the American people; he isn’t.”

So that was it.  Both Reid and Pelosi outright rejected Bush’s offer of a meeting.  But that was Tuesday.

Late Wednesday, the Democrat leaders decided they are now FOR meeting with the President, after they were AGAINST it originally.  (From a joint Pelosi/Reid press release)

“Democrats in Congress want to sit down with the President to talk about the best way to both fully fund our troops and move forward in Iraq.”

Is this the same Harry Reid who has introduced legislation to defund the troops and have an immediate withdrawal?  What drugs is this man taking?  (Or not taking?)

But wait… there’s more….

“We will be at the White House on Wednesday to talk with the President.  We will listen to his position, but in return we will insist that he listen to concerns of the American people that his policies in Iraq have failed and we need to change course.”

Well, we know what their definition of “change course” is — surrendering to al-Qaeda in Iraq.   So what on earth are they talking about?

Meanwhile… meetings with Syrian and Iranian tyrants who have pledged America’s destruction are always okay for (not my) Speaker Pelosi.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

I may have more to say later about Arizona Senator John McCain’s speech today at the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) on the Iraq war.

I think he got the big points right. In a blogger conference call after the speech, James Joyner (via Instapundit) reported that if he were president, McCain said he would:

go on C-SPAN regularly and give specifics about our progress and work to change public opinion.

In follow-up, I noted that he’s not president and that the guy who currently holds the post has not shown much aptitude for either specifics or public speaking. McCain responded that Bush is decent in the right setting and that he should probably hold a lot of small, informal meetings with reporters where he has a map and points out various spots on the map where we’re having success.

I think McCain got this right, that the president has not done a good enough job of promoting his policies, particularly about the war to the American people. I think a lot more people would support his efforts if he more regularly made clear why we’re in Iraq and better articulated our goals in the region. Unlike both of his two-term predecessors, George W. Bush seems reluctant to use the bully pulpit to advance his agenda — and show how it serves our national interest.

And I also want to address the points Senator McCain has been making for several years about changing the strategy in Iraq to one similar to that currently in place.

**UPDATE** – Dennis Miller delivers the line of the day.  He said on O’Reilly Factor tonight: “After a year we have only found out that the [Duke rape accuser] was the Louvre of DNA.”   Oh man!

Three innocent young men can finally get on with their lives after the race-baiting witchhunt led by the civil liberties-defying Republican President Democrat District Attorney ended today.

North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper handed these boys back their innocence.

“The result of our review and investigation shows clearly that there is insufficient evidence to proceed on any of the charges,” Cooper said. “Today we are filing notices of dismissal for all charges.”

He added: “We believe these cases were a result of a tragic rush to accuse and failure to verify serious allegations. Based on these significant inconsistencies of evidence and the various accounts given by the accusing witness, we believe these three individuals are innocent of these charges.”

Cooper said not only are the players innocent of the charges they faced, but there is “no credible evidence that an attack occurred at that house on that night.”

The AG also handed District Attorney Nifong his head.

Cooper also blasted District Attorney Mike Nifong— who originally indicted the players for rape — for overreaching his power as a district attorney, saying the “rogue” prosecutor “pushed ahead unchecked” in this case.

“There were many points in this case where caution would have served justice better than bravado,” Cooper said. “This case shows the enormous consequences of overreaching by a prosecutor. What has been learned here is the internal checks on a criminal charge — sworn statements, criminal grounds, proper suspect photo lineups, accurate discovery — all are critically important.”

I suppose I must apologize to my liberal critics.  Since September 11, we have lost some of our civil liberties.  But they have been lost due to the relentless pursuit by the American Left punishing the innocent for the sake of political correctness and criminalizing politics, free speech, and American traditions and values.

Durham-in-Wonderland has much more on the Nifong Travesty.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Confederate Yankee is all over another of the countless double-standard examples of liberals making racists remarks against conservative African-Americans and getting away with it.

From blogger TBogg’s posting:

Oh oh….looks like a pouty Brown Sugar is going to ask Daddy to buy her another pair of Ferragamos Or invade another country.

Whatever.

As ConYank says, Tolerance.  It is a liberal value.  Except when they don’t feel like it.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Freshly back with (not my) Speaker Pelosi from their kowtowing trip to the Syrian terror regime, US Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA) made a series of idiotic and contradictory statements yesterday.  But none was more ludicrious and clueless than this whopper Lantos, the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee…..

Lantos noted that “with the speaker’s support,” he has co-sponsored legislation in the House that calls for making available to all countries — including Iran — nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes under international oversight by establishing a “nuclear fuel bank.”

“So if the Iranian president says that he is developing (nuclear material) for peaceful purposes, we are assisting him in that process,” said Lantos, who anticipated the legislation could pass as early as May.

Ladies and gentlemen, this are your Democrat appeasing Congressional leadership at its worst.  I suppose Lantos and Pelosi thought Saddam was just testing out pesticides for “peaceful purposes” when he gassed thousands of Kurds.

God help us all.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Stop me from having to see and hear this annoying kid on American Idol any longer. (*chanting* NO, NO SANJAYA!)

Vote for Chris Richardson tonight!

VOTE FOR CHRIS — 1-866-43657 03 (866-IDOLS 03) 

Please… for the love of God.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

I swear, if I hear one more news commentator utter the phrase “nappy-headed hos”, I’m going to jump off a bridge.  (Especially you, Shepard Smith!)  It is like the cable news networks have been given a license to become copy-cat criminals and are just finding ways to incorporate the phrase into every news story.

CNN BREAKING NEWS:  “Nancy Pelosi refused to meet President Bush on Iraq funding because she is reportedly upset that Don Imus said “nappy-headed hos.”

I have never liked Don Imus and obviously his comments were stupid, racist and way over the top.   But I also think the reaction to his comments are way over the top and border on hysteria.

Just a few examples:

- Certainly Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson shouldn’t be lecturing anyone about making racist remarks.

- MSNBC General Manager Dan Abrams blamed FOX News for the Imus controversy.  (WTF?)

- Why is Imus suspended, but Rosie O’Donnell stays?

- Why is Robert Byrd still in the Senate?  Why is Ted Kennedy?

- The Rutgers team says they were deeply hurt by Imus’ comments.  One player said today… “The Rutgers University women’s basketball team has made history. We haven’t done anything to deserve this controversy, and yet it has taken a toll on us mentally and physically.”  

I hate to tell her, but if she is this drained by what a shock jock said about her…. she’s in for a very sensitive life in the real world.  (And I hope she isn’t watching any news coverage which repeatedly uses the phrase 24/7.)

Don Imus should probably be fired.  I do agree with Sharpton that he most likely violated FCC guidelines.  So let’s be done with it.  Fire the old coot.  I’m just tired of hearing about it!

Let’s move on to more important news.  Larry Birkhead is the daddy!   *sarcasm off*

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

In a comment to a previous post, Gene in Pennsylvania wrote that he was eager to see a “GP post on Imus.” Perhaps Bruce will weigh in with some thoughts of his own, but I hardly think the hullabaloo merits as much media attention as it’s getting.

Radio host Don Imus said some pretty offensive things about the Rutgers women’s basketball team “which includes eight black women.” After he apologized to Al Sharpton (what the #!@$&* was he doing apologizing to that charlatan?), the grandstanding reverend “called it ‘too little, too late’.” Imus’s show will be suspended for two weeks.

I didn’t think I’d post on this until I read Roger Simon’s post on the topic. His thoughts are similar to my own:

No more tedious individuals exist on our national landscape, although they are in a certain sense exemplary. They represent the triumph of narcissism over intelligent discourse in close to its purest form. No idea or thought exists free of how it affects them — their fame, their glory and, ultimately, their cash.

Now that I’ve whet your appetite, just read the whole thing!

One of the things which struck me about the MSM’s coverage of the fourth anniversary of the liberation of Baghdad this weekend was their focus on the failures and the rhetoric of America’s opponents. AOL lead its coverage with an article on Shiite protesters marching to demand that the U.S. leave Iraq while exaggerating their number (that post on exaggeration via Instapundit).

While the MSM heralded this protest despite its smaller-than-expected turnout as if it were some sign of growing anti-American sentiment in Iraq, the Multi-National Force noted something the media neglected — that Iraqis are free to oppose their government –something they could not do just over four years ago:

During the era of Saddam Hussein the people could not voice their opinions or freely express how they felt about the government. This changed in Dec. 2005 when millions of Iraqis voted for a democratic future during their general election of a new government.

(Via Gateway Pundit.) The left may be wedded to their dark visions of an imperialistic America, but, the citizens of a nation occupied by American troops can protest their presence.

While the MSM headlines its post by referencing radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr as just a cleric, it buries the adjective (“radical“) in its article, burying as well the words of the Democrats’ 2000 Vice-Presidential nominee. Senator Joseph Lieberman noted that al-Sadr’s words show that “the surge is working.” One sign of that success is that that unhappy cleric is nowhere to be found.

The Connecticut Independent Democrat is not the only Senator to note the successes in Iraq. The senior Senator from the Grand Canyon State entitled his Sunday Op-ed, “The War You’re Not Reading About.” Senator McCain wrote:

The new political-military strategy is beginning to show results. But most Americans are not aware because much of the media are not reporting it or devote far more attention to car bombs and mortar attacks that reveal little about the strategic direction of the war. I am not saying that bad news should not be reported or that horrific terrorist attacks are not newsworthy. But news coverage should also include evidence of progress.

It’s unfortunate that the MSM has decided to dwell on the bad news — and the words of an angry cleric because the surge has shown real signs of progress. Perhaps Americans might have a more favorable opinion of the war in Iraq if the MSM presented a more accurate picture of the situation on the ground.

Looks like both Bruce and I have been quite busy these past few days so we haven’t been able to update the blog. I have a lot of little things to get done today, but should manage to find some time to post later this afternoon. Until then, I’m sure our commenters will have something to say — as some of you don’t need our words to launch into angry diatribes against Republicans.

Since we moved from Movable Type to WordPress, we lost the comments to a number of our posts. Some good threads, alas, have been lost to posterity. I am particularly saddened by the disappearance of the responses to my queries on such silver screen-related topics as favorite movie villain or favorite movie laugh. And given that I rediscovered that one today while searching for another post, I’ve decided to ask the question again — What, in your opinion, is the best movie laugh?

As per Bridget Johnson‘s (AKA GOP Vixen) suggestion at the time, you may also weigh in with your favorite laugh from a TV show.

As per my original post, I always thought Walter Huston‘s laugh at the end of his son John‘s movie, Treasure of the Sierra Madre, the laugh which makes the movie and secured the elder Huston’s Oscar, is the best movie laugh there is — at least in the flics I’ve seen. So, once again, today’s open thread, what in your opinion is the best on-screen laugh?

Earlier today, I read a piece by Rich Lowry which started to get at a notion which has fascinated me for some time now. Why do so many intellectuals and their allies on the left have so much hatred, so much contempt for the United States, their own nation? They seem to think that we could fix every evil in the world if only our nation changed its behavior.

Writing today in the National Review, Rich Lowry observed:

A strength of the West always has been its ability to generate self-criticism. (As long ago as 1901, a British politician was complaining that “eminent men write and speak as if they belonged to the enemy.”) This makes it easier to correct errors and avoid excesses. The problem is, if the self-criticism becomes too sweeping and unrelenting, it amounts to a kind of self-sabotage, as it did in the mid-1970s when the United States lost the Vietnam War by refusing even to provide aid and air support to the South.

It seems that we have let our strength evolve, er, devolve rather into a weakness. We begin by looking at our own flaws and end up focusing on them, as if all that were necessary were for our side to correct its flaws, then our enemies would stop hating us and lay down their arms and become our friends.

And some in the West see the flaws as the defining factor of a nation.

How is it that self-criticism became self-hatred? That instead of seeing our flaws as a part of a generally good system, we let them define the system. When they look at American history, some see such horrors as slavery, racism and other forms of intolerance and discrimination as dispositive of our nation’s evil rather than as terrible aspects of an otherwise good system while barely noticing that we have worked — and are still working — to overcom these horrors.

It is a topic that I wish to address in subsequent posts. I’d hesitated on blogging about it earlier today because I haven’t really flesh out my thoughts. But, in the spirit of my vow to do more T-shirt blogging this year, I’ll put the idea out there and invite your comments. Perhaps, in responding to your thoughts, I might better be able to articulate my own.

When I look at the averages of the polls for the Republican and Democratic presidential nominations at Real Clear Politics, on thing which strikes me is that neither party’s frontrunner (Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton respectively) have ever managed to climb about 40%. Indeed, over the past two months, each has shown a steady drift downward.

Despite her name recognition and the acclaim in which her party still holds her husband, Hillary Clinton still hasn’t managed to capture the support of a majority of her party’s faithful. And it seems she owes her fundraising success largely to her husband’s machine — and his presence. Would she have raised as much as she had had he not headlined her events?

At the same time, Republican frontrunner Rudy Giuliani, while holding strong in the GOP polls, doesn’t seem to have built upon his lead. While many conservatives are warming to him despite policy differences, many remain wary. His latest “gaffe” on federal funding of abortion has increased the skepticism of some social conservatives.

In short, while each enjoys a comfortable lead over his opponents, neither has won over his party.

No wonder many Democrats are turning to a freshman Senator from Illinois, a man without any executive experience. And no wonder many conservatives are waiting to see if former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson enters the presidential contest.

While it’s clear that Rudy could better unite the nation than could any other politician enjoying national prominence at this time, it appears Fred Thompson would have an easier time uniting the GOP. (With some Democrats are clamoring for former Vice President Al Gore, Jr. to enter the race, it seems the unknown factor in the presidential race is whether two men who held the same Senate seat are interested. In 1994, Thompson was elected to fill the remaining two years in Gore’s term.)

While I remain a Giuliani man, I would have no problem supporting Fred Thompson should he win the GOP nomination. He has a presence and rhetorical skills which are almost Reaganesque.

It’s odd that with nine months to go until the first caucuses, some wonder if it’s still too “late“* for Thompson to enter the race. I think that by delaying his decision, he actually increases his chances. When he tosses his hat into the ring (should he choose to do so), he’ll get a lot of free publicity — and closer to the time when most people are beginning to make their minds up about the contest.

The bottom line is that while both Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton enjoy comfortable leads for their parties’ respective nominations, neither has yet closed the sale, understandable this far out. If Fred Thompson joins the GOP race, I believe he will make it a two-man contest, taking much of Mitt Romney’s conservative support as well as rallying uncertain conservatives to his side.

With Giuliani’s record of leadership and Thompson’s ability to articulate conservative ideas, a Thompson-Giuliani contest could only redound to the benefit of the GOP, helping rally a dispirited rank-and-file and reminding the nation of the real strength of the party of Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan.

*Via Instapundit and Real Clear Politics.

That’s not me saying that (though I agree).  Nope, those are the words today from the Washington Post’s editors and influential columnist Claudia Rosett in the Philadelphia Inquirer.

Washington Post says….

“We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace,” Ms. Pelosi grandly declared.

Never mind that that statement is ludicrous: As any diplomat with knowledge of the region could have told Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Assad is a corrupt thug whose overriding priority at the moment is not peace with Israel but heading off U.N. charges that he orchestrated the murder of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq al-Hariri. The really striking development here is the attempt by a Democratic congressional leader to substitute her own foreign policy for that of a sitting Republican president. 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.

Ms. Rosett agrees…

On this trip she made a point of showing how easy it is to interact with Syrians, with an itinerary that included a visit to a souk in Damascus – where she was photographed holding out her hand while a cheerful vendor gave her some nuts.

Unfortunately, that photo-op sums up the best that can be said about Pelosi’s trip: Nuts. 

This is not just nutty politics; it is dangerous. For Pelosi, this may count as interaction. But for Assad’s regime in Syria, this amounts to chumps on pilgrimage. Damascus is infested by a dynastic tyranny in which “dialogue” serves chiefly as cover for duplicity and terror. These traits are not simply regrettable habits that Assad might be charmed out of. They are big business and prime instruments of power.

But Pelosi doesn’t care about America winning the World War III, she’s only concerned with destroying our Commander In Chief at every turn and doing well in the next election.  Well, Americans don’t like defeat and they don’t like traitors.  So good luck with your efforts, Nancy.

K-Lo at The Corner has this to say:

If Nancy Pelosi spoke truth to power about women who are really actually oppressed in the world, that would be one thing. But this is a woman who tries to act like American women are oppressed, and uses it as a cheap political tactic (remember her plane idiocy, as one example?). As I’ve written before, her being the first woman Speaker could actually be a great opportunity for human rights. Instead, she rather make a spectacle of herself conducting foreign policy.

Is there a provision to impeach the Speaker of the House?  (Remember, she is “Not My Speaker”.)

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

UPDATE 4/6/07 (by John, AGJ):  I hope Bruce doesn’t mind, but the criticism of Speaker Pelosi’s trip by many in the “MSM” continues as this editorial in USA Today shows (emphasis mine):

Democrats in Congress have been busy flexing their foreign policy muscles almost from the moment they took power in January, for the most part responsibly. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi crossed a line this week by visiting Syria, where she met with President Bashar Assad. She violated a long-held understanding that the United States should speak with one official voice abroad – even if the country is deeply divided on foreign policy back home.

Like it or not (and we do not), President Bush’s policy has been to refuse to negotiate with Syria until it changes its behavior. That behavior is malignant. Syria has long meddled destructively in neighboring Lebanon and is widely seen as the bloody hand behind the 2005 assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri. Syria has aligned itself with Iran and supports the violently anti-Israel groups Hezbollah and Hamas. It foments violence in Iraq by allowing suicide bombers and jihadists to cross the Syria-Iraq border…

Also along was House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Tom Lantos, D-Calif., who said the meeting was “only the beginning of our constructive dialogue with Syria, and we hope to build on this visit.” That suggested Democrats are going beyond unobjectionable fact-finding and getting-to-know-you conversation into something closer to negotiations, undermining U.S. diplomacy…

Pelosi’s office defended her trip by noting that the “administration’s cold-shoulder approach has yielded nothing but more Syrian intransigence.” As true as that is, the place for Pelosi to make the case is not in Damascus. It’s not up to the speaker to unfreeze relations with Assad.

About three weeks ago, I noted that the president’s biggest failures were that he and his team have not been aggressive enough in taking on the hostile media while he has shown an excessive loyalty to appointees. We have seen the latter failure in his treatment of Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez who has done a terrible job defending the firing of the attorneys as being the president’s prerogative. “They serve at the pleasure of the president,” the Attorney General should have said, “and he did not think they were doing the job to which they had been appointed.”

As I reflect on the president’s actions not merely in the past few weeks, but, by and large, throughout his second term, it seems that he had failed on another score. And he has failed conservatives more than any other group in the sense that, unlike Ronald Reagan, he has not used the bully pulpit of the presidency to promote our ideas.

Maybe it’s just that he’s not a conservative.

His failure points to the biggest problems American conservatives have — one of image. All too many, particularly in the gay community, define us by our most extreme elements. They don’t seem to understand basic conservative ideas. For that matter, many of our elected representatives don’t seem to either.

Given the media bias against conservatives — and the failure to define us as we are — it’s unfortunate that we don’t have a high profile figure, with ready media access, standing up for the ideas of the Gipper. Perhaps that’s why so many on the right are hoping former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson enters the presidential race. So much did the GOP respect this man’s rhetorical skills that the party tapped him to deliver the Republican response to then-President Clinton’s State of the Union address, just months after Thompson was first elected to the Senate in 1994.