Libertarian Leanings

A little slow on the uptake

That would be the WSJ editorial board.  In today's feature they wonder, why at this particular moment the House of Representatives, under the leadership of Nancy Pelosi, would consider a Congressional resolution condemning Turkey for the Armenian genocide of 1915.  Madame Speaker is determined to bring the bill to a vote in spite of opposition by eight former U.S. Secretaries of State, including Madeleine Albright, and in spite of the recall  by Turkey of its ambassador at the prospect of a vote on it.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, famous for donning a head scarf earlier this year to commune for peace with the Syrians, has now concluded that this is the perfect moment to pass a Congressional resolution condemning Turkey for the Armenian genocide of 1915. Problem is, Turkey in 2007 has it within its power to damage the growing success of the U.S. effort in Iraq. We would like to assume this is not Speaker Pelosi's goal.

To be clear: We write that we would like to assume, rather than that we do assume, because we are no longer able to discern whether the Speaker's foreign-policy intrusions are merely misguided or are consciously intended to cause a U.S. policy failure in Iraq.

May I just say... DUH!

Friend of Syria

From the Washington Times,

Mrs. Pelosi's two-day visit to Damascus was a major news event here. Camera crews trailed her as she bought sweets in the ancient Hamadieh souk, made the sign of the cross at what is thought to be the tomb of John the Baptist and donned a black abaya to visit the historic Omayyad Mosque.

Mrs. Pelosi, 67, is praised as "a friend of Syria," and that makes her more influential than Oprah Winfrey and more appealing than the old Hollywood movies shown on satellite television.

Why can't she bring herself to be America's friend?

Arab media on the Pelosi visit

Amy K. Rosenthal's Weekly Standard column offers a sampling of Arab media reaction to Nancy Pelosi's trip to Damascus.  Pelosi's Middle East tour was roundly criticized in the United States as undermining U.S. foreign policy. The Arab media would seem to agree.

The Tunisian newspaper Al-Shurouq claimed that Pelosi's visit "asserts the existence of two American states; all of them are trying to achieve strategic interests of the U.S. in different ways."

Somewhat tongue in cheek, Amir Taheri, in an op-ed for Arab News cited the remarks made to him by a Lebanese minister who said, "Her visit was a godsend to an isolated and beleaguered regime. The Syrian regime, which had been thinking of bowing to international pressure, is now reassured. All it has to do is to wait until Pelosi's party takes over the White House in 2009." Another editorial in Lebanon's, Daily Star, concurred, saying, "Her visit has given Damascus great hopes of a rebalancing of US policy in the region."

That would imply concurrence with the view that Pelosi is guilty of violating the Logan Act.

Update:  As commenter Kristin points out below, the Weekly Standard article had incorrectly attributed one of the above quotes to an editorial in The Daily Star.  The last sentence in the excerpt above now appears in the Weekly Standard as follows:

Another editorial in Lebanon's, the Daily Star, cited the Syria Times that reported: "Her visit has given Damascus great hopes of a rebalancing of U.S. policy in the region," which it deemed as nothing short of fantasy.

Olmert's a liar?

In offering a defense of her wildcat foreign policy initiative to Syria, has Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi effectively called Israeli Prime Minister a liar?

As for the message from Mr. Olmert, Mrs. Pelosi said yesterday there was "absolutely no confusion."

"The message that we carried from Prime Minister Olmert was the exact message that he gave us," she said on NPR's "All Things Considered." "He is a man of peace, and he expressed to us that we should express to the president of Syria his interest in going to the negotiating table -- but not until Syria took steps to stop its support for Hamas and Hezbollah. And that is exactly the message that we conveyed."

That was not what was reported on the first go 'round. Khaled Yacoub Oweis of Reuters quoted Ms. Pelosi this way.

"(Our) meeting with the president enabled us to communicate a message from prime minister Olmert that Israel was ready to engage in peace talks as well," Pelosi, the third most senior official in Washington, told reporters after talks with Assad.

The unmistakable meaning of her words, as reported by Reuters, is that Israel is ready to engage in peace talks unconditionally, since there is no mention of Israel's demand that Syria cease its support for Hamas and Hezbollah as a pre-condition.  That part came later in her clarification.  But the Prime Minister's Office strongly denied that Israel relayed a message to Syria, accepting its calls to renew peace negotiations.

According to sources at the Prime Minister's Office, "Pelosi took part of the things that were said in the meeting, and used what suited her."

The same sources explained that the decision to issue a statement of denial stemmed from questions from Israeli and foreign press regarding a change in Israel's official stance on negotiations with Syria. 

There is also no doubt that her mission was intended to be a direct challenge to the White House over conduct of foreign policy.  Since the midterm elections there is a new sheriff in town, and Pelosi was there to serve notice.  But she was serving notice on the White House, not Syria.  AP reporting described it this way.

DAMASCUS, Syria -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi challenged the White House on Middle East policy Wednesday, meeting with Syria's leader and insisting "the road to Damascus is a road to peace."

As it turns out this is a bipartisan challenge to President Bush, since Pelosi's visit to Syria was quickly followed by one from California Republican Darrell Issa, who came right out and said publicly it was a challenge.

DAMASCUS, Syria -- A U.S. Republican congressman met President Bashar Assad on Thursday, a day after a visit by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, spurning the White House policy of isolating the Syrian leadership.

Congressman Darrell Issa of California said President Bush had failed to promote the dialogue that is necessary to resolve disagreements between the United States and Syria.

However, after Madame Pelosi muffed the message from Israeli Prime Olmert, or muffed her description of it to the press, and after she was criticized for overstepping her authority to the point that she may have broken the law, she retreated to say no, her visit was not a challenge to the White House.  She was really only conveying the White House message.

The California Democrat, who touted her visit abroad as fostering diplomacy and following the Iraq Study Group's recommendation, said yesterday she is spreading "President Bush's message" of anti-terrorism.

Unfortunately she is not even slightly credible on the issue of fighting terrorism.  She might be, if she would show a willingness to fight the terrorists who are blowing up Iraqi civilians, but as we all know she intends to cut off the funds for that fight.  Establishment of a stable democracy in Iraq would redound to the credit of George W. Bush who has believed in it all along, and that would not be good for the Madame's political ambitions.  The unmistakable message from Madame Pelosi is that it's better for America to go down in defeat.  She is doing all she can to ensure it.

Nancy Pelosi - accused felon

A Wall Street Journal column by Robert F. Turner, who was acting assistant secretary of state for legislative affairs in 1984-85 and former chairman of the ABA standing committee on law and national security, says Nancy Pelosi may very well be guilty of a felony.

Ms. Pelosi and her Congressional entourage spoke to President Assad on various issues, among other things saying, "We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace." She is certainly not the first member of Congress--of either party--to engage in this sort of behavior, but her position as a national leader, the wartime circumstances, the opposition to the trip from the White House, and the character of the regime she has chosen to approach make her behavior particularly inappropriate.

The U.S. is in the midst of two wars authorized by Congress. For Ms. Pelosi to flout the Constitution in these circumstances is not only shortsighted; it may well be a felony, as the Logan Act has been part of our criminal law for more than two centuries. Perhaps it is time to enforce the law.

Via MacRanger.

Pelosi diplomacy

The Washington Post seems to think that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's visit to Syrian President Bashar Assad has been a diplomatic triumph.  Lately relations between the United States and Syria have been under something of a strain, particularly after the February 2005 assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq al-Hariri, which almost everybody blames on Syria.  But in today's news the Post implies, maybe all that is changing.

Pelosi met Assad at his palace overlooking the Syrian capital, then joined him for lunch at a restored house in Damascus's historic district, news agencies reported. During the talks, Pelosi said she conveyed a message to Assad from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that Israel was ready to resume peace talks that collapsed in March 2000. She reiterated U.S. demands that Syria stop the passage of insurgents across Syria into Iraq and stop supporting militant groups.

"We were very pleased with the reassurances we received from the president that he was ready to resume the peace process," she told reporters in Damascus after the talks. "He was ready to engage in negotiations for peace with Israel." Pelosi was scheduled to leave for Saudi Arabia after the meeting.

However, shortly after Madame Pelosi assured Assad of Israel readiness to resume peace talks, the Israeli Prime Minister's Office issued a "clarification".  It seems the Madame didn't get it exactly right.

The Prime Minister's Office issued a rare "clarification" Wednesday that, in gentle diplomatic terms, contradicted US Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's statement in Damascus that she had brought a message from Israel about a willingness to engage in peace talks.

According to the statement, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert emphasized in his meeting with Pelosi on Sunday that "although Israel is interested in peace with Syria, that country continues to be part of the Axis of Evil and a force that encourages terror in the entire Middle East."

Olmert, the statement clarified, told Pelosi that Syria's sincerity about a genuine peace with Israel would be judged by its willingness to "cease its support of terror, cease its sponsoring of the Hamas and Islamic Jihad organizations, refrain from providing weapons to Hizbullah and bringing about the destabilizing of Lebanon, cease its support of terror in Iraq, and relinquish the strategic ties it is building with the extremist regime in Iran."

The statement said Olmert had not communicated to Pelosi any change in Israeli policy on Damascus.

In fact, according to officials in the Prime Minister's Office, Olmert told Pelosi that he thought her trip to Damascus was a mistake.  But not to be deterred, Pelosi asked if Olmert had a message for Assad.  The message, said Olmert, is to stop supporting terrorism and "act like a normal country," and only then would Israel be willing to hold discussions.

The Madame's Vision

Don Surber notes that Nancy Pelosi has gone back on her word.

The headline over the column by Tom Curry of MSNBC oin Dec. 5, 2006, was clear: “Pelosi: ‘We will not cut off funding’ for Iraq”

Curry quoted her then:

“We will not cut off funding for the troops,” Pelosi said. “Absolutely not,” she said.

The vote today was clear: Pelosi is cutting the funding for Iraq. Out by Sept. 1, 2008.

It was a partisan stab in the back of the 150,000 troops in Iraq.

According to this Associated Press report, the House has effectively voted to cut funding for the war in Iraq by adding a deadline for troop withdrawal to the war spending bill after President Bush had warned congress that he would veto any bill that set such a deadline.

Democrats said it was time to heed the mandate of their election sweep last November, which gave them control of Congress.

“The American people have lost faith in the president’s conduct of this war,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. “The American people see the reality of the war, the president does not.”

Apparently Madame Pelosi is under the impression that the American people are privy to information on the war effort that the President is not.  At any rate, President Bush responded this way.

As I have made clear for weeks, I will veto it if it comes to my desk. And because the vote in the House was so close, it is clear that my veto would be sustained. Today's action in the House does only one thing: it delays the delivering of vital resources for our troops. A narrow majority has decided to take this course, just as General Petraeus and his troops are carrying out a new strategy to help the Iraqis secure their capital city.

Amid the real challenges in Iraq, we're beginning to see some signs of progress. Yet, to score political points, the Democratic majority in the House has shown it is willing to undermine the gains our troops are making on the ground.

The New York Times seems to take the side of the Madame over the that of the troops.  Here's their take on Bush's response.

President Bush angrily denounced the bill, accusing Democrats of engaging in “an act of political theater” by passing a measure that would undermine American progress in Iraq. “I will veto it if it comes to my desk,” he said. “It is clear that my veto would be sustained.”

And their take on the Madame.

“It’s historic,” Ms. Pelosi said in a brief interview, “for our party and our country.”

And al Qaeda?  Which side do you suppose they might be cheering on?

Won't back down

Vice President Cheney is not backing down.  He said so.  At issue are remarks he made about the plan espoused by Nancy Pelosi and John Murtha which they describe as a "slow bleed" method of bringing the war in Iraq to an end.  Cheney's position is this,

"Al-Qaeda functions on the basis that they think they can break our will. That's their fundamental underlying strategy: that if they can kill enough Americans or cause enough havoc, create enough chaos in Iraq, then we'll quit and go home," Cheney added. "And my statement was that if we adopt the Pelosi policy, that then we will validate the strategy of al-Qaeda. I said it, and I meant it."

Pelosi complained loudly but refused to challenge the logic behind Cheney's remarks.  It was, she said, "beneath the dignity of the debate we're engaged in."  Is it possible to make a stupider, more disingenuous statement than that one?  How can it be beneath dignity to discuss the consequences of a proposed course of action, I'd like to know.

Conditions for American withdrawal have always rested on how quickly the Iraqi government can take over responsibility for security.  It has been a challenge, but there has been progress.  Last September the Iraqi government promised three battalions for Baghdad security, but none of them showed up.  Compre that to last week when three Iraqi brigades and two Iraqi battalions reported for duty in Baghdad at a 70% strength.  Although 70% would be a dismal percentage by American standards, it represents substantial improvement.

It's too soon to know with a certainty that the operation to secure Baghdad will be a success, but it seems to be working so far.  We are only two weeks into it, but initial indications are good.  Violence has not been eliminated but it is substantially down.  Families driven out have begun to return.  Mohammed of Iraq the Model toured the city and had this to say.

The buildup of troops in the capital seems to be incremental and increasing by the day giving a steadily growing sense of the seriousness of the operation. Yesterday during my tour with some friends we were stopped to be searched seven times during about only two hours; five times in Karkh and two in Resafa. The search typically includes verifying the vehicle registration papers, looking for guns and munitions or suspicious objects, destination of the passenger/driver and often their identity cards. In general the security personnel are polite in their dealing with people they search and some of them even end the procedure with an apology for the inconvenience.

We are getting used to the procedures at checkpoints; keep your hands visible on the wheel, keep your papers close to you, prepare to open the trunk and if it's getting dark then turn the headlights off and turn the reading light on.

I hear a lot from people how they want to see checkpoint search each and every vehicle on the street even their own because we know that the more effective checkpoints are the more secure the city would be.

It comes down to the question of time.  With enough time, the violence in Baghdad will be brought under control.  But can it be done quickly enough to satisfy those who claim Iraq is a lost cause and demand immediate withdrawal?  I think the answer to that is, no.  Nothing is quick enough.  For whatever reason, the Democratic leadership has become heavily invested in an American defeat in Iraq.  They seem to be in a race to get the troops out before Baghdad can be brought under control. 

Yes, Iraq is a mess, as all wars are messes, but the Iraq policy is not a failure.  It can become a failure if we follow the advice of Nancy Pelosi and John Murtha.  Vice President Cheney knows this and has said so.  Forcing an American withdrawal from Iraq is the aim of al Qaeda in Iraq.  For Pelosi and Murtha to allow themselves, even by accident, to share the aims of al Qaeda, is incredibly stupid or incredibly brazen.  Dignity notwithstanding, Pelosi's refusal to dispute the logic of Cheney's argument can mean only one thing.  She can't.