Inquirer tries to IMPLY only the JEWS are upset at Sestak

Sensitive political test for Sestak
The new member of the U.S. House spoke to a Muslim (CAIR) group. He offered praise as well as some admonishment.
By Tom Infield
Inquirer Staff Writer

Inside the posh Hilton Philadelphia last night, a dinner crowd of several hundred Muslims was full of praise for the political courage it said U.S. Rep. Joe Sestak had shown merely by showing up to speak. (more like pure stupidity)

Outside the City Avenue hotel, amid Passover week snow flurries, about a dozen Jewish protesters held up signs blasting Sestak for what they said was his nerve in showing up. One sign read, "Say it ain't so, Joe." (there were a dozen and but it wasn't just Jewish people and the heat that this artical and intro refer to was from thousands of Sestaks constituants that have contacted his office)

Sestak, a Democrat from Philadelphia's western suburbs, was facing the first real test of his first term in office - how to navigate the conflicting passions that had sprung up with his acceptance of an invitation to address the Philadelphia chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. (and the hiring of a former CAIR Communication Director Adeeba Al Zaman to work on his staff)

The group, known as CAIR, is one of the largest Muslim organizations in the country, and its banquet drew a sold-out crowd of about 500.

Small but vocal Jewish groups have accused CAIR of being an apologist for terrorism at best, a front for terrorism at worst. (This SO-CALLED REPORTER doesn't mention this :March 3, 2007 CAIR: Admits Officials Have Ties to Islamist TerrorismIn a stunning revelation, Corey Saylor, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) government affairs director, on 2 March admitted that convicted Islamic terrorists were CAIR officials when they committed terrorist acts against the United States: [Link here] Just a little something that he could have REPORTED)

"I think it's a disgrace for an American congressman to come to an organization that has so many ties to terrorists," said one of the protesters, Rabbi Lisa Malik of Suburban Jewish Community Center, a Havertown synagogue.

CAIR is not on any U.S. list of terrorism sponsors. Since its founding in 1994, it has had good relationships with the U.S. government. It has worked with the FBI in training agents in cultural sensitivity. (BULLSHIT)

Gov. Rendell, though not a scheduled speaker, showed up late at the event last night.

CAIR, which promotes civil rights for Muslims, has consistently denounced acts of terrorism. But it has refused to condemn the Palestinian group Hamas and the Lebanese group Hezbollah, which the United States does recognize as terrorist organizations. That, more than anything else, has raised its critics' ire.

(the REPORTER also forgets to mention this: Last month, U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer rescinded an award her office gave to the head of CAIR’s Sacramento office, saying her staff had turned up a "laundry list" of problems with the Islamic advocacy group.

"We made a bad mistake not researching the organization," Boxer told the Sacramento Bee. Among Boxer’s concerns were the convictions of two former CAIR members -- Ghassan Elashi and Ismail Royer -- for engaging in financial transactions with the leader of Hamas and supporting overseas terrorist operations. Just another contradiction of this artical)

"We try to avoid condemning individuals, organizations or countries, because that prevents the ability for us to create opportunity for bridge-building," said Iftekhar Hussain, chairman of CAIR's Philadelphia chapter, in an interview Friday. (I'd be careful that bridge wasn't mined)

Parvez Ahmed, the group's national chairman, told the dinner crowd that Sestak was being "demonized and vilified by the right-wing media and pro-Israel extremists" for agreeing to speak. He said Sestak should be applauded for "standing up to these folks." (What about cow towwing to TERROR SUPPORTERS)

Sestak, who has said his Seventh District includes at least 20,000 Jewish voters, delivered a 20-minute speech in which he started with praise for peaceful tenets of Islam and the advances of American Muslims.

Near the end of the speech, amid clanking silverware and the burble of table conversations, the former Navy admiral said it was not sufficient for any group just to condemn terrorist acts.

He said it was CAIR's duty to condemn individuals or groups that commit terrorism, and he specifically mentioned Hamas and Hezbollah. (but He and Rendell help them raise money anyway)

"It's the same as those who did not speak out against the perpetrators of Jim Crow laws . . . or the Holocaust," he said.

The remark drew no reaction from the audience. At the end of his speech, he was applauded.

Sestak, in an interview Friday, said he had agreed to attend because he had been told that 250 of his constituents would be at the event.

"I honestly believe it is the right thing to do," he said in the interview. "It is perilous not to speak, even to others who you may not agree with." (especially if they raise money for people that might blow you up)

The controversy over his speech sprouted March 11 when he addressed a community forum at the Suburban Jewish Community Center. The event was cosponsored by the Jewish Federation of Greater Philadelphia. (Nonsense people have been outraged since his hiring of a terror supporter to work on his staff)

Sestak was hit with a barrage of criticism from the synagogue audience, which had learned of his plans to speak to CAIR.

Sestak's critics pointed out that one of his aides, Adeeba Al-Zaman, is the former communications director for the CAIR chapter in Philadelphia. She had helped him organize support in the Muslim community when he ran for election last year. She had then joined his congressional staff. (and Sestak has been recieving protests from his constituants ever since)

Sestak said Al-Zaman, without checking with him, had accepted the speaking invitation. (BULLSHIT)

"Lots of people wanted me to fire her," he said.

But he did not.

While declining to say Al-Zaman had made a mistake, he said in the interview that he wished that she had talked to him first.

He said he wouldn't have accepted the invitation if he had known that the $50-per-person banquet was partly to raise money for CAIR. (he knew)

He said he told CAIR that he would still attend, but only if it separated the fund-raising portion of the program from the portion at which he would speak. He said CAIR had done that.

Midway through the banquet, after Sestak's speech, CAIR officials abruptly announced that the fund-raising portion of the evening would begin. (did Sestak or Rendell LEAVE when they started collecting the MONEY???)

Lori Lowenthal Marcus, president of the Philadelphia-area chapter of the Zionist Organization of America, said separating the program was just a fig leaf to cover up Sestak's help for CAIR in raising money.

"After they received heat, they changed it to look as if if were two different events," Marcus, a lawyer, said in an interview Friday. "It's at the same place, one right after another, which is ridiculous."

She said Sestak had "a right to speak to anyone he wants," but she added: "You don't go to a fund-raiser for a group that has a connection to terrorism." (YOU DO IF YOUR A DEMOCRAT)

This Reporter and the Inquirer were grossly negligent in their coloring and reporting of this story

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contact staff writer Tom Infield
at 610-313-8205 or tinfield@phillynews.com.
Sestak
Democrats
Inquirer

Conyers claims Authority over Executive Branch Justice Evaluations

Just another example of Congress Violating the Seperation of Powers

House Judiciary Panel Subpoenas Gonzales

Apr 10 01:39 PM US/Eastern
By LAURIE KELLMAN
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - The House Judiciary Committee subpoenaed new documents Tuesday from Attorney General Alberto Gonzales as part of its investigation into the firings of federal prosecutors, with panel chairman saying he had run out of patience.
"We have been patient in allowing the department to work through its concerns regarding the sensitive nature of some of these materials," Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., wrote Gonzales in a letter accompanying the subpoena. "Unfortunately, the department has not indicated any meaningful willingness to find a way to meet our legitimate needs.,"

"At this point further delay in receiving these materials will not serve any constructive purpose," Conyers said.

The Justice Department did not have an immediate comment.

But one Justice official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the situation, said the House request included the full text of all documents that had been partially or completely blacked out in the Justice Department's initial release of more than 3,000 pages last month. The Justice official said some U.S. attorney evaluations were included in these documents.

The official said the request also included an unredacted list ranking the performance and standing of each of the 93 U.S. attorneys. Government officials have previously confirmed that Chicago-based prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, one of the Justice Department's premier U.S. attorneys, was ranked as "not distinguished."

Conyers characterized the subpoena as a last resort after weeks of negotiations with Justice over documents and e-mails the committee wants.

Democrats who control Congress say statements by Gonzales and his lieutenants, three of whom have resigned in the aftermath of the dismissals, have raised questions over whether the ousters were politically motivated.

The Justice Department denies that and President Bush has stood behind Gonzales, but calls for a new attorney general have continued. Gonzales, Bush's longtime friend, is scheduled before the Senate Judiciary Committee next week.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino had no immediate information about the request.

"I think the Justice Department has been working very hard to be fully responsive to the request, as the president asked them to do," Perino said, describing the administration's release of documents. "So I don't know what's new here. We'll have to check it out."

___

Associated Press Writers Lara Jakes Jordan and Ben Feller contributed to this report in Washington.
Conyers
Democrats

Edwards Drives Poor Neighbor Away With Lack of Tolerance

Elizabeth Edwards afraid of neighbor
She has never met `rabid Republican,' but wouldn't be nice
MIKE BAKER
Associated Press

RALEIGH --Elizabeth Edwards says she is scared of the "rabid, rabid Republican" who owns property across the street from her Orange County home -- and she doesn't want her kids going near the gun-toting neighbor.

Edwards, the wife of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, particularly recalls the time neighbor Monty Johnson brought out a gun while chasing workers investigating a right of way near his property. The Edwards family has yet to meet Johnson in person.

"I wouldn't be nice to him, anyway," Edwards said in an interview. "I don't want my kids anywhere near some guy who, when he doesn't like somebody, the first thing he does is pull a gun out. It scares the business out of me."

But Johnson defended the occasion he brandished a gun, saying those on his land didn't have the proper approval.

"I use the gun for protection, and I considered that an appropriate time," Johnson said. "Sometimes you have to take drastic measures."

Edwards views Johnson as a "rabid, rabid Republican" who refuses to clean up his "slummy" property just to spite her family, whose lavish 28,000-square-foot estate is nearby on 102 wooded acres.

Johnson, 55, acknowledges his Republican roots. But he takes offense to the suggestion he has purposefully left his property, including an old garage he leases for use as a car shop, in dilapidated condition.

Johnson said he has lived his entire life on the property, which he said his family purchased before the Great Depression. He said he's spent a lot of money to try and fix up the 42-acre tract.

"I have to budget. I have to live within my means," Johnson said. "I don't have millions of dollars to fix the place."

Johnson, who has posted a "Go Rudy Giuliani 2008" sign on a fence just 100 feet from the entrance to the Edwards' driveway, has criticized Edwards for the scale of their nearby home. The property and home, which includes an indoor basketball court, an indoor handball court and an indoor pool, is valued at $5.3 million.

The Edwardses are still putting the final touches on the property, which they purchased in 2003.

"I thought he was supposed to be for the poor people," Johnson said. "But does he ever socialize with any poor people? He doesn't speak to me."

Johnson said he has put his property on the market, in part blaming the high property taxes for his decision to leave. He also wants to move for another reason.

"I don't want to live somewhere where someone's always complaining about me," he said.
Edwards

The Village Idiot John Kerry

This story is great it illustrates how really stupid John Kerry really is.

In S.F., Kerry blasts critics of Pelosi's Mideast trip
Senator defends speaker's visit as fact-finding mission
Carla Marinucci, Chronicle Political Writer

Friday, April 6, 2007


Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry came to the strong defense of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday for her trip to the Mideast, saying in San Francisco that a high-profile critic of the trip, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, has little credibility on the issue.

Romney's "knowledge of foreign affairs extends to briefing papers -- not experience,'' Kerry said of the former Massachusetts governor. "I'd rather have Nancy Pelosi's input than his."

Kerry and his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, visited San Francisco on Thursday to talk about their new book, "This Moment on Earth: Today's Environmentalists and Their Vision for the Future.''
But the couple also weighed in on current political issues.

On the Democratic speaker's Mideast visit, which included a meeting with Syrian President Bashar Assad, Kerry said, "It's terrific that she went to Syria. We are a separate branch in the United States Congress, and the administration needs to remember that.
(That is the POINT YOU ASSHOLE, the branch of government that you and Pelousy are in have NOTHING TO DO WITH FOREIGN POLICY)

"She's not there to make policy," he said of the San Francisco lawmaker. "She's there to fact-find and explore policies, to have a better sense of what our choices and options are,'' Kerry said, noting that he was among the members of the House and Senate who visited Assad in the past few months. (Except Pelousy in her own words said the opposit she said "She is there to talk to Assad because this administration won't" Well that IS MAKING YOUR OWN POLICY. The policy of the United States is we don't talk to TERROR NATIONS. Assad ordered the ASSASINATION of the President of Lebenon, he is supplying Hezzbooha and Hamass, he is hiding Iraqs WMDs and is supplying money and explosives to the people KILLING OUR SOLDIERS IN IRAQ.)

Romney, during an Iowa campaign stop Wednesday, joined the White House in criticizing Pelosi's diplomatic efforts.

"I just don't know what got into her head, to be completely honest with you. Her going to a state which is without question a sponsor of terror and having her picture taken with Assad and being seen in a head scarf and so forth is sending the wrong signal to the people of Syria and to the people of the Middle East," Romney said.

But Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee in 2004, brushed aside Romney's criticism as coming from someone with no foreign policy experience. (What Foreign POLICY EXPIERIENCE does Nancy have except dealing with the ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS she has picking her grapes in her non-union orchards)

"It's important for Americans who wish to be informed. ... It is important for our leaders to be informed,'' Kerry said. "This administration has made the world more dangerous by not talking to people. And I think we have a responsibility to talk to them.'' (No she has commited a FELONY, she violated the Logan Act and should be prosicuted)

Teresa Heinz Kerry also criticized Romney, saying "some segments of our population don't like uppity ladies -- and they call them all kinds of names. And (Pelosi) clearly is a wonderful example of what happens when women get in positions of power. ... It's important to talk with those we disagree with, in particular.''

On the subject of presidential politics, Kerry stood by comments he made in an interview on the MyDD.com Web site this week, in which he said an aide to Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona approached him in 2004 about McCain serving with Kerry as vice president on the Democratic ticket. McCain's staffers have vehemently denied the reports.

"My comments stand, and I'm not going to get dragged into a back and forth,'' he said, calling the denials "silly."

Kerry's visit to San Francisco came the same day he and two Democratic colleagues, Sens. Chris Dodd of Connecticut and Robert Casey of Pennsylvania, called for an investigation into whether President Bush acted illegally in giving a recess appointment to Sam Fox -- a major donor to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth -- as ambassador to Belgium. (so there party breaks the law by trying to create thier own foreign policy, yet the want to investigate the President AGAIN for doing what is in his CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY)

The Swift Boat group made a series of attacks on Kerry's Vietnam War combat record during the 2004 presidential campaign. (That were ALL TRUE)

Senate Democrats, criticizing Fox's $50,000 contribution to the Swift Boat group, said they would block his nomination. But Bush, acting while the Senate is on its holiday recess, announced he would appoint Fox to the Belgium post. Fox will be able to remain as ambassador without Senate approval until the end of 2008. (and that just gauls ya don't it John)

Kerry called the appointment a "sad" development, but a White House spokesman defended the recess appointment as "an appropriate way to get people who are qualified into jobs that need to be filled.''

On environmental issues, Kerry said he and his wife wrote their book to highlight an issue he hopes will be crucial in the 2008 presidential race -- and to show how the outlook has changed positively for issues such as energy independence and global warming. (scam to create a world tax)

"We wanted people to see the success stories and the possibilities,'' he said. "The hope we have is obviously not coming from the White House. It's coming from the Congress, and people themselves." (god get over yourself, no one but you is impressed by you)

The senator addressed criticism from some conservatives that environmental leaders like himself and former Vice President Al Gore are wealthy activists who may contribute more to global warming because they can buy and consume more.

"We're not trying to say you do this, and we won't,'' Kerry said. "For instance, in our homes, we have taken steps to make them as energy efficient as possible, to change lightbulbs, to have energy-efficient sources. ... We try to do the things that address that carbon footprint.'' (what a schmuck)

As government leaders, "we're dedicating ourselves to trying to change these policies, so we can make it feasible for everybody to try and make the right choices,'' he said, noting that he supported a $4,000 tax credit to help consumers purchase hybrid cars and has long pushed for the development of alternative fuels. (while he is pushing snake oil and just voted for a 400 BILLION dollar tax increase)

"To be attacking people who are trying to change the choices for everybody and get us on the right track is crazy,'' he said. (no it's called self defense, you fool)
Village Idiot

From The Tank

Easter on the Front [J. Peter Pham]
Every time U.S. or allied forces in the war on terrorism so much as lift a finger during the Muslim fasting month of Ramadan or any other days with particular or even quasi religious significance to the Islamic world, they are hectored by various groups for failing to show adequate sensitivity to the feelings of the umma. For example, less than two months after 9/11, Al-Haaj Ghazi Y. Khankan, the executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in New York, expressed dismay in one Washington Post forum that U.S. attacks on the Taliban while they were fasting might show that "we are not sensitive to their religious beliefs and are taking advantage of the situation."

I can hardly wait for our colleague W. Thomas Smith Jr. to report from Iraq on how the terrorists and insurgents are showing (or not showing) their sensitivity to the Christian religious beliefs of many of the men and women in the Coalition forces by taking (or not taking) advantage of the observance of what for Christians is the feast of feasts.

RE: Easter on the Front [W. Thomas Smith Jr.]
Peter, I'm just back from Iraq, but here are two of many examples of how the terrorists and insurgents are showing their "sensitivity" to our Easter and Passover holidays:
From the AP:

The renegade cleric Muqtada al-Sadr urged Iraqi forces to stop cooperating with
the United States and told his guerrilla fighters to concentrate their attacks
on American troops rather than Iraqis, according to a statement issued Sunday.
...
Separately, the U.S. military on Sunday announced the deaths of four
American soldiers, killed a day earlier in an explosion near their vehicle in
Diyala province northeast of Baghdad.

And of course, last week was one of the deadliest weeks for British soldiers (six killed) since the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
04/08 09:55 AM

HAPPY EASTER

Did Nancy Pelosi commit a felony when she went to Syria?

Illegal Diplomacy
BY ROBERT F. TURNER
Friday, April 6, 2007 11:30 a.m. EDT

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may well have committed a felony in traveling to Damascus this week, against the wishes of the president, to communicate on foreign-policy issues with Syrian President Bashar Assad. The administration isn't going to want to touch this political hot potato, nor should it become a partisan issue. Maybe special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, whose aggressive prosecution of Lewis Libby establishes his independence from White House influence, should be called back.

The Logan Act makes it a felony and provides for a prison sentence of up to three years for any American, "without authority of the United States," to communicate with a foreign government in an effort to influence that government's behavior on any "disputes or controversies with the United States." Some background on this statute helps to understand why Ms. Pelosi may be in serious trouble.

President John Adams requested the statute after a Pennsylvania pacifist named George Logan traveled to France in 1798 to assure the French government that the American people favored peace in the undeclared "Quasi War" being fought on the high seas between the two countries. In proposing the law, Rep. Roger Griswold of Connecticut explained that the object was, as recorded in the Annals of Congress, "to punish a crime which goes to the destruction of the executive power of the government. He meant that description of crime which arises from an interference of individual citizens in the negotiations of our executive with foreign governments."

The debate on this bill ran nearly 150 pages in the Annals. On Jan. 16, 1799, Rep. Isaac Parker of Massachusetts explained, "the people of the United States have given to the executive department the power to negotiate with foreign governments, and to carry on all foreign relations, and that it is therefore an usurpation of that power for an individual to undertake to correspond with any foreign power on any dispute between the two governments, or for any state government, or any other department of the general government, to do it."

Griswold and Parker were Federalists who believed in strong executive power. But consider this statement by Albert Gallatin, the future Secretary of the Treasury under President Thomas Jefferson, who was wary of centralized government: "it would be extremely improper for a member of this House to enter into any correspondence with the French Republic . . . As we are not at war with France, an offence of this kind would not be high treason, yet it would be as criminal an act, as if we were at war." Indeed, the offense is greater when the usurpation of the president's constitutional authority is done by a member of the legislature--all the more so by a Speaker of the House--because it violates not just statutory law but constitutes a usurpation of the powers of a separate branch and a breach of the oath of office Ms. Pelosi took to support the Constitution.





The Supreme Court has spoken clearly on this aspect of the separation of powers. In Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall used the president's authority over the Department of State as an illustration of those "important political powers" that, "being entrusted to the executive, the decision of the executive is conclusive." And in the landmark 1936 Curtiss-Wright case, the Supreme Court reaffirmed: "Into the field of negotiation the Senate cannot intrude, and Congress itself is powerless to invade it."
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.

Of course, not all congressional travel to, or communications with representatives of, foreign nations is unlawful. A purely fact-finding trip that involves looking around, visiting American military bases or talking with U.S. diplomats is not a problem. Nor is formal negotiation with foreign representatives if authorized by the president. (FDR appointed Sens. Tom Connally and Arthur Vandenberg to the U.S. delegation that negotiated the U.N. Charter.) Ms. Pelosi's trip was not authorized, and Syria is one of the world's leading sponsors of international terrorism. It has almost certainly been involved in numerous attacks that have claimed the lives of American military personnel from Beirut to Baghdad.

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.

Mr. Turner was acting assistant secretary of state for legislative affairs in 1984-85 and is a former chairman of the ABA standing committee on law and national security.
Pelousy

Pelousy Causes International Incident

Thumbing her nose at the State Department and the White House by going to a Terror Sponsoring State, Pelousy proves why Members of Congress are not qualified to conduct Foreign Policy.

PMO denies peace message to Assad
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.

Pelosi, who met in Damascus with Syrian President Bashar Assad over the objections of US President George W. Bush, said she brought a message to Assad from Olmert saying that Israel was ready for peace talks.

"We were very pleased with the reassurances we received from the president [Assad] that he was ready to resume the peace process. He was ready to engage in negotiations for peace with Israel," Pelosi said after meeting Assad.

She said the meeting with the Syrian leader "enabled us to communicate a message from Prime Minister Olmert that Israel was ready to engage in peace talks as well."

According to officials in the Prime Minister's Office, however, this was not what transpired during her meeting with Olmert.

The officials said Olmert had told Pelosi that he thought her trip to Damascus was a mistake, and that when she asked - nevertheless - whether he had a message for Assad, Olmert said Syria should first stop supporting terrorism and "act like a normal country," and only then would Israel be willing to hold discussions.

The first part of that message, the officials said, was lost in what was reported from Damascus on Wednesday.

Pelosi said the congressional delegation she led raised the issue of kidnapped IDF soldiers Gilad Schalit, Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev and conveyed "the importance of Syria's role in promoting peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis." She also said she had pressed Assad on Syrian support for Hamas and Hizbullah.

UPDATE: Pelosi: Mideast Trip Strengthened Ties

WASHINGTON (AP) - House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, deflecting White House criticism of her trip to Syria, said Friday she thinks the mission helped President Bush because it showed the United States is unified against terrorism despite being divided over the Iraq war.
Pelosi, D-Calif., met with Syrian President Bashar Assad in Damascus earlier this week, against the president's wishes.

"Our message was President Bush's message," Pelosi said in a phone interview with The Associated Press from Portugal, where she stopped briefly en route back to the United States.

"The funny thing is, I think we may have even had a more powerful impact with our message because of the attention that was called to our trip," the California Democrat said. "It became clear to President Assad that even though we have our differences in the United States, there is no division between the president and the Congress and the Democrats on the message we wanted him to receive."

Bush earlier in the week assailed Pelosi for making the trip to Damascus, saying it sent mixed messages to the Syrian government, which his administration considers to be a state supporter of terrorism.

After reading the above statement by Ms. Pelousy, It may be prudent to administer a drug test to her upon her return, along with a psych evaluation....

Pelousy

Yes There Are Republican Assholes Too

U.S. Congressman Meets Syrian President
DAMASCUS, Syria (AP) - 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.

"That's an important message to realize: We have tensions, but we have two functioning embassies," Issa told reporters after separate meetings with Assad and Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem.

President Bush has rejected direct talks with Syria, saying others have tried the tactic but without result. White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said Thursday the administration had a clear line on Congress members - Democrat or Republican - going to Syria.

"We do not think it's productive; we do not think it is useful," Johndroe said, adding that such visits "only makes (the Syrians) feel validated."

Issa, a Lebanese-American who frequently travels to the Middle East, said he and other members of Congress would continue to encourage the Bush administration to engage Syria.

I wonder if any of these Soldiers have been killed by Terrorists or IEDs that have crossed the border from Syria into Iraq?

Issa

The Real Reason The Hostages Are Free

USS Nimitz Forced Iran's Decision
Kenneth R. TimmermanWednesday, April 4, 2007

WASHINGTON -- The announcement Wednesday by Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that his government would release the 15 captured British sailors and marines came after an intense and often bitter internal debate, sources in Tehran told NewsMax.

The capture of the British naval inspection team was clearly a coordinated effort by the Iranian government aimed at demonstrating Iran's ability to confront the U.S.-led multinational forces in Iraq and to divert international attention from the nuclear showdown. The decision to release the hostages showed the limits of Iran's power and the fears of some leaders that too much provocation could backfire.

Within four days of their capture on March 23, the 15 Britons were split up into smaller groups and held in different areas, Iranian sources told NewsMax. This was a lesson learned from the 1979-1981 hostage crisis, when all 55 U.S. hostages were initially kept in one place.

That crisis, which occurred during the Jimmy Carter administration, prompted a U.S. attempt to rescue the hostages by force. After that attempt failed at Desert One in April 1980, the Iranians split up the U.S. hostages so it would be more difficult to rescue them.

At one point during the current hostage crisis, the British team was split up into five groups of three, with each group kept at a different military base. The Iranians would then bring several groups together and film them, to give the impression they were being held together.

The order to capture the British sailors and marines was given by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei himself, NewsMax sources believe.

Khamenei's top advisers argued that by striking out against a U.S. ally in Iraq, they would be sending a message to other European nations to step back from supporting the U.S. strategy of increasing pressure on Iran over its nuclear program. They saw the move as a clear test of Western resolve.

But as Britain refused to apologize for the behavior of its boarding party, continuing to insist that they were operating in Iraqi waters – not inside Iran's territorial waters, as Tehran alleged – some of Khamenei's advisers began to have second thoughts.

Adding to those doubts were reports that the USS Nimitz was steaming toward the Persian Gulf – making it the third Carrier Strike Group in the area.

The Nimitz is expected to join the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower and the USS John C. Stennis, both currently in the Persian Gulf, in the coming weeks.

On Friday, March 30, Khamenei's top advisers met in an emergency session of the Supreme Council on National Security, chaired by Ali Larijani. Larijani is the regime's top nuclear negotiator, and is a confidant of the Supreme Leader, while maintaining close ties to President Ahmadinejad.

At that meeting, Revolutionary Guards commander Maj. Gen. Rahim Safavi reported that the deployment of the Nimitz suggested that a U.S. military invasion of Iran was being prepared for early May. He urged the Council to order the release of the British hostages as a gesture to defuse the tension in the region.

The next day, however, the head of the Political and Cultural bureau of the Revolutionary Guards, Dr. Yadollah Javani, called Safavi a "traitor" for proposing the release of the hostages.

While this internal dispute raged, Revolutionary Guards intelligence officers in charge of guarding the hostages continued intense debriefings, aimed at eliciting "confessions" from the British captives that were aired on Iranian television.

The intention was to build a legal "case" against the captives and haul them before a Revolutionary court. During the trial, the regime intended to use forced "confessions" from some of the hostages who alleged they had personal knowledge of British government support for Iranian separatist groups operating in Arab-dominated Khuzestan along the Iraqi border and in Sistan-Balouchestan province, next to Pakistan.

The first inkling that the faction urging release of the hostages was winning appeared on Tuesday evening, when the influential Baztab Web site, run by former Revolutionary Guards commander Gen. Mohsen Rezai, reported that the British captives would soon be released.

"It can now be said that the politicians who are for continuing relations with London have got the upper hand," Baztab reported. Fars News Agency also reported on Tuesday that a prominent cleric, Hojatt-ol eslam Ghorbanali Najafabadi, was urging the public prosecutor not to pursue a legal case against the British sailors, but to solve the hostage crisis "through international diplomatic channels."

For now, Tehran's leaders have backed down. Why? My bets are on the Nimitz.

Unless Iran already has nuclear warheads, a direct military confrontation with the United States would most likely provoke a popular uprising against the regime. And retaining power is the one thing that Ayatollah Khamenei and his clerical cohorts actually care about.

© NewsMax 2007. All rights reserved.
Iran
British Sailors