Photo's of Speaker Pelosi in Syria with Bashar Assad...

This picture of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi with Syrian Dictator Bashar Assad is the first I have seen, and it is just as juicy and inexplicable as I thought it might be. Who is the genius that convinced Pelosi that this was a good idea? In my opinion, she might as well be sitting on the anti-aircraft guns flirting with the Viet Cong with Jane Fonda. Just to give a quick photo-profile of Pelosi's host, I thought I would highlight who he hangs around with when their isn't a US Speaker in town.

We can now count the Democratic leader among the closest allies of the Syrian President, which should have been inferred from her party's recent legslative coup, trying to dictate the Bush Administration's foreign policy by using cheap partisan proceedural and non-binding to undermine the president's authority.

Appallingly, the media is totally complicite, and I have no doubt that the editors of every major news outlet understand how damaging these images of Speaker Pelosi are. Now the question is, are they going to make it the story that it deserves to be, or will it be tucked on page 15, with Fox being the exception. I doubt that any of the networks are going to sacrafice the ratings that a story like this should generate, but they (everyone on MSNBC particularly) are proving to be just that dishonorable.

Tags: Nancy Pelosi, Syria, Bashar Assad, Speaker of the House, Middle East, Terrorism, State Sponsors of Terror

Bush should give Pelosi the old FDR treatment...

The current dispute between the President and the new Speaker over whether Nancy Pelosi's impending visit to Syria and photo-op with Bashir Assad, has reminded me of a story recounted by John Meacham in his recent masterpiece in American historical literature Franklin and Winston. Quoting Churchill from his memoirs when looking back on his first visit to the United States as Prime Minister during Christmas of 1941. Churchill was, as he used to brag, half-American, and had several close friends in American political circles, but Roosevelt granted no exceptions to the caveat that Churchill should not under any circumstances attempt to contact, or accept guests from the Republican party.

During his month long stay in Washington, Churchill had a brief health scare when he began suffering from chest pains. The Executive staff, eager to help the President catch up on sleep, whisked the visiting dignitary to the Gulf shores of Florida, where he spent a few day's skinny dipping. Irritated by Roosevelts stubbornness regarding his contact with the GOP, Churchill told his assistant to get his old friend Wendell Willkie, who happened to have been the Republican nominee in the 1940 election, which he ultimately lost to Roosevelt. After several more minutes of effort than Churchill had the patience for, his aid finally returned to inform the P.M. that "he" was on the phone now.

Churchill recalled some years later:

"I said in effect, 'I am so glad to speak to you, I hope we may meet.... Can you join the train at some point and travel with me for a few hours? Where will you be on Saturday next?'"

"A voice came back: 'Why, just where I am now, at my desk.'

"To this I replied, 'I do not understand.'

"Whom do you think you are speaking to?"

"I replied, 'To Mr. Wendell Wilkie, am I not?"

" 'No', was the answer, 'you are speaking to the President."

"I did not hear this well, and asked , Who?"

"You are asking me', came the answer, 'Franklin Roosevelt."

"I said, 'I did not mean to trouble tou at this moment. I was trying to speak to Wendell Willkie, but your telephone exchange seems to have made a mistake.' "

(Meacham, John. Franklin and Winston, 2004, pg. 160.)

Churchill reflected on the incident with clearly mixed emotions later in life, but Meacham paints a definitive picture of a man that lived at the emotional extremes, and bore heavy senses of both guilt and anxiety. It is obvious events subsequent to this uncomfortable situation gave both parties ever reason to believe that it was a matter without consequence. Roosevelt was not a man that shrugged off disloyalty, and though it never becomes clear whether Roosevelt had anticipated the Prime Minister's fib and wanted to let it be known that he ruled everywhere in his vast country.

If the Speaker wishes to do as she wishes when abroad, and is so irresponsible that she is even considering a photo-op with Bashir Assad in Syria. We should really encourage her to go to Tehran and get intimate with that hostage-crazy President of that misguided government. Clearly the Speaker truly doesn't understand anything about anything, other than maybe a cue-card and the Peace Sign. WARNING NANCY PELOSI!! You are headed for your aircraft carrier moment less than a semester into your first session as the most powerful legislator in the world. If you meet publicly with Assad, you will wake up with a terrible headache from all of the hokka smoke and realize that you messed up really bad, because the only message tomorrow's headlines are going to provoke in voters minds of swing voters and is "mission completely hopeless, lets have cake and tea with Assad and find out what he thinks we can do to further marginalize the President."

Bush would be doing you a favor Nancy if he refused to allow your military aircraft to take you to Syria. He is such a wimp that he may do that because it is gentlemanly and polite, and because he has truly genuine regard for the United States government and would never want the Speaker of the House to embarrass herself in such a way, during her finest hour.

Tags: nancy pelosi, syria, assad, bush, middle east, speaker, fdr, churchill, franklin and winston, jon meacham

A real strategy for victory in Iraq...

I have thought long and hard about the best options available to the coalition forces as they attempt to combat a seemingly unrelenting terrorist insurgency, which has fomented sectarian strife and successfully (though ironically) won the "hearts and minds" of American voters, as evidenced by the results of the recent midterm elections and daily public opinion polls. My opinion of the US-led effort to date is more favorable than most, but it is hard not to notice the opportunistic undertones in many of the recent converts to the anti-war bandwagon. Unfortunately, because of unforeseeable consequences of US post-war policy, the situation has become impossible to rationalize through the media and the Administration is likely to face growing opposition unless it can take radical and innovative steps toward achieving a viable long-term solution to the violence that has ravaged Iraq. At the same time, it is essential for and change in military strategy to take on the increasingly bold regime in Iran, which has decided to defy international consensus and press forward with its nuclear program, not to mention the constant infiltration of suicide bombers and arms the country has been supplying the Iraq insurgency.

The most important goal of the the coalition should be to figure out how the fledgling Iraqi military could most effectively take over control in major urban areas. I have concluded that the most practical and potentially effective option would be a two phase redeployment of forces. First, the Iraqi police forces should be tasked with rounding up every single male Iraqi over the age of 16 in the areas of Iraq that have seen the most terrorist activity, and then they should release them slowly after each has been given a thorough background check. A story I have recently read in Forbes suggests that this is exactly the type of strategy that the coalition is now considering. The second phase of my strategy would have the US forces still in the Baghdad area pull out completely, along with all other coalition forces, and set up new bases along the border with Iran and Syria, where most of the terrorists are infiltrating the country.

There are several potential political and military victories that could be achieved by employing such a strategy. First, if the Democrats hold true to their previous political tactics, they will predictably oppose such a radical change in tactics, likely invoking Iraqi civil rights in a pathetic attempt to stand against Bush at all costs. I doubt very much that such an argument would carry much favor with the American people, so by taking this seemingly radical step, Bush could reshape the debate here at home and put his party back in the position of being the most trusted on the issue of combating terrorism.

Another potential benefit is that by realigning the American presence in the war torn country, the president can effectively argue that his policy is focused on reducing the military's presence over the long term. It would be logical to assume that fewer troops would be needed to patrol the Iraq's borders than are currently needed to patrol the streets of Baghdad. Additionally, by increasing the US presence in the northern regions of the country the unspoken message sent to Tehran will be unmistakable. I am not a fan of the so-called McCain Doctrine, or the troop surge which the White House has been floating in the media recently as the centerpiece of their strategy adjustment. Having recently deployed another aircraft carrier to the Gulf, the White House has shown it is serious about putting Iran on notice that it won't put up with its defiant posturing for very much longer.

I don't think that I have all of the answers, but at least I am attempting to come up with an innovative solution to the problems facing our forces in Iraq. I hope the ideas put forth in this article will spur similar thought and critical analysis from those of you who are as interested as I in finding a realistic policy option that will help us win the war against terrorism.

View Comments on this article at BlogCritics.org