‘The most ass-kickin' writer to come along
in a decade!’
-The NY Times
‘Glad to see you're getting it right.!’
Bimbo Diplomacy and the Democrat Agenda
Commentary by Greg Lewis / NewMediaJournal.US
Yon Nancy has a lean and hungry look . . . uh,
and a damn stupid one, to boot.
In fact, Pelosi's Middle East trip, during which she misrepresented the positions of both the United States and Israel (why are we surprised?) with regard to dealing with Syria, is very likely part of a larger Democrat strategy to usurp the power of the office of the Presidency as well as that of the Department of State, and to bring both under the aegis of the Democratically controlled legislature.
How else explain Pelosi's attempt to engage in international diplomacy in the Middle East while her colleagues in the House and Senate wrangled to micromanage the War in Iraq through budgetary chicanery of the most dangerous sort?
The sin of hubris, or excessive pride, is at the root
of many classical and Shakespearean tragedies, including Julius Caesar,
from which the slightly altered quote that leads off this article was
filched. And as dramatic characters so often come to tragic ends as a
result of prideful overreaching, so might the Democrats find, with the
electoral equivalent of tragic results, that their attempted arrogation
of presidential and diplomatic authority does not sit well with the American
Democrats managed to engineer a pork-laden $123.2 billion "defense spending" bill, replete with arbitrary deadlines for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq, although the bill has yet to be sent to the President, who has promised to veto it. Indeed, the bill faced certain legislative defeat initially, and was passed only through Democrats' trading, on a broad scale, pork dollars for their party-mates' votes.
The bill's passage represents one of the most cynical attempts in my memory of a political party, in this case the Democrats, attempting to pass off as representative of lawmakers' commitment to end the War in Iraq a piece of legislation that was bought and paid for through what amounts to nothing less than political bribery. It gives new meaning to the word "shameless."
But for Dems, "shameless" has become the behavioral
norm and "cynicism" the currency of the realm. Nancy Pelosi
declared, shortly after she ascended officially to the position of Speaker
of the House earlier this year, "We will not cut off funding for
the troops." Both Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer have also said unequivocally
that Democrats are never going to cut off funding for American forces
It is cynicism elevated to an art form. Out of one side of their mouths they proclaim their patriotism by declaring that they'll never cut off funding for the troops, while out of the other they craft legislation that would have precisely the same effect that cutting off funding would have.
My sense is that, in the end, Dems will not be able to have it both ways. They won't be able in fact to promote a pro-terrorist, anti-American legislative and diplomatic agenda, while at the same time attempting to pull the wool over the American public's eyes with their cynical declarations of patriotic intent.
In the final analysis, you either recognize that Islamist terrorism is a threat to western democracy, to our very way of life, or you don't. Bottom line, you either come down on the side of the only legitimate strategy for preserving democracy which is to aggressively attack terrorism in all of its forms and on terrorist turf or you come down on the side of giving in to terrorism, of ceding our very civilization to forces that would reduce it to rubble while rejoicing that the agents of darkness and nihilism have triumphed.
Because, make no mistake, the longer we wait before we continue, as we have in Afghanistan and Iraq, to expand the attack against the forces of terrorism as they are currently embodied in rogue states such as Iran and Syria, the greater the risk we run that they will gain the military strength particularly in the form of nuclear weaponry, but also as ongoing safe havens for terrorist organizations that might well enable them to cripple the institutions of western civilization.
And lest you think that's a dramatic overstatement of the case, consider what a terrorist state such as Iran might well be able to do to capitalist democratic governmental and economic institutions if it were producing nuclear weapons and wielding them in sponsoring nuclear terrorism against the west. Imagine a nuclear Iran arming Islamist terrorists and directing them in the commission of acts of nuclear terrorism against the United States and other capitalist democracies.
We have only to look back at the dramatic (although, thankfully, relatively short-lived) economic consequences of the 9/11 attacks to understand that, while our wonderfully robust and resilient capitalist economy was equal to that challenge, it is not a stretch to envision more dire terrorist attacks exacting a more damaging toll. It's not beyond comprehension to envision Islamist nuclear terrorists bringing down, piece by piece, the enormously complex infrastructure that has evolved to support our capitalist and democratic institutions.
But beyond that, we're being terminally naive if we think
that that is not what Islamo-fascists and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in
particular have as their goal. Islamists' very raison d'etre is
to eliminate from our planet any vestige of the political, economic, and
religious institutions built by Christian capitalist "infidels"
and to replace them with their despotic fundamentalist Islamic counterparts.
To return to the Julius Caesar analogy with which this piece began: You'll recall that in Shakespeare's play Caesar goes on to say about Cassius that "He thinks too much: such men are dangerous." Unlike Cassius, Nancy Pelosi although she is surely no less dangerous to western democracy than Cassius was to Caesar thinks too little and understands even less, especially given the position to which she's risen. She appears to have taken the idea that she's third in line for the Presidency a bit too seriously.
On the positive side, though, she's certainly given us
an inkling of how Democrats would likely handle diplomatic relations with
terrorist nations, which is to say, they will cave in to them, much as
the nations of the European Union have done.