James Phillips of The Heritage Foundation writes on ‘Madame President’ Nancy Pelosi’s trip to Syria:

Speaker Pelosi acts as if the problem with Syria is an American failure to communicate with, or to “engage,” the Syrian regime. But the Bush Administration repeatedly has attempted to approach Syrian President Bashar Assad and induce him to halt Syria’s hostile policies. Secretary of State Colin Powell visited Damascus in May 2003 and asked the Syrians to halt the flow of men, arms, and money across their border to support the insurgents in Iraq. Assad’s Baathist regime made promises to cooperate but never delivered. It still harbors high-ranking Iraqi Baathists who finance and direct insurgent activity inside Iraq and still turns a blind eye to the activities of the Islamic extremists who use Syria as a conduit to funnel terrorists, supplies, and money into Iraq. The Syrians also have rejected America’s diplomatic efforts to persuade them to reduce their support of Palestinian terrorist groups and to stop meddling in Lebanon.

The problem is not a lack of “engagement.” The Clinton Administration made every effort to pull Syria into peace negotiations with Israel but failed despite more than 20 trips to Damascus by Secretary of State Warren Christopher. This exceeded the number of trips that Christopher made to Moscow and Beijing combined. But Syria was unyielding in its opposition to the 1993 Oslo peace accords and worked closely with Iran to increase support for Palestinian terrorist groups and the Lebanese terrorist group Hezbollah in an effort to escalate terrorism against Israel and subvert Lebanon.

Only last month, American and Syrian diplomats gathered around the same table at an international conference in Baghdad to discuss the future of Iraq. The Syrians continue to deny that they are aiding the insurgents and put the blame for all of Iraq’s problems on the United States.

What is missing is not American willingness to talk to Syria but Syria’s willingness to halt its hostile actions. A photo opportunity with the Speaker of the House will not change that. But it will encourage the Assad regime to dig in its heels, continue its spoiler strategy, and hope that it will be rewarded for its intransigence by a future administration. Why should Damascus bother negotiating with the Bush Administration when Pelosi has signaled that it could get a much better deal in just several years’ time?

Pelosi’s visit also deflated international pressure on Damascus over its suspected involvement in the 2005 murder of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, who resisted Syrian domination over Lebanon. By going out of her way to break with international efforts to isolate and pressure Syria’s rogue regime, the Speaker has set back Lebanese efforts to break free from Syrian domination. One of Lebanon’s leading columnists bitterly denounced her diplomatic efforts, concluding, “Unfortunately, foreign bigwigs come to town, their domestic calculations in hand; and then they leave, and we’re left picking up the pieces.”

Full column

Pelosi just seems like it’s in America’s best interests to talk to its enemies, not a proposition I entirely disagree with.  It’s just that when those enemies are ‘covertly’ supporting terrorist groups while not officially acknowledging the support, I don’t see that it does any good except for those nations who are giving the support.

It appears at this juncture that Pelosi appears more willing to speak to leaders of terrorist states than President Bush, using the 2006 election as vindication of her belief Americans wanted a change in foreign policy.  But the 2006 elections were not about foreign policy; 2000 and 2004 were, with 2008 next up on the docket.

Fresh off a trip to Syria to present an “alternative Democratic foreign policy,” Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi might be flying to Tehran to talk to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Not only is Miss Pelosi forgetting the President and the Vice President have to become incapacitated before she speaks behind the presidential seal, she doesn’t seem to realize Ahmadinejad is not the real power in Iran. Then again, since she professed before she didn’t know there is a difference between Sunni and Shia, who could blame her for once again being ignorant?

The Democratic speaker from San Francisco and Lantos, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, were asked at a press conference in San Francisco Tuesday whether on the heels of their recent trip to the Middle East they would be interested in extending their diplomacy in the troubled region with a visit to Iran.

“Speaking just for myself, I would be ready to get on a plane tomorrow morning, because however objectionable, unfair and inaccurate many of (Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s) statements are, it is important that we have a dialogue with him,” Lantos said. “Speaking for myself, I’m ready to go — and knowing the speaker, I think that she might be.”

“I find the president of Iran’s remarks to be so repulsive that they are outside the circle of civilized human behavior,” Pelosi said, referring to Ahmadinejad’s past comments that Israel should be wiped off the face of the map and his questioning of the existence of the Holocaust.

“But a person of Mr. Lantos’ stature and personal experience is saying that — even as a Holocaust survivor and even recognizing the outrageous statements of the president of Iran — it’s important to have dialogue. I think that speaks volumes.”

What on Earth does being a Holocaust survivor mean to wanting to open dialogue with Iran, other than, perhaps, Ahmadinejad driving a stake through Rep. Lantos’ heart for good measure when Pelosi and crew were to land? It’s the exact same victimhood and expertise through being a victim that Democrats run on several issues, but just because one was a victim of a certain crime it doesn’t mean they are experts in it. I’ve been the victim of vandalism a few times, but I’m not an expert on vandalism.

I simply don’t get it. Why does Rep. Pelosi feel she is in the role of making U.S. foreign policy? Seriously, did one of her grandchildren hit her with a gavel when she was made Speaker? Was that what all of her blinking was about during the State of the Union?

I’m starting to learn what the Democratic Party is all about when it comes to how they would fight the GWOT “ongoing military operations throughout the world,” assuming of course they choose to fight against Islamism rather than sit down and sip tea while wearing a hijab.  It’s an interesting comparison between the two political parties in the United States, where the Republican Party leadership has refused to meet with those who are directly funding and supporting groups who have pledged to anihilate the United States, Democrats meet with them and even share bungled diplomacy.

But if Pelosi’s trip to talk with Bashar Assad wasn’t enough, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer’s (D-MD) sit-down with the grandfather of Al Qaida, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the modern Islamist and jihadist movement, etc. is pretty clear in its intentions.  Though Hoyer now denies he met with the Muslim Brotherhood, that’s news to the group.

What’s interesting about this meeting more than the Assad meeting is the DNC talking point for the past three years or so.  The talking point is that President Bush has alienated United States allies, though we must conclude that only means France even though France is still in Afghanistan.  But what does meeting with the banned Muslim Brotherhood group do to one of our few allies in the Middle East in Egypt?  What does tabeling a censure for Iran taking British hostages before rushing off to meet with those who are sworn enemies of the United States do to our ally Britain?

Following Pelosi’s trip to Syria, Peloso claimed she was not presenting an alternative foreign policy despite her entourage expressing just that prior to meeting Assad.  We must conclude this was the case with Hoyer’s meeting too, that Hoyer would not present an alternative U.S. foreign policy.  Why then does the MB believe the meeting could be a start to something new?

However, most analysts would agree that if an understanding between the MB and US succeed to put Egypt on a clear path for real democracy and genuine reform; it could certainly promise a wider and more effective cooperation to resolve other more complicated Middle East problems.

If Pelosi and her crew want to present an alternative foreign policy despite that being against the Constitution by the way, shouldn’t she present it to the American people so we know what that is?  While we’re waiting, we do know part of that Democratic foreign policy.  It involves negotiation with those who aid our nation’s enemies.  Oh, but the Muslim Brotherhood is a peaceful movement, just as they were peaceful when they formed in the 1920s with a secretive, militant offshoot.

There are certain flags that are raised when a diplomatic mission goes awry. Without question one of those flags is when former U.S. President Jimmy “there’s a good chance Hamas will become peaceful” Carter backs the mission as he has done to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) trip to Syria.

With Carter, however, the issue of Pelosi bungling an Israeli statement to Syrian leader Bashar Assad is a bit more dicey. There’s little question Carter loathes Israel, and within the past couple of decades there isn’t a dictator Carter hasn’t found to be sincere.

So when Pelosi delivered the news that Israeli Prime Minister Olmert was open to changing Israeli foreign policy to achieve peace with Syria, which was quickly followed by Olmert’s complete rebuttal, not only did Pelosi botch what might have been a legitimate diplomatic mission as endorsed by Carter, she also butted heads with the official U.S. foreign policy.

It’s not like Pelosi presenting an alternative foreign policy is unexpected either. Ahead of the trip, Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA) said the entire venture set out to present “an alternative Democratic foreign policy.”

Someone isn’t telling the full truth here, because Pelosi says there is no alternative foreign policy.

“On the issues that we set before the president (of Syria),” she said, “there is no division among us or between our congressional delegation in Congress and the president of the United States.”

But it seems a bit unnerving when Pelosi is told by Olmert Israel wants peace provided Syria renounce terrorism, ceases its support for Hamas and Islamic Jihad, stop providing material and financial support to terrorist groups in Iraq (that’s Al Qaida in Iraq) and keep from meddling in Lebanon and simply tells Assad Israel just wants peace. Israel does, but on their terms and not on the terms of Syria who repeatedly shows peace is merely time off from attacking the hated Jewish state.

Pelosi declared “the road to Damascus is a road to peace,” a strange phrase in its own as it symbolizes Paul’s conversion to Christianity. I highly doubt that was what Pelosi was alluding to, rather Pelosi and her delegation seem to believe peace in the Middle East resides with befriending Syria.

There may be a bit of truth to that, however it strikes me as quite odd that all of the sudden Syria is the keystone to the entire “ongoing military operations throughout the world” when for the past five years Pelosi and the bulk of the Democratic Party have relentlessly pounded their fists in fury over the failure to capture Osama bin Laden, who by the way is definitely not in Syria. During the political talking points that lead us to believe if Osama bin Laden is killed or captured then the entire war would be over and the Islamist movement would be made impotent, Pelosi instead insists Syria is the key to peace?

The Washington Post editorial for today chastises Pelosi’s trip, but also her rather amatuerish forary into foreign policy.

Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) offered an excellent demonstration yesterday of why members of Congress should not attempt to supplant the secretary of state when traveling abroad . . . In other words, Ms. Pelosi not only misrepresented Israel’s position but was virtually alone in failing to discern that Mr. Assad’s words were mere propaganda.

Ms. Pelosi was criticized by President Bush for visiting Damascus at a time when the administration — rightly or wrongly — has frozen high-level contacts with Syria. Mr. Bush said that thanks to the speaker’s freelancing Mr. Assad was getting mixed messages from the United States. Ms. Pelosi responded by pointing out that Republican congressmen had visited Syria without drawing presidential censure. That’s true enough — but those other congressmen didn’t try to introduce a new U.S. diplomatic initiative in the Middle East. “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.

If the Post can see this, can the bulk of the American people?

Yet here we are, and Pelosi contends she isn’t trying to create a shadow presidency, however it seems abundantly clear she is trying to circumvent the Office of the President and push her own foreign policy with what she says is the backing of the 2006 elections. There’s just one problem with that. Even if we conclude the 2006 election was every bit of the rejection of President Bush as Pelosi believes, the American people did not vote for a change in foreign policy in 2006, but they did vote for a continuation of the same foreign policy in 2004. There may be a change in 2008, but that’s for the American public to vote upon, not for Rep. Pelosi to decide on her own.

While a bit misleading, there is not one photo that sums up Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s trip to Syria more than the one to the right, in all it’s large glory.  Pelosi decided to wear the scarf while visiting the Ommayad Mosque to view the tomb of John the Baptist in Damascus.  Clearly it’s the right thing to to do honor your host’s religion when honoring could be done so simply.

But the issue of the headscarf is not just a symbol within the Islamic world, it’s also a signal in the Western world of oppression and utter dhimmitude.  Pelosi wearing a headscarf does not indicate she is a dhimmi, however her entire trip to Syria to present what Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA), a member of the delegation, calls  “an alternative Democratic foreign policy.”

There was at least one more time in the United States when there were two foreign policies presented by two parties.  That time was the Civil War and it was one of the reasons behind the conflict.  Americans united outside our own borders is simply a mirage, or at least at this point in time.

Compare and contrast Pelosi’s trip and meeting with Syrian President Bashar Assad with U.S. President George Bush’s 2002 State of the Union speech.

These enemies view the entire world as a battlefield, and we must pursue them wherever they are.  So long as training camps operate, so long as nations harbor terrorists, freedom is at risk.  And America and our allies must not, and will not, allow it.

It is known Syria supports both Hamas and Hezbollah.  The leader of Hamas resides in Damascus.  It is known Al Qaida in Iraq uses Syria as a transit point into Iraq.  All signs point to Syria for the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rufik Hariri.  Syria is a state sponsor of terrorism and terrorist groups and would fall into the group whom President Bush mentions as being on the outside.

Pelosi, on the other hand, believes “the road to Damascus is a road to peace.”

It’s an alternative foreign policy, or at least that’s the way it appears, and when the majority of foreign policy while fighting groups who hate is over the hearts and minds of a large populace, it is the wrong message to send.

Two weeks into January of 2007, I have very mixed emotions about world events and about our country. Events in the world happen so quickly and news coverage on those events is almost instantaneous. The motto seems to be ‘get is quick, get it first’. We hardly have time to digest what’s happening and the ramifications it has for us as a nation and as individuals. We’re on overload most of the time.

This week I learned that President George W. Bush decided several months ago to undertake a broad military offensive against Iranian operatives in Iraq. (NYT) Some Americans were losing faith in President Bush. We tend to forget that there is a lot going on behind the scenes and, thankfully, the press and blogs don’t know about it. I fear that a day is coming when America’s safety will depend on our government’s ability to keep something quiet from the press. When the press publishes an item, that information is immediately available to our enemies as well as our friends.

(more after the jump) (more…)

Jane of Armies of Liberation writes the United States intends on helping Yemen build a nuclear program. After writing of Yemen’s mixed messages, ties to Tehran, support and non-support for the GWOT, etc., Jane asks:

Then the Saudis are going to want one, ect, ect. Is this the US solution to Iran’s unwillingness to suspend uranium enrichment, give everybody nukes to balance it out? How utterly retarded. And how counter-productive for the US to become even more dependent for its security on “trust-worthy” authoritiarian rulers, and ultimately, their sons.

There is only one plausible reason why I would see this as advantageous for the United States. First off, the U.S. has also said they would aid Egypt in building a nuclear energy program and there have been rumblings with Saudi Arabia too in the past, though I haven’t heard anything about Saudi Arabia’s nuclear dreams in some time now.

Without taking the Yemeni situation into account, for I am far from qualified to do so and any attempt would make me look foolish, I do believe helping two nations build peaceful nuclear programs is a direct result to Iran’s nuclear program. I don’t believe it is to help balance anything out, but actually it strikes a blow to the Iranian position that the United States does not want nuclear energy in any Middle Eastern nation. The problem all along has not been nuclear energy, but rather how hidden Iran’s program has been and how Iran has not fully complied with the IAEA. That does not even mention the Iranian government, which may or may not be comparable to the Yemeni government. I step aside to Jane’s knowledge on any such comparisons.

With U.S. assistance for a Yemeni nuclear program ensure the program is peaceful and complies with both the NPA and the IAEA? One would suspect it would, at least in theory, and it would provide direct oversight. The United States has learned through both North Korea and Iran that when there is no oversight a peaceful nuclear program can and does go military.

The only other possible reason, for which I discount entirely but it’s worth mentioning, is because Yemen’s major exports are oil and natural gas. Helping Yemen wean from oil and natural gas for use in electricity could ensure there is more of both natural resources to export, but the United States has far more natural gas reserves than Yemen does. Also, this assumes there is a shortage of oil and that this supposed shortage of oil is why gas prices are so ‘high.’ According to family members of mine who work/worked in the oil industry, this is far from the case. I fully realize that’s not what we’re told, mainly by environmental advocates, but I tend to believe blood over someone I don’t know.

As far as all of the other items which Jane brings up, she’s certainly right as near as I can tell. I just think this has more to do with trying to keep a close eye on a regime wanting nuclear energy rather than placating a government that has been a mixed bag under Saleh.

(Nairobi, Kenya) As the fundamentalist Islamic Courts Union destabilizes the country of Somalia, fearful refugees are flocking to Kenya for safety. According to Emmanuel Nyabera, spokesman for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), a massive relief operation may be required since the camps in Kenya have reached capacity.

From The East African:

Since September 13, more than 3,400 Somali have escaped fighting in their country to find refuge in Kenya, bringing the tally to almost 25,000 since the beginning of the year. There are more than 227,000 refugees already in Kenya, mainly from Somalia and Sudan.

Mr Nyabera said that, from interviews with UNHCR officials, it had emerged that the refugees, who are mostly women and children, were mainly from Mogadishu, Kismayu, and Lower Juba province.

Incidentally, these regions are not so far in the hands of the Islamic Courts Union.

Outside Mogadishu, the Islamic Courts are in control in the provinces of Lower Shabelle, Benadir, Middle Shabelle, Hiran, Gelgedut and parts of Mudug region.

Refugees from Baidoa — the seat of Somalia’s interim government — have also started trickling into Kenya.

From a big picture perspective, both Somalia and Sudan have been taken over by warring Islamists and the people who don’t convert to Islam are running for their lives. Both the Sudanese government and the Islamic Courts Union have vowed to fight any peacekeepers sent to quell violence.

So far, the UN has only talked about East African strife and the African Union’s attempt at keeping peace in Sudan failed. Unlike 1991 when Somalia was a media darling, the current situation is getting considerably less emphasis. Consequently, the march of Islamic belligerence in Africa continues.

East Africa is not a teapot yet but give it time. Sooner or later, it will whistle.

Companion post at Interested-Participant.

There may be some blowback to Pakistan’s peace accord with the Taliban, an issue I wrote about previously stating it’s not exactly what has been reported, and Pakistan released over 2,000 Taliban and Al Qaida fighters knowing full-well at least some of them will go back to the battlefield in Afghanistan.  What is not usually commented upon regarding that release is that some of those released will likely try to kill Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf.

I have long maintained Musharraf is in a difficult situation, and because of Musharraf’s situation, the rest of the world is walking on egg shells with Pakistan as well.  Musharraf understands the threat of radical Islamic terrorism, more so than the vast majority of us, as he himself has been the target of Islamists and is still the target of Islamists.

But what has been openly advocated after this peace accord and after the release is that Pakistan should be placed in the same shoes as Iran in terms of supporting terrorists.  This would be a grave mistake.

Pakistan does have a nuclear arsenal and it is they key to controlling the Al Qaida movement.  There can never be enough written or said about President Bush ‘turning’ Pakistan from foe to friend in the weeks following 9/11, but there’s concern Pakistan might be turning back.

The truth of the matter is that Pakistan’s large Islamist populace was never turned in the first place, only Musharraf’s government and another larger pecentage of the Paksitani populace actually turned, though one can argue Musharraf was always this way.  Islamists though control parts of Pakistan’s government, military and intelligence services.  Increased pressure upon Musharraf could cause our one true friend and ally in Pakistan’s government to be overthrown.

Don’t think for one instant Al Qaida would not like to see the bloody entrails of Musharraf plastered on the streets of Lahore, and there’s sound reasoning from AQ’s standpoint to ensure there is blood in the streets.  Al Qaida knows that if they unleash another attack upon the United States and evidence points to bases in Pakistan, Musharraf will be the one who helps us and he will help us and he’s helped many nations reign in terrorists before.  If Musharraf falls, there’s no question Islamists would take over and now be in control of nuclear weapons and openly support the jihad in Kashmir, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Iraq and every other nation on this earth that is not an Islamic nation.  So while the current situation is far from ideal, changing it would be catastrophic.

President Bush today told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer he would not hesitate to send U.S. soldiers in to Pakistan to apprehend or kill Osama bin Laden if sound intelligence indicated he was there.  What level of intelligence is needed though?  I would presume quite a lot because, as you might imagine, Musharraf opposes any U.S. force in their nation and if daisy cutters nearly brought Musharraf’s government to its knees, a batalliion would certainly finish the beating off.

What is though most fascinating about the discourse we have in this nation pertaining to OBL is not that we assume he’s in Pakistan, I do, but rather because we assume there are no U.S. forces in Waziristan.  We assume there are no CIA operatives, no special forces, no informants, etc. trying to locate OBL or any other high-ranking Al Qaida members.  I do not necessarily oppose the U.S. military entering Waziristan to capture OBL, but we would have to think long and hard on what that type of an incursion would mean and how we could manage to keep Musharraf afloat in the sea of Islamist outrage that would ensue.

While I certainly do not know a definitive answer to whether or not we are in Waziristan, the bombing of a house in Damadola where Ayman al-Zawahiri was to dine before deciding he’d rather get a Big Mac is evidence that we have people working with our government and for the Pakistani government.

But that blowback from that strike, too often called failed even though we killed five known high-ranking AQ members including the group’s chemical expert, has chilled any further strikes.  It forced Pakistan into signing the peace accord with the tribal leaders.  It forced Musharraf to take a step back and was the precursor to the peace accord with the Taliban and the release of 2,500 Taliban and Al Qaida members.

Musharraf isn’t to blame for that, but rather we are.  We are the ones who had an open debate on whether or not the house should have been hit knowing full-well civilians would be killed, and there were a handful killed.  We are the ones who view the same media stations and buy the same newspapers which published pictures of an artillery shell pertending to be an unexploded bomb and talked as if the loss of civilian life is wrong under any circumstances.  If Zawahiri was hiding in my basement, I’d expect the last thing I saw was a white light.  We are the ones who bought into the fallacy that numerous civilians were killed for nothing.  We are the ones who are lax when it comes to bombing Taliban funerals and we are the ones who have allowed lawyers to dictate a war more than generals.

Musharraf is a general, and he’s being forced to think more like a diplomat by the very ‘humanitarian’ ideals that we have.  Generals can be humanitarians, and most of them are and the vast majority of U.S. military expenditures are for humanitarian reasons, but Musharraf has only gone ’soft’ because we have devoured the Islamist talking points hook, line and sinker.  If we lose the GWOT or fail to apprehend OBL if it’s known he’s in Pakistan, we’ll have no one to blame but our own damn selves.

In the little over two years since I have been blogging I’ve written maybe 15 posts on Hugo Chavez, and usually I’ve made fun of him or his constant clamour that he’s preparing Venezuela for a U.S. invasion.  This is a man who made himself an enemy of the United States on purpose but cries about that very fact every chance he can get.

It’s clear his strategy to maintain power in Venezuela is to find an enemy who was never a threat and pile upon that enemy. There have been other nations that have done the same throughout history; Germany had the Jews after all.  The actions of Nazi Germany later force the entire world into war.

Chavez is no Hitler.  Hitler was evil and deranged, but he was intelligence and charismatic.  Chavez is just deranged.

Chavez took to the floor of the United Nations this morning and repeatedly called President Bush the devil, remarking the podium smelled of sulfer, and said “Bush came here thinking he owns the world.”  I have read several reports on the speech Bush gave at the UN yesterday, including this one, and I have seen nothing to indicate Bush actually thought he owned the world, in fact quite the opposite.

It would be easy to discount the antics of Chavez as another cog in his anti-American and pro-Communist machine, but all this has got me thinking.  Part of the reason why the entire West is in this mess with radical Islam is that within the Middle East there were and are dictators who maintain power by demonizing an alleged enemy.  That enemy is free nations from across the globe.

We see this in the protests held in nations where protesting is not allowed.  We see our nation’s flags burned for any variety of reasons, usually stemming from something we laugh at because we thought it was trivial.  We hear terrorist groups openly state their opposition to our nations as a backdrop to religious fanaticism.  Could Chavez be laying the groundwork for the very same thing?

Over the course of these two years, I have never once thought Chavez was anything to really care even an iota about.  One day, I repeatedly tell myself, those who support him will wake up from their slumber and realize the oil he’s giving away, the lands he’s taking and the companies he is confiscating is actually hurting them.  So when Chavez says he’s preparing for a U.S. invasion he’s showing how loony he actually is.

But is there reason for such a policy that would support the fall of Chavez?  At present I would say there’s ample reason to form such a policy.

Chavez’s speech at the UN should be looked upon like a joke given by a clown, but what was most alarming is the applause Chavez received after his long-winded tirade against the United States.  Long-time readers know my opposition to the United Nations, or at least how it is currently run and structured, and I have to ask why my tax dollars go to support an institution that would applaud a man who is living in his own fantasy world and who is single-handedly trying to push the buttons to go to war.  Isn’t the United Nations supposed to stand for diplomacy rather than war?  That was the basis of its founding post-WW II, but Chavez proves the 1940s rationale has been thrown out the window and now the UN stands for giving the floor to people who are trying to go to war.

The speech was really just more of the same and nothing new has been learned for anyone who has remotely followed Chavez, but the reaction the UN gave him was disheartening to say the least.  Ideologues of every free nation who do not support Bush will see this speech as being against Bush therefore a good thing, but that narrow view is only supported by the same delusions Chavez shares.  Indeed the speech was as much anti-diplomacy as it was anti-Bush.