Friday, April 20, 2007


Question: Will Republicans chicken out and allow Nancy Pelosi to get away with prancing off to Syria and conspiring with Syria's leader Bashar al-Assad, a supporter of terrorism?

Answer: Only if you and I fail to do something about it -- and MIGHTY QUICK!

For months, Pelosi has been strutting around the country... waving a white flag... savaging the President... demanding our UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER ON THE WAR ON TERROR. In fact, if she had her way, the United States would skulk out of Iraq like whipped dogs, letting a bunch of rag-tag Islamic Fascists run the world.

And that's her privilege -- not as Speaker of the House -- but as a U.S. citizen whose right of free speech is protected by the First Amendment.

But Pelosi arguably committed a FELONY when she traveled to Syria and whispered behind closed doors with Bashar al-Assad, Syria's terrorist-loving leader.

First, the U.S. Constitution implicitly gives the President the authority to conduct foreign policy.

In order to make that responsibility explicit, in 1798 President John Adams initiated the Logan Act, which forbids any American --
"without authority of the United States" -- to communicate with a foreign government with the intent of influencing that government's actions in any "disputes or controversies with the United States."

VIOLATION OF THE LOGAN ACT IS A FELONY. Upon conviction, an offender can be sentenced to prison for up to three years.

If she was just a regular person like you, Nancy Pelosi would be a prime candidate for a prison cell.

Why should Speaker Pelosi -- third in the line of Presidential succession -- get away with blatantly undermining U.S. foreign policy by meeting with the leader of a country that supports terrorism? Why aren't our conservative leaders calling for a full investigation of her actions, or censure or even impeachment?

The U.S. broke off diplomatic relations with Syria in 2005, so no communication with that country's government could possibly occur "with the authority of the United States."

Pelosi's flagrant and shameless strutting on the world's stage... her cavorting with supporters of terrorism... constitutes a declaration of war against the Executive Branch of our government.

But more than that... She basically gave every terrorist around the world a GREEN LIGHT!

She sent a clear and unmistakable message to terrorists and terrorist sponsors around the world that the United States is divided and weak... That we don't have the will to fight an enemy that has shown itself to be ruthless and not beyond killing innocent Americans at home and abroad.

Pelosi's actions aren't simply foolish -- they're dangerous. But what is even more of a danger is the "ho-hum" reaction of our so-called conservative leaders in Congress.

It's time for our conservative leaders in Congress to stop behaving like Little Goody Two-Shoes and start defending the President, the rule of law, U.S. troops in Iraq and those Pelosi went to the Middle East to betray.

It's time for our conservative leaders in Congress to send the RIGHT MESSAGE to terrorists and terrorist supporters like Bashar al-Assad!

Use the hyperlink below now to go to our secure server and send your urgent Blast Fax Messages to President George Bush and the Republican leadership of the United States Senate and United States House of Representatives. Tell our conservative leaders to shed their "wimphood" just this once.

Demand that Nancy Pelosi be investigated with the same zeal and tenacity Patrick Fitzgerald showed when he set a perjury trap for Scooter Libby. Demand that they show the same zeal and tenacity that liberals are now showing as they go after President Bush and the Attorney General over the totally legal firings of U.S. District Attorneys.

AOL Members Use This Hyperlink


The Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, believes the war in Iraq is lost. There is nothing about that conclusion that bothers Reid: He is as blasé as he is certain, as resolute in pursuit of defeat as Churchill was in pursuit of victory. Last November, the Democrats seized control of Congress on the pretense that they wanted to change our policy to Iraq but not -- as they, to a man (and a woman) insisted -- to merely cut and run. We knew they weren’t being truthful then, but too many people were taken in. Now all pretense is dispensed with: we can see the man behind the curtain.

On Thursday, Reid said: "I believe ... that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week." He said that in the middle of a week when some 146,000 Americans are serving in Iraq, and at least 6 have died. He said that at a time when the troop surge announced by President Bush has only managed to deliver three of five brigades -- about 60% of the planned 21,000 additional troops -- to Iraq. The fact that the surge hasn’t had a chance to work is much less important to Reid and the Dems than the political mileage they may gain from declaring it a failure.

How many times have we heard the Dems insist that they support the troops? It’s one of their mantras. If something isn’t “for the children”, it’s to “support the troops.” But it’s false, just as their insistence last fall that they wouldn’t cut and run was. All of that pales in comparison to one single fact: Reid and the rest of the Democrats do not condemn defeat. They do not say they would have done better to win, because the words “win” and “victory” never pass their lips. They never propose an idea that might lead to quicker, more decisive victory in Iraq, or Afghanistan, or the Horn of Africa, or Lebanon, or anywhere else. No. The Democratic pathology is the same now as it was forty years ago.

During the Vietnam War, Democrats were able to rally Americans around their anti-war banner because the draft brought the dangers of the war home to most families. But Vietnam was – in their terms -- a “war of choice”: America didn’t have to fight in Vietnam to preserve itself. Iraq – and the rest: don’t forget the rest -- are different on two counts.

First, President Bush began the counter-attack after 9-11 in Afghanistan against the regime that had harbored and aided bin Laden in the 9-11 attacks. No one (no serious person, at least, which eliminates every Dem with the exception of Joe Lieberman) thought that the war could -- or would -- end there. The objective then, of which we have long since lost sight, was to end state sponsorship of terrorism.

Military analysts were uncertain whether the campaign to follow – against the other state sponsors of Islamic terrorism -- should begin in Iraq or Iran or Syria. President Bush chose Iraq. Iraq is not a war of choice: it was, inarguably, a state sponsor of terrorism. Yes, Iraq wasn’t involved in 9-11: but it was involved in terrorism in a very big way. The only argument against Iraq was that it was not the next most urgent campaign. Had Iran been first, Iraq might have not been necessary.

Second, whether Iraq should have been invaded is not the issue. The war against Islamic terrorism and the nations that sponsor it cannot be won there, but it can be lost. If we lost it -- unlike the Vietnam War -- we lose America. Vietnam wasn’t an existential war: this war is. And it is a great mistake to say this is “the war in Iraq.”

President Bush has failed in some ways, but his most important failure is in the leadership in the prosecution of this war. He hasn’t – since that memorable speech a week after 9-11 -- performed the role of a war president. He hasn’t defined the enemy, how he must be defeated, and how we will even know if we have won.

Let’s be plain: we are at war with those who adhere to radical Islam. It is an ideology, not a religion. Our goal is not -- cannot -- be to implant democracy in the Middle East. Democracy is a system of government not, as the neocons say, a weapon. We must defeat the enemy by defeating his ideology and compelling -- by violent means as may be necessary -- those nations who support the terrorist to stop doing so. When that task is done, the war is won. And not one moment before.

What, then, is the import of what Sen. Reid said? First, Reid and his ilk do not support the troops. When Reid says the war is lost, the troops hear. They understand that they are still risking their lives every day for a war the Democrats are content to lose. There can be no more destructive assault on their morale. It is only because of their inherent quality -- much higher than the draftees of Vietnam -- that they don’t abandon the field.

On April 23, 1971 John Kerry told a Senate Committee, “We are asking Americans to think about that because how do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam? How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?” In those years, the morale of our troops was destroyed piecemeal by Kerry and his cohorts. Reid is merely a new manifestation of the Democrats’ pathology. He, like the rest, don’t give a damn about our troops. They care only about their path to greater political power.

Harry Reid’s statement compels one more conclusion: that the Democrats are incapable of leading this nation to victory against this existential threat.

Conservatives have begun to think that the import of the 2008 presidential election is that the winner will decide how the Supreme Court’s balance will tilt for the next two decades. True enough. But more important, by far, is how the next president will prosecute the war.

The fate of democracy in Iraq will not be determinative of victory or defeat in the larger, long war. Will some Republican pursue real victory? Or will the Democrats just declare defeat and come home, bringing defeat with them?


How's this for supporting our troops? Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Democrat (of course) has now declared that the United States has lost the war in Iraq. He told President Bush that the war could not be won through military force ... in effect saying that the U.S. military is incapable of defeating the Islamic fascist enemy.

Know this ... there is no way in hell that you can say you support our troops when you say that our troops cannot win the battle. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell put it well: "I can't begin to imagine how our troops in the field, who are risking their lives every day, are going to react when they get back to base and hear that the Democrat leader of the United States Senate has declared the war is lost,"

I might put it a bit differently. What do you call a political leader in this country who declares a war to be lost while our men and women in uniform are putting their lives on the line to win that war. What do you call a highly placed political leader who puts a smile on the faces of the Islamic terrorist bastards who are out there trying to kill our soldiers. There's a word for it .. and it's a word that those of you who listen to my show will know that I don't use. That word is traitor. has a few definitions for the word. See how you like them:

1. A person who betrays another, a cause or any trust.
2. A person who commits treason by betraying his or her country

So ... what is treason? Giving aid and comfort to the enemy during a time of war. Did Reid's comments give aid to the Islamic fascists trying to kill our soldiers? How can anyone not say that Harry Reid's words did just that? The only question then is whether, in the definition of treason, we can be said to be at war.

This may be Reid's escape. For my part, he has not only given aid and comfort to the enemy, he has emboldened them. I feel certain that American men and women in Iraq will die as a result of Reid's words encouraging the people who want to kill them.


Know this .... Democrats are absolutely invested in our defeat at the hands of the Islamic insurgents in Iraq. Good news in Iraq is bad news for the Democrat Party crowd. They watch the news every day looking eager for more stories of violence in Iraq aimed at innocents and our soldiers. The absence of those stories makes them sad. The presence of those stories lift their spirits.

Never in the history of this country has a political party been so dedicated to our defeat in armed conflict.