The Current Nancy Pelosi Hysteria

It's been obvious that the extreme uber-right-wing has been gunning for Nancy Pelosi even before last November 2006's elections. In fact, much of the shrieking hysteria I saw from the fanatical end of the right wing was that Republican power and the status quo must be preserved or else we will have *GASP!* Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House!

Ever since the Republicans' crushing defeat last November and the American public's repudiation of Bush war policy, the fanatics have had Pelosi in their gun sights and now they are in an orgasmic frenzy of masturbatory wish-fulfillment fantasy that their Number One target has committed some sort of transgression by taking seriously her obligation to represent the people of the United States.

I refer, of course, to Ms. Pelosi's U.S. Embassy arranged and supervised trip to Syria. Oh, you didn't know it was all handled by Bush administration representatives therefore, it couldn't possibly any infraction of the rules? Well. Now you know.

Sorry, Uber-Fanatics. Your balloon's been popped.

Here is my review of a related article I mischieviously placed on one of those uber-right-wing messageboards to be found in cyberspace:

I was impressed with this article for two reasons: The first being that, as a writer, I appreciate concise and effective writing skills in other writers so, entirely separate from any politics involved, I appreciate the logical and non-hysterical manner in which this article was put together. It is highly effective writing. I suspect that there are people who would actually shriek with rage against such a writing style if it was not also used to promote their personal brand of political zealotry but, like I said, the actual writing skill involved is separate from the politics. This article is pure reading pleasure simply for the technical writing skills of its author. As for the politics, the article's approach is minus all the huffing and puffing and shrieking and pontificating I've seen far too much of here at BP and elsewhere on the internet and so it comes across as a breath of fresh air. When I reference the lack of hysteria in this article, I also intend to refer to the hysteria to be found on both ends of the political spectrum. This writer is no zealot or at least, there is no trace of it in this particular piece. Some points made in the article: Republican congressman Jim Kolbe travelled to Iraq in the Summer of 2003 because he felt, as chairman of the House subcommittee that manages America’s foreign assistance programs, it was his solemn responsibility to be "on the ground" to assess the need for the billions of dollars he knew Bush would be asking for in spite of Bush and Rice's assurances the budget would not be that high. The Bush administration refused him entrance to Iraq at the Kuwaiti border. The reason given was that there was no means of providing for the security of non-military personnel. This, in spite of the numerous "embedded" reporters already travelling all over Iraq as well as numerous civilian contractors and their laborers who were also already inside Iraq. Kolbe "snuck in" by posing as a contract laborer and was able to accomplish his fact-finding mission. Kolbe's decision to oversee the spending in Iraq provides an excellent context for Nancy Pelosi's trip to Syria. A major difference between the two trips is that Pelosi's itinerary in Syria was arranged by the American embassy and every contact she had with Syrian officials was supervised by Bush administration officials. This article reminds us that Congress is charged with some very heavy responsibilities that can't always be fulfilled by sitting behind a desk in Washington. As the author of this article puts it, "They need to get out and kick the tires." The article does give an example of how a member of Congress can and did cross the line into unacceptable usurpation of Executive branch powers. Pelosi’s predecessor, J. Dennis Hastert, conducted his own foreign policy apart from the Executive branch when it came to Colombia. He met with Columbian government representatives and sent his staff to Colombia to conduct business there. Unlike Pelosi, Hastert refused to allow United States government officials to oversee his contacts with the Columbian government even as he presented himself as a spokeperson for the United States government. Congress would conduct billions of dollars in arms negotiations with Colombia based on Hastert's foreign policy, not on White House foreign policy. Hastert insisted the funds be inserted into appropriations bills and it would be his staff that would secure transfer of the actual weapons to the government of Colombia. The Clinton administration did not seek any criminal or other investigation of Hastert's misconduct because Clinton's legislative priorities necessitated a working relationship with Congress and so they "looked the other way." This example of Hastert's aggregious behavior most definitely highlights the hypocrisy of political zealots who would skewer Pelosi for her U.S. embassy arranged visit to Syria. The article concludes that it is inappropriate for the White House or anyone else to interfere with the right of Congress to travel, ask questions, and be informed as to the serious decision making that our representatives must do. The article states, "After all, our nation’s actions in the Middle East carry a very big price tag that Congress, ultimately, must approve. Pelosi needs to know the facts on the ground." YOU CAN READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE HERE.