When Pelosi held her over-the-top coronation coming into office I put it off to the "first woman in that office" thing.

When she appointed all those criminals (Dingle, Jefferson, Murtha, Hastings, etc.) to key committees - and took Harmon off Intelligence - I blamed it mostly on the Congressional Black Caucus.

The airplane flap? Surely she couldn't be that self-absorbed to request her own air force one? This must be political spin from both sides.

But this trip to Syria? Even to go there to begin with, and then to screw it up to boot? There is no laying this off on anyone. Not this one.

All Speakers have wielded their power, sometimes with a heavy hand. But no Speaker in my lifetime has thought himself a co-President or shadow President like this. These are delusions of grandeur, and pride goeth before a fall.

There is a pattern here, and it is starting to become clear that she is that self-absorbed.

Of course Robert, she represents self-absorbed far-left liberals everywhere. Of course she is that narcissistic. She is their Queen. And Rosie is the Jester of their court.

If I may, or if I mayn't,
Candy Cane or Candy cain't?
==================

I believe deep down that Pelosi doesn't really, truly know what she wants to do - well other than taking a seat in the bleachers and watching the executive branch make errors and then organize committee hearings about them. We have the Democrats proposing these bills that cut funding for troops or demand a deadline knowing full well that Bush will veto them and they don't have a majority to override vetoes - and they really don't want to override his vetoes. Next the poseur travels to Syria for whatever reason - who really knows - except for a photo op or two. There are times I actually think she is trying to get a foot in the door for a possible presidential run. She certainly is not the first legislator to travel overseas to visit a head of state. Several Republicans as many pointed out preceded her by a week or two. But she projects a level of pomposity/ self-importance that in no way represents her capacity to proffer a peace in Iraq that will benefit the Iraqi people. I agree with Robert above. I too initially chalked up her behavior to the heady feeling of being the first woman speaker. But she is mistaken that that landmark event automatically endowed her with exceptional political insight. It is too early to tell but at this point she is clearly not exceptional.

All we need is for Geraldo to don his "Aussie" hat and "Red Baron" scarf. (or maybe break down another brick wall).

We now know what happen when Peelooser had her face lifted. They lifted a little a to much and the wrong thing ended up under her nose.

By working to maintain a military and political equilibrium between Iran and Iraq, we *were* acting to help both sides to "lose" in the sense that as long as they were each other's bitter and dangerous enemies, they weren't much of a threat to anybody else. Of course Iraq was turned into a hollow shell by the first Gulf War, but Iran didn't know that, and so up until our invasion in 2003, they still cancelled each other out strategically. Now, Iraq no longer exists for all practical purposes and the influence of Iran has greatly increased. And when all is said and done, that may be the greatest disaster of the invasion of Iraq because Iran is much more radical than Iraq ever was.

Try telling 25 million Iraqis that they no longer exist for practical purposes. What are your purposes, anyway?
======================================

Cat,

You say they kept each other in check, and then you bring up the Kuwait invasion? Not much logic there.

Then you say Iraq was made hollow but Iran didn't know that?

You are trying desperately to bend the facts to make your point but your arguments are pitiful, and the evidence is against you.

Iraq was "held in check" except for the Iran war, the invasion of Kuwait, gassing the Kurds, wiping out the swamp Arabs, shooting daily at our planes, supporting and training terrorists, and a few minor Presidential assassination attempts.

Okay, I get your point.

Long term, backing a strong-man in the name of stability doesn't work. When we've done it in the past we thought it was the smart thing to do. I'd hope that we've learned better.

This might be harder for us in the short term. It's going to take a while for Iraq to be a regional strength but at least it's got a chance to be a regional strength on a democratic model. Maybe it can be a regional strength that doesn't depend on terror and genocide to maintain itself.

This week I observed someone commit a felony and instantly reported it to the highest law enforcement agency in the land. Peeeloshi's felony was reported to the DoJ where it was promply ignored.

Today I strolled into an armed robbery in progress which resulted in two citizens being killed (not involved in the robbery). Should I
report an eyewitness account (identify the criminals in a line up) of these felonies to the lowly local law enforcement agency?
Why would I report something that only resulted in two deaths when the highest law officer in the land cares nothing about a felony that will eventually result in thousands of deaths?

Why waste my time if it actually ever happens?

Scrapiron, I share your frustration. I feel we live in a Country where right is wrong and wrong is right and nobody even cares.

Yeah, Florida won.
============

Jay Tea! You typed William Jefferson without putting Clinton at the end of it! I think that calls for a celebration.