What Bugs Us About Pelosi

Bush-41 veteran Jed Babbin tells enough of the telltale details to explain why thoughtful people of every political persuasion are put off by the Imperial Ms. Pelosi's presumptuous passage to Syria. To wit: Democrat rhetoric makes clear the party's intention to pursue an alternative foreign policy, embodying the most radical notions of its extreme left wing, without having won a presidential election.

Babbin's column is full of good stuff, but here's a pemmican passage:

On March 30, Pelosi’s spokesman issued a statement that said, “As recommended by the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan delegation led by Speaker Pelosi intends to discuss a wide range of security issues affecting the United States and the Middle East with representatives of governments in the region, including Syria.” Which is a curious statement given that the ISG recommended that the United States conduct such discussions and Pelosi has no authority to decide whether those talks would occur or represent the United States in them. (Pelosi should read, or have someone read to her, Article 2 Section 2 of the Constitution which empowers the president to make treaties, appoint ambassadors and otherwise conduct foreign policy.)

Meanwhile, we rejoice that the (saner-than-Pelosi?) chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Carl Levin (D-United Auto Workers), has announced that his party, contrary to its titular leaders Pelosi and Harry Reid, will not seek to restrict funds for the successful completion of the campaign in Iraq. Ms. Pelosi, it seems, needs to do some diplomacy among her own party members on Capitol Hill.