Pelosi's bad judgement on Iran

Washington Times Editorial:

Now that she has won House passage of legislation that would micromanage the way to defeat in Iraq, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi finds herself struggling to come up with a coherent policy toward Iran. Unfortunately, in a desperate effort to appease the hard left of the blogosphere (which worries that Pelosi and the Democratic leadership are insufficiently capitulationist) she has behaved contemptuously toward one of America's closest allies: Great Britain, and in particular, Prime Minister Tony Blair. Before the House adjourned on Thursday, Mrs. Pelosi refused to permit a vote on House Resolution 267, which condemns Iran for the illegal seizure of British marines and sailors in Iraqi waters March 23.
The resolution was introduced exactly one week ago by Rep. Mark Kirk, Illinois Republican, and was reported out the following day by the House Foreign Affairs Committee. (The panel is chaired by Mrs. Pelosi's fellow California Democrat, Rep. Tom Lantos, who presently is accompanying her on a trip to the Middle East.)
Here is the full text of Mr. Kirk's resolution: "Resolved, That the House of Representatives -- (1) condemns the Islamic Republic of Iran for the seizure of 15 British marines and sailors and demands their unconditional release; and 2) calls on the United Nations Security Council to condemn this seizure and explore new sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran, including the restriction of the supply of gasoline, to prevent further Iranian hostile action, deny Iran's ability to militarize the Persian Gulf, and enforce Iran's nonproliferation commitments."
The wording was noncontroversial enough to win the support of liberals such as Democratic Reps. Linda Sanchez of California, Jan Schakowsky of Illinois, Deborah Wasserman Schultz of Florida, Alcee Hastings of Florida and Patrick Murphy of Pennsylvania. (Before leaving, the Senate passed a resolution of its own condemning the abductions "in the strongest possible terms" and calling for "immediate, safe and unconditional release" of the Brits.)
...
Her anti war puke base cowers at the thought of doing anything effective against the evil regime in Tehran, so she cowers from confronting them on the issue. Iran's regime may be at war with the US and other infidels, but Pelosi's infidels are too afraid to even talk back, much less fight back. They are a pretty disgusting lot.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Should Republicans go ahead and add Supreme Court Justices to head off Democrats

Washington Post: Some Democrats eye adding more justices to the Supreme Court to change its ideological bent The once-remote idea has gained the attention of liberals angered by the GOP push to remake the federal courts. Probably the easy way to defeat this court-packing scheme is for Trump to propose doing the same thing now.  It would lead to Democrat denunciations and claims that it would be wrong, thereby blowing up any attempt by them in the unfortunate event of Democrats winning a presidential election.
Read more

29 % of companies say they are unlikely to keep insurance after Obamacare

Conn Carroll: A new survey of 368 midsize to large companies found that 29% of them are considering terminating their active employee health care plans when Obamacare is full implemented in 2014. Only 71% of employers surveyed said they did not expect to drop their health coverage, while 20% said they did not know and 9% said they were planning to exit. The latest survey, conducted by Towers Watson, echoes an ealier survey by McKinsey & Co. finding that 30% of private-sector employers were planning to drop their employee health insurance coverage by 2014. When the Congressional Budget Office crunched Obamacare's spending numbers, they estimated that only 7% of employees currently covered by employer-sponsored plans would lose their plans. ... This means the cost of the health care fiasco will be hundreds of billions more than estimated by the CBO and Congressional Democrat. It is also clear that Obama's pledge that you could keep your health care plan if you wanted t...
Read more

Is the F-35 obsolete?

Headline USA: Pentagon Fires Back after Musk Calls Its Most Expensive Project ‘Obsolete’ 'Yeah, as I'm sure you can appreciate, Mr. Musk is, currently, a private citizen, I'm not going to make any comments about what a private citizen may have to say about the F-35....'   ... ... Drones appear to be replacing jets for many operations.  The Russia-Ukraine war is an example of that.  Drones are often hard to detect and can be used for intelligence operations as well as for attacking enemy targets.  It would not surprise me to see drones engaging other drones in combat.  They also cost much less than manned fighters.  
Read more