Terrorists are very appreciative of Pelosi's visit to Syria

And the terrorists hope that she'll continue to win elections. They came right out and said it... We want the Democrats to win. Palestinian terror group members call US House speaker's visit to Damascus 'brave' and hope for talks with Iran; ‘I think the Democratic Party can do things the best,’ Islamic Jihad member says House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's visit to Syria Wednesday – in which she called for dialogue with Damascus – was "brave" and "very appreciated" and could bring about "important changes" to America's foreign policy, including talks with "Middle East resistance groups," according to members of Palestinian terror organizations whose top leaders live in Syria. One terror leader, Khaled Al-Batch, a militant and spokesman for Islamic Jihad, expressed hope Pelosi would continue winning elections, explaining the House speaker's Damascus visit demonstrated she understands the Middle East. Pelosi's visit was opposed by President Bush, who called Syria a "state sponsor of terror." "Nancy Pelosi understands the area (Middle East) well, more than Bush and Dr. (Condoleezza) Rice," said Al-Batch, speaking to WND from Gaza. "If the Democrats want to make negotiations with Syria, Hamas, and Hizbullah, this means the Democratic Party understands well what happens in this area and I think Pelosi will succeed. ... I hope she wins the next elections." Terrorists say, Pelosi understands us and if Democrats continue to win they will legitimize terrorist groups like Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah by involving us in international discourses and summits. In light of that, we ought to rename our esteemed speaker of the house Damascus Nancy (a la Hanoi Jane). Or perhaps Hezbollah Nancy? Hamas Nancy? Which one do you think sounds better?

Iraq cracks down on terrorist imports from Iran and Syria

They closed the borders. Maybe America has something to learn from Iraq... Iraq is closing its borders with Iran and Syria as part of a security crackdown to attempt to rein in violence. The new measures were announced by the Iraqi official in charge of the security plan, Lieutenant-General Abboud Qanbar. "We have decided to close two Syrian and four Iranian border posts for 72 hours," he said. "The Iranian border post of al-Sheeb will reopen partially after one week and fully after 60 days, other border posts will remain closed until further notice." A government official said an announcement would be made when the frontiers had been closed. Iraqis making and executing policies. That's a good sign. There is a lot of border to watch there though. Hopefully they can keep an eye on enough of it to keep Iranian and Syrian influences out of Iraq.

Prominent Lebanese, Christian, anti-Syrian politician assassinated

Syria had been seriously implicated in Hariri's death, what's to stop them (or Iran and their proxy Hezbollah for that matter) from taking out another independent voice in the Lebanese government, especially with their renewed interest in the regional power politics. BEIRUT, Lebanon - Pierre Gemayel, scion of Lebanon's most prominent Christian family and a leading opponent of Syria, was gunned down Tuesday in a brazen daytime hit. The assassination threatened to intensify Lebanon's power struggle between the U.S.-allied government and the Syrian-backed Hezbollah. Gemayel, 34, was leaving church when he fell into a well-coordinated attack: One vehicle cut off his car from the front, another rammed him from behind, then gunmen burst out and sprayed a dozen bullets into his passenger-side window. The killing sent tensions spiraling at a time when Lebanon was already facing a worsening political crisis. The Shiite Muslim guerrilla group Hezbollah and its pro-Syrian allies have threatened massive protests — as early as Thursday — aimed at bringing down Prime Minister Fuad Saniora's government unless it gives them greater power. It certainly looks like an assassination, and Hugh is calling it an attempted coup by Hezbollah when you also take this bit of news into account as well: that there was an attempted assassination of a second Lebanese cabinet member, Michel Pharaon, according to Belmont Club. Belmont reports that that would have been enough to topple the Cedar Revolution. We'll have to watch the situation to see how this plays out. Stay tuned for updates... UPDATE @ 4:37pm: Hezbollah blames the assassination on Israel. Really... they do... Hot Air's got the video to prove it.

What to do with Iran...

It's funny to see this coming from the LATimes, but it's an op-ed that basically says diplomacy's failed, start bombing Iran. So if sanctions won't work, what's left? The overthrow of the current Iranian regime might offer a silver bullet, but with hard-liners firmly in the saddle in Tehran, any such prospect seems even more remote today than it did a decade ago, when students were demonstrating and reformers were ascendant. Meanwhile, the completion of Iran's bomb grows nearer every day. Our options therefore are narrowed to two: We can prepare to live with a nuclear-armed Iran, or we can use force to prevent it. Former ABC newsman Ted Koppel argues for the former, saying that "if Iran is bound and determined to have nuclear weapons, let it." We should rely, he says, on the threat of retaliation to keep Iran from using its bomb. Similarly, Newsweek International Editor Fareed Zakaria points out that we have succeeded in deterring other hostile nuclear states, such as the Soviet Union and China. Go figure... the MSM runs around in circles screaming "the sky is falling, the sky is falling." I don't know that I'd totally throw in the towel on revolutionary elements within Iran, but time is short. If that's still an option, something needs to happen there fast. Besides that, our options are bleak if we continue to put all our eggs into the diplomacy basket. Do we simply sit back and hope Israel can take out all of Iran's reactors? If that fails we're faced with a nuclear Iran, and what Koppel fails to realize is that this would be more than just a cold war. Iran would be more than willing to pass a nuke off to a terrorist group. Why else could they want an Iranian, Saif Adel, to take bin Laden's place as al Qaeda's leader? That'd certainly be convenient, wouldn't it? And what about the power shifft in the region? Israel's nuclear program is probably the only reason they still exist, along with their willingness to pre-emptively strike at those attempting to develop nukes. Would a nuclear Iran send Iraq's fledgling democracy into a tailspin? And Syria could easily hop on the coat tails of their nieghbor. Syria's going to continue to get bolder as we continue to wring our hands, so we'll get more demands from Syria, like their current demand for a timetable of our withdrawal from Iraq. Should we take bets on what Iran wants to discuss with this summit they've invited Syria and Iraq to? They say it's about the sectarian violence, but if you take what Ahmadinejad tells you at face value, I've got some great beach front property in Arkansas I'd love to sell you. I'd like to keep the "bombing Iran back to the stone age" option on the shelf, but we're painting ourselves into a corner here...

Are Iran and Syria trying to overthrow the Lebanese government

After Hariri's assassination and following popular uprising forcing Syria to withdraw all influence from their puppet state, Syria with Iran's help might be looking to subvert the current Lebanese government. The U.S. is "increasingly concerned by mounting evidence that the Syrian and Iranian governments, Hezbollah and their Lebanese allies are preparing plans to topple Lebanon's democratically elected government," the White House said in a statement. The Bush administration said there are "indications" Syria is trying to disrupt passage of a statute by the Lebanese government permitting an international tribunal to try those accused of involvement in former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri's assassination. The U.S. statement noted that an international tribunal can be established "no matter what happens in Lebanon." Terrorists in liege with Iran and Syria? Surely not?! I wonder where we've heard that before... Oh, and that sounds like a pretty damn good reason to not let nations that cooperate with terrorists (**cough**Iran**cough**) get nuclear weapons, don't ya think?