we didn't like China in the early 70s but Nixon still went there and then to Moscow to negotiate and open a dialogue. Specter is absolutely right, and that's key to diplomacy.

The White House is aghast that Congress is poking its nose into foreign affairs, which is the constitutional prerogative of the Executive Branch--- and we all know the White House has for over 6 years been engaged in an aggressive expansion of executive power and the dimuation and trivialization of the other two branches of government in an effort to impose the "unitary executive" concept on the American government. Now there is pushback from Congress and even, in some measure, from the Courts, a direct result of the many arrogant and heedless actions of Bush, not to mention his notable failures across the board domestically and diplomatically... and his own actions which are constitutionally questionable.

Of course, when you are convinced that Armageddon is about to occur, and the re-establishment of a Greater Israel is a pre-condition both for that fateful war and the coming of the Rapture, anything that might prevent Armageddon or reduce tensions so that it never occurs is Not Good.  Poor Joe Lieberman, seeing only the Republican intention to restore Greater Israel, and himself convinced of the inevatability of war between Islam and Judaeo-Christian values, trots along supporting Bush.

Yes, Joe is losing it, has already lost it, and will not find his way out of this dead-end philosophy.  Too bad Connecticut does not re-call.

I called "home" for much of my childhood.  He is also a disgrace to outstanding Connecticut leaders like Abraham Ribicoff, Ella Grasso, Lowell Weicker, Richard Blumenthal, and Chris Dodd.  Get this guy OUTTA here!

running the show in Washington.

Well, some, like Joe, are delusional.  The real manipulators -- and Joe has become such a useful tool -- are doing this for non-spiritual reasons.

I wonder if Joe is lapsing into early senility.

Think Progress has two good Pelosi related stories.  Chris Wallace on Fox calls out Gingrich, since Gingrich did something similar -- http://thinkprogress... and has this great Nick Rahall quote:

Rep. Nick Rahall (D-WV), who traveled last week with Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) as part of her delegation to the Middle East, said this morning on C-Span that Pelosi told Bush of the trip to Syria a day before they left, and Bush did not object.

Rahall said, "The Speaker had met with President Bush in the halls of the U.S. Capitol just the day before we left and mentioned to him that we were going to Syria. No response at all from the President."

"Does Lieberman not realize that Syria - and Iraq, for that matter - had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11?"

Why is there a necessary assumption that 9/11 had anything at all to do with state to state functions?  Weren't we attacked by an ideology that wasn't part of a nation-state but was, in fact, a pervasive and growing radical belief that permeates all these countries in the reason?  If Syria and Iran are hosting and supporting that ideology, then it is indeed not a beef we have with them as a country but radical Islam is deeply imbedded in their governmental functions and processes and has, as it's agenda, the destruction of the west.  So, as long as these countries continue to provide the incubator for, and sanctuary for, increased radical Islam, then we do indeed face the same enemy that hit us on Sept 11 and many times before (that seem to be conveniently disregarded).

This is the enemy Joe Liebermann has known his whole life:  http://www.thereligi...

There are extremists in all religions.  That site refers to Islam as a violent religion, which it is not.  It can be manipulated into such, as my own faith (Christianity) has been many times in the past.  Joe wants to fight radical Islam?  Good for him.  I agree that we should fight all radical organizations that wish us dead.  The question is, how do we do that?  I've always believed that a political change is far more stable, and long lasting, than a military one.

...but when religion governs politics in a theocracy like Iran, and the radical side of that religion dictates foreign policy, then your challenge is much greater than simple diplomacy between secular nation-states. 

I also agree that most Muslims do not advocate the violence of the extremists.  But what this site clearly points out is that the moderates have been silenced and neutered by the radical forces of this religion.  If the billions of Muslims around the world were actually outraged by this violence, they could end it.  But their silence and inaction (on a global scale) results in the thousands of atrocities and acts of violence that site catalogs daily from around the world.  We can only refer to islam as a religion of peace when it actually manifests itself as such.  Yes, Christianity has had a violent past as well but I challenege anyone to point me to a commensurate site where acts of violence, torture and opresssion are being carried out by groups in the name of a Christioan God or faith.  Christianity has grown and progressed.  Islam hasn't moved in 1,500 years.  That's the problem.

Several others, including one of the masterminds of the 9/11 attacks, came from Egypt.  Arguably, both countries are "hosting and supporting that ideology." In fact, radical Wahhabi Islam comes right out of Saudi Arabia, and is spread through a network of radical madrasas by rich Saudis, with the Saudi government AT BEST turning a blind eye.

So, is Saudi Arabia "the same enemy that hit us on Sept 11?"  If so, do you advocate attacking Saudi Arabia?  What about Egypt?  Oh yeah, what about Pakistan, which was and still is strongly allied with the Taliban?  I can't WAIT to hear your all-knowing answers.  Ha.

Their national origin and citizenship(s) (many had multiples) has nothing to do with why we were attacked.  This is not now, nor has it ever been about a nation state's role or a government-to-government perspective.  It's about a religious ideology that has permeated once secular governmental functions.  I don't believe the House of Saud is in complete control of the religious factions in Saudia Arabia.  Way too much money still leaving the country and not enough aggressive change in those madrassas you spoke of.  That said, I still believe their working with us against the radical ideologies within.  Egypt is a similar story but much less so.  The Mubarak government takes a heavier hand but still has elements within their government sympathetic to about five different Islamist sects within the country.  Neither country is willingly hosting these ideologies in my view nor do they use that ideology as a basis for their international dealings on the foreign policy stage. 

I don't believe the Pakistani government and MOST of the military are allied with the Taliban.  Their government has never, and will never, be able to control or govern the northwest provinces which have become a sanctuary for terrorists.  The governmental shakeups and emergence of challeneges from Bhutto and others are playing havoc with what stability started to emerge there.  Certainly something to watch. 

The bottom line is to make sure NONE of these countries become a sanctuary from training grounds and state sponsors of the forces that hit us on 9/11 like Afghanistan did.