Mr. Waner clearly has much to learn about international politics in his next three years here at Penn State ("Pelosi's meetings overseas important part of relations," April 13). His letter is laced with irony and falsehoods that I'm convinced never crossed his mind. In one sentence he points out that Mr. Baker suggested we talk to our enemies, and in another he mocks Republican congressmen for doing exactly that.

The problem many have with Madame Speaker's trip to visit Assad comes from her statement, "I went to Syria to introduce a new Democratic foreign policy." The Constitution clearly delegates the crafting of foreign policy to the executive. Congressional authority in that area is limited to ratifying treaties and approving ambassadorships.

Pelosi also caused quite the stir when she delivered a completely false message from the Olmert government in Israel. Mr. Olmert issued a rare "clarification" that, in gentle diplomatic terms, contradicted the speaker and attempted to undo the damage she had done.

Mr. Waner's point about the troops and the war in Iraq continues his stream of poor facts. He contends supporting the troops is only accomplished by pulling us from a "battleground that is lost," yet he does not mention that we who have done the fighting and bleeding see positive signs among the carnage.

Even his conclusion is completely unrelated to the war in Iraq. The terrorists currently being engaged there do not live in caves but in Afghanistan. Does he disagree with our actions against the Taliban as well?