April 6, 2007
SHE PUTS THE NANCY IN MALIGNANCY:
Our view on foreign policy: Pelosi steps out of bounds on ill-conceived trip to Syria (USA Today, 4/06/07)
Democrats in Congress have been busy flexing their foreign policy muscles almost from the moment they took power in January, for the most part responsibly. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi crossed a line this week by visiting Syria, where she met with President Bashar Assad. She violated a long-held understanding that the United States should speak with one official voice abroad -- even if the country is deeply divided on foreign policy back home.Like it or not (and we do not), President Bush's policy has been to refuse to negotiate with Syria until it changes its behavior. That behavior is malignant. Syria has long meddled destructively in neighboring Lebanon and is widely seen as the bloody hand behind the 2005 assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri. Syria has aligned itself with Iran and supports the violently anti-Israel groups Hezbollah and Hamas. It foments violence in Iraq by allowing suicide bombers and jihadists to cross the Syria-Iraq border.
Pelosi surely knew that as speaker -- third in the succession line to the presidency -- her high-profile presence in Damascus would be read as a contradiction of Bush's no-talkpolicy. No matter that she claimed to have stuck closely to administration positions in her conversations with Assad, smiling photos of Pelosi and the Syrian president convey the unspoken message that while the U.S. president is unwilling to talk with Syria, another wing of the government is. Assad made good use of the moment.
Also along was House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Tom Lantos, D-Calif., who said the meeting was "only the beginning of our constructive dialogue with Syria, and we hope to build on this visit." That suggested Democrats are going beyond unobjectionable fact-finding and getting-to-know-you conversation into something closer to negotiations, undermining U.S. diplomacy.
Posted by Orrin Judd at April 6, 2007 9:36 AM
It's funny how the Dems want to talk to the outcasts of the world and the Republicans want to change the outcasts of the world (if they are able).
If I were third in command, for my first trip abroad, I'd be visiting our allies, friends and peers, not some backwater terrorist supporting police state.
Posted by: KRS at April 6, 2007 11:58 AM"third in the succession line to the presidency" Actually second, the VP is first in line, the Speaker is second. The President is already there, he does not succeed himself.
"It's funny how the Dems want to talk to the outcasts of the world..." Because the outcasts have absolute power over their people, the power that the Dems aspire to. They want the power to mode our lives according to what they want. "Liberals want freedom, leftists want control." Dems are leftists not liberals. They want to control us.
Posted by: ic at April 6, 2007 12:35 PMYes, Ms. Prime Minister!
Posted by: Dave W at April 6, 2007 3:01 PMThird in line if the current presidential succession law is constitutional, which it may very well may not be.
Posted by: Lou Gots at April 6, 2007 3:48 PM"If I were third in command, for my first trip abroad, I'd be visiting our allies, friends and peers..."
What makes you think she wasn't visiting her allies and peers, KRS?
Posted by: Mikey
at April 7, 2007 7:56 AM
Touché Mickey, Touché!
Posted by: erp
at April 7, 2007 2:17 PM
I think Nancy looks nice in a hijab. Might as well. Maybe American women should get use to wearing one.
Posted by: Charlie Feather at April 7, 2007 6:19 PM