The Amateur Diplomat
The Washington Post has a scathing editorial criticizing Pelosi's trip to Syria. The salient points:
Ms. Pelosi was criticized by President Bush for visiting Damascus at a time when the administration -- rightly or wrongly -- has frozen high-level contacts with Syria. Mr. Bush said that thanks to the speaker's freelancing Mr. Assad was getting mixed messages from the United States. Ms. Pelosi responded by pointing out that Republican congressmen had visited Syria without drawing presidential censure. That's true enough -- but those other congressmen didn't try to introduce a new U.S. diplomatic initiative in the Middle East. "We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace," Ms. Pelosi grandly declared.
Never mind that that statement is ludicrous: As any diplomat with knowledge of the region could have told Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Assad is a corrupt thug whose overriding priority at the moment is not peace with Israel but heading off U.N. charges that he orchestrated the murder of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq al-Hariri. The really striking development here is the attempt by a Democratic congressional leader to substitute her own foreign policy for that of a sitting Republican president.
Two weeks ago Ms. Pelosi rammed legislation through the House of Representatives that would strip Mr. Bush of his authority as commander in chief to manage troop movements in Iraq. Now she is attempting to introduce a new Middle East policy that directly conflicts with that of the president. We have found much to criticize in Mr. Bush's military strategy and regional diplomacy. But Ms. Pelosi's attempt to establish a shadow presidency is not only counterproductive, it is foolish.
5 comments:
The more salient point:
THERE WAS ALREADY A TEAM OF REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMEN IN BAGHDAD WHEN PELOSI GOT THERE!
You didn't read it. The op-ed acknowledged that and explained it.
Here's some commentary on the lies of editorial. If they'd only looked at their own reporting of the situation, they might not have blown it.
http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?p=215
Oh, wait, disagrees with you so it's a "lie". I forgot.
(Reposted to fix link)
Hiatt should read his own paper.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/04/AR2007040402752.html?hpid=moreheadlines
"Foreign policy experts generally agree that Pelosi's dealings with Middle East leaders have not strayed far, if at all, from those typical for a congressional trip."
Also, John: "Disagrees with you, so it's a lie"? Please don't apply your own standards to the rest of us.
Post a Comment