Nancy Pelosi conducted her own version of shuttle dipomacy with the bloody dictator Assad, whose country has been on the State Department's list of state's sponsors of terrorism since 1979. She was then smacked down by Israeli Prime Minister Olmert. Cenk Uygur thinks that, as a result of this scenario, Pelosi somehow came out a winner politically. But when even the liberal Washington Post thinks Pelosi took a "pratfall," it's difficult to believe that Pelosi scored points with anyone but members of the hard-core left.
Uygur asserts that Pelosi faithfully transmitted a message from Israel to Syria, and that Prime Minister Olmert was simply putting on a show when he mopped up for Pelosi. Uygur provides no evidence for this spin, and the Washington Post certainly didn't buy it. According to the Post, "Ms. Pelosi not only misrepresented Israel's position but was virtually alone in failing to discern that Mr. Assad's [statement that Syria was readly to resume the peace process] is mere propaganda." If Olmert wanted to communicate a conciliatory message to Syria, in all likelihood he would have picked a low profile messenger, not a grandstanding politician whose message he would then have to disavow.
Even more fantastic is the contention that reports of Syrian involvement in the release of the British sailors shows the need for the U.S. to have diplomatic relations with Syria. First, according to Uygur's link this is purely a Syrian claim. Unless your'e desperate to spin on behalf of Pelosi, there's no reason to believe Syria's self-serving attempt to get credit for the release of the sailors. Indeed, even the left-wing Guardian, though mentioning the Syrian claim, gives no sign of buying it. The Guardian appears to explain the release in terms of the Iranian regime's own calculation of its interest, and perhaps the prospect of being able to see the Iranian nationals held by the U.S. in Iran as a result of turning over the Brits.
Second, even if one were accept Syria's claim that it helped persuade Iran to release the British sailors, there's no reason to believe that this had anything to do with the willingness of Nancy Pelosi or any other American to talk to Assad. In Syria's versions of events, it told Iran it was foolish to hold the sailors. Syria can calculate Iran's interest and advise the Iranian regime without an assist from Speaker Pelosi.
Nancy Pelosi aside, my general view of "talking with the enemy" can be found here.
Reader Comments ( Page 2 of 2)
16. All these comments about Pelosi going to Syria have become so redundant and Politically biased they are insignificant and boring. When a Politician who happens to be Republican goes to Syria without the Presidents approval, that’s perfectly fine. {There were at least three of them that I know of} When a Democrat goes, they are unpatriotic or traitors. I fail to see any one from the right bashing those Republicans that went to Syria.
Get a life. “ Any Politician that goes to any Foreign country is Ok by me, as long as it’s not Bush or Chaney “ We don’t need another war in that area, are you blind? Are you so loyal to your party that it exceeds the level of loyalty to your country? We are having trouble with the war that we started in Iraq. What is it with you people! Aren’t the young men and women dying in Iraq enough for some of you? Do you want to hear “ Stay the course or is it curse “ for another five years? How many more Americans have to die before we do what Bush and Chaney should be doing, Dialogue, Dialogue, Dialogue. Dialogue. Get it! Dialogue, it brings people together so they can each try to understand the other’s concerns and maybe, just maybe some sanity will prevail and there won’t be another war. But, to the right, anyone that disagrees with us is an automatic enemy. And is trying to kill us. [I’m not talking about Terrorists ] Why not try to find out why if that is the case. May the situation is resolvable though dialogue, isn’t an attempt worth saving all the misery and grief that a war brings? It appears that all of the tough talk is coming from those that are sitting in a warm house by their computer, because obviously they are not where the action is and certainly not putting themselves in harms way.
Gotta go now, I think I am being watched
Richiemac at 1:13PM on Apr 8th 2007
17. Democrats should've sent Hillary Clinton to Damascus instead of Nancy Pelosi. She's an expert in telling people what they want to hear. Furthermore, if things don't work out she can say George Bush tricked her into going.
Oh, wait. Or is it I'm thinking of the story about how she once supported sending troops to Iraq but doesn't any more. Or is it the one about when she (and Bill) were certain Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction but she (and Bill) had somehow been duped by George Bush then too.
Or is it the one about how Bill was ABSOLUTELY innocent and there was a "vast right wing conspiracy" trying to bring them down.
Wait. I'm confused. She's got so many bullshit stories and excuses I can't keep track of them.
Never mind. Sending Pelosi was probably not a bad idea afterall.
Lee at 1:50AM on Apr 11th 2007
18.
I really don't mind when someone expresses a legitimiate concern about a Middle-Eastern government, but when they try to connect violence to all of Islam or otherwise people of middle-eastern descent, I am outraged.
One of my best friends is a second-generation Pakistani immigrant, and I have seen him discriminated against on multiple occasions. He is singled out for "random" searches whenever he tries to cross the border or when he and his family try to board a plane. I've seen him compared to "Osama" while we were in high school, I've seen him be harassed by the police on the few occasions we have had to deal with them (never while breaking any law), and I've seen him have to explain himself constantly to the bigots in this country even though he is entirely pro-American having been born and raised here. I can't tell you how infuriating it is to him to have this happen since 9/11, but to me only as his friend I just find comments suggesting racial profiliing is okay are completely unacceptable if you are willing to sacrifice the freedom of the innocent for your own misguided feelings of safety than you are a dispicable person. That to me is entirely anti-American and racist, and you have no valid excuse for thinking that. You have no real courage or will to fight these people if the cost of your feeling of safety is the freedom of other innocents. That sacrifices the most American of principles for your perception of safety and you are a traitor to our countries' principles for thinking such things.
Peter at 4:53AM on Apr 12th 2007