Pelosi's stumbles on road to Damascus

Washington Post Editorial:

HOUSE SPEAKER Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) offered an excellent demonstration yesterday of why members of Congress should not attempt to supplant the secretary of state when traveling abroad. After a meeting with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad in Damascus, Ms. Pelosi announced that she had delivered a message from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that "Israel was ready to engage in peace talks" with Syria. What's more, she added, Mr. Assad was ready to "resume the peace process" as well. Having announced this seeming diplomatic breakthrough, Ms. Pelosi suggested that her Kissingerian shuttle diplomacy was just getting started. "We expressed our interest in using our good offices in promoting peace between Israel and Syria," she said.

Only one problem: The Israeli prime minister entrusted Ms. Pelosi with no such message. "What was communicated to the U.S. House Speaker does not contain any change in the policies of Israel," said a statement quickly issued by the prime minister's office. In fact, Mr. Olmert told Ms. Pelosi that "a number of Senate and House members who recently visited Damascus received the impression that despite the declarations of Bashar Assad, there is no change in the position of his country regarding a possible peace process with Israel." In other words, Ms. Pelosi not only misrepresented Israel's position but was virtually alone in failing to discern that Mr. Assad's words were mere propaganda.

...

... 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.
Democrat hubris with so little to be proud of is interesting to watch, but is bad for the country and will eventually be bad for them. I predict they will remain oblivious to the consequences of their conduct for a while longer.

Gateway Pundit has more on the Israeli reaction to Pelosi's blunder.

TigerHawk has an explanation even Pelosi should comprehend, but probably want:

...

In general, the national security strategists at the heart of the Bush administration believe that countries like Syria, Saddam's Iraq, the Islamic Republic of Iran, and North Korea commit terrorism and subvert other countries less to improve their own security than to advance an ideological agenda or secure geopolitical or financial gains. Since these countries have little or nothing valuable to offer in the geopolitical "marketplace" -- literally nothing in the case of Syria and North Korea, and only oil and gas in the case of Iran and Saddam's Iraq -- they create something to trade -- "peace" -- by means of war. Every act of terrorism or war generates new demand for "peace," a demand that the terrorist state can meet by suspending the violence in return for concessions. The advantage in this for the terrorist state is that demand for "peace" is theoretically bottomless. A terrorist state can create new demand for peace (and therefore new geopolitical currency) at will, simply by committing more violence.

In the view of the Bushies -- at least the purists among them -- rewarding a terrorist state with negotiations is pointless. The terrorist state will simply take each concession, bank it, and then create more demand for "peace" by committing a new act of war or terrorism. The only way to break this cycle is to punish the terrorist state by isolating it, starving it, or bombing it (in roughly that order). In other words, each act of terrorism or subversion should be met with a diplomatic, economic or military reprisal. The purpose of these reprisals is to persuade the terrorist state that it will cost more to create "demand" for peace than it can possibly gain by trading "peace" for more concessions.

...
I have often made the point that the Palestinians have nothing of value to offer the Israelis. If the "governoring" group promises peace never mind if other Palestinians continue to make war. Syria offers the same lack of value while it hosts the terrorist.

At least the terrorist were happy with Pelosi's visit.

Comments

  1. Nancy Pelosi is a conniving idiot without brains, but with a lot of Italian chutzpah. Stick-insect boy-Assad is a liar and a murderer of Rafiq Hariri of Lebanon.

    Plus the dodo from the City on the Bay misrepresents Israel's position. But no one except delusional agitpreppies take her seriously.

    The Democrats are incapable of running a foreign policy and should be kept from the Oval Office. Jimmy Carter is the biggest proof of this, but Clinton ain't far behind, as Sandy Berger tried to cover up with his botched document destruction. Clinton has a lot to hide.

    And the Peter Principle has proved itself in Pelosi's case when she kept her high-IQ Jane Harmon off the Intel Cte Chair cuz Jane had brains and Nancy don't. Ditto her preference for delirium-tremens victim Murtha over Steny Hoyer for Whip.

    Gresham's Law works overtime in the Dem Caucus and the Dem leadership is in a race to the bottom.

    How long the MSM will applaud NP's incompetent pratfalls remains the queston. The WaPo has some residual integrity, but the NYT and LAT lag behind in this respect.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Should Republicans go ahead and add Supreme Court Justices to head off Democrats

29 % of companies say they are unlikely to keep insurance after Obamacare

Is the F-35 obsolete?