The Washington Post on Nancy's "diplomacy"
(Speaker of the House is not a cabinet-level office.)
By Mark Kilmer Posted in Foreign Affairs — Comments (7) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The Washington Post is not the New York Times and has an oft rational editorial board governed by their view of the national interest, which, though sometimes disagreeable, is not a governed by simple-minded, anti-Republican bitterness. They are not knee-jerk Nancy supporters in the face of whatever idiocy the gal perpetrates.
To wit, we have today's 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.
Okay, the paper acknowledges that they "have found much to criticize in Mr. Bush's military strategy and regional diplomacy," but they refer to Nancy's bumbling attempts to be something more than a Congress critter from the fringe left elevated to Speaker to be "counterproductive" and "foolish."
Nancy's first premise is that Junior Assad only wants to get along with the thuggish Bush Administration and can be trusted to honestly seek world peace and the hopes enshrined in the Kyoto Protocol (or whatever). Nancy second premise is that Israel should sacrifice some security to the "higher goal" of global happiness in a global meadow with pastel colors, a Chichester Canal, built between to bloody seas of Rovian reality.
Nancy's dream world. She's the woman who, with her equally naïve and lightweight buddies, seeks to manage the conduct of the war in Iraq, the Greater War on Terror, and the means by which we secure our nation and its interests from an enemy who would sooner we all were headless. Including Nancy.
This is serious stuff, not a game of harpooning the national interests for political points. If politicians with Nancy's mindset can ban Jarts, can't these folks agree to concentrate on their silly hearings and leave diplomacy to the diplomats?
The WashPost editorial should be read. They have a point, you know.
Nancy was neither elected nationally nor confirmed by the Senate. She can and does not serve as Secretary of State.