The WaPo is a liberal paper, but the grown-ups still seem to be in charge of the editorial page:
"We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace," Ms. Pelosi grandly declared.
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.
I have nothing to add.
UPDATE: I may have nothing to add, but USA Today certainly piles on:
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.
Are you on the side of the ordinary Americans
who reported the odd and deliberate activities of the imams on that
airplane, or are you on the side of those imams and their lawyers suing
average people for speaking up? CAIR or the pilot? Choose one.