Pelosi's Visit To Syria

The Washington Post editorial page published a vicious editorial attacking Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), calling her “ludicrous” and describing her bipartisan trip to Syria as an “attempt to establish a shadow presidency”. What is wrong with attempting to establish a dialogue which may provide a blueprint for peace efforts? What is wrong with trying to get a better understanding of what motivates an Assad? What is wrong with a legislator getting a first hand feel for what the prospects are for peace in the Middle East when the executive branch has failed to mount any strong peace initiatives? In the face of this administration’s rejection of one of the key recommendations of the Iraq Study Group that a dialogue with Iran and Syria should be given a chance in order to secure peace in the Middle East, Pelosi should be applauded for her visit to Syria. The editorial also accused Mr. Assad as being “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”. Why refer to a head of state as a thug? Isn’t that what got us involved in present and past conflicts. The definition of a thug ( a ruffian, a miscreant or a person who behaves in a violent manner)? might well fit some heads of state we call our allies yet we invite them to state dinners at the White House.