More on Pelosi's diplomacy...

It is highly hypocritical of many observers and the government to be criticizing Pelosi for even talking to Syria, an important player in the Middle East that has been isolated by the United States, leading it to turn to Iran as a close ally.

I still wonder why there was no uproar when politicians visited in the past. Since when can't a US policy-maker make a foreign trip and meet officials? Syria isn't perfect, but it is only an 'enemy' of the US because of Bush's haphazard "axis of evil" inclusion.

She has allowed the Syrians and Israelis to communicate by relaying diplomatic messages. That is a good thing. Also she can take foreign policy trips if she damn well pleases. Republican congresspeople can do the same; I don't mind.

U.S. House members meeting with President Bashar Assad Sunday said they believed there was an opportunity for dialogue with the Syrian leadership.

The U.S. House members, who included Virginia Republican Frank Wolf, Pennsylvania Republican Joe Pitts and Alabama Republican Robert Aderholt, also said they had raised with Syrian officials the issue of stopping the alleged flow of foreign fighters from Syria to Iraq.

In a statement issued by the U.S. Embassy in Damascus, the congressmen said they had talked about "ending support for Hezbollah and Hamas, recognizing Israel's right to exist in peace and security, and ceasing interference in Lebanon."

Wait, isn't Pelosi basically doing the same thing as these congresspeople did, but on a wider scale? (After all, she is also the House speaker, a major position.)

Pelosi is not instating official US foreign policy also, it is just a trip. Just recently three GOP congresspeople went to Syria, why didn't you all attack that? She is helping diplomacy, a good thing considering the White House's failure in Iraq. She is acting as an official does, she is not instituting official policy like Secretary of State Rice or President Bush do.

Pelosi is getting slammed left and right. However, this is much less partisan politics and much more just a congressional visit. Policy makers make official visits all the time. How is this visit different? Pelosi is visiting a country that the US administration doesn't care for. Pelosi is laying foreign policy groundwork; the Bush administration effectively has no real policy with Syria!

I have even heard allegations and cries of 'terrorist' because Pelosi wore a moderate headscarf — people saying she has no right to wear one. It's a headscarf, not a veil! She does have a right to dress in a headscarf if she wants to. What's wrong with dressing differently? I doubt she conformed anyways. She has any right to dress in a headscarf or a suit or whatever so piss off. Those saying things like this — that because she dressed differently or just the fact she visited — are just as bad as many fundamentalists in the Arab world: restricting dialogue by slapping dirty labels on people and saying they do not have the power or right to do something as simple as making a diplomatic visit.

Furthermore, keep in mind the White House's foreign policy record and how Congress has failed to check those policies. Foreign policy does not lie solely under the president.

Both Israel's acting president and prime minister have praised Pelosi; and she has gotten a surprisingly warm reception in the Arab press.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has relayed messages of peace from a nation supposedly the enemy of another. When has Secretary Rice done that in even an official capacity? The United States accuses Syria of destabilizing the Mid-East, but does a fine job of that itself. One reason Syria is making ties to unhelpful countries and groups is because of US isolation — its a look never-ending under the current Bush administration policy.

See this post and this post for background info on Pelosi's visit to Syria and the reaction to her visits.