“Rice meets with Syrian counterpart”:
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice met Syria’s foreign minister Thursday in the first high-level talks between the two countries in years, hours after the chief military spokesman in Iraq said Syria had moved to reduce “the flow of foreign fighters” across its border.
The Bush administration has shunned Syria, which it considers a state supporter of terrorism, and last month President Bush assailed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for making a trip to Damascus, saying it sent mixed messages to the Syrian government. But the White House has been under pressure to talk with Syria and Iran, another U.S. opponent in the region.
Well, first of all, Syria is a state supporter of terrorism, some it’s unclear why the AP’s Qassim Abdul-Zahra hesitates to note as much. Similarly, Pelosi’s trip—insofar as it undermined the President’s foreign policy with respect to Syria—not only “sent mixed messages,” but it was an attempt at a kind of foreign policy coup.
The Syrians have responded favorably to the Pelosi visit—it has solidified the Assad government—with the quid pro quo being that perhaps Syria has temporarily tightened its borders, allowing fewer insurgents and arms to enter Iraq. This is the kind of foreign policy “realism” that Democrats have long opposed when it was Republican Administrations who favored it—but hey, it’s a new day, and the Democrats are in favor of whatever they think might put them back in power.
Of course, any successes on the “realism” front are dependent upon our making concessions to Syria. Pelosi’s visit bolstered Assad’s government, weakened our ally Israel, and likely emboldened both Hezbollah and other terror groups. And who knows just what Pelosi intimated about US policy toward Syria with respect to Lebanon.
So what happens when Syria decides that they’ve put on the show of tightening their borders for long enough? What are the consequences, under Pelosi’s “diplomacy”?
And perhaps that’s what Rice hoped to address with her meeting today. Which is to say, it’s possible that the State Department is hoping to do some damage control in the wake of Pelosi’s arrogant overreach.
Or else perhaps the Administration has made some concessions to Democrats in exchange for a funding bill on Iraq that the President can live with. After all, it wasn’t long ago that Dick Cheney said of the Syria’s Assad:
This is an evil man. He’s a prime state sponsor of terror…So for the speaker to go to Damascus and meet with this guy and treat him with the respect and dignity ordinarily accorded the head of a foreign state—we think it is just directly contrary to our national interest.
Michelle Malkin fears that this is more GOP capitulation, and worries that—like the Pelosi visit—this will send “mixed signals” not only to Syria, presumaby, but to other interested observers in the region.
Which is certainly a concern.
On the other hand, it may be an attempt to acknowledge that with the lines of communication now forced open by Pelosi, the State Department needs to let Assad know in person just precisely who is in charge of foreign policy.
At least, that’s what many of us are hoping. But these days, the exchange rate on idealism is pretty poor.
(h/t CJ Burch)
What also goes unmentioned is the fact that the Islamic nations, almost without exception, view women as far less than equals to men, particularly when it comes to complicated issues like politics and foriegn policy.
Given, for example, the stunning failures of ex-Sec. of State Madeline Halfbright, is it really in our nation’s best interest to try and engage paternalistic despots with representatives of the distaff gender?
Don’t mean to be mysoginistic, and I’m second to none in my respect for Lady Thatcher as the perfect example of a dynamic, commanding political leader, but shouldn’t we be trying to present the strongest posture in these critical
negotiations? And if so, shouldn’t we send someone that engenders the greatest possible respect from the other side?
“The Syrians have responded favorably to the Pelosi visitâ€â€it has solidified the Assad governmentâ€â€with the quid pro quo being that perhaps Syria has temporarily tightened its borders, allowing fewer insurgents and arms to enter Iraq.”
Making lemons out of lemonade? You say Pelosi broke protocol, but she also broke the logjam.
And provided cover for more dissident jailings! God bless ‘er…
I would agree, pvrwc, except I don’t think that we should lower ourselves to even acknowledge their biases, much less take them into account. If they cannot meet with officials of the United States because of their prejudices, then they really don’t need the benefit of any contact with us at all.
Any contact – trade, visitors, students – nada.
By dignifying that type of behavior with a concession you are saying that they are superior to you, that they have the right to order you about and when you allow that once you merely encourage more of that behavior. First it’s Jews, then it is women, then it is Moromons, then it is any Christian, etc, etc.
No, that would be paying rhetorical tribute and that is always a losing proposition.
Jeff,
I read Michelle’s piece this morning. Here’s my angle: it was a tad shrill and over-reactive.
Some background: I’ll be the last one to sing Nancy Pelosi’s praises, but, in addition to her “in-your-face” style, there are some things very wrong with Michelle’s (and the right-o-sphere’s) “shadow-government” and “coup” narrative, especially with regards to Pelosi’s trip to Damascus.
1. While the Right obsessed over her head-scarf at the Syrian market, we missed the fact that Pelosi wore a mini-skirt in her meeting with Assad. She showed a lot of thigh, two-bends of freckled knee, and a little fleshy patch of bum, too. This should matter as much as the scarf does…but, for some reason it didn’t make it on our radar-screens. (Why?)
2. A useful synergy is emerging between the Republican’s “Stay the course” and the Dem’s “Redeploy” messages. It generates a positive feedback loop whose net effect is to spur the Iraqis to stand their nation up themselves, or face the terrorism, UN patronage and sectarian dissolution alone.
And, because Women’s-rights in the Levant, and Iraq’s successful modernization and transformation are the tickets to moderating Islam, these two moves are helpful ones.
Our “right-vision goggles” aren’t imaging this. This blind-spot is evident in Michelle’s piece.
When Rep. Facelift, or the rest of the Congresscritters, are elected President, then they should then, and only then, deign themselves authorized to conduct matters of foreign policy on behalf of our government. Once in office, these people simply know no boundaries.
Mikey NTH – Well said.
Good lord. I’d rather get a table dance from John Murtha.
1. She showed a lot of thigh. Ick
2. She claimed that the path to peace led through Damascus.
3. Either she or the Prime Minister of Israel is lying about what they discussed and what Pelosi later said to Assad.
4. I don’t care about the scarf. I certainly do not care how much thigh was evident. I do care about lying, giving Assad a lease on life that he wouldn’t have had and scoring political points.
So you’re saying she’s behind the exploding septic tank in the PA?
You say Pelosi broke protocol, but she also broke the logjam.
*So you’re saying she’s behind the exploding septic tank in the PA? *
This would explain her one(1)facial expression.
If I was president*, and Pelosi visited a head of state of a nation that supported terrorism, I’d bomb them a few days after the visit.
*this phrase always precedes a bit of draconian justice
Great, let’s open an account at the First Syrian Bank of Perhaps. Perhaps we can take out a loan based on the anticipated revenues of our sales of Insurgents and Arms offsets, and buy Assad a nice crown. To, you know, help with the logjam.
GET AL GORE ON THE PHONE!
Did the visits by Frank Wolf, Joe Pitts, Robert Aderholt, and Darrell Issa also embolden terror groups? Or is it okay because they are republicans?
Who said it was okay? And you’ll notice that none of them are 3rd in line for the presidency, won’t you? Do you suppose that lends a certain prestige that, say, John Kerry didn’t have when he went?
“Did the visits by Frank Wolf, Joe Pitts, Robert Aderholt, and Darrell Issa also embolden terror groups? “
Which of these claimed to have a “message” from Israel conceding to Syrian demands that they did not actually have?
Indeed, which of them took a message to a terrorist-supporting regime that was at odds with official U.S. policy?
I think Condi is going more for fear and intimidation than respect. I like it. I don’t want the respect of terrorists.
IOKIYAR – Those clowns should be held in disdain as well. However, the freaking Speaker of the House, who chose to misrepresent Israel’s position to an adversarial terrorist state distinguishes Rep. Pelosi out for a level of disdain equal to, if not greater than the intensity of a thousand suns.
Speaking of the sun, as the source of light and heat for our planet, clearly it plays no role in temperature fluctuations or global warming.