Pelosi to Syria

By Michael J.W. Stickings

It's not exactly "Nixon to China" -- it just doesn't have the same ring to it -- but I don't see anything wrong with the Speaker of the House engaging in dialogue, bipartisan dialogue, even with a rogue state like Assad's Syria. The White House opposes her visit because it opposes such dialogue generally. This is seen on the right -- and particularly on the blogospheric right -- as appeasing the enablers of terrorism. Which is to say it is being spun that Pelosi is a supporter of terrorism.

As Steve Benen points out, in a must-read post that explains in extensive detail just how foolish Pelosi's critics are (yet more evidence that conservative blogs may be getting everything wrong this year), some on the right are referring to Pelosi's visit not only as "repulsive" but even as an act of "treason".

Which is -- not to put too fine a word on it -- stupid.

Keeping open the lines of diplomatic communication -- that is, talking -- is a good idea no matter the context, but it is especially important given the quagmire in Iraq, rising tensions with Iran, the recent war between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon, the threat of international terrorism emanating from the Middle East, and, of course, the ongoing warmongering in the White House.

For Bush, this is about power and control. He wants all of it and concedes nothing. But the Democrats won last November in large part because of Bush's own failed policies, and, whether Bush likes it or not, Congress (even a Democratic one) also represents the American people and their interests -- in fact, much more directly than the president does.

No one should expect Pelosi to come back from Syria having resolved anything, but at least, at the very least, she is doing what Bush should be doing, and should have been doing all along, but refuses to do, and has been refusing to do all along.