The bipartisan congressional delegation House Speaker [tag]Nancy Pelosi[/tag] is leading in the Middle East this week has come under fire for a variety of reasons, all of them misguided. The right (and the White House) said Pelosi shouldn’t visit Syria, but didn’t criticize a Republican delegation that arrived in Syria shortly before the Speaker. The right said any diplomatic outreach to [tag]Syria[/tag] is dangerous, but overlooked the fact that Bush’s State Department recently did the same thing. The right said Pelosi was wrong to wear a head scarf in a mosque, but neglected to mention that Laura Bush and Condi Rice did the same thing.
You’d think, given how wrong the attacks have been, that Pelosi critics would back off a bit and find something else to complain about. Instead, mainstream media outlets are picking up with the GOP smear machine left off.
Take, for example, today’s editorial in the Washington Post, which called Pelosi’s trip “foolish,” “counterproductive,” “ludicrous,” and “an excellent demonstration…of why members of Congress should not attempt to supplant the secretary of state.”
After a meeting with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad in Damascus, Ms. Pelosi announced that she had delivered a message from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that “Israel was ready to engage in peace talks” with Syria. What’s more, she added, Mr. Assad was ready to “resume the peace process” as well. Having announced this seeming diplomatic breakthrough, Ms. Pelosi suggested that her Kissingerian shuttle diplomacy was just getting started….
Only one problem: The Israeli prime minister entrusted Ms. Pelosi with no such message. “What was communicated to the U.S. House Speaker does not contain any change in the policies of Israel,” said a statement quickly issued by the prime minister’s office…. Pelosi not only misrepresented Israel’s position but was virtually alone in failing to discern that Mr. Assad’s words were mere propaganda.
This is very misleading, and nearly the opposite was what actually occurred in Damascus. As Nico explained, the Israeli Prime Minister’s office “simply reiterated its position that talks with Syria will not take place until Syria has taken steps to end its support for extremist elements. There is no evidence that Pelosi failed to communicate this message. In fact, Pelosi’s delegation specifically pressed the Syrian president ‘over Syria’s support for militant groups and insist[ed] that his government block militants seeking to cross into Iraq and join insurgents there.'”
The WaPo went on to accuse Pelosi of trying “establish a shadow presidency.” This is debunked — by the WaPo’s own reporting: “Foreign policy experts generally agree that Pelosi’s dealings with Middle East leaders have not strayed far, if at all, from those typical for a congressional trip.”
The editorial added this gem:
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.
Oh, is that what happened? The House and Senate approved withdrawal timelines for a disastrous war, as other Congresses have done with other presidents. Where was the provision in the bill about “stripping” Bush of his commander-in-chief authority?
I should note that it’s not just the Washington Post editorial board that’s attacking Pelosi needlessly. CNN’s Suzanne Malveaux suggested yesterday that Pelosi may “on her way to becoming the most controversial House Speaker yet.” Why? Well, Malveaux never really got around to explaining why, but she alluded to the White House being mad at Pelosi.
Maybe this is some kind of hazing ritual? The media wants the Speaker’s office to know that her exceedingly short honeymoon period is over?
I suspect it’s simpler than that. Pelosi is demonstrating leadership abilities that the White House and its allies resent. She is, for lack of a better phrase, making the president look bad, and the media feels compelled (for some reason) to acknowledge the Republican push-back and report on it in a non-critical fashion.
That’s fine. The White House and the Post editorial board can rehash conservative talking points, while grown-ups in Congress, led by Pelosi, do real work. Josh Marshall noted yesterday, “Pelosi’s trip is an embarrassment for the president because it shows an American actually involving herself in realities on the world stage rather than stuck in denial and fantasy.”
It’s a shame this is, to borrow CNN’s Suzanne Malveaux’s word, “controversial.”