Bret Stephens, a member of the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board, raises an interesting point in his column today.
Remember Nancy Pelosi’s spring break in Damascus? Condoleezza Rice apparently does not. When the House Speaker paid Syrian strongman Bashar Assad a call back in April, President Bush denounced her for sending “mixed signals” that “lead the Assad government to believe they are part of the mainstream of the international community, when in fact they are a state sponsor of terror.” Today, said sponsor of terror will take its place at the table Ms. Rice has set for the Middle Eastern conference at the Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md.
Now, it’s worth noting the broader context here. Stephens disapproved of Pelosi’s meeting in Syria and he disapproves of Assad’s participation in today’s Middle East peace meeting. Stephens isn’t suggesting the latter is acceptable because the prior occurred; he’s arguing that both attempts at diplomacy are misguided.
Nevertheless, he brought up the distinction between the White House’s rhetoric in the spring and its foreign policy in the fall, which is worth considering in more detail.
In fact, let’s not forget that when the Speaker of the House chatted with Syrian officials in April, the White House, congressional Republicans, and far-right activists were apoplectic. CNN ran a news segment on Pelosi’s trip titled “Talking to Terrorists.”
The ringleader of this absurd demagoguery was the Bush White House. It looks like the Smear Machine won’t go after Rice this time around. Call it a hunch.
Just to be clear, I’m not criticizing Rice for having discussions with Assad, I’m not even criticizing the administration for inviting a Syrian delegation to Annapolis.
I’m just stunned by the hypocrisy of it all.
Just eight months ago, the Bush administration said U.S. officials should not have contact with the Syrian government, accusing the Syrians of meddling in Lebanon, supporting terrorism, and being unhelpful on Iraq. White House Dana Perino said it sends the wrong “message” for members of Congress to discuss anything with Syrian officials.
For a lot of conservatives, that’s all they needed to hear. Indeed, far-right blogs pounced — one said Pelosi’s chat was proof that “Democrats seem to be setting up a separate government with its own suicidally [sic] blind idea of who’s a terrorist and who isn’t (basically, nobody is).” Another insisted that Pelosi’s decision to visit with Syrians was “repulsive” and brought her loyalty to the United States into question. Another still asked, “Can we question [Democrats’] patriotism now?” Yet another concluded that Pelosi’s talks “teeter on the edge of treason.”
Dick Cheney called Pelosi’s discussions “bad behavior.” The president personally criticized talks with Syria, saying discussions have been “counterproductive” and concluding that they send “mixed signals” to the Middle East. For two weeks, Fox News talked about almost nothing else.
And now, lo and behold, the White House and the Secretary of State are not only chatting with Syria about foreign policy, but even welcoming Assad to the United States for a diplomatic gathering.
Will CNN run features about Rice “talking to terrorists”? Will Cheney lash out at his own State Department? Will right-wing blogs suggest Rice may be guilty of treason?
Somehow, I doubt it.