While Bush and Republicans were assailing Nancy Pelosi for meeting with Syria last month, did it in fact backfire and prove that Pelosi’s approach was the right thing to do? Check out these couple of key paragraphs from CNN:
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.
[SNIP]
In Baghdad, U.S. Maj. Gen. William Caldwell said Syria had tightened its borders and reduced the number of foreign insurgents crossing into Iraq — a chief demand of the United States.
“There has been some movement by the Syrians. … There has been a reduction in the flow of foreign fighters into Iraq” for more than a month, Caldwell said.
So has this reduction been “for more than a month” or possibly in the last month, since Pelosi made her visit? I would have to go with the later. After all, the administration was going after Pelosi for meeting with Syria and talking about their support of the insurgency in Iraq just a month ago. So either they lied back then, and if you take Caldwell’s word for it then that is exactly what they did, or Pelosi made some progress. There is no other answer to that.
Either way you look at it, we once again see that the Republicans put political rhetoric above national security and foreign relations. If they are so scared about Iraq brining them down in 2008, then why didn’t they break with Bush on the smear campaign? On top of the further damage they did to themselves, they also proved something else – the Democrats are much stronger on foreign relations, and will put the well being of the nation above politics. That is something the Republican have shown they are incapable of.