"Republicans Joe Pitts (PA), Frank Wolf (VA) and Robert Aderholt (AL) also held meetings this past week with Assad that should be condemned"

They 'should be condemned', but you condemn only Pelosi.

"Pelosi, just a pretzel and a Big Mac away from the Presidency, and the highest ranking member of Congress as Speaker of the House, deserves special scrutiny for her actions."

This is a rationalization to attack someone you personally dislike.

"While all of these trips were inadvisable, Pelosi's position lends credibility to a state that sponsors several major terrorist groups, terrorists that have killed hundreds of American servicemen, and who have killed hundreds of our allies."

The Repub senators who visited Assad last week did not lend credibility to terrorists?

"Pelosi's defiant trip is a thumb to the eye of U.S. foreign policy, one that sets a horrible precedent."

The Repub senators is not a thumb in the eye?

"Make no mistake: Pelosi's trip undercuts our servicemen that are currently fighting against terrorists in Iraq that come through Syria with a wink and a nod. This trip is a propaganda coup that will be used by Syria, the terrorists they sponsor, and Islamists worldwide."

The Repub senators who visited do not undercut our servicemen? Their visits are not propaganda coups?

This is a despicable double=standard, CY. The Repub senators 'should be condemned', yet you don't do it, but you happily point out that Pelosi is nearly a traitor for making the same visit that they did.

Lex, are you feeling well?

I only ask because that is, by far, the most pathetic strawman argument I've ever seen laid out by you.

I think any child would clearly understand my inference that when I stated they should be condemned, I am condemning them. I'm also saying that other people should condemn them as well. I lay that blame among Senators and Congressmen of both parties equally; what part of "and I do mean all of them, Democrat and Republican" are you having trouble grasping?

I clearly made the case as to why Pelosi's visit--one that you chose to characterize as the actions of someone who is "nearly a traitor"--is especially offensive not because of who she is, but because of what she is;, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and third in the line of succession to the Presidency.

It is because of her position and the influence that the position of Speaker wields and represents that her actions justify more scrutinty and scorn thank rank and file congressmen, and it is because of her position that her visit is receiving far more media attention worldwide than even the visit of former Presidential hopeful John Kerry.

Congressmen and senators of both parties were all cited as deserving condemnation for visiting Syria. I focused on the Speaker of the House because of her place in our system of government, and the extra scrutiny and influence that position of power holds. There is no double standard here, at all.

There is only a person who is apparently unfit for the office she occupies.

Isn't the intent to symbolize the Democratic's surrender to Islamic rule?

I get that she believes she's only showing respect, but someone in her position SHOULD also understand the far reaching symbolism of her capitulation.

That she either doesn't understand, doesn't care or decides to display in defiance of all common sense says ... well, it says what we've been saying about her and her ilk all along.

"I think any child would clearly understand my inference that when I stated they should be condemned, I am condemning them."

Balderdash. 'They should be condemned' is a passive, advisory sentence. You could have just as easily said 'I condemn them', but that would have been a distraction. Your choice of words belies your agenda. You mentioned the Repub senators to protect against charges of bias.

"It is because of her position that her visit is receiving far more media attention worldwide..."

The media attention is due to a stink raised by people who loathe dovish San Francisco liberals. If Hastert had visited Syria there would be nary a peep from the media. There's no particular significance to her secondary position to succeed Bush.

Here are a couple of questions for you.

1) Pelosi delivered a letter from Olmert to Assad. Is Olmert lending credibility to terrorists as well?

2) Did you rebuke Rice for meeting with the Iranians? Did she lend credibility to the terrorists?

In case you wonder, I read your blog for an alternative point of view. This post was disappointing. It is cheerleading, not analysis.

Isn't the intent to symbolize the Democratic's surrender to Islamic rule?

No, that was Laura Bush's intent when she wore a headscarf in mosque (and in front of the Pope, since many Catholics abide the same principle of modesty).

What happened to my last comment, CY? I had thought you were above deleting comments solely because you disagree with them.

CY didn't delete anything, and I apologize for accusing him of it.

It seems as though my reading skills have declined with age.

So Lex, you are suddenly claiming the ability to see into my thoughts, and decide what I meant to say even better than I... I hope you enjoy the delusions while they last. But since you are a little slow and unclear (and even admit a decline in your reading skills), I'll make it as plain as I can for you: I condemn them all. Again.

To answer your other irrelevant strawmen one by one:

If Hastert has visited Syria, he would not have done so against the wishes of the Executive branch, which is the only part of our government entitled to make foreign policy. However, this is a moot point, as neither Hastert nor any other Speaker of the House in U.S. history has had the unmitigated gall to visit a belligerent state in an attempt to forge their own diplomacy, which of course, she has no constitutional power to do, anyway.

Olmert is not a member of the U.S. government, and as the head of a neighboring state, has both the duty and obligation to pursue foreign relations, especially as Syria seems convinced that a war is about to break out.

It is Secretary of State Rice's job to carry out U.S. foreign policy and meet with foreign governments (side note: this might be your dumbest strawman yet).

Likewise, JPE, unless you are aware of facts to the contrary, Laura Bush is not a recognized government official, nor did she visit a country that actively supports some of the largest terrorist organizations in the world, specifically against the wishes of POTUS, thereby providing them with a propaganda victory. I'm also fairly certain we've never been at the war with the Vatican, either, so that comment you cribbed from the braintrust at Mahablog is irrelevant, as well.

SecState Rice, which you somehow forgot to mention, has also worn a hijab in meeting with Muslim allies in mosques, but has not made the unconscionable calculation of making herself propaganda fodder on behalf of belligerent nations as did Pelosi, a move even Lex states is close to treasonous.

CY:

When Rice meets with Iran, it's ok. When Pelosi meets with Syria it legitimizes the terrorists.

When Rice or Laura Bush wears a hijab, it's ok. When Pelosi wears a hijab, she's making herself propaganda fodder for belligerent nations and demonstrating the women are second class citizens.

If Hastert had visited Syria it would have been ok, because he's on Bush's team. When Pelosi does so it demonstrates unmitigated gall. It's ostensibly condemnable, though in practice barely noteworthy, when rank and file Republican congressmen visit Syria.

I don't believe that Pelosi's visit 'was close to treasonous'. I used the word 'traitorous', but I did so only to characterize your argument.

I don't recall the Constitution stating that the Executive is the only branch entitled to make foreign policy. Congress regularly passes laws that determine foreign policy.

Likewise, JPE, unless you are aware of facts to the contrary, Laura Bush is not a recognized government official

Ah, so wearing a scarf is only a wrong if you're a government official. Sorry, it's tough to keep your arbitrary, ad hoc rules straight.

OK, so what if Bush had put slippers on in a mosque? Sign of the apocalypse? If I found the picture, would it constitute deference that symbolizes something or other?

Or will you invent some new rule about how it's only wrong on Tuesdays for people from California?

And please note that Condi Rice similarly donned the hijab in mosques while acting in her official capacity.

But, it wasn't a Tuesday in April and she's not from California, so I suppose it was hunky-dory.

Sorry, I missed your mention of Rice. So....let's put all this together. It's wrong to wear a hijab if one is....what? Being diplomatic? We all know that your real position is that it's wrong while not supporting the Great Leader, but I'd prefer to see you eke some sort of universalizable principle that we can apply when there's a Democrat in office.

(Sorry to post in a row like this)

As I reread, there's absolutely nothing in your original post that provides you the means to distinguish between Rice and Pelosi. You simply state that the mere act of wearing hijab is capitulation to the misogyny of Islam - there's simply no way to distinguish the cases without admitting error. In fact, you don't even try to distinguish them; rather, you give reasons for why Pelosi's immoral conduct is worse than Rice's bad conduct.

jpe - There are two essential differences between Rice and Pelosi.

First, Rice has not set herself up as a champion of womens' rights. She did not make speeches about how thrilled she was to be the first black female Secretary of State and how her experience as a woman made her valuable in her office.

Second, Rice wasn't there visiting as a friend of Iran. Her visit was in opposition to Iran's murderous and repugnant regime.

Pelosi, on the other hand, can't shut up about how she is a shining example of a powerful woman. She's in Syria as a friend of Assad/. Her actions are rightly seen as being in agreement with him, insofar as she is there specifically because she agrees with him.

Aside those points, you seem to be saying that it's okay for Pelosi to capitulate to Islam because Rice, you believe, did it, too. To that I can only say, sheesh.

Those nitpicking with CY's wording and chiding him for inconsistency are sounding foolish, in my opinion.

Pelosi's confusing overtures run counter to the intentions and messages of both Israel (they've clarified THEIR intentions and reinforced their conditions much differently than those attributed to them by Madame Speaker) and the US --- where the executive branch conducts foreign policy, for better or worse.

Pelosi obviously disagrees with US foreign policies. She should debate those differences in the proper chambers and channels and with the appropriate people. NO ONE, much less the ranking person in a branch of the US legislature should add confusion to an already complex and sensitive subject area.

I'm sorry, but Nancy Pelosi is just out of her league and outside the lines. She upsets the efforts of others to do THEIR jobs and adds to tensions. No amount of partisan bloviating and spinning can change that.

And yes, others (Republicans included) reaching out to Syria with their own agendas are out of line, too. But Pelosi's grandstanding takes the cake because of her standing. One might even take what she says seriously.

Those nitpicking with CY's wording and chiding him for inconsistency are sounding foolish, in my opinion.

Pelosi's confusing overtures run counter to the intentions and messages of both Israel (they've clarified THEIR intentions and reinforced their conditions much differently than those attributed to them by Madame Speaker) and the US --- where the executive branch conducts foreign policy, for better or worse.

Pelosi obviously disagrees with US foreign policies. She should debate those differences in the proper chambers and channels and with the appropriate people. NO ONE, much less the ranking person in a branch of the US legislature should add confusion to an already complex and sensitive subject area.

I'm sorry, but Nancy Pelosi is just out of her league and outside the lines. She upsets the efforts of others to do THEIR jobs and adds to tensions. No amount of partisan bloviating and spinning can change that.

Diplomacy requires insight and sensitivity and some skills she lacks. That's just the way it is.

And yes, others (Republicans included) reaching out to Syria with their own agendas are out of line, too. But Pelosi's grandstanding takes the cake because of her standing. One might even take what she says seriously.

More IOKIYAR, CY:

In 1997 ... a congressional delegation led by Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) which met with Colombian military officials, promising to "remove conditions on assistance" and complaining about "leftist-dominated" U.S. congresses of years past that "used human rights as an excuse to aid the left in other countries." Hastert said he would to correct this situation and expedite aid to countries allied in the war on drugs and also encouraged Colombian military officials to "bypass the U.S. executive branch and communicate directly with Congress."

Hastert encourages the Colombian military to bypass the exec branch? Where were you when this was happening?