Neville Nancy Still Getting Trounced by Her Own Media Allies

A few days ago we reported on the strong language used by the Washington Post regarding Neville Nancy's trip to Syria. The Post went so far as to say "Ms. Pelosi's attempt to establish a shadow presidency is not only counterproductive, it is foolish."

One commenter lamely attempted to counter this media avalanche by pointing to an entry on the Chicago Tribune blog. At the time, we pointed out that one writer's opinion certainly doesn't carry the same weight as the editorial board of the Washington Post or any other large newspaper.

Now of course the Chicago Tribune has weighed in with it's own editorial opinion and we're only too pleased to pass it along:

When Nancy met Bashar
Chicago Tribune Editorial
April 8, 2007

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi finished a rollicking tour of the Middle East last week. It created a lot of work for diplomats in the U.S. and Israel. She toured Syria, issuing jaw-dropping statements that required immediate clarification from the U.S. and from Israel. After she met with Syria's thuggish president, Bashar Assad, she issued this doozy: "We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace."

It is also, administration officials quickly pointed out, the road by which arms are shipped to terrorists -- Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in the Palestinian territories, and insurgents in Iraq.

Pelosi said she brought a message to Assad from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that Israel is ready for peace talks with Syria. Not quite, responded Olmert's office. Such talks would only be if Syria abandons terror and stops assisting terror groups, many of which have headquarters in Damascus. (Pelosi's spokesman later clarified the clarification, asserting that Pelosi made that condition clear.)

So maybe she got duped by the Syrians. Some might accuse her of meddling in the delicate diplomacy of the Middle East, where every phrase is freighted with layers of meaning and history. But did she really do serious damage? Not likely.

Well at least they tossed in that lifeline to delusional moonbats in denial at the end.

The Washington Post and Chicago Tribune are not alone in their condemnation of Neville Nancy
's Syrian escapade. USA Today had a strongly worded editorial saying "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi crossed a line this week by visiting Syria, where she met with President Bashar Assad. She violated a long-held understanding that the United States should speak with one official voice abroad."

The Boston Herald was equally strong in it's rebuke saying her very presence in Damascus was objectionable and "A trip like Pelosi’s effectively rewards an outlaw Syria for nothing. What the “negotiate no matter what” crowd forgets is all the previous failed attempts to get Syria to negotiate seriously. They make new attempts and comments like Pelosi’s “the road to Damascus is a road to peace” nothing but rank foolishness. From 1993 to 2005, there have been many more than 20 high-level visits to Syria for nothing."

Plenty of people have pointed out that the "road to Damascus" is also the road which has supplied weapons to Hezbollah used to kill innocent civilians in Israel and American troops in Iraq.

Appoint A Special Prosecutor

We're reminded of Neville Nancy's words before her trip meant as rebuke to President Bush: "We respect your constitutional role, we want you to respect ours."

Apparently that was before she decided to engage in direct diplomacy with a nation who has been designated by both Democrat and Republican Administrations as a sponsor of terrorism.

Democrats are always accusing President Bush of shredding the Constitution, so we might expect that they would be somewhat sensitive to usurping the President's sole Constitutional power to conduct foreign policy. But like with most standards of conduct, ethics or law, we've become accustomed to Republicans being held accountable to the letter and spirit of the law while Democrats basically do what they want in pursuit of power.

Which is why it would be only fair to ask the Justice Department to appoint a Special Prosecutor to investigate whether the Logan Act which prohibits unauthorized diplomacy was violated.

We not only have the statements of Neville Nancy to consider, but also those of Congressman Tom Lantos (DEMOCRAT-CA): "This is only the beginning of our constructive dialogue with Syria and we hope to build on this visit" and even more provocatively: "We have an alternative Democratic foreign policy."

Clearly these statements and the actions of Pelosi raise questions about violations of the Logan Act. Isn't it about time to hold Democrats to the same standard of accountability they daily demand of Republicans?

We need only recall the firestorm which occurred when Robert Novak published the name of CIA employee Valerie Plame in connection with her husband's criticism of the Bush Administration's Iraq policy. The senior staff of the White House was tied up in knots and legal fees and grand jury appearances for years. Not to mention the conviction of Scooter Libby on perjury charges wholly unrelated to the Covert Agent Identity Protection Act.

Obviously we would need an Independent Special Prosecutor free from any political loyalty to President Bush. Some have suggested that Patrick Fitzgerald would be the perfect choice. He's already got the office set up and could certainly dispatch the matter in something less than the three years he took to investigate the Bush White House.

Democrats in Congress have been busy hiring lawyers to investigate President Bush. Presumably they could also defend Neville Pelosi and company who would have nothing to fear from an investigation.

The question is: will Democrats embrace any call for an investigation or stonewall?