There are certain flags that are raised when a diplomatic mission goes awry. Without question one of those flags is when former U.S. President Jimmy “there’s a good chance Hamas will become peaceful” Carter backs the mission as he has done to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) trip to Syria.

With Carter, however, the issue of Pelosi bungling an Israeli statement to Syrian leader Bashar Assad is a bit more dicey. There’s little question Carter loathes Israel, and within the past couple of decades there isn’t a dictator Carter hasn’t found to be sincere.

So when Pelosi delivered the news that Israeli Prime Minister Olmert was open to changing Israeli foreign policy to achieve peace with Syria, which was quickly followed by Olmert’s complete rebuttal, not only did Pelosi botch what might have been a legitimate diplomatic mission as endorsed by Carter, she also butted heads with the official U.S. foreign policy.

It’s not like Pelosi presenting an alternative foreign policy is unexpected either. Ahead of the trip, Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA) said the entire venture set out to present “an alternative Democratic foreign policy.”

Someone isn’t telling the full truth here, because Pelosi says there is no alternative foreign policy.

“On the issues that we set before the president (of Syria),” she said, “there is no division among us or between our congressional delegation in Congress and the president of the United States.”

But it seems a bit unnerving when Pelosi is told by Olmert Israel wants peace provided Syria renounce terrorism, ceases its support for Hamas and Islamic Jihad, stop providing material and financial support to terrorist groups in Iraq (that’s Al Qaida in Iraq) and keep from meddling in Lebanon and simply tells Assad Israel just wants peace. Israel does, but on their terms and not on the terms of Syria who repeatedly shows peace is merely time off from attacking the hated Jewish state.

Pelosi declared “the road to Damascus is a road to peace,” a strange phrase in its own as it symbolizes Paul’s conversion to Christianity. I highly doubt that was what Pelosi was alluding to, rather Pelosi and her delegation seem to believe peace in the Middle East resides with befriending Syria.

There may be a bit of truth to that, however it strikes me as quite odd that all of the sudden Syria is the keystone to the entire “ongoing military operations throughout the world” when for the past five years Pelosi and the bulk of the Democratic Party have relentlessly pounded their fists in fury over the failure to capture Osama bin Laden, who by the way is definitely not in Syria. During the political talking points that lead us to believe if Osama bin Laden is killed or captured then the entire war would be over and the Islamist movement would be made impotent, Pelosi instead insists Syria is the key to peace?

The Washington Post editorial for today chastises Pelosi’s trip, but also her rather amatuerish forary into foreign policy.

Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) offered an excellent demonstration yesterday of why members of Congress should not attempt to supplant the secretary of state when traveling abroad . . . In other words, Ms. Pelosi not only misrepresented Israel’s position but was virtually alone in failing to discern that Mr. Assad’s words were mere propaganda.

Ms. Pelosi was criticized by President Bush for visiting Damascus at a time when the administration — rightly or wrongly — has frozen high-level contacts with Syria. Mr. Bush said that thanks to the speaker’s freelancing Mr. Assad was getting mixed messages from the United States. Ms. Pelosi responded by pointing out that Republican congressmen had visited Syria without drawing presidential censure. That’s true enough — but those other congressmen didn’t try to introduce a new U.S. diplomatic initiative in the Middle East. “We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace,” Ms. Pelosi grandly declared.

Never mind that that statement is ludicrous: As any diplomat with knowledge of the region could have told Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Assad is a corrupt thug whose overriding priority at the moment is not peace with Israel but heading off U.N. charges that he orchestrated the murder of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq al-Hariri. The really striking development here is the attempt by a Democratic congressional leader to substitute her own foreign policy for that of a sitting Republican president. 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. Now she is attempting to introduce a new Middle East policy that directly conflicts with that of the president. We have found much to criticize in Mr. Bush’s military strategy and regional diplomacy. But Ms. Pelosi’s attempt to establish a shadow presidency is not only counterproductive, it is foolish.

If the Post can see this, can the bulk of the American people?

Yet here we are, and Pelosi contends she isn’t trying to create a shadow presidency, however it seems abundantly clear she is trying to circumvent the Office of the President and push her own foreign policy with what she says is the backing of the 2006 elections. There’s just one problem with that. Even if we conclude the 2006 election was every bit of the rejection of President Bush as Pelosi believes, the American people did not vote for a change in foreign policy in 2006, but they did vote for a continuation of the same foreign policy in 2004. There may be a change in 2008, but that’s for the American public to vote upon, not for Rep. Pelosi to decide on her own.