James Phillips of The Heritage Foundation writes on ‘Madame President’ Nancy Pelosi’s trip to Syria:

Speaker Pelosi acts as if the problem with Syria is an American failure to communicate with, or to “engage,” the Syrian regime. But the Bush Administration repeatedly has attempted to approach Syrian President Bashar Assad and induce him to halt Syria’s hostile policies. Secretary of State Colin Powell visited Damascus in May 2003 and asked the Syrians to halt the flow of men, arms, and money across their border to support the insurgents in Iraq. Assad’s Baathist regime made promises to cooperate but never delivered. It still harbors high-ranking Iraqi Baathists who finance and direct insurgent activity inside Iraq and still turns a blind eye to the activities of the Islamic extremists who use Syria as a conduit to funnel terrorists, supplies, and money into Iraq. The Syrians also have rejected America’s diplomatic efforts to persuade them to reduce their support of Palestinian terrorist groups and to stop meddling in Lebanon.

The problem is not a lack of “engagement.” The Clinton Administration made every effort to pull Syria into peace negotiations with Israel but failed despite more than 20 trips to Damascus by Secretary of State Warren Christopher. This exceeded the number of trips that Christopher made to Moscow and Beijing combined. But Syria was unyielding in its opposition to the 1993 Oslo peace accords and worked closely with Iran to increase support for Palestinian terrorist groups and the Lebanese terrorist group Hezbollah in an effort to escalate terrorism against Israel and subvert Lebanon.

Only last month, American and Syrian diplomats gathered around the same table at an international conference in Baghdad to discuss the future of Iraq. The Syrians continue to deny that they are aiding the insurgents and put the blame for all of Iraq’s problems on the United States.

What is missing is not American willingness to talk to Syria but Syria’s willingness to halt its hostile actions. A photo opportunity with the Speaker of the House will not change that. But it will encourage the Assad regime to dig in its heels, continue its spoiler strategy, and hope that it will be rewarded for its intransigence by a future administration. Why should Damascus bother negotiating with the Bush Administration when Pelosi has signaled that it could get a much better deal in just several years’ time?

Pelosi’s visit also deflated international pressure on Damascus over its suspected involvement in the 2005 murder of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, who resisted Syrian domination over Lebanon. By going out of her way to break with international efforts to isolate and pressure Syria’s rogue regime, the Speaker has set back Lebanese efforts to break free from Syrian domination. One of Lebanon’s leading columnists bitterly denounced her diplomatic efforts, concluding, “Unfortunately, foreign bigwigs come to town, their domestic calculations in hand; and then they leave, and we’re left picking up the pieces.”

Full column

Pelosi just seems like it’s in America’s best interests to talk to its enemies, not a proposition I entirely disagree with.  It’s just that when those enemies are ‘covertly’ supporting terrorist groups while not officially acknowledging the support, I don’t see that it does any good except for those nations who are giving the support.

It appears at this juncture that Pelosi appears more willing to speak to leaders of terrorist states than President Bush, using the 2006 election as vindication of her belief Americans wanted a change in foreign policy.  But the 2006 elections were not about foreign policy; 2000 and 2004 were, with 2008 next up on the docket.