Let's continue to try and understand what Hiatt might be trying to say. He wrote:
In fact, Mr. Olmert told Ms. Pelosi that "a number of Senate and House members who recently visited Damascus received the impression that despite the declarations of Bashar Assad, there is no change in the position of his country regarding a possible peace process with Israel."
This would be relevant IF Pelosi had said to Olmert that "[Syria] was ready to engage in peace talks" with [Israel]." It would not make it true, only relevant. But Pelosi said that Israel was ready for peace talks to Assad of Syria. Does Hiatt not understand this? I submit that this is definitive proof that Hiatt is an idiot.
Look, Hiatt wrote falsehoods. I do not think he lied. I think he is an idiot. He wrote:
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.
This is false in every respect. The first part is false for the reasons I just demonstrated. The second part is false because he has no idea what Pelosi thinks of what Bashar Assad said.
Here is what Hiatt would have had the Speaker say apparently:
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.
I hope each of those diplomats with knowledge would tell Mr. Hiatt that the Speaker would have been foolsih to say that in public in Syria. It appears that Hiatt embraces the Bush school of diplomacy - where the US tells people to go eff themselves. Hiatt is, plain and simple, an idiot.
Here he proves it again:
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.
This is just nonsense. What was Pelosi's new foreign policy initiative? As for "managing troop movements" in Iraq, is Hiatt talking about a withdrawal date? Is he arguing the Congress can't end the Iraq Debacle he loves so dearly? Agai, Hiatt is an idiot.
Then this piece de resistance from the idiot Hiatt:
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.
For the head cheerleader for the Decider to call anyone foolish is chutzpah of the highest order. Or, more likely, idiocy of the highest order. I don't know what Donald Graham sees in Fred Hiatt, but his Editorial Page is a laughing stock for good reason.
