I think a better phrasing would be "does anyone here know how the interface between behind-the-scenes diplomacy and public prounouncements works?"

Apparently not many, especailly at WaPo. Micheal, in comments above, seems better at this than the editorialists. I suspect that Israel did tell Pelosi that they wanted peace, and laid out their conditions. And I see no reason to believe that Pelosi misrepresented their message. If you read all that Pelosi said in her pressers, its clear that she did not emphasize the peace-willingness at the expense of other issues. Evn though it may have been covered that way by the media.

Publicly, the Israeli government is wedded to a hardline, probably, hopefully, as more of a political cover than an actual position. The statement that they released did not contradict anythign Pelosi said, rather it seemed to try to constrain the spin that could have been built around it.

Why the WaPo took the spin they did is an interesting question.

I’m sure the WH doesn’t care if it’s a “D” or an “R” talking to foreign leaders.

Thank you for that, jokes are often lacking here and it's good to see one can still keep a sense of humor.

The US can only have 1 foreign policy at a time.

Exactly and since Bush refuses to have ANY foreign policy other than "me good, you bad" somebody has to step up.

If we had a marginally competent executive this wouldn't be a problem, but we don't. This is no different than individuals suing the EPA to force it to do what it should have done in the first place. If the executive won't run oversight correctly then the courts have to pick up the slack. If the executive won't run a foreign policy then the congress has to step in and pick up the slack.

Well, no. The Republicans, presumably, were doing what they were doing with the blessing of and quite possibly coordination with the president.

Somehow, I don't think this:

Darrell Issa, a Californian Republican, said U.S. President George W. Bush had failed to promote the dialogue that is necessary to resolve disagreements between the United States and Syria.

Is quite what Bush would want him to say.

The simple fact of the matter is that this administration long ago gave up any pretense of 'diplomacy' or 'negotiation'. They simply have no talent pool capable of doing it even if they wanted to - Rice's laughably ineffective jaunts through the region underline this. And now, even GOP members, like Issa, are realizing that a) only diplomacy will ever be able to stabilize the region, and b) Bush will never be capable of that, so therefore c) somebody else will have to do it for him.

Here's a bellweather: have any other members of Congress criticized Pelosi (or, God forbid, the GOP CoDels) for this trip? Have these efforts really damaged any vital US interest besides Bush's ego?

If Congress doesn't trust the Executive's handling of information then they can go on fact finding missions in order to get their own read on the facts. Then the proper thing to do is bring these facts back to the US and debate on them. What Congress should not do is meet with foreign leaders and make policy statements, and they definitely should not be making policy statements on behalf of other countries.

The thing is that if they are working with the White House I'm sure the WH doesn't care if it's a "D" or an "R" talking to foreign leaders, if its with the WH's agenda.

If it's not the WH's agenda, then yeah, then they shouldn't be conducting foreign relations.

For the most part (see more nuanced discussion on yesterday's Pelosi post, second hyperlink above) they shouldn't. Win the presidency if you want to make foreign policy.

Ms. Pelosi announced that she had delivered a message from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that “Israel was ready to engage in peace talks” with Syria.

Is this a change? I thought Israel was always "ready to engage in peace talks" given some pre-requisites.

What’s more, she added, Mr. Assad was ready to “resume the peace process” as well.

Again, is this new? Did either side ever say they would not be involved in the peace process?

Only one problem: The Israeli prime minister entrusted Ms. Pelosi with no such message. “What was communicated to the U.S. House Speaker does not contain any change in the policies of Israel,” said a statement quickly issued by the prime minister’s office.

Again, and someone will correct me if I'm wrong, does Pelosi's statement represent a change in the policies of Israel?

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.”

Again, I didn't read her statement as saying that Syria's position has changed. It sounded to me like both sides just re-iterating the same old story.

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.

Did Israel say she misrepresented Israel's position? Israel said the message they gave her was no different than their previous policy, did her statement indicate otherwise?

Well, no. The Republicans, presumably, were doing what they were doing with the blessing of and quite possibly coordination with the president. Pelosi was claiming to speak for a foreign government and doing so despite being asked not to by the president. That, to quote my man Jules, is not even the same sport.

So if the President decides that only his lawmakers get to make official policy visits, the opposition party should just stay out of foreign policy? Or was the nature of the visit different in substance, not just permission? I'd hate to think that Democrats should have no part in our nation's foreign relations just because they don't hold the White House.

Well, no. The Republicans, presumably, were doing what they were doing with the blessing of and quite possibly coordination with the president. Pelosi was claiming to speak for a foreign government and doing so despite being asked not to by the president. That, to quote my man Jules, is not even the same sport.

No one?

Oh, alright then. Carry on.