As we observe politicians like Speaker Pelosi, we are reminded of European history in 1938 when negotiations between England and Germany provided a glimpse of how prime minister Chamberlain was attempting to appease Hitler by giving-up on Czechoslovakia (Hitler claimed 3 million Sudeten Germans living in Czechoslovakia needed German protection). On September 20th, 1938 General Ismay, a one-time Winston Churchill's Chief of Staff, sent a note to the British Cabinet marked 'secret' in which the first paragraph read: "A German absorption of Czechoslovakia will enhance her military prestige, increase her war potential, and probably enable her to dispose of stronger land forces against France and ourselves that she can do at present."

Similarities between a Hitler absorption of Czechoslovakia at the time and an Assad absorption of Lebanon today are obvious to the Bush administration, the Lebanese, and to the Syrian opposition. The parallels between the deliberate appeasement of Hitler practiced by Chamberlain and the calculated ingratiation of Assad conveyed by Pelosi makes this historic information noteworthy. It remains an open question whether Damascus Nancy visited Syria because of her ignorance of foreign policy or visited Syria to undermine a sitting president.

Given that Congresswoman Pelosi is not entrusted by the American public to conduct foreign policy or the duties of the Executive Branch, the White House is justified in its irritation with the speaker because not only did she break away from her constitutional duties but she also harmed the foreign policy of the US by kissing-up to a violent dictator.

It is hard today to quantify the damage done by Damascus Nancy's trip to Syria but in the aftermath of that regrettable visit, we are witnessing increased violence in Iraq than compared to numbers witnessed prior to her trip. Example: Between April 1 and April 3, the US total fatalities numbered eight soldiers. April 4 until April 6 (Exactly three days during and post Pelosi's trip), US fatalities jumped to 20. Since the Pelosi's trip, and up until April 12, US fatalities have jumped to 50. Compared to March 07, which experienced 81 total fatalities, this month trend is on the verge of a record number. Did Damascus Nancy know, in the aftermath of her Syria trip, that it will embolden al-Qaeda to attack more US soldiers, with Assad as a facilitator, and two other Arab countries? We doubt it. That lack of understanding of terrorism and its real intentions, in addition to lack of support for freedom in Syria and Iran, is a legacy the Democrats in Congress must overcome if they want to convince the US public that they are responsible enough to lead in foreign policy. From the looks of it, Pelosi's ignorance has already cost them plenty.

Arguments are made by some Democrats in Congress in defense of Damascus Nancy that the United States should open a dialogue with its enemies in much similar fashion to president Reagan's diplomatic thrust to engage with the Soviet Union. To a certain extent, this argument is a valid one; however, distinction between an enemy with violent regimes like the one we see in Syria and Iran today must be differentiated from an enemy that, like the Soviet Union, played the game according to unwritten rules of engagement. The US policy should be clear on the use of violence as a tool of diplomacy as clear as it is on negotiating with terrorists. If you do not, you open a Pandora's box, which effectively can morph dictators overnight from adopting a stiff foreign policy to one of customized terrorism to fit their geo-political ambitions. Syria and Iran are so far up the river that no US policy, no matter how engaging, will be effective. Just the opposite, the more engaging the US becomes, the more violence will emerge from Assad and Ahmadinajead. The evidence is in the numbers.