During the presidency of George H. Bush, the UN requested US troops be deployed in Somalia.  Shortly after he lost for re-election, in December 1992, Mr. Bush agreed and sent the troops to Somalia.  Then during the Clinton administration, Republicans kept up a fairly constant refrain that American troops should not be deployed in Somalia (I guess stabilizing Somalia isn't important.)  The interesting thing is while these Republicans were complaining, it never occurred to them that they were "encouraging the enemy" or "demoralizing the troops".

Atlantic Free Press put out a great opinion piece this morning (Statesmanship or Hypocrisy?) comparing Republican statements made in 1993 to statements made in 2007, and it's hard to believe from the statements alone that the same person is speaking.  Featured are Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Arizona Senator John McCain, and Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell (Minority Leader).

Here's a sample...

Mitch McConnell 1993:
The only issue here tonight is how we leave and, in my judgment, the Byrd amendment better defines the proper exit for the United States in this most unfortunate experience in Somalia...

Mitch McConnell 2007:
I think it is inappropriate for the Congress to try to micromanage, in effect, the tactics in a military conflict. I don't think Congress has the authority to do it.

Following the hyprocisy thread, the article reminds the the reader that three days before Nancy Pelosi visited Syria, no less than three Republican representatives (Frank Wolf of Virginia, Joe Pitts of Pennsylvania, and Robert Aderholt of Alabama) were in Syria meeting with the Syrian President. In response to Ms. Pelosi's visit, Mr. Bush said that sending delegations to Syria didn't work, while his party had sent a delegation just a few days before.  No mention of that delegation while Mr. Bush was busy denigrating Ms. Pelosi.  Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney is noted as observing that Ms. Pelosi's trip is evidence of the "dysfunction" in Washington.  Unsurprisingly, he also makes no mention of the Republican delegation.

The article ends on the sad note that as long as this politicking continues, American soldiers and Iraqi citizens continue to die.  The closing paragraph makes clear that Democrats are not off the hook, and the job of resolving the situation in Iraq belongs to all parties, not just the Republicans:

...While politicians of both parties volley high-sounding words back and forth across the political net, American soldiers and Iraqi citizens are dying. Non-binding resolutions will not prevent these tragedies; only acts by Congress that require nothing close to the courage of American soldiers and Iraqi freedom fighters will stop this war. Yet there is little to indicate that many members of Congress have the strength of conviction to accomplish this life-saving task. And so the tragedy continues.

It's a great (if depressing) read. Check it out.

Remember that guy?  Patron of the "topple Saddam, democratize Iraq, (magic happens), democracy spreads across the Middle East" creed?  Handed the presidency of the world bank when the ill-fated Iraq policy imploded?  Yeah, that guy.  Not sure why this would come as any surprise, but the World Bank isn't too happy with him right now either.

Apparently it has something to do with him making arrangements to get ridiculously huge salary for his girlfriend at the World Bank.  Hard to blame him.  His time of ascendancy came with the Bush administration, and so cronyism probably sounds like the right way to do things to Mr. Wolfowitz.  He himself has basically said that he didn't realize it was wrong at the time.

Okay, I'm kidding, it's very easy to blame him.  What a sleaze.

Having a girlfriend who receives her salary from the organization you are President of is probably fine as long as she is qualified, and she has worked for the World Bank for eight years, so there's no doubt she is qualified for the work.  But her salary is wayyy out of scale with the salary awarded to other employees working in similar positions at the World Bank.  From a BBC article:

...When Mr Wolfowitz took over at the bank in mid-2005, Ms Riza - then a World Bank employee for eight years - was transferred to work for the US state department, to avoid any conflict of interest.

But rapid rises in her tax-free World Bank salary to about $193,000 - more than the $186,000 Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice receives before tax - have aroused ire among other bank employees...

So we knew Wolfowitz was delusional because of the cockeyed Iraq policy, and now we know he's crooked as well.  One thing is certain, this guy needs to stop working in positions where he gets to give orders or advice.  He's clearly unfit to manage.  A manager has to have a firm grasp on the pragmatic--pipe dreams and money schemes do not a great manager make.

And the World Bank is considering just that as the board is meeting to decide what to do with him.  I don't think they'll ask him to step down, but certainly some sort of reprimand must be coming.  Stay tuned...

So Pelosi went to Syria to meet with President Bashar al-Assad and deliver a message from Israel signaling that Israel would like to resume peace talks with Syria.

... "Peace in the Middle East is a high priority ... We were very pleased with the reassurances we received from the president that he was ready to resume the peace process. He was ready to engage in negotiations (for) peace with Israel," Pelosi added...^[1]

Wouldn't it be nice if the peace talks resumed?  Needless to say, one person doesn't think so.

...At the White House, President Bush criticized Ms. Pelosi's visit, saying it sent mixed signals to the Middle East and to President Bashar's government.

"Sending delegations hasn't worked," Mr. Bush told reporters. "It's just simply been counterproductive."

The United States, which has accused the Syrian government of providing militants with safe passage into Iraq and of meddling in Lebanon's politics after its army was forced to leave there in 2005, has sought to isolate Syria economically and politically. Damascus denies the charges...^[2]

Once again Mr. Bush demonstrates that diplomacy is a weapon of last resort.  It takes all of two seconds to see that if Israel enters into peace talks with Syria, and gives Syria back the land taken from it during the war, then Syria loses an important excuse for aggression against Israel.  If Israel returns the Chebaa Farms to Lebanon, Syria loses another important excuse.  With each excuse lost the hardliners become more isolated.

Bush wants to isolate Syria as long as it is meddling in Lebanon's affairs and letting militants into Iraq.  In order to do this he needs to provide evidence, like we did during the Cuban Missile Crisis... photos George, not cartoon trucks.  Unfortunately for our foreign policy, the world doesn't assume we know what we are talking about anymore, wonder why that is?

Imagine if Syria entered into a peace agreement which Israel met fully, and then proceeded to engage in some aggressive action?  Wouldn't that isolate Syria?  When someone has decided to do an evil thing, usually it involves making excuses.  One effective way to make it more difficult for them is to take away those excuses.

I'm not naive enough to believe that this one visit by Pelosi is likely to amount to anything substantial, but I'm also not naive enough to believe that you can solve problems with others by not talking to them.  In the meantime, the Syrians are happy to see Pelosi.

..."Ms. Pelosi is going to be very happy in Syria," said Izzat Abdoulkarim, who runs an optical shop in downtown Damascus. "George Bush says we are bad, but she will see this is not true."

He added, emphatically: "She views the world through a different perspective than Bush. She's more open-minded."^[2]

There's your message to the average Syrian civilian, George.  You are bad people.  Way to go.  Counting down seconds before some wingnut compares Pelosi to "Hanoi Jane". 5, 4, 3, ...