Much note has been taken, and understandably so, of the 5,000 mile trip by the Speaker of the House to visit and provide photo-ops for President Assad -- the dictator of a country that both the Bush and Clinton administrations have found to be a state sponsor of terror. But for whatever might be made of that journey, it seems ironic that the Speaker and her counterpart in the Senate are unwilling to travel a few blocks down Pennsylvania Avenue to meet with President Bush. This unwillingness shows itself, moreover, after the Speaker said only last week that the President should be willing to sit down with her to discuss legislation for funding our troops in Iraq while setting a date certain for their defeat (although this is not, of course, how the Speaker put it).
President Bush has been repeatedly admonished by the liberal-dominated press for his "arrogance" in refusing to meet with those with whom he "disagrees" -- as if mere "disagreement" were the basis for refusing to sit across the table from a literally piratic Iranian regime for which hostage taking has become the signature and nuclear blackmail the Holy Grail. Absent, however, is any trace in the media of misgivings about the Speaker's refusal even to talk with President Bush. On the other hand, perhaps the President is guilty of a sin worse than being a state sponsor of terror: He might, for example, be guilty of being a state sponsor of conservative judges.
Some things are beyond forgiveness.