Another first for Nancy Pelosi?

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is already assured a place in history as the first woman to become Speaker of the House. Now some people want her also to become the first person ever prosecuted under the Logan Act of 1799.

The law is named after a man who, during the "Quasi-War" with France from 1798 to 1800, saw that official U.S. foreign policy channels were not producing much result and decided to see what he could do as a private citizen to negotiate an end to the hostilities. A Congressional Research Service report published in February 2006 explains the Act as follows:

The Logan Act was intended to prohibit United States citizens without authority from interfering in relations between the United States and foreign governments. There appear to have been no prosecutions under the Act in its more than 200 year history. However, there have been a number of judicial references to the Act, and it is not uncommon for it to be used as a point of challenge concerning dealings with foreign officials.

Speaker Pelosi overreached both her authority and her capabilities when she used her visits to Israel and Syria as an occasion to try and broker some sort of dialogue between the two countries. She has found herself discredited as a result.

But the Speaker's visit to Syria, in and of itself, was not harmful to U.S. foreign policy interests, and prosecuting her under this act is not the proper response for the Bush administration.

Pelosi's Middle East tumble

It's not surprising that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, having entered the nether world of Middle East diplomacy, has committed a blunder and made something of a fool of herself. Her critics, however, should not try to use this as ammunition to make her stay out of this arena. Instead, the Speaker should pick herself up, dust herself off and try again.

The Speaker told reporters in Damascus that she had delivered a message from Israel during her meetings with Syrian officials. Unfortunately for her, Israel immediately denied this. She made things worse by saying she would offer her "good offices to promoting peace between Israel and Syria." Essentially, her statements had all the markings of an amateur in over her head.

The Speaker overreached herself, and now she is paying the price in decreased credibility as a diplomatic negotiator. It won't be the first time a politician has done this, and I'm sure it won't be the last.

But we never expected her to be Henry Kissinger, or even Condoleeza Rice. We just wanted her to go and demonstrate that there are those in the United States who realize that talking with our enemies is a worthwhile undertaking. That much, she did accomplish, and I hope she will do so again in the future.

British sailors back on home ground

The 15 British sailors who had been held by Iran are back in Britain now, and the U.S. cable news stations are asking "So who won"? The tendency to reduce such a serious matters to some kind of spectator sport is disturbing, but it may be a useful way to examine how the different parties in this matter conducted themselves.

I suppose the biggest "winners" here are the sailors themselves. They found themselves, apparently through no fault of their own, held by a hostile power and being used as pawns in a very high-stakes and dangerous situation. They did what they needed to get out, get home and live to fight another day.

To quote General Patton: "No poor bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making other bastards die for their country."

The biggest "losers," one would hope, will be the British military leaders who put their personnel in harms way without sufficient backup and allowed them to be taken hostage without a fight.

Iran comes somewhere in the middle. The hardliners now have a nice war story to tell their grandchildren someday. As a nation, though, they have strengthened the hand of their opponents.

Syria is claiming it helped negotiate the release. If confirmed, it would mark an important win for that country as well.

Pelosi dares to visit Damascus

It shouldn't be difficult for mature adults to agree that cutting off communication is not a mature or effective way to deal with disagreements.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has met with Syrian President Bassar al-Assad, and President Bush is making clear his displeasure over the meeting. He says Pelosi has given Syria the mistaken impression that Syria has been allowed back into the mainstream of the world community.

When children become angry at a parent or a friend, they sometimes resort to what they consider the ultimate nuclear option, declaring: "I'll never talk to you again for the rest of my life. NOT EVER EVER EVER!!!" Should the United States, as the leading country of the world, be acting like a spoiled child?

It is not helpful to U.S. interests to be giving the impression that we expect other countries to consider it a privilege to be granted the right to engage in two-way discussions us. During the Cold War, we talked regularly with the Soviet Union. We never talked to Cuba. Today, the Soviet Union is gone, and Cuba's Marxist regime is still with us. Based on that, it seems talking to our enemies is not so bad an idea after all.

Perhaps the Speaker can swing by North Korea on her way home?