Certainly, the current Congressional visit is seen by the Syrians as reason to hope for talks:
"These people in the United States who are opposing dialogue I tell them one thing: Dialogue is ... the only method to close the gap existing between two countries," Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem told reporters after the Assad-Pelosi meeting.
"Everyone knows there are different point of view between Syria and the United States," he said. "We are happy that Mrs. Pelosi and her delegation had the courage and determination to bridge these differences."
So what would these different points of view involve? Certainly, the Speaker doesn't seem so confused as to be ignorant of what the Syrians are doing:
Pelosi said she and her delegation "expressed our concern about Syria's connections to Hezbollah and Hamas" and discussed the issue of militant fights slipping across the Syrian border into Iraq.
So she understands that Syria is helping jihadis kill Americans and Iraqis in Iraq, Lebanese in Lebanon, and Israelis from Lebanon and Gaza. Clearly, the Syrians want to kill Americans, Iraqis, Lebanese, and Israelis.
I don't think that I make a leap in logic to assume that the Speaker doesn't want Americans, Iraqis, Lebanese, and Israelis to be murdered.
So how exactly do we bridge that difference? Do we discuss what rate the Syrian government will kill Americans, Iraqis, Lebanese, and Israelis? Is it high statesmanship to negotiate a 20% reduction? Fifty percent? Even 90%?
What level of murdering Americans, Iraqis, Lebanese, and Israelis is acceptable to those who want to travel that road to Damascus in the hope that we will find peace?
