Now, I don’t think it’s fair to call the president a tiny child. Sure he’s told a few fibs… Now, I don’t think it’s fair to call the president a tiny child. Sure he’s told a few fibs and made a few mistakes, told more fibs and avoided blame, told even more fibs and turned government agencies into political weapons.

And sure, he has his angry, agitated, blinking moments – see: any presidential press conference; he’s turned “support the troops” into the presidential equivalent of “I know you are but what am I?” But it would be silly to expect him to act his age after the last 6 years – after all, the first six years are important to instill good behavior in children.

And yet, here we are again, in the middle of another Bush-led collective tantrum over the Speaker of the House’s trip to Syria.

I’m positive that everyone here knows that her trip immediately followed one by several GOP members – well, there’s a chance you didn’t hear about it because no one started crying and threatening to tell his mother. Of course, you know that the Speaker – and all members of Congress – can meet with foreign leaders without a constitutional crisis. Under the Constitution, the White House has the majority of foreign policy powers, but the Congress has a fair share as well.

Maybe you couldn’t hear why Speaker Pelosi was in Syria through the din of talking heads bloviating about how she shouldn’t have worn a headscarf.

Well, she was delivering a message of peace from Israel at the request of Prime Minister Olmert. According to the leading Israeli newspaper, Ha’aretz, everyone over there is getting a little antsy because of the bloodbath in Iraq and all the saber-rattling by Bush – emphasis on rattle – about possibly attacking Iran. And Israel was worried about a pre-emptive Syrian attack and was taking steps to avoid such a crisis via diplomacy – read: grown-up talk.

Why then did the vice president call her trip “bad behavior” – other than because he’s really old? She had the legal, constitutional means, and she had a really important reason for being there.

As far as anyone in the American or Israeli press was concerned “the speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, [was] scheduled to meet with Syrian President Bashar Assad [to] deliver a message of calm from Israel.”

California Democrat, Tom Lantos – one of the Democrats closest to the pro-Israel lobbying group, AIPAC – corroborated Pelosi’s account of the affair: “The speaker conveyed precisely what the prime minister and the acting president asked.”

But, after the visit, Olmert rescinded his endorsement of the peace message. Why would he bother to publicly correct unofficial, off-the-record dialogues with Syria? Well, there is growing speculation that implicates our executive branch in pressuring Olmert to recant his diplomatic efforts to score political points back home.

Ron Kampeas of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency describes some relevant Bush administration-Israel history for us to compare.

“Such backdoor statecraft between the White House and Olmert would not be unprecedented. Last year, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice talked Olmert into a 48-hour cease-fire during the war with Hezbollah to allow humanitarian relief, but within hours Israeli planes were bombing again, to Rice’s surprise and anger. Olmert had received a call, apparently from Cheney’s office, telling him to ignore Rice.”

My real question is where was the mewing and moaning of all these Senators and Representatives who are so disappointed in Pelosi, when Newt Gingrich nearly caused an international incident in China.

In 1997, during Bill Clinton’s presidency, then-speaker Gingrich went to the Middle Kingdom and gave a speech about America’s commitment to Taiwanese defense. Now, the Taiwan-China issue is an extraordinarily delicate one – a matter that requires some very careful navigation especially when being discussed within their borders.

Well, instead of all that namby-pamby tenet of president Clinton’s foreign policy, Newt just told the Chinese that we will give them glorious war should they harm one Taiwanese hair as well as other “remarks [that] were noteworthy for their directness and for exceeding the normal State Department formulations on American commitments to Taiwan.”

That’s “bad behavior,” and it was met with a proper scolding by the media and politicians – that is, they thought his “aggressive role in China” was super-rad and told him how cool he was for doing it.

How else are we to interpret the different reactions? On the one hand a man who embarrassed our nation by disrespecting an important ally – we’re not at war yet – gets a standing O. And on the other, a woman who was doing her part to avoid a third world war is the maker of grave mistakes – the real security concern.

I don’t know; it just sounds like someone should call the waahm-bulance to me.

Arun is unimpressed by George W. Bush. E-mail him at [email protected].