I have been hesitant to write a political column for fear of my words being torn apart, seeming inaccurate or taken out of context. But after reading about Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Syria that subjected her to becoming a victim of all three of these things, I realize politics, at its media-fueled heart, will always result in individuals throwing words back and forth, finding the faults in every single statement.

The combination of instantaneous media outlets and critics waiting to pounce on politicians’ every move is deadly. Especially when it’s Nancy Pelosi, the female Democratic speaker of the house, who made a controversial move.

The terrible thing is this “controversial move” should not have even been considered controversial.

Pelosi made a trip to Syria and conveyed Israel’s message that peace talks will occur once Syria takes steps to stop supporting terrorism.

Simple enough? Hardly.

The media has showcased a tidal wave, make that a tsunami, of criticism for her mentioning the word “peace.” God forbid!

Critics have deemed her actions anywhere from communicating an inaccurate translation of Israel’s message to being a felon for disobeying the president – both of these being false accusations.

While Syria’s ease to allow terrorist aids of arms and people to cross the border is currently just an accusation, it is understandable that these actions would be against our anti-terrorism crusade. The answer to this problem is not to isolate Syria from all active diplomatic relations. Instead, it is necessary to engage the country and participate in active negotiation in order to give them incentives to comply with our wishes. The diplomatic relations with Syria since Sept. 11 have not worked. Opening up the possibility of peace talks should not be reason for conservatives to be up in arms. Our stubborn administration was forced to give up its pride for a brief moment to reason with Syria. The results of this move are not even visible yet, so who is to say it was the wrong decision?

This is even assuming Pelosi unjustly stretched her power at all, which is the issue at hand.

Nancy Pelosi did not misinterpret Israel’s message. The U.S. and Israeli governments haven’t spoken against her actions. In fact, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s spokesperson was quoted saying, “Pelosi is conveying that Israel is willing to talk if they (Syria) would openly take steps to stop supporting terrorism.”

Pelosi did not contradict the United States’ foreign policy. She simply did not beat around the bush to achieve the possibility of peace.

Pelosi did not blatantly disregard the president and White House. She met with the president before the trip. She met with state officials. She was in the clear for her itinerary during her trip to Syria. This throws out the outrageous idea that Pelosi acted without any regard for the administration.

America wanted a change in the Middle East when they voted in a Democratic Congress. After six years of the same guidance, a small change will obviously seem like a big one. Don’t let the conservative media’s rhetoric sway you to believe this move toward peace was a bad one. One must actively work toward peace through the testing of a variety of changes and relations to see what works. The people asked for change. Here it is -ÿin a very small dose, at that.

Don’t be bitter that this long overdue change is finally occurring.

Brenna McNamara is a freshman pre-journalism major and a columnist for the Daily Kent Stater. Contact her at [email protected].