You probably didn't hear much about this.

the trip epitomized a national story with anguished, almost operatic dimensions: a young leader forced to shake hands with the man who he believes killed his father. And it served as a reminder of this region’s deep attachment to political symbolism.

For many Lebanese, the visit was a measure of Syria’s renewed influence over Lebanon after years of bitterness and struggle since the Syrian military’s withdrawal in 2005. That withdrawal came after Mr. Hariri’s father, former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, was killed in a car bombing that many here believe to have been ordered by Syria.

The withdrawal was a blow to Syrian prestige, and afterward Saad Hariri seemed to have the entire Western world at his back as he built a movement for greater Lebanese independence and pushed for an international tribunal to try his father’s killers.

But since then, the United States and the West have chosen to engage with Syria, not isolate it. And Saudi Arabia, which has long backed Mr. Hariri and competed with Syria for influence here, reconciled with the Syrians earlier this year, leaving them a freer hand to guide politics in Lebanon as they once did.

Maybe you heard more about this.

DAMASCUS, Syria (April 4, 2007) "We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace," Pelosi told reporters after her talks with Assad.

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. "These are important issues not only in the fight against terrorism but important priorities for us for peace in the Middle East," she said.

Take Nancy at her word. She and the rest of the elite Democrat establishment truly do believe they are acting in the best interests of the country. The problem lies in how you and I and elite Democrats define 'best interests'.

We catch occasional glimpses into a foreign policy that Democrats dare not articulate clearly and publicly because it represents such a drastic about-face for a 50 year foreign policy doctrine and the moral basis used to sell it.

We are kicking the Jews to the curb.

They've clearly got to take care here, because there are millenialist religious elements combined with decades of Holocaust sympathy woven into the very fabric of American life. Support for Israel is seen by many Americans as divinely approved and an extension of the American role during the second world war, as the defender of freedom and democracy. The political risks are enormous. Yet many in the Democrat political establishment have concluded that Israel is an albatross around our necks for both practical reasons, as well as an affront to the Leftist moral principles of racial diversity and social justice. Put in another way, the Left would have cheered the Visigoth sack of Rome as a simple matter of justice, and accepting a millenium of 'dark age' as an acceptable price to pay.

One must remember of course that Democrats are a coalition, and that just because it has a contingent of Visigoth cheerleaders, doesn't mean the entire party is in lock-step with that thinking. Some think chaos in the middle east is good for the western world because it will force us to adopt green technologies and abandon our dependence on oil--you know, mandate technological progress.

Therein lies the paradox of the Left--naivete and political sophistication all rolled up in the same package.

Don't forget arrogance though. Lots of arrogance in that mix.

You have to admire the subtlety in the entire matter. Pelosi didn't have to say anything substantive, she just had be photographed with Assad. That told the Lebanese, the Iranians and the Israelis everything they needed to know. Subsequent foreign policy impotence by Barack Obama confirmed the message.

Unfortunately, at least a couple of millenia of statecraft experience strongly suggests that they are making a huge mistake. Machiavelli would have been aghast.