Now, you all know I don’t link to blogs a lot, but in this case I have to give credit where credit is due for alerting me to this. First of all, we’re all familiar with the flare-up concerning Pelosi’s trip to Syria. Nothing new there. However, what I was unaware of was that GOP House members had also made such a trip. Not only that, they were backed by the administration as well.

While U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s upcoming visit to Syria has caused the White Houe to bristle, a little-publicized rendezvous took place Sunday between Syria’s president and Lancaster County’s congressman.

And though Bush administration officials have been criticizing Pelosi, it’s not clear what role the White House and the U.S. Department of State played when U.S. Rep. Joe Pitts and two other Republican congressmen met with Syrian President Bassar Assad.

Pitts is a Chester County Republican who represents Lancaster County.

Gabe Neville, Pitts’ chief of staff, said Monday the conference between Assad and the three Republicans was intended to be “low profile.”

“It was done in cooperation with the administration,” he said.

Okay, so the chief of staff of a GOP Congressman is saying outright that the trip was intended to be low profile and that the White House was in on it. Am I surprised to find out that Republicans were making a similar trip? No. That the administration helped? Slightly. Only slightly surprised, but entirely disgusted.

This is starting to get confusing. In the middle of the British sailor business, I’d forgotten about the Iranians picked up in Iraq a little while ago. Well they’re back in the news, and oddly in the form of Iraq fighting for their release.

The Iraqi Foreign Ministry continues to push for the release of five Iranians detained during a U.S. military raid in January, Iraq’s Deputy Foreign Minister Labid Abawi told CNN on Tuesday.

It was unclear whether the situation of the five Iranians had any connection to negotiations aimed at freeing 15 British sailors and marines held by Iran.

…

But a senior Iraqi foreign ministry official told The Associated Press that Iraqi efforts to obtain the five Iranians’ release “will be a factor that will help in the release of the British sailors and marines.”

Of course, Bush chimed in as well.

“I support the Blair government’s attempts to solve this issue peacefully. So we’re in close consultation with the British government,” he responded. “I also strongly support the prime minister’s declaration that there should be no quid pro quos when it comes to the hostages.”

What’s completely confusing me is why we’re asking the the president if the United States releasing Iranians picked up in Iraq will encourage the release of British sailors in Iranian custody, at the request of Iraq. That’s just too many steps for me.

However, I do find it interesting that there appear to be lines drawn in the sand. Iraq is on one side with Iran, Britain and the USA on the other. That’s twice now that Iraq has seemingly sided with Iran, after formally saying that Iran has the right to a peaceful nuclear program. It makes me wonder: what exactly would happen if the United States invaded Iran?

That seems to be a neglected dimension to the debate, it’s all said under the assumption that Iraq would, if not completely side with the US, just sit it out and not worry about it. I’m not sure that’s the case, myself.