When last week we left silky-headed Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, she was whoofing the treacherous air of foreign relations and deciding she likes it, she really likes it.  So does Syrian ophthalmologist-turned-despot Bashar al-Assad, who sat knee-to-knee with Pelosi as she chatted him up about world peace.

Only slightly rushed because of his next scheduled meetings with equally peace-loving representatives of Hamas and Hezbollah, Assad was demonstrably gracious as his support for terror, genocide, the assassination of foreign leaders and the destabilization of democracies got a big boost from the Pelosi visit.

Despite condemnation from the President of the United States, the Vice President of the United States, numerous U.S. newspaper editorialists, columnists and the Center for Individual Freedom, terrorists across the Middle East hailed Pelosi's diplomatic mission as a breakthrough, as for them it most definitely was.

As interviewed by WorldNetDaily (WND), Khaled al-Batch, a spokesman for Islamic Jihad, said, "Nancy Pelosi understands the area well...If the Democrats want to make negotiations with Syria, Hamas, and Hezbollah, this means the Democratic Party understands well what happens in this area and I think Pelosi will succeed....I hope she wins the next elections."

Abu Abdullah, "a leader of Hamas' military wing in the Gaza Strip," told WND that the "willingness by some lawmakers to talk with Syria 'is proof of the importance of the resistance against the U.S.'"

Jihad Jaara, "a senior member of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group and the infamous leader of the 2002 siege of Bethlehem's Church of the Nativity," told WND that "'I think [Pelosi] is brave and hope all the people will support her.'"

The Reform Party of Syria, an exile group, tried to balance the discussion by bringing up Assad's "building of terrorist bases in Syria," but most American political journalists were too busy rationalizing their appearances on Imus in the Morning (late of MSNBC and CBS) to pay attention.

Buoyed by the outpouring of terrorist support, Pelosi began considering a trip to Iran, but that was before U.S. Generals began raising significant alarms about Iran providing arms to Afghanistan's Taliban.  It is unclear how such revelations might affect Pelosi's diplomatic thought processes, such as they are, although she seems to be backing away from her early exuberance.

For their part, the Iranians clearly want a Pelosi visit.  "We are ready for talks with U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi," said Mohammad Nabi Rudaki, an influential member of Iran's parliament, specifically citing "Iran's peaceful nuclear issues" as a really good discussion topic, one that has defied the abilities of real diplomats, arms negotiators, UN inspectors and sanctions from most of the so-called civilized world.

It is entirely possible it never occurred to Speaker Pelosi that she would become the terrorists' new pin-up sweetheart when she initiated her defiant whirlwind of diplomacy.  That's just one of the many reasons that free-lance foreign policy is banned.  That's just one of the many reasons to strongly support U.S. Senator James Inhofe's sense of the Senate resolution, introduced this week, to remind every member of Congress that free-lance foreign policy is banned.

As former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore, considering a run for the presidency, said last week, "[The Middle East] is no playground; these trips actually put America's national security at risk."