Power Line notes the weird absence of widespread media coverage, let alone curiosity, concerning why representatives of both the Clinton and Obama campaigns visited Damascus this week. Meanwhile, the campaigns have clammed up about it. Thankfully, the New York Sun asks:
Why are advisers to Senators Clinton and Obama in the Syrian capital at a time like this? Are they pressing for a separate peace with the regime? It is something on which Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton will be challenged in the coming campaign, we have little doubt. Where do they stand in respect of Syria — and why can't they bring themselves to explain what their advisers are doing in the capital of one of the countries most hostile to America and Israel?
To date, presidential campaign foreign policy debate has been nothing short of childish, with Republicans arguing over who supported the surge first and Democrats arguing arguing over who would withdraw troops from Iraq fastest. The media has been complicit in the silence by failing to ask even the most obvious questions about what happens after the surge in Iraq, what are the candidates' views on the Islamization of Europe, how to protect the U.S. from creeping sharia, even what they think about the death of Imad Moughniyah in Damascus. The Sun says it has "little doubt" questions about Democrats' visits to Syria at least will come up in the coming campaign. I hope they're right.