Liz Cheney’s anti-Syria op-ed was interesting for what it did not say.  It did not dwell on whether or not Pelosi was going beyond the law or her constitutional role in “negotiating” with Assad, but simply declared that no one should have any dealings with Syria.  It did not talk about U.S. complicity in the Israeli devastation of Lebanon, which was remarkable considering Ms. Cheney’s crocodile tears for poor suffering Lebanese democrats and the dream of “Lebanese independence.”  Lebanese freedom and independence are important only when they are being undermined by Syrians.  This tracks nicely with the same two-minded approach to Lebanon that the administration has already offered: the Siniora government must be freed from the terrible grip of Hizbullah, but if it is undermined and ruined by Israeli attacks that is all right (because this can be blamed on Hizbullah anyway).  The clarity of stating openly what we have all assumed to be the administration view (or does anyone actually think that Ms. Cheney is just giving us her personal opinion here?) is refreshing.  The op-ed did not actually talk very much about why engaging Syria would be bad for the United States, but went on and on about why it might be bad for Lebanon.  The latter point is worth bearing in mind, but it isn’t really clear why dealing with Damascus is obviously contrary to the American interest.  Of course, it’s not as if Ms. Cheney or her relations have lately been terribly concerned about that interest.