I actually think it is a plus, since we are so concerned about the state of human rights in the ME, for these countries to see a strong, independent female leader. It gives hope to millions of women enslaved by Sharia.

In the 90’s GOP Congressmen visited Colombia and Slovakia to discuss a policy that diverged radically from Bill Clinton’s- it is high hypocrisy, that they are now screaming about a Democrat’s visit.

Good points, Casey L- but of course Pelosi’s trip makes great fodder for those who want to paint the Democrats as defeatist appeasers who seek only to undermine our president

This is exactly the purpose of the trip. Parties do it to each other all the time. There is no doubt in anyones mind that Pelosi and company are here to win the hearts and minds of the restless antiwar who voted them into office. Syria really has little to say in the stand off with Iran and it is actually behaving quite decently considering there are 150,000 American Troops next door.

I suggest you go back and read the U.S. Constitution. There’s absolutely nothing in the Constitution that states that foreign policy belongs solely to the Executive Branch.

Absolutely right which is why the combined foreign policy by tradition has been left to the Executive branch of the government so that there is one person speaking for the country and not 538 of them. Gets sorta confusing when more then one person is saying what the USA will and wont do. This is evidenced by John McCain walking thru the streets of Baghdad saying what he said and Pelosi going to Syria and saying what she says and on and on. Remember as soon as she opened her mouth, the Israelis said “We did not say that.”

The ISG has urged talks with Syria and Iran, but after Bush stubbornly refused to consider it, congressional members of both parties made forays to Syria and Iran.

There is not a single thing wrong with them doing so other then to further Fracture and splinter the effort to deafeat terrorism to the point that it is no longer a worldwide threat. Obviously you will never defeat terrorism completely.

However the real point here is that the Allies of the USA are seeing in us the absolute total lack of will to fight this war and are then wondering why they are even involved themselves when technically it was not even their war but joined it as a courtesy and the right thing to do per treaty obligations, etc.

Their Forays into the muck are not intended to help. They are intended to shore up voter loyalties with the result depriving the President of international support and cohesion as the world watches in amusement as the once vaunted American Resolve melts like a snowcone in an oven.

The Executive control over Foreign Policy is constitutionally analogous to its control over the armed forces. In both cases, Congress controls the purse strings. Congress also advises and consents on appointments, promotions at senior levels.

But just as Peolsi can’t go to Iraq and order troops around, so too is she blocked from ordering diplomats around and making policy.

There is, after all, a Secretary of State…constitutionally under the Executive Branch.

If you are correct…then any member of Congress could go around the world and negotiate with foreign leaders…with the full authority of the United States of America.

That is patently absurd.

The Speaker has no such authority under the Constitution.

Did Tip O’Neill or Sam Rayburn go to Moscow to negotiate with the Soviets…against the wishes of Reagan, Truman or Eisenhower?

NOTE TO TMV VISITORS:

PLEASE remember to “undo” the blockquote option before the end of your comment. Failure to do so causes everybody’s comments to be merged together, as was the case above.

Marlowe,

I suggest you go back and read the U.S. Constitution. There’s absolutely nothing in the Constitution that states that foreign policy belongs solely to the Executive Branch. In fact, according the Consitution, the Legislative Branch actually has a great deal of authority with regards to foreign policy:

Section 8 – Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To . . .

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces . . .

In addition, Article II Section 2 states that Congress must also be involved in making treaties with foreign nations:

He [the President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur

In other words, Marlowe, your assertion that foreign policy “belonging to the Executive branch” is . . . well . . . flat out WRONG.

You might have a point, however, with regard to the President appointing and receiving ambassadors, as Article II Section 2 indicates that it’s the President’s responsibility to appoint ambassadors (with the advice and consent of the Senate), and Article II Section 3 indicates that it’s the President’s responsibility to “receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers.”

That’s hardly the say thing as your blanket statement about foreign policy
“belonging to the Executive branch.”

I await all liberals at TMV who have expressed outrage over Bush’s pushing the envelope on the powers of the executive to express their outrage at Pelosi’s exceeding her Constitional authority.

Are you kidding me, Marlowe? So the President using the TSA to monitor electronic surveillance within the United States, exercising the broad powers granted to him in the USA PATRIOT Act, denying an American citizen the right of Habeas Corpus, and ignoring that laws and court ruling of individual states (i.e. prosecuting medical marijuana users in California, ordering Terry Shiavo’s feeding tube be reinstated in Florida)–that’s Constitutional . . .

but Pelosi visiting a foreign head-of-state is unconstitutional?

Just what version of the Constitution are you referring to?

“[Hiatt's] claim is directly contradicted by the Post’s own reporting this morning, which states, “Foreign policy experts generally agree that Pelosi’s dealings with Middle East leaders have not strayed far, if at all, from those typical for a congressional trip.” Pelosi herself has “described the trip as little different than the visit paid to Syria the same week led by Rep. Frank R. Wolf (R-VA),” and she went to great lengths to express her unity of purpose with President Bush on terrorism issues. The Post’s own reporting today also cites several instances of members of Congress meeting with foreign leaders during the past 30 years. As ThinkProgress noted yesterday, in contrast with Pelosi’s trip, previous congressional actions abroad attempted to directly undermine President Clinton.”

Did you note the part about how Hiatt’s editorial nonsense is contradicted by his own newspaper?

DLS – I don’t expect you to understand this, because your ideas about foreign policy are straight from the Bushist playbook, but people with a more professional take on foreign policy can and will tell you that sulking and refusing to talk to national leaders because you think they’re Teh Evil! is plain stupid.

For the past 6 years, our foreign policy has been run by people who only know how to threaten and bluster, who think refusing to talk to people indicates strength, and who think blowing things up is the best way to deal with countries and individuals they don’t like. It’s as if our foreign policy was run by arrested adolescents who learned all they know from role-playing games and Star Wars fanfiction.

What Pelosi did is show how grownups do foreign policy. The fact that she has been welcomed by so many of our ‘adversaries’ is a very hopeful note – it means that, once we’re rid of the Bushists, the world may regard Bushism as an aberration, and possibly we can regain our stature in the world.

Mr Rudi,
You are an ignorent, What it has to do with Sharia Law,
Most of the Christian ladies wear Scarf in ME while they are in
Churchs.Educate your self, I think you are one of those ignorents ,75% who never knew , Where was Kawait? before the Iraqi war.You must be haveing same ideas as Bush the MAD MAN.

First of all, too bad Pelosi didn’t say this. (Coward.)

Second, a lot’s wrong in there.

Third — what alternative, appeasement of Iran and Syria? One also wonders how their potential sellout of Israel would compare to the Bush people’s own tendencies. And what about a goodwill mission to Caracas on the way home, Tom ‘n’ Nancy?

Fourth, credibility and respect among whom, Iran, Syria, al-Qaida?

As to the quote itself, it would make fine “opposing party’s response” jabber after Bush’s next state of the union speech.

As to Lantos as future secretary of state under Hillary, well, the words are there, but what else?

First of all, don’t be superficial — you’ve done this before with the soldier kidnapped by terrorists and the related “wearing a uniform” remark elsewhere and now you do it with “talking” here.

* She is insulting and disrupting and undermining the Bush adminstration — and US foreign policy

* She is shallowly posturing and trying to boost the Democrats’ political condition and prospects

* She is being friendly to adversaries of the USA when these adversaries have acted against US

* She is exhiibiting appeasement

* She is implying toleration, if not acceptance or even approval of Syria’s and Iran’s misconduct

> It shows that not all of us are petulant like Bush is.
> It shows that the majority of Americans are reasonable people
> and not a bunch of kooks who will marginalize and/or attack
> all those that disagree with them.

Oh, please.

If there was a breach of the law, it was probably only who paid for her plane ticket, extra security, etc. That really makes it a misappropriation rather than a constitutional breach.