Who makes foreign policy in the USA?

[Dinner]

I note that several Republican Congressmen recently also went to visit Assad in Syria but Bush didn't start whining about them even though they had almost the same message as Pelosi. I chalk the whining about Pelosi's visit to just more partisan hackery.

[Kuciwalker]

I chalk Pelosi's visit to just more partisan hackery.

[Arrian]

Partisan hackery is all we're ever gonna get, guys.

-Arrian

[Berzerker]

Don't most countries make a clear distinction as to who's repsonsible for foreign policy? I was under the impression that in the US foreign policy was a matter fo the executive branch only.

The Prez has "acquired" more power than he has under the Constitution, most foreign policy power actually belongs to Congress - the powers to declare war, regulate commerce, finalize treaties, etc. The Prez' powers are limited to fulfilling the wishes of Congress - CinC of the military once Congress declares war and chief negotiator of treaties on behalf of the Senate. Thats it, those are the 2 powers of the Prez and both require congressional approval.

As far as I know she really can't go do something like that. As far as I'm concerned, these idiots traveling to rogue nations in an attempt to make themselves more important should be tried for treason and hung on the front of the white house lawn.

Those idiots represent us to the world but clearly your definition of treason is an ideological fabrication unsupported by the Constitution. The Speaker of the House cant even talk to foreigners?

[Drake Tungsten]

Don't most countries make a clear distinction as to who's repsonsible for foreign policy? I was under the impression that in the US foreign policy was a matter fo the executive branch only.

This is the impression I have, too. I think that's generally how it works, but many Democratic voters hate Bush so much now that their elected leaders are willing to ignore the traditional maxim that "politics stops at the water's edge" and are now taking their fight against Bush's foreign policy overseas. Maybe this change in behavior will end when Bush leaves office, but I would guess that it will continue as Republicans look for payback, which leads to Dems looking for payback, etc...

I could be wrong on all this, though. Any Americans care to weigh in with their thoughts on my theory?

[MRT144]

Originally posted by EyesOfNight
As far as I know she really can't go do something like that. As far as I'm concerned, these idiots traveling to rogue nations in an attempt to make themselves more important should be tried for treason and hung on the front of the white house lawn.

since when is making one's self more important, treason?

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
I chalk Pelosi's visit to just more partisan hackery.

so all things being equal bush has so fubared his credibility that it takes anyone but him to talk to syria.

[Lord Avalon]

Republican Sen Arlen Specter visited Syria in December, along with a few other sens (dems).

Specter, colleagues travel abroad, but bid for dialogue yields little

by Michael Rubin
Philadelphia Inquirer
December 28, 2006

On Christmas Day, Sen. Arlen Specter (R., Pa.) arrived in Damascus for meetings with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and other senior regime officials. He becomes the fourth senator in recent weeks to break an informal travel embargo and visit the Syrian capital, following visits this month by Sens. Bill Nelson (D., Fla.), John Kerry (D., Mass.), and Christopher Dodd (D., Conn.).

When Specter announced his intention to visit, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice telephoned to ask him not to go, but the senator refused.

...

http://www.meforum.org/article/1076 (That's where I found it.)

Specter's views on Congress and foreign policy:

WHY CONGRESS CAN AND MUST ASSERT ITSELF IN FOREIGN POLICY

by Arlen Specter

Jan 5, 2007 - Philadelphia Inquirer - My recent meeting with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in Damascus is part of increased congressional oversight in fulfilling our constitutional responsibilities in foreign affairs as a reaction to unprecedented turmoil in the Middle East. As I mentioned in an extensive Senate speech in the July 16, 2006, Congressional Record, and also in an article in the current issue of the Washington Quarterly, significant results have flowed from my meetings with foreign leaders (some of whom have been unsavory), over the last two decades.

The starting point is a senator's constitutional duty to participate, make judgments, and vote on foreign affairs. In 26 years in the Senate, I chaired the Intelligence Committee in the 104th Congress and have served on the appropriations subcommittees on defense and foreign operations. Senators vote on ratification of treaties, on the confirmation of cabinet offices including the Departments of State and Defense, and on appropriations of $8 billion a month for Iraq and Afghanistan and more than $500 billion annually for military and homeland defense. Under the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers, senators are purposefully independent of the executive branch to provide checks and balances. Accordingly, Congress has a vital role in the formation and execution of foreign policy.

My foreign travels have included 16 visits to Damascus since 1984 involving nine meetings with President Hafiz al-Assad and four with his son, President Bashar al-Assad. When the administration asked me not to go to Syria when I was in the region in December 2005 and August 2006, I deferred to that judgment. But now - with the Middle East embroiled in a civil war in Iraq, a fragile cease-fire between Hezbollah and Israel, and warfare between Fattah and Hamas undercutting any potential peace process between Israel and the Palestinians - I decided it was time for Congress to assert its role in foreign policy. My decision was influenced by the 2006 election, which rejected U.S. policies in Iraq, and by the Baker-Hamilton Group report on Iraq, urging direct dialogue with foreign adversaries including Syria.

My talks with Assad, following his meetings with Sens. Bill Nelson (D., Fla.), Chris Dodd (D., Conn.), and John Kerry (D., Mass.), produced his commitment to tighten the Iraqi-Syrian border to impede terrorists and insurgents from infiltrating Iraq. In my meeting, Assad made a new offer for Syria to host an international conference with all factions in the Iraqi conflict and other regional powers to try to find a formula for peace. I carried a strong State Department message to Assad concerning Syria's obligations under U.N. Resolution 1701 not to arm Hezbollah, and Syria's obligations to cooperate with the U.N. investigation into the assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Hariri.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was interested in the nuances of my conversation with Assad on Syria's potential assistance with Hezbollah and Hamas as part of an Israeli-Syrian peace treaty involving the Golan Heights. When I met with Olmert, he appeared to be moderating his prior opposition to Israeli-Syrian peace talks, perhaps as a result of many voices, including mine, urging him to do so.

In previous trips to Damascus, especially in the 1990s, I relayed messages between then-President Hafiz al-Assad of Syria - who initially refused to participate in an International Conference with Israel unless sponsored by all five permanent members of the Security Council - and then-Prime Minister Itzhak Shamir of Israel. Shamir would attend such a conference only if it were organized by the United States and the Soviet Union. Shamir did not want to deal with four adversaries and only one friend. Whether my efforts to persuade Assad to accede to Shamir's terms had any effect is speculative, but it is a fact that Syria went to the Madrid Conference in 1991 sponsored by the United States and the Soviet Union.

Shortly after becoming Israeli prime minister in 1996, Benjamin Netanyahu announced that Israel would hold Syria responsible for Hezbollah's attacks on Israel. Syria then realigned its troops near the border with Israel, creating considerable tension in the region. Netanyahu asked me to carry a message to Assad that Israel wanted peace, which I did. I was later credited by Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moualem with aiding in relieving the tension.

In many visits to Damascus, I urged Assad to let Syrian Jews emigrate. Assad at first refused, saying it would be a brain drain. It is hard to say whether my appeals influenced Assad's later decision to let the Syrian Jews go. These and other results from my many trips to Damascus are cited in contemporaneous Senate floor statements reporting on those visits.

More, rather than less, congressional attention is needed on U.S. foreign policy generally and on the Middle East in particular. While we can't be sure that dialogue will succeed, we can be sure that without dialogue there will be failure.

http://specter.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Articles.Detail&Article_id=95&Month=1&Year=2007

The exec takes the lead in foreign policy IMO (now whether Bush actually has much of a foreign policy is another question), but Congress passes any laws that could affect such, and the Senate ratifies any treaties. There are congressional trips to other countries all the time, but this is the Speaker of the House from the opposing party going to Syria, so of course the Bushies are going to make a big stink about it.

[Drake Tungsten]

Specter going to Syria is worse than Pelosi. At least Pelosi is expected to be a traitor...

[Ecthy]

Even if Congress should have a say in foreign policy, should it still not be decided inside of the US before any action is taken?

There are two problems here after all.

1) Congress does things that are of disputed lawfulness (formal problem)

2) Congress does things that the president does not agree with (content wise problem)

Even if it turns out Congress can do all these things, how clever is it to do them when the other part of foreign policy does things of diametrically different content? No country with two contradictional foreign policies has ever survived.

[Drake Tungsten]

It is indeed baffling...

[dannubis]

yes, he betrayed high king bush. Ban him !!!!

[Imran Siddiqui]

her

[dannubis]

whathaveher...

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
I chalk Pelosi's visit to just more partisan hackery.

There's a good deal of truth in what Kuci says.

But also...Bush's Presidency and especially his foreign policy is imploding. Although it's unusual to see the Speaker of the House take an active role in foreign policy, the vaccuum left by the Bushies could be sucking her into it.

It's true that only the President can sign treaties (to be ratified by the Senate), but there's nothing to prevent the Speaker from going on a "fact finding" mission and to later propose legislation based upon her findings.