Depends.  Are they visiting as Senators of the United states? Or are they just going as two dudes on a road trip?  Its not illegal for a private citizen to travel there, cause if it was then Jesse Jackson would be in jail years ago.  Not that thats a bad idea, but ya get what I mean.

The problem is even if they say their private dudes, the only reason they are able to do this trip is because they are Senators.  Its a serious dis to the president, and they should be slapped down like rude children.  Not goen to happen, but still…

The Democrats have had it proven to them that they’re untouchable, though. The media absolves them, and the Republicans can’t call for legal action without the same media jumping all over them and every Democrat attack dog special interest group shouting them down. Republicans literally cannot enforce the law without coming off as the bad guys in this day and age.

At one point in time, you wanted to make sure that any skeletons in your closet were buried nice and deep if you ran for office. Nowadays, the best way to cover up committing murder would be to run for office as a Democrat… anyone accusing you would be called a tool of the Republican party or a Republican kool-aid drinker, there’d be no serious investigation, and even if you were convicted, your fellow Democrats would rally to your cause to say it was all a frame-up, and you’d have guaranteed work once you got out of prison, either getting your job back or getting lots of speaking engagements telling college students how you were framed by the Republicans.

Nowadays, the best way to cover up committing murder would be to run for office as a Democrat…

Worked for Teddy.

Isn’t this illegal?  Correct me if I’m wrong (and I mean that) but don’t we have a federal law that basically says no one but the President or his duly appointed representatives can engage in this kind of behavior on behalf of the country?

You’re wrong. The State Department cleared the trip.

The State Department advised Dodd to forgo a trip to Syria in April. This time, the State Department has expressed concerns but is not blocking the visit.

I’d also like to see what federal law prohibits members of the US government (or any state governments) from talking to foreign officials. Congressmen, senators and governors take trips overseas all the time and frequently talk to representatives of those governments.

Just today McCain, Collins, Graham, and Lieberman went to Iraq and will be talking to Iraqi government officials there. Do you think that is illegal too?

“Talking to” is a little different than “holding peace talks”. “Talking to” implies that you’re just having a chat, seeing what’s going on, all that. “Peace talks” implies some manner of negotiations. If you don’t understand the difference, there is a distinct possibility that you are an idiot.

Actually if you read the Courant article Rann you’d see that there is no structure whatsoever to support the description of Dodd’s trip as “peace talks.” There is no single forum for the dialogues and Dodd and Kerry will be visiting each country separately.

Most importantly this trip was allowed by the State Department. If the Bush administration doesn’t have a problem with it, why do you?

I’d add the US senators don’t have the authority to negotiate anything. What are you afraid will happen?

Rann and da_ubu have got my concern nailed.  Peace talks implies treaty-like negotiations.  THAT is the behavior that I believe is illegal.  I was under the impression that no Congressman has the right to negotiate on behalf of the US unless the President says he can.

As for the State Department signing off...yeah, I’m real sure it would go over great in the press if the Bush State Department told two DEMOCRATS they couldn’t travel to Syria, Iraq et. al.  No matter how much real damage these two bumbling idiots will do, Bush is afraid to say no because of the reaction he’ll get in the press.  He’s weak in every way possible.  But that’s a discussion for another thread…

Matt, you’re being disingenuous with that “If Bush is OK with it why aren’t you?” nonsense and you know it.  The least you could do is be honest if you’re going to be a snarky bitch.

Well, I was going off of the quote where it says “conduct his own Middle East peace talks”. Right there.

Part of my problem with it is that just what qualification does a state senator feel that he has to conduct peace talks? Even if that’s not how they’re structured, whatever you think that means, shouldn’t he be representing his constituency here at home? He’s supposed to be representing the people of Connecticut, not the United States as a whole. It’s a publicity stunt that takes him beyond his job parameters. It’d be like a regional manager just up and deciding to go to business negotiations for his entire company.

And US senators do a lot of things they don’t have the authority to do. Perhaps you’ve noticed. I imagine that part of his publicity stunt will be pulling something where he says “Well they’d be willing to work with us if we’d only do this! Why oh why won’t you do this?” “Uh, because it would be harmful to us and-” “WHY DO YOU HATE PEACE SO MUCH?!”

Matt, at your blog you wrote:

There are profound differences over how the US crafts our foreign policy and not all American leaders think sitting Syria and Iran in the proverbial corner with a dunces’ cap is the best strategy.

The point I am making is that ANY Senator, regardless of party (which you don’t seem at all to be able to stop thinking about) cannot and SHOULD NOT be making foreign policy unless authorized to do so.

Do you mean to tell us that you believe Kerry & Dodd have Bush’s blessing to go to Syria and offer concessions and make demands on behalf of the United States?  Or are you so naive that you think that isn’t what they’re going to do?  Do you think the two of them aren’t going over there to undermine the office of the President?

Forget about Bush.  He is a ineffectual lame duck.  I’m far more concerned with the idea of two Senators from an opposing party blatantly and openly undermining the sitting President in matters of foreign policy.  This kind of behavior has consequences that go well beyond the next two years of Bush’s term.

It’s time to get past this cheerleading for the Dems or the GOP and start thinking about how this dirty political pool is affecting the way we can govern this nation going forward.

Heh, I wonder if part of it’s that “We’re Democrats so obviously we’ll win!” mindset. After all, he’s a Democrat possible for President, obviously he’d win, why not just go ahead and act like he’s already President?

(Anyone remember “Welcome your next Vice President, John Edwards!”? I still giggle over that one.)

It’s time to get past this cheerleading for the Dems or the GOP and start thinking about how this dirty political pool is affecting the way we can govern this nation going forward.

Indeed. I was talking to my mother awhile back about some of Penn Jillette’s work on Bullshit and some of the topics he’d talked about, and she went all sour on him, stating “He hates Bush” and saying that some of the subjects might just be an excuse to hate on the administration. Finally, I told her “Mom, of course he hates Bush! He’s a hardcore Libertarian! And for a Libertarian, Bush is conservative on all the wrong stuff and liberal on all the wrong stuff!” Even she had to grudgingly agree that Bush’s fiscal policy would turn someone on him.

Wow this has descended into ad hominem awfully fast. Classy.

In regards to the confusion over what Dodd is doing, his website statement on the trip does not use the words “peace talks” anywhere. I think The Courant overstated the trip.

Although the State Department urged that I not go, they assured me that the embassy in Damascus would support me if I did choose to do so.  It is clear that a policy of isolation has not altered Syria’s behavior and the instability in the region is greater, not less, than it was 8 months ago. That is why I made the decision to go forward with a visit to Syria in conjunction with my fact-finding mission to four other countries in the region.

“I believe that my trip there, as well as the trips made to Syria by other U.S. legislators, presents a unique opportunity to begin an honest and frank dialogue between our country and regional players who should have a vested interest in a stable and prosperous Middle East. I’m interested in regional leaders’ reactions to the Iraq Study Group report, as well as their thoughts on how best to resolve the situation in Iraq, restore full sovereignty to Lebanon and make progress toward resolving the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.

“I don’t believe in having conversations with people for the sake of having conversations; idle chatter is not the point of all of this. However, when you’ve got governments like Syria which have influence on the course of events, it’s important to engage with them, to clearly convey our concerns, to put forth ideas about alternative directions we believe would advance the goal of regional security and stability, and to hear their reactions to those comments and questions.

“I’m not going to suggest that one United States Senator going into Syria is going to change everything. But I do think it’s important that they do hear directly from Members of Congress about concerns we may have, and questions we may wish to raise.”

You may not like that Dodd is talking to Syrians, but he’s been given license to do so by the Bush administration. That matters - he wouldn’t be going to Syria if Bush had said no. 

In regards to what I wrote, I think there are objectively different takes on foreign policy. But having an opinion different from Bush does not mean that Dodd and Kerry are necessarily “undermining” American foreign policy by talking to Middle Eastern governments themselves. I do not believe they are empowered to make or accept any concessions and are merely going to talk. That does not undermine the Office of the President, even if what he is talking about is not Bush administration policy.

Lastly, Dodd is a US Senator and a federal office holder, not a state senator. He works in the federal government for all Americans. He is on the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, the existence of which suggests by definition that senators are allowed to concern themselves with foreign affairs.

He is on the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, the existence of which suggests by definition that senators are allowed to concern themselves with foreign affairs.

Congress is empowered ONLY to advise the President on foreign policy.  I suggest reading the Constitution as a refresher.  I just did, and it clarified much for me.

If you really believe that John Kerry is going to represent anyone other than John Kerry, I fear for the fact that the law lets you vote.  He’s going for two reasons - soundbyte material for his next failed run at the White House and to do everything he can to undermine Bush.  Stop cheerleading for the Democrat and look at the bigger picture here.

You keep harping that Bush is OK with this, but you keep ignoring my previous point:

As for the State Department signing off...yeah, I’m real sure it would go over great in the press if the Bush State Department told two DEMOCRATS they couldn’t travel to Syria, Iraq et. al.  No matter how much real damage these two bumbling idiots will do, Bush is afraid to say no because of the reaction he’ll get in the press.  He’s weak in every way possible.  But that’s a discussion for another thread…

Awwww. Diddums got all butthurt, decided to claim ad hominem (probably without knowing what it really means), and thus attempt a grab for the moral highground.

I can’t decide whether I love or hate how often people disappoint me when I decide to offer them the benefit of actually talking things over with them. While my tone may have been lightly combative, at no time in my last post to MISTER Hamlin did I imply insult to him. I also didn’t spend the message doing nothing but insulting you… that would be actual ad hominem. I was addressing the issue. If you can’t handle people doing so without kissing your ass and blowing sunshine up everyone involved’s butt, maybe you need to get in touch with your inner sneering Demo-gogue and just hit the “you people are losers without an argument” stride right off the bat.

Also, I am curious about this one bit:

He works in the federal government for all Americans.

Now, it may be my own ignorance… and I’m being serious there, maybe I don’t quite understand the organizational structure here… but if he works “for all Americans”, why is he a Connecticut Democrat, elected by the people of Connecticut? If he represents all Americans, was he on a nationwide ballot? If he was granted the power to speak for the nation, why was only Connecticut involved in giving him that power? Because I was under the impression that, being that he was elected by those people, that while he takes part in running the federal government, his part is to represent the people of Connecticut in samesaid federal government. If I am in fact wrong about this and a senator elected by a single state assumes national power for and over all other states, please feel free to correct me and explain why this is so.

Jim, with regards to the press response if Bush blocked the trip, I think you’re off-base. The State Department had previously stopped the trip.

he State Department advised Dodd to forgo a trip to Syria in April.

There was no outcry then--I don’t presume that there would be now. But you’re right, if Bush was in a stronger position he would just say no and everyone would have to deal with it. I don’t know if it’s because he’s a lame duck that he can’t do that now, I’d argue just very unpopular and bogged down in foreign policy because of Iraq.

Oh and Jim, I’m not a Kerry supporter - I hope Kerry doesn’t run and I couldn’t care less about what soundbites he’s offering or searching for.

Rann--I’m fully aware of what ad hominem means. I said it in regards to Jim calling me a “snarky bitch” and you calling me an “idiot.”

My take was always that someone serving in the federal government authoring and voting on legislation that affects all Americans is in fact representing all Americans in doing so.

I didn’t call you an idiot. I said you’d be an idiot if you couldn’t understand the difference between “talking” and “peace talks”. As long as you could understand the difference, you were fine.

I’m calling you an idiot now, because you’ve pretty thoroughly proven it.

While a Senator can in fact offer up legislation that would affect the entirety of America, it would still be up to the rest of the Senators to (in theory) decide if that legislation best serves the needs and wants of their constituency (whom they were elected to represent) and vote on it in that fashion, and then on the President to make the ultimate decision as to whether it is best for the needs and wants of the country as a whole. They don’t just say “Hey! Since I’m a Senator, I’m going to decide on this for all of America!”

(Oh, also? Ad hominem would be if we were doing nothing BUT flinging insults. As long as we continue to address the issue while insulting you at the same time, it is not ad hominem. So you do not appear to be fully aware of what it means, after all.)

They don’t just say “Hey! Since I’m a Senator, I’m going to decide on
this for all of America!”

Right, because that’s what Dodd and Kerry have said. I get it.

Eeeeevery time. Every time I give ‘em a chance, they dribble the koolaid they’re drinking all over themselves. And then they whine and ask why I don’t try to have civil discourse.

My take was always that someone serving in the federal government authoring and voting on legislation that affects all Americans is in fact representing all Americans in doing so.

Did you actually fail your Social Studies classes, or did you just not bother to take them at all? There are immigrants who have to wait YEARS in line to become a citizen and they know more about this subject than you admit to.

Senators used to be appointed by the State Legislators to represent the STATE’S interests in the Federal Government. It wasn’t until the 17th Amendment was ratified that the election of Senators became the result of a popular vote. But their responsibility and job description (as defined in the Constitution, Article 1, Section 3) remains the same and has NOTHING to do with discussing foreign policy with foreign leaders of any stripe. That is the job of the Executive Branch - specifically, the President and his Ambassadors.

Senators have the authority to “advise and consent”. They “advise” the PRESIDENT (not the leaders of a terror regime) and “consent” to his decisions (or not). But nowhere does it say that they have the suthority to hold discussions about anything.

You are, of course, free to prove me wrong by citing exactly where in the Constitution they are granted this special dispensation to advise foreign leaders.

(Just think… I managed to make you look like a complete moron without ever having to say the word.)

Oh, one other thing - it isn’t “illegal”, since no law has ever been passed to outlaw that behavior (as though Congress would ever pass a law limiting its own scope and power), but they are clearly usurping the authority of the Executive Branch.

A small distinction, but a crucial one.

Oh, this is getting repetitive:

You are, of course, free to prove me wrong by citing exactly where in the Constitution they are granted this special dispensation to advise foreign leaders.

Right, because that’s what Dodd and Kerry have said they’re doing. I get it.

Hamlin, if you think that’s not what they’re going to do, you’re either supremely naive, lying to us, lying to yourself, or some mixture of all three.

Right, because that’s what Dodd and Kerry have said they’re doing.

From your own post above, dumbass:

““I don’t believe in having conversations with people for the sake of having conversations; idle chatter is not the point of all of this.”

If it isn’t just “idle chatter”, he must have some kind of goal in mind. That goal is quite obviously not a part of official government policy or Bush would have sent Condi to take care of the “not-idle chatter”, since she is his designated (and confirmed) spokesperson in regards to anything involving foreign policy, and not Dodd or Kerry, both of whom have made much political hay in actively opposing that policy.

Further evidence is included in his last paragraph.

“But I do think it’s important that they do hear directly from Members of Congress about concerns we may have, and questions we may wish to raise.”

It is NOT the job of ANY “Member of Congress” to be conducting these kinds of negotiation, unless and until they are specifically designated by the President to do so, even if unofficially, as “envoys”.

Now, I will ask again, where in the Constitution does it give Members of Congress the authority or the responsibility to conduct any sorts of talks with foreign powers, especially one so clearly opposed to our own policies?

A small distinction, but a crucial one.

Fact-Bot in the hizzy.  :) You’re 100% correct, of course.

The reason they are doing this is not that they have a difference of opinion on how foreign policy of the US should be ran, they are doing as a grandstanding measure to gain power for themselves and to undermine the President’s.  This is bad, as so many before me have said before me, because it creates the impression with these people, our enemies, that our President is a weak man who cannot control his people.  Saving Face is far more important to these people than actual facts.  They see a loss of pride as a reason to wipe out everyone who caused this to happen. Pretty much describes the last 1000 years in the Mideast.

It is to me the same as if Republican Senators traveled to Tokyo or Berlin in 1939 to “Talk to” Hitler or Tojo.

Fact-Bot in the hizzy.

Better be careful, unless you want to get called a Bush-bot or a KalliniKid by He Who Must Not Be Named… and I don’t mean Lord Voldemort. *rolleyes*

And da_ubu, the analogy would be a good one, except for the year. This would be like a couple of Republican Senators making a trip to talk to Mussolini in 1943.