What do you think about the senator who met with the Syrian government?

Question

He says that he went because he felt it was his duty to follow through on the Iraq study groups recommendations, even though the president has stated that he won't meet with Iran or Syria. Did he over step his bounds by meeting with the president of Syria? Syria has said that if a civil war ensues, they will back sunnis. Is this good information to have?

Answer 1

My understanding of the Separation of Powers Doctrine, is that if this Senator went without the express consent of the Executive, he is in Constitutional violation.

Answer 2

The fact that Syria has claimed it will back Iraqi Sunnis if civil war becomes a reality is irrelevant.

Senator Bill Nelson has overstepped his authority and should be censured when he returns. The Constitution clearly gives diplomatic authority to the executive branch, which includes not only negotiating treaties and alliances with foreign governments, but even meeting with foreign dignitaries in the capacity of representing the United States government.

The only authority the Constitution gives the Senate, and this is the whole Senate and not individual senators, is to ratify treaties negotiated by the President.

Furthermore, having the world's only remaining Superpower meet and negotiate with a government that sponsors terrorism only serves to add legitimacy to its actions.

Answer 3

One cannot reason with a crazy person. IT was bound to happen sooner or later but it is still wrong under the circumstances. It is beyond my understanding how anyone could think that it is possible to have a conversation with a zealot of the sort in the ME and expect to accomplish anything. The Syrian and Iranian leadership has been extremely clear in their actions. When they believe nobody is paying attention, it's "DEATH TO ISRAEL! DEATH TO AMERICA!" and when the cameras for the west are running, they're all sweetness and light. It amazes me no end that people want to wish this away so hard that they refuse to see that there is no dealing rationally with these people.

Answer 4

I think it's an exceptionally bad idea, and possibly criminal.

We shouldn't have 100 Senators (or even one) taking it upon themselves to implement his or her own foreign policy.

We have a commander in chief for that.

It leads to confusion, a perception of weakness, and ultimately the loss of more American lives.

Shame on him. I think he should be impeached.

PS He has no more constitutional authority to do this on behalf of the US government than you or I do. He's also being used!

Answer 5

I think it's a mistake to have inconsistent messages coming out of Washington, especially when it comes to relations with other countries. That said I think that Bush is wrong for being so unwilling to talk to Iran and Syria.

Answer 6

It was an affront to the President, part of whose job is dealing with other nations, foreign policy, etc.

Syria is a terrorist state, actively supports terror, and is fueling the chaos in Iraq.

This particular Senator had no class.

Answer 7

I am glad that somebody is talking to these people.. When has any conflict been resolved without face to face communication between the actors?

Answer 8

Just exchange ghost stories with Arabian tales and American tales in planet of apes.

Answer 9

It is called undermining, if they (congress and the president) would work together, then this wouldn't be a problem.

Answer 10

I think he is consorting with a terrorist state, for points back home, no good can become of it.