President Kerry heads for Syria for "talks"

[kaydee457 13]

Is there no end to this guys arrogance? Only the legally elected President conducts foreign policy for the U.S.; that means no Jane Fonda, and NO JOHN KERRY!

source

Kerry: U.S. should talk with Iran, Syria By LEE KEATH, Associated Press Writer

Fri Dec 15, 2:21 PM ET

Sen. John Kerry, on a Mideast tour taking him to Damascus for talks with President Bashar Assad, said Friday that the Bush administration's rejection of dialogue with Syria and Iran to try to calm Iraq is a mistake.

Kerry's trip is the latest in a growing tussle between the White House and Congress over the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan panel that called for talks with Iran and Syria to win their help in stabilizing war-torn Iraq.

The Massachusetts Democrat said his visit to Syria was "a fact-finding mission" to explore "what might or might not affect behavior with respect to Hezbollah, Lebanon, Israel and Iraq, where in each of those cases Syria is playing a role."

"Dialogue is an important thing. It's very hard to move the ball if you don't know firsthand what people's needs are, what their own perceptions are," Kerry said in an interview with The Associated Press and several other journalists in Cairo.

Kerry said he was "willing" to go to Iran for talks but had no current plans to do so.

The White House said Thursday that trips to Syria by U.S. lawmakers were "inappropriate," giving a public relations victory for Damascus, which the Bush administration accuses of fueling crises in Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories.

Spokesman Tony Snow said a visit earlier this week by Sen. Bill Nelson (news, bio, voting record), D-Fla. to Damascus, Kerry's visit and others planned by Democrat Christopher Dodd and Republican Arlen Specter send a mixed message to Syria.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice soundly rejected any talks with Syria and Iran in an interview with The Washington Post, saying any "compensation" they demand would be too high and that they should act on their own if they want stability in Iraq.

Kerry called the refusal to talk to Syria and Iran "a mistake. I think it's the kind of policy that's got us into trouble in the reason and it needs to change."

The former Democratic presidential candidate underlined that he was not engaging in negotiations with Damascus. "Talking to somebody is not rewarding their behavior. I have no illusions about our differences with these countries ... and nothing in the discussion is based on trust," said. "But you cannot get to (action and verifiability) without setting up the modalities. So you have to engage in some dialogue."

"Now that the Democrats are in control of Congress, we have an even larger responsibility to set a direction ... as a counterbalance to policies that have gotten us into trouble," he said.

Kerry, who met Thursday with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, was heading to Jordan, then to Iraq. He visits Damascus early next week, where he will hold talks with Assad. He also planned stops in Lebanon, Israel and the West Bank in the nine-day tour.

Syria has influence with Iraqi Sunnis and some leaders of the Sunni-led insurgency are believed to be based on its soil. Iran in turn is closely linked to Shiite parties in the government and some of the militias blamed for killing thousands of Sunnis in Iraq's sectarian violence.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I don't agree with what Kerry is doing, though I'm wondering exactly what he's going to be able to promise in the way of an "alternative foreign policy".

[peejay 327]

It may be inappropriate and arrogant...but it is not illegal. Members of Congress from both parties often go on fact finding junkets. There are some lawmakers going to Cuba soon too. What more can I say? The governments of Syria, Iran, and Cuba are quite aware of the difference between US legislators and members of the President's cabinet when it comes to decisions about US foreign policy.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I think it's inappropriate for the White House to label anything inappropriate that is within the usual course of public service - such as members of Congress going on fact finding missions and meeting with foreign leaders. The Congress needs to gather it's own information or, at the very least, needs to supplement the information that is being provided by the executive. Last time they relied primarily on the White House providing info things didn't turn out so well. Besides, seeing the lack of viable strategy being put forth by the administration, I think it's about time that the Congress goes and explores what can reasonably be done do fix the mess Bush and his cronies have created.

Edited December 17, 2006 by ET-US2004

[GaryC 7]

The last time I checked the constitution there were a seperation of powers. The congress passed laws and controlled the money, the judicial interpreted the laws and the executive, among other things, made our nations policy. For Kerry to do this is doing an end run around the executive. Regardless of whether you like Bush's policys or not this is VERY WRONG! If Kerry wants to set foreign policy then he needs to run for president in 2 years and win. Until he does that he needs to keep his nose out of it.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I have a hard time believing that official talks with two of the most powerful countries in the middle east are irrelevant and irresponsible.

[GaryC 7]

I have a hard time believing that official talks with two of the most powerful countries in the middle east are irrelevant and irresponsible.

Thats true. But if our policy is not to talk to them then it is wrong for members of congress to do an end run around the executive. Their opinion of the policy is the irrelevent part. They don't set foreign policy.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The last time I checked the constitution there were a seperation of powers. The congress passed laws and controlled the money, the judicial interpreted the laws and the executive, among other things, made our nations policy. For Kerry to do this is doing an end run around the executive. Regardless of whether you like Bush's policys or not this is VERY WRONG! If Kerry wants to set foreign policy then he needs to run for president in 2 years and win. Until he does that he needs to keep his nose out of it.

How is Kerry going to set alternative foreign policy - what promises can he make to the Syrians that he has the power to keep?. The only thing he can do is propose a bill, which will be subject to a vote.

The real issue is whether or not someone other than an administration official should speak to foreign leaders.

As I said, it seems bizarre that you can effectively ignore the two most powerful countries in the middle east when you are embroiled in a significant conflict in a neighbouring country. Seems that someone should be talking to them.

Edited December 17, 2006 by erekose

[GaryC 7]

The last time I checked the constitution there were a seperation of powers. The congress passed laws and controlled the money, the judicial interpreted the laws and the executive, among other things, made our nations policy. For Kerry to do this is doing an end run around the executive. Regardless of whether you like Bush's policys or not this is VERY WRONG! If Kerry wants to set foreign policy then he needs to run for president in 2 years and win. Until he does that he needs to keep his nose out of it.

How is Kerry going to set alternative foreign policy - what promises can he make to the Syrians that he has the power to keep?. The only thing he can do is propose a bill, which will be subject to a vote.

The real issue is whether or not someone other than an administration official should speak to foreign leaders.

As I said, it seems bizarre that you can effectively ignore the two most powerful countries in the middle east when you are embroiled in a significant conflict in a neighbouring country. Seems that someone should be talking to them.

It undercuts our position. The Syrians and Iranians will see this as a divide and conquer oportunity. Like I said, the executive sets foreign policy, not Kerry.

[eric&gen 0]

Who does this Kerry think he is lol. He better get off the weed stop living his pipe dreams before get into more trouble lol.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I seriously doubt much of anything will come from Kerry's visit.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think it's inappropriate for the White House to label anything inappropriate that is within the usual course of public service - such as members of Congress going on fact finding missions and meeting with foreign leaders. The Congress needs to gather it's own information or, at the very least, needs to supplement the information that is being provided by the executive. Last time they relied primarily on the White House providing info things didn't turn out so well. Besides, seeing the lack of viable strategy being put forth by the administration, I think it's about time that the Congress goes and explores what can reasonably be done do fix the mess Bush and his cronies have created.

That seems reasonable.

Kerry has political motivations at home, which is, I suspect a large part of why he is doing this (and I certainly find his motives a little questionable), but he's certainly not unique in that regard.

Neither is it a surprising that something relatively commonplace, like elected representatives visiting other nations and their leaders in the performance of their official duties has suddenly become "new and scandalous".

[heishe 2]

And George Clooney just got back from talks with the Egyptian government! And John McCain is trying to advise the EU! Who do these crazy liberals think they are, taking an interest in world affairs like this? Senate Committee on Foreign Relations? Sounds like LIBERALS to me! Haven't they heard of separation of powers?

Sheesh.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Neither is it a surprising that something relatively commonplace, like elected representatives visiting other nations and their leaders in the performance of their official duties has suddenly become "new and scandalous".

I doubt that you could name even one governor that has not met with foreign leaders. And governors don't set US policy either. That doesn't mean that they are or should be barred from meeting with leaders of other nations if it benefits those they represent. Same goes for Members of Congress. Not sure how many but I'm sure it was more than a handful of Republican Members of Congress that went and met with foreign leaders while Slick Wille was running things in the White House. It's simply business as fcuking usual even if the administration wants to portray it as something else. They've done that on more than one occasion as it is...

[mybackpages 0]

Foreign policy is made by the president WITH the advice and consent of the Senate. Kerry's actions are the result of a president with historically low approval ratings and a desire to run again in 2008.