What she did was illegal. When did the speaker get empowered to secretary of state. She ignored the constitution. She should be prosecuted. It is not that I agree or disagree with her motives, but our constitution is clear here. This is an executive function with a role defined for it. We can't have every tom, dick and harriet establishing foreign policy, especailly for personal politcal gain.

^ How do you make the leap from 'this is an executive function' to 'what she did was illegal'?

My personal feelings: How could she be so dopey as to announce Israel wanted peace talks with Syria, only to have Israel correct her later? Makes her look kind of....stupid.

The constitution was ameneded right after the turn of the century to formally make it illegal for anyone outside of the executive branch and below Secretary of State to establish or discuss foreign policy with any country on behalf of the united States.

Shit, that thing arrived a lot faster than 2 weeks! Maybe USPS ain't so bad after all.

Seems like it was, more than anything, just to snub the exec branch. This administration wants nothing to do with diplomacy, especially with people like Syria. I don't know what kind of impact her visit had, but if its the start to establishing an actual dialogue with Arab nations than, constitutional concerns aside, doesn't seem like a bad idea for international relations. But yeah, go ahead and prosecute her. We have to start enforcing some laws at some point.

I agree, that goes both ways too. I also believe that unless we are directly attacked, congress should vote legitimately on moving forward or have it be illegal to do so without congressionsal approval. That was the intent of the original war powers acts as I understand them.

The Syrian governement has proved to be a lying group of thugs and continues to disrupt the region. Hamas has been a threat to stability for a long time. Somehow they managed to be barely legitimized.

These are old fights, some thousands of years in the making. One would hope that a diplomat would or could arise to help solve this. One has to go back to the crusades to understand the current policies and fears and trepidation of the citizens of those nations. They were attacked by a bunch of religious zealots, Christians at that time. The Euro / American influence has been extremely negative for a long time. The establishment of the borders after WWII didn't help much either with all of the Stans. Borders so messed up that Pakistan is an acronym. When we are done fighting, they wil go back to fighting amoungst themselves to lines established by the old warring clans. Until they have enough personal wealth to fear losing it, I fear this will continue for a long time. My biggest fear is that a single leader unites them in hatred.

They were attacked by a bunch of religious zealots, Christians at that time.

Just don't let's forget, that attack was provoked by muslim invasions of Europe. Fair is fair.

The establishment of the borders after WWII didn't help much either

True, and they were follow ons from some bad border decisions following WWI.

Ok, the [url=http://www.newsobserver.com/114/story/560233.html]GOP[/url] sent a delegation and not one word was uttered from any of the major media outlets.

good article

Fixt link

Just don't let's forget, that attack was provoked by muslim invasions of Europe. Fair is fair.

I believe it was an attack on Jerusalem, not on Europe

Biblio

Pakistan being an acronym aside, the thing is, doesn't matter if they're a bunch of thugs. Engaging nations in diplomacy is good ALL the time. Serious. Also, Hamas didn't barely gain legitimacy. They had a gigantic sweeping victory. Its a protest vote, given to people with AK47's. And why not? Decades of Fatah leadership have gotten nothing acomplished, the population is back and forth from being on the brink of starvation, conditions are as bad in Gaza as they have ever been. The only way to kill insurgency is to work with it, legitimize it and give it political responsibility. And the only way to create a stable situation in the Occupied Territories is to first stop murdering people with helicopter gunships. This is the most radicalized Palestinian generation of all. Expect another intifada.

You are right. If they (Hamas) manage to stop hurling rockets into shopping malls, maybe things will be different as the Israelis stop using hueys to hit folks with 50mm rounds and launching military campaigns on foreign soil. The real unfortunate outcome is that common folk are starving and the kids are being raised with hate to perpetuate this. And the circle begins anew. The government of Hamas is making it worse, not better. Hamas has isolated all help from the first world, cutting off cash. Is that better and should they be supported being popular, bitch of a question. Is it the right path forward? Maybe history will tell. We all have a lot to learn from this, or not.

mcgarpat:
The constitution was ameneded right after the turn of the century to formally make it illegal for anyone outside of the executive branch and below Secretary of State to establish or discuss foreign policy with any country on behalf of the united States.

This is not true.

I'm increasingly reminded of the rule concerning the peril inherent in arguing politics with an Irish and am beginning to regret my earlier points re: constitutional lawyerhood which in ever-mounting likelihood were probably aimed poorly and thus... dumb.

I can tell this is going to be one of those 'arguments' where both sides agree so let me just say this. Take this statement: 'Hamas has isolated all help from the first world'-and reverse it. People should not be starved for their democratic choices. If a popularly elected democratic (arguable, I know) party refuses to renounce violence against Israel, they have the fucking right to. Obviously Israel and the whole western world has refused to renounce violence against them, and certain devastated nearby nations. This is the part of the game where a rational western leader could cut off military funding until a diplomatic solution that everyone is unhappy with is reached. If only.

Obviously Israel and the whole western world has refused to renounce defending themselves against them

fix't

Just don't let's forget, that attack was provoked by muslim invasions of Europe. Fair is fair.

'I believe it was an attack on Jerusalem, not on Europe'

Not what I was referring to.

'In the 8th century, nearly all the Iberian peninsula (Spain) was quickly conquered (711�718) by mainly Berber Muslims (see Moors) from North Africa.' wiki

'Famously by 733 the Muslims reached Poitiers in France. There a battle, more significant to westerners than Muslims, halted the Muslim advance.'

Acheron, I agree, the west / Europe is responsible for the creation of these groups as much as anyone., takes two to hate This conflict was born in hate.

Lever, the attack was a direct result of the crusades, but yes, they did attack later and push back The Muslims did eventually push north but not successfully. I thought you were referring to the onset of the crusades and the reason for them. I apologize if i missed another point.

In any event, this shit cannot go quietly into the night. I am just appreciative that folks are trying to understand this conflict and are willing to challenge common and conventional 'wisdom' outside of the banks of the Potomac. I just think the world is bigger than Texas and should be treated accordingly. I was also born into a civil war of sorts, I can see where there mindset could generate such passionate responses. I appreciate the debate. Peace!