Posted on 10/18/2007 4:08:27 AM PDT by Kaslin
The president establishes American foreign policy and is commander in chief. At least that’s what the Constitution states. Then Congress oversees the president’s policies by either granting or withholding money to carry them out — in addition to approving treaties and authorizing war.
Apparently, the founding fathers were worried about dozens of renegade congressional leaders and committees speaking on behalf of the United States and opportunistically freelancing with foreign leaders.
In our past, self-appointed moralists — from Charles Lindbergh and Joe Kennedy to Jimmy Carter and Jesse Jackson — have, from time to time, tried to engage in diplomacy directly contrary to the president’s.
But usually Americans agree to let one elected president and his secretary of state speak for the United States abroad. Then if they’re displeased with the results, they can show it at the ballot box every two years in national or midterm elections.
But recently hundreds in Congress have decided that they’re better suited to handle international affairs than the State Department.
The U.S. Senate late last month passed a resolution urging the de facto breakup of wartime Iraq into federal enclaves along sectarian lines — even though this is not the official policy of the Bush administration, much less the wish of a sovereign elected government in Baghdad.
That Senate vote only makes it tougher for 160,000 American soldiers to stabilize a unitary Iraq. And Iraqis I spoke with during my recent trip to Iraq are confused over why the U.S. Congress would preach to them how to split apart their own country.
Then, last week, the House Foreign Affairs Committee passed a resolution condemning Turkey for genocide against the Armenian people, atrocities committed nearly a century ago during the waning years of the Ottoman Empire.
If the entire House approves the resolution, the enraged Ankara government could do everything from invade Iraqi Kurdistan — in hot pursuit of suspected Kurdish guerrillas — to curtail U.S. over-flight privileges and restrict use of American military bases in Turkey.
This new falling-out could interfere with supplying our soldiers in Iraq. And it complicates a myriad of issues, from the NATO alliance to Turkey’s bid to join the European Union.
The speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, earlier this year took another hot-button foreign-policy matter into her own hands when she made a special trip to reach out to Syria’s strongman, Bashar Assad.
That visit to Damascus was played up in the government-run Syrian press as proof that ordinary Americans don’t feel that Syria is a state sponsor of terrorism. Never mind that the Assad dictatorship helps terrorists get into Iraq to kill American soldiers, is suspected of involvement with the assassinations of journalists and democratic leaders in Lebanon, and recently had bombed by the Israelis a facility reported to contain a partially built nuclear reactor.
What are we to make of a Congress that now wants to establish rather than just oversee U.S. foreign policy? Can it act as a foil to the president and so give our diplomats leverage abroad with wayward nations: "We suggest you do x, before our volatile Congress demands we do y?"
Maybe — but any good is vastly outweighed by the bad. Partisan politics often drive these anti-administration foreign policies, aimed at making the president look weak abroad and embarrassed at home.
House representatives too often preach their own district politics, less so the American people’s interest as a whole. What might ensure their re-election or win local campaign funds isn’t necessarily good for the United States and its allies.
And too often we see frustrated senators posture in debate during televised hearings, trying out for the role of chief executive or commander in chief. Most could never get elected president — many have tried — but they seem to enjoy the notion that their own under-appreciated brilliance and insight should supersede the collective efforts of the State Department.
So they travel abroad, pass resolutions and pontificate a lot, but rarely have to clean up the ensuing mess of their own freelancing of American foreign policy.
Congress should stick to its constitutional mandate and quit the publicity gestures. If it is unhappy with the ongoing effort to stabilize a unified Iraq, then it should act seriously and vote to cut off all funds and bring the troops home.
If the House wants to punish Turkey for denying that its Ottoman forefathers engaged in a horrific genocide, then let congressional members likewise deny funds for our military to stay among such a genocide-denying amoral host.
If Speaker Pelosi believes that Syria is not a terrorist entity but a country worth re-engaging diplomatically, then let her in mature fashion introduce legislation that would resume full American financial relations with our new partner Damascus.
Otherwise, it’s all talk — and dangerous talk at that.
” But recently hundreds in Congress have decided that they’re better suited to handle international affairs than the State Department “
The average third-grade class would be better suited to handle international affairs than the State Department...
(and be better at anything at all than congress....)
On target, as always.
Indeed they would
hopefully, one day, the actions of this democrat congress will be interpreted, universally, as the most stupid, inane, insane and blatantly revolutionary attempt
to subvert the “power” of american government. (they’ve turned the protection of the constituion into a major attempt circumvent it.)
Makes you wonder if we really need a Congress or government?
Well, not like this one. They are crooks, liars, thieves living off the backs of the taxpayer.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/10/20071017.html
President Bush: Good morning. We’re now more than halfway through October, and the new leaders in Congress have had more than nine months to get things done for the American people. Unfortunately, they haven’t managed to pass many important bills. Now the clock is winding down and in some key areas Congress is just getting started.
…Congress has work to do on health care.
...Congress has work to do to keep our people safe.
…Congress has work to do on the budget.
…Congress has work to do on education.
…Congress has work to do on housing.
…Congress has work to do on trade.
…Congress has work to do for our military veterans.
…Congress also needs to complete the Veterans Affairs appropriations bill that funds veterans’ benefits and other ongoing programs.
…Congress has work to do for law enforcement and the judiciary…
With all these pressing responsibilities, one thing Congress should not be doing is sorting out the historical record of the Ottoman Empire.
#####
How much of the chastisement President Bush gave Congress yesterday made it into the so-called news? He spoke at length on each of the above undone jobs of Congress.
Good article. One of the things that has encouraged this is that Bush has, until recently, said virtually nothing about Congress’ free-lance “diplomatic” activities. I think this started early in his term, when everybody from the Clintons to Gore and Dean popped up in foreign countries, acting as if they were the ones who had won the election (and, shamefully, being treated as such by the countries they visited). Bush just ignored them, hoping they would go away, and while that particular group eventually found better things to do, such as highly-paid speaking engagements, Bush’s passivity inspired some Dem congress critters to run wild once the Dems had gotten a majority in Congress.
Democrats in Congress are attempting to set themselves up, soviet-style, as a politburo.
LOL!!
I agree.
Bill Clinton said the same thing in 2000, when he asked Speaker Hastert to withdraw a resolution about the Armenian genocide.
I fully understand how strongly both Turkey and Armenia feel about this issue.I'd feel better if Democrats showed that they realize that our relationship with Turkey is even more important now than in was in 2000.Ultimately, this painful matter can only be resolved by both sides examining the past together.
bttt
Let me know if you want in or out.
Links: FR Index of his articles: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=victordavishanson
His website: http://victorhanson.com/
NRO archive: http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson-archive.asp
Pajamasmedia: http://victordavishanson.pajamasmedia.com/
Turkish HolocaustOf course, in waves of horrific violence, the Ottomans had hoped that large numbers of Christian Armenians in 1915, as well as later Greeks in Smyrna, would perish in mass. There were special extermination gangs, camps of death, and forced starvation—the means (the Ottomans did not have gas chambers, good rails, and sophisticated crematoria at their disposal), not the intent, were what differed mostly from Nazi Germany. California’s Central Valley is home to a large part of the Armenian Diaspora, and I grew up hearing chilling tales of Turkish butchery and ethnic cleansing, especially among neighboring raisin farmers (the industry was built by Armenian refugees at the turn of the century.)
But all that said, why after nearly 100 years, should the US House of Representatives prepare to vote to condemn a defunct Ottoman state, at a time when we are trying to keep Turkey in touch with the West, out of democratic Kurdistan, and willing to let us use facilities there to keep the effort in Iraq well supplied?
It makes no sense to condemn Turkey for its forefathers’ crimes, but then do nothing about ongoing slaughter from the Congo to Rwanda—much less unilaterally to withdraw abruptly from Iraq, when we know our departure would unleash massive violence against civilians worse than we have seen heretofore in the war.
Either the Pelosi gambit is to be seen as a way to stop the Iraqi war by cutting off our supplies through Turkey, or simply a ‘all politics are local’ pandering to domestic constituencies, or both, or proof (if proof were needed after her visit to the assassination-mind Bashar Assad) of her inexperience and ineptitude.
continue to other notes: http://victordavishanson.pajamasmedia.com/2007/10/20/the_current_scene.php
Not only is Congress determined to undermine US foreign policy, they are undermining domestic policy by erasing the meaning of the concept of “American CITIZEN.”
The same Federal govt that can mandate what Americans have to do in order to enter a Federal building or an airport should be able to mandate who can enter and REMAIN in the USA.
So they travel abroad, pass resolutions and pontificate a lot, but rarely have to clean up the ensuing mess of their own freelancing of American foreign policy.
Drive-by Congress.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.