Again.

There is a difference between the Speaker of the House and Rep. Frank Wolf.  There is a bigger difference between Governor Bill Richardson and the Speaker of the House.  The Speaker is viewed, to the outside world, as speaking for America--or at least moreso than a member of Congress or the Governor of a state.

The power to conduct foreign policy is placed with the executive for a reason--we will regret this when we have republican leaders in Congress undercutting a democratic president's foreign policy strategy by talking directly with foreign leaders. 

I understand and agree with the frustration with the President's policies, but we ought to deal with them internally (like cut off funding!!).  Congressional leadership dealing directly with foreign governments--is just a bad idea. 

See here for more:

In 1997, Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) led a delegation to Colombia at a time when U.S. officials were trying to attach human rights conditions to U.S. security assistance programs. Hastert specifically encouraged Colombian military officials to "bypass" President Clinton and "communicate directly with Congress."

Verrrry interesting.

Or doesn't the Hastert example prove my point? 

Just because the other guys do it doesn't make it appropriate.  I know thats not a popular argument in today's climate--but the more these things happen and are acceptable, the more the greater the breakdown in the separation of powers.

Democracy favors allowing the executive to speak for the country to the outside world.  The Speaker of the House is elected by her district in California and honored by her peers for being a good tactician.  The president's constituency is the entire country--

I can't imagine I'm the only good government dem reading this blog who thinks this is a bad precedent to set (or reinforce)...

should be conducted by the Executive Branch.  In the case of the Bush Administration, foreign policy's been such a cluster-you-know-what that I'm tempted to bend that rule. Also, I would point out that Congress definitely has a role to play in foreign policy per the US constitution.  In this case, the Bush Administration actually briefed Speaker Pelosi before her trip to Syria.  Why would they brief her if they so strongly objected to her going? And why didn't they object to Frank Wolf traveling there?  All merits aside, this sounds like a cheap political shot by the Bush Administration, nothing more.  I mean, since when has the Bush Administration cared about principle on anything, except when it might have infringed on their Imperial Presidency?

...he also "made his own foray into foreign policy."  In 1997, "[John A. Boehner of Ohio] accompanied Mr. Gingrich to China, and called the trip "very educational."

OK, that's Gingrich, Hastert and Pelosi...starting to sound like the norm, not the exception.

Quoting the Supreme Court in that watershed case:

"Not only, as we have shown, is the federal power over external affairs in origin and essential character different from that over internal affairs, but participation in the exercise of the power is significantly limited. In this vast external realm, with its important, complicated, delicate and manifold problems, the President alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation. He makes treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate; but he alone negotiates. Into the field of negotiation the Senate cannot intrude; and Congress itself is powerless to invade it. As Marshall said in his great argument of March 7, 1800, in the House of Representatives, "The President is the sole organ of the nation in its external relations, and its sole representative with foreign nations." Annals, 6th Cong., col. 613. The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations at a very early day in our history (February 15, 1816), reported to the Senate, among other things, as follows:

" The President is the constitutional representative of the United States with regard to foreign nations. He manages our concerns with foreign nations and must necessarily be most competent to determine when, how, and upon what subjects negotiation may be urged with the greatest prospect of success. For his conduct he is responsible to the Constitution. The committee consider this responsibility the surest pledge for the faithful discharge of his duty. They think the interference of the Senate in the direction of foreign negotiations calculated to diminish that responsibility and thereby to impair the best security for the national safety. The nature of transactions with foreign nations, moreover, requires caution and unity of design, and their success frequently depends on secrecy and dispatch.  [**221]  " U.S. Senate, Reports, Committee on Foreign Relations, vol. 8, p. 24.

United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304, 319 (U.S. 1936)

Thanks Lowell for posting this.  I saw Holbrooke's interview and he was going to have none of the Administration's right-wing spin and sleazy political shots. 

And often, Gregory is as good as it gets on the MSM.  So we've got essentially nothing from the MSM, which is so corrupted by White House spin it is worthless.  This is especially true of cable "news."  I can't even watch CNN right now.  I was monitoring it for a blog article last week and got so disgusted I turned it off.  I may go back and get the article done, but it was too painful.

As infuriating as Gregory was on hardball, he was so much better than Matthews. 

Nothing to this really.  He's over there for a repatriation of Korean War remains.  The Joint Task Force-Full Accounting has been working with the North Koreans quite a while on this.
Ref: http://www.reuters.c...