Who Is In Charge of America's Foreign Policy?

Recently, several members of a congressional delegation (1 Democrat and 3 Republicans) flew to Damascus, Syria (a declared state-sponsor of terrorism) to have an audience with Syrian president, Bashar al-Asad.

For the moment, we will forget that the Syrian regime is under international investigation for assasinating several Lebanese politicians, including Rafik Hariri, the former prime minister of Lebanon. We must also forget that all four representatives voted for the "Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003," which stated among other things that Syria was supporting Hizbullah, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. And let us also forget that the regime is doing nothing to prevent insurgents from crossing their border to fight our soldiers in Iraq.

The really humorous part is the supposed big break that Speaker Nancy Pelosi claims to have made in peace negotiations between Syria and Israel, which according to the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/04/AR2007040402306.html), both nations more or less deny. What is Speaker Pelosi and her 3 Republican counterparts doing in Syria anyway?

What this is really about is domestic politics. While this is not new (Speakers Gingrich and O'Neill were accused of many of the same kinds of foibles against an executive branch of the opposite party), this is nonetheless problematic. The constitution in Article 2, section 2 declares that, rightly or wrongly, the President is in charge of the foreign policy of this nation, provided the support of the Congress. What message does this send to our allies? Further, when we have rogue elements of the legislature trying to make foreign policy, what message does this send to our enemies. The best rule of thumb I have heard regarding our partisan divides is that these divides terminate at our shorelines; as it should be.