In the 80's, Ted Kennedy and others had no qualms about meeting with the Russians in order to develop strategies that would undermine the Reagan presidency.

With regard to contemporary Democrats ... well, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

You mean the pie doesn't fall far from the cow?

and the wingnut doesn't fall far from the tree either.

You conservative nutcakes need to take your medication. Watching your paranoid kvetching is getting old....

What's the matter Little Lee-Lee? Democrat Heroes of yours consorting with a "terrorist organization" doesn't fit your world image? Reach down and get a hold of your short and curlies, if you have any little boy - Kennedy tried to do it with the Soviets in the 80s and your heroes will do it again. Paranoia? Kiss my ass! And if you don't have the stomach to watch - LEAVE!

Hey "pucker puss" (lee lee) if you don't like go back and play with your kos kiddies. Just be careful and not break your nose.

Hi, little monkey! Wanna dance for some celery?

Watching your paranoid kvetching is getting old....

And yet you stay, so...It's either not getting old and you're a liar or it is getting old and you're just a bitch.

You're pathetic either way, huh?

Hey Lee -- this is a UPI story, not Washington Times. It's your kinda MSM. Why don't you comment on the report instead of lobbying fart bombs?

You think it's false, or you think Hamas shouldn't be labeled a terrorist organization? Which is it?

Or you think it's perfectly fine for Dems to have secret meetings with them?

Help clear this up for us Lee. When the media reports something that agrees with your demented world view, you very quickly defend them... but now that they're reporting something that indicates your 'team' is treasonous at worst or completely moronic at best, it's just 'wingnut' conspiracies ?

So we should trust the Palestinian News Agency? Cool. You're really getting progressive.

You're really getting progressive.

Cool. That's your definition.

When the AP publishes false stories using imposters as 'witnesses', the usual Lefty trolls here say that it is up to the accused to prove the AP wrong.

So I guess it's up to the Democrats to prove the UPI wrong.

I noticed that this post failed to print the whole UPI story. I think the line below is very important.

"The Palestinian news agency also said Hamas had secret talks with European government officials, including with Britain and France."

Why is this important? It shows that, if true, the realists have taken over. It shows that ultimately, as Britain was forced to negotiate with Sinn Fein--the political wing of the militant IRA--in Ireland, so the West will have to negotiate with those labeled terrorists in the Middle East.

In other words, there is a distinction being made between those who would use terrorism to address political injustices and those who are using terrorism to create theocratic states throughout the Middle East.

The realists know they have to choose between the lesser of two evils or be left with few real allies in the Middle East.

Why would the US fund Hamas? Let the other Arabs fund them. It's not like the Saudi royals couldn't spare a few bucks.

Jeff:
Congress does not have jurisdiction over Foreign Policy. Democratic operatives negotiating with Hamas is counter to the way this government, like it or not, handles foreign policy.

The British Parliament did not negotiate with Sinn Fein, representatives of the British Home Secratary did because it was his jurisdiction. The French legislature does not negotiate with Hamas for France, the French Foreign Ministry does. And the Foreign Ministry's association with Hamas is part of the current administration - not the legislature.

The Democrats do no set Foreign Policy regardless of control of House or Senate, the President does. Example: Clinton did not seek advice nor counsel of the Republican Majority of either house for any Foreign Policy objectives he may have had. And that is right and proper.

Did the Democrats negotiate with Hamas? The answer is still not assured. I accept very little of anything coming from Hamas, Fatah or any of the other "Usual suspects" as having any bearing on the truth. But if they did, they should be ashamed.

You might recall that Mr. Kerry secretly met with the Viet Cong in Paris during the Vietnam War.

The Dems. attraction to authoritarian and corrupt regimes is like a moth to light.

Dear SShiel,

I do not believe that the story said that the Democracts had "negotiated" with anyone. It said they had "met" with Hamas. Of course, we don't know if this story is true and might never know.

Also, I did not say that the British Parliament negotiated with Sinn Fein. I said "Britain was forced to negotiate with Sinn Fein".

What you seem to be arguing is that no elected representative from the United States government is authorized to speak to anyone outside the country. Am I mistaken in this assumption on your part? If not, this has far-reaching ramifications for not only foreign policy but economic policy as well.

As for your assertion that "The Democrats do no set Foreign Policy regardless of control of House or Senate, the President does", this is not true. The Senate plays a large role in foreign policy in that they are the ones to approve treaties that the president and other U.S. representatives have negotiated, and in that they "advise and consent" on matters of executive appointment. (See U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 2) It also takes a vote of the whole Congress to declare war on another country (See U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8).

So, you see the president does not have carte blanche in what he can do with regard to foreign policy. He is held accountable. Were it not so we would live in a dictatorship and not a democracy.

Dear SShiel,

I mispoke. I meant to write "What you seem to be arguing is that no elected representative other than the President of the United States government is authorized to speak to anyone outside the country."

I apologize for this inaccuracy.

Congress does have a role in foreign policy, but that role is in advise & consent. It's largely a passive role, while the executive branch is responsible for the more active foreign policy tasks. This is by design, to present a unified foreign policy to the rest of the world. That's the ideal of course.

When non-executive branch actors talk to other nations, they generally do so with the understanding that they do NOT represent the official government position. It is considered good form for prominent officials to notify and receive the permission of the executive branch before meeting officials of foreign governments overseas.

A good example of the dangers of this sort of thing is Carter going to N Korea in the early 90's. He notified the Clinton administration of his desire to meet with them, and received permission, as long as he did so as a private citizen, and did not represent himself as an agent of the US government. Carter then went ahead and negotiated a deal with the N Koreans on nuclear issues and publicly plopped it into the State Department's lap. The administration was basically painted into a corner by the ex-president and had to accept the agreement.

No cause for concern; probably just debating the amount of the foreign aid package.

Dear IllTemperedCur,

You wrote, "It is considered good form for prominent officials to notify and receive the permission of the executive branch before meeting officials of foreign governments overseas."

Did I miss that section in the Constitution that explained how Congressmen had to ask the president whenever they wanted to travel overseas and speak with foreign dignitaries?

The whole point of the separation of powers is to make sure that no one branch of government has a monopoly on power--what we learned in civics as "the balance of powers."

The idea that the President of the United States has absolute control over foreign policy is simply not Constitutional or historical--although he has historically been given more latitude during war time.

The problem many see with the President's present foreign policy is that it was ill-conceived, based on deception--both of self and the American people, and then poorly executed.

It is a historical truism that when the war is going well a leader never has to worry about support at home. However, when things go sour on the battlefield there will be much more scrutiny of both past and present actions.

Oversight and the questioning of the President's foreign policy is a good thing, and it cannot be done by reading reports generated solely by the executive branch. It is incumbent on Congressmen to travel to these places and talk to the principles involved to make sure that the executive branch is proceeding in the interests of the nation as a whole.

The accretion of unlimited executive power to allay the fears of society is not the answer.

When we fight, we fight for liberty; however, if we give up the very thing for which we are fighting, then why should we continue to fight?