Assuming the story is true as presented there are so many things wrong I’d have to diagram a response. But a shoot from the hip says, why did they hold a meeting in an unsecure location? Note to diplomats. Look up diplomacy. One definition is getting agreement for a course of action from people who disagree with you. The very worst thing you can do is to ever show your own emotional hole cards.
Also, what was the objective of the meeting? Were the right people there to achieve that objective? Senators, for example, write laws. They should have nothing to do with diplomacy.
Everything that is described in the article is crazy.
“One definition is getting agreement for a course of action from people who disagree with you. The very worst thing you can do is to ever show your own emotional hole cards.”
Well look no further than Carl von Clausewitz, 1780 – 1831. In his treatment on war he had this to say:
Paraphrased — War is diplomacy by another means. While the actual quote is: War is the continuation of politics by other means.
He’s established western thinking and morals on war — which we experience in Hollywood more than in the real world, but nonetheless it’s why the west doesn’t go Medieval on the Muslims.
The Muslims BTW haven’t read Clausewitz so are bound by no such western honor code.
The Senate has to confirm treaties and appointments - so yes, the Senate has a lot to do with diplomacy.
Ironically, this meeting was held on the sidelines of the 2015 Munich Security Conference at the Hotel Bayerischer Hof in February.
Pretty clearly one or more foreign intelligence agencies were eves-dropping on the meeting and leaked the conversation to German media.