Nancy Pelosi Brings An “Alternative Foreign Policy” To Syria
Nancy Pelosi has traveled to one of our enemies countries, Syria. She has brought along what the Democrats are calling their alternative Democrat foreign policy. Can someone please tell me how she is able to create a second foreign policy? Last time I checked the president set the foreign policy, like it or not. The Democrats can have an alternative foreign policy if they want, they just have to win the white-house first. They seemed to have forgotten that part.
The war on Bush appears to be a three flanked attack.
Flank one is to cut the legs out from our troops fighting the war on terror. This will insure defeat overseas and give the Democrats a much needed victory in the war on Bush. Defeat overseas is the first and main battle for the Democrats to regain power.
Flank two is to undermine the rest of Bush’s foreign policy by offering our enemies a second, alternative foreign policy called appeasement. This will totally destroy our standing in the world. Having two foreign policies, and each country can sign up for the one they like, I guess.
Flank three is to undermine the domestic agenda with hearings and trials on any subject the Democrats can get their hands on. This includes non-scandals like the Alberto Gonzalez fiasco. This will totally cripple the Bush administration as he will not be able to get any agenda passed.
The three flanks have the white-house surrounded and are moving in on the attack.
This exerpt from the article linked to above sums it up.
Such a drastic and irresponsible step should remove any lingering doubt that the Democrats’ political strategy is to ensure that there is an American defeat in Iraq, in order to ensure their own political victory in 2008.
America's Watchtower 
“An alternative Democratic foreign policy” is the wording of the editorialist whom you’re quoting from a conservative website.
I agree that we should not pull out of Iraq and that a withdrawal timetable is not a good idea, but there’s also the fact that you cannot deal with a problem if you do not face it. What the President has done with the Palestinians, Syrians, and Iranians, is basically said “We’re not talking to you.”
It amounts to a 3 year old covering his eyes and saying “You can’t see me!”
LikeLike
If you read the article I linked to you would see it was Congressman Tom Lantos who traveled with Nancy Pelosi to Syria that made that quote.
LikeLike
Yes, because Tom Lantos has such far reaching power on foreign policy.
He can say whatever he wants, and frankly, President Bush has presided over some of the worst foreign policy in a long time. Most of Europe ignores what he does, most of the Middle East ignores what he does. Saudi Arabia recently criticized how he was running the War in Iraq, and they’re our longtime, closest ally in the region outside of Israel.
Let’s examine the other places where President Bush has utilized what he calls “isolating” these terrorist states:
– North Korea: Tested a nuclear bomb
– Iran: Continues uranium enrichment and funding of groups such as Hezbollah, as seen with the recent conflict in Lebanon
– Palestine: Still blowing up stuff, still not a free state, still in conflict with Israel, still not recognizing Israel
It really seems to be a successful strategy doesn’t it.
LikeLike
If by foreign policy you mean either providing aid in exchange for good behavior, or imposing sanctions for bad behavior, then the current administration has done the right thing… not the “righteous” thing. Deciding what is best for 320 million americans starts and ends with decisions that position the US properly for the future. Those that would create law, pass judgement, and assert power based solely on their ability to look good for the press are charlatans at best and should cast out of authority. The US is strong because the US is the most well formed organization of people and structure on the planet, regardless of what Pelosi or the Democrats think.
LikeLike