An Alternative Democrat Foreign Policy
deny everything, admit nothing, blame others, and make counter-accusations
By streiff Posted in Democrats — Comments (11) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Taking heat even from her fellow travelers in the media over the utter incompetence of the Middle East "diplomatic" mission she has headed.
Not only has the Speaker proven unable to punch even at her own very light weight but Tom Lantos actually asked one rabid, frothing anti-Semite who is assisting attacks on US troops in Iraq how he could possibly make common cause with another rabid, frothing anti-semite who is assisting attacks on US troops in Iraq.
Now that their "we'll show this bunch how it's really done" diplomatic coup is turning to ashes in their mouth faster than Dead Sea fruit, they are furiously backtracking to cover their lack of depth, preparation, and gravitas for such a mission.
Read on.
As Pelosi was packing her hijab and burqa for her VERY IMPORTANT trip to the Middle East the consistent theme that surrounded the trip, one that was comparable to the aroma surrounding a stepped on dog pile, was that of an "alternative Democrat foreign policy."
Former Senator Gary Hart of Colorado, who played a key role in military policy during his years in Congress, said the intellectual challenge facing the Democrats was immense, but so were the potential payoffs.
"What challenges the Democrats now is fashioning — not just muscular, not just more — but a more sophisticated approach to security," he said, "and that requires you to comprehend the security needs of the 21st century. That's the prize to be won, because the Republicans are in huge disarray now."
Democratic congressional leaders say they are moving in the direction of an alternative foreign policy vision. They added money in the new legislation, for example, for the conflict in Afghanistan. And policy groups in various wings of the party are working on their own proposals.
Even as Pelosi was getting her wires crossed in Tel Aviv, two members of her delgation, Keith Ellison and Tom Lantos were crowing about an alternative Democrat foreign poicy:
First-term Democrat Rep. Keith Ellison of Minnesota, a member of the delegation and the first Muslim elected to Congress, said the trip marked another stage in the development of an alternative Democrat strategy toward foreign policy in the Middle East.
"I can get behind a foreign policy that is based on negotiation and diplomacy and which looks at military options as a secondary alternative when it becomes absolutely necessary," Ellison told The Chronicle. "We should talk to the world; we should build friendships with the world. We should know as much as we can about the world. (Pelosi) seems to be heading us in that direction, and I'm happy about it."
Lantos, referring to recent congressional votes dictating a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, agreed that Democrats were pursuing an approach to counter the Bush administration.
"We have an alternative Democratic foreign policy," Lantos said. "I view my job as beginning with restoring overseas credibility and respect for the United States."
Now, with the makings of a wonderful fritatta festooning their faces they are running like scalded dogs from their boasts of the past week.
Pelosi, D-Calif., met with Syrian President Bashar Assad in Damascus earlier this week, against the president's wishes.
"Our message was President Bush's message," Pelosi said in a phone interview with The Associated Press from Portugal, where she stopped briefly en route back to the United States.
Well, no, Nancy. It wasn't the President's message. The President's message for six years has been that there will be no high level talks with Damascus until it ceases its interference in Lebanese internal affairs, stops subsidizing terrorism against Israel, ceases its relationship with Lebanese Hezbollah, and, since 2003, stop assisting the insurgents killing US and Iraqi troops and slaughtering Iraqi civilians. In fact, she couldn't even deliver Ehud Olmert's message in a coherent fashion.
Apparently incapable of recognizing irony in the same way animals are said to not recognize color, she concluded this monumental prevarication with a snippet of truth.
"The funny thing is, I think we may have even had a more powerful impact with our message because of the attention that was called to our trip," the California Democrat said.
I'll say.
« Corrupt Democrat Watch, July 10 Edition, Part One — Comments (20) | Birds of a Feather — Comments (3) »
An Alternative Democrat Foreign Policy 11 Comments (0 topical, 11 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I think you would find that; there are so-called Americans who have a lot to gain if America is defeated and that the efforts to defeat America are nothing new-but started a long time ago.
or group of them working together could break the story that there are Americans who want the US to fail in any or all of the
efforts we make to have a better world. Course I don't know if I would want to hold the life insurance policies on anyone who tried to break such stories to the American Public.
Did Pelosi violate ANY law? Find out here:
http://osi-speaks.blogspot.com/2007/04/did-speaker-pelosi-break-any-law-...
With malice towards none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see right.
propaganda trip for her agenda. Which agenda is 100% opposite the agenda of the US government as headed by Pres Bush. There is clearly a dispute between the US's foreign policy toward Syria and that of Syria toward the US. Therefore the reasoning in the link in incorrect, in my opinion.
your opponents have a hard time coming up with a fast rejoinder, because they're asking themselves if you really just said what they thought they heard you say:
The funny thing is, I think we may have even had a more powerful impact with our message because of the attention that was called to our trip," the California Democrat said.
If I was debating Speaker Pelosi, and I heard her say that, I'll admit--I couldn't respond quickly. Because, I'd be asking my aides if I'd really heard her right. Or, I'd be momentarily numbed into silence over the shock that the elected leader of the Democratic party--- third in line to the Presidency of the United States-- would say something so utterly, utterly stupid.
But, I have to admit that there is genius behind Democrats saying dumb things like that:
1) Your base (Raging Grannies, Kossacks, Hamsters, etc...) want to hear anything anti-Bush, and frankly don't care one whit if what you say makes sense or not.
2) The MSM reporters/moderators won't call her on it because:
(a) They're silently rooting for her side and thus don't want to make her look too bad
(b) They're more interested in watching the GOP squirm as it tries to make a sensible response to an utterly-nonsensical comment like Pelosi's above, as opposed to looking at the Speaker and saying "Ummmm....what the f... did you just say, Madam Speaker????"
(c) Some of the MSMers actually think she's right! Remember, many MSM reporters are drawn from Group 1 above.
I'll admit, I routinely find myself unable to quickly rebut lefties in an argument, because I can't believe they're saying what they're saying. In most cases they emit a stream-of-consciousness of gibberish. I find that, before I can retort, I generally have to do two things:
1) Determine if they're really loons or not. Real loons you don't bother debating--you ignore them.
2) If they're not loons, you then have to pick through their gibberish to find something worth responding to. By then, they've moved on to the next loony stream of ca-ca.
Now, personally, I just think Nancy's stupid. Really stupid. Barbara Boxer stupid. But, being stupid can be a plus in politics, if you play your cards right and a friendly MSM looks the other way.
Ya got to hand it to the Dems. They've found that, in some cases, there can be strength in stupid. All we can do is deal with it.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
The reason it is difficult to reply quickly to a liberal on rant is because the key to their reasoning is foreign to democracy. We want to believe that these fanatics subscribe to democratic principles. They do not.
Pelosi and gang are aligned with Marxist thought. This makes everything clear. She believes that notoriety is more important than truth. The Big Lie told often and loudly enough, according to Marx, will always sway the populas.
Marxism opposes traditional values, family, religion, free enterprise, constitutional government and democracy. These are primary targets of the current Democrat leadership. They deny it but their words and actions prove that democracy and our Constitution are their enemy.
I worked on the Hill long enough to know that congressional delegations to foreign countries, even ones like this, are harmless. Speaker Gingrich used to meet with foreign leaders all the time, in foreign lands, without all this nonsense about the Logan Act. The Republican member I worked for was quoted the other day as saying this is a ridiculous reaction--and he's no shrinking violet--and he's right.
"Jesus taught forgiveness, compassion, understanding, and rejected hate, violence, war, and intolerance. We could use him back at our temples." -- E. Grey Seville
wrong you are- this will not blow over. Between the election and the Libby trial, Rove, Cheney and the boys have taken a nice little drubbing and believe me they are ready to start dishing it back out.
They smell blood in the water and if you've really been on the hill as long as you claim, you know what happens when Rove smells blood in the water.
I can't wait.
It is not the mere fact that Pelosi took a trip that is the problem. It is that she and her aide said they were negotiating and coming up with an alternative foreign policy.
That was proven when she announced that she had negotiated peace talks between Israel and Syria. That is a violation of the Logan Act, not a fact finding mission.
Pelosi's problem is that she seems to believe to believe a leftist myth, and the false assumption it is based on:
FALSE ASSUMPTION: The US does not communicate with terrorist countries. <== FALSE
LEFTIST MYTH: All the problems in the world could be solved, if only everyone would talk. <== FALSE
SPECIFIC VERSION OF LEFTIST MYTH: We could have peace in Iraq (and the Middle East), if only everyone would talk. <== FALSE
None of this is true. Even though we don't have formal diplomatic relations with terrorist countries, we still communicate with them whenever needed. Sometimes words get passed through two or three countries before they reach us, but we do communicate.
I think the whole thing needs to be investigated, all the ties between the Democrats and terrorist countries & groups. Why did Pelosi really go to Syria? Why was the first trip any Democrat took after the election, before the votes were even all counted, to the terrorist country Syria? Why did Al Qaeda congratulate the Democrats on their win and say that they could work with the Democrats? Why is Nancy Pelosi's agenda in Congress = Al Qaeda's agenda? Did terrorist money help put Democrats in power during the last election?