Democrats criticize 'go-it-alone foreign policy'

[wallie_x]

Never before have we been more powerful militarily," Pelosi said. "But even the most powerful nation in history must bring other nations to our side to meet common dangers. The president's policies do not reflect that. He has pursued a go-it-alone foreign policy that leaves us isolated abroad and that steals the resources we need for education and health care here at home." Nancy Pelosi

I suppose if T. Daschle was pres. he would have been on his knees kissing some French and German posterior and begging their permission so we wouldn't have had to: 'go-it-alone'

Our men and women in uniform show their valor every day. On the battlefield, our troops pledge to leave no soldier behind. Here at home, we must leave no veteran behind. We must ensure their health care, their pensions and their survivors' benefits," she said (Nancy Pelosi)

Brought to you by 'the' party that traditionally does not support the military and even attempted to get our men and women’s in uniforms vote squashed in the recount in Florida in the last election...smells a little hypocritical.

HERE!

[whitebeard21]

french for the democrats Israeli for the republicans so whats the difference ?

Check your facts on the FL voting no matter how many times the lie that military votes were not counted it will never be true.

[MTAtech]

For the record, the military votes in Florida were indeed counted.

On the rest, this says it all, from the New York Times Editorial, 1/21/04 (my comments are in bold):

... the fact is that Mr. Bush’s decision to engage American forces so heavily without reliable intelligence, real international backing, legitimate United Nations authority or serious postwar planning has exacted a high price, for which he did not account in the rather glossy assessment in his State of the Union address. In last year’s speech, Mr. Bush made frightening allusions to Iraqi unconventional weapons presumably available for immediate use, almost all of them subsequently discredited. A pale echo of those inflated claims appeared last night as cryptic references to Iraqi “weapons of mass destruction-related program activities.” America didn't pay brave soldier's lives to find “weapons of mass destruction-related program activities.” Americans were told there were actual WMD and a full-blown nuclear program. All untrue.

It was fitting that Iraq figured prominently in Mr. Bush’s speech. No decent person regrets the toppling of a heinous dictator who murdered hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and Mr. Bush can claim credit for his capture. Libya’s decision to end its nuclear and other weapons programs and allow inspections was welcome. And Afghanistan is showing the first buds of a democratic government.

But at this point, Mr. Bush’s optimistic talk of a “new Iraq” that is free and stable is anything but assured. Iraq’s Shiite majority and Sunni and Kurdish minorities are grappling for advantage against an essentially arbitrary American deadline for turning over sovereignty to an interim government. The deadline is based on Mr. Bush's re-election agenda and nothing more. American war deaths now stand at over 500, and combat is continuing. Washington is finally asking the U.N. to help smooth the transition to democracy and ensure international legitimacy. But that decision, however welcome it was, followed nearly a year of rudely ignoring U.N. procedures, undermining the authority of the U.N. and ignoring some of America’s most important allies.

The burdens of occupying Iraq for what looks certain to be many months to come have severely strained the long-term capacity of American ground forces, both regular Army and reserves. And while the White House has focused its attention on Iraq, other compelling and dangerous crises have been more or less put on hold, at potentially grave risk. By abruptly shifting its attention to Saddam Hussein before fully consolidating peace in Afghanistan, Washington has contributed to a situation where the Afghan central government rules little more than Kabul. While Mr. Bush talked of the Afghans “building a nation that is free, and proud, and fighting terror,” the Taliban have re-emerged as a serious force barely two years after what seemed a crushing military defeat. Afghan warlords, at best a fractious bunch and at worst a mortal threat to Afghanistan’s democracy, have armies that dwarf the national government’s forces. The border with Pakistan remains porous to members of Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.

In the past year, North Korea has proceeded incrementally toward assembling a nuclear arsenal. Israeli-Palestinian relations have frozen into a seemingly intractable standoff, which poisons Arab attitudes toward the United States, yet the Bush administration is now making virtually no serious effort to push the hostile camps toward negotiations. And Mr. Bush’s policies have badly damaged America’s alliances with its most important economic and military allies in Europe. Latin American governments are more estranged from the United States than they have been for a long time. Washington was also centrally responsible for the collapse of trade talks that were aimed at ending the crushing unfairness of the rich nations’ subsidies for crops that cannot compete on the open market.

Mr. Bush’s one-sided emphasis on Iraq is not the only explanation for these multiple reverses, but it figures in all of them. That may explain why Mr. Bush largely passed over them last night.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[TOAD6147]

If it weren't for innuendo, lies, and half-truths the right wouldn't have the tools to justify their existence.

[J-Excel]

Originally posted by TOAD6147
If it weren't for innuendo, lies, and half-truths the right wouldn't have the tools to justify their existence.

LOL. Substituting "the left" for "innuendo, lies, and half-truths" you get "If it weren't for the left the right wouldn't have the tools to justify their existence." The right exists to counter the destructive power of the left, which is full of innuendo, lies, and half-truths, as evident by their last president. So, in a round about way, I guess I have to agree with you.

[whitebeard21]

As a general rule lieing about sex only gets those in the act killed not thousands of people uninvolved and who could care less what happens between two consenting adults.

[TOAD6147]

...as evident by their last president...

That's like saying your 1 lb. sack of BS weighs more than my 10 lb. sack fo fact. Pathetic! (That's my new favorite word, BTW.)

[whitebeard21]

Not three out of a thousand husbands that cheat on their wives or vice versa tell the truth about it.
When bush admits he lied about wmd about serving his enlistment in the Guard about his dui convictions about his drug use then I will rethink my evaluation of Clintons lie.

[willy_ph]

I had a reply all typed out, but I wasn't logged in and I ultimately lost the reply. So I'll type another one out, albeit an abridged version of my previous attempt.

I think the Democrats are right in criticizing the recent change in American foreign policy. After 9/11, the Administration had a large multinational base of support for the war on terrorism. However, subsequent decisions, notably the pre-emptive attack against Iraq, have undermined and eliminated much of the support that the US once had. It is true that America may still be the most powerful nation militarily, however, that power can only be utilized in particular situations against particular targets. It is the inflexible nature of military action that requires broad diplomatic support from other nations to assure the success of any plan.

For a President who once vowed to reduce the number of overseas military engagements and increase American diplomatic relations, the reality since taking office has been dramatically different. Ultimately, this will adversely affect the American people. Although it may not be evident, such unilateral actions only work to reinforce resentment, and in some cases hatred, towards America and it's people.

In a time when the globe becomes increasingly interconnected, such unilateral decisions only work to undermine the position of America as a welcoming nation. I think the Democrats have it right when they criticize the Administration for implementing a policy of increased unilateralism. It's even more unfortunate when the people of America are either too apathetic towards such policies, or are in fear of being labelled unpatriotic when questioning such decisions.

[MTAtech]

One thing that annoyed me about last nights speech is the way Bush implied that the U.S. was part of an international effort in Iraq - as if the burden by the list of countries he named was equivalent to the U.S. and Britain.

This is what I've been able to come up with as personnel in Iraq. Many of these countries have sent civilians not troops and some numbers may be pledges and not actual deployments. So, even with that, the U.S. and Britain represent 91% of the personnel.


United States 150,000 76%
Britain 30,000 15%
Australia 2,000 1%
Japan 3,000 2%
S Korea 3,000 2%
Philippines 175 0%
Thailand 300 0%
Italy 800 0%
Spain 1,100 1%
Poland 2,300 1%
Denmark 367 0%
Hungary 500 0%
Bulgaria 150 0%
Ukraine 1,800 1%
Romania 650 0%
Netherlands 1,100 1%
Norway 150 0%
El Salvador 360 0%
197,752