Supporting Allies or Our Enemies. The Democrats Decide

At the Democrats convention in 2004 former President Carter said:"The United States has alienated its allies, dismayed its friends and inadvertently gratified its enemies by proclaiming a confused and disturbing strategy."

The need for America to work with allies was a key plank in the Democrats 2004 platform. You couldn't get through a John Kerry speech without being lectured on the need to work with our allies and not engage in unilateral or pre-emptive action.

But, two years later, Carter was giving an interview to a British newspaper where he insulted British Prime Minister Tony Blair by calling him "compliant and subservient" to Washington.

So much for alienating our allies and dismaying our friends.

If this were an isolated example we might overlook it. Yet this insulting tone laid out by Carter pervades Democrat circles, especially in the House of Representatives where Speaker Pelosi refused to allow a vote on a resolution in support of our most stalwart Ally Britain in the matter of their personnel being held hostage by Iran.

"The leadership discussed it and agreed that inserting Congress into an international crisis while ongoing would not be helpful," Pelosi's spokesman Brendan Daly said.

Yet Speaker Pelosi is in the Middle East along with a delegation that includes Keith Ellison, the first Muslim member of Congress, and plans to visit Syria, a nation directly responsible for fueling the violence in Iraq that has claimed the lives of so many American soldiers.

CBS News describes the trip as "controversial" and it "indicates she has no intention of letting the White House have the sole province on foreign policy."

Talk about alienating our allies, dismaying our friends and inadvertently gratifying our enemies by proclaiming a confused and disturbing strategy!

It used to be that we lived by the late Senator Vandenberg's rule that "politics stops at the water's edge." But like with so much else, not least of which is the U.S. Constitution which grants the President sole control over foreign policy, standards of conduct, like rules and law are actively redefined to suit Democrats whose confusion over the meaning of the word "is" is legendary.

Resolution of Support For Britain

What would be so wrong with a resolution supporting our ally Britain?

H. RES. 267

Calling for the immediate and unconditional release of British marines and sailors held captive by Iran , and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
March 26, 2007
...
Whereas Great Britain remains one of the strongest allies of the United States and a partner in the war on terrorism: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives--

(1) condemns the Islamic Republic of Iran for the seizure of 15 British marines and sailors and demands their unconditional release; and

(2) calls on the United Nations Security Council to condemn this seizure and explore new sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran , including the restriction of the supply of gasoline, to prevent further Iranian hostile action, deny Iran's ability to militarize the Persian Gulf, and enforce Iran's nonproliferation commitments.

Pelosi's spokesman Brendan Daly said the speaker was reluctant to weigh in on the incident without knowing that such a message would do more good than harm.

How could a statement of support for our greatest ally do more harm than good? Unless of course it would upset the Syrians and their Iranian masters on the eve of the Speaker's trip to grovel in Damascus? Failing to take even this easy action, as the Senate did unanimously on Thursday, sends a further signal to the Iranians that they can continue to exploit our political divisions.

To paraphrase President Carter's prescient remarks: The Speaker and Democrats have alienated our allies, dismayed our friends and inadvertently gratified our enemies by proclaiming a confused and disturbing strategy.

(thanks City Troll and Curtains for You for the heads up).