A visiting U.S. congressman held talks with President Bashar Assad Thursday, a day after a congressional delegation headed by U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi sparked controversy by meeting the Syrian leader.
U.S. President George W. Bush has rejected direct talks with Damascus and criticized Pelosi for her visit.
Commenting on Bush's criticism, California Republican Darrell Issa said the president had failed to promote the necessary dialogue to resolve disagreements between the U.S. and Syria.
"That's an important message to realize: We have tensions, but we have two functioning embassies," Issa told reporters...
"We have two functioning embassies." And we should be talking to them. You have to try. Another Republican rep. on his trip:
"I don't care what the administration says on this. You gotta do what you think is in the best interest of your country," said Rep. Frank Wolf of Virginia, who was part of the delegation.
Good on ya, Rep. Wolf.
As for not talking with enemies, how did it work out with North Korea? The Clinton administration kept discussions with NK going - and kept nukes out of NK. The Bush administration comes in, cuts off talks - boom - there are nukes in NK.
That's a colosall failure. They should be using it as an example for Syria. And Iran.
4 comments:
I tend to agree that diplomacy is the preferred method in dealing with things.
However, by the same outlook, things haven't gotten better. Sometimes military action must be used because diplomacy fails to actually secure anything tangable.
NK is a prime example on how it was a failure. Sure, Clinton kept nukes out of there. However, the energy and resources that had to be continuously used in such an effort amounted to nothing more than appeasement. If Clinton's policies were a true success we wouldn't need to go there again.
But yes, Bush is still a failure.
How much is it worth to avoid war? Not an infinite amount, I reckon, but it's worth some, huh?
The truth is, is that all negotiations are some form of appeasement of varying degree. It all says "I'd rather talk than smack the shit out of you.", which is sometimes very small reassurance, but still adequate to the need.
Well, I think labeling a choice not to beat the shit out of somebody and instead to resolve things with words "appeasement" a bit strange. Offensive even. Especially when it's not you and one other person in a barfight we're talking about - it's other people that would pay the price.
Post a Comment