I am going to speak in a moment on the trade bill, but first I want to repudiate, or at least take issue with, some of the comments that have been made by the President and those of his National Security Adviser, Sandy Berger, when he made comments about the Senate becoming the new isolationists. I looked at his speech he made before the Council on Foreign Relations just a couple of days ago. He blasted the Senate, blasted Republicans, or that was the implication. I will quote: It's tempting to say the isolationist right in Congress has no foreign policy, that it is driven only by partisanship. But that understates it. I believe there is a coherence to its convictions, a vision of America's role in the world. Let me tell you what I think they are in simple terms; First: any treaty others embrace, we won't join. The new isolationists are convinced that treaties--pretty much all treaties--are a threat to our sovereignty and continued superiority. I could go on, but I am very offended by that statement. I am very offended the National Security Adviser of this President would make such a statement about Members of this Senate. He is factually incorrect. He is making statements that send bad signals throughout the world that are unfounded, and he should be ashamed, and he should apologize for this speech he made before the Council on Foreign Relations.
Don Nickles: “I am going to speak in a moment on the trade bill, but first I want to repudiate, or at least take issue with, some of…”
Editor's note · Context
Addressing comments made by the President's National Security Adviser regarding isolationism in the Senate.
Share
More from Don Nickles
If you do really good tax reform, you do not need energy tax issues. Let the marketplace work.
I do not defend 199, period. I think Congress--when you are rewriting the tax code, you should have a uniform corporate rate, not a lower rate for manufacturing.
If somebody is activated and they go to Afghanistan or Iraq, don't they receive full health care costs without paying the 28 percent?
I am not sure it is written that way. I am not sure it is a requirement that an employer has to give the money immediately to a service man or woman. I suspect that is your intent. I don't believe that is the way the amendment is written…





