Posted on 03/05/2003 8:13:28 PM PST by sheltonmac
When Bush the Elder went to war against Iraq in 1991, it was all part of his vision to create a "New World Order." The security of the United States was a secondary concern. In case anyone doubts this, just take look at what Bush himself had to say following the Gulf War:
Now, we can see a new world coming into view. A world in which there is the very real prospect of a new world order...A world where the United Nations, freed from cold war stalemate, is poised to fulfill the historic vision of its founders. A world in which freedom and respect for human rights find a home among all nations. The Gulf war put this new world to its first test, and, my fellow Americans, we passed that test.Now, Bush the Younger is picking up where his father left off—sacrificing U.S. security and sovereignty in the name of "world peace."
Stop for a minute and think about the president's desire to wage war against Iraq. Like his father before him, he is going out of his way to appease the globalists. Out of one side of his mouth he says that our nation is "facing clear evidence of peril" and that we need to act in our nation's best interests. But out of the other side he says that we should "take the resolutions of the U.N. Security Council seriously."
This is puzzling. If the Iraqi threat is so great, then why should we worry about a few meaningless resolutions? Does the U.S. have a right to defend itself or doen't it? Is the U.S. a sovereign nation or not?
Very few conservatives are speaking out about the dangers of going into Iraq to enforce U.N. policy. We can debate all we want about the threat Iraq may or may not pose to the U.S., but in the end we are sending young men and women overseas to die in defense of a New World Order.
Of course, the president is not the only one to blame. Congress is just as complicit by refusing to function as a check on executive power.
Rather than act as the only governing entity with the constitutional authority to declare war, Congress decided to pass a resolution that hands that responsibility to the president. Members of the House and Senate essentially gave Bush a blank check that he can cash whenever he wants.
The resolution passed by Congress identifies Iraq's refusal to comply with a U.N.-mandated cease-fire, and it addresses Iraq's "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations." It also references Bush's commitment to "work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge."
Carefully avoiding any mention of the existence of a state of war between Iraq and the U.S., the resolution authorizes the president to "enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq." Now if the pro-war advocates are right, and the U.S. is in danger as long as Saddam Hussein remains in power, wouldn't it make more sense to simply declare war and be done with it?
Rather than put the Constitution first, Congress and the president have neglected their respective duties. Their actions tell us that the security and sovereignty of the United States are not primary concerns. In essence, the U.N. Charter has trumped the U.S. Constitution.
Even if the president were to break away from the U.N. now, the damage to our nation's credibility has already been done. By first seeking international support for military action—action that our government insists is vital to our national security—our elected officials have admitted to the world that the U.S. is either incapable or unwilling to act unilaterally in its own defense, and our nation has been weakened as a result
An ominous sign of that weakness can be seen in the president's recent foolish decision to place up to 2,000 marines under British control in the Middle East. Is that the kind of leadership we need?
Our politicians have forsaken their duties and their fellow citizens. They swore an oath before God and country to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, not to enforce U.N. resolutions in an attempt to legitimize some New World Order. Are we willing to sacrifice our sons and daughters for their globalist cause?
Where's Jimmy Durante..."Should he stay or should he go" Stay..Go...Go...Stay...
You are exactly right. The New World Order was referencing the changes caused by the end of the Cold War.
Not that you need my backup on anything...;o)
LOL!! No, the author's opinion is informed. It just doesn't jibe with the RNC mantra. Contrary to popular belief among some conservatives, the Constitution of these United States does not give the Republican party (or any other party for that matter) carte blanche to do whatever the h#ll it pleases. The fact is we are far past uncharted waters when it comes to the Constitution. They're not even bothering to ignore it anymore, they've just decided to live in the false reality it never existed
The fact is that I doubt you'll bother to address the Constitutional issues with evidence. I've noticed from the neocon arm of the party it's much easier to make a blanket statement that someone is uninformed, ill educated, or just plain ignorant without backing it up
Shelton, as usual sir, another article right on target
The former NWO is Marxist-based, and this falling away from us in this late conflict is conveniently separating the "us" and "them": making things perfectly clear that what is important to the UN is control of markets, people, and places; they'll deal with the devil to aquire power...damn freedom. They view freedom in the context of bread that they can provide for the starving, unpropertied, disarmed "workers" of the world.
The New NWO can now get on with the work of freeing the planet from this velvet communist monster...not by direct confrontation, or by trying to persuade the frightened masses, but rather by simply starting a new club, and inviting other nations to join: not in a shotgun wedding, but in a compact of mutual support when needed; and a respect for individual God-given rights (given short shrift in the UN Charter). The UN can just whither on the vine...when its parisitic governments can no longer subsist on foreign aid foisted from the West.
And as to the perception that Bush is running afoul of Constitutional precedent, I'll give you the benefit of my own doubts; but there can be no illusions that the machinations of the socialists, greengoobers, idiots, and Dems in OUR OWN COUNTRY--given the opportunity--would hobble, nay, cripple this president , to prevent him from taking any great part of the planet out from under the boot of the UN.
I give GW a pass on this one. What have we to lose?
This goes for NATO, too.
Vive Liberte.
Since you're so eager to have this guy's head handed to him, I might as well indulge you.
1) Now, Bush the Younger is picking up where his father left off—sacrificing U.S. security and sovereignty in the name of "world peace."
As someone who was in the World Trade Center during the first bombing and was a quarter mile away during the second, I see this war as ensuring our security, not sacrificing it. Without swallowing wholesale the chicken-little liberal mantra about how this will be great for Al-Queda, I don't see how a serious argument can be made that this doesn't enhance our security. I support this war precisely because, in a very personal way, I understand how necessary it is for our security.
As far as our soverignity, I think Bush has an excellent record so far - he has pushed the U.N., the only serious threat to our soverignity, to the brink of extinction.
2. ...he is going out of his way to appease the globalists.
If he was appeasing globalists, how do you explain that the war plans are fully underway despite the lunatic howls of the globalists?
3. Out of one side of his mouth he says that our nation is "facing clear evidence of peril" and that we need to act in our nation's best interests. But out of the other side he says that we should "take the resolutions of the U.N. Security Council seriously."
Are you kidding me? How naive does someone need to be to write a statement like this? There's an old saying that goes, "Diplomacy is the art of saying 'nice doggie' while you reach for a rock", which is exactly what's going on here. Watch actions, not words, and there's no doubt - this has been a single track to war with Iraq for months now, any delay is due to military concerns, not political ones.
4. If the Iraqi threat is so great, then why should we worry about a few meaningless resolutions? Does the U.S. have a right to defend itself or doen't it? Is the U.S. a sovereign nation or not? Very few conservatives are speaking out about the dangers of going into Iraq to enforce U.N. policy.
Don't you feel the cognitive dissonance when you read these lines? This has been the U.S. policy long before it was the U.N. policy - they adopted our policy, not vice versa. The resolution talk is just that - talk, while we move men and materiel into position.
5. Congress is just as complicit by refusing to function as a check on executive power.
It was this statement that really tipped me off how uninformed the author is. First of all, we never signed a peace treaty with Iraq after we kicked them out of Kuwait. So we're still at war with them. We've been bombing military targets in Iraq for 12 years straight. Then last fall Congress again put its OK on further military action against Iraq. Congress has been heard, repeatedly, and has lined up solidly behind Bush on this.
But this leads me to another thing, which is really that declarations of War by Congress are a red herring. Congress can declare what it likes, the significance of the state of War has relevance with respect to laws passed with reference to being in a state of War. The President controls the armed forces, not Congress. Congress has one tool to prevent the President from using military force in a way it does not like, and that is to refuse to fund the military. Otherwise it is irrelevant, it's not part of the command structure. Presidents have often used the military without declarations of war, and the historical record is very clear on this - the armed forces are under the command of the executive, not Congress.
Okay I can go on and on about this, I'm only halfway done with critiquing this article but I think I'll just come to my point - I'll make it nice and bold so nobody can miss it:
If you're going to base an assertion on the Constitution, make an effort to actually read and understand the Constitution first.
I've got a long record of standing up for the Constitution and what it means, and it pisses me off when some half-baked nitwit waves it in my face without even bothering to read it.
We're paying for our own coffin.
Screw the globalists. They don't give a tinker's damn about America and our God given rights. Read the UN's human rights and compare them to ours. The UN 'rights' exist so long as they don't conflict with the interests of the UN. It's the Soviet Union reborn.
This 'war' should have been over six months ago. What a disgrace!!!
Ask Bush the Elder. His UN lapdog son is beating on the taxpaying private-sector producer of goods and services [to] write the check for this New World Order - UN crap [we are paying] for the destruction of our sovereign right to wage war how when and where we want.
We're paying for our own coffin.
Screw the globalists. They don't give a tinker's damn about America [or] our God given rights. Read the UN's human rights [BS] and compare them to ours. The UN 'rights' exist [only] so long as they don't conflict with the interests of the UN. It's the Soviet Union reborn.
This 'war' should have been over six months ago. What a disgrace!!!
The end of the U.N. is the LAST thing Bush wants – he acts like an unrepentant globalist to whom the U.N. resolutions are sacred.
You’re right … they’ve learned these lessons from the Leftist Democrats.
Check this out:
http://www.newamericancentury.org
He's repudiated Kyoto and the World Court, and will go to war with or without UN approval.
That sounds like a man who pays lip service to the UN, then does what he was going to do anyway.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.