Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The US Goes to War
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis ^ | June 10-December 31, 1999 | Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor

Posted on 08/29/2004 6:16:29 PM PDT by Smartaleck

Do the arguments in this paper not hold true for Bush as they did for Clinton? WMD being irrelevant.

Somalia

In the meantime, after consultations between the Clinton Presidency and U.N. Secretary- General Boutros Butros-Ghali (but not between President Clinton and the U.S. Congress), an important policy decision had been made and was in the process of being carried out. This was the decision to transform the Somalia operation from a limited intervention with a humanitarian objective (distributing food to the starving Somalis) into an overly ambitious and totally unrealistic plan for "nation-building"--a plan for forcibly imposing national unity on the Somali population, against the wishes of the warring clans and political factions in Somalia. National unity was to be imposed on a people determined to remain divided into warring clans and political factions bent on annihilating one another.

b. Military Action Against Iraq

In June of 1993, while the U.S. Quick Reaction Force and U.N. peacekeepers were bogged down in Somalia and were being subjected to armed attacks by Aidid's militia, President Clinton decided to initiate U.S. military action against Iraq, doing so without consultation with Congress or seeking its endorsement of the particular military action initiated, asserting that he was acting under the authority of various U.N. resolutions and the Persian Gulf Resolution (U.S. Public Law 102-1), the latter being the congressional joint resolution of January 14, 1991, passed by Congress on January 12, signed into law by the President on January 14 (two days before he ordered the launching of Operation Desert Storm), and still in force as American law. On Clinton's orders, U.S. air strikes, aimed at the Iraqi Intelligence Service headquarters in Baghdad, were launched on June 26. In justifying the cruise missile attack, the Clinton Presidency cited evidence that the Iraqi Intelligence Service had instigated and fostered a conspiracy to assassinate former U.S. President George Bush during his visit to Kuwait two months earlier (April 14-16).

Hati

Concerned about the deteriorating situation in Haiti and the resurgence of refugee efforts to sneak into the U.S.A., the Clinton Presidency intensified its diplomatic and economic pressures on General Cedras to relinquish power and reinstate President Aristide. Cedras refused to do so and stepped up his reign of terror over the Haitian people. (Bush in a like manner gave Saddam an ultimatum. )

Since President Clinton, without consulting with or seeking the approval of Congress, had already decided to send U.S. troops to Haiti and had issued the necessary orders, the American invasion force was en route to Haiti when the U.N. resolution was adopted. With the resolution's adoption, the Cedras junta gave in to U.S. demands. Hence, the necessity of an immediate and massive U.S. military assault on and bloody conquest of Haiti was obviated.

Bosnia.........are we bogged down in another Bosnia? Did Clinton fail to adequately plan for the peace?

Originally, duration of the U.S. military presence in Bosnia was to be for a period of no longer than one year, with the period scheduled to have expired by the middle of December, 1996. Near the end of the one-year period, however, President Clinton announced that he was extending the exit deadline an additional 18 months. When SFOR replaced IFOR on December 20, Clinton had 8,500 U.S. troops in IFOR transferred to SFOR. Clinton indicated that, while some of the U.S. troops might be withdrawn on dates earlier than the new exit deadline, others would not be leaving Bosnia until June 1, 1998. As of September 13, 1999, there were more than 6,000 U.S. troops still in Bosnia.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Miscellaneous; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bush; clinton; war; warpowersact
My how the Democrat mindset can change.
1 posted on 08/29/2004 6:16:30 PM PDT by Smartaleck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Smartaleck

Of course. It's a sin for the opposition but never focus the eye upon the sins of the demoncRATs. Why that's unfair! (Big Sarc)


2 posted on 08/29/2004 6:19:17 PM PDT by lilylangtree (Veni, Vidi, Vici)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lilylangtree

Accuse your opponent doing the very thing you're doing was a major tenent in the Clinton process of damage control....no matter how outrageous. And...of course...the MSM never questioned him.


3 posted on 08/29/2004 6:33:31 PM PDT by Smartaleck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Smartaleck

Democrats feel instead of think, what they feel is, Democrat good Republican bad. The Democrats support for any issue is based on that simple equation.


4 posted on 08/29/2004 6:33:46 PM PDT by Libertarianize the GOP (Make all taxes truly voluntary)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson