Skip to comments.Why Dems Supported War In Bosnia But Not Iraq
Posted on 05/27/2005 11:07:38 PM PDT by Jane_N
When the left was trying to undermine Americas will to liberate the Iraqi people and remove Saddam Hussein the genocidal, terrorist linchpin in the world of Arab/Islamic atrocities the obstructionists offered an ever-changing line of reasoning.
First they argued that it was morally wrong to remove the leader of a sovereign nation. When that argument failed to gain traction, the line became that the President could not act without Congressional approval. When the President gained the overwhelming approval of the Congress, the tack changed to a demand for United Nations authority. When the Security Council came back with a unanimous decision in favor of the coalition, the strategy changed once again, with the left suddenly screaming that America cannot go to war unless it faced an imminent threat of attack.
All of these efforts, of course, were disingenuous. Clearly, if the Democrats truly believed it was wrong to remove the leader of a sovereign nation they would have been marching in the streets screaming No Blood For Sex when the previous president launched wars against Bosnia and Kosovo to remove from power the sovereign leader, Slobodan Milosevic.
And if their protestations were based on their true values, the left would have been chanting Clinton is Hitler when he went to war without Congressional approval or UN sanction in order to defeat nations that were not only not an imminent threat to America but were no threat to America at all.
Milosevic had never had much less ever used weapons of mass destruction, he was not aiding or abetting global terrorist organizations, nor did he have rape and torture chambers throughout his nation as did Saddam Hussein. In fact, even the ethnic cleansing he was accused of ginned up and exaggerated in the way that Newsweek, CNN and the New York Times routinely do was minor in comparison to the then-ongoing genocide of the Marsh Arabs and the massacre of the Kurds, the murder of Shiites, and even the horrific execution of his fellow Sunnis by the Iraqi dictator.
Given, then, that none of the lefts protestations were based on any true conviction, why did the Democrats support Clintons multiple wars in the Balkans where so little was at stake and nothing to be gained, and why do they continue to employ every conceivable lie they can muster to obstruct the liberation of the Iraqi people and the spread of democracy throughout the Middle East?
The answer can be found in the Democratic Party itself dominated, as it has been for the last several decades by multiculturalists who believe that democracy is in no way superior to any other form of government, including fascist dictatorships. Multiculturalists believe that all people, cultures, religions and forms of government are equally good and equally right.
This is why Democrats so adore the United Nations, where genocidal dictatorships and free-and-open democracies are offered equal prestige and equal power, and why we are admonished to celebrate diversity as if all differences genocide and tolerance for example are equally worthy of celebration.
While most Americans considered the end of the Cold War and the spread of democracy throughout much of the world a great advancement for civilization, liberals saw it as nothing short of evil. Their perverse reasoning is as follows: since no culture or form of government is superior to any other, the only possible reason for the global embrace of democracy must be some malevolent manipulation on the part of the West. For this reason the Democrat sees the spread of Western values such as freedom and democracy as tantamount to cultural genocide.
Arguments such as one cannot impose freedom and the laughable one-two-three-four, we dont want your racist war reflect the notions of leftists that freedom is an imposition, the quest for liberty a cultural value unique to the Western world, and that those who work to spread freedom are undermining the cherished values of other peoples, even if those values happen to be fascism, communism, and terrorism or rape, torture and genocide.
It is easy to understand where the sympathies of Democrats lie and why they supported the wars in Bosnia and Kosovo but not those that liberated 50 million people in Afghanistan and Iraq and have offered the hope of freedom throughout the Middle East and beyond. In the former, victory meant protecting and strengthening a non-Western culture the Islamists -- while victory in the latter meant the further spread of such Western values as freedom and democracy at the expense of such diverse cultural practices as oppression, mass murder, and terrorism.
About the Writer: Evan Sayet is a writer, speaker and pundit in Los Angeles and former communications director for LA for President Bush. He has been a TV and movie writer with credits ranging from "Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher" to the cult classic "Win Ben Stein's Money" and the Discovery Channel documentary "The 70's: When Decades Attack." He is currently working on a book: "Regurgitating the Apple: How Modern Liberals `Think. Evans blog is SayetRight.Blogspot.com.
Ummm...when did this happen? The President did not seek a declaration of war from Congress.
Good article. Going to read it again tomorrow when I'm actually awake.
What approval did Clinton seek before bombing Belgrade?
The #1 reason for the RATS unhappiness is that they are not in charge. They bigtime love a war IF they can run the show.
Rubbish. The vote was 77 to 23. Where were you at the time (certainly not paying attention)?!
Wading deeper into the rat mentality of sympathizing for our enemies...
OR Al Shifa, or DESERT FOX, or Afghanistan, or the Chinese Embassy?....
The Dems overwhelming voted to send our troops into harms way, then have worked 24/7 to undermine them in the media in the absence of a viable political platform.
May history judge them for their acts!
That's worth repeating, but we've been saying here on FR since Pres. Clinton's 1999 war.
BS. What was the bill that authorized the war resolution against Iraq?
He sought authorization for use of force in Iraq.
The general public who doesn't pay very close attention to the details of what's going on inside the beltway, only see the RATS as obstructionist, and that is not a winning strategy, even for the politically naive. If these losers keep it up, they wont have to worry about Filibusters, they wont have the votes to deny a Cloture vote
Did you only read the first half of the resolution and not the second part?
See post #10 Slick
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.