Why Dems Supported War In Bosnia But Not Iraq

Chronwatch ^ | Saturday, May 28, 2005 | by Evan Sayet

[Jane_N]

When the left was trying to undermine America’s 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 left’s protestations were based on any true conviction, why did the Democrats support Clinton’s 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 don’t 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.” Evan’s blog is SayetRight.Blogspot.com.

[MJY1288]

Here is the whole thing, read it carefully

******************************

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235);

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688";

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to "work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge" posed by Iraq and to "work for the necessary resolutions," while also making clear that "the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable";

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region;

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq".

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.

In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS. --

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS. -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS

(a) The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 2 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).

(b) To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of Public Law 93-148 (the War Powers Resolution), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) To the extent that the information required by section 3 of Public Law 102-1 is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of Public Law 102-1.

[Southack]

Senate approves Iraq war resolution
Administration applauds vote
Friday, October 11, 2002 Posted: 12:35 PM EDT (1635 GMT)


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.

Hours earlier, the House approved an identical resolution, 296-133.

[FreedomCalls]

BS. What was the bill that authorized the war resolution against Iraq?

That would have been House Joint Resolution 114, which after it was signed by the President became Public Law 107-243.

[MJY1288]

I will explain why I get angry when uninformed people like you spew your nonsence without a moment of rational thinking.

Back in 1991 we went into Iraq and Kuwait to oust Saddam from Kuwait. After we successfully did so, Saddam Hussein and/or his representative signed a peace treaty. Saddam systematically violated every provision in that Treaty and the blood of two of my friends were used to sign the document. See they got killed when a Scud Missile hit their Barracks while they were sleeping.

We needed no approval from Congress, we needed no approval from the U.N., because Iraq violated the terms of the original agreement, so in reality Operation Iraqi Freedom was simply a continuation of hostilities

[MJY1288]

Don't wait for a response, FACTS are something he runs from

[MJY1288]

Hello.............................Are you there?......................... I can't hear you.................................. Crickets

[FreedomCalls]

Here's the Presidential Finding that complies with the second part of Public Law 107-243:

http://www.c-span.org/resources/fyi/IraqAuth.asp

TEXT OF A LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT TO THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THE PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE OF THE SENATE
 
March 18, 2003
 
Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

1. reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither
   1. adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor
   2. likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq;
   and
2. acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,
 
 
 
GEORGE W. BUSH

[edsheppa]

It doesn't explain why, if they think America spreading peace and freedom and democracy is so bad, why they supported the liberation of Kosovo.

[MJY1288]

Thanks for that info. So many people forget that this was not a unilateral decision by George W. Bush. The mainstream media and the undercover Trolls here on FR want to cloud these facts with their DNC talking points. We here all this BS about Saddam not having WMD's and therefore George W. Bush lied!

That is such a weak argument that it's juvenile at best. Saddam had these weapons and did something with them to avoid detection. The Duelfor (sp?) report clearly documents the intentions of Saddam by identifying the clandestine Labs he was maintaining for use once the sanctions were dropped. The whole Oil for Food Scandal was about getting those sanctions removed.

But Hey!!! We can't expect these liberals to comprehend these facts, they're too busy searching for documents to prove Dan Rather and Newsweak were correct!

[Wilhelm Tell]

Islamofascism is the only popular (if I can use that term) totalitarian movement so after the fall of communism the leftists have had to gravitate towards this new fascism. Almost anything the Islamists do is good just like almost anything the Soviet Union did was good according to the left. There were crimes committed by both Christians and Muslims in the Balkans, but intervention there mainly helped the Isamic radicals and this area became a training ground for terrorists. That is the only reason the left wanted to intervene in the Balkans in the first place, not to help innocent people (Muslim or Christian) who were being attacked, but to strengthen the Islamic radicals there.

[tahotdog]

This is Slobodan Milosevic, an innocent man being tried by a so-called International Criminal Tribunal in the Hague, Holland, presumably for attempting to deport (or ethnically cleanse) albanian islammites from a Serbian province for barbaric conduct over a protracted period of time.

One assumes that the Dutch are practicing to try themselves for ethnic cleansing and genocide, since they themselves are now beginning to expell muslims from their own country, also for barbaric conduct over a protracted period of time.

One can only assume that barbaric conduct over protracted periods of time is a sort of an islammite specialty.

Now, one way to prevent yourself from being charged with hypocricy, is to start torturing people. For the same reason that nobody would ever charge Al Capone with shoplifting, nobody would ever charge somebody like Adolf Eichman or Joseph Mengele with hypocrisy.

Thus it comes out that a prosecution witness in this trial of Slobodan Milosevic stood up in the courtroom and stated that prosecutors had attempted to torture an accusation against Milosevic out of him.

Now, in an American courtroom, that would be the instantaneous end of the trial and the prosecutor's career (doing anything other than washing dishes in the courtroom cafeteria) right there.

Thus there should be a question of how Americans would want to be associated with this process even before you consider the fact that Americans soundly reject the entire premise of the ICC and have gone as far as to pass a law requiring the president of the United States to use military force to rescue any American being held by that "tribunal". In other words, Holland would face the armed might of the United States military were it to try to do to any American what it is doing to Milosevic.

My advice to the Dutch: Don't sit around trying to guess whether or not that "Hague Invasion Act" is real or some sort of a joke; go ahead, try it. Kidnap some American soldier or political official and put him on trial for some sort of war crime charge in the Hague. I can't think of anything I'd have more fun watching than that, other than having the spetznaz rescue Slobodan Milosevic of course.

[tahotdog]

There might still be time to hand Kosovo back over to its rightful owners before the UN steps in demanding that we hand Texas and California over to Vincente Fox and the Atzlan crowd on the same perverted logic and basis.

[Allegra]

Hello.............................Are you there?......................... I can't hear you..................................

More pompous charm from a member of the Class of '04. ;-)

[FreedomPoster]

Here's the text. Note the formal short title:

"Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq".

AKA House Joint Resolution 114 of 2002.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

[FreedomPoster]

Should have known FReepers would have already been all over that. That's what I get, for posting before coffee.

Oh, well, this one probably needed to see it several times before it would sink in.

[Doctor13]

Quote by Lawrence Eagleburger on the The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour of 6 October 1992, Tuesday, Transcript #4470

"Muslims are being killed in Bosnia Herzegovina and this government has tried to demonstrate to the Muslim world that we care about them and we're willing to do something about it."

Translation:

Both the Clinton administration and the previous Bush (89-93) administration had to prove that they were not anti-Muslim, beginning with former Acting Secretary of State, Lawrence Eagleburger, who made it clear that a US goal in Bosnia was to placate the Muslim world. Eagleburger characterized the US government's pro-Muslim position in Bosnia as a counter to the Muslim world's perception of an anti-Muslim position regarding Iraq -- and if we had to destroy a small Orthodox Christian nation in the process, it was a small price to pay.

There are other reasons why Clinton and his gangsters went to war against the Christian Serbs that include:

1. Clinton couldn't allow this pipsqueak of a nation to defy the New World Order.

2. To draw attention away from this wag-the-dog president regarding the Monica Lewinsky seduction, a woman young enough to be his daughter.

3. NATO needed a new mission since the demise of the Soviet Union.

And I'm sure others can add more....

[combat_boots]

Agreed. If you'll recall, during the investigation of the 9.11 commission, certain parties testified in secret, e.g., Mansoor Ijaz. Apparently, there was more to the story than has been able to come to the fore, and Congress knows it, but is unwilling to take questions on it, with the MSM in compliant prostration before them.

[Hoplite]

We didn't bomb the Serbs in Bosnia in '95 to remove Slobodan Milosevic - we bombed them because they were murderous SOB's and it was the only way to knock some sense into their empty heads and bring them to the table.

We didn't bomb the Serbs in '99 to remove Slobodan Milosevic from power, we bombed them to remove Slobodan Milosevic's forces from Kosovo, where they were acting like murderous SOB's.

When it finally came time to remove Slobodan Milosevic from power, we utilized economic and diplomatic means, being trade sanctions and our support of OTPOR in the Serbian elections of 2000, with follow on pressure from the current President's administration ensuring that he was transferred to the ICTY in the Hague to face the consequences of his actions. Serbia still to this day is unequal to the task of dealing with events from Milosevic's reign, which explains why the current President has maintained Serbia's status as a pariah nation. And so it shall be until Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadzic are brought to justice.

It's simply not a Democrat/Republican issue, whatever those attempting to misrepresent it may say - it is worth remembering that Bob Dole was the Republican Presidential candidate in 1996, and it would be a hard case to make that he would have granted Milosevic as much leeway over Kosovo that Clinton did.

[damper99]

I agree...and they haven't run them well since WWII. If I were on active duty, I'd be praying we're not engaged in operations with the Jihadists when a democrat(of the current stripes) administration comes in.

Now, I'd be fine with a Dem like Zell in charge.

[Lazamataz]

Wonderful article.

Tasty, and filled with essential vitamins.