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.

[Katya]

Though the democrats supported Clintons effortst...the far left did not support the war in Kosovo etc. Groups like International ANSWER, protested but did not receive wide spread support.

[Reactionary]

"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." But you wouldn't know that. The liberal swine in the media have actually concinced you that the war in Kosovo was a big, humanitarian event.

[Freee-dame]

bump

[Archie Bunker on steroids]

Whenever I drive by a mob of Iraq war protestors, I yell "I don't remember seeing you out here when we were bombing Belgrade back to the stone age". Of course they don't understand, so I yell....."oh....yeah that was Clinton's war"...."go take a shower".

[PigRigger]

"The #1 reason for the RATS unhappiness is that they are not in charge."

That and the fact they were to afraid to do what had to be done. Clinton was to worried about doing anything that might ruin his perceived legacy.

Ironic isn't it, in doing nothing he defined it in the end.

[savedbygrace]

That is absolutely the correct answer to the question. Few people know it, however.

[Hoplite]

The liberal swine in the media have actually concinced you that the war in Kosovo was a big, humanitarian event.

No, actually President Bush the Elder did that when against the backdrop of Serbian ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, he set the tone of our Kosovo policy by issuing Milosevic the "Christmas warning" in 1992:

In the event of conflict in Kosovo caused by Serbian action, the US will be prepared to employ military force against Serbians in Kosovo and in Serbia proper.

The "Christmas warning" became our de facto Kosovo policy, and it was implemented in 1999.

[MadelineZapeezda]

excellent post.

A little FReeper background thread on Bob Dole and the reasons behind the breakup of Yugoslavia leading to the Balkan conflict.

[Hoplite]

<CONSPIRACY MODE>
<BOMB MODE = "SET UP">

How are you MadelineZapeezda?
All Serb base are belong to us.
Serb are on the way to destruction.
Serb have no chance to survive make your time.
Ha ha ha ha...

</BOMB MODE>
</CONSPIRACY MODE>

[econ_grad]

I agree. But, then why did the administration keep going to the UN. This law kept referring to UN resolutions. Why should our laws be contingent on how the UN thinks? It was a dumb resolution that is meaningless. There was no law in plain language referring "We hereby declare war on Iraq" like it used to be the case.

[econ_grad]

Some people sleep at night, unless of course it is morning where you are when it is night here. Makes sense if you are an European liberal. Your posts define resemble that.

[TomB]

I agree. But, then why did the administration keep going to the UN. This law kept referring to UN resolutions. Why should our laws be contingent on how the UN thinks?

Politics. Bush wouldn't have had the support of some members of Congress if he hadn't gone to the UN. It also had the effect of clearly defining who was with us and who was against us. That is being borne out now with the present difficulties the UN and Kofi Annan is having with OFF.

It was a dumb resolution that is meaningless. There was no law in plain language referring "We hereby declare war on Iraq" like it used to be the case.

So? Where does it say that specific language must be used?

Just because you don't like the wording doesn't mean it isn't legit.

[econ_grad]

I am not saying it is not legit. I am also saying it is not a declaration of war. If it was, why didn't it just say so. It talks about preconditions of war set by some international organization which is beyond the control of US law. In essence, the resolution is meaningless. There must not be any reference of the UN when it comes to our foreign policy, except to withdraw from it.