Skip to comments.
Bush's Pro-U.N. Foreign Policy
Accuracy in Media ^
| 10/10/2005
| Cliff Kincaid
Posted on 10/11/2005 11:08:04 AM PDT by Mike Bates
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-27 next last
To: Mike Bates
"It is the sacred principles enshrined in the UN Charter
to which we will henceforth pledge our allegiance." - President George H.W. Bush, speech before the UN, February 1, 1992.
2
posted on
10/11/2005 11:14:43 AM PDT
by
Mr. Mojo
To: Mr. Mojo
wunnerful...................
3
posted on
10/11/2005 11:19:07 AM PDT
by
calrighty
( Terrorists are like cockroaches . Kill em all soon, so they can find out there ain't no virgins)
To: Mike Bates
Damn! This makes me want to spit in somebody's eyeball. With all the uglies occurring with the UN, W is breaking another campaign promise. Sheesh!
To: lilylangtree
It gets worse. From later in the article:
"We were led to believe by news accounts that Bolton, though on the job for just a few weeks, was demanding all kinds of changes in the World Summit document. In the end, however, the document was so radical that it endorsed "reproductive health," a euphemism for abortion rights, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, a treaty that justifies U.N. interference in the raising of children. The U.S. later issued a reservation to the document saying it did not agree that reproductive health meant abortion rights. But no statement was issued disavowing the children's rights treaty, a favorite cause of Hillary Clinton."
5
posted on
10/11/2005 11:24:27 AM PDT
by
Mike Bates
(Irish Alzheimer's victim: I only remember the grudges.)
To: Mr. Mojo
"It is the sacred principles enshrined in the UN Charter
to which we will henceforth pledge our allegiance." - President George H.W. Bush, speech before the UN, February 1, 1992.
-------
And when you go back and read GWBs comments (public) when the "vigilantes" (AMERICAN PATRIOTS) began doing the Fed's job for them, you see right where the problem lies. The Bush Internationist Dynasty.
6
posted on
10/11/2005 11:25:31 AM PDT
by
EagleUSA
To: Mr. Mojo
7
posted on
10/11/2005 11:26:06 AM PDT
by
proud_yank
(Socialism is economic oppression)
To: Mike Bates
Yet the administration endorsed a radical document that came out of the September World Summit that dramatically expands the power and authority of the U.N. in global affairs. It gives the U.N. Security Council the power to intervene in the internal affairs of member states when national governments fail to stop human rights violations. This is called the "responsibility to protect."
It sounds good in theory. But why is the U.N. qualified to make such a decision when the world body failed to stop a genocide in Rwanda and its peacekeepers have committed human rights violations, including the sexual abuse of women and children? This new U.N. doctrine would seem to justify a U.N. invasion of Communist China, one of the greatest human-rights violators on the planet. But that won't happen because China is on the Security Council and would veto the operation.
This, coupled with the Administration's support for the Law of the Sea Treaty, should give all conservatives reason to pause.
8
posted on
10/11/2005 11:41:51 AM PDT
by
rob777
To: Mike Bates
North American Community.
To: Mike Bates
The promise was prompted, in part, by the controversy over President Clinton's secret Presidential Decision Directive (PDD) 25, forcing U.S. soldiers to wear U.N. uniforms and report to foreign U.N. commanders. This policy resulted in the court-martial and discharge of Army soldier Michael New, who refused to follow this illegal and unconstitutional order. New said he had signed up for the green team, not the blue team. His "crime" was patriotism. New has been courtmartialed to set an example for the rest of our troops that this same thing will happen to them IF they refuse to wear UN colors. A couple of weeks ago, I got an e-mail update from his dad, and he's filed another appeal. They are NEVER going to stand behind the Constitution and restore Michael to his position in the service.
To: Mr. Mojo
The 2000 Republican Party platform declared, "The United Nations was not designed to summon or lead armies in the field and, as a matter of U.S. sovereignty, American troops must never serve under United Nations command."But yet:
In violation of a Bush campaign promise, the Bush administration is assigning U.S. troops to perform on U.N. missions under foreign command.
Who's really calling the shots here?:
"It is the sacred principles enshrined in the UN Charter to which we will henceforth pledge our allegiance." -
President George H.W. Bush, speech before the UN, February 1, 1992.
To: Mike Bates
LOL! Bush appoints Bolton and it's a recess appointment and you far righties still find something wrong by going through almost pretzel like machinations.
You all are a piece of work in your almost pathological mistrust of everything and everybody.
With friends like you, who needs enemies.
12
posted on
10/11/2005 2:44:18 PM PDT
by
Dane
( anyone who believes hillary would do something to stop illegal immigration is believing gibberish)
To: Dane
You all are a piece of work in your almost pathological mistrust of everything and everybody. With friends like you, who needs enemies.Thanks for the penetrating analysis. Actually, I was expecting to see more posts like yours.
13
posted on
10/11/2005 3:07:43 PM PDT
by
Mike Bates
(Irish Alzheimer's victim: I only remember the grudges.)
To: Dane; NRA2BFree; rob777; proud_yank
. . . you far righties still find something wrong by going through almost pretzel like machinations.Skimmed through some of your recent posts and found you critical of Mark Levin, Robert Bork, Laura Ingraham, Ann Coulter, Rush, David Frum, Pat Buchanan, Bill Kristol and Phyllis Schlafley.
And that was just today. So many "far righties," so little time.
14
posted on
10/11/2005 3:24:20 PM PDT
by
Mike Bates
(Irish Alzheimer's victim: I only remember the grudges.)
To: F16Fighter
In violation of a Bush campaign promise, the Bush administration is assigning U.S. troops to perform on U.N. missions under foreign command. A "read my lips" moment.
15
posted on
10/11/2005 3:27:40 PM PDT
by
Mr. Mojo
To: Dane; Mr. Mojo
You all are a piece of work in your almost pathological mistrust of everything and everybody. Can't speak for anyone else, but I don't mistrust everybody. I do mistrust politicians who change their positions to match what their audience of the moment wants to hear.
"It is the sacred principles enshrined in the UN Charter to which we will henceforth pledge our allegiance." - President George H.W. Bush, speech before the UN, February 1, 1992.
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." - President George H.W. Bush, oath of office, January 20, 1989.
I see a conflict. Don't you?
16
posted on
10/11/2005 3:28:22 PM PDT
by
Celtman
(It's never right to do wrong to do right.)
To: Mr. Mojo
Be interesting to see if any of those UN missions occur on US soil.
To: Mr. Mojo
"A 'read my lips' moment."The only thing that changed is the middle initial.
To: Dane
far righties
Hmm, that is what trolls call us too.
19
posted on
10/11/2005 4:08:22 PM PDT
by
safisoft
(Give me Torah!)
To: Mike Bates
Damn, I was hoping that we finally had a President that understood the danger the UN poses to this country.
20
posted on
10/11/2005 4:15:08 PM PDT
by
Modok
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-27 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson