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

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

By any reasonable standard, the Bush policy on the U.N. should be more controversial than the Harriet Miers nomination to the Supreme Court. The President, who is depicted by the media as a unilateralist in foreign policy, is presiding over an unprecedented expansion of U.N. power on the world stage. Despite U.N. scandals and corruption, his administration spends more money on international organizations year after year. And global taxes for the U.N. may be on the horizon.

One might think that a President who went to war in Iraq without U.N. approval and appointed the tenacious John Bolton as U.N. Ambassador would have a strong anti-U.N. foreign policy. But the truth is something else entirely. In fact, in violation of a Bush campaign promise, the Bush administration is assigning U.S. troops to perform on U.N. missions under foreign command.

With the President's campaign promise on judges under scrutiny, it's worth remembering that Bush also promised when he ran for office that he would "never" place U.S. troops under U.N. command. He made that declaration during a November 19, 1999, speech at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California.

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.

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."

(Excerpt) Read more at aim.org ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abortion; bush; globalism; globaltaxes; icc; internationalist; lost; nwo; presidentbush; sovereignty; un; unesco; unpeacekeeping; unreform; x43
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-27 next last
Another disappointment with Dubya.

Michael M. Bates: My Side of the Swamp

1 posted on 10/11/2005 11:08:06 AM PDT by Mike Bates
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

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!


4 posted on 10/11/2005 11:22:25 AM PDT by lilylangtree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo

That is just scary.


7 posted on 10/11/2005 11:26:06 AM PDT by proud_yank (Socialism is economic oppression)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mike Bates

North American Community.


9 posted on 10/11/2005 11:47:07 AM PDT by the gillman@blacklagoon.com ( Welcome to the Canexican Community!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

10 posted on 10/11/2005 12:28:16 PM PDT by NRA2BFree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

11 posted on 10/11/2005 2:40:36 PM PDT by F16Fighter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

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.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

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.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo

Be interesting to see if any of those UN missions occur on US soil.


17 posted on 10/11/2005 3:37:29 PM PDT by Tench_Coxe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo
"A 'read my lips' moment."

The only thing that changed is the middle initial.

18 posted on 10/11/2005 4:05:27 PM PDT by F16Fighter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

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!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-27 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.

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