Bush Sends Turner Ally to U.N.

CNSNews.com/Newsmax.com ^ | 4/20/02 | Cliff Kincaid

[amom]

Letter Accepting the Resignation of Richard S. Williamson as Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs

February 11, 1983

Dear Rich:

"..I regret your departure from my personal staff and from our federalism effort, but I accept your resignation confident that as United States Representative to International Organizations in Vienna you will continue to be of invaluable service both to this Administration and to our country...Sincerely... Ronald Reagan "

here

[amom]

Recent books reviewed in Foreign Affairs:
U.S. FOREIGN POLICY AND THE UNITED NATIONS SYSTEM.
edited by Charles William Maynes and Richard S. Williamson. New York: W. W. Norton, 1996.

here

[amom]

Spring 2001 issue of enterpriseworks worldwide has a photo.

here

[TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!]

Thanks amom! So far this is all I can find.It is a SKETCH bio.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the heads up. Williamson does not show up on the DSL anywhere.

[TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!]

Glossing Over

Williamson, a Republican lawyer who ran for the Senate from Illinois and served as state party chief, tries to downplay his UNA connection, although an Oct. 4, 2001 White House press release announcing his nomination did mention it in passing. The Williamson biography posted on the Web site of the U.S. Mission to the U.N., however, omits his UNA affiliation.

To stress Williamson's conservative credentials, the biography highlights his experience during the Reagan administration, when he served as assistant secretary of state for international organizations.

But the UNA's Republicans tend to be political moderates favoring a greater U.N. role in global affairs. They include John C. Whitehead, who served as deputy secretary of state for President Ronald Reagan, and former Republican President Gerald Ford, who serves in a figurehead role as a co-chairman of the UNA's National Council, along with Democrat former President Jimmy Carter.

With the support of a federal grant from the U.S. Institute for Peace, Williamson and former Carter official Charles Maynes edited a 1995 book, "U.S. Foreign Policy and the United Nations System." The book focused on ways to strengthen the U.S.-U.N. relationship and was published to coincide with the U.N.'s 50th anniversary.

[TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!]

We are left to GUESS what a shame...

___________________________________________________

Williamson Won't Talk

Williamson refused to respond to a written inquiry asking for comment on his UNA affiliation and support for its controversial positions. A public affairs officer for the U.S. Mission to the U.N. replied on his behalf, saying Williamson's "past connections" with the UNA would not affect his new role as he now "represents the views of the president and the secretary of state ..."

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

Since Mr. Williamson is a former state chairman of the Illinois Republican party and a former political associate of Congressman Phillip Crane, you might contact them for information. Since he has not been active politically since he joined the Reagan administration 20 years ago, it is not surprising that there is not a lot about this on the Internet.

I did get a few google hits, here is one about a book he edited showing his position as a conservative leader. It was published by Regnery Publishing, which I expect that you know is the premier conservative publishing house: 'A Changing America: Conservatives View the ‘80s from the United States Senate', edited by Paul Laxalt and Richard S. Williamson, pp. 81-102. South Bend, IN: Regnery/Gateway, 1980.

In the 1980's there was a magazine called Publius The Journal of the New Federalism, supporting Reagan's policies in that area. An article 'A New Federalism: Proposals and Achievements of President Reagan's First Three Years' by Richard S. Williamson, appeared in that Journal.

In 1992 he lost as the Republican US Senate candidate against Carol Mosely-Braun, which I appreciate is a lot to forgive him for. Looking further into google, I am reminded that conservatives got justifiably angry when he reneged on a pro-life pledge, so he was regarded with suspicion for this reason. I am sure that some Illinois Freepers remember that election, you might ask them how conservative he was then.

I also found that when President Reagan set up his Council on Federalism in 1981, the White House group that ran it consisted of: The Coordinating Task Force on Federalism: Senator Paul Laxalt, Chairman; Secretary Terrel Bell; Secretary Samuel Pierce; Secretary Donald Regan; Secretary Richard Schweiker; Secretary James Watt; Director David Stockman; Edwin Meese III; James A. Baker III; Richard S. Williamson; Martin Anderson; Robert Carleson
As you can see, the staff members were Ed Meese, Jim Baker, Martin Anderson, Robert Carleson, and Williamson. Other than Baker, the other staff were conservative stalwarts of the administration.

In summary it is clear that in the 10 years since he lost the Senate race, mostly during the Clinton years, and the years of RINO ascendacy in Illinois, Williamson has been in the political wilderness. He certainly was on the wrong side on right-to-life in 1992, but there is no evidence whatsoever that he was ever a 'Turner Ally'. It appears that this was a complete fabrication by Kincaid. There is no evidence that he ever met the man, other than at board meetings of the UNA. The only real evidence that he is a liberal is that he is a part of the Bush foreign policy apparatus, led by Condoleesa Rice. To me, that is not proof of being a leftist.

[TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!]

Quite possibly his American politics are not leftist.But I think he is tied to Turner in this article for his pro- U.N./pro-globalization stance.I take the author's overall point differently than you I suppose.

It is pertinent right now who represents *us* to the U.N. with many urgent issues on the table;
i e......global tax (the tobin tax) the U.N. wants so bad they can taste,globalization overall,the ICC etc....

I take the article in this tone,simply that when such urgent issues are at hand a very pro-U.N. (yet conservative to fool many and make them at ease) individual represents US.

I would think the most important question here is exactly who represents us at the U.N.? The same as in the Clinton years? Any changeover? Would someone like Ron Paul ever be appointed much less TAKE such a position? Logically does a U.S. rep to the U.N. have to hold a pro-U.N. stance to take such a position?

On the educating and having rules (rights) for all the world's children our rep to the U.N. under President Bush told them no thank you.So is any rep JUST a mouthpiece for the President? Bush seems wishy washy on his U.N. stance.On one hand he vetos things and on his watch Kofi Annan received an award in Phily. While Kofi accepted this award he knocked our constituition and promoted globalization. I think President Bush is very pro-globalization and folks like this rep to the U.N. and leftist Clinton signing us up for ICC are left to do his dirty work.

We have a 'playing to the conservative right in politics' President. All awhile he is pro-U.N./globalization,and this rep is another scapegoat of politics,especially since he is a Reagan conservative that is pro-U.N.

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

I take the article in this tone,simply that when such urgent issues are at hand a very pro-U.N. (yet conservative to fool many and make them at ease) individual represents US.

Having met both Kincaid and Williamson, I am still convinced that the article in question is a hatchet job in furtherance of a personal vendetta. You seem to agree that 'The only real evidence that he is a liberal is that he is a part of the Bush foreign policy apparatus, led by Condoleesa Rice.' Our difference is that 'To me, that is not proof of being a leftist.' I guess we will just have to disagree on this point.

[TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!]

Just because Williamson may lean conservative in U.S. politics.Means nothing to his U.N. stance. He probably shares the same U.N. views as Ted Turner.This is the author's point that I understand.

We will have to agree to disagree, as I get what the author is saying differently and do not see the hatchet job.The overall article is stating that someone very pro-U.N. (as Ted Turner is) is our newly appointed Rep. It is irregardless if Williamson is right or left winged in American politics-who cares....he is pro-U.N./globalization,ICC etc...

The only thing that should be of concern is the hatchet job done to our country regarding the United Nations. I see the author relating this.

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

The only thing that should be of concern is the hatchet job done to our country regarding the United Nations. I see the author relating this.

Just so long as, when making this judgement, you bear in mind the 20 year grudge fight between Kincaid and Williamson.

[TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!]

Monday, April 22, 2002

h1>Globalist Clinton Accused of 'War Crimes'

Bill Clinton saddled the U.S. with the International Criminal Court without even submitting the treaty to the U.S. Senate for ratification, despite warnings the court could be used to persecute Americans for bogus "war crimes." Now, with rich irony, Clinton himself is being accused of war crimes.

The lawyer for a Croatian general indicted by the U.N. war crimes tribunal in The Hague says his client's case opens the possibility that Clinton will be charged with crimes against humanity for authorizing a Croatian military offensive in 1995, the Washington Times reported today.

"According to the unjust indictment brought against my client, there is a basis for an investigation and indictment of high-ranking Clinton administration officials who oversaw Operation Storm," said Luka Misetic, defense attorney for Gen. Ante Gotovina.

The high-ranking Croatian general was indicted in June 2001 by the U.N. War Crimes Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, precursor of the ICC, on charges that he exercised "command responsibility" over the military campaign in which 150 Serbian civilians were killed.

"Secretly supported by the Clinton administration, Croatian forces launched a three-day massive military offensive — known as 'Operation Storm' — on Aug. 5, 1995 in which Croatia recovered territories occupied by rebel Serbs following Croatia's bloody drive for independence from Yugoslavia in 1991," the Times said. Gotovina is also accused of overseeing the "ethnic cleansing" of 150,000 Serbs.

"The United States provided military and technical assistance to Operation Storm in order to block then-Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic's goal of forging an ethnically pure 'Greater Serbia.'"

Misetic says the indictment against Gotovina could lead to the prosecution in the Netherlands of Clinton and other U.S. officials on charges of having command responsibility for war crimes committed during the operation.

"The theory against Gotovina can now be brought against Clinton, [Assistant Secretary of State Richard] Holbrooke and all the way down the U.S. chain of command. On the prosecution's logic, they should be indicted as well. They knew the attack was coming and gave it the green light," Misetic said. Asked whether the U.N. tribune's prosecutors planned to indict Clinton or his underlings, Florence Hartmann, spokeswoman for chief prosecutor Carla del Ponte,said: "We have no comment because there is no evidence to substantiate the charges of Gen. Gotovina's lawyers. They can make their case with evidence to the court."

Misetic dismissed Hartmann's comments as "blatant hypocrisy."

Speaking of "blatant hypocrisy," when Clinton foisted the ICC treaty on the nation, he said, "We do so to reaffirm our strong support for international accountability and for bringing to justice perpetrators of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity."

Now he might get some first-hand experience.

Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:

Clinton Scandals
Kosovo Yugoslavia
United Nations

A product that might interest you:
Trooper Patterson`s tapes: "More Than Sex: Secrets of Bill & Hillary Revealed!"

[TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!]

IRS Official to Judicial Watch: Clinton Enemies Were Audited

Carl Limbacher, NewsMax.com
Tuesday, April 23, 2002

An official with the Internal Revenue Service has admitted that legal opponents of former President Bill Clinton were singled out for tax audits, according to court documents made public this week.

"What do you expect when you sue the president?" senior IRS official Paul Breslan told Judicial Watch, the Washington-based legal watchdog group that had filed 50-plus legal actions against the Clinton administration and subsequently found itself in the IRS's cross hairs.

Breslan's quote is cited in Judicial Watch's complaint against the tax agency, based on a host of what look to be politically inspired audits that make the worst abuses of the Nixon administration appear puny by comparison.

"There were literally six witnesses in the room when Breslan told us we should have expected an audit," Judicial Watch Chairman Larry Klayman revealed to NewsMax.com. "Four of them were lawyers."

The legal group became the target of an IRS audit in 1998, just four days after it filed an independent impeachment report against Clinton, based on years of investigation into everything from Chinagate to the Paula Jones case.

But Judicial Watch wasn't alone. Witnesses bearing damaging testimony against the president were a favorite target of the Clinton IRS. Those singled out for audits include:

Clinton paramours Gennifer Flowers and Liz Ward Gracen, sexual assault accusers Paula Jones and Juanita Broaddrick, and fired White House Travel Office Director Billy Dale.

Leak

The Jones case, which would eventually lead to Clinton's impeachment, was of particular interest to the IRS, which apparently leaked her confidential tax returns to the late New York Daily News reporter Lars Erik Nelson.

In a September 1997 column Nelson revealed details from Jones' filing to bolster claims that she was profiting from her sexual harassment lawsuit against Clinton.

In a subsequent interview with NewsMax.com's Carl Limbacher (then with the Washington Weekly), Nelson insisted somewhat implausibly that a "friend" of Jones had come across her tax return during a visit to her home and decided to go public with the secrets.

Quite an Enemies List

As the Judicial Watch complaint notes, the Clinton IRS also went after organizations and even media companies it perceived as politically hostile, including:

The National Rifle Association, The Heritage Foundation, The National Review, The American Spectator, Freedom Alliance, National Center for Public Policy Research, American Policy Center, American Cause, Citizens Against Government Waste, Citizens for Honest Government, Progress and Freedom Foundation, Concerned Women for America and the San Diego Chapter of Christian Coalition.

Fox News Channel analyst Bill O'Reilly, a frequent critic of Bill and Hillary Clinton, has also pointed out how the IRS has repeatedly audited him.

The political nature of the Judicial Watch's audit seems particularly blatant.

"The IRS asked for our political affiliations in the first notice of audit," Klayman told NewsMax.

When he questioned why auditors wanted to know about the group's political ties, an IRS district director said the information had been deemed "relevant."

Worse still, each time Judicial Watch seemed to make legal headway against the White House, the IRS ratcheted up the pressure.

"When we would accomplish something big, like the criminal finding by Judge Royce Lamberth against Clinton in the Kathleen Willey Privacy Act case, our lawyers would get a call saying, 'We just want you to know that Judicial Watch is still on the IRS's radar screen,'" Klayman said.

"The same thing happened when we revealed the White House e-mail scandal," he added.

Shockingly, the IRS's intimidation tactics continue into the Bush administration, which has failed to sack Clinton's IRS Commissioner Charles Rosotti.

After Judicial Watch won the release of thousands of pages of documents from Vice President Dick Cheney's Energy Task Force last month, a badge-wearing IRS agent showed up at the group's offices.

A personal meeting between Klayman and Bush Justice Department Criminal Division chief Michael Chertoff, who led the Senate investigation into the Clintons' Whitewater abuses, failed to yield any interest in pursuing IRS abuses, which now threaten to tarnish the Bush administration.

When noted columnist Robert Novak inquired of the Justice Department about Judicial Watch's IRS complaint, he was told by a department official, "I don't know what we are going to do with this Klayman."

"When we were told that we were being audited because we sued Bill Clinton, we had no choice but to stand up and fight in court," Klayman said. "By leaving Charles Rossotti as IRS commissioner, Bush obviously is sending a signal that political audits are fine with him."

Editor's note: Judicial Watch urgently needs your help to fight the IRS and continue its legal action against them. You can help Judicial Watch to expose the IRS and the Clinton administration abuses by Clicking Here Now.

Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:

Bush Administration

Clinton Scandals

A product that might interest you:
Have an Opinion About This? Send an URGENT PriorityGram Today

[DoughtyOne]

Seems a problem to me. But then Bush always has a plan, don't you know. LOL

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the heads up and all the information!

[Tailgunner Joe]

bttt