Bush Team Trimming Clinton-like Decrees in U.N.

AgapePress ^ | 6/18/02

[Jean S]

(AgapePress) - In almost stark contrast to a report indicating the White House has written off conservative issues on the domestic front, Associated Press is reporting the Bush Administration is working with the Vatican and Muslim nations to reverse many of President Clinton’s policies at the United Nations.

“It is truly a new day at the U.N.,” White House spokesman Tim Goeglein tells AP. “The Bush Administration has a very important and a different policy position [than the previous administration] -- whether it’s family, whether it’s life, whether it is the centrality of marriage and children. In fact, it is the difference between night and day.”

And promoters of abortion and homosexual rights are expressing alarm at their loss of influence over the American agenda at the United Nations.

“On many of the social-policy questions,” Goeglein says, “that is to say, the questions of family and children and life and marriage, we tend to be in concert with some of the Muslim countries.” He said the U.S. tends to be in concert with the Vatican, and the important thing now is to move the right policy initiatives ahead in the U.N.

For instance, last month, the U.S. delegation worked with nations like Iran and Sudan to block a United Nations declaration that would have said children are entitled to “reproductive health services,” which could have been interpreted to include abortion.

“Where we can find commonality with, perhaps, unconventional allies, we will do so," Goeglein says. "The president has been very clear about his policies of family, marriage, children, and the centrality of the family -- and where we can find commonality, we intend to move ahead.”

The Bush Administration’s U.N. policy team includes former Vatican advisor John Klink, Janice Crouse of Concerned Women for America and Paul Bonicelli of Patrick Henry College.

---

Associated Press contributed to this story.

[nravoter]

Nice to hear GWB hasn't decided to abandon every conservative issue. Hopefully he'll make a few more moves to the right, but I won't get my hopes up.

[DLfromthedesert]

That's ridiculous!! Most of us who are critical of some Administration policies are absolutely deLIGHTed when the President moves in the correct direction. We do not support persons, but the Constitution, and while I love the man personally, I believe it is important to hold his feet to the fire when he moves in the wrong direction.

[billva]

This is a blow to the Axis of Whining Weasels and GWB's Nattering Nabobs of Negativism!

So true, but most of them will probably find a way to twist it anyway!

[MeekOneGOP]

I'm all for that DO !

WE NEED A KOFI BREAK !
DUMP THE U.N. NOW ! !

[kitkat]

Sam, your US/UN flag is terrific. It's going on the rear window of my car.

[madfly]

Yes, BSR, let's see some more of these!

From Article:
The Bush Administration’s U.N. policy team includes former Vatican advisor John Klink, Janice Crouse of Concerned Women for America and Paul Bonicelli of Patrick Henry College.

What is the UN Policy Team? I did a googly on it and can find nothing. Perhaps this is something new.

[MrB]

The ONLY thing they want is just enough government to finance a minimalist military (for domestic purposes only); otherwise, they would be quite happy with complete ANARCHY!!

Would you classify reducing the Fedgov to it's Constitutional limits as Anarchy?

[kitkat]

Don't you people EVER get it? In order to protect the constitution, you have to have a president who CARES about this country. Who the heck would you vote for who would do everything YOU want done? And who else would vote for him? NOBODY! And if, somehow, he got elected, you'd STILL be out there complaining.

[DoughtyOne]

Good question. I would think it must be a Bush policy group, to advise on our approach to dealing with the UN. Perhaps others have heard of it.

[newgeezer]

I agree with you 100%, because I'm a Fundamental Constitutionalist. No matter who the President is, I'll feel just fine "complaining" when he tramples the Constitution, no matter what the Bush-bots and/or big-tent Republicans have to say about it.

[kitkat]

***Would you classify reducing the Fedgov to it's Constitutional limits as Anarchy?***

No, I wouldn't classify it as anarchy. But there's not a single senator who would vote for it. If he/she did, they'd lose their next bid for re-election, because they'd have no pork to bring home to the voters. You're spitting into the wind.

[kitkat]

Read my reply on #28.

[DLfromthedesert]

It seems to me a lot of people voted for Ronald Reagan.

I'm not asking for a President who does EVERYthing I want. I would just rather he didn't cede so much to the Dems, especially on matters of property rights vs phony environmentalism.

Furthermore, criticism is NOT a bad thing. It's how we get better as persons, as states, as nations.

If all you want is a bunch of "Yes" "Rah Rah" people no matter what the President does, you're setting yourself up for a dictatorship. Criticism and dissent are great American values.

[madfly]

I agree. It says across the FreeRepublic Logo on front page, Defending the Constitution.

[DLfromthedesert]

Furthermore, I heard a LOT of Clintonistas caling C-SPAN during his impeachment saying "He CAAAAARES about us", so how does caring protect the Constitution?

[kitkat]

Obvously, Clinton did NOT care about this country. Bush is honest and sincere. And, YES, I back him up because we FINALLY have a good president and we must back him up so that he'll have four more years to help this country. You don't like that? TOUGH!

[brityank]

Thanks; I've been looking for that!

[kitkat]

***If all you want is a bunch of "Yes" "Rah Rah" people no matter what the President does, you're setting yourself up for a dictatorship. Criticism and dissent are great American values.***

If we DON'T back up a good president when we have one, we'll end up with Hillary Clinton as president.

[DLfromthedesert]

LOL!!! Please take your BP meds and call me in the morning.

[rdavis84]

"Well I wonder what the "AWWs" will think of this. Most of them won't even admit this is being done I suspect.. Anyone have a ping list to use for this?"

We'll watch for results, not words. Bush has a tendancy to take one step to the right, get people somewhat optomistic, then follow quickly with 3 steps closer to One World Governance.

BTW, how's he doing on Constitutional matters? Still a Strict Constitutional Constructionist?