Semper Fi!!
EBUCK
Posted on 10/31/2002 8:31:33 AM PST by RCW2001
My report on President Bush ordering U.S. troops to serve under United Nations command ignited a firestorm. At FreeRepublic.com, which describes itself as an "online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web," many couldn´t believe it. Others expected it. Some tried to deny it.
One brave "Freeper," as they´re called, posted my article and watched the response.
The most fascinating reply came from supporters of President Bush who rationalized it by suggesting that the U.S. troops serving the U.N. were on a secret intelligence mission. There is no evidence for this claim but it is interesting. After all, U.N. weapons inspections in Iraq were used by the CIA.
On the other hand, I think it is more likely the U.N. is a watering hole for enemies of America and THEIR intelligence services. The president should know this. Look at what they´ve done with his plea for a U.N. resolution so we can attack Iraq. They have treated him like a nuisance when the national security of the U.S. is at stake.
I believe the U.N. SHOULD go the way of the League of Nations. The sooner the better. Good riddance.
It takes a leap of faith to believe the U.N. is a CIA front. But faith is what many Freepers have in Bush. They would rather ignore the cold hard facts.
"I will trust Rummy and W. to do the right thing," said one, dismissing my report.
So serving the U.N. under Bush is fine but doing so under Clinton is objectionable.
Is this what conservatism has become? An apology for Bush doing what Clinton did?
One Freeper claimed my article had no sources – only a reference to "some mysterious United States Military group." But this is the only source I needed. That group happens to be the U.S. Military Observer Group – Washington, known as "USMOG-W," for short. It is located in the Pentagon. This is THE group that coordinates U.S. deployments of American soldiers to U.N. military observer missions such as UNOMIG, where two American soldiers currently wear the U.N. uniform – the blue beret and U.N. shoulder patch.
"I am still waiting to see a solid first source," said one, seemingly ignorant of the actual content of the report.
Another asserted the article "has no named sources" and that it was a "chicken little" piece "with little or no sourcing written to inflame people and push the author's own personal bias."
I was called a "self aggrandizing hack." Others wondered who I am.
A journalist by training, I have 25 years of experience in Washington, D.C. I was a Reagan Republican whose conservative credentials are beyond reproach. I have written two books on the United Nations and co-authored with Daniel New the book Michael New: Mercenary or American Soldier. Anyone familiar with the battle against the U.N. knows of my efforts.
Yet one Freeper called my article a "lie" and "an effort to rally more opposition" to the Bush policy of regime change in Iraq.
In fact, I have argued that Iraq was connected to the Oklahoma City bombing and the anthrax attacks on America. The president is correct that Iraq is a dangerous threat. He actually understates the nature of the problem.
For the record: I voted for Bush.
One know-nothing dismissed my article, saying, "You may go ahead and take this as the truth if you want, but as P.T. Barnum said, there is a sucker born everyday."
I repeat: the "solid source" is USMOG-W, which was cited in the article. It is not a mysterious group. And USMOG-W confirmed the facts through a simple telephone call. I got tipped off to it when I learned that U.S. soldiers were continuing to be assigned to the UNOMIG. I had assumed that Bush, true to his word, had stopped the Clinton practice.
My "bias" is for accuracy and truth. I checked out this story and reported it. I am astounded that many self-described "conservatives" don´t want to accept the truth and don´t even want it reported. Perhaps they can´t believe that Bush would break such a solemn campaign promise. It is hard to believe.
"I will never place U.S. troops under UN command," candidate Bush said in his speech at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, Simi Valley, California, November 19, 1999. The 2000 Republican Party Platform declared that "…American troops must never serve under United Nations command."
It´s hard to accept that Bush would betray us. Perhaps the president has an excuse of some kind. But denying the facts is not a legitimate option.
Some Freepers did their own research. One brought up a U.N. Web page where it was acknowledged that UNOMIG is supported by the U.S. "It took a matter of seconds to pull this off of Google," he said. Still, it took another telephone call to confirm that U.S. troops are still wearing U.N. uniforms on this mission.
There is another site where the U.N. medal for UNOMIG is featured and described:
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/medals/unomig.htm
Another pulled up a U.N. Web page that said:"U.S. troops participating in UN peacekeeping missions wear their American military uniforms. To identify themselves as part of a UN peacekeeping force, they also wear blue berets or helmets with the UN insignia."
This is true and consistent with what I reported. The problem is the Congress has never authorized the wearing of a U.N. blue beret or insignia. It was not allowed in U.S. military regulations, either. It is also inconsistent with the soldier´s oath to support and defend the U.S. Constitution.
One Freeper acknowledged the truth of the story but claimed:"There may be less to this than meets the eye. Less than a couple of hundred troops were stationed in Georgia under Bubba. That these men were under UN command may have simply been lost in the tangle of bureaucracy and slipped under the radar over a very busy twenty months. The test will be to see what Bush does now that it has been brought to light."
So almost two years into the Bush presidency the fact of U.S. troops under U.N. command has just "slipped under the radar," despite Bush´s campaign promise never to assign troops to such a mission. This is presidential leadership? Has Bush not been paying attention? The U.N. has been a major issue for quite some time. Or is he somehow required to continue Clinton´s pro-U.N. policy?
One Freeper tried to get Bush off the hook by claiming that, "The troops were placed there by the Clinton administration and are no longer in Georgia. UNOMIG expired July 31, 2002."
His source for this claim was a U.N. Web page which actually says that the mission has been currently budgeted through June of next year.
Even if the troops were there only through July of this year, it would still constitute a violation of a Bush campaign promise. But his claim is false. USMOG confirmed that two U.S. soldiers are currently on this mission. What´s more, orders are being given to American soldiers RIGHT NOW to report to the mission in the future. So Bush is on the hook big time.
Recognizing that President Bush is guilty of continuing the same policy implemented by Clinton, who ordered the prosecution of Army soldier Michael New, a Freeper said:"Michael New would've been prosecuted regardless of who his Commander in Chief was. He refused to obey a direct and lawful order. Case closed."
This demonstrates a huge misunderstanding of the facts of this case. The order was illegal and unconstitutional. The court-martial of Michael New was greeted with outrage in Congress and the country. True conservatives understood what Bill "I loath the military" Clinton was doing. He was trying to destroy the character, morale and integrity of the U.S. Armed Forces. Michael New rejected that and stood his ground. Others simply go along.
The facts are available in Michael New: Mercenary or American Soldier. Michael´s Web site is of course an excellent source. There you can read the legal and factual arguments of the case.
That was then. This is now. President Bush promised there would be no more Michael News. He said he wouldn´t force U.S. military personnel to choose between the U.S. Constitution and the U.N. Charter.
Let´s be honest: the continuation of this Clinton policy is wrong.
If the policy has been continued through incompetent management, it must stop NOW.
But it is consistent with other Administration actions at the U.N., including:
• Desperately seeking U.N. permission to attack Iraq.
• Backing U.N. Boss Kofi Annan for another term.
• Failing to seek credit or reimbursement for extra peacekeeping assistance (amounting to more than $24 billion) provided to the U.N. (mostly out of the Defense Department) under Clinton.
• Failing to hold the U.N. responsible for violations of the Helms-Biden U.N. reform legislation that makes it illegal for the world body to promote global taxes and a world army.
We have no alternative but to hold the president responsible for his campaign promises.
We should contact the White House immediately. The phone number for the White House press office is: 202-456-2673.
I´d suggest calling Congress except they´re mostly trying to raise money and get reelected.
Another avenue is:
Ambassador John Negroponte
United States Mission to the United Nations
799 UN Plaza
New York, N.Y. 10017-3505
The press department can be reached at 212-415-4050 The Fax is 212-415-4053.
The email address is:
usa@un.int
My email address shows where I stand:
antiun@earthlink.net
Please send me copies of your messages and any official replies you receive.
We can and should achieve victory in this case. But victory will come only if we are honest about what has happened and demand accountability from the White House.
To comment on this article or express your opinion directly to the author, you are invited to e-mail Cliff at antiun@earthlink.net .
Semper Fi!!
EBUCK
Sorry for any double pings, trying to flag everyone from the original thread.
EBUCK
Snuff Saddam, NOW !!
The RATS Are In Disarray...Eradicate The Rodents !!
Fire Democrats, Hire Republicans !!
GWB Is The Man !!
The Second Amendment...
America's Original Homeland Security !!
Freedom Is Worth Fighting For !!
Let's Roll !!
Molon Labe !!
Never forget the DOMESTICs! Cicero spoke of those!
I hate the idea that our boys (and girls, and even myself, a few years back) could be or have been under direct foriegn command, especially under UN command. But I have been looking and haven't found a single "law" that states that it's illegal.
EBUCK
Don't you worry. I won't can't forget them.
I'm just having a hard time finding the legal basis for my support of refusing such orders.
EBUCK
EBUCK
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.