Red White & Blue Hens

College students in Delaware who think right is right, and left is wrong. We study hard, party hard, and play hardball.

Thursday, April 21, 2005

More Contradicitons from Congressional Democrats, Bolton Nomination

More great points from "Best of the Web Today" a service of www.opinionjournal.com
I would reccomend to all of you conservatives out there to sign up for this service

Best of the Web Today - April 21, 2005
By JAMES TARANTO


Dems to U.N.: Drop Dead
Senate Democrats have won a delay, probably lasting a few weeks, to dig up more dirt on United Nations ambassador nominee John Bolton. But of course their real objection to Bolton is ideological, not temperamental: They take issue with his view of the U.N. So let's step back for a moment and ponder the nature of that disagreement, which the Los Angeles Times summed up nicely in an article on the hearings last week:

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., played a three-minute videotape of Bolton speaking angrily in 1994 about the United Nations. . . . "There is no such thing as the United Nations," Bolton said on the tape. "There is an international community that can occasionally be led by the only real power left in the world--and that is the United States, when it suits our interests and when we can get others to go along."

Boxer said the speech appeared to reflect Bolton's disdain for the world body.

"I see the anger, the hostility," Boxer said, adding, "What we saw here, I think, was the real John Bolton."

Bolton's view--with which this column agrees--seems to be that the U.N. is useful and worthy of respect only insofar as it responds to American leadership and serves American interests. The Democrats' view, by contrast, seems to be that the U.S. has an obligation to follow the U.N., whether it acts in America's interests or not. That's why, for example, John Kerry*, who voted in 2002 to authorize U.S. military force in Iraq, changed his mind the next year when the U.N. Security Council balked at passing a resolution expressly permitting such action.

Only that's not quite right. The classic example of the U.S. leading the U.N. was the first Gulf War. In November 1990 the Security Council passed Resolution 678, which authorized member states "to use all necessary means," including military force, to liberate Kuwait, then under occupation by Saddam Hussein's Iraq. The resolution also "request[ed] all States to provide appropriate support" to that end.

In January 1991 Congress obliged. The House voted 250-183, with 179 Democrats voting "no," to authorize U.S. military force. The Senate vote was 52-47, with 45 Democrats voting "no." Only 86 House Democrats and 10 Senate Democrats voted in favor.

Among the negative votes were all five current Democratic members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who were then in Congress: Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, John Kerry, Paul Sarbanes and then-Rep. Barbara Boxer. All told, 25 of the 28 current Senate Democrats who were in Congress in 1991 voted against the Gulf War. (The three who voted for it, in case you're wondering, were Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, Tom Carper of Delaware and Harry Reid of Nevada.)

So the U.N. gave the thumbs-up for military force and asked for help, and most Democrats balked. Only a handful of lawmakers, including Sen. Jim Jeffords, ex-Sen. Bob Graham, Reps. John Dingell and Jim Leach and a few other House members (along with Al Gore), took what might be considered the consistent pro-U.N. position, supporting the liberation of Kuwait but not Iraq. Most Dems who now pose as champions of the U.N. showed their disdain for the world body by voting to refuse its request for help in 1991.

It seems fair to conclude, then, that most liberal Democrats, like Bolton, are pro-U.N. only when it suits their purposes--and that their purposes are the opposite of Bolton's. That is, for the Democratic left, the U.N. is useful and worthy of respect only insofar as it acts as an obstacle to American leadership and an opponent of American interests.

* The haughty, French-looking Massachusetts Democrat, who by the way served in Vietnam without U.N. authorization.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home