Why Dems Supported War In Bosnia But Not Iraq

About the Writer: Evan Sayet is a writer, speaker and pundit in Los Angeles and former communications director for LA for President Bush. He has been a TV and movie writer with credits ranging from "Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher" to the cult classic "Win Ben Stein's Money" and the Discovery Channel documentary "The 70's: When Decades Attack." He is currently working on a book: "Regurgitating the Apple: How Modern Liberals `Think." Evan's blog is SayetRight.Blogspot.com.

First they argued that it was "morally wrong" to remove the leader of a sovereign nation.

When that argument failed to gain traction, the line became that the President could not act without Congressional approval.

When the President gained the overwhelming approval of the Congress, the tack changed to a demand for United Nations' authority.

When the Security Council came back with a unanimous decision in favor of the coalition, the strategy changed once again, with the left suddenly screaming that America cannot go to war unless it faced an "imminent threat of attack."

All of these efforts, of course, were disingenuous. Clearly, if the Democrats truly believed it was "wrong" to remove the leader of a sovereign nation they would have been marching in the streets screaming "No Blood For Sex" when the previous president launched wars against Bosnia and Kosovo to remove from power the sovereign leader, Slobodan Milosevic.

Bravo

This author is my kinda guy........

Joe wrote:

A falsehood and a strawman. The UNSC never "came back with a unanimous decision in favor of the coalition."

This is the UN SC Vote referenced by the author......

UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- The United Nations Security Council on Friday approved a resolution that demands unfettered access for U.N. inspectors to search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

The vote is in line with U.S. efforts to win international backing for stripping Saddam Hussein of such weapons.

The resolution passed unanimously, after U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan joined the assembled delegates in the Security Council chamber.

The author implies that the first SC vote authorized the war which is not quite true but neither is your statement that there was no unanimous SC vote in favor of the coalition.

The return of the inspectors was viewed as the "first step" for full authorization for the war when in fact it was not necessary because all the previous resolutions threatened "serious consequences" if they were not complied with.

How many times must you knock the chip off the shoulder of a bully before it becomes essential to take action?
All your talk about legality is a smokescreen for not having the guts to take action against a murderer.
It is the same smokescreen used today by Mayors and DAs of cities who don't have the guts to deal with Gangs and the mass of thugs and potential terrorists pouring across our borders at this very moment.

The UNSC never "came back with a unanimous decision in favor of the coalition." There is no UNSC resolution that authorized the invasion, and we're still waiting for Bush's promised vote in the UNSC on authorization. And nobody argued that the US can only go to war unless faced with an imminent threat of attack. Instead, it can only preemptively invade a sovereign nation if faced with an imminent threat.

[
This particular statement is a complete revision of history.
The interventions in Bosnia (1995) and Kosovo(1998) were not launched to remove Milosevic from power. US troops were sent to Bosnia in Dec of 1995 under NATO command with a UN resolution after the Dayton Peace accords. The intervention in Kosovo was again a NATO operation and the intent was not to remove Milosevic from power but to prevent the same bloodshed that had occurred in Bosnia from 1992-1995.

I'd like to see the original of this to see if it was written in crayon. surely the author is not allowed sharp objects....

parados wrote:

[
This particular statement is a complete revision of history.
The interventions in Bosnia (1995) and Kosovo(1998) were not launched to remove Milosevic from power. US troops were sent to Bosnia in Dec of 1995 under NATO command with a UN resolution after the Dayton Peace accords. The intervention in Kosovo was again a NATO operation and the intent was not to remove Milosevic from power but to prevent the same bloodshed that had occurred in Bosnia from 1992-1995.

The only bloodshed going on at the time was Serbian blood being shed in an effort to protect an ancient province of theirs and all of the non-albanian people in it from a narco-terrorist organization (KLA) which was and is basically a branch of AlQuaeda. The only people who've been practicing ethnic cleansing in Kosovo over the last 60 years are albanians.

I notice you didn't address any of the items I pointed out to be FALSE.

re the above link: obviously you either can't or haven't read it.

joefromchicago wrote:

The UNSC never "came back with a unanimous decision in favor of the coalition." There is no UNSC resolution that authorized the invasion, and we're still waiting for Bush's promised vote in the UNSC on authorization. And nobody argued that the US can only go to war unless faced with an imminent threat of attack. Instead, it can only preemptively invade a sovereign nation if faced with an imminent threat.

There was no question of a "threat"; we'd already been attacked.

I keep hearing this pinko mantra about there being no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq; somehow or other it rings totally hollow.

In the case of nuclear weaponry there appears to have been a three-way deal between Saddam Hussein, North Korea, and Libya in which raw materials from NK ended up in Libya to be transmogrified into missiles pointed at Europe and America by Saddam Hussein's technical people and with Iraqi financial backing (your oil-for-terrorism dollars at work), while Kofi Annan and his highly intelligent and efficient staff kept the west believing that their interests were being protected:

Muammar Khadaffi has since given the **** up and renounced the whole business. That sort of thing is one of the benefits of having our government back under adult supervision since 2001. The NK government in all likelihood will not survive this year.

Then there's the case of 9-11. The Czech government is sticking with its story of Mohammed Atta having met with one of Saddam Hussein's top spies prior to 9-11 and there are even pictures of the two together on the internet now:

Then there's the question of the anthrax attack which followed 9-11. Saddam Hussein's the only person on this planet who ever had that kind of weaponized anthraxs powder.

Thus it should surprise nobody that the first cases of anthrax turned up in neighborhoods where the 9-11 hijackers lived. The odds against that if there were no connection to the 9-11 hijackers are astronomical.

Moreover it does not take hundreds of tons of anthrax powder to create havoc.

The sum total which was used was a few teaspoons full. In other words, a lifetime supply of that sort of thing for a guy like Saddam Hussein could easily amount to a hundred pounds worth, and I guarantee that I could hide that in a country the size of Iraq so that it would not be found.

The question of whether or not Hussein had 1000 tons of anthrax powder is simply the wrong question. The right questions are, did the guy have the motive, the technical resources, the financial wherewithal, the facilities, and the intel apparatus to play that sort of game, and the answers to all of those questions are obvious.

In an ideal world we should have gone after Iraq the day after 9-11; the fact that our military was not up to that at the time is the fault of the previous administration, and not of George Bush.