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

AgapePress ^ | 6/18/02

[Reagan Man]

Axis of whining weasels alert
1- misfits!
2- malcontents!
3- militants!

All three are Bush bashers, trashers and haters, one and all, and in good company too boot!

[monkeywrench]

Hurts who, newbie? I was wondering if they have the President thinking that muslims are part of his conservative base. At any rate I think the press will continue to portray muslims as being 'conservatives', to continue to change the meaning of whatever that once meant.

[GretchenEE]

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

They need to be alarmed at their lack of influence over their agenda before the Throne of Grace.

[nopardons]

Bush is no differemt from Clinton or Gore, Reagan would have done this ( but he didn't ! ) , and they'll NEVER vote for Bush again . Just WHERE is this crowd, when good news is around ? LOL

[anniegetyourgun]

Whew - this thread sure has gone far afield of it's original subject. We must remember not to let the sideliners distract us. Please feel free to remind me too, when you see me wasting my time with those who have checked-out of the process, while claiming to be the only patriots on FR.

As to the subject at hand, I have a tiny bit of insight. This was job #1 when the Bush administration came in. (Recall how early in the game Negroponte was nominated, though the foot-dragging by liberals slowed that down a bit.) In part, because it was immediately faced with the Durbin conference that was designed to be an Israel-bash-fest. Immediately after that we would have to deal with the "rights of the child" issues and so much more. The new administration first cleaned out old Clinton staff holdovers here AND they began developing policy groups of conservative scholars and experts to send to conferences. Those libs they couldn't get rid of fast enough were simply left out of the loop and neutralized. (It's a bit easier to rearrange things in this area because you aren't dealing with as many career government workers, unlike over at DOJ and the Pentagon.)

The U.N. situation is a vital part of U.S. foreign policy and the President wants his people there to influence the process, though (unlike his father) he is an isolationist at heart. It's tough to be the latter in a world where acting on those inclinations would be unrealistic and have tragic results on all fronts.

As to the earlier question of what is the U.S. policy? Pro-life, pro-traditional-family, pro-sovereignty. Anti-redefining family, anti-exporting abortion around the world, and anti-international courts/jurisdictions/investigations/intrusions/etc. None of this will be easy to accomplish, but we have the right man in office to hold the U.N. at bay. After all, when was the last time we had a president completely withdraw from a U.N. convention when the tone was unacceptable going in? Never.

[eureka!]

"But the encouraging part is that we have a Republican in the White House who is smart enough to realize it. And the all-or-nothing-RIGHT-NOW! idiots who keep showing up on various threads to "bash Bush" for "betraying conservatives" are looking sillier all the time."

Yep. While I can't agree with everything W has done (noone can), politics have to be played as they have since the dawn of time. November is so important as the "incrementals" will leap tenfold if we get the Senate back, IMHO...

[MJY1288]

Very good points AGYG, and very well put!

Kudos to you,

MJY

[texasbluebell]

Incrementalism works both ways...

BTTT!!!!

[newgeezer]

> because I'm a Fundamental Constitutionalist

Please deifine that beyond a cute buzz word.

"Cute buzz word"? Thanks a lot, Tex.

As a Fundamental Constitutionalist, I believe the Constitution says what it means, and means what it says. Take the First Amendment, for example. It specifically says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Those who interpret the Constitution unreasonably liberally (including the SCOTUS) apply it to any and all situations, such as to a manger scene in a city park or, a prayer at a public school graduation ceremony. Neither case has anything to do with the U.S. Congress having made a law.

[monkeywrench]

You were so busy looking for defenses of Mr. Bush, you misinterpreted what I said. Actually, I pretty much agree with you. My problem is with the deceitful media in this article.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

Oh, that AWW GIF is awesome - may I please use it?

By the way, Alan Keyes, Bill Kristol, Gary Bauer and the rest of the Rat Pack will be along shortly to give full credit to President Bush regarding his position on the UN. (That will take about fifteen seconds, then they'll be back to the usual.)

[kitkat]

Great post, Annie. Glad you're here.

[kitkat]

Thank you for repeating so many of my posts. Now everyone can read them for a second time.

But I have to tell you that your old political tricks are even more boring than your other posts. You don't agree with what I said, so you call it ranting. LOL! Pathetic.

You are NOT a worthy adversary. You just repeat the same old lame stuff.

[kitkat]

Thanks for the laugh!