Skip to comments.PRESIDENT BUSH PLACES U.S. TROOPS UNDER A FOREIGN UN COMMANDER [GEORGIA]
Posted on 10/30/2002 3:59:17 AM PST by madfly
At a time when President Bush is pleading with the United Nations for permission to wage war on Iraq, he has assigned U.S. troops to wear U.N. uniforms and report to a foreign U.N. commander.
The pro-U.N. policy represents a violation of a Bush campaign promise and the 2000 Republican Party platform. It also represents a continuation of a policy that began under former President Clinton, who ordered the prosecution of a U.S. Army soldier who refused to join the U.N. Army.
The United States Military Observer Group in the Pentagon confirms that U.S. soldiers wear U.N. blue berets and U.N. shoulder patches as members of UNOMIG the United Nations Observer Mission in the country of Georgia. Soldiers ordered assigned to this mission wear this U.N. uniform. What´s more, they receive a United Nations physical examination before deployment to the mission and the U.N. pays some expenses associated with it. The purpose is to supervise the cease-fire between Georgia and Abkhazia. The U.S. troops take orders in the mission from a foreign commander named Major-General Kazi Ashfaq Ahmed of Bangladesh. After their service, members of UNOMIG may receive a ribbon described as "Central stripe of UN blue, flanked by white and green stripes, with dark blue edges."
President Clinton´s order to U.S. troops to wear a U.N. uniform was extremely controversial, unpopular, and alleged to be illegal and unconstitutional. House Majority Whip Rep. Tom Delay sponsored a bill to prohibit the wearing of a U.N. uniform by U.S. service personnel. This bill was a reaction to the case of U.S. Army soldier Michael New, who had refused to wear a U.N. uniform and was court-martialed and discharged for bad conduct by Clinton.
Such a bill was considered unnecessary under President Bush because he and the Republican Party had made it absolutely clear that he would never order U.S. troops to serve under U.N. command. "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."
My 15 year-old son wrote a report on this matter. He said:
"What is a hero? What acts do they do? They do many things: championing a good cause, going beyond the call of duty, and acting wisely under pressure to name just a few of the good things that heroes do. My paper is on Michael New; a soldier who refused to comply with unconstitutional orders from a higher command and then was discharged from the army because of it.
"In July of 1995, Army specialist Mike New was informed that his infantry would be going to Macedonia as part of a peacekeeping´ operation. In August, he was told that his unit would be required to wear a U.N. beret and patch. He was told the order to wear the U.N. uniform was lawful because the president said so therefore it is.´ But nobody ever provided a legal rational for this. Eventually, a battalion briefing offered the justification that We wear the U.N. uniform because it looks fabulous.´ He refused to wear the uniform. In his oath, he said he would fight for the U.S., not the U.N. or some other foreign power. But Bill Clinton had ordered this without even Congress´ approval and he knew it was unlawful. This, he knew, violated his oath as a soldier. He didn´t wear the uniform like everybody else was doing. Instead Michael New did what was right and what was just, and by not wearing that uniform, risked everything.
"In terms of going beyond the call of duty, I believe Michael New went far beyond the call of duty. Now only was he willing to fight, he was also willing to put everything on the line to do what was right. And if he had to do it all over again, he would.
"Michael New definitely risked his life, future, and reputation by saying no to this illegal order. He knew that he would be court-martialed for doing what was right. His case is still in the courts. He was discharged from the army for Bad Conduct.´ He knew that he could have gone to jail and that he´d have that mark on his record. But those were sacrifices he was willing to make for the good of the country. Michael New faced scrutiny from military officers. Yet he still stands strong in his belief that when you sign up for the U.S. military, you aren´t fighting for the U.N. of for some foreign regime; you´re fighting for America.
"He serves as a calling to my higher self because he acts wisely under pressure. He also does the right thing even though he knows the consequences. Michael New is willing to stand up for what is right. I admire these traits a lot and how he, with a promising military career ahead of him, decided he´d do the right thing and end up having to give it up. "In conclusion, I believe that Michael New is a great person. He shows leadership, champions a good cause, and fights for what is right. He acts wisely under pressure and risked his future for the country."
My son recognized a basic truth that has been lost on President Bush. The President must reverse course, order our troops out of their U.N. uniforms, and reaffirm their commitment as U.S. soldiers dedicated to protecting the U.S. Constitution.
To comment on this article or express your opinion directly to the author, you are invited to e-mail Cliff at firstname.lastname@example.org .
The New World Order will be put in place whether it's an official part of the GOP platform or not.
You suggested that yourself with you running with an article that has no named sources, only some mysterious United States Military group.
Not one proper name.
I am suspect also, but I searched and found nothing to say it isn't true. I will post another link to the article and this about the author. I would like this NOT to be true, but not surprised either. The "America's Survival, Inc. link is to www.usasurvival.org.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
Toogood Reports contributor and "Best of the Web" award-winning writer Cliff Kincaid is a veteran journalist and commentator who has been based in the Washington, D.C. area for more than twenty years. He serves as president of Americas Survival, Inc., a public policy organization concerned with global issues. A recognized and respected figure in the conservative movement, Cliff is a frequent guest on radio and television. You may e-mail your comments to him at email@example.com.
I will trust Rummy and W. to do the right thing.
But 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 pretty much keep up with the "stars" of the conservative movement and never have heard of this guy or seen him on television or heard him on the radio.
Whenever I see quotes like a "frequent guest on radio and television" in a bio line a red flag goes up for me. Sounds like a self aggrandizing hack to me. And yes self aggrandizing hacks are to be found on the right as well as the left.
This is an article spin (lie) in an effort to rally more opposition to the upcoming regime change in Iraq.
I was wondering if the author is anti-war. I guess this answers it. The Bush-hater club should be here shortly (some have already popped by to say "hi").
It'll all be different when we get a Republican in the White House...
I will trust Rummy and W. and not Cliff Kincaid who in my opinion is pushing an agenda with "chicken little" articles.
If allowed to happen , this will continue to happen as people get desensitized to a global army to help the elites achieve their world government.
Why is it so hard for American's to understand that this means the end of America and our Freedom ( even though they are mere illusions today because of past concessions ).
This is more proof that America's government is a single minded machine and not a two Party government representing the people.
Keep setting on your ass America , it won't be much longer and you won't have to make any decisions at all.
They will all be made for YOU.............
Keep on posting Eustace, you make the job of pointing out the flaws and rantings of the Birchers into perspective much easier.
Veteran U.N. bureaucrat Maurice Strong of Canada is being positioned as the next U.N. Secretary-General. He founded the U.N. Environmental Program, which has an "Environmental Sabbath" project that aims to set aside a day of the week as a day of rest for the earth, not God. The project encourages young people to sit around a tree and meditate. Strong, an associate of Vice President Albert Gore, has openly speculated about a collapse of Western industrial society being necessary to usher in a more environmentally-sustainable civilization. He is working with former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev to develop an "Earth Charter," another U.N. treaty, to save the planet and the earth spirit "Gaia" from plunder. Gore himself writes about "Gaia," the earth spirit or Goddess, in his own book, Earth in the Balance. According to this religious worldview, the interests of plants, animals and things are put above the needs of human beings. The use of natural resources becomes blasphemy against the earth spirit "Gaia."
I want to see more than someone quoting their kid's school report.
and I want circumstances....I absolutely would buy this if it were "undercover" operatives from SpecOps or MI (or CIA) using this as cover to collect intel
You know I have been reading these stories about our troops being placed under UN command for at least 20 years if not longer. And not once have they ever panned out.
And I am not a party loyalist.
JMO, but Mr. Kincaid like CNN has his own agenda and spins his articles accordingly.
Either that, or to discourage people from voting Republican in the upcoming elections.
PRESIDENT BUSH PLACES U.S. TROOPS UNDER UNITED NATIONS COMMAND; BREAKS CAMPAIGN PROMISE
President, America's Survival, Inc.
It has come to our attention that, in violation of his campaign promise and the 2000 Republican Party platform, U.S. troops have been put under United Nations command by President Bush. We request an explanation of why the president's solemn campaign promise has been broken.
The United States Military Observer Group in the Pentagon confirms that U.S. soldiers wear U.N. blue berets and U.N. shoulder patches as members of UNOMIG - the United Nations Observer Mission in the country of Georgia. Soldiers ordered assigned to this mission wear this U.N. uniform. What's more, they receive a United Nations physical examination before deployment to the mission and the U.N. pays some expenses associated with it. The purpose is to supervise the cease-fire between Georgia and Abkhazia. The U.S. troops take orders in the mission from a foreign commander named Major-General Kazi Ashfaq Ahmed of Bangladesh. After their service, members of UNOMIG may receive a ribbon described as "Central stripe of UN blue, flanked by white and green stripes, with dark blue edges."
As you know, President Clinton's order to U.S. troops to wear a U.N. uniform was extremely controversial, unpopular, and alleged to be illegal and unconstitutional. House Majority Whip Rep. Tom Delay sponsored a bill to prohibit the wearing of a U.N. uniform by U.S. service personnel. This bill was a reaction to the case of U.S. Army soldier Michael New, who had refused to wear a U.N. uniform and was court-martialed and discharged for bad conduct by Clinton. His lawyers continue to argue in the courts that his order to wear a U.N. uniform was in violation of his sacred oath, U.S. law and the U.S. Constitution.
Such a bill was considered unnecessary under President Bush because he - and the Republican Party - had made it absolutely clear that he would never order U.S. troops to serve under U.N. command. "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. A Web site for candidate Bush declared that he "Would never place U.S. troops under U.N. command." The 2000 Republican Party Platform declared that " American troops must never serve under United Nations command."
The current placement of U.S. troops under U.N. command has put U.S. service personnel who object to serving the U.N. and wearing a U.N. uniform in a very difficult position. They want to continue to serve their country but do not want to violate their oath, the law or the Constitution by serving the U.N. They consider an order to serve the U.N. to be illegal and unconstitutional.
This situation could have been avoided if the president had remained true to his word.
Why has the president's promise to the American people -- and our service personnel -- been violated?
We urge your immediate attention to this matter before more U.S. troops are forced to choose between remaining true to the U.S. military and abandoning their oath by wearing a U.N. uniform and reporting to a foreign U.N. commander.
This is a matter of utmost urgency and critical to maintaining the morale, character and integrity of the U.S. Armed Forces.
The United Nations: UN Observer Mission in Georgia Medal
You did the right thing by posting this. Instead off knee-jerk reactions, the proper FReeper response should be, "You're kidding. I'm going to find out more and will post what I find."
If this is true, I'm going to feel stupid for the 2 hours I spent last night carving an intricate George W. Bush jack-o-lantern (which turned out great, by the way.)
Posted wirelessly from my PocketPC.
Posted from my
I believe the saying is "The apple doesn't fall far from the tree." And you're correct about shrub!
D-R-I-N-K M-O-R-E O-V-A-L-T-I-N-E