Table Of Content

Report Of U.S. Troops Being Placed Under A Foreign U.N. Commander Causes Uproar 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 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." 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 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.