Albright disavows Helm's UN statements

D

DC

Moderator Emeritus
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Albright disavows Helms' remarks

United Press International - January 24, 2000 13:35

UNITED NATIONS, Jan. 24 (UPI) -- U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine
Albright on Monday disavowed several anti-United Nations remarks made
last week by Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jesse Helms.

At the opening of a week of U.N. Security Council meetings on the
Democratic Republic of the Congo, she said Helms, who harshly criticized
the world organization before the panel on Thursday, does not speak for
the American people.

"Helms is a man of conviction and strong advocate of a distinct point
of view about the United Nations and America's relationship to it," she
said in opening remarks. "He and I have made a point of working together
where we can and making sure that when we disagree, we do so agreeably.

"So let me be clear: only the president and the executive branch can
speak for the United States," Albright said. "Today, on behalf of the
president, let me say that the administration, and I believe most
Americans, see our role in the world, and our relationship to this
organization, quite differently than does Sen. Helms."

Washington believes in sharing leadership with other nations "whenever
that is possible," Albright said. "We strongly support the U.N. Charter
and the organization's purpose; we respect its rules, which we helped
write; we want to strengthen it through continued reform; and we
recognize its many contributions to our own interest in a more secure,
democratic and humane world."

Albright also said the world organization is "a vital forum for the
consideration of matters affecting security and peace."

She called the special appearance last Thursday of the Republican
senator from North Carolina "notable." She said it was "useful" to hear
the views of the committee chairman and his colleagues, "and for them to
hear those of (Security) Council members."

Helms attacked the United Nations for trying to impose "utopian" ideas
of a "new world order" and global governance on the United States while
showing "a lack of gratitude" for U.S.
help.

He told those calling Washington a "deadbeat" for non-payment of U.S.
dues that the United States was the single largest investor in the
United Nations. He said the U.S. Congress, as representatives of the
American people, had not only the right but the responsibility to insist
on specific reforms in overseeing taxpayers' monies.

--
Copyright 2000 by United Press International.
All rights reserved.[/quote]


------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
 
Every time one of these neo-Socialist nitwits opens their mouth, we get more little clues about their true mentality:

-------------
"So let me be clear: only the president and the executive branch can speak for the United States," Albright said. "Today, on behalf of the president, let me say that the administration, and I believe most Americans, see our role in the world, and our relationship to this organization, quite differently than does Sen. Helms."
--------------

Really!? Only the president can speak for the U.S.? Where is that in the Constitution? Doesn't the UN ask us to ratify treaties with it? Then why wouldn't a Senator, who's job it is to ratify those treaties, be representative of the U.S.?

-----------------------
Washington believes in sharing leadership with other nations "whenever that is possible," Albright said. "We strongly support the U.N. Charter and the organization's purpose; we respect its rules, which we helped write; we want to strengthen it through continued reform; and we recognize its many contributions to our own interest in a more secure, democratic and humane world."
--------------------

SHARING leadership? Isn't that an oxymoron? I mean, if I'm leading, you can't lead too or else one of us is REALLY following and just deluding ourselves about being the leader, aren't we?

I think I'll send Albright a page out of the dictionary, the one with the word "Sovereignty" on it. She seems a little confused on the issue.
 
Being in the Military I can tell you that statements about sharing leadership really torques me off. Hard enough doing MY nations bidding let alone anothers! I cannot imagine having to follow the orders of a foriegn officer, most of whom who couldn't lead themselves out of a wet paper sack. I happen to agree with Helms!...Nuff said

Dennis...Amen brother
------------------
...“ They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” --Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

Take care and God Bless, El Jefe
The ANTI-HCI Site!

[This message has been edited by El Jefe (edited January 25, 2000).]
 
If I had a son serving in the American military and the blighters told him to put on a blue helmet, I'd say, "Take your dishnorable discharge and come on home!"

(HOT button for me!)


------------------
Either you believe in the Second Amendment or you don't.
Stick it to 'em! RKBA!
 
Hmm.

Does anyone have any precedent for the President not to speak for the American People?

Granted, the current oaf we have in office isn't a very shining example, but isn't he supposed to be our representative?

They don't need to strengthen it, they need to overhaul it. I understand that the amount of embezzlement that routinely goes on is quite mind-boggling.

I firmly believe that the United Nations is a solution in search of a problem.

(Of course, it's also a problem in search of a solution, but I'm trying to be nice.)

LawDog
 
For my 2 cents worth, Helms speaks more for me than that witch Albright and her treasonous boss, Klinton at the Peking Penn Ave Hilton.
 
Why should what Miss Not-so-bright say suprise us. The current administration does not need congressional approval for foreign or domestic policy. Constitution be damned they will just write another Executive order. Who needs senate or congressional approval, or that matter that of the people, not Bill and this crowd.
 
My blood pressure went up a few points from that article. Especially "Mad"eleine's blurb about only the President and the Executives being able to speak for America.

Excuse me, but Clinton does not speak for this white boy. He ignores public opinion, flouts the Constitution, and now he and his fascist wife have declared that we are buddies with the United Nimrods?

Chuck Colson was right--the barbarians are taking over.

Senator Helms might have a tendency of putting his foot in his mouth at times, but I think he's got his head on a lot more firmly than many of the other members of Congress. There's a reason he's been in the Senate for so long, you know.
 
This article made my blood boil a little too. However, in one year Jesse Helms will still be a senator...... Clinton & Albright will be amongst the unemployed. I've never been so eager for a year to pass. What horrible, evil people they are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top