The Clinton-Gore-Albright Unilateral Strike on Iraq

The thesis of this article:

Democrats behave completely differently when a Republican is in the Oval Office. They’ve mindlessly done a total reversal—from unilateralists to multilateralists, from hawks to doves—because of partisan politics. The case of Iraq is a tragic example.

The evidence sited:

On the weekend of June 25-27, 1993, military retaliation followed. The Clinton administration struck hard with a volley of missiles on Baghdad. The strike killed a number of Iraqis but left Saddam in power and unscathed.

The Clinton administration did not seek U.N. approval for the strike, and some U.N. Security Council members were quite annoyed, including France’s representative, Jean-Bernard Merimee. They were bothered that the Clinton team proceeded on its own evidence, prior to the end of the trial of the saboteurs. However, Madeleine Albright, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, strongly objected, insisting that classified American intelligence confirmed that Saddam’s regime was behind the plot. According to Albright, U.S. evidence alone was sufficient for U.S. unilateral action; U.N. approval was not necessary, and neither was any type of U.N. investigation. Albright, Clinton, and Gore were adamant: the United States did not need U.N. approval to use force against Iraq.

In almost every respect, Madeleine Albright and Al Gore in particular acted contrary to the angry public position they later staked during the presidency of George W. Bush.

Political expedience has taken over the Democrat party. And then they wonder why folks don't trust them on national security issues?