Find here background reading on Clinton's bombing of a pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum, Sudan, including Sec. Cohen's unreserved defense of the action - which, it is fairly obvious, was nothing more than an egregious military and diplomatic blunder committed to distract attention from Clinton's plight.
Dick Morris is now (1998-Dec-19) explaining the Clinton-ordered Iraqi military offensive as "Wag the Resignation," a dimwitted term for his conviction that Clinton took the action to nix a groundswell of popular sentiment for his resignation (by making himself seemingly unequivocably effective). The reality, of course, is that the action was driven by a complex of diplomatic, military, and political motives. Of these, the political motives (trip up house impeachment proceedings, nix sentiment for resignation, further divide and confuse the nation) and diplomatic motives (display the United States as an irresponsible loose cannon, alienate much of the world's population, sew deeper hatred of the US among Iraqis and other anti-US extremists) are all bad. The military motive is dubious; the ostensible idea is that the munitions production capability of Iraq must be, and now has been, eroded. The reality is that Iraq threatens its neighbors, the world, and the United States in particular, only insofar as it is capable of orchestrating terrorist attacks with biological, chemical, or radiological weapons, or conventional munitions, or simple sabotage, particularly targeting the astonishingly vulnerable electrical power distribution infrastructure of North America. The only militarily significant effect on Iraq of the brief, hugely expensive military "campaign" of 1998-Dec-15 to 19, is to further secure their resolve to wage an extended campaign within that tactical operating system of terrorism and sabotage. The tactics used in the US/UK campaign had no practical chance of materially eroding Iraq's ability to mount such a campaign - the offensive only motivated them to proceed with one.
from TPDL 1999-Jan-27, from the Washington Times, from "Inside Politics: News and political dispatches from around the nation" by Greg Pierce:
Honesty at last
Anne Lamott, columnist for the on-line magazine Salon, is at least honest about her biases.
In a Dec. 18 column -- reprinted in the February issue of the American Spectator -- Miss Lamott writes about President Clinton's decision to launch an attack on Iraq on Dec. 17, the day before the scheduled opening of House impeachment hearings:
"I'm a Clinton supporter and I'm totally opposed to war. I love to see the consternation on the faces of the Republicans. It was such a brilliant coyote-trickster thing for Bill to do. It's fun to watch the Republicans' suppressed rage because usually they take so much pleasure in things militaristic. I know I don't believe in war; and that if this were a Republican who had behaved the same way Bill Clinton behaved I'd be up in arms. If it were Newt Gingrich or George Bush I'd be really sickened. And if it were George Bush or Newty Gingrich who had had his way with Monica Lewinsky and then gone to war the day before impeachment proceedings, I would take to the streets.
"Saddam is heinous, like Richard Allen Davis, who killed Polly Klaas. ... I tell you -- the more I read about what UNSCOM knows about Iraq, then I really do think, Bomb! Bomb! Bomb! though at heart I'm really opposed to war."
from TPDL 1998-Dec-27, from the Village Voice, by Jason Vest:
Clinton's Hail Mary
A political action that couples sex with deathWASHINGTON- Was that a tomahawk missile in his pants or was Bill Clinton just happy to see Richard Butler's report? Even before the bombs actually rained down on Baghdad, cries of "wag the dog" went up from Capitol Hill to Dag Hammarskj=F6ld Plaza, and accusations characterizing the UNSCOM chairman as a geopolitical handmaiden to his beleaguered American patron began to fly like lethal airborne ordnance.
Such speculation was hardly untoward: As former UNSCOM inspector Scott Ritter ably demonstrated earlier this year, Butler does seem to take the Clinton administration's input more seriously than that of his UN bosses. In another vein, it was on the same day Monica Lewinsky gave her grand jury testimony that Clinton commenced an utterly unnecessary bombing of Sudan and Afghanistan under the pretext of immediate "clear and present danger." And, if we reach a little further into the recess of memory, we recall that it was on the eve of Gennifer Flowers's revelations in 1992 that then governor Clinton returned to Arkansas to preside over the execution of a retarded African American.
But despite the existence of a novel pattern of political action that couples sex with death, two neglected realities borne out of the latest round of bombings stand virtually unacknowledged. One is that while impeachment considerations likely factored into Clinton's decision, the latest attack had more to do with the continued pursuit of a hopelessly inept and unnecessarily cruel approach to the Iraq question. The other is that Clinton's actions are more easily- and appropriately- impeachable.
"At least George Bush went through the motions of getting UN approval and a supporting congressional resolution," says Francis Boyle, a professor at the University of Illinois College of Law who specializes in international and constitutional legal issues. "This was just naked aggression. He's clearly in violation of the War Powers Clause of the Constitution, the 1973 War Powers Resolution, the UN Charter, and the UN Security Council resolutions on Iraq. This is a subversion of constitutional government, and he should be impeached for it."
It's always been hard to say what's more amazing about Clinton: his willingness to use his office for self-gain, or his ability to simultaneously co-opt Republican positions and get his fellow Democrats to abandon traditional principles in the name of defending his perpetually imperiled posterior. During the Judiciary Committee's proceedings, for example, New York's Jerrold Nadler held that LBJ should have been impeached for deceiving Congress into passing the Gulf of Tonkin resolution; rather than publicly pondering if a similar standard might apply to Clinton's attacks on Iraq and Sudan, Nadler, like so many other Democrats, rallied round the flagpole.
But last Thursday night, Democrat David Skaggs of Colorado took the floor and- in a speech no one bothered to report- all but called for Clinton's impeachment for the Iraq attack. "President Clinton acted in violation of the Constitution in ordering these attacks without authority of Congress," the retiring Democrat and defender of Clinton against Ken Starr said, stating the painfully obvious and blasting his House colleagues for "default[ing] on our responsibility . . . to insist" on accepting their prescribed legal role.
"The president," Skaggs continued, "to the extent that he relies on a strict reading on the Constitution for other purposes, should adhere to a strict reading of the War Powers Clause. Instead, his administration engages in a contrived bit of legal sophistry to conjure up a pretext of legality where none exists. Shame on him," Skaggs fumed. "And shame on us for letting other presidents and this one take away one of the most important powers which the American people have a right to expect us here to exercise on their behalf."
Lest one dismiss Skaggs's point of view, George Bush- even with a congressional resolution and UN approval- was concerned about the possibility of ending up in the dock: "I'm going to have to share credit with Congress and the world if it works quick," Bush wrote in a December 20, 1990, diary entry, but "if it drags out, not only will I take the blame, I will probably have impeachment proceedings filed against me." Representative Henry Gonzales of Texas did, in fact, have Boyle draft impeachment resolutions against Bush. And it wasn't the first request Boyle had received, from either side of the aisle.
"In the early '80s, both Senator Daniel Moynihan and Representative Dan Crane, a conservative Republican, called me asking how to get the Marines out of Lebanon," Boyle says. "My advice was, because the president had sent them there in violation of the Constitution and the WPR, to get them out and bring UN forces up, or consider impeachment. Later on, with Grenada, with Panama- both impeachable- defenders of the presidents cited the 'commander in chief' line in the Constitution, even though the Constitution clearly says it's Congress's job to declare war or issue letters of mark and reprisal [the authorizations for smaller-scale actions]. Instead, Congress has continued to abrogate its powers and responsibilities. And now you're seeing liberal Democrats making the same arguments the Reaganites and Bushites were making."
Which- when applied to the Clinton administration and not Democratic legislators- isn't entirely surprising, given that the Clinton administration inherited a bad Iraq policy from Bush and made it worse. When the UN Security Council passed its Iraqi sanctions resolutions in 1991, it tied the lifting of the sanctions to disarmament, weapons inspections, reparations, and cessation of internal repression. It did not, however, stipulate that Saddam Hussein remove himself from power. Yet a month later, both Bush and then secretary of state James Baker said that the U.S. line was no end to sanctions "as long as Saddam Hussein is in power." Shortly before his inauguration, Clinton indicated he'd be willing to discuss a change of situation with Saddam, but then began to echo the Bush position.
No one in the Clinton administration, however, has embraced the hard line with as much gusto as Secretary of State Madeline Albright. While her British counterpart, Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, has at least paid lip service to designing and implementing an "ethical" foreign policy, Albright- when presented in 1996 with the fact that sanctions had led to the deaths of over 500,000 Iraqi children- simply responded, "We think the price is worth it."
Despite repeated reports from the United Nations that the death toll of innocents has steadily climbed past 1 million, and despite even a plea from Pope John Paul II to end the "pitiless embargo [against] the weak and innocent [who] cannot pay for mistakes for which they are not responsible," the fundamental effect of the Clinton administration's policy of privately impeding inspections while publicly perpetuating sanctions is more Iraqi civilians dead from hunger and disease.
"Their policies of both sanctions and bombings are inconsistent with their own goals- they've admitted sanctions won't take Hussein out of power, they've admitted air strikes aren't likely to take Hussein out of power, and they've admitted sanctions and air strikes aren't likely to increase access to weapons-of-mass- destruction sites," says Jon Strange, an activist who drew Albright's ire when he asked her several pointed questions about U.S. foreign policy at a public forum in Columbus, Ohio, earlier this year. "Saddam's a butcher, but he's not irrational- what's his incentive to comply? I went to Iraq earlier this year to deliver medicine, and what I saw was horrifying. Because there's no chlorine, children are dying from water-borne bacteria and treatable ailments like asthma. We saw hospitals with unclean sheets, three kids to a bed, and absolutely no medicine."
According to Strange and others who have recently been to Iraq and were interviewed by the Voice, the Clinton administration has failed to face the reality that while the majority of Iraqi citizens live in fear of Saddam, the sanctions have little impact on the military, which Saddam cares about more than civilians. And earlier this month, the U.S. proved it cares more about the embargo than Iraqi citizens: members of Voices in the Wilderness, a relief group that has delivered medicine and toys to Iraqi children and families, were notified that they're facing a $163,000 fine for making their deliveries in violation of the embargo.
"It could have been worse," said Jeff Guntzel, a member of the group. "I think what's more frustrating to us right now is the bombings, which show that there seems to be no real plan about how to deal with Iraq."
the real fallout from the action, from TPDL 1998-Dec-22, from Reuters:
Russia premier approaches India, China on strategic plans
MOSCOW - Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov called yesterday for a strategic triangle with India and China, after Russia's bitter criticism of the four-day US and British blitz of Iraq.
Primakov made clear that Russia would not back down from its condemnation of the strikes, and that it would also condemn any future offensive against Baghdad.
''We will never change our position. We are very negative about the use of force bypassing the Security Council,'' Primakov said in New Delhi.
He said Russia, China and India should form a ''strategic triangle'' as a counterweight to US influence in the world.
The decision by the United States and Britain to launch air raids without seeking approval from the UN Security Council infuriated Russia, which jealously guards its position as a permanent Security Council member.
After the bombing ended on Saturday, President Boris N. Yeltsin said common sense had prevailed but added that a profound review of international relations was now necessary.
Russia recalled its ambassadors to London and Washington for consultations as a sign of protest last week. The gesture was considered bold but largely symbolic.
Since then, Russia has sought the right mix of measures to express its displeasure without undermining relations with the West at a time when it is desperately seeking foreign loans.
In another development, Russian Defense Minister Igor Sergeyev called on the armed forces of former Soviet republics to cooperate more closely.
''At this moment, when the United States and their allies are unpredictable, it is essential we reach a common understanding of the military-political problems arising,'' he said in televised comments at a meeting in Moscow of defense ministers from the Commonwealth of Independent States.
from the office of Rep. Ron Paul http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press98/pr121698.htm:
FOR RELEASE:
December 16, 1998
Clinton endangers troops to end-run impeachment
Desperate ploy of president called 'despicable' by PaulWASHINGTON, DC -- As US troops prepared to once again be used as political pawns by the President, Rep. Ron Paul called on Bill Clinton to resign for the good of the country and the safety of American soldiers.
"Once again President Clinton is using American troops to deflect attention from his record of lies, distortions, obstruction of justice and abuse of power," said Rep. Paul after arriving in Washington on Wednesday afternoon. "Just a couple months ago, the president launched an attack against the nation of Sudan in an attempt to cover over his personal problems; an attack which we know now had no basis whatsoever in protecting US interests."
Paul said the Clinton ruse with Iraq is not only shameful, but recklessly dangerous.
"Even if one can look past the constitutional prohibition against the US policing the world, the timing of this new attack against Iraq screams of hypocrisy by a president who has shown a complete disregard for our military, our Constitution and our national defense," said Rep. Paul, a former Air Force flight surgeon. "Iraq has been 'disobeying' the United Nations for years now, but suddenly, on the verge of his impeachment, this president decides to launch an attack, in essence an unconstitutional declaration of war."
Rep. Paul said that it is "despicable for a man who ran from military service to now use soldiers as a shield from impeachment."
"How many American soldiers and innocent Iraqi children will die so that this president can hide from justice? How many American citizens are now at increased risk from terrorist attack because of this president? How much innocent blood will have to flow to cover this president's sins? This attack has no basis in protecting our national security and only increases the danger to our people."
from TPDL 1998-Dec-22, from the Electronic Telegraph (Evening Telegraph of London), by Andrew Sparrow, Political Correspondent:
Healey leads attack on Gulf policy
TONY BLAIR was facing mounting criticism last night as the cross-party consensus in support of the bombing raids against Iraq began to collapse.
Lord Healey, the former Labour cabinet minister, and Gen Sir Peter de la Billi=E8re, who commanded British forces in the 1991 Gulf war, both warned that the attacks might have strengthened Saddam Hussein's hold on power while damaging Britain's diplomatic relations.
Last week, only a handful of Left-wing Labour MPs was willing to speak out against Mr Blair's decision to send the RAF into action. But the end of the bombing campaign has encouraged critics to speak up from all sides of the political spectrum. As an opinion poll showed one voter in three opposed to British involvement, the Tories also began to cast doubt on Mr Blair's handling of the crisis.
Lord Healey, Labour defence secretary in the Sixties and foreign affairs spokesman in the Eighties, claimed that Mr Blair's actions had seriously damaged Britain's standing in the world. Speaking at Radio 4's Broadcasting House yewterday, Lord Healey said: "Tony would have been wiser to warn Clinton to take it more slowly. It has done Tony no good, especially with the Europeans, to ignore the opposition of France and Italy when he is claiming that Britain is a part of Europe. As far as I know, we've had no consultation with the European Union itself, although we say that that is the basis of all our foreign policy these days."
Lord Healey said that the political impact of the bombing would be "very much to strengthen Saddam's support inside his own country". He said: "There's no doubt it has enormously weakened Britain's influence both in the Communist world and in the Middle East, and in the European Union. The damage it has done to Britain's position in those respects outweighs any advantage [Mr Blair] gets from supporting a lame duck in the United States."
There was also "no question" that the air attacks were unlawful. Lord Healey said: "It is illegal to attack with bombs targets in a sovereign country without direct authorisation from the Security Council."
In a separate BBC interview, Sir Peter also questioned the political impact of the bombing campaign, which would "strengthen" Saddam's position. He said: "At no time has an aerial bombardment subjugated a people into submission. It tends to make them defiant and there's a considerable risk that this will happen, not just in Iraq, but across the Islamic world." He also said that, although the attacks were carried out with the supposed authority of the UN, that was not the way it was perceived in the Middle East.
Michael Howard, the shadow foreign secretary, claimed that the absence of diplomatic consensus over the British and American campaign "does not bode well for the future".
A Mori poll conducted before the raids for the Mail on Sunday showed 56 per cent of the public in favour of Britain taking part and 33 per cent against. Only 25 per cent believed that the campaign would lead to the removal of Saddam, while 59 per cent said it would not. A third of the public also said that President Clinton's decision to attack Baghdad had more to do with his own domestic problems than with the threat posed by Saddam.
from TPDL 1998-Dec-21, from the Boston Globe 1998-Dec-21, by Fred Kaplan, Globe Staff:
Strikes didn't finish job US set out to do
WASHINGTON - One question has emerged in the aftermath of President Clinton's four-day bombing campaign against Iraq: What was that all about?
If his aim was to put a dent in Saddam Hussein's ability to produce chemical, nuclear, and biological weapons, the dent was not a large one.
If, as some of the air war's targets suggested, Clinton was trying to destabilize Hussein's regime, he did not hit its foundations hard enough.
Speaking of the Pentagon's estimates of damage, John Pike, a specialist with the Federation of American Scientists, said Saturday night, ''It doesn't look like they did anything on what they said they were going to do, and not enough on what they were actually doing.''
According to the Pentagon's most recent figures, the attacks hit a total of 97 targets over the four days. The strikes damaged beyond repair only a few of the targets - the weapons sites, military headquarters, and industrial facilities that Pentagon planners thought had to be hit to accomplish the mission.
''I'm mystified why they stopped the campaign just as they had amassed sufficient force to complete the job,'' Pike added.
More forces, including another aircraft-carrier battle-group and more than 70 additional combat planes, had just arrived Friday.
''You don't deploy 70 aircraft halfway around the world just so they can fly one combat sortie,'' Pike said.
Iraq's nuclear and chemical materials were not attacked.
Part of the reason might have been that nobody knew where these materials were.
Andrew Cockburn, co-author of the forthcoming book ''Out of the Ashes: The Resurrection of Saddam Hussein,'' noted that the UN inspectors themselves ''couldn't find the stuff because Saddam kept moving it.'' So, Cockburn asked, ''If a bunch of people on the ground couldn't find it, how could some generals target it from the air?''
There are some well-known, immovable sites where chemical weapons could be built, but these are ''dual-use'' facilities - places with civilian functions as well, such as a chlorine plant vital to Baghdad's drinking water.
Defense Secretary William S. Cohen said the campaign was avoiding these targets so Iraqi people would not be hurt. The concern was laudable, but, given these limitations, it again raises the question: What did Clinton expect the bombing would accomplish?
Cruise missiles and laser-guided bombs did strike some factories involved in producing missiles that could theoretically deliver chemical or nuclear weapons. The Pentagon said that 11 such targets were attacked. None were destroyed, one was damaged severely, five moderately, and four lightly. The damage to one target had not yet been assessed.
From a purely military standpoint, it is hard to imagine that the commanders would not have wanted to go back and take another shot.
General Henry Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Saturday that even these attacks had set back Iraq's ability to produce long-range missiles ''by at least a year.''
However, General Thomas Wilson, the Joint Staff's director of intelligence, said that even without the strikes, Iraq was a couple of years away from acquiring this ability. So, the upshot of the bombing appears to have put off this prospect from two years to three - not trivial, but hardly critical, either.
Missiles were also fired at facilities for the security forces that have guarded and hidden Hussein's weapons. These were the people who obstructed the UN inspectors. However, if the inspectors are no longer in Iraq - and it is doubtful that Hussein will let them back in soon - then their functions are no longer so vital.
Furthermore, just because their facilities - barracks, headquarters, and so forth - were bombed does not mean the guards themselves were killed. Everyone agrees Hussein has become resourceful at moving his assets around on short notice.
William M. Arkin, a military historian and former US Army intelligence officer, said of the strikes, ''I think we're hitting a lot of empty buildings.''
Strikes were also aimed at Hussein's command and control, TV and radio transmitters, Republican Guard facilities, private security forces - in other words, the apparatus that keeps him in power and maintains his links with the Iraqi army.
These attacks, too, seemed fairly light. Of 20 command-control targets hit, seven were destroyed, four damaged severely, four moderately. Of nine Republican Guard targets hit, none were destroyed, three damaged severely, five moderately. Of 18 security targets hit, two were destroyed, five damaged severely, six moderately.
Bombing rarely has much effect on these sorts of targets, no matter how heavy. During the 1991 Gulf war, American-led air forces mounted 500 strikes on command-control and 260 strikes on Iraq's leaders.
Yet, ''despite the lethality and precision of the attacks,'' concluded the US Air Force's official five-volume ''Gulf War Air Power Survey,'' Hussein's ability to command his forces ''had not collapsed... The system turned out to be more redundant and more able to reconstitute itself.''
Perhaps Operation Desert Fox was called off for diplomatic reasons. British Prime Minister Tony Blair said Saturday night that he and Clinton ''always envisaged it would last four days ... because such a campaign is the right and proportionate response to Saddam's breach of UN obligations and also because of our sensitivity to the holy month of Ramadan.''
This claim is confusing, however, because the bombing continued into Ramadan, and it leaves unexplained the costly deployment of vast additional forces that did not arrive until the third and fourth days.
In any event, yesterday morning, Hussein, who lived through it all once again, claimed victory - which, from his point of view, might outweigh Clinton's claim that the Iraqi leader stands ''degraded'' and ''diminished.''
from WorldNetDaily's Between the Lines column of 1998-Dec-18, by Joseph Farah, from http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_btl/19981218_xcbtl_6_years_an.shtml:
6 years and $5.5 billion
Remember the mantra from the Clintonistas regarding the investigation by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr?
"Four years and $40 million."
I can almost hear the screeching political hacks passing themselves off as "journalists" -- people like Ellen Rattner and Geraldo -- joining in the chorus.
"Four years and $40 million."
What they were talking about, of course, was the length and cost of probing a series of scandals perpetrated by Bill Clinton. Yet, the length and cost weren't the fault of Clinton. Oh no. The most powerful politician in the world was simply a victim of a witch-hunt -- one that wasted time and taxpayer money.
"Four years and $40 million."
But let's put things in perspective. As president, Bill Clinton has wasted six years playing footsie with Saddam Hussein and squandered $5.5 billion in U.S. taxpayer dollars on containing the Iraqi threat -- and that's before the costly Desert Fox operation launched Wednesday. On Wednesday alone, some 200 cruise missiles were fired by the Navy at Iraqi targets. Each one of those high-tech bombs cost about $1 million. That's $200 million right there, just on ordnance, in one day -- five times the amount spent by Kenneth Starr.
Yesterday, they began launching the more expensive cruise missiles -- fired from the Air Force's B-52s. Those two-ton babies cost more than $2 million each. Let's assume for the moment, that another 200 or so were launched. That's 10 times more than the Starr investigation cost -- just to blow up some buildings, kill some Iraqis and put on a little impeachment show-stopper.
Last October, Congress passed the Iraq Liberation Act, which provided $97 million in military aid to opposition groups in the country. You can bet most of that money has already found itself in Swiss bank accounts, given the low level of conflict Saddam Hussein is facing internally. Earlier this year, the U.S. set aside $5 million for the support of Iraqi political opposition, and another $5 million for broadcasting by Radio Free Iraq. But all that is peanuts compared to the price tag for enforcing the no-fly zones. That project cost U.S. taxpayers $2 billion in 1998 alone, and that's far from the total cost. It doesn't include expenses involved in deploying forces in the region last February.
That was the last big buildup by Clinton. It involved 34 ships, 440 planes, and 44,000 troops. In November, we went through a similar exercise involving 14 ships, 300 planes and 27,500 troops. Now we've got Desert Fox.
I'm always happy when Americans question the excessive spending by the federal bureaucracy. I, too, think Kenneth Starr spent too much. I can't understand what he did with $40 million. Yet it represents nary a drop in the bucket in evaluating the way Washington has thrown away your money.
Can anyone honestly say that the $5.5 billion we've invested in our Iraq policy over the last six years has proved worthwhile? Are we not exactly where we started six years ago? If anything, have we not lost national prestige and honor after having kicked Hussein's butt in 1991? It would appear we've squandered more than money. We've squandered victory. We've squandered our standing in the world. We've squandered out principles. Or, I should say, Clinton has.
Let's get beyond dollars and cents. Let's talk common sense. When President Bush launched Desert Storm, he had the approval of the United Nations and the support of most civilized nations in the world. Begrudgingly, he went to Congress to authorize the massive strike. He got it, but with a majority of Democrats opposing the move.
This week, Bill Clinton ordered an attack on Iraq with the only real support coming from his friends in the United Kingdom. The U.N. specifically did not request nor approve of the action in advance. Clinton did not even bother asking Congress for authorization.
Yet, many of the very same voices that opposed Bush's Desert Storm have endorsed Clinton's Desert Fox. How can this be?
The answer is quite simple, folks. This is a political war -- designed, programmed, and executed to enhance the standing of a beleaguered chief executive cornered in scandal. Defending this scoundrel -- even while risking the lives of courageous and patriotic U.S. troops and innocent Iraqi civilians -- is the first priority of the Clintonistas.
from TPDL 1998-Dec-24, from Reuters:
Ex-Inspector Says U.S. Manipulated Unscom Over Iraq
LONDON (Reuters) - A former United Nations weapons inspector Wednesday accused the United States of having maneuvered U.N. arms inspectors in Iraq into providing a pretext for the attacks on Baghdad it and Britain launched last week.
``I believe that this inspection was rushed through, and the sites weren't chosen for disarmament reasons, but rather to be provocative in nature so Iraq would respond in a predictable fashion,'' Scott Ritter told BBC radio in an interview.
``That response would be used as a justification for military action.''
Ritter was a high-profile member of the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) charged with finding and destroying Iraq's weapons of mass destruction until he resigned in August in a dispute over the conduct of weapons inspections. Iraqi newspapers accused the former U.S. Marine Corps captain of spying for Israel.
Ritter said UNSCOM chief inspector Richard Butler was partly responsible for putting the team into a position where it appeared unlikely to be allowed back into Iraq.
He had ``allowed the United States to manipulate the work of UNSCOM in such a fashion as to justify an air strike.''
The United States and Britain conducted four nights of attacks on Iraqi military installations ending Saturday.
They explained the action on grounds that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was in breach of U.N. Security Council resolutions requiring him to cooperate with UNSCOM inspectors who were looking for equipment to make weapons of mass destruction.
from TPDL 1998-Dec-18, from the Washington Times, by Rowan Scarborough:
Did White House orchestrate a crisis?
The White House orchestrated a plan to provoke Saddam Hussein into defying United Nations weapons inspectors so President Clinton could justify air strikes, former and current government officials charge.
Scott Ritter, a former U.N. inspector who resigned this summer, said Thursday the U.N. Special Commission (Unscom) team led by Richard Butler deliberately chose sites it knew would provoke Iraqi defiance at the White House's urging.
Mr. Ritter also said Mr. Butler, executive chairman of the Unscom, conferred with the Clinton administration's national security staff on how to write his report of noncompliance before submitting it to the U.N. Security Council Tuesday night.
The former inspector said the White House wanted to ensure the report contained sufficiently tough language on which to justify its decision to bomb Iraq.
"I'm telling you this was a preordained conclusion. This inspection was a total setup by the United States," Mr. Ritter said. "The U.S. was pressing [the U.N.] to carry out this test. The test was very provocative. They were designed to elicit Iraqi defiance."
Mr. Ritter resigned from Unscom in August, accusing the Clinton administration of interfering in how and when inspections were carried out.
Mr. Butler, in charge of inspections to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, denied the charges at a U.N. press conference. "Now, I want to say simply, slowly and plainly that any suggestion that that report was not factual, was not objective, is utterly false," he said.
Military sources say the White House notified the Pentagon on Sunday -- the same day that Mr. Butler ordered an end to inspections -- that air strikes would begin this week.
The warning came two days before Mr. Butler submitted his report -- the catalyst the administration cites for Mr. Clinton ordering Wednesday's start of a four-day bombing campaign.
Asked about a Sunday decision before the report was done, Defense Secretary William S. Cohen told reporters, "We have always been prepared to go during the month of December, to take action. We were not going to take any action until such time as a report was filed, we knew what it -- what was said, and the president actually called for a strike."
Mr. Butler defended his report amid charges by Mr. Ritter that the White House helped him write it.
"I want to say it as simply and as plainly as I can. That report was based on the experts of Unscom," he said. "It danced to no one's tune. It was not written for anyone's purposes, including, as some of you have suggested, for the purposes of the United States, for example."
Republican lawmakers, retired military officers and military experts have questioned the attack's timing. Some GOP lawmakers bluntly accused the president of orchestrating a war to shore up waning public support in his impeachment battle.
Administration officials, including Mr. Cohen, vehemently denied that charge.
Pentagon officials, rebutting an impeachment motive, said Thursday that Mr. Cohen and the Joint Chiefs of Staff had been looking for another opportunity to strike since mid-November, when Mr. Clinton called off a planned attack after Saddam pledged to cooperate with the U.N. inspectors.
They said they wanted to take action before the monthlong Islamic holiday Ramadan began this weekend and they grew tired of seeing badly needed budget dollars drained by on-and-off military buildups in the Gulf.
Mr. Ritter's charge that the White House co-authored the Butler report is at odds with the version of events given by administration officials.
For example, as Tomahawks began destroying Iraqi targets Wednesday, Mr. Cohen was asked if he had any advance warning of the report's contents.
"No. There was some speculation about what it might contain," he answered. "And frankly, we had assumed that it might be mixed. We didn't know."
Said Mr. Ritter, "If Bill Cohen said he did not know this report was not going to trigger a military response, he is being disingenuous."
He added, "On Tuesday they worked closely with Richard Butler to make sure the report had no wiggle room. The concept this is the first time they saw the report is ludicrous. They orchestrated with Richard Butler."
Mr. Ritter said he is criticizing the timing of the attack in the media because Mr. Butler has become a "tool" of the White House and has "corrupted" Unscom's independence.
Gen. Henry H. Shelton, Joint Chiefs chairman, said planners had been eyeing Wednesday for a possible attack for weeks because they had the right mix of forces in the region and it also would commence before Ramadan.
If Iraq had not defied inspectors, the military would have lost its "window" of opportunity.
"We were looking at the calendar seeing Ramadan that we've got to be sensitive to," Gen. Shelton said. "And so we had to prepare for a window during which time, if there were a failure to comply, we could take action. And so, it was not until Mr. Butler filed his report that this became a reality as far as we were to go and then the decision had to be made."
Mr. Ritter cited two inspections as proof that Mr. Butler wanted to provoke Saddam. Mr. Ritter said Unscom demanded access to Ba'ath Party headquarters, even though an intelligence report that ballistic missile parts were inside was three months old and, as sources told him, no longer accurate.
Mr. Ritter also said inspectors chose to inspect the building of the Iraqi commission overseeing weapons development even though intelligence reports said it was empty. Indeed, he said, nothing was found.
The White House knew by Dec. 9, when U.N. inspectors were in Baghdad, that the House had planned to debate impeachment as early as Wednesday, Dec. 16. Air strikes began that day.
The Washington Post first reported Wednesday that administration officials "played a direct role in shaping Butler's text during multiple conversations."
"The decision to attack was driven on Sunday," Mr. Ritter said. "Ask Richard Butler why he stopped inspections on Sunday. The answer is, 'We have enough. We have enough points here. Get your team out.'"
from TPDL 1998-Dec-18, by Christopher Ruddy:
Analysis: Maybe Saddam Actually Likes Bill
Washington - As the impeachment of President Richard Nixon loomed, Nixon's chief of staff, Alexander Haig, notified the Joint Chiefs and other key military leaders not to be obey the orders of the President.
Haig's directive may have not been constitutional, but it was a smart move and a good safeguard against the possibility Nixon would use to a foreign policy crisis, such as a war, to save his faltering presidency.
Fast forward to the eve of the impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton.
Literally on the night before the perfunctory debate on the House floor leading to the impeachment vote, Bill Clinton orders American bombers into action over Iraq.
A number of Republicans, including House Majority Whip Tom DeLay, and the Senate Majority leader Trent Lott say the president's motives for this action can not be trusted.
The Clinton action comes as little surprise to those who have seriously studied this administration.
First of all, Bill Clinton has been ruthless in his quest from power, leaving a trail of decimated opponents from his days in rural Arkansas to the halls of power in Washington.
I have related for some time a conversation I had with a Nixon family member. This family member said that the former President always said that he could have saved his presidency by creating a foreign policy crisis.
"This would be easy for a president to do," the family member quoted Nixon. But Nixon "would have never done that, and he would never have risked American lives" the family member explained.
Then the family member added that Nixon said Bill Clinton would not blink an eye to use a foreign policy crisis to save his presidency.
This conversation, now more than two years old, rings today in my ears.
Obviously Nixon grasped who Clinton was. And perhaps Congressional Republicans angered by the latest Clinton attempt to delay his accountability, feel the same way.
Another reason to be disturbed by the latest showdown with Iraq is the larger context of this action.
Only this year, Scott Ritter, the head of the UN weapons inspection team in Baghdad, resigned. Ritter publicly exposed the Clinton administration for its repeated threats to Saddam Hussein while it duplicitously thwarted him and his team's efforts to conduct thorough inspections in Iraq.
Why would our President do such a thing?
That's a good question.
Another one is why Saddam Hussein has consistently taken actions that appear to make Bill Clinton look good.
As Clinton stumbled through his first year as president, he looked rather presidential in June of 1993 when he fired cruise missiles at the headquarters of Iraqi intelligence. Clinton had the missiles fired at night when no one was there. This was done in retaliation for Iraq's plot to assassinate President Bush.
Later, in the fall of 1994, as Clinton's poll numbers looked queasy just before the mid-term Congressional election, Saddam Hussein began moving large numbers of his troops to the Kuwaiti border.
At that time Bill Clinton warned, "we will not allow Saddam Hussein to defy the will of the United States and the international community." The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General John Shalikashvili, said Iraq "will pay the price if he chooses not to withdraw" his troops.
To deal with this menace, Commander-in-chief Bill Clinton, ordered nearly 20,000 troops to the region, along with some 500 military aircraft. He put more than 150,000 troops on alert.
Just two weeks before those 1994 congressional elections, Clinton's actions appeared to pay off big time. Hussein immediately backed down. Clinton looked every bit the hero.
Headlines praised Clinton's resolve. Here's one from the Atlanta Constitution Journal, "Fast U.S. Action Averted War with Iraq."
The next major flare-up with Hussein came about in late August 1996. This was a presidential election year, and the official kickoff of the campaign season was just days away with the upcoming Labor Day weekend.
But poor Clinton challenger Bob Dole never got any headlines because Saddam Hussein began moving his troops into the Kurdish "safe haven" of Iraq.
The Kurds have been a minority group long mistreated by the Iranians, Syrians, Turks, and the Iraqis--and one that has never received much attention from our government until Saddam Hussein began sending tanks into the "safe haven."
The Clinton administration took swift action, by firing some 44 cruise missiles at radar and anti-aircraft batteries in the south of Iraq, far from Hussein's activities against the Kurds in the north of Iraq. The wisdom of using expensive cruise missiles against installations that could be rebuilt in days was questioned ever so briefly, as Saddam quickly removed his troops. Clinton had won another "victory" over Hussein, just two months before the 1996 election.
Though clear and convincing evidence had been available since 1996 that Saddam's programs for developing weapons of mass destruction have been well underway, the issue festered with little Clinton administration action for another two years.
It was not until the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke in January of this year, that the Iraqi matter again reached the crisis stage. Clinton again ordered U.S. military assets to the region, as the Lewinsky scandal subsided, and it appeared that Clinton would survive, the Iraqi crisis also subsided.
He has taken so many actions to help President Clinton at such critical junctures, that it appears Saddam Hussein likes Bill Clinton.
Six years into his presidency, President Clinton has not significantly challenged Hussein, and if Scott Ritter is to believed, Hussein's weapons programs have prospered.
Meanwhile, Hussein must be aware that Bill Clinton has presided over of the largest military build-downs in the nation's history, and that surely will be good for Hussein and the enemies of the United States in the long run.
from http://www.washtimes.com, 1998-Dec-17:
Clinton unleashes missiles on Iraq, stalling House vote to impeach him
By Bill Sammon
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
President Clinton ordered a substantial bombing raid on Baghdad last night on the eve of a vote in the House of Representatives to impeach him.
The biggest attack since the Gulf War, launched 17 hours before the House was to begin debating impeachment, was expected to last up to four days and prompted senior Republicans in Congress to accuse Mr. Clinton of "wagging the dog," contriving a military crisis to divert attention from his domestic debacle.
Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott said he could not endorse the president's action.
"While I have been assured by administration officials that there is no connection with the impeachment process in the House of Representatives, I cannot support this military action in the Persian Gulf at this time," said Mr. Lott, Mississippi Republican.
Shortly after Mr. Clinton announced Operation Desert Fox, the House leadership last night postponed the impeachment debate for at least one day. But the delay came on a day in which more centrist Republicans announced their intention to impeach Mr. Clinton.
In a televised address to the nation as missiles and anti-aircraft guns lit up the night sky over Baghdad, Mr. Clinton said that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had squandered his last chance to comply with U.N. weapons inspectors.
"This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere," Mr. Clinton said. "The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance. And so we had to act and to act now."
A senior Pentagon official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the attack began about 5 p.m. EST (1 a.m. in Baghdad) with sea-launched Tomahawk cruise missiles and strikes by Navy EA-6Bs attack planes against Iraqi air defense radars. He said it will continue in "waves of attacks."
The strikes began in southern Iraq to deter any strikes by Iraqi forces against Kuwait, a second official said.
Chief among the targets are Saddam's many presidential palaces, regarded as key storage points for chemical and biological weaponry and the elements to make them, the first official said.
In Iraq, witnesses said missiles landed around one of the presidential palaces in central Baghdad. Ambulances were seen heading for the palace area as violent explosions rocked the capital. Reports from one Baghdad hospital said at least five persons were killed and 30 others were wounded during the air strikes.
"I have seen around 30 wounded and two dead. They have missile and shell injuries," Hazem Nassiri, director of a teaching hospital in Baghdad's Yarmouk district, told reporters on a government-organized tour of the hospital.
In a radio address after the raids began, Saddam issued a statement urging the Iraqi armed forces and people to "resist and fight them." He said several targets had been bombed by the "wicked people" and urged Iraqis to "fight the enemies of God, enemies of the nation, enemies of humanity."
Mr. Clinton sought to turn criticism of the raid's timing to his advantage.
"Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down," said the president, speaking from the Oval Office. "But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so."
Mr. Clinton said: "In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham. Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors."
The British joined American forces in the bombing campaign. Hundreds of cruise missiles were fired from U.S. Navy ships in the Gulf and B-52 bombers in an opening assault that also included strikes by U.S. and British attack aircraft, officials said.
No U.S. or British casualties were reported in the raids last night.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair said "we have exhausted all other avenues" and accused Saddam of "constant lies, prevarication and breaching of the agreed conditions" on U.N. arms inspections.
France, China and Russia quickly condemned the U.S.-led air strikes. The French government issued a statement saying it "deplores the escalation which led to the American military strikes against Iraq and the grave human consequences which they could have for the Iraqi people."
"No one has the right to act on his own account in the name of the United Nations and claim to be everyone's judge," Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said, adding that the strikes "cannot only complicate the situation in the Gulf but also have more serious international consequences."
One Chinese foreign ministry official joined other nations in demanding the U.S. attack be halted "immediately."
Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright dismissed the international rebuke.
"The truth is they have no [other] answers as to how to make [the Iraqis] comply" with U.N. Security Council demands, she told a news briefing last night. "And the bottom line is that it would be very nice if those who do not support our approach had an approach that worked."
Mr. Clinton, who had called off military strikes against Iraq just last month when Saddam promised yet again to let U.N. officials inspect suspected weapons sites, struck with uncharacteristic suddenness when the Iraqi leader reneged. White House officials said the swiftness of the attack was meant to catch Saddam by surprise and avoid attacking during the Muslim holy season of Ramadan, which starts in less than a week.
Republicans accused Mr. Clinton of abruptly sending U.S. service members into harm's way to preserve his own political viability.
"That's exactly what he's doing," said House Rules Chairman Gerald B.H. Solomon, New York Republican, even before the attack began. "We should not be handling the impeachment while the bombing is going on, and that's exactly the reason he's doing it."
House Majority Leader Dick Armey, Texas Republican, added: "I would like to think that no American president would even consider using the military to help him remain in office. But the fact that Americans are expressing these doubts shows that the president is losing his ability to lead."
Mrs. Albright noted the bombing had the support of Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Jesse Helms of North Carolina.
Late last night, Democrats and Republicans left a two-hour defense briefing convinced that the military strikes were justified, but most Republicans still questioned their timing.
"There is nothing that could not have been supported a month ago, two months or ago or a even a month from now," said Rep. Asa Hutchinson, Arkansas Republican.
Mr. Clinton seemed to be in agreement on this point when he reiterated his call last month for a new government in Iraq.
"The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world," the president said last night. "The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government, a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors."
The United States has ordered the dependents and other personnel -- over the age of 65, pregnant women and youths under 18 --from diplomatic posts in Tel Aviv, Kuwait and the consulate in Jerusalem because of the military action against Iraq, U.S. officials said.
The State Department has also upgraded travel warnings in the Mideast in the Gulf as well as issuing a worldwide travel warning.
- Staff writers Toni Marshall and John Godfrey contributed to this report, which was based in part on wire services.
from http://www.washtimes.com, 1998-Dec-17:
Pentagon officials dispute timing
By Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
The White House notified the Joint Chiefs of Staff on Sunday that President Clinton would order air strikes this week, 48 hours before he saw a United Nations report declaring Iraq in noncompliance with weapons inspectors, it was learned from authoritative sources last night.
Several Pentagon officials have questioned Mr. Clinton's timing to order strikes on the eve of the House impeachment debate.
Pentagon sources said National Security Council aides told the Joint Chiefs to quickly update a bombing plan that was shelved in mid-November and were told that a strike would be ordered in a matter of days.
Israeli spokesman Aviv Bushinsky said yesterday in Jerusalem that President Clinton discussed preparations for an attack with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu just minutes before Mr. Clinton flew home from Israel's Ben-Gurion Airport on Tuesday, ending a three-day peace mission.
White House spokesman Joe Lockhart insisted that Mr. Clinton made the strike decision yesterday based on the U.N. finding of noncompliance.
Nevertheless, a senior congressional source, who asked not to be named, said senior Pentagon officers expressed great skepticism to him about the raids. This source said that the White House eagerness to launch air strikes grew with intensity as a parade of centrist Republicans announced they would vote to impeach the president, in a vote originally scheduled for today.
"I have had senior flag and general officers question the timing," the congressional source said. "I have had senior military officers laughing. I hate to say that. ... Why now? He hasn't built a coalition. He hasn't done anything. Why this timing?"
Reporters and others traveling with the president in the Middle East remarked during last weekend that the president seemed uncharacteristically unconcerned about events unfolding in Washington, and several White House aides expressed puzzlement that the president seemed to have lost his "fighting spirit." Mrs. Clinton was noticeably cool to the president as their visit there continued and drew away from him on several public occasions.
The Joint Chiefs were described as strongly supporting yesterday's attack. They wanted to launch missiles in mid-November, after Saddam Hussein evicted inspectors. The president called off the attack just minutes before "H hour" after Saddam promised to cooperate with inspectors.
Defense Secretary William S. Cohen yesterday strongly disputed charges the attack is linked to impeachment.
"The only factor, from my point of view ... or for anyone else's point of view, was what is the national security interests of the United States," Mr. Cohen said. "We are convinced. We have absolutely no doubt this is the right decision."
Mr. Cohen also said war planners preferred not to attack during Ramadan, the monthlong Islamic observance beginning this weekend.
This is the second time military officers and experts have questioned whether Mr. Clinton timed U.S. military action to take attention away from the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
In August, as Miss Lewinsky finished testimony before a federal grand jury, Mr. Clinton ordered missile strikes against terrorism training camps in Afghanistan and a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan in retaliation for the bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa.
Mr. Clinton's aides initially said the plant produced precursors to VX nerve gas and had ties to Osama bin Laden, the exiled Saudi Arabian who has vowed a reign of terror to rid the Persian Gulf region of Americans.
But administration officials later backed off some claims, saying that precursors were found only in tested soil at the site. Sudan has denied the plant was anything more than a pill factory and invited reporters and international officials to inspect the bombed building.
Republican sources said Congress' near-unanimous support for the August strikes emboldened the White House to use the military again.
"Now they feel they have nothing to lose," the source said.
As planning intensified Monday, one officer said, the White House was particularly interested in a statement made Sunday by House Majority Whip Tom DeLay, Texas Republican.
Asked on NBC's "Meet the Press" if he would believe Mr. Clinton's justifications for an attack, Mr. DeLay answered: "No, because he hasn't done that all this year. Remember about the time he was supposed to give the [Paula Jones] deposition in January, he sent the troops and rattled his sabers at Saddam Hussein? Nothing happened. ... I'm suggesting that the president of the United States cannot be believed, and I think it's reflective in his foreign policy. ... Saddam Hussein knows it, and that's why he jerks his chain all the time."
Said John Hillen, an analyst at the Council on Foreign Relations, "You know this is a 'Wag the Dog.'" He was referring to the movie about a fictitious U.S. president who stages a war in the Balkans to divert attention from a sex scandal.
"The same conditions that existed yesterday will exist tomorrow, will exist next week," Mr. Hillen said. "The U.S. still lacks a strategic goal. We still only have a rudimentary military plan. I'm hard pressed to figure out in my mind some strategic calculation that necessitates an attack tonight, tomorrow or this weekend."
from the New York Post 1998-Dec-17, from http://www.nypostonline.com/news/8539.htm:
WHISTLE-BLOW INSPECTOR: IT'S 'WAG THE DOG'
By CHRISTOPHER FRANCESCANI
Former chief U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter says U.S. officials prodded inspection teams to return to Iraq last month to provoke a crisis to justify bombing.
"What [chief U.N. weapons inspector] Richard Butler did last week with the inspections was a set-up," Ritter told The Post yesterday. "This was designed to generate a conflict that would justify a bombing."
Ritter said U.S. government sources told him three weeks ago when the inspections resumed that "the two considerations on the horizon were Ramadan [the monthlong Muslim holiday beginning this weekend] and impeachment.
"You have no choice but to interpret this as 'Wag the Dog.' You have no choice," he said.
"If you start assessing what's happened since November 19 [when inspectors resumed their work in Iraq], you have to wonder if the U.S. isn't perverting a good cause."
Ritter's comments - and his reference to the movie about a president who created a phony war to divert attention from his domestic problems - came hours before U.S. military forces struck in the Persian Gulf, destroying suspected biological and chemical weapons sites in Iraq.
In mid-November, U.S. and British forces were on the verge of massive bombing attacks on Iraq. The attacks were called off at the last minute after Saddam Hussein reversed Baghdad's Oct. 31 refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors.
After Saddam capitulated, inspectors were rushed back in to resume their duties.
"UNSCOM [the U.N. Special Commission] knew there were no weapons at the sites they were sending their inspectors to. We've been doing this for seven years. We know that when the inspectors leave, Iraq shuffles up the deck, moves the weapons."
"Why then did the U.S. urge these inspectors to carry out immediate inspections?"
Ritter assailed Butler's report, released late Tuesday night, that said Iraq was not complying with the inspections. That report was in contrast with one released by the International Atomic Energy Agency which said Iraq was complying.
Ritter insists Butler's report - while necessary - was politically motivated.
"If you dig around, you'll find out why Richard Butler yesterday ran to the phone four times. He was talking to his [U.S.] National Security adviser. They were telling him to sharpen the language in his report to justify the bombing."
Ritter quit the inspections team in August, saying the Clinton administration and the United Nations had stymied the efforts of inspectors to uncover Saddam's weapons of mass destruction.
He said that before he quit, inspectors had acquired detailed information about where weapons were hidden - but the Iraqis have since had time to move them and probers will have to begin the process all over again.
Yesterday, Ritter charged that the only way to achieve the objective of disarming Iraq is to demand - under threat of a crippling, large-scale military attack - that they not only turn over their weapons, but detail for inspectors exactly how and where they diverted the weaponry to avoid detection.
A limited air attack on Iraq will achieve very little, Ritter said, though he said it would be in keeping with the Clinton administration's latest policy of containment with Iraq.
"No inspector should go back until Iraq admits it has lied and details how they hid their weapons.
"Instead, we send inspectors back in to continue the failed process of inspections. There are still weapons in Iraq. There's no doubt about that.
"But we've been doing this since 1991 and its not working."
from WorldNetDaily, from Joseph Farah's Between the Lines 1998-Dec-17, from http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_btl/19981217_xcbtl_wag_dog.shtml:
Wag the dog
OK, let's get this straight. With the House of Representatives scheduled today to begin its first impeachment hearing in 130 years, the president yesterday decided to bomb Iraq.
Is it a matter of coincidence? Oh sure. And Santy Claus is coming a week from tonight. Yet, many in Washington are pretending these two issues are unrelated. I don't know about you, but I haven't met a single real American in the last 12 hours who isn't 100 percent convinced that Clinton bombed Iraq for one reason -- to forestall an impeachment debate he was losing and a vote that was not going his way.
Why on earth would the raid have to be conducted yesterday. Why not two weeks ago? Why not two months ago? Why not next week?
Think about the illogic, folks. For more than six years, the Iraq's Saddam Hussein, despite a series of promises to the contrary, has defied U.N. arms inspectors. Last week's betrayal was hardly unique. During the Persian Gulf War and thereafter, the heaviest air bombardments in world history failed to eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. But now, a vastly inferior force facing a 48-hour time limit is supposed to achieve what Desert Storm could not.
But as big a mistake as this misbegotten-bombing raid represents, a larger gaffe is the postponement of impeachment proceedings. They should not be put off -- not for one day, not for one hour.
Yesterday I listened with dismay to Republicans and Democrats alike in Congress diss the idea that that the impeachment hearings prompted the bombing. I have yet to meet one normal American citizen who thinks the timing of the raid was motivated by anything but the hearings.
If ever there was a compelling illustration of why we need to proceed with impeachment immediately, Clinton has provided it with this "Wag the Dog" scenario. The Iraq attack shows why it is a pressing national security matter to remove Bill Clinton from office. This is a president who is putting U.S. servicemen and women in harm's way purely, solely, only because of concern for his own personal and political future.
After all, the United States, despite six years of Bill Clinton as president, is still the most powerful nation on the face of the earth. Why should it allow a tin-pot dictator like Saddam Hussein to influence our own domestic political agenda?
Bill Clinton says some nasty things about Saddam Hussein, but, the reality is, Iraq's leader is the president's greatest political ally -- and vice versa. Both Hussein and Clinton are playing "beat the clock." They are both involved in stalling for time. Clinton was hours away from impeachment. Hussein was hours away from being caught red-handed with weapons of mass destruction.
So they play into each other's hands. They are perfect foils. Hussein's ace in the hole is to tie the U.S. government up in knots, to provoke domestic dissent as the Vietnamese Communists did, to raise enough doubts in the minds of Americans that their will to fight is dissipated. Even as U.S. warplanes bomb his country to smithereens, Hussein has won a political victory by buying time for Clinton and postponing a historic vote in the House of Representatives. Clinton, of course, was grateful for a little breathing room.
In a way, I'm afraid House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde may have unintentionally invited this raid by announcing the hearings were set for this morning -- and then telegraphing that they would be called off if it became necessary to attack Iraq. His announcement made the decision for the president a no-brainer, an inevitability. Suddenly it became vitally important to attack Iraq immediately. Clinton had been losing support in the House for days. The historic impeachment vote against him was a given. With an attack, he could buy more time and hope for, well, a political miracle.
What would any self-respecting liar and reprobate do in a similar situation?
Call it a Hail Mary pass -- or, maybe, a Hail Monica. With seconds on the clock, fourth and 10 and behind by six, the Comeback Kid had to do what he had to do.
Yes, folks, he is that unscrupulous. Remember, this is the president who refused to serve in Vietnam in 1968. Another young man may have died in his place back then so he could rise to the highest office in the land. But his only concern then is his only concern today -- protecting his own rear-end.
But, on the tragic side, how many American soldiers and innocent Iraqi children will die so that this president can continue to hide from justice -- to subvert the Constitution?
Even the suspicion that the commitment of military forces could have something to do with presidential scandal is reason enough to wrap up this impeachment business quickly and finally.
from WorldNetDaily, from Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.'s column 1998-Dec-17, from http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_rockwell/19981217_xclro_the_bill_a.shtml:
The Bill and Saddam Show
On the eve of impeachment, and holy seasons in the east and west, the curtain once again rises on the Bill and Saddam Show, starring the usual cast of characters and with the same bloody and predictable ending. They both retain power, and their people continue to suffer under their lies and duplicity. Call it statecraft or a devil's ploy, but don't call it "national defense."
It's the oldest trick in the political book. Distract the public from a political crisis at home with a phony one abroad. Even after "Wag the Dog," the popular movie ridiculing the White House penchant for drumming up foreign bogeymen, the Clinton administration has pulled the caper again. The peacenik generation again uses war to try to save its skin.
It makes no sense for Congress to trust Clinton on war and peace as it prepares to impeach him for pathological lying. Tragically and stupidly, some Republicans are ready to believe every word. Of course, the White House might have calculated that some of its opponents are suckers for killing foreigners. No one said the Clinton administration lacks a survival instinct.
Two days before the administration settled on Iraq, the usual suspects -- identified only as "U.S. intelligence sources" in the media -- floated another trial balloon. We were told that terrorists allied with the shadowy Osama Bin Laden were planning to bomb a U.S. city. Recall that this was the same trump card Clinton used to justify a hit on a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory, an action that violated the Constitution but took Monica off the front pages for a few days.
Perhaps this time, the administration found the Bin Laden excuse too lame, too spent, too uninteresting. Or perhaps their internal polling showed more public fear of the demon Saddam Hussein. In any case, the Bin threat was quickly dropped for the more tried-and-true excuse that Saddam was not cooperating with the friendly U.N. inspectors crawling all over that once-sovereign country.
Even amidst the killing, isn't it time we ask why Iraq wouldn't cooperate with U.N. inspectors? Might there be another reason besides its desire to hide chemical and biological weapons?
Iraq has been subject to U.S.-U.N. sanctions since 1991. More than 90,000 Iraqi children die every year due to disease and malnutrition because of these sanctions, an instrument of war deemed unjust since the time of St. Augustine. Meanwhile, Clinton spends his time in Palestine worrying about children whose fathers have been casualties in a conflict he can do nothing about.
Clinton could have ended these murderous sanctions long ago. Instead, he has presided over that country's further demolition and impoverishment. But that hasn't been enough. The U.S. has called for the overthrow of Saddam and made clear its intention to keep sanctions in place until the end of time, not a policy Big Oil has seen fit to oppose. After all, Iraq could be selling vast quantities of the sweetest crude on earth, to the great benefit of American consumers.
Meanwhile, after seven years of searching, not one "weapon of mass destruction" -- or any evidence of one -- has been found. Most recently, the U.S.-U.N. inspection squad sought to search, and to make copies of documents from, the ruling party's political headquarters. And we know that the U.S. is funding various front groups to overthrow the government, even as Clinton's lackeys complain about an attempted coup d'etat against him at home.
Would the CIA and its front groups find internal political information from Iraq useful? Certainly. And is the Iraqi government likely -- even at the cost of bombings -- to turn such information over to its sworn enemies? Doubtful. This fact remains: there are no chemical weapons in the file drawers of the downtown, two-story headquarters of the Ba'ath Party. The demand to inspect this building was a provocation, and Saddam responded predictably.
So, allegedly because the Iraqis refuse to allow an office building to be searched -- and actually because it will derail the impeachment process and generally advance the warfare state -- Clinton is sacrificing the lives of foreigners who have never done anything to us, and risking U.S. troops. It's important, after all, not to go down in history as William the Impeached.
It should be clear that Saddam and Bill need each other. Saddam needs a foreign enemy on which to blame all his domestic troubles. And the U.S. embargo and periodic bombings allow him to keep a tighter grip over his own people. Bill needs a foreign enemy too, particularly one who heads a far-away country few Americans care a whit about. Can Clinton count on the patriotism reflex to cover up for his misrule? Surely Americans have not been drained of all power of political discernment.
Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. is president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama.
from WorldNetDaily, from the Defending America column of 1998-Dec-18, by Col. David Hackworth (ret.), from http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_hackworth/19981218_xcdha_will_ameri.shtml:
Will America sink
with commander-in-chief?
Are the Clinton spinmeisters right? Is President Clinton really indispensable? More and more the roars from the president's camp say the sky will fall if Clinton goes down. Clinton's now being presented as, "The most indispensable man in the world." The message is: if he goes, the sun will cease to shine, fruit will die on the vine, the nation will be devastated by a seven year plague and Jay Leno won't be able to get a laugh. I first learned at the tender age of nineteen as a squad leader in Korea that no one is indispensable when my Army commander, General Walton Walker was killed during the most desperate retreat in U.S. history. He died as his Eighth Army, smashed by the Chinese, was reeling in defeat. Thousands of his soldiers had been wounded and killed, the weather was below zero causing countless casualties from frost bite and there was little food, winter gear, or ammo. In December of 1950, at the most critical moment of our withdrawal, as we slugged our way out of one ambush after the other, we'd lost our top leader. The panic merchants played this as the final blow. A few days later General Matthew Ridgway replaced General Walker and within a few weeks we were a different Army. No longer an Army with its head down, beaten, but an Army on the attack. Our bayonets were thrust forward and we had the Chinese on the run. Almost two years later, on an icy hill in Central Korea, just as the sun was inching its way up in the eastern sky I briefed four good NCOs on an operation we'd conduct that night. From a vantage point -- we had to lay low because we knew we were under enemy observation -- I walked them through the plan, pointing out objectives on the ground, rally points, artillery concentrations and return routes. When I was satisfied they were jake, I crawled back towards my company C.P. while they worked out all the coordination stuff. Just as I was about to enter my bunker I heard a WHOOSH and a ground shaking crunch. Ugly, black 120-mm mortar smoke rose from the position I had just left. I ran back to find one leader dead, one with gaping chest wounds and the other two minus legs. We patched up the wounded and evacuated the casualties. I had lost four of my best leaders. Who would conduct the raid that night? Where would I find four replacements? But as darkness came, the Raiders crossed the line of departure on schedule and went on to accomplish the mission. Almost twenty years later, in a different war, I was laid up in hospital in Long Binh, South Vietnam. I had zigged when I should have zagged and a bullet had made a mess of my leg. I begged the doctor to let me out early, insisting I could fight my battalion on crutches. The Doc had been a World War 11 infantryman who'd fought from Normandy to Belgium until a piece of hot steel had ended the war for him. He knew how I felt and what was driving me to get back to my troops: I was convinced I was the only man alive that could keep my men alive. The doc was about to let me out early when my brigade commander, Colonel John Hayes, the finest combat leader I have ever known, arrived. "Tell him, John, tell him how important it is that I get back to the HARDCORE," I pleaded to this savvy battle leader. Colonel Hayes took a glass from my bed-stand, filled it with water, put his finger in it and pulled it out. "Hack, you're as indispensable as that hole my finger just left in the water. Major Mergner is doing a great job running your battalion. Maybe even as good a job as you." He turned to the Doc, "Keep him here until he heals up right." I cooled my heels for another week, but I learned once again that every good leader is missed -- as an individual -- but there's always someone to pick up the slack. No one is indispensable, be he a combat leader or a president.