posted 12-17-98 07:11 AM ET            

-The vote that was supposed to go ahead today would most likely go against Bill
-A delay of a couple of days will hardly change its outcome - if anything it will make people more suspicious of Bill and make his situation even worse.

One might argue that Bill hopes that during the bombing, the voting will not go ahead as that would be seen as not patriotic. I think this argument is flawed, as the air-strike can not go on forever (most likely a couple of days) and Bill has more to lose than to gain.

Clinton's main hope is that the impeachment will not get 2/3 majority in the senate.

I'm not trying to argue now that the attack was justified, but if it was going to happen, the timing was necessary from the military/political point of view and was triggered by the UNSCOM report.

So, as I said earlier, suggesting that Bill think this will help his situation is quite silly, as in the best case it will not affect it whatsoever and in the worst case will swing more people against him and get him impeached.

His best bet was just to sit and wait for the Senate vote, which would most likely fail to impeach him. Attacking Iraq for just political reasons would be a completely unreasonable gamble, and the result we're seeing now could be easily predicted even by Clinton.

posted 12-17-98 12:29 PM ET            

CAUSE: Saddam & Co. repeatedly defy UN resolutions, and after years of this, on 5 Nov. the security council decides they've had enough and votes to support action to bring about compliance. Military or otherwise is not stated, but two days later, they pull the inspection teams out, so I don't think they're deal with diplomacy here.

EFFECT: On 15-16 Nov., as a military strike has already been initiated, Saddam changes his mind. The strike is called off, but Clinton says that the next time Iraq fails to allow UNSCOM full access, a strike will happen immeadiately, without warning and withour further diplomatic efforts. A few days later, it's announced that Iraqi compliance will be determined by Burton's report. At this point, nobody knows when the impeachment hearings will begin, and in fact, it looks as though Clinton will win the vote in the full house, so he has nothing to fear.

CAUSE: Iraq fails to comply with its memorandum of understanding with Sec. Gen. Annan from February in regards to allowing UNSCOM total access.

EFFECT: Burton writes his report on Iraqi compliance, stating that they have refused the vast majority of requests UNSCOM has made.

CAUSE: The report hits Clintons desk. He reads it.

EFFECT: It starts raining cruise missiles in Iraq the next day, without warning, and without further diplomatic efforts (isn't seven years enough?)

posted 12-17-98 12:51 PM ET            

However, it can only be a delaying tactic, if in fact, Cliton has done it to avoid impeachment. The House may yet wote for impeachment hearings, but we know full well that getting 67 senators to vote for impeachment is about as likely as Saddam revealing his entire arsenal without air strikes.

MSNBC last reported that a poll found that 61% of U.S. citizens thought the strike was trigered by Iraqi noncompliance. 27% thought it was "Wag the Dog" politics.

posted 12-17-98 01:41 PM ET            

I believe that air strikes against Iraq are in order and I firmly support the action. What troubles me so greatly is that we have a President in office whose motives in ordering the attack can legitimately be questioned. The fact that there is this thread in an international forum embarasses me. Americans should be able to trust their duly elected representative to be acting in the interest of the people (yes, the President is supposed to represent and bring honor to me as an American). There should be no question in our minds that his motives are pure. The fact that the question is there, even if it is among a minority, is a strong example of the mistrust that people have in Clinton.

I desperately want to believe that the President ordered the strikes without considering its effects on his own impeachment. Unfortunately, this is not the first time that he has been accused of 'Wag the Dog' politics. The mistrust in Clinton is not because he wanted to keep his private life private, it is because he has a consistent record of misrepresenting himself, abusing the power of his elected offices (including Gov.), and doing everything he can to avoid the natural consequences of his own choices (even obstructing justice).

Now, concerning the impeachment. The congress should continue with the impeachment hearings and vote for the same reason that Clinton and his supporters justify the timing of his airstrikes. While the President claims that the domestic situation did not influence the timing of the strikes, the timing of the strikes should not affect the domestic situation. Congress would be wise to take enough time out to pass a resolution supporting the attack on Iraq and then get back to business.

posted 12-17-98 05:03 PM ET            

Clinton:I must resign

Gore:Alright! I'm President! Who should be my Vice-President?

Clinton:How about me?

Gore kay! My first act of office is to resign.

Clinton:WooHoo! Al, i nominate you as my new vice-president

---------------------------------------------

posted 12-17-98 06:52 PM ET            

(Unless you think that Clinton put Blair up to it to hide the fact that it really was a Wag the Dog incident.)

posted 12-17-98 07:13 PM ET            

How many military officers or company presidents have lost their jobs due to sexual misconduct? Why should the public employ and pay for a sex addict as President of the nation, when they won't pay for them in their armed forces?

posted 12-17-98 09:07 PM ET            

At the start, it was "Sanctions 'till Sadam is gone" with an occasional HARM or Tomohawk lauched.

Then, "Sanctions 'till the weapons of mass destruction are gone"

Then, We won't let him regain control of northern Iraq, so we'll launch cruise missiles at southern Iraq. - result: Sadam controls the north.

Then, major showdown. Sadam backs down, but US get's major bad press around the world, so...

It is "Pretend Inspections." According to Scott Ritter, During this period of time the US vetoed any suprise inspections of sensative sites (i.e., they didn't want a conflict).

And now that the Pres is in serious trouble it is hard ass time.

In the end nothing will be served by these attacks, thus ... NOT JUSTIFIED

posted 12-18-98 01:58 AM ET            

I believe, like others have mentioned, that Clinton AND HIS POLITICAL ANALYSTS could figure out that this sort of action would cause "Wag the Dog" outcry. But what could he do? After 6 years of diplomacy, the only recourse left was air strikes, especially with Ramadan coming up. If the air strikes were in Ramadan, the rest of the Mid-East would have been in an uproar. Ought he have gained UN Security Council support? Sure, but they would have denied him. Should he have let the report go? In that case, no doubt, people would have cried out at how ineffectual he is for not taking action, the domestic problems are too much?

Ever wonder what the real cause is for his perceived lack of trust? It's cause he did a bad thing IN HIS PERSONAL LIFE,and was extremely evasive, to the point of being illegal. As a result, everyone else double checks his moves, even though any objective mind could see that the strikes were called for, and well timed. It's the cynical minds of the public, cultivated by the media, that make him seem to lose effectiveness. But funny enough, this whole deal hasn't seemed to mess with the Prez's judgment. He's done what he's always done in public affairs. Now whether you agree with his stances on such things is a whole different discussion.

Anyone who thinks Clinton was trying to get the people behind him/delay the impeachment is crazy. After these strikes (which won't go on more than a week, probably less), the media will have nothing better to do than to pick up the impeachment again, so there was no possible gain out of a "maneuver"(sp). CLINTON WILL NOT BE ABLE TO WIGGLE OUT OF THE IMPEACHMENT. If anything, it's the spineless Congressmen's fault, for thinking they had to delay (I understand they have to do some paper work. But if they care as much as they say, it shouldn't really be an issue in the impeachment process). He simply did what was called for given the evidence at hand.

Oh, and Imran, about abuse of power for getting Monica a job, guess what? A friend of mine was reaing a college job-search magazine, which said that something like 75% of all hires, out of college, in this case, happen due to connections! Not going to lots of interviews, but flat out connections. And because of the presidency's perceived position, it's a hell of a connection to use, so why not use it? I'm sure Monica isn't the only intern to use the president in that way.

posted 12-18-98 02:04 AM ET            

executive privildge with his lawyers and secret service. This is very important issue that needed to go to the courts, becuase the Secret Service is not in the bussiness of spying on our president, it is there to protect the President.

Obstruction of Justice, he helped Monice get another job, for goodness-sake! He would be a scum-bag if he didn't help a "good" employee.

All charges are overstated and mired in partisan politics.

posted 12-18-98 03:25 AM ET            

At least Clinton has a brain.

Its not like he is the first Prez to hid his Sex life. Everyone from FDR to Washington had other women. Not like this is a new thing.

If we could not even impeach Nixon for breaking every Constitutional right possible we should not impeach Clinton for having Sex..

posted 12-18-98 09:11 AM ET            

But on the side of the people in the legislature, I suppose!

"O, I don't think our international friends know what impeachment really means."

Well, I know... got the US constitution on my table right next to me...

"Abuse of Power, well look what he did with executive privildge with his lawyers and secret service. Obstruction of Justice, he helped Monice get another job, for goodness-sake! This President is guilty, guilty, guilty!"

Invoking a legal remedy is NOT obstruction of justice. It was before the courts, and they decided it. This argument should be about the most stupid on the rabid right agenda. And the job thing, well, where's the evidence ? Starr twisted it, and even by that he hasn't got a compelling case. And your last sentence could come from the spanish inquisition (so I didn't expect it... ).

posted 12-18-98 04:51 PM ET            

As for 32 scandals, please name them, I can only think of a few...

And funny, forall the problems Clinton has had due to his personal life, I think he's acted pretty true to himself (and his stances, at least no worse than any other politician) in govt. affairs, and will be known as a decent president, who got black-marked by a cynical media, and partisan politics. Unless of course he is successfully kicked out.

-Bok

posted 12-18-98 06:26 PM ET            

TSA: Janet Reno has NEVER done anything that in any way could be consitered "partisen." See is one of the few people in Washington that could be consitered in any way honist.

posted 12-18-98 06:43 PM ET            

I have a question. What is in the oath of the office of President of the US? I remeber vague items, but If someone could post it.

Second. Yes, the impeachment process is partisan. But the real question should be: "should it be?"

As I understand it, most of Clinton's problems stem from the fact that he was asked under OATH during the Paula Jones deposition whether he had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. He answer No (paraphrasing).

If I did that. I would be in jail. Now should those questions have been asked that is a different debate (and where Clinton's private life argument has merit)

However, I think that we all can agree that the office of the President has been damaged (whether you believe that Starr did it or Clinton did it) So much so that we have Letterman and Leno openly mocking the office (they were pretty funny). We have the Russian Senate (Duma) making fun of the president and passing insulting resolutions.

The question becomes, what is necessary to resotre the office. I lean toward his resigning. However, Clinton firmly believes (and I agree with him) that the Senate will not vote to convict.

posted 12-18-98 06:45 PM ET            

Operation Desert Fox - how odd to name a war after a Nazi field marshal - proceeded apace yesterday. Details remained sketchy, but there were no reports of U.S. casualties, for which the nation can be grateful.
This is unlikely to remain the case for long - war is risky business even apart from enemy action - and so presently there should be mothers in America asking themselves a very ugly question:

Did my child die to preserve Bill Clinton's tenuous grip on the presidency?

This might be an uninformed question, given the complexities both of the now-stalled impeachment process and of the chain of events leading up to the ongoing aerial assault on Iraq.

But it would not be an unfair question. This is because - it is necessary to be blunt here - the president is a liar.

If he will lie openly to the American people - and twice under oath - about Monica Lewinsky, why is it reasonable to believe that he will tell the truth about his reasons for sending airmen into harm's way?

Certainly there is good cause for bombing Iraq; indeed, there is cause for going well beyond bombing and taking out Saddam Hussein himself. The man is an objective threat to peace and stability in a region of vital economic and strategic significance to the United States - and he has been for years.

But what's being undertaken at the moment won't achieve even the limited objectives advanced by the Clinton administration: To degrade Iraq's ability to manufacture, deploy and deliver weapons of mass destruction.

Degradation is not destruction. The distinction boils down to this: Sooner or later -sooner, most likely - the entire exercise will have to be repeated.

Yesterday, the Pentagon said that many of the 200-plus Tomahawk land-attack missiles fired at Iraq hit their targets - happy news, given that the weapons cost more than $1 million a copy.

Gen. Hugh Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the Tomahawks had destroyed buildings - but admitted with chagrin that some missile strikes were ''not as successful'' as others.

In other words, the Navy has been blowing holes in the desert again. Just as it did in August, the last time the president got in Monica trouble and trained Tomahawks on the African-embassy bombers - but missed them.

Again, there are many good reasons to shoot at Saddam and his death factories.

Just as there are many good reasons to believe that Bill Clinton is doing the right thing for the wrong reason.

In 1991, America went to war with a sense of purpose and pride. Now it's with the wholly legitimate suspicion that soliders, sailors and airmen are going into combat mostly to cover the president's rear.

Bill Clinton degrades everything he touches, which is one more reason to speed the impeachment process along.

Regarding which, debate on impeachment will begin in the House today, despite Democratic leader Dick Gephardt's opposition: ''We strongly object to this matter coming up ... on any day in which our young men and women in the military are in harm's way.''

By that standard, of course, Operation Desert Fox could last until Jan. 21, 2001.

But this is a dangerous world. America needs a leader it can trust. Now.

posted 12-18-98 10:06 PM ET            

Oh, one last thing. Correct me if I'm wrong, but about the propriety of asking about someone's sex life in court...
Wasn't the bill that allowed that signed into law by Clinton?

posted 12-18-98 10:20 PM ET            

Remember Reagen? The whole Iran Contra? He not only had people lie to the American People, but also Congress. And yet people still like him. Even though he did more to hurt this nation then some people have done in wars against us...

O yea Reno is very non-partisen. If she had wanted this whole thing could not even exsite. But she did her job. No matter what the Republicans like to say.

posted 12-18-98 10:29 PM ET            

�Female Candidate 1: I swear, I will never use my power to get another 'Monica Lewinsky' to perform oral sex on me.
�Male Candidate 1: If elected, I will undergo chemical castration for the duration of my term.
�Female Candidate 2: I have no previous sexual record...I'm a celibate nun!
�Male Candidate 2: I will not only chemically castrate myself, but will turn my self into an androgenous Revived Heaven's Gate Cultist to prevent myself from having any sort of affair while in office.

-So who wins?
I'm serious about that, too.

Now...about the entire coincidence...yes, it does have a strange ring to it. Clinton is giving Iraq some of what it deserves, but choosing this time of all possible times...just a wee bit suspicious.

posted 12-18-98 10:46 PM ET            

If Clinton gets impeached by a vote in Congress (this is very likely), he then has to stand trial in the Senate, who take a vote on whether to sack him or not. This is NOT likely.

So the Republicans get Clinton to trial, drag him through this process in the middle of the most important foreign affair of his term, merely to lose the vote. Clinton stays Pres, the public (who are against this according to opinion poles), end up hating the Republicians for their stupidity and partisanship, and the Democrats' somehow emerge with a victory from what should have been an embrassasing, demoralizing defeat. Amazing! Is there no political sense at all in the Republican party?

As I see it, Clinton 'Got Lucky'. The Iraqi crisis occured at the same time as the impeachment hearings. (Lets not forget that these hearings are being rushed through early before the newly elected congress arrives, a measure instigated by the Republicans to ensure a YES vote while they still have majority support). Any suggestion that the President colluded with the Pentagon, the U.N ambassador (Madeline Albright), and the U.K merely to delay the hearing is, quite frankly, ricidulous, and shows how narrow minded the Republican party has been in its pursuit of Bill Clinton.

Whatever his crimes (and I include whitewater and the campaign funding inconsistancies), they are diminished by the fact that they do NOT directly affect the effectiveness of the office of the president or American as a whole. He may be liable for criminal charges when he steps down. He certainly deserves to be censured for making America and the presidency look stupid. But this is not grounds for impeachment.

posted 12-18-98 11:38 PM ET            

In this case, perjury amounts to a technicality - a mechanism for impeachment - rather than a good reason for it. (I suspect that a Judge would be rather more lenient on a man who lied to the court about an affair than someone who gave a bribe to a high official. And where does this bribery thing come from anyway. Perjury also has a higher penalty than most traffic offenses. So what?)

Anyway, that doesn't answer my question, which was: How can the Republican party be so stupid?

posted 12-19-98 12:40 AM ET            

Whether the American people will respond negatively to the impeachment trial remains to be seen (although the congressional elections may provide a good pointer, with an unanticipated swing towards the democrats). Certainly some Republicans in open electorates may be disadvantaged by this affair (but this is entirely outside my area of experience).

posted 12-19-98 03:15 PM ET            

europeans - US
(mostly)

direct democracy - democracy
representative democracy - republic

2. oath: Art II section 1 last para: "I do selemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States"

3. perjury: the statement constituting perjury has to be material for the case; as the Jones case has been thrown out, many lawyers say that Clinton did not commit perjury. So the perjury thing is in no way a given fact.

posted 12-19-98 09:54 PM ET            

True, he's not the first to lie to TAP. But he's the first to do it in court under oath and get caught. There is a rather important difference between lying on TV and lying on the stand (or else every ad writer in the country would be writing from prison). Like I said, the only way to judge a candidate is by their past and actions, not by the milkwarm pap they spew on TV spots.

Reno has been fairly partisan. There are several important investigations that have been put off or denied by her, such as the transfer of national security info to China by one of the biggest Democratic donors that Clinton shielded (along with a whole host of other fundraising schemes); that rabid minorities rights dork the congress refused to put in office but that Clinton put in as "acting" anyway, and so on. I bet she was thinking at the time "Well, got to give them something or they'll come after me, and they can't possibly get him on this" and has since been trying to make it up to the President.

Shining 1, I think that the Republicans are doing this not for political gain -- not even they are stupid enough to think it'll win them support from anyone but the Religious Right -- but because they have some lingering sense of right. This investigation happened, this evidence turned up, the impeachment process MUST be initiated. If it is doomed to fail in the Senate because of partisanship, it must nevertheless be started, and history will be the judge.
As for the hearings being rushed through, since everyone seems to care so much about the opinions of TAP, well, they want it over with soon, yes? ;P In any case, there's questions whether or not a different House can take up the impeachment matter where it stands; as I understand things, they'd probably have to start all over with the Starr report.

As for his actions not harming the country (or that the President deals with running the country)...
There are three branches of government:
The Judicial, ie. the courts, who interpret the laws.
The Legislative, ie. congress, who write the laws.
The Executive, ie. President, who execute the laws.
See the problem here? Obstruction of Justice by the President is a threat to the system of checks and balances, a threat to the basics of the Constitution. A judge lying under oath is serious enough to warrant impeachment; a President lying under oath is just as serious.

As to the Perjury charge being unwarranted: don't forget there are (well, were) two charges of perjury. One in the Paula Jones case (it didn't pass) and one before the Grand Jury (it did). The second is by far the more serious and clear-cut. However, the first is by no means not perjury. Establishing other sexual relations with subordinates seems perfectly central to a sexual harrasment suit, although it was thrown out because the Lewinsky affair was lied about and the pattern wasn't established. If they hadn't hit a settlement, they'd be back in court.

To clarify matters a little bit, I call us a representative democracy because we elect people to represent us in the goverment, and those people are (theoreticaly) voting in our best interest. In a true democracy, everyone would be able to vote on all the laws, not on who votes for the the laws.

posted 12-20-98 01:17 AM ET            

Can I call them or what? The Republicans go ahead and impeach Clinton, he calls off the air strike having accomplished nothing of any military, political, or diplomatic value.

posted 12-20-98 12:13 PM ET            

1.) About the attack on Iraq(which finished yesterday). Clinton didn't pick the time for the attacks, Saddam did. Saddam knew the impeachment hearings for Clinton were a few days away, & any attack on Iraq would immediately draw the skepticism of the American public(which it obviously has). Therefore Saddam knew if he screwed with anyone now, Clinton would be unlikely to keep to his word. Well, Saddam screwed with us, & Clinton just kept his resolve. This has nothing to do with hoping to stall the impeachment hearings, this was to tell Saddam we're people of our words.

2.) To Imran, & everyone who is saying Clinton did this & Clinton did that. If you believe in innocent until proven guilty so much, please use 'allegedly' before any of the crimes. To be fair, Clinton was never convicted of anything. Even if he did do it, & you know he did, the courts don't, so use allegedly.

Nitpicking is fun....

posted 12-21-98 03:17 AM ET            

Just a couple of quick comments:

To BoomBoom: In regard to your statement that Clinton is our best president in along time, to what are you refering? I agree that he his distinguished himself from Nixon and Kennedy (in not very respectable ways) but aside from that I can not think of a single positve thing that he has done.

To Yo_Yo_Yo_Hey: In response to your statement that Sadam picked the timing of this war, I would beg to differ. Sadam has been constant though most of this. The only variable has been Clinton. A few months ago the chief weapon inspector, Ritter, resigned due to the fact that the United States had all but told him they wanted to avoid a conflict with Iraq. This brings us to the present where we recently bombed Iraq. According to Ritter for the past month the U.S. of A. has been tring to provoke Iraq. Clinton has known for weeks what would be in the report that "caused" this incident, yet he chose not to act. He acted instead when the house was about to vote for impeachment. Why? Also let us look at what we targeted. To "degrade" Sadam's arsenal we chose to not target it but instead other targets. Should we not have also destroyed his weapons? I beleive that we should have. Why didn't we? It would have lasted more than 4 days and by then in Clinton's mind impeachment would be over so what did he care? Survival is everything to this man, everything and (indeed everyone) else is a mere pawn to Clinton.

Well that's my two cents worth. Please critize any points that I made, please don't critize my spelling, it marks the bane of my existance.