|
Absolutely amazing to read it now. http://www.conservativeusa.org/wagdog.htmDID CLINTON LIE OR ABUSE POWER IN ORCHESTRATING RATIONALE FOR PRE-IMPEACHMENT WAR? The Washington Times (12/18/98, p. 1) reports "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 yesterday 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 to carry out this test. The test was very provocative. They were designed to elicit Iraqi defiance.’..."
TIMING IS EVERYTHING
"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."
EVIDENCE CONFIRMS THAT CLINTON'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL ATTACK ON IRAQ WAS A LONG-PLANNED POLITICAL PLOY
Robert Novak points out that (The Washington Post, 12/21/98, p. A29) "As Clinton took Palestinian applause in Gaza last Monday , secret plans were underway for an air strike coinciding with the House impeachment vote. The president had time to consult with Congress and the U.N. Security Council but took no step that might stay his hand.
"As whenever a president pulls the trigger, Clinton's top national security advisers supported him. But majors and lieutenant colonels at the Pentagon, whose staff work undergirds any military intervention, are, in the words of a senior officer, ‘200 percent opposed. They disagree fundamentally.’ They know the attack on Iraq was planned long before Butler's report and consider it politically motivated."
U.N. VIOLATIONS PROP WAS A CLINTON-SCRIPTED PROP
According to Rowan Scarborough (The Washington Times, 12/17/98, p. A1), "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....
"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...."
U.S. MILITARY OFFICIALS WERE SKEPTICAL
"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?’..."
GOP CONGRESS DID NOT OPPOSE POLITICALLY TIMED UNCONSTITUTIONAL RAIDS ON SUDAN AND AFGHANISTAN
"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...."
WHOM WILL CLINTON ASSAULT DURING THE SENATE TRIAL?
"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.’"
RON PAUL AND PETER DeFAZIO CHALLENGED THE PREMISE
Novak reported further that (The Washington Post, 12/21/98, p. A29) "only two members flatly questioned going to war without war aims: Republican Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, a former Libertarian candidate for president who mostly votes conservative, and Democratic Rep. Peter DeFazio of Oregon, a militant liberal.
"‘We have granted too much authority to our president to wage war,’ Paul told the House. DeFazio's remarks placed Bill Clinton in a succession of presidents who ‘have run roughshod over weak-kneed congressional leaders.’
"DeFazio also raised a point hardly mentioned. After attending the closed-door briefing of Congress Thursday night, he concluded: ‘I am not aware of any immediate threat that justifies this nearly unilateral action by U.S. forces.’
"Soft-spoken Gen. Brent Scowcroft, adviser to Republican presidents but no partisan battler, calls ‘appalling’ the timing of the attack just before the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. The real question, apart from impeachment and Ramadan, is raised by DeFazio: Should the attack have been launched at all?"
WHO WILL SPEAK FOR THE CONSTITUTION?
As the Constitution makes clear, the President of the United States does have the authority to take defensive action against an aggressor nation, but he has no authority whatsoever to make war against a country which has neither attacked the United States or posed to do so.
LOTT, McCAIN, LUGAR, WARNER, AND HELMS BACK CLINTON'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL INITIATION OF WAR ON IRAQ
The New York Times (12/18/98, p. A20) reported that "Under criticism from both parties, Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi, the majority leader, backed away from his charge that the strikes were linked to impeachment. After overnight reflection, he said, ‘I am satisfied this was a military decision.’...
"A parade of Republican Senators — including John McCain of Arizona, Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, John W. Warner of Virginia and Jesse Helms of North Carolina — voiced support for the President's decision to strike now. All are prominent party spokesmen on defense and foreign policy matters."
CLINTON AND CONGRESS HAVE COMPROMISED U.S. DEFENSE ARSENAL MAKING WAR AGAINST A REGIME FAR LESS THREATENING THAN CHINA, RUSSIA, CUBA, OR KOREA
Joe Farah points out in his Between the Lines (12/18/98) that "As president, Bill Clinton has...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...."
CRUISE MISSILES COST MORE THAN ALL INDEPENDENT PROSECUTORS
"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....
"Last October, Congress passed the Iraq Liberation Act, which provided $97 million in military aid to opposition groups in the country....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...."
EVEN IF THE WAR WERE MORALLY OR GEOSTRATEGICALLY WISE, IT IS A FAILURE
"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?"
CONGRESS BETRAYS ITS CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY, FEARING NOT TO EMBRACE CLINTON'S MARTIAL OPPORTUNISM
GOP AGREES THAT SADDAM'S SIN IS FAILING TO OBEY UNITED NATIONS
H. Res. 612: "Whereas the President of the United States has ordered military action against Iraq in response to its refusal to comply with international obligations under United Nations Security Council resolutions;
"Whereas up to 24,000 men and women of the United States Armed Forces are presently involved in operations in and around the Persian Gulf region with the active participation of British Armed Forces and the support of allies in the region;
"Whereas additional United States Armed Forces are being deployed to the region;
"Whereas Congress and the American people have the greatest pride in the men and women of the United States Armed Forces and strongly support them in their efforts. Now, therefore, be it
"Resolved by the House of Representatives That:
"(a) the Congress unequivocally supports the men and women of our Armed Forces who are carrying out their missions with professionalism, dedication, patriotism, and courage;"
IS SADDAM HUSSEIN LESS "DEMOCRATIC" THAN RED CHINA?
"(b) the Congress reaffirms that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."
H. Res. 612 was enacted on a 417 to 5 roll call vote (#539, 12/17/98). Those voting in opposition were: John Conyers (D-Mich.), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Tex.), Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.), Ron Paul (R-Tex.), and Mark Sanford (R-S.C.).
THANK GOD THAT RON PAUL WAS THERE TO SPEAK AND VOTE AGAINST THE BIPARTISAN INTERVENTIONIST WAR ON JUSTICE, MORALITY, AND THE RULE OF LAW
Congratulations to Ron Paul who had this to say about Clinton's Iraq ploy:
"s a 5 yr Air Force veteran I rise in strong support of the troops: we all do. Everybody supports the troops. But this resolution is a lot more than supporting the troops...."
WITHOUT RIGHT PURPOSE, VICTORY IS IMPOSSIBLE
"t is clearly stated in the Constitution that only Congress has the authority to declare war. It is precisely because of the way we go to war these days that we are continuing to fight the Persian Gulf War. We did not win the Persian Gulf War because we did not declare war since there was no justification to because there was no national security involved."
CUI BONO? (Who Benefits?)
"Saddam Hussein is not threatening our national security. This is a concocted scheme to pursue bombing for oil interests and other reasons, but it has nothing to do with national security.
"This resolution is an endorsement for war. We are rubber stamping this action."
SHOULD CONGRESS BE IMPEACHED FOR ABANDONING THE RULE OF LAW?
"We should follow the rule of law. The rule of law says that resolutions, to begin war, should come to the House of Representatives and pass by the Senate. But we have been too careless and too casual for many, many decades, and this is the reason we do not win wars any more.
"We are in essentially perpetual war. We have granted too much authority to our President to wage war....We, as a House, must assume our responsibilities.
"I cannot support this resolution because it is a rubber stamp, it is an endorsement for an illegal war. We should argue the case for peace. We should argue the case for national sovereignty. We should not allow our President to use U.N. resolutions to wage war...."
FOR USA TO BE SOVEREIGN, WE MUST RESPECT THE SOVEREIGNTY OF OTHERS
"There is an idea known as sovereignty, and that idea is integral to nationhood. Among other things, sovereignty dictates that a people be responsible for their own leadership, without the interference of other nations. Is it any wonder that the same American leaders who would invade other sovereign nations spend so much time surrendering the sovereignty of the United States? I think not. Simply, their efforts are designed to undermine the entire notion of sovereignty.
"One evident outcome of the anti-sovereignty philosophy is our dependence on institutions such as the United Nations. It is an affront to our nation's sovereignty and our constitution that the President presently launches war on Iraq under the aegis of a UN resolution but without the Constitutionally required authorization by the United States Congress."
IF IT'S OK FOR US TO INFLUENCE IRAQ ELECTIONS WHY CAN'T CHINA BUY INTO OURS?
"As Americans we are rightly offended by the notion that the Chinese Government has influenced our domestic elections. However, we are not free from hypocrisy. For recently this Congress passed legislation appropriating money for the sole and express purpose of changing the government of a sovereign nation....
"Namely, the price of successfully changing the government of Iraq is the blood of many thousands of innocent human beings."
Congressional Record, 12/17/98, pp. H11722, H11729
GEORGE WASHINGTON KNEW WHAT CONGRESS HAS FORGOTTEN
Terence P. Jeffrey (Human Events, 12/25/98, p. 5) observes that "Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution says, ‘Congress shall have power...to declare war.’
"Now, before some Clintonite tells you that it ‘depends on what the meaning of the word "war" is,’ reflect on the fact that every single man at the constitutional convention was a veteran, in some sense, of a war actually fought on U.S. soil. It was called the American Revolution. Its purpose was to overthrow a foreign monarchy, where just one man ultimately had the power to tax or imprison his subjects, or more importantly, send them off to war.
"George Washington, commanding general of U.S. forces in that revolution, also presided over the constitutional convention that gave Congress the power to declare war. Washington knew war. And, like his fellow framers, he knew it was too awesome a power to vest in one man."
DO WE HAVE A REPUBLIC — OR AN ELECTIVE MONARCHY?
"Justice Joseph Story, who served on the Supreme Court from 1811-1845, reflected the sentiment of the Founders in his famed treatise on the Constitution. The power to declare war, he said, cannot ‘be safely deposited, except in the general government, and, if in the general government, it ought to belong to the Congress, where all the states and all the people of the states are represented; and where a majority of both Houses must concur to authorize the declaration."
IN A REPUBLIC, WAR IS A LAST RESORT
"‘War, indeed, is, in its mildest form, so dreadful a calamity; it destroys so many lives, wastes so much property, and introduces so much moral desolation; that nothing but the strongest state of necessity can justify, or excuse it. In a republican government, it should never be resorted to, except as a last expedient to vindicate its rights; for military power and military ambition have but too often fatally triumphed over the liberties of the people.’...
"Story was not only emphatic on the constitutional necessity of vesting the power to authorize war in Congress, but also on what might happen if it were given to the chief executive instead. ‘In monarchies,’ he wrote, ‘the power is ordinarily vested in the executive. But certainly, in a republic, the chief magistrate ought not to be clothed with a power so summary, and, at the same time, so full of dangers to the public interest and the public safety. It would be to commit the liberties, as well as the rights of the people, to the ambition, or resentment, or caprice, or rashness of a single mind.’"
THE UNAUTHORIZED IRAQ ATTACK WAS GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT
"Instead of putting off the impeachment vote, the House should have voted to impeach him that very day. A President who uses his duties as Commander in Chief to bomb foreign countries every time he wants to change the subject ought to be removed with alacrity," according to Ann Coulter (Human Events, 12/25/98, p. 6).
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
