AP 8/26/98 Nicole Winfield "Incensed that the Security Council has failed to take a tougher stand on the latest Iraqi impasse over arms inspections, Scott Ritter, a controversial American concealment expert on the U.N. weapons inspection team, resigned Wednesday. In his letter of resignation, Ritter singled out the United States for failing to fight for inspectors' unrestricted access to suspected weapons sites. He also accused Secretary-General Kofi Annan of allowing his office to become a ``sounding board for Iraqi grievances, real or imagined.'' …``What is being propagated by the Security Council today in relation to the work of the Special Commissin is such an illusion, one which in all good faith I cannot, and will not be a party to,'' he wrote."
Mail & Guardian 8/26/98 "THE Sudanese attorney general on Wednesday said the Sudanese government has filed a criminal suit against the United States, naming president Bill Clinton, for last week's missile strike against a Khartoum pharmaceutical factory accused by the US of making nerve gas. Attorney general Ali al-Zaki said that "if a person or an entity fails to show up in court, he will be tried in absentia." Meanwhile, two more victims of the recent US embassy bomb blast in Tanzania have died, bringing the death toll to 12. Another 247 died in the simultaneous bombing of the embassy in Kenya. The missile attack on Khartoum was partly in retaliation for the two blasts."
Washington Post 8/30/98 Thomas Lippman about Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright "… Now Albright is paying a price as critics perceive some inability to match her blunt comments with performance and some issues -- notably Iraq -- in which her private diplomacy appears contradictory to stated policy. House speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) suggested in a Washington Post interview Friday that Albright may have deceived either Clinton or the public when she intervened with U.N. weapons inspectors in Iraq to head off several planned challenge inspections while proclaiming a policy, backed by threats of U.S. military force, that insisted on unfettered access for the inspection teams. House Republicans recently compiled a list of Albright's statements that they said were designed to mislead Congress and the public about North Korea's compliance with an agreement requiring an end to its efforts to develop nuclear weapons. In the New Republic magazine, editor in chief Martin Peretz outraged Albright and her inner circle of advisers by writing about the Iraq revelations that "Of course, concealing important truths is one of Albright's lifetime habits." That was an apparent reference to the discovery early last year that her grandparents were Jews who perished in the Holocaust, which she said she never knew while being raised as a Catholic. …When CNN learned after the lethal Aug. 7 bombing of the U.S Embassy in Kenya that Albright had turned down an appeal from Ambassador Prudence Bushnell for a new building that would be more secure, Albright aides recognized that such a news story might reflect badly on a secretary of state expressing outrage at the attack and sympathy for the victims. They made the information public in a briefing designed to deflect responsibility away from Albright and onto short-sighted congressional budget-cutters. Independent analysts who fault the administration's foreign policy performance said the responsibility for difficulties in the Balkans, the stalled Middle East peace negotiations, Iraq, South Asia and elsewhere may lie as much with Clinton as with Albright, if not more. They said the president's inclination to avoid confrontation, compounded by the handicap of scandal, acts as a brake on Albright's activism….More criticism came in May, after she delivered what was widely interpreted as an ultimatum to Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu: an "invitation" to come to Washington a few days later, conditioned on his acceptance of U.S.-proposed "ideas" for breaking the stalemate between Israel and the Palestinians. Netanyahu refused, and some U.S. Jewish leaders blasted Albright for what they saw as unwarranted pressure on Israel. In the end, while the negotiations that Albright's move was designed to energize resumed, they have not come to the quick conclusion she said she wanted. And the U.S. was perceived as backing down from its challenge to Netanyahu. …But John D. Steinbruner, director of foreign policy studies at the Brookings Institution, said, "It's pretty evident that there is a pattern of imagining that you can solve everything with statements. Are they prepared to do more than just issue statements?" He was referring to issues such as the conflict in the Kosovo region of Yugoslavia, where Albright said six months ago: "We are not going to stand by and watch the Serbian authorities do in Kosovo what they can no longer get away with doing in Bosnia." By State Department count, nearly 300,000 Kosovars have been driven from their homes in ethnic violence since she said that, while the U.S. and its European allies have largely stood by. Disagreements over arms control, treaty ratification and the State Department budget have strained Albright's relations with congressional Republicans, despite her stated determination to build good relations with them. On the Democratic side, however, key members
8/31/98 Philadelphia Inquirer Charles Krauthammer "Knowing Clinton, one is tempted to say that if Osama bin Laden thought these missile attacks were bad, wait till Kenneth Starr's report comes out. Might be a good time for bin Laden to go on vacation. Temptation aside, however, it is clear that bombing bin Laden was no Wag the Dog. Defense Secretary William Cohen and Gen. Hugh Shelton would never lend themselves to an air raid whose purpose was to deflect attention from a domestic scandal. Nonetheless, there was an extrinsic force driving the Afghan and Sudanese bombings: the collapse of Iraqi policy. The air raid served to compensate for the total surrender of the Clinton administration in the face of Saddam's determination to rebuild his weapons of mass destruction. On the very same day the Tomahawk missiles went out, the United States was forced to support a humiliating Security Council statement that pitiably called Saddam's expulsion of inspectors "totally unacceptable" while pointedly dropping previous warnings of "severest consequences" if Saddam did not reverse himself.
AP 9/3/98 "``The United States has undermined UNSCOM's (the U.N. inspection agency) efforts through interference and manipulation, usually coming from the highest levels of the administration's national security team to include Ms. Albright herself,'' Ritter testified at a joint hearing before the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees. Democrats tried to block Ritter hearing by invoking a little-used Senate rule that hearings cannot be held after two hours into the Senate session if there are objections. The hearing was set for at 2 p.m. and the Senate had started business at 9:30 a.m. But Marjority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., recessed the Senate, to the hearing could be held without violating Senate rules. He then escorted Ritter into a hearing room where a dozen senators had assembled. All rose and shook Ritter's hand….Albright on Tuesday said that Ritter, a former Marine, ``doesn't have a clue'' about the overall U.S. policy on exposing Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. ``It was very sad to hear Madeleine Albright on Tuesday night,'' Ritter said Thursday. ``I do have a clue, in fact several, all of which indicate that our government has clearly expressed its policy one way and then acted in another.'' Calling Ritter ``a true American hero,'' Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., said the former inspector ``has pointed us to a much deeper problem, and that's duplicity of saying one thing and doing something else; that's far more troubling.'' …However, Democratic Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware said… ``I respectfully suggest they have responsibilities slightly above your pay grade,''
;
AP 9/6/98 Waiel Faleh AP "An Iraqi newspaper that reflects the views of the ruling Baath party warned Sunday that Iraq will take ``necessary action'' if the U.N. Security Council does not lift punishing trade sanctions. The front-page editorial in Al-Thawra did not say what action was contemplated. The paper also reacted angrily to an American and British draft resolution introduced to the Security Council last week. It calls for suspension of regular sanctions reviews until Iraq reverses its Aug. 5 decision to freeze cooperation with U.N. weapons inspectors…."
Washington Post 9/6/98 "It's no surprise to find the Clinton administration treating any problem as a public-relations challenge, looking to spin instead of solve, vilifying critics instead of debating them. Even so, turning the dogs loose on Scott Ritter is a new low…. First came leaks about an FBI investigation of Ritter for sharing confidential information with other governments -- something he freely admits he did, as part of his job and at the direct order of his U.N. bosses. Then Secretary of State Madeleine Albright lashed out. Ritter "doesn't have a clue about what our overall policy has been," she told CNN. Claiming great success for Iraq policy on behalf of "the United States -- and, I must say, me personally," Albright nonetheless didn't have enough confidence in that policy to sit by as Ritter testified to Congress. She urged a House committee chairman to squelch one such hearing, while Senate Democrats did their best to prevent Ritter's testimony
WorldNetDaily 9/10/98 ;IRAQ is hiding three technologically complete nuclear bombs and is lacking only fissionable materials to make them operational. This is the view of Scott Ritter, the United Nations arms inspector who resigned on August 26. Mr Ritter made his claim at a recent meeting of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. It was published for the first time yesterday by Zeev Schiff, military editor of Haaretz, the Tel Aviv daily. The disclosure, and others about biological and chemical weapons held by Baghdad, came as another showdown between Iraq and the UN loomed
The Pioneer 9/12/98 "It remains to be seen whether President William Jefferson Clinton of the United States is impeached. Even if he is not, the presidency will end for him, whenever and whichever way it does, not with a bang but with a whimper. In fact the whimpering has already started with the man holding what is reputedly the most powerful office in the world appealing piteously over television and radio, for forgiveness and another chance to put his dalliances behind and his presidency and life in order….As for reaction in India, few will shed tears over the exit of a US President whose Administration has been transparently pro-Pakistan on the Kashmir issue and which has persistently refused to condemn Islamabad for its escalating campaign of terrorism against this country. Besides, its blatant assertion that while it had the right to rain missiles on Mr Osama Bin Laden´s terrorist camps, India ought to desist from hot pursuit of Pakistan-sponsored terrorists as that could spark off a war, would be remembered as one of the most glaring application of double standards in the international sphere
Newsweek 9/14/98 Periscope Scott Ritter may not be the last United Nations inspector to quit UNSCOM, the commission charged with dismantling Iraq's biological and chemical arsenal. Other weapons sleuths, feeling betrayed by the cancellation of several surprise inspections this summer, may "throw in the towel," one told NEWSWEEK. Ritter, who bitterly criticized the Clinton administration's Iraq policy as he resigned last month, is now under investigation for allegedly sharing intelligence with Israel. Republicans say the charges are a White House smear. But CIA sources tell NEWSWEEK that the agency, not the administration, raised concerns about his contacts with Israel. The CIA has cleared Ritter, who says he did nothing wrong, but his lawyer says an FBI probe continues.
AP Robert Burns 9/18/98 ;The Clinton administration defended its decision to attack a suspected chemical weapons factory in Sudan last month and rejected a call by former President Carter to investigate whether the plant really had a terrorism connection. We had overwhelming grounds to strike this facility,'' Sandy Berger, the national security adviser to President Clinton, told reporters Friday when asked about Carter's statements. "For us to have not struck that plant I think would have been irresponsible.''
AP 9/21/98 John Solomon "President Clinton's lawyer cited crises in Iraq and Asia, the legality of Linda Tripp's tape recordings and concerns about grand jury leaks as he declined a half-dozen invitations from prosecutors for the president to testify about Monica Lewinsky. The repeated refusals made prosecutors in Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr's office increasingly angry, according to letters that detail a previously secret war of words between Clinton lawyer David Kendall and the prosecutors. ``This exercise ... makes clear that the president has no intention -- and never has had any intention -- of cooperating with this grand jury or this investigation,'' Deputy Independent Counsel Robert Bittman wrote in one letter in April
NY Times 9/21/98 Philip Shenon In an age of satellite television and the Internet, the news of the president's sexual misadventures -- and the cynicism over his motives in conducting foreign policy in light of the scandal -- spread to virtually every corner of the globe in a matter of seconds. In the Sudanese capital of Khartoum, anti-American demonstrators took to the streets the day after the bombings carrying signs that bore cartoons depicting Ms. Lewinsky. Other protesters carried signs with the words "Wag the Dog,".... Biden said he feared that every critical foreign policy action taken by the Clinton administration would now be viewed with the same skepticism, and that it could hinder decision-making as the White House pondered whether to launch military strikes in Kosovo and against the Iraqis. "When it comes time to pull the trigger, the White House will have to think and expect that every serious observer in the country, as well as every wacko, is going ask: OK, is this 'Wag the Dog'?" he said. Hagel said he did not see how Clinton could ever again reassure foreign leaders that his decisions were not being influenced by the scandal. "The fact is that when you've lost that confidence, you've lost it forever," he said. U.S. diplomats abroad say the scandal has begun to color the way the United States and its leaders are being perceived abroad, particularly among nations considered adversaries of the United States. A senior U.S. diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that intelligence reports showed that leaders of unfriendly nations as far-flung as Libya, Cuba and Myanmar were known to have obtained copies of the full report to Congress by the Whitewater independent counsel, Kenneth Starr, from the Internet.
Weekly Standard 9/28/98 Charles Krauthammer During his press conference with Vaclav Havel on September 16, Bill Clinton was trying to demonstrate his engagement in world affairs. He cited the following evidence: I had a good talk with President Chirac of France, who called me a couple of days ago to talk about some of our common concerns and the U.N. inspection system in Iraq and other things. So I feel good about that. Feel good? Just days before, Saddam Hussein had announced the termination of that very U.N. inspection system. Having called the American bluff, he shattered the system of constraints placed on him after the Gulf War to keep him from developing the most terrible weapons on earth….But now Clinton feels good about his chat about this colossal foreign-policy failure. It feels good to talk with a head of state. But Jacques Chirac is not just any head of state. He is a head of state who has been singularly destructive of American policy toward Iraq. He has been staunchly supportive of Saddam in the Security Council. He has refused to back any American action to force Iraqi compliance, has sought to embarrass the United States when it threatened to do so, and has pushed openly for an end to restraints on Saddam.He feels good because for him national interest pales beside personal interest. Indeed, for him national interest does not extend beyond personal interest…..The mission of Bill Clinton's life has always been to escape irrelevance; to transcend the provincial anonymity of his Arkansas boyhood; to seek in recognition, "political viability, honor and applause, validation of his worth, his very existence. To prove himself relevant has been the mission of his life. It is now the mission of his dying presidency. Clinton's need for such validation is endless and constant. It explains his unnatural love for the rope line, his thirst for approval and applause, his indiscriminate desire for the adulation of audience and acolyte. It makes his life a maw for the instant and shallow gratification delivered by people he barely knows. It explains his lifelong dream of the White House: Being the most bountiful trough on the planet, it is the Holy Grail for the creature that is forever feeding. As Clinton has seen himself exposed, as he's watched his spiral descent into mortified irrelevance, his solipsism has acquired a desperation. And in that desperation lies national danger. Personal survival is everything, and he'll take the country through anything -- through seven months of surreal dissimulation, for example -- to ensure it. America is caught in his psychodrama. One day, he observes that perhaps his troubles will help heal the nation. Another, he runs about giving speeches, raising money, and going through the motions of governing. White House officials, explained ABC's Chris Bury, "insist the president finds it therapeutic to focus on his job. On yet another, he feels good about a phone call from France about a policy failure that endangers the United States. Lines between self and other, between Clinton and country, had always been blurred. Now they have disappeared entirely.
New York Post 10/1/98 Editorial It turns out that the White House has been lying about a lot more than just Monica Lewinsky. The issue now is nuclear weapons for Iraq - and the potential consequences are far more significant than Bill Clinton's future. Earlier this month, Scott Ritter, the courageous U.N. arms inspector who resigned in disgust over the Security Council's acquiescence to Saddam Hussein, told Congress he had informed the administration that Iraq has built several implosion devices. All that Saddam needs to build 20-kiloton nuclear weapons - one-and-a-half times the power of the Hiroshima bomb - is a sufficient quantity of plutonium or enriched uranium. After Ritter's testimony, administration officials denied ever receiving such a report - and blasted the ex-Marine's claims as not credible. (Maybe it depends on exactly how you define nuclear weapons.) But now, The Washington Post reports, Ritter actually turned over two such explicit warnings - first in an oral report to the CIA in 1996, and then in a briefing paper for a May 1997 conference held in Washington with the U.S. and Britain. As one U.S. official told The Washington Post, it is credible that they have all the parts to put together
Washington Times 10/3/98 Bill Gertz Twenty six House Republicans have written to President Clinton asking whether the White House is planning an ;October surprise" military strike on Iraq timed to boost Democrats' chances in the November elections. The lawmakers stated in a letter dated Thursday that "we are writing to express our grave concerns about a disturbing report in the August 31, 1998 Arabic News Daily indicating the United States may be preparing for an October strike against Iraq." The Egyptian newspaper, quoting diplomatic sources, stated the United States privately informed the goverments of France, Russia, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Egypt that those nations were expected to back the U.S. strike aimed at punishing Baghdad for blocking weapons inspections and defying the aggreement with the United Nations reached in February. …." American Spectator 10/98 Michael Ledeen "Bill Clinton's glorious war against international terror is cut from the same doily as his glorious victories against Saddam Hussein and Slobodan Milosevic, his mastery of the Middle East, his celebrated anti-proliferation campaign in India and Pakistan, his peace-making in Northern Ireland, Bosnia, and Kosovo, his masterful de-nuclearization of North Korea and his brave struggle for democracy in China. It is much delicate lace and little iron substance, stitched together by the fanciful conceits that war can be waged at long distance, and that the world can be manipulated as easily as American public opinion. The whole thing is make-believe, a Harry Thomason production with special effects from the Pentagon
The Sunday Times UK 10/4/98 Zoe Brennan SADDAM HUSSEIN is trying to import liposuction equipment into Iraq under the cover of humanitarian aid. Saddam, whose people have been crippled by sanctions since the Gulf war, has asked a United Nations committee to approve the item - which sucks away excess fat - for inclusion on a list of "essential" medical supplies. British officials believe the equipment, which has been requested alongside silicon breast implants, acne cream and dental lasers to whiten teeth, is intended for use by Saddam, his family, friends and supporters. The imports - some of which have already reached the devastated country - would allow Saddam's entourage to continue to pamper themselves despite sanctions designed to curb his brutal regime, according to Foreign Office sources
The Sunday Times UK 10/4/98 Jon Swain UNITED NATIONS policy towards Iraq has been thrown into disarray by the disclosure that Richard Butler, the chief executive of the UN commission in charge of scrapping the country's weapons of mass destruction, wants to resign. Butler has been discouraged from leaving by Kofi Annan, the UN secretary-general. According to western diplomats, Annan has persuaded Butler to remain in his post until next year. However Butler's eventual departure could further destabilise the operations of the UN special commission (Unscom) following the resignation of Scott Ritter, a senior American arms inspector, in August. Ritter accused both America and Britain of allowing Iraq to evade its Gulf war disarmament obligations. Further resignations are expected. Unscom is not the only UN unit affected by unease over international policy towards Iraq. Denis Halliday, the humanitarian co-ordinator of the Iraqi oil-for-food programme, resigned in disillusionment last week at the end of a long and distinguished UN career
Detroit News 10/7/98 Dina ElBoghdady U.S. Rep. John Conyers, one of the men Democrats are relying on to save President Clinton from impeachment, made exactly the kind of unorthodox remarks Tuesday that make his party leaders nervous. As Clinton seeks forgiveness for his misdeeds, Conyers said, he should also forgive the Iraqi people by lifting U.S.-led economic sanctions against Saddam Hussein's regime. If Clinton does not respond to his request, Conyers vowed to go to the top -- by asking Hillary Rodham Clinton to weigh in. Might as well, the Detroit Democrat said, "we go to her for everything else." Conyers' remarks popped up one day after he led the failed Democratic effort to limit the scope of Clinton impeachment hearings endorsed by the House Judiciary Committee. The comments illustrate why key Democrats privately have fretted about his unpredictable style
AP 10/9/98 Nicole Winfield The American who resigned as a U.N. weapons inspector has threatened to sue his former boss for saying he illegally discussed Iraq's weapons capabilities. Scott Ritter has asked chief U.N. weapons inspector, Richard Butler, to retract the statement if he wants to avoid personal liability for defamatory comments. "If you wish to avoid assuming personal liability, we require your prompt retraction of your accusation,'' the lawyer wrote to Butler in a letter dated Oct. 7.According to a transcript of the show, Butler said he told Ritter, "'You have broken the law in speaking in public about things that you obtained while on official duty, and I demand that you desist from doing that.'';You must know that the Constitution of the United States affords Mr. Ritter the precious guarantee of free speech,'' Lifflander wrote. "Nothing in the United Nations Charter, its rules or its unenforceable agreements supersedes Mr. Ritter's rights as an American citizen.''
Saturday, Oct. 31
N.Y.Times 11/6/98 A.M. Rosenthal ;The United Nations arms inspection system in Iraq is near death. Even if Saddam Hussein lifts his new bans on inspection imposed three months ago, Iraq and its friends at the U.N. have so eviscerated the system that there is no realistic hope it can be revived, with or without bombing, except as a thin facade. These realities are held secret at the U.N. because so many bureaucrats and member nations share responsibility for what is happening. Some countries, like Russia and France, eviscerate quite openly; others, like the U.S., use the hidden knife of apathy. During election campaigns, we don't bother to talk about it. But in the past days a few intimately informed U.N. people have been willing to reveal these truths about the fate of the hunt for Saddam's stockpiles of chemical, nuclear and biological weapons and his plans to build ever more. They are not ready yet to go public, as have Scott Ritter and David Kay of the U.S. and David Kelly of Britain. By daily harassment and trickery, Saddam tried to prevent arms inspection for the first six years after it was put in place by the victors in the gulf war, to contain his power and dreams. But inspection worked anyway. Without it, his weapons would be in use by selected terrorists around the world. The inspectorate found 21 nuclear facilities that Iraq denied existed. Warheads loaded with anthrax and botulinum, evidence of VX, 400,000 liters of chemical agents, missiles, two million liters of precursors used in making chemical weapons, lists of foreign suppliers of death, a whole inventory from hell. Two years ago inspectors drew close to more weapons, and weapons programs, more foreign supply lines. So Saddam started his endgame
Wall Street Journal 11/4/98 Given Bill Clinton's gifts as an illusionist, we were initially suspicious when an international crisis blew up just before the election. But there is a real world out there not created by White House spin doctors and a man named Saddam Hussein is a part of it. A second look convinced us that this crisis is a real one. Saddam has drawn a line in the sand and dared the President to step over it. Mr. Clinton had better act this time around or it won't be long before we are faced with a Saddam who can back his threats with missiles bearing nukes and nerve gas. Indeed, Saddam precipitated this crisis himself, timing it just before elections that could decide Bill Clinton's fate in the forthcoming impeachment hearings. He did it with his Saturday announcement that Iraq was suspending all cooperation with United Nations weapons inspectors until the U.N. sanctions it has endured for most of this decade are lifted. Defense Secretary William Cohen responded that unilateral American retaliation is an option, and asserted that the "credibility of U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, who brokered a deal last February after an earlier Saddam-manufactured crisis, was on the line. True enough. But it is ultimately Mr. Clinton's credibility that is at stake here. For even the most delusional of multilateralists would be forced to concede that the American President, at least for now, is the man in charge when it comes to reining in Saddam and other despots around the world. Mr. Annan did not go to Baghdad without Mr. Clinton's blessing
The News International Pakistan 11/9/98 The Taleban set November 20 as deadline for the US to prove Osama bin Laden is a 'terrorist' and said he would be cleared if the US failed to do so. "If there is no proof submitted against Osama, then he is innocent. We cannot wait forever for this drama," the Taleban's chief justice, Noor Mohammad Saqid, told reporters in Kabul, on Monday. "We will listen to both sides' statements. The one who makes the claims must present his witnesses and prove the case against the accused, otherwise he will fail," Noor said.Meanwhile, the US intelligence agency has accused Osama of preparing a plan to place bombs through his colleagues in different US installations next month. CIA Deputy Director Air Force, General Johan Gordon, has said CIA had presented an emergency plan to US President Bill Clinton to foil terrorist activities. He said that they had received information of three hundred possible attacks from Osama's organisation since August
Wall St Journal 11/10/98 Jeffrey Taylor David Cloud Despite concerns among some Republicans about the public's disapproval of impeachment proceedings, the House Judiciary Committee vowed to press ahead aggressively with its inquiry. I don't interpret the election as a veto of our efforts," said Committee Chair Henry Hyde (R., Ill.). He added that the Republicans are considering calling president adviser Bruce Lindsey as a witness. The panel's Democrats, meanwhile, attacked the process with new vigor, emboldened by turmoil in the Republican leadership and public opinion polls showing no appetite for ousting the president. But Mr. Hyde and other committee Republicans made it clear that they don't intend to let political pressures or academic opinions derail their inquiry. Rep. Charles Canady, a Florida Republican, opened Monday's hearing with a harsh attack on the president. "He must be called to account for putting his selfish personal interest ahead of his oath of office and his constitutional duty, Mr. Canady said, asserting that the evidence suggests the president did lie under oath and obstruct justice Republican committee members who favor impeachment and the professional investigators employed by the committee to make the case are counting on Mr. Starr to sustain the effort by submitting to Congress additional allegations of White House misconduct. Lawyers working for Mr. Starr say they continue to investigate allegations made by witnesses before the grand jury and may take further action
New York Post 11/11/98 Someone high up in the Clinton administration owes Scott Ritter a public apology. Last August, Ritter resigned in disgust as chief U.N. arms inspector in Iraq. The courageous ex-Marine charged that Washington had backed off its policy on Saddam Hussein, quietly abandoning support for the international team that was aggressively searching for the Iraqi despot's weapons of mass destruction. The Clinton administration hotly denied Ritter's assertions. At first, it suggested he'd overstepped his mandate. Then it leaked baseless accusations that he was illegally slipping classified information to Israel. It now turns out - no big surprise - that Ritter was absolutely on target. According to numerous reports this week, the Clintonites secretly decided last spring to undercut the weapons inspections in favor of a policy of containment - abandoning the search for such arms in hopes of merely preventing their use. Ritter & Co. had uncovered secret Iraqi caches of deadly, forbidden weapons - including anthrax (2,000-plus gallons), botulinium toxin (5,125 gallons), ricin, sarin and VX; some of these chemicals need just a few drops to kill thousands. They also found evidence that Iraq lacks only enriched uranium to detonate nuclear weapons. Some of these deadly weapons have been destroyed; others remain hidden. Even as Ritter and his U.N. team launched surprise inspections of Iraqi facilities, however, the Clinton administration moved swiftly to cut the legs out from under them. Publicly, meanwhile, the president has talked tough - only to back down at the last minute in favor of a conciliatory settlement
Washington Times 11/11/98 Frank Murray The House Judiciary Committee legal staff has concluded that the crimes independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr charged to President Clinton are impeachable offenses. The staff's official printed report outlined clear guiding principles that make it more likely the full House will vote on the accusations against the president. The committee staff conclusions directly contradict earlier arguments by the president's lawyers and by some of the 19 constitutional scholars who debated the issue for 10 hours Monday at a contentious congressional hearing. A copy of the report was obtained yesterday by The Washington Times. It concluded that impeachable offenses include false statements ... under oath," a lesser crime than perjury and easier to prove because intent is not an element. The 94-page committee document declared that articles of impeachment can involve personal or professional misconduct that need not be criminal, and said the constitutional standard for judges and presidents alike is meant to be identical. "There isn't much doubt that he did willfully misstate the facts under oath. It's pretty clear, Mr. Hyde said in a pre-election interview, seemingly accepting as fact a charge that his staff now says is an impeachable offense. The report was quietly distributed as a guide to the decisions by the committee's 37 members, just as a similar document guided the hands that wrote the 1974 articles of impeachment against President Nixon. White House spokesman James Kennedy argued that impeaching an elected president is far more disruptive to the continuity of government than impeaching one of hundreds of appointed federal judges. "So they've fallen short of constitutional standards, they've departed from past precedent and they've broken with past Republican precedent on that issue, said Mr. Kennedy, who said he had not seen the document….Mr. Watt charged that the title pages implied it was the bipartisan product of the committee, rather than simply the majority staff. "I don't think the criticism is appropriate," Mr. Hyde responded to Mr. Watt. He said Democratic staff members were given a copy before it was printed and asked for input. "They came forth with nothing," Mr. Hyde said, adding that Democrats put out three analyses in 1973 and 1974 without ever consulting with GOP committee members. Mr. Watt replied, Two wrongs don't make a right" and contradicted the assertion that minority staffers had a chance to respond before the printing date. "I keep hoping that we will rise to the level of statesmanship here, rather than lowering to the standard that somebody who did something that was not justified in the past did," Mr. Watt said
Media Research Center CyberAlert 11/11/98 ;On FNC's Fox Report David Shuster checked up on the questions submitted five days ago by Henry Hyde to Clinton and learned the White House has yet to decide what to do. Shuster explained the quandary facing Democrats on the Judiciary Committee: "For committee Democrats each passing day seems to raise the possibility that they will be placed in a box. If Mr. Clinton denies that he lied under oath Democrats would have a difficult choice -- either contradict the President, saying in effect that he continues to mislead, or support Mr. Clinton's version of the facts. But that would require calling witnesses and stringing out hearings that Democrats said should end quickly.
MiddleXpress 11/12/98 Iraq's ruling Baath party on Thursday called on Arabs to wage a jihad, or holy war, against the United States which is threatening military strikes against Baghdad. "The appropriate response to the challenge is to adopt all means of fighting and unify the Arab nation's capacity in this battle," the party's leadership said in a statement published in Iraqi newspapers. The Baath party said it was necessary to "take the fight to the highest level of action, Jihad," and to be inspired by the "spirit of the Mother of All Battles," Iraq's description of the 1991 Gulf War…" AP 11/12/98 Eileen Alt Powell "…Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein wants a timetable on when U.N. sanctions will be lifted before he will allow U.N. weapons inspections to resume, a visiting Russian lawmaker said Tuesday. Ultranationalist Vladimir Zhirinovsky told reporters after two hours of talks with Saddam that the Iraqi president saw ``no problem'' with monitoring. ``But he would like to have information when the blockade (will be) eliminated,'' Zhirinovsky said. ``When? This year, next year, next century?'' said the legislator, a regular visitor to Iraq who has good relations with Saddam….The Security Council has said they will not be lifted until the inspectors certify that Iraq has eliminated its non-conventional weapons
Newsweek 11/12/98 Juliet Eilperin and Guy Gugliotta House Speaker-to-be Bob Livingston (R-La.) is talking tough about President Clinton's behavior, but privately he has suggested he has little interest in pursuing an impeachment inquiry during his speakership. With House Republicans seemingly split over whether to seek the impeachment of the president, Livingston has yet to take an active role in bridging the differences. In his private conversations with other House members, Livingston has made clear that "he is leaving the whole thing to Hyde," one source said There is a very widespread feeling [among House Republicans] and amongst much of the leadership that they want this off the table for the new Congress," said one leading GOP lawmaker. It is my clear perception that there is nothing the new speaker would want more than to start the next Congress with a clean slate.Bob's a pragmatist, said Rep. W.J. ;Bill Tauzin (R-La.), a close associate of Livingston's. I think he's going to want to work through things as quickly as possible. You're not going to see Bob moralizing on the issue or letting the issue divide the House. In a lunch with reporters yesterday, House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) said that he expects Republicans to bring an impeachment resolution to the floor next month. Gephardt refused to predict the outcome, but he criticized the GOP's handling of the process. "We've done a lot wrong now and it's hard to put the thing back together again," Gephardt said. "The problem now is that we're out of time. . . . I still think it's very important to get it over with by the end of the year."
11/12/98 Letter to John Conyers from Henry Hyde I am in receipt of your letter of November 11th proposing that the Committee take the unprecedented step of ruling on the Referral from the Office of Independent Counsel under some notion of demurrer or summary judgment. It appears that you have already made up your mind and that you believe a rush to judgment is appropriate without any airing of the facts or thoughtful consideration of the evidence. However, that directly contradicts the approach that the Committee has taken in past impeachment inquiries. As you recall, in the impeachment of President Nixon, the staff report prepared for the use of the Committee concluded: Delicate issues of constitutional law are involved. Those issues cannot be defined in detail in advance of full investigation of the facts John, let me remind you of how you interpreted our duty under the Constitution when you led the inquiry of impeachment of Judge Alcee Hastings in 1988: The goal of the subcommittee's inquiry was to provide to the House all of the facts necessary to make an informed and fair decision about whether Judge Hastings should or should not be impeached. In your letter, you seem inclined to view this impeachment inquiry in any context except a factual one. You cite your views of what the polls mean and the views of some scholars. However, in the impeachment of Judge Hastings, you so aptly stated: An impeachment decision must be based upon the facts. It would be inappropriate, in my opinion, for any Member of Congress to make factual determinations based upon polls or letter received or calls coming into one's office or from any other secondary matter
Wall Street Journal 11/12/98 Editorial Led by Chairman Henry Hyde, Judiciary Committee Republicans are showing a remarkable seriousness in their impeachment inquiry…. This creates a huge opportunity for Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr, who is no doubt preparing the testimony he will present starting next Thursday. The restraints the law puts on any prosecutor have kept him from replying to the White House spin offensive against his person. But, as nearly everyone now agrees, an impeachment inquiry is a political forum; the committee is not deciding whether to send Mr. Clinton to jail, but whether he is fit to hold the nation's highest office. By law and honor, Mr. Starr is bound to help them make this momentous decision, to give them the facts and insights they need…What the committee most needs, it follows, is what evidence the counsel has gathered on whether the lies and perjury in the Lewinsky episode were an isolated incident or part of a pattern. In fact it is clearly the latter, as those of us who are steeped in the events immediately recognize
http://www.house.gov/jec/press/1998/11-12-8.htm 11/12/98 Joint Economic Committee (House Majority) The International Monetary Fund's movement to normalize its relations with Iraq was greeted today with dismay and concern by Joint Economic Committee (JEC) Chairman Jim Saxton (R-N.J.). The IMF is planning to send a mission to Iraq to lay the foundations for normalizing relations, and to consider Iraqi requests for technical assistance. In an interview with an Arab newspaper based in London, a high-level IMF official first disclosed the IMF plans. According to IMF official Paul Chabrier, "Despite the existence of tension and friction between Iraq and the United Nations, I think we are moving towards a form of normalization with it (Iraq). The use of U.S. taxpayer dollars to assist Iraq, Libya, or other such nations through the IMF is unacceptable. The Treasury Department should be attempting to stop such missions and expel members who sponsor terrorism. This episode also underlines the rather low membership standards of the IMF ( standards which need to be significantly tightened for a number of reasons…."