Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

hitchens on the clintons
New York Post, "NO ONE LEFT TO LIE TO" | 2-6-03 | Christopher Hitchens

Posted on 02/07/2003 5:02:57 AM PST by Mia T


hitchens on the clintons

annotated by Mia T , 02.07.03


PUFFY-faced polemicist Christopher "Hellbound" Hitchens claims Bill Clinton, whom he calls a "lousy crook," ...

YOO-HOO Mrs. clinton

A '68 Mustang is not exculpatory

by Mia T, 1-29-03


 HALF A HOUSE, HALF A BRAIN: Why the clintons hit on Simon & Schuster

"...was a double," Hitchens tells Washington-based right-wing quarterly Doublethink... . . I had every reason to think that Clinton was a creep and a phony."

play tape


Meanwhile, Hitchens says he and the former prez "had a girlfriend in common" at the time - although he didn't know it then - "who's since become a radical lesbian. So one of us was doing something wrong, or right."

YOO-HOO Mrs. clinton



British-born Hitch goes on to attack Al Gore as a "humble, hollowed-out, humiliated figure," declaring, "I [don't] want a zombie to be president of the United States."

He particularly takes issue with Gore's and Hillary Clinton's stance on Iraq, seething, "[Bleep] them. I really mean it. I have nothing but contempt for them. We are risking people's lives, and all they can be is flippant . . . The thought of these people in power frightens me."

BUSH: "I will not wait on events, while dangers gather."

And as for the possibility that Gore or Hillary might yet make a bid for the White House, Hitchens sneers, "I just hope they all get some sort of wasting disease before they can run."

The INTERMINABLE clintons 

It's time to throw out the trash...

A Senate en passant capture is THE MOVE...

by Mia T

NEW AUDIO! Hear the Bill Bennett epilogue.



hillary clinton A SECURITY RISK: Removal Calls Begin


Another mistaken 'conceptzia'



THE CLINTONS--AMERICA'S BIGGEST BLUNDER: Hear Bush 41 Warn Us--October 19, 1992


Mrs. clinton's REAL virtual office -- 02.07.03 update

He rips into jokes about President Bush's intellect as "another liberal snig that annoys me a lot these days," adding, "The fact has to be faced: the intellectual candlepower of this administration is a great deal brighter than the Clinton administration . . . [and] the level of professionalism is very much higher."


PAGE SIX - New York Post | 2/05/03

more hitchen...

Speaking of the doghouse, last fall the president's lawyer Bob Bennett gave a speech to the National Press Club in Washington. On a single day- so he informed an openmouthed audience- he had had four substantial conversations with Clinton about the Paula Jones case, and feeling this excessive, "I had to cut it short and the president said, 'Yeah, I've got to get back to Saddam Hussein,' and I said, 'My God, this is lunacy that I'm taking his time on this stuff.'" Well, I hope Mr. Bennett didn't charge for that day, or for the other time-wasting day when he naively introduced Lewinsky's false affidavit on Clinton's behalf. But, if he hoped to persuade his audience that Clinton should be left alone to conduct a well-mediated Iraq policy, his words achieved the opposite effect. Policy toward Baghdad has been without pulse or direction or principle ever since Mr. Clinton took office. As one who spent some horrible days in Halabja, the Kurdish city that was ethnically cleansed by Saddam's chemical bombs, I have followed Washington's recent maneuvers with great attention. The only moment when this president showed a glimmer of interest in the matter was when his own interests were involved as well.

And thus we come to the embarrassing moment last December when Clinton played field marshal for four days, and destroyed the UN inspection program in order to save it. By November 14, 1998, Saddam Hussein had exhausted everybody's patience by his limitless arrogance over inspections of weapon sites, and by his capricious treatment of the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) inspectorate. In a rare show of Security Council solidarity, Russia, China, and France withdrew criticism of a punitive strike. The Republican leadership in both houses of Congress, which had criticized the Clinton administration for inaction, was ready to rock 'n' roll with Iraq. The case had been made, and the airplanes were already in the air when the president called them back. No commander in chief has ever done this before. Various explanations were offered as to why Clinton, and his close political crony Sandy Berger, had make such a wan decision. It was clearly understood that the swing vote had been the president's, and that Madeline Albright and William Cohen had argued the other way.

But in mid-November the president was still flushed with the slight gain made by his party in the midterm elections. Impeachment seemed a world away, with Republican "moderates" becoming the favorite of headline writers and op-ed performers alike. This theme persisted in the news and in the polls until after the pre-Hanukkah weekend of December 12-13, when, having been rebuffed by Benjamin Netanyahu at a post-Wye visit in Israel, Clinton had to fly home empty-handed. This must have been galling for him, since he had only imposed himself on the original Wye agreement, just before the November elections, as a high-profile/high-risk electoral ploy. (He had carried with him to Tel Aviv, on Air Force One, Rick Lazio and Jon Fox, two Republican congressmen widely hailed as fence-sitters regarding impeachment. So it can't easily be said that he wasn't thinking about the domestic implications of foreign policy.) But by Tuesday, December 15, after Clinton's last-ditch nonapology had "bombed" like all its predecessors, every headline had every waverer deciding for impeachment after all. On Wednesday afternoon, the president announced that Saddam Hussein was, shockingly enough, not complying with the UN inspectorate. And the cruise missiles took wing again. Within hours the House Republicans had met and, "furious and fractured," according to the New York Times, had announced the postponement of the impeachment debate, due to begin Thursday morning.

This was not quite like the preceding dramas. For one thing, it could and probably would have happened- unlike Sudan and Afghanistan- at any time. For another thing, the president was careful to say that he had the support of his whole "national security team," which he wouldn't have been able to say of his cop-out decision in November. Presidents don't normally list the number of their own employees and appointees who agree with them about national-security questions, but then, most presidents don't feel they have to. (Though most presidents have avoided making their Cabinet members back them in public on falsehoods about "private" and "inappropriate" conduct.) Having gone on slightly too long about the endorsements he'd won from his own much - bamboozled team, Clinton was faced with only a few remaining questions. These included:

  • Why, since Saddam Hussein has been in constant noncompliance, must bombing start tonight?

  • Why has there been no open consultation with either Congress or the United Nations?

  • When did you find out about the Richard Butler report on Saddam Hussein's violations?

The last question, apparently a simple one, was the most difficult to answer. It emerged that Clinton had known the contents of the Butler report at least two days before it was supposed to be handed to the UN secretary-general Kofi Annan. It was Kofi Annan's job, furthermore, to present it to the world body for action. Members of the National Security Council in Washington, however, were leading the report (which "discovered" Saddam Hussein's violations) to friends of mine in Washington by Tuesday, December 15. This timeline simply means that Clinton knew well in advance that he was going to be handed a free pretext in case of need. Mr. Butler might care to explain why he hurriedly withdrew his inspectors without Security Council permission- leaving some 400 United Nations humanitarian aid workers to face the music- at least a day before the bombs began to drop.

Once again the question: What was the rush? It must have meant a lot to Clinton to begin the strikes when he did, because he forfeited the support of the UN, of Russia, of China, of France, and of much of the congressional leadership- all of which he had enjoyed in varying degrees in November. (The Russians, whose volatile stock of "weapons of mass destruction" is far more of a menace than Iraq's, actually withdrew their ambassador from Washington for the first time in history, and threatened again to freeze talks on strategic-arms limitation.)

To the "rush" question, Clinton at first answered that the weekend of December 19-20 marked the start of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, and one would not want to be bombing an Islamic people while they were beginning their devotions. However, the postponed impeachment debate continued well into Saturday, December 19, and so did the bombardment, which concluded a few hours after the impeachment vote itself. Muslim susceptibilities were therefore even more outraged, even in morally friendly countries such as Kuwait, by the suspicious coincidence of timing. During the debate, the House Democratic leadership took the position, openly encouraged by the White House, that a president should not be embarrassed at home while American troops were "in harm's way" abroad. Again, it is made clear by Clinton's own conduct and arguments that, for him, foreign policy and domestic policy do not exist in parallel universes, but are one and the same.

And, again, I found myself talking to someone who is normally more hawkish than I am. Scott Ritter, who served with UNSCOM from 1991 until August 1998 and who was the chief of its Concealment Investigations Unit, had been warning for months that Saddam Hussein was evading compliance inspections. This warning entainled a further accusation, which was that UNSCOM in general, and Richard Butler in particular, were too much under the day-to-day control of the Clinton administration. (An Australian career diplomat who, according to some of his colleagues, was relinquished with relief by his masters Down Under, Butler owes his job to Madeline Albright in the first place.) Thus, when the United States, did not want a confrontation with Iraq, over the summer and into the fall, Butler and the leadership acted like pussycats and caused Ritter to resign over their lack of seriousness. But then, when a confrontation was urgently desired in December, the slightest pretext would suffice. And that, Ritter says, is the bitterest irony of all. The December strikes had no real military value, because the provocation was too obviously staged.

"They sent inspectors to the Baath Party HQ in Baghdad in the week before the raids," Ritter told me. "UNSCOM then leaves in a huff, claiming to have been denied access. There was nothing inside that facility anway. The stuff was moved before they got there. The United States knew there was nothing in that site. And then a few days later, there are reports that cruise missiles hit the Baath Party HQ! It's completely useless. Butler knew that I'd resign if the U.S. continued to jerk UNSCOM around, and he even came to my leaving party and bought me a drink. But now he's utterly lost his objectivity and impartiality, and UNSCOM inspections have been destroyed in the process, and one day he'll be hung out to dry. Ask your colleagues in Washington when they got his report."

From the Washington Post account by Barton Gellmen, on Wednesday, December 16, written the day before the bombing began and on the day that Kofi Annan saw the Butler report for the first time:

Butler's conclusions were welcome in Washington, which helped orchestrate the terms of the Australian diplomat's report. Sources in New York and Washington said Clinton-administration officials played a direct role in shaping Butler's text during multiple conversations with him Monday at secure facilities in the U.S. mission to the United Nations.

"Of course," Ritter told me almost conversationally, "though this is Wag the Dog, it isn't quite like Sudan and Afghanistan in August, which were Wag the Dog pure and simple."

Well, indeed, nothing is exactly like Wag the Dog. In the movie, the whole war is invented and run out of a studio, and nobody actually dies, whereas in Sudan and Afghanistan and Iraq, real corpses were lying about and blood spilled. You might argue, as Clinton's defenders have argued in my hearing, that if there was such a "conspiracy" it didn't work. To this there are three replies. First, no Clinton apologist can dare, after the victim cult sponsored by both the president and the First Lady, to ridicule the idea of "conspiracy," vast or otherwise. Second, the bombings helped to raise Clinton's poll numbers and to keep them high, and who will say that this in not a permanent White House concern? Third, the subject was temporarily changed from Clinton's thing to Clinton's face, and doubtless that came as some species of relief. But now we understand what in November was a mystery. A much less questionable air strike was canceled because, at that time, Clinton needed to keep an "option" in his breast pocket.

On January 6, two weeks after I spoke to Scott Ritter, UN secretary-general Kofi Annan's office angrily announced that, under Richard Butler's leadership, UNSCOM had in effect become a wholly owned subsidiary of the Clinton administration. The specific disclosure concerned the organization's spying activities, which had not been revealed to the UN. But Ritter's essential point about UNSCOM's and Butler's subservient client role was also underscored. This introduces two more canines- the UN inspectors being metamorphosed from watchdogs into lapdogs.

The staged bombing of Iraq in December was in reality the mother of all pinpricks. It was even explained that nerve-gas sites had not been hit, lest the gas be released. (Odd that this didn't apply in the case of the El Shifa plant, which is located in a suburb of Khartoum.) The Saddam Hussein regime survived with contemptuous ease, while its civilian hostages suffered yet again. During the prematurely triumphant official briefings from Washington, a new bureaucratic euphemism made its appearance. We were incessantly told that Iraq's capacities were being "degraded." This is not much of a target to set oneself, and it also leads to facile claims of success, since every bomb that falls has by definition a "degrading" effect on the system or the society. By acting and speaking as he did, not just in August but also in December, Clinton opened himself, and the United States, to a charge of which a serious country cannot afford even to be suspected. The tin pots and yahoos of Khartoum and Kabul and Baghdad are micro-megalomaniacs who think of their banana republics as potential superpowers. It took this president to "degrade" a superpower into a potential banana republic.


So overwhelming was the evidence in the case of the Sudanese atrocity that by January 1999 it had become a serious embarrassment to the Clinton administration. The true owner of the El Shifa plant, a well-known Sudanese entrepreneur named Saleh Idris, approached Dr. Thomas Tullius, head of the chemistry department at Boston University, and asked him to conduct a forensic examination of the site. Samples taken from all levels, and submitted to three different laboratories in different world capitals, yielded the same resut. There were no traces of any kind of toxicity, or indeed of anything but standard pharmaceutical material. Armed with this and other evidence, Mr. Idris demanded compensation for his destroyed property and initiated proceedings for a lawsuit. His case in Washington was taken up by the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer and Feld- perhaps best known for the prominence with which Vernon Jordan adorns its board of partners.

As a capitalist and holder of private property, Mr. Idris was always likely to receive due consideration if he was prepared to hire the sorts of help that are understood in the Clintonoid world of soft money and discreet law firms. The worker killed at the plant, the workers whose livelihood depended upon it, and those further down the stream whose analgesics and antibiotics never arrived, and whose names are not recorded, will not be present when the recompenses are agreed. They were expendable objects of Clinton's ruthless vanity.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections; US: Arkansas; US: New York
KEYWORDS: abuseofpower; christopherhitchens; clintoncorapists; clintoncorruption; clintoncowardice; clintonfailure; clintonfecklessness; clintonineptitude; clintonmegalomania; clintons911; clintonstupidity; clintonunfitness; iraq; saddam; wagthedog

1 posted on 02/07/2003 5:02:58 AM PST by Mia T
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

02.07.03 UPDATE:

Sen. Clinton's Virtual Office Welcome Header

Sen. Clinton's Virtual Office Welcome Header

Sen. Clinton's Virtual Office Welcome Header






evidence of consciousness of guilt
at Ron Brown's funeral
clinton Complex-Question Fallacy Scheme 



It won't s-p-i-n 


"There isn't a shred of evidence."


Privacy Policy 

Hear the Bill Bennett epilogue


Dear new sucker--er--New Yorker,

This virtual office was established because you are absolutely forbidden to set your peasant foot in my real one. This is how I got here, and this is how I did it.. This helped, too. And this. And this. You had better take a moment to genuflect before the newly erected clinton altar. Additionally, I am pleased to present my new clinton crime family video greeting and video farewell. You would be wise to study them carefully. And don't bother E-mailing me. I couldn't care less what the little people think.

A missive from the smartest woman in the world. Study it.


Latest clinton News
Another mistaken 'conceptzia'

hillary clinton A SECURITY RISK: Removal Calls Begin

It's time to throw out the trash...
A Senate en passant capture is THE MOVE...



THE CLINTONS--AMERICA'S BIGGEST BLUNDER: Hear Bush 41 Warn Us--October 19, 1992




hitchens on the clintons annotated


69% of Voters Nationwide NEVER Want hillary clinton to Run for President


YOO-HOO Mrs. clinton: A '68 Mustang is not exculpatory


BUSH: "I will not wait on events, while dangers gather."

Q ERTY6 utter failure


What did he know. . . and when did he know it ?




SpyLies and Audiotape






HALF A HOUSE, HALF A BRAIN: Why we were compelled to hit on Simon & Schuster,our personal agitprop & money-laundering machine)






Hardball's Softball hillary clinton 'Interview'


Q ERTY8 Democrat Debacle of '02


Buddy Death Report Raises More Questions Than It Answers


But they are space aliens






The Real Danger of a Fake President: Post-9/11 Reconsideration of The Placebo President


copyright Mia T 2003


2 posted on 02/07/2003 5:09:33 AM PST by Mia T (SCUM (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
Brilliant as always Mia T. I admire your keeping the drum beat going against two of the greatest criminals of all time--Herr Sinkmeister, aka rapist, serial sexual predator, liar, traitor, and on and on--and her Heinous Hillary, who is nothing more than another sociopath like Mr. Bill. They crave power more than anything else. They care not a whit about others. Keep up the great work.
3 posted on 02/07/2003 5:11:31 AM PST by Cautor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
Another bump!
4 posted on 02/07/2003 5:13:57 AM PST by Cautor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
5 posted on 02/07/2003 5:15:28 AM PST by Dante3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
Once more to the top. Well worth a look, this one from Mia.
6 posted on 02/07/2003 5:15:30 AM PST by Cautor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Cautor; Dante3

He rips into jokes about President Bush's intellect as "another liberal snig that annoys me a lot these days," adding, "The fact has to be faced: the intellectual candlepower of this administration is a great deal brighter than the Clinton administration . . . [and] the level of professionalism is very much higher."

hitchens on the clintons

Mindless rhinestone-studded-and-tented kleptocracy
by Mia T
John Podhoretz recently asked, "Whence comes hillary clinton's reputation for brilliance?" For the answer, he intuitively, rather brilliantly in fact, looked to her anatomy and noted,"This isn't the first time she's shot herself in the foot."
The above anatomical analysis supports the Podhoretz thesis. Notwithstanding The Pod's erroneous conclusions concerning hillary clinton's heart and nerve, he basically has it right. Anatomy is destiny...
Ian Hunter recently observed that our leaders are shrinking. "From a Churchill (or, for that matter, a Margaret Thatcher) to a Tony Blair; from Eisenhower to Clinton; from Diefenbaker to Joe Clark; from Trudeau to Chretien -- we seem destined to be governed by pygmies."
The pols understand their anatomical limitations well; they attempt to mitigate them with veneer. And so we suffer mindless alpha-beta-beelzebubba grotesquerie. . .
and rhinestone-studded-and-tented kleptocracy.
With all the media genuflecting before the press-conference podium of bill clinton, it bears remarking yet again that the clinton intellect (an oxymoron even more jarring than AlGoreRhythm and meant to encompass the cognitive ability of both clintons) is remarkable only for its utter ordinariness, its lack of creative spark, its lack of analytic precision, its lack of depth.
The clintons' fundamental error: They are too arrogant and dim-witted to understand that the demagogic process in this fiberoptic age isn't about counting spun heads; it's about not discounting circumambient brains.
Politicos and reporters are not rocket scientists . . .
Professions tend to be self-selected, intellectually homogeneous subgroups of Homo sapiens. Great intellects (especially these days) do not generally gravitate towards careers in the media or politics. Mediocre, power-obsessed types with poor self-images do.
Thus, clinton mediocrity goes undetected primarily because of media mediocrity. ("Mediocrity" and "media" don't come from the same Latin root (medius) for no reason.) Insofar as the clintons are concerned, the media confuse form with substance, smoothness with coherence, data-spewing with ratiocination, pre-programmed recitation with real-time analysis, an idiosyncratic degeneracy with creativity.
Jimmy Breslin agrees. In Hillary Is the 'Me-First' Lady, Breslin laments:
"At the end of all these years and years that are being celebrated this week, the national press of America consists of people with dried minds and weak backbones and the pack of them can't utter a new phrase for the language or show the least bit of anger at a business or profession or trade or whatever this business is that is dying of mediocrity."
Listen carefully to the clintons. You will hear a shallow parody of the class president. Not only do they say nothing; they say nothing with superfluous ineloquence. Their speeches are sophomoric, shopworn, shallow, specious. Platitudinous pandering piled atop p.c. cliché
In seven years, they have, collectively, uttered not one memorable word save, "It was a vast right-wing conspiracy," "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky,"and, "It all depends on what the meaning of 'is' is."
Even the clintons' attempts at alliteration fall flat. Compare Agnew's (Safire's) "nattering nabobs of negativism" with clinton's "preachers of pessimism," an impotent, one-dimensional, plagiaristic echo (its apt self-descriptiveness notwithstanding).
Before they destroy their backs along with their reputations, media gentry genuflecting at the altar of the clinton brain should consider Edith Efron's, Can the President Think?
A wasted brain is a terrible thing.

7 posted on 02/07/2003 5:33:32 AM PST by Mia T (SCUM (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
Busy today I see.
8 posted on 02/07/2003 5:34:45 AM PST by bmwcyle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Memphis Belle; Gail Wynand; looscannon; Lonesome in Massachussets; Freedom'sWorthIt; IVote2; ...

Meanwhile, Hitchens says he and the former prez "had a girlfriend in common" at the time - although he didn't know it then - "who's since become a radical lesbian. So one of us was doing something wrong, or right."

hitchens on the clintons



Basic Instinct

by Christopher Hitchens

On April 25, 1978, in the Camelot Hotel in Little Rock, Ark., a nursing-home supervisor named Juanita Broaddrick was, she says, bitten and raped by the attorney general of Arkansas. As Joe Eszterhas describes it in ''American Rhapsody'':

''Finished, he got off the bed and put his pants back on. She was in shock, sobbing. He went to the door. He put his sunglasses on. He turned back and he looked at her. 'You better put some ice on that,' he said, and was gone.''

The alleged perp is now the president of these United States, and it's pretty clear that Joe Eszterhas thinks the story is true. (He says Broaddrick was ''as believable as anyone I'd ever seen on television,'' which is high praise in his idiom.) But, as he adds:

''It didn't matter. We were a tired people, tired of pornographic imagery on the evening news, tired of feeling we were mired in filth. This was the worst . . . and we didn't want to hear it.''

It all depends, here, on what the meaning of ''we'' is. For a start, who is Joe Eszterhas and how come he's our moral tutor in this fear-and-loathing tour of the Clinton sex scandals? If you've ever left a movie theater muttering to yourself, ''How'd that sucker ever get made?'' then you are probably familiar with Eszterhas's work. (I speak of ''Sliver,'' ''Showgirls,'' ''Jade'' and other insults.) Then again, if you've ever left a movie theater having had a slightly better time than you expected (''Music Box,'' ''F.I.S.T.''), then you have this hard-driving screenwriter to thank. Admit it, though, you probably know him from ''Basic Instinct.'' But since Hollywood's studio leadership has always been a reliable part of the pro-Clinton phalanx, you won't be seeing much of the Starr report on the silver screen. So when Eszterhas found himself consumed by the need to make sense of it all, his only recourse was a fact-based, ranting, rocking-and-rolling screed with none of the full-frontal scissored out.

The ''we,'' it turns out, is the Who -- at least in the sense of ''My Generation.'' Eszterhas feels betrayed by Clinton, precisely because he once believed in him. Believed in him, that is, as the dope-smoking, draft-dodging adulterer of Mary Matalin's encapsulation. The boy-prince of the Rolling Stone set. ''One of us,'' in Jann Wenner's own unashamed words. So this is a long yell of protest from a professional hedonist who, faced with the ugliness of professionalized hedonism in the White House, doesn't care for the refraction of the mirror. (I should perhaps say here that I was an Oxford contemporary of Clinton's; didn't know him well but knew his set; spoke at a Vietnam moratorium where he was present; have an ex-girlfriend in common with him; have always thought of him as a dirty campaigner, only for himself. Include me out of the presumptuous ''we.'')

Eszterhas prepared himself for this adventure in the same way Monica Lewinsky did -- by buying and reading the memoirs of Gennifer Flowers. Here he learned much that has since been denied and, which is almost to say the same thing, much that has since proved true. He also decided to annex what she says was their pet name for Clinton's male member (''Willard'' -- chosen because it was longer than ''Willie'') and has cast this organ as a key protagonist, with lines and even soliloquies of its own, in his script.

When the full Starr report was published, as many people forget, Clinton's lawyers stipulated that they had no factual quarrel with any of its findings; in other words they admitted that it was all true. Clinton's defenders, on the other hand, announced that it was all pornography. It was as if, in a rape or harassment case, the defense had objected to the prosecution evidence on the grounds that it was distasteful. I must say for Eszterhas that he will have none of this. He has been through the footnotes minutely, and even parses Starr's mention of a sexual practice that is still unmentionable in a national newspaper. Here is the complete menu, from soup to nuts and including the postprandial cigar. If it weren't for the rape scene, the bulk of this book would be about sex.

''The calls for Bill Clinton's impeachment wouldn't cease, the rabid twin gorgons of Scandal and Ruin were running amok.'' Eszterhas has a heated and hyperbolic style of his own, and scarcely requires the doppelg‰ngers he enlists, in passages of bold type, to compose some hectic fantasy sequences and internal monologues. These mostly fail by trying too hard, or not hard enough. The silly idea of Judge Starr as an onanistic Puritan has been done to death by now; the puerile passage in which ''Willard'' reviews his past escapades doesn't have the nerve to include Juanita Broaddrick. At times Eszterhas forgets where he is or what he's supposed to stand for: the Weathergirl banshee Bernadine Dohrn is at one point lovingly described as one of ''our'' brave and sexually emancipated heroines, only to be sternly reproved several chapters later as a depraved Charlie Manson fan.

. There are two or three chapters that rise above this, however, and that illustrate Eszterhas's hit-or-miss talent. He has acquired a real feel for the vulnerable, endearing, needy, hopeless character of Monica Lewinsky; the fat girl who was used and abused and who was only a fleck of evidence away from being denounced as a stalker and a mythomane. He fashions a near-brilliant evocation of the qualities of Vernon Jordan, the stoic and phlegmatic ally who knew exactly what he was doing, and who did it for a friend whose moral character was infinitely inferior to his own. And he is extremely funny about the shrink defenses that the first lady and other amateurs have proposed:

''A modern president, Bill Clinton was allegedly the victim of incest, pedophilia, child abuse, erotomania, sexual addiction, gambling addiction, alcohol addiction, rage addiction, wife beating, husband beating, grandfather beating, low self-esteem, jealousy and poverty. . . . There he was on television, this victim in chief, asking to be forgiven for something he wouldn't admit to having done.''

Finally -- and I curse myself for not noticing this at the time -- Eszterhas grabs the ironic coincidence of Richard Nixon's Monica. That's Monica Crowley, the trusting young intern and amanuensis who shared so much private time with the sage of Saddle River, N.J., and won his lonely, self-pitying and self-aggrandizing confidences only to make a book out of them. But at least Tricky Dick never told her that she might also share his life after Pat was gone.

Clip Clip Clip....see article text for paragraph.

The book begins with a puzzle: How did the flower children fall for such a self-evident thug and opportunist? And it offers a possible hypothetical answer, which is that ''the Night Creature'' -- Nixon -- and his heirs and assigns could not ever possibly be allowed to be right about anything. When Eszterhas writes about Nixon, and his admirers like Lucianne Goldberg, he hits an overdrive button and summons the bat cave of purest evil. He hasn't read as much recent history as he thinks he has, or he would know that his forebears were mesmerized in precisely the same way to believe that Alger Hiss was framed. Thus does Nixon inherit an undeserved and posthumous victory. If by chance we ever elect a bent and unscrupulous Republican president, he or she will have a whole new thesaurus of excuses, public and ''private,'' with which to fend off impeachment. These ''bipartisan'' excuses will have been partly furnished by the ''nonjudgmental'' love generation. If Eszterhas had had the guts to face this fact, he could have written a book more like ''F.I.S.T.'' instead of ''Sliver.'' Meanwhile, and almost but not quite unbelievably, we await the president's comment on Juanita Broaddrick's allegation.

Basic Instinct/ Hitchens on Am. Rhapsody

New York Times, July 30, 2000, Christopher Hitchens

9 posted on 02/07/2003 6:12:09 AM PST by Mia T (SCUM (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T; unending thunder
Meanwhile, Hitchens says he and the former prez "had a girlfriend in common" at the time - although he didn't know it then - "who's since become a radical lesbian. So one of us was doing something wrong, or right."

Germaine Greer, who was a young lecturer at the nearby University of Warwick when Clinton was at Oxford, has admitted that he propositioned her.

10 posted on 02/07/2003 6:20:01 AM PST by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

CLINTON: The only way they can win is to convince people that we're space aliens.

--bill clinton


Although she baked no cookies, didn't do illicit land or cattle deals and stood by no man, hillary clinton starred in the triple role of the Cook, the Thief and his Wife. Her lover was played at once vaporously and in workmanlike fashion by the ghost of Eleanor Roosevelt, with Janet Reno, between her stints rendering intermittent injustice for the Husband, as the reliable stand-in. Sidney Blumenthal was the stand-in for the Cook and Craig Livingstone the stand-in for the Thief. The last-minute addition of Christopher Hitchens as the snitch was a stroke of absolute genius notwithstanding its cerebral accident, its predictable-if-perfect pitch and its facile alliteration.




June 9, 1999
Peggy Noonan's excellent piece in yesterday's Wall Street Journal is really the story of the death of democracy. At its core it is the description of the human double helix gone terribly awry, of a denatured protein grotesquely twisted, of two mutant, tangled strands of DNA, the basest imaginable of base pairs linked permanently, as firmly as guanine to cytosine, bill inexorably to hillary and conversely, doing what they do best, and doing it relentlessly.
Killing insidiously.
Killing as they pose and pander and feel our pain.
My only complaint is with Peggy Noonan's title.
The Mad Boomer, doesn't begin to capture candidate clinton considered separately or even taken as the self-anointed "twofer," permanently conjoined at that cavity conspicuously empty except for ego, that place where brain and soul and guts and heart normally reside.
This is not to say that she -- that they -- are not both quite mad and of that self-indulgent, arrogantly, ignorantly solipsistic age sandwiched flatly between yesterday's innocence and tomorrow's insouciance. Rather, it is that their madness and their boomerism don't even begin to explain their noxious influence: The cloying, internally inconsistent clinton calculus. The unspoken clinton threats. They permeate the atmosphere like a coiling miasma, choking off all freedom.
Even in New York.
Especially in New York.
When she wrote "The New Colossus," Emma Lazarus hardly had in mind this pair of mutant, deadly, twisted aliens.
So forget Arkansas-Illinois carpetbaggery and standard issue muckraking. The clintons are aliens of quite another sort. They are extrinsic, not of this world. They are inhuman. They are dehumanizing.
You may recall that the first act of this story of two degenerates maintained by iterating idiots, farce of farce ad infinitum, was generated quite by accident by iterated AlGoreRhythm, who, it should be noted, is now himself the object of iterated calculation by said degenerates who want iteration 2004 all for themselves.
And thus the odd bit of bloody Gore in Act II: The ugly sight of a corrupt, bottom-heavy hillary self-impaled on the horns of a Treason-Dilemma- masquerading-as-a-Third-Term-Dilemma-masquerading-as-a-Senate-stampede, for example, or bill's recent unsolicited, underwhelming Times interview on the Gore candidacy.
Act I was called "The Cook, The Thief, His Wife and Her Lover." Ostensibly the tale of the wife of a bloodthirsty crime boss who finds romance with a bland bookseller between courses at her husband's restaurant, it was in fact the Thyestean and moveable -- yet unmoving -- feast of hillary clinton at her husband's sham restitution. (Note the reciprocity. The sham restitution in Act II is all hillary's.)
Food, color coding, sex, murder, torture and cannibalism were the exotic (if mostly horizontal) fare in this beautifully filmed but brutally uncompromising modern memoir which passed as ancient fable about nouveau riche rapacity.
Not for the faint at heart, Purple Hearts or queazy stomachs, this depiction of the gross debasement of America was heavily peppered with irony and dark humor throughout.
Although she baked no cookies, didn't do illicit land or cattle deals and stood by no man, hillary clinton starred in the triple role of the Cook, the Thief and his Wife. Her lover was played at once vaporously and in workmanlike fashion by the ghost of Eleanor Roosevelt, with Janet Reno, between her stints rendering intermittent injustice for the Husband, as the reliable stand-in. Sidney Blumenthal was the stand-in for the Cook and Craig Livingstone the stand-in for the Thief. The last-minute addition of Christopher Hitchens as the snitch was a stroke of absolute genius notwithstanding its cerebral accident, its predictable-if-perfect pitch and its facile alliteration.
Although Act I had no rating, the new clinton soccer-mom directive will require a photo ID for any viewer without independent proof of illegal alien DNC or DNA sequencing.
In Act II, rabid anti-clinton voters, roughly 33% of the U.S. populace according to as-yet-unpodded pollsters, become increasingly aware that they are disappearing in droves and being replaced by alien pod replicas which have their physical attributes but lack all anti-clinton affect.
If Act I was a thinly veiled allegory about naked clintonism, then Act II is a parable about the plan for world domination by the Establishment, aged hippies in pinstripes all, with their infantile, solipsistic world view amazingly untouched by time.



11 posted on 02/07/2003 6:30:06 AM PST by Mia T (SCUM (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
I have met this haggard-lookin' liberal on a coupla occasions and can attest to both his puffy-face--dude appears to be quite the partyer--and his polemicizing...what I don't understand is why more Lib'ral EffeteElite don't take a similar tack and criticize the ABOMINATION that is Bill Clinton!! Hitchens never admits that most Lib'rals are EXACTLY like Clinton, thinking they are an EffeteEliteCaste to themselves, above and beyond the laws that hinder the rest of US, but Mr. Hitchens does do an excellent job of pointing out how LOATHESOME Slick Willie and his PHAT-ASSED BI+C# Wife, the HildaBeast, actually are!!

Way to go, Christopher!! Way to go, Mia!!!!


12 posted on 02/07/2003 6:40:48 AM PST by Mudboy Slim (Sic Semper Tyrannis...MUD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
Only proposition Greer?
Makes sense...the coward would never risk bodily himself.
All the President's victims II:
More on Bill Clinton's long history of sexual violence against women
Capitol Hill Blue
2/21/99 Daniel J. Harris & Teresa Hampton
(EDITOR'S NOTE: Two weeks, Capitol Hill Blue first published an account
of more than a dozen women who have reported being either assaulted or
raped by Bill Clinton over the last 30 years. Since that story was first
published, Juanita Broaddrick, one of the women mentioned in this story,
has gone public with an interview and two other victims have given us
permission to use their names. The updated story appears below)
By Daniel J. Harris
& Teresa Hampton
Capitol Hill Blue
Juanita Broaddrick's terrifying story of a violent rape by Bill Clinton
is only one of more than dozen cases of sexual assualt by the President
that go back 30 years.
Capitol Hill Blue has confirmed that the charge is but one of many
allegations of sexual assault by the President.
A five month investigation into the President's questionable sexual
history reveal incidents that go back as far as Clinton's college days,
with more than a dozen women claiming his sexual appetites leave little
room for the word ''no.''
Juanita Broaddrick, an Arkansas woman who worked on Bill Clinton's
campaign when he was attorney general, told NBC's Lisa Meyers two weeks
ago she was raped by Clinton. NBC, under intense pressure by the White
House, shelved the interview. The White House also threatened Fox News
Tuesday after it reported the story. Broaddrick finally took her story
to The Wall Street Journal, which published her account of the brutal
rape at the hands of the future President.
But Broaddrick's story is only one account of many sexual assaults by
Clinton. Among the other incidents:
•A 1969 charge by a Eileen Wellstone, 19-year-old English woman who said
Clinton assaulted her after she met him at a pub near the Oxford
University campus where the future President was a student. A retired
State Department employee, who asked not to be identified, confirmed
this week that he spoke with the family of the girl and filed a report
with his superiors. Clinton admitted having sex with the girl, but
claimed it was consensual. The victim's family declined to pursue the
•In 1972, a 22-year-old woman told campus police at Yale University that
she was sexually assaulted by Clinton, who was a law student at the
college. No charges were filed, but retired campus policemen contacted
by Capitol Hill Blue confirmed the incident;
•In 1974, a female student at the University of Arkansas complained that
then-law professor Bill Clinton tried to prevent her from leaving his
office during a conference. She said he groped her and forced his hand
inside her blouse. Clinton claimed the student ''came on'' to him and
she left the school shortly after the incident. Several former students
at the University have confirmed the incident in confidential
•Broaddrick, a volunteer in Clinton's attorney general campaign, said he
raped her in 1978;
•From 1978-1980, during Clinton's first term as governor of Arkansas,
state troopers assigned to protect the governor reported seven
complaints from women who said Clinton forced, or attempted to force,
himself on them sexually. One retired state trooper said in an interview
that the common joke among those assigned to protect Clinton was "who's
•Elizabeth Ward, the Miss Arkansas who won the Miss America crown in
1982, told friends she was forced by Clinton to have sex with him
shortly after she won her state crown. Last year, Ward, who is now
married with the last name of Gracen, told an interviewer she did have
sex with Clinton but said it was consensual. She later recanted that
interview and said had been threatened by Clinton supporters into
claiming the sex was consensual.
•Paula Corbin, an Arkansas state worker, filed a sexual harassment case
against Clinton after an encounter in a Little Rock hotel room where the
then-governor exposed himself and demanded oral sex. Clinton settled the
case with Jones recently with a cash payment.
•Sandra Allen James, a former Washington, DC, political fundraiser says
Presidential candidate-to-be Clinton invited her to his hotel room
during a political trip to the nation's capital in 1991, pinned her
against the wall and stuck his hand up her dress. She says she screamed
loud enough for the Arkansas State Trooper stationed outside the hotel
suite to bang on the door and ask if everything was all right, at which
point Clinton released her and she fled the room. When she reported the
incident to her boss, he advised her to keep her mouth shut if she
wanted to keep working. Miss James has since married and left
•Kathleen Willey, a White House volunteer, reported that Clinton grabbed
her, fondled her breast and pressed her hand against his genitals during
an Oval Office meeting in November, 1993. Willey, who told her story in
a 60 Minutes interview, became a target of a White House-directed smear
campaign after she went public.
In an interview with Capitol Hill Blue this week, the retired State
Department employee said he believed the story Miss Wellstone, the young
English woman who said Clinton raped her in 1969.
''There was no doubt in my mind that this young woman had suffered
severe emotional trauma,'' he said. ''But we were under tremendous
pressure to avoid the embarrassment of having a Rhodes Scholar charged
with rape. I filed a report with my superiors and that was the last I
heard of it.''
Miss Wellstone, who is now married and lives in London, confirmed the
incident when contacted this week, but refused to discuss the matter
Capitol Hill Blue also spoke with the former Miss James, the Washington
fundraiser who confirmed the incident, but first said she would not go
public because anyone who does so is destroyed by the Clinton White
''My husband and children deserve better than that,'' she said when
first contacted two weeks ago. After reading the Broaddrick story
Friday, however, she called and gave permission to use her maiden name.
The other encounters were confirmed with more than 30 interviews with
retired Arkansas state employees, former state troopers and former Yale
and University of Arkansas students. Like others, they refused to go
public because of fears of retaliation from the Clinton White House.
Likewise, the mainstream media has shied away from the Broaddrick story.
Initially, only The Drudge Report and other Internet news sites have
actively pursued it.
The White House did not return calls for comment.
Copyright 1999. Capitol Web Publishing
Capitol Hill Blue is published daily on the web. Some material is ©The

Associated Press and © Reuters NewMedia.

13 posted on 02/07/2003 6:50:50 AM PST by Mia T (SCUM (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
Thanks! Bookmarked for reading later!
14 posted on 02/07/2003 6:57:41 AM PST by eyespysomething
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
Get it all down, MiaT. One day - you will be rewarded. It is never wrong to record the truth - in your own inimitable way. Catalogue it. Heaven sees....even if the world is blind.
15 posted on 02/07/2003 6:58:24 AM PST by Freedom'sWorthIt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

the logic of pathologic self-interest:

There was a third chance to get rid of the co-rapists. In '98 when there was still time to stop bin Laden...

The failure to remove the clintons in '98 was a monumental failure and is directly traceable to the logic of pathologic self-interest. Recall in particular:

  • THE LIEBERMAN PARADIGM: (clinton is an unfit president; therefore clinton must remain president)
  • THE SHAYS SYNDROME (clinton is a rapist; therefore clinton is a fit president)

The Lieberman Paradigm debuted on the floor of the Senate during Joe's misconstrued and erroneously applauded Monicagate speech.

The Shays Syndrome, hardly an aberration, was adopted by the entire Senate as the impeachment show trial deus ex machina of choice.

Shays, you may recall, examined the evidence in the Ford Building, concluded that clinton did, indeed, rape Broaddrick -- "VICIOUSLY!" AND "TWICE!" he declared-- and was going to vote to impeach, but changed his mind after a tete a tete with the rapist.

Any cognitive dissonance Shays may have experienced rendering that verdict was no doubt assuaged by the political plum clinton had given Mrs. (Betsi) Shays...

Well, with the help of the 100 corrupt and cowardly cullions, clinton walked. The senators' justification for their acquittal votes requires the suspension of rational thought (and, in the curious case of Arlen Specter, national jurisdiction).

--Mia T, Musings: Senatorial Courtesy Perverted


by Mia T

Hypocrisy abounds in this Age of clinton, a Postmodern Oz rife with constitutional deconstruction and semantic subversion, a virtual surreality polymarked by presidential alleles peccantly misplaced or, in the case of Jefferson, posthumously misappropriated.

Shameless pharisees in stark relief crowd the Capitol frieze:

Baucus, Biden, Bingaman, Breaux, Bryan, Byrd, Cohen, Conrad, Daschle, Dodd, Gore, Graham, Harkin, Hollings, Inouye, Kennedy, Kerrey, Kerry, Kohl, Lautenberg, Leahy, Levin, Lieberman, Mikulski, Moynihan, Reid, Robb, Rockefeller, Sarbanes, Schumer.

These are the 28 sitting Democratic senators, the current Vice President and Secretary of Defense -- clinton defenders all -- who, in 1989, voted to oust U.S. District Judge Walter Nixon for making "false or misleading statements to a grand jury."

In 1989 each and every one of these men insisted that perjury was an impeachable offense. (What a difference a decade and a decadent Democrat make.)

Senator Herb Kohl (November 7, 1989):

"But Judge Nixon took an oath to tell the truth and the whole truth. As a grand jury witness, it was not for him to decide what would be material. That was for the grand jury to decide. Of all people, Federal Judge Walter Nixon certainly knew this.

"So I am going to vote 'guilty' on articles one and two. Judge Nixon lied to the grand jury. He misled the grand jury. These acts are indisputably criminal and warrant impeachment."


Senator Tom Daschle (November 3, 1989):

"This morning we impeached a judge from Mississippi for failing to tell the truth. Those decisions are always very difficult and certainly, in this case, it came after a great deal of concern and thoughtful analysis of the facts."  


Congressman Charles Schumer (May 10, 1989):  

"Perjury, of course, is a very difficult, difficult thing to decide; but as we looked and examined all of the records and in fact found many things that were not in the record it became very clear to us that this impeachment was meritorious."


Senator Carl Levin (November 3, 1989):

"The record amply supports the finding in the criminal trial that Judge Nixon's statements to the grand jury were false and misleading and constituted perjury. Those are the statements cited in articles I and II, and it is on those articles that I vote to convict Judge Nixon and remove him from office."


* * * * *

"The hypocrite's crime is that he bears false witness against himself," observed the philosopher Hannah Arendt. "What makes it so plausible to assume that hypocrisy is the vice of vices is that integrity can indeed exist under the cover of all other vices except this one. Only crime and the criminal, it is true, confront us with the perplexity of radical evil; but only the hypocrite is really rotten to the core."

If hypocrisy is the vice of vices, then perjury is the crime of crimes, for perjury provides the necessary cover for all other crimes.

David Lowenthal, professor emeritus of political science at Boston College makes the novel and compelling argument that perjury is "bribery consummate, using false words instead of money or other things of value to pervert the course of justice" and, thus, perjury is a constitutionally enumerated high crime.

The Democrats' defense of clinton's perjury -- and their own hypocrisy -- is three-pronged. 


clinton's perjuries were "just about sex" and therefore "do not rise to the level of an impeachable offense."

This argument is spurious. The courts make no distinction between perjuries. Perjury is perjury. Perjury attacks the very essence of democracy. Perjury is bribery consummate.

Moreover, (the clinton spinners notwithstanding), clinton's perjury was not "just about sex." clinton's perjury was about clinton denying a citizen justice by lying in a civil rights-sexual harassment case about his sexual history with subordinates.


Presidents and judges are held to different standards under the Constitution.

Because the Constitution stipulates that federal judges, who are appointed for life, "shall hold their offices during good behavior,'' and because there is no similar language concerning the popularly elected, term-limited president, it must have been perfectly agreeable to the Framers, so the (implicit) argument goes, to have a perjurious, justice-obstructing reprobate as president.

clinton's defenders ignore Federalist No. 57, and Hillary Rodham's constitutional treatise on impeachable acts -- written in 1974 when she wanted to impeach a president; both mention "bad conduct" as grounds for impeachment.

"Impeachment," wrote Rodham, "did not have to be for criminal offenses -- but only for a 'course of conduct' that suggested an abuse of power or a disregard for the office of the President of the United States...A person's 'course of conduct' while not particularly criminal could be of such a nature that it destroys trust, discourages allegiance, and demands action by the Congress...The office of the President is such that it calls for a higher level of conduct than the average citizen in the United States."

Hamilton (or Madison) discussed the importance of wisdom and virtue in Federalist 57. "The aim of every political constitution is, or ought to be, first to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society; and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous whilst they continue to hold their public trust."

(Contrast this with clinton, who recklessly, reflexively and feloniously subordinates the common good to his personal appetites.)

Because the Framers did not anticipate the demagogic efficiency of the electronic bully pulpit, they ruled out the possibility of an MTV mis-leader (and impeachment-thwarter!) like clinton. In Federalist No. 64, John Jay said: "There is reason to presume" the president would fall only to those "who have become the most distinguished by their abilities and virtue." He imagined that the electorate would not "be deceived by those brilliant appearances of genius and patriotism which, like transient meteors, sometimes mislead as well as dazzle."

(If the clinton debacle teaches us anything, it is this: If we are to retain our democracy in this age of the electronic demagogue, we must recalibrate the constitutional balance of power.)


The president can be prosecuted for his alleged felonies after he leaves office. (Nota bene ROBERT RAY.)

This clinton-created censure contrivance -- borne out of what I have come to call the "Lieberman Paradigm" (clinton is an unfit president; therefore clinton must remain president) -- is nothing less than a postmodern deconstruction in which the Oval Office would serve for two years as a holding cell for the perjurer-obstructor.

Such indecorous, dual-purpose architectonics not only threatens the delicate constitutional framework -- it disturbs the cultural aesthetic. The senators must, therefore, roundly reject this elliptic scheme.

In this postmodern Age of clinton, we may, from time to time, selectively stomach corruption. But we must never abide ugliness. Never.


16 posted on 02/07/2003 7:41:19 AM PST by Mia T (SCUM (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
Wow. Nice work!
How did the world treat Clinton when he chose to bomb Iraq,  before impeachment hearings and after revelations of Monica?
President Clinton on bombing Iraq on the eve of impeachment hearings: Clinton said Thursday that air strikes (Reuters Dec. 17) were "absolutely the right thing to do."
Newt Gingrich (CFR) strongly (AP Dec. 17) endorsed the military action as he formally passed his gavel to Bob Livingston: "We must carry the burden of leading the world."
Madeline Albright (CFR/TC) told Jim Lehrer (CFR) that (News Hour Dec. 17): "I believe that the President did the right thing to make the decision to have this military campaign at this time."

While the Washington Times said (Reuters Dec. 17) that Clinton's attack followed the pattern of the "Wag the Dog scenario," the New York Times said the action "was fully justified." Support for the President and U.S. troops also came from the Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, the Boston Globe, the Hartford Courant, the Miami Herald and the Chicago Tribune.

James A. Baker III (CFR) of the Baker Institute said (NBC News Dec. 16) there was a need for speed and that Clinton probably was forced to act: "We've diddled around . . . we probably had to act, this is the right thing, I think, for the United States to do . . . Nobody could be so craven as to risk the lives of our military men and women to cover their political backsides . . . "

Samuel R. Berger (CFR), U.S. National Security Adviser, explained (CNN Dec. 16) that the UN Secretary-General had agreed upon five criteria. Iraq has not cooperated. The inspection commission was not able to function. Richard Butler, on Tuesday, reported that due to Iraq's deception, the inspections were ineffectual. There was no choice but to take military action. The object was to take out missiles, weapons of mass destruction and prevent aggression towards neighbors. With the inspections no longer being possible, the U.S. had to make good on its threats of military force. (Clinton admin. KNEW Saddam had WMDs when inspections stopped. Think about that.)

Former President Jimmy Carter (CFR/TC) stated (Reuters Dec. 17): "American leaders played no role in the timing of Iraq's violations, which cannot be related to political events in Washington."

Laurence S. Eagleburger (CFR/TC), however, apparently broke rank, and said (NBC News Dec. 16) that "it smells."

Richard ("Dick") Andrew Gephardt (CFR) opposed holding a debate on impeachment (ABC Dec. 17) in part based on what Saddam Hussein would think.

Paul Gigot (BB) said there could be no debate while Americans are in harm's way (PBS Dec. 16) while Mark Shields said that Saddam Hussein had ran out his string.

Lott said he had been briefed by the administration (NBC De. 17) and stated: "I am going to take their word for it."

Rep. Porter Goss (R-Florida) , House Intelligence Committee Chairman, said (CNN Dec. 16) that he had not been briefed: "Bringing Saddam Hussein to justice and dismantling his regime is what this is about."

Joseph Lieberman (CFR) (D-Conn.) supported (PBS Dec. 16) Clinton's actions "absolutely." It was made clear to Senators three weeks ago that if Richard Butler was frustrated, the U.S. would strike Iraq without delay or warning.

John Forbes Kerry (S&B 1966) said that Clinton was doing the right thing (K-Eye News Dec. 16).

Senator John Warner (PBS Dec. 16) said it was imperative to join together "to enforce the rule of law." He said England was "bravely participating" and that there was clear and convincing proof in the Butler report to the UN. Timing was an issue but now we must back our troops.

Mohammed Said Al-Sahaf, Iraq Foreign Minister, said (News Hour Dec. 17) that rather than "Operation Desert Fox," the operation should be called "Villians in the Arabian Desert."

Wednesday night (AP Dec. 17) Iraq, Russia and China called to an immediate halt to the attacks. Iraq's UN envoy, Nizar Hamdoon, said that the uproar over weapons of mass destruction was "nothing more than a big lie" like the claim that Iraq was a threat to its neighbors. He said that Richard Butler, the head of UNSCOM, had cited only five incidents in 300 inspection operations. In an almost unanimous resolution (Reuters Dec. 17), the lower house of the Russian Parliament, said that the U.S. and Britain were engaged in "international terrorism." Yeltsin said the strikes "crudely violated" the UN charter and should be halted immediately. Russia is furious (Reuters Dec. 18) that the U.S. bypassed the UN Security Council which gave it no chance to use its veto.

17 posted on 02/07/2003 8:56:48 AM PST by Ragtime Cowgirl (History will record our response and judge or justify every nation in this hall.- GWB to the UN.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
18 posted on 02/07/2003 11:16:09 AM PST by firewalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

"IS it SAFE?" = HILLARY on Armed Services Committee


19 posted on 02/07/2003 9:31:40 PM PST by ALOHA RONNIE ( ..Vet-Battle of IA DRANG-1965 .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

Historical Reference BUMP!

20 posted on 10/07/2005 11:23:55 AM PDT by Pagey (The Clintons ARE the true definition of the word WRETCHED!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson