Sorry for being off-topic, just thought you'd want to know:

Just saw on CNN....anti-aircraft fire happening in Iraq.

Guess it's starting.

Bobbi ----<-----<<<-------<@----------@>-------->>>------>------ New!!! PowerPoint slide show -- "Y2k: Where are we now? Where are we going?" Check it out at http://www.buzzbyte.com/ ----<-----<<<-------<@----------@>-------->>>------>------

-- Bobbi (bobbia@slic.com), December 16, 1998

Answers

Wag-the-dog. This is sickening! Guess I better run down to Costco and get more beans.

-- bardou (bardou@baloney.com), December 16, 1998.

It's on every TV channel so far...
All mentioning impeachment vote tomorrow...
Curious timing ...
Wag The Dog ...
Watching, a big reminder, war is violent ...
Civilians running in streets of Iraq ...
White House announcement, Prez from Oval Office ...
Awful ...
War & Destruction
xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx

-- Leska (allaha@earthlink.net), December 16, 1998.

for Iraq for the next few days, TEOTWATKI
xxxxxxx xxxxxxx

-- Leska (allaha@earthlink.net), December 16, 1998.

"Wag-the-Dog" folks are as in denial about the Iraq situation as "pollyannas" are in denial about Y2K.

-- No Spam Please (anon@ymous.com), December 16, 1998.

In order to make the "Wag the Dog" case stick, you have to presuppose that Iraq is complicit. They are timing these refusals to cooperate with inspectors. Perhaps they are timing them deliberately to make it *appear* that Clinton is wagging the dog. They're not stupid - they've managed to hold power for a long time, under some very adverse circumstances.

E.

-- E. Coli (nunayo@beeswax.com), December 16, 1998.

Clinton is live on TV right now about this as I type.

Wag the dog? We almost hit Iraq a few weeks ago, but called it off when Iraq agreed to comply with inspections. The planes were already in the air and minutes away from their strikes.

Don't get me wrong--none of this is easy, simple, or without risks. Few people realize how close we were to World War III in 1991. If Israel had retaliated when Iraq sent missles its way (we begged Israel not to retaliate), the 1991 war could very, very easily have turned into "the mother of all wars".

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), December 16, 1998.

I'm with No Spam, E. and Kevin.

Charles, if that is what you believe then do you realize that Roosevelt was equally at fault for the destruction of Pearl Harbor?

I can't believe anyone could believe that the Joint Chiefs, Secretary of Defense William Cohen and TONY BLAIR would ever go along with a politically motivated "wag the dog" conspiracy.

Your supposition is truly without any merit.

Mike ==================================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), December 16, 1998.

Excuse me...but I have not seen "Wag the Dog". Could somebody please tell me briefly what it is about? Thank you! Is it worth seeing?

-- Blondie Marie (Blondie@future.net), December 16, 1998.

Mike,

I'd really, really like to know how your reponse has anything to do with Charles' post.

Besides, what do you think; that the Prez, the Joint Chiefs, the DefSec and Tony Blair share one brain and that you can read its thoughts?

I can think of plausible self-serving, *conflicting* reasons for each party to promote this latest action, no conspiracy required. (Not that many of you would recognize a conspiracy if you fell over it) The ONLY variable in this whole charade is the TIMING, not the motive. (either individual or collective.)

-- Elbow Grease (Elbow_Grease@AutoShop.com), December 16, 1998.

Robert DeNiro and Dustin Hoffman -- Presidential PR spinmeister and Hollywood producer join forces to manipulate the press and American people by "creating" a war against Albanian terrorists to divert attention from a presidential sex scandal (guilty as charged) 2 weeks before (re)election.

-- wag (impeachment@bay.com), December 16, 1998.

Come on, Bill! On the eve of the House impeachment vote you launch an attack against Iraq? On the eve of the vote? Personally, I'm calling my congressman tomorrow and demanding an impeachment vote.

-- cody varian (cody@y2ksurvive.com), December 16, 1998.

Interesting flip of the flop.

Self interest combined with national interest. Arent the conservative republican leaders also self interested? Who in Washington actually has the interests of the nation at heart? Who is straight forward and acting from integrity. Hard to say. Few of them are interested enough in preparing a nation for Y2K.

War is an ugly thing to instigate. At the same time, terrorism is pretty awful too. And then again, theres Y2K. A time when our national defenses may well be down, yet self-interested zealots would be willing to use biological weapons, quite possibly manufactured in Iraq, to exacerbate U.S. mayhem. Looks like its all between a rock and a hard place. Handle the problem now, or later? What is a good decision, what is a bad one? Time will tell.

Diane

Ready to plant a garden this spring?

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), December 16, 1998.

hmm...brace yourself Diane, I'm going to agree with you! there! I hope that wasn't too traumatic! :-)

Folks not only is Diane right, BUT the question in my mind now is whether this hasn't pretty much guaranteed that we will see at least one terr strike on US soil PRIOR to y2k...

Arlin [who is looking to rejuggle his list again, and bring gas masks back up a few lines...]

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), December 16, 1998.

Impeachment or not, the world is still rotating, and Hussein is still playing his games. He has treated us, and the world, like a yo-yo since the Gulf War ended. He had been warned mroe than enough times this was going to happen if he did not play ball, he kept changing the rules, this is what happens.

Do I like war? HELL NO! Only a fool "loves" or "likes" war.

BTW...I noticed something interesting, did anyone notice the "calm" in between attacks in Baghdad? Cars on the street, driving in an orderly fashion, no speeding, no roaming groups of looters. I think this is all plausible in America after Y2K as we are spoiled rotten, but you look at places like Baghdad or Bosnia where they live with hardship right now, or it is in recent memory, and I think they really will see Y2K as a "bump in the road"

Rick

-- Rick Tansun (ricktansun@hotmail.com), December 16, 1998.

Krushev and sons Funeral Home. Our motto "We Will Bury You" In business for 50 years. Millions of satisfied customers, mostly Jews. Specializing in group plans (Mass Burials) or mass cremations (Thermonuclear) and Euthanasia (VX gas) For confidential details contact Comrade Klinton through the American communist party, or the socialist Democratic party.

-- Nikoli Krushev (DOOMSDAY@Y200.COM), December 17, 1998.

Elbow Grease wrote, "I'd really, really like to know how your reponse has anything to do with Charles' post."

Charles post was this, "Bill's a mighty big, brave hombre when it's your kids dodging the ordnance."

I'm guessing that you mean when I wrote this, "Charles, if that is what you believe then do you realize that Roosevelt was equally at fault for the destruction of Pearl Harbor?"

What I meant is this - history shows by hindsight that FDR was aware of the impending attack on Pearl Harbor well before it actually happened. So, FDR understood what was about to happen and he did nothing to stop it. He didn't warn Pearl Harbor. He didn't warn the public at large. American service men died. Should we judge this great President's actions now? I don't think so. There were reasons why Pearl Harbor was a necessity. Sometimes you have to lose a battle to win a war.

I'm in no way saying that Bill Clinton is anything close to a great president. Honestly, I don't really like Bill Clinton.

However, I do not believe that ANY president would be so irresponsible as to play political games with the lives of young Americans. War is sometimes just necessary. If anything, this action at this time is the exact opposite of what a safe political move would be. The safe move would have been to do what was done a month ago. Give Saddam another chance. Give Saddam another month. Put Saddam on the back-burner and let that stew while you protect your political backside.

Also, Elbow wrote this, "I can think of plausible self-serving, *conflicting* reasons for each party to promote this latest action, no conspiracy required."

I agree with you. You sound just as cynical about politics as I am. Honestly, I can't see how anyone can look at a politician who has attained a high office in national government and think that they are above such self-serving motivations. Looking to politicians as moral leaders seems really strange to me. My belief is that what you should look for in a politician is leadership. I don't think you could look at any past president and really consider them a moral leader. Great leaders in moral causes, yes. Moral leaders in all causes? No way. Revisionism aside.

Howard Baker, the Secretary of State to George Bush, said tonight that he believes this was the right action and it had to be done. The timing is coincidental.

If anything, the timing of this military action further polarizes those who believe impeachment is necessary against the President. If anything, this action gives those who believe in impeachment another reason to justify their position.

If you want to see real leadership, look to those who rise above the political rhetoric and partisan positioning and speak of bigger issues. There are real leaders out there on both sides. They speak a little more calmly and think before they judge. They don't look for the easy move. They study the whole board first.

Bill Clinton is on his way out. The actions in Iraq wont save his presidency. I think he's even resigned to this. The only real judge of any president is how history remembers him (again, revisionism aside).

On another thread I wrote that I expected Al Gore to make a public statement very soon. I've now seen him on both CNN and ABC. It's a changing of the guard and one more move in the big chess game.

Mike ===============================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), December 17, 1998.

Had I been FDR knowing about Pearl Harbour in advance, I might have seen the need to let it happen.

But I would have covertly sent every available anti-aircraft unit to Hawaii. I would have brought in ASW ships, disguised perhaps as fishing trawlers. I would have allowed the Japs to get in and cause the inevitable amount of damage. I would *not* have allowed a single submarine or aircraft to get out alive, if I could help it. I would have thus achieved:

A political victory (caused by the strategic loss)

A strategic loss (neccessary for the political victory)

AND a massive tactical victory, destroying the cream of the enemy air force.

--Leo

-- Leo (leo_champion@hotmail.com), December 17, 1998.

Yes how can you impeach your leader during the middle of a "war".

How many mysterious deaths were there connected with Klinton's various shady dealings.

-- Richard Dale (rdale@figroup.co.uk), December 17, 1998.

As a senior citizen, former liberal democrat, my advice to younger folks (prior to last night) would be to follow the example of Clinton: DO NOT SERVE IN THE ARMED SERVICES! Dodge the draft. If you're in now, get out before it is too late.

Politicians can't (won't) give this advice, but citizens can. the TIMING of this bombing is too obvious unless you have Clinton issued rose colored glasses on.

JOSKA

-- Joska (Joska@Hunky.com), December 17, 1998.

That's right, and let Saddam rule the world.

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), December 17, 1998.

We've been screwing with this Saddam for years now. It's always a tease for us. All that money we have wasted dropping just a few bombs on him, and subjecting our young men and women to death and disease. What have we accomplished? Nothing but body bags. This is nothing more than Clinton trying to save his ass at the expense of our troops. He's no better than Saddam himself.

-- bardou (bardou@baloney.com), December 17, 1998.

BTW is Klinton becoming a "hero" over there, I mean not with de Yourdon posters.

-- Richard Dale (rdale@figroup.co.uk), December 17, 1998.

Except for this Forum, most of what I have read and heard is definitely against this bombing.

Interesting that many politicians have been saying in their comments some reference to "support the troops" but NOT "and support the President."

I used to buy into the myth that America is the watch dog of the world. Not in many a year now.

-- Joska (Joska@Hunky.com), December 17, 1998.

Did any of you listen to Art Bell last night. He had a former UN inspector from the US on. His opinion was targets/buildings picked are probably empty (Contents constantly moved), probably same targets they were going to hit the last time we were going to shut, and he was on a inspection team once when they found components but Klinton didn't want anything done about it because he didn't want to go to war. Figure this one out....

-- No Name (No.Name@wonderland.com), December 17, 1998.

How can bombing possibly destroy the sites:

The production facilities must be pretty well distributed, duplicated, hidden and secured by now.

-- Richard Dale (rdale@figroup.co.uk), December 17, 1998.

As I stated in another post, my hubby just got out of the Navy not long ago. Regardless of the 'wag the dog' ideas or the impeachment conspiracy theory, Please LET us Pray for our troops over there. They have families and are there to protect our country. THEY NEED OUR support now more than ever. In 95 moral was low. We know, we were in the military then. Imagine how 'our children' 'our troops' must feel. Let us not look upon this without giving them the support and prayers they so desperately need. It is Christmas, they could be home with their loved ones, as we are. I am not trying to flame anyone in here, just remember those who may die to defend. In Prayer, consumer

-- consumer (private@aol.com), December 18, 1998.

Consumer,

Thank you very much for bringing the real issue to light.

I would never speak ill of any service person who is under fire and doing thier duty. No one should take their sacrifice lightly in any way, shape or form.

We should all pray for the safety of all those that do their duty without question and without reservation.

Thank you Consumer for helping me to see what's really important.

Mike ====================================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), December 18, 1998.

Yes Consumer, thank you.

I pray for our troops, I pray for the people of Iraq who are unable to live freely yet still go on with their lives while bombs are dropping around them, for our Congress, our Presidency, our Constitution and for all of us in this upside down world. We're all going to need it.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), December 18, 1998.

I'm gonna quote Chris here, but, Chris, I am not singling you out.

****That's right, and let Saddam rule the world. ****

Do you believe it is possible for Saddam Hussein to rule the world? If so, then the Wag the Dog, spin doctors have earned their money. They have propagandized well that he is the equivalent to Hitler...(utter nonsense), and the spin doctors have taught you, against overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that all that puffing of chests and launching of phallic missiles is NOT about any economic interests, or Western addictions to oil. Follow the money.

I repeat, the rumors about the B36 bomber are totally false.

Can you say "disinformation?"

Governments are game palaces. They are not about anything else but the perpetuation of governments. So ends the rant.

-Stranger in a Strange Land upon the hill,....in her faded, yet still attractive, flapping sheet

-- Donna Barthuley (moment@pacbell.net), December 18, 1998.

Folks, step back one pace.

Four to six weeks ago, Bill told Sadman that the UN had had enough of the stalling and evasion and sent in the bombers. While they were literally on their bombing runs, Sadman says, "Wait, I'm not finished with my preparations, I'm not quite ready to be bombed yet." Bill calls back the planes and says "OK but this is your last chance." From then till now, Sadman has continued the *same* harassment of UN inspectors, the same stalling, the same evasion. Bill could have sent the planes up *any time*, but he gives Sadman additional time to prepare. Tell me this is not so.

Sadman is the whipping boy of the decade. It's not a question of his motives: he is aggressive. But Bush could have and should have shut him down completely when he had the chance. So why didn't he? Just so he'd be around later, to get whupped again. Tell me this is not so.

-- Elbow Grease (Elbow_Grease@AutoShop.com), December 18, 1998.

Earlier in our show, Mike Taylor said this...

"However, I do not believe that ANY president would be so irresponsible as to play political games with the lives of young Americans."

...which is something that many people have expressed.

I do not think that the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was anything but< /b> a political game. I do not think Ronald Reagan invaded Granada three days after the Marine Barricks Bombing in Beirut for any reason other than political reasons. I do not think Harry Truman authorized the use of atomic weapons over Japan for anything other than political reasons. I do not think McKinley succumbed to the pressure of Hearst and others to enter the War with Spain for anything other than political reasons. I do not think James Polk went into Mexico and stole territory for anything other than political reasons. The "War" and occupation of Korea have been political and nothing else. Has the treatment of Sadman (i love that one!) over the last decade been anything other than the political game of "the balance of power in the Middle East?" Was the virtual occupation of Western Europe during "The Cold War" anything other than a political game.

Please, friends. Do not be naive...

-- pshannon (pshannon@inch.com), December 18, 1998.

ooooopppss!

I hate it when that happens!

-- pshannon (pshannon@inch.com), December 18, 1998.

See also my cost breakdown in the other "Y2K - Iraqi" thread, don't want to repat it here - I probably couldn't misspell everything twice anyway!

Quoting from above:

< However, I do not believe that ANY president would be so irresponsible as to play political games with the lives of young Americans. >>

That's where I differ with you. Sadly, this is something (particularly seeing that he is using cruise missiles rather than fliers) that I believe Clinton would do. He has no morals, no fiber, no soul and no goal in life but his own legacy. I (sad to say) after seeing him distort every form of the truth for 8 years - since his '90 campaign for governor - would absolutely believe he would do this.

By the way - he ordered the assault be prepared on the way home from the failed Isreali-Palestinian meetings (so he got no good news there to bring home!) and after receiving the latest vore-count on impeachment was going against him. After he ordered the assault prepared from our forces - he got hold of Britain's Tony Blair to generate a consensus, then contacted the UN inspector. Two days after Clinton orderd the cruise missile strike plan prepared, the UN inspector issued his latest report claiming Sadam was blocking inspections.

The strike was actually ordered hours after the Republicans said they would delay their impeachment vote if a strike was launched.

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), December 18, 1998.

Oh mercy..thank goodness pshannon...there are actually folks out there that don't watch political commercials and think "gosh, honey...he LOOKS sincere".

-- Donna Barthuley (moment@pacbell.net), December 18, 1998.

pshannon, you've made great points. You've stated them very well. Maybe I should have said that I don't think ANY president would take military action to save their own political backside.

I suppose it's something I have to believe because, as someone who is already cynical of the politics of Washington, I would be left without any hope. I'll chose to maintain my hope in light of the alternative.

I'm an Independent. That means I am so fed up with party ideology that I can not belong to either the Democrats or the Republicans.

I supported George Bush and the troops during Desert Storm and Desert Shield. I believed the "baby nursery" story and much of the propaganda that went on at that time. Some of the material presented to Congress to make the case for war, in the end, just wasn't true. However, I have no doubt that serious crimes took place against the citizens of Kuwait. That is exactly why we should have gone straight to Saddam's front door then. We had the troops, the momentum and the legal authority. I've always questioned why we didn't.

Excuse me while I rant...

My father spent the majority of his life in some form of military service. He fought as a very young boy against the occupation of the Philippines. He saw family and friends taken from their homes and beheaded in the streets of Manila. His father, my grandfather, was put into a prison camp for years and for the rest of his life he slept in a cot with a footlocker at the foot of his bed. After he retired, my dad served as a "civilian with rank" during Viet Nam. He was wounded during his stay but finished his tour.

I didn't find out until years later what my father did during his tour. He worked as a liaison to a company that was owned by the Johnson family. Yes, Johnson, as in the president. I have no doubt that financial interests are served during the time of military action.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that you're right. There are always political, or religious or economic reasons for why any military action is taken. You're right and I don't dispute this. Only history can judge the merits of the actions taken.

ps, the examples you stated perfectly illustrate why sometimes the use of military force is the last, best option regardless of any other motivation.

Going back to my original statement, I used the word "irresponsible". "I do not believe that any president would be so irresponsible as to play political games with the lives of young Americans."

There is a difference between using military force in time of crisis and using military force for nothing but the personal gain of the Commander and Chief. If this is the case then this is treason and impeachment is the only alternative (short of insurrection).

If treason is the case then you must consider that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, any other participating military leader, their staff, Secretary William Cohen and the rest of the cabinet, all the members of the NSA, the CIA, or any other agency that went along with this action are also guilty of treason. Also, you must consider that Tony Blair and his government and the whole of Great Britain are also participants in this conspiracy.

Sorry, I just don't buy it.

Secretary of Defense William Cohen, a former Republican Senator, said he would put his 30 years of public service on the line to state that there was no personal political motivation for this action. I believe him.

Even so, and with political motivations aside, it disturbs me to the depth of my soul that such a mixed message is being sent to the troops who battle for our interests. And, call me naive, but I do believe that THEY do act in our interests.

I wonder what the coming months will bring now that political polarization has overtaken Washington? Personally, I think about what will occupy the time of Senators Bennet and Nunn and Congressman Horn and others. This is the atmosphere in which y2k will take place. This is the atmosphere in which decisions and contingencies and work arounds and remediation and just getting through the business of running the country must take place.

I'm puzzled by anyone who is so consumed by political party ideology that they can't see the harm being done by all sides in this travesty. I'm sad to see people actually cheer on both sides when they see their party "score" a point for their side as if this were some sporting event. I'm seeing our personal freedoms being trampled by zealots from both sides of two parties that don't even represent my interests anymore and I wonder "what the hell are they thinking?" I wonder "what will this country offer my son".

Right now, I wonder what will be left in the aftermath of this partisan bullshit and y2k.

It's simple really.

Management get's it wrong again and can't see the big picture.

Right now, I completely believe in TEOTWAWKI.

Mike ==========

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), December 19, 1998.

pshannon; minor quibble

As one of my lodge brothers says, "I'm here because the Bomb was dropped." He was in the unit scheduled to hit the beach on the japanese Home Islands. After the first bomb, the emperor and his high command were preparing the defenses of teh Islands and were NOT even DISCUSSING an armistice, until word of the second bomb. At this point, the discussion took place.

This is documented in a number of non-revisionist locations, and by some of my acquaintances in college. One of whose parents is visible in the FIRST released picture of the armistice signing for VJ Day. His father is NOT visible (photo cropped 5 people off one end) in the rest of the released photos. Something about being in regimentals of a unit from a country he "never served in".

Additional quibbles, Mike

We did NOT have the "Legal Authority" to take the advance "to Sadam's front door" in Desert Storm. The Coalition authorized to the Kuwaiti border and NOT to Bagdad. Both Schwartzkopf AND Powell wanted to finish the job and Bush had no choice (from a geopolitical viewpoint) but to put the brakes on where he did, pinching and de-patriating as many of the Iraqui troops and as much materiel as possible.

this is also documented in many places.

Chuck, who has hated Geopolitical gaming since Friday November 13, 1213 (French sack of the Templars, at the alledged behest of the captive Avignion Pope)

-- Chuck a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), December 19, 1998.

E. writes (about the Iraqis):
----begin quote----
They are timing these refusals to cooperate with inspectors. Perhaps they are timing them deliberately to make it *appear* that Clinton is wagging the dog.
----end of quote----

Could be even more subtle: the inspectors are told by the PTB when to ask about the sites that actually have violations, knowing they will get refusal at a time (impeachment time) that leads the naove to rationalize the military operation as a wag the dog scenario. Months earlier, a movie script is developed and produced specifically to provide the mass-consciousness with a convenient and simplistic paradigm for use in pigeon-holing imputed intent. Other films such as Primary Colors are also developed to further condition mass- consciousness.

The impeach/attack schedule represents a divide and conquer strategy on public opinion: generate two crises simultaneously so each gets less ink and will proceed with less resistance. The point being that Clinton is as much a pawn as Saddam, he is being manipulated from higher up on the food chain, just as much as his underlings are manipulated by him. There is no conspiracy, it's just part of the implementation of the Darwinist-Malthusian mandate.

-- Jon (jonmiles@pacbell.net), December 19, 1998.

What do Malthus and Darwin have to do with warfare and y2k?

From:
Key Figures, Philosophies in the rise of Materialistic Scientism & Church of Scientism:
Influence of Malthus and Darwin on the European Elite
http://www.trufax.org/avoid/manifold.html

----begin quote----

The "Survival" Game

After 1859, the Darwinian "vision" of existence as purposeless struggle and of evolution as a haphazard process quickly replaced the Judeo-Christian vision of human life as a purposeful, divinely guided moral struggle. The Darwinian revolution deposed God as Source, and indeed exiled from the realm of "true science" all teleological considerations (considerations as to the purpose and ends of life). "Instead of endorsing the eighteenth-century concept of a drive toward perfection," writes Ernst Mayr, "Darwin merely postulated change.... By chance this process of adaptation sometimes results in changes that can be interpreted as progress, but there is no intrinsic mechanism generating inevitable advance."

"Darwin's new and revolutionary [reactionary] view," writes Australian scientist Michael Denton, "implied that all the diversity of life on Earth had resulted from natural and random processes and not, as previously believed, from the creative activity of God. The acceptance of this great claim and the consequent elimination of God from nature was to play a decisive role in the secularization of western society...."

Further, the "idea of life as meaningless struggle" played a decisive role in the brutalization of the western world. Guided by the "scientific" ideas that "war is the health of the nation" and that the great threat to the state is over-population, the rulers of late nineteenth century Europe precipitated the Age of Imperialism. After Darwin, the nations of Europe found themselves with "surplus populations." Nation after nation entered the race to acquire foreign lands. The motive was not greed, it was "survival." The nations that would survive into the future, it was believed, would be those in possession of vast tracts of land for the dumping of surplus population.

...

----end quote----

-- Jon (jonmiles@pacbell.net), December 19, 1998.

Great stuff, Jon. "Wag the Dog" and "Primary Colors" as conditioning propaganda. ROTFLMAO...

Chuck, I think that rather than quibbling with the idea that the bombs were dropped on Japan for political purposes, you stated the reason for those purposes. Truman beat Dewey (another of your Lodge brothers?) by the skin of his teeth in 1948, and probably would have lost if the war had not come to an end when and how it did. Another of the political purposes was to send the Soviets and the rest of the world a clear signal...

Mike sez - "Going back to my original statement, I used the word "irresponsible". "I do not believe that any president would be so irresponsible as to play political games with the lives of young Americans."

There is a difference between using military force in time of crisis and using military force for nothing but the personal gain of the Commander and Chief. If this is the case then this is treason and impeachment is the only alternative (short of insurrection)."

I agree with you and I think this instance is very complex. It's not one or the other. There are many layers of political gaming going on right now. I personally do not believe that Clinton ordered a strike now simply to put off the vote in the house. But I do think that was one layer of thinking. I think it was also a layer of Saddam's thinking. Other questions to ask: What REALLY happened on Clinton's trip to Israel? Are Clinton and Blair Lodge brothers? (--jeez-- talk about gaming - I just found out that Livingston decided not to take the Speakership--"may you live in interesting times"--) is this going to lead to pulling out any of those Executive Orders? Use 'em or lose 'em? Will this lead to an increase in the price of crude oil? (which is, of course a good thing to the oil industry) What's going on in the Gore camp? Is he ready to take the briefcase and what's he thinking?

Oooops...can't quite finish this thought right now...gotta go...will the Templars get the last laugh?...

-- pshannon (pshannon@inch.com), December 19, 1998.

ps, we're much, much closer in our thinking than our geographical locations : ) I totally agree with your layer upon layer scenario.

Chuck, I'm no lawyer and I wont quibble with a legal point I simply don't know anything about.

If, however, Desert Storm was a war then I do think we had the legal authority to push straight to Baghdad and occupy the territory. The restraint was self-inflicted if I recall correctly. We still occupy territory to this day that was gained through war.

What was it that kept us from driving all the way to Saddam's front door? Politics? Of course it was.

Mike ===============================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), December 20, 1998.

It seems that a large part of any political strategy is to have an identifiable "bad guy" to focus world attention on. It makes it much easier to keep attention off the behind-the-scenes players.

Can't help feeling that a lot of all this posturing has a "layer" of Y2K behind it.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), December 21, 1998.

Quoting above:

< Sorry, I just don't buy it.

Secretary of Defense William Cohen, a former Republican Senator, said he would put his 30 years of public service on the line to state that there was no personal political motivation for this action. I believe him. >>

Found out today that the Joint Chiefs weren't consulted, weren't in on the planning nor "top line" (Saturday-Sunday-Monday) planning before the strike. They were informed at the end. They too are appointed by the President's DOD-controlled executives (and confirmed I believe) by the Senate. They were *not* controlling any phase of the offensive, which, as photographs from the capital showed - had no real effect on the day-to-business of the Irapi's. the assault was too small, too limited to afect anything but incite their hatred of US and their (the Iraqi people's) will to resist.

Oh, the report that was issued Monday (after Clinton told his planner to strike on Saturday) was either exaggerated or an outright lie. But anyway, the inspectors were denied access to Saddam's party headquarters in Iraq, not to any clinic, weapons plant, or even presidential "palace" where weapons have been hidden in the past. (Clinton evidently wanted direct access to Hussein's political files - a refreshing change from hiding evidence up in the White House living quarters from US prosecutor's - even while he actively was promising to encourage Hussein's opposition party.)

H**l, I'd refuse access to political records from Clinton too if I were Hussein! (But the IRS is already auditting me, and hundreds of others who have vocalized their opposition to the Democrats. No liberal organization has been auditted by Clinton's IRS in six years.)

Anyway, Clinton gets a trumped up letter directly from Butler, the UN inspector who replaced Ritter, before Butler even sends the letter to the UN. Clinton then orders an attack hours before the debate begins, after he learns the Republicans would delay the impeachment debate. Before the UN gets to debate anything. He orders actual strikes - without UN aproval. He then claims all this was needed to strike before Ramadan - the Islamic holydays (thought the opposed bringing religioninto politics!

(But its okay to claim he is pushing an Isreali-Palestinian peace accord on Isreal because "his Christain upbringing demanded he solve the conflict" - thus explicitly bringing Christainity into a decaded old war between Arbs and Jews over land, security, and murder, and terrorism. And you so fervetly fear the so-called right-wing Christains, and yet blindly and "religiously" support somebody preaches lies, hatred and class warfare directly from the pulpits of a Christain (but Democrat) churchs?)

Back to the strikes. Clinton then continues the strikes into the holy month of Ramadan - violating his previous justification for rushing into action. He then stops them hours after impeachment - but because he ran out of missiles, not because all the targets were destroyed.. Also, the primary targets were defense departments and anti-air installations - not weapons storage or fabrication related (at least in the unclassified reports received.) But the Ministry of Information where CNN was braodcasting in Bagdad was deliberately spared - because he wanted good pictures of 460 million in your tax dollars being used.

If he (Clinton) wanted to actually hurt Hussein, he would not have attacked these targets in this manner. But he wanted to publicize his attack on Hussein - not hurt him militarily - and by all means he wanted to avoid US fliers from being shot down.

[Notice that Clinton only allowed UK fliers to actually attack targets in Iraq - they weren't important politically if they were killed or captured. Besides, the Brit's over there needed to show Blair's support, but had to deliver hardware the cheap but dangerous way - by hand. Into hostile fire. From above a hostile target.]

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), December 21, 1998.

Robert wrote:

"Found out today that the Joint Chiefs weren't consulted, weren't in on the planning nor "top line" (Saturday-Sunday-Monday) planning before the strike. They were informed at the end."

Robert, the action that took place recently had been the result of prior planning in which the military had designed a strike that could be carried out within 24 hours of a "go" order. The action taken was actually given the go ahead back in November, required 72 hours for the military to prepare assets and then on November 15 the force went into action. This is all in the public record and was even talked about in Pentagon briefings. I'd like to know where it is you get your information. The Joint Chiefs did know about the action prior to it being taken and in fact, had known about the possibility of resumption of the prior actions that began on November 15 at any given time.

regarding the Joint Chiefs: "They too are appointed by the President's DOD-controlled executives (and confirmed I believe) by the Senate."

Robert, they're military men who are bound by honor and tradition. What point are you trying to make here?

"They were *not* controlling any phase of the offensive, which, as photographs from the capital showed - had no real effect on the day-to-business of the Irapi's. the assault was too small, too limited to afect anything but incite their hatred of US and their (the Iraqi people's) will to resist."

Regarding the control of "any phase of the offensive." You might be right. These days, military actions are planned by military planners and commanders, not military management. Even so, these plans cannot take place without the authority of "The Brass". So, your supposition that the Joint Chiefs were "out of the loop" is incorrect. Regarding the action having "had no real effect on the day-to-business of the Irapi's. the assault was too small, too limited to afect anything but incite their hatred of US and their (the Iraqi people's) will to resist."

Well, time will tell. The real message behind the bombing was the resolve of the United States to make good on it's word. During the first few days of bombing back in 1991 the Iraqi capital was hit hard. One building that was hit was a military headquarters where the families of forces loyal to Saddam had taken shelter. It was a focus of much news worldwide. From that point on, Baghdad was not hit. This was the first time since 1991 that Baghdad proper was targeted. The targets that were hit were very political in nature including the Republican Guard (how ironic) and the political headquarters of the ruling political party of Saddam. You can't say, a few days after action ceased, that it was a failure. "The end result was acheived," General Anthony Zinni, Pentagon briefing, 11:42 am on 12/21/98.

"Oh, the report that was issued Monday (after Clinton told his planner to strike on Saturday) was either exaggerated or an outright lie. But anyway, the inspectors were denied access to Saddam's party headquarters in Iraq, not to any clinic, weapons plant, or even presidential "palace" where weapons have been hidden in the past."

Again, I'd love to hear where you get your information. The inspectors were denied access to facilities like weapons plants, etc. since November 15. Regardless of how you feel about "the report" (I'm assuming you mean the Butler report) the M.O. of the Iraqi military is that WMD effort is mobile. It's kept on trucks and moved around from one place to the next. It's impossible to hit without "real time" intelligence and troops on the ground. The only other alternative is to strike where you know you will cause disruptions. Also, by hitting on the capital or in a headquarters or a palace of your opposition you strike a blow to them mentally. Even IF we could strike the chemical and biolgical weapons manufacturing facilities then we would cause a huge loss of innocent life and "collateral damage" just by the release of the chemicals into the air. This isn't a wise politcal move and it's the entire reason why Baghdad has been off limits to this point. This was a huge, huge risk that was taken over the last few days. Right now, Saddam is in a box in Baghdad. To the south and to the north he faces forces in opposition to him. Hopefully, by hitting the forces loyal to him his political hold is weakened.

"(Clinton evidently wanted direct access to Hussein's political files - a refreshing change from hiding evidence up in the White House living quarters from US prosecutor's - even while he actively was promising to encourage Hussein's opposition party.) H**l, I'd refuse access to political records from Clinton too if I were Hussein! (But the IRS is already auditting me, and hundreds of others who have vocalized their opposition to the Democrats. No liberal organization has been auditted by Clinton's IRS in six years.)"

You show an interesting motive for your political leanings here. I hope they aren't true but they don't really go to the effort to bring down Saddam or why the strike took place. Unless, of course, you expect similar military action to take place against you soon.

The rest of your post shows you truly hate Clinton. I respect that. But, I'd really like to know where it is you're getting your information. I think you might consider going to the source, the Pentagon, before you make your final judgements. Your facts aren't accurate.

Mike =

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), December 21, 1998.

True, I (like Uncle Deedah) did not get audited until I subscribed to a Libertarian email service, but have been a right-handed Roman Catholic since "forever". So there has been no change on my part - since Tower was rejected in the early 80's - for the behavior Clinton is exhibiting now.

I do not now trust the Joint Chiefs, nor the Sec. of Defense. Look at (for example) Col. Hackworth's past years' columns for a "not-contaminated" view, or Admiral Moorer's column about treason in today's www.worldnetdaily.com site. Look at each of the others there, then respond.

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), December 21, 1998.