Wag the Dog: Look at the Facts
Bill Nalty
Found FR: I tried several search engines to locate this source, with
no luck. But after a quick read, I felt it had merit.
WAG THE DOG? LOOK AT THE FACTS
The Journal of Constitutional and Political Studies
8/17/98 George Landrith
WAG THE DOG? LOOK AT THE FACTS
by George C. Landrith
There has been much talk of Clinton using the military and the current
bombing raid on Iraq to improve his chances in what was supposed to be
today’s impeachment vote. This is now commonly referred to as the “wag
the dog” scenario thanks to a 1997 movie by the same name in which a
fictional president stages a phony war to divert attention from his sex
scandal. You see, truth is stranger than fiction and art does imitate
life.
Patriotic Americans can support the brave fighting men and women who are
currently in harms way, and still question the President’s judgment and
timing There is nothing contradictory about such a position. I support
the troops, but not the President’s misuse of them. I absolutely support
and pray for our armed forces. I do not want to see even one soldier,
sailor, or airman become a casualty of war. Yet, as to the President’s
actions and timing, I cannot stand silent in light of the facts.
Here are the facts.
Since 1992, Saddam Hussein has been flouting, ignoring, and disregarding
the cease fire agreement from the Gulf War. He has been rebuilding his
armed forces and his weaponry. He has been building weapons of mass
destruction. He has repeatedly and consistently rebuffed our efforts to
insure his compliance with the cease fire agreement. There has never
been a time when he was cooperative. This has been since during the
entire six years of Clinton’s presidency.
Now let’s look at how Clinton has used military force in the face of
Saddam’s consistent and long-standing behavior and how Clinton’s use of
the military has coincided with Clinton’s own political troubles.
On January 26, 1998, Bill Clinton performs his now infamous finger
wagging denial that he “did not have sexual relations with that woman.”
The next day, he sent his Cabinet officials -- amid much fanfare and
public posturing about military reprisals against Iraq -- to Europe to
build support for military attacks against Iraq. He publicly warned
Saddam Hussein not to “defy the will of the world.”
On June 30, 1998, U.S. District Court Judge Susan Webber Wright ordered
Mr. Clinton’s deposition in the Paula Jones case in which he perjured
himself many, many times -- to be made public. Later that day, a United
States F-16 fighter jet fired on an Iraqi radar site for the first time
since jets did so in November 1996, one day before the presidential
election.
On August 17, 1998, Clinton appeared before a federal grand jury to
falsely testify about his perjury, abuse of power, obstruction of
justice, and witness tampering. Later that night, he delivered the worst
speech by a president in this century in which he inflamed even members
of his own party by his continued denials and arrogance. As a result
numerous Democratic senators took to the Senate floor to strongly
denounce Clinton. And on August 20, 1998, Monica Lewinsky testified
before the federal grand jury and described how the president had
encouraged her to continue denying the relationship and to submit a
false affidavit.
Later that day, on August 20, 1998, Clinton ordered the attack on
“terrorist facilities” in Sudan and Afghanistan. It now turns out that
most of the Joint Chiefs of Staff were not consulted in any meaningful
way prior to the attack and that the sites that Clinton ordered bombed
were probably not “terrorist facilities” at all. It is now abundantly
clear that the attack was poorly planned and based on weak evidence
thrown together hastily.
Why the haste? Why commit to bombing based on poor facts and evidence?
Because Clinton’s polling numbers were going South after the President’s
disastrous speech and he wanted to rally his support. What better way
than to use and hide behind the military he used to “loathe.” (His word,
not mine.)
On November 13, 1998, Clinton settled the lawsuit with Ms. Jones by
paying her $850,000, which is several hundred thousand dollars more than
she even asked for in her lawsuit. The settlement was widely viewed as a
tacit admission that he had in fact made crude and unwanted sexual
advances to Ms. Jones. Also on that day, Judge Starr delivered to
Congress an additional 4 boxes of evidence against Clinton. The very
next day, on November 14, 1998, Clinton ordered a massive missile attack
against Iraq and then suddenly aborted the mission after the planes were
in the air. Again, all this was done amid much fanfare and media
coverage. Clinton said he remained ready to take military action if
needed.
On December 16, 1998, it became all but certain that Clinton would be
impeached. The few remaining undecided votes announced that they would
support impeachment, leaving Clinton with no realistic hope of
persuading enough “moderate” Republicans to save his political hide. The
White House had been promising all week that the President would take
dramatic action to preserve his presidency. Most thought that meant
another in a long string of “contrition” speeches. Perhaps even a visit
to Capitol Hill to personally explain his “profound remorse.” Others
suggested that Hillary Rodham would do her best Tammy Wynette imitation
and stand by her man in an effort to swing a few impeachment votes. A
few even suggested that the President would “wag the dog.” I should
point out that I dismissed the “wag the dog” rumor out of hand as too
cynical, corrupt, and craven even for Clinton. (It takes some doing for
me to underestimate this man’s corruption, cynicism, and cravenness, as
I believe he is the most corrupt, cynical, and craven man to ever occupy
the White House!)
After it became clear in the afternoon of December 16th that the
President would be impeached, the bombing raid on Iraq began. Clinton
said the bombing was necessary and could not have waited even for a few
days or weeks. He said to wait would have allowed Saddam Hussein to move
his weapons and military to avoid attack. This is utter hogwash. Saddam
has had the last six years to move and hide his military. That means
Saddam has had 2190 days (6 x 365) to move and hide his military. What’s
the rush now?
President Clinton declared that his advisors unanimously backed the
attack -- I guess it depends on how you define “advisors” or “backed.”
The fact is the Washington Times reported on the front page today that
“senior Pentagon officers expressed great skepticism ... about the
raids. This source said that the White House eagerness to launch air
strikes grew with intensity as a parade of centrist Republicans
announced they would vote to impeach the president.”
The article continued by quoting a source, “I have had senior flag and
general officers question the timing .... I have had senior military
officers laughing. I hate to say that.... Why now? He hasn’t built a
coalition. He hasn’t done anything. Why this timing?”
As citizens of the greatest nation on the face of the earth, we should
be able to trust our leaders when they invoke the awesome power of the
armed forces. We should not be put in the position of having to question
the president’s motives and timing. We should not be made to feel guilty
because we have these doubts. All of this can be laid at the feet of one
man -- Bill Clinton. He is to blame for this quandary -- and no one
else. This entire episode illustrates vividly why Clinton is unfit to
hold office and why he should resign or be removed if he lacks the
decency to resign.
Congress should vote on and pass the four articles of impeachment as
soon as possible. Then the Judiciary Committee should reconvene to
consider a fifth article of impeachment -- for gross abuse of power,
abuse of the office of the presidency, and using America’s armed forces
for his own political and personal gain.
Pass a fifth article of impeachment for abuse of power and miseuse of
the United States armed forces for personal
and political gain!
Posted by: George Clay (geo...@mail.one21.net) *
12/18/98 06:22:39 PST
Mark S. Bilk
Clinton ordered an attack on Iraq or change in military
readiness, or anything else, this Right-wing propagandist
would find *something* that the Republicans were doing to
Clinton on or near that day.
It's easy to find, because the Republicans have *constantly*
been attacking Clinton -- take some new legal action, do
something in one of their investigating committees, put
out some new lying smear, etc. almost *every single day*.
No more than a day or two goes by without the Republicans
doing *something* to Clinton that could be said to worry him.
So these Republican "dog wagging" smear artists can always
find a "pivotal event" in the Republican coup d'etat attempt
near any day that Clinton takes military action, and then
claim that Clinton ordered the attack because of that event.
It's the same kind of appeal to irrational thinking that
the Right-wingers use when they claim that self-selected
web polls are accurate, but that the scientifically
sampled polls (that always show Clinton with a 66% or so
approval rating) are not.
Clinton made evasive statements on a couple of occasions
about private, consensual sex.
Republicans, on the other hand, lie about almost *everything*.
They have carried on a massive campaign of lies about Clinton
for *six years*, in an attempt to overthrow a perfectly legal
Presidential *election*. This is an attempted coup d'etat.
This is high treason.
<LI><a href="http://www.aliveness.com/msb.html">Links To Reality</a>
In article <367A80D4...@bellsouth.net>, Bill Nalty <biln...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a367a65303fe7.htm
>
>Found FR: I tried several search engines to locate this source, with
>no luck. But after a quick read, I felt it had merit.
>
>WAG THE DOG? LOOK AT THE FACTS
>
>The Journal of Constitutional and Political Studies
>8/17/98 George Landrith
>
>WAG THE DOG? LOOK AT THE FACTS
>
>by George C. Landrith
>
>There has been much talk of Clinton using the military and the current
>bombing raid on Iraq to improve his chances in what was supposed to be
>today’s impeachment vote. This is now commonly referred to as the “wag
>the dog” scenario thanks to a 1997 movie by the same name in which a
>fictional president stages a phony war to divert attention from his sex
>scandal. You see, truth is stranger than fiction and art does imitate
>life.
>
>Patriotic Americans can support the brave fighting men and women who are
>currently in harms way, and still question the President’s judgment and
>timing There is nothing contradictory about such a position. I support
>the troops, but not the President’s misuse of them. I absolutely support
>and pray for our armed forces. I do not want to see even one soldier,
>sailor, or airman become a casualty of war. Yet, as to the President’s
>actions and timing, I cannot stand silent in light of the facts.
[remainder snipped]
The Schmoo
>>claim that Clinton ordered the attack because of that event.
>
>It's the same kind of appeal to irrational thinking that
>the Right-wingers use when they claim that self-selected
>web polls are accurate, but that the scientifically
>sampled polls (that always show Clinton with a 66% or so
>approval rating) are not.
>
>Clinton made evasive statements on a couple of occasions
>about private, consensual sex.
>
>Republicans, on the other hand, lie about almost *everything*.
>They have carried on a massive campaign of lies about Clinton
>for *six years*, in an attempt to overthrow a perfectly legal
>Presidential *election*. This is an attempted coup d'etat.
>This is high treason.
that is horseshit.
JAS Carter
she...@doowah.com (The Schmoo) wrote:
>that is horseshit.
Hey, I don't remember the schmoo talking like that! ;)
Julie Carter
jsgo...@zippynet.com
--
Slip with me inside myself
And tell me what you see.
A child with wide-eyed wonder
Shining through, transparently?
The Schmoo
>On Fri, 18 Dec 1998 19:36:00 GMT, in talk.politics.misc
>she...@doowah.com (The Schmoo) wrote:
>
>>that is horseshit.
>
>Hey, I don't remember the schmoo talking like that! ;)
yeah. Well, Al's taking a dirt nap. Say and do what I want now.
john q public
The Schmoo wrote in message <367aae76....@news.mindspring.com>...
Don Linsenbach
Get a clue, try to learn how to think for yourself rather merely repeat
what you see and hear on the mainstream media.
I know, I know, it's hard to think for yourself and soooo easy to just set
back on the couch and let Dan Rather tell you what to think.
The rest of us are laughing right in your face for you are foolish.
--
Don Linsenbach
Creative Concepts
Cape Coral, Florida
http://www.1ccad.com
Mark S. Bilk <m...@netcom.com> wrote in article
<msbF46...@netcom.com>...
> This is a total load of Republican crap. No matter *when*
> Clinton ordered an attack on Iraq or change in military
> readiness, or anything else, this Right-wing propagandist
> would find *something* that the Republicans were doing to
> Clinton on or near that day.
>
> It's easy to find, because the Republicans have *constantly*
> been attacking Clinton -- take some new legal action, do
> something in one of their investigating committees, put
> out some new lying smear, etc. almost *every single day*.
>
> No more than a day or two goes by without the Republicans
> doing *something* to Clinton that could be said to worry him.
>
> So these Republican "dog wagging" smear artists can always
> find a "pivotal event" in the Republican coup d'etat attempt
> near any day that Clinton takes military action, and then
> claim that Clinton ordered the attack because of that event.
>
> It's the same kind of appeal to irrational thinking that
> the Right-wingers use when they claim that self-selected
> web polls are accurate, but that the scientifically
> sampled polls (that always show Clinton with a 66% or so
> approval rating) are not.
>
> Clinton made evasive statements on a couple of occasions
> about private, consensual sex.
>
> Republicans, on the other hand, lie about almost *everything*.
> They have carried on a massive campaign of lies about Clinton
> for *six years*, in an attempt to overthrow a perfectly legal
> Presidential *election*. This is an attempted coup d'etat.
> This is high treason.
>
> <LI><a href="http://www.aliveness.com/msb.html">Links To Reality</a>
>
> In article <367A80D4...@bellsouth.net>, Bill Nalty
<biln...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a367a65303fe7.htm
> >
> >Found FR: I tried several search engines to locate this source, with
> >no luck. But after a quick read, I felt it had merit.
> >
> >WAG THE DOG? LOOK AT THE FACTS
> >
> >The Journal of Constitutional and Political Studies
> >8/17/98 George Landrith
> >
> >WAG THE DOG? LOOK AT THE FACTS
> >
> >by George C. Landrith
> >
> >There has been much talk of Clinton using the military and the current
> >bombing raid on Iraq to improve his chances in what was supposed to be
> >today’s impeachment vote. This is now commonly referred to as the “wag
> >the dog” scenario thanks to a 1997 movie by the same name in which a
> >fictional president stages a phony war to divert attention from his sex
> >scandal. You see, truth is stranger than fiction and art does imitate
> >life.
> >
> >Patriotic Americans can support the brave fighting men and women who are
> >currently in harms way, and still question the President’s judgment and
> >timing There is nothing contradictory about such a position. I support
> >the troops, but not the President’s misuse of them. I absolutely support
> >and pray for our armed forces. I do not want to see even one soldier,
> >sailor, or airman become a casualty of war. Yet, as to the President’s
> >actions and timing, I cannot stand silent in light of the facts.
> [remainder snipped]
>
>
>
Don Linsenbach
Take away the polls and what do you have?
zip
Everybody I've talked to wants clinton out.
The only people that I have heard of, that want to keep clinton as pres,
are a few people in this NG and the 'polls'.
I don't believe the polls.
My own daily/yearly experiences show otherwise.
--
Don Linsenbach
Creative Concepts
Cape Coral, Florida
http://www.1ccad.com
Volt...@geocities.com wrote in article
<36930626...@news.mindspring.com>...
> On Fri, 18 Dec 1998 23:40:56 GMT, "Don Linsenbach"
> <crea...@coconet.com> wrote:
>
> >Jeez, clinton has you hook, line and sinker, huh?
> >Get a clue, try to learn how to think for yourself rather merely repeat
> >what you see and hear on the mainstream media.
> >I know, I know, it's hard to think for yourself and soooo easy to just
set
> >back on the couch and let Dan Rather tell you what to think.
> >The rest of us are laughing right in your face for you are foolish.
>
> The rest of you not counting the 76% of the American people who
> support these actions in Iraq, Don?
>
> Do you have a right wing mouse in your pocket.
>
> Jim
>
> Ecrasons l'infame
>
> Join The War On Right Wing Ignorance:
> http://clusterone.home.mindspring.com/
>
> ========================================================================
> "I don’t take my marching orders from the White House. I did this on my
own
> to expose the hypocrisy in Washington. If they’re going to be passing
judgment
> on the president, they shouldn’t have any skeletons in their closet."
>
> -- Larry Flynt
> ========================================================================
>
ratbait
>On Fri, 18 Dec 1998 23:40:56 GMT, "Don Linsenbach"
><crea...@coconet.com> wrote:
>
>>Jeez, clinton has you hook, line and sinker, huh?
>>Get a clue, try to learn how to think for yourself rather merely repeat
>>what you see and hear on the mainstream media.
>>I know, I know, it's hard to think for yourself and soooo easy to just set
>>back on the couch and let Dan Rather tell you what to think.
>>The rest of us are laughing right in your face for you are foolish.
>
>The rest of you not counting the 76% of the American people who
>support these actions in Iraq, Don?
Well, let's just assume for the sake of argument that the polls are
accurate. That's a stretch, but let's just say they are. What should
we gather from the "fact" that three quarters of the American people
think we are perfectly justified to kill arabs (which we start doing,
purely coincidentally, on the eve of an impeachment vote) in an
attempt to punish Saddam Hussien for allegedly refusing to comply with
U.N. dictates (like dozens of other leaders and countries, some of
whom are our allies) and because Hussien kills arabs himself,
sometimes with weapons from plants we helped build back in the days
when he was an ally of OURS and we conveniently overlooked such
excesses?
It's doubtful that very many folks could develop the sadly befeebled
brain-pans wherin such a convoluted, hypocritical justification could
gestate WITHOUT a steady diet of propaganda and piping hot slop from
our invaluable "free press." Think you just proved his point, Jimbo.
While it may well be that idiots do enjoy a substantial majority in
this country, that does not stop them from being idiots. And a great
deal of credit for the sad reality of the former has to go to the
media.
call me a loon now, Jim. What you're good at.
Billy Beck
Volt...@geocities.com wrote:
>On Sat, 19 Dec 1998 05:33:38 GMT, "Don Linsenbach"
><crea...@coconet.com> wrote:
>
>>I just don't give the media polls as much creedence as you do.
>>Take away the polls and what do you have?
>
>Your ignorant opinion based on hatred and stupidity?
>
>>Everybody I've talked to wants clinton out.
>
>Those militia meetings must be really educational.
>
>>The only people that I have heard of, that want to keep clinton as pres,
>>are a few people in this NG and the 'polls'.
>
>The polls being a broad cross section of the American people.
>
>You know. As in WE THE PEOPLE!
>
>>I don't believe the polls.
>
>Because you are a loon in denial.
>
>>My own daily/yearly experiences show otherwise.
>
>See above.
>
>We will see you fools in the Senate where you will be getting a lesson
>about how the Founding fathers set up this ENTIRE procedure.
>
>Enjoy your ass kicking.
Chimp widda keyboard.
Billy
VRWC fronteer
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/promise.html
Jeff & Traci De
(snipped loads of stuff)
> They have carried on a massive campaign of lies about Clinton
> for *six years*, in an attempt to overthrow a perfectly legal
> Presidential *election*. This is an attempted coup d'etat.
> This is high treason.
>
You have to be kidding me. You are accusing me of a coup to put Al
Gore in power??
Yeah, right. That's what I'd do with a coup. Sure.
Trace
--
From who I was to who I'll be
His love and grace has delivered me
Pixie
>This is a total load of Republican crap. No matter *when*
>Clinton ordered an attack on Iraq or change in military
>readiness, or anything else, this Right-wing propagandist
>would find *something* that the Republicans were doing to
>Clinton on or near that day.
>
>It's easy to find, because the Republicans have *constantly*
>been attacking Clinton -- take some new legal action, do
>something in one of their investigating committees, put
>out some new lying smear, etc. almost *every single day*.
>
>No more than a day or two goes by without the Republicans
>doing *something* to Clinton that could be said to worry him.
>
>So these Republican "dog wagging" smear artists can always
>find a "pivotal event" in the Republican coup d'etat attempt
>near any day that Clinton takes military action, and then
>claim that Clinton ordered the attack because of that event.
>
>It's the same kind of appeal to irrational thinking that
>the Right-wingers use when they claim that self-selected
>web polls are accurate, but that the scientifically
>sampled polls (that always show Clinton with a 66% or so
>approval rating) are not.
>
>Clinton made evasive statements on a couple of occasions
>about private, consensual sex.
>
>Republicans, on the other hand, lie about almost *everything*.
>They have carried on a massive campaign of lies about Clinton
>for *six years*, in an attempt to overthrow a perfectly legal
>Presidential *election*. This is an attempted coup d'etat.
>This is high treason.
>
Lets see if I understand your thinking, Mark. All the Republicans lie, but Ole
Slick merely makes 'evasive statements a couple of times'.. That the entire
impeachment mess is simply a right-wing coup d'etat which amounts to 'high
treason'. Does that sum it up pretty well?
My ONLY question. What are you smoking these days?
Billy Beck
Volt...@geocities.com wrote:
>wj...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck) wrote:
>>Volt...@geocities.com wrote:
[...]
>>>Enjoy your ass kicking.
>> Chimp widda keyboard.
>
>Potential Terrorist with a bruised ass?
Jimmy... I don't know how to tell you this about that "ass" thing
of yours...
...but sometimes, an impeachment is just an impeachment.
bd
About time somebody noticed this pattern.
Still -- this one seems a bit more than coincidence.
These military things take a lot of planning. Britain involved too. Days
of planning.
Isn't it more likely the strike was planned first, some Republicans
heard about it and set their coup vote for a time when world affairs
would be distracting Clinton's attention? :-)
BD
bd
>
> Mark S. Bilk wrote:
>
> (snipped loads of stuff)
>
> > for *six years*, in an attempt to overthrow a perfectly legal
> > Presidential *election*. This is an attempted coup d'etat.
> > This is high treason.
> >
>
> Gore in power??
>
> Yeah, right. That's what I'd do with a coup. Sure.
That is what they're saying at alt.impeach.clinton.
If Gore became Pres, Congress would get to confirm or reject his
successor as VP. Then oust Gore.
Or if Gore won't play, oust him and bring in their Speaker. (Whichever
Speaker they have by then, of course. :-)
Why they would bother to do this to a lame duck...? Well, why are they
bothering with Clinton with only 2 years to go? Maybe they figure while
they have the votes and have gotten away with it this time, get two for
the price of one? :-)
BD
Nicholas Manousos
what the media keeps denying every 5 minutes, on every braodcast.
The Brits are trying to save face round the world with this latest
blunder, and Blair will probably be ousted next year. Next time the
Brits will not accomidate the US so fast. It's called credibility.
But, I expect many more editorials this week, from prominent folks, who
will continue with the same line, it was not wag the dog, it was not wag
the dog....
Mike
Kariana
ago everyone knew that if Saddam screwed up at all within the month that we
would bomb, and in one month we did because Saddam almost immediately
screwed up. we had to wait for report. why do you think the Judiciary
committee rammed these articles through the Judiciary?? To make the
President look like Wag the Dog, when it was the House Wagging the
President.
Mike wrote in message ...
NOSPAM
wrote:
>I believe he has it the right way. When the bombing was called off a month
>ago everyone knew that if Saddam screwed up at all within the month that we
>would bomb, and in one month we did because Saddam almost immediately
>screwed up. we had to wait for report.
Another bullshit lie. He gave the authorization two days
_BEFORE_ get the report. He tried to claim he got a "draft" report
before when he got caught in that lie, but that is also a lie. He
authorized it TWO days before the "Draft" report even. Now get in
contact with your handlers and tell them you are getting tired of
posting their several day old talking points and see if they won't at
least give you the current talking points? I HATE LIARS!
\\/ayne //\ann
10th Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are
reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.