Immediately after the impeachment of Bill Clinton, House Democrats trooped over to the White House to pay fawning tribute to the individual who had "violated the trust of the American people, lessened their esteem for the office of President and dishonored the office." Those words, taken from the Democrat-authored censure resolution and approved by the White House as an alternative to impeachment, were strangely ignored during the post-impeachment pep rally. The President’s assembled partisans applauded rapturously as Vice President Al Gore declared that history would regard Bill Clinton as "one of our greatest Presidents."

Just a few hours earlier, congressional Democrats had staged a petulant walk-out to protest their inability to "vote their conscience" regarding the quickly-forgotten censure resolution. The post-impeachment exercise illustrated that the party of Bill Clinton has no conscience, that from crown to sole it is as rotted with mendacity and cankered with cynicism as its leader. But such cynicism comes easily to political opportunists who are willing to countenance the slaughter of innocent civilians as a delaying tactic in a domestic political struggle.

Vladimir Lenin once admonished his followers, "It is necessary   to resort to all sorts of devices, maneuvers, and illegal methods, to evasion and subterfuge." In their desperate effort to stave off the overdue impeachment of Bill Clinton the members of the crime syndicate called the Clinton Administration have employed not only evasion and subterfuge, but also intimidation, bribery, threats, and blackmail. Thus it was entirely predictable that the Clinton spin-control specialists would eventually seize upon mass bloodshed as a political survival strategy.

Iraq as Scapegoat

"It would be absolutely wrong ... to forget that war is the continuation of politics by other means," wrote Lenin in 1915. For Bill Clinton, war is the continuation of spin control by other means, and on December 16th, with only 17 hours left before the House of Representatives was scheduled to commence debate on four articles of impeachment (two of which passed on December 19th), he launched a pre-emptive military strike against impeachment — artlessly disguised as a punitive raid against Iraq.

Speaking with reference to Saddam Hussein shortly after the bombing commenced, State Department spokesman James Rubin told reporters, "There is no end in sight for this pattern of obfuscation, obstruction and outright violation." He may well have been referring to his employer. Even by Bill Clinton’s standards, the 15-minute national address announcing "Operation Desert Fox" was a remarkable exercise in dishonesty. "We acted today because, in the judgment of my military advisers, a swift response would provide the most surprise and the least opportunity for Saddam to prepare," lied the President. In fact, the possibility that Mr. Clinton would launch an attack on Iraq to pre-empt impeachment hearings was discussed by commentators and pundits days in advance of the actual raid. For example, Tim Russert, host of NBC’s Meet the Press program, broached the possibility of an attack during a December 13th interview with House Whip Tom DeLay (R-TX).

The December 17th Washington Times, quoting "authoritative sources" at the Pentagon, reported that the White House "notified the Joint Chiefs of Staff on Sunday [December 13th] that President Clinton would order air strikes" against Iraq — contradicting the President’s account that he acted on the recommendation of his military advisers. In fact, one Capitol Hill source told the Times, "I have had senior flag and general officers question the timing [of the raid].... 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?" The answer to this rhetorical question is found in the legal phrase res ipsa loquitir: "The thing speaks for itself."

Bill Clinton’s lies are generally told in clusters to provide him with defense in depth, and his December 16th address was no exception. He declared, for instance, that the attack came when it did so that the U.S. would not "initiate military action" during "the Muslim holy month of Ramadan." The key to this specimen of Clintonian dishonesty is the word "initiate"; apparently the Administration wants the public to believe that a military operation that carried into Ramadan would somehow be less offensive to the Muslim world. After the bombing commenced, National Security Adviser Sandy Berger admitted, "There’s no artificial deadline for this action," and Defense Secretary William Cohen added that he would not "set any time frame" for the operation: "We intend to carry out the mission, [however] long it must take." Sure enough, the bombing lasted well into the beginning of Ramadan.

The central lie in Bill Clinton’s announcement speech was that the decision to bomb Iraq was made in response to a report made by Richard Butler, the chairman of the UN arms inspection team in Iraq (UNSCOM). "The conclusions are stark, sobering, and profoundly disturbing," intoned the President in a charade of statesman-like solemnity. "In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to cooperate [with UN inspectors].... So Iraq has abused its final chance." Those conclusions were, in fact, made-to-order to justify the desired military distraction.

"Wag the Dog"

Just hours before the bombing began, Major Scott Ritter, a U.S. Marine officer who had served in UNSCOM, informed the New York Post that key elements of Butler’s report were essentially dictated by Bill Clinton’s National Security Council. According to Ritter, U.S. officials had told him that impeachment was among the considerations dictating the timing of new inspections in Iraq. "What ... Richard Butler did last week with the inspections was a set-up," insisted Major Ritter. "This was designed to generate a conflict that would justify a bombing." A supplemental report filed by the International Atomic Energy Agency, by way of contrast, contended that Iraq had offered "the necessary level of cooperation" with international inspectors.

Major Ritter, who resigned his UN position in disgust last August to protest the Clinton Administration’s appeasement of Saddam, told the Post, "If you dig around, you’ll find out why Richard Butler yesterday ran to the phone four times. He was talking to his [U.S.] National Security adviser. They were telling him to sharpen the language in the report to justify the bombing." The inspection exercise itself was entirely pointless, according to Ritter: "UNSCOM knew there were no weapons at the sites they were sending their inspectors to. We’ve been doing this for seven years. We know that when the inspectors leave, Iraq shuffles up the deck, moves the weapons. Why then did the U.S. urge these inspectors to carry out immediate inspections?" Concludes Ritter, "You have no choice but to interpret this as ‘Wag the Dog.’ You have no choice."

"Wag the Dog," of course, is an allusion to the movie satire in which the spin-control team of a President caught in the coils of a sex scandal stages a phony war with Albania as a distraction. Major Ritter’s conclusion was echoed by John Hillen, a military affairs analyst at — of all places — the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). "You know this is a ‘Wag the Dog,’" Hillen told the Washington Times. "The same conditions that existed yesterday [in Iraq] will exist tomorrow, will exist next week.... I’m hard pressed to figure out in my mind some strategic calculation that necessitates an attack tonight, tomorrow, or this weekend" — apart from the obvious, of course.

Fareed Zakaria, publisher of the CFR’s journal Foreign Affairs, opined in the December 21st issue of Newsweek that "there is no strategic rationale that justifies President Clinton’s timing" for bombing Iraq. Eschewing the "Wag the Dog" cliché, Zakaria derisively christened the military strike "Operation Desert Stall."

Sound and Fury

As with the August 20th "Monica Missile" attack on "terrorist" targets in Sudan and Afghanistan, in which "strategic necessity" demanded a cruise missile strike timed to coincide with Monica Lewinsky’s grand jury testimony, the December 16th attack had no specific military objective. Incredibly, the Administration has admitted that it did not launch the attack in order to destroy Saddam’s capacity to build weapons of mass destruction.

The preferred buzzword recited by spin controllers from Bill Clinton on down (including British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who actually issued the initial announcement) was "degrade." Bill Clinton explained that the attacks "are designed to degrade Saddam’s capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction...." Secretary Cohen told reporters shortly after hostilities commenced, "We’re trying to degrade [Saddam’s] capacity to threaten his neighbors with chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons ... we’re not seeking to eliminate it [and] we will remain ready for an indefinite period of time to maintain our presence." Commented the Associated Press, "Once the dust settles ... the situation will remain much as it has been since the end of the Persian Gulf War in 1991." In short, the Administration’s strategy was to launch an assault full of sound and fury, signifying nothing in terms of eliminating the threat represented by Saddam.

"Never underestimate a desperate President," declared retiring House Rules Committee Chairman Gerald Solomon (R-NY), who was visibly angry. "What option is left for getting impeachment off the front page and maybe even postponed? And how else to explain the sudden appearance of a backbone that has been invisible up to now?" "After months of lies, the President has given millions of people around the world reason to doubt that he has sent Americans into battle for the right reasons," observed House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-TX).

Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) recalled that just a few months before the attack on Iraq, Bill Clinton "launched an attack against the nation of Sudan in an attempt to cover his personal problems, an attack we know now had no basis whatsoever in protecting U.S. interests." Paul, a former Air Force flight surgeon, protested that it is "despicable for a man who ran from military service to now use soldiers as a shield from impeachment. How many American soldiers and innocent Iraqi children will die so that this President can hide from justice? How many American citizens are now at increased risk from terrorist attack because of this President? How much innocent blood will have to flow to cover this President’s sins? This attack has no basis in protecting our national security and only increases the danger to our people."

Alone among congressional critics of "Operation Desert Fox," Congressman Paul mentioned "the constitutional prohibition against the U.S. policing the world" on behalf of the United Nations. When asked about legal authority for the attack, State Department Spokesman James Rubin cited United Nations Resolution 687, which was adopted in February 1991 — which means that, from the Administration’s perspective, the UN has conferred upon Bill Clinton the privilege of by-passing at whim the constitutional requirement that Congress declare war. This is both a dangerous enhancement of the imperial presidency and a damnable subversion of our national independence.

The Larger Issue

The scheduled impeachment vote was just one of several developments that may have triggered the latest use of the "Wag the Dog" option. While the Clinton spin control ministry — working in tandem with its media shills — may be able to prevail in a Senate trial of the impeachment articles dealing with the Lewinsky affair, the graver matters ignored by the House Judiciary Committee re-emerged with compelling clarity shortly before the strike against Iraq.

In a December 15th front-page story, the New York Times reported that federal investigators have "documented more active and substantial contacts between [Democratic] fund raisers like Yah Lin Trie and Chinese officials than was previously known." The new evidence demonstrates "that Beijing’s [political contributions] were part of a broader campaign to obtain access to American high technology...."

This strategy was successful: The Times pointed out that in 1996, after millions of illicit Chinese donations had poured into both the Clinton-Gore re-election effort and Mr. Clinton’s personal legal defense fund, export restrictions on military-related technology — especially missile technology — were relaxed by the Administration, "a policy that dovetailed precisely with Beijing’s interests."

Federal investigators have established that Yah Lin "Charlie" Trie, through whom more than $1 million was channeled into the Clinton-Gore campaign and some $466,000 was funneled into Bill Clinton’s legal defense trust, solicited $1 million from authorities in China "that could be used for political activities in the United States," and received another $1 million from "a Macau businessman with ties to the Chinese government." That "businessman," known as either Ng Lap Seng or "Mr. Wu," is a heavyweight in the Chinese crime syndicates allied with Beijing’s military and intelligence agencies.

New discoveries were also announced regarding John Huang, the fugitive former Democratic fundraiser, Commerce Department official, and probable Chinese spy. The Times disclosed that federal surveillance equipment had captured Huang "discussing political donations with a Chinese official at the Los Angeles consulate." That consulate, according to Defense Intelligence Agency China analyst Nicholas Eftimiades, is one of Red China’s most valuable espionage assets. Huang’s conversation at the Chinese consulate took place before Huang was appointed to a sensitive Commerce Department post, without the proper security screening. Huang’s appointment was accomplished at the specific initiative of President Clinton after Huang’s employers, the Chinese-connected Riady dynasty, paid $400,000 in hush money to former White House counsel Webster Hubbell — thereby obtaining Hubbell’s silence at a time when he was in a position to offer damaging testimony regarding Whitewater.

Huang received over 100 classified briefings on China-related matters, after which he would contact either the Red Chinese embassy in Washington, DC or offices of the Riady family’s Beijing-aligned Lippo conglomerate. Furthermore, reported the Times, "Mr. Huang received at least one secret government-related report on exports of military-related technology to China, which he kept in his office."

Another significant development reported by the Times was the December 14th sentencing of Democratic fund-raiser Johnny Chung, who received five years’ probation and community service as punishment for laundering illegal Chinese money into the Clinton-Gore campaign. At least $90,000 of those funds came from Lieutenant General Liu Chao-ying, an intelligence officer who sought — and received — changes in U.S. policy controlling the export of sensitive missile technology to Red China.

Judge Manuel L. Real of the Federal District Court in Los Angeles expressed "surprise" that Attorney General Janet Reno declined to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the fundraising abuses involving key Democratic Party officials and members of the Clinton Administration. The source of Judge Real’s confusion, of course, is the mistaken assumption that Janet Reno is a law enforcement official, rather than a corrupt, tenacious obstructionist.

The Times report provided some significant and fascinating details about the process through which the Red Chinese bought the 1996 presidential election on behalf of their dutiful servant, Bill Clinton. However, the story was well known to large segments of the public (including readers of THE NEW AMERICAN) before it was published by the Times and thus became "real" news. Although the story was submerged by the politically motivated blitzkrieg against Iraq, it did provide another timely illustration of Bill Clinton’s bottomless cynicism. While Mr. Clinton is willing to exploit fears of Iraq’s arsenal to justify an opportunistic military assault, he has facilitated China’s development of more accurate missiles — thus enhancing the threat posed to the U.S. by our most dangerous enemy.

Tripp Talk

Another challenge for the Clinton spin control ministry was provided by the December 14th sworn deposition from Linda Tripp regarding the "Filegate" scandal, in which Clinton Administration operatives illegally obtained more than 900 personal FBI files on potential political opponents. In her videotaped testimony before U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth, the much-maligned whistleblower described how assistants to White House counsel William Kennedy and late White House counsel Vince Foster entered FBI files into the White House database — referred to ominously as "Big Brother."

Tripp recalled discussing "Filegate" with Monica Lewinsky at the Pentagon in autumn of 1997. "I told her about what I considered to be unscrupulous behavior, that there seemed to be no moral absolutes, and that there was no sense of right or wrong [in the Clinton Administration], and I cited Filegate as one of those instances," testified Tripp. Her testimony was punctuated by the frequent interruptions of Elizabeth Shapiro, an attorney for the Justice Department and the White House, who pelted interrogating attorney Larry Klayman with objections and harassed Tripp with vague threats about disclosing "privileged" information. At one point Klayman protested to Judge Lamberth that Shapiro was attempting to feed testimony to Tripp.

"I intend to testify truthfully regardless of how the chips may fall," stated Tripp, whose account offered a chilling glimpse of the methods used by the Clinton syndicate to enforce its brand of omerta — the code of silence. Shortly before she was to offer grand jury testimony regarding Bill Clinton’s sexual harassment of Kathleen Willey, Tripp received a document from Lewinsky bearing the notation, "Just thought you’d find this of interest." Although the note, which was left on Tripp’s chair at the Pentagon, was not in Lewinsky’s handwriting, Lewinsky phoned Tripp to make sure that she had received the document. That document listed "people who had died in and around the Clinton Administration," with an addendum containing "more information of each and every case," testified Tripp. The meaning was clear to Tripp: It was a threat intended "to affect the outcome of a decision I had to make about testifying truthfully or not in the case of Kathleen Willey."

"Boiler Room" Tactics

After the initial salvos had been fired at Baghdad, the House leadership announced — over Democratic objections — that the impeachment debate would resume on December 18th — and the Clinton damage control team resumed its previous tactics, which were described by Salon — an internet tabloid that reliably retails the White House line — as "the ‘scorched earth’ tactics of seeding the media with compromising stories about top Republicans" and dispensing bribes on pliable Democrats and "moderate" Republicans. "Law has very little to do with this now," a White House operative explained to Salon. "We’re running a boiler room, trying to get votes." One unmistakable indication that the Clinton "skunk works" operation had resumed its labors was the admission by incoming House Speaker that he had conducted an extramarital affair — a tidbit that the White House had shared with ABC News correspondent Cokie Roberts three weeks before it was wrenched from Livingston, leading to his dramatic resignation mere hours before Mr. Clinton’s impeachment.

What will the Clintonites do now that impeachment is an accomplished fact? Prior to the impeachment vote, one White House adviser told the Washington Post, "It’s an illegitimate partisan vote and we’ll win it in the Senate." Merely by putting the concept of an "illegitimate" impeachment vote into play — along with repeated emphasis on the part of the Administration’s congressional shills that impeachment would be tantamount to a "coup" — the White House is tuning the political atmosphere for a genuine constitutional crisis: The possible refusal of Bill Clinton to honor a Senate conviction.

Lenin defined his philosophy of government in these terms: "Power without limit, resting directly upon force, restrained by no laws, absolutely unrestrained by rules." Bill Clinton and his corrupt clique have clearly embraced this vision, and they have proven themselves perfectly capable of implementing it — if they are permitted to. For Americans committed to preserving the rule of law under the Constitution, there is no more pressing necessity than the removal of Bill Clinton from the Presidency and the repudiation of the lawlessness that his Administration personifies.

Bookmark/Search this post with:

delicious | digg | newsvine | technorati