YOO-HOO WASHINGTON POST / clinton Was Accused of ONLY "Wagging the Dog" Because He WAS

washingtonpost.com ^ | 2.27.03 | Mia T

[Mia T]

YOO-HOO WASHINGTON POST

clinton Was Accused of ONLY "Wagging the Dog" Because clinton WAS Only "Wagging the Dog"

 

by Mia T, 2.27.03

In 1997 and 1998, we strongly backed President Clinton when he vowed that Iraq must finally honor its commitments to the United Nations to give up its nuclear, biological and chemical weapons -- and we strongly criticized him when he retreated from those vows. Mr. Clinton understood the stakes. Iraq, he said, was a "rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed."

When we cite Mr. Clinton's perceptive but ultimately empty comments, it is in part to chide him and other Democrats who take a different view now that a Republican is in charge. But it has a more serious purpose too. Mr. Clinton could not muster the will, or the domestic or international support, to force Saddam Hussein to live up to the promises he had made in 1991, though even then the danger was well understood. Republicans who now line up behind President Bush were in many cases particularly irresponsible; when Mr. Clinton did bomb Iraqi weapons sites in 1998, some GOP leaders accused him of seeking only to distract the nation from his impeachment worries.

'Drumbeat' on Iraq? A Response to Readers
Thursday, February 27, 2003; Page A26

Note the creative use of the word "only."

By charging that the GOP "accused [clinton] of seeking only to distract the nation from his impeachment worries," the Washington Post is allowing for the distinct possibility that clinton did, in fact, "wag the dog," effectively taking clinton's dog-wagging off the table.

This maneuver -- too sly by half, as it turns out -- reduces the Post's argument to Republican cognizance of the danger of Saddam, rather than to the 42nd president's documented lack of commitment to the removal of that danger.

But the documentable truth of the latter argument renders the former argument moot and exposes the Post's charge of Republican irresponsibility for what it is -- shameless Democrat-sparing sophistry.

The only moment when this president showed a glimmer of interest in the matter [Saddam Hussein] was when his own interests were involved as well...

"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...

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...

Mia T, hitchens on the clintons annotated

[Mia T]

Q ERTY9

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

 

President's Remarks view

This country has many challenges. We will not deny, we will not ignore, we will not pass along our problems to other Congresses, to other presidents, and other generations. (Applause.) We will confront them with focus and clarity and courage...

Sending Americans into battle is the most profound decision a President can make. The technologies of war have changed; the risks and suffering of war have not. For the brave Americans who bear the risk, no victory is free from sorrow. This nation fights reluctantly, because we know the cost and we dread the days of mourning that always come.

We seek peace. We strive for peace. And sometimes peace must be defended. A future lived at the mercy of terrible threats is no peace at all. If war is forced upon us, we will fight in a just cause and by just means -- sparing, in every way we can, the innocent. And if war is forced upon us, we will fight with the full force and might of the United States military -- and we will prevail. (Applause.)

State of the Union Address by President George W. Bush

[jraven]

I am a firm supporter of GWB on the war and feel Clinton did NOT do enough -- as the Washington Post article linked here suggests.
BUT the headline on this post is VERY misleading.
This does NOT say he wagged the dog. In fact, it says he took weak actions and it also points the finger at some of OUR weak-kneed Republican colleagues at the time.
In fact, go to the link YOURSELF and read it. Here is one section:

Republicans who now line up behind President Bush were in many cases particularly irresponsible; when Mr. Clinton did bomb Iraqi weapons sites in 1998, some GOP leaders accused him of seeking only to distract the nation from his impeachment worries. Through the end of Mr. Clinton's tenure and the first year of Mr. Bush's presidency, Saddam Hussein built up his power, beat back sanctions and found new space to rearm -- all with the support of France and Russia and the acquiescence of the United States.
So this crisis is ONLY due to Clinton waggin the dog? NO. Both parties twiddled their thumbs and Clinton was weak and incompetent.
Read this yourself. I guess from now on I have to read every word of every article linked here to ensure I really find out what it says. Again, go to the link.
I saw this and I thought: WOW! The Washington Post really blasted him.
NO...the Post blasted b-o-t-h parties.
I would include a copy of this to win over people who defend Clinton, unless it is heavily edited, but then we'd be doing what Carville & Co would do.

[Mia T]

That the Post "blasts both parties' is precisely my point. That the Post 'blasts' clinton is self-evident. Indeed, by inserting 'only,' the Post is even allowing that clinton wagged the dog!

But what the Post is doing here is trying to spare the DEMOCRATIC PARTY by spreading the blame to the Republicans--sophistry in my view. If the commander in chief is unwilling to take on Iraq (or terrorism, generally), there is litlle that the Congress can do, short of impeachment.

(I would agree with the Post's argument, if by 'Republican irresponsibility,' they means their failure to depose the impotent ba$tard, but I don't think that is what the Post intended.

[Mia T]

correction:

That the Post "blasts both parties' is precisely my point. That the Post 'blasts' clinton is self-evident. Indeed, by inserting 'only,' the Post is even allowing that clinton wagged the dog!

But what the Post is doing here is trying to spare the DEMOCRATIC PARTY by spreading the blame to the Republicans--sophistry in my view. If the commander in chief is unwilling to take on Iraq (or terrorism, generally), there is litlle that the Congress can do, short of impeachment and removal

(I would agree with the Post's argument, if by 'Republican irresponsibility,' they mean GOP failure to depose the impotent ba$tard (clinton, not Saddam), but I don't think that is what the Post intended.

[Mia T]

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

NEW AUDIO! Hear the Bill Bennett (PARDONGATE) epilogue .

 

 

hillary clinton A SECURITY RISK: Removal Calls Begin

 

THE UNSTATED MESSAGE OF THE POWELL EVIDENCE

 

Another mistaken 'conceptzia'
WHY AMERICA (& THE WORLD) CANNOT SURVIVE ANOTHER CLINTON
(INDEED, IT IS NOT CLEAR THAT WE ARE GOING TO SURVIVE THE FIRST ONE,)

 

Utter-Failure clintons Concoct Left-Wing-Radio Scheme FIG LEAF
Flower Children Fall for the 2 Self-Evident Thugs & Opportunists Yet Again
(Liberals have always had problems figuring out causation)

 

 

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

 

How to get rid of the clintons in 3 easy steps

 

the logic of pathologic self-interest

 

Mrs. clinton's REAL virtual office -- 02.20.03 update

 

[Mia T]

Said another way, had the Post reduced the argument to GOP cognizance of the danger of CLINTON, then they would have had a point, because the GOP had the ability to cure THAT danger at the Senate trial.

[Mudboy Slim]

"Republicans who now line up behind President Bush were in many cases particularly irresponsible; when Mr. Clinton did bomb Iraqi weapons sites in 1998, some GOP leaders accused him of seeking only to distract the nation from his impeachment worries. Through the end of Mr. Clinton's tenure and the first year of Mr. Bush's presidency, Saddam Hussein built up his power, beat back sanctions and found new space to rearm -- all with the support of France and Russia and the acquiescence of the United States."

That is Zackley why Clinton shouldda RESIGNED as he had lost ALL credibility by his second term...and Kosovo was simply Clinton WaggingTheDog...there was no other reason for--and no benefit derived from--KILLING THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT MEN, WOMEN, and CHILDREN 'cept fer Slick Willie and his ButtBuddies in the VastLeftWingMedyuhWhore'd needed to change the subject from the FACT that William Jefferson Blythe Clinton was, is, and will always be a Serial RAPIST, a Mass-Murderer of Innocents, a bald-faced LIAR, an Obstructor of Justice, a TRAITOR and a unrepentant TYRANT and TYRANT-Supporter!!

Slick Willie Shall REPENT Before CosmicJustice is done with him!!

Good to see you agree with Mia T...MUD

[NormsRevenge]

Mia T - Kudos, Hugs and Atta'Gal!!!!

Is it "Wag the Dog"? or "Wag the Donkey"? I think the donkey is the mascot of the demRatic coven.. or is it now the jack-ass, or the PAC-mule, laden with foreign monies? And why is Terry "Caliph" McCauliffe even allowed to remain anywhere near a position of power in that same party?

Your tagline says it all. "ex"-Presidents like Jimmah and Bill just don;t get it. They are NOT in charge anymore, but that doesn't stop them from pushing their agenda that Imperialist America is the reason the world is in such dire straits today.

The Party that "cares about the children" has done nothing but sell out America, its military and economic interests, has lied about its leading members complicity in defending this nation , has sought to now be a mouth piece for our enemies... the list goes on and on..

[firewalk]

Thanks for the ping & Bttt

[maica]

I am a firm supporter of GWB on the war and feel Clinton did NOT do enough ---

Has anyone discussed this consequence of Clinton's reputed use of 450 missiles in this effort at 'weapons degradation?'

I believe he did it partially to 'unilaterally' disarm our own Military preparedness. We sure did not get much bang for the buck from those 450 missiles if they were sent to true targets. But he, Cohen, Sandy Berger and those other stellar military strategists did everything they could to destroy our country - and BJC is Still doing it!

[Fiddlstix]

Bump

[litany_of_lies]

Great point about using up missiles. I firmly believe they used up a large portion of our missiles and didn't replace them for the express purpose of weakening our fighting capability.

This goes a long way towards explaining why it has taken so freaking long to mobilize for Iraq. I believe we did not even have the capability of doing so effectively a year ago (thank God Afghanistan wasn't that tough), and that W used the UN to buy time to build our military to a level of respectability.