Clinton uses diversionary tactics to dodge impeachment hearings

alt="For UCLA students, employees and Alumni Association
members.">

Tuesday, January 19, 1999

Clinton uses diversionary tactics to dodge impeachment
hearings

IRAQ: Operation Desert Fox remains convenient, easy escape from
trial

It seems as if in this latest scandal, President Clinton isn’t
screwing Monica Lewinsky, but Saddam Hussein. Now I don’t care too
much about perjury before grand juries, concealment of evidence
from a power monger such as Kenneth Starr, or that Clinton can’t
really decide if he participated in "sexual acts" (because his
semantic skills aren’t quite up to par to Noam Chomsky’s).

Nor do I have much sympathy for an Iraqi leader who uses mustard
gas on its citizens, invades his oil-rich Arab neighbor and then
sends crappy World War I Soviet scud missiles toward Saudi Arabia
and Israel. I find it a little convenient for Clinton to (yet
again) attack Iraq on Dec. 16, the day before the House was
convening to pass impeachment resolutions. To the president’s
dismay, they passed the resolutions anyway.

I think the Pentagon got it all wrong when they decided on the
name "Operation Desert Fox;" a more appropriate title would
definitely have been "Operation Save My Job."

The day after Congress had decided to go on with what has become
the "trial of the century," I suddenly found myself watching night
vision footage of downtown Baghdad on CNN split screen with the
title "Operation Desert Fox" catching my eye. What do desert foxes
have to do with carpet bombing Iraq anyway? Hmm … let’s see,
absolutely nothing.

But wait, maybe the United States was justified in attacking
Iraq; after all, the United Nations Special Commission’s (UNSCOM)
deadline for Iraq to comply with the United Nations inspection team
had ended days ago. Besides, we were trying to "contain and deter
Iraqi aggression," according to the president.

Maybe that was so, but shouldn’t the president be worried about
containing House chairman Henry Hyde’s aggression, and wouldn’t it
be in his best interests to smart bomb Monica Lewinsky’s house
instead?

I smell diversionary tactics here.

Also the president claims that the holy month of Ramadan (we
Muslims like to fast) was starting and that he wanted to get the
latest series of bombings in so Muslims wouldn’t have to start
their fast with shrapnel flying through the window. I doubt this
theory is likely to win him any support. Yes, it is very
considerate of the president to put off what is probably the
bombing of a Humus factory in the name of goodwill toward men.

First of all, if the United States really did want to get rid of
Saddam Hussein, they would have done it years ago. Didn’t George
Bush’s approval ratings fly through the roof as he waved his fist
at Saddam and swept the cold war economic problems under the
carpet? By continuing this fiasco with Iraq, the United States has
everything to gain, and it also offers an opportunity to shake off
some heat when local politics are getting murky.

So exactly what does the United States gain? A little bit of
history first. Do you remember the oil embargo of the 1970s? When
Arab nations decided to stop selling oil to the United States
because of its all too friendly alliance with Israel, gasoline
prices shot through the roof. The United States was looking for the
opportunity to plant a base in the Middle East to provide
"stability and peace" to the region, which in other words means,
"Hey, I like cheap oil."

Now that the United States has established a permanent marine
base in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia (I used to live there), we are not
leaving, because Saddam Hussein threatens our low oil prices. But
if the United States really did want to get rid of this little
tyrant, a full land and air invasion of Iraq wouldn’t have been out
of the question during the Gulf War. That was more of a real war
and, if you remember correctly, a slightly lopsided one.

My fondest memories are of Iraqi soldiers surrendering to CNN
camera crews and Iran happily securing 50 of Iraq’s best MIG
fighter jets because they didn’t want them to get decimated by U.S.
bombs. The poor Iraqis stupidly hid all their best weapons and fled
Kuwait in panic, lighting the country ablaze in a last show of
belligerence.

OK, maybe Saddam Hussein is hiding six feet underground and is
protected by eerie-looking Republican Guard soldiers with black
mustaches and berets. Perhaps it poses a difficult problem trying
to find and assassinate this tricky, evil statesman. I don’t buy
it. U.S. intelligence capabilities after the Cold War are
incredible. We have some of the most sophisticated satellites and
spy gadgetry in the world, which is so top secret and hush-hush
that I probably shouldn’t even be talking about it right now.

The National Security Agency is an expert at creating coups, and
funding internal resistance and even directly going in and plucking
leaders out of its country.

Don’t you remember George Bush’s exciting adventures in Panama?
Manuel Noriega was running around like a rat in a maze as marine
helicopters scooped him up. We wiped our hands pretty clean of
that.

What about Ronald Reagan’s Iran Contra endeavors? This country
willingly supported an official enemy by supplying the Iranian
government with arms in exchange for hostages. But we also gave
arms to Iraq to help defeat Iran in their bitter eight-year war.
Pretty confusing foreign policy isn’t it?

Do you remember how the Moujahidin, Afghani freedom fighters
defeated the communist enemy (that is the former Soviet Union) in a
pretty impressive guerrilla war. How did they do it? Well, once
again American generosity supplied the shoulder rockets and M-16
rifles to oust the enemy.

The point I’m making here is that we have the means and the
money to carry out an operation to remove Saddam Hussein, but we
have no intention to do so, and in the meantime we are killing
innocent citizens.

No matter how smart and tactically impressive our weapons are,
there is no way we can prevent civilian casualties.

If you see where I am going here you have probably discovered
that I am a bit frustrated with U.S. foreign policy. The fact is,
the United States has a huge military industrial machine to support
about 15 percent of our annual budget to be accurate. It is called
the so-called defense industry, but who are we defending ourselves
against anyway – when was the last time we have been attacked?

We have to justify this spending somewhere, and after the huge
cold war surplus, it seems convenient to hold a massive, patriotic
fireworks show as we celebrate the accuracy of cruise missiles, and
rejoice in the savoir faire of smart bombs. I mean what else are we
going to do with all this crap? So folks, I hope I don’t end up
being investigated by the Committee of Un-American and Un-Ethical
Activities (it really does exist) or end up in the FBI’s updated
list of suspicious sounding Abduls. But, my words are spent.