RE: vision2020-digest Digest V98 #235

["Cooper, Maj Philip S. CCJ1" <cooperps@centcom.mil>]

E:  You make some valid points.  However, in my capacity as a military
officer -- if I had been caught getting oral sex from a summer hire I would
be doing 5-10 in Leavenworth and I'm at the lower end of the chain of
command.  Ya falla?

PC

	-----Original Message-----
	From:	Erikus4@aol.com [SMTP:Erikus4@aol.com]
	Sent:	December 17,1998 20:03
	To:	vision2020@moscow.com
	Subject:	Re: vision2020-digest Digest V98 #235

	>We already had permission  from the Security Council this
	>Fall to bomb for non-cooperation or compliance.  

	Permission last Fall is not the same as permission in the middle of
December.
	Are you aware the we've pissed off both Russia and China?  That
France hasn't
	offered an opinion on this attack yet?  That Russia recalled their
ambassador
	to the US?  That, of the five permanent members of the Security
Council, ONLY
	one has come out in support of the US - our "little buddy" Britain.

	I doubt anyone, except possibly Clinton, seriously believes that
bombing Iraq
	is going to do anything about the impeachment process.  The
Republicans who've
	spoken out are true, die-hard Republicans who would criticize
Clinton for ANY
	little thing.  The thing that causes many of us concern is the fact
that
	nothing is really different than the last time we didn't bomb Iraq -
except
	the impeachment process.  There is likely no American interest at
stake which
	wasn't at stake the last time Iraq gave us headaches.

	However, our President is currently suffering at home, and it's
natural that
	some country like Iraq would try and use that against us.  If
anything, this
	bombing, with the resulting death of innocents, is Clinton's fault.
Were it
	not for the impeachment process we would have had the same posturing
and
	threatening as we've had previously.  Saddam would finally give in
and we
	would wait for the next problem.  However, Clinton probably must,
for
	political reasons, show that the US is still strong even during this
	impeachment crisis.  True, Cohen put his 30 years of service on the
line
	backing this attack - but he could have made the same statement back
in the
	Fall when we didn't bomb Iraq.  The situation does call for an
attack, and it
	has for a long time.  The timing doesn't call for an attack.
(Unless Iraq
	developed a nuclear bomb, or a delivery vehicle capable of reaching
the US, on
	Tuesday - there was no imperative need to bomb him on Wednesday.)

	>I am against impeachment.  Not because Clinton doesn't deserve it;
but 
	>because President Gore scares me more than what we have now....

	That's a good example of the kind of non-Constitutional reasoning
that is
	causing all kinds of turmoil in the US.  My favorite example of
lunacy -
	Clinton shouldn't be impeached because he's done so much "good" as
President.
	(Talk about a Democratic argument...)

	You impeach Clinton if you believe he committed a "high crime or
misdemeanor."
	You don't vote for impeachment because you are a Republican, or
against
	because you are a Democrat.  You don't vote for impeachment because
you hate
	Clinton, or against because you fear a President Gore.

	E. O'Daniel