I don't know what's going on, other than the obvious fact that Clinton has ordered these massive and unjustified air strikes on Iraq. The Washington Post claims on its front page this morning that the moderate Republicans are now pouring into the pro-impeachment column in such numbers that Clinton has given up on fighting the impeachment vote in the House of Representatives. Despite the delay, it is now a foregone conclusion.
Maybe Clinton viewed this as a last gasp desperate move, but it is not going to work, and according to the usually pretty well-informed W.P., Clinton knew it and knows it.
The current line out of the W.P. is that the House will vote impeachment and the Senate will dispose of the matter quickly after the New Year with some kind of censure motion, as removal from office will not pass the Senate (needs a 2/3 vote in contrast to a mere majority in the House). This is one of the reasons that the House Republicans feel unafraid to vote for impeachment, thereby getting "the Hammer" Tom DeLay off their backs who has been threatening everybody with Christian Coalition opponents in primaries if they don't support impeachment. Barkley Rosser On Wed, 16 Dec 1998 17:37:36 -0800 (PST) "C. Petersen" <ottilie at u.washington.edu> wrote:
> >
> > I had expected a rush of letters from the USA opposing the bombing that has
> > been going on for two hours now. There are only a couple. It poses the
> > question of what is the basis of campaigning for peace now.
> >
>
> Is there any way in which Saddam Hussein would be benefitted by having
> Clinton in power? He had to know how convenient this would be for Clinton,
> and he did in fact choose to mess with the inspectors precisely 1-2 days
> before the impeachment hearings, and these republican senators are on the
> television saying the phrase 'support our troops' about 4 times per thirty
> seconds, and clearly couldn't dare mess with Clinton right now. It gives
> the moderate republicans a big out.
>
-- Rosser Jr, John Barkley rosserjb at jmu.edu