The truth about Clinton and "Wag the Dog"

Washington Times
October 5, 1998

Former President George Bush said yesterday that scandal distracting the Clinton presidency is hurting America's ability to deal effectively with foreign crises that threaten U.S. security.

"It's hard to separate the two crises," he said in an exclusive interview with The Washington Times.

.....

It's the speculation about Mr. Clinton's motives that hurts U.S. interests, he said.

"For example, after the [Aug. 20] counterterrorism action that was taken against camps in Afghanistan and the building in the Sudan, there was this 'Wag the Dog' reference," Mr. Bush said, citing the movie in which a U.S. president, portrayed by Dustin Hoffman, creates a phony war to distract public attention from a sex scandal enveloping his administration.

"I don't happen to agree with that," Mr. Bush said of "Wag the Dog" comparisons. "I don't see how the Defense Department and the Joint Chiefs and others would go along with such a thing."

....

"But the very fact that it is debated sends a message to some of these other countries that is counterproductive for the United States. I'm not buying into that scenario personally, but my point is that [the Lewinsky scandal] caused that kind of question to be raised. That is not good for us."

Washington Post
August 23, 1998
Andrew Krepinevich

While the president's decision to retaliate against terrorism is clearly justified based upon the evidence at hand, the propriety of this course of action is undermined by doubts as to the motives for the strikes, coming so close to the president's Monday night scandal speech, and the continuing scandal coverage on the front pages of the national press.

It has been noted that after the antiterrorist military strikes, the president did not shy away from using the opportunity to appear "presidential," giving two speeches on the matter, one after flying back dramatically to Washington from his vacation on Martha's Vineyard. These actions may have been appropriate. Yet a president who lacks credibility must be careful not to present even the appearance that he may be acting out of a personal, rather than a public, interest.

Washington Times
August 21, 1998
Wesley Pruden

A few politicians, privately contemptuous, ran for the nearest camera to make cheap and insincere rah-rah for the lobbing of a few missiles, as if this were the morning after Pearl Harbor or Omaha Beach, to attempt to burnish their bona fides. One who didn't was Arlen Specter, the Republican senator from Pennsylvania, who was careful but honest. "Let's give the president the benefit of the doubt," he said. Then he gave Mr. Clinton the benefit of his doubts.

"I think we have to raise certain concerns and look for evidence because those questions will be raised around the world. They're being raised around the world as we speak."

Yes, they are. Bill Clinton insisted on taking enough rope to hang himself, and yesterday he was in full flight from the gallows.

O'Reilly Factor
October 17, 1998

eased Segment - Missile Attack. Was the missile attack on the factory in the Sudan last August a botched mission?
Graphic - Botched Mission. Some journalists are saying yes.
Studio Interview - Sheryl McCarthy, "Newsday" Columnist, said the missile attack on the factory in the Sudan appears like a botched mission. McCarthy said there was evidence brought by the Human Right's Group that it was a bogus attack. McCarthy said if you've watched "Wag The Dog", and "Primary Colors" it is hard not to make that connection.
Visual - Bombed Factory In Sudan. McCarthy said the factory was bombed on the pretense that it was making chemical weapons, and as it turned out, it was a pharmaceutical plant that was making medicine for TB and veterinarian medicines. One person was killed, and several others injured. McCarthy said it was done on flimsy evidence.

Hardball
August 21, 1998

Professor LARRY SABATO (University of Virginia; "Dirty Little Secrets"): Yeah, Chris, two things strike me about it. The first is--and I think this is an amazing figure--36 percent of Americans believe that the Monica Lewinsky scandal had something to do with the president's action to strike in Afghanistan and the--the Sudan. That is an amazingly high percentage. That's a product of cynicism, and it's cynicism that Bill Clinton has helped to create and to stoke. He is, after all, a self-certified liar now.

The Hill
September 23, 1998
David Silverberg

"Wag the Dog" is now more than a fictional movie depicting a president facing a sex scandal ordering trumped-up military moves in an effort to divert attention from his political troubles. It has become a veritable syndrome. The necessity of any military move in a time of political troubles will be suspect, particularly from a president who has been proven to be an emphatic, direct liar.

This could already be seen in the wake of August's Tomahawk missile attacks against sites in Afghanstan and Sudan. Though the initial attacks on American embassies that prompted the cruise missile response were well-documented and irrefutable, numberous questions were raised about the political motivations of the counter-attack, so much so that intelligence officials went to extraordinary lengths to reveal the evidence that led them to pick those particular targets.

New York Post
September 21, 1998
editorial

Well, the bombing of Afghanistan and Sudan to destroy international terrorism didn't manage to hold off the growing list of critics calling for Bill Clinton's removal from office. Nor, apparently, did his irresponsible declaration of a world economic crisis. Or his bewildering offhand warning of a humanitarian crisis in Kosovo.

Is there another dog left for this president to wag? You bet!
New York Post
Andrea Peyser
August 22, 1998

And so, the burning question will always remain: On the day Monica Lewinsky was testifying before a grand jury, did the president of the United States send innocent people into harm's way for the ugly purpose of changing the subject of national discourse from oral sex and semen-stained dresses to battle scars and blood-stained uniforms?

New York Post
Deborah Orin
August 23, 1998

ONLY DEMS TRUST BILL'S MOTIVES: POLL

Only a majority of Democrats believe President Clinton launched missile strikes primarily to act against terrorism - while everyone else is more likely to suspect a case of "the tail wagging the dog," a new Post Poll shows.

New York Post
Arianna Huffington
August 25, 1998

FORTY percent of Americans surveyed by Newsweek felt that the U.S. military attacks against terrorist sites in Afghanistan and Sudan were a diversion. Whether or not they were, this is a staggering vote of no confidence in the Commander in Chief.

There are many questions President Clinton must answer before the nation can unequivocally accept the wisdom of these particular strikes against these particular targets on that particular day. The need to answer these questions is in no way obviated by the fact that some of the president's harshest critics, from Newt Gingrich to Gary Bauer, rushed to praise the military action.
New York Post
August 24, 1998
letters to the editor
BOMBING THE TERRORISTS -STRONG STANCE OR CLEVER DANCE?

Just when you thought that Kenneth Starr's four-year investigation was a ridiculous waste of taxpayer money, comes the payoff - an uncharacteristically swift and decisive bombing of suspected terrorist targets in Sudan and Afghanistan. The connection is unmistakable.

But if this is what it took to finally get Clinton to do something that remotely resembles executing his presidential duties, my hat's off to the cast and crew of "The Monica Lewinsky Story."Josh GreenbergerBrooklyn

So, what else is new? Bill Clinton is desperate. Didn't many of us know that when Clinton hit the lowest point of his depravity, he'd attack one of these terrorist countries, to suit his own agenda?

If Americans accept this as an act of patriotism on the part of this president, this once great country deserves the worst of what is yet to come.Sal PediEastchester (via e-mail)

I am absolutely outraged that Bill Clinton is dropping bombs in order to deflect attention from the bombs being dropped about him the same day by Monica Lewinsky.

He is as dangerous as a cornered dog and will stop at nothing to save his own skin. We must throw this liar out of the White House before he gets us into a global war the next time he needs a distraction from his disgusting behavior.Mara KurtzManhattan

(around 20 other emails and letters published in that article mostly attacking Clinton)

Cal Thomas
August 25, 1998

Sen. Dan Coats, R-Ind., was one of the few brave enough to say what others were thinking. Coats said he thought about the cruise-missile attack "long and hard," and he concluded that "once the president has deceived the American people and broken the bond of trust, one wonders about his motives."

That is the point made by a number of America's critics around the world. How can this president be believed? How can we know whether his resolve is genuine or just more political manipulation? We want to believe him because he is the president, but why should we?

The Times Union (Albany, NY)
August 21, 1998

But a strong Clinton critic outside Congress, conservative politician and Reagan administration official Oliver L. North, said, ''Given what we know about this commander-in-chief, one has to wonder if the theme song for this operation comes from the score of 'Braveheart' or 'Wag the Dog.' ''

Jonah Goldberg
National Review 5/5/99
http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg050599.html

I refused to believe at the time that Clinton wagged the dog; not so much because I give him any credit, but because I gave the armed forces and intelligence community the benefit of the doubt. Now, the Clinton Justice Department says it won�t fight the suit by the Saudi owner, because to do so would jeopardize American intelligence assets.

This is totally unacceptable and outrageous. At the time the administration insisted that the proof would be forthcoming and conclusive. The White House insisted, on the record, that the evidence was so overwhelming that the plant produced VX nerve gas that critics would be humiliated. They have since revised downward these claims at every opportunity. Christopher Hitchens and Seymour Hersh, among others, have written that Clinton did indeed wag the dog.

Now, it seems reasonable to me that the President of the United States should be required to show some proof that his action was warranted. If the proof was overwhelming, a little slice couldn�t cause more harm than leaving the accusation unchallenged. The charge being bandied about is that the President of the United States committed an act of war on an innocent nation as a fig leaf for his personal sins. For the United States government to allow that (credible) assertion to stand unchallenged is a smear to the good name of the United States, or a cover-up of a High Crime. It is disgusting either way.

Byron York
National Review 12/17/01
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york-issueprint112901.html

Instead of striking a strong blow against terrorism, the action set off a howling debate about Clinton's motives. The president ordered the action three days after appearing before the grand jury investigating the Monica Lewinsky affair, and Clinton's critics accused him of using military action to change the subject from the sex-and-perjury scandal — the so-called "wag the dog" strategy. Some of Clinton's allies, suspecting the same thing, remained silent. Even some of those who, after briefings by administration officials, publicly defended the strikes privately questioned Clinton's decision.

now that you've confirmed what Clinton said about "wag the dog", would you please also confirm what he said about fox and wallace refusing to ask these questions of the current administration? I'm pretty sure he was right on that one too!
mark

Clinton's draft-dodging; his record as a Soviet KGB agent in 1968, when he traveled the East Bloc ratting out student dissenters during the "Prague String"

I laughed out loud.

What a shame that in a time of many important things happening in our country that I see name calling and things of the past being run through the mud by our politicians. This does seem to be more prevalent on the conservative side and it makes me wonder if this is all they have to run on. Let us be honest FOX NEWS is an arm of the conservative party fiar and balanced? please give me a break. I wonder in my own way if all the politicians had to rely on Social Security for their retirement plan would it get fixed? I think it would be solvent in a heart beat. If they had to go to the public for raises would the minimum wage be increased? (overnight) If it was their children going to war would there be an exit plan? Bill Clinton was correct in stating that there is a conservative agenda of attack and name calling but I feel there are more important issues on the minds of the public why can't Congress address the issues at hand. a Government of the People for the People let us make them accountable for what they do not what their aganda is. I appeal to voters to ask the tough questions,(What have you really accomplished in your last 2 years Senator/Representative and vote on results not promises.)

Democracies survive only about 200 years. I think we are seeing in real time why that is. This "my team is better than your team" mentality, where neither side can see the flaws in the arguments of anyone on "my team", is bringing about the rapid decline of America.

Each side now has their quarterback, never to be questioned no matter how many times he might fumble the ball, and each side has their nemesis to hate with irrational fury.

One day American citizens will wake up and realize that all along they were the ones who were being played.

I just wonder who the next superpower will be when America is left sitting on the couch next to Great Britain, reminiscing about the glory days.

If you listen back to the president speaking on FOX News, you should pay more attention to who he is citing as the chief critics of his anti-terrorist campaigns of the late 1990's. His references are not directed towards the House or Senate Republicans, but instead towards the Neo-Conservatives that came to power at the advent of the Bush Administration and the overly skeptical, and conservative leaning news media.

If anyone is to blame for the rise to power and elusiveness of Osama Bin Laden it is clearly the FBI and CIA. They trained him, they funded him, they armed him, and then they refused to implicate him in attacks on the US. Doesn't it seem logical that these two institutions would stonewall any attempts by Clinton to kill Bin Laden? Perhaps they were trying to avoid the inevitable bad publicity that would spring from the acknowledgement that they had trained a terrorist that now was setting his sights on the US.

At the same time, I am firmly behind Clinton's assertions that the news media, particulary FOX News, would have the nerve to implicate his responsibility in 911 when it still refuses to acknowledge the volumes of missteps that the Bush Administration took before, during, and after the attack. I find it absolutely abhorrent that we have yet to question why important members of the administration were given warning not to board commercial airliners in the weeks before the attacks, but american citizens were not. Abhorrent that after the first plane hit the WTC, no defenses were scrambled to New York to prevent the second plane from flying in over 20 MINUTES LATER! Abhorrent that there has been no investigation into the blackout shutdown ordered in the upper floors of the WTC by security czar and GW brother, Marvin Bush, in the weeks and days prior to 911.

Why will our media not question this administration? Why does our media villify any politician that makes an attempt at questioning this administration? Why is our media dead set on pointing the 911 finger at everyone but the parties and persons that were in power when it happened?

not quiet anymore, huh...

It is about friggin' time that someone stood up for Clinton's efforts to get bin-Ladin...I clearly remember the 'Wag the Dog' allegations...not to mention that 43's people ignored the outgoing administration's advice that bin-Laden should be a priority

So Jake,

Do you see from the comments the type of Wingnuts that having ABC host Bill O'Reilly and Path to 9/11 is attracting?

Get out now while you still have some credibility to defend. Disney's thrown it's support to the right. Do you really want to go down that path also?

I believe that by now, the presumption in Mr. Clinton's case is that he can't distinguish between truth and spin.

The FACT remains that NO ONE knew Bin Laden was part of Al Qaeda, and no one knew what Al Qaeda even was, in 1996, or even for a couple of years later.

Also, I clearly remember footage of Bill Clinton striding around Bosnia in a flak jacket, talking to the troops, and bolstering their spirits. Can you imagine Bush doing such a thing? Unless he can pull off a carefully stage-managed, ridiculously secure photo op, Bush does not "do" troops. He has not even been to a single one of the nearly 3,000 military funerals he's caused by the Iraq war. Clinton, on the other hand, was there, and he was really "there", as in present, as in not just there for a glad-handing photo op.

On the general issue of Republican support for Clinton foreign policy, I clearly remember Rush Limbaugh making fun of the Administration's efforts to capture the warlord Mohammed Farah Aidid in Somalia.

The collective amnesia is pretty astounding.

The "wag the dog" accusations against Clinton were strong, vocal and frequent. It's was also well funded.

Anyone here remember the Jesse Helms founded Conservative Caucus? They pushed the wag the dog scenario to the limit.

A few tidbits from that brain trust, from 1998.

AT LEAST TEN REASONS TO OPPOSE INITIATION OF WAR ON IRAQ

1) President William J. Clinton lacks the moral authority to function properly as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces of the United States.

2) Let's not change the subject. The Number One business of the nation at this time should be the removal from office of William J. Clinton.

3) It is unconstitutional for America to go to war without a Congressional declaration of war.

Those are only the first three.

And, here's a great one:

Wag the Dog?
U.S. Policy on Iraq

DID CLINTON LIE OR ABUSE POWER IN ORCHESTRATING RATIONALE FOR PRE-IMPEACHMENT WAR?

The Washington Times (12/18/98, p. 1) reports "The White House orchestrated a plan to provoke Saddam Hussein into defying United Nations weapons inspectors so President Clinton could justify air strikes, former and current government officials charge.

"Scott Ritter, a former U.N. inspector who resigned this summer, said yesterday the U.N. Special Commission (Unscom) team led by Richard Butler deliberately chose sites it knew would provoke Iraqi defiance at the White House's urging.

"Mr. Ritter also said Mr. Butler, executive chairman of the Unscom, conferred with the Clinton administration's national security staff on how to write his report of noncompliance before submitting it to the U.N. Security Council Tuesday night.

"The former inspector said the White House wanted to ensure the report contained sufficiently tough language on which to justify its decision to bomb Iraq.

"‘I'm telling you this was a preordained conclusion. This inspection was a total setup by the United States,’ Mr. Ritter said. ‘The U.S. was pressing [the U.N.] to carry out this test. The test was very provocative. They were designed to elicit Iraqi defiance.’..."

TIMING IS EVERYTHING

"The White House knew by Dec. 9, when U.N. inspectors were in Baghdad, that the House had planned to debate impeachment as early as Wednesday, Dec. 16. Air strikes began that day."

EVIDENCE CONFIRMS THAT CLINTON'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL ATTACK ON IRAQ WAS A LONG-PLANNED POLITICAL PLOY

Robert Novak points out that (The Washington Post, 12/21/98, p. A29) "As Clinton took Palestinian applause in Gaza last Monday [December 14], secret plans were underway for an air strike coinciding with the House impeachment vote. The president had time to consult with Congress and the U.N. Security Council but took no step that might stay his hand.

"As whenever a president pulls the trigger, Clinton's top national security advisers supported him. But majors and lieutenant colonels at the Pentagon, whose staff work undergirds any military intervention, are, in the words of a senior officer, ‘200 percent opposed. They disagree fundamentally.’ They know the attack on Iraq was planned long before Butler's report and consider it politically motivated."

U.N. VIOLATIONS PROP WAS A CLINTON-SCRIPTED PROP

According to Rowan Scarborough (The Washington Times, 12/17/98, p. A1), "The White House notified the Joint Chiefs of Staff on Sunday that President Clinton would order air strikes this week, 48 hours before he saw a United Nations report declaring Iraq in noncompliance with weapons inspectors, it was learned from authoritative sources last night....

"Pentagon sources said National Security Council aides told the Joint Chiefs to quickly update a bombing plan that was shelved in mid-November and were told that a strike would be ordered in a matter of days.

"Israeli spokesman Aviv Bushinsky said yesterday in Jerusalem that President Clinton discussed preparations for an attack with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu just minutes before Mr. Clinton flew home from Israel's Ben-Gurion Airport on Tuesday, ending a three-day peace mission...."

There's more where that came from...

http://www.conservativeusa.org/wagdog.htm

http://www.conservativeusa.org/iraq-war.htm

Amnesia...

Yes, that’s the difference between the majority of the republicans and democrats, no matter who is the CIC, when our guys have been put in harm’s way, they do not go against the CIC, and they try to show unity.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/30/clinton.terrorism/

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Clinton urged Congress Tuesday to act swiftly in developing anti-terrorism legislation before its August recess. (1.6 MB AIFF or WAV sound)

"We need to keep this country together right now. We need to focus on this terrorism issue," Clinton said during a White House news conference.

But while the president pushed for quick legislation, Republican lawmakers hardened their stance against some of the proposed anti-terrorism measures.

Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Mississippi, doubted that the Senate would rush to action before they recess this weekend. The Senate needs to study all the options, he said, and trying to get it done in the next three days would be tough.

One key GOP senator was more critical, calling a proposed study of chemical markers in explosives "a phony issue."

Taggants value disputed
Clinton said he knew there was Republican opposition to his proposal on explosive taggants, but it should not be allowed to block the provisions on which both parties agree.

"What I urge them to do is to be explicit about their disagreement, but don't let it overcome the areas of agreement," he said.

The president emphasized coming to terms on specific areas of disagreement would help move the legislation along. The president stressed it's important to get the legislation out before the weekend's recess, especially following the bombing of Centennial Olympic Park and the crash of TWA Flight 800.

"The most important thing right now is that they get the best, strongest bill they can out -- that they give us as much help as they can," he said.

Hatch blasts 'phony' issues
Republican leaders earlier met with White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta for about an hour in response to the president's call for "the very best ideas" for fighting terrorism.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, emerged from the meeting and said, "These are very controversial provisions that the White House wants. Some they're not going to get."

Hatch called Clinton's proposed study of taggants -- chemical markers in explosives that could help track terrorists -- "a phony issue."

"If they want to, they can study the thing" already, Hatch asserted. He also said he had some problems with the president's proposals to expand wiretapping.

Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-South Dakota, said it is a mistake if Congress leaves town without addressing anti-terrorism legislation. Daschle is expected to hold a special meeting on the matter Wednesday with Congressional leaders.

Bravo, Jake. You are square to the mark (as ever) in your reporting and this is a rare amd wonderful thing.

Let me pitch in the NY Times lead from Aug 21, 1998:

EXCERPT:
The most cherished axiom of American foreign policy is that politics stops at the water's edge, meaning that political opponents support the President when missiles are flying. Today, it mostly worked, but the challenge of President Clinton's latest crisis crystallized when some critics uncharacteristically cried foul.

Most Republican Congressional leaders, from Speaker Newt Gingrich to such frequent Clinton adversaries as Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina, rallied around the commander in chief, with Mr. Gingrich declaring, ''I think, based on what I know, that it was the right thing to do at the right time.''

Yet in the surreal and cinematic atmosphere that suffused Washington all week, some voices that would usually be reliably hawkish suddenly sounded just plain hostile.

''The danger here,'' said Senator Dan Coats, Republican of Indiana, ''is that once a President loses credibility with the Congress, as this President has through months of lies and deceit and manipulations and deceptions, stonewalling, it raises into doubt everything he does and everything he says, and maybe even everything he doesn't do and doesn't say.'' Not quite 72 hours earlier Senator Coats had called for President Clinton's resignation over the Monica Lewinsky issue.

''I just hope and pray,'' he added, ''the decision that was made was made on the basis of sound judgment and made for the right reasons, and not made because it was necessary to save the President's job.''

Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, was only slightly softer in questioning Mr. Clinton's air strikes on what officials called terrorist outposts in Afghanistan and the Sudan, saying, ''I'm not going to suggest ulterior motives,'' and then adding: ''I especially want to know the reason for doing it now. I want to know what the evidence was.''
END

That said - as I recall, the bombing in Sudan was of the infamous milk factory / aspirin factory, or whatever it was. Clinton took a lot of heat for that as facts emerged, but (again, if memory serves) I think it was heat from the left, or the press - I am thinking of Chris Hitchens, but haven't even attempted to Google that.

Here is Jimmy Carter, for example:

EXCERPT
In a statement today, Mr. Carter said that British, German and other foreign leaders were increasingly skeptical of American assertions about the factory, which Washington linked to Iraqi chemical weapons projects.

''Despite early American reluctance to support this request,'' Mr. Carter said, ''this is something that now needs to be done.''

''If the Sudanese are guilty, they should be condemned both for lying and for contributing to terrorist activities,'' he said. ''Otherwise, we should admit our error and make amends to those who have suffered loss or injury.''
END

Times story:
http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F50F16F93B590C728EDDA10894D0494D81

If Clinton knew we needed to take on Bin Laden, and he also knew that he lacked the political capital to cajole the FBI and CIA and the Pentagon into doing it, then the only honorable thing to do would be to resign so that someone who could get the job done could take the helm. As the 2004 article "Showstopper" made clear, Clinton and other civilians in the national security establishment in Clinton's years were cowed by resistance from the uniformed military, whose top level people tend to be extremely afraid to take risks and think unconventionally.

As a former Dem who voted for Pres Carter, another issue that has never been cleared up to my satisfaction is North Korea. I've waited in vain for a Dem leader to come out and say something to the effect of "Well, we meant well by giving them money in exchange for not building nukes but it didn't really work out." Instead all I hear is "Nothing happened till we were out of office." Seems to be a mantra. But a bit ingenuous.

What caught my attention was Pres. Clinton demanding "certify" from the CIA/FBI. Trying to cover your butt when you know who wants to attack you is pretty weak. I belive its filed under "Leading a Nation". What actually did Sandy Berger stuff in his pants? Does anyone know?

I believe I heard President Clinton's assertions in his interview more in the context of what happened in Somalia in 1993. He was strongly and publicly urged by GOP leaders to remove troops from Somalia immediately after "Black Hawk Down" but he instead acted responsibly in removing troops (on a peaceful mission, by the way) over time, as a sign of American resolve to do the right thing. Yet he took enormous heat from the GOP for staying there. Face it, the GOP has hated Clinton from the get-go, seeing him as interference and delay in their grand scheme to obtain and retain power throughout the 3 branches of federal government. They will say anything, and twist the facts any way possible, to make their case. Partisanship run amuck.