I have been thinking on whether the latest scandal, in the Bush administration is going to be the crack that breaks the levy wide open. Sorry I couldn't resist. I mean this is an impeachable charge, but they have done far worse things and they are still in power. The left is jumping on this with bot feet and grabbing a handful of hair, but I don't believe that this horse is going to ride. Again sorry.
As I wrote yesterday, if they can get the Patriot Act to stand up, he will walk. Or if we are under "The Crisis Constitution", (The International Emergency Act) he was within the power of that Act.
But there is one sort of conspiracy look that I think might prove to be part if not all of the reason they lay it on the table and say what are you going to do about it? Read on>> If you dare>>
Do you remember when old Newt Grinrich was the speaker of The House? Or when Bill Clinton was impeached over a blue dress, and a BJ?
In a letter dated January 26 1998, and addressed to William Jefferson Clinton President of The United States. In the letter it is described how the signatories, felt that Saddam Hussain was a great threat to their interest in the Middle East, and that swift and strong action must be taken against him.
This is a very important section of the very letter that Clinton received, and notice the last sentence of the paragraph.
The policy of "containment" of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.
I will give the site later.
Newt received his letter on May 23, 1998 in which this paragraph, is the beginning of what will a long rough road for Clinton and the nation.
Now that the administration has failed to provide sound leadership, we believe it is imperative that Congress take what steps it can to correct U.S. policy toward Iraq. That responsibility is especially pressing when presidential leadership is lacking or when the administration is pursuing a policy fundamentally at odds with vital American security interests. This is now the case. To Congress's credit, it has passed legislation providing money to help Iraq's democratic opposition and to establish a "Radio Free Iraq." But more needs to be done, and Congress should do whatever is constitutionally appropriate to establish a sound policy toward Iraq.
The following is the strategy that these people laid out for the congress to follow, and an explanation as why they are coming to Newt Gingrich, and Trent Lott.
To accomplish Saddam's removal, the following political and military measures should be undertaken:
-- We should take whatever steps are necessary to challenge Saddam Hussein's claim to be Iraq's legitimate ruler, including indicting him as a war criminal;
-- We should help establish and support (with economic, political, and military means) a provisional, representative, and free government of Iraq in areas of Iraq not under Saddam's control;
-- We should use U.S. and allied military power to provide protection for liberated areas in northern and southern Iraq; and -- We should establish and maintain a strong U.S. military presence in the region, and be prepared to use that force to protect our vital interests in the Gulf - and, if necessary, to help remove Saddam from power
Although the Clinton Administration's handling of the crisis with Iraq has left Saddam Hussein in a stronger position that when the crisis began, the reality is that his regime remains vulnerable to the exercise of American political and military power. There is reason to believe, moreover, that the citizens of Iraq are eager for an alternative to Saddam, and that his grip on power is not firm. This will be much more the case once it is made clear that the U.S. is determined to help remove Saddam from power, and that an acceptable alternative to his rule exists. In short, Saddam's continued rule in Iraq is neither inevitable nor likely if we pursue the policy outlined above in a serious and sustained fashion. If we continue along the present course, however, Saddam will be stronger at home, he will become even more powerful in the region, and we will face the prospect of having to confront him at some later point when the costs to us, our armed forces, and our allies will be even higher. Mr. Speaker and Senator Lott, Congress should adopt the measures necessary to avoid this impending defeat of vital U.S. interests.
The signatories on both letters are,
Elliot Abrams,
William J. Bennett,
Jeffrey Bergner,
John R. Bolton, Paula Dobriansky, Francis Fukuyama,
Robert Kagan
Zalmay Khalilzad, William Kristol,
Richard Perle,
Peter Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld, William Schneider,
Jr. Vin Weber,
Paul Wolfowitz,
R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick
Now we come to why I feel that George W Bush will not see Impeachment and is as brazened towards the people and the press as he is with the questions of the things that he has done. I imagine that by now you have figured that I am talking about PNAC, and these are the letters that were sent to Gingrich, Clinton and Bush.
To wrap this up I will post the vital letter which states the reason they wanted to go in after Saddam. Notice again they state that the US should remove Saddam, even if he has nothing to do with (9-11.)
The letter is addressed to George W. Bush, dated September 20,2001.Iraq
We agree with Secretary of State Powell's recent statement that Saddam Hussein "is one of the leading terrorists on the face of the Earth...." It may be that the Iraqi government provided assistance in some form to the recent attack on the United States. But even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism. The United States must therefore provide full military and financial support to the Iraqi opposition. American military force should be used to provide a "safe zone" in Iraq from which the opposition can operate. And American forces must be prepared to back up our commitment to the Iraqi opposition by all necessary means.
So now you, have my reasoning why, I think Bush will not see impeachment. I often wonder if we will see the end of his reign. ABA