SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Clinton's Scandals: Is this corruption the worst ever? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: jimpit who wrote (4096)9/7/1998 7:32:00 PM
From: Les H  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 13994
 
Hope Comes to Illinois

By George F. Will

Sunday, September 6, 1998; Page C07

CHICAGO-Polls are pointing toward what a poet has called the rare
occurrence of the expected. Chicagoan Carol Moseley-Braun, 51, the first
and only African American woman senator, may be defeated.

Her opponent, Peter Fitzgerald, 37, is a conservative state senator from
the Chicago suburbs, which cast about 40 percent of the state's vote. He is
already even or ahead in some polls. He spent $7 million of his own
money, from a family banking fortune, in winning the primary, and has
more money in his checking account, not to mention his campaign fund,
than Moseley-Braun's campaign has.

In 1992 she won 53 percent of the vote against a Republican candidate
who was weak even before he decided it would be a good idea to reverse
himself on abortion, becoming pro-choice on the eve of the announcement
of his candidacy. She won even though it was revealed that in 1989 she
and her siblings split a $28,750 inheritance that was supposed to go to her
mother, a nursing home resident who was supposed to use the money to
reimburse Medicaid.

Chicago Democrats survive their scandals by multiplying them, hoping the
unbroken monotony of misdeeds will anesthetize the public. But
Moseley-Braun may have overdone it even after some notable campaign
finance excesses in 1992.

Predictably, Janet Reno's politicized Justice Department has twice refused
IRS requests to impanel grand juries to hear evidence about
Moseley-Braun. One would concern possible bank fraud, bribery and
other federal crimes from when she was Cook County Recorder of Deeds.
The other would involve allegations that she and Kgosie Matthews, her
former campaign manager and former fiance, may have diverted $281,000
in campaign contributions to personal consumption, such as (according to a
WBBM-TV report in July) almost $70,000 on clothes, $64,000 on travel
(Hawaii, Europe, Africa), $25,000 for two Jeeps, $12,000 for stereo
equipment, $18,000 for jewelry (she and he spent almost $10,000 in cash
at an Aspen jewelry store during a fund-raising trip).

A former federal prosecutor and tax-law expert told WBBM that in 28
years of experience he had never heard of Justice refusing "when you have
the Internal Revenue Service as an institution making a request to the
Justice Department for grand jury authorization." "Never," said a former
IRS supervisor when WBBM asked if he had ever seen a precedent for
such refusal.

Matthews has been a lobbyist for the Nigerian government. On one of
Moseley-Braun's many visits to Nigeria, she met with the blood-soaked
dictator Gen. Sani Abacha, who died in June. In 1996 she disagreed with
the Congressional Black Caucus by opposing sanctions against Nigeria.
WBBM says the IRS is asking for a grand jury to investigate Matthews for
conspiracy, mail fraud and wire fraud. He owes $250,000 to a travel
agency, and no longer lives in the United States.

The conventional wisdom here is that the crucial swing vote is middle-class
suburban women, with whom Fitzgerald's pro-life position will be a
problem. But on primary night, while Moseley-Braun was warming up her
crowd with warnings that pro-life politicians are menaces to womanhood,
the gubernatorial primary produced a Democratic nominee, downstate
congressman Glenn Poshard, who is pro-life.

Fitzgerald dryly suggested that Moseley-Braun have a debate with
Poshard. Democrats are hoping for synergy, with Moseley-Braun helping
Poshard in Chicago and he helping her downstate.

Fitzgerald has to heal a Republican Party divided by the primary fight in
which Gov. Jim Edgar and most of the Republican establishment, with the
help of Bob Dole, supported Fitzgerald's opponent, Loleta Didrickson, the
state comptroller, who is pro-choice. It is a measure of the establishment's
skittishness and disconnection from reality that it is alarmed by Fitzgerald,
whose right-to-life position is, says political analyst Charles Cook, shared
by "the overwhelming majority of Republicans in Congress." The fact that
both the candidates for governor (the GOP nominee is Secretary of State
George Ryan) and Fitzgerald are pro-life may take the abortion issue off
the table. If the issue is argued in terms of who opposes partial-birth
abortions, Fitzgerald, not Moseley-Braun, will speak for the Illinois
majority.

In presidential politics Illinois is the bellwether state, having voted with the
winner in all but two elections in this century. (It voted for Republicans
Charles Evans Hughes in 1916 and Gerald Ford in 1976.) This year Illinois
is central to Republicans' hope of gaining the five Senate seats necessary
for a filibuster-proof majority of 60. That is not yet expected, but Illinois's
contribution to it may soon be rated probable.



To: jimpit who wrote (4096)9/7/1998 7:34:00 PM
From: Les H  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 13994
 
The Betrayal of Scott Ritter

By Fred Hiatt

Sunday, September 6, 1998; Page C07

It's no surprise to find the Clinton administration treating any problem as a
public-relations challenge, looking to spin instead of solve, vilifying critics
instead of debating them.

Even so, turning the dogs loose on Scott Ritter is a new low.

Ritter is the former Marine reserve major and Gulf War veteran who spent
the past seven years leading U.N. teams hunting for the biological and
chemical weapons that Iraq's Saddam Hussein is attempting to conceal.
On Aug. 26 he resigned from that post, charging the United Nations and
the United States with retreating from their stated commitment to disarm
the dictator.

"The illusion of arms control is more dangerous than no arms control at all,"
he said.

The administration responded by turning on this 37-year-old who, to
further what the administration had claimed was a top foreign policy goal,
had sacrificed comfort and personal safety for the better part of the
decade.

First came leaks about an FBI investigation of Ritter for sharing
confidential information with other governments -- something he freely
admits he did, as part of his job and at the direct order of his U.N. bosses.

Then Secretary of State Madeleine Albright lashed out. Ritter "doesn't
have a clue about what our overall policy has been," she told CNN.
Claiming great success for Iraq policy on behalf of "the United States --
and, I must say, me personally," Albright nonetheless didn't have enough
confidence in that policy to sit by as Ritter testified to Congress. She urged
a House committee chairman to squelch one such hearing, while Senate
Democrats did their best to prevent Ritter's testimony.

When Senate committees nonetheless invited Ritter to present his views,
administration ally Joseph Biden really went to work. Biden, ranking
Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, depicted "old
Scotty-boy" as a spoiled child who was demanding that President Clinton
and Albright declare war because he hadn't gotten his way.

"But in terms of whether the secretary of state has no more to consider
than you do as the arms inspector -- you didn't get in, didn't get my job
done, get me in! . . . Scott Ritter, I'm ready to go! That's not how it
works," Biden said mockingly. "That's why they get paid the big bucks.
That's why they get the limos and you don't. . . . Their job's a hell of a lot
more complicated than yours."

Not all Democrats, it should be noted, were willing to go down that road.
Virginia Sen. Charles Robb, for one, a fellow former Marine, called Ritter
"tough . . . principled . . . uncompromising . . . You have acquitted yourself
extremely well."

But the administration's belittling of Ritter isn't just shabby and politically
stupid. It's dangerous -- because, unfortunately, Ritter does have a clue.

Not some face-in-the-mud foot soldier, Ritter was a senior official of the
U.N. arms inspection operation, responsible for assembling and leading
inspection teams. A half- dozen times, he was pulled away from such
inspections on orders from Albright or other top administration officials.
Once, in August, he believed the team was about to uncover ballistic
missile components. On another occasion, they were pursuing biological
weapons they believed had been tested on live human subjects.

Ritter believes the administration derailed these and other inspections
because it did not want its bluff called. Now that Saddam Hussein has
kicked the inspectors out of Iraq, and the Security Council has not acted,
it's hard to argue with his interpretation.

Six months ago, Clinton said that if Saddam Hussein defied the U.N.
inspectors "and we fail to act . . . he will conclude that the international
community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on
and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some
day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal."

What has changed since Clinton made those remarks? Without
inspections, how will the United States or the United Nations know what
Saddam Hussein is up to? How will they prevent his rearmament? What
will they do if he rearms?

So far, Albright's chief response to such questions has been to point to
continuing diplomacy and to economic sanctions that remain in place. But
without inspectors, even the sanctions aren't much use, for there will be no
one to prevent Saddam Hussein from using his U.N.-approved oil
revenues -- as he already has tried to do -- to buy weapons components
overseas.

No one can doubt the difficulty of the challenge posed by Saddam Hussein
-- difficulty aggravated, as Ritter said, by two years of confrontations
followed by concessions that have served only to embolden him. Whether
to use force, how to marshal support at home and abroad for its use --
these are tough questions that, as Albright suggests, are beyond Ritter's
responsibility.

What Ritter does know is Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.
And, according to his Senate testimony, it would take the Iraqi leader only
six months to reconstitute his chemical weapons capability and the ballistic
missiles to deliver them.

So far, since Saddam Hussein booted the inspectors, one month has
passed.

>>>Sicking the FBI on Scott Ritter = they seem to use the FBI
>>>as if they were their private Gestapo