I'm afraid the months preceding November 2000 will be everything but peaceful. And I'm talking very seriously here. For many different reasons, I follow US foreign policy very closely. (I've lived in Europe 20 years, in the US 12 years, and in Asia for the last 2 years.) and I can guarantee you that Clinton's lack of character, and his "conciliatory" approach to foreign policy has resulted in mortgaging international and US security. I'll give you some specific examples if you wish to hear them that relate to Russia, North Korea, India, Pakistan, China, Iraq and Israel, if you wish to hear them.
Ok, I will try to be polite and ask you, first, what specificly are the problems in these areas, and second, what a dragged out impeachment trial, with attendent uncertainty followed by a temporary new administration, will do to improve the situation? George Bush was on top of the world, diplomaticly and militarily, following the Gulf war. He undoubtable had far more authority and knowledge in foreign policy than Clinton could ever have hoped for. No sarcasm at all there. Yet, on Bosnia, he did nothing. On Iraq, he left a bad situation, after exorting the Iraqi people to rise up against Saddam. The wrong people rose up. On China, an area of personal expertise for Bush, he was not exactly a strong voice for democracy after Tianamen square. On Israel, he didn't exactly do anything I can remember. Really, I give Bush full credit for skillful diplomacy and military execution on the Gulf war. After that war, the US was in the strongest position internationally since Vietnam, and Bush had unquestioned respect and moral authority worldwide. What became of it?
If an impeachment trial moves forward seriously, it will last for months. You may wish for Clinton to "do the honorable thing" and resign. Most people don't feel that way, by conventional measurements of public opinion anyway. I don't care that much myself, since the elections. Before the elections, I was afraid that a Republican groundswell would send Clinton out of office, followed by continual hounding of Gore on campaign finance, maybe selection of a Helms / Gingrich approved new VP, maybe the ascension of Newt, certainly some Republican parody of campaign finance reform to turn the money tide even more in favor of the Republicans than it already is. Now, it's clear that impeachment is a double-edged sword.
Whatever happens from now on forward, there will be uncertainty. The more uncertainty there is, the more difficult it will be to conduct foreign policy. The more probable removing Clinton from office becomes, the more uncertain the international situation becomes. If Clinton actually gets removed, by whatever means, his successor will have a harder time dealing with any international crisis. Or are you hypothesizing that the Republicans, lead by foreign policy expert Jesse Helms, will suddenly become conciliatory and bipartisan in supporting Al Gore's leadership in that arena? In the realpolitik world, I can't see where impeachment improves the US situation. How do you see that happening?
On your other two points, further scandals has been a consistent cry here all along, the House was going to revive filegate, travelgate, Kathleen Willey, whatever, maybe even Whitewater and who killed Vince Foster. Or maybe something new will get leaked to Drudge. Starr came up with nothing on Clinton in 4 years, aside from the BJgate setup exercise, what do you expect now? On the economy, things can always turn around, but how do you see the uncertain situation surrounding impeachment helping out there? The markets rallied after the elections, the local spin was that it was because the Republicans didn't lose the House. I don't think that analysis has consensus support. The more common line is markets dislike uncertainty and instability. Impeachment as a stabilizing influence is counterintuitive. |
