From: AdmrlLocke@aol.com Sent: Thursday, August 27, 1998 8:00 PM Subject: GrammNet: My Column on Missile Raids;Bush GrammNet Issue 8/27/98 Dear Friend, My address book got corrupted and I had to return to a two-month-old version. So if you're one of the few recipients who asked to be removed, I apologize. I will be saving updated copies of my address book after each change from now on, so I'll be sure to remove you permanently. I have two items today: a column and a question. The column is mine, from yesterday's Quad-City Times (8/26/98), on the timing of the misslie raids. It's not my best column, but here it is anyway. Now the question: George Bush, Jr. is campaigning as a conservative. Yet I hear from folks that he's not particularly conservative. The only specific example given by the Bush detractors is that he may have pushed a big income tax hike to provide a little property tax cut, meaning he pushed a real tax hike. Does you have any specific details on Bush's tax policy? Do you know of any other policies Bush has pushed which are generally not conservative in nature? If so, please write back with the details. I'd like to make a particular request that any information you send me on the subject be clear, logical, and factual. Name-calling may be emotionally satisfying, but it won't help me persuade anyone. I thank you in advance for any specific, factual information you can provide me. Sincerely, David B. Levenstam, CPA, MT, MA To subscribe to GrammNet, email me at AdmrlLocke@aol.com, with a message to the effect that you'd like to subscribe. ----------------------------------- Throwing Stones By David B. Levenstam, CPA, MT, MA When I first heard that Bill Clinton had ordered cruise missile raids against suspected Muslim terrorist targets, I supported the action. After all, when President Carter botched a mission to rescue hostages held by Muslim terrorists in 1980, I supported his action, albeit regretting the results. I even defended Carter's rescue mission against liberals and leftists, including supporters of Carter's Democratic presidential rival Ted Kennedy and members of the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee, who insisted that the mission was a transparent attempt by Carter to wrap himself in the flag and distract Americans from high inflation and unemployment. I vigorously opposed most of Carter's policies, but believed, and still believe, that he had too much integrity to risk a military action or American lives just to save his own political career. But the more I learn about Clinton's military action, the less I support it. Consider that six months ago, Secretary of State Madeline Albright promised military action against Iraq for Iraqi violations of the cease-fire. Last month U.N. weapons inspectors even leaked to the Western press news that Iraq has missiles armed with biological weapons. But instead of acting against Iraq as promised, the Clinton administration urged the inspectors not to make any surprise inspections that might reveal to the press more evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. The press has also discovered that totalitarian North Korea continues to develop nuclear weapons, despite the fact that Clinton gave them two nuclear reactors in exchange for their promise to halt nuclear weapons development. Yet Clinton has, as with Iraq, failed to take any action. Clinton's usual policy is to talk tough, then not act. Where's Jimmy Carter when you need him? Then, on August 7th, terrorists blew up two U.S. embassies. The U.S. government had watched the particular terrorists closely for some time, and by August 12 had developed a plan for retaliation on which Clinton didn't act. On August 17, he testified before the grand jury investigating his possible criminal wrongdoing. That night he went on the air to admit as little as possible, bash Ken Starr, and tell us that whether a president lied in a sexual harassment suit against him was none of our business. Many members of the news media responded with hostility to Clinton's admission that he'd "misled" them all along. Many had been defending Clinton for months, if not years. They picked apart his speech, line by line, reporting every obfuscation, dodge and shading of the truth. Clinton's personal approval ratings plummeted in some polls. On August 18th Democratic Congressman Paul McHale of Ohio, began demanding Clinton's resignation. Later in the day Clinton suddenly abandoned his usual policy of inaction and ordered the missile raids. On news and talk shows across the country, many Americans, Republican and Democrat alike, began to rally around the president. News of the raids knocked Monica Lewinsky's August 19th grand jury testimony off the front pages. But some members of the media, tired of supporting a man who'd repeatedly and blatantly lied to them, began to question the timing of the raid. Was the timing a ploy by Clinton to save his career, or just a happy coincidence? One clue to the motive behind the timing might be found by looking at what the raids accomplished. Lobbing a few dozen cruise missiles into suspected terrorist camps destroyed some property, killed some people, and created a few dozen craters. But there's no guarantee it killed any of the right people, while it endangered innocent civilians, including children. And the government of Sudan had already expelled Osama Bin Ladin before the August 7th bombings under pressure from the U.S. government, so the raid on Sudan defies rationality. It's unlikely that the raids accomplished much good. On the contrary, lobbing cruise missiles at a suspected terrorist camp is like throwing rocks through the window of a suspected arsonist. It's dramatic and feels good, but endangers innocent bystanders and does little to stop the arsonist from torching your car again. Rather, it probably will make him mad, while making you look weak and ineffectual, encouraging him to torch your home on his next spree. So don't be surprised if the terrorists attack next here at home. And if you throw stones through the wrong person's window, you look not only weak and ineffectual, but foolish and misled as well. Of course, Clinton just admitted he's been misleading us for the past eight months anyway, so what else is new?