Goodbye, Columbus?
The Washington Post and New York Times
lead with the Clinton administration's post-Columbus moves to shore up public
support for its Iraq stance, with the Post reporting that critics of a
U.S. air assault now include Jimmy Carter. The Los Angeles
Times goes with the brewing dispute between Kenneth Starr and senior
Clinton aides he is questioning over whether or not they are relieved from
answering by executive privilege. USA Today
leads with the arrest of two men, one of them a neo-Nazi, for possession of
suspected anthrax for use as a weapon. Allegedly, the men were plotting to
deploy the agent in the New York City subway system--yeah right, like anthrax
could survive that. The anthrax story also makes the NYT and LAT
fronts, but is pushed inside at the WP .
The WP reports that President Clinton warned Saddam Hussein not to mistake the
skeptical questions raised at the raucous Columbus forum as a sign that
Americans lack resolve for military action. This comment came, says the
Post , as a new poll shows 63 percent of respondents support bombing Iraq
if it doesn't stop interfering with weapons inspectors. The poll's fine points
are a little more confusing, however. 56 percent of the respondents say the
U.S. should try to force Saddam from power, but 56 percent also say they oppose
a U.S. invasion with ground troops. This sort of free-lunch result is an
American polling staple--it's just like all those polls that show folks want a
balanced budget, but not higher taxes or reduced Social Security or Medicare
benefits.
The NYT 's coverage of the hearts and mind stage of the
Iraq run-up suggests more of an uphill battle than does the WP 's: "A day
after U.S. policy toward Iraq was passionately picked apart at a town hall
meeting in Ohio, President Clinton tried to reassemble the pieces.."
The NYT reports this comment on the Columbus protests made by Sen.
Barbara Mikulski of Maryland to Clinton as he appeared with her at an event on
Thursday: "You and the first lady weren't exactly angelic a couple of years
ago. I don't think you've done too bad being a protester."
The LAT lead states that presidential confidant Bruce Lindsey
declined to answer some questions during his two-day Starr grand jury
appearance, which, the paper says, set the stage for a "Watergate-style battle"
over the use of executive privilege.
A NYT editorial weighs in on this dispute, taking the
position that as long as Starr's questions "stick to the pertinent issues," and
stay out of say, "military options in Iraq," they should be answered. Of
course, what counts as pertinent to Whitewater has already been loosened
considerably, and could get looser. If, for instance, there was prima facie
evidence that President Clinton had discussed Iraq moves with Lewinsky, then by
the same logic that got us here, Ken Starr would be entitled to question her
about that too.
USAT reports that Vernon Jordan met four times with Lewinsky, but
never mentions that this was first reported yesterday by the WP .
"Well, O.K., maybe not all our promises." The LAT front and
the WP inside feature stories stating that Promise Keepers is so
strapped financially that it will soon stop paying its 345 salaried
employees.
The Wall Street Journal main "Politics and Policy" piece has a
tidy break-out of lessons learned by both sides in the Gulf War. According to
the Journal , it's US: Minimize casualties, both civilian and military;
stealth technology works; precision-guided munitions work; you need to be able
to deploy quickly; and air power is more effective now than in the past. And
Saddam: Survival is victory; Americans don't like casualties on either side;
bring in foreign TV, but not foreign print reporters; portray yourself as the
victim, not the bully, and don't slug it out, but "shoot and scoot." The paper
says Pentagon officials suspect the Iraqi secret police may be keeping the
bodies of executed political prisoners in cold storage, to be blown up and
distributed wherever American bombs drop.
The WSJ has these Monica tidbits: 1) Vernon Jordan isn't part of the
joint defense agreement entered into by many other grand-jury witnesses with
White House ties. 2) The House Judiciary Committee is making plans to hire 18
"new" lawyers for a possible impeachment inquiry. For the sake of the republic,
"Today's Papers" hopes the Journal means "additional."
