Friends of Saddam

The cynical reactions of Republican congressional leaders to U.S.-British airstrikes on Iraq merely confirm the obvious — partisan politics will beat statesmanship every time.

Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott jumped the gun — literally — by announcing several hours before the attacks began that he could not support them, questioning both the timing and the policy. Surely Saddam Hussein appreciated the heads up.

House Majority Leader Dick Armey wasn’t quite so aiding and abetting, but far more disingenuous. He wasn’t saying there was a link between the strikes and the impending impeachment vote; he was just passing along what others were saying. Rep. Armey has a promising future as a town gossip.

Rep. Gerald Solomon, head of the House Rules Committee, gave the republic one more reason to be glad he’s retiring this year with a press release titled “Bombs Away — Save Impeachment for Another Day?” Others were suspicious, outraged and downright certain of a vast Clintonian conspriracy.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair, NATO, Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Hugh Shelton, Defense Secretary Bill Cohen, head weapons inspector Richard Butler of Australia, the leaders of Germany, Japan and all other nations that believe United Nations resolutions must be obeyed and that a madman bent on holding the world hostage with chemical, biological and nuclear weapons must be stopped — that is some major cahoots.

Not all in the GOP are so blinded by party and mistaken loyalty. Sens. John McCain of Arizona, Richard Lugar of Indiana and Maine’s Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins distinguished themselves by leaving the president out of it and noting that Saddam Hussein alone is responsible, that the military action is fully justified and must be fully supported.

Had the cynics taken a moment to think before jerking their collective knee, a few thoughts might have occured. The timing of the attacks is hardly suspect; when strikes were called back in midair last month, Saddam was warned that his next failure to comply with U.N. weapons inspectors would be his last. The conclusion reached by Butler Wednesday that Saddam had no intention of complying and the beginning this weekend of the Islamic holy month of Ramadan offered a narrow window of opportunity. To deny the logic of the timing is to assert that the price Saddam must pay for thumbing his nose at the world is a good scolding and four free weeks to make mischief.

And it might have occured that, regarding their cherished impeachment, nothing’s changed. They have the votes in the House now, despite polls suggesting that some two-thirds of the American public does not want Mr. Clinton removed from office. They’ll likely still have the votes in a few days when the dust settles.

If not, an interesting question is raised: Should a successful military campaign boost the president’s polls even higher, is there a certain number beyond which lying under oath about an sexual affair is not an impeachable offense?

Here’s another question for the GOP leadership: If lying under oath about a sexual affair is always an impeachable offense, what is providing support, comfort and advance warning to a tyrant?