<deleted>
>Irwan:
>Bung Sulaiman, bagaimana kalau saya kutipkan disini TIMELINE tentang
>kasus Irak-PBB yg bisa dilihat di
>http://cnn.com/SPECIALS/1998/iraq/
>dan klik tulisan TIMELINE
>
<deleted>
>---------------------akhir kutipan----------------
>Irwan:
>Catatan tambahan dari saya, AS dan UK akhirnya menghentikan gempuran
>ke Irak setelah meyakini target dari misi yg direncanakan tercapai.
>Alasan lain serangan dihentikan adalah karena mulai memasuki bulan Ramadan,
>bulan suci umat Islam.
Bagaimana kalau giliran anda membaca quote dari saya:
New York Times:
December 20, 1998
A Tough New Goal in Iraq
By ETHAN BRONNER and YOUSSEF M. IBRAHIM
The scenes were gnawingly familiar: the video-gamelike renderings of air
strikes, the beribboned generals with their
maps and pointers, the unshaven Iraqis gaping into craters dug by U.S.
cruise missiles.
It was so routine, in fact, that this latest act of war against Iraq hardly
delayed the debate in the House of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Representatives over impeachment of a sitting U.S. president.
And yet because this U.S.-Iraqi contest of cat and mouse has occurred so
often in the past eight years without vexing, let alone trapping, the mouse
-- there, once again, was a smiling, sinister Saddam Hussein clad in his
natty foulards or his field marshal's epaulets -- many are asking a broader
set of questions this time around.
What is the endgame? What is the long-term strategy? How many more times
can this happen?
In fact, while this bombing campaign has looked like a larger version of
half a dozen previous ones aimed at forcing Saddam to abide by United
Nations resolutions or to back away from allied protected zones, President
Clinton and Congress have called it something much more significant. This,
they say, is the first salvo in a campaign to remove Saddam and install a
government more democratic and less dangerous.
And while analysts and officials here and abroad applaud such goals, they
wonder whether such a policy shift goes beyond the rhetorical. They are
quick to point out that even if the Americans are serious, the task is
enormous not only because of Saddam's continuing grip on power but because
of the political culture of the Iraq he has built over the last three
decades.
Any serious new government would have to come from Iraq's professional and
middle classes. Yet it is these people who have been the direct
beneficiaries of the universities, bridges, roads and secular, modernized
structure that Saddam has created. That makes them, paradoxically, the ones
with most to lose if he departs.
They are also the ones who have suffered most from U.S.-led international
sanctions against the country, watching their fixed government salaries
disappear and selling their artwork and appliances for a pittance to feed
their families.
The urban poor are used to scraping by, and villagers can -- and do -- turn
back to farming. The urban middle class has truly felt punished.
And given the divided and ineffectual foreign-based Iraqi opposition, the
fierce mistrust of U.S. intentions felt across the Arab world, and the fear
of Iraqi middle classes that the first result of any coup would be to bring
the pent-up wrath of northern Kurds and southern Shiites down on them, the
challenge of installing a new government becomes clear.
Many people point to the continuing international trade sanctions as the
first problem.
"There is a sort of naivete about sanctions bringing democracy to Iraq,"
said Denis Halliday, the Irish U.N. official who ran the oil-for-food
program in Iraq until quitting this year, declaring that sanctions amounted
to a "declaration of war against the Iraqi people."
He and Unicef officials say the lack of spare parts for the electric, sewer
and water networks are contributing to the deaths of more than 6,000
infants a month there. While the West blames Saddam for those deaths, most
Iraqis, while not pleased with their president, blame the West.
Clovis Maksoud, a former Arab League ambassador to the United Nations and
now a professor at American University in Washington, agreed, saying:
"There is a deep dissociation with Saddam in Iraq. But when they are
attacked by the Americans, they rally around the flag, and he happens to be
the flag."
Even analysts who urge the United States to actively promote a coup against
Saddam and consider the sanctions a useful form of pressure on the regime
say getting to the dictator will be extremely difficult physically and
politically.
"Nobody admires him anymore, but most Iraqis still accept and support him,"
said Amatzia Baram, an Israeli specialist on Iraq from Haifa University who
is spending the year in Washington. "The only hope is to separate him from
his power base, prove to his power base that life is more dangerous with
him than without him. That is part of the point of these bombings."
Others counter that the bombings have little effect on people accustomed to
suffering, that they view the missiles the way a drowning man might see rain.
Saddam's power base consists largely of portions of the Sunni Muslim tribes
and clans in central Iraq. And while it is true that a majority of Kurds in
the north and Shiite Muslims in the south are sick of him and his rule, the
chances of a rebellion even by them are widely viewed as slim.
Opposition groups do not exist in any organized fashion within Iraq. Those
on the outside have been heavily infiltrated by the regime or are so
splintered and inept as to offer almost no hope for a coherent replacement
regime.
It is also entirely unclear how most Iraqis would respond to a
transparently U.S.-led putsch. One frequently heard criticism of the Iraqi
National Congress, the main umbrella opposition group based in London, is
that it is a spineless vassal of the CIA.
"No self-respecting Iraqi would stand up with the United States when his
country is being attacked in this fashion," asserted an Iraqi businessman
and intellectual who is known in Iraq as an opponent of the regime and
spoke on the condition of anonymity since he continues to live there. "How
can you side with forces bent on destroying not just the regime but a whole
country?"
For many Iraqis, relying on the United States to replace Saddam would be
the equivalent of Palestinians asking Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu to save them.
There is a widespread feeling not only in Iraq but across the Arab world
that U.S. policy is not anti-Saddam but something more sinister, drawing
its energy from the sheer savage vigor of supremacy.
According to this view, the United States cannot countenance the prospect
of a rich, powerful Arab country capable of challenging U.S. and Israeli
primacy in the region. Iraq, with its vast oil reserves, ancient culture,
fertile midlands and sophisticated technology, is simply too threatening.
So keeping Saddam weak and in office is the best alternative; the United
States would make sure that any new government would serve U.S. interests
first.
Many Arabs also say they were grievously offended by all the decorous talk
of bombing before the onset of the holy month of Ramadan this weekend, as
if hurrying to bomb Muslims before Ramadan was a way of showing respect.
The result of all this suspicion, fueled by howls of "double standard"
regarding U.S. policy toward Israel and the Arabs, is that even Iraqi
opposition figures who believe that their hope is in Washington worry about
the appearance of that relationship.
"We tell the Americans, 'Don't hug us too tight,' " said Ghassan Atiyyah,
editor of the London-based Iraqi File, an opposition publication.
Last month, Congress earmarked nearly $100 million for opposition groups, a
sum that seems princely until placed against the hundreds of millions spent
on military attacks this past week.
Atiyyah met with U.S. officials some weeks ago to urge them to finance the
establishment of a new Iraqi opposition group in exile, what he calls a
"council of wise men," that would draw on all sectors of Iraqi society in
exile.
While the Iraqi National Congress has Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis, Atiyyah
said that "the INC may have been an umbrella group, but it is now an
umbrella with too many holes in it that can't cover anything."
He says the opposition groups are missing the link to the Iraqi center,
both geographical and political. There is an acute need for moderate,
liberal and secular opposition figures, members of the middle class, as
well as Iraqis who come from the geographical middle of the country.
The aim of such a group, he said, would be "Iraqism," a melting pot
nationalism for all the country's ethnic and tribal groups.
The irony -- although it is perhaps also the strength -- of such a goal is
that it mirrors Saddam's own accomplishments. So even the many Iraqis who
despise their president worry that without him the nation would fall apart,
that Muslim fundamentalists, aided by neighboring Iran, would gain undue
influence.
"Removing Saddam would only be a first step in dealing with most of these
issues, even if Saddam can be removed," argued Anthony Cordesman of the
Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. Any leader
following Saddam, he said, would have to maintain "at least a
quasi-authoritarian regime" to prevent deterioration into tribal bloodshed.
There is also the risk that assassination of Saddam would simply lead to a
takeover by one of his two brutish sons or by his chief bodyguard and other
close lieutenants, changing things not at all.
Most Iraqis within the country lack any real sense of political
alternatives. Maksoud, the former Arab League ambassador, speaks of their
"political illiteracy" and Atiyyah, the London opposition figure, asserts
that "almost anyone who can think clearly has left the country already."
But others say this is untrue. Iraq is not an underdeveloped country. Per
capita, it has long had more engineers, scholars, writers and professionals
than any other Arab state. It is probably not an accident that its
scientists are the ones in the Arab world who produced such an arsenal of
weapons.
"Iraq is not Ethiopia or Somalia," said Radwan Abdallah, a Jordanian
political scientist. "There is still an intelligentsia and middle class
there. It has enormous resources. To change things requires a great deal of
planning, energy and effort. You need a strong outside hand. But it is a
country with talent and organizational skills. It is certainly not beyond
hope."
------
>
>Irwan:
>>Perlu juga anda pertimbangkan, Clinton pun seingat saya tidak
>>pernah memberikan peringatan seserius dan setegas seperti apa yg
>>dia lakukan bulan November kemarin.
>
>YS:
>Peringatan: sering,
>serius: juga sering,
>tapi langkah konkritnya: nol.
>Beberapa bulan lalu malahan Mme. Albright dikecam di kampus... Ohio ya
>kalau enggak salah. Sorry saya ttak bisa banyak mencari-cari bahan fakta
>untuk diskusi ini, soalnya sedang final....
>
>Irwan:
>Saya coba bantu dengan TIMELINE di atas.
>Dapat kita baca bahwa tidak benar tidak pernah ada penyerangan ke Irak
>setelah ada pelanggaran. Saya tidak tahu maksud dari pernyataan anda
>"tapi langkah konkritnya: nol"
>
>
Saya harap lampiran dari New York Times di atas bisa membantu anda membaca
masalah ini.
<deleted>
Khan
>kalau nyerang ngga didukung kekuatan memadai bisa membahayakan.
>Jadi, saya tidak melihat ketidak-konsistenan dari Clinton dalam hal ini.
>Pelanggaran setelah kejadian November jelas sekali tidak perlu memberikan
>Irak waktu berpikir/mempertimbangkan karena memang pernyataan
>atau ultimatum bulan November kemarin sangat jelas dan tegas.
Lihat lampiran dari New York Times diatas.
>
>Irwan:
>>Menyadari hal ini karenanya saya tidak melihat keputusan
>>menyerang Irak yg diambil Clinton beberapa hari lalu adalah karena
>>usaha2 Clinton menghindari impeachment hari Kamis kemarin
>>seperti ada rekan2 yg memperkirakannya demikia disini dan juga
>>beberapa orang di Indonesia yg saya baca dari beberapa media
>>elektronik.
>
>YS:
>Saya menganggap bahwa US memang sudah perlu menyingkirkan
>M. Saddam KALAU US MEMANG MAU MENGHILANGKAN DURI DALAM
>DAGING> Tapi selama ini saya lihat pada masa Prez. Clinton, M. Saddam
>selalu menjadi alternatif yang menarik untuk 'Wag the dog.'
>
>Irwan:
>Waduh, mudah2an anda sedang tidak menyarankan agar AS
>menculik/membunuh Saddam. "Apa kata dunia?", begitu nanti si Nagabonar
>kasih komentar....:)
>
Saya tak menyarankan apa-apa. Namun saya hanya menarik logika dari
tulisan-tulisan anda yang menyatakan bahwa US sebetulnya memang serius
memandang M. Saddam sebagai a threat. Ingat Noriega dan diktator lain.
>
>Irwan:
>Proses voting untuk impeachment selesai duluan sebelum
>pemboman dihentikan. Pemboman dihentikan karena target sudah
>tercapai dan waktu sudah akan memasuki bulan Ramadan.
>
Target? Target apa yang tercapai?
"Based on the preliminary assessment of the first three days of the
four-day attack, the Defense Department was able to confirm that air
strikes had done some degree of damage to 70 of the 100 targets attacked,
although only 28 targets were described as having been either destroyed or
severely damaged"
----
ATTACK ON IRAQ: THE OVERVIEW
This Time, Little Damage Is to Be Seen in Baghdad
By STEPHEN KINZER
BAGHDAD, Iraq -- The last bomb to fall on Baghdad during the 70-hour
campaign that ended Saturday night destroyed a wing of the Labor and Social
Affairs Ministry, and by midday Sunday hundreds of people had come to view
the damage.
Repair crews were already at work. A phalanx of Kawasaki bulldozers plowed
debris into piles and lifted it onto trucks to be carted away.
Souvenir-seekers picked through the rubble in search of shrapnel.
Most laborers and onlookers called the bombing a barbaric and criminal act
and bitterly condemned President Clinton for ordering it. That was no
surprise, not only because Iraq has endured years of economic sanctions and
military attacks, but also because political dissent here can be -- and
often is -- punished by summary execution.
A 21-year-old Jordanian who is studying at Baghdad University offered a
somewhat more balanced assessment.
"Both countries lost," the student, Hasan al-Atoun, said as he looked over
the piles of shattered brick and glass. "Iraq lost because it suffered
terrible damage like this. America lost because it hurt its relations with
Russia, the Arab world and many other countries."
Foreign diplomats who hurried to file reports to their governments Sunday
argued among themselves over why the ministry was hit. Some said it had
been used as an intelligence center and speculated that sensitive documents
might have been stored there. Others guessed that the real target was a
military academy across the street.
Such speculation was especially intense because in contrast to earlier
allied raids, relatively few bombs fell on Baghdad in this latest campaign,
and there is little damage to see. Most of the attacks were on positions
elsewhere in the country.
Preliminary Western assessments of the damage suggested that the bombing
was effective. Those reports gained some credence when the Iraqi government
failed to invite foreign journalists to view destroyed targets. In the past
they have shown off what appeared to be homes and other civilian buildings
that had been hit.
A British military officer, speaking in Kuwait, said 600 aircraft missions
had been flown in the last week, including 50 by British planes.
Most of the missions were support sorties to get bombers to their targets,
said the officer, Group Commander Bryan Collins. He added that about 400
cruise missiles had struck Iraq, fired at some 100 targets.
But even if the raids were successful in destroying Iraqi military bases
and centers where chemical and biological weapons may have been developed,
there is no sign that they came anywhere close to achieving the West's
larger political objective of removing President Saddam Hussein.
Saddam, whose government the United States and Britain are determined to
crush, emerged at least as powerful as he was before the raids. He won the
sympathy of France, Russia and China, all permanent members of the U.N.
Security Council. And Palestinians in the West Bank and demonstrators in
Yemen, Syria and Jordan have poured into the streets to support him.
"As a military operation it was perfect, a textbook case," said one foreign
envoy here. "Important targets were hit, no planes were lost and there was
little or no collateral damage.
"But this was not just a military operation. The real purpose was to weaken
the regime, but he's stronger than ever now. He's a hero among the
so-called Arab masses because he defied the Americans. Which despotic
leader has survived so long in a war situation?"
Life in Baghdad was barely disrupted by the bombing. Sunday a grocer named
Abdul Gesan stood in his shop and said that compared to what he had seen as
a soldier in the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s and the invasion of Kuwait in
1990, this had been "no more frightening than rain."
"The American people are good, but the leaders are bad," Gesan said. "They
are cowboys. It is all about Monica."
On one Iraqi television broadcast, an announcer said it was no coincidence
that the bombing had ended as soon as the congressional vote on Clinton's
impeachment had been taken. On another, Saddam appeared personally to thank
his people for helping him win what he called his latest confrontation with
"enemies of God and humanity."
"You were up to the level that your leadership and your brother and comrade
Saddam Hussein had hoped you would be," he said. "God has rewarded you and
delighted your hearts with the sweetness of victory."
During his broadcast, Saddam was dressed in military fatigues. It was only
one of the many personas he assumes. The hundreds of portraits of him that
are painted on walls here, many of them larger than life, show him in
almost every imaginable guise.
In some he is jowly and patriarchal, in others dashing and movie-star
handsome. One shows him earnest and looking very young, dressed in a blue
suit as if posing for a high school yearbook picture. Another depicts him
as the benevolent father, a wedding ring on his finger and an adorable
little girl on his knee.
In one of the oddest, he grins widely and wears a Panama hat, sunglasses
and a white shirt open to the waist, looking as if he should be sipping an
exotic drink at a tropical resort.
"They bomb us, but our Saddam Hussein is still here," said a man selling
pine saplings along one of Baghdad's main streets. "Do you understand now
why we say we love him?"
-----
>YS:
>Menghentikan
>impeach berarti memberikan signal kepada M. Clinton bahwa dia berhasil
>'di atas' congress dalam berpolitik. Kegagalan untuk proses impeach ini
>berarti melemahkan wibawa congress. Terus terang, saya memandang
>proses impeach ini juga sebagai proses untuk menyelamat kan kewibawaan
>Republican Congress itu sendiri. Ini sudah menjadi political snowball yang
>tak bisa dihentikan.
>
>Irwan:
>Saya melihat tidak ada masalah wibawa2an. Tapi ini masalah konstitusi.
>Kelompok Demokrat tidak punya alasan kuat untuk menunda proses
>debat dan voting impeachment. Sejarah menunjukkan proses
>impeachment terhadap Richard Nixon tetap dilakukan walaupun
>perang Vietnam masih berlangsung. Argumentasi jauh lebih kuat
>dibandingkan dengan alasan Demokrat untuk menunda proses impeachment.
>Inilah yg saya perhatikan selama mengikuti debat tersebut di tivi.
>
Pendukung censure kepada presiden jauh lebih kuat daripada
impeachment.
-----
December 21, 1998
THE TWISTS AND TURNS
How Republican Determination Upset Clinton's Backing at Polls
-
This article was reported and written by JILL ABRAMSON, LIZETTE ALVAREZ,
RICHARD L. BERKE, JOHN M. BRODER and DON VAN NATTA JR.
WASHINGTON -- It appeared to be the ultimate comeback in a career marked by
seemingly miraculous political resurrections. The night of Tuesday, Nov. 3,
was a time of celebration at the White House. Bill Clinton had again defied
the odds, embarrassed the experts and vanquished his political enemies.
As election results poured in from across the country, it became clear that
Clinton, though not on the ballot, had won a smashing victory over the
Republicans who had bet their chips on his impeachment.
The president gathered with friends and aides in his chief of staff's
office to revel in the returns, one of those there recalled, chewing on
cigars, drinking wine and delighting in the victory until 2:30 in the
morning. The public had spoken. Surely the Republicans must finally heed
its voice.
But the despair in the Republican camp was tempered by determination. The
next afternoon, Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Ill., the chairman of the House
Judiciary Committee that would soon conduct hearings on impeaching the
president, dialed a conference call from a meeting room in the O'Hare
Airport Hilton in Chicago.
After each of the 20 other Republicans on the committee clicked onto the
line, Hyde somberly delivered his marching orders. "We took a shellacking
in the elections," he told his colleagues, several of them recounted last
week. "But we have a constitutional duty to carry out, and we always said
the election would have no bearing on it. We will move forward."
Clinton and his allies badly misread the resolve of Hyde and other
Republican leaders to sail into the wind of hostile public opinion. To this
day, the president's friends say, Clinton, the most poll-driven politician
ever to rise to the presidency, is mystified that Republicans in Congress
would defy the poll-tested will of the people.
But Clinton, through a strategy of denial and attack, had long ago given
Republicans the weapons they turned against him in their campaign for
impeachment.
In the final days before Saturday's vote, many wavering Republicans argued
that they could not trust a president who had stood in the Roosevelt Room
of the White House in January and angrily denied having sexual relations
with "that woman, Miss Lewinsky." That public lie was not among the
impeachment charges, but it stiffened the resolve of the president's
opponents.
"That is something a president should never never do," one senior adviser
who also counts himself a friend of Clinton, said of the president's
defiance that day. "That's most troubling to me. I am still working through
forgiving him for it."
But in the view of many, neither did his opponents bring credit upon
themselves. Some say Kenneth Starr, the independent counsel, sacrificed his
reputation for fairness and civility in his relentless pursuit of the
president.
House Republicans, by refusing to allow a censure measure to reach the
House floor and by forcing a partisan vote that succeeded on only two of
four impeachment counts, have risked further erosion of their falling
public support.
In interviews with the president's closest advisers, who helped formulate
his strategy for dealing with the mounting legal and political crisis, and
with his staunchest foes, both in the independent counsel's office and
within the Republican congressional leadership, it is apparent that the
impeachment vote was sadly inevitable. The two sides in this conflict could
not find common ground to resolve the crisis.
For example, Clinton surprised even some of his own legal advisers by
stiffening his denials in the face of ever-more tenacious questions from
Starr and, later, Hyde. And Hyde, whose abilities and determination were
underestimated in the White House, played a more pivotal role than is
generally recognized, pushing impeachment forward as his party's leadership
was plunged into post-election disarray.
"I've always believed that impeachment was avoidable," Rep. Jim Leach, a
thoughtful Iowa Republican, said last week before casting his vote to
impeach Clinton. "But at each stage, the combination of congressional
action and executive response worked against bringing closure at an earlier
moment."
The Testimony:
A Concession, and a Threat
Moments before Clinton swore to tell the truth to a federal grand jury on
Aug. 17, David Kendall, the president's personal lawyer, asked to speak
privately with the independent counsel, Starr, in a hallway outside the
White House Map Room.
Kendall told Starr that the president was prepared to acknowledge that he
had an inappropriate relationship with Monica Lewinsky, according to
several people with direct knowledge of the encounter. "But," Kendall
warned Starr, "if you go into details, I will fight you to the knife, both
here and publicly."
And so the president offered what he viewed as a profound concession,
underlined by a threat. Starr withdrew and huddled with his fellow
prosecutors to map out their strategy. Unanimously, they decided to press
the president on the details of the relationship; these were critical to
the definition of "sexual relations" allowed by the judge in Clinton's
deposition in the Paula Jones sexual harassment suit.
"It was clear that the president would only make a limited statement,
refuse to provide any details and try to run out the clock," recalled
Charles Bakaly III, the spokesman for Starr. "And we saw that as an attempt
by the president to defy both the prosecutors and the truth."
In the days before the grand jury appearance, one of Clinton's lawyers had
strongly counseled him to refuse to testify. But the president was swayed
by polls that showed he would put his 70 percent approval ratings at risk
by refusing to testify or by exercising his Fifth Amendment right against
self-incrimination.
Clinton's lawyers also told the president that it would be suicidal for him
to lie to the federal grand jury.
"For the president of the United States to lie before a grand jury is a big
deal," a longtime adviser of the president said in an interview. "I don't
care if the lie is about a fender-bender or about sex. We always knew that
perjury before a grand jury was a dastardly, very serious act that most
people would not tolerate."
In the weekend before his testimony, the president's lawyers decided that
Clinton should make an opening statement acknowledging an inappropriate
relationship with Ms. Lewinsky and then not answer any specific questions
about the nature of the sexual contact.
But in the four hours of grand jury testimony, the president surprised his
lawyers by straying from the plan and maintaining that Ms. Lewinsky
performed sexual acts on him while he never touched her in a sexual manner,
several advisers said. On several major points, Clinton's testimony and Ms.
Lewinsky's directly contradicted each other.
That night, the president addressed the nation and attacked the unfairness
of Starr's 4-year-old investigation. But for the first time, Clinton
directly acknowledged that he had an inappropriate relationship with Ms.
Lewinsky that was "wrong," contradicting seven months of his public
denials. While many people had assumed he had not told the full truth in
January, the admission further damaged his credibility.
At the conclusion of Clinton's testimony, the prosecutors returned to their
Pennsylvania Avenue offices and gathered in a large, windowless conference
room. When Starr repeated Kendall's threat, "there was an audible gasp"
among the 30 lawyers present, said Ronald Rotunda, an aide to Starr.
On Aug. 18, Starr's prosecutors read transcripts of the president's
testimony. After a somber discussion, Starr and his deputies decided to
send to the House of Representatives an impeachment referral that would
accuse the president of lying repeatedly to the grand jury.
Not long afterward, Clinton's lawyers received a transcript of Ms.
Lewinsky's grand jury testimony. They were shocked to read her detailed
account contradicting the president's description of their physical contact.
What Clinton's lawyers did not know, several of his advisers said in
interviews, was whether Ms. Lewinsky was exaggerating or whether Clinton
had misled his own legal team.
There was another problem that confronted the president, his advisers
conceded. Many Republicans and even some Democrats doubted his word.
One was Rep. W.J. "Billy" Tauzin, a Louisiana Republican who had switched
parties in 1995, in part because he said the president had lied to him on
an energy-tax issue.
"He lied to me, he lies to others, and he uses us like rag dolls," Tauzin
said. "And that's not helpful in this business."
On Aug. 19, the House majority whip, Rep. Tom DeLay of Texas, had become
the first leading lawmaker to call for Clinton's resignation.
"Clearly," DeLay said, "the president has done irreparable damage to the
office of the presidency."
Clinton and his allies dismissed the threat of impeachment as a partisan
exercise. But the die was cast.
A case for impeachment was on its way to the most partisan committee on
Capitol Hill, the House Judiciary Committee. And DeLay, the Republicans'
chief vote counter in the House, was determined to drive impeachment forward.
The Starr Report:
Miscalculations and Repercussions
The next miscalculations were made by Starr and the Republicans in Congress.
Two Starr deputies, Brett Kavanaugh and Stephen Bates, had been assigned to
write what became the 445-page Starr report. On Sept. 9, two government
vans disgorged the document, along with 17 boxes of supporting documents.
Kavanaugh, who had worked at Starr's Chicago law firm, and Bates, an editor
from the scholarly Wilson Quarterly, had written a 140-page narrative that
chronicled in graphic detail each of 10 sexual encounters with the
president that Ms. Lewinsky had described in her grand jury testimony. The
details, the prosecutors believed, were necessary to show conclusively that
the president had lied.
"This was not 'Lady Chatterly's Lover,"' said Rotunda, the aide to Starr.
"It was necessary to include all those details. The details also made it
ring true."
Hyde had spoken reverently of bipartisanship and fairness. The hearing
process, he promised repeatedly, would be slow and cautious. And to a
certain extent, it started that way. Two days after the Starr report's
delivery under lock and key, the full House, in a bipartisan vote, chose on
Sept. 9 to release its contents, without any member having read it. And two
days later, Republicans decided to publish it for the world on the Internet.
Republicans defended their decision, saying that the impeachment of Clinton
carried such import they could not justify withholding even one word of the
Starr report. The public, they argued, had a right to know.
Just as Clinton had sometimes overplayed his hand at crucial moments, the
Republicans badly miscalculated the public's reaction to the 445-page
report. Parents were soon bombarding congressional offices with complaints
that their children were reading about oral sex online. Pundits called the
report "soft-core pornography."
"A penny-ante high school sex novel," one of Clinton's defenders sneered.
The Republicans had also refused to provide the president's lawyers with an
opportunity to review the Starr report before it was made public. Then,
despite grand jury secrecy rules, they released the videotape of the
president's testimony.
Seething Democrats blasted the Republicans as unfair. Polls quickly showed
that two-thirds of the public continued to support the president while
Starr's approval ratings fell to single digits.
Yet Clinton's advisers saw a clear danger in the independent counsel's
report. Senior White House aides quietly opened discussions with allies on
Capitol Hill to seek a censure resolution as an alternative to the
Republican intention to open impeachment hearings.
When the president's top two lawyers, Kendall and Charles Ruff, the White
House counsel, appeared on television on the Sunday after the Starr
report's release to respond to the charges, they did not provide a factual
response to the accusations. Instead, they said that even if Clinton had
lied to Paula Jones' lawyers and to the grand jury, those lies did not
amount to impeachable offenses.
"Whatever the president did or whatever the president said," Ruff said,
"whether it was in January or August, there simply is no basis for removing
the president from office."
That was to be the backbone of the president's defense throughout the fall.
It echoed in Saturday's impeachment debate on the House floor, as Democrats
argued that Clinton's wrongs were not impeachable and Republicans invoked
their duty to protect the rule of law.
As House members headed home in October to campaign for re-election, the
Democrats had one worry. The Republicans had announced a $30 million
advertising blitz for their House candidates called Operation Breakout.
The Republican election strategy, however, seemed strangely devoid of
issues. Then the Republicans decided to raise the Lewinsky scandal in some
of the Operation Breakout ads. As Democrats hammered away at a do-nothing
Republican leadership obsessed with scandal and the politics of division,
the Republicans were highlighting the one issue that voters were telling
pollsters they did not want to hear about.
Almost no political analysts predicted the outcome: In a midterm election
when the party not occupying the White House typically gains more than 20
House seats, the Republicans lost five.
Brief Delusion:
Election Victory and False Hope
The election claimed one immediate casualty, the speaker and Clinton
nemesis Newt Gingrich. Three days after Gingrich announced he was
resigning, his heir apparent as speaker, Rep. Bob Livingston of Louisiana,
telephoned the Republican strategist Ralph Reed for his advice on an agenda
for House Republicans.
Reed recalls telling Livingston to play down the scandal so the impeachment
inquiry would not further taint the party: "I said, 'Lay low -- don't let
this impeachment bomb blow up in your face."'
But Livingston startled Reed by replying that the march to impeachment was
unstoppable, and that it was being orchestrated by Hyde.
"He goes, 'I don't know how you turn the thing off,"' Reed said. "'Henry's
going to hold hearings. And I don't know how you stop that."'
At the White House, the administration seemed oblivious to the fact that
Hyde and his committee were plunging ahead. White House aides had all but
halted their lobbying campaign on Capitol Hill.
"The election happened and the media created this delusion that somehow
because the Democrats won seats, the Republicans somehow grew less
interested in impeachment," said Rep. Robert Wexler, a Florida Democrat on
the Judiciary Committee. "That just was never the case. From the start, the
Republicans had one goal in mind and only one: to impeach Bill Clinton."
Yet rather than deter Republicans, events after the election made Clinton's
impeachment more likely.
Gingrich's resignation as speaker removed an embattled Republican leader
who might have felt more pressure, with his own weakened status, to forge a
compromise with the White House for a censure of Clinton short of
impeachment, Republican officials say. And Livingston kept a low profile
because he did not want the beginning of his tenure to be marked by
impeachment.
Into the leadership void stepped DeLay, the Republican whip and impeachment
firebrand. But behind the scenes it was the less caustic Hyde who never
wavered from his intention to move forward with impeachment charges in his
committee, the most politically polarized in the House.
Although Hyde had predicted early that any impeachment process would
require bipartisan cooperation, he soon realized that Republicans would
have to go it alone. In his view as chairman, the panel's constitutional
duty to conduct an inquiry, no matter how swift and skeletal, was more
important than succumbing to public opinion and Democratic outrage.
Explaining the altered dynamic, Rep. David Skaggs, D-Colo., said, "There
was a much more disciplined, single-minded effort on the part of Henry Hyde
and the Republican members of the Judiciary Committee than perhaps we had
understood would happen, and a certain taking of ease, prematurely, on the
part of the White House."
On Nov. 6, Hyde and the Republican majority on his committee made their
main move: They submitted 81 questions to Clinton for his response.
The questions were cast as an opportunity for the president to clear the
air with the committee and with the public. But they asked for one-word
answers -- "admit or deny," each began -- to often complicated summaries of
the Starr report or grand jury testimony. In many cases, to admit now would
be to admit Clinton had lied under oath before.
The White House took three weeks -- until the Friday after Thanksgiving --
before submitting responses after Clinton had reviewed them, following a
round of golf.
The president himself was most responsible for the tone of the answers; one
adviser said Clinton believed the questions were a trap designed to trick
him into admitting that he had committed perjury. But he was not alone. One
White House adviser recalled counseling Clinton and his lawyer: "I'd like
to take those damn answers, tie them around a rock and throw them through
Henry Hyde's office window."
The responses were lawyerly and finely drawn. But in carefully avoiding any
traps posed by the questions, the president again appeared evasive.
The first question, for example, asked him to "admit or deny" that the
president is the chief law-enforcement officer of the United States.
Clinton delicately dodged a direct answer: The president is often said to
be the chief law-enforcement officer, he replied, but that role is not
among the duties spelled out by the Constitution.
Again, the president's defiance, or determination to defend himself,
infuriated his enemies. "Regrettably," said Rep. Michael Forbes, R-N.Y.,
who made up his mind on Wednesday to impeach, "there was an arrogance
coming out of the White House that this was slam dunk over."
Even Rep. James Moran, a moderate Democrat from Virginia, found himself
cringing at the 81 responses. "Most of us know the president well enough
that he has a bear trap of a memory," he said. "And here he was acting like
he had Alzheimer's."
Clinton's accumulated vulnerability to assaults on his honesty was evident
on Dec. 10, in the final presentation to the committee of the Republicans'
chief investigative counsel, David Schippers. Schippers, a lifelong
Democrat from Chicago, used the plain-spokenness of a county courthouse
prosecutor, with a generous dose of sarcasm, to persuade many moderates to
vote for impeachment.
"He lied to the people," Schippers said in his summation, dwelling on
statements by the president that were not included in any of the articles
of impeachment. "He lied to his Cabinet, he lied to his top aides, and now
he's lied under oath to the Congress of the United States. There's no one
left to lie to."
One of Clinton's political advisers conceded, "It was very powerful. It was
much more damaging than the Starr report."
In defending Clinton before the committee, the White House counsel, Ruff,
again argued that the president's statements, while deceptive, did not
constitute impeachable offenses.
"I have no doubt that he walked up to a line that he thought he
understood," Ruff said. "Reasonable people, and you maybe have reached this
conclusion, could determine that he crossed over that line, and that what
for him was truthful but misleading or nonresponsive and misleading or
evasive, was in fact false."
For Republicans, an admission by Clinton's lawyer that the president might
have given misleading or nonresponsive or even evasive answers under oath
was not enough. They had wanted the president to acknowledge that he lied
under oath before the grand jury and in the Jones deposition.
"The White House was given two full days to present a defense," said Rep.
Frank Riggs, R-Calif., who is retiring, "but the defense never questioned
the underlying facts and circumstances. I was waiting for them to present
new and different information, and they didn't. That was crucial."
By now, Republicans had succeeded in casting Clinton as unrepentant unless
he explicitly confessed to lying to the grand jury. But on Dec. 11, in a
brief Rose Garden speech to the nation, Clinton tried one more time to
appease his doubters.
"What I want the American people to know, what I want the Congress to know,
is that I am profoundly sorry for all I have done wrong in words and deeds."
Once more he did not specifically address the accusations against him, and
Republicans pronounced his efforts feeble and far too late.
"He really needed to say that he lied under oath, even if he didn't use the
term 'perjury,"' Moran said. After the speech, he said, Republican
moderates came up to him and said, "Jim, I just can't accept the reality of
this guy's ability to lie so bald-facedly and so convincingly. It's scary
how convincing he is."
Last week, in a series of letters and statements, Hyde made clear that if a
censure resolution had left the committee, he would oppose bringing it to
the floor. The Republicans were not going to back down.
"Then it was clear that this thing was wired," said Steve Elmendorf, chief
of staff to Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri, the minority leader. "Up until
that point, I still thought there was some hope that these moderates would
band together."
The Final Days:
Clinton's Mantra, 'I'm Fighting'
n one level, the answer to the question "How did we get here?" is easy.
"It's a consequence, first and foremost, of the president's appalling
behavior," said Mike McCurry, the president's former press secretary. "And
you can't get around it and you can't explain it."
But equally important was the determination of Clinton's political enemies
to not see him slip off the hook one more time, even if that meant a
wrenching and unpopular impeachment vote.
On Monday, Moran, a Democrat who had harshly criticized Clinton's behavior,
surprised himself by going to see the president's secretary while Clinton
was in the Middle East. "I went and talked with Betty Currie," Moran said.
In the impeachment charges, Clinton was accused of taking part in a plan
involving Mrs. Currie to conceal his gifts to Ms. Lewinsky. Moran needed to
know, he told Mrs. Currie, whether Clinton had "used a good, decent,
honest, civil servant to assist him in covering up evidence."
"So I told her all that," Moran said. "And she said she does not feel he
ever lied to her, nor does she feel used, and she feels he is a very good
man." The visit help persuade Moran to vote against impeachment.
Riggs, the California Republican, said he was so torn that he telephoned
former Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter, former Vice President Dan
Quayle and the former Senate majority leader Bob Dole. "Their advice has
been very helpful," said Riggs, who would vote for impeachment.
After he reached out to local political figures, Forbes got a bit of
unsolicited advice. Robert DeNiro, the actor, called him to make a pitch
for the president. "That doesn't help," Forbes said. He backed impeachment.
As the last remaining undecided Republicans, one by one, announced that
they would vote to impeach Clinton, the last hopes of the White House faded.
Aboard Air Force One, as he returned home from Israel on Tuesday evening,
the president told a close friend that he knew that his political fate
would soon be before the Senate.
This alarmed the friend, who admonished the glum-sounding Clinton. "You've
got to fight this thing," the friend recalled telling Clinton by telephone.
"I am fighting," the president replied. "I'm fighting, I'm fighting, I'm
fighting."
-----
>
<deleted>
>
>Irwan:
>Kalau begitu, simplifikasi anda menurut saya tidak mewakili
>kondisi/permasalahan yg ada. Sekedar mengulang, Irak tidak dilarang
>memiliki pesawat tempur dan amunisi2 perang lainnya selain amunisi yg
>dikategorikan sebagai penghancur massal.
Apakah bom juga bukan penghancur massal? Terus terang, saya ragu
kalau anda tidak mati jika di bom. Di sini saya tak memperdebatkan bahwa
senjata kimia itu tak berbahaya. Simplikasi masalah saya itu adalah
untuk menekankan bahwa setiap orang berusaha maximize his or her
security. Jadi M. Saddam memiliki bom kimia adalah untuk mempertinggi
'security' dia lawan pemerintah US dan pemerintah yang lain. Saya tak
memperkecil bahaya bom nuklir atau senjata kimia. Tapi saya hanya tekankan
bahwa security is the most important purpose of an entity.
<deleted>
>
>
>Irwan:
>>Mengeluarkan kecaman2 kepada Saddam dan memberikan
>>tekanan2 kepada Saddam yg dilakukan oleh masyarakat internasional
>>akan sangat membantu moral dan keberanian rakyat Irak
>>untuk menentang rejim Saddam.
>
>YS:
>Pertama-tama: Apakah rakyat Iraq menentang Saddam?
>Lihat selama 8 tahun justru rakyat Iraq semakin teguh dibelakang Saddam.
>
>Irwan:
>Ah....dari mana anda tahu? Dari tayangan2 televisi yg disiarkan Irak?
>Lalu apa bedanya dengan jaman Soeharto dulu dimana sering kita
>lihat di TVRI adegan2 yg menjunjung tinggi Soeharto, yg mengagumi
>apa yg telah dilakukan Soeharto, dan hal2 sejenis?
>Saya menduga telah terjadi proses pembodohan di Irak.
>Informasi dari luar dibatasi. Propaganda pemerintah sangat tinggi.
>Saking tingginya, ya nepotisme yg merajalela di Irak (mungkin)
>dianggap bukan masalah besar.....:)
>Miriplah seperti Indonesia dulu...:)
>Setelah adanya internet, kita semakin terbuka akan borok2nya pemerintah.
>Informasi tersebar cepat dan bebas sensor. Banyak yg dulunya kita kurang
>tahu sekarang jadi tahu. Rakyat Irak saya perkirakan nantinya juga akan
>mengalami dobrakan informasi. Tunggu saja tanggal mainnya...:)
>
Saya rasa artikel NYT di atas sudah cukup menjawab pernyataan anda.
>
>>YS:
>>> Apa itu demokrasi? Sekarang, kalau Iraq demokrasi, demokrasi mana
>>> yang diterapkan? Demokrasi US? Orang akan menyatakan bahwa ini
>>> neo-imperialisme dan kolonialisme....
>>
>>Irwan:
>>Ada berapa macamkah demokrasi itu?...:)
>
>YS:
>Demokrasi terpimpin Indonesia, Demokrasi socialisme di Eropa (dimana
>negara juga pemberi social welfare); Demokrasi di Russia; Demokrasi
>langsung (referendum) di Swiss, demokrasi perwakilan di US dan
>negara-negara lain, demokrasi ala Jepang dan Singapore....
>Tiap negara memiliki pandangan tersendiri tentang demokrasi. Demokrasi
>US tak diterapkan di Eropa dan vice versa.
>Wah, kalau anda mau mendiskusikan tiap demokrasi, e-mail ini bisa
>puluhan halaman.... :-)
>Mungkin Mmesle. Ida bisa lebih menjelaskan?
>
>Irwan:
>Waduh, yg saya tahu sih demokrasi itu pada dasarnya cuma satu.
>Yang anda sebutkan diatas itu bagi saya hanyalah tata laksana
>dari dasar demokrasi. Tata laksana itu bisa saja sesuai dengan
>dasar demokrasi bisa jadi tidak sesuai (spt demokrasi terpimpin
>misalnya) atau ada juga yg hanya nebeng nama dan seringnya
>bikin bingung (misalnya istilah demokrasi pancasila...hehehehe).
>
Jadi apakah demokrasi itu kalau penerapannya tiap negara berbeda?
Tak ada itu namanya demokrasi murni. Satu negara bisa memandang
bahwa demokrasinya jauh lebih baik dari negara lain. Jadinya
demokrasi mana yang anda akan terapkan untuk Iraq?
>
>>Irwan:
>>Indonesia masih dalam proses. Belum selesai.
>>Perhatikan perbedaan reformasi dan revolusi.
>>Bagi saya pribadi, tanpa revolusi, jangan mengarapkan perubahan
>>akan datang dengan cepat. Reformasi menggantungkan harapkan
>>pada willingness dari penguasa. Revolusi lebih kepada perubahan
>>yg dilakukan oleh rakyat secara langsung karena merasa tidak
>>bisa lagi mengharapkan penguasa akan melakukan hal yg diingini
>>oleh rakyat.
>>
>>Maaf, saya tidak mengenal istilah reformasi murni....:)
>
>YS:
>Karena itu kapan Indonesia bisa berubah?
>
>Irwan:
>Sampai penguasanya mau berubah. Itulah sisi negatif dari
>reformasi yg memang bergantung pada willingness dari penguasa.
>Beda dengan revolusi, dimana terjadi perubahan besar/total yg
>dilakukan oleh rakyat dan bukan oleh penguasa.
>Perhatikan komentar2 bung Ridwan yg sering menekankan
>perlunya ORANG BARU. Bagi saya, tuntutan dia ini adalah
>salah satu bagian dari revolusi walau kadarnya masih dalam
>taraf niat revolusi....:)
Coba anda lihat sejarah: dimana-mana revolusi pasti dilakukan
oleh orang dari kalangan middle yang memang mau mencapai kekuasaan
di atas. Apakah dengan adanya revolusi berarti kita 100% beres? Apakah
tak ada kemungkinan bahwa pengganti dari pemerintah sekarang bukan
seorang tirani baru? Tak pernah ada gerakan yang memang dari rakyat
bawah, semuanya PASTI di mulai dari tengah. Siapakah orang baru?
Orang dari middle yang memang sudah menikmati fasilitas dari sistem
yang ada. Beri contoh satu revolusi kepada saya dan saya perlihatkan
anda dimana orang dari middle yang menjadi penggeraknya.
>
>YS:
>Penguasa juga perlu ditekan kalau mau perubahan. Caranya adalah
>oleh gerakan oposisi yang terpusat DAN TERKOORDINIR dimana
>kepentingan individu dibawah kepentingan seluruh negara.
>Saya selalu memandang revolusi dengan sinis karena revolusi itu
>walau memang 'quick fix' tapi akhirnya tak terfokus. Instead, negara
>malahan hancur dan terbawa ke masalah lain. AMbil contoh: Revolusi
>Perancis dimana akhirnya adalah kenaikan Kaisar Napoleon. Revolusi
>Russia Kerensky (Bukan LENIN) yang akhirnya dihapus oleh Revolusi
>Bolshevik dan disusul tragedi gulag dll.
>
>Irwan:
>Hmmm....pengetahuan sejarah saya kurang begitu baik.
>Bisakah anda menyebutkan gerakan2 revolusi yg berhasil?
Rasanya tulisan saya diatas sudah menjawab pertanyaan anda.
>People power di Filipina bisa dikategorikan revolusi ngga ya?
>[serius nanya nih...hehehe]. Bagaimana dengan di India?
>Kalau tidak salah dinamakan revolusi damai dengan tokohnya
>Mahatma Gandhi (tolong dikoreksi kalau salah).
Apakah mereka revolusi? People power adalah gerakan untuk
mereformasi strutur pemerintahan Philipina. Marcos diganti
dan struktur pemerintahan tetap; tapi saya terus terang kurang
bisa mengasosiasikan people power di Philipina dengan revolusi.
Gandhi juga di India hanya mengganti pemerintahan Inggris saja;
tapi struktur birokrasinya itu tetap tak mengalami perubahan.
>
>
>YS:
>Selain itu, apakah anda memikirkan
>keluarga anda di Indonesia kalau terjadi revolusi?
>
>Irwan:
>Lha, justru saya memikirkan nasib keluarga saya makanya
>kepikiran perlunya revolusi. Coba deh bayangin kalau situasinya
>ngga jelas seperti sekarang. Mau kemana aja negara ini udah banyak
>juga yg pesimis. Seperti benang kusut. Ujung2nya hanya bisa berharap
>Habibie dan gangnya ngga macam2. Nah lho, ini khan udah ngga benar?
>Sama aja dong seperti jaman Soeharto dulu.
Reformasi sudah cukup untuk membereskan masalah, hanya masalahnya
kalau oposisi kita sekarang ini seperti macan ompong, apakah pemerintah
akan takut? Kalau oposisi kita memiliki keteguahan dan persatuan yang kuat,
tak perlu revolusi, mereka sudah cukup bisa menekan pemerintah untuk
melakukan perombakan besar dan membentuk pemerintahan baru Indonesia
yang bersih. Tapi sampai sekarang oposisi kita juga merupakan orang-orang
lama yang hanya ganti topeng. Apakah sekarang ada revolusi? Wong reformasi
saja belum dilakukan secara murni.
Sebenarnya menurut saya
>sudah sempat terjadi gerakan revolusi pada bulan Mei lalu, cuma
>saja revolusinya revolusi setengah2 alias bantat jadinya.....:(
>Revolusi yg dilakukan adalah memaksa Soeharto turun. Dan ini dilakukan
>oleh mahasiswa dan sekelompok masyarakat biasa.
>Para tokoh cuma nebeng, numpang ngetop ke mahasiswa.
>
Seperti yang sudah sering sekali saya tulis di milis ini: oposisi memang
kurang terkoordinasi dan tak memiliki tujuan jelas.
>YS:
>Walau kepentingan negara diatas segalanya, saya tanya kepada semua
>peserta milis di sini: siapakah yang tidak kuatir kepada keluarganya di
>tanah air Indonesia kalau terjadi kerusuhan? Secara blak-blakan, saya
>katakan: saya kuatir. Anarkis menyatakan bahwa darah perlu mengalir
>untuk mencuci kekotoran dunia; well saya bukan anarkis; saya adalah
>Realist.
>
>Irwan:
>Lha, koq jadi kepentingan negara diatas segalanya? Bukankah yg benar
>kepentingan rakyat diatas segalanya dalam kehidupan demokrasi?
Rakyat memilih negara, negara melakukan sebesar-besarnya untuk
kepentingan rakyat karena negara memang wakil rakyat. Karena itu
negara akan menjunjung tinggi kepentingan rakyat karena itu rakyat
perlu menjunjung tinggi jgua kepentingan negara.
Apa guna darah mengalir kalau pada akhirnya keadaan malah semakin
buruk? Apakah anda mau risk juga keutuhan negara kita? Kenapa sekarang
terjadi pesimisme dan orang-orang kuatir? Masalahnya negara kita tak memiliki
visi dan tujuan yang jelas. Karena itu orang pesimis. Pesimisme mereka justru
akibat mereka kuatir akan hari esok seperti kalau terjadi revolusi berdarah.
Anda pernah tidak memikirkan bahwa orang pesimis bukan karena mereka
kuatir akan Prez Habibie, tapi mereka memikirkan apakah terjadi keributan
besok. Lihat situasi Jakarta dan kota-kota besar lainnya, dimana tiap hari
orang mendengarkan berita jikalau terjadi kerusuhan di satu tempat.
Teman-teman saya yang sekarang pulang merasa pesimis juga bukan
karena mereka takut Prez. Habibie, melainkan mereka takut revolusi
dan anarkisme.
>Bung Sulaiman, jangan dikira saya tidak khawatir lho. Tapi saya justru
>lebih khawatir lagi bila babak kedua "Soeharto" malah berlangsung.
>Sudah banyak korban yg jatuh, jangan lupakan mereka.
>Kita jangan hanya mementingkan kepentingan dan keselamatan diri
>sendiri. Pikirkan juga kepentingan anak2 dan cucu2 serta generasi
>penerus kita kelak. Kita perlu meletakkan landasan yg kuat, landasan
>yg benar, konstitusi yg solid yg bisa mengarahkan Indonesia kelak
>ke tingkat yg lebih layak. Tanpa adanya demokrasi hal tersebut sulit
>dicapai, tanpa adanya kedaulatan tertinggi di tangan rakyat perjalanan
>menjadi tidak jelas dan cenderung bergantung kepada siapa yg berkuasa.
>
Kita tak boleh melupakan korban jatuh. Mereka menjadi peringatan kepada
kita bahwa keadaan yang tak terkendali seperti inilah yang membuat darah
mereka tertumpah. Karena itu reformasi perlu dijalankan untuk menciptakan
pemerintahan baru yang kuat dan berwibawa. Prez Habibie kelemahan
terbesarnya adalah kurang kewibawaan dan legitimasi.
>Irwan:
>Dengan kata lain, anda setuju bahwa kredibilitas seseorang tidak
>menjamin dirinya bebas dari sentilan...:)
Tapi orang yang berkredibilitas lebih tinggi; tindakannya lebih jarang
dipandang dengan sinis.
>YS:
>Saya sendiri tak pernah menyatakan bahwa karikatur itu mewakili seluruh
>rakyat US. Karikatur adalah : Voice of Dissent dari publik. Kalau mewakili,
>wah bisa gawat donk dunia kita.....
>
>Irwan:
>Dengan kata lain mungkin anda ingin meralat tulisan anda sebelumnya
>yg mengatakan:
>---------------kutipan----------
<deleted>
>----------------------------------------akhir
kutipan-------------------------
Saya lihat dari tulisan-tulisan saya bahwa tak ada yang di situ
menyatakan karikatur-karikatur itu adalah suara semua orang.
Saya lihat anda tertarik sekali dengan quotes, karena itu saya
quote dari kamus:
'public: of, pertaining to, or affecting a population or a community as
a whole' (Webster)
Melihat makna dari kamus itu, public sendiri berarti BUKAN SEMUA,
tetapi sesuatu yang mempengaruhi masyarakat umum. Karikatur
mewakili voice of dissent, karena itu saya tak merasa ada kesalahan
dalam quote saya diatas.
Saya ulangi: Karikatur adalah melambangkan voice of dissent; yang
walau tak menyangkut semua orang, tapi tetap dipengaruhi oleh
pandangan umum.
Memang saya di sini melakukan kesalahan analogi, yakni sebagian
untuk mewakili semua, tapi saya lihat anda juga melakukan kesalahan
yang sama. Apakah Prez Clinton sendiri didukung seluruh rakyat US?
Rating untuk Adolf Hitler di tahun 1930-an juga lebih tinggi....
>Irwan:
>Padahal anda tahu bahwa masih ada (dan bahkan mungkin mayoritas)
>bagian kelompok masyarakat yg masih percaya dan yakin serta
>mendukung tindakan yg diambil oleh pemerintahnya.
>
>Dari dua hal di atas, masih kembali anda kelihatannya tanpa
>sadar mengulangi kesalahan yg sama dalam tulisan berikut ini.
>
>YS:
>Maksud saya hanya satu: sekarang banyak tindakan M. Clinton dipandang
>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>dengan sebelah mata.
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Irwan:
>Padahal anda tahu dan saya yakin anda tahu bahwa banyak pula
>yg tidak memandang sebelah mata terhadap tindakan2 Clinton.
>Dengan berkata seperti diatas, anda sama saja menutup kemungkinan
>adanya orang2 yg tidak memandang sebelah mata terhadap tindakan2
>Clinton.
>
Orang-orang seperti anda, saya rasa....
>YS:
>Kalau saya ingat, dulu M. Reagan dan M. Bush
>dikritik karena mereka bermain dengan 'Realpolitik.' Tapi M. Clinton
>dikritik karena memang ia lack of credibility. Lihat saja tentang character
>dia sejak dulu sampai sekarang.
>
>Irwan:
>Bagaimana menurut anda tanggapan masyarakat AS terhadap
>Clinton dalam menjalankan tugasnya sebagai presiden sampai saat ini?
>Dari polling yg saya perhatikan di TV menunjukkan mayoritas
>masyarakat AS berpendapat Clinton telah melakukan tugasnya
>sebagai presiden dengan baik.
>
>Dalam masa Clinton ini, banyak rekor yg dipecahkan.
>Pengangguran terendah selama 25-30 tahun terakhir.
>Tingkat kriminalitas terendah selama 25 tahun terakhir.
>Kalau tidak salah ingat, tingkat kematian bayi lari terendah semenjak
>25 tahun terakhir.
>Inflasi cukup rendah dan pertumbuhan ekonomi menggembirakan.
>Indeks saham DOW JONES 30, NASDAQ, S&P 500 memecahkan
>rekor tertingginya selama ini.
Coba saya ganti sedikit kalimat anda di atas:
Bagaimana menurut anda tanggapan masyarakat Indonesia terhadap
Presiden SUharto dalam menjalankan tugasnya sebagai presiden
sampai tahun 1997?
Tingkat kematian bayi rendah, pengangguran rendah, inflasi rendah,
pertumbuhan ekonomi menggembirakan.....
Apakah sampai tahun 1997 rakyat Indonesia menentang ex-Prez Suharto
secara keseluruhan? Apakah sampai sekarang rakyat China berusaha
menggulingkan partai komunis? Ada voice of dissent, tapi seberapa besar?
Ingat: cara termudah menenangkan rakyat dan mendapat popularitas
tinggi adalah bread and circus.
M. Irwan, saya terus terang agak kecewa melihat anda begitu mudahnya
mengasosiasikan keadaan baik dengan seseorang saja. Ingat: banyak
sekali faktor yang mempengaruhi keadaan ekonomi di US. Contohnya
restrukturisasi perusahaan-perusahaan, harga minyak rendah, dsb.
>Wah...apa lagi ya? Saya kalau dengerin tuh suka terkagum2 dengan
>prestasinya....:) Karenanya nanti saya tidak heran kalau dia akan masuk
>dalam jajaran salah satu presiden yg paling sukses dalam sejarah
>kepresidenan di AS.
Saya terus terang lebih memandang NIXON jauh lebih tinggi daripada
M. Clinton. Saya berani bertaruh, nama dia akan seperti Andrew Jackson,
diingat oleh karena 'impeachment.'
Baca buku sejarah: tak ada presiden yang selalu dikenang oleh prestasi
di bidang ekonomi. Tak ada kaisar yang dikenang oleh kejagoan dia
membuat angka pertumbuhan ekonomi cepat. Seseorang dilihat oleh
character dia. Apakah Confucius, Lao Zi dikenang karena mereka
membuat angka pertumbuhan ekonomi tinggi? Ok, mereka memang
filsuf. Tapi apakah anda mengenang Elizabeth I sebagai ratu yang
berhasil memenuhkan kas Inggris? Apakah anda mengenang Hitler
sebagai penyelamat ekonomi Jerman tahun 1930-an? Bismark?
Unifikasi Jerman. Yang lainnya?
>
>YS:
>Coba kita main 'morality play' sedikit. Kalau anda tahu si A nyeleweng
>padahal istri dia orangnya baik, dekat, dan selalu mendukung suami,
>dan A sendiri berani bilang kepada anda bahwa dia tidak nyeleweng;
>apakah anda masih percaya si A?
>
>Irwan:
>Adakah diantara kita yg tidak pernah berbohong atau pun berbuat dosa
>selama hidupnya? Apakah menurut anda istrinya tidak pernah berbohong
>atau pun berbuat dosa selama hidupnya?
>Kembali ke pertanyaan anda di atas, kalau saya tahu si A nyeleweng
>tapi ngaku ke saya ngga nyeleweng, ya gampang saja dong jawabannya,
>saya tidak percaya....hehehehe...anda salah tuh kasih kondisinya....:)
Anda sendiri memang tak percaya dia. Prez Clinton berkata bahwa dia tak
nyeleweng...
Jadi anda juga percaya bahwa oral sex itu bukan sex? ;-)
>Saya tambahkan asumsi, selama ini A itu konsultan saya dalam bisnis
>dan selama ini dia melakukan tugasnya secara baik, haruskah saya
>tidak mempercayai A lagi untuk jadi konsultan bisnis saya?
Bisnis mungkin percaya; tapi apakah anda mau percaya kepada orang
yang secara terbuka, secara langsung, berani menatap mata anda
dan berkata dia tak berbohong padahal dia berbohong?
>Yang jelas, saya akan tetap pakai A sebagai konsultan saya.....:)
>Contoh lain, kalau anda sekarang sedang kuliah. Ketika mengambil
>kelas politik internasional, ditengah semester anda tahu bahwa dosen
>anda tersebut dulunya pernah nyeleweng dalam kehidupan pernikahannya.
>Akankah anda masih percaya terhadap pelajaran2 yg dia berikan?
>Akankah kredibilitas dia sebagai dosen akan hancur dimata anda?
Lucu sekali kalau seseorang menelan pelajaran dengan mentah-mentah...
Tetap kita perhatikan bagaimana informasi dia, dari mana dia dapatkan.
Kalau kita percaya bahwa itu beres, kita terima saja. Truth is truth. Nothing
less than truth. Tapi kalau soal pribadi dia, saya terus terang akan agak
skeptik memandang dia. Saya tak tahu kalau anda sedemikian liberalnya,
tapi karena saya memang seorang konservatif, saya memang jauh
lebih sinis.
Jika memang berbicara dan menulis di internet memang mudah sekali.
Tapi coba dalam kehidupan nyata: seorang yang anda memang sudah
percaya ternyata menghianati anda. Apakah anda tetap percaya dia?
>
>Belum lagi nanti bila dicontohkan dengan kasus2 di kantor.
>Misalnya, bila ada anak buah kita yg nyeleweng dari istrinya,
>haruskah kita pecat dia?
Kalau dia memang kerjanya beres, tidak.
Tapi apakah saya percaya dia 100%? Tidak.
Atau bos kita yg nyeleweng, harus kita
>memecat dia?...ooppsss....maksud saya harus kah kita keluar
>dari kantor tersebut?.....:)
>
Tergantung apakah kredibilitas kita juga dipertaruhkan.
Saya mungkin tidak akan keluar, tapi apakah saya akan percaya
mentah-mentah kepada perkataan bos saya? Tidak.
SIngkatnya: kalau seseorang memang bisa melakukan kewajibannya
sesuai dengan 'his purpose,' maka tak ada salahnya untuk terus dipakai.
Tapi kita bicarakan masalah integritas diri.
>
>Irwan:
>>Catatan tambahan buat anda. Ketika harga minyak beberapa tahun
>>belakangan ini yg berada di sekitar $17-20 per barel
>>dan belum terjadi krisis ekonomi di Asia, kondisi ekonomi AS
>>sedang bagus2nya dan mengalami pertumbuhan yang bagus.
>>Saat ini, ketika harga minyak sedang rendah2nya (sekitar $10-11,
>>mohon dikoreksi kalau salah). Tapi seperti yg anda ketahui
>>sendiri terjadi perlambatan dibandingkan dengan ketika minyak
>>sedang di $17-20.
>>
>>Bagi saya, bagus tidaknya ekonomi AS tidak bergantung mutlak
>>pada tinggi rendahnya harga minyak.
>
>YS:
>Ingat: puncak harga minyak US adalah $30-45 waktu tahun 1970s dan
>membuat stagflasi.
>Kalau sekarang terjadi pelambatan akibat krisis Asia. Tapi relatif
>dibandingkan
>Asia, ekonomi US sekarang boom bahkan DOW sendiri beberapa kali melirik
>angka 9000.
>
>Irwan:
>Dan anda katakan hal itu melulu karena harga minyak rendah?
>Coba deh anda lihat lagi harga minyak sekitar tahun 1995-1997.
>DOW saat itu pecah rekor terus.
Lihat berita ini dan grafik:
New York Times:
October 26, 1997
Wasted Energy: The Price Is Right for Fuel Efficiency to Fall
By JOHN H. CUSHMAN Jr.
WASHINGTON -- When people are rich and fuel is cheap, when the weather is
cold and the economy is hot, the United States can hardly resist indulging
its appetite for energy.
That was the situation in 1996, when Americans tanked up even more
extravagantly than usual. Total energy use grew 3.2 percent, according to
the Energy Department, outpacing the nation's economic growth rate of 2.4
percent.
Last year was the first tick upward in five years, a deviation from a long
downward trend in energy consumed per dollar of economic production. But
while the Energy Department expects improvement in energy efficiency to
resume and to prevail for 15 more years or so, the rate of improvement
seems to be flattening -- just as nations concerned about global climate
changes are pressuring the United States to reduce emissions of carbon
dioxide, the greenhouse gas produced by burning fossil fuels.
Last week President Clinton proposed a new plan for reducing emissions by
offering American businesses incentives to cut them, siding with
technological optimists who say Yankee ingenuity can meet the challenge --
perhaps with a subsidy.
But others say that to keep the growing U.S. economy from pumping out more
carbon dioxide, different incentives are needed. Economic behaviorists say
a painful one may be required: higher energy prices. Economic regulators
want tighter standards for manufacturers to produce more efficient cars and
appliances.
-----
Dibandingkan sebelum tahun 1990-an, harga minyak dunia relatif rendah....
>Saran saya, coba perhatikan kebijakan2 ekonomi yg dilakukan
>oleh timnya Clinton. Saya sudah pernah bahas di milis ini sekilas.
>Perhatikan pula "keajaiban" internet yg turut menggenjot baik itu
>ekonomi maupun perdagangan saham.
>Perhatikan pula kebijakan2 yg diterapkan yg berkaitan dengan internet.
Boleh tanya: kebijakan Clinton atau Alan Greenspan?
>
>Coba deh anda lihat kembali saat2 ketika harga minyak jatuh
>rendah karena resesi dunia, apakah saat itu ekonomi AS
>malah makin bagus dibanding ketika harga minyak lebih tinggi?
>Saya memperkirakan harga minyak disekitar 17-20 adalah yg
>terbaik untuk kepentingan ekonomi secara global.
Baik untuk siapa? Itu relatif. Buat Arab Saudi, dia lebih tertarik kalau
harga minyak diatas $ 20, buat US lebih bagus dibawah $ 20.
>
>
>>YS:
>>> Itu namanya 'bandwagoning' kepada yang kuat untuk melawan
>>> musuh kedua. Lagian, Kuwait lebih suka US karena ada pasar minyak
>>> yang besar.....
>>> Dulu M. Saddam khan dekat dengan US... Saya rasa kalau ada yang
>>> punya majalah Tempo tahun 1991, anda bisa melihat karikatur yang
>>> menarik, bahwa US 'ignore' semua pelanggaran Iraq sampai akhirnya
>>> Iraq menyerbu Kuwait...
>>
>>Irwan:
>>Saya lebih melihat masalah kepentingan bisnis lebih mempengaruhi.
>
>YS:
>Kuwait=minyak, dan saya lihat kalimat anda justru mengiyakan argumen
>saya.
>
>Irwan:
>Hmm...bukankah awal diskusi kita saya sedang mencoba menyangkal
>tuduhan bahwa keputusan yg diambil Clinton dalam menggempur Irak
>karena masalah impeachment?....:)
>
Jawaban diikutsertakan di bawah.
<deleted>
>YS:
>Semua negara di atas terlibat kepada kerusuhan perang saudara, ethnic
>cleansing, killing Field, etc; dan PBB serta US terlihat impoten kepada
>kerusuhan itu. Tapi begitu kepentingan bisnis dan security US terancam,
>US baru bertindak.
>
>Irwan:
>Oh ya? Bagaimana dengan ancaman serangan udara ke Kosovo?
>[spelling?]
>Bagaimana dengan peristiwa Vietnam dan Korea dulu?
Vietnam: Domino Theory
Korea: North Korea menyerbu Selatan.
Terus terang, saya melihat perdebatan kita sudah terlalu meleceng jauh dari
masalah yang pertama: perbedaan pendapat kita berada dalam masalah
Prez. Clinton: yakni seberapa seriusnya Prez Clinton.
Saya menilai bahwa anda memang percaya 100% kepada sang Prez, kalau
saya memandang secara skeptik tindakan dia, apakah tindakan dia itu
memang dipengaruhi kepentingan pribadi dia.
Sejujurnya saya jadi kurang mengerti debat kita ini mengarah kemana dan
tujuannya apa juga saya terus terang agak bingung.
Mengenai US, itu memang sudah merupakan security theory dimana US sebagai
hegemon memang berusaha memaksimumkan security dia melawan threat
terutama dari USSR pada masa perang dingin. Sampai sekarang juga terus
terjadi bahwa US selalu berusaha memaximize its security.
Tapi saya rasa itu bukan inti dari perdebatan kita. Perdebatan kita adalah
seberapa
percayanya kita kepada keputusan dari Prez Clinton.
Tapi saya lihat karena kita memang sudah diwarnai subjektivitas, yakni anda
pro-Clinton dan saya memang konservatif dan anti-Clinton, karena itu saya ragu
kalau anda bisa mengubah pemikiran saya dan juga sebaliknya.
Perdebatan ini menarik....
Senang berdiskusi dengan anda.
YS
102697energy-review_1.gif
We alone with no excuses. That is the idea ... that man is condemned
to be free. Condemned, because he did not create himself. yet in other
respects is free ... because he is responsible for everything he does.
The existentialist does not believe in the power of passion. He will
never agree that a sweeping passion is a ravaging torrent which
fatally leads a man to certain acts and is therefore an excuse. He
thinks that man is responsible for his passion .
Jean Paul Sarte in Existentialism
102697energy-review_1.gif