NEWS ROUND-UP -- 03/24/96
This Editor-in-Chief job ("I couldn't find a real job, so I made 
myself Editor-in-Chief!") has its own rhythms. Some days the news 
is flying in and I'm swamped with work, other days things are 
slow. For the moment, things are slow so I thought I'd do a "news 
round-up", a summary of various items. I wish I could guarantee 
this as a regular feature, but like I say, this job has its own 
    There used to be a country called Yugoslavia, made up of 
smaller countries called "Republics". Not sure why, maybe the 
death of their BIG LEADER TITO, maybe the re-unification of 
Germany and subsequent German expansionist impulses into Croatia 
(one of the "Republics" of the former Yugoslavia), but now 
Yugoslavia is split up and the various peoples, Republics, and 
religions therein are having a bloody feud, like there used to be 
with the Hatfields and the McCoys here in the U.S.
    So about last November, Bill Clinton (maybe he was high on 
cocaine at the time) suddenly has a BIG push that we must send 
U.S. troops to the former Yugoslavia NOW! NOW! NOW! Hurry up! Do 
it right away! Like a whirlwind suitor, Clinton dragged the 
leaders of the various Yugoslav factions to Dayton, Ohio and "lit 
a fire under their pants" that made them hurry up and sign the 
damn agreement -- pronto. Clinton was in a big hurry all of a 
sudden to put our troops on the ground over there. It was like 
someone had "lit a fire" under *his* pants. He got the factions 
to sign an agreement, mobilized the troops, and then basically 
said "Congress can rubber stamp this or not, but I'm King Clinton 
and I'll do as I please!"
    In the first rush of events, before the press had been 
coached into how to cover the story, it was being reported that 
the 1-year limit on U.S. involvement in the region was "just for 
public consumption" -- in other words, it was a lie! The press, 
caught off-guard, actually let some truth slip out at first. 
Estimates (apparently *not* for "public consumption") were for a 
5-year U.S. involvement in the former Yugoslavia.
    Now, in an article in the London Telegraph (03/22/96, 
electronic version), we learn that, according to the Pentagon, 
"Bosnia is likely to revert to the chaos and bloodshed of civil 
war once the 55,000 soldiers of Ifor [mostly U.S. soldiers], the 
NATO-led peace-keeping force, are withdrawn at the end of the 
    The article points to the "Muslim-Croat Federation", 
controllers now of part of Bosnia (one of the Republics), and 
says that "diplomats in Sarajevo already admit that the 
federation is a sham."
    Two of the pistol-packing antagonists are entities known as 
BOSNIAN CROATS and BOSNIAN SERBS. One wonders how it was that the 
late BIG LEADER TITO managed to keep them peaceable in the past 
-- maybe that's why they used to call him "Marshall" Tito.
    Says the London Telegraph: "The Pentagon assessment 
concludes, 'the prospects for the existence of a viable, unitary 
Bosnia beyond the life of Ifor are dim.'"
    And, according to the Telegraph, "This is tantamount to 
saying that the Dayton accords, which committed all parties to 
preserving the integrity of Bosnia as a multi-ethnic nation, are 
    Remember how, after the break-up of the Soviet Union, some 
floated the concept of a "peace dividend"? The idea was that, 
since the Soviet Union was gone, we didn't have to worry so much 
about the Soviet threat of a missile attack. This meant that we 
ourselves wouldn't need to spend so much of our tax dollars on 
anti-missile defense systems meant to defend us against such an 
attack. So, because we wouldn't be spending so much on these 
anti-missile defenses, that would free up money that could be 
spent, say, for improvements in our own infrastructure. Or, the 
freed-up money could be used to decrease our national debt. Or it 
could be used to cut taxes.
    Remember how the "peace dividend" never materialized? The 
freed-up money must have went somewhere! But we, the people, 
never saw it! Maybe it went south, down sunny Mexico way, to help 
bail them out so they wouldn't default on their debt to Wall 
Street. Maybe it got stolen by corrupt politicians and now sits, 
hidden, in secret offshore bank accounts.
    Now, according to the London Telegraph (03/22/96, electronic 
edition), Bob "I'm from Kansas" Dole wants to "require the 
Pentagon to develop a multi-billion-dollar missile defence system 
to counter the nuclear threat from rogue nations."
    So gone (apparently) is the big bad ENEMY, Soviet communism, 
and here is a new big bad ENEMY, "rogue nations." (We've also had 
an internal big bad ENEMY, the "drug menace", since at least 
1969.) The faces change, but the (expensive) danger from the big 
bad ENEMY remains the same.
    Says the Telegraph, "Mr. Dole and Newt Gingrich... yesterday 
jointly endorsed a Bill that would commit the government to 
building a system capable of defending all 50 American states 
from a limited missile attack by the year 2003." But what are we 
supposed to do between now and then? Should we go to Oz, just 
like another Kansan, named Dorothy?
    Back before the Republican landslide in the November 1994 
elections, the then-Democratic Congress stonewalled attempts to 
dig into, for example, the strange death of Vincent Foster, Jr., 
and the Mena dope and money-laundering corruption.
    Then, when the Republicans gained control of the Congress 
after the November 1994 elections, many of us were hoping that 
"Now, with a Republican majority, we'll get an honest 
investigation." In fact, that was probably part of why the 
Republicans did so well in November of '94: many of us naive 
folks thought an honest investigation would ensue.
    But we found out, thanks to sources such as Strategic 
Investment newsletter and Sherman Skolnick of the Citizens' 
Committee to Clean Up the Courts that -- surprise, surprise -- 
the Republicans are also crooked. See, for example, CN 4.15 where 
we learned that
  Skolnick's sources had previously indicated to him that there 
  was a stalemate in efforts to bring this story out; that the 
  Democrats and Republicans, both being "dirty" in the Iran- 
  Contra/Mena imbroglio, had come to an impasse where an "I 
  won't tell if you won't tell" situation was in effect.
    We now find that the big deal Washington Times seems to have 
discovered this also -- but over a year later. In an article 
posted to Internet bearing the heading "The smoking guns" 
(Washington Times, March 18, 1996, by Paul Craig Roberts), the 
Washington Times wonders, "if the Republicans also have something 
to hide."
    The Times informs us that (shock, gasp), "What Whitewater 
seems to come home to is the laundering of drug money." True, 
notes the tame, "conservative" newspaper, the Senate Democrats 
have used the filibuster to block a continuation of the 
Whitewater hearings. "Yet, there is nothing to stop Republicans 
from going ahead with Whitewatergate hearings but their own 
wimpishness. The Banking Committee, the Judiciary Committee 
[Orrin Hatch], and a number of other committees and subcommittees 
could easily claim oversight and investigatory jurisdiction. One 
can't help but wonder why the Republicans don't just get down to 
    So are you then thus saying, Washington Times, that the 
Republicans maybe themselves have "dirty laundry"?
    Here's a scoop for Washington Times: When Mr. Whipple tells 
his customers, "Don't squeeze the Charmin," if you'll look and 
notice very carefully -- *he* *himself* *is* *squeezing* *the* 
*Charmin*! Even whilst he is admonishing his customers not to 
squeeze the Charmin! (I just thought you might not have noticed 
(Thanks to Matt Drudge)
    Don Imus, a popular radio personality, hosted the Radio and 
TV Correspondents Dinner recently. Our own beloved Prez Billy 
Jeff of Arkansas and his wife Hillary were in attendance.
    Imus, it is said, told "off-color" jokes that were 
embarrassing to the royal President and wife. "The White House," 
notes the Drudge Report, "was so hurt and bruised by Imus that a 
call was placed by [White House press secretary Mike] McCurry to 
the C-SPAN cable-tv network." McCurry reportedly "requested" C- 
SPAN not re-broadcast the dinner. (Maybe with the Communications 
Decency Act, McCurry could have just said Imus was "indecent" and 
then *ordered* C-SPAN not to re-broadcast.)
    Anyway, I would love to know what jokes the Clintons didn't 
like to hear. If anybody knows some/all of them, and can send 
same to, my thanks.
    Maybe one of the jokes went something like this:
    Q: How many Branch Davidian children does it take to screw in 
a light bulb?
    A: It doesn't matter! Bill Clinton cut off their electricity!