European Stars and Stripes (Newspaper) - January 19, 1994, Darmstadt, Hesse Wednesday january 19, 1994 commentary the stars and stripes Page 15 Whitewater Pape is May show i 11 a by s f i a is William Safire to Vincent Vav. Foster or. Must have been worried sick last june about his let Ter of feb. 28, 1989, to the Federal de posit insurance corp. In this nine Page letter from the Rose Law firm of Little Rock Ark. Proba Bly among the Many papers concealed by the Clinton subpoena collusion with the Justice department Foster made a pitch for the lucrative Legal business growing out of the collapse of the Madison guaranty savings and loan. But nowhere in this document now under Active investigation by the Odic is there any mention that the Rose firm had represented mad Ison when it was open. Foster was asking the Odic to hire the firm in effect to sue its previous clients which strikes me As an egregious conflict of interest. Foster might have realized that failure to disclose the Rose firm s conflicting representation not to mention Hillary Rodham Clinton s investment connection in Whitewater development corp. With the Bank s former president place himself the first lady and others in Dan Ger of prosecution under Section 1001 of the criminal code making false statements to the government which includes covering up a material fact Foster also had reason to assume that his former partner Hillary Clinton might soon be subject to scrutiny for he representation of the Madison a when it was seeking fresh capital to avoid impending insolvency. As the Bank s attorney she was an in dependent contractor under Section 3 u 4 c of the Federal Deposit insurance act. She should have known that the insured was engaging in unsafe or unsound practices that ultimately Cost insurers . Taxpayers $60 million. Ignorance is her defense but an embarrassing one for a sophisticated lawyer As judge Stanley Sporkin put it in his1990 Keating decision where were these professionals no wonder the president s wife apparently one of these professionals is willing to subject her husband to the slings and arrows that always follow White House Furt Veness. She does not want those Whitewater an Madison papers exposed because they May show her to be not merely an inept Wheeler dealer but an occasionally less than competent attorney whose Law partner could not Bear the Prospect of disgrace. Attorney general Janet Reno is bowing to pressure to appoint a special counsel. But we be seen now the last one proved to be a Patsy. Instead we should prepare for the court appointment of a truly Independent prosecutor when Congress passes the Independent counsel act next month by wrapping up the preliminary investigation needed to seek court appointed counsel. That Means sending the Fri to spend Long hours with James Mcdougal who ran Madison and says he has not yet been asked one Whitewater question by the feds. Clin tonics suggest that investigators often ask the key perpetrators last baloney. Grill both Mcdougals and the Lender David Hale now get the agents to file "302" reports then take grand jury testimony and compare the stories. Then talk to the Clinton. Meld the separate Foster and Whitewater investigations which the president s lawyer fears As shown in his request to keep subpoena submerged documents from Justice s lackadaisical Foster prob errand double the agent manpower. What should Congress do Senate leaders after badgering in these parts passed the Independent counsel Bill. House judiciary committee chairman Jack Brooks voted it out of committee but could not get the rules committee s Atten Tion. Speaker Thomas s. Foley s mis placed priorities kept it from passage none should make it item one when con Gress reconvenes. Let the president sign it and let Reno go to court to swing two Gates Ira Gate and . Then have House banking committee hearings. Chairman Henry b. Gonzalez hero of Ira Gate is ducking his education Al responsibility on this scandal. Liberal Republican Jim Leach is carrying the Ball Henry should make it bipartisan. What will the president do with Hill Ary s professional reputation at risk full disclosure is not a realistic option expect the limited modified hangout route. C Tho now York Timon nato s no bargain for / in military t will the United states be expected to Send substantial numbers of troops to Europe More Orless permanent contribution to the development of Western Europe s capacity to resist asked a Hickenlooper a Iowa during the 1949 sen ate hearings on the North Atlantic treaty. The answer to that question replied Secretary of state Dean Acheson is a Clear and absolute no he lied. Last week 45 years later at the nato sum Mit conference in Brussels Belgium president Clinton said he was committed to keeping roughly 100,000american troops stationed in it would appear that the . Commitment remains both substantial and More or less but is it Worth it it is traditional in european politics for states to make offensive and defensive pacts for Mutual support though not to the Point of fully espousing one another s interests and quarrels wrote Karl von clausewitz160 years ago. The affair was More often like a Busi Ness Vas Only the extreme danger emanating from Napoleon Bonaparte he said that forced the euro Pean states into a True military Alliance. That s How nato began with its members brought together in common cause by the extreme danger emanating from the soviet Union. In the Early Days when the very survival of Western democracy seemed to be at stake major sacrifices were made by the Mem Ber nations to hold the coalition together. When War broke out in Korea in 1950, for example All of the Alli Ance countries except Iceland sent air land and sea forces to Aid the United states in turning Back the communist aggression there. In addition to warships aircraft Britain an Canada sent infantry brigades into action. So did tur Kev not yet a nato member. France Greece the Netherlands and Belgium sent infantry battalions with Luxembourg furnishing an infantry platoon. Italy and Norway sent medical units and Denmark sent a Hospital ship. Almost 3,000 soldiers from nato countries were killed inaction and another 10,000 wounded. For its part in 1952the United states which lost 33,629 killed in action during the War another 20,617 dead from no Nbattle causes and 103,284 wounded sent 26000 troops to Europe to establish nato s cold War defences More than the 238,600 soldiers sent to fight the hot War in Korea. This was in Stark contrast to the nato response to the War in Vietnam 15 years later. Even though the United states maintained 291,000 troops in Europe during that War to Man nato defences none of the nato allies furnished any combat assistance at All. By the time american troops landed in Vietnam in 1965, the interests of the european countries in Nathad diverged from those of the United states. For one thing the soviet threat appeared much less severe Thanet did in 1950. For another while containing chinese expansion was a major rationale for . Intervention in Vietnam after the 1960 rift Between China and the Harry g. Summers soviet Union nato Europe saw China . Natural ally that siphoned off soviet Power to the defense of the sino soviet Border and the soviet far East. From a True military Alliance nato had Degener ated into what Clausewitz. Had called a traditional european Alliance purely a business Deal. And Many Felt that the United states was getting skinned. Even though nato Europe combined had a greater Popula Tion and a larger Gross National product than the United states America was still bearing the lion s share of the Burden. As the new York times reported in 1984, the total Cost of european deployed United states forces and All of the United states based forces that we have pledged to contribute As nato reinforcements. Amounts to about $177 billion. That would be 58 per cent of the fiscal year 1985 military . Business Deal however nato turned out to be Blue Chip investment. Five years after the new York times assessment was written the Berlin Wall col lapsed followed closely by the collapse of communism and the soviet Union As Well. With the demise of its original reason for being is nato still a Good investment not in purely military terms for it has Long since ceased to be a True military Alliance where we could depend on its reinforcement capabilities. As in the persian Gulf Var we can count on Allied military support Only when it is in the individual country s own not the alliances self interest. But political partnership for peace nato is Proba Bly still Worth the Price for it provides for continued s. Access and influence on the european continent. C Loa Antolos times
