Last month I said I'd lay off Clinton if he didn't do anything horrendous in the meantime. Well, of course, he did. By the time this column reaches readers, the results of operation Desert Fox will, I hope be history. The results of Clinton's behaviors, however, will not.

For a man who dodged the draft himself, and who is such a coward that he refuses to ever accept the consequences of his behavior, he is remarkably free with the lives and resources of the American people.

While I would never advocate lack of support for our military while they are in action, I can certainly advocate lack of support for this shamelessly trigger-happy president. His contempt for the American people is disgusting. However, again and again, the people seem to prove that they deserve his contempt. Someone once said that it was impossible to overestimate the stupidity of the public. Both Clinton and the public seem determined to prove the truth of this observation.

Clinton knows perfectly well that Americans absolutely love a show of military power. They always rally, under the auspices of patriotism, to any show of arms, regardless of how stupid the motivation. Every time Clinton is in any sort of trouble, he resorts to militarism. Every time he does, the polls go nuts.

By the time Clinton leaves office (since it is highly unlikely that two thirds of the Senate will agree that he is a disaster for this country), he will have so damaged America's international image that our foreign policy will be damaged for years to come. This is very dangerous in an increasingly troubled world.

We did not need to bomb Iraq. Understand that I am far from being a dove. I have been in full support of any military action that insured the security of our country, the global balance of power, or the security of countries who were subjected to outright aggression. However, the problem we are wrestling in Iraq is the manufacture of chemical and biological weapons. No amount of bombing is going to have significant impact on this problem. Clinton and his people know this.

When Clinton went on television and declared the Iraqi situation a 'clear and present danger,' I thought that even the airheaded American public would be able to see through this subterfuge. When he followed that by stating that we couldn't risk postponing action until after Ramadan because that would give the Iraqis a crucial month's lead time, I laughed out loud.

Since at least last February, there have been serious problems with the U.N. inspection teams. Truth be told, these problems have probably existed throughout the almost eight year process. For almost a year, however, we have been told that diplomacy was the only way to deal with this problem, even to such an extent that our own Secretary of State put pressure on the U.N. teams to back off. This occurred as late as August, causing the resignation of Scott Ritter, a leading member of the team representing the United States.

The time frame here is interesting. All year, Clinton was doing so well in the polls that he was convinced that he was going to escape once again from having to pay any consequences for his misbehavior. As it became apparent that impeachment was an issue that wasn't going to go away as easily as he had thought, sword rattling began.

First, we had to bomb the Sudan and Afghanistan to halt world terrorism. Duh! As the young people say. Then Iraq became a clear and present danger and our forces were sent to the Persian Gulf in November. It was obvious that we didn't have much international support in this effort, so Clinton backed down when Saddam offered to comply. No one expected Hussein to really comply, but the time frame was perfect for Clinton. If the impeachment proceedings looked likely to fail, he could resume his "peaceful president" image and continue diplomatic avenues. If he wasn't doing well, he could fall back on the American propensity to support the "Commander-in-Chief" in time of crisis.

It is interesting that Tony Blair, of Great Britain, has been our only ally in this venture. He, like Clinton, reads his public well. The English liberals have always been doves, but Blair knows that Margaret Thatcher completely reversed her troubled image with her strong and hawkish approach to world problems. Blair knows that his mandate is not strong in England, but more a reaction to some conservative missteps. Both of these men are cynical manipulators. Both are very good at it. Both publics seem thrilled to be duped by them.