DATE. September 25, 2002

TO: Congressman Dick Gebhardt

FROM Barbra Streisand/Margery Tabankin

RE. Take the Offense



As you know, Barbra Streisand is busy in rehearsals for the performance she's giving on Sunday for the DCCC, so she asked me convey to you her feeling that it is lime for the Democrats to get off the defensive and go on the offensive.

I think the "lime" may be Drudge's fault. Personally, I want to know who this "Gebhardt" guy is.

Naturally, Barbra's not surprised to see the Bush administration evoke strong rhetoric about Democrats caring more about their own 'special interests' than protecting the security of the country. Of course, the Republicans will say anything they need to in order to accomplish their own political agenda. Barbra feels that the Democratic Leadership must not continue to take this lying down.

Naturally, Babs doesn't quite seem to get politics. Does she really believe that the Democrats are doing something so different when they use the rhetoric of "using rhetoric" to serve their political interests? That's how things work in the real world. That's why political parties have agendas: so they can push them. And this memo is only serving her political agenda. So what the hell is she talking about? She condemns any actions on the part of the Republicans as self-serving, while at that same time helping out her own cause. Ouch.

While the Republicans are shouting about the Democrats' special interests, why are the Democrats not saying the same about the Republicans? How can we ignore the obvious influence on the Bush Administration of such special interests as the oil industry, the chemical companies, the logging industry, the defense contractors, the mining industry, and the automobile industry, just to name a few? Many of these industries, run by big Republican donors and insiders, clearly have much to gain if we go to war against Iraq. Barbra urges the Democrats to publicly convey this message to the American people.

There are two possibilites: Either Barbra believes we shouldn't go to war since it will be good for Bush's buddies, or she is neutral about the war, and merely wants the American people to be well-informed. Which is it? I think the next paragraph is fairly telling.

While there are serious problems with Iraq and Saddam Hussein, Barbra feels that we can't let this issue become a distraction from the country's domestic problems and the President inability to fully dismantle the Al Queda network.

So Babs is anti-war. And apparently, she feels that the problems (that she admits exist) with Iraq are secondary to the awful consequence of a war: some corporations will benefit. Well golly, we better not go to war then. How dare we act in a manner that assists the key agents in our economic system to prosper. Shame on us! She also believes that domestic issues should take precedence. I guess an Iraqi nuke detonated in downtown DC isn't a "domestic problem". Finally, she believes that the reason Al Queda [sic] hasn't yet been fully dismantled is that Bush has been foot-dragging with this Iraq issue. It couldn't be that complete elimination of al Qaeda is a practical impossibility, and that while there is still much work to be done, Iraq is a part of that job. It doesn't matter that the Taliban is gone, along with al Qaeda training camps and safe havens. It doesn't matter that there are almost surely al Qaeda elements in Iraq itself. Nope. Bush should do more to get rid of al Qaeda; he just has to pretend that there aren't any agents in Iraq. In short, she truly believes that she can hide behind "unresolved issues" in order to "prove" that Iraq isn't currently worth our time.

To "cement" her case, she says the following:

Afterall, Sadam Hussein did not bomb the World Trade Center.

Now, here's my question: WHAT THE HELL DOES THAT MEAN? Is she referring the 1993 bombing of the Trade Center, or Sept. 11? Not that it matters. In both cases, there is some (though not conclusive) evidence that Saddam may have been involved. But that is beside the point. That Saddam wasn't at the controls of those airplanes is completely irrelevant. While it would be a wonderful excuse to go after Saddam on those grounds, no one is trying that approach. Instead, a war is being considered for other, much more sensible reasons. Allow me to reduce the argument to a "Since... therefore..." statement. Let's imagine Barbra is holding a news conference (though how she found the time in her busy day I'll never know.)

Reporter: "Ms. Streisand, what are your thoughts on the situation in Iraq?"

Babs: "Since Saddam didn't bomb the World Trade Center, therefore we can safely ignore his penchant for nuclear weapons, his stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, his grudge against America, his history of belligerance, his apparent inability to correctly judge cause-effect relationships, his harbouring of terrorists, his complete disregard for 16 UN resolutions, his starvation of his own people, and his insane belief that he will one day control the entire Gulf region."

Stunned silence as Barbra beams triumphantly: She has once again humbled those crazy conservatives.

Saddam Hussein has thrown George W. Bush and his pro-war friends a most difficult curveball.

Hmm... sounds like we have a problem. Good thing W likes baseball so much.

By agreeing at the eleventh hour to let United Nations inspectors return unconditionally to Iraq, Saddam has neatly finessed Bush's attempt to give his proposed war on Iraq legitimacy. If they want to keep their invasion on schedule, Bush and his fellow war buffs will now have to scramble for a way to reject as insufficient what appears to be a full capitulation by Saddam.

Like Mr. Annan, Mr. Walkom seems to have tunnel-vision. He sees the word "unconditional" in any communique Iraq puts out, and assumes they mean it. If he had actually bothered to read what Iraq wrote (as opposed to, say, watching CNN and hearing what the talking heads had to say) he would have realized that in the same letter that promises the "unconditional" return of inspectors, it also mentions discussing the "conditions" for their return. I suppose that if we really wanted to we could just ignore the latter statement, (and it seems Mr. Walkom already has.) But then that would be idiotic.

Neatly finessed? Saddam is far too transparent to have finesse. Not that there aren't those who will (and are) believing him. It's just that the U.S. isn't. They have already issued a statement to the effect of "this offer sounds like crap." And it is, and most people can see that. That means, of course, that no scrambling will really be necessary; it's clear Saddam hasn't capitulated at all.

They'll have to refuse to take yes for an answer.

Sort of. Again, if you're dumb enough to only see the "yes" part, then that would be what Bush and co. would be doing. But Saddam's answer was a "yes, but". It's like asking someone to marry you, and getting the response "yes, but only if you sever your right leg." In that case, you can be damn sure I won't be taking "yes" for an answer.

Back in Washington, Bush's more hardline advisers will be gnashing their teeth at the U.S. president's decision to move away from Washington's original position — which was to eliminate the Saddam regime regardless of what he agreed to.

Washington's policy remains regime-change, regardless of what Saddam does. As has been said by many, many bloggers before me, Bush made Saddam an offer he can't accept. There is no way that Saddam will be able to implement every resolution in a timely manner. Or even at all, considering he would be killed (in a timely manner.) The resolutions angle was a way of appearing "multi-lateralist", kicking the U.N. in the nads, and then crushing Saddam anyway. Bush's advisers know this. That's why, despite Mr. Walkom's claim, I haven't heard a single peep. This was their plan to begin with. I don't see why they would be pissed when everything started working.

But Bush was convinced he needed the cover that only the U.N. can supply. And so came his speech to the U.N. General Assembly last week in which he dared the world body, and more particularly its elite Security Council, to enforce its own resolutions against Iraq. Or, as the inimitable Texan put it this past weekend, "to show some backbone." The trouble is that the U.N. Security Council, a body of 15 nations (including the U.S.) charged with keeping the peace in the world, doesn't have quite the same take on Iraq that the Bushites do.

That was the point of his speech. Of course they don't have the same take. In fact, that they don't only made his speech more effective. He put the U.N. between a rock and a hard place. They can continue to be spineless, and thus confirm to the world that they are irrelevant, or they can let Bush do what he wants, and tag along for the ride. As well, I don't think Bush gives a rat's ass about the U.N. He using them for his own ends, and doing fine job of it. The U.N. doesn't provide cover. It provides the vehicle.

The 14 relevant Security Council resolutions on Iraq do not demand what the White House quaintly calls "regime change" and what normal people call overthrowing the government. Rather they speak to the much more limited idea of requiring Iraq to destroy all weapons of mass destruction and commit itself not to make any more.

They don't have to. Mainly because the U.N., no matter how arrogant, would never directly call for changing the government in a sovereign state. God help them if they try. But that doesn't matter. Bush never said "The U.N. called for a change, so get to it." He merely pointed out that the U.N. has allowed Iraq to do whatever the hell they wanted, including completely disregarding 14 resolutions that that U.N. passed. He told the U.N. to enforce their resolutions, or stop making them. That enforcement will almost certainly come from an American military response is the happy coincidence that the Bush administration is taking advantage of.

As for Mr. Walkom's "clever" jab at the phraseology, "wow" is all that comes to mind. Did he figure that out all on his own? Of course "regime change" means that Saddam's "government" will be overthrown. That's the point. And I don't think anyone out there really thinks "regime change" means anything else. My guess is Bush and co. like the fact that "regime change" has fewer syllables.

To this end, the Security Council had required Iraq back in 1991 to allow U.N. weapons inspectors into the country.

That's true. And what year is it now? Are there currently inspectors in Iraq? And were the inspectors given full (or even reasonable) cooperation? Yeah, the early 90's were fun. But they're gone, Tommy. Get over it.

It wasn't an easy task. The U.N. inspectors complained that Iraq was trying to foil them, which it was. Iraq complained that some of the inspectors were U.S. spies, which they were.

Again, not relevant in the slightest at this point.

Eventually, in 1998, the U.N. pulled its inspectors out so they wouldn't be caught in planned U.S. and British air raids on Iraq.

Close. Yes, the U.S. and Britain did start air raids. But the reads were not a cause. They were the effect of the futility of the inspections, due to Iraq's complete unwillingness to even come close to fulfilling their obligations. To say that the raids are what caused the pull-out is far too literal. The way the Iraqis were acting, the inspectors might as well have not been there at all.

Saddam refused to let them back in unless the U.N. lifted its crippling sanctions on Iraq.

Now that doesn't make a lick of sense. The sanctions are in place not to ensure the return of inspectors, but to ensure the success of the inspectors themselves. And that can only be confirmed once the inspectors are allowed back in!Saddam doesn't have a prayer on this. The nations of the world seem quite content to keep up the sanctions. And if they don't get their inspectors back, the option of war seems to be more palatable then a lifting of the sanctions. Your move, Saddam.

Which is where matters stood until Bush took it into his head to invade. But there was always a problem with Bush's proposed war. It was hard to keep in mind what the point was. Since no one, not even Washington, has suggested Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks on New York and Washington, it was tough to use the war on terrorism as an excuse.

I think Mr. Walkom is confusing "point" with "reason". Allow me to elucidate. "Point" is the eventual goal of a war. "Reason" (or "excuse") is the rationale for starting the war in the first place. In theory, they should be linked. And they can be, for Bush's purposes. Thanks to his speech, the "Point" of this war has become the enforcement of the resolutions. The "reason" is then plainly obvious: Iraq isn't following the resolutions. That no one has connected Iraq to Sept. 11 isn't really relevant when the war is pushed through the apparatus of the U.N. As well, if the U.S. had concrete evidence that Iraq was involved, you can be damned sure that the U.S. would completely ignore the U.N., and leave a smoking crater where Iraq used to be.

Nor was it a simple matter to argue that Iraq deserved war just because it had flouted 14 U.N. security council resolutions. If every country in defiance of the U.N. were to be invaded, U.S. troops would be very busy.

As we'll see, the resolutions other countries are flouting have been made in a different context. And instead of having to dig through the U.N. archives, Tommy Boy provides us with a few examples that prove this. Let's take a look.

Pakistan, for instance has been in flagrant violation for 54 years of a security council resolution calling on it to immediately cease aiding insurgents inside Indian-controlled Kashmir.

So he says. Yeah, it's pretty damn likely that Pakistan continues to support Kashmiri militants. But we have no real proof, and Pakistan denies it. In Iraq, on the other hand, we have proof that they are in violation. And they admit it.

Israel has been condemned, deplored, censured and warned of dire consequences by the Security Council 60 times since the Jewish state was created in 1948. Indeed, the language of the Security Council resolutions condemning Israel (many of which were supported and none of which were vetoed by the U.S.) was as severe as anything said about Iraq. In 1981, the Security Council, including the U.S., unanimously condemned Israel for bombing — irony of ironies — a suspected nuclear weapons facility in Iraq, calling it a "clear violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the norms of international conduct."

For one, Israel's situation is completely different than Iraq's. Israel, a tiny nation (whose population at the time of many of these resolutions was not more than 4 million) that is smack in the middle of an extremely (and that's putting it lightly) hostile area. It has been attacked without provocation on several occasions. It's neighbours called (and some still called) daily for its destruction. So it's not really a big surprise that it had to act slightly outside the norm when defending itself. That the U.N. condemned them is pretty fucking irrelevant. Had they followed "standard" procedure they would no longer exist. And has happy as that would make many U.N. members, that clearly wasn't an option.

As for the resolution that Mr. Walkom cites, he would be advised to note that it made no demands. The resolutions concerning Iraq require the nation to act. And they refuse to do so. If the U.N. doesn't make them comply, what good is the U.N.?

In short, the failure to respect U.N. resolutions was always a dubious excuse for taking on Saddam.

Not at all. It was, and is, the best excuse, at least from a U.N. perspective. The best excuse from a U.S. point of view is that a pre-emptive strike removes the threat before disaster strikes. Of course this doesn't matter to the U.N., since they don't give a shit about the American people. Not that they should. But given that Bush would prefer the U.N. on his side, it only makes sense to offer an excuse that carries weight with the organization.

The U.S. tried to give this rationale more weight by suggesting that Saddam would pass on any weapons of mass destruction he developed to sinister Al Qaeda operatives. (In fact, if the U.S. wants to prevent weapons of mass destruction from falling into the wrong hands, it should probably invade Russia.)

Tried? Did they not succeed? It's a real concern, if not a certainty. And the classic "they should really (insert action word here) (insert unexpected country here)" line. This type of arguments rarely, if ever, hold water. And it certainly doesn't in this case. For one, it isn't the Russian government that is handing out nuke material. The equipment is passed along on the black market. Invading Russia still wouldn't control the flow of materials. And Russia is an ally. And Russia has nukes of its own. And so on. It's not the same, no matter how much Thomas wills it to be so.

None of the arguments really hung together logically. But jumbled together they provided U.S. talk show hosts with a plausible excuse for invasion.

Actually, I thought they hung together rather nicely. Here's a summary (for Mr. Walkom's sake): Iraq isn't listening to the U.N. U.S. only stopped attacking Iraq because Iraq agreed to listen to the U.N. Therefore, if Iraq does not start to listen to the U.N., the U.S. will continue to attack Iraq.

And another "clever" jab, this time at U.S. talk show hosts. These people make a living getting anyone they can to repeat what has already been said 100 times. And they do a damn good job of it (well, some do.) But who gives a crap? As well, they're an excuse for more than talk show hosts. Apparently, this thing called the U.N. has taken notice.

But in light of Saddam's offer, can the U.N. give Bush the carte blanche he needs? And if it doesn't, can Bush spurn the organization he just three days ago dared to take the initiative against Iraq? Has Saddam outfoxed the lonesome cowpoke by offering to let the U.N. verify what Bush critics such as former chief weapons inspector Scott Ritter have long been saying: that Iraq isn't really much of a threat anymore?

Here are the answers to Mr. Walkom's questions, in order: Yes, yes, not a chance. To elaborate: Bush will have no trouble showing that Iraq has yet to, and most likely will not, offer "unconditional" return; Bush can do whatever he wants. If the U.N. tells him to take a hike, then they sign their own death certificate, and Bush goes ahead with a U.S. attack; Clearly, Saddam's strategy is far too transparent to have any effect at all.

As for Mr. Ritter, it's pretty obvious that Tom doesn't peruse the Blogosphere much. If he did, he might have discovered that Scotty has zero credibility left.

Gone.

Huge concrete pillars filled with thousands of people. Gone. Mothers, fathers, husbands, wives, daugthers, sons, uncles, aunts, cousins, friends and neighbours. Gone. Firefighters, police and ordinary heroes. Gone. Those whose only crime was that they were on time for work. Gone. It was all too much. And so the tears came.

The rest of the conversation consisted of a discussion of possible culprits ("I hope it was Palestinian millitants. What a great excuse that would be." were her thoughts. Alas it was not to be.) as well as a discussion of possible retaliatory action, though that section was rather non-specific, given that we had no idea who had committed this act. In the middle, my mom called, to see if my girlfriend was OK (I live in Canada, while she makes her home South of our border.) After I got off the phone, I spent the rest of the day like millions of others. I paced. I watched CNN. I picked up the Star's special edition and pinned up their photo pages on my bulletin board. So many images. Too many horrifying images.

Probably the worst pictures I saw that day were the images of terrorists the world over cheering and dancing and rejoicing. They were truly happy that so many innocents had died. I couldn't comprehend the sort of climate that fostered such a reaction. I couldn't comprehend the evil. A year later, those images are gone, replaced by images of ordinary people behaving in extraordinary ways. And that's why we're better. That's why they will never win. Their celebration was short-lived, as it was cut-short by the armies of freedom. But while they take refuge in caves and plot their next move, we take comfort in the fact that we can do as we like. They cannot. And we will fight to the last to make sure it stays that way.

To the freedom loving people of this beautiful world of ours, I extend my heartfelt condolences. We stand together on the this day of rememberance.

Why Molly Ivins is Inferior

Speaking of Ashcroft, after spending a year on the investigation that netted 12 hookers in New Orleans, he has now announced that he is going after deadbeat dads, surely a more socially useful thing to do. But given his record on tracking down whatever terrorists may be lurking among us, the single mothers of the nation shouldn't get their hopes up.

Why not? Does Ms. Ivins really believe that tracking down deadbeat dads, who more often than not are not caught simply because no one tries to catch them, is as or more difficult than tracking international terrorists who have been trained to elude their pursuers? I think not. Ashcroft may be a bigot with too much power and too few smarts, but this attack is neither effective, nor accurate.

Ashcroft could screw up a two-car funeral.

I do not think the hyperbole is necessary. It suggests that Ms. Ivins's argument is based on her feelings about Ashcroft, rather than his actual bungling.

He is now holding two U.S. citizens as "enemy combatants" on alarmingly slim evidence.

That's true. He is. Unfortunately, Ms. Ivins once again weakens her point, this time by generalizing in the wrong place. In Mr. Padilla's case, she is right: the DOJ has shown little to no evidence. But that gets thrown out the window when one realizes that the statement implies that she considers the discovery of Mr. Hamdi in Afghanistan, fighting with the Taliban, to be "alarmingly slim evidence." I think not.

John Walker Lindh, a well-to-do white boy, went into the regular justice system and plea-bargained down to 20 years. Yasser Esam Hamdi, whose story is exactly like Lindh's, but has the wrong kind of name, was declared an "enemy combatant" and is now sitting in a military oubliette.

Also true. But not the point. Lindh had new information; Hamdi had Lindh's information. Unfair as it is, it makes sense that the Justice Dept. would only deal one prisoner, rather than both. But that would be contrary to Ms. Ivins's point.

Ditto Jose Padilla, who was arrested for allegedly planning to detonate a radioactive bomb except, oops, there turns out to be no evidence.

That would be the popular claim, but it does not quite add up. There is some evidence. The issue is that no one wants to tell us what exactly it is. That is a problem, but it is not the problem Ms. Ivins addresses. There is no way the DOJ would have picked a name from a hat and decided that that would be their dirty bomber. (Well, maybe not "no way", but the hat scenario is the type of conspiracy theory that I do not particularly care for.) The only logical (read non-conspiracy oriented) explanation is that through intelligence, the DOJ determined Mr. Padilla's intentions (or at least his likely intentions.) It very well may be the case that the method they used to get their evidence could be compromised by revealing the source. We don't know. To claim that there is "no evidence" reveals either Ms. Ivins's lack of reason, or her penchant for the intrigue that conspiracies bring. Either way, the relevant point that the DOJ should show us the evidence is lost by assuming that it does not exist.

As the head of an Egyptian human-rights organization recently said, "We were told initially the military law would be used only against drug dealers and terrorists."

Egypt is not known for its human-rights organizations. That she needed Egypt to find a quotation that supported her point says quite a bit about its strength. (To be fair, it may just be that Ms. Ivins is not paying attention to local human-rights groups: They have all been decrying the proceedings. Why wouldn't she use a quote from them? I have No idea.)

Ms. Ivins ends off with a quote that she hopes will sway readers with its cute tone, and thought-provoking message:

Well, as Bush said about global warming, "We'll get used to it." Or maybe we should do something before it's too late. Been enjoying the weather lately?

At least she got the cute part right. Though I don't know the context of that Bush quote (it seems like there may have been more there. Of course there is also the distinct possibility that Bush honestly believes we can all get used to global warming; he is dumb enough.), using it only serves to confuse. Sure, we know Bush doesn't really seem to know the score, and, if the quote is contextually accurate, global warming is one area where that is true. Coming up with a quote that highlights that fact just is not sufficient evidence to show it is the case in the current situation.

Partly due to the apparent futility of attempting to effect a change in leadership, the U.S. made a new proposal to the Palestinian delegation that visited Washington earlier this month. The idea was simple, and quite logical: allow the Palestinian parliament to select a prime minister, so they might have a balance to Arafat’s absolute power. This approach, however, was also rejected.

In the words of chief negotiator Saeb Erakat, “We told them (the United States) that this is not your business… We were shocked during the discussions that the American side is speaking about changing the law of elections.”

Actually, it is very much their business. The U.S., which was gracious enough to host a delegation from the terrorist, has every right to suggest methods for fixing a situation that cannot produce a workable peace.

Shocked? Is he serious? There are two possibilities. Either the Palestinians don’t understand that U.S. likes democracy (a system that they don’t quite understand yet) or the PA is simply so entrenched in the Arafat quagmire, that to suggest even the smallest of checks is tantamount to suggesting complete destruction of their government structure. Which wouldn’t be a bad thing. They just don’t realize it yet.

The United States, he said, is trying to delay the balloting.

I don’t know why they would want to. They certainly don’t want Arafat around. And while an election is unlikely to unseat him, no election guarantees more Arafat.

But why would the Palestinians want Arafat to maintain a stranglehold on power? They see Arafat as a symbol of what can be accomplished through violence and death. Many Palestinians are happy enough to allow him to continue to harm Israel through his office. In their view, a prime minister could (though probably wouldn’t) change their current strategy of antagonism leading to concessions. Why should they change? Through their campaign of terror, they have managed to secure for themselves an independent state. What more could they want?