ME TOO, SAYS GEPHARDT Al Gore having made the argument that really important issues like war should somehow be above politics, and Tom Daschle having seconded Gore’s motion, it was perhaps inevitable that Dick Gephardt would want to chime in, too. And sure enough, there in Friday’s New York Times was a Gephardt op-ed solemnly intoning that “the politicization of national security has to end.” Well, why exactly? There are actually a lot of national security issues to argue about and debate these days, and argument and debate are the essence of politics. In fact, the specific complaint of the president that has given rise to so much Democratic heartburn is well worth an argument. The homeland security reorganization is being held up by the Senate because Bush wants to loosen civil service requirements so that homeland security workers can be fired more easily than your average public sector union member. Is this not worth at least a few hours of debate by the Senate? There’s something a little bit creepy in the demand of leading Democrats that the most interesting and important issues should be ruled out of order until the election is over. And there’s also more than a little amnesia involved on Gephardt’s part. “Eleven years ago,” he writes in the Times, “the Persian Gulf war debate on Iraq took place after an election, which helped keep politics out of it.” What Gephardt doesn’t mention is that he then did his best to make the Gulf War debate as political as possible. In late 1990, just weeks before the war’s air campaign began, Gephardt told CNN that if Bush didn’t seek congressional approval, “the Congress has to reach for the only tool left to it, which is to cut off funding for the war.” He also co-sponsored a resolution to block military intervention and stick with sanctions against Saddam Hussein. This is not to say that Gephardt was a consistent noninterventionist. In 1993, under President Clinton, Gephardt enthusiastically supported the president’s decision to bomb Baghdad without congressional approval. And in 1995, when Clinton sent troops into Bosnia–again, without congressional approval!–Gephardt was one of his biggest cheerleaders for an energetic executive branch. “If America doesn’t lead the world,” Gephardt declared, “who will?” These days, Gephardt prefers to whine: “To question people’s patriotism for simply raising questions about how a war is to be fought and won–to say that anybody who doesn’t support the president’s particular policy on national security is against national security–is not only insulting, it’s immoral.” Touchy, touchy. No one has questioned Gephardt’s or anyone’s patriotism. That he’s so easily insulted does, however, raise questions about his seriousness. MORE KIBITZING FROM THE PEANUT GALLERY Perhaps it was unfair of THE SCRAPBOOK to single out Bill Clinton in last week’s issue (“The Kibitzer-in-Chief,” September 30) for second-guessing the president’s Iraq policy. After all, he’s hardly the only ex-president desperately seeking attention. That’s right, there’s also Jimmy Carter. Last week at a town hall meeting in Atlanta, the former president said that a war without allies against Iraq would be a “tragic mistake” and “the costs would be enormous.” If his comments ring familiar, that’s because they are. Carter was, in fact, among the many prognosticators who opposed the use of force during the Gulf War, while wrongly predicting massive American casualties. “It would be a mistake at this point, obviously, to deploy any American troops halfway around the world in an area that’s totally inaccessible to us,” said the ex-president in August 1990 after Iraq occupied Kuwait. (He did stress that if the Iraqis invaded Saudi Arabia, then we should take military action.) In November 1990, Carter stepped up the rhetoric, decrying the potential for a “massive, self-destructive, almost suicidal war” with Iraq. He also predicted that oil prices could spike to $75 to $80 a barrel. Later in December, Carter was still insisting a battle against Saddam Hussein would be “horrendous.” Of course the complete opposite of all these things happened, and the war was “horrendous” only for the swiftly routed Iraqi army. We’ll let you know when, if ever, you should start taking Carter’s warnings seriously. BILL CLINTON PARODIES HIMSELF On second thought, no one will ever outdo Bill Clinton in the annals of ludicrous public performances by an ex-president. The following immortal instance of Clintonian self-parody took place Friday September 27, on ABC’s “Good Morning America” (with our thanks to ABC News for the transcript): CHARLES GIBSON: “Do you agree with the administration’s contention that we have a right to make pre-emptory attacks–what they’re now calling anticipatory self-defense? That we have the right to attack a nation we believe threatens us?” BILL CLINTON: “Well, I think it depends upon what is defined as belief.” As Dave Barry would say, we’re not making this up. WE’RE LAUGHING AT YOU, NOT WITH YOU The surprise movie hit of the fall is “Barbershop,” a charming, modest, and occasionally hilarious little picture that depicts a day in a (mostly black) hair cuttery on the south side of Chicago. Perhaps the only person who doesn’t like the movie is Jesse Jackson, who last week leaned on the producers–unsuccessfully it seems–to get the funniest scene deleted. That would be the one where Eddie the Barber takes jabs at several sacred cows of the civil rights orthodoxy, including Rosa Parks, the NAACP, and, yes, Jesse. “You better not let Jesse Jackson hear you talk like that,” one of the barbershop denizens tells Eddie. “F– Jesse Jackson!” he replies. Jackson reportedly hadn’t seen the movie when he complained that it “insulted” civil rights leaders and tried “to turn tragedy into comedy.” But we can assure him that audiences roar with laughter at the line. The thing about comedy is that the funniest things of all are the things you’re not allowed to laugh at. Jesse Jackson is pretty close to the top of that list, and he knows it. His career has survived any number of scandals, but laughter might do him in. That, and not the decent respect owed to the civil rights movement, explains his unusual foray into movie criticism. A Chip Off the Old Block While Jesse Jackson was trying his hand at movie criticism, his son Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. was trying cultural criticism, with about as much success. On CNN’s “Talk Back Live,” Jackson Jr. was asked about the mugging of Kansas City Royals first base coach Tom Gamboa by two crazed fans–a father and son who leapt from the stands at Chicago’s Comiskey Park and jumped Gamboa before being gang-tackled by the entire Royals dugout. The congressman had a theory about the attack–blame the Bush administration! “Well, we’re living in a violence-charged environment from sports, but also from the very top of our administration. We need to take a deep breath. We need to obviously get back to some basic values and try and find alternative dispute resolutions. . . . We live in a violence-charged environment where almost all solutions result in some violent act, some desire to go to war, and we are not choosing peaceful resolutions to problems. That’s why we need to take a deep breath.” No, actually it sounds like we need “Barbershop II: The Next Generation.”
