THE KIBITZER-IN-CHIEF All indications are that the Democratic party’s congressional leadership will soon join forces with the Bush administration in a united proclamation of American resolve to oust Saddam Hussein’s terrorist regime from Baghdad–by force, and unilaterally, if necessary. Which development will be all to the good. And pretty much what’s supposed to happen, in an ultimate-deference-to-presidential-foreign-policy-authority kind of way. What’s not supposed to happen, however, in any kind of way, is what former president Bill Clinton has been doing. Clinton, by dint of his “former” status and according to well-established and much-justified tradition, is either supposed to (a) offer general support for his successor’s conduct of national security affairs, or (b) shut the hell up. Instead, defying this custom of presidential comportment, Clinton has spent the past couple of weeks issuing barbed stage whispers about what George W. Bush “ought” to do with respect to Iraq. In between funnel cakes at the New York State Fair in Syracuse on September 1, Clinton publicly questioned “whether an attack now, especially if we would have to go it alone, would be a net increase in the security of the United States and our friends and allies. . . . [W]e could respond to all these things in a way that undermines the character of our nation and the future of our children.” Two days later, on CNN’s “Larry King Live,” Clinton allowed that U.S. policy to remove Hussein from power is “a good one,” but insisted that “we should try the arms inspection one more time” before settling on a military course of action. Three days after that, at a California fund-raiser for Democratic Rep. Lois Capps, Clinton was significantly bolder and more explicit in his opposition to a military strike against Baghdad, warning that no such move should be taken without widespread international assent or before another U.N.-sponsored disarmament inspection has been conducted. Otherwise, the former president warned, Saddam might well start setting off chemical and biological weapons around the world: “That’s what you would do if someone was coming after you.” IT IS? Never mind. At another Democratic fund-raiser on September 9, this one for Rep. Jim Maloney in Connecticut, Clinton told a rapt audience of $1,000 donors that necessary global support for a U.S. fight against terrorism would be impossible so long as the Republican party maintained its current policy positions on the environment, Medicare, Social Security, education, and taxes. THE SCRAPBOOK is not making this up: “We have to lead this integrated world,” Clinton argued. “We can’t run it. We can’t dominate it. We have to lead it. And we can’t lead it in a positive way unless we are first doing the right things at home.” Granted, “former president” is a problematic job title. But it surely has more dignity than backseat driver. LOSS OF FAITH President Bush’s faith-based initiative has been endorsed by everyone from Americans for Tax Reform to Sen. Hillary Clinton, who’s a co-sponsor. Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle published an op-ed in the Rapid City Journal praising the bill as the kind of bipartisan measure there should be more of. “I look forward to working with President Bush to get this proposal signed into law,” he wrote. It passed the House in 2001 by a healthy margin. And yet Democrats have quietly and mysteriously moved to block the bill in the Senate, where it will come to the floor this week if all goes well. The original plan was to have a two-hour debate, allow two amendments (one Democratic, one Republican), then vote. Now Sen. Jack Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island, has made clear he’ll insist on multiple amendments and a prolonged debate. Daschle’s office told the New York Times in July that he’s in no hurry to bring the measure to a vote. On top of those obstacles, House Democrats who opposed the bill have been lobbying senators to back away from it. And of course People for the American Way has continued its demagogic campaign against any faith-based legislation at all. The bill is in no way radical or revolutionary. The controversial “charitable choice” section that was part of the House bill has been dropped in the Senate version. The chief effect of the bill would be to level the playing field for religious groups in applying for government grants. No longer would they be disqualified if they displayed religious icons in their offices or had religious leaders on their boards. And the measure would allow non-itemizers to deduct up to $400 a year ($800 for couples) for their donations to religious charities. If Democrats oppose the bill, fine. They should do so openly, not by subterfuges such as refusing to reveal the content of their amendments. In a speech last July, the president lauded Daschle for supporting the initiative. But last week, the chief Republican sponsor, Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, noted on the Senate floor that while Daschle has promised Bush he’d bring the bill to the floor, “we are winding down to the final days of the session and that has yet to happen.” Daschle is often wary of leaning on Democratic senators when they’re carrying water for Democratic interest groups like PAW. But if Daschle doesn’t intervene now, he’ll have reneged on a promise and let an important piece of bipartisan legislation die. FEAR OF FLYING In the October issue of Vogue, supermodel Christy Turlington says that her engagement to actor/director Ed Burns was called off largely because Burns and his family were afraid to fly to Europe for their wedding after September 11. Now, THE SCRAPBOOK can think of lots of good reasons to call off this wedding: Burns’s stringy greasy hair, his tiresome Irish Woody Allen shtick, the fact that the bride was scheduled to be given away by U2 singer Bono (how many pretentious Irishmen do we need at one wedding, anyway?). But for being afraid to fly? This must mean the terrorists have won. EURO-ALLERGY This page has consistently found the euro irritating, and we’re sure you secretly agree. Admit it, you hate that it’s impossible to find that annoying little symbol when you type. And the way they set the conversion rate just above the dollar when it was introduced. Not to mention that whole One-Europe thing. Which is why you’ll be as amused as we were to learn that the euro has one more irritating attribute: It can cause eczema, skin irritation, and other allergic reactions, according to a new study from the University of Zurich. Swiss scientists say at the points where the two alloys in the 1- and 2- euro coins meet, the salt in sweat can cause an electrical current. Though there is very little nickel in the coins themselves, the current corrodes the metals and more nickel is released from a single coin placed against the skin than would be released from a piece of pure nickel. The E.U. has safety regulations (surprise!) on the nickel content in items worn close to the skin, like jewelry and watches, because nickel allergies are fairly common. The report estimates that the nickel released by a euro is 240 to 320 times the legal limit. So it turns out that the old wives’ tale is true: Itchy palms are a sign of riches.
