Friday, May 16, 2008
Experts, pundits and kibitzers weigh in on Washington's weirdest week
Dec 18, 1998 | - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Diane Johnson, author My thoughts are mostly on the hijacking of constitutional government in
America. The right-wing threat that has unbalanced even the reasonable members
of the Republican Party. The lack of any credible congressional or media
figures now that they have all given in to their hate-Clinton frenzy, with
complete indifference to the sentiments of normal people outside the Beltway.
The impossibility of protest when elected officials and media both ignore what
people feel and say, and, worse, distort it; the failure of the print media to
cover the various marches the other day; or its failure to raise the
reasonable questions about hypocrisy (i.e. Henry Hyde's past) that were apparent
to everyone. And the fact that we can't impeach or otherwise get rid of
irresponsible pundits. If only we could impeach George Will and Cokie Roberts!
Fran Lebowitz, author Absolutely, the bombings were an attempt to deflect attention from
impeachment. Clinton is hardly a subtle man -- even his most ardent
supporters cannot accuse him of subtlety, and certainly not of irony. He is
irony-free. Obviously, I'm not a fan of Saddam Hussein but it's interesting to me how he's been singled out. Unfortunately, the world is filled with people in power who are equally as bad. It's not that I'm in favor of
Saddam, but I think he should be placed in like company because I think it
makes everyone else -- all these other horrendous people -- seem like
nothing compared to him. Certainly what's going on in Bosnia cannot be
better than what's going on in Iraq. Certainly Gadhaffi is not Adlai
Stevenson. Singling Saddam out seems almost arbitrary to me. There's
something very false, very tinny about the whole thing. I watched the
bombings on TV last night -- the green glow of the bombs, which is nice and
arty but you can't really see anything -- and it seemed very unreal. When
we announce a bombing, it doesn't seem like a real war except that real
people get really killed.
I'm in favor of nothing. I hate all these people. I think the Congress is a disgrace, I think the president is a disgrace. It's embarrassing to be a human being in this era. I feel disgraced by my fellow man -- all of them. Especially my fellow citizens, because they've been convinced to become consumers instead of citizens. They go around interviewing dozens of idiots who talk about how great the economy is, which it is for about 12 people, by the way. They interview 8-year-olds! The economy is incredibly great if you happen to own an enormous company or if you have tons of capital in the stock market.
Should Clinton resign? No. Absolutely not. I happen to be a democracy fan and he was voted into office -- though I didn't vote for him. People who voted for him could not have been surprised by his behavior or his taste. There's no chance this man will resign. You can catch him with a gun in his hand standing over a body and he won't resign and people would keep saying the economy is fantastic. I'm a fairly old-fashioned, angry person.
Barbara Ehrenreich, author of "Blood Rites: Origins and the History of the Passions of War"
I don't know how anybody in their right mind could think that the bombings were anything but a way to deflect attention from impeachment. It's perfectly clear. I no longer think Clinton should be impeached, I think he should be arrested. If you want a high crime and misdemeanor, it's the use of military force for private and personal reasons. Prior to the bombings, I thought he should resign, that it would be better for the Democrats -- not that they make a whole lot of difference these days compared to Republicans. I did not understand my progressive friends who have been rallying to his cause -- I don't see what Clinton ever did for progressives or African-Americans. The bombing is the high crime and misdemeanor. And he's just using the troops as if they're his own little personal hit squad. If it works, it just shows what fools the rest of us are.
David Sedaris, NPR commentator and author of "Naked" and "Holiday on Ice," currently studying French in Paris
I just love the name -- "Operation Desert Fox." It brings to mind a topless pin-up, or what Playboy would call Miss Arizona in the magazine. I think Desert Fox is a much better name than Desert Storm.
This morning in my French class I called Saddam Hussein a lunatic but what I said was "maniac" -- which in French means he wants to keep his house really, really clean. So my teacher corrected me on that.
Ishmael Reed, author
If they remove Clinton, though I was an early critic, I'll be reluctant to vote in future elections. I mean, suppose Mellon Scaife and Falwell and Robertson don't approve of the results? Will we have to go through this again?
I questioned [Clinton's] character right after the first election. I was suspicious of his moralizing about behavior in the inner city, about how African-Americans ought to try to improve their morals. On the other hand, I don't want to live under a theocracy, which is what the [Republicans] seem to have in mind. White countries like the United States seem to find it very easy to bomb third world countries and that's happened throughout history.
It was bound to happen -- that [Republicans like Bob Livingston would admit to having affairs]. I've been seething at the hypocrisy while watching the Judiciary hearings. These people are demanding of Clinton moral standards which they don't live by themselves. I think the right and right-wing groups are so dead-set on getting Clinton that they've cowed the so-called moderates.
David Horowitz, author and Salon columnist
Who knows what's happening? Who knows why this was done? Who knows whether the judgments that went into these decisions were militarily justified and morally sound? And that is precisely the problem.
Anne Lamott, author and Salon columnist
It's so confusing. I don't actually know what I think. I'm a Clinton supporter and I'm totally opposed to war. I love to see the consternation on the faces of the Republicans. It was such a brilliant coyote-trickster thing for Bill to do. It's fun to watch the Republicans' suppressed rage because usually they take so much pleasure in things militaristic. I know I don't believe in war and that if this were a Republican who had behaved the same way Bill Clinton behaved I'd be up in arms. If it were Newt Gingrich or George Bush I'd be really sickened. And if it were George Bush or Newty Gingrich who had had his way with Monica Lewinsky and then gone to war the day before impeachment proceedings, I would take to the streets.
Saddam is heinous, like Richard Allen Davis, who killed Polly Klaas. You basically think they should be issued suicide tablets and coerced into taking them, although you don't actually support capital punishment. I feel the same way about Saddam as I do toward Davis. You don't get to sanction their murder, you don't get to take them out, but I tell you -- the more I read about what UNSCOM knows about Iraq, then I really do think, Bomb! Bomb! Bomb! though at heart I'm really opposed to war. I find it all as confusing as shit.
Camille Paglia, author and Salon columnist
I was absolutely horrified by the timing of the bombing of Iraq. I have been calling for the censure and not impeachment of Clinton since January and indeed may have been the first national columnist to mention the word "censure." I called my congressman -- one of the wavering moderate Republicans -- to support censure this week. Therefore I was all the more disgusted by the grotesque timing of the bombing raids on the eve of impeachment. I think that it is very fishy indeed, and that this simply confirms that the missile attacks Clinton ordered from Martha's Vineyard this summer were similarly oddly timed to coincide with politically embarrassing events in Washington.
Whether or not Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who deserves to be bombed into the Stone Age is a matter that should be agreed upon by the family of nations. President Bush's decision to commit our armed forces to the war against Iraq was strengthened by the coalition of nations supporting American firepower. In this case we are painfully isolated in the eyes of the world with Tony Blair -- Clinton's wanna-be double -- tagging along like the kid brother on an outing. You cannot demonstrate the rule of international law by breaking international law. What message are we sending to the world at large? How are we poisoning the Arab world against us for generations to come? What is the real motivation of these bombings? Iraq poses no threat whatever to American security. Even a present danger to the oil fields cannot be substantiated. Indeed, the president isn't even attempting to make the claims in terms of American commercial interests, which are controversial in and of themselves on ethical grounds.
Why is it that American tax dollars are being wasted in this military exercise when there are so many pressing matters of social concern at home, from the declining state of urban education to health care to care of the elderly? I am not a pacifist. I believe in war for a just cause. World War II, for example, was a just war. Without American involvement Hitler would have gone on to destroy England and rule the world. I would have been proud to serve in the military. However, I regard this bombing, which has been pulled out of a hat like a rabbit, as completely unjustified on all grounds. Despite the positive end results of weakening Saddam Hussein's military infrastructure, there are innocent Iraqi citizens who are suffering injury, death or loss of property from a decision made in Washington, immorally hastened on political grounds. This should be a cause of profound embarrassment to citizens in the United States.
Get Salon in your mailbox!