Jewish World Review March 21, 2003 / 17 Adar II, 5763
They just wouldn't shut up!
In the tense hours before military action, as the countdown clock was ticking, eyes turned to the Persian Gulf and all the world held its breath.
Too bad some people kept on talking.
There was Sen. Tom Daschle, standing by this week's "saddened, saddened" soliloquy in which he declared President Bush had "failed so miserably at diplomacy that we're now forced to war." And to think, he might as well have added, after all that Iraq and France have done for us.
This "saddened, saddened" speech, by the way, is not to be confused with last fall's "outrageous, outrageous" address in which Mr. Daschle accused President Bush of politicizing the debate over Iraq. (Which, of course, was -- give it a whispery sibilance -- "outrageous, outrageous.") By now, it seems, the senate minority leader has passed the point of outrage, outrage. And he is additionally, but singly, "saddened," as he said, that "we have to give up one life because this president couldn't create the kind of diplomatic effort that was so critical for our country."
What hateful, shameful words. Mr. Daschle articulated neither strategic disagreement, nor respectable political dissent; instead, he baselessly accused an American president of compromising the lives of American military men and women on what was the very brink of battle.
Mr. Daschle also made no sense. The diplomacy that "failed" was designed to swell the ranks, via the United Nations Security Council, of the international coalition arrayed against Saddam Hussein. France will be France, of course, and U.N. solidarity against the Iraqi despot crumbled like some of the cheeses I'm not buying these days. Which leaves us with a measly 35 nations supporting our "unilateral" war effort against Iraq. If it gets any more unilateral than that, Mr. Daschle will probably say we're piling on.
Not to be forgotten was Bill Clinton's argument last week that weapons inspections never had a chance. I would agree, only not for the same reasons. These latest inspections were doomed from the start, the ex-president said, not because of Saddam Hussein's obstructionism and deception -- or France's, for that matter -- but because of the United States'. Sending troops to the gulf after the U.N. Security Council passed the 17th resolution in 12 years requiring Iraq to disarm "convinced everybody we weren't serious about U.N. inspections," Mr. Clinton concluded. "That's how we got into this political mess."
Right. Too bad we didn't follow Mr. Clinton's strategy -- and see Saddam halt weapons inspections as he did in 1998. Meanwhile, wasn't it Hans Blix himself who credited this same troop presence with pumping a little iron into recent inspection efforts?
Not that you want to place much stock in Hans' hunches. After all, here's a man who told MTV he was "more worried about global warming" than war. Just this week, Blix declared that Saddam Hussein would never actually use weapons of mass destruction because that might damage the dictator's reputation. According to Mr. Blix's reasoning, Hussein would lose the public relations war if he threw chemical or biological weapons into battle against U.S.-led troops in Iraq. Even if facing certain death, he went on to say, Hussein would never resort to such weapons. "Some people," Mr. Blix said, "care about their reputations even after death."
I'm wondering about the reputations of the anti-war protesters. With the terror threat level back up to Code Orange, the government has beefed up security at federal buildings, military compounds, power plants, reservoirs, oil companies, stock exchanges -- all likely targets of terrorist sympathizers with Iraq, Al Qaeda and other jihadist groups. Funny thing, or, maybe, not-so-funny thing: These are the same targets of the anti-war Left.
As the anti-war strategy shifts "from protest to resistance," as one protester put it, Fox News reported on a list of "70 economic and other targets in (San Francisco) alone, including power plants, water systems, the Federal Reserve, oil companies, the Pacific Exchange and the Transamerica Building." The plan, organizers said, is to "shut down the financial district of San Francisco."
This couldn't please America's enemies more. And why? Many anti-war groups are funded by foes of the U.S. government. Not in Our Name is financed by a group that not only supports Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, but, as Fox News also reported, once sponsored a group headed by Sami Al-Arian, the Florida professor recently charged with terrorist activities. A.N.S.W.E.R., another prominent coordinating anti-war organization, is a front group for the Workers World Party, a Marxist booster of North Korea's mad dictatorship. Suddenly, reports of protesters' plans to disrupt U.S. military installations, for example, fall into sinister, political place.
At Camp Vandenburg Air Force Base in California, authorities have already said they would use deadly force, if necessary, to protect the base. Deadly force, if necessary, in deadly times.
Enjoy this writer's work? Why not sign-up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
JWR contributor Diana West is a columnist and editorial writer for the Washington Times. Comment by clicking here.
03/10/03: Sorry apologies for speaking the truth
03/03/03: The Eurabian alliance
02/24/03: Searching for good news
02/18/03: Love and honor -- lost, found and murdered
02/03/03: A calm that causes concern
01/27/03: Playing politics with a T-shirt mentality
01/21/03: When understanding the East means losing the West
01/13/03: Is a war on Jews a war on democracy?
01/06/03: Bush must take a stand on affirmative action
12/30/02: Questions for reflection on 2002
12/16/02: The pre-emptive war goes Hollywood
12/09/02: Protest Augusta? Why not Sudan?
11/25/02: Something to contemplate this Ramadan
11/08/02: Does Eminem now fit in?
11/04/02: No time for gloating
11/04/02: What's in a name when the name is Muhammad?
10/28/02: Jihad as a First Amendment right
10/21/02: When speaking out isn't allowed
10/14/02: Terrorism in Maryland and abroad
09/30/02: So long urgency, hello indulgence
09/24/02: That one, sturdy, missing word
09/17/02: Fingerprinting, finally
09/09/02: When 'healing' overshadows reality
09/04/02: Tales from the Techno Valley and Forest
08/16/02: Elvis shall rise again
08/14/02: War with Iraq won't harm war on terror
08/06/02: Clinton snaps over Somalia
08/01/02: 9-11 anniversary shouldn't come with apology
07/27/02: An unstable common ground
07/25/02: Hillary fights hard for soft money
07/12/02: Goretheus unbound
07/10/02: Rosie takes a shine to Republicans
07/08/02: Are you still shocked, Sami?
07/02/02: Can Britney win hearts of the Middle East?
06/28/02: A war on terror or Islamists?
06/25/02: Blame the murderer, and the messenger
06/21/02: Up front and personal with Atta
06/18/02: Terrorism at the United Nations
06/11/02: Who's policing the INS?
06/07/02: Spa Gitmo
06/04/02: Can rock gods save the queen?
05/31/02: Hillary's war
05/29/02: Have you forgotten we're at war?
05/24/02: An antiquated luxury of the past
05/21/02: From terrorists to tourists
05/19/02: Hate U.
05/07/02: Western self-loathing numbs us to violence
05/03/02: Pioneering television
05/01/02: Western self-loathing numbs us to violence
04/29/02: It's the misconduct, stupid
04/24/02: Medal of diss-honor
04/17/02: Holy sanctuary or terrorist shield?
04/12/02: Egyptian clerics solicit martyrs for murder
04/09/02: Defining terrorism down
04/05/02: The Wilder life
04/02/02: Acting, equality and the Academy
03/31/02: Speeding to conclusions
03/25/02: Hard to remove blood (libel) stains
03/21/02: The tale of Nixon's tapes --- again
03/19/02: The Big Lie lives on
03/15/02: The tunnel vision of '9/11'
03/13/02: The American Auschwitz?
03/08/02: Hating the indoctrination of hate
03/05/02: Clinton and Enron: Old friends
03/01/02: Pickering doesn't polarize, the process does
02/26/02: Destiny's prefabricated child
02/22/02: The White House heist
02/20/02: Making the grade
02/11/02: Studying student visas
02/06/02: Understanding arrogance
02/04/02: The professor's war
01/29/02: Disconnected dialogue
01/18/02: How much is enough?
01/15/02: Oh brothers, where art thou?
01/10/02: Air on the side of caution
01/04/02: Blacks seeing red at Harvard
01/02/02: Clinton's campaign continues
12/26/01: A tale of two exhibitions
12/24/01: Taliban Idyll
12/19/01: Right is right
12/17/01: Hillary strikes out
12/13/01: Lost files, lost presidency
12/10/01: Revolutionaries never grow up
12/05/01: Immigration reform talk is not just for 'haters' anymore
12/03/01: A new symbol of justice
11/30/01: Beyond morality
11/26/01: Can't keep a good man down
11/20/01: Tough talk at the United Nations
11/19/01: Hollywood's other battle
11/14/01: What's the matter with Sara Jane?
11/09/01: A beef with bin Laden's Beef Noodles
11/07/01: Facing up to the FBI's past mistakes
11/02/01: A school that teaches patriots to shutup
10/30/01: The gap between Islam and peace
10/26/01: The ties that bind (and gag)
10/24/01: This war is more than Afghanistan
10/22/01: The fatuous fatwa
10/19/01: Left out
10/16/01: Whose definition of terrorism?
10/11/01: Post-stress disorder
10/08/01: How the West has won
10/01/01: Good, bad or ... diplomacy
09/28/01: Drawing a line in stone
09/21/01: Prejudice or prudence?
09/14/01: When our dead will finally rest in hallowed ground
09/07/01: We want our #$%^&*() audience back!
08/24/01: The transformation from Green Mountain State to Green Activist State is all but complete
08/17/01: Enlightenment at Yale
08/10/01: From oppressors to victims, a metamorphosis
08/03/01: Opening the dormitory door: College romance in the New Century
08/01/01: How-To Hackdom: The dubious art of writing books about writing books
07/20/01: Hemming about Hemmings
07/13/01: Justice has not been served in the Loiuma police brutality case
06/22/01: When PC parades are too 'mainstream'
06/22/01: When "viewpoint discrimination" in our schools was
not nearly so gnarly a notion
06/15/01: Lieberman flaunts mantle of perpetual aggrievement
06/07/01: Is graciousness the culprit?
06/01/01: The bright side of the Jeffords defection
05/29/01: Campus liberals should be more careful
05/18/01: 'Honest Bill' Clinton and other Ratheresian Logic
05/11/01: Dodging balls, Bugs, and 'brilliance'
05/04/01: Foot in mouth disease and little lost Tories
04/20/01:The last classic Clinton cover-up
04/20/01: D-Day, Schmee-Day
04/06/01: For heaven's sake, a little decency!
03/30/01: The sweet sound of slamming doors and clucking feminists
03/23/01: America's magazines and the 'ick-factor'
03/09/01: Felony neglect
03/02/01: Who's sorry now?
02/23/01: 'Ecumenical niceness' and other latter-day American gifts to the world
02/16/01: Elton and Eminem: Royal dirge-icist meets violent fantasist
02/12/01: If only ...
© 2001, Diana West