Boom time for body-bags.
I am not a fan of press censorship, trust me, but there are some things that
are really just too nasty to be aired on prime time television. No, I'm not
talking about close-up aerial shots of the blood-stained snow around a
crumpled Italian cable car, nothing like that.
What I have found particularly offensive this week is the unrestrained and
in-your-face broadcast of a vomit-inducing love story in and around the
White House. And again, no, I am not talking about Monica Lewinsky. The
subject of my disgust is the Blair/Clinton Mutual Admiration Society.
Give it a break guys, folks are beginning to talk. What is particularly
offensive is the fact that the broad smiles, hugs and handshakes are not in
celebration of some joyous event; the main item on the Blair/Clinton agenda
is war. Sending young men off to die for some pathetic self-inflicted cause
deserves a little solemn dignity, don't you think?
And what's all this talk about appeasement? Justification for reducing
Baghdad to rubble is being explained by using parallels to the 1930's and
the rise of Hitler. Britain and the United States stood shoulder-to-shoulder
to strike down the 'Little Corporal' and banish tyranny from the face of
Europe - or so goes the rhetoric being bandied around the halls of power in
Washington. What utter tripe. At any other time, we Europeans usually get
the line of how America came to our rescue.
Go back to your history books. Hitler managed to manipulate his way into
power by invoking hurt national pride triggered by grossly unfair terms
imposed on the Kaiser's Germany at the end of WWI. A war, by the way, that
was fought on behalf of big business rather than for ideological reasons.
But once in power, 'democratic' governments were falling over themselves to
witness first hand how Italy's Mussolini got the trains to run on time and
marvel at Hitler's autobahns. The Brits even sent members of the Royal
Family to fawn on the fascists. Yes, there are parallels, but all the wrong
bloody ones.
Hitler's Germany was a buffer state - protecting Western Europe from the
threat of Soviet Bolshevism. It did not take a military strategist to see
what was happening in Europe or how powerful Germany was becoming - in
blatant contravention of the WW1 ceasefire terms. Germany was allowed,
encouraged even, to become powerful. If there were some complete idiots in
Washington and London at the time who couldn't see the writing on the wall,
Germany's involvement in the Spanish Civil War really should have given them
some hints. The devastating air-raid on Guernica gave the world a taste of
things to come. There was still time to put the brakes on Hitler's Third
Reich - but it didn't happen. Hitler was still useful.
Germany in those far flung days was a lot like Saddam's Iraq back in 1990.
The 'Butcher of Baghdad' offered a strategically placed buffer between
Iran's fervent Islamic fundamentalism and the rich oil-fields of the Gulf.
And no one was in any doubt about the power Saddam had acquired - in spite
of United Nations, bi-lateral, multi-lateral and uni-lateral laws and
resolutions designed to prevent him from becoming a regional or global
threat. But, maintaining the parallel, if there were any complete morons in
Washington and London at the time who didn't appreciate the danger, the
awful casualties inflicted on the Iraqi Kurds and Iranian army should have
given someone a little cause for concern. But no, the West continued to
trade with and arm Iraq right up to the moment Saddam invaded Kuwait. Just
like it was pretty much business as usual with Berlin until the Wehrmacht
marched into Poland.
There are, I suppose, a few more parallels that could be drawn. While
Britain and France honoured their agreement with Poland to declare war on
Germany, several countries around the world continued to trade with Berlin
and help feed its war-machine. Including, as it happens, the United States.
Back then the so-called 'special relationship' between London and Washington
was perceived to be stronger than it is now - or rather until just before
the Clinton/Blair love-fest. The parallel today is that while two countries
are stacking themselves up against Baghdad, several of their alleged allies
are pulling in the opposite direction.
What really galls is the total avoidability of it all. This deal about
inspectors driving around in their white UN off-roaders having access to
Saddam's private bathroom if they so desired. After several years of this
inspection B.S., if the Security Council still doesn't know what colour
underwear Saddam is wearing, then quite frankly, the guys haven't been doing
their job very effectively. And anyway, what the hell ever happened to good
old fashioned spying?
The bottom line? I guess a lot of people are going to die. Maybe not this
week or even this month, but sooner or later, it is going to end in tears.
Starr's Sewer Pipe to the Press
NEW YORK -- February 6, 1998 -- I was planning on letting Chris Gelken carry the weight of today's Daily Comment, but shortly before I hit the sack last night, the New York Times web site ran the latest leak from from the Independent Counsel's office surrounding the President's personal life. The timing and content stink to high heaven from my vantage point.
The content: the implication of the leak is that one of the President's secretarys, Betty Currie was "put through leading questions" by the President -- but a careful reading of the Times story underlines the fact that all we have to go on was the spun version of Currie's comments without any idea of the full context of the line of questioning. The Independent Counsel's team no doubt put the screws to Currie, taking advantage of a clearly frightened woman, putting her under as much emotional duress as possible. There is also a report that Currie took custody of gifts allegedly given by the President to Lewinsky. Again, the entire story has yet to be told, and the information was leaked in what strikes many as the most damaging way possible - and with a number of questions unanswered about the surrounding circumstances by the leaker and the most damaging and somewaht implausible scenario laid out by a profit-hungry press.
The timing: Kenneth Starr has given Monica Lewinsky a Noon EST deadline to cooperate or suffer the consequences. The leaks regarding Currie are no doubt a "stick" to prod Lewinsky into making a snap decision. They also come at a time of an emerging international crisis concerning Iraq, and have the effect of undermining Presidential authority.
After one gets over the initial but familiar "shock" of more revelations of "wrongdoing" and takes a deep breath, one cannot help but smell something foul about the situation -- but once again the stink emanates from the direction Starr and his cadre, not the Oval Office.
Enough sheet-sniffing -- what we really need is an investigation of the investigator to shed light on the collusion, leaks and unlawful activities of Ken Starr and his staff and cronies.
© 1998, 1997, American Politics Journal Publications Inc.