FREE THOUGHTS

OPINIONS WE
COULDN'T KEEP
TO OURSELVES



Bill's Baghdad Bombing
Prompted by Politics, Popularity

Two months ago, we listed 37 reasons why President Clinton deserved our support. From approving Oregon's progressive health care plan to lifting the abortion counseling "gag rule" in federally funded clinics, Clinton earned our approval.

I even went on KIRO-AM one Sunday evening in June and, up against a Clinton-bashing talk show host, a Perot organizer and a moderate Republican, I stuck to my guns and defended the president's record. While on the air, I wrote off much of the reputed opposition to Clinton's policies to the bloodthirsty White House press corps.

During the talk show, KIRO's TV and FM signals mysteriously went off the air. Then all the clocks in the studio started going backwards. I should have taken it as a sign.

My defense of Clinton has grown tougher to maintain in recent weeks. Bailing on Lani Guinier, caving in on several key budgetary policies and ignoring the growing congressional support for a single-payer health-care system come to mind as the most annoying examples of a president too quick to compromise and too reactive to public-opinion insta-polls.

Ironically, these disappointments somehow took the surprise out of his decision to renew the bombing of Iraq. The real disappointment lies in how unsurprising the decision really was.

His Memorial Day booing at the Vietnam Memorial no doubt served to make the bombing more politically necessary for our draft-dodging president. The bombing was as blatantly political as George Bush's whining about Saddam Hussein up until his last campaign appearance last November.

When the bombs dropped on Baghdad June 26, a Kuwaiti court had not even decided whether the Iraqis suspected of trying to assassinate Bush were


The bombing was as blatantly political
as George Bush's whining about
Saddam Hussein up until his last
campaign appearance last November.


indeed guilty. Clinton, with Republican refugee David Gergen bending his ear, clearly decided that more bombing would mean the preservation of a few percentage points in the popularity polls.

That said, we have no choice but to condemn the Clinton administration for bombing Baghdad based on unsubstantiated evidence of a crime that apparently never came close to actually being committed. We do so in the name of morality and humanity, considerations that apparently led 23 percent of Americans to oppose the bombing in a poll taken the day after it was carried out.

Packing the roles of judge, jury and executioner into the tips of 23 half-ton Tomahawk missiles, Clinton destroyed more than just a Baghdad neighborhood and the lives of eight Iraqi civilians - including a famous Arab artist. He blasted away judicial and human-rights standards to which the United States holds its own citizens, and to which Clinton intends to hold China when reviewing its most-favored nation trading status a year from now.

The fact that Clinton administration officials admitted they had no direct evidence linking Saddam to the alleged Bush-assassination conspiracy makes the bombing embarrassingly unjustified. In ordering the attack, Clinton sidestepped peaceful resolutions that could have been achieved through the United Nations or the International Court of Justice. (In the '80s, the Court of Justice found the U.S. in violation of international law for its war against the government of Nicaragua. Was this reason enough for Clinton to steer clear?)

Clinton was as unconvincing in trying to justify the bombing as Bush was in rationalizing attacks on Panama and Iraq, and Reagan was in defending military actions in Nicaragua and Grenada. Now, with U.N. weapons inspectors pulling out of Iraq, observers are speculating that another large-scale attack might be in the works.

More than ever, Clinton needs to be reminded who elected him in the first place. It's time for a reality check in the White House.

-Mark Worth


Please see a reader response to this article.


Fashion ... to Die For

Flipping channels a few weeks ago, I came across the Montel Williams show. Topic of discussion: women's fashion. When I tuned in, several panelists - all mothers of young ladies - were bemoaning their daughters' choice of clothing: big, baggy men's shirts, untucked and buttoned to the neck; oversized jeans and clunky men's shoes or combat boots.

The ensemble was unfeminine, declared one mother. "It just looks sloppy," said another caring mom. By the end of the show, the errant fashion violators were given a complete girlish makeover and everyone was happy (except, of course, the young ladies).

When we were young, the moms were saying, we took pride in our appearance; we were well-groomed and we wore dresses. What no one on the program thought to mention was that times have changed, Mother, and these days it's considerably less of a color-coordinated event to be a woman than when you were a girl.

Sure, unisex and androgynous dressing is in these days. Part of the reason, I think, is that fashion is co-opted from gays and lesbians (after all, it is 1993, the Year of the Queer). I've noticed some lesbians who, understandably, "butch it up" a bit so they are less likely to be gay-bashed or hassled by bigots while having the nerve to appear in public holding hands with their lovers (which reminds me of my personal favorite entry in the recent Seattle Gay Pride parade: Women Frequently Mistaken for Men in Public Restrooms).

But not one person on that talk show, not even the young women, considered the possibility that the clothing might be intentionally concealing jiggling breasts, swinging hips, in hopes of getting from Point A to Point B alive.

These days, young women are verbally accosted, stalked, molested, mugged, sexually abused, kidnapped, beaten, raped, killed and/or chopped up by the hundreds of thousands every year. According to the U.S. Department of Justice Statistics Resource Center, almost 4,700 women were murdered in 1991 alone - about one every two hours - and those are just the murders police know about. Between 1985 and 1991, some 32,000 women were murdered. These numbers don't reflect the number of women who were only sexually assaulted, raped, beaten or attacked, the ones who escaped being murdered.

Consider the following excerpt from Susan Faludi's 1991 bestseller, "Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women":

Outside in the theater's lobby [where the
1987 release Fatal Attraction is playing],
the teenage ushers sweep up candy wrappers
and exchange furtive quizzical glances as their
elders' bellows trickle through the padded doors.
"I don't get it really," says Sabrina Hughes, a
high school student who works the Coke machine
and finds the adults' behavior "very weird," an
anthropological event to be observed from a safe
distance. "Sometimes I like to sneak into the theater
in the last 20 minutes of the movie. All these men
are screaming 'Beat that bitch! Kill her off now!'
The women, you never hear them say anything.
They are all just sitting there, real quiet."


Faludi's message: women are consistently, intentionally, shut out of political, economic and decision-making processes, yet we are the first ones to blame when things go wrong. This blame, which accounts for the inexcusably high number of acts of violence against women, is also being translated into the latest cycle of women's fashion designed to make them appear to be weak, helpless, vulnerable, doe-eyed sex objects - easy targets for knife-wielding, gun-carrying, hate-filled, unemployed Rambo psychos who believed it when Republicans said the male workers lost their jobs because more women are entering the workplace.

I really begin to worry about the status of women when I pick up a New York Times Weekly magazine, as I did a few weeks ago, and the cover story is titled "Rape Hype Undermines Feminism," by Katie Roiphe. Like we need any help undermining feminism these days, especially from another woman. The backlash continues ...

Being a woman these days carries no keen sense of pride. The male concept of our sexuality - slut - is constantly shoved down our throats like an unwilling blowjob. Thin is perpetually in; women pay the price of keeping their Goddess-given curves at bay with anorexia nervosa, bulimia, and tobacco and amphetamine addiction to achieve the "innocent childlike street waif" look once again gaining popularity.

And a return to platform shoes! Ladies, what are we thinking?! In the late '60s/early '70s, when platforms first became All The Rage, women weren't being stalked, raped and killed at the rate we are today. I've seen young Seattle women struggle in these monstrosities to try and walk, let alone run - fashion victims, in more than one sense of the word.

One of my favorite girl-bands, Chia Pet, sums it up: "Does this skirt look like I'm asking for it? I don't mean to be asking for it. I'm just walking down the street, minding my own business. I'm just trying to be a girl."

Those sloppy jeans are shapeless for a reason, Mom. It's a great big mean sloppy world out here and women these days have to do whatever it takes to get through it alive. A little free wardrobe tip of my own, girlfriends: refuse to be intimidated, refuse to hide your sexuality, get yourself some Mace and stop wearing those hideous, cumbersome, crippling platform shoes. No fashion is worth dying for.

- Andrea Helm


[
Home] [This Issue's Directory] [WFP Index] [WFP Back Issues] [E-Mail WFP]

Contents on this page were published in the July/August, 1993 edition of the Washington Free Press.
WFP, 1463 E. Republican #178, Seattle, WA -USA, 98112. -- WAfreepress@gmail.com
Copyright © 1993 WFP Collective, Inc.