The Week - President Bush encourages the Palestinians to change leadership - this and other items are discussed

National Review, July 15, 2002

-- Abby wins!

-- In a speech notable for its frankness, President Bush has told the PaPalestinians that they are victims of their own disastrous leadership. A man corrupt in every sense, Yasser Arafat has committed his people to terror and lawlessness, robbing them of freedom, security, and of course money that ought to be theirs. It is brave to spell out the truth this way. On the condition that the Palestinians get themselves new leadership, the president promises that they will be showered with rewards: a "provisional state" (whatever that strange new animal may be), the end of the Israeli occupation, and, of course, huge donations from those willing to be panhandled as usual. Intractable questions about borders, the status of Jerusalem, and the return of "refugees" are postponed. Nothing is asked of Israel until the Palestinians move in the required direction, and that is wise. Whether this change in the Palestinian polity will come soon, or ever, is open to question, but Bush's new approach has three advantages over the policies of the last decade: It is coherent, it is not morally confused, and it has not already failed.

-- News comes that President Bush directed the CIA to step up its prprogram to topple Saddam Hussein, which is a hopeful sign that Bush is beginning to act on his anti-Saddam rhetoric. But the directive continues the silly policy of pretending to oppose assassination: CIA and special-forces teams can kill Saddam, but only in "self-defense" (presumably if Saddam pulls one of his pistols on them). And CIA covert action is no substitute for a full-fledged invasion that would allow us to control events on the ground, and forge a post-Saddam government that is pluralist, relatively free, and perhaps a model for the rest of the Arab world (including the Palestinians). For that you need not just the CIA, but the Marines.

-- The Bush administration originally insisted that its reorganization ofof security agencies could be accomplished with no increase in federal spending, and maybe even some savings. The $37.4 billion that would go to the new Department of Homeland Security would come from other departments. That hope has quickly faded. With each passing day, it is becoming more apparent that the whole will be bigger, and more expensive, than its parts. The president's point men for the reorganization now allow that costs might go up a bit during the transition period, and that the new functions being given to old agencies might cost more money than they have budgeted. These concessions on costs come before congressional appropriators get to work protecting their turf, which will entail the duplication of functions and programs. As the debate progresses, watch for Democrats to characterize any GOP cost-consciousness as a reckless willingness to gamble with American lives by trying to protect them on the cheap. The administration is seeking to get our borders, intelligence analysis, visas, and transportation security under control. But it is already losing control of the shape of the new department charged with these crucial functions.

-- The "random screening" charade at airport departure gates was memerely absurd for a while, and we all had fun trading stories about 70-year-old nuns being strip-searched. It is no longer possible to laugh at this foolishness. Since it is not practicable to screen everyone, screening should be restricted to persons who have some measurable probability of being hijackers. At an utter minimum, the valuable time of the screeners ought not be wasted on people whose probability of being hijackers is absolutely zero. Ex-vice presidents of the United States, for example. Boarding a flight to Milwaukee at Reagan National Airport, Al Gore was pulled out of line for the full treatment. Then, proceeding from Milwaukee to New York the next day, the ex-VPOTUS was picked out and searched yet again. "He was more than happy, as all Americans are in these troubled times, to cooperate," said a Gore aide. If that is true, then Gore is unfit for public office. Nobody should he happy with this insanity. Anyone who can protest it to any effect should do so, loudly and publicly.

-- You've read the indignant editorials and listened to the angry pupundits, all outraged over Senate majority leader Tom Daschle's decision to shut down the Senate confirmation process in a fit of partisan pique. What, you haven't heard? Well, in truth, there was no media outrage. But there should have been. Starting on May 13, Daschle refused to allow any Bush nominees to clear the Senate. By late June, there were 15 judges, 13 U.S. marshals, two U.S. attorneys, and one Justice Department official -- all of whom had been approved by Sen. Patrick Leahy's Judiciary Committee -- stacked up, awaiting confirmation votes in the full Senate. Daschle refused to let any through, and yet no one -- except a few frustrated Republicans -- seemed to notice. And what did Daschle want? For Republicans to drop their opposition to the federal appointments of two of his friends. In the end, there will likely be a deal, but Republicans know there's just one real solution to the problem: to capture the Senate in November.