To: Condoleeza, Special Advisor to The Bush Campaign, Austin, Texas
From: Doris, Special Correspondent to The Bush Watch, Des Moines, Iowa
Let's face it, girlfriend. Some smart chicks like to date dumb guys--the puppyish, butt-slappin', high-fivin' boys who think "eloquence" means
getting married without checking with Dad first. Others of us get week at the knees in the presence of a man who can quote Alexis de Tocqueville from
memory and whose idea of a public display of subtle, suggestive lasciviousness is to loosen his tie and take off his glasses. You've got Bush, I've
got Nader. If it were only a question of which one we'd rather marry, we could carry on this conversation in private. But you're working really hard
to see to it that your dumb jock gets to be President of the United States, and you're giving him ideas about what constitutes a sane foreign and
defense policy. My guy certainly does listen to people at the grassroots--female ones, no less--but you know he doesn't have to rent smart chicks
like us to do his thinking and talking for him. So we're going to have to have this discussion out in the open, since if your guy wins, you'll be
President. And Condi, honey, if this is your idea of a sane defense policy, I'm not voting for you, no matter how much I'd like to see a woman of
color in the White House.
Condi, you're famous for being able to 'splain things to Dubya in a way he can grasp. You've been discussing video games with him again, haven't
you? You told him that if he agrees to decommission more of the old nuclear arsenal--the "Pong" of high-tech weaponry--he could upgrade to Nintendo
64, didn't you? Here's what the Game Boy said on the campaign trail the other day:
"It's not enough to make incremental improvements on existing (weapons) systems. . . . Our mission is to design and develop quantum-leap weapons,
weapons that will dominate the battlefields of the future, weapons that will allow America to redefine how war is fought and won, and therefore allow
this great nation to redefine how the peace is kept. . . . The best way to keep the peace is not to match every conceivable threat weapon for weapon
or division for division, but to redefine war on our terms. That means giving United States troops the technological superiority that they need to
prevail."
Condi, did you write that for him? Did you really tell him that with a flick of the joystick, he can wipe out the old scores and start a new game,
this time with even cooler weapons? Did you tell him that if the Pentagon only had smarter bombs, it wouldn't matter if the Commander-in-Chief were
dumber than a box of rocks?
Condi, surely you know that for all the billions that have been blown on the Strategic Defense Initiative, not even one preliminary test has turned
out to be an unqualified success without faking the data. Surely you know that even the Department of Defense had to admit after Shrub's Daddy's
little war that it had grossly deceived us about the effectiveness of those Patriot missiles, and that once again we need to stop confusing cool TV
graphics, CNN style, with reality. Surely you know that our military helicopters have had this bad habit lately of getting more expensive, more
technologically sophisticated, and more likely to crash and burn and kill all the passengers than they used to. Surely you know that promising the
Pentagon $20 billion over five years for "new weapons research" is, given its history of accountability, cost control, and arms-length relationships
with defense contractors, tantamount to stealing $20 billion from the taxpayers and handing it over to GE and Boeing and the rest of the
military-industrial complex.
So what are you up to? After the disgusting spectacle last year of the Republican-controlled Congress killing the last great arms control treaty
because they just hate Clinton, have you decided that the only way to get any reasonable reduction in the nuclear arsenal is to bribe these boys with
more terrifyingly dangerous, environmentally lethal Pentagon pork? Your boy said that his Nintendo weapons policy would "improve the morale" of the
U.S. military. Do you really think it is a fair and reasonable thing that responsible arms control has to be held hostage to the entertainment needs
of Bush and his technophile army buddies? Do you really think that the foot soldiers on food stamps are going to be jumping up and down when they see
the defense contractors get richer by $20 billion?
It's weird, Condi. When Bush talks about education, he zeroes in on the issue of accountability, and refuses to part with any tax dollars to the
schools until they've passed the tests without cheating. When he talks about the environment, he warns us that there are still three scientists left
who aren't sure that global warming has really been proven scientifically to be a problem. When he talks about Social Security, he says the
government can't be trusted with our money, because the bureaucracy has a habit of frittering it away. Now that we're talking about defense policy,
though, there is no accountability, there is no scientific evidence, and there is no hesitation in funneling billions into the biggest corporate
welfare agency of all time, the DOD.
Condi, if you want to date a good-looking glad-handing doofus, I say more power to you. I am a thoroughgoing libertarian when it comes to what
consenting adults do with their own personal lives (another problem I have with your guy). But if you're going to try to turn him into something
vaguely presidential, you are going to have to deal with the inevitable problem of making a rich draft-dodging slacker sound like something other than
an incoherent boob when he advocates nuclear reduction on one hand and missile defense proliferation on the other. I really think you ought to try to
find a surrogate for your political ambitions who doesn't have to have it all explained in video game language. I know about a million moms--not to
mention the rest of the world outside America the Dominator--who have a little bit of a problem with the idea that the solution is always cooler
weapons.