March 4, 2003
The other day, I found myself as a guest on a radio talk show here in Tucson. (Think like Rusty Humphries, but it's only an hour long.) I was asked on by its host, a self-proclaimed right-winger who happens to write stuff for the paper that I edit. I was on the show -- so I thought -- to discuss the newspaper, my being new to Tucson and my being (in the minds of many right-wing whackadoos) a commie hippie pinko leftist goober, even though I am not a commie, a hippie, a pinko or a leftist. (Goober is a matter of opinion.)
Like I said -- so I thought.
This talk-show appearance happened shortly after Dan Rather's interview with Saddam Hussein, and the host, Emil, thought it would make for a nice, ice-breaking topic, seeing as I am a "media" guy and all. Whatever that means.
Emil asked me what, in my mind, was a simple, no-brainer question: Should Rather have done the interview with Hussein?
My answer was an emphatic hell yeah. After all, Saddam Hussein isn't exactly holding press conferences on a daily basis or anything -- heck, most of "his" public appearances are made by doubles -- and he hadn't talked to the Western media in years. Plus, seeing as his actions and decisions will determine whether or not we go to war -- at least in theory -- this makes what he says newsworthy.
I said this and immediately became Public Enemy No. 1 in the eyes of Tucson's angry white male talk-radio listeners.
The basic gist of what callers to the talk show had to say: I am a Saddam-loving, anti-American traitor pinko left-wing media whore whose opinions should never see the light of day.
This surprised Emil, who happened to agree with me that Rather should have done the interview. (We did differ on whether or not Rather did a good job during the interview -- I thought that he did fine although he missed a few questions, while Emil felt all he did was throw softballs at Hussein -- but that didn't even come up until after the torrent of callers started.) This led to some interesting moments in which we were simultaneously chiding some of these callers, in a weird union of "leftist" and "right-winger" not seen in recent memory.
What really scared me were the callers who honestly believed that by airing the Hussein interview, Rather and CBS news were acting un-American. Holy Hummer! Last I checked, several of the most beautiful American traits are the freedom of the press and the freedom of speech -- two things these folks seemed to have very little regard for.
I am not one of those folks who derides patriotism. It's good to love your country and your state and your city and your school. It makes for a happier vibe. But blind patriotism? Blind to the point where it's wrong to even listen to what an "enemy" of the country has to say?
Here's a point I made with the callers: Not even the White House disputed that the interview had news value. They were cranky that CBS didn't let them give rebuttals to each of Saddam's points, sure, but they also congratulated Rather on the interview.
Now, having said that, does that mean that everything -- or, for that matter, anything -- that Saddam said is to be trusted? Hell no. Does the fact that he denied being liked to Osama bin Laden mean he is indeed free of such a link? Heck no (although I wish SOMEONE would show us evidence of such a link). Is this going to make a difference in the war decision? If George W. Bush is really as hell-bent on war as he seems to be, certainly not.
But as one of the folks who's made almost as much difference in the world as anybody else over the last several decades, Saddam Hussein talking to the American media is news.
And to all you right-wing droolers who disagree, I have one thing to say: thpppppppth!
Darn, ya gotta love that Constitution this country's built upon, don't ya?
Jimmy Boegle is a fifth-generation Nevadan in exile in Arizona who would
love to see a Bush-Saddam debate. Jimmy's column appears here Tuesdays, and he
can be reached via e-mail at jiboegle@stanfordalumni.org.