Barbra Streisand

My Thoughts On Freedom Of Speech
Posted on March 24, 2003

I pray for America's military servicemen and women and their families. I pray that this war is over quickly, that our troops come home safely and that there are few civilian casualties.

I find it tragic that the Bush administration's attempts at diplomacy failed so miserably and have led us to the point of starting a war that might have been avoided.

Thank God the constitution enables all citizens to exercise their freedom of speech to say what they believe. That's what's great about democracy and what's great about this country.

In fact, Theodore Roosevelt said, "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." How dare the media call people who speak out against the war unpatriotic. Exercising freedom of speech is an extremely patriotic act.

I have been arguing that point for many years now, that artists have just as much of a right to speak out as every other citizen. In 1995, I gave a speech at Harvard called the artist as citizen. I made the point then and many times since that artists are citizens first and artists second. We have opinions and ideas, just like anybody else. The difference is that we are given more visibility from which to speak - so we have to be informed and we have to be responsible, but it doesn't mean we have to be quiet.

My Right to Dissent
Posted on Feb. 26, 2003

Several tabloids have been calling celebrities who have been outspoken against the war "traitors" or "friends of Saddam." As I have been grouped into this category, I feel that I need to say something in response to these outrageous accusations. Afterall, these celebrities are American citizens first, and we are thankful to live in this great country that allows us the right to express our opinions.

I, for one, am a patriotic American who loves this country. I love that we live in a democracy where we have freedom of speech, where every person enjoys the right and bears the responsibility to say what he or she believes, and where we enjoy the privilege of having public discussions and debates about the most controversial of issues.

To set the record straight, I think Saddam Hussein is a horrific dictator who should disarm. And I believe we should support the men and women who have been put in harm's way. But I do not think war is the answer right now. I believe there are other ways to disarm Saddam that must be explored before we resort to that most serious of options Ð a costly, deadly war. And I am not alone Ð millions of Americans and people around the world feel the same way I do. Are we all "traitors"?

At specific times in our recent history, our leaders (including Eisenhower, Kennedy and Reagan) , have chosen successful policies of containment over war when our country was faced with weapons of mass destruction... Now is the time for our current president to show the same level of restraint as his predecessors.

P.S. It used to be in politics that there was a certain amount of class and eloquence. The debate was civilized even though there were strong disagreements over deeply important questions. But, as usual, the Republicans have resorted to name-calling and mean-spiritedness. It's interesting how the actors that are criticized for their political activism always happen to be Democrats... The press does not criticize Republican actors Ronald Reagan, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Charlton Heston for expressing their strongly-held political opinions.

My Thoughts Today (Regarding Iraq and the Economy)
Posted on Feb. 20, 2003

A few things caught my eye this past weekend...among them:

Condoleezza Rice on Meet the Press: Condoleezza Rice wants us to believe that one of the reasons for invading Iraq is to save the poor Iraqi people who are being persecuted by Saddam Hussein. But what about our own soldiers and Iraqi civilians who will be killed in the process?

Ms. Rice knows the real reason we are invading Iraq right now, she just doesn't want to say it because it doesn't sound quite as noble as saving the Iraqi people. The real reasons are:

1) OIL: Ms. Rice used to have an oil tanker named after her. And she used to be on the corporate board of Chevron...so she knows the importance Iraq plays in terms of access to oil. And she knows what the oil companies stand to gain if we get rid of Saddam.

2) DISTRACTION: The War on Terrorism has not been as successful as President Bush has stated, and he is feeling pressure to do something, even if that something has nothing to do with actually fighting terrorism! The Bush administration thinks they can fool us into thinking they have the terrorism situation under control by going after Saddam, when all they are doing is exacerbating the problem by creating more outrage against the United States from potential terrorists.

Osama bin Laden's Statement: The media made it look like Osama bin Laden's most recent statement showed proof of a link between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein...ignoring the fact that in the statement, when bin Laden asked the Muslim people to rise up against the United States, he also told the Iraqi people to rise up against Saddam. In bin Laden's statement, he expressed solidarity with the Muslim civilians of Iraq and the Middle East, not with Saddam Hussein.

Our Economy: President Bush's "economic growth" idea (i.e. a tax cut for the rich) has been widely panned. Most experts agree that it will do nothing productive for the short-term and will only hurt us long term. Even Alan Greenspan, who has thus far gone along with the Bush administration, spoke out against the tax cut plan and its negative implications.

It used to be that the government got involved in job growth itself, by creating jobs for the unemployed. Now, more than ever, our infrastructure needs help. Nearly every bridge and many highways need work...homeland security is also an enormous need. Rather than give rich people a tax cut and hope they create new jobs and don't just pocket the money, why not spend that money employing out-of-work Americans by rebuilding our infrastructure - that would kill two birds with one stone!

The FBI: It seems that every week there is a new regulation or piece of legislation that is being considered that would further impede on our right to privacy and our civil rights. By continually lowering the threshold to justify warrants, the FBI can now go after people based on little more than rumor and suspicion - destroying innocent lives in the process.

Some Questions to Think About (Before Going to War)...
Posted on Feb. 6 , 2003

I wrote these questions in September, 2002, but never put them on my website. I think they are still relevant questions and are worth considering:

1. How many body bags does the military expect to send home to America?

2. What is the cost of the war in billions of dollars? One advisor to the president estimates the war would cost up to $200 billion, but he was quickly replaced by a more conservative successor.

3. Are there estimates for how long American troops would have to stay there? Are they remotely realistic? A lot of knowledgeable people predict a very long and expensive haul.

4. What are the costs in civilian lives and social and environmental destruction (i.e. is Saddam going to burn oil fields again)?

5. How much of this war is about oil?

6. How much of this war is a vendetta against "the man who tried to kill my dad"?

7. Why now? For 11 years (without attacking the United States) Saddam Hussein has been defying U.N. resolutions, as many countries have. Since writing these questions last September, the international community is now faced with a prime example of this situation, with North Korea defying multilateral nuclear proliferation treaties. The Bush administration’s response has been a policy of containment. Why the double standard? Could this be because North Korea doesn’t have oil?

8. If we preemptively attack Iraq, will Iraq strike Israel who will then retaliate, leading to the Arab world responding, which will set off the powder keg in the entire Middle East and will disrupt the continuity of some Arab nations Mr. Bush counts among his allies?

9. Is there really an alliance between Iraq and Al Qaeda, since one society is secular and one is fundamentalist? (I've read that bin Laden had issued a Fatwa calling Hussein an apostate who needs to be destroyed.)

10. What is the responsibility of a powerful nation to follow the rule of international law? ... We should be setting an example for the rest of the world.

11. Will Hussein give weapons of mass destruction to Al Qaeda? (I’ve read Hussein would be afraid to ... because if Al Qaeda obtained weapons of mass destruction, one of their first targets would be Iraq).

12. What will be the increased terrorist threat to the United States as a result of going to war with Iraq?

1998 George Bush, Sr. Statement Regarding Iraq
Posted on Jan. 31, 2003

This is a statement from George Bush, Sr. and National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft's co-authored book, A World Transformed, written in 1998 (chapter 19, page 489) that is incredibly relevant right now. Former President Bush and Scowcroft reflect on why the United States did not try to remove Saddam Hussein from power at the end of the Gulf War:

"Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have ... incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, there was no viable 'exit strategy' we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different and perhaps barren outcome."

Thoughts On Iraq
Posted on Jan. 31, 2003

Bush's explanation in his State of the Union speech for why we need to attack Iraq right now was unconvincing. Here are a couple of questions that have not been answered:

Where is the link between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein? Not only has the Bush administration given us zero evidence of a connection, but many experts think that a connection is unlikely given the fact that one society is secular and the other is fundamentalist... There is no reason to think that they are on the same side, fighting for the same cause.

Is the fact that Saddam Hussein has violated a United Nations resolution really a justified reason for going to war? Many countries have violated specific U.N. resolutions and not provoked war. A prime and very current example of that is North Korea, which has violated U.N. resolutions and treaties as they pursue a nuclear arms program, but which we feel we can contain through diplomacy. Could this be because they don't have oil?

Here are some recent articles from prominent foreign policy experts that explain more about why I am opposed to this war right now:

"Empty Promises" New York Times editorial:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/31/opinion/31FRI1.html

Stephen Pelletiere: "A War Crime or an Act of War?" New York Times:
www.nytimes.com/2003/01/31/opinion/31PELL.html

"Butler: U.S. Guilty of ÔDouble Standards' on Iraq", Rueters:
www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=2125958

"The True War is with Phantoms": by Shibley Telhami:
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/suncommentary/la-oe-telhami2feb02,0,114226.story?coll=la%2Dheadlines%2Dsuncomment

"Paying for War" by Bill Moyers:
http://www.pbs.org/now/commentary/moyers18.html

"An Alternative to War" by Jimmy Carter:
http://www.cartercenter.org/viewdoc.asp?docID=1165&submenu=news

"Bush Doesn't Want Good News" by Robert Scheer:
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030127&s=scheer20030114

"War is Not Yet Necessary" by Jessica Matthews:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52631-2003Jan27.html

"The Sketch: Blair Astonishes Onlookers with a Frank Answer to Parliament's Grey Beards" by Simon Carr:
http://argument.independent.co.uk/regular_columnists/simon_carr/story.jsp?story=371597

Thank You, Antiwar Protesters
Posted on Jan. 22, 2003

It was great to see the turnout for the antiwar rallies across the country this past weekend, and the strong media coverage of those rallies that followed. On Saturday, Washington saw the largest protest in the capitol since the Vietnam era, with additional protests taking place in San Francisco, Portland, Tampa and around the world. In addition to these large-scale protests, the lack of a consensus for a war was underscored by such diverse segments of our society as labor unions, Republican business leaders (who recently took out a full page ad in the Wall Street Journal opposing the war) and the nuns in Los Angeles who staged their own, smaller protest on Saturday. The Bush Administration would like us to think that there is unanimous support for a war against Iraq, but the rallies this weekend showed us that there is a strong antiwar sentiment growing in this country.

The hundreds of thousands of Americans that protested on Saturday were clearly just a small representation of the millions who weren't able to protest but who similarly don't support war in Iraq right now. A new Newsweek poll found that an overwhelming majority of Americans (60 to 35%!) are actually opposed to the war ... hopefully we will no longer be a "silent majority."

Time and again we have learned that the voices of the people can change the course of history. The people are speaking out, and it finally looks like they are starting to be heard.

Bush Leaves Children Behind
Posted on Jan. 13 , 2003

It has long been understood that the only way to create a fair society is to give each child an equal chance at success ... The Bush administration understands this rhetoric, and even stole the Children Defense Fund's "Leave No Child Behind" motto for last year's education bill. However, as the Children Defense Fund's website points out, Bush's policies would more appropriately be entitled, "Leave No Millionaire Behind." Bush has done more than any president in our history to ensure that poor children never rise out of poverty.

How cynical is this? Last year, Bush held a major signing ceremony where he took full credit for his own No Child Left Behind Act. And then, just a few days ago, on the anniversary of the act, Bush again praised himself for what he called "the most meaningful education reform, probably ever." What he failed to point out at that press conference is that his new budget strips the bill of nearly all of its authorized increases for education spending to help children, especially the low-income children forced to attend low-performing schools that need the money the most. While the signing of the bill got front page coverage in every major newspaper for the gains made in education spending and policy, Bush's recent cuts have been buried in small articles in the back pages. It is this cynical strategy that Bush has repeatedly employed - he is counting on us not to notice the details, the substance and the truth behind the rhetoric. The truth is that Bush's proposed budget for this fiscal year cuts $7.1 billion from the No Child Left Behind Act, all of that coming out of the program designed to help children from low-income homes. So in fact, low-income children will not actually be helped by this "significant and meaningful legislation" after all. So why doesn't the press talk about the details?

And where is that $7.1 billion that was supposed to be spent on education for low-income children going? To tax cuts for the rich...Under Bush's costly 2001 tax cut, over a ten year period more than half of the $1.3 trillion cuts will be pocketed by the richest 1% - that's almost half a trillion dollars! And now, taking advantage of the public's desire for the president to do something about our country's economic problems, Bush not only proposes to make that tax cut permanent, but to create an additional tax cut for stockholders that will cost $600 billion over a period of time, with few immediate benefits to help people struggling through a recession. Undoubtedly, it's poor families and children that will have to take the burden of these benefits so clearly targeted to the wealthy, as state and federal social programs continue to be cut due to a rising deficit and a seemingly inevitable war.

Why should we be surprised? As governor of Texas, Bush took the state's largest surplus and turned it into a budget shortfall by giving tax breaks to his rich friends and supporters. Meanwhile, he left one million children without school lunches by simply failing to implement the $33 million federal school nutrition program. A leopard doesn't change his spots. Though he may put on a good show, Bush as president, like Bush as governor, just wants to reward his rich contributors and doesn't care about the children he's leaving behind.

My Thoughts Today: Judges and the Environment
Posted on Dec. 10 , 2002

If environmental protection, reproductive choice and protection of our civil liberties were not enough reasons to care about the judicial appointment process, yesterday we were given one more lesson ...

In a case that highlights the layers of conflicts of interest inherent in the Bush administration, Judge John Bates, appointed by President Bush to the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia, ruled that the General Accounting Office, the Congressional investigative arm, does not have the right to access information about Vice President Dick Cheney's secret meetings that formulated the president's energy plan. We already know that the energy plan, which called for expanding oil and gas drilling on public land and easing regulatory barriers to build nuclear power plants, came directly out of conversations with leading officials in the energy and oil industries, including representatives of Enron. What was said at those secret meetings, however, we may now never know.

This ruling is a clear effort on the part of a Bush judicial appointee to protect the vice-president and the president from any appearance of wrong-doing. Now that the Republicans are in control, there is little hope that, for the next few years anyway, we can rely on our Congress to prevent appointments of such judges who will forgo judicial fairness to protect the president's interests.

Judge John Bates wrote that the lawsuit filed by the Comptroller General David Walker on behalf of the GAO was an "unprecedented act." Talk about unprecedented: The ruling from the conservative Supreme Court that unfairly gave us this president was certainly unprecedented! And let's look at what anti-environmental actions that president has taken most recently:

- After refusing to sign the Kyoto Treaty to prevent global warming, the president now seems willing to admit that global warming may actually exist. Well ... duh! 20 years worth of scientific research isn't enough for him? Apparently not, for President Bush is now calling for five more years of research into the causes of global warming and possible responses - an obvious stalling tactic. The only thing five more years of research will give us is more polluting cars and power plants that contribute to the problem of global warming.

- The Bush administration went to court in California recently to support a lawsuit by car companies to strike down California's new law that requires car companies to develop and sell zero emission vehicles (hybrids, fuel cell and electric-powered cars). This lawsuit shows that the Bush administration will go to any length to defend corporate interests over environmental protection and human health.

On Homeland Security
Posted on Nov. 21, 2002

While we are all rooting for President Bush to win the War on Terrorism, it is important that we know the facts about the homeland and national security debate. The assertion that Democrats are not committed to homeland and national security is ludicrous and is a perfect example of the ability of the Republican spin machine to distort the issues. In fact, a little history is in order:

Before September 11th, Bush and his advisors did not pay enough attention to the possibility of a large-scale terrorist attack. Bush's National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice has said she could have never predicted such an attack, despite warnings of the French, Israeli and American intelligence communities. On August 6th, 2001, the CIA sent Bush a memo warning of possible al Qaeda plane hijackings. So why was there no increase in airport security, including reinforced bullet-proofed cockpits? At the time of the presidential transition, Clinton's National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, made it very clear to Ms. Rice that her greatest concern should be Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda terrorism network. If that terrorism threat had remained a high level of priority in all levels of government, could these attacks have been prevented? We may never be able to answer that question. The purpose is not to assign blame but simply to point out that Republican leaders have not proved themselves to be more effective protectors of Homeland Security, as they would have the American people believe.
Seven months before the terrorist attacks, the Bush administration ignored a detailed report co-authored by former Senators Gary Hart and Warren Rudman, co-chairing the United States Commission on National Security, that warned of possible terrorist attacks, including “a weapon of mass destruction in a high-rise building.” The report outlined a detailed blueprint for how to make America safer that included, among other suggestions, a plan for the creation of a National Homeland Security Agency. The Bush administration disregarded the report, despite momentum from Congress to implement the plan. On May 5, 2001, the White House announced it would instead form its own committee, headed by Dick Cheney, to look into security concerns and produce a report in October of that year.
On September 10th, 2001, Attorney General John Ashcroft rejected the FBI's request for a $58 million increase for their counterterrorism budget to pay for 149 new counterterrorism field agents, 200 intelligence analysts and 54 additional translators. He did that despite the fact, discovered later by a Congressional investigation, that the FBI had only one analyst monitoring al Qaeda! In that same budget, Ashcroft proposed cutting $65 million for state and local counterterrorism grants. In lists of priorities issued from the Justice Department between May 10th and August 9th, 2001, and analyzed by The New York Times, counterterrorism was never once mentioned as a priority. Like the other intelligence agencies, the FBI had a severe shortage of Arabic translators before September 11th – a clear indication that the Justice Department did not take the terrorist threat seriously.
When President Bush first proposed the idea of a homeland security coordinator, the Democrats countered at that time with a proposal calling for a full Department of Homeland Security. In fact, Democratic Senator Joseph Lieberman proposed a bill back in October, 2001 to create a Department of Homeland Security that would have given homeland security advisor Tom Ridge cabinet-level status. At that time, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, in a statement summarized in The New York Times, explained what a “disruptive, politically impossible government reorganization would be required if Congress gave Mr. Ridge cabinet status and tried to create a new homeland security agency that would subsume current departments.” Now the Republicans have the gall to accuse the Democrats of delaying implementation of the very idea that the Democrats proposed over a year ago and the Republicans opposed at that time.
Just a few months ago, Bush cancelled $5.1 billion approved by the Congress for emergency homeland security spending. This money would have gone to nuclear security improvements, port protection, airport security, the Secret Service to combat electronic crimes, law enforcement resources for state and local governments, FBI counterterrorism efforts and information technology enhancement, urban reserve and rescue teams, cybersecurity improvements to protect our economy, food and water security, border security, dam and reservoir security and the Customs Service to increase inspections, among other areas of homeland security spending.
The Republicans initially tried to block an investigation into events leading up to September 11th and the preparation of government agencies for that large- scale attack. This major event in American history deserves clear and independent research so that we can understand what happened in order to prevent such a disaster from occurring again. This bill was passed only after enormous pressure from the victims' families.

What this brief timeline shows us is how important it is right now, with the Republicans controlling the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives, to have a strong, independent press to ask the serious questions and do sophisticated analysis of the issues. We know the Republicans will try to spin everything to their advantage - but the American people deserve the truth.

How incredible is it that only twenty-five hours were spent in the Congress debating WAR!!
Posted on Oct. 11 , 2002

According to Senator Robert Byrd, the Congress only spent twenty-five hours debating WAR when twenty-five hours were spent filing for a sewage permit.

According to Senator Edward Kennedy, twenty-three days were spent debating the Agriculture Bill.

I'd like my visitors today to read a piece I asked Robert Borosage to write that says much of what I feel - except far more eloquently. Robert was the Founder and Director of the Campaign for New Priorities before he founded the Campaign for America's Future serving as its Co-Director. Mr. Borosage writes widely on economic and political issues for publications including the NY Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, Philadelphia Inquirer and The Nation.

The Rush to Judgment
by Robert L. Borosage

The decision to authorize a pre-emptive war on Iraq should have cried out for extensive public debate. No one questions the fact that Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator, apparently still intent on building weapons of mass destruction in open violation of U.N. resolutions, and an avowed enemy of this nation. But despite Iraqi resistance, prior inspections unearthed and dismantled stores of prohibited weapons. No one disputes that Hussein's military is weaker now than it was ten years ago. The administration has offered no evidence to suggest that he poses some alarming new threat, or possesses some dangerous new weapon.

Why is a policy of containment, embargo, air occupation and inspection not sufficient to deter the threat posed by Hussein? Is putting American soldiers at risk on the streets of Baghdad the only alternative? Will an assault divide the international coalition vital to the war on terror? Will it produce a new generation of recruits to terrorism? Will it destabilize Pakistan which already has nuclear weapons? Will it undermine the international institutions and law that the U.S. has worked to build for a generation? Are we prepared to stay in Iraq for a decade? If we do, will we end up despised as an occupation force? Answers are required before action is taken.

We do know that as a global power, the U.S. has the greatest stake in building the rule of law, developing global cooperation and insuring international legitimacy for our actions abroad. No military force can defend all of our interests. No covert operation capacity can disrupt all those who resent or fear us. We depend on international law and legitimacy to protect our citizens and our interests abroad. That is why American leaders of both parties have worked to build the U.N., and to establish global rules for peace, for commerce and for war.

Any rule of law must govern the powerful as well as the weak. If we assert the world is a jungle and act accordingly, we will create what we fear. That is what is so dangerous about the president's doctrine of pre-emption that asserts the right to attack potential threats "before they emerge." If the most powerful country asserts the right to use its military offensively, law and legitimacy are abandoned. The powerful will do what they will; the weak will do what they must. Russia will use the same doctrine to attack Georgia; China to threaten Taiwan. This is a recipe for endless strife and terrorism in a brutish world.

After September 11, friends and strangers across the globe rallied to America's cause. An international alliance was forged to pursue those who committed that heinous assault. Global allies aided the disruption of terrorist cells, the tracking of money, and the attack on the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

The administration seems intent on squandering that support. It has scorned virtually every international initiative to make the world better - the treaties on global warming, arms control, land mines, chemical and biological weapons, the international court, as well as conferences on racism and sustainable development. And now in the rush to judgment on Iraq, the president appears intent on sending American forces into a land war alone, despite the opposition of much of the Pentagon, large parts of the Republican foreign policy establishment, and most of our allies. In doing so, he is likely to weaken the global fight against terrorists, even while generating greater resentment of America.

These considerations cannot be dismissed out of hand. They require sober deliberation. But, we are being rushed to judgment by a concerted White House effort to steamroll the United Nations and the Congress into voting a blank check without holding the administration to its proof, and without insuring that it has considered the grave implications of its actions.

For too many armchair strategists, America's military dominance makes the military appear like a useful instrument to be deployed when desirable. But war is not another form of diplomacy; it is a matter of life and death. It calls on the sons and daughters of America's working families to put their lives at risk. No matter how successful, surgical, or sudden our military assault, lives will be lost and bodies maimed. This nation can ask its children to make that ultimate sacrifice only when the threat is clear, present and imminent, and when all alternatives have been exhausted. It should ask them to make that sacrifice only with the support of allies, the sanction of the international community and the measured consideration of the Congress. This rush to judgment is particularly suspect since it appears part of a Republican electoral strategy to "focus on the war," in the words of the president's political guru, Karl Rove. Turning the war into partisan purpose at a time when thoughtful and probing debate is needed is worse than shabby politics. It is a disgraceful disservice to the nation in a time of crisis.

BARBRA STREISAND at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Gala
Posted on September 29, 2002

"THE WAY WE WERE"/"THE WAY WE ARE"

LIGHT THE CORNERS OF MY MIND
MISTY WATERCOLOR MEM'RIES
OF THE WAY WE WERE

When I sing that song now, I can't help but think about it politically.

SCATTERED PICTURES
OF THE HOUSE WE LEFT BEHIND
LOVELY DEMOCRATIC MEM'RIES
OF THE WAY WE WERE

It was 1993... a time of hope... of new possibilities. We believed that our children would live in an age of extraordinary opportunity.

We had a Democratic Congress that put the country on the road to prosperity...passed the family and medical leave act...legislation to increase funds for education...an anti-crime bill that banned assault weapons and violence against women...safe water and clean air acts.

We had a president who enforced the peace agreement in Bosnia... helped reach the peace accords in Northern Ireland...We were even on the verge of a settlement in the Middle East.

The American dream was alive and well...

UNPRECEDENTED GROWTH IN THE ECONOMY.
THE DOW WAS UP, THE DEFICIT WAS DOWN.
AS LONG AS DEMOCRATS WERE THE MAJORITY,
I COULD SLEEP NIGHTS,
NOT WEEP NIGHTS.

PEOPLE
SEE THEIR SAVINGS SLIP AWAY
AS THEY FEEL THE WORLD AROUND THEM
BECOME MORE FRIGHT'NING EV'RY DAY.

Talk about frightening...

Shortly after George W. Bush was elected...sort of...I saw him on television say, "If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck-of-a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." And he laughed...

You know people never really joke. That was very revealing...a taste of things to come...the arrogance of wanting unlimited executive power... a government that operates in secret...keeping presidential papers secret...holding secret meetings with oil companies.

I find George Bush and Dick Cheney frightening...Donald Rumsfeld and John Ashcroft frightening.

I find the erosion of our civil liberties in the guise of "homeland security" frightening...

I find the shrinking ozone layer and the melting icecaps frightening...

I find bringing the country to the brink of war unilaterally five weeks before an election questionable - and very, very frightening.

MIS'RIES,
SEEMS THAT'S ALL THAT FILLS THE NEWS,
BLAME THE FELLAS IN THE WHITE HOUSE
FOR THE WAY WE ARE

IT'S NO WONDER
WE ALL SING THOSE TEXAS BLUES
IT'S THAT TOO-FAR-TO-THE RIGHT HOUSE
AND THE WAY WE ARE.

The way we are...

The accountants' lobbyist heads the SEC
The timber lobbyist heads the forest service
The Federalist Society is in charge of judges
The Christian Coalition is in charge of White House appointments

...And Lady Justice is wearing a shroud.

All that in less than two years!

GLOBAL WARMING? DON'T BELIEVE A WORD OF IT
AND WHAT'S A DROP OF ARSENIC OR TWO?
SAVING MEDICARE? THEY NEVER HEARD OF IT.
TO THEM, HEALTH CARE IS WEALTH CARE

In the last election, some people said it didn't make a difference - Republican, Democrat...what's the difference?

I'll tell you the difference.

This is what the Republican House did in the last two years:

Passed the drug companies' prescription bill that does nothing to control prices.

Passed the Enron energy bill, that does nothing to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

Passed a sham pension reform bill that eliminates employee retirement accounts.

Now we have tax cuts for the rich, but no raise in the minimum wage for the poor...

...poison in the water, salmonella in the food, carbon dioxide in the air and toxic waste in the ground that polluters no longer have to pay to clean up -- the taxpayers do.

WE KNOW
CRIME IS NOT SUPPOSED TO PAY.
MEANWHILE SITTING ON HIS ASSETS,
IS ENRON'S OWN KENNETH LAY.
OH, WHAT WE NEED IS,
SOMEONE TO CURE US
'CAUSE BABY WE'VE GOT "TSURUS"
THE WAY WE ARE.

If we take back the House, we can limit the damage the Bush White House does.

We can check the power of an administration that wants to police what you do in your bedroom and hide what they do in office.

We can force votes on programs that benefit people - working men and women, children, seniors, teachers, veterans, fire-fighters, police officers, coal miners ...Americans that this administration seems to care about only when the TV crews are around.

SO ON
NEXT ELECTION DAY I PRAY
THAT THE COUNTRY WILL DELIVER,
A HOUSE WITHOUT TOM DELAY!
WE NEED A TEAM CHANGE
A DEFINITE REGIME CHANGE.
OH, THAT WOULD BE A DREAM CHANGE
FROM THE WAY WE ARE.

We have the facts on our side...the truth on our side

We have to get the facts out...the truth out...and the vote out!

SO, IN NOVEMBER,
LET'S MAKE THE CONGRESS
A DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS
THE WAY WE WERE
THE WAY WE WERE!

Based on "The Way We Were". Words by Alan and Marilyn Bergman; Music by Marvin Hamlisch. Copyright 1973 Colgems-EMI Music, Inc. (ASCAP). Special Lyrics by Alan and Marilyn Bergman. Reprinted by Permission. All rights reserved.

Rainbow/PUSH Coalition
Fourth Annual Awards Dinner
Posted on Dec. 11 , 2001
Remarks by Barbra Streisand

Thank you. Thank you, Speaker Gephardt, for that kind introduction and for coming all the way fromWashington with your busy schedule to present me with this award. You've been a great leader inCongress who's done so much for the working people of this country and we're all looking forward toyour being the next Speaker of the House. I promise never to write the Democrats a challengingletter again - at least for a couple of weeks.

I don't like giving speeches. First, I don't know what to say. Then I want to say too much. ButI'm here tonight for one reason: I'm a sucker for Jesse.

Jesse represents meaning to me because he doesn't duck the hard case. Against segregation in theSouth. Against racial profiling in the North. Against apartheid in South Africa. For a livingwage. For opening locked doors and lifting glass ceilings. For voting rights - and for countingevery vote - even in Florida. For this, he's been vilified and scalded in the press. But he'sstood up, made his case, marched and protested with passion and poetry - and one thing for sure,he's made America better.

So...

When I was making Yentl, I learned that the wise men who wrote the Talmud believed it was ok toargue with God ...be angry with God ...wrestle with God. What they didn't want you to be wasindifferent to God. Indifference was unacceptable then. And indifference is unacceptable now.

This is certainly true as our nation wrestles with serious issues that can no longer be ignored -even in wartime. Across the country, Americans have come together in the face of the tragedy ofSeptember 11th. In responding to that horror, we all became brothers and sisters, where there wasno discrimination, no racial or national divides. That day, ironically, brought out the best inpeople. With lives on the line, people understood that the soul has no color...that inside we're allthe same. We saw the possibility, as one rabbi put it, of the "Re-United States of America."

Today, the country stands united behind our president because we need him to succeed. We all praythat President Bush gets good advice and makes wise decisions. But heartfelt patriotism does notmean silence.

Yet, we already see efforts to stifle independent thought and free speech. I've even heard thatcertain right-wing commentators and editors have announced that they were forming an organization topolice the press. Bill Maher was threatened as host of Politically Incorrect for being...politicallyincorrect. Professors and journalists' jobs are under review simply for criticizing U.S. policy.

White House press spokesman Ari Fleisher first warned that "We should watch what we say," as ifdemocratic debate were a threat to the war on terrorism. But Fleisher had it backwards: We wagethe war on terrorism precisely to defend the right to democratic debate.

And now it's particularly important to speak out, because the sudden shift from peace and prosperityto war and recession raises fundamental questions about the direction of our country.

Consider this: Over 800,000 people have lost their jobs since September 11 and only one-third ofthem are eligible for unemployment insurance.

In recessions, the federal government usually steps in, extends unemployment benefits, and helps putpeople back to work. But in today's Washington, the Republican-controlled House passed a stimulusbill that contains almost nothing for the unemployed, yet includes 25 billion in retroactive taxcuts for big corporations. It's the reverse Robin Hood theory - take from the poor and give to therich. IBM would get $1.4 billion... GM, $833 million ... and Enron, whose executives are among thepresident's leading donors, would get $254 million - if it stays in business long enough to collectit. That isn't a stimulus, it's a scandal.

It doesn't make sense. We're spending a billion dollars a month on the war. We've got realdomestic security needs that have to be met. We passed the last set of tax cuts, and now thePresident's own budget director says we're looking at deficits for as long as the eye can see, asthe Democrats predicted, I might add! The country can't afford these tax cuts. And it can't affordindifference either.

After September 11th, a lot of us took down articles and ads critical of the president. Congressional Democrats embraced bipartisan unity. Yet, only 10 days later, the Wall Street Journalurged the president to use the crisis to force through the entire conservative agenda - upper endtax cuts, oil drilling in ANWR, fast track, even conservative judges - the full catastrophe. Sincethen, the Republican Congress has tried to do just that. Attorney General Ashcroft has gone evenfurther, claiming unprecedented police powers in the name of national security.

Hell, he's even got Bill Safire scared! All of us want this nation to be safer. But you can'tdefend America by attacking the very rights and liberties that we're fighting for.

And isn't it a little hypocritical to suspend people's rights, yet not allow the FBI to checkwhether suspected terrorists have purchased guns? It doesn't make sense!

And why is this administration cloaked in secrecy...from the Cheney energy task force meetings, toissuing an executive order locking up historical presidential papers that, by law, were set to bereleased to the public? What is there to hide?

I say it's time for our representatives in Congress - even those afraid of not being re-elected -and for our citizen leaders, for each and everyone one of us to stand up and speak out. This is nota question of party, but of principle.

What's worrisome is that too many people of conscience are biting their tongues, fearing they'll beperceived as unpatriotic. In fact, we need to forcefully engage the argument about what makesAmerica ... America, the country we all love. Do we want corporate tax giveaways, or help for theunemployed. Opening public lands to oil companies and logging interests, or renewable energy andconservation. An America where elections end up in the courts, or where election reform insuresthat every vote is counted. A justice department and judiciary that threatens a woman's right tochoose and the elderly's right to a dignified exit, or a renewed commitment to the freedom of choiceand liberty in a time of crisis.

Let's have the debate. We can argue about this, wrestle with this...but we can't be indifferent tothis. I know it's difficult to criticize the administration in a time of war. But this is aboutour future...about protecting the very essence of our democracy...freedom of speech. Our leadersshouldn't be afraid to speak the truth, even if it is temporarily unpopular. As Dr. King said, "Truth crushed to the earth will rise again." Truth works. Truth has its own force. Trutheventually wins out.

And that's another reason I'm a sucker for Jesse. All of his life, he's acted with the faith thatif Americans heard the truth, they would choose the right path. And there's no better time to testthat belief than now.

Happy belated birthday, Jesse. You're a giant of our times. Thank you, and Rainbow Push, for thishonor, and thank you all for being here.