FEATURE
Pundit Pap for Sunday, February 22nd 1998
MONDAY FEBRUARY 23rd 1998 --- New York (APJP) -- The Pundits scrambled to catch up with developments in Iraq as Kofi Annan attempted to negotiate a settlement to the latest dustup between Saddam and the the US, some of which was mooted by developments late Sunday with an apparent agreement between Annan and Hussein. The Lewinsky flap remained an item, though there have been few developments. Oddly, there was little mention of publication of bleeding chunks from Paula Jones' deposition earlier this week (you can read them by clicking here).
And now, on with the shows:
FOX NEWS SUNDAY
Tony Snow's first topic for the second week in a row was Iraq, and Sandy Berger was his first guest. Berger was certainly talking to Saddam as well as the viewing public throughout the piece. He stated at the outset that any agreement Hussein and Annan strike must be in the interest of the US. He also made a few points clear early on: there must be no restrictions on UNSCOM inspectors (who must have "operational control"), there can be no "artificial deadlines" or time limits on inspections, and Saddam's weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) have got to go.
Snow made brief mention of the Ohio State town hall (making a point of the "hecklers") and re-asked a question which came up then: why should we go to war if there's no attack on us? Berger made it clear that the US interests are regional (read: oil) and that Saddam remained a threat to his neighbors; Snow predictably replied with the issue of reticent neighbors ("why aren't they allowing us to stage combat missions?"), and Berger explained that we are getting cooperation from them but "they are not terribly enthusiastic about publicly expressing their displeasure."
Tony turned to the issue of Russia aiding Iraq with bioweapons; Berger stated that it cannot be proven that such aid was supplied.
Tony then asked the biggie: about reports of a four-day non-stop bombing campaign having been planned. Berger refused to speak about "operational details", saying that the reporters most often don't know what they're talking about. On the question of whether the President would give a speech, Clinton said it's likely.
In response to Tony's question about whether Saddam Hussein is under any circumstances trustworthy, Berger wouldn't assume so, and forces should remain in the region.
Tony then asked about the same quote George Will did last week, from Elliot Cohen's study of the last war against Iraq: that "bombing gives gratification without commitment." Don't tell us that has NOTHING to do with "no improper relationship" between a certain well-known President and newly (in-)famous intern. Berger replied by asking to examine the alternatives: turn away (it equals a blank check from the international community), go get him (heavy casualties); or a military action that could "significantly diminish" Saddam's WMDs. Berger said that a congressional show of support would be welcome but is not legally necessary.
Tony's next guest was the articulate and somewhat independent Senator Dick Lugar, a figure we would like to see more of on Sunday. Tony first asked Lugar about whether the Clinton administrations strategy of "containment" (jeez, Tony, you're beginning to sound suspiciously like George Will) would work. Lugar straightened out Tony at the outset: the administration is talking limited action, and they must move in more forces, line up Saddam's neighbors and look to Iraqi dissidents (not an easy strategy). Lugar agreed with Tony that we should not rush to bomb, but to seek a diplomatic solution; an underlying problem is that we don't have manpower, allies or support for a strong military response at this time, and we've reacted spasmodically to Saddam's pinpricks (those pinpricks have been pretty spasmodic themselves, Senator).
Tony asked Lugar about a defense buildup; Lugar also said a stronger defense posture, procurement and readiness are needed, and that the President has not responded to a congressional request for appropriations, but it is expected this week, and should be authorized by congress. Tony asked (asserted) about financial ramifications; Lugar mentioned the GOP leadership's concern that procurement would "suffer deterioration" if the President did not go throuugh the proper channels. Lugar was asserting Congressional imperative on this issue, but far less agressively than, say, Trent Lott would, and seemed to leave the door open for the Clinton administration to discuss this issue with the GOP leadership in Congress -- something one rarely sees from the GOP on Pundit Sundays. We guess Lugar's the "good cop."
Tony then went directly to Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Would Saddam target Israel? Netanyahu said he hoped not, Israel is not part of the conflict and supports the US policy for full inspections. Tony pointed out that Israel had bombed Iraq before (a nuclear reactor under construction); will a bombing prevent "future bad behavior" ? Netanyahu stated that the US is leading the effort wisely, but force has limits, yet not taking a clear stance would be a mistake.
Is Netanyahu concerned that Arab states are not speaking out? Netanyahu said yes; Iraq AND Iran pose a threat to other Arab regimes, and Israel is working for regional stability. Tony asked Netanyahu which is the bigger threat; Netanyahu replied that if either develops nuclear missile capability they would be a global threat. Iran, Netanyahu said, is developing these unfettered, and action must be taken to stop the flow of materials. Tony asked if inspection might work; Netanyahu considered the possibility unlikely but was pleased to hear Yeltsin wanted to stop the flow of materials to Iran.
Is the crisis bringing him closer to Clinton, Tony asked (an interesting question in that some of Netanyahu's most liberal critics have tied him to right-wing figures in the US including Pat Robertson and other evangelicals)? Netanyahu said any such developing situation does, because Israel is the only democracy in a region with unsavory neighbors — and took a slap at some Palestinians saying that they should fight Iraqi-style terrorists which could turn on Arafat, jail terrorists, and take a stand against pro-Saddam demonstrations, including "public education" of young Palestinians.
What might have been another boring Lewinsky flap segment featuring Clinton-basher Stuart Taylor did have a couple of lively moments — Taylor almost sounded balanced when, after he claimed "the President has demonized Starr," he admitted he felt Starr had made mistakes (remaining an active tobacco lawyer at $1 mil a year), and a moderate Democrat might have been a better choice for independent counsel. C'mon, Tony, Roger Ailes -- you could've done better than this axe-grinder!
The next segment on "Is the IRS Cheating You?" was a bit more lively -- Governors Howard Dean (D-VT) and Frank Keating (R-OK) did not come across as tax wonks but a couple of interesting guys with divergent opinions. Tony whipped out the two-volume tax code (thicker than the Manhattan White and Yellow Pages combined) and asked what the guests thought: Dean said it needs to be simplified but wouldn't go so far as a flat tax; Keating likes the flat tax. What about retirees? Keating said what to do about retirees has to be delat with. Dean spoke about the complexity of filling out tax forms, but said he got good help from the IRS, "decent people who are trying to do the right thing."
Keating and Dean both felt the problem is NOT the IRS, but Congress -- Keating said that they're not pushing to simplify the tax code, Dean said that both parties "stick pork" into the code in the form of very specialized tax breaks. Keating's agreeing rejoinder: "We call them 'growth items.' " Dean pointed out that some tax breaks exempt huge corporations from paying anything; Keating added that with the complex tax code, people will find any strategem to cut their taxes, including some that are legally questionable.
When Dean mentioned that we have the lowest marginal tax rate of any developed country, Tony chimed in with "but we have the highest tax rate of all time." C'mon, Tony, how the heck can you say something this overarching and stupid? WHICH tax rate? Dean was right when he pointed out that some people were taxed at 90% under LBJ, while Keating pointed out that people think they're overtaxed overall (when haven't they?). Snow asked about the marriage penalty; Keating said do away with it.
Tony's last and only slightly facetious question -- is this a precursor of the 2004 Presidential debate? Dean said "how about 2000?" Both said no, Tony said "in politics, no means maybe."
Before panel time, a Fox Movietone news clip of the overthrow of Iraq's Hassin in the 1950s (narrated by a young Mike Wallace);
THE MCLAUGHLIN GROUP
John McLaughlin has been courageously outside the mainstream media promoting a diplomatic solution to the Iraq crisis for months. Yesterday, the Group was devoted mainly to his plan for such a peaceful process. here is his suggestion:
The Clinton/Kofi Annan Summit. Annan is intently involved. He will go to White House and Kofi Annan will urge the President to stay the diplomatic course and may remind the POTUS of the almost total 150+ out of 185 nations who do not support a US strike on Iraq. He'll say "Don't make the same mistake as was made at Versailles."
The plan?
1. Indict Saddam. on June 7th a UN conference will establish a permanent international court. Saddam could be the First UNICC United Nations International Criminal Court.
2. Lift the sanctions and import basic commodities. That could establish on a genuine opposition, seeing that the world wants Iraq healthy and wealthy but without Saddam as leader
This is the weakest element of the plan.
3. install new broad tough multilateral export controls. Draconian financial and criminal penalties. China an Russia would sign on.
4. Continue inspections as they gain full access incrementally. U2s and NRO
5. Establish a provincial government in exile using frozen Iraqi assets - in the North.
With a plan like this - can anyone seriously contend that diplomacy is exhausted.
We agree. Let's try it.
The panel made light of McLaughlin's suggestions. We like them -- They are better than anything Bill Richardson and Maddie Albright have come up with.
ON MONICA LEWINSKY:
The most interesting thing to come up on pundit television was the remark that George Stephanopoulos had signaled to Sam Donaldson that the White House was readying itself to take off the gloves and begin opening the closets of every Republican House and Senate member and expose every sexual and other skeleton in them.
This is good news if true. We have a few we'd like to expose at the same time.
The panel stupidly thought that this wouldn't work. But of course they overestimate the patience of the American people. They are waiting eagerly for just this eventuality.
Pat Buchanan, still stung by his own loser presidential campaign, uttered some inane thing like "Judgment day for Clinton is coming closer and closer."
McLaughlin asked - Who won the war Starr or Hillary Clinton?
Fred Barnes: - Clinton, but starr legally has them on the run
Clarence Page: -Clinton
Pat Buchanan -Clinton - but Starr on legal matters.
Clift: Clinton
Mclaughlin: - CLINTON, but Starr on legal matters.
And that was that.
MEET THE PRESS
Tim Russert, after his dismal anti-Clinton performance last week., and our shouting match with his secretary, began with Iraq and what will bombing really accomplish. But he made a mockery of television punditry by hosting the vile bitch psychologist Dr. Laura - who is probably responsible for the eventual suicide of most of her desperate callers.
Russert brought out tired Sandy Berger to ask him the same old questions - twisted by the new media line - Why bomb Saddam - it won't work.
True to the line, Russert asked: "Why would we bomb Saddam?"
Berger - We would certainly prefer to have this solved without military intervention. The best option Saddam open up the whole of his country. They UNSCOM have destroyed more weapons than were destroyed in the Gulf War. He has used chemical weapons 10 times since 1983!
We found his choice of 1983 amusing.
We would see in effect to do through military action what we were denied through refusal of inspections. Diminish and reduce
Russert- You didn't say eliminate?
Berger- The real problem here is not only storage, but high capacity to reconstitute and we can do a great deal of damage to that.
Russert - We dumped 88,000 tons on him why will this be different?
Berger - the purpose was different. Obviously he was heading toward Saudi Arabia.
That's funny, the pentagon in 1992 said he was not obviously headed to Saudi Arabia only Kuwait to get his warm water port. The Saudi inflection came after the US staged its planes there.
Russert (Being cute when he shouldn't)- So if a bomb Happens to kill Saddam, you wouldn't cry?
Berger- Well, it is true that the world would be better off, but that is not the purpose.
Russert- US NEWS reports that Saddam moved the chemical weapons to Algeria et al.
Berger - Well we will do as much as we can.
Russert- How massive?
Berger - A Serious Blow
Russert- with serious casualties?
Berger- We try to minimize, he has a propensity to create his own casualties - in all honestly we cannot rule that out.
Russert (A good statement) - Saddam could pop up again saying, "I'm here, you took your best shot and I will keep my programs going."
Berger - Our national interest is in preventing him from threatening his neighbors (our oil) and as long as he pops up and we the international community has the will to knock him back. In '94 he started moving toward Kuwait, we knocked him back The International Community is not going away.
Yes, because they already have - 150 of them.
Russert - You say international community, but China and Russia say no and Russia says WW III?
Berger- There is virtual unanimity that he is a threat. These countries realize that he must comply with UN. But at the end of the day - we will act. Just in the last week, more than a dozen countries will be there with us militarily.
out of 180 members of the UN - 14 out of 180 - not too good we'd say.
Russert - What will be our response be when Saddam holds pictures of women and babies killed -- what would we say?
Berger- First we would have to question who caused the causalities, but more importantly , you can defy the International Community, you can do that with impunity and we know he will move and clearly there is no cost free risk free option. But the option of doing nothing is a far great risk (TO OUR OIL)
Russert - We would go back at him again?
Berger - yes. we will make that very clear.
Russert - Israel- we implored Israel in 1991 we prevent the Israelis or dissuade them...
Berger - this is a sovereign decision for the Israelis to make. We would respond to any attack on Israel.
Russert - The LA times reports that the FBI investigated the CIA because some in the CIA tried to assassinate Saddam.
Berger - You know, that President Ford signed an executive order to disallow that (Murdering Saddam)
Russert (segueing to Monica): How big a probe is this Lewinsky investigation?
Berger: None. He ( the President) has called world leaders and is intensely focused on this.
Russert: Congress is reluctant - Will you define the mission...
B: I spent a lot of time on the Hill and am absolutely convinced that most members on both sides support. Lott is going and Gingrich supports it.
R: How much time does he have?
B: We have not set a time - not in days but not in months.
So I suppose they have set a time. It seems to us that the White House will do nothing until well after the 24th of February. The Olympics must end (maybe) and few trusted Clinton advisers want the attack to start at all -- despite the rhetoric from Berger, Albright and Cohen. It's the press that want this war.
Russert (segues to John Travolta and the loony Scientologists): A news story is out that John Travolta says the President vowed to help the actor on Scientology in Germany. Berger briefed Travolta and was seduced by the President (bad choice of words Tim) and has produced a Primary Colors (the movie) that is a veritable Valentine to the President.
Berger: The fact is that the treatment of Scientology is a problem in Germany and other countries. I did meet with a group including Travolta and said that we would meet with the German government. The only thing we tried to do was get an autograph.
Russert: Yet the Church of Scientology is viewed as a hugely global racket. Are you uncomfortable with Scientology?
Berger (avoids the question): The State Department does human rights reports every year and reached the conclusion that the German government was denying membership in political parties based on ones belief - not their politics. We will continue.
Russert: Yet the house voted 2-1 against the president's policies on this.
Berger: This is not an endorsement of Scientology. I think quite honestly this is a lot of wasted time on this matter. This was not just Mr. Travolta - it was a half dozen people. They have been on the hill. I didn't brief them I explained to them that we would continue to discuss with the German government our belief.
We think Berger should have said, "Look, what will the Germans attack next, Jews?"
Top sponsors at the break were:
DEAN WITTER
LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES
Then the most imbecilic move was made by Russert. He actually invited Dr. Laura, the "acid-shrink" to people who are willing to wait three to four hours for her hanging on their phones -- only to be insulted and humiliated by her on to Meet The Press to discuss HER perception of national morals and the role leadership plays in them.
A New Low Award to Russert for involving the pop-analyst in what could have been a good discussion.
Dr. Laura looked as if she witnessed two thousand years of evil as she spoke to Tim and the panel: The moral foundation. I remember Dan Rather said they had taken the word "moral" out of the state of the union because they didn't want people to laugh.
Ah, good one. Quoting Dan Rather as the Messiah.
Russert turns to psycho-Christian Gary Bauer(who among other things believes that Bill and Hillary Clinton murdered Vince Foster): Gary Bauer - the people have confidence in his ability to lead - so?
Bauer: These are early polls. I believe that when it comes out that he had sex with a 21 year old intern and lied about it, he will be in trouble. There is a poll today that American people said if they had a teenaged daughter in the White House they would not feel safe.
We wonder who took THAT poll. Bauer thinks that polls showing Clinton's continuous rise in public opinion are "early" -- shows how much you can rely on him for any advice whatsoever. And what the hell are those awful blue contact lenses the midget is wearing? He looks like Satan.
Conason (of the New York Observer, probably the best writer on Clinton in the nation): This episode is the latest in a four year attack on the president which cost $40 million. The other thing going on is Richard Mellon Scaife who also believes the Clintons murdered Vince Foster and I now know has spent upwards of $2 million to the "Arkansas Project" to dig up, secretly, "stuff" on the President.
Conason also accused Bauer of helping to distribute Scaife-funded Clinton Chronicles -- a hilarious conspiracy video that proves Clinton is the Devil incarnate.
Christopher Hitchens (Christopher Hitchens is a good writer and British Fop who thinks he is both God's gift to literature and to women -- he makes us sick and we wish THE NATION would stop publishing his embarrassing pieces -- he writes more garbage than a cheap whore has quarters): Both can certainly be wrong. The originally critics of Clinton about his dealings with women and Whitewater came from the left -- Jerry Brown, me... The right wing conspiracy was badly managed. Gingrich has been Clinton's co-conspirator for years He does not want him out. The right wing want to keep him in power.
Of course Hitchens stole this from CQ who was also wrong. They do want Clinton out and they want Al Gore in so they can burn him out as well.
Lyons (the Arkansas writer who also tells the truth, one of a few): The First Lady using the word "conspiracy" was unfortunate - but there is a conspiracy. Cliff Jackson the lawyer who brought troopers and Paula Jones out was trying to sell a smutty picture of Clinton that I do not believe exists.
Hitchens: Money from Charlie LEE (he said LEE and meant Trie) also found its way into the Clinton defense fund. There are two, now three investigations -- all extensively stalled, the wires cross here because of Revlon, Jordan, Monica cross - there is a crackle.
Ha, ha, ha. Sure, a crackle in Hitchens's warped mind. What's the difference if Charlie Trie gave the Clinton Defense Fund money? He openly raised and gave as much as he could to the campaign as well. He knew what he was doing. He wasn't an agent of the PRC, he was an agent for himself. Like everyone else in DC.
Bob Novak (who was really very thoughtful and almost charming yesterday): That is unfortunate talk. As Hitchens says, these wild charges are not the thing that got the President in trouble. There are many Republican congressmen who do not relish this stuff, and lots of them don't want their own lives exposed. Republicans do not want to see him driven out of office -- they want to see him weakened. They want to see him bit by bit getting weaker. Only people on the fringe like Bob Barr are after impeachment. He will never resign but he has a very serious problems with Ken Starr. You attack your attackers. It is not unusual that there's a barrage.
Very good Bob. Your only mistake -- The GOP does want him out, only now they probably won't do it because the White House will be soon armed with sex scandals all over the Republican map -- ongoing ones.
Bauer: You are probably right about political calculations -- but those are sad comments when our country is on the line and when our children are being taught through this -- look at the morals of this country -- zero. When Hillary Clinton said it takes a village it does, it takes moral leadership at the top -- this an embarrassment.
Well, we might agree with you Bauer... except that children don't care, children don't know, and children wouldn't emulate the President one way or the other anyway. This is an embarrassment. You -- a guy who couldn't get a date with a dog, even the likes of Linda Tripp -- are on national television telling America what her morals should be? How could you judge, you twerp?? Now, THAT'S a national embarrassment.
Hitchens: If the President said I DID, there would be a huge sigh of relief (my word) . Lewinsky gets her job because her mother is engaged to a big giver to the DNC. This link gives Starr the right to look. If we could get that clear.
What? Hitchens actually believes that his British snooty accent covers for his lies. Unreal!
Russert: Lyons, do you believe what has been shown so far -- job offers, e-mail, Revlon, AmEx, Pentagon -- does that create something in your mind that this was an inappropriate relationship between the president and Monica Lewinsky?
Lyons: It could be a totally innocent relationship -- rather like that woman that followed David Letterman around. There is no evidence to the contrary. You (meaning the press) create the alpha male and then sexualize his image, then a certain number of irreducible women are going to act batty around him.
Oh, Lyons, we could kiss you for having the guts so say Lewinsky could be a madwoman.
Bauer: It's interesting the way women are always blamed.
Ha, ha, ha! Typical Bauer cheap shot. Here's a guy who thinks women should stay married to men that beat them or mentally brutalize them, have children who are deformed and go to Church to assuage their guilt. Oh, brother -- thank the Lord you are a nobody, Gary.
Hitchens: Hitchens talks about the press holding her at bay and how about her trips to see Clinton at least 37 times.
HERE CONASON NAILS THE BRITISH CREEP:
Conason: Where did you learn that?
Hitchens (stammers): the same place you did?
Conason (again): Where did you learn that?
HITCHENS IS CAUGHT! HE KNOWS LEWINSKY WAS SIGNED IN 37 TIMES BUT HE ALSO KNOWS THEY WERE NOT TO SEE THE PRESIDENT. SHE WAS AN EMPLOYEE YOU MORON.
Novak: First they wanted to explain Monica then they shifted onto the attack. You have to say the president did not want to talk about this.
Conason (hitting Hitchens again): When someone like Hitchens says "37 times" is not a fact at all -- These leaks are a crime.
Russert : These are legitimate questions.
Conason: Clearly his attorneys are telling him this to not talk -- that Starr is out to get him - you don't want to give the Starr a chance to build a strategy around the facts you provide you don't talk
That's right. No lawyer yet has suggested the President talk. Only pundits like Russert who WANT a story and higher ratings and something else with which to build their own personal fortunes.
Dr. Laura (The Beast): Most of my letters are from parents who are stressed and depressed by this. You have to lead by example. We need other examples. When you study and work hard and become religious good things happen to you. Parents are saying so as long as I go to work and do a good job I can lie and steal and things like, that. We complain about TV is bad. How do you turn off a President.
Hey, "Doctor" Laura: we have news for you. Lots of people work like dogs studying and cleaning other people's toilets every day for 50 years -- and they get nothing, nada, zero. They are religious. They go to church. They get nothing. And you know what else, the only one who seems to care about them is Bill Clinton -- not you with your fancy cars and big house, not Russert, not anyone who plies the media boards. You are a fraud. The only people that would bother to write you are out of their minds in the first place. Who in hell would bring their problems to a radio snake-oil saleswoman who is more interested in her billing rate and ratings than in much else.
Russert: Yet Americans are saying he is doing a good job.
Lyons: I think Americans are reacting more responsibility that most of us in the press.
HOORAY!
Bauer; It is not tenable for the president to take the fifth with the American people. If we found out the president was a bigot yet was enforcing. . . He has a long record of (sin) -- The presidents behavior to OUR women.
And that says it all, ladies! OUR WOMEN...how neoclassic can you get, Bauer? You're a woman hater, aren't you?
Conason: WHAT IS THIS LONG RECORD, Bauer?
Bauer: When someone has an accident - but when all through his career --
Conason: A lot of people have long records in your group and they are all scurrilous lies.
Bauer: My source is the Washington Post and the New York Times.
Sure, and Chris Ruddy and Matt Drudge and all Dick Scaife's whores like you. Bauer! And the Post and the Times are the worst -- they actually pretend to be serious papers.
Bauer: Someone went down to Little Rock and wrote a list of all the women rumored...
HaHa, ha, ha - we were rolling on the floor by then.
Hitchens: To say - When has it become politically wrong to be right wing? Dick Morris was Jesse Helms campaign manager.
Huh?
Russert: Is there not a group of people who have spent a lot of time and money to bring Bill Clinton down.
Novak: No question about it. But they are not the only source -- Susan Schmidt of WP and other journalists.
Hitchens: Are you suggesting that Paula Jones was put up?
Lyons: No, but the troopers were lying. They said Hillary allowed men to paw her breasts in a restaurant.
Hitchens: This is not what we are talking about. And that hush-money (jobs) are available.
Now Hitchens labels getting jobs for friends as HUSH MONEY.
Dr. Laura: My prediction morals and fidelity and honor will be a huge issue in the next campaign.
We doubt it, "Doctor" - inasmuch as no candidate has them.
Joe Conason: There has been a long term costly effort to undue the election of Clinton by the ultra right.
Gary Bauer: Dr. Laura is absolutely right. THE VIRTUE DEFICIT -- In the weeks ahead, if it is proven, his presidency will be in jeopardy.
Ha, ha, ha. THE VIRTUE DEFICIT. Will we hear that one again, Gary -- among your few thousand supporters -- mostly right-wing Christian fundamentalists nuts -- not good Christians and Jews who know that your morality and your family values aren't, in any ways, the proper ones.
Lyons: Can Ken Starr be trusted?? David Hale claimed that he had documentary evidence of this $300,000 loan and claimed the FBI stole it from the file. Therefore the defendants in the Tucker/McDougal trial didn't know. Now the federal prosecutor said that Hale should keep the money.
A good point and one that Russert has always failed to make.
Hitchens: Dick Morris continues to boast about campaign finance corruption and that he got girls for the president -- and the Clintons attempt to legitimize this "don't ask, don't tell" and this is a terrible reflection.
Yeah, right, Chris. And you have a right to tell others what is moral?
Novak: Starr doesn't indict the President. He does turn it over to the House. That is why all his friends are attacking Starr. I don't believe the President will be impeached for lying about a sexual affair -- he will be very weakened. A campaign based on marital fidelity will not happen. The Republicans might entirely possibly have hearings on an impeachment.
That's right, Bob. And that's why you still have a show and a column. You are at least an honest Clinton basher and we respect you for it.
THIS WEEK or THIS "WEAK" as we lovingly refer to this garbage.
They've changed the official name of the show to "This Week With Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts." Long and boring -- like most of the actual show. But much to our surprise there were some highlights for once -- appearances by Defense Secretary Bill Cohen and former White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta.
Cohen's segment was unusual for This Week. It was chock full of issues, ideas and even a little analysis. It's the best we've seen from Sam and Cokie since Brinkley retired to become an ADM pitchman for Fox Television.
Cohen opened the show with discussion of the not-quite-breaking news that Iraq may have sent weapons of mass destruction (WMD) to other Arab states for "storage," a development that further complicates not merely the situation with Iraq but diplomatic relationships with other Arab states. Cohen pointed out that if this report is accurate, it validates the fact that Saddam (rarely if ever, of course, did the word Iraq come up) has weapons of mass destruction and Clinton is attempting to draw attention to it.
Cokie was the first of all the pundits on after 10:00 AM to question the efficacy and justification for a bombing campaign; Cohen replied that "Saddam must be held accountable," that the Gulf States agree and that Congress will ultimately support bombing. If our goal is to diminish the threat to their neighbors and delivery capabilities, Sam asked, will we have to keep doing this?; Cohen replied that we need to get UNSCOM inspectors back into Iraq to do their job unimpeded (a point he would reiterate repeatedly) and if we can't, then "our focus is to diminish the threat," and we do have the capacity to prevent Saddam's posing a threat to his neighbors. We heard much of the word "diminish" this weekend in Punditland, a code word for "don't expect a decisive resolution, boys and girls."
Diminish is the new word of the day at the White House.
Sam turned the proceedings maudlin when he asked "What do you have to say to the mothers of the boys and girls who will have to fight this war?" I have to hand it to Sam for once -- at first the question struck me as out of place for the Sunday political chat shows, since he's talking to more political junkies than mothers and fathers, but there will be more than just collateral damage if things turn hot in Iraq. Cohen reiterated the Administration position: we have serious National Security interests, and the parents of our men and women in uniform understand this.
Tell them that at graveside Bill.
Cohen then pulled out a photo of a dead Kurdish mother and infant, purportedly killed by Iraqi forces using chemical weapons, to reinforce his point that Saddam is a threat. Cohen's timing also served to reinforce the seriousness with which all parties should regard the potentially explosive situation.
Well, it was better than the bag of sugar.
George Will then said that conventional forces -- as opposed to weapons of mass destruction -- are a threat to Saddam's neighbors (but George, didn't Iraq use chemical weapons on Iran? -- both are a threat). Asked if it is a major aim to degrade his conventional forces, Cohen stated we want to diminish the threat of both conventional forces and weapons of mass destruction. George Will then asserted that "Saddam's neighbors seem notably lukewarm and uncooperative about this." He failed to point out that a number of his neighbors regard Saddam as a genuine threat but have neither the military forces nor the backbone to put up a fight. He then asked Cohen if Saddam's army was "a hollow army [and] not a threat?" Cohen said "Just the opposite... [Saddam is] a bully who is armed and dangerous," and his neighbors want a diplomatic solution or, failing that, "holding Saddam accountable -- and that's strong language coming from them." The obvious went unsaid -- many of these neighbors cannot do it without our help.
Will then asked if a diplomatic solution is theoretically possible. There was little mention throughout the segment that there was and is a scramble on for a diplomatic solution. Cohen again pulled out a photo ( OH BROTHER ) -- a satellite shot of a Republican Guard compound surrounded by over a dozen vans which was supposed to be inspected by UNSCOM at the time of the picture. The UNSCOM inspectors had been delayed and arrived within a couple hours to find no vans, no weapons of mass destruction. Cohen reiterated Saddam's determination to evade UNSCOM inspectors and their success leading to Saddam's wanting them out.
This is an old photo shown before by Cohen.
Will then asked Cohen if Secretary General Kofi Annan's presence in Baghdad "throws some dust in the air" over the US implementing the military option. Cohen's reply: "If the Secretary General of the United Nations goes to Baghdad, I would hope and I would expect that he would go there for the sole purpose of telling Saddam Hussein he must fully comply with the UN resolutions." Of course, given the fact that the US is way behind on paying its UN bills, not to mention the reality of antipathy in the UN by 150 + nations toward the US, nobody is counting on this happening; this comment was clearly aimed at Saddam, not Annan. Cohen then pulled out a third photo -- a satellite shot of a "presidential palace compound" in downtown Baghdad with some 200 buildings.
Will, showing his nostalgia for the Cold War once again, asked Cohen whether "containment" would work with Saddam, since it did with the Soviet Union. (Really, George, did it? Containment as a policy was part of a complex web of policies which still defy analysis of their overall effectiveness.) Cohen said containment -- no-fly zones, sanctions -- are working (sounds about as plausible as Will's belief in containment), but UNSCOM inspectors must be allowed to do their jobs to assure that Saddam is complying with UN resolutions.
In reply to Cokie's comments on Security Council members possibly traveling to Iraq as part of UNSCOM teams, Cohen said he's seen no proposal that would satisfy the basic objections: full, unrestricted access for UNSCOM inspectors. "I don't think we should accept any proposal that is hollow."
Donaldson again brought up the human side of military intervention: "There will be collateral damage, everyone understands that, civilians on the ground and of course some of our people will be killed." Cohen concurred, but asserted that our armed forces are even at risk during training --- that being a member of the military engenders certain risks in or out of war. "they're putting their lives on the line."
A final question about digging up the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier was deferred by Cohen, who said that the legal issues must be examined first before action was taken.
Former Whitewater prosecutor Richard Ben-Veniste and professional Clinton-basher Stuart "Odie Colognie" Taylor were up next. Boring, boring, boring -- leave it to Sam and Cokie to make sexual allegations a snore.
Face it --- we all know the "issues" by now. At least there were some good moments:
Ben-Veniste: "The Independent Counsel statute has now allowed Mr. Starr to morph from the Whitewater investigator into the Federal Sex Police."
Ben-Veniste and Taylor squared off over the obstruction of justice and suborning perjury issues; Taylor claimed, grandiosely and incorrectly, that "never in the history of the Republic" had a President been suspected of suborning perjury and obstructing justice.
Reeeeeally, Stuart? Do the words "Stonewall it" from the early 1970s ring a bell?
Ben-Veniste and Taylor also debated the heavy-handed techniques of Starr. Taylor brought up the theme of the week, saying these are techniques similar to those used in "Mafia" investigations (I must have heard the M word from a half dozen right wingers this weekend); Ben-Veniste said "It smacks of somebody who is out to 'get' a target."
On the President's choice of words to date, this exchange summarizes in two lines the spin du jour:
Taylor: "Have you heard Richard Ben-Veniste say that he believes the President is telling the whole truth?" (Stuart would love to see the network news shows turn into "Hard Copy..")
Ben-Veniste: "I have every reason to believe that what he said is accurate."
Ben-Veniste raised the question of Linda Tripp meeting with Paula Jones' lawyers on the eve of the President's deposition in the Jones civil suit and its relation to ties between Starr and Jones' lawyers, the question being how honest Starr was about what he knew and when he knew it.
There was a final back-and-forth about whether Clinton would testify before the Starr's Grand Jury; Taylor said Starr will and should demand testimony, and spun the issue of Clinton's potentially remaining silent, the other big right-wing spin o' the week:
"If the public wants to evaluate whether they want a President who needs the Fifth Amendment to protect them, that's their privilege." Don't speak so soon, Stuart - most people know Starr is out to embarrass the President, and with the way public opinion is going he'd probably hit a 100% approval rating if he took the Fifth!
Taylor sounded ridiculous when the issue of evidence gathering was raised and that Starr must be thorough "because Congress is incompetent at gathering evidence --- that's been demonstrated repeatedly." Wrong again, Stuart: what's been demonstrated is that the GOP Congress makes ridiculous claims and when the evidence contradicts them or does not exist at all they just back off and issue a report making the same unsupported claims.
Leon Panetta was up in the next segment, and he probably joined George Stephanopoulos in losing a few friends in the White House. On the President's "silence" over the Lewinsky flap: "When you're confronted with these kinds of situations, it's much better to be forthcoming, to tell the American people what's involved, and to get this behind you." He reiterated this two or three different ways during the segment. He did clarify -- or muddy, depending on your point of view -- his position by saying "At some appropriate time, the President should discuss this."
Of course Leon, you're running for office yourself ain't ya?
George Will couldn't resist getting in another dig. "Stuart Taylor asked if this is the behavior of an innocent man. [It is if your lawyers tell you to limit your comments, George. And you're one to talk about morals... didn't you dump your first wife for a twenty something chippie? And how are those migraines - conscience pain we'd say Mr. Baseball] Bill Clinton is someone who has talked to the country about the kind of underwear he wears" but is "reticent" to discuss Lewinsky. Is this the equivalent of "taking the Fifth?"
Here's an idea, George. Let's get you and Clinton together on MTV to talk no-holds-barred about your sex lives with Tabitha Soren. First, George, tell us... boxers or briefs? You may be surprised how popular you become with Generation X as a result.
By the way, Panetta did reply that Clinton does have the right to follow his attorney's advice and that he takes Clinton at his word about no improper relationship.
The roundtable with Sam, Cokie, George Will, New York Observer Cover Queen George Stephanopoulos and Bill Kristol was dismal as always, with a few skillful but mostly calculated flourishes of spin.
Will: "Reducing Iraq's capacity to threaten its neighbors... has nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction." [Horse hockey, George... ask Iran!]
Kristol: "The American people support the use of force... The Administration is using them as a crutch" because they still haven't secured Congressional support. [Nonsense, and irrelevant spin. Here's the kicker:] "They need to go in and get rid of Saddam." [And what will "they" replace him with, Bill? Another Saddam? An Ayatollah or two?]
Sam: If reports that Iraq exported weapons of mass destruction are true, our intelligence clearly is flawed.
Huh?
Will: quoted Elliott Cohen -- "Air power is a lot like modern romance, offering plenty of gratification without commitment."
Even we had to chuckle at this one.
Steph on the Lewinsky flap: The lawyers are winning over what the President is saying publicly, and someone in the White House is checking the thesaurus for "improper."
Steph on Clinton-Starr: He'd obviously been waiting to say this one -- he mentioned the film "The Cincinnati Kid," in which Edward G. Robinson and Steve McQueen are poker sharks who put everything on the table in the film's final face-off. "Starr with his abusive tactics and the President with his adamant denial have done that, and there will be only one winner."
Will: Asked again if "Americans really want a President who has taken the Fifth?"
Well, he hasn't has he George?
Steph on policy: Clinton is moving to the left.
Kristol: Politicians are spooked by poll numbers now; Starr will "move" on Clinton before the Jones trial.
The final "amusing" piece -- on President and Vice President blowing peoples names (Clinton and Gore screw up Satcher's name with Hatcher and Thatcher respectively - AND at Satcher's swearing in, Reagan makes a number of gaffes, Bush saying "Sodd'em Huhs-aine") made plenty of noise especially when the Iraqi's called him BOOSH ---- but didn't even elicit a smile from our editorial staff.
The Editors
Search American Politics Provided by Hot Bot | Searchfor |
Copyright © AMERICAN POLITICS JOURNAL INC. 1996-1998 Reader Services Post Office Box 0409, Navesink, NJ 07716 FAX: 908.872.7604