for August 9, 1998

August 10, 1998 -- NEW YORK/WASHINGTON -- Item one on the pundit agenda was the bombing of two American embassies in East Africa last Friday. Item two -- the so-called "Lewinsky Affair." Strangely, there was practically no attention paid to an equally important development: Judge Norma Holloway Johnson's ruling, sealed on July 19 and released last week, that Starr may have broken legal and ethical constraints in remarks by him and members of his staff to reporters.

The overall tone and thrust of political chat shows indicated no change from the pattern of corporate media casting their lot with Starr and his excesses. Network news producers and reporters continue to disgrace themselves and deprive the American public of anything resembling balanced, probing journalism with regard to the real scandal -- a zealous prosecutor allowed to pursue a political prosecution of the President by his handlers.

Russert

In addition to running Meet the Press into the ground, Tim Russert also hosts an eponymously-titled talk show on CNBC which airs late on Saturdays (it is repeated on Monday afternoons on MSNBC, by the way).

He usually goes one-on-one with some major politico, but this weekend was a bit different -- his guests were Fox News Channel high poobah Brit Hume and CNN correspondent Wolf Blitzer. The primary topic was the coverage of the Lewinsky "scandal," but about the only scandal we saw was the self-serving, self-congratulatory banter of the host and his out-for-blood-and-glory guests.

It was nauseating.

There they were -- today's journalistic Three Stooges. And I don't mean Larry, Moe and Curly -- I refer to the dictionary definitions:

1. One who allows himself to be used for another's profit. 2. One who plays a subordinate or compliant role to a principal; a puppet.

By now, I don't think we need to remind you of who is pulling the strings.

Fox News Sunday

At least with FNS you know what you're getting: they report (with a decidedly right-wing slant), you decide (what Starr's spin is this week).

Tony Snow welcomed his first guest, Sen. Joseph Biden (D-DE), to discuss the bombings. Much of the questioning centered on American intelligence capability; Tony even played some footage of Biden's comments on a previous FNS in which he said that America did not have enough human intelligence in place worldwide. Tony's spin: America's intelligence capability is wanting to say the least. The fact: the same was true during the Reagan years. Remember the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut?

Tony even managed to crowbar a morsel of "breaking news" into the segment as he suddenly cut to Fox News correspondent David Miller, who announced that an Arabic-speaking individual had been taken into custody in Tanzania in connection with the bombing of the American embassy in the country's capitol, Dar-Es-Salaam.

Tony and Biden turned to the topics of Iran and the continuing Monica Lewinsky soap opera. Biden said that he understood the legal constraints Clinton was under, but that the entire matter was political and that he should make a public comment on the situation: "He should cauterize the wound one way or the other."

We think Clinton will, and without the need for a "mea culpa" -- and, in the cauterization process, he may well succeed in immolating Starr.

Tony's second guest was House Government Reform and Oversight Committee chairman Dan "PakiStash" Burton (R-IN). FNS provided Burton a soapbox from which to continue his political attacks on Janet Reno and her decision as of yet not to appoint an Independent Counsel to probe alleged wrong-room phone calls by President Clinton and Vice-President Bush. Reno has also refused to turn over confidential memos from FBI Director Louis Freeh and Charles LaBella, who have privately disagreed with Reno on the matter.

"Congress needs to know why she disagrees -- because she may be protecting the President." Burton, who obviously needs to grab a Ruger and head to his Indiana backyard for another session of "melon" therapy to release all the tension he is obviously suffering, assumes that FNS viewers are either idiots or right-wing conspiracy allies by continuing to push this ridiculous argument. The fact is that Reno is obliged to keep the memos confidential, as they are germane to ongoing DOJ investigations.

Burton darned well knows that Freeh and LaBella agree with Reno, yet continues to make a fool of himself by attempting to subvert a legitimate investigation for political purposes -- and adamantly refusing to pursue investigations into GOP campaign finance wrongdoing, including last week's revelation by Texas attorney Peter Cloeren that a number of Republicans found ways for him to circumvent legal limits by arranging contribution swaps and conduits.

Brit Hume asked a real boner of a question: "Do you think her refusal to appoint an independent counsel was a precondition to her reappointment as attorney general?' Slick, Brit -- smear both Reno and Clinton. It's another classic example of why we love to hate Hume.

Tony asked about the White House's rumored "scorched earth" strategy, discussed in an article on the Salon web site last week. Burton: "Everyone's got things which they'd rather not see the light of day [sic]." He accused the White House of digging into his past in an attempt to smear him.

We think that with the number of GOP honchos who consider Burton an embarrassment -- not to mention the ones he's directly antagonized -- it's probably more likely that any "dirt on Burt" will slip from his own side of the aisle.

An appearance by NOW President Patricia Ireland to discuss the Lewinsky matter never really caught fire, mostly because of Ireland's propensity for knocking the wind out of the entire panel's sails by calmly and confidently citing fact. One example: arch-conservative Fox reporter Catherine Cryer gushing that with regard to Lewinsky et al, "The [NOW's] silence is deafening," to which Ireland replied "because the media has chosen not to listen."

And how true. Unless any organization's press releases or public statements play into the most salacious and exploitative aspects of the entire "scandal" they will end up on the cutting-room floor or the "circular file." Such is the nature of not only the mass-consumption nightly news but the domain of Sunday-morning political shows which used to deal with issues, but now seem obsessed with titillation.

Fox News Sunday, which far and away has remained the one show dealing with a wider range of issues than the competition albeit with a hard-right spin, has been guilty of putting the spotlight on the tawdrier aspects of the Lewinsky matter -- but no more so than Meet the Press or This Week.

The McLaughlin Group

Issue One: Can you blame the stock market woes on the Clinton "crisis"?

C'mon, John, you've gotta be kidding!!! It's not every week that you see anything resembling a consensus emerge from the Mc-Laugh-In group -- especially one in which everyone disagrees with you -- but it happened. Just to see Pat Buchanan and Eleanor Clift agree on anything is in and of itself amazing.

All of John's panelists cited different reasons for the running of the bears, but only Lawrence Kudlow hit the nail on the head: Alan Greenspan's dour testimony.

Lawrence O'Donnell (usually a commentator for MSNBC) did a little bit of sister network "promotion" by claiming "CNBC is probably most responsible because they put on one bearish analyst."

What?

McLaughlin was beside himself: "What is new is the fact that Lewinsky has testified and the President is going to testify... I am just appalled at the complacency of this panel!!"

Right, John -- and we're sure Ken Starr is appalled at the "complacency" of an American public that can see a political assault for what it is.

Issue two: Foreign policy paralysis. John's argument: Clinton's current woes have hampered his ability to put forward effective foreign policy, citing Thomas Friedman's recent op-ed piece in The New York Times. There was (mostly) predictable sniping from Kudlow ("Clinton didn't have much of a foreign policy to begin with") and Buchanan ("No one respects the US as a superpower"), but O'Donnell got it right when he cited some of Friedman's misbegotten examples and said "Clinton has little effect on these foreign policy issues anyway." Clift added that "Friedman's expectations are wildly out of proportion... the truth is far more mundane than pinning it on an affair."

We have to agree with both Clift and O'Donnell. Friedman's hit piece was so full of holes it left us with the taste of Jarlsberg in our mouth. We also recall the many foreign policy woes Bush had, and the failure of his most significant international venture -- intervention in Iraq -- to achieve its intended target of bringing down the Saddam Hussein regime. By comparison, Clinton looks like an overachiever.

And, naturally, the debate turned directly to the Starr investigation. Clift said that "Starr doesn't have a case that will pass the laugh test."

Issue 3: Reno in contempt? Give it a rest, John -- if anyone shows contempt for the law and the balance of powers, it's Dan Burton, whose efforts to subvert a Justice Department investigation are outright criminal.

Will Reno appoint an IC? All but O'Donnell say yes. We think Reno's time would be more fruitfully spent looking into Peter Cloeren's claims that Republicans "passed the cash stash" to circumvent legal campaign contribution limits, or Haley Barbour's "China Connection," or the Gingrich-Norquist scam to launder campaign bucks through nonprofit organizations.

Prediction to watch: Larry Kudlow hinted that John Ashcroft may push for a "super-flat-tax" plan. We think Ashcroft is one of the flakier right wing nuts jockeying for the GOP presidential nod, but the flat tax could prove a very effective issue for the GOP to run on in 2000.

Meet the Press

Tim Russert's first guest was Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. The top topic, as with all of the other network politi-chat shows: two bombings of American embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. As the show went on the air, casualties totaled over one hundred killed, including at least 15 American citizens. Some 400 were injured, including at least 30 Americans.

Russert asked about tougher embassy security standards that had not been met at either embassy. Albright explained that America has 280 posts around the world that have to meet new standards. Even though a lot of work had been done on the embassy in Nairobi, it was not completed. Secretary Albright went on to say that the State Department did not have the resources to complete all the necessary work. She stated that it was not certain whether these were suicide bombings, and that investigations are just starting. She did not want to discuss details.

Russert showed a picture of a Saudi terrorist now living in Pakistan, Osaid bin Laden, and asked whether his connections in Africa make him a prime suspect. Albright again would not comment on this specific individual. She did however promise to find the perpetrators and bring them to justice.

Talk then turned to the UN inspections of Iraq which have ground to a halt at the order of Saddam Hussein. Albright said that Saddam is further away from his goal to get out of the sanctions regime imposed by the UN Security Council. "He is the loser in this," she said. To the question that Saddam is now trying to hide to chemical and biological weapons, Albright said sanctions will not be lifted -- and that the US reserves the right to use force if there is a threat to the region or the United States. Andrea Mitchell pointed out all signals point to the fact that we do not want to use force. Albright claimed that this is not a battle between Iraq and the US, but between Iraq and the UN. "He is stuck in a box, and has thrown away the key."

Next Russert hosted noted Attorney Roy Black, who told Russert that he would never have allowed the President to testify before the grand jury, but now that he has promised to testify he should do so, but refuse to testify about his private sex life. On the right was Joe DiGenova, stealth spokesperson for Ken Starr, who said that the President must testify about his sex life or can be held in contempt. Russert remarked that he would be put in the same position as Susan McDougal. Black asked Russert to imagine the President of the United States answering questions about his sex life for eight hours. Russert wanted to note how the Chief Judge could enforce contempt charges against the President -- DiGenova had no good answer other than it was an interesting question.

Black thinks that Starr may be bluffing and using the "stained dress" as a way to get Bill Clinton to testify. DiGenova claims that the Lewinsky people are leaking the information purposely to pre-arm the President for his testimony scheduled for August 17th, and then asserted that even if there is no stain that could linked to the President (does he know something?), Starr still has a lot of evidence including but not limited to Secret Service testimony, visitors logs, and the gifts returned to the President's secretary.

On the question of how serious the alleged Starr leaks of grand jury testimony is, both lawyers agreed that this is a serious matter and that Starr could be held in contempt for leaks proven from his office.

Russert asked what would happen if the President decided not to testify because of Starr's unresolved legal problems. DiGenova said that the President could not politically afford not to show, and that Judge Johnson would hold him to his promise. Attorney Black replied that Clinton was in a no-win situation and that any excuse from testifying that would not injure him politically would be a good one.

DiGenova then said "Sometimes clients lie to their lawyers, and if the President's lawyers knew about the dress beforehand, there is no way they would have agreed to have him testify."

Black and DiGenova discussed what would happen if the President admitted his alleged affair with Lewinsky and apologized to the nation. DiGenova felt it would re-open the Paula Jones suit and that she would file an additional suit against him for civil rights violations. Black said that Starr was out to indict or begin a successful impeachment process in order to justify the years of investigation and the $40 million spent thus far.

Readers take note: The media -- and particularly Tim Russert, who has battered the White House continually for the past 7 months -- want nothing more than to see President Clinton engage in a "mea culpa" type speech to the nation. It makes great copy!

It won't happen.

Russert then hosted Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein to discuss the Clinton troubles. Woodward compares John Dean's taking of documents with Monica Lewinsky's secreting her supposedly semen-stained dress. Bernstein, much smarter, pointed out the Nixon was a true criminal, a man who authorized break-ins, fire bombings and a virtual police state. "The comparison between Clinton and Nixon is preposterous" was the message he delivered. Bernstein offered that the parties should sit down together and stop this thing before we fall off a cliff into tragedy. Woodward agreed. "Let's pull back... You reach a point where the system creates a momentum... We can be wiser than a simple system imposes..."

Bernstein said people will see this as a kind of national madness. Woodward points out that "Starr has peeled back every privilege... lawyer-client, Secret Service... the President is stripped of much power -- the Presidency is diminished."

Both reporters' comments were a welcome addition to the mix.

Russert brought up a Salon article that the White House is now engaging in a witch hunt focused on Republican leadership scandals -- including Gingrich, Dan Burton, Henry Hyde and others -- in order to twist their arms against any move for impeachment, a so-called "scorched earth policy." Bernstein offered that this is a situation that has spun out of control. Russert said it was almost blackmail.

We say the entire Starr investigation is just that, and far more so than the rumored "scorched earth" strategy.

Bernstein said, "We've gone beyond the rational... a kind of Nuremberg trial and you end up with a jaywalking charge."

Woodward pointed out that there is no "let's go for the kill" on this, pointing to Henry Hyde. However, they failed to discuss Dan Burton who is attempting just that. Woodward said "Ken Starr has the power. Starr could say tomorrow -- it's over. This is the end of it."

Woodward is right. It is now up to Ken Starr to be the voice of wisdom and maturity and say "It's time to stop now." If Starr took that tack he would be a national hero overnight.

On Starr's legal jeopardy for leaks, Russert said "We in the media know the truth." We wish Russert would tell us.

Woodward ended the segment saying it is quite possible that the August 17th Presidential grand jury testimony will not occur.

This Week

Sam Donaldson opened This Week by saying "Let's face it, the terrible bombings in Africa knocked everything off the front page." Donaldson sounded crestfallen in not being able to lead with alleged sex, alleged sex, and more alleged sex.

The first guest was Defense secretary Bill Cohen, and the thrust of the questioning continued the trend of "American policy and security failure." Donaldson asked if the bombing could have been prevented. Cohen correctly pointed out that "it's virtually impossible to have 100% security." We wish he had elaborated: first, concrete barriers, security staff, and electronic surveillance do nothing to prevent collateral damage by individuals determined to attack, and America needs open embassies to facilitate international travel, support and diplomacy not only for our citizens but foreign nationals.

Not long after, Cokie Roberts brought up the bombings of Pan Am Flight 107 over Scotland and the attack on Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, saying "those people have never been tracked down" -- as if we could just walk up to them no matter where they were in the world and simply take them into custody.

George Will steered the questioning away from the hand-wringing and into the controversial: should the US change its laws to allow for assassination of terrorists? Cohen pointed out it is not a simple, cut-and-dried issue because terrorism cannot be handled as a law-enforcement type issue when it is state sponsored -- something George surely knew when he asked the question.

Talk turned to Saddam and how to handle his latest refusal to fully cooperate with the UN-mandated inspection regimen. Cohen pointed out the obvious but simple fact that seems to have been overlooked by most news reporters and analysts: Saddam's twin goals are to split the Security Council and to seek relief from the sanctions. "He will get neither." Of course, Saddam is exploiting the trend by governments and the UN away from sanctions -- witness recent news and op-ed pieces on the failure of sanctions as an effective policy weapon.

Orrin Hatch was This Week's second guest, and Sam's first question to him was regarding changing the laws to go after terrorists -- should we assassinate them? Hatch had a view somewhat contrary to Cohen: "These acts of terrorism really are acts of war, and frankly they should be treated differently from other matters that have required us to have limited views... There should be nothing that should not be on the table when it comes to protecting our citizens overseas or anywhere else for that matter against terrorists. We have terrorists in our own country. I will just give you a very conservative estimate: we have 1500 to 2000 known terrorists and terrorist organizations in America. If we don't treat that very tough, we're going to reap the whirlwind."

But the problem, of course, comes with whom you tie "acts of war" to -- "terrorist organizations"? Outlaw states? Even entire religions? Hatch is delving into a problematic and complex area which glib, slick soundbites cannot solve, let alone explain in one sentence.

Cokie shifted gears, turning to the alleged "sins" of President Clinton: if he admits wrongdoing, should he be forgiven?

Hatch: "I do. I think if the president -- I can't speak for the whole Congress, but I really believe this is merely a matter of lying to protect his family and that's all there is -- it's not obstruction of justice or not subornation of perjury, and the president really poured his heart and soul out to the American people and asked forgiveness."

Well, well! Does anyone else get the feeling that Congress is not exactly spoiling for impeachment hearings? Sorry, Bob Barr, but judging from these words from one of the most influential GOPers out there, it looks like it's time to put a sock in it about even an "inquiry of impeachment." Better yet, given the size of your fat yap, a blue cocktail dress might be more appropriate.

Hatch was less charitable to Janet Reno, accusing her of listening to "the political machine around her, the 'palace guard,' the political appointees at the Justice Department."

Hey, Orrin, if you weren't so busy spacing at the piano keyboard you'd realize that these same appointees have supported Reno in unleashing an army of independent (and not-so-independent) counsels on the Clinton Administration. And the "palace guard" comment was a cheap shot. These people know a helluva lot more about the fair and proper application of the law than you do about getting on the Billboard gospel charts (which, may we point out, you have failed to do despite all sorts of publicity in the press and on E-van-gelical Tee Vee).

The next segment was a near-complete waste of time, despite the presence of Dee Dee Meyers and Lisa Caputo (the First Lady's former press secretary). The questioning was downright prurient: Sam asked Meyers "What is it like when there are no cameras present in the White House these days -- what do you hear?"

Meyers should have answered "None of your damn business, Sam -- what is it like when there are no cameras present and you and your pals are trying to construct slanted questions that serve nobody but Ken Starr and your right-wing pals?"

Instead, she said "I think the president and Mrs. Clinton are probably communicating in many ways through their lawyer, David Kendall. I think these issues are just too difficult for them to discuss with each other in many respects."

We had to scrape our chins off the floor at Meyers's scenario. Maybe she has been hanging with Bay Buchanan for too long!

We also think Lisa Caputo was far closer to the mark: "I think she's involved every step of the way, and I think you have to keep in mind that these are two people who've been accused of so many things over the past six years -- everything including murder -- and I think she is definitely at a point where she has become numb to these relentless attacks, and as a consequence she is deeply involved in strategy, both from a political standpoint and a legal standpoint."

We won't bore you with the speculation about the blue cocktail dress or the roundtable.

And that's the way it was in Punditland this Sunday.

- The Editors