Monday, August 24, 1998 --- New York (APJP) -- The punditocracy had to go with the US attack on terrorist targets in Sudan and Afghanistan as the week's hottest item, but found every opportunity to target President Clinton for attack over his statement of regret at an inappropriate relationship with Monica Lewinsky and subsequent castigation of Ken Starr and his investigation.

You almost have to believe that the network news honchos, producers and reporters are a bunch of junkies desperate for their next "fix" of leaked innuendo... er, testimony from the independent counsel's office. It should be interesting to observe the symptoms of "withdrawl" once Starr finishes the grand jury portion of the festivities.

Fox News Sunday

"A week of bombs and bombshells!" gushed Tony Snow at the top of FNS. He would use the American bombing of sites in Sudan and Afghanistan as a springboard to trash the President's potent and defiant Monday evening speech, making terrorism the first issue mentioned but the continued assault on the president and presidency the real "issue one" -- a pattern followed without fail by all of the self-important Sunday shows.

In fact, Tony's first guest was Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA). He introduced the segment by asking "Was the President trying to distract us from his grand jury testimony with a missile attack?" Usually we would excuse this kind of specious question as typical Snow-Hume-Murdoch spin -- but the fact is that this manufactured "Wag the Dog" comparison is an insult to American diplomats and servicemen murdered in terrorist attacks evidently masterminded by Osama bin Laden, and for which the US had every moral and security obligation to retaliate. It's sickening that the press gets away with this -- in a transparent effort to tell us what we should be thinking.

Tell you what, Roger Ailes, Brit Hume -- why don't you have people who had family members murdered in service to this country on your show to ask them what they think?

Back to Arlen, whose jowls bear an all-too-eerie resemblance to those of Richard Nixon. Fred "The Weasel" Barnes asserted that "there's a growing chorus for resignation" -- but forgot to mention this is due without doubt to Congress not having the stomach for full-blown impeachment. Specter said that if there were a resignation it should "be like Nixon" -- and facts in Starr's report to Congress may cause a broader call for resignation.

This is a slam-dunk signal that some in the GOP don't dare attempt impeachment over political attacks disguised as a sex scandal wrapped in the cloak of the "high crime and misdemeanor" of perjury.

Censure? Specter surprised with his reply -- no, because "we might be doing it all the time... if evidence is there for impeachment... we ought to go with the Constitution."

Monica Crowley, who looks and talks as if she had been cloned from a piece of genetic material from Starr cheerleader and pal Barbara Olson, asked "How can the President deal with international issues if he's proven to be a liar?"

The same way that George "No new taxes" Bush and Ronald "Iran-Contra There You Go Again!" Reagan did, sweetie!

Monica also asked if Congress "has the stomach for impeachment." Specter: Nobody wants Gore in office for two years.

Juan Williams asked if Specter supports Clinton's foreign policy; Specter said "not on Saddam," accusing the State Department of urging UN inspection boss Richard Butler to "back off" -- an assertion denied and ridiculed by the State Department, but Juan gave Specter a pass on this statement.

But then Tony asked "Does [Clinton] have what it takes to wage war on terrorism?"

Specter's reply -- a surprisingly assertive "Yes... We are at war with terrorists."

Every other GOPer echoed the sentiment this weekend. Our prediction: they may make it a huge issue in 2000, claiming that Clinton has been "soft" on fighting terrorism, tying the issue to intelligence capability and defense department pork... er, funding.

In reply to Fred's question about revoking the memorandum banning assassination, Specter said we shouldn't -- but "when you're at war it's a different proposition... I think we're at war with bin Laden."

The second segment, with UN ambassador Bill Richardson, started with the question "Does the United States have the resolve to take on terrorism?"

Note to Tony: Over 70 missiles. Reports of over 50 dead in at the Afghani "Terrorism University." Bin Laden's "pharmaceutical" plant destroyed. His assets about to be frozen. We think the answer is obvious.

Tony's question: did we hit an essentially empty base in Afghanistan? Tony knew that satellite intelligence prevented Richardson from answering the question, so he replied that we had eliminated much of bin Laden's infrastructure, and destroyed his ability to manufacture "chemical precursors" to (read: ingredients for) VX nerve gas.

Tony's follow-up: "If we're serious about wiping out terrorism, why make nice with Iran?" Richardson stated our goal is to "influence Iran to turn away from terrorism" and that not only have Arab nations shown support, but that "even the Russian Foreign Ministry has come forward with a very positive statement."

Richardson also responded to Clinton critics: "Clinton is leading, he is aggressive... The United States will not tolerate anyone harboring terrorists."

Tony then turned to Israeli prime minister Benyamin Netanyahu, a favorite FNS guest. Bibi, who is usually content to recycle comments from program to program, actually hit on a few interesting areas of discussion. On whether Arab silence or neutrality on America's action pointed toward instability, Netanyahu pointed out that "many Arab states are targets of [bin Laden's] organization" but did not specifically name Saudi Arabia or the various small emirates. He did make a few predictable comments: "These terrorists don't need any pretense [to attack].... To fight terrorism you have to fight terrorists... States that harbor terrorists must pay a price." He also reiterated his long-standing position that the PLO must remove a point from its charter calling for the destruction of Israel before land is turned over to Palestinians.

The next guest (FNS crams 'em in like no other news interview program) was House Intelligence Committee Porter Goss (R-FL), who further exploded the so-called "Wag the Dog" scenario when Juan asked if he had been persuaded of credible and specific evidence with the second highly emphatic "Yes" of the program, adding that "the system has worked well" and "the President did the right thing." Congressman Goss's words go a long way in undermining the nattering naysayers out to use a just and strong retaliation for murder of Americans as another opportunity to trash President Clinton. Goss also presented his views that "We are underinvested in intelligence assets."

Juan: "In other words, we don't have enough spies."

Goss: "You got it!"

The problem is, of course, that developing an information infrastructure in terrorist groups has proven far easier said than done since these groups began to spring up well over two decades ago. Ask Bibi Netanyahu.

The segment that followed -- three women debating women's support of Bill Clinton -- was largely a waste, sounding like an even more right-slanted version of "CNN & Company" (a program one feminist we know has cynically nicknamed "Bitches in Boxes").

The guests: right-wing evangelical Rev. Anne Graham Lotz, who nonsensically insisted "you cannot separate private conduct from public." If that's the case, we cannot separate the fact that she so heatedly attacked Clinton from any conversations she may or may not have had with Jerry Falwell, Ralph Reed, "Diamond" Pat Robertson or James "Beat the Brat" Dobson to coordinate an attack that does not exactly smack of Christian forgiveness.

Congressperson Anne Northrop (R-KY) said "He gave an admission, not an apology." She neglected to mention that Clinton publicly stated that he "regrets" his conduct and if an apology is due, it is to his family and friends -- and it would be neither appropriate nor responsible to issue a public apology for private conduct.

Northrop also tried to put words in the mouth of the third segment guest, Susan Estrich: "[she] emphatically defended [Clinton and] said he didn't do it."

Estrich: "That's not what I said."

Note to Northrop: next time, have Frank Luntz read you the rules of spin, including Rule Number One -- when putting words in someone's mouth, make darned sure that person is not scheduled for the same show, let alone the same segment!

The words "Just plain dumb" came to mind after we stopped laughing at Northrop's gaffe.

Finally, Tony invited one last guest: renowned ladies' man and political advisor Dick Morris, ostensibly to discuss his unexpected testimony . It was another opportunity for Morris to trash his former employer. We won't bore you with the details.

We're also skipping the roundtable -- more talk about sex than bombing, and with Mara Liasson replaced by Monica (that's Crowley, not Lewinsky), there was no attempt at fake "balance" during the final few minutes of prognostication.

The McLaughlin Group

Issue One: August Surprise. John led with a piece guaranteed to have at least one member of his panel saying those magic words "Wag the Dog," mentioning the attack, the massive but not universal support for the move, and a segment of the obnoxious Dan Coats's comments late last week.

Pat Buchanan: "The President has broken the bonds of trust and credibility" but "he had every justification" to act.

Eleanor Clift: "The President, by acting, shows that he can act... This is reassuring to the
rest of the world."

Chris Matthews: "The fact that he has a Republican on his team gives the decision great credibility."

Oh, please, John. You mean that so many conservative spinners were away this week that you had to invite the shrill and shallow Matthews, host of CNBC's right-leaning Hardball, to fill space? This man should have a laughtrack. Note to Chris: Murdered Americans give the decision credibility.

Larry O'Donnell: "I would be happy to entertain a mini-Wag-the Dog scenario."

We thought the booby prize would go to Chris, but we were wrong -- Larry takes the prize. between Chris and Larry, John was truly slumming this week.

John followed up with a question: should we not pursue an Arab-Israeli peace agreement to cut terrorism by half? He was met by skepticism, especially Pat's "If you think it will solve terrorism..." which John cut off, reiterating "Cut by half!"

Maybe, John... then, maybe not. But we think violent response to such a deal would be limited to the region and would probably not be aimed at American interests.

Was there evidence that the bombing was set by politics? a unanimous no -- except for Larry.

Issue Two: "The Big Lie." The requisite playing of the "I have not had an improper relationship" Clinton video clip from January, with John making the observation that Clinton's Monday night speech was "surprisingly devoid of emotion -- except anger."

Well, jeez, John, tell us something we don't already know! Is it any surprise -- an "independent" counsel mounting an attack on the president in the form of investigation? You'd be angry two -- only you'd bellow your rage in your inimitable oratorical style, probably deafening Starr and his entire prosecutorial staff in the process!

The segment was a complete waste of bandwidth... save Eleanor's observation that we're seen by foreign nations as silly for tying up the government over a sex scandal.

Larry theorized that Starr is building his perjury case out of the gifts testimony. Yeah, Larry. Tell that to the millions of Americans who have had to demand things from or return things to someone they have broken off a relationship with.

Not much later, Chris said that Clinton looked like a POW admitting to wrongdoing on Monday. We think he stole the idea from our "Greetings from Stalag 1600" post card!

The final segment was a stretch -- implying the "seriousness" of Clinton's involvement with a public employee on public property and throwing in a little innuendo of "presidential favors" and "job offers." We doubt these assertions will be proven by Starr, but they sure make great "get Clinton" fodder.

The one prediction worth watching: John predicts that Starr will subpoena Clinton, Clinton will refuse citing separation of powers, Starr will use it as the "centerpiece" of his report.

This Weak

Good news! No Sam.

Bad news: lamer than usual.

The one guest worth discussing: Madeleine Albright, who discussed the missile attack on Sudan and Terrorist U at some length. She reiterated that the goal was "to get at [the bin Laden organization's] command and control structure." When George Will asked if the move was "more pre-emption than retaliation," Albright said the move was in fact both: "We are going after his assets and organizations."

Will also brought up the same repeatedly denied assertion that Richard Butler was told to "back off" on Iraqi inspections. Albright was visibly irritated by King Migraine and replied "Absolutely wrong!", adding that Saddam would not escape the sanctions box until he fully cooperates with inspections.

Questions then turned to the president's comments of Monday evening. Cokie asked Albright if Clinton had told her that the Lewinsky allegations were "completely untrue." Albright would not dignify the cheap-shot question with a direct answer, choosing to reply that "I accept what he said on Monday... He has the judgment and ability to defend the United States." In other words, Cokie, none of your damn business, or anyone else's. it's a private matter -- and should stay that way. Will essentially followed a redundant line of questioning, and Albright was a bit more explicit in her refusal to reply. Will: "You don't feel used?" Albright: "I do not."

We won't waste your time going over lame-duck Congressman Paul McHale (D-PA), who has been alone on his side of the aisle in calling for the president to step down, other than to repeat his comments that "I wish that on this issue we could forget the polls" (read: I wish we could tell people what to think and get away with it) and "I wish the President had never conducted polls, never conducted a focus group" (read: I hope people don't notice what a hypocrite I am because my career has benefited from polls and focus groups).

Two women in Congress, Representatives Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Jennifer Dunn (R-WA) debated Clinton's statement of regret and defiance. Pelosi: "The American people know much better than the politicians how disruptive impeachment would be... [Clinton's admission] is cause for great embarrassment but not impeachment." Dunn: "He had an opportunity a few days ago to settle this." Funny, but a lot of people feel he did.

We'll skip the roundtable , other than to repeat George Will's comment that "This presidency is more comatose than Woodrow Wilson after his stroke."

Really, George? Tell that to Osama bin Laden and see what kind of reaction you get!

Meet The Press

Tim Russert opened MTP with the same lead story every other pundit covered this Sunday morning: "The United States Strikes Back at Terrorists!... Many Americans feel these attacks were politically motivated." True to his usual form, Russert linked the attacks on terrorist strongholds to a "Wag the Dog" theory -- for the purpose of bashing the President.

So what's new?

Russert, in the first two minutes, also showed two clips of the President, the first in which he denies having a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky and the second where he admits just the opposite. Russert was not creative in the least! All but one pundit show did the very same thing.

Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen, the only Republican in the Clinton Cabinet, was Russert's first guest. Cohen said that we should not expect potential "get even" retaliatory terrorist attacks within the United States because these attacks would have occurred anyway.

Russert, fishing for a "Wag" connection, asked why we didn't go after these terrorists years ago when we knew they were planning these attacks. Cohen didn't bite. So Russert simply asked the direct question and Cohen pointed out that the congressional leadership approved the counterattacks and this -- obviously -- proved that Clinton's move was not made to cover his troubles with Lewinsky. Russert, however, would not give up -- he then asked why the attack was made Thursday, not Tuesday or Wednesday or Friday, still trying to put Cohen on the "Wag" defensive. That also did not work. Of course.

Russert wanted to know whether Osama bin Laden was still alive. Cohen didn't know. Russert then asked why we have not gone after Iraq and Iran, and whether the Pakistanis may have tipped off bin Laden. He then turned to North Korea's construction of a nuclear plant: "What are we going to do about it?" Cohen answered that they have not, as yet, violated their nuclear agreement. Russert said that our intelligence has revealed that they are. Cohen demurred.

Next came Saddam: would we say to him either allow full inspections or we will attack? Cohen again did not bite.

Russert then played his last ace: "If a general did what the President did under the uniform code of military justice he would be punished, why not the Commander-in-Chief?"

Cohen trumped Russert, reminding him -- as if he didn't know -- that the President was not part of the military justice system and that he was ELECTED. Russert had to be kidding.

To Russert's question about how he, Cohen, as a cabinet member reacts to the Lewinsky affair, Cohen said it was a personal matter, and the president has "always dealt with me straightforwardly and I have confidence in him to deal with national and international security issues." Cohen said that Americans should be careful when traveling, but should always do so. "We cannot guarantee their full security, but we will take every measure we can."

So Russert came up with zero.

He attempted to humiliate Secretary Cohen and, of course, President Clinton. He tried to drive a wedge between the military chiefs and the President. He failed on all three counts.

His next guest was holier-than-thou "virtues czar" William Bennett , chairman of something called "Empower America"-- a man who would make even the Pope puke with his pompous self-righteousness. Bennett was hawking yet another book -- a tome (we bet at least partially ghost-written) about what a piece of garbage President Clinton is.

"He lied to his aides, he lied to his cabinet, he lied under oath, he lied to his wife, he lied to his family and then sent them out to lie for him."

Oh, gee. That really hurts.

Russert claims Americans see two different Clintons. They like his job, but don't share his morals.

Well, what a earth-shattering finding! Of course, Russert does not point out that everyone lies about their own moral attitudes.

Bennett answered "We don't need a Saint but we can't settle for a serial liar and a serial ..." John Conyers, who had not even been introduced by Russert, jumped right in and attacked Bennett with no mercy.

"You're just showing off and writing a book that says that the President should resign -- a little bit premature." He added that the real damage comes from Ken Starr: "You know what, we're not the courts and we're not even Ken Starr."

Russert said that Conyers had called Ken Starr's investigation an inquisition and asked if that was the right thing to say. Conyers did take back the inquisition comment -- but added that Bennett should take back the "felon" comment about Clinton. Bennett was not man enough.

Russert then turned to NOW president Patricia Ireland and asked why she isn't picketing and attacking the President like NOW did against Justice Thomas and Bob Packwood.

Of course Ireland had the answer -- Bob Packwood FORCED himself on the women he used. Ireland said this isn't new with Presidents, and we are at last moving toward honesty, not toward the using of women.

She added, "I have said that the president has a special responsibility to be appropriate, this is not an impeachable offense... but he should respect women." Ireland pointed out that Lewinsky has not filed charges in this complex situation, and that years ago this would not even have been reported -- two obvious facts ignored by the big media.

Russert then turned to Bennett, whose book claims feminists are being dishonest. He then claimed that Packwood was thrown out because he was a Republican . We were rolling on the floor at that one! Ireland jumped right on him, not only saying that was not true but that NOW needed his pro-choice vote.

"You know when you ask children about their heroes they always mention the president -- is there no sense of incredible hypocrisy about this?" Conyers asked. "Where were you when Reagan, Bush and the Speaker lied about governmental matters? You're not God."

Bennett replied, "No, but I am a citizen of the United States" -- which ensures the man to freedom of spin.

Conyers says "Starr's report isn't even out yet and you seem to know what's in it!", and followed up with "You're doing very well off this man, aren't you!"

Russert, as if planned, then showed two clips of Reagan -- one lying and one owning up -- that people were killed delivering arms for hostages. Bennett wouldn't give in, whining "Did we prove he knew that?" What a pitifully pious ass.

Russert asked Conyers whether perjury in a civil case is grounds for impeachment. Conyers replied that perjury in a sexual matter has never been prosecuted.

Bennett claimed that he "used to be a Democrat" and that he "left in disgust." Ha, ha, haha!

Russert -- on the attack again -- read off a list of all the lies Clinton may have told in the Jones deposition. Conyers said he wanted to wait for the report from Starr and wanted to reserve judgment. Russert asks if censure of the President was in the cards. Conyers said yes and then Ireland piped up and said a truly amazing thing -- "Only men who have never cheated or committed adultery should be allowed to vote!"

Bennett, moralistic moron that he is, then said that 80% of men do not cheat on their wives. We suppose he has never read Dr. Shere Hites's study in which her painstakingly assembled statistics prove that more than 67% of men cheat and almost an equal number of women do the same. For better or worse, that's the human condition.

Bennett came off looking silly, pompous and adolescently naive during his latest fifteen seconds of fame. Of course, his book will sell well to right-wing zealots, but that's the target audience for which it was designed. We do wish him luck, particularly when he meets his judgment and his God. He will be ruefully surprised.

Russert then brought out our favorite political couple, James Carville and his wife Mary Matalin. Carville said he cannot defend what Clinton did, but that we have to look at his record, his compassion and his humanity: "I can sure understand why he denied it, but I can't defend it." He added that we need a perspective, and people recognize that he is a superb President: "Sometimes good men do bad things." He then launched into an attack on Ken Starr and the $50 million he spent on a "sex investigation... I will not back off."

Mary Matalin claimed a lot of money could have been saved if the President had "come clean" earlier. She said a president should have judgment; you cannot separate out his private from his public life. Then she launched into the silly story the GOP has been telling for ten days now -- that Ronald Reagan would not take off his jacket in the Oval Office out of respect for the Presidency. We think that's laudatory -- but Russert himself pointed out that Reagan lied about very important things as well.

Russert asked Matalin if she thinks the President should resign. She answered yes: "We all know what's in that report." She also made reference to the Matt Drudge "revelation" that Monica Lewinsky was doing "it" with a cigar while the president pleasured himself. She forgets that if that story is true as told, then it will be Monica who people will peer queerly at.

We are also curious: did Lewinsky save the cigar, too?

Matalin said the Monday's speech was the first politically stupid thing Clinton did. "If anyone is owed an apology here it's Ken Starr." But Matalin said that it would not have ended had he been more contrite -- there have to be consequences. Mary said it all: the GOP will never stop until they hound Clinton from office.

Russert asked whether Carville would be open to having the President censured. Carville said he was team player and will stay at the President's side. "You don't jump on a friend when he's down." Matalin said she respects Carville's feelings but that the President has not been a good friend to Carville. This was probably the only NEWS on Meet the Press that day. Does Matalin know something we don't? Perhaps time will tell.

Russert asked Carville, "Do you regret declaring war on Ken Starr?" Carville answered "No, and I intend to continue!! "

As Dave "Dr." Gonzo would reply, " 'Nuf Said!!!!"

-- The Editors