Monday, November 16, 1998 -- News in progress at the time -- the tense situation in Iraq which had for all intents and purposes been defused overnight -- led all of the "public affairs" programs this weekend. And practically every member of the DC pundit elite, save John McLaughlin (showing a semblance of sanity for a change), was champing at the bit for war! Action! Those cool shots of smart bombs flying toward their targets and blowing those nasty Iraqis to smithereens! Glory for correspondents in Baghdad, and happy anchors and pundits getting plenty of hand-wringing airtime.

Sadly for them, and happily for America and the world, it was not to come to pass.

Read on -- and see the pundits at their worst.

The McLaughlin Group

John McLaughlin's Issue One! -- WAR!!!!! -- One he is against!

McLuaghlin was nearly erect when shouting the words. McLaughlin -- an on-again off-again hawk -- then showed clips of Iraq and its leaders spewing the same rhetoric we've heard for years. But McLaughlin honed in on what is to him the real issue: The US wants Saddam out of Iraq, and until that time the economic punishments will continue. McLaughlin claimed that the US actions thus far are considered as aggression. He also claimed that the Arab world will come under attack by its population if Arab leaders continue to bolster US intervention. Why? Because the US will be seen as an Israel booster and anti-Arab. These leaders have decided to hold Saddam responsible. Most people also do not realize that the UN has not authorized this US/UK bombing.

Is bombing Iraq a good idea?

Michael "Mr. Reader's Digest" Barone: It's a GOOD idea. We should go farther and put a safe zone in the South for Saddam opponents. If not, then give up.

Eleanor Clift: This Sunday-go-to-meetin' hawkette agrees with Barone and said it should be an extended foray. Eleanor said Clinton has more approval to go forth than since the Gulf War.

Tony Blankley (following the Bash Bill party line) went into the "I don't know what his foreign policy goal is." Obviously "Toady" is too busy making TV appearances as a pundit to see that Clinton does have a foreign policy goal: whichever way you act, use careful consideration.

McLaughlin pointed out that this is not just a bilateral issue between the US and Iraq.

He also pointed out that bio weapons can be remanufactured anywhere in a few mere weeks -- so what are we trying to wipe out? It is not nuclear weapons -- even Ambassador Butler said this is not a problem.

Michael Barone, a genuine idiot, said Saddam is an evil man willing to do evil deeds -- if we can stop him, we should stop him. Of course, Barone did not define what he means. It would be immoral to simply bomb Iraq and kill thousands if not hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who have no power at this time to disobey Saddam's orders. "Military strikes by a civilized power... are unspeakably immoral," said McLaughlin. He is right. Since the end of the word, our sanctions have killed 750,000 Iraqi civilians.

What to do?

Blankley said that danger "dictates" use of US force. Clift, forgetting morals, said the world will not jump us on this -- and she is, unfortunately, right. It's sad that she does not consider dead women and children who would surely come to light after such a bombing.

What no one ventures to say is that the United States is now facing the unenviable role of ruling the world passively or agressively depending upon one's point of view. Either way, it has to stop.

[One of our editors has recently received a 400 page 11" X17" Atlas of Iraqi War Crimes in the State of Kuwait, hardbound and in four color on glossy heavy paper. This costly tome, when read carefully , shows what a war led by Saddam can be like. The authors, Dr. Abdullah M. Al-Hammadi and Mr. Abdulateef Al-Abdalrazaq, did a wonderful job of setting down -- in the most precise and heartbreaking terms -- the horrifying destruction and personal tragedy Saddam unleashed on Kuwait during his invasion and attempted annexation in 1991.

However, without bringing down the regime, our military forces can do nothing permanent to Saddam except strengthen him.]

"Question:" intoned John, "should Mr. Clinton lead us into military conflict?"

McLaughlin then read some pap from a retired Marine who claimed that our armed forces have "no respect" for Clinton. McLaughlin then started in on Clinton because he had oral sex with Monica Lewinsky even as we were moving in on Bosnia. This, somehow, is supposed to be the be the end-all of Clinton test trials. C'mon, John -- dissention in the ranks? No -- a total distortion of the facts by McLaughlin and his military buddies.

The reality: the majority of the military supports Clinton -- and that could be seen throughout 1998 as hundreds of soldiers were interviewed by the media regarding the so-called "sexual double standard."

The few big mouths, who Mc-Laugh-In featured this week, do not represent the majority of Pentagon chiefs or ex-chiefs, Colin Powell aside -- who called the President a triple disgrace, but who is also a Republican operative and probably telephoned the President first before uttering his own diatribe against the White House over the Lewinsky affair -- .

And the reserve officers who publicly criticized Clinton deserve to be court-martialed, as well they should.

The President, thank God, is not a member of the armed services and is not held to the standards that they are. More importantly, few officers actually abide by these standards themselves. This argument is just another example of the lowest and basest type of attack on Clinton.

Michael Barone -- contributor to the lowest of lowest-common-denominator publication in the nation, "Reader's Digest" (an oxymoron if there ever was one) -- also tried then to link the lessening of enlistments to men's disrespect for the President. How absurd. The reasons that enlistment is far down is for the simple reason that minorities who make up a major portion of the enlistee population have awakened to the fact that the military has one use for them -- using them. And opportunities in the private sector have greatly improved. We almost felt like shouting "It's the ECONOMY, stupid!" at the simpleton Barone.

Of course, no one on the panel, including Clift, pointed out that the President encouraged all his people to publicly reprimand him if that was what they felt they must do. He was willing to take their barbs -- with no recriminations -- as proven time and time again.

Fox News Sunday

"In this corner Saddam -- in this corner, Bill -- who's winning this fight? Republicans got shocked at the polls can he recover? " As he is wont to do when news is breaking, Tony "broke with format" to bring viewers up to date on the Iraq crisis, news of an American missile attack aborted at the last minute, and speculation that Iraq may further revise the "addendum" to their letter of compliance.

Tony's first guest, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), said that America "is not isolated but is not unified... [moves and statements by] Hussein has always been inadequate in the eyes of UNSCOM... I was astonished to hear that the French, Russians, the Chinese would take him at his words... The sanctions [issues] are a ruse." Kerry fell prey to Tony's line of questioning which makes America appear weak when in fact we are about the only power willing to step into the breach to deal with a crisis of this nature -- and, in fact, we have Security Council support for action.

Reps. Norman Dicks (R-FL) and Porter Goss (D-WA) joined the discussion with Tony -- and the thrust of the discussion raised the specter of "inevitable" confrontation with Saddam. Keep in mind that in the case of international affairs, the Sunday shows are watched carefully by foreign diplomats and governments, so to a certain extent these comments were aimed at Saddam and other nations.

Goss: "We are losing the diplomatic round... it seems like every time we get to the brink he comes up with something else."

Dicks: "I really think we have gone along with Saddam too many times" and our original mistake was "not going to Baghdad" back in 1991. And Kerry agreed: "We ought to take steps to make all of Iraq a no-fly zone" and should look for ways to end Saddam's regime and step up humanitarian aid.

Kerry added his voice to many others proposing various versions of stepped-up sanctions and monitoring -- otherwise, ka-boom.

Tony asked, in his best hawkish voice, "Should we stop warning Saddam?" The talk turned to speculative nuts-and-bolts of "bringing down" Saddam. Goss: "He is a war criminal, he should be brought to justice." Dicks: "We can hit military targets with minimal civilian exposure.... There are ways to use ground troops without going into Baghdad." Goss added that there are opposition groups that we can help, but a "concerted effort" would be needed along with stepped-up intelligence. And Dicks added, "There are actions short of invasion."

"Did we plan to move yesterday?" asked Tony of Kerry, who replied that the bigger question is whether Saddam will comply with inspections; he believes that Saddam will not, and it will come to a major confrontation that has been building. Goss: There was a sigh of relief when Annan did his deal in January, but "a whole lot of people" didn't believe it would work. Dicks added it will take months to catch up with Saddam's shell game.

The impression we were left with is that this was saber-rattling, but it also was clear that Fox News is spoiling for war.

In a welcome respite from Iraq-o-rama, Tony welcomed John Kasich, who got a book plug for his new "Courage is Contagious" at the top and bottom of the segment.

It was a wonkfest, but an interesting one. Kasich's star is on the rise within the GOP; he is said to be very carefully distancing himself from the more conservative factions within the party and is considering a run for the GOP presidential nomination.

Brit Hume asked if term limits for committee chairmen was near the top of agenda; "Picking the leaders is at the top of the agenda," said Kasich, but "six years is a good rule."

Juan Williams's question concerning a "lack of resolve on the part of President Clinton" yielded a surprisingly restrained reply from Kasich: "At the end when someone sends you a letter... you naturally hold back [but] I think he has support" to combat the Saddam regime... "The US should not take military action based on some committee vote... this business of a New World Order... cannot be the lowest common denominator." The notable facet of his hawkish and anti-internationalist answer was the "you naturally hold back" comment -- in other words, he feels that Clinton did the right thing, but should reserve the military option. Kasich also suggested "There are a number of activities we can engage in, including supporting his opposition... Our goal ought to be the removal of Saddam."

Tony: Have we emboldened him? Kasich: "We may have, in a strange way, sent a signal around the world that we won't take this any more... [but it has] raised the specter of a terrorist attack... on a large department store." Interesting that Kasich should himself raise this specter on the eve of the holiday season and fan the flames of concern over domestic terrorism.

Juan asked the money question for Monica junkies: "Is impeachment out the door?" Kasich: "We will listen to Henry on his recommendations but it is clearly on the fast track." we would "spin"-terpret that as a near-unequivocal "out the door"

The segment with Reps. Bill McCollum and Robert Wexler (D-CA) featured plenty of partisan jousting over impeachment prospects. Tony asked "Is impeachment dead?" Wexler: "I should hope so." McCollum: "It is not dead... we hope we're able to get some stipulation from the President" to determine "whether he committed felonies." In other words, let's make him look guilty without the chance to defend himself before your kangaroo court -- which likely won't even send articles of impeachment to the floor! He later made a comment about "if we don't impeach the President and find him in perjury" -- as if there is the will to do that anymore. We seriously doubt that Clinton's evasions in the politically-motivated, phony-looking Jones suit -- which is now off the table, McCollum, if you didn't bother reading the weekend papers -- come anywhere close to the legal definition of perjury, especially perjury that appears to have been coerced or extorted.

A dustup between the two guests over the issue of a reprimand or censure was amusingly interrupted by Tony: "Before we get into a no-win debate about the constitution." In other words, a debate the conservative guest would lose! Tony asked "What happens if Starr turns over more material?" Boy, does he wish! Starr futilely throws watered-down gasoline on a pile of cold cinders to resurrect the specter of (shock!) sexual activity in the White House and only succeeds in making the public groan "Not this again!" McCollum said "I think we'll resolve the matter over the next two weeks." Wexler: "Ken Starr is a zealous prosecutor, I think if he had anything on the President he would have come forward with it."

Tony's next question -- "Did he commit perjury ?" -- yielded the two most telling spins of the weekend on the DOA impeachment coup. Wexler: "He lied under oath but he didn't commit perjury." What he was really saying: "It would never stand up to legal scrutiny, and thwarting a politically motivated civil suit and OIC investigation is no crime." McCollum: "I think public opinion is not what we should be going on... If we don't handle this right, what does that say for the future?" What he was really saying: "We don't give a damn about what the public thinks, what does it say about our future PAC contributions if we begin to represent the will of the people?"

Panel time showed Brit at his most arrogant: "Planes in the air, Saddam sends a letter and what happens? We did exactly the same thing we've done!"

Now Brit, we know you hate -- and we mean HATE -- Clinton, but we DIDN'T do exactly the same thing we've done. We've shown him the carrot and the stick, and HE, not WE, backed off. In fact, Clinton asserted American leadership on the crisis with his handling of the situation.

Tony asked if there was pressure on the President to take action; Juan Williams said "Domestically yes, but internationally, people are worried about the US acting in a police capacity." Mara: "I disagree about domestic pressure, what worries me is that we are losing credibility."

Have another helping of crow, Mara, America came across more credibly than the UN in this latest skirmish with Saddam.

Brit twice claimed that the Clinton Administration was "so thoroughly stumped by [events in the wake of reports of the Iraqi letters] that that they pull an allnighter at the White House." This is undiluted pap and evidence that either Brit does not comprehend the complexities of verifying conflicting facts when lives are on the line or -- more credible -- that he will bite at any opportunity to bash the Clinton Administration. Probably both. Hume has his political agenda, but snidely spinning the situation so crudely insults the viewers -- including those that share Hume's views. Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes would be wise to keep this loose cannon as far away from the cameras as possible in the future. Besides, Fred "The Weasel" Barnes is a lot funnier.

Tony asked Brit, "You've raised a question about timing -- did Saddam know?" Brit: "It's inexplicable!" Again, Brit is either misinformed or lies -- it's perfectly explicable. It plays into Clinton defusing a pattern of shrewd and carefully timed moves by Saddam. There is no question Saddam would have access to enough information to make a very educated guess as to when we would attack -- and the possibility that we may have even given him a "last chance, pal, the missiles are ready to fly" warning through intermediaries.

Juan interjected that "We're not talking about the function of a letter, we're talking about human lives. Is giving peace a chance such a bad thing?" Juan and John McLaughlin -- though coming from different reasoning -- stand apart from the remaining pundit warmongers.

Brit replied that Saddam does not care about human lives, he is amassing WMDs "to use them," at which point Tony pointed out that Iran is a bigger threat than Iraq in this respect -- which should tell Brit a thing or two about what motivates Saddam to continue his efforts to create weapons of mass destruction. Brit: "Iran is a separate account." Mara: "We don't want Iraq to fall apart, we have a policy of dual containment." Juan: "What about the day after if Saddam is still there? If you're advocating assassination, I'll address that in a moment..." Mara: "Our goal is not to eliminate him, that is illegal." Juan: "Doesn't Scott Ritter look great in retrospect? " Oh, please, Juan -- loose-cannon Ritter is partly responsible for fueling the latest crisis. If you want to see thousands dead, then Ritter looks just peachy.

This Week

What a bore. Iraq was issue one, and Sam opened by saying that the President would be making a statement "in a few minutes," and Cokie expounded on Tony Blair's comments to the press from early Sunday siding with the US.

Guest one: Iraqi UN Ambassador Nazir Hamdoon. "There will be no restrictions on their work, monitoring included," said Hamdoon in response to Cokie's question about "any restrictions." Cokie mentioned Butler's comment that Iraq is lying -- are you telling the truth? "This is the problem -- that both parties have no trust for each other," said Hamdoon, who then steered the discussion toward the UN. "Iraq has always called for a dialogue" with the US and UN over ending sanctions. George asked plenty of meaningless questions about minutia, such as about what "normal" meant, and ended up looking just as foolish as he did questioning White House staffers about Clinton's "what 'is' means" comments some months back -- in other words, foolish, anal-retentive, and so worried about the trees he can't see the forest.

Sam asked, "Why doesn't Saddam make the same unconditional declaration that you have?" Hamdoon: "We're representatives, not hears of state." It was an evasive answer, but in a totalitarian regime it's also pretty much the truth. Sam asserted "Palaces are still off limits." Hamdoon: "That's not accurate -- palaces opened as of 5th of August."

Former CIA Director John Deutsch was their second guest -- in a mostly speculative and monotonous segment with much talk of "Saddam bringing us to the brink... They are probably sequestering chemical and biological weapons... Saddam does not care about his people... he is trying to build stature in the region... A difficult choice between weapons of mass destruction and replacing Saddam which would have to take place over a long period of time." In other words, little discussion of actual war while keeping it the overt topic. Cokie: "Could we kill Saddam?" Deutsch: "We have a very wise policy, the executive order banning assassination." Not exactly an unequivocal "no." By our count, some dozen pundits brought up the possibility of Saddam's assassination on Sunday morning -- even more than in the "crisis" earlier this year which was eventually defused by Kofi Annan. George Dismember Iraq? No, but inspections and sanctions are not enough, and air power alone cannot solve this.

Great Moments in Con-swerv-ative Thinking Dept.: When Deutsch suggested that the an alliance "ring together all the nations of the region to support dissident movements within Iraq," George replied "Isolate the Kurds, Shiites? They'll be risking their lives!" Deutsch's comeback: "They've been LOSING their lives for years."

The sheepish look on George's face made the trouble of tuning in this train wreck of a program worth it for once.

Sam raised the specter of (oooooh! spooky) espionage or diplomatic back-channeling: "How did Saddam know to have this exquisite timing?" Deutsch: "I imagine a responsible leader of this country would have let other leaders know," a reply which completely crumbled the FOX-ABC Why Didn't We Get the Drop on Saddam speculation.

John McCain, their next guest, joined them from Singapore -- he had to cancel a trip to Djakarta due to the student massacres -- er, "unrest." When asked if the President should launch strikes, McCain said he didn't think Clinton will -- the goal was unfettered inspections and it looks like we got them. And McCain was right -- until he added "we have allowed Saddam to dictate the agenda."

If the agenda means giving in to the US and UN, then we suppose McCain right.

McCain also lit into the Administration for allowing a situation where "we cannot maintain a significant military presence" in the Gulf -- more nonsense. George brought up the possibility of supporting insurrections within Iraq and the "failure" of the UN to defend Srebernice and Kurdish massacres (without giving the many reasons, which would have trashed George's point). Cokie played the assassination card, and McCain, no fool, pointed out the complexity of the domestic situation in Iraq and that while assassination is wrong we should work for an overthrow of his regime.

The roundtable was a predictable litany: George Stephanopoulos saying "If the inspection regime can go back in, that is reason alone not to strike," and Morality Pope William Kristol replying "We have to strike, and that is to depose him... yesterday was a decisive moment in the Clinton Administration... to back down is a very bad day for the United States." Kristol's arrogance and ignorance is infuriating -- is he buying Saddam's propaganda that Clinton "backed down?" George Will claimed that "It is ridiculous for pilots to be on alert on those carriers for months, and Saddam knows that." Pure baloney -- these pilots are trained for both short-term actions and the possibility of prolonged conflict, especially in the Middle East. Kristol again: "Saddam toyed with us, and we backed down." Twice an idiot on the same topic.

There was some brief speculation on the possible Democrat and GOP leadership in the next Congress when This Week had to cut to the White House press room a few minutes before Clinton took the podium. It was hilarious -- who was at the center of ABC's remote shot but... NBC's Claire Shipman! We roared at the gaffe, a blunder emblematic of how far This Week has dropped in quality since the once-great David Brinkley became an Andreas Regime shill.

Finally, hats off to Bill Clinton, the only person it would seem with the power to shorten the Sam and Cokie Hour of Spin and Farce.

Meet the Press

Predictably, Tim Russert also began with Iraq yesterday. "Is he tricking us once again? Does the US have the resolve to force Saddam to keep his word? Might the only solution be the elimination of Saddam Hussein?"

Snore.

Russert claimed that just 30 minutes before missiles were to be launched, Saddam sent a letter to the UN urging that the bombs not be sent. How the heck would he know the closely gaurded timeline? We know this is untrue and that reports that Saddam moved at the eleventh hour are false.

Early Sunday morning Iraq's Ambassador Hamdoon talked to Russert -- stupidly if you ask us. Hamdoon told Tim that he hoped the crisis would be resolved peacefully and that this was important not only for Iraq but for the entire region. He linked the removal of sanctions -- hopefully -- to the return of the UN inspectors. Russert asked him how long can they stay? Hamdoon said they could stay as long as they want, but not forever. Hamdoon was lying, but that's his job. Russert was setting him up -- and that seems to be his job, as opposed to inquiring about and discussing actual issues.

Russert, of all people, told Hamdoon what the reasons for the inspections are by reading part of the UN resolution. He asked whether Iraq will stop its bio and poison gas weapons programs. Hamdoon said yes, and they are doing this now.

Russert then reminded Hamdoon that Iraq may be lying and has lied in the past. How? By reading an editorial in the Washington Post! What a joke. Now the Post has become "the CIA" for Russert: what they say is the truth, not merely an opinion although written as such. Hamdoon still denied that the Iraqis ever used VX gas. Hamdoon said, "We are willing to give it a try, a more constructive way to deal with the UN. "

Russert tried to egg him, asking "What do you say when the newspaper headlines scream 'Saddam Caves In'?" Hamdoon disagreed. "We just think peace is the best thing to try." Russert asked if the US will ever go along with living the sanctions as long as Saddam stays in power. Hamdoon said yes.

Then Russert welcomed Richard Butler -- head of UNSCOM. Butler said he leaves it to the Security Council to decide if Iraq is now going to cooperate and also said he was stricken by the passivity of Hamdoon's statement as if the current crisis just "fell off a tree... They caused this" He said he could be back to work within 24 hours on a limited basis but would then have to beef up his force -- especially if they open everything up as promised. Russert kept asking how long it will take. Butler couldn't answer -- and he admitted it. He spoke, for the first time, about the "monitoring" -- which will be ongoing in the future. This was the first real discussion of the future monitoring requirements -- which will be indefinite in duration under the Security Council rulings.

Butler also talked about VX gas. He said this is a crystal clear example of the problem: denial they ever made it, then the UN found it. Iraq then minimized and said they made a little -- and we found they made 4 tons of it. The experts said that Iraq did put it in warheads, which they denied. Butler called his organization essentially a bunch of scientists. It does not matter what they believe -- but what they know.

While this may be the key, how long will Iraqis go without medical supplies, food and other things for its innocent population?

Russert asked how long it would take to give Iraq a clean bill of health. Butler said he's given them a list - but one group of weapons can point to another. "We'd be talking 2,3,4 months," said Butler in the poison area. In bio weapons, he cannot give a number. They have lied totally, he implies.

Next, Russert welcomed Scott Ritter, who had been nothing more than an inspector, yet has now been elevated to top "pundit" for resigning in protest supposedly over the US policy on Iraq -- but with troubling questions about his conduct and contacts with foreign governments still unanswered to the satisfaction of many. Ritter's pundit status is the most ridiculous treatment of a loose-cannon nobody who interfered where he did not belong and may have caused many rifts between the UN, US, Iraq and other nations by his brash outspokeness. We think Russert and NBC would be well-advised to keep Ritter out from in front of the camera. Ritter has no idea how the inner workings of high-level diplomacy operate -- he is a bull in a china closet and absolutely unreliable as a source.

Ritter is now "An NBC analyst," Russert announces. Of course, Russert said he doesn't believe the Iraqis. Somehow he thinks he has a private pipeline to Baghdad. Russert asked how the US can go forward and bomb when the Iraqis have said, please don't, you can come and inspect to your heart's content. Ritter said "We can't go in an inspect empty facilities. We will fall into the trap one more time." Russert asked Ritter - what do they possess? Ritter said, "VX, mustard gas, bio weapons including anthrax, and nuclear plans as well as operational ballistic missiles plus a massive covert operation ongoing as well as a massive systematic methodology to conceal these programs." Ritter said they must acknowledge those programs -- all of them -- before we cancel our plans to bomb them. Ritter is now attempting to dictate US foreign policy!

Ritter went on to accuse Kofi Annan of aiding and abetting Saddam, an obnoxious and outlandish statement which Russert should have followed up on but didn't.

Russert then welcomed Senator Richard Lugar and former Senator Sam Nunn. Lugar said Saddam will not give up these weapons of mass destruction and that he has the political will to use them; therefore, we must use military action to destroy those sites we cannot inspect and destroy Saddam's military. Essentially Lugar called for killing hundreds of thousands. Lugar, in Kiev, said he would proceed TODAY!

Sam Nunn said "Tough box we are in now... Now that Saddam has sent the letter we are in the box with him now. We must keep our eye on one thing -- that the sanctions rely on all the UN members who have agreed to them." We need to play off our drafts, not theirs, he added, referring to the letters from Iraq. Nunn reminded Russert we have no real alliance on the ground. We have no Saudi/Kuwaiti cooperation. Nunn frankly pointed out that we must protect our strategic resources -- the oil.

Senator Nunn, would you encourage the President to go forward, or continue his diplomatic adventures with Iraq. Lugar said it will be inevitable that US ground troops will have to be used to get rid of Saddam. Lugar said he is not suggesting that we assassinate Saddam, but, in essence, that we assassinate his regime.

Nunn pointed out that we must inform ALL nations that these weapons and their development will not be tolerated. Nunn, very hawkish here, said there is no prohibition from killing Saddam because he is part of the command and control of the Iraq military and therefore a fair target.

Russert then wraps it with a puff interview with Senator John Glenn who just returned from space. We listened but nothing interesting occurred that one hasn't read already.

President Clinton appeared on television moments later to speak on Iraq. His remarks were thoughtful. The press then jumped all over him. Someone shouted a question framed as a charge that Clinton was being too weak. Clinton reminded the press that members of the Security Council felt that Iraq's statement was enough to delay the bombing. After the first letter, the UN got three more letters from Iraq dealing with the big holes that the US saw in the first letter. Clinton handled the press assertively, essentially mowing down the hawkish loaded questions.

One thing is for certain: if you, as an opinion leader in your community, listen to hawks like Russert, Snow, Hume, and other similar gasbags on pundit television, you will be blindly sending our girls and boys into harm's way, merely to appease those people in powerful Congressional positions who seek to flex our muscles rather than our peace-loving, non-murderous minds. Meanwhile, Bill Clinton once again placed his reputation on the line -- in pursuit of peace, not war; in pursuit of life, not death.

As the President said, "If we take military action... we end the inspections forever. If we can keep UNSCOM in Iraq, then we can see what is going on." That is preferable to us, and to the President.

This, in part, is the reason America did not elect Bob Dole -- he would have bombed Iraq months ago. He would have killed thousands of innocent people. For what? To save face for the US? Surely.

But the price in the end would be increased Arab hostility toward us -- and most likely an even more difficult and dangerous regime in Iraq.

The President showed great courage as usual -- courage we applaud.

Russert then cut off the White House briefing, lile the irresponsible pseudojournalist he is. He did not allow you to see Sandy Berger go on to say quite clearly that if Saddam did not abide by this last set of promises we would not go back to the Security Council and would, by implication, simply go on and strike militarily.

Russert, the most-watched television pundit, had an obligation to continue NBC's coverage.

He did not.

For that, he should be dismissed forthwith.

Ignored in the Mess

Ken Starr's torrent of indictments against Webster Hubbell -- arguably an attempt by the "independent" counsel to suborn perjury from the former Clinton Administration official -- was barely mentioned. And a settlement between at least eight states and the major tobacco companies to the tune of $200 billion -- a development with major political ramifications, and no small chunk of change to boot -- was completely ignored. And the unrest in Indonesia, emblematic of the disquiet sweeping the region amidst both economic crisis and populist uprisings -- was nearly off the radar.

-- The Editors.