Monday, November 23, 1998 -- The pundits chose to use Kenneth Starr's Thursday testimony before the House Judiciary Committee as implicit proof that Clinton is guilty, guilty, guilty... it matters not what for, the Sabbath windbags pulled out all the stops to get Clinton once again.

They all but ignored the huge blow to Starr in the form of the resignation of his ethics consultant, Sam Dash.

Fox News Sunday

"Is the Starr Investigation winding down?" asked Tony Snow at the top of the show. Snow and the gang were going to attempt to answer that question with "No, or it's mutating into something else" -- but not entirely with success.

Starr "spokesmoron" Charles Bakaly was Tony's first -- and unannounced -- guest, and Bakaly himself landed some unintended blows against Starr. Bakaly's reaction to Sam Dash's resignation: a terse "We disagree with Professor Dash." Tony Snow followed up by asking a question intended to impugn Dash's resignation motives: "Was this a set-up?" and Brit Hume lit into Dash's $400-per-hour salary as ethics advisor to Starr, then questioned Dash's ethics for "making public" his resignation, implying that there was some sort of "attorney-client" privilege -- a spin point which would be pushed by the Starr pundit army on other Sunday programs and in editorial commentary.

Hume and the others are blowing smoke on a false premise and deflecting from the fact that Dash was NOT retained as an attorney but a consultant, and was answerable to the taxpayers and the executive branch, within whose structure the Office of Independent Counsel can be found.

Bakaly chose to question Dash's timing, but did acknowledge "differences in interpretation of the law" between Dash and OIC staffers. Hmmmm...

Snow, continuing to spin allegations of Clintonian wrongdoing, asked whether Whitewater was "off the table;" Bakaly said no. Hey Tony -- why not ask Bakaly why Starr chose to rely so much on the discredited "Judge" David Hale and acknowledged perjurer and con-man Jim McDougal as witnesses in the affair?

"Does Judge Starr think it is possible to indict a sitting president?" asked Tony. "...We have not gone through that process," said Bakaly in yet another wordy answer that rambled on but said little.

Tony then welcomed White House spokesperson Ann Lewis, and asked her about the Hyde "81 questions" document; Lewis said it would be dealt with by the end of the week. Hopefully with a "Shred-X 3000" document disposal unit, we suggest. Tony covered little new ground with Lewis -- should the President be punished, perhaps censured, would it be acceptable? Lewis replied that "those decisions have to be made by the House," in other words -- undermining the premise of Tony's questioning -- it's not the President's call. Brit, in the process of his questioning, bashed the President by finding a way to point out "he lied to you, to the American people" in the process of another question. Well, no kidding, Brit -- at least the President was man enough to admit it unlike George "No New Taxes" Bush and Ronald "What arms for hostages?" Reagan! Lewis managed to do some conversational shifting -- mentioning the plethora of investigations into Starr's own questionable conduct, now capped by Dash's resignation.

Brit repeated his own spin point first brought up with Bakaly: if Bob Bennett were to resign as Clinton's attorney in a similar public manner, "would you find that troublesome?" Lewis blew the scenario out of the water, pointing out such a thing "is not characteristic of the man." In his follow-up, Brit said that such a public resignation as Dash's "is improper behavior." Lewis said she had no expertise on the issue -- in fact, we'd go so far as to say the same is true of Hume.

When did the White House find out about Dash's resignation? Lewis said they learned from wire copy that morning. Tony pressed stories that word of a "defection" was going around, but Lewis made it clear no such thing happened to her knowledge.

Tony then welcomed Senators Joe Biden and Orrin Hatch.

Hatch: "The question is whether the House will pass articles of impeachment." Might the Senate seek another way to punish the President?" Hatch chose to chime in with a litany of Clinton's alleged crimes -- including "allegations of bribery." Hatch, usually courtly, slipped this in without specifics. Right, Orrin -- we suspect you are talking about "illegal" campaign cash, which only reminded us of all the campaign peccadilloes the GOP should be concerned about. Biden called the House handling of the process "inept." Tony asked him about his "House colleagues peppering Starr with questions;" Biden replied with mention of a speech he had made some time ago speculating on how fair hearings would be -- and they turned out to be a circus.

Tony managed to bring up words like "rape, harassment", and "that woman" -- to impugn Clinton. Tony: "So the Willey case would be impeachable?" Biden: "...if he were trying to coerce that woman into doing something he wouldn't do."

And therein lies the key -- it'll never stand up. Yes, Clinton admitted to his wrongs, but the GOP would never dare bring up the fact that Clinton has attracted more groupies than Mick Jagger because he's got two things Bush, Dole, and Starr will never have -- charisma, and a belief that government can improve the lives of Americans. You wonder why women are crazy about Clinton? Let's see Tony bring that up as a topic on FNS. That'll be the day...

Hatch: "The real issue [is] the fact that Mr. Clinton lied... I do think that Starr's appearance was impressive, he was cool... he stuck to the facts." Facts? You mean like "I cannot recall specifically" or "I have no specific recollection" or "I would have to check the records"? Hatch must not have been watching Starr's constant evasion and possible perjury during Kendall's questioning. How long is Hatch going to remain Starr's cheerleader? Most Republicans want to cut bait on Starr and his team before the buffalo patties hit the fan.

Biden is skeptical: "If Starr has a case, have him make it -- indict the President."

Hatch sounded ridiculous when he claimed "If a Republican did this, would he still be sitting there? I don't think so -- we'd have gotten rid of him." Somehow this doesn't seem too plausible to us -- the evidence would have been buried well before the press would have had an opportunity to even learn about a scandal.

Biden: "That's not fair." Hatch: "Now that it's a Democrat, we have 400 so-called Constitutional experts saying he should not be impeached.. ." So-called? Let's see ol' Orrin prove each of the 400 is not an authority on constitutional issues. Hatch conceded "Chuck Schumer did a pretty good job for the Democrats [but] not one Democrat stood up for the President... if I were a Democrat I would have."

Again, Hatch lies -- if he had been a Democrat, he would have been asking Starr about his abuse of power and office. In fact, judging from Hatch's public prognostications this past year, if Orrin were a Democrat he would have asked Starr about:

Allegations of suborning perjury from David Hale and the McDougals;
Obstruction of justice by stymieing FBI investigators in Arkansas from looking into David Hale;
Bribery in providing perks to Hale;
Abuse of office in firing off subpoenas like an Uzi and his handling of such witnesses as Monica Lewinsky, Marcia Lewis, Julie Hiatt Steele and Betty Currie; and
And he would have done it in five minutes flat.

Tony to Biden -- Iraq has again "rebuffed" us. What to do? "I know the White House won't want to hear this," replied Biden, "...but [if Butler said the UN was thwarted we should get our people out and] I would bomb him." He underlined the word "boooomb" dramatically.

J.C. Watts was the next guest following the break. He revealed himself to be just what we expected -- a second-string representative put in a figurehead position. Let's just say that grammatical continuity is not Watts's strong point.

Juan Williams asked Watt about the impeachment process; "Hopefully it will be done by the end of the year" with an analysis of the "facts, evidence, law, and the Constitution" -- a four-point litany he must have brought up five or six times during the segment. Okay, okay, we get the point. Someone in the GOP should inform Watts of Rule Number 26 of Spin -- never, never, NEVER repeat you soundbite mantra more than twice within a ten-minute period.

Juan asked if Watts would go along with continued process "even if it damaged the party." Watts gave a lame answer which implied that it is not damaging the party. Can this guy read poll numbers?

Brit said "It does not appear there will be the votes" to impeach -- "where would the alternate punishment come from... the Democrats?" Watts stupidly suggested the HJC, and Brit called him out it: "It looks like there are the votes to move articles of impeachment out of committee."

If Watts is one of the "bright lights" of the "new" GOP, they must not be paying their power bills!

Finally, questioning turned to possible perjury by the President. Watts: "It's not just Republicans... I think we all need to be concerned... We have 115 Americans in prison because they perjured themselves."

We'd hear this "115 Americans in prison" elsewhere on the public affairs dial this week. And consider the millions in prison... ONLY 115 are in for perjury? Shows you how seriously the justice system -- especially the ineffectual civil courts -- take perjury. Not.

Karen said that Watts' election to Conference Committee was a case of Republicans trying to send a new message about inclusiveness -- but "is it just cosmetic?" Watts admitted "Our agenda was the President's problems [but] we've gone from a 300 billion deficit to 75 surplus."

Of course, we have both parties in Congress and the President to thank for that latter point.

Juan: "Are you a token there?"

Ouch! Even we were shocked that Juan "played the race card" so indelicately.

Watts's reply implied a no-win: if he's elected he's a token, if not Republicans don't look inclusive. This was a truly foolish answer, because it made his own party look pretty bad. We wonder how many GOP congresspersons are kicking themselves now for putting him in a leadership position!

Tony asked about bills that will be vetoed. Watts: "Anytime you can bring up a tax bill that will cut taxes [we say] 'I challenge you to veto tax cuts'... We would challenge the President to veto these bills."

Before panel time, Tony brought up an interesting statistic, tallying the subject matter of questions from representatives on the HJC to Kenneth Starr. 19 dealt with Clinton, 60 dealt with Starr.

Snow did this for one reason alone, we think -- to signal that the entire impeachment coup effort will collapse within weeks and that many GOPers may cite questions concerning Starr's conduct and mishandling of the investigation in their decision. It's a strong "out" that would also make the GOP appear a bit more in tune with public sentiment.

Brit: "Starr came across as a man not with horns" -- and he accused the Dems of "character assassination" as they did with Bork and Clarence Thomas. Brit attempts to equate questioning the motives and methods of Starr as "character assassination" -- and fails.

Karen said Starr's testimony did nothing, as did the release of the Tripp tapes -- one of the few mentions of the tapes at all this weekend.

Juan noted that Republicans didn't "help his case" by asking questions about his tactics.

Tony claimed that Starr's appearance "changed the calculus" of HJC voting toward sending articles of impeachment to the full House; Karen said it probably would not affect the entire House, but "[Starr] did not grow horns."

And she's right -- he was just too plain boring to grow horns. We knew it would never happen -- have any of these pundits seen Starr's dull-as-Whitewater news conferences? Starr is the Sominex prosecutor, a snore even as he abuses the power of his office. maybe he's boring us into ignoring his conduct!

Brit said that nobody, including Democrats, was disputing the President was not honest. Well, no kidding, Einstein -- even the President has admitted as much!

Karen made the interesting point that "David Kendall signaled that the White House is taking a hard line" as opposed to the White House sending Charles Ruff. Signaled? They've "signaled' that they will not tolerate an abusive prosecution for nearly a year! She also failed to point out that the reason Kendall may have been sent is that he stood a better chance of getting under Starr's skin -- and did, in a big way.

Brit: Kendall was helped by Abbe Lowell "who resembled a yappy dog chasing a car." Okay -- even we had to laugh at this one. But if Lowell resembled a yappy dog, Schippers (his majority counterpart) resembled a brown-nosing longshoreman. Most people would prefer the dog to the lug.

Finally, Tony turned to spinning Sam Dash's resignation.

Brit: "If I got a parking ticket, I would not want Sam dash representing me." Hume is the single most surly and hateful pundit on television -- he makes Pat Buchanan look downright avuncular by comparison! Of course, the only reason Brit would never hire Dash is that Dash is a registered Democrat. He again characterized Dash's resignation as "grandstanding" -- and failed to offer a shred of argument or fact to support his smarmy comments.

Karen: "Once Starr was called to testify, there was nothing he could do." Karen's statement seemed designed to maintain the false representation put forward by conservative spinmeisters that Dash quit because Starr testified at all; according to his resignation letter, Dash quit because Starr stepped over the line in his testimony from "looking for the truth" investigator to pro-impeachment advocate.

Brit: "There is something fishy about this... Here's another point... he's been working at 400 for four-plus years, has he raised his voice in defense of Starr once?" Actually, Brit, if you'd bothered to follow print news, you would have seen that Dash, on those rare occasions when he did deign to speak with the press, did in fact speak quite strongly in defense of Starr -- lending even greater credence to the position that Starr stepped over the line in a big way.

We're surprised that Brit said something this outright stupid. He may be mean, but he's usually at least astute enough to avoid idiocy.

Juan: "You didn't hear Sam Dash hammering" Starr on the initial handling of Lewinsky. But Juan's not completely correct -- we don't know that he wasn't hammering Starr behind closed doors. Juan's comment proved ultimately pointless.

Tony: "Who are the last three Democrats Abbe Lowell has defended before Congress? Jim Wright, Mario Biaggi, Dan Rostenkowski." Sneaky, Tony -- implying that Clinton must be a "crook" like the other three, or that Lowell is an effete defender of Democrats, or both. Total pap, as anyone with a brain could tell.

But credit the ultra-right FNS with once again covering more ground than any of the other Sunday programs.

The McLaughlin Group

John McLaughlin started the show with his issue one: "Starr Witness!"

Of course, he shows the repulsively inappropriate staged "standing ovation" that ended Starr's twelve-hour day before the Republican lynch mob. And naturally, McLaughlin overlooked the fact that the standees were merely Starr's staff and a truckload of Republican supporters.

Pat Buchanan claimed that Starr "showed his stuff" and stopped people's hating him. This is an absolute lie: polls across the nation showed Starr with minuscule gains in his favorable scores, which are stilllower than those of Newt Gingrich.

Eleanor Clift got it right: Starr looked like a pompous ass.

Tony Blankley also got it partially right: that the people saw this as a circus, an unreal fantasy that everyone watching knew was a sham. But under pressure from McLaughlin, he did say that Starr did "a swell job." McLaughlin seems to have been "interjecting" himself like a blustering headmaster herding in unruly schoolchildren more and more often in recent months whenever members of his "group" (except "token" liberal Eleanor) break from the "Get Clinton" patry line when the President's trumped-up domestic problems are under discussion.

Larry O'Donnell, usually a pretty smart cookie, also got it wrong: he claimed Starr was "brilliant" and removed "this high level Democrat's worries: about Starr. We were flabbergasted. However, he added, Starr accomplished nothing toward impeaching the President.

Buchanan remarked that the Democrats engaged in "60s" tactics. Clift rebuffed him, reminding him that Democrats' attitudes reflect that of the majority of Americans.

McLaughlin was upset at Barney Frank: "He interrupted me on one of my own other shows!" Right, John -- as if he singled you out!

McLaughlin examined the "tactics" of the Democrats as opposed to the Republicans. He showed a clip of Starr saying that Lewinsky's testimony was "misleading" when she said that "no one offered me a job" -- you couldn't help but notice Starr's squirming and pretending that Lewinsky meant that "it was understood" that everyone would continue to lie.

McLaughlin went on to talk about "calculated leaks:" he showed Starr losing his wimpy little temper tantrum about leaks. Blankley said this was part of "Democrat tactics." Clift remarked angrily that Starr is still under three Justice Department and court investigations about leaking, and that David Kendall is laying a perjury trap for Starr -- and he is doing it well.

"Bullying Monica!!!" McLaughlin bellowed. He then showed a clip of yet another Starr tantrum-ette over the issue of whether Lewinsky was "held" by the FBI at a Washington shopping mall/hotel. Of course she was held -- did she think she could run away? Did she think that if she did, she would be left alone? Of course not. And she was not only held, she was arrested... and one could argue "kidnapped" by Starr's henchman.

"More Improper Pressuring" -- McLaughlin brought up the "wiring" of Monica to tape the President. Here Starr insults a fellow attorney, former Lewinsky attorney William Ginsburg, claiming that Ginsburg sets a low standard as a lawyer. Blankley claims that Starr "won" this contest. He didn't. He looked like a Gestapo officer.

McLaughlin then showed ignoramus, longshoreman-brained HJC majority counsel David Schippers, who fed Starr one laudatory remark after another during his say-nothing, probe-nothing "crass-examination"of Starr, to which -- unbelievably -- Starr kept saying yes, yes -- I am the zenith of judiciousness!

Buchanan, laughably, says that what the President did was "an assault on the laws of this country."

Schippers told everyone he had been an attorney for 40 years -- yes, a highly mediocre one tied to the reactionary Chicago Democrat machine of thug Richard "Kill the Hippies" Daley.

Everyone agreed that Starr won the day -- but O'Donnell pointed out that Clinton won the war!

McLaugh-In ended the segment with the question "If President Clinton is Butt-head, who is Beavis?" Then, following the break, Issue Two: "I Love You, Butthead!" screams McLaughlin -- in reference to the Lewinsky-Tripp tapes. McLaughlin is more interested in Bill Clinton as the "The Big Creep," asserting that Monica was privy to Clinton's "spiritual side." He played a tape where she says that Clinton is more religious now and thinks he "will never touch another young girl..."

Larry O'Donnell thinks this was faked for Monica. Clift thought he would be inhuman if he didn't feel as Monica said. Blankley, for perhaps the first time the wisest of the group, thought Clinton's relationship with God is real. McLaughlin says Clinton may be compulsive.

Then the entire group engaged in an uncalled-for round of calling Bill Clinton names -- including McLaughlin's "loathesome" -- a disgusting display of ignorance and vengefulness.

The predictions were not even worth mentioning.

This Weak

"Once again, Saddam defies UN weapons inspectors!" Iraq, not Starr, is issue one on This Weak -- a sure signal that ABC News and their Washington pundits want to sweep Starr and the entire impeachment coup debacle under the rug.

It boggles the mind that it only took them three Sundays after the elections to figure out that impeachment is on life support -- and that nearly a year's worth of foolish prognostication on Clinton's "crimes" had exposed the entire This Weak team as The Gang That Couldn't Spin Straight!

The opening intro segment was notable for Rep. Mel Watt's "I'm disrupting a railroad."

Cokie updated the latest run-in with Iraq -- Tariq Aziz's comments claiming Iraq's failure to turn over documentation to Amb. Richard Butler's inspection team would be used as "a pretext for provocation" -- before welcoming Sen. Richard Lugar.

Sam: Do you think there will be a strike without warning? Lugar: "Yes, I think there will be." Lugar underlined the presumption that Saddam has these WMDs because he intends to use them. "We are moving to make certain that [the Iraqi] government changes..." and it seems unlikely that there will be a change of course without a change of government. Lugar added "if we cannot inspect the sites we should do our best to destroy them."

Looks like the pols -- Biden, now Lugar -- want to "Bomb Saddam."

George Will asked about Saddam's prospects, and Lugar replied: "He really is not fated to stay there [in power]... Until Saddam Hussein and that regime are gone, there is a very great threat to the United States of America."

George asked if we would strike over a piece of paper, a reference to a document that the UNSCOM team was unable to obtain, and added Saddam is a genius at staying under the threshold. Lugar: "The argument is not over ending sanctions [which would give] them unlimited money to build WMDs." Lugar fails to point out that their Islamic archrival Iran is doing just that.

George brought up the issue that Clinton was relying on the Iraq Liberation Act -- a bill he had opposed. Lugar concurred with George -- but neither pointed out that the change in the global situation vis-ˆ-vis Iraq and the conduct of their leadership certainly prompted a reassessment by the Clinton Administration.

Following the break, Sam welcomed Nazir Hamdoon, Iraq's UN Ambassador. He claimed that the documents Butler requested were "missing or destroyed after the war." Sam replayed Defense Secretary Cohen's comments that the US would strike if there were no cooperation. Hamdoon stuck his ground, and said that Iraq was complying; "The question of missing papers should not be non-cooperation."

George asked if Iraq would "be the judge of relevance" on documents -- and why Iraq called Butler's request "provocative." Hamdoon replied that Iraq has been "provoked" before. Do you fear the US, asked George? Hamdoon said "We knew an attack was coming" last week. Cokie cited a report that Great Britain had warned Iraq of an immediately impending attack; Hamdoon denied the report, saying Iraq was certain there would be an attack on their own.

Sam asked about a specific document that was "snatched" from the hands of a UN inspector; Hamdoon said "we will provide it with the assistance of Prakash Shah.... We have no illusions about the US willingness for a military strike."

The following segment featured HJC members Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Marty Meehan (D-MA)

Graham on the impeachment process: "Whatever we do, we'll do by the end of the year."

Meehan: "It is time for Bob Livingston to step up to the plate and show some leadership... [in an agreement for] censureship or admonishment." No mention of impeachment -- Dems across the board didn't come out and say it, but the message was clear: impeachment's dead.

Graham on duty to the constitution and the rule of law: "Deciding before the trial is over and the evidence is in is a bad idea." No mention, though, of deciding on the ground rules on which the decision is based and the ultimate unfairness of the GOP in failing to hash the procedures out prior to the process!

Cokie: "You're saying slow down and get it finished by the end of the year." Lordy, for a moment she was sounding like a born-again Democrat. -- until she followed up with "It seemed remarkable to see Democrat after Democrat not questioning the President's conduct." Because the President admitted to lapses in conduct. Cokie -- a victim of her own Beltway myopia -- seems oblivious to the incredulity of her biased questions. Meehan pointed out the he felt "the President's conduct does not rise to high crimes and misdemeanors." Should the White House respond to Hyde's 81 questions? "It is my understanding that they will respond," said Meehan, adding "I don't think that Americans are proud of the partisan bickering in that committee," and in the end "the Republicans will have no one to blame but themselves."

Nonsense -- they could also blame Sam, Cokie, Russert and all the other stealth Starr-lovers for not "winning over" the hearts and minds of america.

Graham said he had his "hands full with figuring out what my constitutional duty is in terms of the facts... The President lied in the Grand Jury phase... There are 115 people in jail for perjury." Where did we hear that one before? ONLY 115 people?

George asked him to come up with the first two lines of a censure. Graham said something about the President being "the butt of jokes." Right, Lindsey -- as if nobody's ever made fun of politicians before the words "Monica Lewinsky" ever entered the vernacular!

Sam said "CEOs get fired for this [being involved with young employees." The truth CEOs rarely get fired for this sort of conduct.

Graham: "[Clinton]'s got to stop dancing around... 'giving legally accurate' answers. He lied in a perjurous manner." he also exposed Paula Jones's attorneys for the fools and dilettantes they are by snookering them into a narrow definition of sex -- a fact that rarely gets any play in the press! And Graham's careful wording of "in a perjurious manner" bolsters rumors that Graham feels Clinton's lawyers would easily fend off allegations of perjury were it to go to court.

Meehan did not rule out "some form of admonishment" and also mentioned that the President might face indictment at the end of his term.

George Will said, "You're a liberal..." What does this do to sex harassment cases?

Meehan: "This is not a sexual harassment case."

George: "Paula Jones..."

Meehan practically cut George off. "This is not sexual harassment [but] consensual sexual activity." We think Meehan should have gone further -- describing the apparent effort by Starr to link Whitewater to the Paula Jones case to humiliate the President out of office.

The roundtable was more of the usual Clinton-bashing. Bill Kristol continued in this New Moralist ways, saying he thinks the House will vote to impeach and underlining "failure of a single Democrat to say perjury is a serious matter, lying under oath is a serious matter."

Well, no kidding, Bill... we're so sure you would also agree that abusing the civil court deposition process to set a perjury trap is also a serious matter. A woman bringing a sworn sex harassment complaint and later giving testimony under oath that directly contradicts five of her key assertions -- in a perjurious manner, we add -- is also a serious matter. An "independent counsel" misleading an attorney general about his connections to a court case he wishes to merge with his investigation is also a serious matter.

So we thought we'd point out the failure of a single writer or editor at your magazine, the Rupert-Murdoch-financed Weekly Standard, that all of the above are serious matters.

Later, Sam Donaldson asked George Stephanopoulos about how he thought the President would react to censure. George said, rightly, that it doesn't matter how the President feels.

George Will gets line of the week when he claimed that in "the confessional culture" of America, Clinton "will love being punished... the man is a sociopath."

What does this say about Will, other than for all of his intellectual expostulation on Clinton, all he can accomplish at the end of the day is ad hominem attacks and name-calling.

Will does ABC proud.

Sam brought up the Dash resignation, albeit briefly. Hmm... wonder why the pundits seem so afraid to discuss this blow to Starr?

Bill characterized the Republican meeting in New Orleans as "being less notable for having every Republican governor there as for having every political operative" at the meeting. We're shocked, Bill, shocked to find lobbyists present at a meeting of politicians!

Stephanopoulos on Dash dashing: "It was another talking point against Starr, but he was already on the mat." George, unlike most of the Beltway insiders, almost gets it -- no matter how well Starr might have done before the HJC (and we feel he opened himself up on a number of fronts, legal and ethical, with his less-than-Starr performance on Thursday), nothing could save his weak case that aggressively fighting a dirty, politically-motivated civil suit smear is a high crime or misdemeanor.

Following the break, attention turned to Iraq -- and Cokie compared the missing Iraqi documents to the "missing Rose Law Firm billing records."

Do you believe it? What a stupid cheap shot -- the billing records exonerated the Clintons when they turned up, not to mention the fact that they have nothing to do with anthrax and nerve gas.

Bill: "I think Clinton will live up to his obligations and attack Iraq."

And here's to Stephanopoulos for again getting it right when he said "What is wrong with not overreacting when 10,000 lives are at stake?"

Cokie followed up on Bill's slam of UNSCOM, saying "That's the problem -- UNSCOM does not work!"

Tell you what, Cokie -- got any better non-lethal ideas for dealing with Iraq?

George Will cited "crack" research by ABC showing that 6,000 died when the Luftwaffe attacked London. We think Will himself is on crack -- Nazi bombs can't be compared with the firepower of cruise and stinger missiles equipped with cluster bombs and cutting-edge incendiary and explosive devices.

When talk turned to Jack Kevorkian, we tuned out, while thinking that the entire panel and ABC News could greatly benefit from the medical ministrations of Dr. Jack.

There was one conspicuous change on This Weak -- Sam Donaldson now sports a jaunty, "graying" hairpiece! It's not much of an improvement, let alone any match for the best pundit hair on television, that of the impeccably coifed Tony Snow -- it still looks like Sam has some kind of mutant ferret nailed to his head. Maybe it's the stress of Sam's failure to have successfully abetted the impeachment "coup" with his unctuous punditry that has caused the color change. Only his toup-dreser knows for sure...

Reliable Sources

We only caught the first few minutes of CNN's Reliable Sources, which dealt with the press handling of Ken Starr's HJC testimony. Both Howard Kurtz and Jim Warren mentioned the lack of TV and print coverage of Starr's admission that not only had Starr cleared Clinton on Filegate, Travelgate and Whitewater, but had sat on the fact until after the election.

CNN International cut in to cover a speech by Iraqi Foreign Minister Mohammad al-Sahaf's comments on the latest Iraq-UN blowup.

Meet the Press

Before we turn to NBC's flagship "public affairs' program, it is worth noting that Tim Russert engaged in a disgusting one hour interview with Rush Limbaugh earlier this week on his one-on-one CNBC interview program, a program which proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that Russert is an ultra-right wing operative (even if he's too stupid to realize it).

Russert opened his Clinton-bashing show this week with a discussion of Gingrich's demise, impeachment, Bob Livingston, "The Starr Testimony" -- and ending with JFK's assassination. Sunday was the 35th anniversary of Jack Kennedy's death. We wondered whether Russert would mention Kennedy's own flirting and more in order to disgrace his memory.

Bob Livingston, Speaker-elect, was Russert's first guest. Livingston wants to end the impeachment inquiry before January 1st, but told Russert that he will let Henry Hyde do his thing. "If they have received al the evidence, they should report, vote [if required] in special session, and be done with it. If we vote articles of impeachment it would then go to the Senate. If not, that would be it." Russert already knows that the vote will be not to impeach. Desperate to save his own reputation, Russert asked whether Livingston will call for censure and wondered whether Livingston will still bring the matter up for a vote even knowing he does not have the votes. Livingston will bring it up anyway -- and so he said.

Why? Because he wants to use the votes against Democrats. Of course, this is moronic -- because anyone voting FOR impeachment will face serious challenges in the year 2000. Russert kept chasing impeachment: "Do you believe you can impeach the President against the wishes of the President?" Livingston wisely demurred. But Russert wouldn't get off the topic: "Do you believe that perjury is an impeachable offense?" Livingston again demurred. Again: "Do you believe that the President committed perjury after hearing Ken Starr?" Once again, Livingston demurred.

It was unbelievable! Russert couldn't pin him down on impeachment, so then he moved to censure -- this time citing Democrat Martin Frost's suggestion that the President might even be called to the Well of the House and chastised publicly. Livingston still demurred -- he was "not sure this is constitutional." Neither are we.

"Look everyone's been talking about process... about whether Ken Starr was doing his job properly. The issue is whether the President committed perjury or subornation of perjury." Livingston refuse to pre-judge it.

Another Russert disappointed comes to the fore. He said Reuters is reporting that the Attorney General will not appoint an independent counsel to look into the President's and the Vice-President's campaign finance law "violations." Russert did not mention that the GOP's alleged violations look far more egregious. Livingston said he would be shocked if she didn't -- but didn't sound self-assured.

Livingston wants to introduce HR-1 in the next Congress and introduce it as the Social Security bill. Russert pointed out that if Social Security is taken off the budget, the nation will have a deficit of $40 billion, but Livingston said he is not sure. He stuck to his promise to cut taxes. He'll do it by cutting spending, he claimed.

Russert reminded him that Reagan brought tens of billions in new deficits over his eight years. Livingston excused this because Ronald Reagan "beat the Soviets" with large-scale defense spending. Of course, this is not true -- it was the Democrats, over thirty years, that spent the Soviets to death.

Russert asked him about the Committee Chairmen who want their Chairs extended for more than the 6 year limitss now in place. Livingston said no. How about the members that said they would only spend 6 years? If you lose them, you lose the majority. Livingston isn't for term limits -- only for appointed offices. It is clear he won't be holding the maniac right-wing juniors who pledged to leave the House after three terms to their word. Livingston said he will raise Congressional Salaries! He calls it a COLA. He's right -- the higher the salary the better the quality of people political office will attract. We support Livingston on this -- and his stand on term limits.

Russert then turned to Gingrich: "Why did you run against Newt?" We are friends, replied Livingston, who added he stood against last year's coup, but the fact is that the GOP didn't do well and we had to search our souls. Livingston said became convinced that Newt Gingrich could not hold on to the speakership and decided that he could run the House and "get the machinery running" to stop confusing their message instead of getting our message out.

Livingston is right. But will he moderate the Newt-type jargon to get voters on his side? Perhaps he will, and it is clear that Livingston will try. Russert then asked a silly question" "Are you prepared to take over as President if, God forbid, anything happens to Clinton and Gore?" Livingston, who has more taste (not to mention common sense) than Russert, defers.

Russert asked about his temper. Livingston says, I don't lose my temper very often, but when I do there's a good reason. He shows Livingston playing the harmonica and singing -- to humanize him, we think?

After the mandatory GE spots (GE owns NBC) and the blessed ADM spot (ADM owns the Congress), Russert returned with none other than law clown Charles Bakaly, "the Third," no less. He is Starr's mouthpiece, flak and geek with greased back, too-long hair, Gucci loafers and no brain in his head.

Russert started with a tough question: "Why did you wait to exonerate the President on every important charge that were the basis of your original investigative powers?" Bakaly laughingly says that Starr didn't release the exonerations before the November elections because Starr is "non-political."

Non-political. Do you want to puke? But wait -- there's more!

Russert hopefully asked whether the First Lady wass also exonerated. Bakely refused to answer, then backpeddled and said, "...well, she wasn't included in the Whitewater indictments... you can draw your own conclusions."

Russert actually looked crestfallen!

Russert asked about wiring Lewinsky to tape the President and Vernon Jordan. Bakaly gave him some gibberish -- but then made a mistake: unlike Starr in his testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, Bakely admitted that they mentioned that they might ask her to do so.

Then a typical Russert garbage question, "Does Bill Clinton believe in the letter of the law?" Bakaly slapped him down: "I believe he does and so does Starr" was his reply. Russert then asked about Starr's terrible reputation with the people; Bakaly blamed the White House "spinmeisters."

Russert then welcomed White House counsel Greg Craig asked him whether he believes that the President lied under oath. Russert -- grabbing for straws -- shows what Bennett said, not what Clinton said in the Jones depo. The President, who was not paying attention at the time, agreed with a question later which made him out to be a liar in retrospect -- at least according to Russert, who engages in this type of word game in order to "prove" Clinton is a liar. He also said Chuck Schumer thinks it is clear to him that Clinton lied.

Craig disagreed, pointing out that Starr spent only one sentence on Clinton's supposed perjury. But Russert wouldn't give up. He asked if a high school principal or a Supreme Court nominee came before you with these facts -- what would you do? Craig sidestepped what he would do.

Craig then makes this case: If a member of the House (1) thinks there was a crime, and; (2) thinks that it is impeachable, there yet still another decision to make: is it something we should go forward with.

Then Russert moved onto his stupid censure idea -- first raised by a Republican, but followed by Russert so zealously. Craig said it is an issue for the House -- but he would not rule it out.

Russert then went into a 16-minute JFK retrospective. We watched but did not feel we should waste your time reporting it -- even though we will tell you we are so sick of Meet The Press's resident history pundit Doris Kearns Goodwin.

Did anyone else notice that Russert practically ignored the resignation of Sam Dash from Starr's "dream team?"

As an aside: if you can, catch the rerun of Russert's hour-long, no-one-watches interview show on CNBC ("Russert"), where he spent one hour giggling and tittering with Rush Limbaugh over the hurt and anguish they have dished out to Chelsea, Hillary and Bill Clinton.

Then ask yourself who Tim Russert really is and why he should have a such a major position with a television network.

Ask yourself: Do I want to listen to a pseudomoralist like Russert interpret the week's important policy issues for me over one of the most powerful networks on the airwaves?

You will find yourself saying a resounding no.

CNN Late Edition

Watching Wolf Blitzer thrust, parry, jab and amiably interview White House counsel Greg Craig during the second segment of Late Edition was not instructive, nor did it set off any fireworks; Wolf stuck to his party line of couching his questions in the language of presidential scandal and wrongdoing and skepticism over wrongdoing by the OIC, at one point playing a tape of the bumbling Charles Bakaly on This Weak defending Starr and then asking Greg Craig about "attacks on an officer of the court." Craig unspun Wolf's inquiry, pointing out that every lawyer was an officer of the court -- a point few pundits choose to note. Craig made it clear that the President is open to some punishment -- likely censure or rebuke.

The segment that followed featured Reps. Bill McCollum and Barney Frank. In response to Craig's comments on censure, McCollum said that impeachment is a form of censure and began blathering about "overwhelming evidence of perjury" -- evidence which would not pass the laugh test in any court, especially with the underlying political nature of the underlying lawsuit which triggered essentially extorted perjury.

And Frank dismissed the possibility that impeachment would get very far, if anywhere at all. McCollum, who is coming across as a born-again hard righter, started yapping again about evidence of "grave crimes committed by the President" -- and Frank smashed his point by directly citing the testimony of Betty Currie, Vernon Jordan and Monica Lewinsky. Frank also lit into McCollum for "misleading" people when McCollum said that "Lewinsky told her not to explicitly lie: "Why do you keep putting that word in her mouth... Starr added the word 'explicitly' [in his report] and underlined it!" McCollum hemmed and hawed, trying to get a word or two in; thankfully, since this was Late Editionand not Fox News Sunday, nobody unfairly cut Barney Frank off.

Below the Radar

The resignation of Sam Dash proved too hot a potato for the gasbags to give more than a "roundtable" quick mention -- with a few digs at Dash thrown in for good measure. The release of the Tripp tapes in their original audio version likewise was ignored, along with the fact that it didn't help Starr at all, but did give us a glimpse at the sort of audible delights to be experienced as both Lewinsky and Tripp stuffed their faces with junk food. And the surprise victory of Dick Armey in the House leadership got nary a word -- nor did the fact that it appears to be the result of a last-minute lobbying effort by (surprise!) the Christian Coalition.

The GOP leadership in the House has retained a decidedly right-wing attitude -- a serious problem for them as the RNC faces a shakeup and GOP governors begin to throw their seriously underestimated weight around. This is an important issue which will affect the country for the next two years -- far more than Starr's lame defense of his misconduct. there is no excuse for this not to have been at least issue two this Sunday.

-- The Editors.