Pundit Pap for Sunday November 23rd 1997

Pundit Pap
FOR SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 23RD 1997
by Mac MacArthur

Monday, November 24th, 1997 -- NEW YORK (APJP) -- I spent most of the weekend running around Manhattan doing errands, talking with friends, mentors, family and even the guy who cuts my hair about Saddam Hussein. Sure enough, on Sunday, that's all the pundits could talk about as well. There was a lot of internal talking head "excusing" going on, with the hawks retreating into kind of blah-blah-blah rationalizations regarding Clinton's failure to hand them another war to cover.

Even Tim Russert let me down this week parroting Silly Sam Donaldson's question, made last week, "Why don't we just 'take Saddam out'," said Sam and now Tim. Oh brother, what a thing to teach our kids. When you don't like someone - you just send "The Company" to take their best head shot. Kudos to Secretary Bill Cohen for reminding Russert that besides being against the law, assassinating foreign heads of state, no matter how heinous, ain't such a good idea.

FOX NEWS SUNDAY

Tony Snow
Iraq fielded Ambassador Nizar Hamdoon as chief Saddam defender against Tony Snow this weekend.

Hamdoon told Snow that the U.N. Special Commission had already destroyed all the chemical and biological weapons that Iraq possessed after the close of Desert Storm in 1991,and that Iraq showed them where the weapons were, implying that the scientific teams did not have to hunt them out as we've been told. Hamdoon also responded this way to Snow's question, " . . .Why should the American people trust Saddam?"

"We have to have good relations with the U.S. and we are ready to establish good relationships," crooned Hamdoon.

Snow, caught up in good ole' American sensibility and heart throbiness, asked what he thought was a killer question: "How can you use human shields to protect Iraqi targets against attack." Evidently Snow hadn't heard that question answered by an Iraqi before.

Hamdoon casually replied it was done to prevent the US from attacking those targets and that the people surrounding them were volunteers.

Of course, this is a typical Arab strategy and used not only by Arabs, but by many peoples throughout history. I find it amusing that American pundits have so much trouble understanding that citizens might be willing to risk their own lives to protect their country. I don't find it unthinkable that American civilians would surround the Capitol building in Washington to prevent an air strike by some foreign aggressor.

Yet Snow wouldn't let it go saying incredulously, " You're telling me they volunteered?"

Hamdoon replied, "Yes. You could see them laughing couldn't you?"

Snow leapt off that track and turned to what seemed to be the question of the day across television land: "Will you allow UN inspectors to look at the 17 presidential palaces?," he asked sort of like Sergeant Friday of Dragnet. (It's supposedly 63 palaces)

Hamdoon told him there is no evidence that any weapons were stored in palaces and went on to say that the coalition formed under the Bush Administration was fractured because of the U.N. sanctions imposed after Desert Storm. "Well, after these vicious sanctions for 7 years, you don't expect that Arabs respect the United States do you? Anti-American feelings are higher than ever," he said in response to Snow's question about the coalition.

Snow then turned to UN ambassador Bill Richardson who looked a little frayed this week, but no worse for the wear.

Snow: Saddam's priority is to have direct talks with the United States.

Richardson: He's not gonna get them. They don't listen. They block sites and documents...Just yesterday 19 experts said Iraq continues to build anthrax production, VX gas... they are in a state of denial.

Snow: So, you say they are lying?

Richardson: [Ignoring the question] Now there are 47 sites - presidential palaces and we are concerned that more violations took place while the inspection team was away.

Snow: We will ever lift the sanction?

Richardson: Iraq has to abide by all the UN resolutions and then comply and they are nowhere close on any front . . so we don't see them being lifted.

Snow: Bill Safire says the Russians are trying to put in old KGB related inspectors and that this is unacceptable.

Richardson: That proposal to bring other nationals into the team was rejected yesterday...the issue is access. Stop concealment and give us the documents.

Snow: Are we wary of the Russian's role right now?

Richardson gave Russians a lot of credit for calming the situation and negotiating the inspection teams back into Iraq but hastily added that U.S. pressure was another element pushing Saddam to let the teams back in.

Snow asked a question, quoting the Washington Times (jeez, what a pitiful source) that the Russians have placed a nuclear sub in the pacific trailing our vessels to which Richardson said, "I don't know anything about it." Of course both knew, that the Russians trail US warships quite regularly and that, as usual, the Washington Times was out for National Inquirer headlines.

Richardson also failed to answer Snow's question about just when the US was going to pony up the billion dollars plus we owe the United Nations in back dues and assessments. Richardson merely replied that it made positioning very tough for him -- a message to Republicans who continue to block the UN payments hoping to embarrass to White House.

At the break Snow said his next guest would be Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala. and then -- bowing to a Roger Aisles-like trick -- played a stupid rendition of "High Hopes" a blunt put down to the Administrations new health care initiative which would vest rights in patients battling big HMOs for quality health care.

Shalala told Snow that the health care consumer bill of rights merely formalizes things that should be in every health plan -- making the status quo work better. "You can appeal . . your doctor isn't gagged." she said pinging the HMO practice of silencing doctors who want more latitude on patient care.

Mara Liasson pointed out that conservative groups like the US Chamber of Commerce and the health care industry are already ganging up against the "bill of rights" because they feel it will end up with government controlled health care. "Wont' that guarantee it will bomb?." she asked.

Shalala, putting on a happy face but ignoring the truth, I think, claimed that she had bi-partisan support for the health care initiative and pointed to Congressman Norwood, a conservative Republican who supports the bill of rights. "The details here are very straightforward. IT does not add new health care plans."

Wow, Norwood?

There was some discussion that the initiative would increase health care costs by between 1 and 7 percent.

"This isn't about extra cost only," said Shalala, " we can also save money through more efficient treatment, etc...Like no second guessing by non professionals." -- a direct stab at the common HMO practice to have people who might be considered file clerks evaluating medical doctor's requests for specialized care outside HMO parameters.

Juan Williams pointed out that health care for children is a real concern, "I was shocked to read that the average age of a homeless person is 9 years old."

Brit Hume. always asking questions from outer space, wanted to know what role God played in the birth of the Iowa septuplets. Shalala thought "a big one."

"Picking the kind of child they want - where do you come out on that?," Hume challenged.

"As opposed to picking the husband to sire it ?," Shalala parried wonderfully, making Hume look like the idiot he sometimes is. But then, aren't we all?

Shalala hinted that the federal government thus far has not regulated the fertility clinic industry - leaving that to the states, but that state rules were now "uneven." To a trained ear, this was a warning that the President or the Congress could step in, safe under the Constitution, and provide federal legislation or directives in the near future which would assure a level playing field and across-the-board national regulations for that sector. This is news, although I doubt anyone will pick up on it in the near term.

The next segment, "Is God Alive and Well?," was the most ridiculous discussion of the role religion plays in American society I think I've ever witnessed. Who does Snow bring in to talk about it? None other than Dr. Laura Schlessinger, radio pop-psychologist, best known as the babe who probably pushes some people to commit suicide over her raspy, insensitive comments on their own private hells.

Snow also brought on a Catholic Bishop, and Stephen R. Covey, author of "The Seven Habits of Highly Effective Families" to kick around the question. Both Schlessinger and Covey were there to push their books. The Bishop provided "religious relief."

Dr. Laura (as she's known to her adoring masochistic fans) said that she's discovered that religion is so marginalized that we are almost surprised when it's brought up. The Bishop reminded Snow that people are coming back to the Church, but that many more are now praying at home, and claiming there was a paradox in that Americans are upset by violence and drugs but don't know how to relate them to religion.

Snow asked Covey whether people read his books (and they do, in the millions across the globe) as a kind of alternative to the 10 commandments. - ha, ha, ha, ha. - and Covey, no atheist himself, replied, straight-faced, that truth comes ultimately from God and that the conscience is ultimately the voice of God.

Snow wanted to know if the panel though government and the media (which I suppose he thinks is the same thing) are hostile to traditional religious values.

Dr. Laura said that only 1% of media coverage is on religion. How she knew this is beyond me. "We have revered independence so much that morality becomes a matter of how you feel, what you want. "I am working on a book 'The Ten Commandments - What's in it for me?" - ha, ha, ha, ha. What a segue.

The Bishop said he was impressed that Secretary Shalala gave God so much credit for the septuplet births but that he was unhappy with the Philadelphia Inquirer's editorial yesterday that was a mean-spirited look at the septuplet's parents and their motivations for having seven kids at once.

"This was a happy time for the nation," he fantasized.

Dr. Laura then lashed out against the hand that feeds her saying that the "media's" featuring move stars having children out of wedlock isn't good, but added that it might be unwise for people with few assets to have eight children.

The Bishop, realizing that he was for the births, of course, tried to undo any feeling that a viewer might have that he was against high tech fertility practices saying that he was into the use of the technology done "in good faith." -- whatever that meant.

Snow - always up for beating a dead horse announced that the panel would discuss Racial Preferences - yet again - during the next segment.

Snow began the discussion by mentioning the Piscataway, NJ case recently settled by pro-preference forces rather than allowing the case to move to the supreme court where it might have allowed conservative justices to formalize and judicially codify the nation's growing rejection of fairness.

Juan Williams remarked that you could see the "whites of their tails as Jesse Jackson and others took the case away from the court by settling with the white teacher who claimed that a black teacher getting "her" job was unconstitutional.

Liasson said the President still believes that affirmative action and racial preferences should be allowed, and Williams quipped that he wished the President DID make a strong case for affirmative action, implying he did not.

Brit Hume, a little less racist in his remarks this week as opposed to the last two, said the case was about a Black and a White teacher with roughly the same qualifications and was not your normal "run of the mill" racial preference case anyway.

Snow, showing his conservative credentials actually said : "The Republicans have been talking about banning racial preferences but nothing happens."

Hey Tony, are you disappointed?

Hume, making up facts as he went along told us, "Racial preferences are hugely unpopular but affirmative action is popular."

Two things wrong there Brit. First of all, racial preferences are extremely popular among Americans who have been getting the shaft for being part of a "minority" -- so a general statement that such preference are hugely unpopular, without adding -- WITH WHITES, or perhaps SELFISH WHITES - is utter nonsense.

Second, most Americans have no idea at all what the difference between racial preferences and affirmative action is. This was demonstrated all too well by California's Proposition 209 and the recent "surprise" vote in Houston where Texans told Ward Connerly and his minions to jump in a lake.

Mara Liasson was right on when she told Snow and Hume that the GOP hasn't moved on racial preferences because they are "suspect, " and Juan Williams finished Snow/Hume off by adding, "SUSPECT? They have used race to divide Americans... there is a historic precedent to make sure the doors stay open for minorities. I think (the president) should let conservatives onto his task force on racism and I also think he should stand up for what he believes in."

"If the President continues to fight for Bill Lan Lee, he will have to," added Liasson.

Williams did not agree. He felt that if Clinton did get involved with Lee and made a "recess appointment" which defied Senator Hatch and his racist buddies, that the Senate Judiciary Committee would retaliate by blocking every presidential judicial appointment after that.

Everyone agreed that Republicans had committed Hara Kari on the Arlington Cemetery story which proved to be a total fabrication. Snow showed a clip of Arlen Specter saying "...this is great stuff, and the Democrats tried to sell plots, but then again, this is bull."

Good for Specter.

Hume, wanting to save something for the Republicans said in a weak attack on the White House, "Well, this happened because people are willing to believe anything because of all that has happened before."

Of course Hume fails to mention that NOTHING has been proven to have "happened before" -- nothing but allegations spun by the best spin doctors the GOP has to offer.

Fox News Sunday ended with a winners and losers segment - Who's the winner Clinton, Yeltsin or Saddam?

All agreed is was Russia and Saddam.

Which just goes to show you how really harebrained these people can be. The obvious winner, thus far is Bill Clinton. He used diplomacy to cut the chances for war -- a war that would kill American men and women, let alone Iraqi women and children. The only way Clinton can lose is if he continues to pursue a policy of "getting Saddam" -- a policy that is all too clear and all too personal for the national health. As one watched the news unfold this weekend, and listened to the president's spin doctors, one came away feeling that the Iraq crisis has become a personal vendetta with Clinton demanding Saddam's head or nothing.

THE MCLAUGHLIN GROUP

John McLaughlin
"Issue 1!," says John McLaughlin -- "To Russia With Love, and with that the high charged atmosphere of the McLaughlin group got off to a start yesterday with John McLaughlin reminding America that Ambassador Primakov of Russia was the one to announce that the crisis with Iraq was over and that the first U.S. response was skepticism and incredulity followed by cautious optimism from our State Department. But now there are 17 warships including 2 aircraft carriers, 250 tactical fighters in addition to the 180 planes on the carriers and 27,000 troops in the Gulf with more arriving every day.

What's going on here you ask?

But McLaughlin doesn't answer really and instead poses the question whether Russia has now regained its superpower status.

Fred Barnes, always good for a smile answered - "..no more than India or Sweden," insulting two nations at once, and adding that Russia does have more clout in the U.N. after their diplomatic coup.

Eleanor Clift reminded the group that Primakov was an old cold war spy who worked under cover for Pravda. "If the Russians want to assert themselves I think it's a welcome development, " said Clift acting like a character out of Warren Beatty's "Reds."

Pat Buchanan, making more sense than he has since birth, exclaimed, "Russia isn't a super power. The Russians are back in the Middle East to stay and the Arabs see us in a poor light as Russia moves in (to fill the void). But they can't be a big player." Meaning: They can't afford it.

An addition this week was Derek McGinty who couldn't seem to get a word in edgewise on this topic, although he tried.

McLaughlin pointed out the toll that the US/UN sanctions were taking on Iraq: 1.4 million deaths attributed to the sanctions by the International Action Center, with children under 5 representing nearly 700,000. McLaughlin, thankfully picking upon the same course he stayed last week, was aiming for the American conscience and doing a great job.

Clift, unfortunately, went overboard in her White House apologist role (I thought that part was mine) saying something like, "Yeah, the statistics are horrendous but the U.S. has always been willing to give more aid.

Sure, that's been the U.S. line since we came under fire for the sanctions, but it really isn't true. What we offered was very limited aid tied to Saddam's backing off his shenanigans - something he's too proud or to nuts to do. But the U.S. continues to fail to recognize the real damage being done to innocent Iraqi civilians and instead calls for them to rise up against Saddam. A silly siren song. Can you imagine what would have happened had Germans tried to "rise up" against Hitler.

Nothing.

McLaughlin poses THE question: "Is this genocide?"

No one seemed willing to admit that, but Barnes pointed out that Saddam won't comply with US demands and ergo this argues for the assassination of Saddam in order to save the Iraqi people. How's that for convoluted thinking?

Buchanan again gained some more of my respect saying that "it sucks that we are after Saddam " this way.

McGinty pointed out that the US hoped for an Iraqi inspired revolution, but Clift countered," You're being unrealistic. We can't find him, this is just an overflow of testosterone."

Well, caca de toro Eleanor. We don't have to find him. A $10 million reward for his head would deliver it FED EX to the White House within a week and cost only about 3% of what we've already spent on this crisis.

Buchanan again made the most sense saying the sanctions have isolated the U.S. from the Arab world and Europe . . a bigger truth than Americans, who haven't traveled abroad recently, realize.

Fred Barnes, unraveled, asked, "What do you think Saddam would do if the sanction were lifted - he would just keep on making weapons of mass destruction."

Clift again lost in "Reds" blurted out, "Lets wait and see what the Russians can do."

Everyone agreed that the sanctions were a failure, but Buchanan pointed out that the policy of "Dual containment:" was as well.

Clift, really acting like a moron at this point quoted the "tired by now" slogan of the State Department - "we've destroyed more weapons since the war than during it." or some such nonsense.

Barnes, admitting the sanctions have not worked added that we "have no credible alternative." But, McLaughlin countered with a yes we have, "...we can integrate him into the world.

McLaughlin played a tape of Ambassador Robin Cook of Britain about the solidarity of the UN, and Buchanan replied, "There is no solidarity in the UN and that's why the Russians were able to make an end run. There is light at the end of the tunnel for Saddam.

Clift -"So what, that's good.

If Clift does have an inside track at the White House, President Clinton's policy would seem to be to let the Rooskies handle it.

But McLaughlin said, "Listen to Sandy Berger," and then played some tape: It was Berger talking about the Russian/Iraqi agreement which resulted in the return of American inspectors to Iraq. "Let me say this abut the "bilateral" understanding. It is not binding on us or the U.N. It is not something we are obliged to respect," snapped Berger.

With that McLaughlin closed the discussion - "You know what I say. It's wired and the US is committed to going multilateral... all they way."

And McLaughlin is probably right. Why? Because Americans are wondering how come we allow Saddam to survive and let him continue to make weapons that could kill most of New York City in a couple of days without firing a shot. And who worried us? Bill Clinton' s Administration. if they back off now, without eliminating Saddam, people will be left with a worried feeling and that's not good going into the 1998 elections.

So watch for the US to try and eliminate Saddam Hussein, either through a limited war, or some other way.

Some talk ensued about infertility and the septuplets with Clift putting a pall on an otherwise upbeat discussion saying, "I think it's irresponsible to have these many children at one time." And Buchanan making her look stupid saying he'd come from a family of 9 and Barnes adding, "I like the miracle."

McLaughlin threw up some figures showing New York Mayor Giuliani getting 80% of the vote in a presidential race -- ridiculous and meaningless numbers. And another set showing Gephardt within 1 point of Gore.

PREDICTIONS worth mentioning

Clift: Expanding private pensions

Buchanan : Big demand for US funds to bail out Asia.

McLaughlin: Lolita Dedrickson (R) will face Carol Mosely-Braun and win.

"Happy Thanksgiving - Gobble gobble," closed McLaughlin.

NOTE: A technical problem forced us to miss Evans & Novak

MEET THE PRESS

Tim Russert
Tim Russert had scrappy Bill Cohen as his first guest. The Secretary started by underlining the importance to let the UN inspectors do their jobs and in the 63 sites that Saddam has restricted thus far. "The sanctions cannot be lifted until there is full compliance, " he said.

Of course the sanctions CAN be lifted, but the White House will not go along with it -- at least for now. Cohen then showed a chart and a U2 photo where you can see Saddam's trucks and troops responding to an alert that inspectors were on there way. Cohen says the inspectors were delayed until Saddam got suspicious material out of that particular site.

Russert talked of reports that the Russian scientists on the inspection teams were "moles" who tipped off Saddam about the team's movements. Cohen totally ignored this statement only indirectly defending the Russians saying the Iraqis have always watched the progress of the teams and that Russian "scientists: are not suspect. Here he made an obtuse reference to the fact that Russia tried to add some non-scientists to the inspection teams - some of whom were alleged old KGB operatives.

"This is what President Clinton demands, and this is what he'll get," harrumphed Cohen, a Republican himself.

Russert seemed to make a big deal out of reports that U2 flights may begin at night, but never said why that was an important issue. Cohen said that this was possible and that flights by other types of aircraft were also possible -- and at night. Did he mean B52's ?

Cohen referred back to what he called "the chart of lies." They admitted they had a few kilograms of VX and we found 3.9 tons. They said they had no anthrax, but we found 2,220 tons of it... ," Cohen went on.

"Has Saddam won?," asked Russert.

"No," replied Cohen, :The UN has won. Saddam has alerted the world about his chemical and biological warfare intentions and has done us a favor in that sense and solidified the security council against him."

Dream on.

But Russert posed a tough question that went something like this. "If Saddam says we can't have access to the 63 sites and we don't let up on the sanctions but Saddam says he doesn't care about the sanctions, then what."

Cohen: "Saddam should be held accountable for what he has done against his own people -- he could have had the sanctions lifted. The US supported oil for food and Saddam held that up for more than a year. He would rather build palaces and continue to do what he was doing in the past. "

Then Russert turned Cohen over to reporter Mark Miklashefsy who asked him whether the denial of access to the 63 some odd sites would be enough to trigger a US/UN military response.

Cohen hemmed and hawed and did not answer the question claiming that we had Saddam in "a box." But Miklashefsy argued, it's been 7 years and the inspectors have been frustrated and it's likely that Saddam has been able to build up his forces and weapons, "so what's this box you claim he is in?"

Cohen, looking like a fool said that the box is proven because Saddam had not be able to pose a threat to Kuwait and the Saudis because of our no fly zone enforcement. But Cohen sounded weak and prevaricative.

Miklashefsy said that President Bush felt Saddam would collapse under his own weight- - "any indication when that might happen," he asked Cohen almost sarcastically.

Cohen, with his pants down, responded, "No, it is difficult to ... " -- in my words he was saying you couldn't kill Saddam.

Cohen wouldn't talk about possible expansion of the no fly zone to the entire country of Iraq and said forces would continue to build up in the Gulf -- "as long as the President wants them to." Cohen also did not rule out more ground troops and kept all military options open.

Russert then asked the stupid "Donaldson Question" -- "Why not just take Saddam out?"

Cohen, wisely rebuffed Russert saying, "We should not be talking casually about taking head shots.. . That's against the law. as I pointed out last week (to Donaldson.)

Russert and Cohen went on about US vulnerability to Gas and Bio weapons attack and Cohen said he was coming out with a report next week on that very issue and that US cities are preparing for any such eventuality.

Russert also asked Cohen about the phony "selling graves at Arlington" story.

Cohen said, "It was unfounded . . and caused a lot of grief unnecessarily.

Russert: "These charges were ginned up by the GOP. You are a Republican, what do you think?"

Cohen: "If there are legitimate questions then they should be raised. But I think we have to act responsibly and the press should not rush to judgment... blah, blah, blah."

Russert then had Iraqi Ambassador Nazir Hamdoon on for a repeat performance -- Scooped by Tony Snow of Fox -- what an insult.

Hamdoon basically told Russert the same story. Sites directly related to Saddam would not be opened for UN inspection. Russert explored whether Saddam cared about his people, asking whether Saddam shouldn't open the country up to save the Iraqi children. Hamdoon told him that they had already opened the country for 7 years, that all the weapons had been destroyed by Iraq unilaterally or by the UN. Hamdoon said it was the UN that was lying in response to a Russert question that the UN said Iraq was lying and then went on to say that he thought Iraq had been effective in calling world attention to "those killing sanctions."

Russert: "63% of people describe Saddam as a madman. How do you respond."

Hamdoon kept his cool blaming US rhetoric for that poll figure and adding it seemed alright for the American people to believe only what others allege and for which they have no proof.

That ended that with Russert turning to Australian UN inspection team chief Butler who was more emotional in his attacks on Saddam. He pointed out that unless the 63 sites and others were inspected there was no way for him to report back to the UN that Saddam had complied and, indirectly, that then sanctions could not be lifted. Butler said the answer is truth and verification. He said that Saddam destroying the weapons himself was in itself illegal and added that Saddam claimed Iraq had destroyed 12 missiles yet the teams could find parts for only 1.5 missiles at the site where they were supposed to have been demolished.

A debate on the Iraq situation between Bob Novak and William Safire -- playing the hawk - then ensued.

Safire looked like an idiot.

Novak lead off by saying that these sanctions are a brutal policy and that they were failures similar to our attempts in Haiti which now has as bad a government as before. "We have people inside and outside of this government who are determined to get rid of Saddam, " he said.

Safire responded insipidly, "Its nice to see compassion, and you have to take your hat off to someone who has an outrageous opinion. We are beginning to see the start of a Moscow -Baghdad AXIS. You will see the arming of Iraq by the Russians. What will he do with all the oil money -- he'll build his army..."

Novak, like a sage, said. "You know Bill, we are not masters of the universe. People like to think they can micromanage China, Iraq, etc.... There is a way. It's called deterrence. Saddam didn't use these weapons of mass destruction in the war with us and Kuwait. He was terrified that we'd nuke him. The only reason we are involved there is because he invaded Kuwait. There is no consensus that we have to drive Saddam from office."

Safire responded that deterrence works with rational enemies - ignoring the fact that Saddam seemed rational in not using gas and anthrax on Kuwait or on our troops. Safire continued asking what would happen if there is an escalation and the US says we will nuke you and Saddam replies that he has people in place to take out New York or Chicago. Now is the time to stop him. I would use military intervention and I would build our troop from 30,000 now to more and the get the Turks to help or others and try to infiltrate and build a coup effort against Saddam and then, if worse comes to worse -- push harder.

Shades of The Twilight Zone.

Who is Safire to be plotting military strategy. He's a washed up apologist for Nixon who's lucky enough to sit on the Pulitzer board and still get his column printed. Jeez, what a pompous ass.

Novak replied. "You know Bill, they were telling me and you that Saddam wasn't long for this world. The CIA said that. He's still here. I have to repeat that he never used those weapons. I don't think he is a madman. I am leery of the Russian-Iraqi coalition, but we are getting more an more isolated over our Israel position and now Iraq is mending fences with Syria and Egypt."

Safire, over his head, responded, "That's ridiculous. You're saying give up half of Jerusalem.

That's the best he could do.

Novak thumped the Republicans on the Arlington Cemetery story saying it was "nonsense and I think it was started by the media and the Republicans were stupid enough to jump on it."

Safire, bemoaning his own fate said," Now the backlash will be 'look at these wild charges - you can't believe the Republicans on anything."

He's right, and they deserve it.

Both Novak and Safire joined to attack Janet Reno's lack of appointing special prosecutors aimed at White House campaign finance abuses. Novak said a piece in the Times on Friday about Reno was a " really disgusting puff job."

Safire, shaking his head trying to get out the cobwebs added - "There has been a Reno roll out, from Larry King to this program saying that professional bureaucrats have prevailed in the Justice Department to say you can now sit in the Oval Office and shake down people for money -- and this allows the next person to sit there and do just that. I think we should let a court decide just what is the law .

You're wrong Safire. It's the Congress that decides such things.

Novak seemed to think that something could come from this. Ooooooh. The Democrats are shaking.

THIS WEEK

Sam Donaldson
This Week led with the stupid septuplets story and spent about half it's time examining what bores the heck out of most thinking Americans.

Ambassador Hamdoon also appeared on This Week and George Will -- asking the only decent question in an hour - inquired of him how he expected the inspector situation to be better.

Hamdoon replied that it would be good to have more inspectors (as the Russians are pushing for) so as to finish up the work faster. "We think that expertise in these areas is important, but we have not liked the American dominance over the teams -- especially the leadership positions within them. We think they were under pressure from an Anti-Iraq American policy and that the Americans were causing problems and delays as well as friction -- like trying to get access to President Hussein's compound.

For the sixth straight week in a row, This Week was disappointing and ABC should invite Donaldson and Cokie Roberts for a chat in New York. "Either get it together and get serious, or get out," should be the message.