A few weeks ago, I posed the not-at-all rhetorical question, "When will you stop insulting our intelligence?" to the man who promised not to participate in a partisan witch hunt, Madhouse Judiciary Ward Chairman Henry Hyde. This week I got my answer: "Never, never, never!"

Some background: Someone (Newt? Tom DeLay? Bob Barr?) wrote 81 questions for the President to answer, ostensibly to clear up legal questions which were "in dispute." Few of the questions could legitimately be called admit/deny questions, but each started with "Do you admit or deny..." Not that this is important to the Hyde mob, but virtually none of the questions touched on questions which were in dispute -- not on this planet, anyway. The Prez answered them. The GOP talk show team immediately said the answers were "evasive and crafty" (Barr), "insulting" (Lott), or "legalistic" (everyone else, apparently oblivious to the fact that this is supposed to be a legal proceeding).

I submit that just as the committee had already reached its verdict before it has heard from any witnesses, the GOPsters already knew what they would say about the 81 answers before they read them (if they even bothered to read them). And it wasn't hard to get the Sam and Cokie crowd to sell their pre- packaged pap. So now the conventional wisdom is that the Prez was evasive in his answers to Hyde's most humble and truth-seeking pop quiz, which has turned the tide of Congressional opinion against him, and now he's going to be impeached. A crock of shit, to be sure, but that's the playing field as of today.

So now I have some questions of my own. None of which have to do with extramarital indiscretions by Hyde, Gingrich, Watts, Barr, Bush, Chenowith, Burton, et. al.

Why 81 questions, Henry? There are only 11 allegations in the Starr report, and only 13 when Lhasa Apso Schippers chewed them up. No one this side of Bob Barr has made 81 allegations. It appears to me the pop quiz is deliberately padded with ridiculous non-starters ("Do you admit or deny calling your secretary at 1:21 P.M. on whenever [which we already know because it's in the phone records]?") specifically to make it less likely to be read by the public.

If there were 10 items (a la the infamous Contract of '94), some regular folks might have read it and seen it for what it was -- an evasive, crafty, insulting, legalistic ploy by the GOP lynch mob. In its 81-part encyclopedic form, however, only politics freaks like yours truly read the whole thing and saw through it. Keep in mind, politics fans, only 50% of the American public even knows who Henry Hyde is (CNN/USAToday/Gallup poll, Dec. 7). People with real lives got the Reader's Digest version (with all apologies to Mr. Barone's fine right-wing publication). Press reports gave broad characterizations of Hyde's questions, citing three or four at most, and therefore were about as informative as a 10-words-for-a-buck classified ad. "'81 Buick Regal. Black. Runs. Needs some work. Call evenings." Not quite enough info to make an informed decision.

There is probably a focus group somewhere who was asked just before this year's elections, "How long would a list of questions be before you decided not to read it? A. 20 questions, B. 40 questions. C. 80 questions, or D. More than 80 questions."

Which answers are troubling to you, Henry? Those of us who shook our heads in disbelief at the questions were not surprised by the answers -- maybe by the fact that the Prez dignified these cheesy questions with thorough answers.

By my count, there are seven questions on the quiz which relate directly to the charge Hyde is already making -- perjury. Seven. For perspective, there are more than twice that many (16) just asking whether the Prez made phone calls at specific times, not what the calls were about or any other potentially relevant information. (Last I checked, making phone calls wasn't illegal, though taping phone calls...)

So which answers were, as Hyde said, "bizarre"? Perhaps the ones that reinforce the fact that the Prez is not guilty of perjury? Maybe it was "insulting" to have the more ridiculous questions exposed as such. For example, in answer to a snide question about "suggesting" Monica move to New York so lawyers representing Paula Nosejob couldn't contact her, the Prez points out that Monica's testimony directly contradicts that several times, even in her dutifully-catalogued interviews with Starr's FBI goons. He doesn't mention the question's absurd insinuation that moving to New York would put anyone out of reach of Ms. Nosejob's attorneys. Heck, they flew Paula and her now-departed nose back and forth to California any number of times.

Is Ken Starr guilty of perjury, Henry? You should have no problem with this one. He lied to your committee, under oath, and you were alert enough to make jokes, so you probably caught it. Remember, your little impeachment peach Bob Barr said it was impossible to set a perjury trap and Starr agreed with him, so you can't pawn his lies off on the Dems.

Do you have different policies for Democratic justice and Republican justice? The LA Times sure thinks you do. It must smart to see those Iran-Contra quotes of your excusing Ollie North's lying as justifiable, especially as you're trying to earn your PAC money by twisting true statements by Democrats into lies.

Why are you lying, Henry? Let me wrap up with a quick survey of Hyde lies: "I haven't heard anybody say Monica Lewinsky is a liar." Dec. 7, 1998 press conference You mean except Monica herself, Linda Tripp, and Ken Starr, right? All have said she was a liar, as Henry well knows. Hey, maybe Henry's telling the truth, and it just depends on what your definition of "is" is!

"We haven't heard one word about evidence repudiating or rejecting the facts." Ibid. Again, Henry may be weaseling out the truth here -- they didn't hear "one" word repudiating what he calls "facts," but rather thousands of words. Three separate filings by the President and his attorneys, not to mention the millions of anti-GOP votes cast just weeks ago. Maybe you should think about hearing a word or two, Hank.

"In addition, we have yet to hear from the president. And I can assure my colleagues, if and when the president would want to testify, he may have unlimited time to do so." Nov. 19 hearings transcript Two, two, two lies in one!

"We are going to follow wherever the facts lead us." Nov. 18, 1998 press conference. Oh, please.

"I won't condone nor participate in a political witch hunt. If the evidence does not justify a full impeachment investigation, I won't recommend one to the House." --Sept. 10. 1998 press conference

Let's at least hope the last part isn't a lie.

--- Dave Gibbons