Tim Russert welcomed the pundit weekend's A-list guest, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, and C-list Assistant Minority Janitor Don Nickles.  Tim began with questions about the India-Pakistan situation.  Daschle wants the tensions ratcheted down; Nickles blamed terrorists.

Tin then asked about the new Osama tape -- is there a victory without getting bin Laden?  Daschle essentially said yes -- but we're doing it right.  Could Team Smirk have done it better?  Probably not, said Daschle -- we're doing everything we know how to do with the tools we have, including working with and in Pakistan.

Tim then did something hen hasn't done in quite a few weeks: he bashed Bill Clinton, asking if he could have done a better job to thwart terrorism.  Daschle said no, Clinton did it right -- and then called for more bipartisanship in fighting terrorism.  Nickles gave a knee-jerk answer concerning Clinton, saying he did not do enough and only lobbed a couple missiles.

But people who follow the news know Nickles is an outright liar -- Clinton signed a finding to go after bin Laden, nearly had him taken out, and tried like crazy to get more anti-terror spending past a reluctant Trent Lott, Newt Gingrich, Dick Shelby and Tom DeLay -- only to see them more interested in investigating his trousers than protecting American citizens.

Daschle actually told off the GOP in Congress for not doing enough to back their president in going after terrorists and beefing up domestic and airline security.

Tim then brought up the mandate that takes effect January 18 requiring all checked baggage be inspected and matched to flyers -- and airline claims that it cannot be done.  Daschle said that "we have to pull out all the stops...to ensure that we're ready" and not doing so would be a "mockery."

That's a mockery by airlines of their very fliers.

Tim said that the deadline is realistic.  Nickles said it was unrealistic while trying to making it sound as if he was in agreement with Daschle, trying to play up those poor, battered airlines (that sold out YOUR security to the lowest bidder) that are struggling to meet the deadline.  Daschle said that resources need to be available now -- and chided the GOP for trying to delay them.  Will he authorize legislation to pay for screening facilities?  Daschle essentially said yes -- and blasted the GOP again.

Tim then turned to the anthrax problem in the Hart Senate Office Building -- is there a chance that it will never be reopened?  Daschle called the fumigation effective, and there's a reasonable chance it will reopen as soon as next week.

Tim then cited "Big Time" Cheney's having labeled Daschle an obstructionist, and also plastered on the TV screen a screed by Bob "Prince of Darkness" Novak blasting Daschle.  This only gave Daschle the chance to slam GOP obstruction tactics -- particularly those that help working people -- as he said the Dem-controlled Senate had a very vigorous and productive year.  Tim: "But they're saying you have more than fifty votes...and you refuse to allow votes" (awww, too bad, Tim -- that's the way our republic works, so stop whining).  Daschle said that there are tactics that House GOPers use to hold up, for example, campaign finance reform.  Nickles claimed that the Democrat stimulus bill is a spending bill.

Well, so is the GOP version -- which includes tons of de facto corporate welfare.

This gave Tim an unexpected opening to discuss news reports detailing Republican attack strategy against Tom Daschle -- and Nickles said he'd never seen the news story in the New York Times about a memo from Frank Luntz to GOPers recommending that they describe "Daschle Democrats" as "obstructionists".

Well, he may have missed the story, but we bet he read the memo!

Nickles squirmed like a nemotode, saying he was Daschle's friend -- and when Tim reminded Nickles that Cheney had called Daschle an obstructionist, he said that Cheney's his pal too!

What a riot.  With friends like these...well, you know.

Daschle slammed the GOP "stimulus" scam, calling it a failure in the past while calling for a fair bill that can spur the economy.

Tim then brought up Dems' blocking the nomination of Otto Reich and Eugene Scalia.  Daschle said that there will be a vote -- including the possibility of a cloture vote on controversial nominees.  Are Dems punishing Scalia's dad for voting to appoint Little Lord Smirkleroy president?  Daschle said no -- the problem is his qualifications and controversial views (he SHOULD have pointed out that Eugene, by working for Shrub, put his dad in a position of conflict of interest and had ample opportunity to quit to prevent such a conflict).  Nickles said that Eugene Scalia had opposed Clinton-era ergonomics -- then lied when he said there were "only three or four" controversial nominees under Clinton.

Three or four?  Nickles helped block DOZENS of Clinton appointees,

How big a story is the Enron collapse?  Nickles had to admit it hurt a lot of people -- then blamed the auditors.  Does he support an investigation?  Yeah.  Daschle was more vigorous -- yes, the auditors need to be investigated, but so do executives of the company.

The segment was pretty telling.  Nickles is a loyal ultra-right-winger, but not the sharpest axe in the shed -- and teamed with Daschle, it sure showed.  Daschle was adequate, but needs to put up a vigorous rhetorical offense -- including calling the GOP more often on their underhanded tactics, unpopular agenda, and pseudo-president.

The second half of the show was a rehash of 2001 (read: 2001 after September 11th).  Gasbag David Broder said that people "voted in opposite ways because we got caught up in our social divisions...the public has changed."

Yeah, right -- only because they're being fed "unifying" pap by the media, not only in news but in entertainment.

We missed what Robin Wright (no, not Sean Penn's wife) said, but Bill Safire forecast a resurgence in confidence and a victory over terror in 2002.  "It's a question of leadership" and when our nation sees something wrong, we can get the rest of the world on our side.

Well, that's interesting -- Safire used to be a booster of unilateralism.  Talk about changing your spots...

Broder called Smirk's handlers "prudent" in post-September 11th decisions.  Scared to death of making a major misstep and losing public support for the "war on terror" is probably a more accurate description.

So what is the endgame in the war against terrorism?  Wright detailed remaining Al Qaeda forces and problems with Afghan unity, noted a possible dust-up with Iraq, and  forecast a struggle lasting past "a second Bush administration".  Well, that's pretty revealing about her own political bent!

Tim then pressed Safire on why Osama should not be tried before a military tribunal.  Safire -- right for once -- said that if we can't convict Osama as a criminal, there's something wrong.  Tim: "But look at the security!"  He cited the fact that the judge in the 1993 attacks is still under armed protection.  Safire said that we have an obligation to liberty, and such a cost comes with that obligation -- and then launched into a condemnation of military courts and a compliment to Don Rumsfeld for acknowledging that civil liberties need to be discussed and considered.

Tim kept bringing up security -- why should we put Americans in danger?  Broder said that no matter what happens, we'll be fairer to Osama than Osama was to his victims.

What should America be prepared for from militant Islam?  Wright said that while chemical and biological attacks are possible, old-fashioned bombs are the big danger; their problem in attacking Western interests will be manpower and maintaining the element of surprise.  Tim said that someone could use a radioactive "dirty" bomb; Safire said "You can always depend on a madman...to kill a bunch of people."  Well, golly, that's a stretch, Bill!  "We lose 3000 people on the highways every month...these terrorist attacks are not so terrible."

Hoo-boy.  We hope Howell "Howler" Raines at the New York Times saw that.  Time to talk retirement with ol' Bill.

Tim brought up Safire's forecast that the Dems will take the House -- but the GOP will regain the Senate.  Even David Broder questioned Safire's sanity.

After the break, Tim asked what each panelist would put into a time capsule.  Wright said the third bin Laden "party" tape, showing how petty and vindictive he truly was -- along with the human genome.  Broder said that he'd take the front pages of September 11th and 12th newspapers, along with the Today show on the 12th and Bush's speeches.  Safire said the New York Times did an extraordinary job with their very personal, character-filled portraits of those who perished in the World Trade Center (and again we find ourselves in agreement with Safire).  Do we rebuild the Trade Center or make it a memorial?  Safire said both.

Predictions for 2002!
Wright: Saddam Hussein remains in power in Iraq.
Safire: He should be ousted and replaced.
Wright: The US has said it may go it alone against Iraq, but it can't.
Broder: Baseball will return to Washington, DC.

Oh, please -- we watch Meet the Press for political pap, not sports!

-- Dave "Doctor" Gonzo

Reliably B.S.
Howie Kurtz again presides over his pretend "Media Criticism" show

In authentic Orwellian fashion, today's media will tell you that up is down, good is bad, Bush is a brilliant leader, and a "media criticism" show's sole purpose is to defend the media, dismiss criticism, and avoid addressing the media's most glaring problems.

Howard Kurtz and crew started with a parade of clips showing various journalists sounding like morons talking about the Chandra Levy case and other insignificant subjects that sucked up all media oxygen prior to September 11th.

Howie then welcomed Michelle Cottle from the New Republic -- which must be a sign CNN 86'ed Take Five, the show she regularly appeared on with Jake Tapper. Nobody seems to have noticed it was gone. Not a good sign.

Michael Wolff from New York magazine said that reporters looked skyward and said, "Thank God! A war!" in response to September 11th. This, Wolff says, is because they were so grateful for some serious news.

What? There was NO serious news prior to this attack? Guess not -- that is, if you were following the "Rove rules" that forbade any criticism of Monkey Boy or his agenda, and when events in the rest of the world just wasn't "sexy" enough.

Paul Farhi of The Washington Post said he thinks that the war story is winding down, and refers to a classic post-attack graphic that appeared in The Onion stating "A Shattered Nation Longs To 'go back to the old fluff' again", as Farhi put it.

The actual headline was "A Shattered Nation Longs To Care About Stupid Bullshit Again," complete with a collage complete with Brittany Spears with an albino python around her neck, Gary Condit, Michael Jackson, the fraudulent Little League pitcher (remember him?), a shark, and Tom Cruise.

Not surprisingly, the irony of the Onion headline completely eludes these folks, and they take it as a sign that we really DO want to go back to meaningless crap again. I suspect the real reason is that journalists want to go back to meaningless crap. It's admittedly so much easier for them to deal with: it's less work, and you don't have to worry about getting it right.

Wolff said, "We're journalists at war, and we like it." Good news for the White House, as they'd love to keep the war going as a long-running hit show, at least until 2004.

Howie says that September 11th was "a traumatic event from which we still haven't recovered."

Speak for yourself, Howie. I believe it's safe to say that anyone that has forgotten the events of that day is insane -- but anyone not personally affected by the attack that hasn't yet been able to get on with their life because of it, is in need of some serious counseling.

Now on to a burning question we all have been dying to see addressed: "Did the internet play an important role in the war coverage?"

Gee...I could have predicted the answer. It's the same answer that has been given to questions about the role of the Internet as a news source since there's been news on the net. "Well, no...but kind of. Maybe." In other words, no one has a clue and no way to find out.

Howie wonders if it was a spectacular blunder that some in the media reported at the early stages of "the war" that it was going to be a long drawn out mess and the military was really handling it badly. I guess they think it's been a roaring success and is over.

But I say, give it time. It hasn't had a proper chance to become a long, drawn-out mess yet. This White House won't be content with success. They'll keep going until their hubris gets us into some horrible debacle. I haven't lost faith.

Wolff made the good point that it was the White House that had been putting out all the hyperventilating pap comparing the September 11th attacks to Pearl Harbor and making it out to be a very dangerous and enormous, multi-year battle.

I sure didn't expect us to have the relatively easy time of it that thankfully has been the case. Opposition just melted, and it seemed to be a walk. I half suspect that the relative ease of this success was largely due to the spreading of an enormous amount of money, with promises of more to come. When you live in a cold, wind-swept rock field covered with deadly mines and are considered a prosperous person if your children live beyond the age of 5, the promise of money has a miraculous effect. I think Osama was paying them in exchange for their support to begin with, and we just made a better offer. A couple bucks more probably would have done the trick.

Farhi thought this worry by the press over the success of the "war" was the result of "pundits" having no knowledge of military matters or the effects of the billions of dollars of bombs and munitions dropped on Afghanistan.

My only thought was that it was probably hard to know something about a topic the government itself was completely secretive about.

Howie asked about the troubling and ridiculous attempts by the White House to control tapes of bin Laden. He said the first one came out and was played on U.S. media, then the second was broadcast (though not giving us the truth, by means of selective interpretation), and now the latest tape appears. The Smirk crew didn't want it played, and the U.S. media, in total lockstep, didn't play it. What's up, Howie asked? Is the media taking orders from the White House?

As if the answer might be "no"! Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

Farhi, showing typical press attitude, doesn't even recognize the larger issue of whether the media should be controlled by the government, but rather said that he thinks that the White House should have let this one be played because it would have been to their advantage.

In other words, the media doesn't even question the White House controlling them. Instead, they put themselves in the position of media advisors to the White House and try to determine what would be most advantageous to Smirk.

This exercise in futility, masquerading instead as a show that criticizes the media, is a complete fraud. Here is the entire -- and I do mean ENTIRE -- premise of this horrible show: to throw out a few relatively minor QUESTIONS about the media, and then to bat them aside.

In other words, Howie will ask, "Gee, did we get that wrong?", and he and the panel quickly rush to say, "No, we didn't get that one wrong, it was just because of this and this and this, but WE didn't get it wrong." Then he'll ask, "Why did the press do this?" This is followed by ridiculous justifications, rationalizations, and backpedaling, always, with the conclusion that the press really DIDN'T do what it did. And even if they did, then what the heck? They really were justified in doing it anyway. And each guest gets their turn at bat trying to compete to find a novel way to excuse it or dismiss the criticism as silly.

The entire show comes across as nothing more than a public relations vehicle to spin away or dismiss whatever current criticism is leveled at the press. It's a complete charade of actual criticism. It's nothing more than a hollow exercise done so they can say, "Look, we're being responsible, we question our actions." But the fact remains that on the Howie Kurtz Show, seldom is heard a critical word -- at least where it would be applied to the media. Nothing is ever determined to have been a clear mistake. Nothing is ever found to have no justification. No bias or manipulation by the government is ever found that can't be explained away or endorsed.

CNN should do itself a favor and dump this neurotic, hypocritical attempt to appear responsible by means of self-examination.

It reminds me of the typical police department that has "internal reviews" whenever cops, say, smash up a $50,000 squad car and send some elderly woman to the hospital because the cop was driving like a madman with no lights on and crossed the center line, or something of that sort. It's a sham from start to finish, and their report invariably finds no fault on the part of the cop, no matter how blatantly at fault he plainly is.

Cottle proceeded within this mode in addressing the nauseating coverage of the Condit flap. "Everyone was talking about it", Cottle explained, "so of course" we're going to "wring our hands" and feel a little guilty about it, but (the inevitable "but"), she maintains, "people LOVED it!" and went on to cite how her late grandma talked about it all the time, so "of course we're going to give them what they were looking for."

Ah yes, the old, "my grandma was interested" justification. And the completely bizarre circular logic justification. "Everyone is talking about it" so that justifies more coverage, which ensures that more people talk about it, which justifies more coverage, and so on to the point of infinite absurdity. They get caught in an endless and insane loop.

Or there's always the corollary: the tabloids reported it, so we reported what the tabloids were reporting. We're not REALLY covering the story, just the fact that the tabloids are talking about it.

Howie read a snippet of someone's column criticizing how massively hyped Time's "Man of the Year" selection was, when it's really incredibly unimportant. Was it corporate shilling, since CNN, which is owned by AOL/Time Warner breathlessly hyped the non-story?

Heavens no, Farhi opined, taking his turn at the defense, of course it's entire purpose was to promote Time magazine -- but there's nothing wrong with that, Farhi concluded.

One wonders, after watching this stuff if there's ever ANYTHING wrong with anything the press does or the way they do it. According to this sham "media criticism" show, the answer is decidedly "NEVER."