Shelby was specific in saying that training soldiers in the Republic of Georgia is a good thing -- funny, but wasn't he a member of the GOP choir whining over Bill Clinton's decision to deploy peacekeepers in Kosovo, a move that essentially halted ethnic cleansing?

Should we go into Iraq? Shelby called Saddam "dangerous" and cited "unfinished business."

Hmmm -- and Smirk's the guy just macho and arrogant enough to try to finish it. He isn't the pantywaist that his daddy was.  Heck, we know he'd love to off Saddam.  It fits the profile of a guy who has no compunction in signing the death warrants of swarthy-looking convicts -- unless, of course, the guilty party is a woman, in which case he'll mock you to the press after he signs the warrant.  Count on Smirk to go after Saddam.

Madeleine Albright was the next guest. Cokie asked her about the next steps of the war, Maddy surprisingly said the focus should remain on Afghanistan because the job is not finished there. Did you know about the loose nukes? Maddy said that there was no specific information she knew about, and that the Clinton did the best they could to stop the spread of WMDs. Is it wise to go into Iraq? Maddy said that the policies in place were designed to contain Saddam; it would be nice to see him gone, but Afghanistan must remain priority one. Everyone knows Iraq is a problem, she added, and frankly the present administration is following Clinton policy.

Ouch, Maddy!  That's true, but don't tell that to Cheney -- his pacemaker will melt down!

Talk turned to peacekeepers in the field; Maddy said Senate MINORITY Leader Trent Lott (that has such a sweet ring to it) asked many questions about deploying troops to Kosovo. Cokie emphatically whined that that's "Helmet Hair" Trent's job -- which gave Maddy a HUGE opening to point out that it IS patriotic to ask questions.

Ha, ha, ha -- take THAT, Cokie!

Cokie and Maddy turned to the subject of the Middle East -- and again, Maddy slammed the West Wing's "get Yassir" buzz, saying it is not useful to talk so prematurely about ousting Arafat!

Sam turned to the subject of polls in the Arab world. "The results," he said dramatically, "are devastating."  To Smirk, that is! Come on, Sam, are you really so surprised?

This Weak had booked a pair of unknowns -- Professor Shibley Telhami of the University of Maryland, and former Al Jazeera reporter Ghida Fakhry.  It proved to be one of the most interesting segments of this pundit Sunday, though it proved far too brief

Telhami said it's pretty obvious why the US gets such lousy polling numbers: it's more than US policy onthe Middle East, and it's mostly perceived unilateralism. Fakhri said another major factor is what is seen as a failure of US foreign policy; she also reiterated the unilateralist image America maintains. Fakhri said most Muslims have come to accept America's support of Israel as a fact of life, but they are now specifically angry at Smirk's support of Sharon, who is seen in the Arab world as a war criminal. Telhami pointed out the problems are based more in US policies than values; for example, Saudi "elites" say their feelings would be changed if the US would work toward Middle East peace. Fakhri said there is also a perceived bias against America because it does not hesitate to proselytize its views while looking the other way in its own vested interest.

And Telhami added an interesting insight: he said that television series such as Dynasty and Dallas have actually hurt the image of America abroad.

Well, what do these two series have in common?  Aaron Spelling, who in the last decade has provided series including Beverly Hills 90210 and Melrose Place to Rupert Murdoch's FOX Network -- uplifting and morally exemplary series about America's young adults.  Interesting, the correlation between the greedy, me-first, cheap-shot, get-laid values espoused in Spelling series and the hard-right, greedy, America-first, cheap-shot, faux-moralistic slant of Rupert's news operation.

George Stephanopoulos then turned attention to energy hearings -- and a judge's ruling that Team Smirk (specifically, Big Time Dick) must release their "energy meeting" notes. His guest: Eric Schaeffer, who quit his Bush Administration post as Director of EPA Regulatory Enforcement in protest of their failure to enforce environmental laws.

In response to George's first question, Schaeffer fingered Haley Barbour, who is now an energy lobbyist, as working to undercut enforcement of pollution laws. 

My goodness -- we are shocked, SHOCKED, that Barbour turns up in the energy/Enrongate scandal like a bad penny!

George cited a successful case the EPA brought -- but Schaeffer told George that was a small case. George said there is legislation in the works that boosts the Clean Air Act, then played a clip of Christy Whitman saying it holds energy companies accountable -- and Schaeffer said that the fact is that the nation can do better with the current law if it is actually enforced; Whitman claims that the new law works faster, but Schaeffer does not agree at all. Is Whitman raising the same concerns he is? Schaeffer thinks she is. Will your resignation make a difference? Schaeffer thinks so.

Oh, no! Not "The Weak In Review"! John Cochran ran through a litany of big stories from the previous week. It's a great way to make Sam and Cokie's job of actually asking questions a lot easier -- less time, less questions. We were amused, though, by a clip from the Nixon tapes released this week, in which Ol' Tricky asks John Ehrlichman what exactly a panda is!

The round table followed. We decided to follow our usual policy of ignoring everything George Will says -- unless it is particularly outrageous and funny. And sadly, little of true egregiousness was heard from Will this week.  George Stephanopoulos found it interesting that Sharon is moving toward a wall between Israel and the Palestinians. Cokie slammed it: on one side a land of milk and honey, on the other poverty and isolation. Sam brought up Tom Daschle's statement that we should question the future direction of policy, then quoted Lott's whiny "How dare you!" counter-spin. George said that Daschle went up to Lott and asked him what he disagreed with; Cokie called it the outgrowth of a tiff between two branches of government as if it were business as usual.

Sam turned to 2002 elections, which he MIScharacterized as focusing on local issues; Cokie debunked the notion, pointing out that mid-term elections "correct" extremes f the executive branch.

So Cokie looks to have figured it out: her man Shrub is in fact not that popular, even with de facto push-polls propping up his inflated "approval numbers". 

"Terriers and bariffs!" George said that Smirk probably won't succeed in protecting American steel; Sam said that President Greenspan feels that free trade is more important than steel jobs; Cokie said that there is a dependency in certain areas on the steel trade. Steph summed up Smirk's dilemma: "Is it a price worth paying to have a national steel-making capacity?"

After ignoring Will's last rant, Sam warned us that Sam.com will be debating fuel efficiency this week. Fuel efficiency? How about elimination of petroleum-based products as fuel for the internal combustion engine?

-- JJ Balzer

McLaughable Group Therapy
Ranting pundits just can't confront their personal issues as John returned to his strength: foreign policy

Issue one: "Good Morning, Manila!"

Oddly, John Mclaugh-In was already telegraphing the notion that incursion in the Philippines by US forces out to rout "evildoers" may become a Vietnam quagmire with those words.

He began with remarks by Tom Daschle on the exact focus of the war on terrorism. John then gave the details of Philippine troubles: Marxist guerillas have morphed into the Abu Sayyef terrorist group, tied to Al Qaeda. John seemed angry that Dems DARE criticize the Chimp-in-Chief. Michael Barone is a big booster of going after terrorists and dismissed Daschle's statements as short-term politics. Eleanor Clift said that Daschle was stating the obvious, and that Lott has a problem in that he once said you can support our troops without supporting the Commander-in-Chief!

She must read American Politics Journal -- we posted that quote on our home page!

Tony Blankley said the goal is to get guerillas who are out to overthrow the Philippines, and while Daschle was right about clarity of our aim, the point is that we seek to stop terrorism. Eleanor asked if Tony can sleep well knowing Osama is still alive. Larry O'Donnell pointed out that Daschle is not expressing great dissatisfaction; he is asking, "Where do we go now?"

John: "I want to tie this back to Al Qaeda!" And John gave it his best college try, naming Ramsi Yusef as the link. Yusef helped mastermind the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, planned bombings of trans-Pacific jets, and pushed for crashing planes into the WTC.

Finally, the money question: will it turn into a Vietnam quagmire? No, said Tony, this will be surgical. John said Indonesia is the real problem -- and doing it in the Philippines sends a message to Muslim-dominated Indonesia. Mike said that Ramsi had connections to the Iraqi Secret Service, saying it shows links to more terrorists than merely Al Qaeda. John went into ancient history: US interference in a separatist movement in 1900. Eleanor said that he next generation of Al Qaeda has fled Afghanistan, and the present Smirk Junta is justified in hunting them down, and Iran and Iraq are "megawatts bigger than Megawati." Larry said the Philippines will not be a quagmire because the target is so focused and the group has targeted Americans, holding two hostage even now.

Can we do the job against Abu Sayyef?

Mike: Yes.
Eleanor: I don't know.
Tony: Yes, but not if we have to deal with other terrorists.
Larry: Don't think so.
John: Yes, might help clean up politics in the Philippines.

Issue two: NIMBY in Nevada -- Smirk's plan to house radioactive waste in Nevada's Yucca Mountain. There are over 130 nuclear waste storage repositories in the US, and the present sites are possible terrorist targets. John sold the repository as a great idea. (Is GE providing technology for this repository? Count on it!) John did bring up one other issue -- transportation of this waste by rail and road. Eleanor said transporting it puts 52 MILLION people at risk, and we should listen to scientists who point out this danger. Tony said that we have to weigh the dangers of transporting it against keeping it in place; John said that they would be accompanied by police and military convoy. Larry said the 130 red dots on John's map suddenly become LINES, and some of the waste remains radioactive for a quarter million years.

So is the Yucca facility safe?
Mike: To the best of my knowledge.
Eleanor: I don't have the scientific knowledge.
Tony: It's the universal judgment.
Larry: It's in a state with virtually no electoral vote, it is NOT environmentally sound.
John: Yes, let's get on with it!

Issue three: Showdown in California! Bill Simon, Jr. vs. Richard Riordan in the GOP Gubernatorial primary. So who will win?

Mike: Simon.
Eleanor: Simon; he'll lose in November.
Tony: Simon; there's a poll showing he beats Riordan.
Larry: Gray Davis ran the best ad campaign! Simon.
John: The GOP in California is suicidal!!

And we agree with John -- it's going to be a replay of Jim McGreevy's walkover of right-wing small-timer Brent Schundler last year in New Jersey!

-- JJ Balzer

Face the Nation
Schieffer spans the globe

Why does CBS only give us a half hour of pundit chat on Sundays? We don't cover FTN all that frequently -- only because it is usually so outrage-free, as it was this week.

Bob's first guests: Senators Joe Lieberman and John McCain.

Bob gave an update on stats from the current battle in Afghanistan, then asked McCain if this was the decisive battle there; McCain said no, this is a significant battle, and the situation is difficult but the fight for Afghanistan requires diplomacy, allies, and more American troops working with Afghans and others to go into difficult areas to rout Al Qaeda. Gloria Borger asked McCain if he feels the Smirk team is spreading us too thin; McCain said no, touching on the seriousness of the fight and citing reports that Osama has tried to get nukes, but he no doubt made Team Chimp bristle when he implied that there was insufficient consultation with Congress (although he denied it). Given that the war against terror networks is expanding, Congress needs more information; there will be more operations such as that going on in Afghanistan and that means more US kids in uniform on the line, including peacekeepers.

Schieffer turned to the report in the Washington Post that there are now nuke sensors deployed in Washington. McCain discussed the purchasability of scientists from the old Soviet Union and material -- the question is, do they have the capability to buy? Borger asked McCain about Daschle's questions, including the failure to get Osama. McCain said that Osama is an important and symbolic target, and Daschle is right about that; however, the question is what and who should we actually be working to disarm and dissolve.

Schieffer asked about CFR ; McCain wants it dealt with, but acknowledged there are other priorities.

Schieffer then welcome Joe Lieberman, who went out of his way to debunk the notion that Dems are opposing the war effort -- and slam Lott and his GOP confederates for making too much of it. He supports more defense spending and bringing the battle to new venues -- and added that it's too early to talk exit strategies. Both parties, he predicted, will support the direction the Administration takes in the war on terror.

On the issue of a need for more forces, Lieberman said there is unrest outside of Kabul, a city to which international peacekeepers are now restricted. There is a danger that we will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory -- so we need to push for more peacekeepers to help Karzai.

What about going after Saddam? Lieberman agrees a regime change in Iraq would be good, but then said that he does not want the Smirk team to surrender the element of surprise to Congress.

Oh, come on, Joe -- there are many people who question the fundamental wisdom of launching an attack against Saddam.  It sounds like you give more credence to "surrendering the element of surprise" than questioning policy decisions of the Bush war circle.

Borger asked Lieberman about Saudi Prince Abdullah's idea for comprehensive Middle East peace. Lieberman said that he hadn't been this pessimistic about peace since Reagan was president -- and along comes this surprising proposal. Other nations in the region are serious; it is time for George to send a permanent envoy to work for peace and seize the opportunity.

After the break, Schieffer welcomed Tom Friedman, the man who broke the Abdullah peace plan story in the Washington Post. Friedman said he'd been a leading critic of Saudi Arabia, and had been invited there for PR reasons. Friedman sees the Saudi proposal as a response to their own tenuous situation and ill-conceived policy positions, comparing it to what prompted Anwar Sadat to go to Jerusalem. Moreover, with this move, Prince Abdullah becomes, in effect, king, and the proposal to normalize relations with Israel carries clout. Borger was skeptical that the rest of the Saudi establishment would not go along; Friedman said that it seems Abdullah's relatives were caught off guard, and it has set off debate in the Middle East. "This is a shock to the whole Saudi system."

Is there a link between the proposal and the sudden outbreak of violence in the Middle East? Friedman said there has been an ongoing "meat grinder" that is out of control; there is a population explosion in the Arab world along with a powerful Arab broadcast media. Images of the Intifada fuels "an ill wind toward Israel" and the US. Borger brought up polls that show Arabs do not like or trust the US.  Friedman said there is a huge cultural and political gap between the West and the Arab world that must be gulfed.

In Schieffer's final word, he slammed ABC News for possibly dropping Nightline and poaching Letterman from CBS. He wants a baseball-style swap: Nightline for Late Night. "Where is the logic in destroying your most prestigious property?"

-- JJ Balzer