March 24, 2002 (updated 5:15 PM) - NEW YORK/CHICAGO/WASHINGTON (APJP) - The biggest political story of the week was the passage by the Senate of actual campaign finance reform -- and the likelihood that His Shallowness George II is actually going to sign it into law.

So, naturally, the "liberal" press nearly ignored the story -- except to spin the bill as possibly "violating the first amendment" and Smirky's signing the bill into law as " a violation of his oath of office."

Well, gee -- we're shocked.  After all, who gets a good share of all that soft money that would be banned under the bill?  You guessed it: television networks and their affiliates!  Heck, those often outright deceptive TV spots are just nothing but good, ol' fashioned American business, so it's no damn wonder that the businessmen running the "public trust" of television news divisions are whining about campaign finance reform.

But there was other news this week, most notably "Big Time" Dick Cheney's failed diplomatic tour of Arab nations and the Middle East.  He was hoping to get someone -- heck, anyone -- to back his bloodlust for Saddam Hussein, but it seems that nobody wants to come to they party except Tory...er, Tony Blair.

Of course, there's continued turmoil in Israel and Palestinian territory.  Poor Big Time was shocked to find that regional leaders are far more concerned about that particular tinderbox than the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Osama, the Axis of Evil (tm), and the War on Terrorism.

And then there's the Twig's miscalculation on "terriers and bare-if's": his call for the imposition of steel tariffs looks to have triggered a trade war with the EU.

So the "unbiased" pundits were faced with a real mess this week: Team Smirk is looking ineffectual and weak -- that is, when our "partners" aren't holding the Chimp-in-Chief and his fascist-leaning handlers in total contempt.
 

FAUX News Sunday
Praise the Lord, pass the Crisco and screw civil liberties!

Tony Snow welcomed his first guest, Injustice Minister John "Krisko KKKristian" Ashcroft -- and then blasted him with a question about those so-called "interviews" that his Ministry of Justice is forcing on the sort of swarthy Arabic males that, as it turns out, float Ann Coulter's boat.  Hidden somewhere in the clumsy "ers" and "ums" of Ashcroft's rambling answer was a comment that plenty of "visitors...are helping us and it should send a chill through the terrorists."

Tony should have asked Ashcroft about the thousands of suspicious Arab types being detained and the de facto suspension of civil liberties in our nation.  But don't expect that sort of "troublemaking" or "dissent" from the lapdog press.  There's a war on, isn't there?

Tony did pick up on one of Ashcroft's comments on "communities" where Al Qaeda has a presence, assuming he was talking about, say, Jersey City or parts of Brooklyn; it turns out Ashcroft was talking about foreign communities.  Tony then asked about the racial profiling component in "fighting Al Qaeda"; Ashcroft's answer was an attempt to deny it was the biggest factor.

We don't believe Ashcroft for one moment, and we don't think Tony did either -- especially after Ashcroft set up Tony to say that DOJ is looking at young Arab men of the Muslim faith from countries with an Al Qaeda presence!  At that point, Ashcroft refused to say what the exact criteria for seeking "interviews" is.

Ha, ha, ha -- Tony nailed him quite nicely!

Tony then turned to the latest dust-up with France, who will refuse to assist in the prosecution of Zacherias Moussaoui if the US pursues the death penalty.  Tony and Ashcroft did a decently unfair and imbalanced job of finding Moussaoui guilty without the benefit of trial.  It's not that Moussaoui's an angel, mind you, but we say if he's guilty, lock him up for life and throw away the key.

Is INS boss James Zigler's job on the line?  Ashcroft actually praised Zigler for trying to revamp the INS before saying how he was "outraged" about the INS.

Outraged?  Blame yourself, Ashcroft - the INS is part of the DOJ, and for years you and your GOP cronies under-funded the agency, constantly whining about illegal aliens yet refusing to do a thing to fund a feasible solution.

Tony also asked about a number of missing foreign nationals, all of whom were granted visas under iffy circumstances and seem to have just disappeared.  Ashcroft's answer -- that he believed that DOJ would find them -- did not sound convincing in the least.

It was becoming pretty clear that Tony's questions were "tough" but not too tough -- and tailored to give Reverend John plenty of space to perform damage control.  The problem was, he wasn't doing a very good job of it.

Tony quizzed Ashcroft about progress on the investigation into last year's postal anthrax attacks and a profile of the madman behind it.  Ashcroft said they're focusing on US citizens with access to labs and scientific knowledge.

Well, gee, that's a revelation -- not!  We've read at least a dozen news reports in the last couple months saying that the FBI has in effect narrowed down the list of suspects to a tiny few, all Americans, all with bio-weapons expertise, all with access to anthrax -- and yet no arrests have been made.  Perhaps the top suspect is a bit too close to the proto-fascist "white rights" types that Ashcroft coddles.

Tony took a last swipe at His Holiness John I, mentioning that he's trying to turn the DOJ into a "curse-free zone." It was just what the public needs: yet another reminder that Ashcroft is a religiously insane stealth theocrat more worried about his vision of clean living than protecting the Constitution.

Tony's second guest: House "Squeaker" Dennis Hastert (R-DeLay's Sock Puppet), who was on for the sole reason of promoting the spin that the gridlock in the Senate is all Tom Daschle's fault (despite Hastert saying early on, "I don't know what's the problem").

Tony shocked us by saying that Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott (we love the sound of that) has himself declared gridlock over the failure of the nomination of Federalist extremist Charles Pickering to an appeals court.  Hastert said he wants the Senate to move on many bills that are "backlogged."

Naturally, Hastert forgot to mention that almost every bill was written by Republicans and their lobbyist pals, and that Democrats in the Senate are looking out for the interest of the majority of Americans -- you know, the ones who voted for President-Elect Al Gore over Bogus POTUS George the Lesser.

Mara Liasson gave Hastert a chance to slam campaign finance reform, which he did ("it's bad for the party system"), only to hear Mara say that Smirk is going to have to sign it.  Tony then put forward a favorite "position" of the nut-job Freeper Right, namely the phony claim that  soft money is a "free speech" issue -- and Tony even said that Smirk would violate his oath of office if he vetoes it!  Hastert played up the severability clause in the bill, which would invalidate portions of the law deemed unconstitutional by the courts.

"Terriers and bare-if's" were the next topic, and Mara asked about Smirk having moved to impose large tariffs on steel.  Hastert whined that as a result of the present steel market we will lose jobs -- which contradicts the opinion of many economists that feel these jobs are gone anyway because of the high price of US steel.  When Hastert said he's a free trader for lots of cross-border trade, Mara asked whether Smirk really was a free trader!

Hastert spent a minute trying to prop up Tom Ridge -- but his lukewarm answer depicting Ridge as a "coordinator" served only to further undermine Ridge's image.  Mara asked if Ridge should testify before Congress, and Hastert said that Ridge, like Condi Rice, is an advisor.

We got a laugh out of that canard.  What a lame excuse.  Ridge's function is closer to that of a cabinet member, he's making decisions that affect thousands of federal employees across departments, and he's been less than open and forthcoming on what exactly it is that he is actually trying to do.

Talk turned to Social Security -- and Hastert seems open to cutting benefits and taxes paid into it.

Sweet.  We know seniors-to-be will be thrilled to know that Hastert is trying to kill secure retirement for Americans.

Will there be a session of Congress in New York?  Hastert says there won't be a regular session -- and admitted it will be expensive and there's no consensus as to a real reason outside of showing solidarity with New Yorkers.

Hear, hear -- for once this writer has to agree with Hastert.  New Yorkers don't want the expense or hassle of hosting Congress -- especially the Confederate wing of the GOP.

Then Tony turned the focus to the Middle East, with his guest the excitable chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat.  Tony said word was just in that Cheney will not be meeting with Yassir Arafat this week; Erekat was noncommittal.  Tony brought up the precondition of a cease-fire before such a meeting; Erekat brought up the issue of Palestinians in cages and Israeli attacks; his position is that Palestinians want peace.

So, asked Tony, will you accept a formal cease-fire?  We have the Tenet plan, said Erekat, "and we don't need to reinvent the wheel."  Let's follow the Tenet Plan, he said, and go forward from there.  Tony said that under the Tenet plan, Arafat would have to make arrests and crack down on Hamas and Hezbollah -- is Arafat ready to do it?  Erekat said Israel has a responsibility to incarcerate civilians who target Palestinians (was that a "no"?).

Tony cited the case of one Palestinian who, "released" from jail, blew himself up as a suicide bomber days later.  Erekat said his so-called release was the direct result of an Israeli attack on Palestinian jail facilities -- in effect accusing Israel of a cynical ploy to trigger attacks -- then hammered Sharon for targeting Palestinian infrastructure.  Tony kept focusing on the bomber and Erekat had to reiterate that the bomber was not released but fled captivity.  So was the bomber a martyr or a murderer?  Erekat would not play that game, instead refocusing on working for peace -- and saying that Sharon has the choice of treating Arafat as a partner or a prisoner.  Erekat also accused Sharon of massacring Palestinians and changing his stance while maintaining attacks on Palestinians -- and Washington for caving in to Sharon's powerful lobby.

We have no doubt that Arafat is a cynic and no friend of peace -- but we think that people would be wise to heed Erekat's words.  Sharon is far from an angel; he too has used violence in a cynical and successful grab for power, with the help of Smirk warmonger Dick Perle.  Israel's supporters should consider the "security" Sharon has brought the only decent republic in the Middle East: namely, none.

Panel time!  Corrupt Wall Street Journal neo-fascist Paul Gigot was on hand -- but even Gigot had to admit that Cheney's trip was more or less a failure in that Cheney implemented some of the Arab agenda in the region.  Mara slammed Sharon for having no plan to keep Israel secure. Could this have political ramifications?  Juan Williams said it could impact the war on terror -- and now that Cheney is engaged, suddenly the Middle East quagmire complicates the war on terrorism, and Palestinian terrorism is overshadowed in some quarters by the image of Israeli tanks rolling into Palestinian population centers.

Campaign finance reform!  Mara said that Smirk tries to maintain a non-flip-flop image, but he flip-flopped on airport security and campaign finance reform.  The best the unctuous Gigot could do is say, "He's a lover, not a fighter."  Gigot, however, did have to admit that this is a victory for McCain.  Juan said that for Smirk, many of his issues are gone, and Gigot said that the hapless Texas Dauphin has rolled over -- but did push the right wing-nut meme surrounding Little George's oath to protect the Constitution vs. CFR quashing free speech.

Tony then tore into a Gallup poll of Arabs that said they "hated the US" (Tony's interpretation) -- and it "turned out to be BOGUS!"

Hey, Tony -- maybe Roger Ailes can hire those pollsters to do your phony FAUX O-Spin-Ion Dynamics polls!

Tony's final word was a slam at a survey sent to parents of elementary school kids dealing with discussing sex with children.  Tony was aghast that parents would have to discuss such matters with young kids!

Now, Tony, we all know it's the fault of popular culture.  After all, kids get ideas about sex from television programs such as "Married With Children," "That 70s Show," "Beverly Hills 90210," "The Simpsons," and similar FAUX network programs!

-- Dave "Doctor" Gonzo
 
 

Meet the Tim
Ball and Cheney

Tim's top topic: "Big Time" Dick Cheney "reports to the nation."  And in Afghanistan, "the enemy continues to hide, regroup and resist."

Tim asked Dick to assess the situation in the Middle East, and ol' Dick had no surprises: it's an enormously important region, we want peace, Dick visited with our troops, and there's LOTS OF OIL!

(How educational.)

How important is it that the U.S. resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?  Dick had to admit that left to their own devices, Sharon and Arafat can't solve it, and therefore "there's no question" we have to stay engaged.

Tim then attacked Dick, saying that Clinton had been attacked for being so engaged during the last election cycle; Dick LIED and said it was not his place to second-guess Clinton -- then ATTACKED Clinton's approach of direct, hands-on approach.

Well, gee -- could it be that W. Doofus is just plain too DUMB to take the Clinton approach?  We know that in Dick World, it's crucial to bash Clinton at every turn, but it's not as if we don't know that Dick's so-called boss is a world-class moron -- which is why Dick took the trip to the Middle East while Smirk is touring South America where he can do less damage.

Tim also gently hammered Dick on the handling of peace envoy Anthony Zinni -- pulling him back, retooling as the situation got more violent, sending him back.  Dick talked about many things he did on his mission to the Middle East (a whole lot of no progress, it turns out).  Tim asked Dick if he will meet with Arafat; Dick said that Palestinian violence has to be controlled to Zinni's satisfaction.

Tim and Dick spent about three minutes talking about a possible meeting before Tim gave Dick a chance to hammer Arafat by asking if he's doing enough.  Dick, quite correctly, said no -- but did not directly accuse Arafat of fomenting violence.  Instead, Dick fingered "offshoots" of the PLA for committing atrocities (this was a diplomatic move on Dick's part, but he should have been more forceful).  Arafat, Dick added, must give explicit instructions to his security apparatus to put an end to attacks on Israelis.

(Huh?  Why didn't Tim ask how exactly this order will trickle down to this "offshoots"?)

Should Arafat be allowed to go to Beirut to meet with other Arab leaders?  Dick said Sharon is against it, and there's still a question as to whether Saudi Prince Abdullah's plan will be taken up at the meeting; additionally, there's a danger that Arafat's absence would become the focus of the meeting.

Why, asked Tim, does there seem to be an endless supply of Palestinian suicide bombers?  Dick had no answer, guessing it went "to the depth of feeling and emotion" and the perception by some that there is not other choice but desperation.

(We heard nothing from Dick, however, expressing any eagerness to root out the causes of this desperation.)

Dick took a minute to praise Saudi Prince Abdullah for what he characterized as a bold and atypical move to end the violence and bring a greater peace to the region.

Will the US commit troops to the region to help Palestinians and guarantee Israel's security?  Dick said "Uuuuuuh", sounding completely averse to the idea -- adding that it's a "tough question, and security is the so-far intractable problem.

Tim: What if it were the ONLY way to guarantee it?

Dick: "...I have to discuss that with my leader."

Tim: "Is that Mrs. Cheney or the president?"

Ha, ha, ha!

Tim then wasted viewers' time by quoting the completely fraudulent "virtues maven," hard-right apologist William Bennett.

(Tim, here's a fact: only right-wing supporters of the corruption of our politics and culture support Bennett's narrow world view.  Bennett is complicit in undermining the rule of law and working to bolster stealth theocrats such as John Ashcroft.)

It seemed to us that all the talk surrounding Arafat was being pushed by Tim at least in part to conceal the fact that Dick's mission to convince Arab countries that it is time to go after Saddam Hussein was a complete failure.  And when Tim turned to the topic of wily Saddam, it was with mention of a New Yorker article that conveniently ties Saddam to Al Qaeda.  Dick focused on Saddam's use of chemical weapons -- and the possibility that he killed over 100,000 people in chemical attacks.  "This is a man who is a great danger to that region of the world."  Dick conceded that the US has been unable to pin down a direct tie to Saddam, while mentioning that hijacker Mohammad Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague.

Tim turned ominous as he said there are reports that Saddam will have atomic weapons in three years.  Dick implied that Saddam has a lot of oil, money and resources - and will have atomic capability soon.  "I think it would be a great tragedy if Saddam Hussein were allowed to get nuclear weapons."

(Translation: "We will use this as our excuse for taking him out by any means necessary, whether or not the rest of the world is with us.")

Tim then confronted Dick with reports that Arab nations were given a choice: "You are either with Saddam Hussein or you are with us."  Dick said that the situation is far more complicated; many Arab nations see Saddam as a threat.  Dick also said that there's a serious concern about the marriage of terrorists to weapons of mass destruction (translation: see above).  Tim talked about reports that British Prime Minister Tony Blair intends to come forward with a case against Saddam; Dick and Tim leaned toward the move being a predicate toward attack.

Tim then turned to an opinion piece in the Wednesday Washington Post calling for the US to stand up to Afghan warlords and help keep Afghanistan stable as chaos seem to be returning.  Dick said that he has asked Turkey to oversee the international force stabilizing Afghanistan, and the US is prepared to help train the new army.

Tim followed up on the Afghanistan situation by saying the Smirk Junta "has a mental block" against using the term "nation building."  Dick admitted that the world had erred in walking away from Afghanistan.

Tim then turned to military flyovers of Washington and New York.  In the short term, said Dick, it was the right move, but with new security being implemented at airports, they can be stepped down; the balance, he said, is right.

(New Yorkers and Washingtonians we know don't agree.)

How's your health, asked Tim?  Dick said he was able to exercise, and his wife was along -- to make sure he ate well!

It was pretty obvious throughout the interview that in the wake of his failed diplomatic efforts, Cheney was engaged in heavy damage control on many fronts -- public relations, political and diplomatic.  Tim gave Cheney a near half-hour session of "big time" damage control, and overall, Cheney didn't do a half-bad job -- primarily because Tim was not in attack mode.

Tim's second guest, in a pre-taped interview at his Tampa headquarters, was Gen. Tommy Franks, who is in charge of the mop-up in Afghanistan.

On the matter of Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar, Franks said it would be desirable to get them, but the purpose of the mission was to destroy "the network" -- and as of now the Taliban is ousted.  Where are the Taliban?  Dead, said Franks -- and in the Afghan interim administration after they changed loyalty.  There have been reports of atrocities against Pashtuns, said Tim -- are we leaving behind a mess in Afghanistan?  Franks said that there's been "fractious, contentious behavior" that is likely to continue, and we must remain tuned into internal militias and external interests (read: Iran), and the US has the people in place to do it.  The Al Qaeda forces we confronted in Operation Anaconda, said Tim, were larger and better armed than anticipated; Franks tried to play it down, saying that there were some unexpected events because there was only general and not specific information, and added that the discoveries were anywhere from large forces to just two or three fighters.  Will the US pursue Al Qaeda and Taliban forces across the border into Pakistan?  Franks praised Pakistan President Musharraf's deployment of forces to the border -- but also pointed out the porous nature of the border, much of which is along a mountain range.  If we see force, said Franks, someone will take care of them (not a direct yes or no, but you can bet Americans will be involved in the hunt).

Tim brought up the discovery of what he called an "anthrax lab".  Franks said allied forces had discovered a site near Kandahar where there had been an attempt to get bio-weapons; he emphasized "attempt," as opposed to proof that bio-weapons are in the hands of Al Qaeda (he mentioned "nothing that got mixed in the right way" and no sign of success in "the products of their labor").

Franks then plugged running the operation not from the Pentagon but from Tampa, citing the breakthroughs in technology and management that has made it possible.

Tim turned to the possibility of taking on Saddam.  Franks said he cannot discuss what he has already discussed with his own team, and that he has yet to discuss it with military leaders in other coalition nations, "and I'll leave it at that."  ('Nuff said, General -- we get the message, and you can bet Saddam does too.)  The president, he concluded, will make the decision on what to do about Saddam (i.e., when to commence Operation Enduring Sequel).

What should the role of the average American be in the war on terrorism?  Franks expressed gratitude for the support Americans are showing for members of the military in the war; he also feels Shrub "has laid it out just right"; he forecast lengthy involvement in Afghanistan; and Americans should expect that their military will defeat terrorism.

-- JJ Balzer
 
 
 
 
 
 

Capital Dang!
Kate goes into deep space, Novak morphs into African-American R&B artist, and other bizarre goings on...

Today's guest "pundicater", to put a Smirkish imprint on the word, was Rep. Robert Matsui (D-CA), the head Democrat on the House Social Security Subcommittee that gets to sit helplessly and watch the Repugs eliminate it by driving it into insolvency.

What the hell is up in the Middle East? What was the shadow spook Cheney doing skulking around the area? (Besides, of course, cutting deals and making threats in order to ensure massive "war" profits for his backers.)

I'll do my best to report this dispassionately, thought it's very hard; the entire situation is such a mess, and the Smirk crew is making it so much worse, that I can barely stand to watch it unfold.

Video clips of the entire gruesome cast of characters were shown, inducing an involuntary intestinal spasm. There was Ariel Sharon, then the truly spooky Dick Cheney, then Yassir Arafat, and the by-now ubiquitous scenes of death and destruction. As Hunter Thompson would say, bad craziness all around.

The panel hopped, skipped, and jumped over this issue, with only Kate and Bob briefly locking horns. Kate, true to form, took the "lay all the blame at Arafat's feet" line, while Bob begged to differ.

At least Novak has the guts to endure the endless condemnation which he surely must get for being critical of Israel.

The entire "he hit me first" argument that goes on ceaselessly between the two parties is the most ridiculous and unproductive hooey in the world. Yet that seems to be the sum total of the "debate." It's supremely childish, and the endless blame game would be laughable were it not that it's resulted in the loss of thousands of lives and destruction of so many families and so much property.

The glaring fact also remains that Georgie Porgy has made a perfect hash of the entire region with his ridiculous policy of "If Clinton did it, then we're not gonna."  He figured he could just forget the region and let the parties figure it out themselves. That has proven to be disastrous. Who knows? Maybe the moron figured that he'd let a few thousand lives be lost and allow the situation to deteriorate so badly that both parties would come begging for help, and then come forward to play the hero. Frankly, it's anyone's guess as to what's going on in that vacant sandbox he calls a head.

Besides, he's not in the loop anyway, as is plain to see. The lurching, erratic policies and equal number of policy reversals show that the ship of state is now being steered by committee.

The anti-climactic passing of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill was the red meat the panel snarled over next. This bill is about as robust as circus lemonade, and the anti-democratic pit bulls on the right will almost surely gut it, tear it to pieces, and leave it in tatters on the floor.

We even got to see a few seconds of old Phil "Ah have lowts of the mother's milk of politics: ready muny" Gramm. The twit was standing on the floor expounding on how horrible this attempt to limit the near complete control the über-rich in the country have over government.

"Aaah uh-poase this bill!" Deputy Dawg drawled -- proof positive that it must be good for the country. I for one was moved by soon-to-be-outta-there Phil's speech. I share his angst over the fact that corporations with more money than many countries might have to forfeit some of their ability to buy and sell congressmen and thereby control the government that supposedly exists to protect the public from their predatory practices. It was moving to see Phil taking a few last valiant stands to protect the ultra-elite against the unwashed rabble. The nation will be much the poorer with one less Texas dipwad in congress.

Then they showed a statement that someone wrote for Our Genetically Damaged Leader along with a picture of him looking the spitting image of Alfred E. Newman, only more vacant.

The statement said in essence, "I don't like it, but I'll sign it anyway." One can only pray that the frothing loonies on the right eat him alive for it.

Kate started her remarks by actually saying how much she'll miss Phil Gramm. Kate thinks this is just a way to get that pesky John McCain to "go away" and she's certain that Bush knows that the "goodfellas" on his Supreme Court will likely strike it down as unconstitutional anyway, so no big deal. The bad part is that Kate's probably right.

Novak, in his eternally sunny manner, said that the bill won't make any difference anyway, and won't stem the flood of money into congressman's pockets. He said it would just divert the cash into the hands of big organizations and PACS. But he's sour that this takes away millionaire's "first amendment rights" to buy off congressmen (and women).

Matsui takes the opposite view. He regards it as a major piece of legislation, and feels that there's a good chance the Supreme Thugs might overturn Buckley v. Vallejo; the case that ruled that stuffing politician's pockets was equal to speech.

Shields asked if it was true that this was an "incumbent's protection bill" as some have labeled it, saying that it was skewed in favor of incumbents and against challengers. He pointed out that he didn't think so many incumbents would have fought so hard against it if that were true.

Margaret Carlson noted that Mitch McConnell (R-Cabbage Patch) got red in the face repeatedly fighting against democracy and this bill.

Shields said that he thinks the reason the Boy King will sign this bill is that the American public rightly sees the Repugs as being completely controlled by special interests, as opposed to the Democrats. So his signing this bill will give him political cover, even though he'll likely call in some chits with the Supreme Thugs to toss it out.

Shields said that maybe Daddy's Little Doofus should have McCain standing next to him at the Rose Garden signing ceremony.  "Oh, PLEASE!" groaned O'Beirne, as if this would be enough to make her sick.

Yeah, why share credit with a man who's political will and courage is mainly responsible (along with Russ Feingold and a little help from those nice people at Enron and Arthur Andersen) with achieving this vital step towards taking our government back from those that have bought it out from under us?

After the blizzard of ads during the break, it was onward and upward to Social Security. Will it be a major issue in upcoming congressional campaigns?

Novak, referring to Social Security as "this Ponzi scheme", sneers at the very idea of Social Security, saying that neither side will admit the truth; that Social Security will be broke within 20 years, and that it will either have to be given on a needs test basis and/or benefits will have to be reduced.

His contempt for Social Security is truly vile -- but his assessment is probably right on the money (no pun intended). As I warned you long ago, dear readers, the Repugs have mounted a long running stealth campaign to bleed Social Security white, rather than take steps to save it. They'd prefer to not do a thing and let it go belly up -- then say that the only way to save it is to hand it over to Wall Street mega-corporations so they can skim off their billions in commissions, etc. Of course, the Dems haven't managed to do anything about it either, which is in keeping with their perpetual political impotence.

The only way things MIGHT get done is if there's a huge Dem sweep in the upcoming congressional elections and they get a commanding majority in both the House and Senate. Then this country might have a fighting chance -- not so much because of Democrat programs, but because it would serve to at least slow down this onslaught of destructive and anti-democratic administration actions.

Matsui notes that the reason many seniors have such a high standard of living is because of Social Security -- and that Dems raising the alarm about what the craven right is attempting to do to it is not using "scare tactics" as you hear the right constantly disparaging it as, but simply raising a legitimate and crucial issue.

He said that the Dim One's budget casually raids the Social Security trust fund to the tune of EIGHT HUNDRED AND FIFTY BILLION dollars (that's $850,000,000,000.00) over the next ten years (of which Bush donors and heavy supporters will probably pocket about half, but we don't DARE raise the minimum wage, fund toxic site cleanups, or fund alternative fuel research, -- we just can't afford that).

As the camera showed Kate looking at Matsui with a condescending smile as if he was a charmingly foolish child, he also cited the Fraud-in-Chief as stating flat out that he was going to privatize Social Security, which Matsui says will necessitate reductions in benefits more draconian than even Novak imagines. (How can you go lower than zero, which is what Novak would like?)

For the official White House line, we go to Kate. What to do about the impending collapse of this vital social program? Why, just say the entire issue is "phony."  Brilliant, eh?

The lovely Kate started out by saying that there's no more "phony" issue in D.C. than the Social Security trust fund, despite steep competition.

O'Beirne noted that even Matsui "dipped into it for years before the Republicans took over the house" and went on to say that allowing (forcing) retirees to turn over part of their rightful benefits to stock brokerages is the only way to keep Social Security solvent. She then lists the club that the right is going to use to force this move. The only alternative, Kate said, is to either raise taxes, or drastically lower benefits. Gee, those are two proposals the public will surely get behind. And how convenient that the only "out" is to let Wall Street suck profits out of it.

Well how convenient indeed. Just the squeeze play I'd seen coming all along. Loot the Social Security trust fund, set aside in a "lockbox" by several bi-partisan resolutions for paying seniors and others benefits they've paid into the system in order to receive, give it to a relative handful of the very wealthiest people in the country, then announce that there's only one solution to save it. By allowing many of those same multi-millionaires to get a slice of everyone's benefits and at the same time subject them to the risks of the market.

Sounds like just a beautiful plan, if you're a greedy bastard that doesn't give a rat's ass about lower and middle class retiree's having a guaranteed benefit and would rather profit from forcing them to assume a needless risk.  (While at the same time, pumping billions into the coffers of Smirk's corporate handlers, such as Enron-types, and allow them to keep their stock price artificially high.)

Talk about a Ponzi scheme! ovak got that one right, but it's not Social Security, but what the Repubs cynical scheme that is the true flim-flam, one of unimaginable proportions.

Margaret said that the Dems are fumbling (you're kidding!), and said that if they could get people to understand that the tax cut IS the equivalent of raising taxes, and that the future of Social Security is not the "phony issue" that Kate would have us believe, that they'd win the budget battle.

Matsui then explained how House Repugs aren't even allowing the 3 proposed solutions to be brought to the floor for debate. The Smirking Chimp should be forced to come out and defend his privatization scheme and it should be debated. But with the toothless Dems, he'll likely get his way without paying the political price, as always.

Novak sneered that getting a debate on this enormous issue is just "all politics", as if that means that it's worthless. He then went on one of his most insane rants in quite a while. He blatantly came out and said that he wishes more Dems could be like John Breaux (D-R) and go along with the right.  He then showed his true colors by saying that something had to be done about Social Security, calling it a voracious beast that is destroying the tax system!

HA! ALL he cares about is that he and others like him might not get their precious tax cuts! He's obsessed!

Even the welfare of the nations seniors, who have worked and contributed all their lives to this nation, is gleefully tossed aside if it gets in the way of their greedy desire for more, more, and yet more money.

To hear Novakula tell it, Social Security was "destroying the entire government," and "with all these old people out there, something has to be done to protect the rest of the country from this voracious system."

Who knew??  Now we need to defend the country from old ladies and men?? Should President Putz appoint a czar to defend our great country against grandparents?  This is the absolute insanity that passes for serious opinion on the right.

When Matsui challenged Bitter Bob by saying that Bob didn't need Social Security, but many people do, and that's why we ought to keep it as a defined benefit program, Bob spit back, "If I don't need it, then why do I get it?" to which Matsui responded, "Then you should give it back."  HA!!  You'd have to pry it out of Novak's hands with a crowbar!! Word has it that his ancestors invented copper wire while fighting over a penny.

Margaret then asked Mr. Warmth if retirees had invested their Social Security funds with Enron, where would they be? Bob just snarled, "Oh that's silly, they wouldn't invest in Enron and you know it."

Oh, do we?

Thousands of people invested in Enron and stayed with it while it went up and up and up, and while being told it was going to continue going up.

They lost everything. And these were people investing their life savings.

Common sense would tell any fool that had Enron happened after privatization, literally MILLIONS of seniors might well have ridden it into the toilet.

But I forgot...that's just a silly argument.

The second half included Al Hunt interviewing some guy named Richard Schickel, Time magazine's film critic, which was a complete snooze.

The gang then spoke with David Nyhan of the Boston Globe regarding Massachusetts governor Jane Swift being ignominiously shoved off stage in the coming race for Governor so that Mitt Romney can be the Repug candidate. No news was made.

At last, we were treated to the outrageous Outrages of the Week.

Mark Shields Outrage of the Week is rightfully the Outrage of the Century. He noted the 8-year, $70,000,000 taxpayer funded exercise in criminal conduct that was the Whitewater investigation. He concluded by saying that David Kendall, Clinton's attorney, put it best when describing it as, "The most expensive exoneration in judicial history."

Novak was up next. He started his rant, but I was too busy laughing to even hear what he was saying! Novak was doing a remote from upstate NY, and apparently, they'd placed the monitor high above him. So as he read his outrage, he looked like someone so high that their eyes had a mind of their own.  He looked for all the world like he was doing a Stevie Wonder impersonation, with his eyes rolled back in his head, reading this supposedly serious piece from a monitor apparently 6 feet over his head. I am definitely keeping this tape for comic relief!

His beef was that some yee-haw Texas crony of Smirk's was getting the shaft on her nomination to the federal bench. She'd accepted $80,000 from Enron in the past, and then ruled in their favor in a tax case. I'd say that blows her way the hell out of consideration for this lifetime appointment.  How does Bob articulately argue that she should be appointed? By saying that the charge is "baloney."  Ah, yes -- yet more reasoned right-wing analysis. To Bob's child-like mind, the only reason she got the same treatment the Repubs gave nearly all of Clinton's nominees is that she is anti-choice. Bob is pissed that this is a factor.  Millions of women are damn glad it is.

Margaret Carlson's tale was a familiar one: blatant corruption by the administration. This one involved an Adam's Mark hotel that was slapped with an injunction from the Clinton Justice Department after the racists there made black guests wear fluorescent orange wristbands and charged them higher rates. Now it's going to be rescinded. Why? Well, it turns out that the hotel's owner is a pal of "Jesus John" Ashcroft, gave a cool $25,000 to old velvet throat, and bragged to an attorney that "his guy won the election, and that would help him get out of the decree."

To that I say: where are the five congressional committees investigating this? Hell, I'd settle for a couple. If this happened while Janet Reno was in charge, there'd be fifteen!

Ms. O'Beirne went into the dubious fact department again for her outrageous outrage. Supposedly, says Kate, there was a fire at a girl's school in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, which resulted in the deaths of several of the girls. Kate wants us to believe that "religious police" actually prevented rescuers from saving the girls because they weren't properly covered with robes and veils.

To justify telling this likely fabricated story, Kate realizes she needs a POINT of some kind. She then went shooting past Neptune to find it by concluding that, and I quote, "This is an outrage that the U.S. ought to prohibit Saudi Arabia from exporting around the world, including the U.S."

What the hell does THAT mean? Saudi Arabia is "exporting" Muslim customs around the world, including the U.S. and we should "PROHIBIT" this? Is that the daftest thing you've heard for a long time? (Things falling out of Smirk's mouth don't count.)

Now we should "prohibit" people from practicing their religious customs EVERYWHERE ON EARTH! And not only that, but it's those evil Saudis that are evidently mounting a vast effort to "export" this practice. And yes, Mr. and Mrs. America, including right here in the good ol' U.S. of A.!!!!

Next time you see women with scarves on their head in the supermarket, give them dirty looks and don't go near them. This is the least you can do to help stamp out terrorism worldwide.

I need a drink.

-- Dash Riprock

Mace the Nation
Schieffer lets Cheney do the drivin'

As seemed the trend of the day, the big stories of campaign finance reform, the big filibuster that we were promised having evaporated, and charges in the Enron mess were completely ignored, in favor of WAR! Apparently it's all we want to talk about, hear about, or see, contrary to what we all actually pay attention to. Bob Schieffer went along with the talking points, and had Swingin' Dick Cheney and Tom Friedman along for the ride.

First up was Big Dick Cheney. I firmly believe that this guy is locked in a struggle with God Almighty, who is attempting to call him home, while Dick uses every piece of technology available to hang around a bit longer. Sorta like a real-life Darth Vader, without the bell-shaped helmet.

Bob asked if Arab leaders will oppose action against Saddam Hussein. Dick insists not, claiming they "share our concern" about Hussein. He then candidly admitted that Hussein is a problem because of his "great oil wealth" (which Big Dick would love to help alleviate), his bio weapons, and possible nuclear weapons. He claims he's just starting a dialogue with "our friends".

Bob asked about their public reactions - what they say in public is that they're unified against any action against Hussein. Is that a correct interpretation?

Swingin' Dick claimed that the reaction was "mixed" (yah, some of them hate Cheney, and some of them *really* hate him). His said he has some "good sessions" in private, that he's known them a long time, and that "almost without exception" there is universal concern over developments in Iraq, given Hussein's history and evidence of his pursuit of deadly weapons.

Bob asked again if there were any predicates of what the Arab leaders want to see before any action can be taken against Hussein, and Dick looked like he was getting a tad irritated: "look, I told ya, they're on our side! Except for that whole public reaction thing. Now who ya gonna believe about their beliefs, them or me?"

Dick trotted out the UN resolutions that supposedly support Bush the Wonder Dog's stance that he's ready to wipe out one of the "Axis of Evil": resolution 687 prohibiting Hussein from owning Weapons of Mass Destruction (ah, I was wondering how long it would take Big Dick to use the phrase. 4 minutes 37 seconds, for anyone counting; that's remarkable restraint for him). Bob pressed him on finally answering his first question, whether Big Dick thought they would not oppose action against Hussein, and finally Dick lied and said they would not.

Gloria Borger moved the conversation on to Yasser Arafat; the front page of the New York Times Sunday reported that Arafat has forged a new alliance with Iran, getting heavy weapons and money. Is that accurate? The Dick-man claimed ignorance on the story, saying he hadn't seen it so he can't confirm it. First, he says, he can't talk about intelligence reports anyway, and second, we've already seen weapons moving through Iran to the Palestinian Authority when the ship was caught. When pressed by Gloria if it has "the ring of truth" (an odd question when it comes to the press), Tricky Dick again claimed he couldn't comment, but did say that Iran supports the Hezbollah, and they have torpedoed the peace process in the past.

Gloria asked if Big Dick believes that Tehran is harboring Al Qaeda. That is a very loaded question, since if The Dick admits it, he'll be forcing the misadministration into a position of explaining why we're not going after them first. So Dick took a pass, saying it's known that Al Qaeda members have gone from Afghanistan to Iran in the past, but he has no idea if they're still there. Plausible deniability as a foreign policy; very comforting.

Bob brought the focus back to Arafat, asking if Big Dick might meet with him under certain conditions that haven't been met yet; are you going back?

Darth Cheney said no meeting is scheduled, and that what he agreed to was a possible meeting if Arafat moves aggressively to implement the Tenet plan. The judge of "aggressively" will be Anthony Zinni, and so far, no meeting is scheduled. When pressed by Bob on what exactly has to happen, Big Dick fell back on the Tenet plan again, listing the "exchange of intelligence" and "maintaining security" portions. Until Arafat implements them to the satisfaction of Zinni, no meeting.

What the Dickster forgot to list were the other less concrete, fuzzier parts of the Tenet Plan, the ones that are almost purely subjective: the Palestinians must work against "inciting against Israel", including on the part of the media, and must "work to prevent smuggling". Since there are no real metrics for those, especially the clampdown on the media, basically Big Dick meets whenever he feels like it, but gets to pretend he's made it clear what Arafat needs to do. My guess would be that there will be no meeting between Big Dick and Arafat until it politically benefits the Bush Junta, although I doubt Yasser is sitting under house arrest pining for it.

At least Big Dick has finally admitted that the problem in the Muddled East is the "most obstinate, intractable" porblem he's ever seen. Apparently it's even harder for him to figure out than how to get the Taliban to agree to a pipeline for his oil buddies...although he seems to have found a nice little solution for that problem, so I guess there's always hope. Israel and Palestine better hope that one of them strikes oil real soon now, though.

Gloria asked if Arafat should be allowed to attend the Arab summit. Big Dick admitted that Israel is divided, with Peres saying he should go, and the Prime Minister saying no. Dick believes that the summit is more likely to be productive if Arafat is there, that the focus should be on Abdullah's proposal of normalization for withdrawal, and that the focus would be on Arafat instead if he's not there.

When asked about whether Cheney has ruled out the use of US troops in the Middle East, Big Dick laughed nervously. My guess is that the last thing the Dickster wants is to commit troops to the Middle East when there are so many better, more oil-solvent areas we could be moving into. Cheney claims that nothing has been ruled in or out (boy, these guys aren't real good at making decisions, are they?), and that it would have to "make sense". Meaning that unless oil rigs begin springing up on the West Bank, no dice. He did agree with Bob that it would be a "huge step", but that it's mostly "press speculation" right now, and he can't think of how it would be helpful at this time.

Bob tried to sound like he's staying hip and current with an "off the wire" story about Iraq's being willing to discuss the fate of a pilot shot down during the Gulf War. Unless he's got a photographic memory, Big Dick lied when he said he hadn't heard anything about it, since he was able to name the pilot (Scott Speicher, with an obviously faked look of concentration as he pulled the name out of thin air). The Dickman claims that we found his uniform in the desert, with no body, but no evidence that he was still alive either.

When Bob asked if we would send a delegation to Iraq, Dick deferred, saying he'd have to look at the report and see if it's a serious proposition, or just Hussein's trying to change the subject. Of course, this contadicts Junior's statement earlier this week, after his handlers let him watch Black Hawk Down (with cuss words and violence removed, of course), that he would never leave a soldier like that. Unless it distracts him from his tunnel vision, apparently.

And that was it for Senator Palpatine...um, Vice (p)Resident Big Dick Cheney.

Next up was foreign affairs columnist for the NYT, Tom Friedman. Bob backtracked on the Scott Speicher story, saying that the report does not suggest he's alive...although 5 minutes before he had said it HAD suggested he's alive when he was talking with the Dickster. Friedman took the Bush Junta's stance that it was the first of Iraq's "dust in the eyes" strategy, part of the "Axis of Evil" effect of having the misadministration's "crosshairs" leveled at Iraq.

Gloria led with a soft question concerning how the Arab world sees Hussein, allowing Freidman to bolster Swingin' Dick's claim that what they're saying in public versus in private is totally different. Tom claims that the Arab leaders are saying publicly "don't lay a finger on him", but in private they're telling Big Dick to, first, go through the UN, second, neutralize the Middle East problem, and third, when you go after him "shoot to kill".

Which may very well be true, but why has no one making this claim made the final connection, which is that if they're willing to say what's necessary in public, why don't people believe that would apply to what they then told Big Dick in private? I'm sure that most of the other Arab leaders would like the Hussein situation taken care of, but if they won't support it publicly, we still look like a rogue nation when we invade. And "shoot to kill"? Gotta love how the guys who'll be sitting in an office when the fighting starts are so gung-ho to get other people killed. Kinda like "Dead or Alive" Bush.

Bob asked if the Israeli/Palestine situation must be settled first, and Tom said yes, but not completely - a ceasefire is needed, and the process must be on a political track.

Bob finally mentioned an oft-overlooked point on this issue: the Bush Junta started out saying they weren't going to be actively involved in negotiations in the Middle East, because "Clinton did it and they said it was counter-productive". Now, the VP is the chief negotiator. Why?

Freidman said that "the world is curing them of stuff they came into office with", and that they would have to do some "nation building" in places like Afghanistan before they can tackle Iraq. We've got to do a minimum in the Middle East before we can "breakup" Iraq, which "brings us right back to where Clinton left off".

Well, at least someone has finally said it. No one seems willing to make the next logical connection, though: maybe we wouldn't have these latest flareups if Bush hadn't opened his mouth in the first place and publicly taken a "hands off" approach to the region. Like when Poppy Bush took office and basically gave Hussein the signal that we wouldn't bother him if he wouldn't bother us, which quite probably had a huge impact on his decision to annex Kuwait. Why can't the Bushes just keep their traps shut? Are they really that stupid, or are they just getting what they want? Or in the case of Junior, both?

Bob passed the Arafat-to-Summit issue by Freidman, who believes that Arafa's presence is important, that Abdullah's proposal won't be discussed if Arafat is sitting at home. He also believes that the Bushies shouldn't go around claiming they can't send troops to the Middle East, but that they *can* send 500000 troops to Iraq, Bosnia and Kosovo, Georgia and the Phillipines. But we all know why they're not willing to send troops to Israel and Palestine; our boys wouldn't be happy there without some oil wells to protect.

When Bob did say that Tom agrees that sending troops would be a "major step", Tom finally took the bait and went for the obvious joke, saying "big time" with a smile.

Bob's Final Word was about privacy and cameras, claiming that he "reluctantly agrees" with planting cameras at the Lincoln and Jefferson memorials, the Washington monument, and other places, but that he's worried about where it's headed. We agree, but he went a little nutso when he says that there are many reasons to support the war on terrorism, and that not being able to visit monuments without the "uneasy feeling" that someone is watching you is as good a reason as any. Yah, Bob, let's keep bombing the hell out of Afghanistan because you feel "uneasy" about a camera.

-- Art Layman

JJ Balzer is a former television news producer.  He lives in New York City.

Dave "Doctor" Gonzo is recording/video producer and media marketing guru.  He lives in a heavily fortified apartment compound in Manhattan.

Dash Riprock is a freelance smart-aleck based in Moline, IL who'd like to pass along this fact: 5-banded armadillos always give birth to liters of 5 which are either all male or all female. His peeps can give Dash a shout-out at dashriprockapj@hotmail.com