Vacation Pundit Pap
for Sunday, September 1st
Cheney Speaks, Hagel Balks, Thompson Blusters
by JJ Balzer
August 31, 2002 -- VIRGINIA BEACH, VA. (APJP) -- Technically, we -- and most of the pundit elite -- are on vacation along with Congress (if you want to call the eternal campaign cycle for the House a vacation). The First Imbecile is back in the Beltway, his brain on permanent vacation as his hawkish handlers beat the war drums, trying to build support for taking out Saddam.
Problem is, it isn't selling.
We decided to check out ABC and NBC this week. Here's what we caught:
ABC This Weak
The Donaldson death watch
With ABC poised to finally say good riddance to Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts (it couldn't happen sooner), we decided to take a peek at This Weak, hoping for a glimpse of life.
To our surprise and delight, there was a pulse -- in the form of Sen. Chuck Hagel.
Sam preceded his first question with a little of Cheney's "don't give into wishful thinking" spin concerning the idea of containing Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in (weak) support for his push to strike Iraq first. And while Hagel acknowledged that Saddam is a threat, he said the question is just how threatening is he? And who replaces him? And will it destabilize the Mideast? And will we be forced to stay in Baghdad for a decade? Cheney, he said, has a tough case to make.
It doesn't get much worse for the present occupants of the West Wing than that. Hagel, whose conservative "score" for 2000 was between 75% and 100% among right-wing groups listed in the Almanac of American Politics, is a key GOP player in the Senate. He was not so subtly saying he just doesn't buy Cheney's case -- and it's notable that these comments made the AP wire before This Weak had run on all of ABC's big-city stations.
Sam, naturally, focused on Cheney's "the risk of inaction is greater" claim -- but Hagel said the proper questions concerning Iraq, Saddam, his arsenal of weapons and a potential first strike by the US have not been asked in the first place. A first-strike invasion with no international support would be unprecedented; we still have to deal with the delicate situation in Afghanistan; India and Pakistan have nukes pointed at each other; a move to take out Saddam means someone has to run the show in Baghdad once he's been deposed. Hagel pointed out that even arch-Bushite James K. "The Fixer" Baker III has urged caution and use of international diplomacy.
Hagel added a point that will no doubt anger unilateralists: the UN must be involved in any campaign against Saddam -- and it can be done. Hagel pressed the point explicitly: we cannot take on Iraq alone. Hagel named other GOPers who are asking tough questions, specifically John McCain and Bob Dole, two war veterans. Hagel said that the Chimp-in-Chief MUST make the case to Congress -- and Congress will support a strong case (implying that the UN would also have to take heed of such a case).
Hagel returned to the "urgency" of the threat Saddam poses -- yes, he is trying to assemble the needed material for WMDs, including nukes, but how urgent is the threat? He reiterated the issue of regional destabilization -- even when we beat Saddam were we to take him on alone.
Hagel did not directly address the potential for massive casualties -- military and civilian -- that a unilateral attack against Saddam would create. But he did talk about Vietnam -- 58,000 casualties, and we walked away. Hagel said we had best have justification and support -- and should that happen, "If we're going to war, that transcends party politics."
Sam hardly raised his voice or tone, basically letting Hagel have his say as Hagel gently savaged Big Time Dick.
Following the break, George Stephanopoulos welcomed former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, and asked him about a recent and scathing critique that concluded that America's foreign policy drives hatred of America among Arabs. Will taking out Saddam inflame more hatred? Zbig said that we have to get international cooperation and do something about resolving the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Steph acknowledged a split within the Smirk Junta over what to do (but did not specify that the feud is between the Powells and Perles). Zbig said that there is no clarity on the central objective in res Iraq: should we remove Saddam, or remove his means to produce WMDs? Steph said there have been calls for his removal by Team Smirk, and Zbig pointed out the conflict within Smirk's inner circle. Zbig also used the analogy of looking for a black cat in a totally darkened room -- that is, IF there is a black cat in the room at all. There are, he pointed out, external ways to destabilize Saddam.
Steph then turned to the words of arch-hawk Richard Perle talking about the credibility of the war on terrorism. Zbig said most of our allies would like to support us in getting rid of Saddam -- but for now the only choice is to act right way (i.e. demand he comply with international law).
Steph then turned to Germany's ambassador to the US Wolfgang Ischinger. What happened to "unlimited solidarity?" Ischinger said there IS unlimited solidarity in the war against terrorism, including thousands of German troops posted outside the nation for the first time in over a half century. The problem is Saddam's WMD capability, and Germany believes the top priority to be taking the war against terrorists outside Afghanistan seriously. But, he added, who would provide the troops? There is also concern about instability in the Mideast region as the US opens another theater of war. Steph said that the German defense minister said Iraq does not pose a threat. Ischinger sidestepped the statement with the requisite "I don't know what he said" evasions -- then pointed out the failure of Desert Storm to take out Saddam. The question remains: does the situation require action now? A real inspection regime should be pushed hard through the UN; failing that, the case will need to be made for military action. So Germany would support if Saddam says no or cheats? Ischinger said Germany is not on the Security Council, but he believes that the UN and our allies would engage in a realistic debate over what to do to deal with Saddam.
Following the break, a less-than-exciting report to pad out the show: is Osama bin Laden dead? One Arab paper says he's alive, back in charge of Al Qaeda, and planning new attacks; the consensus at the Pentagon is that he's alive. Abdel Barri Atwan of the London-based Arabic newspaper Al Q'uds was the guest; he admitted that his paper has no proof Osama's still alive, but bases its report on sources they find trustworthy, including news that his shoulder was badly injured during the bombing of his Tora Bora compound. Atwan also said that some Islamic groups are deriding Osama for making claims he was going to attack and has not done so. The environment in Afghanistan -- Karzai not really in charge, warlords still active -- helps Osama. Atwan also made light of the US and other organizations asserting Osama is dead. Does Atwan believe Osama will release another tape around September 11th? Atwan said Osama is unpredictable, and there are no Arab nations supporting a new attack; Osama's call for a "fatwa" against the US and Israel remains in effect.
More padding: a political news report by John Cochrane. He even reported on the farcical Empty Vee Music Video Awards. Gag me.
Grab your airsickness bag: it's round table time. Sam talked about sending in inspectors back into Iraq. In keeping with long-standing APJ policy, we ignored George Will's Goebbels-esque rantings. Claire Shipman said Cheney's speech was "approved" by Shrubya, who even made "changes."
We pulled a muscle laughing.
Seriously, Claire -- do you REALLY believe that Smirk has even half the brains needed to rewrite policy speeches? The only talent this idiot has is for lining his own pockets at the expense of shareholders -- and there's no doubt he needed help doing that, too.
New Republic(an) editor Peter Beinart pointed out that Smirk speaks on Sept. 12, and his team of handlers expect a "bounce" from Sept. 11th. Sam said Richard Perle made a "point" on This Weak a few weeks ago (yeah, right -- that he's a hawkish lunatic with a penchant for having LaRouchie has-beens flog a new Cold War with Arabs and who should be kept as far away from the decision-making process as possible). Will yammered. Shipman said Smirk would be insane not to go to Congress for approval of action against Iraq; Beinart said there is worry among Dems that the Administration will go to Congress before November. Will did say that Dem prez-wannabes will back Smirk if he goes to Congress (well, whuddya expect? most are "pink tutu" Senators who fold under the slightest pressure).
Sam brought up rumors that Colin Powell might resign. Beinart brought up America being in a weak position internationally because of hawkish posturing. Shipman said it's been a year and we still don't have Osama -- and Simian Boy wants to get it on with Saddam!
Well, no kidding, Claire! Smirk needs a bogey man to help prop up his artificial "approval" numbers. Osama's gone AWOL, so Saddam's the obvious choice!
Will whined about something. We refilled our coffee. Talk turned to a possible Dem takeover of the House following midterm elections. Beinart pointed out that the GOP has not succeeded in co-opting Democrat issues, and he sees a pickup for Dems. Shipman brought up the possibility of more business scandals -- but feels it's a toss-up. Will spoke (yawn). Shipman said that Democrat Ron Kirk is showing surprising strength in Texas in his Senate run. Beinart is watching Florida -- will Jewish voters jump to the GOP, and are black voters still angry at Jeb Crow (we say no to the first question and you can bank on it to the second). Will tried to tar Torricelli with scandal.
After yet another commercial, it was time for Will's weekly whining rant. We changed the channel to Nickelodeon.
Meet the Tim
Lame duck "Hollywood" Fred Thompson vs. Cold Warrior Eagleburger
Tim Russert, eager for a new dustup with Saddam, made Cheney's warning that Saddam has WMDs -- and our "need" to launch a first strike -- hit hot-button topic of the week. Former Secretary of State Larry Eagleburger said he has questions, most importantly: does Saddam have nukes? If he does or will have them soon, we must have to act -- the problem is, Eagleburger is NOT certain about what Saddam has, and it would be WRONG for us to take out Saddam unilaterally: "We do NOT understand the morass we will be in" unless we get allies.
Sen. Fred Thompson (lame duck R-Hollywood) said "without question he has the capability" to build a nuke -- he just does not have the fissile material. Inspectors disrupted Saddam's "Manhattan Project" -- the situation will be "far more difficult" if he has or makes a working nuke, and the "mutually assured destruction" paradigm does not apply. Thompson added that we did not foresee Saddam's invasions of Iran or Kuwait.
But we would take umbrage with the latter -- there has been a debate for years over whether Saddam had in fact secretly asked the US for a "green light" on his Kuwait incursion along with serious questions as to what really prompted the invasion.
Tim brought up serious questions raised by former UN inspector Scott Ritter, who has been vigorously and openly challenging assertions coming from the Puppet Boy administration. Thompson cited another "expert" who disagrees with Ritter, then was DEAD WRONG when he said that the UN Security Council will NOT support redeployment of inspectors. (Please, Fred -- how in hell would you know? If there is evidence that Saddam is in fact trying to reconstitute his WMD programs, support for inspectors would be a slam-dunk.) Fred added Saddam has a history of shutting down inspections and trading oil with China despite sanctions (which is true, but given the present situation, there is no way of predicting whether or not Saddam will block inspectors). Eagleburger said that Thompson has a point about inspectors not being effective -- and then tweaked Fred for "chickening out" and leaving the Senate!
But then Eagleburger pointed out the underlying problem: Team Smirk has failed to provide definitive proof that Saddam has WMDs or is close to having a nuke. He added that there would be a huge expense in invading Iraq -- financially and in terms of nation-building, as surrounding Arab states and their peoples bristle. Tim then recounted Cheney's big time talking point: by the time we determine that Saddam has nukes, it may be too late. Eagleburger said that the actual problem may be lack of eloquence before NATO (an indirect way of pointing out that Powell and Cheney are sending opposite messages), which cued Tim to suggest that Smirk go before the American people and NATO and make the case -- which gave Eagleburger the chance to say he would take the Chimp at his word if he claims that Saddam has or is near having nukes.
Tim then turned to Brent Scowcroft's editorializing about little evidence tying Saddam to terror networks. Thompson pooh-poohed that point as being a major issue. "This is not a terrorism issue as such."
There it was -- a tacit admission that the "war on terror" is no longer viable as issue one for Team Smirk with midterm elections around the corner. Shrubby has decided to use Saddam tactically to drive public opinion -- and deflect from a sputtering economy, federal budget deficits, the corporate crime wave and the collapse of the health care system.
Eagleburger said that the experts he consults with say there's very little evidence that Saddam has ties to terror networks. Tim rebutted with Saddam's attempt to assassinate Bush Daddy (which has NOTHING to do with terrorism but everything to do with the war of ten years ago). Eagleburger denied that Bush Daddy is using him or others (read: Scowcroft) to send a message to Dim Son. Eagleburger even said, "There are some of us who are smarter than others" (an indirect swipe at the Imbecile-in-Chief and his Flock of Chickenhawks? Could be).
Thompson rebutted, first by praising Eagleburger, then saying that critics are raising valid points -- but he remains troubled that we had a coalition against Iraq under Bush Daddy, and now we don't have such an alliance.
Well, gee, Fred -- when Colin is saying one thing and Big Time Dick another, is it any wonder we don't have an alliance?
Oddly, when Tim asked who was to blame for the dissolution of the old anti-Saddam coalition, Fred did not name President Clinton (as we're sure Tim the trouser-sniffer was hoping) -- rather saying, "You can go down a list."
Eagleburger said that he does believe that Germany and France will get on board when push comes to shove -- but Arab countries, specifically Egypt, would be violently opposed, Iraq would "pop SCUDs at Israel", and while we can handle it, it will be a "real mess".
Tim brought up the Washington Post headline: "Officers: Iraq Could Drain Terror War / Diversion of Afghan Forces To Gulf Raises Concerns". Will a campaign against Saddam drain assets from the war on terror? Fred instead asked a question: where does that leave us with Saddam, who has thumbed his nose at international law? Fred said that if we have to come down to a hard decision, we will act alone.
Tim then asked Fred about the FBI (read: Ass-KKKroft) investigating "leaks" to the press about intelligence failures. Fred said he had been questioned, as had all the senators he knows, but also acknowledged that there are intelligence problems.
Eagleburger, who looked eager to interject his answer, called demands for polygraphing senators an "outrage."
Following the break: the meltdown of Smirk's "homeland security" dreams as legislation gets bogged down with all sorts of new powers for the executive branch. Thompson put up a weak case for a massive bureaucracy. Tim said the GOP is being blasted for an attempt at union-busting; Thompson deflected by saying that the new security bosses need "flexibility" on hiring, pay and discipline for national security reasons (in other words, they need the right to bust unions). Would you prefer no bill to this bill? Thompson kept harping on "union employees...lobbying on the Hill".
Right, Fred -- as if corporate and even executive branch interests don't make their voices heard in your office.
Finally, Tim plugged Fred's new role as a brusque New York City DA on NBC's wildly successful Law & Order, and followed it up with some Today-worthy lightweight chat. Tim made a final observation based on a comment from an entertainment industry friend: "Politics is show business for ugly people."
Well, in Eagleburger's and Thompson's cases, we agree -- they're no Robert Redfords! But we'll say this much: Thompson isn't a half-bad actor, and we particularly enjoyed his scene-stealing portrayal of a pushy, hypocritical White House chief of staff in the Clint Eastwood thriller In the Line of Fire. He'll be great on Law & Order
After the break, Tim welcomed Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY) and Rep. Tom Davis (slow learner-VA). Tim confronted Lowey with a suspect poll showing that voters are likely to support candidates that support Smirk's (non-) economic recovery plan.
Huh? What were these pollsters smoking? Half the people I know have two things to say about Smirk-O-Nomics:
-- "They tanked my 401(k)."
-- "That smirking moron p!ssed away the surplus!"
Lowey ignored the numbers, saying there is evidence of a decent Democrat pickup in November. Tim then tweaked Davis with poll results showing that Americans are more concerned with the economy than the war on terror. Davis gave a non-answer; Lowey rattled off half a dozen economic concerns, emphasizing the 401(k) meltdown.
Davis rattled off a list of nonentity congressmorons who support "piratization" of Social Security; Lowey pointed out that Davis himself has advised GOP candidates to avoid the Social Security privatization issue -- or weasel out of it -- because the public opposes it. She then recounted Larry Lindsey saying he favors "borrowing" a billion dollars to privatize Social Security -- then saying he would not invest it in the market now! Davis said that Dems are "creating an issue that isn't there" -- proving he either has his head in the sand or is an outright liar.
Tim then turned to Smirk's promise not to break into the Social Security "lockbox" -- then ran a very sharp political ad about the broken promise featuring Seinfeld's Jason Alexander blasting the lockbox lies and the Smirk tax giveback for the rich. Lowey elaborated on why the deficit and Social Security are vital and viable issues. Isn't it time to put the tax "cut" on hold? Davis tried to "prove" tax cuts "spur" the economy in a "major" way. Tim returned to the lockbox, accusing both parties of raiding it. Lowey said the Republicans squandered the surplus. How, asked Tim -- with the tax cut? Lowey replied by citing bad policies and a failure to establish a bipartisan budget policy -- and it's time for the GOP to get on board and cut spending. Lowey said she supports tax cuts for the middle class and low-income citizens as opposed to $250 million tax givebacks for Enron. Davis blamed Democrats for past deficits, trying to claim that there never would've been surpluses with a Dem Congress -- but Tim pointed out that Republicans squandered the surplus!
Tim then brought up poll numbers showing that the GOP is better in the "war on terror" by 2 to 1, but Lowey went back to the bread-and-butter issues that trouble Americans, including spiraling pharmaceutical prices.
Is it better when one party holds both the executive and legislative branch? By 2 to 1, poll respondents said no. Wouldn't it be better for Smirk to have both Daschle and "Majority Leader" Gephardt as foils? Davis whined about gridlock -- poor Snippy would never get his agenda passed, and they're already blocking his agenda.
Well, cry me a river, Tom. Americans who pay attention don't want "faith" crammed down their throats, don't want a gigantic and authoritarian "homeland security" bureaucracy, don't want a politicized court system, don't want to lose their reproductive and civil rights. Your whining about so-called "gridlock" reveals you as nothing but a toady for the Yalie From Hell and his proto-fascist accomplices.
If Smirk said he would invade Iraq, would Lowey support it? Lowey said there must be consultation.
In the final round of questions, there were no surprises: Lowey also predicted that the Dems will take the House; Davis predicted GOP control, although "anything can happen."
You sure got that right, Tom, especially when the Smirk Misadministration seems so delusional that the "best" card they're playing is the "Get Saddam" deuce.
JJ Balzer is a former television news producer. He lives in New York City.
Copyright © 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996, American Politics Journal Publications, Inc. All rights reserved.
Read our privacy policy. Contact us.
ISSN No. 1523-1690