American Politics Journal -- Pundit Pap

Flush twice... it's a long way to Sally Quinn's place...

Pundit Pap
for November 17, 2002
The war against terror sputters, Ridge stumbles, and Pelosi defuses media terrorist Russert's bombs!
by JJ Balzer

Nov. 17, 2002 -- NEW YORK (APJP) -- The news should have been dominated by the war against terrorist thugs.

Over at Arabic-language news channel Al Jazeera, an new audiotape turned up containing what is widely thought to be the voice of Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda's publicist and COO, praising crimes against humanity and threatening more of the same. A few days later, a six page communiqué turned up at Al Jazeera threatening more attacks on New York and Washington.

And toward the end of last week, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) lit into the dismal state of the "war on terrorism" -- citing the failure to bring the crooks who organized the attacks against America on September 11, 2001 to justice and other political gamesmanship from the Smirk Administration at the expense of the nation's security internationally and on its own soil.

So you can guess what Karl Rove decided; send soon-to-be "Fatherland Security" secretary Tom Ridge on a tour of the Sunday shows to simultaneously rattle off the "We're winnin' the war on ta'irists" talking points and help promote Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein as a clear and present danger.

It all went over like a lead balloon.

We caught the all-important opening segments of a few of this Sunday's shows. Take your motion sickness pill now -- you'll need it with all the spin Ridge shamelessly wielded.

ABC This Weak
Keeping Ridge relevant

We know you're all getting tired of us complaining about the "padding" that ABC stuffs into This Weak, but it's still there.

And this week, it would have been nice for George Stephanopoulos to have a little leeway to ask a few more questions of his first guest, Tom Ridge.

Steph immediately jumped all over Ridge about a new communiqué allegedly from Al Jazeera. The subtext: you haven't done squat to make us any safer, have you! Ridge gave a stumbling, fumbling, less-than-articulate answer about taking all threats seriously. But Steph smelled blood in the water and pressed Ridge again and again on the new communiqué and the threat they pose, first specifically asking Ridge whether or not we're safer. Ridge actually said yes, citing a group of talking point "victories" against Al Qaeda that, on review, don't sound like all that much -- in fact, Ridge's having cited "disruptions of their training camps" implies that they can reconstitute them, and his talk about "capture" of a major Al Qaeda player who was not Osama or Ayman al Zawahiri served to remind us that the guys who know the real plans are still at large.

We're soooo reassured, Ridge-O... NOT!

Steph was thankfully unrelenting, next asking a skeptical question about the so-called "alert system", pointing out it does nothing about providing specifics to law enforcement or the public. Ridge took on a defensive tone in a long, rambling and inane answer, claiming the present regime in the West Wing is doing better than they were before.

Better at what? Keeping America on edge so that voters will be cowed into electing Republicans? That much is true -- because Rove knows how to package a crisis.

You could see Steph was not happy with Ridge's vague, generalized answers -- but then, the were coming from the man who claims a vague, generalized color-coded system of color-coded alerts is some sort of triumph of government. So Steph went to the side that was being specific -- the Osama Death Cult -- and pointed out that when the public hears words like "spectacular," it scares them -- and no specifics from Ridge doesn't help! Ridge, looking as if he were having a flare-up of hemorrhoids, again hid behind a "Well, it's a general threat, what can we say" answer.

What can you say? How about, "We are doing our best to expedite and streamline the flow of information among intelligence agencies, the INS, the DOJ, and local law enforcement officials, and to establish a Department of Homeland Security that will not be a mill for political patronage or decision-making by guaranteeing that employees are give full civil service protections."

Oh, that's right -- you haven't done jack squat about EITHER of these -- in fact, you're fighting that latter point as a sop to the union-hating fascists that prop up Smirk!

Tell me this, you little twerp: how many Americans are going to remain unprotected because your bosses are playing politics and department and agency poobahs are still in territorial mode? You are part of the PROBLEM, not the solution, Ridge.

When Steph changed the subject to investigation and the possibility of a new domestic spy agency, Ridge blurted out more scripted spin points: the FBI's number one mission is counterterrorism, the FBI and CIA work much better together, and more transparent boilerplate from Rove's desk (you've heard it all before, so why repeat it). Naturally, Steph did not let up, pressing him on the idea of a new spy agency, citing Ridge's visit to MI5 in the UK. Ridge said there were no plans for a new agency "along the lines" of the UK's MI5 -- but admitted MI5's mission would not apply over here (translation: we'll bend the Constitution just the way that we bend the exclusion clause and first amendment rights). Ridge didn't even talk Constitutional issues until he addressed the follow-up question, in which he was trying to imply that the Constitution itself may be hindering the war on terrorism.

That was just beyond the pale -- and a sure indication of things to come once Ridge is anointed to full cabinet status. Get ready for Smirk and Ridge-O... to bend the rules in an attempt to make it easier to spy on Americans and foreign nationals in the US.

There was some back-and-forth about Hezbollah before Steph pointed out that the Homeland Security bill provides liability limits to pharma companies if their vaccines make people or babies sick or, has been claimed by some, causes autism. Ridge lied outright, saying there has been no public criticism of the bill. Steph also talked about the risk posed by the smallpox vaccine; Ridge flogged public fear -- "The public is at risk... you've got to have the vaccine ready..." -- rather than address the question about doctors' and nurses' concerns and possible liability.

And with that spin, Ridge's dissembling ended for now. He would show up later elsewhere.

Steph then welcomed Baltimore Police Commissioner Edward Norris -- who absolutely blasted the federal government for not providing any information about threats he and the local hospitals in Baltimore had learned about early in the week -- from CNN! Norris said that he has no idea what the FBI might or might not be investigating in Baltimore -- and are stonewalling even when his police are investigating terrorist suspects. Will it change with a new Homeland Security Department? Norris called it irrelevant -- he just wants straight answers from the FBI.

Steph then flogged fear over smallpox, getting plenty of help from author Richard Preston. Preston said it is a particularly grisly-looking disease, and could be delivered by "human missiles" infected and flying around the country. It might be absolutely necessary to vaccinate everyone immediately -- and the vaccine can make people sick, possibly killing hundreds.

This was not the sort of segment that makes Karl Rove smile -- a police chief blasting the FBI (and by extension Ashcroft) and a public health expert simultaneously raising smallpox fears and questions about the government's preparedness.

Following a too-long setup piece, Steph welcomed New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, with the focus on the case of crooked stock analyst Jack Grubman. Spitzer said that there is a totality of evidence pertaining to a large number of stock analysis companies that raises questions about corruption, credibility of the marketplace, and outright stock manipulation -- and the industry did nothing. Steph then asked Spitzer about a report from Bloomberg News that a settlement is in the works. Spitzer said that to the small investor, the settlement money is less important than eliminating corruption, and that means eliminating payment from brokerages to analysts. Spitzer said that retail investors must get their information from independent analysts -- and also told Steph that contrary to reports, he had never talked about a board of oversight. Will he require that banks put out independent research? Spitzer sounded for a moment like he might have given in when he said no -- but said clearly that independent analyses must be available to retail investors.

Spitzer also blasted the Bush Administration, who "failed to step into this void... they played the role of Herbert Hoover!" He saved his last volley for the SEC, but did say that his office is now working with them, and there will in fact be a settlement, probably not this week but soon.

What he didn't say: even with the settlement, there may be indictments of a number of crooked stock analysts. It should be noted that Eliot Spitzer has stepped not only on a lot of toes among Wall Street's clubby and secretive set -- but is not exactly on the best of terms with John Ashcroft, who would sooner not enforce laws that might rock the big business boat. Spitzer is the top contender for Attorney General if Dems are able to recover 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue from the fraudulent "administration" presently occupying it -- and may well start looking into how exactly they got there.

Go, Eliot!

FAUX News Sunday

After Spitzer was finished on ABC, we decided to go slumming and watch the first segment of our favorite hard-right political show, FAUX News Sunday.

But before we get to that, it is worth noting that, in typical "fair and balanced only toward Prince George" fashion, Tony Snow did not mention Tom Daschle's withering, critical blast at the sputtering war on terrorism until the first half of FAUX News Sunday was over -- and only as an issue to be taken up by the "panel" of hard-right ideologues and mushy moderates that FAUX News features in a pretend "debate" segment.

Tony Snow led with the sensational: a new communiqué from Al Qaeda promising "spectacular" attacks against American interests, and then welcomed Tom Ridge.

Well, at least Tony isn't making "get Saddam, we want those ratings!" issue one.

Should the communiqué be taken seriously? Surprisingly, Ridge said the threats are nothing new -- but unsurprisingly, he immediately shifted to the increase in "chatter" and the "increased threat environment." Tony asked about a cell arrested in London that was allegedly planning a cyanide gas on London's Underground; Ridge talked about worldwide attacks and a "range" of possibilities (but neglected to mention that the cell has not yet been definitively tied to Al Qaeda -- just how fair, balanced and complete is that?).

Tony then asked about the latest Osama audiotape -- is it a "call to action?" Ridge gave a rambling answer about the tape being consistent with more than a year of threats (and he is right -- but should have pointed out that both Osama's tape and the six-page message allegedly from Al Qaeda are now claiming that the Palestinian issue is now their "top priority" -- as in excuse to engage in mass murder targeting Israelis, Jews and Americans).

Tony then played a video clip of Tom Daschle criticizing the failure of Team Smirk to stop Al Qaeda and apprehend their leaders. Ridge smugly decided to "give" Daschle a "measure" of success, again rattling off a supposed list of "wins" that sounded uncannily similar to those heard over on ABC, following it up with his "disappointment" that Daschle has a "different view than most Americans."

That, of course, was a completely uninformed cheap shot. Most Americans are more worried about Al Qaeda than the wily Saddam -- and don't think that Ridge and his idiot boss have done anywhere near enough to dismantle criminal terrorist organizations. If the Shrub hadn't been such an arrogant unilateralist before last September 11th, he would have had a huge opportunity to rally the world, including most Arab states, to rout these terrorist networks. Hey, Ridge-O..., how do you think Americans view THAT?

Are Al Qaeda weakened? Ridge at that point admitted that they are a decentralized organization, still do have access to financial support, and can still hit us. Remember, this is coming from a guy who had just said that Tom Daschle somehow had a "different view" on the success of the war against terrorists.

Tony pressed him on the finances, and Ridge gave a weak answer about freezing their assets and difficulty accessing money and resources. For about the fourth time, Ridge said "global dragnet" -- but that only served to remind us that the US still doesn't have Osama or Ayman in custody, and prompted Tony to ask about the recent arrest of an unspecified high-echelon Al Qaeda and how much we are really learning about their operations. Ridge acknowledged that the operative is being helpful.

Ridge then kept up the scare tactics, saying we have to remain vigilant with so many foreign nationals coming into the country -- and Tony started talking about young males from the Middle East entering the country (playing into the xenophobic tendencies of the average FAUX News fan). Ridge started blathering about working "within the Constitution".

Oh, yeah, right, Ridge-O...! Within the Constitution! Keep those punch lines coming! The whole media room erupted with laughter at that one!

Tony did not let up, asking about the continuous litany of warnings being reported in the press. Ridge propped up the FBI's role in keeping other law enforcement agencies informed.

Hey, Ridge-O..., have you had a chance to chat with Baltimore Police Commissioner Edward Norris lately?

And Tony cited Ridge's references to the FBI in his follow-up: is Team Smirk considering a domestic counterterrorism agency? As he had on ABC, Ridge avoided an answer, this time talking not about MI5 but what the FBI is doing every day to find out what terrorists are up to and threats to the public.

Will Ridge serve as Secretary of Homeland security? Ridge gave the customary evasive "it's up to the Dingbat-in-Chief, I'd be honored if the moron asks me" answer.

Meet the Press
Pelosi takes on Tim-MEH!

We missed the first minute of MTP, but joined as Tim Russert was asking newly-elected House Democratic Leader Pelosi if she agreed with Daschle's comments on the failing war on terrorism. Pelosi gave the lie to a full morning of Tom Ridge spin, saying that America is failing to address the root causes of terrorism (read: poverty, ignorance, long-standing hatreds). Pelosi also pointed out that Al Qaeda and other terrorists will continue to attack even if Osama's gone or captured -- if we are to prevail, we must attack the causes of terrorism.

Tim brought up domestic surveillance of Iraqis, and Pelosi said that she has serious concerns about"spreading a dragnet".

Do you support the policy? "I stand with the president in the war on terrorism."

Translation: "President A-D-D had better focus on bringing down Al Qaeda"

Expect a lot of that from Democrats -- strong support to a full-frontal assault on criminal terrorist groups combined with skepticism about going into battle against Saddam.

What threat does Saddam Hussein pose to the US? Pelosi said that while he has chemical and biological weapons and some delivery capability -- can he hit the US? First, Pelosi then said that should Smirk order war,"we will support our troops" (we loved that -- remember when Trent "White Kollar Klansman" Lott said, "We cayan sihport our troops withaht sihportin awer president"? Payback's a beeyatch, huh, Trent?) -- then she added her skepticism, asking where the "clear and present danger" from Saddam is. A war with him would hamper our intelligence-gathering capability in the war on terrorism. Is it a distraction? Pelosi said she is pleased that Team Smirk has decided to exhaust every other possibility and go to the UN.

Should inspections be aggressive and intrusive or "more timid"? Pelosi said that they should be "effective" -- and it is time to get more serious about the proliferation of WMDs by other countries (another great move by Pelosi, which served to remind viewers that WMDs are in the hands of nations such as North Korea, Pakistan, and France).

If it comes down to a unilateral move, will she support it? Pelosi made it clear that she does not trust Saddam as far as she can throw him -- but also made it clear that she vastly prefers a diplomatic solution. She did say that she would support the president if he makes a go of action without UN support -- but hinted that there must be at least one other nation working with us.

Tim then tried to attack Pelosi about voting against the Gulf War back in 1991 -- and much to his surprise and our delight, Pelosi said she stands by her views then, and the concerns she had then are more relevant than ever -- particularly the issue of a prolonged "Holy War" in which Islamist thugs would glom onto the attack against Saddam. In 1991, she voted against it based on the information she had (an indirect swipe at Bush Daddy's penchant for secrecy -- and a reminder that the Bush Baby is far more secretive than his ex-CIA Poppy). Pelosi also made it abundantly clear that she supports the War Powers Act, and that in the case of the current battle against terrorist groups, the president is allowed to make a unilateral move since we were attacked first.

Tim then turned to Pelosi's opposition to His Oilness' tax givebacks for the rich. Pelosi expanded the issue to the broader economic malaise and the failed policies of Smirk-O-Nomics Where, she asked, are the investments in education? Pelosi also called for tax cuts for working families and a possible cut in the payroll tax.

Tim then went on the attack, citing Pelosi's congressional district's "liberal" views (note that Tim did not call her a "San Francisco liberal", the hard-right's buzz phrase engineered to exploit anti-gay views) and then playing a South Carolina "democrat" blasting gay marriages and whining about a "liberal" leader (unfortunately for Tim and right-leaning NBC, the yokel on video sounded more like Trent Lott than any southern Democrat in the media limelight -- even conservative-leaning Zell Miller). Tim had also mentioned that the same rube had said Pelosi would not be welcome in South Carolina (which sounded to us a Lott... er, a lot like Jesse helms saying that then-President Clinton shouldn't visit North Carolina, implying someone might want to do him harm). Pelosi said that her job is to lead Democrats in the House, build a consensus, and champion programs and positions that benefit all Americans (translation: the redneck Tim showcased can go straight to hell -- or the GOP, whichever is more convenient).

Tim then attacked Pelosi for daring to say that Gingrich was taking marching orders from the Christian Coalition, to which Pelosi essentially said he was! Tim then tried to attack Pelosi over being a "liberal". Pelosi responded by saying that DeLay is proud of being labeled a hard-right conservative (which served to highlight the fact that Tim is following the Gingrich playbook and using liberal as a pejorative term) -- and liberals not only stand for policies that work for the American people, but will essentially stand up to Republicans trying to define and label "liberals."

With his attacks systematically defused by the articulate and charming Ms. Pelosi, Tim thanked her for visiting and cut to a commercial.

And we decided to take the wife and kids out to brunch satisfied that not only had Ridge dug himself a nice big hole this pundit Sunday, but Pelosi was going to prove a real handful for the Chimp-in-Chief and the self-important Gasbags of the Sabbath.

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