Pundit Bowl 2003
for January 26, 2003
SOTSW (State of the Smirk War) Preview
by the Pundit Pap Team
Jan. 26, 2003, 4:50 PM -- NEW YORK (APJP) -- it's the first time in memory that Pundit Bowl weekend has coincided with the run up to the State of the Confederacy... ahem, Union speech. Given the increased saber-rattling toward Saddam this week, a possible war with Iraq remained issue one, with bits of SOTU preview bobbing to the surface every now and then. McLaugh-In chose to look at the state of Wonder Chimp's supposed presidency.
Here's a little of the fun from this Sunday morning:
ABC This Weak
Steph, new court jester of spin
Players:
George "Steph" Stephanopoulos, boyish host
European Union representative Javier Solana,
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)
White House communications director Dan "Spin Boy" Bartlett
The bullet points that opened This Leak sounded as if they'd been penned by Rasputin Rove himself: "Countdown to war!"... "Time is running out!"
But Steph had to admit at the top of TW that Europe is "at odds" with the rush to war with Saddam, Powell had to "make the case for the US" at the Davos Weekend. Yet "Time is running out" for Saddam.
Steph than welcomed Javier Solana, a sorta-kinda foreign minister for the EU, and started his volley of questions. Has Saddam failed to meet his obligations under UN resolutions? Solana said Saddam should be disarmed, and that UN actions have worked -- the present resolution was passed by the Security Council unanimously, and we have yet to hear from inspectors, who report tomorrow (translation: nobody knows if Saddam has or has not fully met those obligations). Solana wants Saddam to comply in a "prompt" manner (translation: he probably hasn't, and if he doesn't want to end up road kill on the path of history after the US and Djibouti go to war with him, he'd better -- and it's still not enough for EU members to fully back Smirk's li'l war).
Steph followed up with the Team Smirk assertion and war justification that "inspections will not work", and Solana said that the US must give inspections a chance. Steph repeated Powell's assertion that Saddam is not cooperating, but Solana said that we must wait for Hans Blix to report; in principle, he added, Powell is correct, but the world needs to wait for the inspectors. Steph asked how much more time, and Solana did not give a specific answer, but said Saddam must become more cooperative quickly.
Steph then brought up the "old Europe" comment that infuriated leaders in France and Germany; Solana said that the EU is not far in its position from the US, but focused more on the war against terrorism than Iraq and Saddam (translation: not only are we a lot "older" than the US, but we're smarter, having dealt with terrorism, and knowing real threats to our security). But Steph returned the focus to Saddam and the turning over of chemical weapons. Solana said for about the fourth time that he and the EU want to listen to Blix. (Translation: do you have some sort of attention deficit disorder, kid? Poor Howard K. Smith is probably spinning in his grave.)
If Smirk decides that military action is needed, will the EU be on board? Solana said essentially that another UN resolution will be required. (Ouch!)
Steph then turned to This Weak commentator Fareed Zakaria in Davos and tried to spin the present situation between the US and EU as cooperative (coffee nearly squirted out our nose as we suppressed a laugh -- was Steph even listening to Solana?), but Zakaria said that there was more of a sense of "marriage counseling" and the split between the US and EU is "worse than [that during] the Vietnam war... the French need a face-saving way of coming back in [but] the US will remain firm [and] not want to look wobbly." Steph asked about how the "old Europe" comment was being taken; Zakaria said on the surface there is anti-Americanism, but below the surface there are two groups: one fearing American hegemony will succeed, the other fearing that US policy will help Islamists and foment regional instability.
Steph then turned to White House third-tier spinner Dan Bartlett, who talked about a "new construct" and asserted that Saddam has "not made a strategic decision to disarm."
Yep -- Bartlett's replies were all spin, all tailored phrasing and talking points that sounded clinical and memorized, the bottom line being that "Iraq must fully cooperate" with inspectors and inspections, and a few iterations of "where are the chemical warheads?" Bartlett said that the US will carefully review the report tomorrow (translation: look for more reasons to rattle the saber and speed up the war timetable). Will Smirk present new WMD evidence in the State of the Union? When Bartlett tried to give a typically evasive answer, Steph pressed Bartlett. Bartlett said that This Weak is not the place to discuss this (translation: we'll decide if it's to our advantage by Tuesday, sonny), instead rattling off other issues to be mentioned.
Is Smirk reluctant to reveal these sources in fear of compromising them (translation: will you hide behind the "we don't compromise sources" to get your war on)? Bartlett essentially said yes.
Steph then blasted Smirk with his own words, about the aluminum tubes supposedly obtained for a nuke program. Turns out they were rocket parts. Bartlett said that Smirk had good reason to say what he said (translation: the poor C student was misinformed, but we'll make something up so that people will think that they were parts for a nuke program).
There was some meaningless, empty back-and-forth about the economy and Smirk's "specific plans"; Bartlett emphasized the phony "double-taxation" issue surrounding dividends. Steph tore Bartlett down, pushing the bullet points of Smirk's mediocre economic plan.
Steph then welcomed Pelosi. After hearing Powell's case, asked Steph, are you now in favor of war with Iraq? Pelosi said that the president has taken the course Powell proposed in the first place in order to avoid war and disarm Iraq. Steph pressed Pelosi; Pelosi said that Smirk owes America a clear and credible explanation "before we put our young people" in harm's way; by 2 to 1, they would support it IF the UN gives it the green light; there is also skepticism and worry about what the cost in human lives and dollars will be and whether a new regime would work to end proliferation of WMDs.
Shouldn't we be ready to take on Saddam alone? Pelosi said Saddam knows that war is an option, but listening to Solana discuss our relations with other nations, we should be showing leadership and building consensus; instead, we are breeding disarray. Pelosi added that the same mess has hurt our efforts to contain North Korea. (Wham! Slam! Pelosi is not going to make things easy for the Georgie Junta on matters of Iraq or North Korea -- or, for that matter, Al Qaeda.) Steph repeated the right-wing spin point of France vetoing our "foreign policy"; Pelosi said this was not the case, and also said that it would be better to get a Security Council resolution authorizing military action.
Pelosi then issued a warning to Smirk with a reminder: the Dems reserve every right to criticize conduct of military action against Iraq, and Saddam should in fact take no comfort from that. She also said that Smirk has an uphill battle convincing America that we should put our kids in harm's way against a "madman" who has threatened to use chemical and biological weapons against them.
Well! Refreshing to see that there's at least one Democrat on Capitol Hill with an actual spine. A shame Pelosi isn't making a run for the White House -- she'd give the Boys' Club a run for their money.
-- JJ Balzer
McLaugh-In
Smirk in Review
It's been a while since we've paid a visit to the John McLaugh-In Asylum for Pundits, our favorite overwrought Sunday lunatic ward. John started his laff-fest with a review of (read: not-so-soft puff piece on) Smirk's presidential career -- beginning by daring to mention that some Democrats questioned his legitimacy (John, they still do), and that his residency remains tainted by the failure to get Osama, a series of corporate scandals, and now polling numbers that indicate that the nation is on the wrong track and poor Junior has a mere 51% approval rating. John also mentioned more bad news: oil stockpiles are low in the middle of a frigid winter.
John asked the group to grade the members of Smirk's team, starting with Ari Fleischer.
Larry Kudlow, expectedly, said he's great, by the books, doesn't do a Leno routine, holds the press at bay (Oh, Larry, you must not have seen Helen Thomas chew up and spit out Ari last Friday). Eleanor Clift derisively called him a mouthpiece and added that the press hates him; Fleischer, she said, is emblematic of an arrogant and secretive administration. She ended her diatribe with the line of the week:
" I want Nixon back!"
John sounded as if he regretted bringing up Ari, and Kudlow called him "Helpful to the press." Tony Blankley, interestingly, thinks Ari is not completely in the loop! He added that Rumsfeld is a great communicator, but Powell is not. Gerald Baker of Financial Times was cued by John to talk about firings -- and how dreadful Pitt's appointment was in the first place, along with Smirk's first economic team. Powell, said Baker, is doing a great job. John asked Baker about Condi Rice, and Baker said she's been effective -- prompting John to bellow, "Isn't she doctrinaire? An academic?"
Ouch! It sounds as if John agrees with us.
Has Junior grown into the presidency? Eleanor said that he is a dismal failure -- on the economy, on "tracking down the evildoers", and within the context of 9-11-01 confidence is fading -- but not fast enough. Tony said that he has changed and become more sober, but John suggested that he's gotten more cocky (implying that it is a major liability). Baker said there was a sense he was an accidental president -- he needed 9-11-01 to give him a sense of where he should go. Eleanor blasted Smirk's treatment of allies of the US. Kudlow praised his "faith-based character" and pushed the RNC script of a "bold" president in his "economic plan" (how nice to see SOMEONE in the group is on message).
Grade the usurper!
Larry: A
Eleanor: F
Tony: B+/A-
Gerald: B-
John: B-
Whoa -- John has been a little critical of the Crawford Crackpot -- but nothing like he has been today. It's worth noting that John has become rather surly toward the Dauphin since Verizon became cosponsor of McLaugh-In. Hmm...
Issue two: Rummy blasts "Old Europe," dismisses the influence and power of Germany and France! There's resistance from Old Europe, said John -- but the same is true of Old Asia: China agrees with France. And then there's Old Russia, Old Arabia, Old Democrats (as a video clip of Ted Kennedy played) and "Old Protesters." John castigated Larry for approving of the "imperium" (Larry bristled, we laughed). Should Smirky heed the vox populi? Eleanor said yes -- and then said that just because smaller European nations agree with Shrub does not mean he should dismiss Germany and France. John tried to comment on France and Germany but was interrupted by shouting from Larry; Gerald called Rummy's comment "typical blunt blather" that hurt the situation. Tony claimed that Schroeder was posturing and the reason is political; Kudlow deployed the latest right-wing mantra: Germany and France are the "Axis of appeasement."
Question: is Rummy an asset or liability?
Larry: Asset
Eleanor: Liability
Tony: Asset
Gerry: Asset despite lousy management and ill-considered outbursts
John: Asset to Pentagon, liability to Bush
Final prediction!
Larry: Hubbard stays on the Smirk-o-nomic Team to shepherd tax cuts through the rubber-stamp legislature... um, Congress
Eleanor: So-called evidence presented by Smirk against Iraq this week will be unconvincing to all but Larry
Tony: Gen. Abazase (sp?) will lead Operation Desert Bad Movie
Gerry: Saddam will soon be ex-president of Iraq
John: Haley Barbour will run for Mississippi governor
-- Donna Wynner
Meet the Press
Two lines will suffice...
Did White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card answer ANY questions Tim Russert asked??
Is Russert such a dolt that follow-up is nonexistent?
-- Steve Young
Reprehensible Sources
A "mere" celebrity makes monkey of Kurtzy...
Howard "Rush Is My Co-pilot" Kurtz made two mistakes this week:
1) Putting the focus on the completely inadequate coverage of last week's antiwar protests, assuming he could pull the "Was the coverage inadequate? Aren't those celebrities just a bunch of liberal airheads? The answers are no and yes, that's it for Reprehensible Sources..." wool over America's eyes.
2) Thinking that very hip and very funny celebrity Janeane Garofalo, who was out protesting last weekend, would be some sort of pushover.
Garofalo beat on Kurtzy, as Paul Begala is fond of saying, like a red-headed stepchild. It was a lot of fun to watch -- Kurtz would make a foolish assertion, Garofalo would subvert Kurtz's spin, leaving Kurtz coughing and grasping to regain his bearing.
We'd give you the play-by-play, but you'll have far more fun reading the transcript (http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0301/26/rs.00.html).
-- Gene Gaudette
JJ Balzer is a former television news producer. He lives in New York City.