Pundit Pap for February 23, 2003
Save Estrada!
And, oh, yes, there's that little matter of Saddam...
by the Pundit Pap Team

Feb. 16, 2003, 2 PM -- NEW YORK (APJP) -- The morning papers were dominated by news of yesterday's worldwide protests against former Texas governor George W. Bush's push to go to war against Saddam Hussein.

This is extraordinarily bad news for the Doofus-in-Chief and his gang of mostly "chicken hawk" handlers -- especially after Colin Powell managed in a single week to present a pretty lousy case against Iraq to the UN Security Council, only to be followed days later by testimony from chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix and International Atomic Energy Administration chairman Muhammad al-Baradei indicating progress in inspections of Iraq and arguing a strong case for letting inspections continue.

Worse yet, the decision to raise the "terror alert" status to orange backfired miserably -- along with suggestions from the newly-established Department of Homeland Security that households stock up on duct tape and plastic sheeting. The public is getting fed up with the scare tactics of the present occupants of the White House -- and ex-governor Tom Ridge was put on the hot seat this pundit Sunday.

Here's a little of what we saw:

ABC This Weak
Enough to make you Chuck!

Players:
George "Steph" Stephanopoulos, ABC's political "boy wonder" who spends half the show acting as if he's still a liberal trying to be fair
Sen. Chuck "Chuck" Hagel (R-NE)
Sen. Charles E. "Chuck" Schumer (D-NY)
Rep. Charles B. "Chuck" Rangel (D-NY)
Former senator and 1996 presidential candidate Robert J. "Chuck... excuse me, Bob" Dole (R-KS)
White House/Smirk Consigliere Alberto Gonzales

Steph started off the festivities by welcoming Pfizer/Pepsi pitch man Bob Dole, who said that while he is generally antiwar (c'mon -- who isn't besides sociopaths such as, say, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Don Strange-Feld and Chimpy McWar-Boy?), one cannot base their judgment on one experience (in Dole's case, service in World War II). Sen. Hagel said that "real people die" and a war "can get out of control quickly." Rep. Rangel said that the decision should not come from only those who have had experience with war -- and then argued indirectly for mandatory national service (and you just knew he'd return to that idea).

Dole: "This is not a game." He predicted that there is likely to be a commitment of forces and "someone's gonna get hurt" (not exactly an optimistic assessment for the US). Is the country prepared for casualties? Dole said he thinks it is not at this moment, but predicted the nation will be ready.

Rangel is not convinced there is imminent danger from Iraq -- and singled out Saudi Arabia as a nation that has ties to terrorists (odd how we never hear hat point played up by the Oval Office). Rangel also warned that there is danger of America losing moral authority if we go to war with Iraq unilaterally, and called for the UN and all of its nations to fulfill their obligations.

Hagel pointed to a pending March 7 reporting date at the UN -- but said that it may not be the pivotal moment to decide whether or not to go to war.

Dole actually urged Smirk to work through the UN, and said, "He's going about it right" (well, not completely -- it would've been more accurate to say Shrubbie is going through the motions). Dole also fingered Saddam as "standing in the way of peace" (well, we agree that saying he's no Albert Schweitzer doesn't even begin to address Saddam's viciousness, but in the present mess Saddam wasn't the first one to rattle his saber and wasn't issuing Kim Jong-Il-like threats against the US).

Rangel said that taking out Saddam will not make America more secure -- and may trigger terror attacks against American interests.

Hagel said that the US is spread thin, pointing out the commitment of 1700 troops to the Philippines. Have we become overstretched? Hagel said we're close and cannot "push our people continuously until they break," adding that huge numbers of reserves have been called up and the tempo in fact cannot be maintained. (Hagel is reliably loyal to the GOP on most issues, but he has been consistent in having thrown this sort of cold water in the face of the Smirk Junta's Chickenhawk "Get Saddam" Brigade. Hagel's consistent honesty is a sign that war could become a divisive issue for the GOP.)

Dole denied that the US is arrogant and not out to conquer territory (as if the former is exclusively proven by the latter) -- and because France and Germany have different policies, we should not be deterred.

Rangel ended by pitching the draft -- and Hagel disagreed.

Then -- the Estrada nomination. White House counsel Alberto Gonzales acted indignant about Democrats' efforts to block a vote on his nomination, and tried to argue there is no precedent for turning over documents which may reveal Estrada's views. But Steph was prepared to do a little battle, and pointed out that there is in fact a precedent -- forcing Gonzales to say there's "no appearance of wrongdoing" (how utterly Ziegler-esque -- and spoken like a true defense counsel). Gonzales claimed there is ample information on Estrada (prompting a gale of laughter in our media room), then went on at length about the American Bar Association deeming him "well qualified" (as if we didn't know the ABA is dominated by GOPers and misjudges professional qualifications while conveniently ignoring ideology).

Steph put forward the obvious compromise: what about a deal whereby if the papers are turned over, the Dems will guarantee a vote? Gonzales indignantly said no (which only furthered the notion that Estrada has plenty to hide and that his highly coached testimony before the Judiciary Committee was intentionally deceptive), then tried to claim that Estrada was asked too many questions. (Translation; how dare Democrats try to expose Estrada's agenda... I mean, opinions?)

Steph then quoted Chuck Schumer, who said that Dems have a right to enforce balanced courts. Gonzales avoided comment on Schumer's point, instead talking about the ABA and "professional" qualifications. Steph then looked as if he was giving Estrada's boosters some free air time by playing part of an ad -- then cut off the ad, blasting it for falsely depicting Estrada's opponents as anti-Hispanic. Gonzales feigned indignance.

Steph, Steph, Steph -- how could you DO that to the White House's legal shark? Don't expect Ari to return your calls until you apologize!

Steph then welcomed Sen. Schumer, bringing up Gonzales' assertion that the White House will not turn over papers on the basis of no evidence of wrongdoing. Schumer, with a grin on his face, trashed the position by reminding viewers that Rehnquist documents had been turned over at the request of the Senate Judiciary Committee -- and adding this smacks of a cover-up, and one should be worried that Estrada is out to twist the law. Estrada, said Schumer, answered no probing questions, and "no other witness has so little [opinion] record" as Estrada. Estrada, added Schumer, refused to name three Supreme Court rulings with which he disagreed and refused to comment on Roe v. Wade. Estrada's conduct, Schumer continued, violated the spirit of "advise and consent." No judicial nominee, said Schumer, has had so little record of decisions and rulings -- as opposed to how he argued for a client -- and it is crucial that we know because so many issues are at stake. Schumer then made his position crystal clear: if Junior nominates a mainstream conservative, Schumer will vote for him -- but a court supervisor said that Estrada will go to extremes to get rulings that fit his ideology. When Steph cited a former Clinton staffer who said Estrada was highly professional (ha, ha, ha -- so were Ehrlichman and Haldeman), Schumer again demanded that Estrada and the White House be forthcoming -- and the nation is being denied an opportunity for the Senate to make an informed judgment.

So no papers and the filibuster continues? Schumer then did a little myth-busting, saying this is not a filibuster -- other work is coming up in the Senate and being voted on.

With the ridiculous round table coming up, we tuned out -- but not before we heard the ABC announcer say, "Divisions among the Democrats -- can the party get it together?"

As usual, ABC will do anything to depict Democrats, who at least debate issues among themselves rather than staying in doctrinaire, anti-thought lockstep, as weak and in chaos.

Maybe ABC should ask the same of Republicans following Chuck Hagel's skeptical comments on Smirk's little feud with Saddam.

But we're not holding our breath.

FAUX News Sunday

Players:
Wisecracking ultra-right-wing FNS host Tony Snow
"I just play a liberal on TV" moderate pundit Juan Williams
Boyish ultra-right-wing Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA),
White House Counsel Alberto R. Gonzales
Wisecracking smarter-than-the-pundits actress Janeane Garofalo

Tony Snow started the shill-for-Smirk festivities by:making a huge to-do about those al-Samoud missiles that UN inspectors uncovered (Oh, goody! grounds for war and ratings for Geraldo "Hallowed Ground" Rivera!) and the latest poll numbers -- which Tony actually spun as showing strong support for Generalissimo George!

Ha, ha, ha -- O-"spin"-ion dynamics at their best. Smirk's approval ratings are on the verge of going south of 50%, so Tony is grasping on that point.

Santorum was the first guest. He immediately stated that Saddam's only option is to "completely disarm" and "probably leave the country" (yeah, right -- dream on, Little Ricky). Tony responded by saying if he does not, the "president" (ha!) will act. Are you scared that -- God forbid -- the "president" will not act? (This question is tied to reports that some White House advisors -- the sane ones -- have been looking for a graceful way to ramp down the bellicose rhetoric and avoid a war.) And Santorum admitted as much -- Powell "won the argument" of going to the UN and now the world wants him to disarm (which means he acknowledges there is a way out -- but Little Ricky clearly wants Smirky's war on).

Juan Williams prompted Santorum to imply Hans Blix is not tough enough, but Juan replied by saying that a second resolution will require nine yes votes and no veto -- from France, naturally. Santorum accused France and Germany of "helping" Saddam. Tony bottom-lined Santorum: how much time 'til action? About a few weeks, thinks Santorum.

Tony then raised Smirk's biggest obstacle -- no evidence of WMDs. Are you confident he's got 'em? Yes, said Santorum, based on the fact that he has materials to make WMDs and has "those mobile units" (you know, the ones inspectors have determined are more likely for cleanup and elimination of WMDs -- what a disconnect). Tony played the faux skeptic, pointing out that no actual WMDs have been found.

Juan then turned to the cost of victory occupying and rebuilding Iraq. Santorum said -- catch this -- Congress "is not going to be concerned" about long-term costs (well, if you want proof that the GOP has abandoned fiscal discipline, look no further), then called Iraq a "wealthy" country (tell that to all the kids who have starved to death as a result of the West's miscalculated blockade). Juan blasted the GOP for their tax givebacks, and Santorum pushed the myth that tax cuts and the Smirk plan will make the economy strong.

And Tony, no deficit fan, chimed in with the point that we may run the largest deficit of all times. Santorum made it clear in his comments that he does not include Social Security ( a hint that the GOP's real goal is to destroy Social Security). Tony said that the Dems can be bought off on the war with concessions on the budget and programs front. Santorum seemed really happy that programs are being cut, but Tony, still a fiscally disciplined conservative, talked about the GOP "paying the price" before playing video of Gephardt blasting Smirk-o-nomics. Santorum tried to lie about Clinton having not "handed Bush a robust economy" (sticking to the lie about a so-called "Clinton recession") before trying to pitch Smirk as a guy who will fight for a strong economy (oh, yeah, he will -- just like he made Arbusto and Harken profitable for stockholders). Juan said some GOPers are backing off cuts to dividend taxes -- and Santorum said he would not back off.

Tony then turned to the arrest of a Florida professor for alleged ties to terror groups and other revelations concerning bad information; should the alert status be dropped? Santorum said no.

Funny, but Tony didn't raise the issues surrounding that professor's ties to George W. Bush and Karl Rove.

Tony, showing that FOX doesn't mind being... well, fact-challenged, welcomed Janeane Garofalo as a "leader" of Win Without War -- which, Garofalo pointed out, she is not.

That little faux-pas set the stage for a great and fast-paced back-and-forth between the very sharp Tony and much-sharper-than-pundits-expect Janeane.

Tony asked her about "just wars" -- and Janeane contrasted WWII with the first Gulf War, which in her eyes seemed more about oil than justice. Tony asked if Saddam was a mass murderer - -and Janeane said yes, but so is Turkey (as in the Kurds, not to mention the Armenians), so are our sanctions (bam! pow!), and Saddam was scum when he was our pal. And Janeane added that Saddam should be removed, but sending in the Turks to watch the Kurds isn't such a good idea.

Isn't Saddam eager to get WMDs? A lot of parties are, said Janeane, including Iran and North Korea -- and evidence shows Saddam is least likely of the three to get or use the most lethal threat, nukes. Tony tried to put words in Garofalo's mouth, and Garofalo said she had objected to and protested Clinton's Iraq policy -- and Tony kept saying the there was no opposition to Clinton while Janeane kept pointing out Tony was wrong.

Yow! Tony had met his match. Janeane would not be walked all over -- she is better informed, it would seem, than most Dems that appear on these shows.

But that is not the case -- many vested pols are scared to play their toughest cards and risk not being invited back. Being labeled an "entertainer" is in fact an advantage for Garofalo - she can get away with telling it like it is and landing a few jabs because in the eyes of the incestuous Washington press clubbers celebs just aren't credible and are, well, a little bit flaky. Janeane completely debunked that notion with her fast answers and tough but smiling stance.

And even Tony seemed to be enjoying mixing it up -- trying next to sow skepticism about inspections toppling Saddam and claiming the Clinton Administration did not go into war with Iraq -- and 18 European nations want to take on Saddam; Janeane said of course, because coercion goes a long way! (You go, girl!) Janeane also trashed right-wing think tanks for pushing occupation and in effect redrawing the map, and smashed Tony's attempt to dismiss it by pointing out the open calls from some right-wing quarters for American hegemony.

Janeane got in a few other swipes at the right -- the cost of an Iraq war and occupation, and the possibility of terror strikes. Tony had to conceded that even Osama hates Saddam -- why would the Arab street rise up in favor of Saddam? Janeane said they'd rise up against the US, and there have been protests against the US following our assault on Afghanistan.

Janeane said that she has as much access to info as ol' Tony. Tony kept arguing that other Arab nations want Saddam out and democracy in -- and Janeane pointed out the blunder of not funding the rebuilding of Afghanistan to better ensure democracy can grow there. Tony tried to say that Janeane wanted the Taliban back -- and Janeane ridiculed the notion, saying democracy would be ideal, but where is it in rural Afghanistan?

Tony's final question: if US troops are called into battle, will you support them? Janeane said she supports them now, and she'll support them through their coming home.

Great showing by Janeane in the face of solid and provocative questioning by Tony. This should be required viewing for Democrat politicians -- you can be tough and keep it genial with Tony.

We blew off FNS as soon as Gonzales appeared to reprise his spin from This Weak.

-- JJ Balzer

Reliable Sources February 24, 2003

Howie actually had on the brave and insightful Paul "The Man" Krugman, and Katty Kay of the BBC to point out the blatant cheerleading for war by the American media, and contrast it to the more balanced (and massively anti-Smirk) coverage in Europe and around the world.

What's this? Fair and balanced? Effective criticism of the media? On Howie's show?

Surely this is one of the signs of the Apocalypse.

Howie's other guest for this segment and for a one-on-one following it was David Frum. Frum wrote the asinine "Axis of Evil" line for the Arrogant Punk, which many people found out because Frum's wife blast e-mailed the giddy news that her darling husband had cooked it up. This is one for the list of all-time "counting your chickens before they hatch" moments, as the phrase was roundly condemned almost immediately, and contributed in a major way to both North Korea's current defiance and the isolation of the US from the rest of the known universe.

Of course, the fact that Frat Brat and all his henchmen had no objections to the phrase and kept it in the speech didn't matter. The blame was transferred to Frum -- and he was unceremoniously booted from his job at the White House soon afterwards. Perhaps his wife should have contained her urge to brag?

But what's even more bizarre is that Frum (or his agent) has somehow spun the writing of perhaps the single most reckless and irresponsible phrase uttered by a president in decades --- one which damaged international relations around the world --- into a successful book and a career as right wing pundit-du-jour. Only in America. His wife might be resisting the urge to brag these days, but one thing's certain: he's managed to make several dozens of times more money from screwing up than he ever would have had he kept his old job. More on this below.

Howie opened up by quoting Krugman's piece in the New York Times saying that the US cable networks were acting as if a war with Iraq was already a done deal and acting as if it were their duty to prepare the American public for war.

Howie asked Krugman incredulously, "So, are you saying that CNN and FOX are actually rooting for war?", as if such a thing is preposterous and would come as a huge shock.

Krugman unfortunately tried to soften the blow by saying that FOX certainly is, and CNN to a lesser extent. (Frankly, there's not much distinction in this area.)

Krugman pointed out that both FOX and CNN, as well as MSNBC have already gone into "war mode" with non-stop martial music and slogans, and otherwise acting like the war has already started. He then followed this up with a sterling bit of insight that of course won't be picked up much at all by others on TV: much of the reason that public opinion in Europe and other regions around the globe are so massively against Bush and his reckless war jones isn't so much cultural, or political, or irrational anti-Americanism, it's because they're not confronted with "SHOWDOWN IRAQ", "COUNTDOWN IRAQ", and "TARGET IRAQ" nonstop in their faces. In other words, their press isn't in the bag for the Bush administration and their misguided goals. These people have access to an open and honest reporting of the facts, and as a result are against Bush almost unanimously.

In other words, if the press in America didn't feel that they had to package and sell this war as if it was going to be a big new blockbuster mini-series, if the press in American would actually report the facts without attempting at every turn to blunt or even ignore issues critical of Bush, then the American public would be just as against the war as the more informed peoples of the world.

Then Frum opened up. He started out sounding reasonable but gradually slid into the typical right wing desperate attempt to dismiss, marginalize, and otherwise ignore the massive opposition to the war. Kurtz asked him if he thought there should be more time given to those opposed to the war on TV news. He started out with the lame excuse that the cable news networks didn't get even a fraction of the audience that network news does.

(So what? Are the network news programs all much less pro-war than the cable shows? Frum says Fox is pro-war, CNN, "much less so", and network news "much less yet.")

Frum then came out swinging against the European press by saying that they're "no models at all" to follow, and are "intensely anti-American" (IF that's so, why is that a reason to dismiss them as wrong?) and that somehow the American press is more accurate than the European press. (HA!)

He cited that the European press "swallowed the 'Janeane Hoax' story (sorry, I wasn't sure exactly how it's spelled, this is just how I heard it -- he tried to say "Jenin" but I swear it sounded "Janeane" as in Garofalo) wholeheartedly." Huh? I for one have no idea what he's talking about -- because, in a typical example of press arrogance, he did NOT explain what the hell the "Janeane Hoax" was and simply assumed we knew what he was referring to. But even so, is this his basis for arguing that the European Press always gets things wrong? He cites one example where the European press got roped in, and he tries to use that as proof that the European press is not credible? Surely one could come up with a list as long as your arm of stupid, lazy, blatant errors reported in the American press --- just in the past month!

Then he couldn't resist going into looney-land by saying that the European press fails to report "how much of the antiwar movement is in fact actively pro-Saddam."

Katty Kay then hipped Frum to the fact that the antiwar protests here were not as massive as those in Europe, so of course the protests got more coverage in the European press. Duh! She cited the size and scope of the protests as "epoch-making" and noting that they were the single largest peacetime demonstration EVER, said of course that would get coverage.

Frum tried to dismiss this as paying attention simply to numbers, without paying attention to the content of the protests messages. He then tried to pull out a straw man by mentioning that one of the speakers said that Kurdish demonstrators were "CIA stooges."

Well, gee, Dave, I guess that means that the entire protest was phony, that all of the MILLIONS of protesters were way-out radicals, and the largest demonstrations in history can be safely ignored. You idiotic scared little right-wing white boy, you.

Of course, someone should remind Frum that in the US, not only did the protests themselves get less coverage than they warranted, but there was NO attempt to report the messages of the speakers or anything else. In other words, the US media was more guilty of ignoring the content and message of the protests in favor of arguing numbers and focusing on the few protesters that they felt would be most offensive to the public --- by far!

Kay forcefully pointed out that the US press really showed its hand by routinely dismissing the crowds numbering in the millions were "your classic protesters", and that they were NOT in any way "typical" whatever that means, and included thousands of middle-class people, many of whom had never demonstrated, many of them conservatives.

Krugman noted that the protests were literally right outside FAUX's windows, yet they reported the protesters as "the usual serial protesters" and used very few pictures to convey the notion that they were all "bearded flag-burners" which was flat out wrong.

Then he again, reflexively, said CNN was "better than that." He concluded that we should realize that someone is wrong, maybe even both sides, but that the fact is that someone is not reporting reality. "It's been spectacular", Krugman concluded.

Then amazingly, Kurtz, who is completely co-opted by the most fringe elements of the right and in full suck-up mode, quoted ANDREW SULLIVAN referring to the BBC as the "Baghdad Broadcasting Service." Krugman just laughed and said Sully wasn't exactly the "most objective observer, shall we say."

Kay noted that she had BBC correspondents in Iowa and elsewhere across the country reporting on the antiwar movement, and that she found it refreshing because it was not getting any coverage here in the US.

Krugman then took a step back from all of this and told us what had happened in the press.

"Something remarkable happened in the US. Even if you think this is right, the war on Iraq is the right thing, something very odd happened. Here was one guy, Osama bin Laden, who launched a terrorist attack, and the administration, aided by the networks, including the broadcast networks, by the way, that's a canard, have engaged in this sort of transference. Bush himself, as best as we can make out, last mentioned Osama bin Laden in a speech last June. Suddenly, it like Osama, Osama, Osama, Saddam, Saddam, Saddam and the networks, the broadcast media simply picked that up and transferred our feelings of alarm and anger from one villain to another villain, a villain no doubt, and that didn't happen in the rest of the world, and that more than anything else is the reason why views of world are so different from the US."

Frum, the idiot, unable to counter this cogent argument, simply reverted to blathering about how he was THERE, in London during the protests, (well, not these protests that are the subject of the show, but some back in October) and he saw with his own eyes, REAL LIVE RADICALS. He heard slogans being said IN ARABIC, he heard Muslims saying ALLAH'U ACKBAR (God is great.) How did he survive?? There poor little David Frum was, right in the midst of actual Muslims!! (Of course, all Muslims to David and his pals are scary, swarthy terrorists.)

Big freaking deal, David.

You have a million people gathered to protest the war, and you actually see some fringe elements? Imagine that! The shock! The horror! And of course, this means that the entire movement is wrong and unworthy of attention, right? One can't imagine a more ridiculous argument to dismiss the massive antiwar opinion. It's truly revolting, yet this is the one tactic that's used by the right over and over and over and over again. Find a handful of fringe wackos in a crowd of hundreds of thousands, and focus on them like a laser beam and try to smear the entire masses of people as if they're all way-out radicals and wild-eyed bomb throwers.

Everyone but the most ignorant knuckle-draggers can sense the rank dishonesty and sliminess of this type of argument. What next? Frum and his ilk arguing because the former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke actually won a Republican primary, proving that there's a large element of the Republican party that consists of virulent racists, that therefore the entire party should be dismissed and abolished? Hell, I might even jump on that bandwagon. Smearing a group of millions by holding up a few as typical is dishonest, stupid, and a blatant attempt to lie.

Then little David went on to say that the British press treat their politicians "like hunted animals -- like LIARS!" in a disgusted tone. Oh my God, David, is your entire being shaken by the fact that in a country with an unfettered press they actually don't treat their politicians like some sort of untouchable Gods? Did this scare you to think that maybe the people you've served might not be infallible and paragons of everything holy? Does it scare you to death of what things would be like if we in the US actually questioned and doubted our leaders like they do in Britain? Do you secretly realize that Bush wouldn't last a month if they did?

Katty Kay explained that the British press is traditionally more aggressive, which put another way, is to say that they're not fawning and cowed little sycophants and a branch of the White House press office as they are in the US She noted that the most pointed questions asked during Blair's appearance with Bush at the White House came from the British press. To this Frum was only able to mutter, "It's also your attempt to elbow the politician out of the story." Can anyone tell me what the hell THAT means? I admit I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I have NO earthly idea what the hell Frum is talking about there. Any help?

And of course, his notion that the British press is so horrible and disrespectful implies that the US press is always decorous and refined. Oh sure. Yep.

A horrified Howie then actually tried to push this angle by asking "What about when British tabloids show a picture of Tony Blair with BLOOD on his hands? It would seem that some elements of the British press is --- part of this antiwar movement."

Sure, Howie! After all, anyone that REPORTS on antiwar efforts is automatically part of it and actually creating it. What bullshit. I don't see millions of people in the street demonstrating FOR the war, despite the fact that the media has been nearly 100% pro war. If the press could create and whip up such massive public antiwar sentiment, as Howie dim-wittedly suggests the British press somehow has, then why hasn't it worked in the US?

To Howie's mock horror at the crudeness of a British tabloid, Krugman quickly shot back with the example of the New York Post running a huge front page picture of the UN security council with the heads of the German and French ambassadors replaced by the heads of weasels. And Kay cited the Sun publishing a special anti-French issue on Sunday which called their leader a "worm." She noted that this has brought back an old pastime of the British press which is France-bashing.

This prompted Frum to come out of his shell and show his true concerns. He walked off the deep end saying that the favorite pastime of the British press isn't France-bashing -- it's Israel-bashing, and again brought up this "Janeane Hoax" or whatever it is.

This "hoax" obviously just bugs Frum tremendously. I'm not even aware of what he's talking about, but it appears it was something that cast Israel in a bad light -- and since Garofalo is not Israeli, I can at least rule HER out. Howie tried to shut him up and move on, but Frum insisted on again holding this up as some sort of proof that nothing the British press (evidently all of it as a whole) can be trusted.

Get a hold of yourself, Dave! You sound positively freaked out.

It's worth noting that the large headline running under the screen was "America-Bashing Abroad" Why is anything critical of our policy instantly labeled "bashing?"

Howie then turned to Krugman's criticism of Bush's dishonest and irresponsible financial policies and asked how it compares to his war coverage. Krugman said that he thinks they're quite different, saying Bush has gotten a free pass from the press on domestic policies, and finds it amazing that his obvious lies regarding his budget policies have been left largely unquestioned. But as to coverage of the war, he notes that the media has magically moved forward in time and covering the issue as if the bullets were already flying. Krugman said that though there's a bias toward conservative views on Dim Son's domestic policies, "the war is something else, it's a different level", it's nothing compared with the dramatic difference between how the US press covers this looming war crisis compared with the rest of the world's media.

Howie asked the BBC's Kay if Smirk doesn't get a lot of respect in the European press and this spills over into the war coverage. She said there is a "vitriol" in the European press as far as anti-Americanism. But she said America being portrayed as a gun-toting Texan cowboy is more related to how hated Bush is across Europe. It's very personal, or as she put it, "there is something about George Bush's style that gets Europeans' backs up," noting that this started not only before the march toward Iraq, but even before 9/11. Put plainly, our Fearless Chimp is the focus and cause of the rampant stance against America.

In so many words, she simply stated that Europeans don't hate Americans, or even America, so much as they simply loathe George W. Bush and everything he is about. Like millions of Americans, they find him to be a despicable, shallow and dangerously arrogant menace to the world. The fact that this is such a shock to people like Howie and Frum and the rest is very puzzling to the Europeans, as they can't understand why any thinking person could think otherwise. To them, it's not "America-bashing", it's doing what they've always done, and what Americans USED to do, which is, speak out clearly and forcefully against leaders and policies that they feel are dreadfully wrong.

And what Frum and other Bush-worshipers can't get through their heads is that opposition to Bush is not only legitimate, it's overwhelming. They simply can't -- or refuse to -- comprehend that Bush and his team are almost universally opposed and their policies reviled. Since the press whores are so far into denial when faced with a massive demonstration of opposition that can't be ignored despite their best efforts to just make it go away, they frantically resort to saying, as Frum did, that because a few papers got caught in some unknown hoax, that therefore the entire British press is "untruthful", as he put it. Or that somehow the majority of the world that is against Bush are all just... well... wrong. Or that the fact that some fringe radicals are attracted to the antiwar demonstrations that therefore the views of the rest of the millions of people should be summarily dismissed.

That just doesn't cut it.

The last segment was Howie interviewing Frum about his book and the media's reaction after his firing after less than two years as White House speech writer. This entire segment was nothing but a set up to allow Frum to explain how one producer contacted him and seemed to be wanting to find out if he had any "dish" on the White House. This of course was gleefully held up as sinister evidence that the "liberal" press were only out digging for something negative on Bush. And of course, it gave Frum the opportunity to pose as a semi-heroic figure for refusing to reveal the truth about Bush. He said that when the producer asked him about if he had any complaints about Bush, Frum went into "full spin mode" as he put it, and started reciting in good Republican robotic soldier manner how Bush was good, strong, a leader, etc. etc. Dave thought this was really funny.

Good boy, David. By lying for Bush, you ensured that they'd reward you by mobilizing the right wing book patrol to buy up your book and run it up the charts, and that they'd pull strings to get you on TV and make millions of dollars -- whereas if you had simply told the truth, you'd probably never work again. You're right, you truly ARE courageous Dave. You're no Susan McDougal, that much is certain.

Howie started by letting Frum expound about how he considered suing Robert Novak for "insinuating" that Frum was fired, which he obviously was. So Frum called Novak and asked him to correct it, and Novak told him basically to go to hell.

Howie jumped in, as is his habit, to put words in Frum's mouth and make sure the story line is followed. Kurtz filled in the blanks saying that Novak had reported on his wife's fawning e-mail, "in which she'd credited you, rightly, with your phrase in the State of the Union speech, originally "Axis of Hatred."

Yeah Howie, that sure deserves credit, though not positive.

Frum said that he went to the White House press office and asked them to issue a statement saying that this was false, because it made him look bad. Frum then said that the person in the press office responded by saying, "Makes YOU look bad? It makes the President look bad! It makes him look petty and vindictive!"

Gee, that's just hard to fathom. Smirk, petty and vindictive? Perish the though! Lord.

So Frum has made his millions and sold thousands of books without committing the sin of slinging mud on Golden Boy Bush. If this had happened during Clinton's years, the person would have been pursued to spin even the very slightest complaint into some major bit of evidence of Clinton's lack of morality and character. Evidently the publishing world fears that being critical of Bush would might sell a few less books. And they may fear vicious retribution and economic pressure and intimidation, as well, so they not only don't encourage dirt on Bush, they actively discourage it. But Clinton bashing was money in the bank, defending him was the kiss of death and obscurity. With Bush, the situation is exactly the opposite. And they say that conservatives have no control over what the public receives in the media. Aren't we lucky?

In his final segment, Howie saw fit to mock and ridicule Bill Clinton for actually having the nerve of appearing on TV. Obviously, the only acceptable situation for Howie and the rest of the clowns would be if Clinton simply disappeared. They seem to think that it's ugly and disgusting for the youngest ex-president in history to ever appear in the media.

Howie quoted James Fallows as saying that Clinton is "still running for something", namely, to save his legacy.

Kurtz then made this brilliant statement: "Former presidents usually just fade away, but Bill Clinton's determined to talk his way back into the spotlight."

You blithering idiot, Howie! Ex-Presidents just fade away? Oh, really? Aside from Reagan's cognitive abilities, I don't know of any former presidents just fading away. And amazingly, the fact that the media recognizes that the public is ravenous to hear what a REAL president has to say is merely evidence that Clinton is "determined to talk his way back into the spotlight."

You freaking moron, Howie. When was Clinton ever OUT of the spotlight? How can he be determined to get back IN the spotlight when he's never been OUT of it?

There's no limit to the shallowness and truly foolish lengths Howie and others will go to to display their raving jealousy of Clinton and how popular he still remains. It freaks them out every time he gets on camera! They just can't get over the fact that the person they staked their careers on destroying is still standing tall and is as popular as ever, if not more.

And no wonder they'd want him to disappear. Every time Clinton is shown simply standing somewhere, he immediately shows what a totally incompetent moron Bush is by comparison.

-- Dash Riprock

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

Dash Riprock is a freelance smart aleck based in Moline, IL. If he's made you laugh, cry, think, or caused your psoriasis to flare up, let him know at dashriprockapj@hotmail.com.