Pundit Pap for March 9, 2003
Spin Points Yield No Case for War
Powell and Rice face the press armed with nothing more than mantras and buzz phrases
by the Pundit Pap Team

Mar. 9, 2003, 2:15 PM -- NEW YORK (APJP) -- There was but one topic this Sunday -- the run-up to a war that the Junior Bush seems intent on inflicting on the nation and globe, despite his stoned-sounding denials that war is a last resort and nobody wants one at a press conference late last week where he seemed to be working from two lists: one of "safe" reporters to call on (hence the snubbing of Helen Thomas and CNN's John King), one of spin points.

The truth is that most thinking people just don't believe the guy. And Shrub has completely failed to put together anything resembling an airtight case that Iraq is a direct threat to the United States -- in fact, International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohammad Al Baradei exposed a key piece of US evidence as a forgery on Friday, a major news story that, like the bugging of UN Security Council members by American spy agencies, is being completely quashed by corporate broadcast and print press.

To continue the "big lie" strategy of repeating the same, facile, easy-to-remember opinion points over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, the occupiers of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue sent the formerly diplomatic Secretary of State Colin Powell and rank amateur "terrorism isn't glamorous enough to pay attention to" National Security Wonk Condolleeza Rice.

They were less than convincing.

Here's a little of this Sunday's talk show proceedings:

This Weak
Is Steph's reign over ABC's perfectly awful show on life support?

Players:
George "Steph" Stephanopoulos, endangered pundit
Condi Rice

First, a little rumor-mongering based on a highly reliable source of ours in the broadcast news biz: the powers-that-be at ABC News are awfully concerned about the dismal ratings of their Sunday political blabfest, This Weak.

Naturally, the first inclination is to blame the "talent," and that is exactly what our source tells us is going on -- which is bad news for Brutus-like back-stabbing pundit George Stephanopoulos, who made a conspicuous effort to break away from bending over to be fair and came across as a little tougher on this week's yawn-packed episode.

And we can't argue -- Steph is no Lawrence Spivak. Never has been. Never will be.

But our source also tells us that the Mickey Mouse mandarins at the Disney-owned network are also scrutinizing the pompous palaver of moral hypocrite George F. Will, the single most overrated conservative blowhard on network television.

It's about time. Will's nonstop ranting about President Clinton's conduct during the so-called "Lewinsky scandal" and trumped-up impeachment -- despite his own history of infidelity -- remains one of the most egregious examples of corporate media arrogance in recent history.

Let's hope our source is right and both Steph and Will are shown the door.

But we hope they don't stop there. ABC News should also dump whoever is booking the guests (who are consistently the most boring on Sunday talk television when they are not White House partisan "superstars" sent to proffer Rove's PR agenda), producing the time-wasting "news" segments (which are about 80-90% redundant to viewers who watch these shows and already have a grasp of news, facts and issues) and insisting that ABC News correspondents insinuate themselves (if we want news updates, we'll switch over to CNN or BBC World, thank you). And how about limiting the round table to 10 minutes and enlisting a real progressive in the discussion -- or better yet, tossing the round table altogether?

After a brief introduction, Steph welcomed Condi, who launched into a few choice talking points. On the matter of the vote count in the UN Security Council for using force against Iraq, Condi said, "We are not in the business of a whip count." (You can bet she and her cohorts would be crowing that "the world has united behind our call for action against the Dictator of Iraq" if there was no threat of a veto -- and her dismissive comment, repeated on other shows this weekend, suggests contempt for the UN and an effort to deem them "irrelevant".) On the matter of diplomacy, Condi noted that Reverend Smirk is "making lots of phone calls" (as was illustrated on half a dozen big-city papers and dozens of Web news sites yesterday and today). On taking decisive action, Condi said, "it is time." (Translation: His Fraudulence will get his war on, and to hell with the rest of the world.)

Condi said that Saddam "can certainly" prove he has fulfilled his obligation by the 17th. "He's had three-plus months under a strict resolution... and he's still making demands..."

Obviously, Ms. Rice missed UN Chief Weapons Inspector Hans Blix's statement on Friday that inspections and compliance will take a few months.

Even Steph said that many nations argue at least another months is needed. Condi lied: "We need a strong Security Council," going into a long song and dance about, of all things, how the security Council failed to take action when there was genocide in Rwanda.

The fact is, Condi and the rest of the Simian Simp's handlers have had nothing but contempt for the UN, and her cynical comments about the need for a "strong Security Council" and the inexcusable Rwanda debacle suggest that the US is only interested in a strong UN when it is in our national interest. Fact is, most of the isolationist, anti-UN extremists in Junior's Junta didn't give a toss about Rwandan genocide in the first place.

More twaddle from Rice: "We think that the 17th is plenty of time for Saddam Hussein" to prove he is in compliance with UN resolution 1441.

Yeah, right.

Steph pressed Condi on the six "swing" votes on the Security Council: have any committed to vote with America? Condi's evasive answer and comment that she was 'hopeful" of a SC vote to go to war practically screamed no -- it is looking increasingly like Smirk is not getting support for war.

Steph said that French top dog Jacques Chirac has said heads of state should show up for the vote. Condi tried to demean the idea as ridiculous -- but Steph, to our delight, cut her off, pointing out the gravity of the situation. Condi said Smirk will call for a vote -- and if the votes weren't there, the US will go with its own coalition. She added that they are trying to get authority "one more time."

But there you have it. To hell with the rest of the world. To hell with the fact that some heads of state may show up here, in the US, for the UN vote. It doesn't matter, because Smirk will go it with only a handful of allies.

And Condi's stupefyingly blunt answer gave Steph an opening to recount a recent comment by Brent Scowcroft: America has acquired an image of arrogance and unilateralism under the Crawford Crook -- and action without UN support will hurt the war against terrorists. Condi boasted about a couple recent successes in the campaign to shut down Al Qaeda, claiming that the "war against terror" will be a success -- then raised the possibility of a terrorist group with chemical or biological weapons, wielding it like a fake severed head whipped out of a duffel bag. She tried to claim that the US is "defending the world" and the coalition will be composed of nations that have suffered under tyranny.

But what she didn't say is that it's looking increasingly like Iraq is far, far less likely to make such a move than, say, Iran or North Korea -- and the US has a history of providing chemical and biological weapons technology and material to -- you guessed it -- Saddam Hussein!

Steph then previewed a little of his interview with Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien, playing a clip Chretien's comment that Smirk has essentially already defeated Saddam and put him in a box. Condi went into a song-and-dance about Saddam's getting illegal funding and using the cash to try to rebuild his WMDs.

Oh, REALLY, Condi? Then why hasn't the US revealed this evidence?

Condi made more "damned if he does damned if he doesn't" comments, prompting Steph to blast Condi and Smirk for a policy of getting rid of Saddam even IF he complies. Condi fell back on the expected talking point: Saddam is obstructing this, that and the other; "Can you trust this regime?"

Can you be specific, Condi? Do you mean that butcher Saddam Hussein, or that pious simpleton, former Texas governor George w. Bush?

If I were producing political commercials, I would seize on that sound bite from Rice, cite every instance of the Frat Boy Administration lying to or deceiving the citizens of this country, then play Condi's "Can you trust this regime?"

Steph then shifted the focus to North Korea, asking hapless Condi if getting inspectors in North Korea wouldn't be a major diplomatic success. Condi gave a weak answer about "containment" and North Korea's attempts to acquire nuclear weapons. On this matter, Condi practically gushes about "multilateral" pressure -- but Steph cut her off again, saying that Japan, China and South Korea disagree with our wet-washcloth, hands-off approach to dealing with Kim Jong-Il -- North Korea is going forward with the re-nuking of the peninsula, said Steph, so isn't it better to talk now? Condi's ridiculous answer was that we need to wait and do it multilaterally. Then Condi insulted these countries saying they are playing politics.

Oh -- so Iraq, which has not directly threatened us and is contained, needs to be invaded -- but there's no crisis over North Korea, a state whose spokesman has said is prepared so set fire to New York, Washington and Chicago. That, Condi, is called a threat to the our homeland, our citizens, our nation. But to you and the Dunce-in-Chief, it's no crisis.

Steph then confronted Condi with TIME's scoop on Iran having reactivated its nuke program. Condi was forced to say it is a problem -- then LIED when she said that the US was alone in being worried, then blamed the IAEA for "missing" the highly secret program. Would Israel be justified in taking out Iran's nuke facilities? Condi avoided answering.

Is it in the US interest to capture and try Osama bin Laden? Condi refused to answer, using the excuse that Al Qaeda's bigger than Osama alone and we captured Khalid Shaikh Mohammad, and we are scoring "great victories."

God forbid Al Qaeda strikes again successfully. Those words will come back to haunt Condi -- a lot of good these "great victories" do if they hit us again

After the break, Steph very briefly introduced his interview with Canadian PM Chretien. How can the gulf between the US and UN be bridged? Chretien sounded discouraged; he wants to give Iraq specific targets and deadlines. Steph asked what Chretien is hearing from other Security Council members; Chretien said Saddam must disarm, but he thinks the US and UK movement of troops shows that Junior has already won -- Saddam cannot do anything, inspectors are in Iraq, every movement is being watched, and Saddam is neutralized. "You guys, you won the Cold War... and this is the same thing there [in Iraq]." Change of regime, said Chretien, is another matter. Would Smirk accept an additional two weeks if, say, Chile and Mexico asked him? Chretien did not seem encouraged. Yes, everyone wants Saddam to disarm (i.e. destroy WMDs and illegal missiles), and it is happening. Chretien speculated that the Chimp is scared to look as if he is dragging his own feet, and action without UN blessing makes the US, the sole superpower, look bad; many nations resent the possibility of a sole superpower, notably France.

Chretien also blasted America's short memory in the matter of Kosovo -- that intervention, which was fully justified, was not about regime change but stopping genocide. What about a UN peacekeeping force in Iraq? Chretien said that Iraq is already over a barrel with 250,000 troops surrounding the country.

When Steph announced the roundtable, we tuned out. George Will gives us migraines.

-- JJ Balzer

FAUX News Sunday
Iran's nukes! Horrors!

Players:
Tony Snow, the rapid-fire, sensationalist and entertainingly sarcastic chief inquisitor of FNS -- though he did not crack wise this week
Colin Powell

We decided to withstand the first half of FAUX News Sunday, and were surprised to see Tony immediately leading with the news that Iran has a nuclear program.

We're shocked! Shocked!

Tony's first guest: the less than statesmanlike Powell, who crabbed about people who want to see the Iraq matter "drag on and on and on" after saying the 17th is "the big date" (as if a "big date" justifies war).

Tony got Powell to admit he would not be surprised if France vetoes UN military action, then prompted Powell to spin Blix's presentation as a condemnation of Saddam's conduct. (C'mon, Colin -- we all know Saddam is scum, but Blix was not exactly justifying Smirky's war.) There was a lot of fast-paced questioning about hope that the UN Security Council will act and the horrors if it "fails to act" (we must've heard the words "fails to act" from various Smirk flaks about 100 times this weekend), "regime change," and the steps that will have to be taken before military action -- including warning journalists and self-described "human shields." Powell used the magic term "utmost care" in targeting Iraqi sites )as if this will excuse "collateral damage").

Tony smugly read part of Jimmy Carter's outstanding Op-Ed piece in the New York Times concerning the plummeting esteem of our nation on the world stage, then implied with a wink and a nod that Carter himself is damaging our nation. This gave Powell a wide berth to say that everyone loves peace, but if you do war well, then hell, everyone respects you.

Right, Colin. We are reminded of the situation in Poland on September 30, 1939. Ol' you-know-who sure did war well. Lotsa respect there, huh?

Powell then made believe that the Junior Regime thinks that the UN did a great thing by passing Res. 1441 -- but now it is waffling in the face of Rogue State Saddam's WMDs (unfortunately for Colin, Saddam has not threatened to use them first -- it's called a deterrent).

Powell also took a swipe at those cheese-eating, Perrier-swilling French for abstaining on a prior resolution holding ol' Saddam's feet to the fire -- forgetting that France has a huge hand in Iraq's oil business and fears what some extremist Muslims living in France might do if France supports attacking a "Muslim" country (even though Iraq is more a socialist state than an Islamist haven).

There was a little back-and-forth about Blix's "mixed reports" and specifically the US claims that Iraq has a fleet of WMD trucks. Is Blix getting it wrong? Powell said there is information from defectors that they exist (make that existed at the time of their defection -- and what about evidence inspectors have uncovered that these trucks are not geared to WMDs in the first place?). Powell claimed that there is a paper trail somewhere in Iraq -- then said that Blix was not doing enough about discussing "noncompliance," "deficiencies" and a "drone" plane that is supposedly banned (naturally -- because it would give the Crawford Regent an excuse to go to war).

Tony then embarrassed Colin over Team Smirk's claims that Saddam and Al Qaeda are in bed with each other. Powell's poorly-worded answer made it sound as if the CIA is going to invent such evidence!

When the subject turned to North Korea, Powell admitted that Kim's nuclear machinations are "a threat." That's right -- Powell used the "t"-word. It's about damn time someone in the Smirk Junta said it! But Powell then sounded completely hypocritical when he called for a multilateral solution, including food for starving North Korea people.

Hey, Colin: nobody objects to feeding the starving, but bring this little mess to the UNSC. Kim has threatened us. Kim has nukes. Saddam doesn't. Get your damned priorities straight!

And Tony turned to news in TIME that Iran, the "number one financier of terror" (WRONG! There's evidence that Saudi Arabia is top terror dog!), is ramping up a nuclear program. Powell said that the US has complained to Russia and the IAEA -- but it is impossible to hide such a nuclear program.

Tony said that TIME has also reported that the US has given intelligence to Blix and Al Baradei that is not being used. Powell said some of it cannot be used by inspectors (without clearly explaining why).

Somehow, Powell forgot to mention that outstanding intelligence coup concerning Iraq's having sought uranium -- that turned out to be completely bogus. Did it ever occur to Powell that maybe the UN doesn't trust the accuracy of US intelligence -- and for good reason?

Powell ended with a rant about the UN failing to be decisive about Saddam and Saddam "succeeding" in thwarting the international community unless the US rides in.

-- Donna Wynner and JJ Balzer

Face The Notion
Talking points prevail

Players: Bob Schieffer, in an unusually crabby mood
Condi Rice and her Fabulous Talking Points
Tom Friedman, skeptic from the New York Times

Bob Schieffer welcomed "Doctor Dilettante" Rice, who was bragging that the smart money is on 9-10 "yes" votes for a UN resolution. Rice again denied there was a whip count going on, instead going with the "final opportunity" bullet point (she said it four times) and the "Saddam failed to file a full declaration" prosecution. Bob said France intends to veto a resolution calling for further action. Condi went with the "UN Security Council is facing a test" (read: "we'll call the UN irrelevant if they don't kowtow") point, using the argument that the UNSC failed to act on Rwanda and Kosovo.

Tom Friedman confronted Condi with the fact that the US has lost a public relations war against Saddam Hussein on the global stage. Condi refused to address that fact, deflecting to the "Saddam has thwarted the UN for 12 years" talking point, followed by the "no one wants to go to war" lie. Friedman responded with the notion of a compromise -- give the matter a few more months. Condi said no, then cut off Friedman as he tried to make a follow-up point and argued that Saddam is letting documents out in dribs and drabs but "has not disarmed."

Schieffer's next question was ignored by Condi, who instead spewed more bullet points. But Condi sure was talkative when Schieffer turned the subject to Saddam concealing facts and WMDs. It also gave Condi the chance to pull out her big paranoid spin point on the "tyranny" of "terror groups" getting "weapons of mass destruction."

Well, she's right -- but Kim Jong-Il seems a far more likely source than Saddam.

Schieffer then confronted Condi on the non-ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda -- and Condi claimed one Iraqi operative is "spreading poisons throughout Europe" and that Al Qaeda sought Iraq's help on chem-bio weapons and got it.

But that last point makes no logical sense -- Osama bin Laden has condemned Saddam as a "socialist" and "bad Muslim."

Condi then argued -- poorly -- that Saddam has had it with sanctions and will give chemical or biological weapons to terrorists, and admitted that nation building in Iraq won't be easy -- then in a spin point reminiscent of John Dean, called Iraq a "cancer" on the Middle East.

Friedman then recounted his experience as a correspondent in the last war and the huge diplomatic effort Bush Daddy exerted -- then scathed Condi for being part of a poor diplomatic performance (ha!). Condi brushed off the comment. (But then, what else could she do? Admit her advice and ideas are all a failure?)

Then Schieffer dropped the big one on Condi, citing the bogus intelligence the US gave Al Baradei on Iraq seeking uranium. Condi looked frustrated -- the best she could do in response was say that the US has not rested her case, then tried to claim the documents might not be forged.

It was laughable. Mo slam-dunk case for war. No slam-dunk case for getting a second UN resolution. Not even half a case for showing the present inspections regime isn't working.

And these idiots in the Executive Branch actually wonder why the world isn't backing Little George against Saddam this time around.

If the situation weren't so dangerous, it would be laughable.

-JJ Balzer

Late Edition Quickie

As we were going to press, Wolf Blitzer was wrapping up a debate between arch-fascist and Defense Policy Board chair Richard Perle and former representative and Win Without War chairman Tom Andrews. Wolf mentioned an article in tomorrow's New Yorker in which Seymour Hersh exposes a conflict of interest Perle has -- evidently, he owns a huge chunk of a company poised to make a mint on homeland security contracts.

So what did Perle do? He responded by calling Sy Hersh the "closest thing American journalism has to a terrorist."

And Wolf pressed him -- just what did Perle mean by it? Perle looked caught off guard, as if he were thinking, "How DARE you make me justify my smear of Hersh, Wolf! You're supposed to be our ALLY! We're giving you RATINGS, dammit! You'd better BEHAVE! I'm NOT going to forget this!" -- but again Perle called Hersh a "terrorist" and said he hasn't done any decent journalism since his reporting on the My Lai massacre during the Vietnam War.

It was a great moment of self-immolation. Perle showed his real colors -- those of a reactionary, bullying, media McCarthyite stooge.

If Junior were smart (and we all know that matter too well), he'd take the proper steps to forever ban Perle -- a small-minded, arrogant, brownshirt amphibian turd -- from coming anywhere within a hundred yards of anyone associated with the Department of Defense for the rest of his life.

We're not holding our breath.

-- JJ

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

Donna Wynner is a lawyer. She lives in Fort Lee, New Jersey.