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

Pundit Pap for April 27, 2003
We're sick of SARS -- but at least there's less Iraq blather!
by JJ Balzer & Dash Riprock

April 27, 2003 (NEW YORK) -- The top three issues for the pundit shows we watched -- the only issues we saw, in fact -- were Iraq, SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome), and the Idiot Prince's proposed tax givebacks, which have run into trouble within the GOP.

It was noteworthy that a major foot-in-mouth flap remained undiscussed, at least on the programs we caught: idiot Pennsylvania junior senator Rick "Little Ricky" Santorum's bigoted comments comparing gays to pedophiles, polygamists, and practitioners of bestiality. Gays are up in arms -- heck, even one polygamist sect in Utah is reportedly furious at Little Ricky for his ill-considered blather. Apparently, the White House has put out a de facto "gag order" to GOPers on the issue, and corporate media are following suit. So what else is new?

And then, of course, there was the admission by a White House source that Generalissimo Junior and his White House essentially lied about the justification for his little war with Saddam by over-hyping the "weapons of mass destruction" angle.

And, in Iraq, it seems that our armed forces -- after nearly a month -- have found fourteen barrels near Saddam's home town of Tikrit, one of which has preliminarily tested positive for nerve gas and blister gas.

This only served as a reminder that our forces have failed to turn up the tons and tons and tons and tons and tons and tons and tons and tons and tons of chemical and biological weapons that Smirk, Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld kept trying to convince us Saddam was going to use against us. Never mind the fact that a third of the countries in the world -- including Arab neighbors of Saddam who didn't entirely love him -- also have WMDs, and even people in the State and Defense Departments have said that Saddam may well have been able to argue he was justified in having a deterrent capability.

But then, it's Smirk's world, baby -- we only live in it.

Here's your Sunday blast of political pap.

This Weak with George Stephanopoulos
Bob Graham struts his stuff
Players:
George "Steph" Stephanopoulos, who isn't looking too boyish lately (could somebody be worried about their job, maybe?)
Senator Bob Graham (D-FL), candidate for the Democrats' presidential nomination
Anthony S. Fauci, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and former CDC boss

Boy wonder Steph began his interview with Graham by saying that the candidate is only drawing 2% in a recent Pew poll (ha, ha, ha -- right, with just under a year until the New Hampshire primary) -- and then gave Graham a chance to rattle off his issues (stronger anti-terrorist mechanisms and policy, health care reform, and protecting Social Security). Steph said Graham had voted against the war resolution with Iraq -- but Graham said that he would support a comprehensive resolution for war against the world's most violent terrorist groups (a good and savvy political move, as this also targets the biggest troublemakers in the Middle East such as Hezbollah and Hamas along with Al Qaeda -- Jewish and even most Arab voters see this as a key to resolving instability that even predates the founding of Israel).

Steph said he had not mentioned Iraq, and that Rummy said the US would not allow an Islamic republic there. Graham shrewdly injected the word "quagmire" into the mix (expect other Democrat prez-wannabes to do the same, and use the same term in reference to Afghanistan), saying that we are now dealing with such a mess in Iraq given that there is now a good chance that Muslim extremists will be elected to office while the US is stuck footing the bill for reconstruction. (And if you think that image bothers you, imagine what you average Joe Sixpack GOPer thinks about that prospect -- can you say failed diplomacy, failed foreign policy, failed military policy?)

Would Graham pull out of Iraq? No, said Graham, he'd pull others in -- other nations, and other parties to help foot the bill (this could be a winning issue for Democrats -- reminding voters that spend-and-spend Republicans stuck Jane and Joe Public with the bill for Iraqi reconstruction).

Steph mentioned Graham's call for cruise missile strikes against Hezbollah camps in Syria -- but it seems Iran is a bigger supporter. Graham corrected Steph, saying he would use diplomacy first -- convince Syria to shut down the camps. And while Iran nurtured Hezbollah in the 1980s, their military and control presence has shifted to Syria.

Graham then blasted the clueless Texas W. Twit for handling North Korea with "kid gloves," and said Smirky made a "mistake" by not nipping the matter in the bud early on. Steph said US-China- North Korea talks have broken down -- would he take military action against that reactor? Not based on the information Graham said he has; instead, the US has to rein in Kim Jong-Il's capability to deliver a nuke, so the military option should not be off the table.

Steph then dared mention that Smirk is mixing war backdrops with his new campaign for his top domestic agenda priority, namely handing your hard-earned money over to the rich in the form of inequitable so-called "tax cuts." (Steph, you know Karl Rove is NOT going to like your pointing out that Junior is using the war for political purposes!) How will Graham take the issue on? Instead of answering the question, Graham rattled off a list of Smirk's failures -- the war against terrorism, the failure to take on terrorist groups in a realistic way. Steph brought up health care, and Graham applauded Gephardt's "bold" health plan and said he would look to eliminate the tax cut, then unfavorably compared Gephardt's plan to the "failed... Bill and Hillary Clinton" plan.

Failed? It never had a chance, given the way that any reform of health care was attacked back in '93 by the insurance and HMO industries while the "liberal" press played up stories that fed hard-right deceptions about "socialized medicine" and a litany of made-up "horrors" that go with it.

Graham said he wants a plan that covers all kids and retirees who lose their former employers' coverage in other words, a plan that protects the scamming insurance industry status-quo for working families stuck with their employers' health plan). Steph said it is not universal health care -- and Graham said yes, it makes a substantial impact on people who need insurance. (But what about current victims of industry price-gouging?)

Steph and Graham talked Smirk-o-nomics, and Graham said that it would be better to give Americans a break from the payroll tax. "When you're in a hole, the first thing you do s stop digging" -- and Graham pointed directly to Chimp Boy's tax givebacks as the hole-digger. Graham also emphasized his support for balanced budgets, and the sudden 180-degree turn from Clinton's multi-trillion dollar surpluses to George the Lesser's 2 trillion so far in projected deficits. Graham said it would take a few years to balance the budget -- because of the hole Smirk has put us in. Can you balance the budget in five years? Ten? Graham thinks it would take about five years.

Graham then decried the failure of the health care system to be prepared for an epidemic -- and talked SARS as an immigration issue. Rebuilding the public health system, he said, will also take years. (This struck us as an odd take on SARS, especially given that the outbreak seems to be contained in the US -- and there have as of press time been zero deaths from SARS in the US.)

Steph said that Kerry has said he will only appoint pro-choice judges. Graham said he would not apply a litmus test -- he will only appoint judges seen as "even-handed and judicious". (C'mon, Bob -- you know that this "litmus teat" talk is engineered to inflame social conservatives and religiously insane moralists. It's time to change "litmus tests" from reproductive rights opposition to membership in the Federalist Society or any other organization focused on politicizing and corrupting the judicial branch.)

Steph showed Graham on the campaign trail - working with blue-collar Americans. Graham said he has "worked" over 300 jobs in his tenure, and as for accusations that it's a gimmick -- well, he all but admitted it was one that he had learned a great deal from as he talked about working Americans. Steph tried to turn Graham's detailed "notebooks" on his work into an issue -- and Graham said he does it to record the concerns of constituents and citizens, and there is a failure of politicians to listen and act. In the last few days, he said, he met with an investment banker, and took copious noted on his ideas and suggestions. Graham said his first 12 years of notebooks are at the University of Florida Library.

Steph made an issue out of Graham's heart surgery, but Graham made a little light of it.

In his final question, Steph made mention of election-fixer-turned-Congresswitch Katherine Harris -- did Smirk win fair and square? No -- in fact, Graham said that corrected "mistakes" could have shifted MORE THAN ONE STATE from Smirk's column into Gore's -- and the Supreme Court made the decision to stop the counting (to our amazement, Steph did not reproach Graham for daring to bring into question the legitimacy of Usurper Boy -- nor did he stay away from the radioactive issue of GOP schemers fixing elections throughout the country). Graham stopped just short of saying that the Supremos usurped the power of the vote from the people (he should have gone all the way -- running against politicized judges might prove to be one of the strongest issues for Democrats next year).

Graham then talked about the children, specifically his grandchildren -- and what we need to do to secure their freedom.

Steph's second guest was Anthony Fauci. TIME and Newsweek are running SARS as cover stories, said Steph; is the SARS epidemic under control? (Steph should have been more clear that he was asking about the disease at a global level.) Fauci said not at this time -- but it's also too early to tell how bad it is. Right now, the priority is to get it under control.

Steph, obviously out to scare viewers, said that SARS has been described as a "crafty" virus. Fauci said this could be an example of a microbe that "jumped species." Are there any signs that SARS is spreading in the US? No, and the US was ahead of the curve.

Steph, seeming out of the loop, asked if the CDC can impose a quarantine -- and Fauci reminded him that Smirk has already signed an executive order adding SARS to diseases for which authorities can authorize quarantine. What about a vaccine? Fauci said it will take time -- but they have a SARS DNA sequence and it is easy to culture. Did the WHO go too far in issuing a travel warning to Toronto? Fauci all but said yes -- "they erred a bit more on the side of caution."

The round table would follow -- which would mean having to put up with George Will on and off for a half hour. It seemed like a good excuse to change channels...

-- JJ Balzer

FAUX Jazeera State News Sunday
We can PROVE those ties between Saddam and Osama... sort of... maybe...
Players:
Tony Snow, conservative king of Sunday morning
Ahmad Chalabi, alleged thief and Dicky Perle's Iraq soq puppet
Julie Gerberding, CDC honcho

Tony Snow started the festivities by using a FAUX Jazeera "news update" on Iraq to bolster Smirky's questionable claim of Saddam-Osama ties -- this time using some newly and questionably "uncovered" documents and additional curious claims surrounding botulism.

Huh? What did they find? A thirty-two-year-old can of Bon Vivant Vichysoisse?

(We know, we know -- that one may be lost to many GenXers. It's a reference to a notorious botulism food-poisoning incident that put the Bon Vivant brand out of business, might ring a bell with some of the baby-boomers.)

Tony's first guest -- why, it was alleged bank swindler Ahmad Chalabi (http://apj.us/20030415Baker.html). There was a bunch of back-and-forth about catching key members of Saddam's inner circle and speculation about where Saddam is -- Chalabi believes he is alive and (gasp!) has suicide vests! (Ooooh! We can't see them going with Iraqi military olive greens! Talk about over-accessorizing!)

Tony mentioned that piece in the UK's arch-Tory rag the Telegraph concerning alleged documents "linking" Saddam and Al Qaeda -- and Chalabi said there was evidence of a tie, but backed off on claims of close ties (well, no duh: Osama recently called Saddam a "socialist" and a "bad Muslim"). But Tony sure did, by asking if Saddam or the Mukhabarat participated in the Sept. 11 attacks on America. Chalabi claimed that the Iraqis were in on it. (Based on what, Ahmad?)

It was clear that Tony's top goal this Pundit Sunday was to tie Saddam inextricably to Al Qaeda -- and provide justification for Smirky's little feud. He was not doing a good job, though -- however, when you consider the political leanings and lower intelligence of the average FAUX viewer, it was obvious that Tony was more interested in synthesizing a tie between the two than proving one.

Tony prompted Chalabi to claim that there is evidence that has been uncovered about locations of Iraqi WMD. "You are confident, then, that they will find evidence of weapons of mass destruction."

"Evidence of weapons." Nice spin, Tony -- but here's a fact: more than one-third of the world's nations have WMDs, including neighbors of Iraq not necessarily friendly toward or trusting of Saddam. What would be most surprising would be to find absolutely nothing. What has been most embarrassing to the Smirk Junta has been a parade of false alarms -- and NO 100% verified and proven chemical or biological weapons found so far. Only ABC was reporting that the military had located about 14 drums of suspicious chemicals, one of which passed preliminary tests for chemical weapons -- not even FAUX Jazeera was talking about it.

Tony asked about evidence that Air Force pilot Scott Speicher, downed during Desert Storm, may still be alive; Chalabi kept talking about Saddam's Mukhabarat. Tony said that Jay Garner is assembling Iraqi leaders for a meeting tomorrow -- will Chalabi attend? Chalabi has not decided -- a sure sign that those Iraqis who had the courage to stick it out in Saddam's Iraq see the accused fiduciary fraudster as an outside interloper and a bit of a coward.

Tony then immediately turned to SARS -- an ideal FAUX story, in that it involves plenty of paranoia, sensationalism and fear. His guest: Julie Gerberding. Is the story over-hyped? Gerberding said no, but did say that wearing masks in the street is a bit much and that it looks to be less contagious than the flu.

There was no real news in the segment -- just the use of images of "appropriate precaution" to make people afraid of a disease that has not killed anyone in America yet and hasn't hit many people outside of travelers and health-care workers. Both Tony and Gerberding made only quick mention of the fact that nobody has died of the disease yet in the US -- but there was lots of talk about ventilators and slow recovery.

Did the WHO overreact with their travel advisory concerning Toronto? Gerberding did not say yes, instead pointing out that it was people traveling out of Toronto who were the problem (but did not add the words "as opposed to a huge-ass, out-of-control disease outbreak, which is NOT the case").

Will it ever become necessary to prohibit travelers from certain countries? Gerberding said it was unlikely, and said the emphasis is on early detection.

Tony cut to the half-hour break - and we'd pretty much had enough of FAUX for the week anyway.

-- JJ Balzer

Face the Nation
Gerberding Redux
Players
Bob Schieffer, unpredictable host
Julie Gerberding, again
Sen. Lincoln Chafee, jacking up the blood pressure of the Appointed Doofs and the Congresional Must Cut Taxes On the Rich Caucus
Sen. Lindsey Graham, Clinton crotch-sniffer turned lying Senator

We missed the first minute of FTN, but tuned in as Bob Schieffer got Julie Gerberding to say that the main concern surrounding SARS is that health care professionals will get it and that it is not as contagious as the flu -- priority one is to isolate cases and ensure their recovery. Is this a deadly disease? Most people who get it do fine, but there is a 6% death rate (Gerberding failed to say that there were no deaths in the US). Schieffer asked about a vaccine, and Gerberding said it is at least a year away.

How bad is the situation in China? Gerberding said it was "percolating" before it came to light, and China has responded well in the urban environment -- the big question is how well it is being controlled in rural China. The other danger is that many nations do not have the health infrastructure to handle the situation. Schieffer dragged kids into it ("If you have kids, what do you do?"). Gerberding said people should pay attention to their travel plans and those who have come down with SARS. "So people shouldn't travel to Toronto." Gerberding basically skewered the notion, in that SARS was for the most part limited to a religious community in Toronto. Schieffer asked about wearing masks in public -- and Gerberding depicted that as overkill; they should be used where exposure to SARS cases is likely.

Then came the best moment of the pundit weekend - Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-Proven Liar) vs. Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-Actually Makes Sense). Graham claimed that Smirk's tax givebacks... ahem, tax "cuts" create jobs and then spouted some irrelevant numbers about tax revenues, continuing to put the emphasis on "jobs" and "not undermin[ing]" Chimpy's "efforts" (translation: Chafee's ruining it all for the rich, damn him). Schieffer said the votes are not there for a $725 billion cut, and Chafee said that Voinovich and Snowe are getting huge pressure from their states (read: from hard-right loonies) -- but now Grassley is also opposing it, and Chafee dared skewer supply-siders by saying that tax cuts do not stimulate the economy or create jobs, but balancing the budget does (yeah, baby), then finished with a blast at Smirk's deficits. Does he support the $300-plus-billion cut? No; he said he voted for it just to reduce the tax cut. Chafee said that fixing Iraq is going to be enormously expensive. Lindsey, showing his lack of clear thinking, claimed that Dems support tax cut -- and claimed that the Congress has not shown fiscal restraint since 1998.

Liar! There were surpluses AFTER 1998. But then, what should one expect from a proven liar and hypocrite?

Graham claimed that the tax cuts would "put money back in the economy and create jobs" (but the fact is that most rich people will sit on this money and not stimulate the economy with it). Schieffer then turned Graham into a hypocrite -- quoting his criticism of tax cuts as budget-busters, then asking if he has flip-flopped. Graham, of course, did not answer, falling back on Roveian talking points ("growing an investment fund... Social Security... blah, blah, blah"). Chafee said that we could not afford the big tax cut in 2001 -- and he does not think that even Graham believes in these tax cuts (in other words, he called Lyin' Lindsey a fraud). The first thing Congress should do, he said, is address the deficit.

Schieffer then mentioned ads (by the ultra-conservative Club for Growth, which immediately brings to mind the Hair Club for Men) who attack, in their words, "so-called Republicans" Snowe and Voinovich -- and even compare them to the French (which only serves to remind sane Americans of how stupid and childish French-bashing is). Graham tried to distance himself from the ads ("I don't wanna beat on Snowe") but said "I wanna stand behind mah president." Chafee suggested that it is time to reexamine the first round of tax cuts -- and maybe even repeal the dividend tax cut of spring 2001!

That was that for the segment -- but we have to point out that Graham sounded doctrinaire to the point of incoherence, and Chafee beat him like, as Paul Begala likes to say, a bad piece of meat.

Schieffer also had the best last word of the week -- blasting former American Airlines boss Thomas Carty for getting workers to make concessions after having protected senior executives from anything approaching sacrifice. All his mea culpas, said Schieffer, amounted to nothing -- he was fired. Carty, said Schieffer, is emblematic of business executives who are all business and no ethics.

It's about time someone said it, Bob!

-- JJ Balzer

Reliable Sources
Embedded in Howie Kurtz's "Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil" world

We tuned in to Reliable Sources today with the naive hope that perhaps Howie Kurtz might exhibit a trace of objectivity towards the subject he covers.

Sadly, Howie shows no signs of recovery from being the premier media apologist.

This week's show delved into that weighty subject: embedded journalists, good or bad?

Once again, we'd have to struggle to restrain the gag reflex triggered by this loathsome, overblown, and thoroughly phony term for the next half hour. (And even worse, its use as a noun, as referring to reporters as "embeds". UGH!)

The only mental relief was imagining that these goofy reporters could somehow be embedded in a concrete overpass support.

Today's representatives of the press were ABC's John Donvan, the Washington Post's Rick Atkinson, and, from London, CNN's Walter Rodgers.

Howie's opening questions were whether or not the press had sanitized the ugly carnage of war (of course they did) and if the media were now quickly forgetting about the war and getting back to their old moronic obsessions with seedy murders, missing children, and the like (yes, of course).

Are these real questions? One might think that if Howie is going to bother to ask questions at the beginning of the show, he might pick some whose answers actually might be debatable.

Donvan led off. Apart from the other two guests, Donvan had not been embedded, and went free-lance, which is admirable. He started off, of course, by focusing on what seems to be a primal need of all war correspondents: constantly reminding us that it was REALLY dangerous, and thereby establishing their supposed courage and trying to somehow equate themselves with the troops. It's as if they're begging to get the same honor and glory as uniformed soldiers, and it's pretty disgusting.

Donvan said that when he went into southern Iraq, it was a "crazy dangerous" place to be. No doubt it was a very dangerous place to be, but it was dangerous to EVERYONE in that area. Was this a surprise to Donvan? I certainly hope not, though most war correspondents are used to covering wars from some posh hotel. But surely these people realized it wasn't going to be a day at the beach. It's like an astronomer making a point to remind people that it's really "crazy dark" out there when they're searching the heavens. We pretty much know the conditions of the job. So why are these reporters groveling for respect? And even sillier, they seem to compete as to who was in the greatest danger.

This is certainly human (or at least male) behavior to try to brag about how brave you were, but it's pretty petty and indicates just how much they desire the story to be about THEM, rather than, as the lunatic Rumsfeld says, the "untidiness" over in Iraq.

To judge from the results, it's far more dangerous to simply ride in a hum-vee (as we know from Michael Kelly's fate), happen to report something that displeases the Smirk Regime (we all know what happened to one unlucky Al Jazeera reporter), or just simply be alive and doing your job -- as is evidenced by the truly insane degree of veneration and near-hero worship given to David Bloom simply for suffering a fatal health problem while he happening to be geographically located in Iraq. To watch the degree of reverence and honor heaped upon Bloom, you'd think he'd single-handedly captured Saddam Hussein. This is disgustingly phony and clear evidence that the press actively works as their own PR agency.

Donvan said that if you weren't embedded, you were pretty much treated as persona-non-grata. But he felt that there were important stories to tell by being independent, namely, what was happening when the massive armed forces weren't around. In this we agree whole-heartedly. News reported from behind a US tank isn't exactly objective.

Howie went to Atkinson to ask him about his report that William Wallace; a ground commander had said that the Iraqi force they were facing wasn't the one they'd war-gamed against. This of course, was flogged into a major media flap by reading into it that the war would last far longer than expected. Atkinson said that none of the press in Iraq were aware of how much had been made of the comment, and simply stated that you'd have to give it context, that the military was faced with horrid weather, over extended supply lines, and other unexpected factors, and that it really wasn't that big a deal for a commander to voice frustration. I agree, and think that of all the stories that could have gotten traction, this one was by far the silliest and most inconsequential. The real story that emerged -- but was squashed -- was the fact that Donald Rumsfeld had stupidly overridden his Pentagon experts by woefully underestimating the number of troops required to do the job.

Sure, it was fun to see Rumsfeld transform into some 80-year-old grandmother and raise his voice a couple octaves during press conferences. It was interesting to see just how crazy his logic got, whining defensively to try to defeat the emerging story that he had royally screwed up. But the story has now effectively disappeared.

Howie then asked the Walter Rodgers, who apparently has been recouping from his war coverage by lounging around London, if the coverage glossed over the "ugly face of war." (The "ugly face of war"? Must be talking about the tinpot warrior Bush!)

Rodgers answer was true: he said that the press did self-censor in its avoidance of showing the gory results of Smirk's excellent adventure.

But Rodgers is so goofy and so self-absorbed that he took every question as an opportunity to bore us with his war stories. If we wanted that, we could go down and toss a few back at the local VFW. Rodgers launched into some screed about the camera lens only showing a narrow angle and not the whole picture and bragged about "sauntering" up to a general "slumming" in his grey t-shirt to ask the hard-hitting question, "What do you think of the embed program?"

Lord. One suspects that this is the kind of guy that Trudeau had in mind when he came up with his Roland Hedley character -- whose bio on the Doonesbury site begins, "A man of many talents, none of them of any use to a journalist, Roland Burton Hedley III nonetheless began his career at TIME magazine, and was assigned to the Saigon bureau, where he covered sports."

When Howie asked Hedley... um, Rodgers whether the coverage had been "sanitized," Rodgers went into a very detailed war story about coming upon a bombed-out Iraqi tank and personnel carrier. They'd filmed it from a distance of about 75 yards, and you could detect the body of a dead Iraqi lying between the vehicles. "I narrated," said Rodgers, who added that the CNN switchboard lit up like a Christmas tree with angry viewers demanding that they don't show any dead bodies!

What the hell? This is freaking WAR!! And these armchair general viewers out there in moron America are hopping mad that an actual dead body is shown from a distance? This is truly disturbing; much more so than seeing one of thousands of casualties of this "glorious" war. And even worse, CNN then buckled under to the demands of these imbeciles and Rodgers was instructed to never film any more bodies!

One suspects that it wasn't because of angry viewers, but rather a phone call placed by Karl Rove or someone like him that resulted in the "no truth" order.

But then Rodgers went just plain stupid. Here's what he said in defense of his showing, at a distance, one dead Iraqi. "I thought that was basic and relatively sanitized. It was just a body in the road 50 meters away, but he was dead. And the switchboard I'm told lighted up, and I was asked not to show dead bodies on the air. This was, as I say, a dead Iraqi, no face, nothing really graphic, you couldn't see the flies, he wasn't bloated yet. [Howie: "Riiiiiight."] He didn't even STINK yet! But that's what they don't want to see. And I think that's a viewer problem."

Yep, that's what he said. He's correct, of course, but the guy is off his rocker. He seems to be boastful of his callous disregard for dead Iraqis and anxious to casually toss off some grisly comments. But it was good in the sense that he seemed to be determined to bring to us the reality of death that he was forbidden from showing. Unfortunately, he said it as if he were trying to cop an attitude of just how battle hardened he was, rather than a more selfless reason.

I might add that during this entire portion of the interview, they showed this very same video and others depicting dead bodies the entire time. OK, CNN pulled the coverage due to viewer complaints, but they're eager to show it all again, with even more pictures of dead humans? Curious, is it not?

Howie wondered why Donvan wasn't greeted with cheers and flowers when he would contact Iraqi citizens. Duh! Donvan said that he was considered to represent the Americans, and therefore, got a very hostile reception, complete with, he mentioned, having his vehicle pilfered.

Howie then turned to Atkinson, who was embedded. Howie said that the unit Atkinson was with were greeted with cheers and "hugs and kisses" from Iraqis, suggesting that surely Donvan and the military were roundly welcomed by a populace ecstatic that they're homes and country had been devastated and lie in ruins and chaos. Donvan dispelled him of that notion and said that there was a lot of hostility from Iraqis. (The shock!)

They discussed the obvious -- that you cannot draw a huge general assumption from a small group either cheering or showing hostility towards their invaders. Why these supposedly bright people find this to be a unique fact is that there's such a stunning amount of propaganda lies being spread around, and believed, based on some tiny demonstrations. There was almost a desperate effort on the part of the military and the White House to search out any group of more than four people appearing happy that the US had invaded them and to then trumpet that the entire country of Iraq, every single man woman and child still left alive and not maimed or crippled for life, were just over the moon with happiness that Bush's America had "liberated" them.

What seems like ages ago, I happened to be watching CNN and they were doing a satellite remote report from Iraq. It was good old Walter Rodgers, and as he was doing some insipid "interview" with some artillery soldier, a yell went up that there was incoming fire and to take cover. The stood there looking at the sky for a moment, and then Rodgers (or Roland Hedley) the ultra-brave correspondent, said, "I think we're going to break off this live shot for the time being, we're not sure what we see up there. Good-bye, we've got to dive for vehicles right now we think, see ya, bye."

"Dive for vehicles"?

"We think"?

"See ya, bye"?

It should be noted as well that the soldiers in the background were seen very casually walking in no hurry whatsoever. At least they weren't "diving for vehicles," that's for sure.

The fact that to the media, the story is about THEM much more than the war is born out by the fact that this clip was repeated over and over and over in the days following. I had thought that I was blessedly going to be spared seeing it held up as something to impress upon me just how brave and at risk these men-of-steel journalists were. But of course, I was wrong. They showed the clip again, as if it were the defining moment of entire war coverage. The sickening fact is that it pretty much is!

This stupid clip of a report being interrupted so the reporter can take cover is about as exciting as any of the thousands of hours of coverage got. Despite the networks spending hundreds upon hundreds of millions of dollars to get every correspondent not nailed to the floor over to Iraq and equipped with hundreds of thousands of dollars of high-tech equipment with engineers to make it work, and of course, those super cool flack vests and all the other silly crap the reporters always don for their stand-ups, whether it's justified or not. Despite all this, the coverage was stultifyingly boring. Nothing of any value whatsoever was reported. The public learned exactly this from the thousands of hours of embedded coverage: That reporters are largely egotistical, self-promoting know-nothings trying like hell to look like a cross between Irwin Rommel and Mel Gibson in "The Road Warrior", that tanks, buildings, and people smoke when they're hit with about five hundred thousand rounds of ammunition, and that in the desert, there's lots of sand.

Anyway, Rodgers leapt at this chance to continue with his self-promoting war tales. His angle was just bizarre. Howie asked a question solely to set him up for some chest thumping. "How candid could you be at various points in the war about the degree of danger to which you and your unit were exposed?" Now isn't that a question you'd think was on the lips of the majority of the public? Hell no. Who cares?

Rodgers said breathlessly, "I could be totally candid. I must say I deliberately understated the degree of danger that my crew and I were in. The reason for that was I think the worst mistake a reporter can make is to hype a story. I didn't want to hype it. And there were many times when we were under extraordinary danger. One of the technical limitations which downgraded the degree of danger was I used what's called a lip mic that you hold right to your nose like this, and it doesn't pick up the ambient sound that is, you can't hear the mortars falling next to you, and you can't hear the machine guns rattling all around you. Uh, and, and, and, if we had a normal microphone, which wasn't good for broadcast quality at that point, you would have heard a MUCH, MUCH more severe uh, firefight, you would have realized the danger we were REALLY in."

Even Howie seemed to be disgusted, and just let the story drop and went to his next question.

But look at that statement. The tape clearly showed that they didn't know if they were under attack or not. Even Rodgers said he didn't know what was going on. The soldiers in the background were sauntering along in no big hurry. Yet in a strange way, Rodgers seems absolutely compelled to try to tell us that, despite what we heard and saw with our own eyes, we shouldn't believe it, that actually, it was a raging firefight with "mortars falling next to" him, and "machine guns rattling all around". Was it really as intense as the vivid picture painted us by Walter? Who knows? But he goes to great lengths to blame things on his microphone! If he'd had a "normal" microphone, he tells us, we could have heard all this mayhem of intense battle all around him.

If the battle was so hot and heavy as he tries to make us believe, then why were he and the troops just standing there? Why were the soldiers just walking? Maybe it got that bad after he was huddled inside some armored vehicle. But we'll never know, because they didn't bother to get any film, or even audio. One thinks that they'd leap at the chance to get some record of a firefight such as that, considering that that was what they were sent there to get.

The bottom line is that we're supposed to be clear that, despite the clear evidence, Walter and his crew were in big, big, BIG danger, and don't you forget it. Oh, and they were VERY brave too. Forget the war. Forget what the troops were actually doing or strategy or consequences, just remember that Rodgers was in "extraordinary danger." And you'd know it if it wasn't for that darned lip mic. OK Roland, we believe you.

The fact is, the biggest danger Rodgers and the rest faced was that they'd NOT come under fire at some point. These chumps would obviously consider this a failure. Then they'd never get any "cool" pictures, wouldn't get to pose as a heroic reporter, and would quickly be forgotten. At least Rodgers gets to go around with his clip and thump his chest. Thank you Walter, for all you've done to enlighten us on the war. And this is the guy considered to be the premier reporter of the war.

Howie then went on to report on the ridiculous rush to report the discovery of some chemical weapon in Iraq. Of course, without finding any, it will prove the obvious, that Bush et al were lying through their teeth when they repeatedly assured us that Saddam had all these horrid WMDs, and that unless we invaded, we'd surely be attacked by them at any moment and that people everywhere, even in Nebraska should be gripped by the fear of sudden horrid death, unless of course, we supported Bush in his effort to protect us all by invading a sovereign country who had done nothing aggressive towards us.

These reports of the "smoking gun" are routinely false and hysteric to the point that you can safely ignore them. As a matter of fact, Wolf Blitzer was breathlessly reporting yet another "discovery" just hours ago. Of course, it hadn't been confirmed, but that didn't stop them from saying it was suspected of being sarin gas, and throwing up their pre-prepared graphics listing all the horrific effects it could have on you. Remember: Be scared!

Atkinson noted that these reports are hedged, but didn't mention that people ignore the hedges when the fear factor is in play.

Howie then brought up a good point, that reporters sometimes get too close and identify with the people they're reporting on, namely, the US military. Donvan said that a reporter must bear in mind that he still has a story to report, and to not let them be too affected by the closeness of their subjects. Of course, this is much like Bush telling us to trust him without providing any evidence. Sure, you hope journalists are professional and ethical, but these days, those things are seen as a career hobbling liability, not an asset.

After the break, Howie gave over another portion of the show for the promotion of Walter Rodgers, whom CNN is clearly trying to boost in to star of the war status. It was nothing but a circle jerk.

Howie asked him if, at age 62, if anyone had told him he "was crazy to be running around a dessert battle field at your age. Why'd you keep wearing that grey t-shirt?"

As if Walter hadn't already demonstrated his courage and virility, he immediately stated, "I wore the grey t-shirt to separate myself from the military which was generally wearing dessert camouflage. I thought I needed to make a statement of independence." A t-shirt is now elevated to "a statement of independence." Yep, that sure showed everyone that you were fiercely independent. Yegads!

"And was I too old? Heck no! And would I do it again? Yes I would do it again, and there's no such thing as too old. I felt younger every day I was out there." Yep, nothing is as exhilarating as being shot at and missed, as the saying goes.

Howie then tossed him a softball asking him if he wasn't concerned for his personal safety. Of course, this is assumed to be a big concern of all us viewers. To be blunt, I don't think most people really concern themselves with the personal safety of war reporters. We don't wish them harm (usually), but really, why should we be overly concerned over these pampered reporters having to actually cover a risky assignment? Isn't that what is EXPECTED of them? How has it suddenly become considered heroic and extraordinary service for a reporter to actually cover a war? It's weird.

All the chest thumping and bragging and tales of being in "battle" only serve to make them seem like reluctant wimps, not reporters who do their jobs well under hazardous conditions without complaint. And if they had actually put themselves at risk to provide us with even a minimal amount of important and enlightening information, we'd probably be grateful. But they didn't. They told us nothing whatsoever of any importance and not a shred of information that would bring a better sense of truth or understanding of what was actually occurring there. Aside from endless features on all the billions of dollars worth of high tech weaponry, the public was left as ignorant after the war as they were when it began.

Rodgers also explained that he was never afraid, but he was alert --- and tense. Howie added that we were all tense there for a while.

Donvan admitted that it was risky going as a "unilateral" reporter, that being what they call a non-embedded journalist. He said he's thought a lot about how to make it safer. At this point, CNN put up the subheading "BUSH: EMBEDS SHOWED TENACITY AND COURAGE".

Well, how would Bush know? He wouldn't know courage if it bit him on the ass.

Another heading said that a poll showed 74% of Americans think the media did a "good job" and 80% think embeds were fair and objective. What sheep.

Howie asked Atkinson about his access to a general as he made decisions during a battle. Did he have to hold back in order to get this access? Atkinson admitted that he did. He said he didn't pull his "punches in any significant way", but that he tried to "shield him from the passions of the moment and seeing him on the front page of the Washington Post the next day."

Rodgers described the embed process as Rumsfeld's private joke. He said that in response to reporters whining about access, Rummy essentially called their bluff and said you guys want to go to war, go to war.

They discussed the totally predictable return of the media to tabloid trash reporting. Does this shock anyone? The national media is like someone who's ADD has ADD. It's got the attention span of a gnat.

But Howie still showed signs of his terminal case of Clinton Obsessive Disorder, or COD.

During his comments about the media returning to tabloid trash again --- obsessing on murder or kidnapping of attractive white females, and how Shapiro and Fuhrman from the O.J. Simpson saga have returned as commentators. Here he managed to shoehorn in that even Monica Lewinsky was back (in a pathetic "reality" show on -- where else? -- FOX). Of course, Lewinsky has nothing to do with cable news coverage, but of course, Howie simply can't stop himself.

Those with this once epidemic malady can recover through therapy or gradual weaning from the obsession with a single figure to bashing all Democrats in general, with particular emphasis on any Dem who shows signs of being able to save the world from the cancer in the White House.

However, the patient has to want to get well. Obviously, COD has gotten as comfortable as an old pair of shoes to Howie. Perhaps because he doesn't have many opportunities to legitimately slime Dem presidential contenders yet. He still believes that bashing Clinton is good for business and makes him look "savvy," but regrettably, it just makes him look sick.

But rest assured, once coverage picks up on Dem candidates, Howie will be out there like a good soldier reporting every bone-headed, false, and phony spin point put out by the RNC, all with that super-cool insiders smirk. Perhaps only then will his restless fever dreams of Clinton begin to dissipate.

What did we learn about "embeds" today? Well, nothing other than Walter Rodgers is a VERY brave man that is still virile and not too old to be a reporter. But hey, it filled up Howie's little half hour, and he got to mention Monica, so it's all good.

-- Dash Riprock

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

Dash Riprock is a free-lance smart aleck based in Moline, IL. He can be reached at dashriprockapj@hotmail.com where you can offer to send him love offerings or any other tribute you may find appropriate. Bear in mind that the US Postal Service frowns upon sending explosives through the mail.