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

Pundit Pap
for Nov. 16, 2003
Get Outta Here!
by JJ Balzer

Nov. 16, 2003 -- DELAWARE COUNTY, NY (apj.us) -- Despite a weekend of family obligations -- and thanks to a satellite system that allowed me to catch some early network feeds here in the middle of New York cow country -- your humble servant was able to catch much of the important Sunday morning pap.

Suffice it to say that all of the key talkers did little in the way of probing questions concerning the most urgent change in George W. McFlightsuit's Iraq policy -- the new "Get outta here" policy that will dictate a more rapid transition to local control and withdrawal of US forces by next June. Could it be that the news producers at the major networks smell a Texas-sized fiasco worse than "Vietnamization" on the way?

Here's a little of this Sunday's blow-by-blow.

This Week
Players: George Stephanopoulos, Rep. Dick Gephardt (D-MO), Iraq Viceroy Paul Bremer, former Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin, and unscheduled guest Anthony Cordesman

The highlight of TW was a taped interview with Paul Bremer. Topic one was the downing of two Blackhawk helicopters, and Bremer, while characterizing it as a collision, said he is waiting for information that would indicate it was downed -- then deflected a question about helicopters having little in the way of antimissile defense (this is bound to become an issue in the coming days). He also pushed the talking point of the day: now that Iraq is "liberated," it is "not appropriate to wait a year and a half" to shift power, so it will happen in six months.

(So that's how the Misadministration is playing it: things are going so well, we've made such progress, that we no longer need to help stabilize the situation. Orwell must be spinning in his grave over this spin.)

Naturally, Steph had found an earlier statement that undermines the new stance of the Junior Junta -- and naturally, Bremer ignored it, pushed the "earlier rather than later" point and made lofty statements about the wonderful constitution that our hand-picked Iraqi Governing Council (IGC) will write. Steph did not fully broach the issue that Iraq is very much like Yugoslavia in that it is a hotbed of feuding ethnicities, but did suggest that Shi'ite extremists might try to impose an Islamic state.

Tony Cordesman, an expert in strategic policy, was the next guest; he called the new tack "strategic floundering." He is not optimistic that Iraqis will accept a constitution in the first place and pointed out the failure to tamp down ethnic and religious tensions (translation: the Bush Club didn't so their homework on the region's culture). Cordesman also said that the Pentagon has made progress in shifting to a low-intensity conflict -- but so have the insurgents. Cordesman then debunked the Murdoch "Saddam-Osama" meme, adding that the main insurgents were Iraqis and there are some foreign fighters, but no definitive ties to Al Qaeda.

The segment with Gephardt began with a reminder that he had voted for the Iraq war and the $87 billion bailout. Are they on the right track? Gephardt's top talking point was the failure to secure allies: "This president does not work well with other countries.... It is a major mistake... that this President is not working with other countries."

(Far too polite. Gephardt's biggest failing is the he is far too soft-spoken to the point of sounding like a eunuch. C'mon, Dick, say it: "The former Texas governor is a miserable failure when it comes to diplomacy. He's an amateur, and Americans will never, ever be fooled by that GOP 'grown-ups in charge' lie again. He'll never secure help for Iraq because other nations don't like him, don't trust him, don't believe him." That, Dick, is how it's done.)

Gephardt said he supports help from the UN for rebuilding and NATO for security before repeating his main talking point: "He does not work well with other countries." (Worse yet, Dick, he "runs with scissors.")

George Will and Gephardt had a mini-debate about tariffs and trade; Gephardt said that there has been a failure to engage in the world trading system and defend American products. Steph tried to sow dissent between Gephardt advisor Robert Rubin -- who is pro-NAFTA -- and Gephardt, who did not vote for NAFTA because of insufficient labor and environmental requirements for partner countries (in an effort to try to win labor).

There was a back-and-forth about campaign finance reform, and Gephardt bashed Howard Dean and John Kerry for supposedly "siding with George W. Bush" by opting out of public financing. (hey, Dick, the system is broken -- and you, as a candidate screwed by the system,. should be complaining).

To our shock, Steph quoted the New York Sun -- a new, seriously biased (and fact-challenged) low-circulation right-wing rag.

The following segment focused on the fortieth anniversary of the first Kennedy assassination, with archival footage and audio from the ABC News archives. We wouldn't be surprised if we get nearly nothing but wall-to-wall Kennedy assassination coverage next Sunday.

There followed a taped interview with Robert Rubin, recounting specific successes of Clinton's economic policy -- some of which were the result of politically risky decisions. Rubin said many factors contributed to the robust 1990s, but a key factor was Clinton's economic policy. When Steph tried to equate the drop in interest rates with the accession of the GOP in Congress, Rubin dashed the theory with other facts Steph somehow forgot. What would Rubin do about the Chimp's deficits? It's a difficult question politically -- revenues need to be increased and costs controlled. Steph said that Dean wants to repeal all of Junior's tax cuts. Rubin said he is confident that a Democrat will put a full focus on the deficit (you could almost hear the words "... like a laser beam" -- and remember the days when we had not just a competent but brilliant president, not a coached, shallow pretend-a-dent). Rubin did defend NAFTA, and Steph quizzed him about the "alarm bells" he sounded about inflated stock prices in the late 1990s. Rubin skewered the point, saying it was not prudent for a treasury secretary issuing opinions or warnings about market values.

Rubin made one thing clear: he will not be a candidate for public office, but hedged on an appointment.

FAUX News Sunday
Players: Tony Snow, Brit Hume, Paul "Get ME outta here!" Bremer

We caught the first segment after Tony Snow began FAUX News Sunday parroting the latest Karl Rove talking point, even using part of an interview Little George gave to a TV outlet: We are not "withdrawing prematurely." The plan is to pull out by next June (just in time to save the Chimpy-Cheney Regime -- or so they think).

Tony's first guest was Viceroy L. Paul "Baghdad" Bremer,who said yes, the US is pulling out next June. Tony gave him plenty of leeway to push his pie-in-the-sky vision of the transition schedule and to characterize the fight against an insurgency as part of "the war on terror." Bremer was, naturally, on message, and this time around, Tony didn't lob any questions that might shred the burqa concealing the mess in Iraq.

Tony tried to press Bremer for some details -- any details -- that might tie Al Qaeda to the present quagmire. Bremer provided none -- but suggested a link.

Brit Hume played bad cop. He gave Bremer a chance to tell what he knew about the crash of two Blackhawk helicopters; Bremer did acknowledge the possibility of a shootdown. Hume said the situation was getting worse. Bremer had to acknowledge the mess. Hume said that Iraqis are losing confidence and some are now supporting the resistance. Bremer cited polls that show "good news" -- but even he had to admit the polls were primitive (they must have been conducted by the Gallup Organization).

Tony came back with a question about where exactly Saddam was. Bremer said it is important to capture or kill him (but a few of us watching think that maybe, just maybe, he's already dead). What if you said to the IGC tomorrow morning "that it's all yours?' Bremer dismissed that idea by correctly pointing out that there is no constitution in place, the Iraqis have not elected their own leaders, and he does not want to "rush to turn over sovereignty." (Right -- and they want to get all of this accomplished in less than eight months. If the situation didn't involve thousands of Americans who are easy meat for the insurgents, we would laugh.) Tony suggested that a framework for turning over sovereignty might lead to more foreign help. Bremer all but said that the US has more than enough help. (Tell that to any citizen who thinks that we're being hosed for at least $87 billion, Paulie.)

After one segment of FNS, we almost feel like pounding our head against -- if not through -- the nearest wall.

Meet the Press
Wesley Clark sums it up, and exposes Tim as uninformed, biased, an empty attack poodle: "This president loves to take credit, but he will not take responsibility.... Did you read the rest of the article, Tim?"
Players: Tim Russert, retired general and Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark

Tim Russert was clearly out to draw some blood from Wesley Clark on this morning's Meet the Press. Unfortunately for Tim, who seems to relish in the sport of attacking and demeaning Democrats, Clark -- who seems to have reviewed Russert's appallingly biased and obnoxious treatment of Howard Dean a little over a month ago -- not only was firm, relaxed and in command of so much information it makes one's head spin, but also brought along a few blunt instruments in his own arsenal, putting the smackdown on the sniveling Russert on a few occasions.

Clark was out for Bush's scalp from the top of the show, calling the Iraq situation "a mess.... They do not have a strategy for success." (We'd have gone further: they didn't even have a strategy for failure -- all they had was the PNAC "wing it" scheme.)

What does Mr. Bush do without the UN or NATO? Clark would advise the president to cede power to the world community, put a non-American in charge and go to the Iraqis to begin the transfer of power tomorrow with a simple transitional government. Russert argued that even a foreign authority would be the target of insurgents. Clark used the opening to shift the battlefield, pointing out that there are damaged relationships with European powers -- possibly permanent. Russert mentioned that NATO Supreme Commander Robinson said we hadn't gotten Afghanistan right. Clark says that Iraq and Afghan are linked; as it stands, Italy and Poland are on board, and diplomacy works if our leaders seek common interests with other nations. "Build on what unites us.... This administration hasn't done this." (Read: we are united by free enterprise and a need to defang proto-Islamic extremists and tinpot regimes out to get WMDs, so get Europe and moderate Arab states to seize the lion's share of the job, evict Halliburton and Bechtel from Iraq and open up the reconstruction to fair bidding, and shift the paradigm from "occupation" to a "Marshall plan.")

Clark talked about a "window of opportunity [being] lost" in Iraq: there "could've been a smooth and impressive occupation" -- but "there was no plan for that." The result: an insurgency by those who want their own power in Iraq -- the insurgency is a show of power (and take careful point of that fact: it's not "tairists" or "Al Qaeda" but parties that want to prove they CAN be a Saddamesque strongman, because many Iraqis want a strongman).

Clark supports a lighter, more mobile and agile, intelligence-driven force more suited to defusing insurgent operations. The heavy policing should be an international force; we should be going after Osama bin Laden. Tim, quoting from an RNC talking point, tried to say that because Clark did not support Bush's call for $87 billion to rebuild Iraq (read: line Halliburton shareholders' pockets), Clark does not support the men or women on the ground. To our delight, Clark emphatically slapped down Tim's talking point by saying the $87 billion Bush demanded is just a "blank check without a strategy.... they gave him a blank check" when they should have demanded details, a time line and an estimate. "That was the duty of the US Congress... to hold the executive branch accountable." (Again, we would have gone a step further, saying that Tim's unquestioning acceptance of Smirk's $87 billion payoff does not support accountability that protects our men and women on the ground in Iraq.)

Tim then tried to bash Clark over having supposedly said that the Kosovo war was "technically illegal." Clark said that was what Kofi Annan said -- but we acted through NATO. "Laws are made by nations, and nations had to act." Clark, who sounded ready for this talking point, said that while the Kosovo war may have been "technically illegal [but] justified" and Iraq was "technically legal [but] unjustified."

Tim then tried to put words in Clark's mouth, using a well-produced commercial that Clark's campaign has been running. Clark used Tim's attack to lay out what he would have done to neutralize Iraq -- and argued that Iraq was "a distraction" when we should have been finishing the fight against Al Qaeda -- and even CENTCOM was forced to plan for Iraq after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 when they should have been uprooting Osama's criminal network. The result: today, Al Qaeda and the Taliban are coming back in Afghanistan.

Clark was not only measured and clear in his answers but very effective in slapping down Tim's cutting and completely phony attacks couched as questions.

Tim said that Clark will be playing a role in the trial of Slobodan Milosevic. Clark said he will be testifying in the trial, then talked about his encounters with Milosevic as a negotiator in 1995. Has the trip been approved? Yes -- by Colin Powell. What will you say about Milosevic? Clark said it was his duty to answer questions. Are you prepared for claims that this is a photo-op for your campaign? Clark slapped Tim down, saying he'd been approached ages ago by prosecutors even before he decided to run.

Tim then tried to smear Clark for trying to engage in diplomacy with then-Serbian General Ratko Mladic, who would later be exposed as a war criminal and mastermind of mass murder and atrocities. Tim even showed a photo of Clark schmoozing with Ratko, with the two wearing each other's hats. Clark said it was a mistake to "trade gifts" -- but said the article was in error because he had been authorized to meet with Mladic as part of a fact-finding mission in advance of a possible diplomatic solution to the Bosnian genocide (translation: Clark was doing his job, trying to gain the confidence of a man whom he might well have to take on in the theater of combat, and the little "hat trading" schmooze is a small price to pay for gathering facts and information) . "I was never told not to do it" -- and Clark said he never had any doubt that Mladic might be a criminal.

Tim's next attack against Clark was a slew of old quotes, one of which was Clark saying he believed Saddam had nukes, most of which had to do with his "supporting the President." Clark made Tim look like a fool when he said he supported the opposite -- and provided the details that Timmy somehow omitted, including his appearance on CNN making it clear that Junior should not be given a blank check for war. Tim tried to use the "I support the effort" to stop Saddam's WMDs, and Clark explained why that's not the same as saying that he supports going to war.

Clark then hit Tim with this great comeback: "Did you read the rest of the article, Tim?"

(Take note, especially if you are a media advisor to a Beltway Democrat: Clark all but said that Tim is being fed many of his news quotes and sound bites from GOP-tied specialists in opposition research -- and is probably NOT familiar with the full content or context of anything he is using. Clark took Tim's cheap-shot attack and spit it right back in the fat pundit's face -- casting him as a phony, an empty suit equipped with nothing more than a little oppo research, an Avid workstation and some B-roll.)

Clark was busting Tim's larded chops for apparently not having read the rest of one article written by Clark that explained his view on Iraq and why he would not have given an order to go to war. Tim looked like he was trying to suppress an angry rage that Clark would be so impudent as to suggest that Tim was uninformed, and the fat pundit sounded flustered as he said that many people believed Saddam had WMDs, including Clinton. Clark calmly said that decision-makers draw inferences -- one of which was that Saddam probably had residual chemical weapons, might be able to reconstitute bioweapons, and seemed to be seeking parts for a nuclear program -- but Clark saw no smoking gun.

And it gave Clark an opening to say again that one military decision maker had told him within days of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, that the decision had been taken to go after Iraq whether or not they were tied to the attacks.

Tim, looking a little rumpled, smiled and cut to a break -- including ads for ADM (they seemed to be invisible for the last half-year, but they're baaack), Schwab, Xerox and MTP perennial GE.

So, following the break, Tim played footage of Clark praising the former Texas governor and his administration. Clark put it in perspective: he is fair, and though he did not vote for Bush he knows Paul O'Neill and Colin Powell, and there are times to put the country over the party -- and the campaign in Afghanistan did deserve support and praise.

Tim then tried to make hay of Clark's so-called "Saint Paul moment" after he had heard about Smirk's dream and goal to overthrow a slew of Arab and Muslim countries. Clark said there was no Saint Paul moment (ha, ha, ha -- another "fact" about Clark completely fabricated by fat Timmy) -- and he was lobbying for NATO. Tim asked if Clark believed that Dim Son was going to have seven wars in five years -- but Clark said that Rumsfeld and others are continuing to push the idea, using Iraq as a "focal point" in the war on terror when in fact it's a sideshow (translation: the Bush Boy and his puppeteers went after the WRONG evildoer.).

Did Bush intentionally deceive America? Clark said that the Bush cartel ginned up evidence -- and even Bob Woodward helped push the idea in his book, and Wolfowitz said in effect that WMDs were used to manufacture consent. "Why, when we had been struck by Osama bin Laden, did we determine to go after Iraq?" Clark answered his own question: it was about "image" and proving that America could use force to "clean up" the Middle East.

Tim then tried to slam Clark for supposedly saying Bush supposedly let 9/11 happen when Clark allegedly had at one time "blamed" Clinton for not being tough enough on Osama. Clark slapped back: Osama is responsible for 9/11. Why did it happen, and how can defense be improved -- and how can you lay the blame on intelligence grunts when Bush and his handlers dropped the ball? "When you're in that seat, 'The buck stops here!'... Bush loves to take credit, but refuses to take responsibility."

So you are saying Powell is acting on poll-driven decisions? Clark upended that Russert attack, pointing out that Powell has often been at odds with others in the administration -- and for about the tenth time reminded Tim that the planning for Iraq was nonexistent.

Tim then tried to parse a number of comments Clark has made, trying to establish a pattern that he is "loose with words" in the way he described getting a call from that man tied to a think-tank trying to persuade Clark to blame Saddam for the Sept. 11 attacks. Clark said he stands by what he says.

"But no one called you from the White House."

"That's not what I said."

Tim tried to claim that the White House did not try to get Clark booted from CNN. Clark said he knows what he knows. (For the record -- we believe Clark.)

Tim then tried to use the words of right-winger Hugh Shelton, along with comments by Tommy Franks and Norm Schwarzkopf, all of whom have been critical of Clark. Tim tried to press Clark on what Shelton was referring to. Clark said he believes it was a policy disagreement that Shelton took too personally. Clark's emphatic answer -- which included his having pressed the White House to stop the slaughter in Rwanda -- absolutely devastated both Shelton and Russert.

Surprisingly, Tim also gave Clark an opportunity to say that Shelton never brought up character.

Was it a mistake for Clark to bypass Iowa? Clark called it the difference between tactics and logistics, and predicted he will do well in New Hampshire.

And that was it for the interview.

All in all, Tim was no match for Clark -- who was far more courtly but just as tough as Howard Dean can get.

It's no wonder the GOP seems worried about Dean, Clark and a few others in the running for the Democratic nod to take on George the Lesser -- they're not wearing pink tutus, but are dressed head to toe in Everlast.