Pundit Pap for February 8, 1998.html

Pundit Pap

for Sunday, February 8th 1998

MONDAY FEBRUARY 9th 1998-NEW YORK--As you might have guessed, the Pundits were tittilated and tittilating re the Clinton-Lewinsky fiasco yesterday. Notably, Evans & Novak never mentioned the scandal on their CNN show and 60 MInutes didn't breathe a sexual word ignoring the story altogether. Matt Drudge is tooting his own horn this morning as usual -- and attempting to do so with feigned humility. Ha, ha, hahah. Could it get any stranger?

We covered Fox, NBC and ABC this week - ignoring McLaughlin who seemed out of control last Sunday.

Let's get to it.

FOX NEWS SUNDAY

Again Tony Snow did not disappoint and in contrast to Tim Russert, who seems to have taken a anti-Clinton pill (probably courtesy of General Electric's right-wing board of directors?) Snow kept his cool and did not too overtly celebrate the woes of the White House as one might expect. Kudos to Mr. Ailes who seems to want to be gentlemanly in this regard.

Snow started off with Charlie Rangel, one of our favorite congressman -- articulate and cool hair make Rangel a rep to watch whenever we get the chance. Rangel was guardedly optimistic about the President's chances to walk away from the Starr/Lewinsky debacle.

Rangel was followed by ultra-right wing nut Dan Burton. We questioned Snow's intelligence to invite Burton on the show -- only because "Rep. Cantaloupe Head" is only a psychiatric session away from a rubber room. However, why not? Burton is always good for a laugh. You remember him, the Hoosier Congressman who shoots pistols at cantaloupes, in his Indiana back yard to PROVE that Hillary and Bill Clinton had their best friend, Vince Foster, murdered!

Ha, ha, haha. Anyway, Burton is the Chairfreak of the Republican controlled House Oversight Committee -- his assignment to that chair? -- A Halloween trick from Speaker Newt Gingrich we can only surmise.

Burton told Snow that is was (possible) the White House that was leaking grand jury testimony on the Lewinsky affair and actually said this:

"They send out their attack dogs to destroy "honorable people" like Ken Starr."

Well, we'll be blue-nosed gophers. Honorable Ken Starr. How bout laughable "Malibu Ken Starr" who is to our mind the obvious prosecutorial puppet of Richard Mellon Scaife -- publisher and control freak who funded Pepperdine University in order to deliver a deanship to Starr who wants to spend his old age on the Malibu Shore campus. Scaife is also reportedly Godfather to the likes of Chris Ruddy and Matt Drudge himself. Scaife is also rumored to play a big money role in the Whitewater in"waste"tigation which has thus far cost taxpayers and the President more than $60 million dollars.

Burton also told Snow that "many" people have been indicted and convicted by Starr. Hah! How bout two -- the McDougals -- and the only ones Starr has gone after that had a thing to do with Whitewater. Never mind that Starr has batted zero against the White House - that's not important to Burton, a man with a cause irrational.

When Snow asked Burton whether he thought that increasing the scope of Starr's investigation based on illegal wiretaps was kosher Burton -- not known to be quick on the draw -- phumphuhed and said, "Well, they had to follow up."

Sure. So did Himmler.

To our shock and amusement, Tony Snow has now entered the ADM shopping cart and is the latest pundit to be the beneficiary of Dwayne Andreas' Gucci Bag to the Congress and any pundit they watch. There was Dave Brinkley, wanna-be Cronkite, indirectly extolling the virtues of short-weighting the Food for Peace Program and shtupping Dick Nixon with millions in cash.

Shame on you Tony. Anything for a buck? But why not, if Jim Lehrer can do it, why not you?

After the ADM break, Snow brought out Stuart Taylor - the "Odie Colognee" of legal pundits who gained famed by defending Paula Jones' complaint as having substance some months ago. Since then Taylor has become a poorly paid talking head on THE NEWS HOUR and other pundit shows and seems to be level headed and gawky in a trustworthy way. Don't believe. Taylor's no fool and is largely responsible for your taking anything Paula Jones says with more than a grain of salt. If there's one man to blame for the Jones/Lewinsky embarrassment, it's Taylor who beautifully twisted the truth last year and continues, in our opinion, to do the same with Lewinsky -- including hesitatingly chastising Monica's lawyer although saying he was in no position to do so. Taylor, who has no inside line on anything that's happening should be congratulated. Who else could make scale on television merely for reading court documents and news accounts and spinning them in a pseudo-academic style? Our hats are off to you Stuart.

Here's a tip for the White House: Paul Begala is a genius behind the scenes. But keep him off camera. Even though everything he said in defense of the President was true to Tony Snow yesterday, he just doesn't "appear" credible and should remain behind closed doors as the articulate and superb strategist he is. Hey Paul, you know better. No one trusts a pundit with a beard.

But kudos to Begala who has the guts to label Malibu Ken Starr as "corrupt and out of control." We couldn't agree more and hopefully Janet Reno and the three judge panel will finally get it and wipe the floor with his ill-legal butt.

The Snow panel made up of Mara Liasson,Brit "The Yawn" Hume, and Juan Williams was sort of amusing on the Lewinsky situation. One item we thought interesting was someone's comment that Starr appears to feel he can go without Lewinsky's testimony. Only question it How?

The panel also told us that the immunity agreement Attorney Ginsburg says he's had from Starr was signed only by Ginsburg and Lewinsky and Stuart Taylor claimed that this, of course, is not a binding agreement even if Starr originally penned the "contract."

Hume said that the President is breaking all the rules of what not to do fomented during the Nixon crisis. But everyone was quick to point out that rules are meant to be broken and that the White House activities last week were nearly impeccably perfect bring the POTUS' rating to well nearly 80% (Today's NBC poll) favorable in a nation where even the dumbest voter can spot a corrupt prosecutor like Starr a mile away.

An unprecedented high in all of US history.

The panel, now obviously part of the media empire fighting for its life and reputation over its mishandling of the this and the Jones story, simply glossed over the fact that Starr has intimidated witnesses ad infinite in pure Nazi style in his zealous pursuit of dirt on the Clintons. Shame on them.

Real congratulations to Snow on his handling of Bill Richardson and the Iraq situation. Snow pinned Richardson so badly on the fact that he can't prove Saddam Hussein has one ounce of "weapons of mass destruction" more than once during his interview of our UN Ambassador yesterday. Richardson was tongue-tied as Snow kept slamming him for even a scintilla of evidence that Iraq was caching these weapons. Richardson had to finally retreat to referring Snow to the UNSCOM chief for an answer. Ha, ha, haha. Maybe we should appoint Iraq's Ambassador Hundoom as our new UN Ambassador?

Next came Senators Shelby and Biden, two fellows who make us proud to live in a Democracy. The two discussed the issue of a congressional resolution on Iraq. The issue: Whether we should murder Saddam and occupy Iraq.

Shelby went for murder which is against the law under a presidential directive signed by George Bush outlawing political assassinations. But the two men argued comfortably and amiably.

We think that the answer is clear. Take out Saddam, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the rest of the oil-sheik nations and simply take OUR oil. Why not? Enough is enough. Then we can give some of it to Russia and France in order to placate them. Of course, we'll let the UK handle the adminstration of the NEW OIL TERRITORIES (NOT) since they have so much imperialistic experience.

Shelby and Biden were good. They explained well the problem we will have if we attack Iraq again. THEN WHAT? was the line of the day here and oh, so true. Will we send a million troops into Iraq to occupy that country?

No way. So Saddam will stay and everything will remain the same. Bomb him or not, his people aren't going to budge.

Snow then impaneled his panel and talked about Monica -- now a featured player on the web site "Starr Whores" -- which if you have not seen it -- is a must on the internet sex scandal circuit. Look it up on HOT BOT below.

Mara Liasson posited that the whole matter will end up in congressional committees - just what the Republicans want -- and Starr will never assemble a case.

Williams said that we are struggling to maintain the presidency and have no options.

But Hume, showing his nasty side kept up his role as chief bombardier on Clinton and actually said the following which should put him in the Nixon-Barbour-Gingrich Hall of Fame and seal his journalistic casket as far as the White House is concerned:

HUME: "I don't think they (the president's lawyers) know the true story. The President can wait (for evidence to flow in) and then MAKE UP a story to jive with the evidence."

OUR SPINTERPRETOR ON HUME

So Hume said. "Hey, the President lies to his lawyers and then will lie to us and the court by making up a story. If this is not the most irresponsible remark made by a so-called respected journalist then we're Paula Jones fans. The White House is concerned and should be. Hume is a disgrace to journalism and should be drummed out of the business. We've advised Snow to ditch him more than once. So, here goes, just one more time.

Dear Tony:

Brit Hume is a disgrace to your show. His constant, prep-like sneering and half-assed critical remarks about the White House, with nothing open to back it up, makes you look like an idiot.

His latest "speech" and childish snap at Juan Williams is simply more evidence that Hillary Clinton was right. There is at least a loose conspiracy among people like Hume. The order: "Get the President" - no matter what the cost to your own reputation. That's Hume's, Ruddy's, Drudge's and others marching orders. And we put Hume in the Drudge category purposely. Where the orders come from, or whether there is a general at the helm is unimportant and reaching.

Hume is, in our opinion, the personification of irresponsible journalism and ought to be sued for his slanderous remarks. For Hume to call the President a liar, and for you to let him get away with it also hurts your credibility.

Ditch him. You've got a great thing going.

- American Politics Journal

Hume also characterized Malibu Ken Starr as a "mousey, non-partisan and professional guy" displaying is schizophrenia once more.

Juan Williams took him to task saying "nonpartisan!?" is an 'are-you kidding?' manner.

Hume, in his usual arrogant way snapped at Williams..."Okay, Juan" the parenthetical being "Sure, you moron."

Hume, rumored to have been quite the stud himself in earlier years actually had the audacity to pillory the President for being an adulterer and lying about it. Now, we ask, how would weak-cheeked Hume know whether Clinton had affairs at all, and further whether he lied about them? Hume is really a case - a case which proves that journalists - as a whole - are nothing more than self-agrrandizing pimps for their own coffers, networks and publishers.

Americans should not trust a thing they see or here in the mainstream media. And that goes for the newly right wing NY Times which has become a model of yellow-journalism.

More congratulations to Snow who kept his cool in his close and merely suggested that he'd like to see some straight answers from everyone involved in the Clinton scandals - just for once.

MEET THE PRESS

Gloves are off for Tim Russert as well. Russert, who we once respected, has seemingly morphed into a Scaife-goat himself, so eager to rape the President that he's forgotten all the rules. We've watched quietly as Russert has appeared all too often on joke-network MSNBC reporting half-truths and what we would characterize as out and out lies about the White House.

But this week he went too far.

Add Tim Russert to your list of "journalists" who've signed on to Dick Scaife's Clinton Lynch Mob and think about cutting him out of your weekly viewing.

Russert has taken a fine show and turned it into a circus. Why? To get more rating points for himself and parent company GE. Ratings points = money, and if this feeding frenzy is about anything, it's money.

Russert had White House guru Paul Begala on as a guest. His aim -- to crucify Clinton by hitting the tired road of "Why doesn't Bill Clinton just tell us the truth about Monica Lewinsky" -- as if Russert knew what the truth is.

It was disgusting. Here's one of who we thought was the best reporters on the tube apparently taking up a Hitlerian mantle - all but defending "Gestapo HochFuhrer" Ken Starr and trying to make Mr. Begala into an idiot.

Paul Begala admittedly seemed frenetic and unprepared, but give him this -- the normally congenial Russert was like a Tomcat pushing Begala over the brink with wild innuendo basically focused on why the President of the United States doesn't just come out and discuss, with all of us, his private sex life.

Russert has turned out to be just another pundit using the tired old Scaife logic that the President owes Americans some explanation of his private life -- especially when it does not impact on the nation's policies or fiscal health.

As an example, Russert asked this loaded question of Begala:

"What was the President's and Lewinsky's relationship." - a typical sleaze question one would expect a Globe reporter would ask a moron, not an NBC anchor of a top White House staffer. A question Russert knew Begala would not and could not answer. Can you imagine asking the President to tell you what the relationship was when you work for and admire him. And if you asked, and got an answer then Ken Starr would be right there subpoenaeing you - Tim.

Russert compounded this dual idiocy by choosing off Begala to provide him with some law that would stop the POTUS from "coming clean." Of course Russert knows that to do so would be the most foolish thing Clinton or any potential witch-hunt victim could do. Law isn't the issue -- propriety is and Russert virtually called Begala a liar when Begala said it was always the President's policy not to talk about an ongoing investigation. Russert then tried to embarrass Begala by showing film clips of the President talking about openness -- of course having nothing to do with the way things have panned out in these cases.

A cheap shot.

How dare Tim Russert think he has a right to know about the President's --or anyone's -- private sex life. He and others say it's the public's right to know - yet the public has said in huge numbers it's sick of Russet and his kind profiting off the Clinton family woes. What a piece of slime he's turned into.

How dare he stoop to such lows after attracting public trust with his shirtsleeve approach to reportage.? How dare he insult the First Lady and Chelsea Clinton with his nearly totally fabricated and twisted statements alleging the President is some kind of dimestore liar. Russert, who makes millions as a "journalist" better examine his hown house first before making these thinly veiled allegations. It really sickens us to see a bright guy jumping into the toilet with the likes of Drudge and Ruddy.

When Begala pointed out the Malibu Ken Starr makes a million a year off tobacco companies -- companies opposed to Clinton's tough stance on kids and smoking -- Russert merely ignored the comment. When Begala pointed out the Richard Mellon Scaife -- a well known billionaire Clinton hater -- funded Ken Starr's chair at Malibu playschool Pepperdine University, Russert ignored him. When Begala pointed out that Starr had locked Monica Lewinsky down for more than 14 hours without benefit of council in a shopping mall Russert ignored him. When Begala pointed to witness tampering by Scaife in the Hale matter -- Russert ignored him.

So what does this say about Tim Russert? It says, sorrily, that he is just another overpaid pundit toeing the corporate line and caring less about the truth.

Russert asked where Presidential secretary Betty Currie got the gifts the President reportedly (and we repeat, reportedly) gave to Monica Lewinsky. But Russert doesn't know that is true -- unless he read the transcripts of the Grand Jury testimony -- a felony move for the provider.

If Russert is so much into family values or values at all, why is he reading stolen transcripts?

Russert also asked about George Bush but failed to say that Bush had silenced the jackals like Russert by telling reporters his alleged affair was none of their damn business -- something Bill Clinton should have done weeks ago instead of trying to be a gentleman about it.

Hey Tim -- no one elected you to anything. Your privileged position, as you know, is due primarily to serendipity.

You have gall. We'll say that for you.

Russert also said Lewinsky was WAVED into the White House 37 times quoting the mantra of the Pittsburgh press (controlled by Scaife) like it was the Torah. What a joke. Sure, Lewinsky may have been waved in 37 times -- but it was over TWO YEARS and not merely to see the President.

But did Russert mention that. NO! Begala had to.

Then Russert pulled the sorriest little trick we've ever seen. He showed a clip of well-known White House "shooter" Wolf Blitzer asking Bill Clinton -- in front of the British Prime MInister - whether he had anything to say to Monica Lewinsky and her "family." Well gag us with a spoon. What a low life Blitzer is. To embarrass the President in front of the world just to get more air time and all the time knowing he wouldn't get an answer.

The President's response to Blitzer's question was superb. He just stopped smiled and said "That's a good one." But you knew Blitzer was finished at the White House from that moment on -- as he should be and as we've suggested several times before in this publication.

Russert characterized the clip as something much more insipid. Again twisting the reality for the non-discerning viewer.

It was a despicable performance by Russert. Absolutely disgraceful.

Russert then turned to a trumped up panel made up of four women from congress. It was enough to make you weep, listening to Russert's leading questions and his negative "arguments" with the pro-Clinton side. Not even worth mentioning. You can see the four on C-CSPAN if you're interested. But kudos to Marge Roukema, a Republican from New Jersey, who is also disgusted with the media feeding frenzy and suggests we leave it to the law.

Russert next turned to General Norman Schwartzkopf who was illuminating and at the same time elusive about Iraq. It was the same old stuff. How do we handle an invasion of Iraq if we want to take Saddam out? Norm Schwartzkopf was honest - "We can't," he basically told America.

Then Russert went to some sports topic, for some unfathomable reason and we tuned out.

Perhaps permanently.

Perhaps you should call NBC Washington and tell Russert to get a new perspective or join one of Scaife's foundations as a researcher.

We did. But Russert didn't take the call. His assistant did. We tried to read her this piece and she interrupted and never let us finish. She said we called Russert Hitler,when we actually said he apparently took on a Hitlerian mantle in his style of questioning yesterday. Then she summarily dismissed us. But taking our number. She never heard of us because she doesn't do her homework. 3 million readers a year isn't hay. It's not NBC - but it shouldn't be ignored. Tony Snow reads us. So do others, including ABC and CBS. We told her we used to think Tim was the cat's meow - until yesterday.

She, like the arrogance surrounding her, came back with "I never heard of "American Politics Journal" - we suppose this was a "dismissal," as Russert seemed to so cavalierly dismiss the truth yesterday.

Well Tim, here's what we would have told you:

Think about the innocents here. Think about the truth and not getting confirmation of the unconfirmable. And by all means, speak to the issue of humanness and the fact that not a soul would discuss their sexual proclivities with a stranger or anyone but perhaps a spouse. Think about how you are hurting not only the Clinton's -- who in a large part provide your meal ticket -- but also there teen aged daughter who will get taunted over this matter. Think about Monica Lewinsky, Linda Tripp and Paula Jones -- disturbed girls with one-track minds. Think about whether you're lying when you say the "people have a right to know" about the most private relationships - perhaps loving ones between a man and a woman.

People don't have any such right. You know. We know it. Fess up. You're into ratings. Nothing wrong with that. But we suggest to you that your ratings would really soar once you begin to stick up for what's really right and not what draws a bigger viewership. Take the lead from Evans and Novak. They refused to talk about this scumbucket fiasco. Maybe you should have risen to the occasion as well.

Sometimes principal is more important than money.

And here's some questions for you:

Tim? Are you a homosexual?

Tim? Have you ever had an adulterous affair or cheated on your steady girlfriend.

Tim? Have you ever smoked pot or snorted cocaine?

Tim? Have you ever had sex with a minor when you yourself were not a minor?

Tim? Why do you buy little gifts and some more expensive gifts for female members of your staff?

Tim? Isn't it true that you have been alone in your office late at night with more than one female staff member?

Tim? Do you have any distinguishing marks on you penis?

Tim? Tell us about every woman with whom you have had sexual intercourse or oral sex with either as the recipient of the giver?

Tim? If you have had an adulterous affair, have you ever asked your lover to be quiet about it and not tell your wife, kids and others?

Tim? Is anything that any woman says about you true?

Because, if it is, we have a lot to say.

Yucky, isn't it?

Wear Bill Clinton's hat for awhile. Or better yet, Chelsea's skirt. Maybe you'll see things differently.

You really made us look like fools. We trusted you. We thought you were a straight shooter.

You're not.

This Week with "Sam" & "Cokie"

Sam and Cokie were insufferable from the get-go. Cokie started the show with the words "While Ken Starr's investigation intensifies around White House secretary Betty Currie…" (you do mean leaks about Betty Currie, don't you, Cokie?) and "as facts emerge concerning President Clinton and Monica Lewinsky." (Like what facts? That you can't believe the press because they're jumping over one another to be first with the latest unsubstantiated leak?)

At least the guest roster was solid, beginning not with Leakergate but Iraq and National Security advisor Sandy Berger. Throughout his appearance there was the clear assumption that the US is going to do something in Iraq, much in line with news stories and White House political spin for the last week. There was discussion about the rewording of America's "official" goal — to "reduce [Saddam's] ability to deliver [and] seek to significantly diminish his capacity to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction." But Berger reiterated the official US line: "He's never going to get out from under the sanctions unless he lets the inspectors back in." Sam and George Will were eager to ask about hypotheticals: if air attacks completely succeed, what will stop Saddam from saying no more inspectors? And would ground troops be a viable option to occupy Basra and southern Iraq (first mention of ground troops on This Week since the Iraq flap began)? Berger reiterated that options must be an element of "part of a clear objective… with adequate means [manpower] to carry it out." What went unsaid is that this looks less likely with almost no other country ready to commit troops to the forces.

Cokie then shifted the issue to political support for the president's stand on Iraq, asking Berger if there really was Senate support, especially in light of a resolution over military action having been tabled earlier this week (no mention that this was more a strategic politicking move).

Berger: "I don't think there's confusion" in the Senate. Cokie: "The Majority leader said it." (C'mon, Cokie, it isn't as if we're not aware this is a political move over whether we should murder Saddam against the law! Republicans say yes, Dems say maybe.)

Berger: "We met with 75 Senators early this week… we're clear about what the military goals would be."

Cokie: Asked about GOP comments that "it has the makings of a Gulf of Tonkin resolution."

Berger: It's not binding in that way — more of a "sense of Senate resolution."

Cokie: Prince Sultan of Saudi Arabia is not supporting action against Saddam.

Berger: Many would prefer a diplomatic resolution, I'm confident we will have support for our actions.

Watergate Prosecutor Richard Ben-Veniste and attorney Stuart Taylor joined Sam, Cokie and George to discuss the Ken Starr flap (formerly the Monica Lewinsky flap), but the first order of business was a variation on "blame the messenger:"

Cokie first asked Stuart Taylor if there is a legal reason President Clinton can't talk (a question eerily the same as that asked on other pundit shows).

Taylor: No, he doesn't want to tell us, but he's free to…

RBV: He is following the advice of his attorneys, and there is debate as to whether he could talk publicly.

Cokie: Is this a tactical move?

RBV: shifted to the issue of leaks: "This is serious business," especially leaks from the Grand Jury testimony.

Cokie: There have been various sources for the leaks (a shame that Paul Begala or Rahm Emanuel weren't on hand to jump down Cokie's throat).

RBV: The source of these leaks emanate from Starr's office, and the issue "sucks in the press as well."

Cokie: Isn't this something of a red herring? Are these leaks or facts?

RBV: Both — and there was no leaking in Watergate.

Sam: I don't personally know any leakers (we're not so sure, Sam); is the White House going after Ken Starr?

Taylor: We have to distinguish Grand Jury material leaks from leaks of people talking to journalists (Many of which pertain to what was said during Grand Jury testimony, Taylor - it makes NO difference). There is no evidence of leaked Grand Jury material, but there are possible leaks of evidence in violation of Justice Department rules.

Sam: Is Ken Starr "out to get the President" à la Nixon?

RBV: The prosecutor assembles evidence, brings charges if necessary; Ken Starr is doing the unprecedented by threatening Monica Lewinsky for filing a false affidavit.

Sam: Is this not perjury we're discussing ? (No, Sam, they're discussing Starr's tactics - wake up.) Is perjury OK?

RBV: Of course it's not OK, but "if you criminalize every false statement in every civil case, you double the Gross National Product." The sting operation brings Ken Starr's judgment on proportionality and immunity into question.

George Will asked about the Ginsburg-Starr impasse.

Taylor: This sets up more sideshows, I doubt the investigation will change direction. Ken Starr may try to get sworn statements from President Clinton and Monica Lewinsky, then send everything to the House of Representatives (it's pretty clear that Starr has little chance of pressing criminal charges against Clinton).

George: When someone comes in with 20 hours of tape that "seem to involve a crime," could Ken Starr have said "I'm not interested?" (Not if he was materially involved with most or possibly all of the taping, George — now you're sounding downright silly.)

RBV: Saying "No" was an option; the real question is whether Ken Starr has hijacked the Paula Jones case.

Taylor: The Attorney General can fire Ken Starr for good cause; President Clinton going to a judge instead is a PR strategy.

RBV: I disagree — the Grand Jury is supervised by the Chief Judge of the District Court, and she should be the one to act.

Up next in what became the best pundit free-for-all of the week: Senator Bob Torricelli (D-NJ) and Bill Bennett of some organization called "Empower America" (Who are these guys? They're not empowering anyone!)

Sam: Where does the public interest lie — in finding the truth about President Clinton or Ken Starr?

Bob: Starr is doing what Congress could not: killing the Independent Counsel!

Bill: Starr will pursue the leaks — (then immediately on the attack) what did President Clinton do? — is he lying? — if he has nothing to hide why is he hiding? (Because his lawyer, discussed the issue with him. Sheesh…)

Sam: Is President Clinton lying?

Bill: Yes! Bob: No! Monica Lewinsky stands by her statement — the weight of the statements is coming out in President Clinton's favor.

Bill: This is "office talking points" (um, Bill, so is "if he has nothing to hide why is he hiding?") — I don't believe Senator Torricelli believes President Clinton — how can anyone? (How responsible is speculation over leaks, some of which are untrue, Bill? Such as the Wall Street Journal leak of last week that they retracted this morning?)

Bob: The only thing that contradicts President Clinton is (Bob starts smiling) Linda Tripp! and she has NO first-hand information!

Cokie: rehashed poll numbers — most Americans don't think President Clinton is being honest — "What kind of example is this setting?"

Bill: "The Emperor's New Clothes… The President misrepresents what the law requires (not all lawyers agree with you, Bill!!)… The Democrats have no Howard Baker (more wishful thinking on your part, Bill)."

Bob: President Clinton WILL come forward, but NOT during Grand Jury investigations or Ken Starr's leaks or attacks.

Bill: But it's in his interest to come forward (how, Bill don't you mean in YOUR interest?)

Bob: He'd be shadowboxing without knowing what Linda Tripp has alleged to Ken Starr.

George: The Monica Lewinsky tapes are 20 hours of fantasies? (We wouldn't be surprised)

Bob: I take Ginsburg at his word.

George: Paula Jones lied? (For a makeover like she got? Could you really blame her?)

Bob: I'd take the President's word over Paula's.

George: Kathleen Willey lied? (Who's leaking what Willey allegedly said, George?)

Bob: The only source is Linda Tripp.

George: You think Gennifer Flowers is lying? (Er… George, she's been exposed as a liar and there's evidence she doctored her tapes) Have you listened to her tapes?

Bob: You're making assumptions about problems which the President has acknowledged. To interpret these as reasons to believe he committed a crime for which there is no evidence is unfair.

Bill: "As a member of the vast Judeo-Christian conspiracy" (he'd obviously been waiting the entire segment to sneak that big of self-aggrandizing smugness in), the problem is adultery, lying, possibly under oath, and Americans are too forgiving (maybe because so many of them are Christians, Bill - forgiveness is a major tenet of Christian faith unless you're an evangelical extremist like Pat Robertson or Bob Jones - got a problem with that?).

Bob: Hillary Clinton's conspiracy claims "are beginning to have some meat on its bones," namely The New York Observer article on Dick Scaife providing $600,000 [a year] to the "Arkansas Project" to influence or change testimony against Clinton.

[Drudge-esque self-promoting comment: you may have read about it first right here in American Politics Journal! This article also merited mention on Fox News Sunday and Meet the Press].

Bill: I sit on Scaife's board (oh… THAT accounts for all those bonehead comments! Thanks for the clarification), we gave to abstinence programs in Pittsburgh, environmental programs in Montana…

Bob: David Hale received money — that's witness tampering — I'm sorry you're on those boards, Bill, because those people can expect visits from the FBI. Hale and a Arkansas state trooper received money (Bennett was looking very uncomfortable through this litany of facts), and it looks to be a serious Federal crime.

Bill: I'm opposed to crimes by Foundations, I'm opposed to crimes by the President.

Bob: Starr prepared a brief for which he may have been compensated by Scaife.

Bill: The Justice Department will look at Scaife, we should investigate the President.

The roundtable was a predictable snore as "analysts" Bill Kristol and George Stephanopoulos (looking less mopped at the top than usual) joined the pap.

For once, there were a few flurries of prime pap:

On the White House strategy, and sticking with the theme of sex and more sex, Steph brought up the "Ellen Rowetsch" strategy; she was a JFK girlfriend who was reportedly also an East German spy. Bobby Kennedy got her out of the country, and J. Edgar Hoover warned members of Congress not to investigate or their "closets" (great choice of words, George) would be opened wide for public scrutiny.

Sam's reply: "You're saying all the dirty laundry comes out? Let the games begin!" Boy,

Sam, if anything indicates what's been wrong with the attitude of the press and the direction political journalism is taking, you've just spewed it. Maybe you should sniff some bed sheets for Ken Starr and then give us your "latest" on World News Tonight.

There was a flurry of speculation on what will happen in the House

(Will: Watch Henry Hyde's actions after he gets Starr's report) and Clinton's strategy (Kristol: Clinton's "attacks" may be a predicate to declining to answer subpoenas from Starr).

Most obvious and stupid question of the week goes to Cokie: "Why not fire Starr?" The first thing to cross my mind was "duuuuuh, you idiot! Saturday Night Massacre."

Steph immediately chimed in: "He can't… Saturday Night Massacre."

Sam asked Steph about the White House labeling him a turncoat. George seemed a hair sullen in his answer: Of course he doesn't feel that's what he's doing, and that "I've said that if the President is telling the truth he'll be vindicated." It's the flip side that ticked off the White House, and he avoided that issue entirely.

When the talk turned to Iraq, we almost fell asleep - except for George Will, whose shallow saber-rattling fantasies are enough to induce nausea. His observation that "deterrence and containment worked for the USSR" (you can tell George misses the whole domino-theory-twilight-struggle thing) hardly parallel the situation with Iraq and the greatly changed nature of war and terrorism, and his observation that (paraphrasing here) "if Saddam Hussein is dangerous… that's why we have the military — to fight." That's also why we have a State Department, George, and that's why Cokie and Steph are right - French and Russian efforts to seek a diplomatic resolution would be in our interest — and should be strongly supported.

The "final shot" from Sam and Cokie was a classic example of why these two has-beens should be exiled from Punditdom. Here's Sam introducing a brief "You Won't Believe This Happened" segment about an ironic choice of music for the gala for British Prime Minister Tony Blair:

Sam: "…for visiting Vice Pres -- uh visiting, uh"

Cokie: "Prime Minister" Sam: "Yes Tony Blair from Britain…"

"We Do Believe It Happened."

And it's just one small example of why these two consummate has-beens should be retired from "This Week."