FEATURE
Pundit Pap for Sunday, February 22nd 1998
MONDAY FEBRUARY 23rd 1998 --- New York (APJP) -- The Pundits scrambled to catch up with developments in Iraq as Kofi Annan attempted to negotiate a settlement to the latest dustup between Saddam and the the US. Much of their pap was mooted by developments late Sunday with an apparent agreement between Annan and Hussein. Despite few developments, the Lewinsky flap remained an item, and Joe diGenova made allegations on Meet the Press that only went to prove that Clinton's enemies are the ones with the real legal worries. Oddly, there was little mention of publication of bleeding chunks from Paula Jones' deposition earlier this week (you can read them by clicking here).
And now, on with the shows:
FOX NEWS SUNDAY
Tony Snow's first topic for the second week in a row was Iraq, and Sandy Berger was his first guest. Berger's comments and language were very much in line with those of Albright (This Week) and Cohen (Neet the Press). Like Cohen and Albright, Berger was certainly talking to Saddam as well as the viewing public throughout the piece. He stated at the outset that any agreement Hussein and Annan strike must be in the interest of the US. He also made a few points clear early on: there must be no restrictions on UNSCOM inspectors (who must have "operational control"), there can be no "artificial deadlines" or time limits on inspections, and Saddam's weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) have got to go.
Snow made brief mention of the Ohio State town hall (relishing making a point about the presence of "hecklers") and re-asked a question which came up in Ohio: why should we go to war if there's no attack on us? Berger made it clear that the US interests are regional (read: oil) and that Saddam remained a threat to his neighbors; Snow predictably replied with the issue of reticent neighbors ("why aren't they allowing us to stage combat missions?"), and Berger explained that we are getting cooperation from them but "they are not terribly enthusiastic about publicly expressing their displeasure."
Tony turned to the issue of Russia aiding Iraq with bioweapons; Berger stated that it cannot be proven definitively that such aid was supplied (an answer which was open-ended but not undiplomatic to Russia).
Tony then asked his biggie: what's the deal with reports of a four-day non-stop bombing campaign having been planned? Berger refused to speak about "operational details", saying that the reporters most often don't know what they're talking about (as if we don't already know). On the question of whether the President would give a speech this week, Berger said it's likely in advance of or the event of military action.
In response to Tony's question about whether Saddam Hussein is under any circumstances trustworthy, Berger wouldn't assume so, and our forces should remain in the region.
Tony then asked about the same quote George Will did last week, from Elliot Cohen's study of the last war against Iraq: that "bombing gives gratification without commitment" (and don't tell us that has NOTHING to do with "no improper relationship" between a certain well-known President and recently [in-]famous intern). Berger replied by asking to examine the alternatives: turn away, which equals a blank check from the international community, go get him, which would yield heavy casualties; or a military action that could "significantly diminish" Saddam's WMDs. Berger said that a congressional show of support would be welcome but is not legally necessary.
Tony's next guest was the articulate and somewhat independent Senator Dick Lugar, a figure we would like to see more of on Sunday. Tony first asked Lugar about whether the Clinton administrations strategy of "containment" (jeez, Tony, you're beginning to sound suspiciously like George Will) would work. Lugar straightened out Tony at the outset: the administration is talking limited action, and they must move in more forces, line up Saddam's neighbors and look to Iraqi dissidents (obviously not an easy strategy). Lugar agreed with Tony that we should not rush to bomb, but to seek a diplomatic solution; an underlying problem is that we don't have manpower, allies or support for a strong military response at this time, and we've reacted spasmodically to Saddam's pinpricks (those pinpricks have been pretty spasmodic themselves, Senator).
Tony asked Lugar about a defense buildup; Lugar also said a stronger defense posture, procurement and readiness are needed, and that the President has not responded to a congressional request for appropriations, but it is expected this week, and should be authorized by congress. Tony asked (asserted) about financial ramifications; Lugar mentioned the GOP leadership's concern that procurement would "suffer deterioration" if the President did not go through the proper channels. Lugar was asserting Congressional imperative on this issue, but far less aggressively than, say, Trent Lott would, and seemed to leave the door open for the Clinton administration to discuss this issue with the GOP leadership in Congress -- something one rarely sees from the GOP on Pundit Sundays. We suspect part of it is that Lugar's being the "good cop," but he's also a lucid thinker when it comes to foreign policy, and remains a Republican to watch come 2000.
Tony then went directly to Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Would Saddam target Israel? Netanyahu said he hoped not, Israel is not part of the conflict and supports the US policy for full inspections. Tony pointed out that Israel had bombed Iraq before (a nuclear reactor under construction); will a bombing prevent "future bad behavior" ? Netanyahu stated that the US is leading the effort wisely, but force has limits, yet not taking a clear stance would be a mistake.
Is Netanyahu concerned that Arab states are not speaking out? Netanyahu said yes; Iraq AND Iran pose a threat to other Arab regimes, and Israel is working for regional stability (could have fooled us, Bibi). Tony asked Netanyahu which is the bigger threat; Netanyahu replied that if either develops nuclear missile capability they would be a global threat. Iran, Netanyahu said, is developing these unfettered, and action must be taken to stop the flow of materials. Tony asked if inspection might work; Netanyahu considered the possibility unlikely but was pleased to hear Yeltsin wanted to stop the flow of materials to Iran.
Is the crisis bringing him closer to Clinton, Tony asked (an interesting question in that some of Netanyahu's most liberal critics have recently tied him to right-wing figures in the US including Pat Robertson and other evangelicals). Netanyahu said any such developing situation does, because Israel is the only democracy in a region with unsavory neighbors (he never misses a chance to point this out on political chat shows) — and then took a slap at many Palestinians, saying that they should be fighting Iraqi-style terrorists who could turn on Arafat, jail terrorists, and take a stand against pro-Saddam demonstrations, including "public education" of young Palestinians (good luck on that one, Bibi — something tells me Yassir and the Palestinians are not watching Fox Mews Sunday, if you catch my drift).
What might have been another boring Lewinsky flap segment featuring Clinton-basher Stuart Taylor did have a couple of lively moments — Taylor almost sounded balanced when, after he claimed "the President has demonized Starr," he admitted he felt Starr had made mistakes (remaining an active tobacco lawyer at $1 mil a year), and a moderate Democrat might have been a better choice for independent counsel. C'mon, Tony, Roger Ailes -- you could've done better than having this too-frequent TV talking head and axe-grinder on!
The next segment on "Is the IRS Cheating You?" was a pleasant surprise, and by far more lively -- Governors Howard Dean (D-VT) and Frank Keating (R-OK) did not come across as tax wonks but a couple of interesting guys with divergent opinions. Tony whipped out the two-volume tax code (thicker than the Manhattan White and Yellow Pages combined) and asked what the guests thought: Dean said it needs to be simplified but wouldn't go so far as a flat tax; Keating likes the flat tax. What about retirees? Keating said what to do about retirees has to be dealt with. Dean spoke about the complexity of filling out tax forms, but said he got good help from the IRS, "decent people who are trying to do the right thing."
Keating and Dean both felt the problem is NOT the IRS, but Congress -- Keating said that they're not pushing to simplify the tax code, Dean said that both parties "stick pork" into the code in the form of very specialized tax breaks. Keating's agreeing rejoinder: "We call them 'growth items.' " Dean pointed out that some tax breaks exempt huge corporations from paying anything; Keating added that with the complex tax code, people will find any strategem to cut their taxes, including some that are legally questionable.
When Dean mentioned that we have the lowest marginal tax rate of any developed country, Tony chimed in with "but we have the highest tax rate of all time" (c'mon, Tony, how the heck can you say something this overarching and stupid? WHICH tax rate?). Dean was right when he pointed out that some people were taxed at 90% under LBJ, while Keating pointed out that people think they're overtaxed overall (when haven't they?). Snow asked about the marriage penalty; Keating said do away with it (we'll buy that).
Tony's last and only slightly facetious question -- is this a precursor of the 2004 Presidential debate? Dean said "how about 2000?" Both said no, Tony said "in politics, no means maybe."
Before panel time, a Fox Movietone newsreel of the murderous overthrow of Iraq's Kassin in the 1963s (narrated by Mike Wallace); Tony pointed out that one of the insurgent officers implicated was one Saddam Hussein.
Highlights from the roundtable follow. Brit Hume was thankfully out sick; The Wall Street Journal's Paul Gigot replaced him. Mara Liasson was back, sparing us the harsh, shrewish Catherine Cryer. First question: will there be bombing in Iraq in the next two weeks?
Paul: Probably not - a diplomatic solution instead.
Mara: Could go either way - the White House has to get a good deal from Saddam.
Juan: The President has been building up to an attack and has put himself in a box - he'll err on the side of action or be subject to the same kind of criticism his people got in Ohio State (Juan has gone completely wacko, Tony, but Dave "Doctor" Gonzo says keep him for that very reason).
Tony: If he bombs, is the Middle East peace process dead?
Paul: It didn't look like it had much life anyway; it probably opens the door for more problems down the road.
Tony: What's better for Clinton's approval rating, bombing or diplomacy?
Juan: Diplomacy, but the public will rally around the President either way (on this I have to agree — but if we bomb, who knows what will happen to the President's poll numbers long-term).
...
Juan: Not only is Congress showing queasiness on bombing, so have Carter, Bush, Dole, Quayle, a panoply of leaders from both parties, and it's led to a sense of unease in the White House.
Tony: Has the Lewinsky affair affected the President when trying to think about Iraq?
Paul: If you want proof that the Lewinsky affair has distracted him and undercut his effectiveness, look at that town meeting this week. He couldn't do it because he would expose himself to Lewinsky questions (give us a break, Paul, Clinton would have handled the situation better than his associates, but he's no dummy either).
Mara: It's affected his ability to sell the policy (huh? seen his approval ratings lately, Mara?).
...
Juan: Wag the Dog opened in Arab countries, making it clear that Clinton has "another agenda here."
...
Juan: Ken Starr, partisan as he is, has not done anything out of bounds, he's acted in a forthright manner (holy cow, Juan, you ARE a Fox team player!). The Clinton team has thrown up a lot of dirt, but I think the real problem is the President's behavior.
Paul: Starr will present a body of evidence to Congress, not the courts.
Mara: Which will make Henry Hyde responsible in effect for Starr's behavior.
Tony: If that's the case, should Republicans call in Janet Reno for Waco? (get off it, Tony, a stretch like that just doesn't fly)
...
Mara: The whole thing is political. Hyde said if he has no Democrat support, how can he go forward?
Paul: If there's a real fact base, the GOP will say "How can you NOT act?"
Without a pause, Tony gave his parting thought on the President "learning that war is harder to sell than to plan… Americans just plain don't like war… [Clinton] must be prepared to give widows a reason to be proud." We're with you on this one, Tony.
THE MCLAUGHLIN GROUP
John ominously thundered "Issue One: Countdown to War." The opening piece set the tone for the show: not optimistic about Iraq, with Clinton giving Annan little room for negotiation. Fred Barnes added that the Security Council gave him little room; Eleanor Clift opined that Saddam would give Annan 70% of what he wanted. Pat Buchanan was pessimistic in his opinion that Annan would offer cover for Saddam to make a few concessions. The LA Times' Robin Wright was more optimistic, feeling Kofi would come back with a yes -- the US would not lift sanctions, and "UNSCOM plus" (plus diplomats and scientific experts) may be a way for Saddam to save face.
Chance of success? Fred - 10% Eleanor: 70% Pat: 60-70% Robin: 75% John: 50/50
"Catastrophe in Columbus" John showed a short clip of the OSU Town Hall "lowlights," plus CNN "broadcast the debacle" in Iraq with Arabic subtitles for the local audience. What does it tell you that the public is so decided? Eleanor said that the picture falsely emphasized unease and pointed out the fact that the real protesters were "in the dozens." (We want to know how much "help" they had from Young Republicans and other anti-Clinton conservative student groups.) Pat said the Clinton administration made a mistake in supporting bombing -- and the country was getting ahead of the Clinton Administration in the game. Fred mentioned the VFW member who asked about whether this would be another "half-assed job" of taking out Saddam, and most of the American public agrees with Clinton that Saddam is like Hitler and want him taken out (responsible opinions as always, Fred — pardon me while I puke). John replied that they won't take out Saddam, and "American blood will be spilled which is the worst possible world for Bill Clinton." Robin felt that the wild card is public opinion; John said it is surreal that Clinton has become the warmonger that the young Clinton abhorred.
"1 2 3 4 We don't want this racist war!" Why do midwestern kids see this as racist? Pat opined that the sentiment of the left is that the US does things to non-Whites, particularly Arabs and Iraqis (forgetting that the ratio of non-Whites to Americans has always been high); Fred mentioned that we dropped the atomic bomb on the Japanese instead of the Germans (forget something about the timing of bomb availability, Fred?). Robin felt there was a double-standard in the peace process -- we are obsessed with creating a peaceful environment in the Gulf and not as committed to getting peace in Israel.
"Dismemberment in Iraq" A clip of Peter Carlin from the the Gulf Center for Strategic Studies saying that we must be prepared for a possible three-way division of Iraq (Kurds, Sunnis, Shiites) and that what Saddam loses, Iran picks up. Robin found the idea ludicrous -- Iraqi Shiites never sided with Iran during the Iran-Iraq war, and leaders of all three communities are committed to Iraqi territorial integrity. Pat said Turkey does not want an independent Kurdistan (we're not so sure), and Iran may end up the dominant power in the region. Eleanor argued Turkey could invade. John's take: "Iraq is a salad bowl that will blow up," King Fahd is worried about Iraqis going to Haj, Japan is dependent on Arab oil and an interruption of its flow could hit the US in the wallet. Bottom line: we're either bombing next week or in diplomatic negotiations but posturing for war. Fred: A week from now we will have bombed. Pat: Oil prices are down because Asia's not buying.
Issue two: "Telling the truth slowly." A short piece on Mike McCurry's controversial comments to the Tribune led the segment. A trial balloon? The pap was predictable but had its moments. Pat: McCurry's one of the best Presidential press secretaries ever, but he slipped. Eleanor's comment about a relationship between an older man and a younger woman being "hard to explain" was met with a round of (knowing, no doubt) laughter from the guys. She later asked "what did he say that was so explosive?" John: "That he's NOT INNOCENT!"
"Fatal Distraction?" If it doesn't do him in, can he still govern? Clip od Morris hypothesizing on the "distraction" Lewinsky has created. Is the Lewinsky situation distracting Clinton? Robin: Absolutely not; Iraq is a welcome distraction. Fred: Morris is onto something. Pat: It is a distraction, but he can spend his time governing. Robin: The real danger is how he is perceived overseas. John: Annan was wearing a Lewinsky-style beret.
John then turned to a truly goofy quote in an Israeli newspaper from Lewinsky attorney William Ginsburg, notably "Clinton is very positive toward Israel and the Jews, and Monica and I are Jews… I don't want the President to resign. Who knows who will come after Clinton and what his attitude to Israel will be?" Pat: It was in the Novak column; Ginsburg has gone from being Lewinsky's attorney to a solid member of the Clinton team. John, (facetiously): Do you think Clinton is in a position of thinking how he has to be good to Israel to satisfy Monica and Ginsburg? (Even we laughed along with this one) Eleanor: Ginsburg has real credibility. John: He was out of line in his comments. Pat: It was Bill's week, but Starr's moving in. Robin: A wash. John: Leaning toward Starr because of the e-mail revelations.
My tape did not catch the predictions beyond Fred's prediction that Bob Rubin would resign. A premature bye-bye, I guess.
THIS WEEK
"As the Clinton Administration prepares to attack, the President is under attack." We only caught the first half of "This Weak" due to a weird broadcasting schedule shift. What we say was not half bad, for once, because of some bombast and bluster from Joe DiGenova.
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright's appearance was not so exciting, partially because it sounded so much like Berger on Fox News Sunday, partially because she's so calm. Sam asked her what she could say about the Iraq situation; Albright said they were waiting to see the results of Kofi Annan's negotiations. What kind of deal could they sell to the Security Council" "Full, unfettered, unconditional access" with "operational control" by UNSCOM over inspections — twin mantras Albright would repeat a number of times to Sam's more speculative questions. Cokie asked about the possibility of a "phony solution," to which Albright replied "We don't know what kind of a solution they are bringing back" (this was less than half a day before Annan and Saddam had reached a deal, yet to be seen by the US or UN Security Council). Cokie then asked if they came back with "not all the things" the US wants, Albright made it clear what the US military goal would be: "diminish WMDs" and end Iraq's threat to its neighbors. As was asked to Berger on Fox, Cokie pointed out that Iraq's neighbors seemed not to be terribly cooperative, Albright pointed out that their comments were tailored to "this bully."
George Will immediately started in on the UN, sounding his anti-globalist self asserting that American policy is "held hostage," and asked if Kofi could come back with a deal but we would bomb anyway. "I will not prejudge, but we have our national interest" said Albright. Will's reply "We don't want a Tonkin deal" — what is not such a deal? Albright pointed out that UNSCOM destroyed more WMDs than Desert Storm did; Saddam himself is drawing attention to these weapons, and we have the military option that can diminish his WMDs. Will's next (obvious) question — could Annan make an "International Law deal?" — was immediately cut down to size by Albright ("We have the veto in the Security Council").
Sam asked what would happen if Annan came back without a deal but felt it was worth continuing negotiations? Albright said "We'll have to see, but there are other options." On when the President might move in that case, Albright commented that the US recognizes no artificial deadlines. Sam turned to the film Wag the Dog, and said "a lot of Americans say 'yeah' " — that this is a manufactured crisis. Albright dismissed this canard, pointing out that this crisis started last fall, and that the US must make sure that Saddam abides by Security Council resolutions.
Cokie asked if Saddam had "disrupted the US timetable" with the current talks. Albright corrected Cokie's assumption that there was a timetable (a reply which also served to disarm rumors of a four-day non-stop bombing campaign), and if there is a diplomatic solution, it would be due to our forces being in Iraq's vicinity. She added that Saddam has to reverse course, and that he has when we have shown strength and determination.
Sam then turned the line of questioning to the OSU open house and public opinion; Albright stated that this is a national security issue (as opposed to the public opinion spin of Sam's line of questioning). Donaldson followed Will's "lead" and asked if there was a comparison to Vietnam' protests; Albright stated there was no comparison to Vietnam, and that the noise from two dozen protesters resounded in the cavernous basketball court where the open house was held; "What bothered me is that we were not allowed to fully answer."
The other segment worth mention featured smarmy Paula Jones attorney Donovan Campbell and Rutherford Institute honcho John Whitehead at his most disingenuous (you can read more about him by clicking here). Sam asked Campbell if they had gotten five more depositions; Campbell would neither confirm or deny. At one point Sam said to Whitehead: "You don't like Bill Clinton." Whitehead, sounding like a liar, replied "I will go on record as saying I agree with much of what he's done" without providing specifics (c'mon, John, we KNOW you hate the guy even if you do agree on a couple of things). When George pointed out that Paula had sworn she got no raises above cost-of-living adjustments, Campbell said "we do not have to prove a job detriment" (but it does hobble your case, Don, and you know it). George went on to the issue of Paula receiving (sniff) no flowers one Secretary's Day; Campbell said it was a small part of the evidence.
Small? It's big enough to derail your whole case. Face it, Don, you and your team are toast, even if this goes to trial — the President's lawyers will tear her apart on the stand, and you are scared that we'll see the "amateur hour" you and your Rutherford buds truly are.
Cokie asked Whitehead about a press release saying that Whitehead's homeys plan to show evidence that other women got ahead by allegedly giving into advances by Clinton. Whitehead: we will claim that "The President has acted like a sexual predator."
You should know predators, John — your so-called "Institute" has represented white separatists and violent "Christian Identity" hatemongers. And he was Governor, not President, at the time of these trumped-up allegations. Get off it.
Cokie asked if the White House has investigators looking into the lives of these women; both Campbell and Whitehead said they'd seen no indication of this (no kidding; if detectives are looking into anyone it's you two for "leak" trails from the Independent Counsel). Cokie asked if Starr had "hijacked" their case; Campbell decried the exclusion of "our Monica evidence" and "elements… claiming that Ken Starr is in collusion with our office."
Truth hurts, Don, don't it!
Sam pointed out that Starr had been tipped off that they had Lewinsky evidence; Whitehead and campbell both said they'd received subpoenas, and campbell took "a courtesy phone call" from Starr's office. How did he find out? Campbell said he read that Linda Tripp went to Starr and the OIC (repeating what is common knowledge).
We found it interesting that both Campbell and Whitehead, who looked pallid and ghoulish on television, remained soft-spoken throughout the segment but could not hide the fact that they looked a bit rattled at the end of the segment, like a couple of hooligans who had been "found out" but were trying to keep their cool.
MEET THE PRESS
Again, scheduling prevented us from viewing the entirety of Meet the Press, but William Ginsburg's and Joseph diGenova's appearance created the biggest news wave of this pundit weekend.
The third member of the Columbus triumvirate, Defense Secretary Bill Cohen, was Tim Russert's first guest, and he covered much the same ground that Berger and Albright did. Cohen started by saying that Annan was negotiating full compliance of Security Council resolution and an end to "seven years of delay, obstruction and obfuscation." he accused Saddam of "politicizing" the UNSCOM process. As with Berger and Albright, the words "full, unfettered, unrestricted access" came up repeatedly — again, clearly aimed at Saddam's ears.
The big news to come out of William Ginsburg's appearance on Meet the Press was his revelation that he is floating the idea of a "legal defense fund" for Lewinsky: "I am not being paid appropriately and her father has limited resources." As if your frequent appearances on the pundit shows won't have people knocking down your door…
Ginsburg denied that Lewinsky is working on a book, but stated that it may be her only choice (believe me, this "only choice" would more than cover the legal bills).
Clinton-basher Joe diGenova and Clinton ally Lanny Davis appeared in the following segment. DiGenova was asked by an intermediary of Linda Tripp to work for her. "My wife (fellow Clinton-hater and pundit talking head Victoria Toensing), my law partner, was approached by an intermediary… she never referred her to Kenneth Starr… I have no involvement in this but I wish I did" (no doubt it would add another chapter or two to your Lewinskygate book — this flap will yield more books than the O.J. trials combined).
When asked about his partisan connections, diGenova immediately shifted gears, champing at the bit to get this out: "People are concerned about Ken Starr's tactics; I think they ought to be concerned about the White House tactics, and I'll tell you why. Last week I got a telephone call from a correspondent for a national weekly, telling me that word had gotten around town that I and my wife Victoria Toensing were being investigated by a private investigator with links to the White House and the attorneys representing the President, and that investigator was either someone named Mr. Palladino or perhaps even — from I read in Time magazine — Mr. Terry Lensner." He went on to mention that Palladino had been retained by White House to look into women who claimed to have "relations" with the President (diGenova "forgot" to mention that this included some false and ridiculous claims) and had investigated "anti-Carey people" (you mean the allegedly "connected" Hoffa Jr., don't you, Joe?) in the last Teamsters election.
Okay, diGenova, here's a question that Tim forgot to ask: are you saying that the President does not have the right to investigate people — not just you, but others — who may be involved in the criminal leaking of information from the Special Prosecutor's office? The Rutherford Institute and Dick Scaife spent millions digging dirt on Clinton, and payback is a bitch, Joe. Live with it.
diGenova then asked — in obvious collusion with a certain West-Coast gossipmonger who ran a piece later that day alleging the Western coastality of the person — "Who is paying Mr. Palladino or Mr. Lensner? And who is getting the dirt they are digging up? Is the White House getting this stuff? Who is paying Mr. Palladino or Mr. Lensner to investigate private citizens like me and my wife and others? That's a tactic that American citizens should be concerned about and scared of, it's frightening." He read these questions from blue, Letterman-esque 5x7 index cards.
My question: Who gave you your "talking points," Joe? Lucianne Goldberg? Your wife the lawyer? Did she give Matt a "heads-up" on your questions or was it the other way 'round? What, you're not talking? And you wonder why PIs may be looking into your activities?
But in answer to your questions: obviously the President can't afford PIs to look into who is leaking information from the IC given the legal bills that his enemies have forced on him, so whoever is paying should be declared a hero. And the "dirt" on these crimes will no doubt end up with law enforcement and the Department of Justice. And most Americans following this story are frankly more concerned about and scared of the tactics that your ally Dick Scaife has used to "dig dirt" and fund rumor mongering about the President, a disgusting situation at the least, and a direct threat to the strength of the Presidency. That's what scares Americans with half a brain, Joe, not the right to hire a private investigator to look into your possible malfeasance.
Lanny Davis said he had no idea — then turned the tables on diGenova: "Tell us who that go-between was who came to you and Vicky in December who had knowledge of a criminal act by Linda Tripp under Maryland law of illegally taping." diGenova (a stretch) claimed attorney-client privilege and told Davis to talk to his wife.
Davis may not need to bother; we think PIs are looking into the situation as you read this!
The Editors
Search American Politics Provided by Hot Bot | Searchfor |
Copyright © AMERICAN POLITICS JOURNAL INC. 1996-1998 Reader Services Post Office Box 0409, Navesink, NJ 07716 FAX: 908.872.7604