Monday, August 31, 1998 -- If it's Sunday, it's Beat On Bill Day! Who needs the pleasures of full-contact sport when you can watch the media elite and agenda-driven "experts" kick the President when he's down? It's fun! It's entertaining! It's educational! And it means your local corporate media affiliates and global infoconglomerates can fulfil their "pledge" to bring "unbiased public affairs programming" to an America eager to analyze the policy intricacies, fiscal responsibility and diplomatic implications of the President's sex life... er, um, I mean, Your Government in Action!

So grab your popcorn and Pepto, extreme politics fans, as we recap another hard-hitting round of Pundit Pap!

Fox News Sunday

"Will Ken Starr's report do in Bill Clinton? And Janet Reno wants to give Al Gore a second look!" said Tony Snow, setting the tone for another assault on the entire executive branch at the top of FNS. But as usual, the topics turned out to be more wide-ranging than the competing "big" network shows, and Tony and the gang assembled a gaggle of guests to deal with a massive roster of foreign and domestic issues.

Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) was the first guest. Question one from Tony was preceded by a tape clip of parts of Bill Clinton's "expert at asking for forgiveness" speech late last week. Orrin had difficulty hearing the question from Washington, but was able to give his reaction: "His comments were not very apologetic." Of course not, Orrin -- he didn't apologize, but he did make a point about forgiving your enemies!

Technical difficulties with the audio feed to Orrin forced Tony to immediately turn to his second guest, former bug exterminator and leader of the "Resign Now!" vanguard, Rep. Tom DeLay.

DeLay should have stuck to his former profession, killing bugs -- his lame-o attempts at "exterminating" the Clinton Administration as articulated on FNS reveal him as the GOP's dimmest bulb in power.

Tony asked DeLay how soon after congress receives Ken Starr's report would be made public; his reply -- as soon as possible "minus any pornography..." Our first thought is that he probably wants to save all the nasty bits for himself so he can get some ideas to spice up the ol' love life. Naughty boy, Tom!

He then launched into what was undoubtedly one of the talking points he faxed out to more than 60 Republican members of the House to make sure that they are in lock-step in their assault on Clinton: "It's important for the American people to get to the truth." Sad to say that DeLay doesn't seem to get the fact that the truth appears to include criminal conduct on the part of Ken Starr's office.

Will a decision on how to resolve the situation wait until after election? "We need to stay in session as long as it needs to settle this." He claimed that a situation is developing in which the President is "covering up" the truth, trying the tired old trick of tarring Clinton with the Nixonian brush.

Fred "the Weasel" Barnes asked "Is it possible or desirable to drive from office a president with such high approval ratings?"

DeLay's vague reply mentioned that most members of congress he'd talked to want to uphold their oath of office. Never expect a direct answer from DeLay if he has to concede that most people think Clinton's doing a good job...

Mara Liasson asked about the two messages seeming to come from the GOP -- wait and see, and resign. DeLay: "I called for resignation because this president no longer has the moral authority to lead...
This president has shown a pattern of conduct most Americans are disgusted with."

DeLay, whose campaign cash "problems" involving his brother, and schmoozing with sweatshop owners eager to keep minimum wage laws from American territories such as Guam and the Marianas Islands, is in no position to lecture anyone on moral authority.

Mara asked about the potential impact on the legislative process. DeLay: "We will continue working on cutting taxes, saving social security..." We think he means more tax cuts for the super-rich and selling out social security with a risky "privatization" scheme that major Wall Street interests are trying to buy from DeLay and his pals.

DeLay then had the nerve to say Congress would put all of Ken Starr's report together with "Chinagate, teamstergate." DeLay is the current King of scandalgate innuendo -- there's no evidence for his latest "gates," just half-baked innuendo, slanted reporting and scandalmongering.

"I think we need an executive report that summarizes the case against the President," he said. We bet Congress will also have to contend with a report from the president's legal team outlining some very interesting activity in not only the "independent" counsel's office but the dead Paula Jones lawsuit.

On the subject of Janet Reno's decision to start the 90-day process in advance of naming an independent counsel to look into allegations that Vice President Gore made campaign calls from the wrong room and took vague notes about "soft" and "hard" money -- "The actions of the attorney general are contemptible." Of course, DeLay would find anything less than a partisan lynching of any member of the executive branch contemptible, the guy's so far gone.

Finally, DeLay showed his inimitable "command" of foreign policy by letting this one slip: "They are trying to force Russia to raise taxes when they should be cutting taxes!"

We almost fell out of the Barcalounger laughing at this hilarious boner from DeLay -- he wants to export supply-side Laffer economics to the Russian Republic when their government can't even COLLECT taxes, let alone cut 'em! He's so busy reading faxes from Ralph Reed and Frank Luntz that he probably has no time for newspapers.

Tony turned back to Orrin, whose audio feed had been repaired. Orrin gave his review of Clinton's speech of two weeks ago: "Monday's speech was 50% written by his attorneys and 50% spin doctors." Orrin's surliness made up for the absence of Brit Hume. Good thing nobody reminded him that Clinton remains under legal assault from ex-judge Starr and it's no surprise that he might be using wording provided by attorneys. If Orrin were under this kind of attack he'd do the very same thing.

Juan: Should Clinton give a second message? Orrin said he should apologize, "tell how he really feels... He ought to speak softly and humbly."

Orrin and his Clinton-bashing pals would love that -- a chastened, meek Clinton. But in the face of mounting evidence of wrongdoing on the part of Clinton's attackers and investigators and international situations which require the appearance of American strength and unity, they know they'll never get it. Apologies are due his family, friends and staff regarding what was a personal matter. Some even think his expression of "regret" was more than was called for.

Mara asked about Clinton's discussion of the need to forgive people he is angry at. Orrin replied that he was too angry two weeks ago and "what I saw looked like he was making fun of the matter.... he ought to apologize, ask for forgiveness."

Orrin was also gunning for Janet Reno in response to a question from Tony on the Gore investigation: "Another 90 days makes it even more difficult to get to the bottom of this."

In other words, once the facts are known, Gore runs the risk of being cleared, exposing yet another GOP witch hunt. It also reminded me to take a look at Hatch's FEC filings.

Tony: Is the attorney general not doing her job? "I'll reserve my judgment until Wednesday," said Orrin ominously.

Finally, Tony "spun" Filegate, asking (read: insinuating) if it was "for the purpose of creating a dirty tricks file?"

Cute trick, Tony -- implicate higher-ups when evidence runs to the contrary, and get all the conspiracy wackos whipped into a frenzy.

Naturally, ol' Orrin agreed: "It certainly looks like it, you had two clowns handling it..."

Speaking of two clowns, tell me, Tony and Orrin -- do you think it's as big a crime as the one being committed by the Starr staff members who have such contempt for rule 6(e)?

"Now, for more on Ken Starr's report." You mean leaks already? Nope -- just another guest -- Representative John Dingell (D-MI), who agreed that Ken Starr's entire report should be made public quickly, but grand jury testimony should also be reviewed for publication. Should Congress begin hearings immediately? No -- Starr and his staff "have to be deposed extensively" concerning issues including "leaks, associations with right-wing causes [and] clients [of Starr and his law firm] who are enemies of the President... we have to evaluate what Mr. [note he does not call him "Judge"] Starr is saying."

Tony quickly changed tack, but pay attention to this comment. With a report or reports bound to come from the president's private and government attorneys, this may turn out to be a major problem for Starr, his team, and their friends in Congress out to get Clinton.

Could the President be called to testify before Congress? "If there is to be a full, fair investigation, he could be."

Tony also asked about a topic guaranteed to heat up in the next couple weeks -- "Clinton's veto strategy," that is, a possible government shutdown. Dingell's reply: "We've had it before... the only people who would shut down Congress are republican colleagues."

On the Northwest strike, Dingell almost sounded like a smaller-government GOPer when he said the president ought to see that negotiations continue and the government stays out.

Next up for FNS was Dr. Henry Kissinger, sounding as enthusiastic and energetic as he always does -- not! When asked if the President is incapacitated by domestic problems, Kissinger said "No... he can conduct foreign policy as he did in his reaction to terrorist attacks on East Africa." On a military funding cutoff, "I have proposed an IMF solution to these problems...the basic policy toward Russia needs to re-evaluated."

Should Clinton postpone the summit until Yeltsin appoints a second-in-command? "It should not be canceled,' said Kissinger. "President Clinton should talk to Yeltsin, Chernomyrdin, parliamentary leaders," but he has to change approach on talking to Russia, "lecturing the Russians on our concept of reform."

Wow! This from one of the most ideologically severe Cold Warriors and "Westernization" hawks of them all, hiding behind the cloak of a great diplomat and negotiator. And sorry, Tom DeLay, that means no tax cuts for those Russian tycoons. Kissinger cautions that the president should listen but not propose specific measures.

Have we projected weakness, asked Tony? "We have maneuvered ourselves into an implausible position... the problem is not with Madeleine Albright, but in national security policy [that] I don't agree with." The problem isn't with Clinton and his problems either -- Tony's blatant spin having been deflected by Dr. Henry.

Should we move without consulting UN? "I was strongly in favor of doing it in November. We have undermined our credibility... I would still probably support military action [but] they should not set actions they are not willing to do."

Tony moved the same topic to his next guest, Gene Sperling. The summit timing "is not ideal... but it does not mean that we should not discuss our message" of IMF support but only if Russia commences reforms that restore confidence and build a true infrastructure for market economy; Sperling added that the banking system needs reform and must be used to help create jobs, not a quick, easy hyperinflative fix.

He neglected to add that it is becoming more and more apparent that IMP money looks to have been massively squandered, falling into the hands of speculators, corrupt bankers and "businesses" out to loot once-nationalized industries. The genie is out of the bottle and containing it will be about as easy as blowing smoke into a Coke bottle with a badminton racket.

And Tony jumped on this issue, pointing out that the West pumped $100 billion into Russia while Russia moved out $100-300 billion. Sperling retorted, a bit weakly, that trying to go from a command/control economy to open markets in one decade is not an easy thing.

If they go back to command economy, should we cut off aid? Sperling said that the IMF responds to actions, and backstepping would not encourage more funding -- serious, tough measures are needed.

After the break, Tony dipped into the FNS mailbag -- including a letter complaining to Tony that having Dick Morris as a guest commenting on Clinton's indiscretions "is like getting Jeffrey Dahmer to comment on Ted Bundy."

Tony seemed to like that one -- even if he couldn't quite let on he agreed!

The roundtable went directly into the requisite round of Clinton bashing with mention of the eerie parallel between Clinton's comments on the bombing of the Sudan pharmaceutical/chemical plant and lines from "The American President." Tony called it "an interesting coincidence."

But Fred dropped the ball, choosing instead to play the Wag the Dog card: "People will second-guess this because it's uncharacteristic of this administration -- it's hard to believe this would happen absent the Monica Lewinsky investigation."

Typical Barnes bull patties. Military strikes are not characteristic of any administration except those of the Milosevices and Saddams of the world, and it's far from the first Clinton has unleashed. It's hard to believe it would happen absent hard evidence.

Speaking of Wag the Dog, has anyone stopped to think that it's not about Clinton, but Reagan? Reagan faces potential political damage after the Marine barracks in Beirut is bombed, killing hundreds of American servicemen. Two days later, we invade that massive threat to Mom, apple pie and democracy, Granada, ostensibly to "rescue" a bunch of Americans going to med school on the island.

The entire gang chose to oversimplify the situation surrounding a purported "backdown" on Iraq. Juan Williams asked "Where's Madeleine Albright, where's President Clinton on the nuclear, chemical threat of Iraq?" Fred added "Hussein is getting away with it! We should act whether or not France votes with us on the UN security council."

Glad to see Fred is such a master of the subtleties of international diplomacy.

Fred added if we go it alone against Saddam, we can win -- we're not talking about sending in land troops but we might have to do that.

Funny how I recall those magic words "We can win the war in Vietnam!"

Tony made hay of Anita Hill's presence at President Clinton's speech honoring Martin Luther King and touching on forgiveness. Juan said, "I find it grossly hypocritical -- she's still pounding at [Clarence] Thomas."

C'mon, Juan -- I have no reason not to believe Hill's story. And don't you find it grossly hypocritical that Thomas hides behind race, saying his critics bash him because he's black when in fact he is getting heat for his judicial activist views?

Fred: "The problem with the remarks is they were weird -- who's he got to forgive? The American people?"

Have you been asleep for the last six years, Fred?

Please, Brit Hume, come back from vacation -- Fred Barnes is enough to make us miss even you!!

McLaughlin Group

You know it's vacation time when John abandons current affairs and does a show on a "bubbling-under" big issue. With everyone except stalwart Mc-Laugh-In guest Pat Buchanan away on vacation, John and his guests -- Karen Rothenberg, director of the Health and Law program at the University of Maryland and futurist authors Jeremy Rifkin and Lee Silver spent the entire program debating the question "What will we do with the awesome power of genetic research?"

The program was a welcome relief from the constant tide of Lewinskiana, and actually does bear a little bit of review.

McLaughlin played up both the breakthroughs, such as mapping of human DNA and such discoveries as that of the cystic fibrosis gene and that overall happiness appears genetically predetermined, but predictably played up the perils, such as the possibility of genetic enhancements as some sort of "genetic cleansing." Question one: When is intervention unethical?

Pat: in some cases it is necessary, but there is the possibility of evil effect.

Lee: Parents will have the power correct many genetic defects that can harm their children.

Karen: The possibility of genetic discrimination exists.

Jeremy proved to be the panel's chief prognosticator of ill tide: Just who draws the line? Parents would take advantage of "germline intervention" if they could afford it, making reproduction "the ultimate shopping experience." Any perception of genetic "faults" could lead to eugenics; the most chilling possibility is letting the marketplace and parents intervene genetically.

You get the feeling religious and cultural conservatives may unite with more regulation-minded opponents in taking this line in the future as they developing arguments against genetic intervention.

Pat: What happens if embryo predisposed to homosexuality and the parents want an abortion?

In utero gay bashing -- Pat really has reached the "final frontier" of homophobia!!

John: What about testing pre-betrothal couples -- "a high-tech dating service?"

Karen: Women will feel the need, bear the burden; a lot of recent data shows that predisposition creates tough decisions.

Final segment question: Who should decide about germline enhancements -- government regulation?

Karen: It's already there.
Jeremy: It must be regulated.
Lee: It should be up to the parents.

Issue 2 -- Brave New Millennium! Genetics meets cybernetics. John detailed the Human Genome Project and mentioned the "antifreeze gene in soybeans" -- hey, ADM is involved with soybean engineering! They're not a McLaughlin sponsor, but did John give an indirect tip o' the hat to the top political talk show sponsor and owner of congressional politicians?

Jeremy's point, that every one of these genomes, could be patented. He argues that it should be open knowledge, not intellectual property. He brought up the prospect of "gene wars," and that genes are being treated as inventions, not nature. Karen added that the Human Genome Project is supposed to benefit the public -- if we're paying for it, how do we assure it will benefit all?

John's question: more peril than promise?

Pat -- promise with great peril
Karen -- ditto
Jeremy -- more promise if used without peril
Lee -- much promise, some peril
John -- more promise than peril

The second segment dealt with genetic engineering and "infomorphs," a loose term for artificial intelligence and synthetic consciousness. While most of the discussion was highly speculative, John led the discussion to the "hot button" issue of human cloning -- will it happen in the next decade?

Pat -- scientists will try & fail
Karen -- it will fail
Jeremy -- yes
Lee -- yes
John -- yes, underground!

...and we bet GE clones John so he and they stay a part of the "spin cycle" eternally!

This Weak

"Two embattled Presidents... should President Clinton travel to Russia? And US policy toward Iraq is in disarray."

Some substance this week on This Week -- great guests but the usual pap from Sam'n'Cokie. First up were former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski and Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM). The topic: Russia, and an announced 18-month "truce" which had just been announced between Communists and reformers. Brzezinski said that with anti-reformers in Duma now joining reformers, expect a slowdown of reforms and US influence.

George asked about injecting more money into the IMF to help Russia; Domenici first said "don't believe Dr. Brzezinski," the situation would have been worse if they did not strike a deal. On IMF -- we should pass an increase, but IMF money should not go right now. It should wait until the Russian people need to fix things sufficiently.

Interesting view -- many congressional GOPers would prefer not to fund the IMF!

George Will said to Zbig, "You said Mr. Yeltsin governs the 30 kilometers around Moscow," opening an opportunity for Brzezinski to give his assessment that there is no constitutional authority -- instead, an arrangement based on Yeltsin's authority, "statists" and "welfarists" -- the second Republican to use neoconservative econo-jargon in his assessment. I almost expected him to say Russia needs to cut taxes!

Sam turned to Iraq policy, asking a question that was more an anti-Administration criticism -- is it "tough outside, conciliatory in private?"

Domenici answered on cue: it looks like we've been misled, and "we need the facts."

Brzezinski, however, threw a little gasoline on the fire, repeating reports that the FBI is looking into leaks [UN Inspector Scott] Ritter may have been giving to Israel" "What is his agenda?"

Weeeeeeell, now, Zbig, you may have pulled the rug out from under critics of both the Administration and the UN -- are they in fact trying to defuse a blunder committed by Ritter?

The next guest turned to be none other than Ritter himself! He was asked by Sam if he was not allowed to finish inspections "due to US policy." Ritter stated that it US policy is disarmament and accountability of Iraq, UNSCOM inspections -- but since April, there has been pressure on UNSCOM and others "to hold off on inspections that could cause a confrontation." He cited the case of July inspections which were delayed due to intervention by National Security Advisor Berger and Madeleine Albright.

The closest that Sam came to asking Ritter about the allegations about Brzezinski: "I'm sorry it was brought up on this show, distracts from Iraq, these charges referred to work and mandate I was given to do. I was hopeful that this issue would never come up... I've never leaked anything in my life. Anything I did was in conformity with the instructions given me."

By whom? Sam, usually one not to shy away from controversy, was unusually easygoing with Ritter -- especially in light of the implications that Ritter may have been engaged in controversial activities.

We guess he was saving his "Mr. Investigative Reporter" for presidential sex scandals -- they get better ratings than all this confusing foreign relations stuff!

In the segment that followed, Sam'n'Cokie ran in its entirety a GOP Anti-Clinton ads -- Republican Dan Page is running against democrat incumbent rep. Bob Etheridge, but you'd think he was running against Clinton. The hosts then welcomed Colorado Governor Roy Romer, chairman of the Democratic National Committee.

"If they run those ads, we're going to win," said Romer. who made the analogy to an experienced pilot who was having problems in his marriage -- you trust him to expertly pilot the plane based on his experience, not his personal life.

Of course, try telling this to cultural and religious conservatives who use such canards and phony concepts as "moral authority" while supporting morally and ethically questionable characters like Bush (any of them) or Gingrich. We wish Romer would have taken a few seconds to poke some holes in this GOP charade.

Romer did acknowledge that the last part of Clinton's speech of two weeks ago overshadowed the first part, but his recent comments on forgiveness amplify his real feelings, and people are able to separate the personal conduct from the leadership.

Donaldson asked what if the [Starr] report shows crimes were committed? Romer replied that he didn't think the report will show crimes and he sees "nothing in the record that indicates this." He also pointed out a fact that all the pundits are sidestepping -- that it will be a one-sided report. He should have added that it's more likely that evidence of crimes is more likely to emerge in reports ON Starr and his pals.

Cokie: "So you're laying the groundwork for an attack on the report."

Romer: "Starr has to include both sides in his report." Sounds like he's not laying the groundwork, Cokie, he's speaking truth to power. When Cokie -- implying that the Democrats are the only party in "attack mode" -- asked if there is "anything in the report the Democrats will not attack?"

Romer chose to turn the question on its head, saying, "they're not going to remove a president over personal conduct." Two can spin at this game. Not much later, Romer at last turned to Starr, "a prosecutor who's had 4 years and 40 million dollars to get [Clinton]."

Cokie: "Has he personally apologized to you?"

Romer: "No, and he doesn't need to."

Tell me, Cokie: you're a consummate Beltway insider and schmoozer, now making your name and reputation off the personal pain of politicians and their families. How many people do YOU plan to apologize to after this mess is finally over with?

Finally, Sam mentioned that the Dow dropped 500 points. Romer's rejoinder: "Not because of Lewinsky!" Nice try, Sam -- hope you don't have too much of your savings made on Clinton's back tied up in Asian or Russian stocks!

The next segment featured Reps. Martin Meehan (D-MA) and Louise Slaughter (D-NY). Meehan summed up Clinton's problems by saying "we have a great economy, unemployment is down... people separate the two, he's moving the country forward."

But Slaughter had the line of the week: "We're spending too much time determining whether he should make more messages of contrition... [he should] hustle back to the DSC and get himself a Nurse Ratched, deal with Saddam, North Korea, stop Milosevic, send up Holbrooke's nomination papers... as a President he's wonderful, as a husband he leaves everything to be desired."

We laughed out loud at the Nurse Ratched reference -- and the panel o' pundits had a lot of fun with the reference, too.

On George Will's question about "glass houses" -- a thinly disguised inquiry about the possibility of scorched earth -- Slaughter pointed out that there's no question you won't find 435 House members who are pure. "I would almost bet that all that comes up in the report is Lewinsky."

Meehan added, "I said he wasn't contrite enough, but the people did, maybe they're right!"

Try convincing the pundits, Marty... they're still in denial that they have no credible effect on public perception!

The roundtable was tepid as usual, with Bill Kristol and George Will debating which was the big news: Mrs. Clinton may not think that nurse Ratched is needed -- "Gephardt did a lot of damage to Clinton this week" [Kristol] or "the clock is running in Janet Reno's office in their investigation into Al Gore" [Will].

And Sam again showed his unprincipled, blatant bias against Clinton, despite the tantalizing article on Ritter's Israel ties over the weekend in the New York times: "The President's problems are compounded... his handling of Iraq could be impeachable."

In your dreams, Sam -- Stop reading your own press and start reading the rest of the papers!

Now, follow the gist of the following three comments: Will said "it is reasonable to assume that smears of McHale and Ritter came from the White House." Cokie follows "Geraldo cited a White House source regarding McHale." Kristol: "Critics in Congress are going to have embarrassing facts leaked from the White House."

You've got to love it -- piling on the spinnuendo. Well, if you ask, McHale's hypocritical call for resignation merited a statement of fact which This Weak's petty punditocracy choose to label as a "smear."

Meet The Press

Tim Russert was absent with leave this Sunday. Thank the Lord for small favors!

The show was hosted by "Ken Doll look alike" Stone Philips. We wonder if Russert somehow identifies with him. But don't count Stone out. He is actually quite an accomplished and highly educated journalist who carries his good looks like a good-hearted albatross.

Stone opened the show with a discussion on Russia. It was pointed out that Russians simply adore Bill Clinton and wish they could have a president like Clinton themselves.

Next up was Bill Richardson -- who said the President was going to Russia to show commitment to Russia and support for changes in the Russian economic system. Richardson said the best he can offer the Russians is support and a few technological and scientific agreements. Richardson added, "Any world leader would give their right arm for the (positive) numbers and support that Clinton has in his own country. This is an enormously strong president on the world stage."

Stone tried to push the pap that the Monica Lewinsky issue must hurt the president abroad. Richardson, truthful, told Stone he was all wet and that international leaders basically scoff at Washington insider Clinton-bashing over this issue. On our own recent forays abroad we found the same thing. European, Russian and Asian people think Americans are just plain "nuts" to crucify a president for personal sexual dalliances!

Stone then tried to make a big issue that communists are in the majority in the Russian Duma. Stone showed his ignorance here because although many communists control certain elements of the Dumas, they are not old-style Kruschevian communists, and are generally in favor of economic change but feel the changes may have come too quickly for the Russian people to adjust. This is also a common opinion among most US economists, and the correct one.

"I support this President, I believe in him," said Richardson when Stone asked him if he felt personally betrayed by the President.

Next he attempted to bait Richardson on the bombing of the Sudanese pharmaceutical plant that was reportedly manufacturing components of VX gas. The point here was to link the bombing to the "Wag the Dog" theory that the GOP has been pushing on that attack. In short -- that the President risked lives and killed people to take focus of the Lewinsky matter. Stone knew this was not true but insinuated it anyway.

Stone then moved to the topic of Scott Ritter, a UNSCOM inspector who resigned this week saying that the Clinton administration was not backing up UNSCOM. Ritter is a nobody at best and Richardson said the opposite was true and that the problem was that Iraq was blocking certain inspections. Sanctions are staying in place in Iraq "probably in perpetuity," said Richardson. Richardson basically said Ritter was a good guy, but a liar. Whether Ritter has become a pawn on the ultra-right, just lost his vision, or abused his authority is a matter for history.

And that was it for Richardson.

After the first break it was time for the weekly NBC Clinton Bashing Fest.

Next up was, of all people, Haley Barbour - former chairman of the Republican National Committee and himself a subject of several investigations regarding money laundering and accepting foreign contributions. At his side was Congressman McCollum of Florida, one of the most vocal and nerdy critics of Bill Clinton. On the Democrat side was super-lawyer Richard Ben Veniste and Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts who hosted the President this week in his District.

Stone started with McCollum. McCollum said the President should go to Russia. Surprise! But McCollum sounded balanced. Congressman Jim McGovern, who represents the District in Massachusetts where the President spoke about forgiveness, was next. McGovern, a Democrat, was asked whether he felt "used" by Bill Clinton. What a joke. Would he have invited the President if he did? Not to mention that more than 72% of Massachusetts voters support the President. McGovern said he and Senator Kerrey did urge the president privately to say more about the Lewinsky affair during his visit.

Haley Barbour said that McGovern was a first-term congressman and that the GOP had a strong candidate against him. Then Stone threw a left hook to Barbour and showed a scathing and irresponsible commercial from a North Alabama GOP congressional
candidate which said blatantly the President was a liar and that he attacked Sudan and Afghanistan for purely domestic reasons -- a Lewinsky cover. Barbour was vicious himself (we won't bore you with the predictable specifics). Stone, with applause from us, then attacked Barbour about his lies about the GOP-controlled National Policy Forum taking foreign money and Barbour lying about it under oath.

Barbour did not answer the question, instead saying the statute of limitations had run and he was not prosecuted -- as if that somehow made him an innocent bystander!

Stone pressed him again. Bravo! He got the rotund former GOP chairman -- who looked visibly irritated -- to admit that he had received foreign money for the bogus National Policy Forum which was not much more than a money laundering scheme by ultra-right Republicans.

Stone asked Ben Veniste whether the President can rescue his credibility. "Who was obstructed? How were they obstructed? All the real questions have been sidelined, " Ben Veniste answered. He said this entire matter was grabbing at straws.

Congressman McCollum said the President has not been "very apologetic" and added that "we" have not seen a report from Ken Starr. "I'm not going to pre-judge until we see it," he said. But, predictably, he then began to do just the opposite and spat about perjury, lying and on and on. He spoke of three judges who were impeached for lying under oath -- as if this had anything to do with Clinton. Stone then asked him about reprimand rather than impeachment. More silly talk ensued about Lewinsky and whether "we" would decide to torture Bill Clinton for two years, or in the national interest let this thing go.

That's really a question for the mainstream media who, if they chose, could crucify the Republicans even more severely than they have the President.

Barbour, of course, said he understands why Democrats want censure -- because they can say he did something wrong but then maintain Clinton in the White House. McGovern said the people he represents do not care about what's next in the Lewinsky saga and are more concerned about important issues that touch their lives like social security and health care. Ole!

Stone didn't stop there. He then went to a group gang-bang of talking head pundits on whether the President will "survive." Meet The Press calls this a "Round Table."

Tee-hee.

Claire Shipman spoke first. She said that Newt Gingrich was right -- that when Bill Clinton meets with Yeltsin ,it will be one ailing leader meeting another. She said Clinton could not get out of the meeting, although she did not say that he had never considered that. "It's moral support, support for economic reform..." Stone calls this trip a "sheer spectacle." But Shipman points out that Clinton is VERY popular in Russia and that the meeting could work in Yeltsin's and Clinton's favor. Stone keeps it up -- and asks whether the Lewinsky questions will be asked at a planned joint press conference with Yeltsin on Thursday. Shipman said "You bet," but not in those exact words.

Jim Hoagland of The Washington Post said that both leaders were in trouble. The difference, he pointed out, was that with Russia, it is the nation that is in jeopardy. Hoagland might think a bit deeper and realize that if this character assassination of Clinton continues this nation is also in deep trouble, deeper than most can imagine.

Hoagland said that Clinton should make clear that Russia is on the brink, and that if they pull back for reform the West cannot help them as planned.

Gwen Ifill was asked how many Democrats will stand by and campaign with the President this Fall. She said some candidates will stiff-arm the President (where polls dictate same) but most will embrace Clinton's support.

She also pointed out the Tom DeLay is sending out talking points to more than 60 Republican members of the House to criticize the President and call for his impeachment.

The beat(ing) goes on.

Stone changed the issue to Vice President Gore's fundraising and the 90 day investigation by the Justice Department on Gore's alleged dialing for dollars from the White House. Ifill said this shows some softening on Janet Reno's part.

Motivating Democrat voters in November is the key, Shipman says correctly, but the President cannot find a good team to defend him at the moment. "The troops don't trust the general anymore."

Of course, nothing could be further from the truth - a new team complete with heavyweight strategists will go into action upon the President's return from Russia. Voters can count on that and a return of support from Democrat heretics -- coupled with a new and perhaps interestingly destructive attack on certain Republican mischief-makers.

The Round Table devolved into a discussion of (yawwwn!) home run kings, and the show was over.

Overlooked or Nearly Overlooked

What we didn't see is almost as telling as what we did see:

There was hardly a mention of two Radio Shack employees having testified before a Maryland grand jury that they told Linda Tripp that covert taping of phone conversations is illegal. If true, this would mean Tripp is a liar and criminal, fatally compromise a key witness in Ken Starr's investigation of Presidential wrongdoing, and new questions would emerge as to exactly how getting the Lewinsky "evidence" to lawyers for Paula Jones was orchestrated.

The plunge in the US stock market was only discussed in relation to Russia's economic woes -- little attention was paid to other reasons for the plunge. How long has it been since anyone has talked about grossly inflated P-to-E ratios, for example?

This Week touched on the possibility that the US ostensibly "backed off" on Iraq may be related to bungles or misconduct on the part of Saddam's least favorite inspector, Scott Ritter. There's more here than meets the eye, folks -- and there may be a serious reason for a change in the way we are handling Iraq.

And that's the way it wasn't this Sunday.

-- The Editors