Pundit Pap
for Sunday, September 16
by the Pundit Pap Team

Sunday, September 16, 2001 -- WASHINGTON (APJP) -- The horrific events of Tuesday were, of course, the sole subject of this Sunday's political talk shows, which were woven seamlessly into the fabric of nonstop coverage. 

The administration used the occasion to send one message: this is war, and America is committed to destroy those who would visit terrorism on the world.

Meet the Press
Cheney in charge.

Meet the Press went live at 9AM -- far earlier than it usually airs in New York.  Tim Russert's sole guest was Richard Cheney, and for the first time MTP was live from Camp David.  

It was far and away the most important hour of the political talk weekend.  Cheney's comments included a few headline-generating revelations, and his grave but assured attitude (along with a couple telling comments) left us with the clear impression that the Vice President was and is in fact in charge -- which, following the uneven and sometimes outright worrisome behavior of our supposed POTUS may not be such a bad thing under the present circumstances.

We still cannot get out of our heads the image of George W. Bush this last Tuesday, making clumsily-timed hand gestures and looking more scared than saddened, or his poorly stage-managed phone call, filled with clumsy body language and beginning with the verbal gaffe, "Good morning, men" (when he should have addressed them as "...Mr. Mayor, Governor..."). If anything, Cheney's appearance reinforces our impression that if the same questions were asked with the same force of Bush, the answers would have been far different -- and instilled far less confidence than those Cheney gave.

In short, Bush would have come off as a bumbler.  Cheney, on the other hand, is poised, foxy and intelligent -- the verbal heavy-hitter of the executive branch.

The National Security Council, said Russert, has been meeting for the last 36 hours.  The war on terrorism, said Cheney, " is a long term proposition... This will have to take years... the problem is terrorism."

Cheney said the probable organization responsible for the bombings is Al Qaeda, a confederation of radical organization; "We will have to take down that network... it will take a major effort, probably military force." Are there other terrorists?  "It's possible... We have to assume this possibility exists."

On the reserves and Bush's comment that this would be a prolonged struggle, Cheney changed the focus to the individuals responsible for the terrorist attacks; he said that nations that lend support or sanctuary to these organizations "should expect to face the full wrath of the United States."  Russert: "That's a very strong statement to the Afghan government."  Cheney (looking grave): "Indeed."

Russert and Cheney discussed the ties between the World Trade Center terrorists and the attackers of the USS Cole, and the ties between Islamic Jihad and bin Laden. Cheney said he has "no doubt" that bin Laden is "tied" to the attacks.

Cheney also admitted: "We were surprised" by the attack before he talked about the terrorists' plan and procedures. Russert said visa procedures will have to be rethought. Cheney said that alone will not solve the problem; surely those behind the attack  are looking to devise "creative ways" to spread carnage.

Russert played part of a pro-bin Laden video that even included footage of King Fahd with Cheney.  Bin Laden, Russert said, is saying America is weak.  Cheney said that bin Laden hates us, possibly as a result of his upbringing, and his objective is to influence our behavior and get us out of the Middle East -- he has failed.  Will our relationship with the Middle East change?  Cheney emphatically said no -- and again said that we will go after bin Laden's people.

Russert showed the FBI's "Wanted" poster for bin Laden; might we give Afghanistan 48 hours to turn him over or face the music?  Cheney said something of tremendous importance -- some countries harboring terrorists might avoid America's wrath by owning up and cooperating.  He added that "This is war" and that NATO had invoked Article 5; "these people are barbarians" (not true; at least the original Barbarians had some ethics).

Russert said that Pakistan has asked Afghanistan to fork over bin Laden and is telling its people that America will provide more foreign aid and Israel will not be on Afghani territory.  Cheney said that many details remain to be work out.

Russert then brought up Pakistan's nuclear capability and stability; bin Laden could end up with nukes.  Cheney suggested that that's why bin Laden is in Afghanistan; we are asking nations to step up and be counted -- they'll have to stand with the United States or with terrorists.

Russert then asked about other nations where bin Laden has a following (i.e. Egypt, Saudi Arabia) -- won't this destabilize those nations?  Cheney said no -- the Saudis hate bin Laden, bin Laden has tried to kill Egyptian President Mubarak, and they are likely prepared to help eliminate him.

How do we tell the world that this is not a war on Islam?  Cheney said that the US government has to make it clear that these attacks are rooted not in Islam but a perversion of religion by extremists -- "this is by no means a war on Islam"  (we feel he should have been more forceful in denouncing attacks by redneck thugs on genuine Muslims and mosques this week).

Tim wanted to learn specifics on what steps would be taken to combat terrorists; Cheney would not talk about operational specifics.  Russert then brought up the possibility that America may loosen human rights rules on intelligence gathering abroad -- and Cheney pretty much said that America "may have to get mean and nasty."  Cheney added he has never seen determination by so many -- including some who are not necessarily seen as American friends -- to end terrorism.  Russert said that even if we do take out bin Laden, we do not end terrorism; Cheney compared terrorist activity to an Internet chat room (a pretty poor comparison at that).

Russert: "You wouldn't mind having [bin Laden's] head on a platter."

Cheney: "I wouldn't mind it today."

Russert shifted the focus to Saddam Hussein and whether or not he is harboring terrorists. Cheney avoided the subject, saying the focus is on Al Qaeda.

Tim then asked Cheney to tell us how he learned of the attacks.  Cheney said -- and this does not bode well for his own critical thinking -- that he saw the reports of the explosion in the first World trade Center Tower but did not call Condi Rice until the second plane hit. He also said that when it was clear that there was a plane headed to Washington, the Secret Service Agents came into his office, said "Sir, we have to move immediately" and pretty much picked him up and brought him to the White House bunker." Cheney also pretty much told Bush to "delay his return" to Washington.

There you have it -- Cheney IS calling the shots.  'Nuff said.

Cheney continued to detail the rest of the morning, and more telling details emerged.  He said he gave the order to split up the U.S. leadership, orders to evacuate members of the Cabinet.  Cheney also said he is "convinced there was a credible threat to Air Force One" -- but that it may have been a crank call!  Initial reports on the Pentagon attack hinted at a helicopter or a private jet; it turned out to be a commercial jet only after they got eyewitness account.   

Russert asked if there were only four hijackings or if more were planned. Cheney said it's possible.

Russert then turned to the criticism of Bush for not having immediately returned to Washington; Cheney gave the boilerplate "preserve the presidency" answer we've heard all week, noting that the Secret Service said no (hmm... does Bush work for the Secret Service, or vice-versa?  Presidents can say "no").

Russert said that one message of the evacuation is that terrorists can disrupt and split up the government.  Cheney tried in vain to dispel the notion, talking about how Bush convened the NSC the minute he was back in the Oval Office.

Another important bit of news was revealed -- if commercial planes are off course and headed for the White House, "they will be taken down."  In talking about the plane that went down in Pennsylvania, Cheney made more news: he "speculates," as did our publisher and top writers, that the other target in Washington was the Capitol, and admitted that the White House is in fact very difficult to hit with a plane as large as a 767.

Should the World Trade Center be rebuilt?  Cheney said it should be "redeveloped."  Will Reagan Airport be reopened?  Cheney would not say no, but was less than optimistic that it would.

Russert then turned to preparedness -- mentioning the hour between the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon with no fighters scrambled -- and Cheney's having been in charge of anti-terrorism (ouch!).  Cheney tried to downplay an intelligence failure although he admitted that intelloigence had essentially failed.  The lesson, he said, is that we may never have 100% intelligence capability (citing McVeigh) and the most effective way to remove the threat is to remove terrorists.  Russert said that the Senate Intelligence Committee Chair (interestingly, Russert did not give his name: Sen. Joseph Biden [D-DE]) called this a massive failure; will CIA head George Tenet be sacked?  Cheney tried to sound as if he were saying no, but somehow we don't buy it.  Cheney said that "if we believe it's necessary," fighters will accompany Air Force One.  

Will the government take over airport security?  Russert cited the national-level, "well-paid" security of other nations.  Cheney said they are looking at it (translation: it's a better than 50-50 shot that it will be nationalized).  Will the government bail out the airlines?  Cheney is open to it.  Is the debate over the Social Security surplus moot?  Cheney said yes.  The president, said Russert, said he would not engage in deficit spending unless we had a war or a deficit -- do we have both?  Cheney pretty much said yes.  Russert mentioned the missile defense scam -- and Cheney said a nuclear warhead would have been far more devastating that the events of September 11.  So we can afford both the war on terrorism and missile defense?  Cheney said "we should not ignore the missile threat."

The stock market opens tomorrow.  Cheney: "Our economy is strong" and hopes Americans will not be "thrown off" by terrorism.

The, the big "feeling" question from Tim: "What do we ask of the American people?"  Cheney said "Vigilance... I think there is a unity and spirit out there in the country that I have not seen in a long time... we have to recognize that we are the strongest nation on the earth."

Russert's last word was an emotional and moving tribute to a friend of his: Father Mychel Judge, presiding chaplain of the Fire Department of New York, who was killed by debris at the site of Tuesday's carnage while he was giving last rites to a New York firemen.  The commentary included photos of firemen evacuating Father Judge's body -- and recovery workers raising the flag atop the ruins of the World Trade Center.

-- Donna Wynner

FOX News Sunday

FNS had its schedule disrupted; we caught the New York feed beginning a little after 10 AM as Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) was talking long-term commitment to combating terrorism.

Tony Snow recounted one Israeli Prime Minister's warning that terrorists must be rooted out before they got nuclear weapons; Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) fully concurred, and said that the president said this this IS the "long, twilight struggle."

Mara Liasson asked if Al Qaida was capable of a biological attack from, say, a backpack; McCain said he has no doubt Saddam Hussein is working toward such capability, and that state support of terrorism must be stopped.    Kerry said there are "a number of tiers": Al Qaeda and its cells; nations that sponsor, hide, feed and provide operational capacity for terrorists; and the money launderers, who have to move cash at least partially through legitimate channels (the Channel Islands, Cayman Islands, some Asian nations).  Should we topple governments, then?  Kerry said the possibility is real, and we must never forget that the threat is real, "they will come back, and they will come back... I think we have no choice here."

Tony asked whether the use of "low-grade tactical nuclear weapons" would be ruled out.  McCain said nothing should be -- but there are more effective ways to take out terrorists, and we don't need the stigma of using nukes.  Nevertheless, "We cannot preclude any option."

Kerry took a hard shot at the Taliban -- their leaders are NOT trained as Islamic mullahs or clerics, and he wants to see the Taliban and other similar groups exposed as a perversion of Islam.

McCain added that there is one common factor as to where terrorists are hiding: places where there is no economy (read: free-market economy) and no democracy. Take away either factor and these criminals will flee.

Snow then welcomed Joe Allbaugh, FEMA Director.  Allbaugh said that the carnage at the Pentagon would have been far worse had it not been for extensive renovations; the recovery will be slow because debris is being removed from a crime scene.  He talked a little bit about the NYFD chief and deputy chief who were killed on the scene along with hundreds of emergency workers.

What can we do to help?  Allbaugh looked saddened and sighed: "These men did not die for nothing... these are true American heroes."  Supporting municipal emergency and law enforcement employees and organizatons is the best way to help.

Snow turned to a FOX correspondent, who updated the news from the Middle East: Pakistan is sending a delegation to Afghanistan's Taliban leaders and asking for the handover of Osama bin Laden within 72 hours.

We tuned out when verbal bomb-thrower and world-class has-been Newt Gingrich showed up -- it was a shame, really, because the other guest was former CIA boss James Woolsey.  Gingrich, a disgraced liar and hypocrite, is about the last loudmouth anyone in the mass media, including Rupert Murdoch's properties, should be paying off for opinion.

-- Dave "Doctor" Gonzo

This Week

This Week began at a later-than-usual hour in New York -- we caught the first half hour.  After a lengthy opening piece, Cokie Roberts talked to John Ashcroft about the ongoing criminal investigation into the carnage in New York and Washington.  Ashcroft went off on a tangent about the need to legislate, and Cokie confronted him with the question of what will happen to the some 25 people who were being questioned; as one would expect, and as he should always do, Ashcroft would not and did not tip the hand of the Justice Department.  Cokie said that "the horse is out of the barn" -- we've already been hit; Ashcroft said something noncommittal on the "war on terrorism."  His "I'm not in a position to confirm that" about other potential terrorist targets came across as a bit too terse -- and the opposite of reassuring.  Cokie said that some in law enforcement are worried about the possibility of biological or chemical attacks; once again, Ashcroft was only able to talk about deportation and the "disruptive" nature of such attacks -- "We need to have heightened awareness."

Talk about sending every possible and non-assuring wrong message -- that was the equivalent of "We're clueless and we have no idea what terrorist groups are up to."

Ashcroft went on to say that privacy rights are on the way out: "technology has outpaced wiretap laws."  Cokie said that passenger profiling might have stopped the hijackings.  Ashcroft said that racial profiling is unconstitutional, and airport security is the answer (i.e. too little, too late).  Sky marshals?  DOJ has already volunteered to make personnel available (i.e. too little, too late).

Ashcroft's appearance was about the last thing our nation needed at this time.  In truth, his disquieting responses to Cokie's questions are proof positive of his incompetence in a place where it most counts today: front of a camera live and in real time.  Cheney should sack this evangelical, stupid twit and replace him with the only logical GOP figure available, Rudy Giuliani.

-- Donna Wynner

Capital Gang

What has happened? Why? And what do we do now? The answers and views on this Sunday's Capitol Gang were widely divergent views regarding the assault on that U.S. In these tense days, where merely questioning the government or daring to assign partial blame to U.S. foreign policy is considered treason, it's important that debate still be allowed to flourish along with the questions. The answers given to them by the media and government often merit a healthy dose of skepticism -- but of course, the pundits were ready and willing to spout their speculations.

I must say, though, that Kate O'Beirne, and to a lesser extent Bob "Mister Warmth" Novak, spewed some very dangerous and very ill-considered views. Maybe I'd hoped that this momentous tragedy would have served to tone down Novak's religious devotion to the Gods of Industry and Finance. Maybe Kate might lay aside her comic-book-simple, ill-considered, knee-jerk jingoistic views. Maybe they'd GET how this attack is related to the very economic and military hubris that they defend and promote so vehemently week after week.

How silly of me.

The first issue up was the economic response in Congress. Before the dust had even settled, and before the fires were out, airlines were coming to Congress, hat in hand, and asking for a bail-out. A clip of the debate on the house floor between the buffoonish Don Young (R-Alaska) and Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas) -- who managed to stop this measure before a foolish precedent could be set - had us laughing.

It's always interesting how the right thinks the federal government is useless, and "free-market" capitalism is a religion. Bail-outs for workers or the poor are anathema, yet they are angry when this measure wasn't passed without debate! Recently, Bob Novak said, with regard to union steelworkers, that if the US steel industry couldn't compete then too bad for the steel industry. Couldn't care less. Yet now he's all for a multi-billion-dollar, no-questions-asked, taxpayer-funded bail-out of the airlines. I realize that this is surely a special circumstance, and that perhaps some sort of support may be justified eventually, but as Al Hunt said, it ought to be done with a little more than 34 minutes of debate.

I heard elsewhere that less than a day after the tragedy the airlines were pressing Congress to pass a measure making them immune from lawsuits stemming from these events. If a gay couple want to get married, the right screams that they're getting "special rights" -- yet they're all for airlines getting a special right to be immune from lawsuits. Which is it? A "survival of the fittest" standard applied to human beings? If hard times befall them, too bad? But a "protect from harm" multi-billion-dollar bail-out for multi-billion-dollar corporations if they run into terrible luck? Seems like it should be the same standard for all. For all their pro-family rhetoric, they seem to be much, much more willing to let a family be destroyed due to no health insurance, lack of a living wage, or ruinous prescription drug costs than to see an industry -- God forbid! -- suffer. Perhaps the corporations should be given "measured care" as well.

Novak sneered at abolishing curbside check-in at airports, questioning how that would hurt terrorists. He questioned how shutting down Reagan Airport permanently would hurt terrorists .

Bob must not realize that the approach to Reagan comes right along the Potomac River, within a mile or two of the National Mall with it's monuments and the Pentagon -- a plane could hit any target within one or two minutes of leaving the flight path, including CNN's studios near Union Station. Likewise, Bob can't understand how inconveniencing the public will help in any real way against terrorists. All I can say is, there's no way to deter terrorist attacks while making it EASIER on travelers.

But what Bob is really chapped about is the economic impact. He feels it's NONSENSE to worry about the Social Security trust fund and no simply bail them out.

Then Kate launched into her first round of lunacy. She made the sneering remark that, prior to Tuesday, we'd been told we're more likely to be hit by lightening than be killed by terrorists. She made a great show of how there are many thousands now that know people who were killed by terrorists, so we won't be hearing THAT anymore.

I really fail to see what the hell point she was trying to make, other than suggesting that terror deaths will be a constant in the future. I chose to think otherwise.

O'Beirne then moved on to the emerging line that attempts to curb some of the intelligence community's more egregious dealings are to blame for the total failure of intelligence to prevent this tragedy. Showing little restraint for avoiding political blame-laying, she laid this at the "liberals'" feet, saying they were to blame for ham-stringing the CIA along with the Church Committee report which exposed the CIA for having such example of moral rectitude as high level drug kingpins proven to have been involved with the torture and murder of a US citizen on their payroll. You know - nice, wholesome people like that. The right wants a return to those good old days -- and are trying to leverage the deaths of thousands for this political goal.

This is going to be a constant refrain from the right, and it is simply impossible to say that the CIA reform measures would have made the slightest difference in preventing this horrid catastrophe.

But that doesn't stop Kate from trying -- even as the country is in mourning -- from trying to lay blame on "liberals" and using the bodies of the innocent to advance their goals.

Hunt expressed his views, concluding that it was correct to block the airline bailout bill when it was attempted to get it rammed through without debate. This set off a flimsy rant from Sunshine Bob - a claim that if this hurts the airlines then it will have been giving a "victory" to the terrorists, since this terrorism was actually meant to ruin the U.S. economy.

Wrong, Bob. It was an attack on our foreign policy in the Middle East -- and the fact that we use our economic clout to achieve dubious goals there.

Mark Shields remarked that shutting down the economy for 5 days shouldn't cripple it. Shields said that the idea that it would be a failure of capitalism due to this attack is ludicrous. Bob said that an airline failure would be a great victory, since he believes that the attack was an attack on capitalism.

Very wrong, again.

Hunt responded that the terrorists hate "modern life", including women's rights, democracy, and on and on. Here Hunt is right: it is a religio-cultural clash, and their view that our culture is encroaching upon and threatening to irretrievably corrupt theirs. Capitalism is only one element of a much broader group of ideas they object to.

Kate then made a statement that exemplified her extreme disconnect and childishly simple views: she stated, "We are the object of this MURDEROUS hate because we are powerful, because we are rich, because we are modern, because we are Christian, because we are GOOD, as the president said this week." Kate gushed with a beatific smile on her face at the mention of Smirk.

We indeed are all those things, though I was not aware that we are an officially Christian nation. Maybe Kate knows something I don't. On second thought, she doesn't.

This statement stuck in my craw and reminded me of this analogy: it's as if an enormously big kid in school came home one day with a couple of his teeth knocked out. He can't believe it happened, because until that point, no kid had ever dared harm him, due to his size and strength, and the fact that he was not shy about beating to a pulp anyone who tried.

His Mom tries to comfort him. Rather than asking what he did to provoke this attack, she simply says, "There, there! Whoever did this to you was just jealous of you because you are so big, so handsome, so strong, and so GOOD. They're just jealous!"

Well, Mom is just being a Mom. But she's not doing the kid any favor by totally ignoring what he did to bring on this attack, and she's not helping him by filling his head with the idea that he's so superior. This attitude will only guarantee that he'll continue his ways, and likely be the object of further attacks.

The show continued without much in the way of fireworks or typical disagreement as to what happened, why, and what we should do.

One notable segment had Kate arguing for allowing "profiling" of people from the Middle East, which spurred a heated debate, with Al Hunt making the EXCELLENT point that were we to do that, perhaps we should profile white born-again Christians, since they've been associated with militia-type terrorism and the slaughter of people working in abortion clinics. Kate didn't like that idea, and argued that we should somehow only profile "foreign nationals" -- though she didn't suggest how.

This is another danger this crisis poses, namely, the call for giving up basic rights that would serve to make this country less free. There are those that would use this as an opportunity to give the government sweeping powers that will be difficult or impossible to get back at a later time. We must not let this stampede us into giving up the very rights that make us the greatest, and most free, nation on earth.

When debating what the US response should be, Kate, to no one's surprise, was all for a massive military action, no matter if we lose many more lives. Where or against whom, she didn't say.

That's the one source of blatant logical disconnect that runs through all of those calling for immediate and massive military retaliation: they want blood, but they don't know who should bleed! They want to kill those responsible, but most are already dead, and they have no clue where the others are! The fact that we're in some huge "WAR" against an unnamed and unseen enemy seems to me to be a huge logic hole in all of this.

They also discussed Bush's terrible performance after this tragedy, where he simply dropped out of sight for the most part, sending aides out to make statements at this most critical time, and taking no questions whatsoever. The completely ineffectual and weak performance of Bush was only highlighted by comparison with the masterful and rapid response of New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani.

Bush couldn't do much more than manage 3- or 4-word platitudes, punctuated by long drawn out, "uhhhhhhhhh"s -- not exactly a leader needed to reassure the public -- and even in this situation, he was utterly incapable of simply speaking his mind, openly and candidly. It was pitiful, and left the jittery American public with even less confidence.

Still, the media did their part, fawning over Bush, describing his every utterance as being "emotional" and with one CNN reporter, Major Garrett in particular, doing super-human work in trying to paint a glowing vision of Bush -- even going as far as somberly intoning comparisons to Lincoln, FDR, and LBJ, and then saying that no other president has ever faced this kind of situation. Every time Garrett appeared, he talked about Bush like David McCullough talking about Lincoln in a PBS special. It was just stunning how far he would go in painting Bush in heroic, historic tones.

It was unbelievable. Remember Pearl Harbor, Major?

The Outrages of the Week:

Shields' outrage was the instantaneous greed that appeared in the wake of the attack. He mentioned how a hotel near JFK airport in NY had instantly doubled their room rates once it became apparent that thousands of travelers would be stranded there. In my area and across the country, gas stations raised their prices to as much as $4 to $5 a gallon in a cynical price gouge of foolishly panicked motorists.

Novak had an outrageous outrage this week. This indeed is a major outrage, but for just the OPPOSITE reason Novak thinks - because it reveals EXACTLY the kind of Nazi suppression of dissent that chills me to the bone: "In yesterday's Boston Herald, Democratic Congressman Marty Meehan was quoted as doubting that President Bush sought safety Tuesday for valid security reasons, quote: 'I don't buy the notion Air Force One was a target. That's just PR. That's just spin,' unquote. That caused so much commotion that a police guard was posted outside the congressman's office. Meehan says he was misrepresented, but added that he regretted making the comments. And well he should. There finally comes a time when Bush bashing is not appropriate."

That is truly an outrage alright! But it's outrageous when a statement like that is considered treasonous somehow! The White House saying that Air Force One was a target IS ridiculous! It DOES insult our intelligence, and it IS reprehensible that they would be more concerned with misleading the American people in the midst of this crisis!!!

People that are airline pilots have written that this assertion is just patently false, as it would require the terrorists to have the capability to track AF1's position at all times. It also assumes that they would somehow be able to penetrate a swarm of fighter jets surrounding it. There are many more solid facts that make this assertion false on its face, yet Ari Fleischer and Karl Rove felt the need to provide cover for Bush's roaming the country while it's power centers were being destroyed as more important than the truth.

And it's a true tragedy that this simple questioning of the veracity of this blatant spin would provoke threats of violence against Meehan. THAT is what is the outrage -- yet Bob thinks he had it coming for what he said. And consider this: how was this "Bush Bashing"?? All Meehan did was express skepticism about a report the White House had manufactured and put out. If THAT sort of thing is considered almost treasonous, then we're all in a LOT of trouble.

That's the outrage, Bob.

Bob must have searched high and low for an example he could point to of a Democrat making a political statement in the wake of this, even though there were DOZENS of examples from the right, including the psychotic Ann Coulter taking pot shots at Hillary Clinton within a tribute to Barbara Olson.

By the way, I've seen many "tributes to Olson" complete with short clips of her appearances -- but NOT ONE would dare air audio to go along with it! Just consider how unsympathetic it would be if they would play examples of her wild smears and ugly and mean-spirited slander. I only wish that after the glowing tributes, they'd then play an example of what she was all about!

Sidebar: The week before this attack, Barb Olson and Bill Press were guests on C-SPAN's Washington Journal. Most callers were VERY hostile towards her. And they were so well-spoken and sharp that she was truly taken aback (though it didn't prevent her from inferring that Hillary Clinton was a Marxist and Communist). One caller remarked, "You are an evil person. You won't be around for much longer. You have too much of the devil in you."

She was dead days later.

Margaret Carlson brought up the true outrage of the week: Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson's reprehensible and inflammatory statements on Robertson's 700 Club. Falwell blamed this horrid terrorist attack on the "Christ haters" -- naming the ACLU, pro-choice women, NOW, People For the American Way, gays, lesbians, and presumably anyone that doesn't go along with their Taliban brand of Christianity. I only hope that this outrage serves to put both of them into the shadows where they belong.

Al Hunt: "Mark, late this week Bush administration intelligence briefings to Congress were virtually meaningless. Members said they got more watching CNN. Now if the administration thinks there's a problem with leaks -- and there may well be -- they should punish the specific congressional offender. But if we're in a war, it's not the executive branch war: Congress better be an equal partner, or there will be hell to pay."

I particularly liked the apparent veiled swipe at Barbara Olson with the reference to "Hell to Pay", her reckless and lie-packed screed against Hillary Clinton.

That was the somewhat abbreviated version of Capital Gang for today.

There's still much to digest in all of this, and this is a time for great vigilance on the part of citizens on their governments actions. The impulse is to call for sweeping, and sometimes reckless, actions. We need to use our common sense, and make sure to speak up if we disagree.

This was an attack provoked by U.S. foreign policy, its service to U.S. corporate exploitation, and our massive support of Israel in the Middle East. Otherwise, they would have attacked Switzerland.

American blood was spilled in a horrid way, as well as that of other nationalities, but it was blood spilled due to reaction to our foreign policy and relationship with Israel.

Let's hope this doesn't get buried with the massive rush to become a nation of John Waynes. And let us hope that the truly serious issues that faced us before this event don't get swept under the rug.

I hope the people responsible for this are caught and killed. But I feel with equal strength that that innocents must not be slaughtered for merely living in the geographic area that these criminals operate.

Heck, if we want to follow the logic of attacking blindly any area that causes major problems for the U.S. and has harbored terrorists, perhaps we should level Palm Beach County, Florida. Given the butterfly ballot and some suspected terrorists having lived there, the application of Bob-Novak-style logic leaves only one conclusion: bomb West Palm back to the stone age.

-- Dash Riprock

Copyright © 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996, American Politics Journal Publications, Inc.
All rights reserved. Read our privacy policy. Contact us.
ISSN No. 1523-1690