|
|
|
|
Contact Information for Pundit String-Pullers |
Sunday, October 7, 2001 (updated 1:15PM EDT) -- WASHINGTON (APJP) -- As our "early edition" of Pundit Pap was posted to our web site, CNN reported that Kabul, Afghanistan is under attack. That's right -- it's round two of World War III on Pay TV.
We had been wondering why topic one was not the latest proposal from former governor Bush on Friday: that completely debunked "cure" for the ailing economy -- more tax cuts! Sure, Li'l George was giving lip service to rebates for the working class, but the truth was that he sounded to be doing the bidding of his owners as articulated in the Wall Street Journal, namely ramming through the most egregious hard-right elements of his agenda over the dead bodies of five thousand Americans.
Ominously, the ever-tax-cut-friendly Tim Russert did not even discuss the matter.
Here's what we caught this Sunday.
FAUX News Spin-Day
Card's house of cards
Tony Snow first turned to Jim Angle and Steve Harrigan to get "the latest on the war on terrorism." Harrigan, not the prettiest face on FAUX, reported the same stuff we heard elsewhere -- forced conscription of Afghans by Taliban press gangs, the "breaking" story that the Taliban were willing to try bin Laden, and US relief flights in the works from Uzbekistan; Jim Angle gave the White House reaction to the Taliban offer, quoting an administration official: "What part of 'no negotiations' don't they understand?" (and in light of what would happen a few hours later, the comment did carry a message: too little, too late, game over). There followed a piece on airport and landmark security -- with lots of shots of the National Guard and law enforcement -- which morphed into a shot of Bush urging Congress to get behind more tax cuts. Bottom line: Smirk wants to "narrow the options and speed up the pace."
So issue one in FAUX world was tax cuts. Did someone leave FAUX "out of the loop" on the change in priorities?
Tony pressed guest one, Smirk-O-Nomics tutor Larry Lindsey, on "accelerated" tax cuts. You guessed it -- more income tax cuts for those who don't need it -- and at a time when we should be focusing on fixing New York City, defending the nation, and REAL economic stimulation. Lindsey conceded that corporate income tax won't be cut -- and he avoided the issue of a cap gains tax cut. Tony asked if Idiot Boy is "caving into extremists" (translate: Dems are sticking up for the little guy). Brit Hume, sounding surly and dismissive, asked if His Fraudulence would veto a tax cut bill he didn't like -- but Larry hinted that Li'l George has said he'll help the little guy and a compromise could be worked out. Hume asked if a long-term recession is in the offing -- and Lindsey said no, that the US is fundamentally healthy, as he slammed Warren Buffett's forecast of a recession.
The surprise: Lindsey forecast 3-4% economic growth and expressed surprise in the public vote of confidence in the economy. Tony and Lindsey tried to push the idea that tax cuts are the best way to stimulate the economy -- but in response to a question from Hume admitted that he has no way to predict what the impact will be on the economy, yet he STILL forecast budget surpluses for the rest of the decade! It was hilarious!
Lindsey essentially admitted that if there is a tax cut, some will have to go to the poor and middle-class while assuring that big business still gets their piece of the pie. There was a brief back-and-forth on bin Laden's assets that yielded nothing new or specific.
Note that Lindsey's mantra was "fundamentally strong economy", "up and running," and "optimistic." Also note that there was a complete avoidance of discussion of a cap gains tax cut, which would encourage stockholders to sell, which would depress stock values, which would lead to downsizing and layoffs!
After the break, Tony welcomed Senate MINORITY Leader (we still love the sound of that) Trent Lott, who first called the Taliban's latest offer "unacceptable." For some reason, Tony asked what would happen if the Taliban offered to turn over bin Laden to the US -- and if we could stop terrorism with the Taliban out of power (of course not!). Lott gave the obvious answers.
Then Tony brought up a key issue -- Iraq's possible involvement with terrorist attacks on the US. For all the razzing we give FAUX News, this is an issue we have been hoping ANYONE would ask about. Lott suspects Iraqi involvement in the attacks on New York and Washington; Lott cited Iraqi ties to the attack on the USS Cole.
It's about time.
Lott has changed his tune on foreign relations -- now, all of a sudden, he is oh-so-happy about the "opportunities" for Dim Son and Colin Powell to form strong alliances -- with nations that are already our allies. Looks like Smirk-O-Lationism is dead.
How long will the American people "stick with" the war on terrorism? Lott is excessively optimistic that America will stick with the war (which was right in line with Bush's calls for "patience" when he went on the air a few hours later to announce the attacks).
Are there the votes to ram through Smirk's latest tax giveback scam? Lott talked about the "need for an economic security plan" and a "substantial spending plan" along with an economic plan with "immediate impact... targeted... growth... stimulative" -- meaning tax cuts, which WON'T have a huge effect. Tony and Lott talked $60 billion.
Should airport security be federalized? Lott praised sky marshals and the band-aid security changes, but supported Bush in "new, improved" screeners (translation: burger flippers with better training). Lott sounded contemptuous of the idea of federalizing airport security -- a position which, if something else goes awry with airplanes, he will regret -- and that will be pinned to him come reelection time. Lott did say that we could learn a lot from Israel about security and patted his political soul-mate, Israeli PM Sharon, on the back for apologizing to the US yesterday for his angry (and politically costly) comments on Friday.
We laughed out loud. Here's lesson number one from Israel: FEDERALIZE AIRPORT SECURITY!
During the half time break, there was a weak commercial for New Jersey Republican gubernatorial candidate Brent Schundler, who is way behind in the polls. He's pushing -- you guessed it -- tax cuts to a constituency that is more concerned about their safety, security, and -- in more cases than Schundler seems ready to grasp -- the loss of friends, neighbors and relatives. McGreevy is addressing these issues with sensitivity and substance.
Following the break, Tony tried to embarrass Joe Lieberman (D-CT) with the Friday comments by Sharon -- playing the notorious vid clip on appeasement and "Czechoslovakia." Tony essentially asked if the US were appeasing the Palestinian authority. Joe, who sounded as if he had laryngitis, said that the US has to look at Hezbollah, and the US needs to take on all terrorist groups that commit international atrocities. Mara Liasson asked the question: does that mean Iraq? Joe said yes -- mentioning likely ties between Iraqi intelligence and the hijackers who committed the September 11th attack, and Saddam's having a strong motive to attack America. He added that we have not done enough to aid Iraqi resistance.
Joe also made this major point: sure, it's great to have a large coalition, but what do nations that sign on want in return? Will it compromise the goal of stopping international terrorism? On the question of supporting a Palestinian state, Joe said it sounds like a bone thrown to moderate Arab states -- and undermines the commitment to stop terrorism, since, in the last year, Palestinians have rejected major concessions by Israel and stepped up the intifada. The mission should define the coalition -- not the other way around.
Hume wants to go after Islamic Jihad, Hamas and Hezbollah, and called Arafat a man whose "hands are stained with blood over decades." Joe wants to see parties reengage -- but supports Israel exercising the right to self-defense.
Juan Williams asked Joe about when retaliation in the form of pinpoint actions might happen (mentioning Joe's position on the Armed Services Committee). Joe would not budge on specifics of when -- but said he has no doubt that actions are in the works.
Boy, was he right!
Following the pre-panel break, FAUX reporter Amy Kellogg gave the details of a Taliban press conference in Islamabad, Pakistan -- the spokes-zealot showed a slight shift in tone, she reported, but not much else. Hume said it looks more like the Taliban is negotiating with itself and fears retaliation; Mara cited de facto hostage-holding by the Taliban and their offer to release western workers; Juan mentioned Pakistan strongman Musharraf saying outright that there's airtight evidence against bin Laden. Hume talked up war, war, war -- "all this talk about evidence" is only good for diplomatic maneuvering and it's time to strike, dammit! Mara reminded Hume that this is going to be a campaign of small attacks. Juan said it's crucial to show to the world -- including Muslims -- that the coalition is seeking justice. Hume essentially agreed with Hillary Clinton -- we have to show that we have defended Muslims -- and used that argument to again insist it's high time for a show of American force. Mara said we don't have a great record of success. Juan said that if there is to be an effective response, we have to assert that America is not anti-Muslim -- and said that Shrub's decision to announce humanitarian aid to Afghans was a brilliant move. Brit sputtered -- he still wants blood.
Tony's last word: baseball's most exciting year in decades. Hoo-boy. But we agree with his final point -- we need a little fun even in the worst times.
-- Morrie Friendly
McLaugh-In!
John indicts the CIA, lets Pat "Puke Cannon" push stealth racism
I can see why Dave "Doctor" Gonzo loves to call The McLaughlin Group "McLaugh-In" -- John can be side-splittingly loony. In fact, he looked as excited as a rabid football fan watching a Super Bowl pre-game show as he hollered "Issue one: MILITARY DEPLOYMENT!" The rotund ranter was practically drooling over the toys that are being deployed around Afghanistan as he showed a map of the Middle East and described who and what are going where. Oh, rapture -- it's almost game day for defense contractors -- and we were waiting for him to say, "And they're all equipped with the latest equipment from GE! We bring good things to surgical military actions!"
Pat "Puke-Cannon" Buchanan predicted doom for the Taliban; they have to be overthrown, and they'll first say buh-bye to their minuscule Air Force. Eleanor Clift said that the US is counting on major defections from the Taliban. John ignored her solid point, ominously asking Tony Blankley if the alliance is getting wobbly, and Tony said that he hopes that we're bribing Afghan warlords -- a practice that is perfectly honorable in the region. Mort Zuckerman said we can't get Al Qaeda by ourselves, so we must take out the Taliban and use a new Afghan regime to get Al Qaeda, which is a a direct threat now embedded in our own country. John seemed thrilled by the idea of special forces "strapped up with their gear"; Pat spewed something we missed; Eleanor said that if she were bin Laden, she'd be hiding in Kabul. Tony said that we're going to do major damage at night -- we can see at night, they can't.
Pat said he wants to take Afghanistan's cities! As The Doc would say, "Yeah, sure, Pat" -- and watch Americans lose faith in the war on terrorism as our body count soars while tribal warlords duke it out.
So what happens next with the possibility that bin Laden has set up retaliation already? Pukemeister Pat said we've gotta go in -- and what if we find bin Laden? "Shoot'im! Shoot'im!" Ol' Pat looked almost rabid, but was in enough control not to use the sort of racist epithets he is reputed to use in private -- unless, of course, the editors did remove references to "towel-heads" that may have slipped from his lips. Eleanor said she wants to put bin Laden on trial in the Hague, and Pat blew her off as said that would cause the Islamic world to explode.
Not if any American judges recuse themselves -- and ask that an Islamic judge be named in their place!
Tony expounded on the possibilities for replacing the Taliban with the right balance of tribal leaders in Afghanistan. John kept pushing for blood: "So if you see bin Laden, kill on sight!" Mort wants him dead too -- both he and John argue that the act of putting the 1993 Trade Center terrorists on trial actually goaded extremists to plan more vile acts.
Well, to quote Tamara Baker and The Doc, "duuuh" -- problem is, making bin Laden a martyr will have an even more extreme effect.
Eleanor believes that bin Laden will not come out alive, one way or another. The rest of the gang ignored her as Mort said, "Here's what [Bush] means by 'dead or alive': 'Dead!!!!' " He added that we are stuck with "the evil of two lessers" -- bin Laden or someone else in power in Afghanistan.
Issue two: bash the CIA! John claimed they failed to foresee the events of September 11th (Internet reports of agencies and individuals having advance knowledge notwithstanding) -- 5800 dead, tens of thousands wounded, tens of thousands unemployed, hundreds of BILLIONS in damage: "Islamic Extremists." John then rattled off about ten incidents and screamed "Islamic EXTREMISTS" after each event -- then claimed that our bombing of the Chjnese embassy in Belgrade was a CIA failure.
Are you 100% sure about that, John?
John's question: does the CIA deserve the blame?
Eleanor pointed out that the CIA foiled a huge number of terrorist plots, but it's still a big screw-up; nevertheless, it's not exactly easy to penetrate these cells. We need, she said, to look at "dirty assets." For the first time in months, John did NOT blow her off, saying that the CIA has been handcuffed by the inability to use "unsavory" operatives and informants. Mort agreed that Eleanor -- and John Bremer of the CIA -- have made that crucial point, and Tenet cannot be faulted. John said that both Sens. Bob Graham (D-FL) and Dick Shelby (R-Investigate Clinton's Zipper), the chair and minority chief of the Senate Intelligence Committee, are drafting legislation that would allow dirty assets. Tony loves dirty assets. Pat railed against "wide open borders while we blame the FBI, the CIA..." Eleanor said Pat's ideas go well beyond stopping terrorists, with which she agrees. Mort said the INS has to be reviewed.
How long will it take to fix the CIA?
Pat: A couple years; the enemy is inside the gates already.
Eleanor: Faster than Pat says.
Tony: Five to ten years.
Mort: Rapid transformation, but years to cultivate operatives; Tenet's a first-rate operator.
Then talk turned to Tenet: Pat's OK with him. Eleanor pointed out that NOBODY on Capitol Hill listened to Tenet's warnings.
But she should have explained why -- the bottom line is that the in-control GOP pushed the Justice Department, the press and their own rank and file to pursue "trouser trout" in Lake Clinton and shifted resources that should have been used to investigate threats to YOUR security)
That's right: nearly 6,000 dead because Ken Starr had more sway than Tenet.
Final prediction: When will Osama bin Laden buy the farm?
Pat: By New Year's Eve.
Eleanor: Before the mercury hits zero in Afghanistan.
Tony: More than 6 months.
Mort: 2 to 3 months.
John (sounding excited): One month!!
-- Morrie Friendly
Meet the Press
No tax talk in Tim's yard
"Will the United States, ever respond, militarily? Will [Pakistan's] nuclear arsenal, remain safe, from extremists?"
Will Tim Russert lose, that fake crisis, tone and misplaced, commas in his opening credit, questions?
We have to suspect that the powers-that-be at NBC knew the answers to Tim's first question -- there was not word one about tax cuts this week.
Tim first turned to NBC correspondent Jim Miklaszewski in Washington, who said air strikes "seem imminent" (hint hint), probably against their tiny air force and air defense installations (he'd prove to be correct). Tim said it looks "much more selective, much more cautious" than other recent operations (Bosnia, Desert Storm), and "Mik" said that the goal is to set up a base of operation to allow Afghanistan's rebel Northern Alliance (NA) to rout Al Qaeda and bin Laden. Mik also reported that Defense Minister Rumsfeld was delivering the message during his Middle east visit that this is a war against terrorism and not a war against Islam.
Tim then turned to NBC correspondent Tom Aspell in Afghanistan, who reported that the NA is bracing for battle against the Taliban, had just gone on high alert, had closed their air space -- and has banned reporters from possible targets (big flippin' hint). The NA is looking, he said, to consolidate their ground gains and may push to the northern edge of Kabul. Tim asked if there have been defections, and Aspell said that a number of Taliban leaders have offered to defect -- and several have even turned up at NA headquarters, with sums of money exchanged.
Tim then turned to Pakistan's Ambassador to the US, Maleeha Lodhi. It speaks volumes that Pakistan's ambassador to the US is a woman -- surely it was a message to America about Pakistan being a progressive Islamic state despite having a military strongman at the helm; now it's a message to the Taliban. Lodhi first said that the offer by the Taliban to put bin Laden on trial is essentially unacceptable -- they must hand over bin Laden. The international community has demanded it. Will the Taliban ever turn over bin Laden? Under pressure and with increasing isolation, they have shifted position -- but "they must accede to this demand." What did Musharraf mean when he said to the Taliban, "Your days are numbered"? Lodhi replied that if the Taliban don't turn over bin Laden, they will face the wrath of the world community.
In other words, time is up.
Tim then asked a dumb question -- why can't Pakistan just ask for him? Lodhi made it clear -- they have been communicating the gravity of the situation to the Taliban, and they have done nothing. How does Lodhi feel about the Taliban's treatment of women? Lodhi said that Islam affords equal rights to women, and she supports continued improvement of the status of women overall in Pakistan and in Islam. Lodhi also praised Russert and others in the media for "drawing a line" between tenets of Islamic faith and the actions of a few zealots. "Is this a perversion of Islam?" Lodhi said "you have heard" people within the Muslim world saying just that -- in other words, right on, Tim! The international community, she added, must not repeat the error committed when the USSR withdrew from Afghanistan and ignored the region -- it needs support for peace, security and rehabilitation with economic support, which is the only logical step following a war against terrorism, and she is reassured that the Bush team has already initiated aid in the wake of a refugee crisis.
Tim then read an article describing an "Islamic" school where kids are encouraged to kill Americans and overthrow Pakistan. Lodhi said that this is not the view of most Pakistanis, and the majority support Musharraf's position. So a more selected and restrained military action is better for Pakistan? Lodhi said of course, and there is every indication that this is what is planned. But is there a silent majority that supports Osama bin Laden in Pakistan? Lodhi first deflected, saying that Pakistan is a pluralistic society despite having a military leadership and does allow the views of minorities, then addressed the arrest of one pro-Osama dissident by pointing out that he was fomenting violence including the public display of assault weapons, as one of his bodyguards did; "Any call to violence is prohibited by law."
In other words, bin Laden is too big a hero in certain parts of Pakistan, and it's not easy to contain.
Can Lodhi guarantee that Pakistani nukes won't fall into terrorist hands? Lodhi said yes, there is "no chance" they could fall into the hands of the Taliban. Tim asked about rumors that there had been an assassination attempt against Musharraf; Lodhi pled ignorance.
Tim turned to the dispute over the Kashmir region; Lodhi said it was a matter quite different from terrorism, and Kashmir should be independent.
"Do you believe bin Laden will be captured?" Lodhi said that is the goal, and she hopes it can be accomplished -- not exactly an optimistic answer.
Lodhi was clear, unambiguous, and straightforward in her answers -- the opposite of the parade of slippery American pols that Russert holds court with. A few fellow political junkies joined us this morning, and we were unanimously impressed with Ambassador Lodhi's performance -- she's no mere token "woman" ambassador from an Islamic nation, but a seasoned diplomat ready for verbal hardball with the media big boys.
Following the break, Tim played some training videos by bin Laden obtained by NBC -- with the expected litany of lies, distortions, bigotry against Christians and Jews, and calls to violence. Now, you could argue that Tim broadcast this to reinforce our own hatred of the sole "bad guy " bin Laden, but in truth Tim showed a few of bin Laden's "bullet points", no pun intended. In fact, Osama almost sounded like a leader of some American "militia" crazies and white supremacists with his claims that the federal government was controlled by the Jews.
Tom Friedman had the line of the week: "He sounds like the David Koresh of the Islamic world." Friedman is right -- no wonder gun nuts and ultra-righters have actually applauded his attack on America! Tim asked another obvious question, to the effect of whether or not his talk of Palestine resonates in the Islamic worlds. Friedman practically answered, "well, duuh, ya big moron" as he went on to say that it is difficult for many moderate Islamic journalists to criticize people like bin Laden lest they be labeled tools of the CIA.
Tim then asked Bill Kristol about Sharon's indirect comparison of His Fraudulence to Neville Chamberlain after having called for a Palestinian state. Kristol said that the present situation will not be like Czechoslovakia, but did say that Shrub blundered in even talking about the endorsement of a Palestinian state -- it sends the wrong message to Islamic states and enemies, one that says America can be moved by Americans.
Fareed Zakaria of Newsweek responded to Tim's comment that bin Laden and his ilk are angry and fomenting anger by saying that Islamic nations have become LESS open over the last two decades; Zakaria denounced "extremist garbage" as he criticized America's failure to get more internationally proactive (a slap at Bush, Rumsfeld, Card, Cheney, Rice, Wolfowitz and the rest of the Hoover Institute Unilateralists).
Tim talked with Friedman about his recent column that deals with people who blame the attacks on America's support of Israel. Friedman's point was that "the hijackers left no note" -- their "note" was to kill Americans, destroy their culture and business, and the fact that they "want to see our civilization destroyed." Kristol "defend[ed] the Arab world" in that bin Laden's been expelled, and Muslims WILL support more open societies -- but we must remain active in encouraging and nurturing change (in other words, isolationism IS a failure).
Tim then cited an analysis from the Wall Street Journal -- bin Laden's goal is to take over Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to build a nuclear-powered, oil-rich Muslim empire. Zakaria pretty much agreed that this was bin Laden's dream, and moderate Muslims must be reminded that bin Laden wants to strip them of their possessions, lifestyle and freedom.
Tim then quizzed Kristol on what look like calls from the "Kristol wing" of the GOP for war on Iran, Iraq and other Muslim nations. Kristol singled out Iraq and Saddam Hussein; taking out Al Qaeda would be, he said, the equivalent of taking out Mussolini in World War II (in other words, Saddam equals Hitler). Tim pointed out that Powell said let's get bin Laden and Al Qaeda, then look down the road; Kristol said it's fine that there will be a phase two and three, but added in a roundabout way that we must get through phase one and keep our eye on an alliance against Saddam. Zakhari called it (to Tim's dismay) a debate among pundits. Friedman seems to like what Powell implied -- take out bin Laden and Al Qaeda, then look down the road.
Like Tony Snow, Tim had to talk sports -- but said it still does not wipe out the images of carnage at the World Trade Center.
Following the events of about an hour later, we understood why Tim had not one word about all those tax cuts the Littlest Usurper wants to shove down our throats.
Tim, Tim, Tim -- we thought you were "with the program!" Even with the beginning of the military element of our campaign against terrorism, what'll Andy Card and Jim Gilmore think?
-- Donna Wynner
Reliable Apologists
Howard Kurtz and his band of "journalists" reveal how they're all utterly subservient to the White House. And they're all just fine with that, thank you.
Today's show was extraordinary in that it was even more nauseating than usual.
This show's tagline is "Where we turn a critical lens on the Media", which is as howlingly untrue as Fox's "Fair and Balanced." As will be apparent, these people seem to live in some parallel universe bearing no relation to this one.
Many disturbing and revealing things were said.
Kurtz led off with something that brought me out of my chair. "Less than a month ago, Bush was getting kicked around by the press. Sinking poll numbers, lots of criticism of his handling of the economy, even his month-long vacation."
Hey, Howie: I watch a LOT of news. Did I miss something here? I don't recall Bush being "kicked around" by ANYONE!! All I saw were flacks such as Kelly Wallace, CNN's own version of Corky Sherwood, squinting in a cow pen while reading a slightly reworded White House press release.
And at every mention of criticism of Bush's extended vacation (was he getting some R&R before this "war"??) they would quickly bend over backwards to emphasize just how Smirk was busy and engaged.
Dan "What's the frequency, Kenneth?" Rather was shown saying of Beetle Brow, "He's done a terrific job ever since September 11. It's not to say he wasn't doing a good job before then, but I think it's very clear he has risen to the occasion."
Atta boy Dan! If Rather is so scared that he's jumping on the Shrub bandwagon, it's NOT a good sign.
Then we saw Al Gore forcefully intoning, "George W. Bush is my commander in chief", displaying in one sentence more true patriotism and love of country than was displayed by the entire right wing of the Republican Party in over 8 years.
Brings to mind Trent Lott's memorable quote, "We can support the troops without supporting the President", uttered during the Kosovo crisis -- words to bear in mind.
The panel this week consisted of Martha Brant, White House correspondent for Newsweek, Dana Milbank, White House reporter for The Washington Post, and Jonah "Bottom Feeding Son of a Bat" Goldberg, the editor of the right-wing e-rag National Review Online.
Now there's a "balanced" panel, huh?
As usual, the most liberal one in the bunch is a bit to the right of Barry Goldwater -- and, of course, we have Jonah, who in a rational time would be considered so nuts and so viciously partisan that he'd never be allowed NEAR a television camera.
Howard led off by quoting media critic David Carr, who said, "There's been a collective decision to re-image the president, and the media are fully cooperating. Journalists are very anxious to help him construct a wartime presidency, because he's the only president we have."
Kurtz asked Milbank, "How do you plead?"
Dana Milbank said, get this, "Guilty. I think there is some truth to that. Look, he's got 90 percent popularity in the polls and we are, most of us, Americans. It's not like we wouldn't, you know, we're going to be neutral between our president and our government and the Taliban"
That is an outrageous statement -- worse than outrageous, in fact, because it comes from a supposedly "top" reporter at one of the "top" papers in the country, an institution that is supposed to be our first line of defense against the government.
What Milbank said is an outrage. First, he seems to think that the duty of a free press is to check poll numbers and adjust their coverage accordingly. Second, he seems quick to point out that HE'S an American (like "most of us") and therefore that alone is reason to stop doing his job providing critical coverage. Then he outrageously implies that as a reporter, you're either with the president and the government, or your with the Taliban! How do these people get installed at the highest echelons of the major media with such an utter lack of ethics or professional integrity?
Milbank then tried to prove that he hasn't COMPLETELY turned into a White House press flack. His proof? He felt "compelled" to report that Puppet Boy said "misunderestimate" THREE times in a recent speech, and that he reported it when Dim Son said "ticket counters will soon be flying out of National Airport."
Wow, now THAT'S really brave of him to report, isn't it? Whew! For a second there I thought he was completely uncritical of Smirk or anything the government was doing or proposing to do.
Kurtz noted that there's been reports leaked out about how Bush dictating orders to Condi Rice and telling Karen Hughes he wants a speech on his desk in two hours -- then he wonders if the press is being used. Please, someone, tell me when to stop laughing.
Brant of Newsweek said that of course they were being used. Then said that Smirk's jumbled thought processes and inability to speak 7th grade English is part of a larger story, in her opinion. The way she sees it, it's part of a story about how Bush used to be micro-managed, and now we're seeing the "real" Dumbya.
I just can't figure out which is more hapless and frightening. The "managed" Smirk, or the "real" Smirk.
Kurtz noted George "Call me Winston Churchill" Bush's high poll numbers and the fact that he constantly is talking about going after the "evil-doers" as he calls the phantom enemy in his "war" (Bush is obviously comfortable with comic book terms).
Is this causing the press to be reluctant to criticize him?
Jonah "The Whale" Goldberg, an "evil-doer" if ever there was one, actually cracked me up by repeating a great line. He said that whenever he hears the Chimp talking about "evil-doers", he assumes he's talking about the Scotch (as in Dewar's)! HAHAHAHA!!!!!!
After I realized with disgust that I was almost regarding Goldberg as a funny guy, I listened to see what filth he would surely spew in order to regain my disgust. I usually feel like showering repeatedly after watching this guy, though it was tough to hate him this week, as he was also appearing as the guy who tossed Ann "I refuse to take my Thorazine" Coulter out on her bony, emaciated butt.
Kurtz asked if there's a "fear factor" at work in the press (What Goldberg would know about the press is beyond me -- I guess smear artists are now full-fledged members of the "press").
And fear of what, Howie? Karl Rove? The corporate CEOs that own the networks?
Goldberg admits that there is. He says that there's a new "censorial tone" to things, and that the press is taking their jobs more seriously in more serious times.
I'd suggest it's just the OPPOSITE. They're NOT doing their jobs more seriously, or better, at JUST the time they must. Evidently, to Jonah, "serious" equates to "holding off a little on the lies and smears."
Dana Milbank then really dropped a bomb. Just listen to this incredible admission:
"You know, the White House is actually, I think, subtly encouraging this fear factor. I called one of my usual sources there and he said, 'Hello, Mr. 10 percent,' and he is saying, suggesting, I'm one of the 10 percent who is not with the rest of America. So, they want to say, look, get on board, everybody's behind him."
I don't know what I could add to that really horrible glimpse of reality. The pressure is on HIGH. If you don't march in lockstep, you're one of "THEM" --- a traitor. C'mon! Join the herd! Everybody loves Bush!!
It's enough to tie your stomach in knots.
The British released a document linking bin Laden to the September 11th attacks. This was the same kind of document that the White House was going to release and then decided not to. Why is Tony Blair more open with the press than Smirk?
Brant thought that was a "very good question." She said they'd asked Ari "The Slime-a-nator" Fleisher that very question. The press, and the public, of course, got nothing but lies and evasion from him. So she speculates that they thought the information in these documents would be more credible coming from "somebody in the European union."
As usual, the press automatically feels the need to speculate and put White House spin on what little they are told.
"...they're trying to coordinate the message not only internationally, but they have these meetings now where they get everybody in the Cabinet on message once a week. They stagger the briefings."
Brant said she didn't think they could pull this air-tight secrecy off, noting that Powell was set to release a white paper recently, and then they yanked his chain. She said there have been several instances of this sort of backtracking and that their "message management" hasn't been very well managed.
Kurtz then brought up the fact that there's been a lot of Clinton bashing going on, including one story in the Washington Post reporting that Sudan had offered to arrest bin Laden and hand him over to the Saudis at one point, and that the Clinton White House "backed off or didn't make that happen."
"Is Clinton fair game? Or is this the product of, you know, you and your friends who want to blame him for everything this side of El Nino?", Kurtz asked Goldberg.
GOLDBERG: But only up to El Nino. Beyond that, we're totally fair towards him. I think there's some of that. I mean, Andrew Sullivan is doing yeoman work in sort of detailing how Clinton, in many ways, dropped the ball, and I think for a lot of people...
KURTZ: And Joe Klein and "The New Yorker" had a piece on it as well.
GOLDBERG: Yeah, Joe Klein...
KURTZ: Is there some piling on here for, perhaps, ideological reasons?
GOLDBERG: There may be some -- well, there's certainly some piling on. There's certainly some "got you" going on. I think it's all pretty much fair, and I think you under -- misunderestimate the degree of restraint that a lot of people on the right are showing in not doing more of it. If I had my druthers and these weren't more serious times, you know, I would be piling on Bill Clinton a lot more, and I haven't done -- personally, I don't think I've done any of it.
Wow! Jonah is such a gentleman for showing such restraint! And though he started to try, even HE couldn't say that there's been no piling on Clinton. Expect it to crank up to full bore in very short time.
Kurtz, to his credit, questioned whether the press didn't bear part of the blame. He noted that the press was OBSESSED with CRAP for 8 years, and didn't give any coverage to the terrorist threat. He noted that there was a major report on the threat issued by Rudman and Hart that got ZERO coverage by the networks.
MILBANK: The government has done extremely little, and we've done less. I -- three years ago I wrote a story about the dangers of bioterrorism, and I got so spooked I bought some Cipro, the antibiotic, and I kept it in my refrigerator, and people have laughed at me, until September 11.
Wow!! Another revelation into the minds of our elite press. This guy found out information that the public should know, went out and bought anti-biotic for himself, and then continued to be obsessed with Clinton's genitalia for 8 years. Thanks, Dana! Atta boy!! And what a great American patriot.
Are the press feeding into and contributing to alarming the public?
The panel thought that it was OK to report sensational stories even if it may contribute to unnecessary anxiety in the public.
But Brant had a very important observation. "And we're responding to the tension of the White House itself. When Bush got the news about anthrax, he called Karen Hughes and called Ari Fleischer into his office, and he set the tone of tension, and they are the ones who brought out Secretary Thompson to calm everybody. So, we're responding in part to their own tension and their own fear factor."
Brant told the REAL truth here. What we hear from the press is EXACTLY what the White House tells them to report. When Smirk panics, then that is passed on to the public. This is why the entire country was so poorly served by this, the very least qualified president in history in the hours after this attack.
When the country yearned for someone like Clinton that could assure and calm the countries fears, we instead were subjected to the panic, cluelessness, and fear that was reflected in Bush. One wondered if Junior would EVER figure out what HE wanted to tell the nation. It's taken weeks for his handlers to teach him what he's supposed to think and how he's supposed to respond.
(NOTE: The war has just started. CNN reported that explosions are seen and heard in Kabul, Afghanistan. Then Ari just announced that the dim bulb will grace us later with a reading of more literary bullshit in an attempt to turn himself into Churchill.)
As to the press worrying about alarming the public, sure, let people know facts, but don't go out of your way to present it in the most ominous and frightening way possible. Just lay it out and let people judge things by themselves. In other words, try to learn some new tricks besides running everything through the tabloid model of news reporting.
Kurtz then reminded us of how schizophrenic, incoherent, and scattershot the White House's messages have been recently, especially in the area of airport and travel security.
To this, Brant gave a telling account of how the press can be completely co-opted just by being overwhelmed that they're actually ON AIR FORCE ONE. It's like an account of "the time I was got to go on 'N Sync's tour bus" or something!
Here's how she breathlessly explains how the White House press corps works: "The best example I have of that was last week, going on Air Force One to Chicago, we're there to go to O'Hare, to demonstrate people should get back and fly, and Norm Mineta was coming on a commercial flight, and we were talking to the press secretary on board all about the military people they've put in command to shoot down commercial airliners. And I think it's just -- there's so much information, they're crossing wires. And it's very hard sometimes to separate.
So many of us actually led our stories with, that these two generals, and the fear we all had, even on Air Force One, and that's when we had an F-16, probably, off our wing, going to shoot down anybody who'd come near us.
Guess they don't make gutsy hard-core reporters like they used to. Can you imagine Edward R. Murrow writing a breathless report about how scared he was on Air Force One weeks after the attack?
I was relieved to hear Kurtz bring up the fact that, with the exception of his appearance of Slick Dick Cheney on "Meet the Press" just after the attack, he's been completely invisible. "Since then, you might as well put his face on a milk carton. Should the press be asking what has happened to the most powerful vice president in history?" Howie asked.
Seeing Slick Dick only once is just fine with Milbank. "We saw that he's alive and well and in command, and I think that we'll accept that." Yeah, might as well just ignore the fact that the guy RUNNING the country is invisible. No biggie.
"It was a very commanding performance he had on a Sunday talk show, and I -- perhaps he'll have to do another one at some point, but I think we realize, he's at the helm", Milbank said.
So there you have it: an unambiguous admission from the press that Cheney is indeed our "president", and is leading the country. And the fact that he's been utterly silent other than one interview is just fine and dandy with the chief political reporter for the Washington Post.
I was happy to see Kurtz play a clip of Slime-A-Nator's chilling response to Bill Mahar voicing his opinion. Ari said menacingly, "It reminds all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do, and this is not a time for remarks like that. There never is."
Kurtz asked Goldberg if it was the role of the White House press secretary to urge people to curb their tongues.
GOLDBERG: I'm one of the only journalists I know that has absolutely no problem with what Ari Fleischer said. We're not talking about repealing the First Amendment. He's not talking about censoring anybody. He's asking for people to be responsible in how they phrase things and what they say. And if that creates a climate where people think twice before they say stupid things, so be it. And that seems fine to me.
What a surprise there, huh? I'm sure the spawn of Lucianne would have no problem if there was a constitutional amendment making it a felony to say anything critical of Bush conservatives.
Two columnists have actually gotten fired over comments mildly critical of the Chimp, Kurtz noted, one at "The Texas City Sun," another at "The Daily Courier" in Grants Pass, Oregon.
"Is criticism of the president now endangering job security?"
Milbank hoped it wouldn't go further into trying to suppress questions being asked. He noted that was the situation that created such a big mess in Vietnam, noting that people were afraid of being accused of being unpatriotic for simply asking questions.
But Dana is a bit disconnected here, as he doesn't realize that he is censoring himself so as to appear patriotic, yet says it's just fine.
Milbank went on to note, "Ari Fleischer said yesterday, the American people are satisfied with the amount of information. It's only you guys in the press who are asking for more. And I think that's a completely different story."
So he DOES recognize that Fleisher and gang are trying to turn the relationship between the press and the White House upside down, where the PRESS feels some sort of responsibility to not ask any hard questions and is obligated to serve the White House.
This is a truly dangerous and undemocratic situation. When the White House can distort things to the point where they can get the press to think that not asking questions, not being critical, and otherwise becoming an extension of the White House press office is a "patriotic" duty.
And perhaps even more chilling, they are attempting to create an atmosphere where questioning Smirk or the White House or the military is equated with being a traitor, or even being helpful to, or sympathetic with, the terrorists!!
That's such crap it's contemptible, yet that is exactly what they're trying hard to do.
When Goldberg said he thought the fired journalists were critical in a "stupid" way, Kurtz remarked, "But columnist are paid for their opinions, and they're allowed to be dumb and sophomoric, which might be your opinion, and somebody else might say right on."
GOLDBERG: And editors are paid for their judgment, and they can let someone go if they don't like what they're doing.
Yet another comforting thought from Jonah. The fact is that the major media is owned completely by huge corporations, which naturally favor conservative agendas which benefit corporations, and that with the rampant mergers, this situation is steadily getting worse every moment. So it's really comforting to think of how those that own the press are so free to simply fire anyone who goes astray from the "company line."
Howie asked Brant whether journalists are "pulling their punches" due to fear that if they don't, they'll be tarred as "unpatriotic" (I thought they'd already answered this in the affirmative).
Brant said she didn't think so yet, but once the war began (which it just did) she anticipates having to make judgement calls about whether to reveal intelligence reports.
"But I gave you the example earlier, telling a tale on myself, where I called the press secretary and checked a little fact about White House security." Brant said, "Now, I'm censoring myself in a way by doing that. In the case of security, I think it's ethical and justified. In the case of an intelligence report, it's going to be a much harder call."
Then Brant let it all slip. This was one of the most revealing shows I've seen in a long time, and this was a revealing remark. In her response to Howie's question, Brant explains how the White House controls her and others.
KURTZ: Well, so your self-censorship has more to do with fear of being blamed for letting out something that is too sensitive, or the fear of being criticized for pushing the envelope?
BRANT: It's probably, to be honest, a little bit of both. But in that case, since it had to do with security, I was more worried that I might be actually endangering somebody. But certainly, you know, because the information is so closely held, you do risk getting your information shut, your contacts shut off.
Of course, this has always been a fact of life for journalists, but we're seeing the balance of power shifting almost entirely to the government these days. These "reporters" that are consumed with their careers and breaking into the "elite" couldn't care less about getting the truth out. Stepping on the wrong toes is a cardinal sin.
Then it was on to the fun stuff: Ann "Orexic" Coulter's ongoing mental meltdown.
Little Jonah gave Ann the heave-ho and dropped her column from National Review Online after she wrote about the terrorists, "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity."
And of course, Coulter had some typically insane blather to spew in response. In a clip she said, "I just think it's kind of silly, and it is part of the hysteria the country is going through, and rejection of common sense, for people to be interpreting that as if it's, you know, the Spanish Inquisition."
Hmmmm. The Spanish Inquisition was armies invading non-Christian countries and forcing them to convert. But this is different? Ann's cheese slipped off her cracker a long time ago!
Why did Jonah dump her?
Goldberg said it was a long story, but that Coulter disagreed with their "editorial judgement", and instead of working it out with them, chose to run them down and cry censorship in front of any mic or camera she could find.
One almost feels a tinge of sympathy for poor little Ann. After 8 years of them paying her ever increasing amounts of money and encouraging her to become ever more psychotic in her obsessive hatred of the Clintons, they then tell her that there IS a line! Who knew?? Haha!
Jonah says they wish her well. So do we Jonah, so do we.
Kurtz responded by saying, "Well, Coulter said to me, to give her side, that 'National Review' has no spine and every once in a while they'll throw one of their people to the wolves to get good press in left-wing publications."
In his reply, Goldberg said,"...And the idea that somehow I'm trying to curry the favor with the likes of you people by dropping Ann Coulter's column is fairly laughable to anybody who sort of knows me and knows what low regard I hold all of you in."
Oh yeah! All those flaming LIBERALS on the panel. God help us all!
Howie then brought up the idea that censorship can only be practiced by the government, not the press: "...there's no constitutional guarantee to have your own talk show or your own newspaper column."
Milbank uttered yet another stunning admission:
"No. The freedom of the press belongs to the people who own the press. So, I -- I mean, I don't have any problem with that sort of behavior. I mean, I think -- and I also don't have any problem with compromising the First Amendment in issues of national security and war and intelligence."
So there you have it. The freedom of the press is in the hands of Steve Case of AOL/Time Warner, Rupert Murdoch of the Fox press conglomerate, and General Electric. Them's the facts.
Milbank, tossing in a tid-bit to show he wasn't COMPLETELY in favor of turning the press into an arm of the government and corporations, said that he was concerned that journalists will be cowed into not asking questions.
Sounds as reassuring of Smirk's habit of dealing with huge problems of working people by appearing and saying he's "concerned" or "worried" about the problem. But of course, he won't DO anything about it. But he "shares your pain." It's EXACTLY the same message as that for which they made a laughing stock out of Clinton.
Goldberg offered his opinion that what Maher had said was "stupidity." Kurtz countered with the fact that whether something is "stupid" is an editorial judgement made by people reporters work for.
Then Jonah offered this curious outlook: "Yeah, but also criticizing stupidity is just as much free speech as offering it, and so when people say there's this new censorial tone and the right wing is trying to squash dissent, these people are saying we should stop offering our opinions about what they're saying, and that's ludicrous."
No, I think they're saying that there might be other ways of expressing your view that something is "stupid" than by refusing to publish it or firing the writer. Goldberg is again raising and endorsing the world where conservatives own all the presses, and therefore can deem anything the choose "stupid" and choose not to run it or fire the offender, thus letting it be known that if you want a job, you have to toe the ideological line.
And what ever happened to politics? It's seemed to have disappeared in this strange post September 11 atmosphere.
Brant thinks it's because the RNC and the DNC have been holding their fire and not issuing "talking points." But she's sure political argument will begin again. We can only hope so!
Little Jonah (who's growing enormous as if to blend in with the ranks of flabby, white, conservative poobahs) says that political arguments are going to come back, because he and other far right figures are pissed about the thought of involving the federal government in combating the terrorist threat at home. In other words, the thought of the federal government playing a role in defending itself and it's people really bugs the hell out of these people. Hell, there's profit to be made here!!!
He also took a pot shot at the "sort of silly, personal, 'celebrification' of politics that we saw, like 'Politically Incorrect,' like 'George,' and all that kind of stuff that marked the '90s."
He of course, did not mention the OVERWHELMING trend of the 90's, which he and his Mother and the rest created, which was the dragging of politics into the worst sort of gutter wallowing, smears, lies, and shrill dishonest rants that lowered political discourse to it's very lowest level.
But that's why these people get paid the big bucks: for subverting all honest discussion of politics and issues, and to perform character assassination on their opponents. And to hear them tell it, it's all an honorable pursuit.
I hope this might give you a basis to use your own judgement when listening to the news, if you're not already avoiding it for the sake of your mental health. A very healthy dose of skepticism is certainly called for. And it's in places like this that the press at least gives us hints that they're not telling us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
As a matter of fact, I think they should come up with a new tag line for Reliable Sources. "Where the press explains to the public why they no longer serve them, while not accepting any blame."
So I now prepare to watch another "TV War". Just like promoting a new network show, it's billed as "America's NEW War.", complete with a weeks worth of constant Pentagon promotion, complete with high tech computer graphics explaining all the weapons, planes, ships, etc. and all of it's awesome killing potential. There was also shows on the Afghanistan people, their government, and the geopolitics of the area, complete with explanations that the only way to get to the huge natural gas and oil reserves currently in Turkmenistan and other former satellite regions of the USSR north of Afghanistan, is to build a pipeline to the sea through Afghanistan. So now we know all the characters, it's on with the show.
-- Dash Riprock
Morrie Friendly is a political strategist who lives in Georgetown.
Donna Wynner is an attorney. She lives in scenic Fort Lee, New Jersey.
Dash Riprock is a free lance smart-aleck based in Moline, Illinois. Feel free to give him a piece of mind of your choice at dashriprockapj@hotmail.com.
Copyright © 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996, American Politics Journal Publications, Inc.
