Sunday, February 10, 2002, 4:45 PM EST (APJP)  -- The major pundit shows avoided making Enrongate the top issue of the week, instead focusing on George Tenet's "ominous" testimony before Congress this week and the specter of (horrors!) campaign finance reform rearing its ugly head.

Oddly, the wacky McLaughlin Group made Enrongate Issue One -- and were none too friendly to the Ken Lay posse.  Do they smell blood in the water for Little George Bunnypants and his posse of handlers?

Read on...

This Weak
Political scandal? What political scandal? 

At the top of This Weak, Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts set the tone by characterizing CIA boss George Tenet's testimony before Congress earlier this week as "ominous" and the threat of further Al Qaeda attacks as so real that the pundits could practically taste the cordite.

Obviously, Enrongate is not a priority story over at ABC -- despite the fact that four senior executives invoked their fifth amendment rights this week before Congress, and another, Jeffrey Skilling, did a practically non-stop "I don't recall" shuffle during his testimony.

In an effort to cut into time that could actually be spent discussing pressing issues with politicians, Sam and Cokie marked time and turned to a reporter in Salt Lake City -- there's some big sporting event going on, and security is reportedly very high.  Even President Bunnypants attended the opening ceremonies and learned how to use one of those newfangled cellular telephones!  They also turned to a reporter in Karachi, Pakistan for an update on the kidnapping of Wall Street Journal reporter Dan Pearl -- an incident embarrassing to Pakistani strongman Pervez Musharraf, scheduled to visit Washington this week.  And John McQuethy, ABC's "national insecurity" correspondent, was on hand to update the hunt for wily Osama bin Laden -- he reported that a forensic team has rounded up "biological material" at the site of a missile attack earlier this week.

The first guests -- Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE), who had to CORRECT Sam and say he's NOT on the Armed Services Committee but on Foreign Relations, and a creepy conservative-sounding "expert" from Austin named George Friedman.

Now, hold it right there -- Democrats are in the majority in the Senate.  Why no Democrat Senator?  Are ABC's bookers biased, sloppy, lazy, or some combination of the three?

The first questions dealt with just where Osama is, and while the two guests blathered about his possible whereabouts and forensics, Sam practically said that a dead or captured Osama means victory -- just before some idiot at ABC pressed a wrong button and cut off Sam's audio.

Thank heaven for small miracles.

Hagel came out for -- catch this -- nation-building!  That's right -- Hagel has taken a position in direct opposition to the Snippy Administration's oft-repeated stance that the United States should not be involved in nation- building, and the fact that Chimp Boy's predecessor actually engaged in efforts to stop ethnic cleansing and  spread democracy was somehow an encroachment on the sovereignty of such outstanding champions of national virtue as, say, Serbia!  O tempora! O mores! The Neo-Confederate wing of the GOP must be going batty having to back the nation-building needed to succeed in the war against terrorist networks.

Yes, said Hagel, as a part of the coalition to combat Al Qaeda we must help build democracy in Afghanistan.  Friedman called it mission creep -- he added that Afghans don't particularly like us and we should simply leave.

Uh-huh...and let Al Qaeda and other criminal groups march right on in and set up shop again.

Hagel said that Iran is an important component of central Asian relations, and while Iran, Iraq and North Korea "are all dangerous", ratcheting up rhetoric does not help build coalitions or ease tensions.

But, Chuck! What about that "axis of evil" -- the most talked-about spin point of George the Lesser's heavily hyped State of the Enron...er, Union address?  What'll Cheney think, and can his pacemaker handle it?  What about Rummy's blood pressure?  What if Little Lord Smirkleroy were watching This Weak and eating a pretzel?  You know how the GOP can get, particularly with a Bush in the White House -- they'll label you a traitor!

Sam sounded eager to go after the American Media's favorite boogey man -- no, not Bill Clinton, but Saddam Hussein. He asserted that the "debate is over" concerning Iraq because Colin Powell came out in favor of "regime change" there.  Friedman is not so "optimistic" -- the Saudis won't support it, prior attempts have been unsuccessful, and we should be careful about making threats.  So should we go it alone?  Hagel called the idea dangerous and feels such an attack could destabilize the region and lead to a wider conflict.

Then, in what appears to be an attempt to "tweak" the mediocre format of This Weak, Sam and Cokie cut to the roundtable -- meaning, of course, that we would have to prepare to laugh ourselves silly because George Will was about to hold forth on the "war on terror" -- in this case, comparing the manhunt for the Unabomber to the hunt for Osama.

You've just gotta love ABC's priorities.  The stock market is not looking too healthy, unemployment is up, there's a new campaign to torpedo Social Security and Medicare -- but "getting" Osama is the most important political issue of the day.  Not.  People who are out of work, have no health insurance, can't get good health care, or find themselves the target of discrimination have more important priorities, but don't count on the Mickey Mouse network to deal with what really bothers American voters.

Will then turned to "getting" Saddam -- and said the Turks will support us.  Well, isn't that special, George -- but what about the British and Russian governments?  Think they're pumped to take on Iraq?  I didn't think so.

Sam then turned to a comment Tenet made during his testimony -- a denial that they did NOT have the time or date of Al Qaeda attacks on September 11th.  McQuethy said that Tenet was in essence acknowledging failure and pointing fingers at the IRS; Will said there was "static" that should have warned the government that something was up.

Well, if that's the case, why is "President" Bunny-Pants telling Senate Democrats NOT to hold hearings into events leading up to September 11th?  Naturally, none of the panelists dared come close to suggesting that Tenet was not telling the truth -- that somebody knew, but for some reason the government failed to act.

Then -- Enrongate and the subpoenaing of Kenneth Lay!  Cokie said that Jeff Skilling's testimony was "not exactly illuminating", then ran a string of Skilling's "I don't recall" answers.

Yeah, sure, Jeff.

Cokie welcomed New York Times reporters Kurt Eichenwald and Diana Henriques, who essentially plugged a story running in in today's Times.  They described January 2001: Lay is on top of the world and Enron gives the inauguration of Smirk $100,000. In February, massive bonuses on the same day there was a meeting with Arthur Andersen, concern was expressed about off-the-books partnerships, and Skilling was promoted to CEO.  There was, Dana said, a "fragile fix" -- and in April, a conference call, a snippet of which they played in which Skilling claimed that earnings would be sustainable for years.  One exec voiced skepticism, and Skilling, according to Kurt, blurted out an expletive.  Cokie went so far as to say that Enron "did not seem in any way sorrowful" about the California power crisis -- and played a video of Skilling joking at California's expense.  Dana talked about the fall of the stock price after April, and Skilling's resignation on August 14.

Cokie seemed to avoid the chance to bring up the matter of Enron's ties to the Bush Administration and campaign to keep energy deregulated, especially in the wake of what looks more and more like a rigged "energy crisis" with each passing news cycle.  This made the segment particularly telling -- on a POLITICAL show, the only mention of Enron's ties to the Texas Dauphin was the contribution to the big inaugural blow-out.  ABC is shaping the scandal as a "business-only" matter and refusing to make any mention of the multitudinous ties between Team George and Enron.

And it didn't stop there.  The round table returned, with political correspondent Linda Douglass -- who redundantly mentioned Skilling's testimony, those many "don't recall" answers, and the felling by some that Skilling did a good job.  Cokie showed a video clip of someone in the hearing audience rolling their eyes.  Will followed obvious ABC policy, framing the events as a business scandal and adding a hypothetical "what was Enron up to" question.  Douglass talked about inside deals.

To reiterate -- there was NO talk about the political aspect of the scandal when Skilling was the subject, despite the fact that with each passing day, more details and memos tie the Bush Gang closer and closer to Enron.

Talk then turned to campaign finance reform -- and Sam said that Smirk may be taking a hands-off approach because of the Enron mess.  Will LIED when he said Dems would be hurt more by limits on soft money than GOPers -- he was right, though, when he said that unions gave more money to Dems than Enron did, but seems to ignore the fact that year after year the top 50 Fortune companies give a lot more to the GOP than Dems get from all labor unions combined.  Douglass said that the Enron mess will prompt Dems to support campaign finance reform.  Sam mentioned Hastert's "Armageddon" declaration to his GOP confederates toward the end of the week -- which is the REAL hot-button story to come out of the week's campaign finance reform developments.  You could see Will wince when Sam brought up the topic -- he would rather that this not have even been mentioned.

After a final break, John Cochrane gave ABC's "weakened review" of the week's big stories, followed by a last blast of opinions from the panel.  Douglass pointed out that His Fraudulence is cutting many programs but boosting military spending, and Sam needled Will about "growing" our way out of deficits -- under President Clinton!  Will, playing history professor, talked about Alexander Hamilton's lavish lifestyle -- and he can't understand why "liberals" don't want deficits.

Well, here's the answer, Will: Democrats are the REAL party of fiscal discipline.

We tuned out when talk turned to that sporting event in Salt Lake City and the threat of a George Will commentary reared its hideous head.

This Weak just seems to get worse with each passing week, and the reasons are self-evident:
Too many news recaps
Not enough political guests
Avoidance of actual political discussion when it might prove embarrassing to the marionette in the Oval Office
Doctrinal blather from George Will
No attempt at even the illusion of ideological balance.

And, of course, there's the matter of smarmy, schoolmarmy Cokie Boggs Roberts.  Please, someone at ABC -- fire the producers, bookers, writers and the whole bunch of talking heads.  This show cannot be saved.

 -- Dave "Doctor" Gonzo

Meet the Priss
Tim talks intelligence, but with few signs of intelligence in sight

"An ominous warning about Al Qaeda from the Director of Central Intelligence...The House of Representatives will finally vote on campaign finance reform."

Tim Russert's first two guests were Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL, Chairman, Intelligence Committee) and Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL, RMM, Intelligence Committee).  Graham said that Osama's fate and whereabouts are uncertain, and the site of a missile attack is difficult to access; Shelby thinks he is alive, "He's a survivor by nature...I believe he is alive until we have forensic evidence to the contrary."  Can there be closure to Afghanistan without capturing or killing Osama?  No, said Graham, his "final disposition" is essential to closing the book (huh? Afghanistan?  Karzai or no, it's not exactly a manageable country, and that book won't ever be closed).  Shelby said that the Taliban foreign minister who surrendered to Afghan authorities would provide valuable intelligence; Graham agreed.  Shelby expressed concern about Al Qaeda leaders regrouping and reorganizing; he believes that there will be another attempt by Al Qaeda at attacking America.  Graham said that we cannot just defend America but have to go after terrorists; he added that there are other training camps outside of Afghanistan that need to be taken out.  Tim asked where they are, and Graham said in the Middle East, Africa and Asia.  Have the Saudis done enough?  Graham said that Saudi royal family is being assaulted by both sides, forces of modernism and Medievalism who want to send the region "back to the 13th century".  

Tim then ran footage of Tenet denying that there was a failure of intelligence that led to Sept. 11.  Shelby called it an intelligence failure.

Well, if it's an intelligence failure, Shelby's culpable -- during Clinton's second term, the then-chairman of the Intelligence Committee expressed a helluva lot more interest in investigating Clinton's pants than in supporting an increase in intelligence spending or focusing on Osama's doings.  Shelby is a front-rank hypocrite if there ever was one.  And keep that in mind in light of the exchange that followed.

Tim continued, mentioning testimony by Tenet in early 2001 in which he had said Osama and his network was a threat -- and similar testimony from mid-2000, when Shelby was boss of the Intelligence Committee.  Shelby admitted America had been "lucky up until Sept. 11."  Do you have confidence in him?  Shelby said there had been failures, but it is not fair to put the blame on him -- it's Clinton's fault!  

Right, Dick -- blame Clinton when you and your cronies took the focus OFF Osama and put it ON Monica.  If nearly three THOUSAND people had not died, we'd be laughing at your arrogance.  It is time for you to go. 

Graham said that the CIA deserves credit for maintaining a presence in Afghanistan that allowed the US to develop a quick war plan -- but said NOTHING about Shelby's false, cheap-shot claim about the Clinton Administration.  Tim then asked: should the Clinton Administration, Senate and even press have been more aggressive?  Graham said yes, yes and yes -- it is time to stay aggressive against terrorists and their support network.  Graham SHOULD have said that the Clinton Administration was never given the opportunity as the GOP-dominated Congress launched a campaign of witch-hunting that wasted over a hundred million dollars -- money that could well have bought some preemptive intelligence and action.

Tim asked about coming hearings into how Al Qaeda managed to pull off the Sept. 11 attacks.  Graham expects hearings to run into July -- and actually brought up the issue of intelligence being ill-equipped to deal with a post-Cold-War world after the fall of the Soviet Union.  Graham is pushing to keep as many hearings as possible open to the public.

But here's a fact: Graham should rewind to just over ten years ago, when ideologues trapped in a Cold War mindset failed to detect the impending fall of the Soviet Empire, and continued to put ideology and politics above intelligence gathering .

Tim then embarrassed Dick Cheney -- by recalling how he had asked Cheney how John Walker Lindh could get into the Taliban and the CIA couldn't -- then ran footage of an intelligence official essentially saying we were close to Osama.  Shelby actually said it is a fair question, but then claimed there had not been enough trust in human intelligence.  Graham echoed this concern, but said that the problem was the inability to use "dirty assets".

In a display if unabashed fascism, Tim asked about Guantanamo detainees and other nations that are a little nastier when it comes to interrogations -- why not let another nation ask the questions?  Both Senators slightly deflected in their answer -- Shelby talking about the need for direct control of the prisoners, Graham about the likelihood of criminal trials.

Tim then turned to Colin Powell's "regime change" comment concerning Iraq.  Shelby sounded eager for blood; Graham said that Saddam has to allow outside inspections of his weapons, and added both that there has been no definitive evidence linking Saddam to Sept. 11, and that we could get bogged down in a protracted war.  Graham feels the US should focus on "completing the war on terrorism" and needs intelligence on just what Saddam is making.

Is it months or years before we take on Saddam?  Shelby wants it to happen soon.

Then -- campaign finance reform!

Rep. Marty Meehan (D-MA), one of the smartest Democrats in the House, said that there is finally a chance for the House to clean up campaign finance.  Enron, he recalled, gave $4 million to both parties in recent years -- and the public has had it.  Tim then mentioned Hastert's declaration of "Armageddon...life and death" for the GOP, allowing Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Dimwit) to blame Democrats, then say that the GOP will add an amendment that bans soft money.

Tim called it what it was -- a poison pill.  Blunt was obviously putting out feelers for the amendment -- but Tim tore into it.  Meehan said that there's going to be a bill coming up that in effect does that -- the Shays-Meehan bill, which is a real reform bill (translation: the GOP is scared of real reform).  Meehan also said that Smirk has telegraphed to the GOP that he is not likely to veto campaign finance reform.  He added that crossover Republicans will stick with Shays-Meehan.

Blunt, who sounded blunted, pleaded for a conference bill (ha, ha, ha -- so much for the poison pill!), and whined that voter registration campaigns will be tough to finance under the current bill (but that's not entirely true -- and besides, general voter registration campaigns benefit Democrats, so what is he worried about -- already borderline political "registration" scams that benefit the GOP?).

Blunt also whined that there would be inadequate time to study the bill -- but that again is not true, as staffers are keeping tabs and apprising their bosses as to what which wording means.

Meehan blasted certain $500,000-a-shot soft money contributions (translation: Ken Lay's donation to the GOP).  Blunt rattled off a litany of watered-down non-achievement "legislation" passed by the House last year (right -- the failed theocracy...er, faith-based charity bill and the watered-down do-nothing education testing bill).  Meehan mentioned that 70% of the money Enron gave to politics was soft money -- and added that all of Smirk's so-called "energy" legislation was beneficial to Enron.

Then Meehan dropped a zinger -- once the fifth amendment is broken through (immunity, perhaps?), congressional testimony from Enron execs is likely to show that Enron bought legislation.

Blunt claimed that Enron COULD have given $60 million in soft money; Meehan trashed Blunt's point by saying that there is unlimited soft money under some circumstances.  Tim MISSTATED Blunt's "point" that soft money is "evil" -- and Meehan again said the issue surrounds unlimited soft money.

What about to NAACP's ad against George Bush or the Wyly Brothers' anti-McCain ad?  Meehan wants full disclosure of where the money comes from.  Blunt misstated disclosure laws, and Meehan had to correct Blunt's error (heh-heh).

Meehan then presented Tim with a New England Patriots cap -- which ushered in a segment with a couple basketball players.

We tuned out.

Will someone please tell us what is happening to Sunday political talk?  Please, Tim, we know you love sports, but drop the jocks -- we want Pundit Pap, not Point Guard Polemics.

-- Morrie Friendly

McLaughlin Group Therapy
Pope John inadvertently reveals Prince Alarming's plan for perpetual power.

QUESTION: on a scale of one to ten, with one representing rational, coherent analysis, and ten representing metaphysical bat-shit lunacy on a cosmic scale, where do you place The McLaughlin Group? See Dash's answer below...

Today's panel featured the return of Pat "The Darkies are a'takin' over!" Buchanan, and the usually refreshing and honest Jim Warren of the Chicago Tribune.

Issue one! The oozing sleaze parade of the Enron hearings.

Mad John didn't instantly and blatantly hew to the corporate line in the opening lead-in, which was heartening -- though we suspect that the Republicans are gladly throwing Enron to the wolves in an attempt to pull the wool over our eyes and make it appear that they are not of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations.

Pat predicted dire things to come from the Enron mess, and seemed to be no fan of sleazy corporate multi-millionaires.

With regard to the appearance of the Enron rogues' gallery before Senate committees, Eleanor Clift remarked that there hasn't been "so many fifths taken since prohibition!"

Then Mort Zuckerman of U.S. News and World Report, who is at least marginally rational for a conservative, contributed his bit of humor by saying that Jeffrey Skilling, the arrogant and weasely Enron honcho who lied his way through the hearings, should be named Jeffrey "Shilling."

Well, they try!

Jim Warren said that many lawyers were stunned that Skilling didn't cop the fifth along with all the others, and speculated that he must have let his enormous ego get in the way. He also drew attention to the fact that Skilling, who took pains to point out that he had the same amount of stock in the company last year as he did when he left the company not long ago, neglected to point out that he'd been given 125,000 shares of stock FREE on January 22, 2001 by the Enron board -- and each Wednesday sold 10,000 shares and made MILLIONS. Why he neglected to reveal this is beyond me. After all, everyone knows that corporate fat cats are what makes this country great and they are the ones who should direct the government in all its policies.

As a matter of fact, there is no way that our economy will work without giving further benefits to these saviors of the working man.

Next, "ANDERSONVILLE!" as John wittily labeled the segment on Arthur Anderson. A clip was shown of Anderson CEO Joseph Berardino testifying before a panel. When he attempted to say he didn't know "what we knew and when we knew it," Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY) responded with a great line: "Maybe it's better to be DUMB than culpable, but we want some answers."

Pat thinks Berardino was treated unfairly and feels he shouldn't be a scapegoat.

Eleanor pointed out that it's very hard to feel sorry for these guys (I can vouch for that -- I've tried -- it didn't work).

Warren commented that Enron's hundreds of scam off-shore rackets, though sleazy, were legal under SEC rules -- a situation that Arthur Leavitt, Clinton's SEC chief, had tried mightily to change.

On McLaughlin's one on one interview show, he had Leavitt on via phone, and Leavitt revealed that when he proposed the rules that would have forbidden accounting firms from being advisors as well as auditors -- and in essence, checking their own work -- he was met with a massive resistance, including threats to slash the SEC budget.

One of the persons involved in this effort to quash regulation that would have prevented the Enron mess was little Billy Tauzin, the loud-mouth grandstanding Congress-hyena from Louisiana who loudly and shrilly grilled Skilling in committee and who has been all over the air trying to portray himself as the chief prosecutor of all things Enron. Leavitt revealed he'd received "many calls" from Tauzin, among many other Congressmen, seeking to quash any attempt at regulating accounting firms.

The congressmen finally sleazed their way out of the situation by saying that they'd take the matter up in February, 2002 -- when they knew that Leavitt would be out and a shill appointed by Smirk would be in. This of course came through in spades when the Smirking Chimp had the beer nuts to appoint a top Anderson lobbyist and corporate sodomite, Harvey Pitt, to the post of SEC chief.

John wonders aloud whether this may turn into (shudder!) a POLITICAL scandal.

We ask YOU, Mort Zuckerman.

Mort says absolutely (Yippee!). Though very much the high-level capitalist himself, the Mort-meister laid it out intelligently: he predicted it would last at least until the next elections, and this is because the scandal points up those fat cats' manipulation of many cons and schemes they've set up through control of Congressmen, with the result being that they walk away with obscene amounts of money while the "little guy" gets spit on. "It's not going away," Zuckerman said -- and he's right.

Pope John launched into a windy question in which he wondered if the "Private Securities Litigation Reform Act" -- which effectively immunizes corporate thieves and accounting firms from any lawsuits brought by shareholders, thus giving them a license to steal -- might put a few politicians in some serious trouble. This law was enacted to undo reforms initiated after the multi-billion-dollar, tax-payer-bailed-out savings and loan scandal.

You remember the S&L scandal, don't you? It prominently featuring Dim Bulb's little brother, Neil, who stole millions, was never punished in the slightest, and is even now engaging in the same kind of corrupt trading on his family name in order to raise millions from -- get this -- Saudi businessmen in order to promote an educational software firm from which he will end up raking in yet more millions when it is mandated that schools buy it in Smirk's education plan.

Let's see...where were we?...oh yeah...John was talking about the bill that protects the corporate robber class from ever getting punished. He wonders if certain specific legislation will come to haunt politicians.

Eleanor Clift painted a scenario that got me hot. She said that we'd learn the details of the Cheney crime summit on energy, and then we'd connect the dots, and it would lead to the Bush version of the Clinton coffee meetings. "There's a lot of political pay dirt out there in this," Eleanor concluded.

Amen to that. But will the tutu-wearing Democrats be able to capitalize on it? They have an amazing ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Let's hope they don't drop the ball on this as well.

Warren, telling the unpleasant truth, predicted that this issue may push enough reformers over the edge and resurrect real campaign finance reform. However, all the lying weasels in Congress that have been on the take (and who are just as culpable in this scandal by being bought and willing corporate dupes, Democrats and Republican's alike) will still get re-elected easily, he predicted. Therefore, the Enron scandal will have no real political effect.

Mort, God bless him, cited a "poll we like" (as opposed to one we don't like, which are routinely completely unreliable). The poll in this case, by CBS, showed 55% of people think Bush is up to his neck in this cesspool, and only 19% believe the White House tripe.

Warren countered by pointing out that the public doesn't trust them on energy issues either, but that hasn't hurt them politically (at least yet).

The McLaughlin Group wouldn't be the McLaughlin Group without Mad John throwing out at least one jaw-dropping, out-of-the-ozone, preposterous scenario. This week, at least it was a hypothesis pointed in the right direction: he speculated that maybe the RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) Act, usually applied to prosecuting organized crime, might be utilized to prosecute people in the Enron scandal.

When this caused the panel to erupt, John quickly said that was a subject for another show. Ha, ha!

Exit question: on a financial scandal scale, with Ivan Boesky at the bottom, Michael Milken in the middle, and the 1990 S&L scandal at the top, where does Enron/Arthur Anderson fit?

Pat says that as a political scandal it's getting to be near a "ten" (if there's a God, Pat!).

Eleanor feels that if there's enough evidence, it will surpass the S&L scandal, but that at the moment, it's a notch below.

Mort says that this will be "A HUGE scandal," and that there will be other corporations involved, citing Global Crossing. This is a company that went broke and which the right is desperately trying to run up the flagpole because Terry McAuliffe, DNC chairman, had invested in it. I think the fact that Global Crossing didn't benefit incredibly from government actions and didn't have dozens of their hand-picked people filling the top levels of government will make that a damn hard job for the right-wing propaganda ministers. But their overwhelming success in brow-beating the press into submission has given them stunning hubris in what they think they can accomplish. And who can blame them? The made a majority of people think Smirk was a great leader. They could sell a double bed to the Pope! Zuckerman concluded by saying the Enron scandal was a 10, and may become an 11 (YEAH, BABY!).

Warren drolly said he'd like to inject some "heartland sobriety" into the discussion. Hey! That's my job, Jimbo! He then trotted out the rather insulting, but possibly true, theory that as the hearings drag on with all the complex discussions of tangled financial shenanigans, the public will tune out because it's just too tough for their little pea brains to comprehend. He thinks it will be a measly 4.

Pope John feels that it's not on the level of the S&L crisis, but that there will be a lot of reputations destroyed.

That's not enough John! We want to see footage of these guys being led across a street in cuffs with their raincoats over their heads!!

Next -- on to the Middle East.

A clip was show of the Punk-in-Chief sitting sideways with his legs wrapped around each other like he had a hideous case of hemorrhoids during a photo op with Ariel "Jabba the Hut" Sharon.

The foolhardy and likely disastrous Smirk policy in the Middle East was the focus. It was noted that Dim Son would not speak with Arafat, and that it was announced that Dick "Heart of Darkness" Cheney would not be meeting with him on his upcoming trip to Israel either. Is this isolation of Arafat a huge blunder?

Video was shown of former U.S. Ambassador to Israel and former Assistant Secretary of State Martin Indyk saying that cutting dialog with Arafat would be cutting off contact with "anybody who was going to act responsibly."

Then the former congressman and current director of the Woodrow Wilson International Center, Lee Hamilton, sounded the alarm on how misguided this Chimp Boy/Uncle Dick policy is.

I attempted to get the transcript of Hamilton's remarks from the McLaughlin web site, and was amused to see it pop up in the Google search as "Welcome to the McLaughlin Group Home." I almost pulled my rib muscles laughing! Yeah, it is sort of a "group home" for "troubled" pundits, I suppose.

Hamilton's comments made sense. He said he feels our Middle East policy is "deteriorating," and that we're farther away from our goals in that region today than we have been in a "long, long time." Hamilton said it's "not sufficient to say we're not going to talk to Arafat, or that we're going to 'isolate' Arafat, whatever that may mean." He called on the inch-deep pResident and the Secretary of State to become much more actively involved in the situation, urging them to "keep their eye on the target and get much more involved in getting the parties to talk to each other, rather than laying back and just laying blame on Arafat."

Eleanor said she's always in favor of more engagement rather than less. She said that Arial "Mudslide" Sharon can't try to dictate who will be the leader of the Palestinians.

Mort Zuckerman said that during Clinton's administration they met with Arafat more than at any time and went on to say Arafat can't be relied upon.

Pat Buchanan leapt into the fray by agreeing with Clift and saying (correctly) that we need a policy that is our policy, not one made by Sharon, and that this bone-headed policy of Smirk's is a "cul-de-sac" and "accomplishes exactly zero." Pat went on to say that yes, pressure needs to be applied to Arafat to stop terrorism to the degree that he can, but that Sharon needs to be told "no more settlements" and that he has to stop building them and withdraw. "Is the United States going to play the role of an honest broker, or are we just going to be a cheerleader for Arial Sharon? That's the question," he concluded.

Warren thinks it's the same old story with Arafat "trapped like a rat," but that we have to deal with him.

Then on to Issue Three. A rather silly flap over a company in Georgia, headed by a black man, that bought scrap metal from the WTC and is producing and selling memorial medallions (for $29.95) with families of victims getting free medallions, and 10% going to charity. They also cite that the metal would otherwise go to China or Korea and be made into who knows what.

Is this horrid profiteering or fair use?

Warren correctly points out that it's fine. The tragedy has been capitalized on ad nauseum since the day after the attack.

Jim is right. Remember the flag crap being shilled everywhere you looked? Or my personal worst, spied in a rack at the checkout aisle in a supermarket: the full-size "special" issue magazine published to deify Dim Bulb, complete with a cover picture of him angled from below to attempt to make him look like a mortal God? I'm surprised they didn't airbrush in a halo. The entire magazine was nothing but pictures of Bush and text informing us of just what a wonderful leader he was to have saved us after we were attacked by evil itself. It was nauseating. But someone thought they'd make a buck. The networks and thousands of other businesses are riding the war to the bank, and you can't get away from it if you try (and believe me, I have!).

Warren asked what the difference is if the metal ends up in an appliance or a screwdriver or whether it's made into medallions.

Finally, PREDICTIONS!

Pat predicts with the market going south, the Enron banditry, the worsening situation in the Middle East, and the goofy "axis of evil" mess, that Bush's poll numbers are going to steadily drop month by month until they reach the 60's.

Pat's starting to grow on me. I need a drink!

THEN.... The truly blockbuster exposure of what we all should fear. McLaughlin put to words what the Bush/Cheney "axis of power" is no doubt desperately praying for. McLaughlin said in deep, slow, ominous tones, "Pat, one more terrorist outrage and Bush is right there. And that outrage is inevitable. We don't know when or where, but it's inevitable."

That made the hair on the back of my neck stand up. This is no laughing matter. When faced with the prospect of Bush losing popularity, the right, as exemplified by Mad John, is confident -- absolutely relying on -- a further terrorist attack to ensure the Simian-in-Chief remains in absolute control!

"One -- more -- terrorist outrage, and Bush is RIGHT THERE!", says John, as if to assure himself that this phony roll that Bush is on will never end.

This is more ominous as I have just read a piece that speculated, and warned in no uncertain terms, that the Bush-Cheney axis is so dependant on further "terrorist outrages" that it would not be beyond them to either allow it to happen, not prevent it, or actually facilitate it, knowing that it would cement their house of cards together longer, possibly ensuring a second term.

In this regard, we should all hope that the Callow Prince's popularity doesn't take too sharp a decline, because they will find some way to cling to power, and many feel that the deaths of Americans is neither beneath them nor beyond their capability.

Eleanor Clift optimistically predicts that the racist Bush nominee for federal judgeship in the Fifth Circuit, Thomas J. Pickering, will not get confirmed. Let's all hope not. This is the guy that advised the Georgia legislature in ways to create a law against mixed race marriages (later ruled unconstitutional) among other racist outrages.

I get the impression that the right, deep down, is very scared that Smirk's fun house is going to get torn down. First John resorts to assuring us all of a further terrorist atrocity as a means of arguing for Smirk's continued popularity. Then Mort Zuckerman nervously says that he thinks Dim Bulb has found a way of "capturing the attitude of the American public, in a way that we haven't seen in a long time, and he's going to stay at the peak of his game for a long time."

Gee, I hope not, since that apparently is contingent on yet another horrendous loss of life in a terrorist attack.

(Chilling thought: How many right wingers do you think would find the loss of thousands of American's lives an acceptable cost in return for Smirk maintaining 90% popularity and thus continuing his policies of further expanding the plutocracy's hold on power?)

Warren punts by predicting that despite our spending millions of tax dollars on the games and the U.S. Olympic committee spending 50 million on our athletes, "tiny Norway" will win more medals than the U.S.

I say anything that dilutes the disgusting coverage that makes it appear as if the U.S. is the only country competing is a good thing.

Mad John's capper is that conditions in Argentina will get worse before they get better, but they will get better.

Whew, what a relief to hear that from John! I lay awake nights worrying about the Argentine economy (though admittedly it could have serious global economic consequences).

Remember, if any pollster calls and asks your opinion of the thugs in the White House, tell them you absolutely love them. It might save lives.

And the answer to the opening question is --- A SOLID TEN!! BYE-BYE!

-- Dash Riprock

Dave "Doctor" Gonzo is an award-winning producer and political gadfly.  He has hooked up his computer and cable to his stereo and now watches cable news with his proprietary computer-added "laugh track" in his highly fortified high-rise compound on Manhattan's Upper East Side.

Morrie Friendly is a retired political consultant who lives in Georgetown.

Dash Riprock is a free-lance smart aleck based in Moline, IL. He is currently involved in exhaustive research and investigation which will finally blow the lid off who exactly let the dogs out.

Copyright © 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996, American Politics Journal Publications, Inc.
All rights reserved. Read our privacy policy. Contact us.
ISSN No. 1523-1690