|
|
|
|
Contact Information for Pundit String-Pullers |
Sunday, February 17, 2002, 4:00 PM EST (APJP) -- The brutal and barbaric murder of Daniel Pearl dominated the Sunday talk shows this week.
Here's what we caught:
T
FAUX "News" Spin Day!
Tony Snow Lets Joint Chief Chair Drop a Couple Big Ones
It was also noteworthy that the discussion almost immediately turned to recent developments in the Philippines, where United States forces are now working with Philippine forces who have stepped up action against guerrilla organizations, including some tied to Osama bin Laden. It was a little surprising, given that we would have expected Tony and Myers to mix it up about Pakistan and/or Afghanistan. The hidden message: expect headlines from the Philippines, and soon.
Talk then turned to Afghanistan; Myers seemed a little bit pessimistic about the current stability of the political situation there; one of the highest priorities, he said, is to bring security to Afghanistan and to the newly established government. Tony, on the other hand, did his best to make the "war against terrorism" seem like an outright success, citing the perception by most Americans that so far it is going quite well. Myers did say that American forces and the present war effort has badly damaged Al Qaeda, but reiterated that the issue of Afghanistan's porous borders remains troublesome. In an attempt to make Pakistani strongman Musharraf look like a good, Myers did say that he is getting cooperation from the Pakistan government.
There would be more of this sort of "nice talk" about Musharraf on the other pundit shows, a signal to him that the US will support an even more rigorous crackdown on extremists -- and extradition of all parties involved in Pearl's murder.
Myers did say that in the end, the stability of Afghanistan is now an Afghan problem; nevertheless, the United States is more than willing to lend its assistance to stabilizing the government being led by Hamed Karzai.
Is Al Qaeda reconstituting itself? Myers did not give Tony a direct yes or no, but did acknowledge that there's tremendous evidence that they are trying to based on new intelligence. He added that bin Laden is not the only individual that the U.S. is searching for and that "We have gotten close to them" (the "them" likely being Mullah Omar and Mohammad al-Zawahiri). Interrogations in Afghanistan and Guantanamo, he said, have yielded clues as to where the leadership of Al Qaeda up are hiding.
What about Mullah Omar? "We'll get him, too."
You could practically see Tony Snow licking his chops as the subject turned to Iraq -- he looked as hungry for a piece of Saddam as Paul Wolfowitz! Myers, however, would not play along -- he refused to go into any hypotheticals as to what direction a campaign against Iraq might take.
Tony also brought up the issue of US relations with Saudi Arabia; Myers said he has seen no sign that the United States is no longer welcome in Saudi Arabia, and quite emphatically stated that the Saudi government and United States have common strategic interests. "I think we can be there for some time."
Sounds like appeasement to us -- but given the situation, what else can we do? It's pretty clear that Osama and his thug minions have support from powerful elements in Saudi Arabia, but packing up and getting out would only leave the few moderating elements in the country vulnerable to hard-liners, not to mention hamper US ability to gather information on Osama's criminal network. As the Don Corleone character said in The Godfather, "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer."
Tony also asked about the future of Air Force security flyovers within the United States, which he characterized as "stressful." Myers looks at the issue as one of the efficiency and economy. Will the flights be scaled back? Myers pretty much said yes.
That will not make New Yorkers or Washingtonians -- particularly those that work in high-rises or government offices -- too happy.
Following the break, Tony stayed on the subject of Saudi Arabia and the Middle East, welcoming the Saudi Arabia foreign policy advisor Adel al-Jubeir. Al-Jubeir is a very Westernized figure: he sports a business suit, no beard, and flawless English. But in interviews he comes across as direct and dour -- all business, no sidestepping.
Not surprisingly, the first subject touched on between al-Jubeir and Tony was the murder of Daniel Pearl, with al-Jubeir denouncing it as a criminal act.
Tony then turned the focus to continuing violence between Israel and Palestinians, asking al-Jubeir about Saudi Arabia's position on the present situation in a lengthy question that made mention of the 1967 borders. Al-Jubeir looked and sounded less than optimistic in his assessment of the present mess, but said nevertheless that the move toward more talk and negotiation between Israel and Palestine would encourage all parties toward peace in the region as well as specifically between Israel and Palestine. He cited both the Tenet plan and the Mitchell report, both of which call for security initiatives and agreements between Israel and the Palestinians; al-Jubeir would like to see an implementation of both of these accords.
When Tony quizzed him about the unsuccessful outcome of the last Camp David meeting, al-Jubeir brought up a subject that is seldom mentioned by the press: the fact that there are three different interpretations of the accords that had been in the works. A big part of a problem, he said, was that the then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak was facing an election in which he would be defeated. As al-Jubeir was talking about an upcoming speech before the Arab League, another of those useful "Fox Factoids" crossed the screen: "Saudi Arabia supports Palestinian proposals." Wow! What a surprise! Keep in mind, though, that this info nugget appeared on a FOX News show where Palestinians and Saudis are generally depicted as villains with little or no critical or deep reporting.
Al-Jubeir seemed much more energized when he discussed clashes between Palestinians and Israeli police. He said the extremists on both sides (!) must be suppressed, and also said it that statements by Colin Powell and other members of the present administration were looked upon favorably by Saudi Arabia.
Does al-Jubeir expect Dick Cheney to be consulting with various parties in the region concerning the next steps toward Iraq? Al-Jubeir said yes. He is certain that Cheney will bring up the issue of Iraq and they look forward to hearing his opinion and will certainly make their opinion known.
Would taking action against Iraq be "a bad or destabilizing thing?" Al-Jubeir sees the issue is a matter of "arms control, not terrorism" as well as implementing U.N. resolutions that would allow inspection of Saddam Hussein's facilities for manufacturing and storage of weapons of mass destruction. Al-Jubeir also said that much of what he sees in the media concerning Iraq does not necessarily represent the position of the U.S. government. Tony, taken aback by this comment, asked him to clarify -- and this seemed to muddy an interesting point that al-Jubeir did not say explicitly: the Saudis do not like Saddam at all and see him as a danger.
Tony then said that one of the goals of Osama bin Laden is to see to it that U.S. forces leave Saudi Arabia. This gave al-Jubeir the opportunity to say again that United States forces are welcome in this country. Tony asked Al-Jubeir for his comment concerning Osama and violence, mentioning that the Wahabi sect of Islam seems to support Osama quite strongly; al-Jubeir denounced violence, saying that it is not part of Islamic philosophy or faith.
This was a pretty telling interview in that Saudi Arabia is doing their damnedest to come across as an ally of the US and a moderate and moderating Islamic nation. That's not completely true, but it's pretty clear that the House of Saud continues its public relations campaign. With spokespersons like al-Jubeir, they stand a real chance of convincing influential Americans that they are an engaged and trustworthy ally.
Following the break, Tony welcomed his panel: well-spoken Wall Street Journal arch-conservative Paul Gigot joined Mara Liasson and Juan Williams on the panel this week.
Tony turned first to Gigot, with talk turning to Daniel Pearl. Gigot described Pearl as a "hard-charging reporter" who pursued stories fearlessly. Mara said the goal of the extremists in Pakistan was to kill an American, and they did. Juan focused on the horror of what was seen on the video tapes that proved Pearl was dead: "[It] strikes me that they never negotiated. They never talked." He also said that Pearl may been killed because he was Jewish and that there may well be ties between the people murdered Pearl and Al Qaeda.
Juan, like many individuals and the press, strongly feels that the individuals responsible for Pearl's murder should be extradited and tried in the United States.
Mara said that if it is indeed our goal to help Musharraf and Pakistan that it would be in his best interest to help the United States bring the suspects to justice. Tony asked Paul to rate Pakistan's cooperation in the matter of Pearl's kidnapping and murder, and Gigot said that he felt that the cooperation had been very good. Tony brought up evidence that members of a Pakistan intelligence service may been involved in the kidnap and murder, but Gigot chose to play that down. Gigot, like Juan, is more interested in looking into purported ties to the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
Interestingly, Tony then turned to a vicious comment made by evangelical nut-case Pat Robertson on his 700 Club television show on CBN about the Islamic faith, calling it in so many words a religion of violent thugs. Mara jumped down Robertson's throat, saying that Robertson has no idea what the Islamic faith is about. Juan said that both Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell have "gone off the deep end." He called Robinson's rant a clear distortion of the facts about Islam.
Mara: "Christianity has been guilty of plenty of violent acts in the past." Gigot, on the other hand, said that is Islam "does have some problems" with factions and sects that are violent, that enslave women, and that victimize people. He did acknowledge that many in Islam feel that they in turn are being victimized by the West.
Now, that was an interesting exchange for a FOX News program: two pundits saying that two different religions, one of them Christianity, are in fact not as squeaky-clean and morally pure as some at FOX News want you to think!
Juan pointed out the disconnect between Saudi Arabia claiming that they wish to cooperate with United States while extremism is being fomented in their nation.
That's a little more in line with FOX's occasionally aggressive anti-Saudi stance -- and from a "liberal", yet!
Tony gave an interesting historical perspective: Islam was in its early years a "conquering and civilizing" religion. Mara pointed out that every religion has elements of violence and that somebody must come forward to assert that Islam is indeed a religion that embraces modernization. Gigot pointed out that the one Islamic nation in the region that is a stable democracy at all is Turkey.
Gigot then took a minute to thank the many colleagues in the press and people in the general public who expressed their condolences over the murder of Daniel Pearl. Gigot usually grates on our nerves with his hard-right views and abrasive character, but today he was a class act.
There was brief segment of "Below the fold" and a once-around on the lawsuit filed by the General Accounting Office against Dick Cheney. Gigot, naturally, does not see any merit to the case. Of course, Paul and more than a few of his Wall Street Journal pals will do anything, anything in their power, to make Enrongate not appear to be the political scandal it is. Mara called it a "classic conflict" between the executive and legislative branches, but did point out that a the Clinton Administration was far more forthcoming with documents than the Bunnypants Administration has been. Juan called the fight a "real problem for the Bush White House," but doesn't seem to feel that there was a scandal because of the contacts between Enron officials and the Bush White House, but does see a problem with trying to cover up all the meeting notes. Mara is bothered by what appears to be the cover-up of contacts between lobbyists and the executive branch. Gigot sees it all as business as usual. Tony tried to make the Texas Dauphin's team look good by saying that the FERC did the opposite of what Enron wanted done in California, and Mara smilingly pointed out that the Bush Administration went out of their way to talk about how they had met with environmental groups on matters of upcoming legislation (too bad she didn't mention Shrub's renewed efforts to drill in ANWR). This got a good laugh from the entire panel. Juan said the courts are going to have a problem in that the GAO has a very strong case and the courts have always ruled in the GAO's direction. Good old Paul Gigot, in a move that surprised nobody, managed to find a way to fit Hillary Clinton's name into the talk -- although his point was an incredible stretch.
Talk turned to campaign finance reform. Early on, Tony tried to turn it into a " First Amendment" issue. Juan, however, said that Li'l George's people are saying that the present campaign finance reform legislation may not be such a bad thing for the reelection campaign in 2004. Gigot, who reacts to campaign finance reform as if he were Dracula confronted by a clove of garlic, sided with the "This whole thing is unconstitutional" spin -- but he thinks Bush will sign the bill into law. Gigot called the reform "loaded with loopholes."
Gee, sounds like the present labyrinth of campaign laws.
Tony derisively stated that Al Gore is starting to return to the public, cutting to a piece by FOX News reporter Carl Cameron using a little hand-held "Carl Cam". Carl was interested in one and only one issue: whether Gore's supporters are pro-beard or anti-beard. Al Gore, however, had the last word, thanking Carl for asking about the issues! Touché! Does Al have a political future? Juan said certainly, adding that he has a large number of donors and many contacts on the Hill, and the black community loves him: "Don't write him off." Juan also mentioned that people feel that the "last election was stolen" (better watch out, Juan -- Roger Ailes doesn't like to hear that kind of talk). Mara seemed to think that many Democrats think that Al Gore is over. But Gigot had to acknowledge that Gore is still very popular.
We got bored and talk turned to the Olympics. Who cares? Please...we want political chat. If we want sports, we tune in ESPN or -- God forbid -- FOX Sports Channel!
Tony concluded by actually pointing that Bush Baby again mutated his native tongue this week in Japan, where he confused "Devaluation" and "Deflation". What followed was a very funny satirical cartoon of His Subliminable-ness mangling the English language while singing karaoke with Japanese Prime Minister Koizumi. It was a riot -- especially coming from FOX News, in that the cartoon made hapless George look like a fool.
Tony's final word was on the murder of Daniel Pearl. The war on terror, he said has just begun. We are better than they are. We have to temper our desire to crush our enemy and be more humanitarian -- but we also have to let our enemies know that we're able to retaliate and hit hard.
Well, we've done the latter, Tony -- more of the former is needed, and soon.
-- JJ Balzer
Meet the Tim!
"Our issues this Sunday...Daniel Pearl, kidnapped then killed...10 U.S. soldiers died in a helicopter crash in the Philippines...day 104 of the war in Afghanistan."
Tim Russert's first guest: Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.
It is remarkable how frequently the big players from Team Smirky appear on Meet the Press. Our guess is that NBC's Meet the Press, easily the most conservatively biased of the Sunday blather-fests, manages to showcase members of Smirk's inner circle at least twice as often as they did for President Clinton -- and always with deferential, softball questions.
Tim asked Rumsfeld about the helicopter crash near the Philippines that took the lives of 10 servicemen; Rumsfeld said all on board are presumed dead.
Now this is a story that saddens all of us. But Russert did it at the top of the show in a cynical ploy to once again flog the "war" effort as America's Issue One and tastelessly shove patriotic sacrifice down viewers' throats.
Tim then turned to the kidnapping and murder of Dan Pearl. Tim recounted that Pearl was forced by his captors to say that his mother and father were Jews and he was a Jew just before his throat was slit, implying falsely that he was killed not for being American but being Jewish. Rumsfeld praised the "fine young man out doing his job and doing it well" and condemned the individuals behind the murder. He equated Pearl with the 10 members of the military who died of the Philippines.
Tim said that the Pakistan police say that they believe that the kidnapping of Pearl was part of a larger plot to attack American interests. Rumsfeld, as is usual in his Sunday talk show appearances, was not terribly forthcoming about additional details; he said that he had heard the same thing. Tim added that Pakistan authorities believe that the kidnap was the work of intelligence-related individuals or an intelligence organization; Rumsfeld said that it is premature to attempt to judge what actually took place or who specifically was behind it. Rumsfeld did his best to prop up Musharraf's status as a good guy by saying that the Pakistani government "made an immediate effort to try to figure out what had taken place", were successful in picking up and following through on leads, and have taken some people into custody. He did caution Tim that all the information is not yet in.
Tim said that a specific extremist leader had been tied to the kidnapping. Rumsfeld detailed a small bit of information that he had received from the Pakistan government concerning Ahmed Omar Sheikh, the man allegedly behind the kidnap and murder of Pearl -- but again, Rumsfeld did not bring any new revelations are headlines to the story. He did, however, state that Musharraf had let some people go from his government, and so they may well have been "disgruntled". Tam replied by saying that Sheikh acknowledged that he was part of the kidnapping and that there are now reports that he was secretly indicted late last year. Rumsfeld distanced himself from these reports, pointing out that there had been other reports that he was dead or captured, and these reports proved not to be true.
Tim asked if Sheikh and his cohorts would be a perfect candidate for a military tribunal. Rumsfeld would only say that he is "someone that has committed a crime against an American citizen", DOJ would try to extradite Sheikh, and that the President would have to make a decision as to whether a military tribunal or civilian trial should take place.
Tim brought up the possibility that Musharraf might not extradite Sheikh because it could destabilize his government; Rumsfeld completely dismissed the possibility, essentially stating that Musharraf's continued cooperation is in the best interest of himself, his government, and his nation.
Tim brought up the issue of The Wall Street Journal's having provided the U.S. government with a captured laptop and floppy disk which had valuable intelligence information on them. Was there a connection between this and the kidnap of Daniel Pearl? Rumsfeld said he didn't think that this was the case, and it was more likely that Pearl's captors were looking to get any American journalist. Talk turned to various terrorist networks, and Rumsfeld emphasized not training but financing of these networks as a target.
Tim then turned to a news story concerning U.S. plans to act "more rigorously in hostage cases." The report, which appeared in the Monday issue of The New York Times, stated that the NSC would be looking into ways to more aggressively intervene in hostage takings. Rumsfeld was not forthcoming about plans, but did say that it is designed to discourage hostage-takers and to deprive them of any benefit of taking hostages. By not having a policy of intervention, he said, we are actually incentivizing hostage-taking. Tim asked about the use of U.S. military forces in freeing hostages, and Rumsfeld replied that the policy is not such that we would intervene with armed forces in every instance for a number of reasons, including the fact that some hostage-takers kill their hostages if there's evidence that a rescue is in the offing.
Interestingly, Rumsfeld pointed out that in some cases hostage-taking is related to drug trafficking (hmmm...a hint of a possible direction in the "wag on terrorism"?). It is not possible at this time to put U.S. forces in every country every time there's a hostage taking, said Rumsfeld.
is Osama bin Laden still alive? Rumsfeld said it's a good question and "it's not something that can be known at the present time." There is evidence, said Tim, that he is alive -- where you think he is? Rumsfeld said that he doesn't know. There was of little back-and-forth about the possibility that Osama is in Kashmir.
Rumsfeld then let loose one of his lamer assertions: "It's not like you're going out and dealing with an army or navy or air force. The Department of Defense certainly isn't organized to go out and find a single individual."
Really? Does the name Noriega ring a bell?
Rumsfeld said that the big issue is whether Osama can effectively manage the al Qaeda network and he answered his own question: probably not, if he is alive -- he is very busy hiding somewhere. "And he is having a dickens of a time communicating with his people and undoubtedly if additional terrorist acts occur they will very likely have been initiated by people who had been trained previously, [positioned] previously, finances previously."
Tim and then asked about an attack in Afghanistan on February 4th in which the CIA drone had fired a missile and killed a few people in Afghanistan. Rumsfeld said that the activities of the people who were killed by the drone had nothing to do with scrap metal collection as has been claimed by some in Afghanistan. He added that the targets were watched for long period of time and they were conducting some sort of business and moving from place to place while trying to conceal themselves. It appears that they knew there was a predator in the vicinity. Tim: could it have been Osama? Rumsfeld: I just don't know. Tim: when will you know? Rumsfeld did not answer the question, instead describing the process of gathering the forensic evidence to figure out who exactly it is that they killed the missile.
Tim said that Afghanistan seems to continue to be very unstable; will the U.S. maintain peacekeeping forces not only in Kabul but throughout the entire country? Rumsfeld said he doesn't know that anyone can assure that there will be peace and stability for Afghanistan. The only people who can actually accomplish that, he added, are the Afghan people, and United States has to help them. Rumsfeld's wording indicated that the United States is emphatically behind Karzai and seeks to keep the government stable, yet he never specifically addressed the possibility that the United States would maintain or possibly even increase the peacekeeping forces in Afghanistan -- instead saying that the issue is under discussion as to the best way to keep Afghan secure is to possibly expand an international security force along with an exit strategy. Rumsfeld even named Kofi Annan as a party to negotiations as to what will happen next in Afghanistan.
Will the United States stop Afghan farmers from growing opium poppies? Rumsfeld said that the statement by the Taliban that they had stopped the growing of opium poppies is "Somewhat of an overstatement." Rumsfeld admitted that the opium trade is a "powerful drive from a financial standpoint." Rumsfeld also said that the United States has not been successful in stopping drugs from coming into the country and that there is a need to stop the drug trade on the demand side (what -- could he be hinting at the possibility of more federally-funded programs to treat drug addicts -- or more "Jeb Crow" style jailing of minority kids who sell dope?). Will we destroy the poppy crops? Will we provide resources to grow alternative crop? Rumsfeld said it that the U.S., with the international community, have hosted a conference in Japan to deal with the issue.
Tim then quizzed Rumsfeld about the newly established "Office of Strategic Interest" (read: Office of Propaganda and Lying). Rumsfeld, naturally, said as little as he could about the OSI -- he was arguing, though, that there was a need to disinform foreign enemies and there's a feeling that civilians should be involved as well as members of the military, and now there is a debate as to whether it should exist given "all the misinformation and adverse publicity that it's received." Rumsfeld gave what he sees as justification for the office: "The Taliban [were] saying that the food packets we were dropping were poisoned. That was a lie. We needed to find a way to tell the Afghan people that the food packets were not poisoned. We dropped leaflets down and told people that was good food and they could eat them." Rumsfeld also pointed out that the Afghan people were flooded with leaflets telling them that there was a reward for Osama bin Laden and his cohorts and that there was also need to counter the propaganda coming from the Taliban, namely that the United States had waged a war against Islam.
Tim stayed on topic, citing an editorial in The New York Times that slammed the plans for "Managing the news" and a second article from the Tuesday New York Times titled "Pentagon readies efforts to sway sentiment abroad": "It sounds like this was pretty far advanced and you didn't know all about it."
Rumsfeld: "It's not clear to me that what you just read is true. You read as though it were fact! To my knowledge no people were quoted by name as to whether or not those things are true! I don't believe they're true."
What a laugh! In Strange-feld World, confidentially sourced news should not be believed!
Tim again confronted Rumsfeld on false news, and Rumsfeld said that he would not allow the Pentagon put out any false press releases: "This department and these people are not involved in putting out information to the American people that is untruthful." Rumsfeld then cited a hypothetical situation of special forces on the ground ready to go into a compound from the south, and Rumsfeld said that there would not be a press conference announcing they were going in from the west. Rumsfeld had actually used that analogy earlier in the week, but there was a perturbed, impatient tone in his voice -- no doubt in reaction to the fact that Tim would even dare to suggest that the Defense Department might be putting out any kind of disinformation. Why, the nerve!
Rumsfeld also denied having knowledge of specific plans to set up a disinformation department. His comments certainly didn't make it seem as if he were completely in charge.
Tim then asked if the United States is prepared to maintain a robust military operation against Saddam Hussein (note that he did not say Iraq). Rumsfeld said that he didn't want to describe what we would be capable of doing, and those decisions are not those that the Pentagon makes -- it's up to the president (yeah, like he can't make a decision without Uncle Big Time and Uncle Rummy). He then turned back to the operations in Afghanistan: "We used weapons, we've used supplies, they need to replenish these." So there is, he said, an issue of replenishment of materials of war. The United States, he said, is not going to engage in something they are not prepared to engage in. He added that "...we are rapidly replenishing the things we need and we have no intention of trying to do things we're not capable of doing."
Tim then turned to military overflights of New York, Washington, and other locations in the US. Will they continue? Rumsfeld instead explained the process by which they would arrive at whether or not overflights would continue. It was a typically Rumsfeldian answer: nonspecific, vague assertions, a lot of details, and a statement that the situation is still under review. Will we go from overflights to strip alert? Rumsfeld said it's probably going to be a combination of air patrols and a lower level of alert, but there's a need for flexibility depending on the gradations.
Tim then brought up the issue of an Air Force colonel, a woman who is suing the DOJ because she is forced to wear Arab garb in Saudi Arabia. Rumsfeld called the woman a good officer and said that he can't say that she doesn't feel humiliated by the situation. He said, however, that it is his understanding that she is not required to wear a veil. Rumsfeld almost seemed to take the Saudi Arabian side on this issue: we have to live, he said, with some of their laws, rules, and customs. And again, Rumsfeld detailed all of the issues surrounding the brouhaha, making it sound much more complicated than it really was.
Following the break, Tim welcome Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA). Tim's first question: would Feinstein vote to send the nomination of Judge Thomas Pickering to the Senate floor? Feinstein, with a tough look in her eye, said absolutely no, because Pickering is a judge who made very narrow rulings. She also cited his record of involving personal views in his opinions, adding that the circuit court to which he would be appointed is very sensitive in that it represents a large number of blacks and that is important to make sure that people's rights are protected -- and the appointment of Pickering would be polarizing.
Tim then turned to Senator Sam Brownback (R-19th century). The best Brownback could do was say that we need to appoint some judges to the circuit courts. He actually went so far as to call it -- catch this -- a homeland security issue. Yeah, right -- far right! He tried to blame Clinton for the slowdown in appointments, but Tim broke in saying that both parties have put the brakes on judicial appointments. Once again, Brownback bashed Clinton, saying that very few judges were appointed (and, of course, ignoring the fact that the GOP blocked Clinton's appointments). Tim then pointed out that Judge Pickering has been reversed 26 times because he did not accept well-settled principles of law. Another judge in the District, also conservative, has never been reversed on these issues of law. Tim's point: the other judge, a woman, may have made better nominee than Pickering. Tim said that this points out that Pickering may be putting his personal opinion into his rulings a bit too much. Brownback said that it's "only" 26 cases out of 4000.
Well, Sam, that's a problem. Given the wide variety of cases an appeals court judge faces, even that many overturned on principles of law is indicative of crooked judicial activism.
Brownback was stupid enough to mention that judges take an oath that they will abide by law and not their personal opinion. Of course, all that did was to serve to emphasize the strong argument that Pickering has broken his oath 26 times!
Hoping to foment partisan fighting, Tim asked what would happen if Pickering's nomination is voted down in committee by 10-to-9 vote -- and what does it mean when Senator Lott says that the Pickering will be approved "or else"? Brownback tried to play down the statement by Lott, returning to the "fact" that nominees are being "held up" in the Senate.
We'll tell you what it means -- "or else" he'll whine like the wounded ex-majority leader he is!
Tim that then turned to an editorial in Washington Post which essentially accused Democrats of engaging in a campaign of character assassination against Pickering -- while acknowledging that he was conservative in extremis. Feinstein reacted by saying that she had examined Pickering's background and " whether a person who has such strong right wing views, both politically and personally [can be trusted]; the question always comes up can you put these views entirely aside? This is a lifetime appointment." She feels that he cannot and, therefore, should not be appointed to the circuit court.
Feinstein said that there is another issue: Bush did not have a mandate, and there is no mandate in her view to skew the courts to the right.
You go, girl! About time someone said it. We hope that other Democrats were watching. They should be wielding the "mandate mace" at every opportunity -- and keep pushing the fact the presidential election was stolen (or at very least that politically active Democrats feel that way and hard-right moves by Smirk will hurt not only him but his party).
Brownback responded by falling back on the old right-wing "Litmus test" pap (i.e. Rowe v. Wade). Feinstein, however, said she would not let that one go. "This is an appellate court. For most people the appellate courts are much like the Supreme Sourt." She said this is a key appointment for people who need to have their rights protected. She does not want to see Roe V. Wade overturned, and it is not a question of some litmus test -- it is a question of falling established law and keeping that what intact.
Following the break, Tim brought up a subject close to Catholics: cloning, which you can tell Tim thinks must be stopped -- at all costs! Tim even ran a public-service that gives the weak "arguments" for opposing cloning. Feinstein said that cloning research holds the possibility of improving quality of life and could yield medical breakthroughs that could cure a large number of ailments. Brownback cannot support cloning, falling back on the old Eee-vangelical claim that a single cell constitutes a human life, and sure, you might see diseases like juvenile diabetes eradicated, but by God, that single cell was a human being! Brownback said that women's health organizations are opposing cloning -- but he never revealed that those so-called "women's health organizations" are financed, supported and nurtured by the right wing.
Tim's final words were a tribute to Daniel Pearl -- and a tribute to a 28-year-old bobsledders Vonetta Flowers, the first African-American to win a gold medal at the Winter Olympics.
We usually bristle at sports stories, but Flowers' is one of the more interesting and inspiring of the Winter Olympics, and we know he's under pressure to plug NBC's Olympic coverage, so we'll cut Tim a little slack this week.
But not too much.
-- JJ Balzer
Clap-trapital Gang
The whole gang was present and accounted for today, and took on the roving clod's trip to Asia, the murder of Daniel Pearl, and further frightening administration actions
As usual, without much warning, we were shown some painful clips of our roving ambassador of ill will looking as if he was staring in "Bluto Blutarski Goes to China". He felt the need to expound on the role faith played in his life, as well as the role of faith in "his" nation.
Yes, George -- faith has become much more important since January. We all have to have faith that you won't wreck the world for future generations. And that takes a LOT of faith. As to your faith, it's the kind of faith that is borne of ignorance. It's the scary kind of faith. We wish you had a lot less of it.
Bush stood with the Japanese Prime Minister and leaned on the podium and smirked off to the side while the Prime Minister was talking. It was apparent that he wasn't paying the slightest attention to his host. It was as if he were so full of himself that he didn't pay any attention at all. It reminded me of him grabbing the tails of a Dave Letterman production assistant's shirt and wiping his glasses on it without even acknowledging the woman. The guy is a world-class asshole.
Smirk looked equally discombobulated and out of his element when appearing with Jiang Zemin. In urging religious tolerance and other laudable goals, Smirk just is the wrong messenger. Coming from his lips, his platitudes fall flat when he is aggressively curtailing rights and liberties in his own country.
Al Hunt was the ring-master today, as Mark Shields was in San Francisco. What did Smirk accomplish in Asia? "Bob?"
The Prince of Darkness thought the trip accomplished a lot.
Like what? Getting rid of a lot of jet fuel?
Bob considered it an accomplishment that The Knuckle-dragger actually said that he wouldn't invade North Korea or Iran or Iraq.
Yes, Bob, it is a relief that the dope was only joking with the asinine "Axis of Evil" remark. The only reason anyone takes his "evil" talk even remotely seriously is that the guy is so shallow and trigger-happy that it scares the hell out of them. And I'm talking about Americans as well as people around the world. We realize that this guy is so small-minded and on such a power trip that he and his gang might pull anything.
I guess to the right, this is a really cool thing, as they feel that keeping the world on edge and twitchy is a really desirable state of affairs. Kind of like the school bully walking up being some smaller kid and saying "Boo!"
Novak dismissed the fact that Chimpo didn't get anything he came to get from the Chinese, saying more was accomplished than during Clinton's terms.
Is he kidding? And what IS it with these people's obsession with Clinton? and does this fact, even if true, somehow make Bush appear better?
Bobula expounded some more, in his curious style of holding his head up but keeping his eyes firmly planted on his notes, which makes him look like he's talking with his eyes closed. He made quite a point of mentioning that Smirk had mentioned his religious faith, but yet it didn't make it into the Chinese press. But, Bob said, the Chinese can't control it anymore, and it got out onto the Internet, etc.
Isn't it rich that Bob is holding out press censorship as an example of how repressive China is? Isn't it delicious that he gloats about how China can't "control" the press anymore?
Consider that during this very trip, OUR government suppressed and distorted what our supposed leader said.
As pointed out by Make Them Accountable, here is the TRUE version, as presented on the State Department web site, and the doctored LIE version offered by Ari "Slime" Fleisher and the White House Office of Propaganda:
State Department version (from http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/02021803.htm):
My trip to Asia begins here in Japan for an important reason. (Applause.) It begins here because for a century and a half now, America and Japan have formed one of the great and enduring alliances of modern times.
Click here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1825000/video/_1828526_presser01_bush_vi.ram) to hear it for yourself. Dim Son should ask Poppy about that time he flew the big airplane in the Pacific and why he was there.
White House version (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/02/20020218-2.html):
My trip to Asia begins here in Japan for an important reason. (Applause.) It begins here because for half a century now, America and Japan have formed one of the great and enduring alliances of modern times.
Funny, isn't it? While Bob smears the Chinese government for "cleaning up" the news, the White House is doing the exact same thing. And this is not the first time they've been caught.
Smirk has always had an army of suck-ups and retainers since he was a child to follow him around and clean up or cover up any and all messes he got into. It obviously still holds true now more than ever.
Kate O'Beirne's back! She really has the hots for Smirk because he is so "utterly committed to dealing with the deadly threat that he identified as the 'axis of evil'.
Yes, he's so dreamy Kate. To Kate, Smirk is the guy in the big white hat who's determined and tough, and those nasty evil ones'd better listen up.
Al Hunt asked Margaret Carlson if the Wonder Baboon did anything on this trip to make the Koreans less nervous after his ridiculous "axis of evil" remarks.
Margaret thinks he backed off. Of course, tough cowboy that he is, he didn't do it in so many words. Carlson noted that he comes home completely empty-handed with nothing that he'd set out to get. Carlson also thought it was good that Smirk got a chance to look into Zemin's soul (we had to really focus to restrain our laughter -- good one, Margaret! -- we all know of Chimpy's famous ability to look into people's souls and pronounce them either a "good man" or "evil-doer").
Kate was asked whether indeed Smirk had taken a softer tone in Korea. Kate, the far-right warmonger that she is, just couldn't bear to admit that Smirk had backpedaled. She denied it, which got the entire panel practically booing her, including Novak! She stuck to her stupidity though, bless her heart, and said that the only people that were made nervous by Smirk's reckless "axis" comments were those stupid Europeans "who like nothing better than to POUNCE all over George Bush in HYSTERICAL reactions."
Yeah, they're so foolish, those dumb Europeans. Sure, they're practically our only dependable allies anymore, but who needs 'em?
Mark Shields popped in to ask why Cuba is regarded as such a huge threat to our nation that we have to keep our guard up against the tiny island, yet China is our "strategic partner." He said he was waiting for the President to explain that to him.
This prompted Novak into one of his patented hissy-fits and said, "I have explained that to you many times, and if you don't listen, and you don't understand, I CAN'T HELP IT!" Easy there, big fella!
Bob, you must know that NO ONE understands most of right wing dogma, whenever someone attempts to explain it. No one! Only right wingers PRETEND to understand it. But at base, it's all a load of horse crap.
It's the same phenomenon shown by people that want to appear sophisticated by professing to appreciate certain art or music. They wouldn't know good art or music if it jumped up and bit them in the ass, but they know what to SAY they like.
Not even the conservatives understand or believe their senseless theories. They're not all dumb. But as long as conservative "think tanks" dress them up and make it sound intellectual, they'll hold to it for dear life. Because this is what it really is: a fancy-sounding justification for transferring more wealth, more power, and more control to those that already have vast wealth, power, and control.
The tragic and senseless murder of reporter Daniel Pearl was next.
The expected respect and remorse was shown by all the panelists...
Except Kate.
She was a wacko as usual, reducing the issue to absurdity as only she does so well. Her take? She maintains that it wouldn't have done any good to try to listen to the captors or negotiate, because all they wanted was "to kill Americans." This she repeated twice in the segment. In her mind, that takes care of it all.
No wonder she loves Smirk. They both don't like to think too hard or too long. Reducing everything to child-like simplicity is so much easier. And let's not forget the by-product that this kind of thinking generates: it's grabbed onto by so many people in the country precisely because it's so simple and easy. Thank goodness there's still a lot of people out there that by education, intellect, or experience know that that sort of thinking is dangerous and stupid.
What about the newly announced formation of the Pentagon Department of Domestic and International Lying (Orwell's "Ministry of Truth")?
Everyone thinks it's stupid. Good. I wasn't up to hearing Kate explain why systematic lying by the government is the only way we can win the "war" against evil, or the war to preserve justice, the American way of life, civilization itself, all we hold precious, freedom, cute puppies, or any combination of those completely overblown descriptions of this surreal "war" we find ourselves thrust into.
Then we had a treat. The Capital Gang Classic resurrected George Herbert Walker Wilburforce Seymore Dagby Turwilliger Elderberry John Jacob Jingleheimer Bush the Fifteenth, otherwise known as the father of the worst president of our generation. We got to see him barfing and passing out at a state dinner in Japan all over again! What a treat! There was Babs standing helplessly in her pearls watching "Poppy" collapse like Enron. She didn't seem too overly concerned, however. He husband could have been dying, but she didn't do much but stand up and watch, no doubt appalled that he would embarrass her like that.
Shields got in a couple great lines. First he said he'd heard of politicians throwing up their hands in disgust, but this was ridiculous.
Later he remarked that he's heard Novak say about the speaking circuit, "You put in a dinner and out comes a speech." He said Bush's example was the corollary to that! Ha, ha!
The second half of the show dealt with two important issues. First, school voucher programs. This issue is so complex, so muddled and so distorted by its partisans that it's difficult to know what would result were it instituted. And the main problem is that there is no "it" to it. There are dozens of different variations and permutations, and every situation is different.
The one thing that stands out to me, however, is the right wing trying to push the idea that the primary beneficiaries of vouchers will be inner city kids, primarily black kids. I get the feeling that this is typical hog-wash, as they'd NEVER go into crusader mode over an issue if its purpose was to help the poor, and certainly not if it was only to help blacks, poor or otherwise. This is a transparent attempt to lie and distort the true agenda, which is to spread religious indoctrination and get all of us to pay for it.
The other issue was the recent conviction of yet another Roman Catholic priest for pedophilia and sexual molestation of young boys.
This is something that is truly outrageous. The priest was convicted for a multitude of instances of molestation -- yet he was not drummed out of the church, even after it became known by his Archbishop, Cardinal Law, that he was molesting young boys. No, Cardinal Law simply transferred him to another parish, knowing that he was endangering yet more children. Then the Cardinal labored long and hard to fight against any of it becoming public, spending tens of millions of dollars to pay people off and keep it quiet.
Not only that, but the courts have over 100 cases settled against this priest IN SECRET with payments totaling between 10 and 15 MILLION dollars, and there are still NINETY cases pending!
Cardinal Law has announced, belatedly and only when forced to, that supposedly none of this money will come from collection money. How they can manage that is to be seen. But perversely, wealthy Catholic businessmen have indicated that they would be willing to pay off some of these settlements. Now that's what I call true dedication to the church. Somehow, I wouldn't get the feeling I was doing the Lord's work by donating hundreds of thousands of dollars to be used to pay off victims of sexual abuse by priests, especially when the Archbishop has been laboring mightily to keep it covered up and did nothing to stop it.
Then on to the (other) Outrages of the Week.
HUNT: "The worst agency in Washington? Used to be a tough call, but the Federal Election Commission has soared ahead of its competitors. Chairman Mason and Commissioner Smith became wholly owned subsidiaries of House Republican critics, as they lobbied to defeat the Shays-Meehan campaign reform. Then Commissioner Walt complained the disclosure requirements were dangerous because someone could find out the identifies of big contributors to vested interest groups. So these guys and this commission are a disgrace."
[A fish rots from the head down. Welcome to government, Smirk style.]
NOVAK: "This is less an outrage than it is a tragedy. Angolan guerrilla leader Jonas Savimbi was killed in a government ambush yesterday. In the '80s, he was called a terrorist by the Soviet Union, but he really was a freedom fighter against international communism. He appeared twice on the 'EVANS & NOVAK' program, a leading part of Ronald Reagan's successful Cold War strategy. But after the Cold War was won, and the Angolan government abandoned communism, he did not stop fighting. It was all that he knew. Rest in peace, Jonas Savimbi."
CARLSON: "Mike Tyson was in prison for rape, was suspended for biting off an ear, nearly broke an opponent's arm, and that was after the bell, and bit Lennox Lewis in a pre-fight hassle, but D.C. wants to grant him a license to fight here. After all, they argue, boys will be boys. Only elitists could object to giving a rapist a second chance, especially one who could fill the city's coffers. It's Tyson's taste for blood that makes officials want him -- even Las Vegas refused Tyson's application. Doesn't the District have any civic pride?"
O'BEIRNE: "Well, that didn't take long. Within days of passing campaign finance reform, Democrats are plotting ways to get around it by redirecting that evil soft money to phony nonpartisan groups. It will be an outrage if George Bush signs this sham reform that violates his own principles. It gags citizens' groups, weakens the parties, has no limits on the political use of union dues, and it's unconstitutional.
President Bush should stick to the veto pledge he made during his campaign and to his oath to protect and preserve the constitution."
[Don't get mad at the Democrats, Kate -- get mad at those wonderful pals of Smirk's, the Enron gang. They're the one's that have made it political suicide for Smirk to veto the bill. Hell, we hope he vetoes it too! ]
SHIELDS: "The missionaries went to Hawaii in search of lost souls, but found great personal wealth. James Michener once wrote, 'They came to do good and did very, very well.' That brings us directly to Ralph Reed, former top gun for the Christian Coalition, who became a loyal Enron lobbyist. Anybody who doubts why we need campaign finance reform in Washington, D.C. ought to listen to Ralph Reed's proposal to Enron for his $380,000 contract. 'In public policy it matters less who has the best arguments and more who gets heard and by whom.' Ralph Reed is absolutely right. Sadly, it's not the strength of your argument or the strength of your case, it's the depth of the money in your pockets."
And that wrapped up yet another episode in the ongoing Capital Gang saga.
-- Dash Riprock
JJ Balzer is a former television news producer. He lives in New York City.
Dash Riprock is a free-lance smart aleck based in Moline, IL who laments that it will be four years until he can enjoy world class curling again.
Copyright © 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996, American Politics Journal Publications, Inc.
